4 ms·

> It isn't trucks who are menace on the road, it is flipping off jerks in cars. The article states: - The driver may be "numb". - He is in emotional distress

by dpcan 15y ago

> It isn't trucks who are menace on the road, it is flipping off jerks in cars. The article states: - The driver may be "numb". - He is in emotional distress. - He has skipped meals - He has been driving the better half of 14 hours. THIS is my beef. There is NO EXCUSE for putting others in danger on the road, and instead of flipping him off, the state police should have been notified maybe, but to say we should just relax is out of line. I'd argue that NOBODY should be driving under these conditions, let alone a truck driver.

masterzora 15y ago
I'd argue that NOBODY should be driving under these conditions, let alone a truck driver. I wish it could be that way, but things look a lot different when you're the driver and missing the load means your family's going to have a hard time eating. If you're going to be complaining, the drivers aren't the people to complain about.
juiceandjuice 15y ago
Do something about it. Go to your grocery store and ask them to raise prices so they can treat truck drivers better.
- dpcan 15y ago
  That's not the solution. The fleet manager should have seen the condition their driver was in and found a way to get another driver out there ASAP.
  - scarmig 15y ago
    So simple!
illumin8 15y ago
The fundamental problem is that we have completely inadequate rail infrastructure in the US. Why is it that everything has to go by truck? Trucks are extremely inefficient compared to trains, and are much more likely to be involved in traffic accidents, create congestion on our freeways, and damage our roads requiring tax dollars to repair. Too many trucks and fatigued drivers is a symptom of the greater problem, which is inadequate rail infrastructure.
- byrneseyeview 15y ago
  Source? The Economist claims that the US has the best freight rail infrastructure in the world: http://www.economist.com/node/16636101 http://www.economist.com/node/16636101 The "fundamental problem" is probably that America is a really big country, and there are lots of livable places in the US that are far from other population centers.
  - sorbus 15y ago
    "best freight rail infrastructure in the world" and "completely inadequate rail infrastructure" are, sadly, not mutually exclusive.
  - joe_the_user 15y ago
    Well, another fundamental problem is the US government subsidies trucks by providing them with roads. Railroads have to make their own tracks. Truck and cars do pay taxes but they don't pay sufficient taxes to pay the entire cost of roads (http://moderntransit.org/letters/budget.html http://moderntransit.org/letters/budget.html).
    - Swisher 15y ago
      Cars don't pay enough...trucks do. Not to mention trucks are providing a service that cannot be done effectively by cars or trains. Railroads make plenty of money on owning the tracks otherwise I doubt they would still be doing it.
      - Zakharov 15y ago
        On the other hand, railroads don't make enough money owning the tracks to make a significant investment in expanding the rail network.
  - w1ntermute 15y ago
    > The Economist claims that the US has the best freight rail infrastructure in the world We're talking about the greatest country on Earth. Even with the best freight rail infrastructure in the world, it may still not be up to American standards.
cbs 15y ago
THIS is my beef. There is NO EXCUSE for putting others in danger on the road The sky is not falling, it is not as bad as you think. If there is no excuse to put others in any danger on the road, you should never, ever, take your own car on the road. Every time anyone drives, there is risk involved. You're over reacting, chill out. You're not weighing risk rationally. A 12hr strait shot is by no means fun but its not something thats going to significantly deteriorate a driver's ability to the level your post would warrant. An experienced trucker is probably a better driver better than you in his sleep.
- ulisesroche 15y ago
  Actually, you're the one that's being irrational. Driver's ED manuals recommends taking a break of 15 minutes every two hours, precisely because driving skills deteriorate quickly with fatigue. No amount of experience will make up for it. e: http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/dmanual/chapter08-manual.htm#drw-drv http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/dmanual/chapter08-manual.htm#dr..., is it that hard to believe that people make mistakes when they're tired?
  - cbs 15y ago
    I never said it was perfect, just that it wasn't as bad as the gp thought. However, the 15 min every 2 hours is a recommendation, and over the top safety. The page really seems geard towards saying awake And no, its not hard for me to believe people make mistakes when tired, I know people who have totaled cars because they fell asleep. However, I assume (and know anecdotaly) that for someone for whom driving long distances is their job, they understand the reality of the situation, know how to recognize when their body can't take it and most importantly know how to plan their sleep schedule for driving. You can always, always be more safe at driving. Up to and including the point of advocating for the end of motor vehicle use altogether. Everything about driving is dangerous, my point is was just that the situation described wasn't as brick-shittingly more risky as the GP's tone seemed to imply.
    - ulisesroche 15y ago
      None of it is over the top, and none of it recommends to stay awake (only says to take caffeine if needed), you're just not seeing the picture because you want to believe that truck drivers are better drivers than anyone else because they do this for a living. It's a fallacy, of course. They're not immune to fatigue because they get paid to drive. They're reflexes and judgement are impaired as they would for you or me. It's as dangerous as it sounds, if it was me who didn't get a whole night's sleep, had to drive a long distance on a deadline (no time for breaks), was sedentary, and had to drive through long and boring rural roads, you'd tell me to get the hell off the road before I kill someone. I understand someone has to drive trucks to get my food to the supermarket, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the obvious risks, and reasons why the current system is a bad idea. I think driverless trucks would be the best solution.
Spikefu 15y ago
The article states in the very first paragraph: "Let me tell you a little about the truck driver you just flipped off because he was passing another truck, and you had to cancel the cruise control and slow down until he completed the pass and moved back over." The point is that the truck driver isn't doing anything wrong. He's just trying to get his job done. Where in the article does it say he put anyone in danger or imply that he was doing anything that might warrant the police being notified?
dxbydt 15y ago
"- He has skipped meals" Recently watched a BBC documentary on truck drivers in USA. Apparently majority of truck drivers are constipated. They prefer to eat stuff they can hold in one hand while driving with the other - like beef jerky, cheese sticks, instead of salads. The docu said the average US truck driver visits the restroom only once in 3-4 days. To prove this assertion, they had a group of East-West truck drivers swallow a tiny camera that transmitted pictures of their colon until it was ejected. It was quite gross, vivid and very conclusive evidence. They then had half the group switch to a diet of canned veggies - peas-in-a-can, carrots-in-a-can etc. The truck drivers ended up visiting the restroom 2-3 times per day, were much lighter physically, and a lot more relaxed, chatty and fun. It was on Discovery I think...if you have a link pls post.
- hugh3 15y ago
  Y'know, I personally would have believed the self-reported pooping frequency, I didn't really need four days of colon footage.
  - protomyth 15y ago
    science likes its proof no matter how messy
ahoyhere 15y ago
If the US had a safety net for people who lost their jobs and couldn't afford to pay their rent or grocery or medical bills, and if the US had a more reasonable minimum hourly wage, and if the US had more regulations to protect both truck drivers and other drivers on the road, it wouldn't happen. Instead, the law says they can drive 14 hours. They are paid peanuts and have to pay for their own gas and repairs. And, as the article explained, if he was late -- due to the fault of his CUSTOMER -- then he'd lose an entire day waiting around. Which he can't afford, because he's paid peanuts, and there's no safety net. The system is set up to create this exact situation, and if you don't like it, don't blame the individual, blame the system. Blaming the individual gives you that flair of righteous feeling in your chest but it doesn't change a damn thing. If this man decided to drive only 8 hours a day, he'd be out of a job and somebody else would simply take his place and do the 14-hour runs yet again.

