4 ms·

Driving while tired can be as dangerous as driving drunk. The occasional 14hr drive isn't horrible, but if you do that several days in a row, you're going to be

by jerrac 11y ago

Driving while tired can be as dangerous as driving drunk. The occasional 14hr drive isn't horrible, but if you do that several days in a row, you're going to be really tired. So limiting the hours per day a truck driver drives seems like a good idea. As does "shift" driving. Collision avoidance tech also seems like a good idea. That said, I don't think we need the government to do anything. Drivers can unionize and demand better hours. Insurance companies can require collision avoidance tech be installed. Etc. And if you really believe the government needs to be involved, then it doesn't hurt to try both the government regulation route, and the self-regulation route at the same time. The latter could get implemented faster than the government....

copsarebastards 11y ago
> That said, I don't think we need the government to do anything. I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion looking at this data. > Drivers can unionize and demand better hours. Insurance companies can require collision avoidance tech be installed. Etc. Many things can happen, but they aren't happening, so...
- mcguire 11y ago
  Drivers are frequently the ones complaining about the hours-of-service regulations. They get paid by the mile but many of their working hours are non-driving, so more hours on the road is more money. Drivers unionizing (That would be the Teamsters, right?) to demand fewer hours seems roughly as likely as programmers unionizing to demand something better than their 80-hour weeks.
  - jerrac 11y ago
    Would an awareness campaign about the dangers of drowsy driving help? As for unionizing, why mention Teamsters? Just have each companies employees get together and negotiate with management. (Yes, I'm being purposefully naive. Even if this really won't work, it should still be tried first.)
    - copsarebastards 11y ago
      > (Yes, I'm being purposefully naive. Even if this really won't work, it should still be tried first.) Why should it be tried first? This kind of experimentation takes decades and meanwhile people are dying. How many times do we have to try waiting for corporations to do the right thing before we acknowledge that corporations are amoral and aren't going to do the right thing? How many unions do we have to try before we see that they don't really promote progress?
- jerrac 11y ago
  > I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion looking at this data. What data? The article is an opinion piece, not a data analysis. > Many things can happen, but they aren't happening, so... Aren't they? The opinion doesn't say anything about private efforts to fix things. It focuses on government regulations. It doesn't indicate if truckers have made efforts to get better hours, or companies efforts to make things safer while staying on budget, or insurance companies studying if lower hours/better tech would help or not. Now, if that stuff has been tried, and failed, then what have states done? Why do we have to go directly to Federal level? Ultimately, we should never give more power to one group unless it really is the only way to do what is needed. No matter how much we trust that group. Thus, whenever someone suggests new regulations, I always question if they are really needed. Especially when we're talking about the USA Federal Government.
  - copsarebastards 11y ago
    > What data? The article is an opinion piece, not a data analysis. Ugh. Did you even read it? "More people will be killed in traffic accidents involving large trucks this year than have died in all of the domestic commercial airline crashes over the past 45 years, if past trends hold true." "In recent months, Congress has pursued a number of steps to roll back safety improvements ordered by federal regulators. It has pushed to allow truck drivers to work 82 hours a week, up from the current 70 hours over eight days, by eliminating the requirement that drivers take a two-day rest break each week; discouraged the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration from investing in wireless technology designed to improve the monitoring of drivers and their vehicles; and signaled its willingness to allow longer and heavier trucks despite widespread public opposition. Congress also wants to lower the minimum age for drivers of large trucks that are allowed to travel from state to state to 18, from 21." "The death toll in truck-involved crashes rose 17 percent from 2009 to 2013. Fatalities in truck-involved crashes have risen four years in a row, reaching 3,964 in 2013, the latest data available. Those crashes are killing not only car drivers but also, during 2013 alone, 586 people who were truck drivers or passengers." "And while a more than 3 percent drop in car deaths over the same period was largely accomplished by technological improvements like airbags, electronic stability control and anti-lock brakes, the trucking industry has resisted most of those safety devices. