When I started driving, trailers were 45 or 48 feet long and were allowed to gross weigh 73,280 pounds. Even then, people were complaining about us running over their curbs, landscaping and other obstacles due to the long trailers. States were hollering that we were tearing up their roads and bridges. Many warehouses and factories were not meant for any trailers over 40 foot and were difficult to get into their docks or facilities.
Now we have 53-foot trailers and are allowed to gross weigh 80,000 pounds. The complaints and obstacles are even more prevalent and trying to navigate around towns and older manufacturing facilities is almost impossible, though we do it somehow. It is rare to load a 53-foot trailer to the doors; most loads stop at 48 foot unless it is something light.
States like California have ‘bridge’ laws where our trailer tandems have to be slid very far up towards the center adding tail swing problems of hitting obstacles and other vehicles to the mix. California bridge laws were explained to me by a California DOT officer as being necessary because so many of their roads and streets were narrow and had tight curves on them.
Reading accident statistics, many accidents are from cars running up under the overhang behind our trailer tandems. These types of accidents have increased with the longer trailers.
Suddenly, there was a big push to increase the length of trailers to 57 feet and increase the gross weight limit to 97,000 pounds, and to allow double 53-foot trailers on our highways. This push is being done by concerns that cite increased productivity and less traffic by being able to haul more freight on less equipment.
The idea of longer and heavier trucks on the road went to Washington DC in May 2008. The Americans for Safe and Efficient Transportation, which lists as members a number of trucking companies and state affiliate programs of the American Trucking Association, approached representatives from fives states, Maine, Minnesota, Wisconsin, South Carolina and Georgia to try to get the states to agree to hosting a pilot program allowing the longer/heavier rigs. They were met with some strong resistance from congress.
The day after they arrived, two senators, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-NJ, and Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-MO, introduced a bill freezing the length and weight limits to current sizes.
Senator Lautenberg said in a press release, “Last year’s tragic bridge collapse in Minneapolis demonstrated how fragile our already-deficient bridges and roads are, and we should not be putting even heavier trucks on them. That is exactly what some trucking company interests are proposing – even bigger and heavier trucks on our roads. If there was ever a recipe for disaster, this is it. Our bill would protect our infrastructure and improve safety on our roads by helping keep dangerously large and heavy tractor-trailer trucks off of them…Bigger trucks – both heavier and longer ones – present safety risks, including longer stopping distances, bigger risk of rollover and a greater risk of the last trailer swaying into the adjacent lane,” according to Lautenberg’s press release. “Research shows that a 100,000-pound truck with unadjusted brakes travels 25 percent further after the driver steps on the brakes than an 80,000-pound truck.”
Senator McCaskill cited increased fear in the motoring public among other concerns, “It defies common sense to let big trucks become super-giant trucks. Missouri drivers are already stressed by the presence of so many big trucks,” McCaskill said. “There are safety considerations along with the reality of increased fuel costs that require us to say no to even bigger commercial trucks on our roads.”
Other opposition came from OOIDA along with some other safety groups. Todd Spencer, executive Vice President of OOIDA said, “OOIDA members know from firsthand experience that further increases in sizes and weights of commercial motor vehicles can endanger highway users and hasten the deterioration of our nation’s roads and bridges. Increasing allowable vehicle weights from 80,000 pounds to 97,000 pounds may be described by some as a minor change, but it could have a dramatic impact on the safety and structural integrity of some federal aid highways.”
Furthermore, in a meeting with then President Elect Obama’s transportation transition team in November of 2008, this matter was again brought to the table by the same group. It is still being pushed forward.
Though not mentioned, we drivers know that the heavier the load, the more wear and tear on the equipment occurs and the maneuverability of the truck becomes more of a problem. Can you imagine trying to get around downtown New York City or Chicago with a longer than 53 foot trailer, it would be nearly impossible. We also know that many shippers would support the heavier weight limits and not raise rates to cover the increased fuel usage and wear and tear. Even with the added work to our day of trying to get around with these longer, heavier trailers and the addition of more time used pulling hills with the added weight, we know that our pay would not increase to compensate us for our additional time.