by dpcan 15y ago

masterzora 15y ago

I'd argue that NOBODY should be driving under these conditions, let alone a truck driver. I wish it could be that way, but things look a lot different when you're the driver and missing the load means your family's going to have a hard time eating. If you're going to be complaining, the drivers aren't the people to complain about.

juiceandjuice 15y ago

Do something about it. Go to your grocery store and ask them to raise prices so they can treat truck drivers better.

dpcan 15y ago
That's not the solution. The fleet manager should have seen the condition their driver was in and found a way to get another driver out there ASAP.
- scarmig 15y ago
  So simple!

illumin8 15y ago

The fundamental problem is that we have completely inadequate rail infrastructure in the US. Why is it that everything has to go by truck? Trucks are extremely inefficient compared to trains, and are much more likely to be involved in traffic accidents, create congestion on our freeways, and damage our roads requiring tax dollars to repair. Too many trucks and fatigued drivers is a symptom of the greater problem, which is inadequate rail infrastructure.

byrneseyeview 15y ago
Source? The Economist claims that the US has the best freight rail infrastructure in the world: http://www.economist.com/node/16636101 http://www.economist.com/node/16636101 The "fundamental problem" is probably that America is a really big country, and there are lots of livable places in the US that are far from other population centers.
- sorbus 15y ago
  "best freight rail infrastructure in the world" and "completely inadequate rail infrastructure" are, sadly, not mutually exclusive.
- joe_the_user 15y ago
  Well, another fundamental problem is the US government subsidies trucks by providing them with roads. Railroads have to make their own tracks. Truck and cars do pay taxes but they don't pay sufficient taxes to pay the entire cost of roads (http://moderntransit.org/letters/budget.html http://moderntransit.org/letters/budget.html).
  - Swisher 15y ago
    Cars don't pay enough...trucks do. Not to mention trucks are providing a service that cannot be done effectively by cars or trains. Railroads make plenty of money on owning the tracks otherwise I doubt they would still be doing it.
    - Zakharov 15y ago
      On the other hand, railroads don't make enough money owning the tracks to make a significant investment in expanding the rail network.
- w1ntermute 15y ago
  > The Economist claims that the US has the best freight rail infrastructure in the world We're talking about the greatest country on Earth. Even with the best freight rail infrastructure in the world, it may still not be up to American standards.