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates the annual cost to the economy of truck and bus crashes to be $99 billion." There's plenty of data in there. > The opinion doesn't say anything about private efforts to fix things. "And while a more than 3 percent drop in car deaths over the same period was largely accomplished by technological improvements like airbags, electronic stability control and anti-lock brakes, the trucking industry has resisted most of those safety devices." "Most automakers now include or offer anti-lock brakes, electronic stability control, airbags and collision-avoidance devices in their vehicles, and the technology is included in many of the heavy trucks sold in Europe. But the United States trucking industry has largely avoided using the safety technologies available for vehicles sold here, because of their cost." "The trucking industry, through its chief trade group, the American Trucking Associations, insists that it needs longer work weeks and bigger vehicles so that more trucks will not be needed on the road, which it says could result in more accidents." > Now, if that stuff has been tried, and failed, then what have states done? Why do we have to go directly to Federal level? Because the interstates are exactly that: inster-state. The trucking industry isn't a problem that affects just a few states. This is clearly not a problem that will be solved by fighting it out individually in each state individually. > Ultimately, we should never give more power to one group unless it really is the only way to do what is needed. I see you've decided to exclude the trucking industry, which holds all the cards in this situation, from your definition of "group". > No matter how much we trust that group. I don't trust the trucking industry at all. > Thus, whenever someone suggests new regulations, I always question if they are really needed. Especially when we're talking about the USA Federal Government. It appears that you only question giving a group more power when that group is the US Federal Government. Every solution you've suggested trying gives a group more power. Let's stop pretending this is about logic or data and recognize that you'll just say whatever to push your anti-government ideology.
Egregore 11y ago
Have you actually talked with any truck drivers? Are you sure they want it? Most deaths are not truck drivers, but drivers of cars who enter in collisions with trucks. And truck drivers would like to make more money in shorter periods of time and not spend this time resting someplace away from home. I hope autopilots will replace truck drivers soon.
- eridius 11y ago
  I would assume truck drivers don't want to kill people. No matter how it's done, one person accidentally killing another person tends to fuck up that first person pretty well.
  - mcguire 11y ago
    Being involved in a fatal accident is very rare for an individual driver. What is being proposed would be seen as a theoretical good for overall society that paid for by the individual.
mortenjorck 11y ago
Driving while tired can be as dangerous as driving drunk. Absolutely true. [1] The problem is cultural: While we've successfully established shaming around DUI, I think there's a certain kind of deeper, Protestant-work-ethic-derived rationalization we seem to make for drowsy driving. "You're working hard, so it's all right." Perhaps the same ethical framework that was used to make DUI popularly unacceptable can be used for drowsy driving: To drive in this condition is to indulge one's self at others' peril. [1] http://phys.org/news/2011-01-drivers-bad-drunk.html http://phys.org/news/2011-01-drivers-bad-drunk.html
- jerrac 11y ago
  The hard part is that it often seems like you "have" to drive at times. I'm a single guy living alone, so when my fridge is empty, I "have" to get food. Even when tired or sick. Sure I could use public transportation, but when you're that tired, is it even available? Or would you have the energy to use it? Anyway, that's part of why people still drive while tired. They have to do something important, not necessarily work. So it would be hard to make it publicly unacceptable.
patrickyeon 11y ago
They are trying self-regulation, right now, and the article is arguing that it's not working well enough. They've been self-regulating as long as we've had trucks.
- jerrac 11y ago
  No. The article said nothing about private efforts. It was advocating government regulation. By self-regulation, I mean something like a set of guidelines multiple trucking companies voluntarily sign on to. Or employment contracts. Not just unwritten "goodwill", which is what your comment seems to be equating to "self-regulating". Apologies if I'm wrong about that.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