Size does matter when it comes to the length of our trailers and the weight of the load. I hope that common sense will prevail in this latest push to extend the length and weight limits once again.
Now we have 53-foot trailers and are allowed to gross weigh 80,000 pounds. The complaints and obstacles are even more prevalent and trying to navigate around towns and older manufacturing facilities is almost impossible, though we do it somehow. It is rare to load a 53-foot trailer to the doors; most loads stop at 48 foot unless it is something light.
States like California have ‘bridge’ laws where our trailer tandems have to be slid very far up towards the center adding tail swing problems of hitting obstacles and other vehicles to the mix. California bridge laws were explained to me by a California DOT officer as being necessary because so many of their roads and streets were narrow and had tight curves on them.
Reading accident statistics, many accidents are from cars running up under the overhang behind our trailer tandems. These types of accidents have increased with the longer trailers.
Suddenly, there was a big push to increase the length of trailers to 57 feet and increase the gross weight limit to 97,000 pounds, and to allow double 53-foot trailers on our highways. This push is being done by concerns that cite increased productivity and less traffic by being able to haul more freight on less equipment.
The idea of longer and heavier trucks on the road went to Washington DC in May 2008. The Americans for Safe and Efficient Transportation, which lists as members a number of trucking companies and state affiliate programs of the American Trucking Association, approached representatives from fives states, Maine, Minnesota, Wisconsin, South Carolina and Georgia to try to get the states to agree to hosting a pilot program allowing the longer/heavier rigs. They were met with some strong resistance from congress.
The day after they arrived, two senators, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-NJ, and Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-MO, introduced a bill freezing the length and weight limits to current sizes.
Senator Lautenberg said in a press release, “Last year’s tragic bridge collapse in Minneapolis demonstrated how fragile our already-deficient bridges and roads are, and we should not be putting even heavier trucks on them. That is exactly what some trucking company interests are proposing – even bigger and heavier trucks on our roads. If there was ever a recipe for disaster, this is it. Our bill would protect our infrastructure and improve safety on our roads by helping keep dangerously large and heavy tractor-trailer trucks off of them…Bigger trucks – both heavier and longer ones – present safety risks, including longer stopping distances, bigger risk of rollover and a greater risk of the last trailer swaying into the adjacent lane,” according to Lautenberg’s press release. “Research shows that a 100,000-pound truck with unadjusted brakes travels 25 percent further after the driver steps on the brakes than an 80,000-pound truck.”
Senator McCaskill cited increased fear in the motoring public among other concerns, “It defies common sense to let big trucks become super-giant trucks. Missouri drivers are already stressed by the presence of so many big trucks,” McCaskill said. “There are safety considerations along with the reality of increased fuel costs that require us to say no to even bigger commercial trucks on our roads.”
Other opposition came from OOIDA along with some other safety groups. Todd Spencer, executive Vice President of OOIDA said, “OOIDA members know from firsthand experience that further increases in sizes and weights of commercial motor vehicles can endanger highway users and hasten the deterioration of our nation’s roads and bridges. Increasing allowable vehicle weights from 80,000 pounds to 97,000 pounds may be described by some as a minor change, but it could have a dramatic impact on the safety and structural integrity of some federal aid highways.”
Furthermore, in a meeting with then President Elect Obama’s transportation transition team in November of 2008, this matter was again brought to the table by the same group. It is still being pushed forward.
Though not mentioned, we drivers know that the heavier the load, the more wear and tear on the equipment occurs and the maneuverability of the truck becomes more of a problem. Can you imagine trying to get around downtown New York City or Chicago with a longer than 53 foot trailer, it would be nearly impossible. We also know that many shippers would support the heavier weight limits and not raise rates to cover the increased fuel usage and wear and tear. Even with the added work to our day of trying to get around with these longer, heavier trailers and the addition of more time used pulling hills with the added weight, we know that our pay would not increase to compensate us for our additional time.
Size does matter when it comes to the length of our trailers and the weight of the load. I hope that common sense will prevail in this latest push to extend the length and weight limits once again.
RSS Feed