Filed under: Diesel, Etc., MPG, Legislation and Policy
Fight looms over limiting big rigs to 68mph
A number of large trucking firms are in favor of limiting 18-wheelers to 68mph on the nation's highways. But don't think the move is born out of an ecological desire to save fuel or improve safety. Not according to the small independent trucker who thinks it's nothing more than a PR shell game to eventually get the government to allow bigger trucks and trailers.
Petitions have been filed with NHTSA and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to require trucks to have speed limiters set at 68mph. All trucks built after 1990 have the devices but they are not always activated. Now, a number of large trucking firms, safety advocacy groups and the American Trucking Associations are in favor of the speed limiters.
However, the little guy says limiting speed also limits driver maneuverability, making highways less safe. But more important, it's a diversion to get the government to allow bigger, heavier trucks. A spokesperson for the ATA admits that productivity should be "part of the discussion."
One trucker said speed limiters would work only if all vehicles, including cars and SUVs, were required to go under 68mph.
Many companies voluntarily activate the speed limiters for the fuel economy as well as improving their safety record.
The public is invited to comment on the proposals.
[Source: Fred Love / The Morning News]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
yoinkers 11:39AM (2/21/2007)
Whatever the reason this is a great idea. I'm sick of these A-holes driving big rigs over the speed limit and endangering us all. I spend a lot of time behind the wheel myself and see reckless driving amongst truckers more often than I'd like.
Reply
Peter 12:19PM (2/21/2007)
What is the link between lower speeds and larger trucks and trailers? Have legislators claimed that if trucks traveled slower they would allow larger ones?
With regards to maneuverability, how about the trucks are limited to 68mph normally but are allowed 2-3 minute sprints above that for passing or emergencies?
Reply
Calvin 1:59PM (2/21/2007)
I am all for capping rig speeds. The argument that this will reduce manuverability is completely bogus; I cannot even imagine what kind of thinking came to that conclusion.
I really wish the state police around here would enforce the lane restrictions on the interstates. Even if they just gave a few warnings every day word would get around that being out of bounds could cost you thiry minutes. That should do the trick and get the car lanes flowing again.
Reply
charlie 2:47AM (2/22/2007)
why 68?? y not 100 Kph?
The proportion of truckers speeding has become outrageous and they drive like they never heard of physics momentum inertia! SLOW 'em down and down MASS them.
Reply
Owain Ozymandias Buck 8:11AM (2/22/2007)
Ugh. I can see it now. Thousands of trucks going 68.2 mph are going to be passing thousands of other trucks traveling at 67.9 mph. Can you say backed up C****** F***? Those stretches of Interstate highway that are still two-lane are going to be miserable to drive. I-95 will really suck.
On the other hand, this should provide a big fuel savings for large fleets.
Reply
Murc 7:59PM (2/22/2007)
this would be retarded.
the interstate here is 75mph...so I would cap there speed (if they actually need a cap), at 80mph.
Reply
Barney 10:30PM (2/22/2007)
Can you imagine a convoy several miles long because no truck can pass the other. I pity the poor slob trying to pass them, knowing he has to make a right exit up the road in a bit.
Reply