cbs 15y ago

THIS is my beef. There is NO EXCUSE for putting others in danger on the road The sky is not falling, it is not as bad as you think. If there is no excuse to put others in any danger on the road, you should never, ever, take your own car on the road. Every time anyone drives, there is risk involved. You're over reacting, chill out. You're not weighing risk rationally. A 12hr strait shot is by no means fun but its not something thats going to significantly deteriorate a driver's ability to the level your post would warrant. An experienced trucker is probably a better driver better than you in his sleep.

ulisesroche 15y ago
Actually, you're the one that's being irrational. Driver's ED manuals recommends taking a break of 15 minutes every two hours, precisely because driving skills deteriorate quickly with fatigue. No amount of experience will make up for it. e: http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/dmanual/chapter08-manual.htm#drw-drv http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/dmanual/chapter08-manual.htm#dr..., is it that hard to believe that people make mistakes when they're tired?
- cbs 15y ago
  I never said it was perfect, just that it wasn't as bad as the gp thought. However, the 15 min every 2 hours is a recommendation, and over the top safety. The page really seems geard towards saying awake And no, its not hard for me to believe people make mistakes when tired, I know people who have totaled cars because they fell asleep. However, I assume (and know anecdotaly) that for someone for whom driving long distances is their job, they understand the reality of the situation, know how to recognize when their body can't take it and most importantly know how to plan their sleep schedule for driving. You can always, always be more safe at driving. Up to and including the point of advocating for the end of motor vehicle use altogether. Everything about driving is dangerous, my point is was just that the situation described wasn't as brick-shittingly more risky as the GP's tone seemed to imply.
  - ulisesroche 15y ago
    None of it is over the top, and none of it recommends to stay awake (only says to take caffeine if needed), you're just not seeing the picture because you want to believe that truck drivers are better drivers than anyone else because they do this for a living. It's a fallacy, of course. They're not immune to fatigue because they get paid to drive. They're reflexes and judgement are impaired as they would for you or me. It's as dangerous as it sounds, if it was me who didn't get a whole night's sleep, had to drive a long distance on a deadline (no time for breaks), was sedentary, and had to drive through long and boring rural roads, you'd tell me to get the hell off the road before I kill someone. I understand someone has to drive trucks to get my food to the supermarket, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the obvious risks, and reasons why the current system is a bad idea. I think driverless trucks would be the best solution.

Spikefu 15y ago

The article states in the very first paragraph: "Let me tell you a little about the truck driver you just flipped off because he was passing another truck, and you had to cancel the cruise control and slow down until he completed the pass and moved back over." The point is that the truck driver isn't doing anything wrong. He's just trying to get his job done. Where in the article does it say he put anyone in danger or imply that he was doing anything that might warrant the police being notified?

dxbydt 15y ago

"- He has skipped meals" Recently watched a BBC documentary on truck drivers in USA. Apparently majority of truck drivers are constipated. They prefer to eat stuff they can hold in one hand while driving with the other - like beef jerky, cheese sticks, instead of salads. The docu said the average US truck driver visits the restroom only once in 3-4 days. To prove this assertion, they had a group of East-West truck drivers swallow a tiny camera that transmitted pictures of their colon until it was ejected. It was quite gross, vivid and very conclusive evidence. They then had half the group switch to a diet of canned veggies - peas-in-a-can, carrots-in-a-can etc. The truck drivers ended up visiting the restroom 2-3 times per day, were much lighter physically, and a lot more relaxed, chatty and fun. It was on Discovery I think...if you have a link pls post.

hugh3 15y ago
Y'know, I personally would have believed the self-reported pooping frequency, I didn't really need four days of colon footage.
- protomyth 15y ago
  science likes its proof no matter how messy

ahoyhere 15y ago

If the US had a safety net for people who lost their jobs and couldn't afford to pay their rent or grocery or medical bills, and if the US had a more reasonable minimum hourly wage, and if the US had more regulations to protect both truck drivers and other drivers on the road, it wouldn't happen. Instead, the law says they can drive 14 hours. They are paid peanuts and have to pay for their own gas and repairs. And, as the article explained, if he was late -- due to the fault of his CUSTOMER -- then he'd lose an entire day waiting around. Which he can't afford, because he's paid peanuts, and there's no safety net. The system is set up to create this exact situation, and if you don't like it, don't blame the individual, blame the system. Blaming the individual gives you that flair of righteous feeling in your chest but it doesn't change a damn thing. If this man decided to drive only 8 hours a day, he'd be out of a job and somebody else would simply take his place and do the 14-hour runs yet again.