by jerrac 11y ago

copsarebastards 11y ago

> That said, I don't think we need the government to do anything. I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion looking at this data. > Drivers can unionize and demand better hours. Insurance companies can require collision avoidance tech be installed. Etc. Many things can happen, but they aren't happening, so...

mcguire 11y ago
Drivers are frequently the ones complaining about the hours-of-service regulations. They get paid by the mile but many of their working hours are non-driving, so more hours on the road is more money. Drivers unionizing (That would be the Teamsters, right?) to demand fewer hours seems roughly as likely as programmers unionizing to demand something better than their 80-hour weeks.
- jerrac 11y ago
  Would an awareness campaign about the dangers of drowsy driving help? As for unionizing, why mention Teamsters? Just have each companies employees get together and negotiate with management. (Yes, I'm being purposefully naive. Even if this really won't work, it should still be tried first.)
  - copsarebastards 11y ago
    > (Yes, I'm being purposefully naive. Even if this really won't work, it should still be tried first.) Why should it be tried first? This kind of experimentation takes decades and meanwhile people are dying. How many times do we have to try waiting for corporations to do the right thing before we acknowledge that corporations are amoral and aren't going to do the right thing? How many unions do we have to try before we see that they don't really promote progress?
jerrac 11y ago
> I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion looking at this data. What data? The article is an opinion piece, not a data analysis. > Many things can happen, but they aren't happening, so... Aren't they? The opinion doesn't say anything about private efforts to fix things. It focuses on government regulations. It doesn't indicate if truckers have made efforts to get better hours, or companies efforts to make things safer while staying on budget, or insurance companies studying if lower hours/better tech would help or not. Now, if that stuff has been tried, and failed, then what have states done? Why do we have to go directly to Federal level? Ultimately, we should never give more power to one group unless it really is the only way to do what is needed. No matter how much we trust that group. Thus, whenever someone suggests new regulations, I always question if they are really needed. Especially when we're talking about the USA Federal Government.
- copsarebastards 11y ago
  > What data? The article is an opinion piece, not a data analysis. Ugh. Did you even read it? "More people will be killed in traffic accidents involving large trucks this year than have died in all of the domestic commercial airline crashes over the past 45 years, if past trends hold true." "In recent months, Congress has pursued a number of steps to roll back safety improvements ordered by federal regulators. It has pushed to allow truck drivers to work 82 hours a week, up from the current 70 hours over eight days, by eliminating the requirement that drivers take a two-day rest break each week; discouraged the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration from investing in wireless technology designed to improve the monitoring of drivers and their vehicles; and signaled its willingness to allow longer and heavier trucks despite widespread public opposition. Congress also wants to lower the minimum age for drivers of large trucks that are allowed to travel from state to state to 18, from 21." "The death toll in truck-involved crashes rose 17 percent from 2009 to 2013. Fatalities in truck-involved crashes have risen four years in a row, reaching 3,964 in 2013, the latest data available. Those crashes are killing not only car drivers but also, during 2013 alone, 586 people who were truck drivers or passengers." "And while a more than 3 percent drop in car deaths over the same period was largely accomplished by technological improvements like airbags, electronic stability control and anti-lock brakes, the trucking industry has resisted most of those safety devices. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates the annual cost to the economy of truck and bus crashes to be $99 billion." There's plenty of data in there. > The opinion doesn't say anything about private efforts to fix things. "And while a more than 3 percent drop in car deaths over the same period was largely accomplished by technological improvements like airbags, electronic stability control and anti-lock brakes, the trucking industry has resisted most of those safety devices." "Most automakers now include or offer anti-lock brakes, electronic stability control, airbags and collision-avoidance devices in their vehicles, and the technology is included in many of the heavy trucks sold in Europe. But the United States trucking industry has largely avoided using the safety technologies available for vehicles sold here, because of their cost." "The trucking industry, through its chief trade group, the American Trucking Associations, insists that it needs longer work weeks and bigger vehicles so that more trucks will not be needed on the road, which it says could result in more accidents." > Now, if that stuff has been tried, and failed, then what have states done? Why do we have to go directly to Federal level? Because the interstates are exactly that: inster-state. The trucking industry isn't a problem that affects just a few states. This is clearly not a problem that will be solved by fighting it out individually in each state individually. > Ultimately, we should never give more power to one group unless it really is the only way to do what is needed. I see you've decided to exclude the trucking industry, which holds all the cards in this situation, from your definition of "group". > No matter how much we trust that group. I don't trust the trucking industry at all. > Thus, whenever someone suggests new regulations, I always question if they are really needed. Especially when we're talking about the USA Federal Government. It appears that you only question giving a group more power when that group is the US Federal Government. Every solution you've suggested trying gives a group more power. Let's stop pretending this is about logic or data and recognize that you'll just say whatever to push your anti-government ideology.

Egregore 11y ago

Have you actually talked with any truck drivers? Are you sure they want it? Most deaths are not truck drivers, but drivers of cars who enter in collisions with trucks. And truck drivers would like to make more money in shorter periods of time and not spend this time resting someplace away from home. I hope autopilots will replace truck drivers soon.

eridius 11y ago
I would assume truck drivers don't want to kill people. No matter how it's done, one person accidentally killing another person tends to fuck up that first person pretty well.
- mcguire 11y ago
  Being involved in a fatal accident is very rare for an individual driver. What is being proposed would be seen as a theoretical good for overall society that paid for by the individual.

mortenjorck 11y ago

Driving while tired can be as dangerous as driving drunk. Absolutely true. [1] The problem is cultural: While we've successfully established shaming around DUI, I think there's a certain kind of deeper, Protestant-work-ethic-derived rationalization we seem to make for drowsy driving. "You're working hard, so it's all right." Perhaps the same ethical framework that was used to make DUI popularly unacceptable can be used for drowsy driving: To drive in this condition is to indulge one's self at others' peril. [1] http://phys.org/news/2011-01-drivers-bad-drunk.html http://phys.org/news/2011-01-drivers-bad-drunk.html

jerrac 11y ago
The hard part is that it often seems like you "have" to drive at times. I'm a single guy living alone, so when my fridge is empty, I "have" to get food. Even when tired or sick. Sure I could use public transportation, but when you're that tired, is it even available? Or would you have the energy to use it? Anyway, that's part of why people still drive while tired. They have to do something important, not necessarily work. So it would be hard to make it publicly unacceptable.

patrickyeon 11y ago

They are trying self-regulation, right now, and the article is arguing that it's not working well enough. They've been self-regulating as long as we've had trucks.

jerrac 11y ago
No. The article said nothing about private efforts. It was advocating government regulation. By self-regulation, I mean something like a set of guidelines multiple trucking companies voluntarily sign on to. Or employment contracts. Not just unwritten "goodwill", which is what your comment seems to be equating to "self-regulating". Apologies if I'm wrong about that.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]