Congress Introduces 65 MPH Speed Limiter For Trucks

As mentioned 12 states are repealing the split speed limit law. It should be left up to the states. They have already determined the safe speed for their local environment and conditions. Let's say the law does go through. Is that it? 65 now and than what? 65 is too fast... 60 is too fast... 55 is too fast... Drivers aren't capable of being safe invest in these "driverless trucks"... Why not also address speed limits of 4 wheelers? Most trucks out there are already within that 65 to 67 range. The ATA should be concerned with things like cell phone usage and these tailgaters. I see WAY more of that than these supposed truckers going 100 miles an hour.

The ATA should be concerned with things like cell phone usage and these tailgaters

Laws already exist against cell phone usage and following too closely.

Let's say the law does go through. Is that it? 65 now and then what? 65 is too fast... 60 is too fast... 55 is too fast...

Laws can be changed and do in fact get changed at times as life evolves. No one said they have to mandate a law that lasts 1,000 years. All laws can be re-evaluated anytime.

I works pretty well right now with various trucks governed at various speeds.......59, 61, 63, 65, 67, 69. It makes passing or getting passed work out. If EVERYONE was governed at 65 it would be a total fuster cluck out here!

The law wouldn't say every truck has to be at 65. It would say the maximum would be 65. They can choose to go lower than that. It's also interesting that people are arguing that everyone running the same speed is safer, but you're saying it will cause more congestion.

I'm still confident we'll get at least one valid argument why limiting trucks to 65 is truly a bad idea. I haven't heard one yet.

Just as the CEO of US Express was overjoyed with the ELD mandate and commented that it would force smaller companies to close giving them more freight

Right, and why would the ELD's hurt smaller companies? Eric Fuller had said:

"It's really a big, big, big moment," Fuller said of the end of paper logs, since ELDs will put an end to solo truckers bending the rules and exceeding their daily maximum legal limit on driving of around 450 to 500 miles.

And U.S. Xpress should be able to pick up business, he said, as smaller companies decide they can't make a go of it anymore because of the ELD mandate.

If you have to cheat to stay in the game then you really aren't capable of staying in the game, are you? If you're not efficient enough to run your operations safely then you shouldn't be in operation.

The little guys have always cheated like mad. They can get away with it easier because they fly under the radar. The bigger guys are more closely watched and therefore have to conform to the rules. They just want it so that everyone has to conform to the same rules. That makes for a fair and level playing field and a safer industry. Wouldn't you agree? (I'm sure you can find some reason not to)

I do have an issue with companies using lobbyists to effect laws to control competition and that's for any business. If you can't compete with service itself, you shouldn't be using money and politics to push others out of the way.

Robert, that is not what is happening with the ELD mandate nor with the speed limiting mandate. It's the little guy who can't compete to begin with. They're the ones who are inefficient and can't provide the same level of service the big guys can. So you're making an argument against something that isn't happening at all.

It's also disingenuous to imply that running 5 or 10 mph faster is allowing someone to provide better service. It's certainly does not. No one is driving across the country at full speed for days and then coming in hot with smoke pouring off their tires at their delivery with 5 minutes to spare. No one is getting freight because their trucks run 5 or 10 mph faster than someone else's. When was the last time a broker said to someone, "I have this really hot load and I've got to get there immediately. How fast do your trucks run?" It doesn't happen.

I have no problem with my truck being governed at 65, I rarely have to worry about getting a ticket.

I just wish I had the Smart Pass feature like Swift to avoid those mile long passes.

I wholeheartedly agree that it should be regulated state by state rather than a federal mandate placing a restriction on trucks themselves. In regards to Fullers statement, I'd love to know just where he came up with his 450-500 mile legal limit per day. If that's true, then maybe there should be a full audit of his driver's because I'm betting they incur a massive amount of fines. I think the simple argument that it's a state by state issue is more than valid in reference to your not seeing one being made given that there are so many states who have done their own research and made changes accordingly. It's much easier for a state to make changes based on their own findings vs a federal change.

Legislation is a flawed method to control people, because morality can't be legislated. Much of safe, efficient driving is morality based. Safe drivers don't need laws to regulate them. They know what are safe boundaries to operate in instinctually. That's why there are drivers that have 3,4,5,6 million miles of incident free driving. If all the speed limits were removed these million milers would still drive in the same safe, sane way that enabled them to achieve such a stellar record in the first place.

It's the cowboys, hotheads and idiots with lead feet that ruin it for the majority that are content with safe operating perimeters. In trucking, it's the turtle who wins the race because the turtle gets to the finish line safely, on time, with the best fuel efficiency and without being a nervous wreck.

It's sad that the wreckless drivers among us make it necessary to add new laws to regulate their behavior.

I'm just glad that those who participate in this forum are taught and encouraged to drive in a safe manner, whether they are regulated or not. That's the test of an exceptional driver: Driving the correct way regardless of regulations.

I'm still confident we'll get at least one valid argument why limiting trucks to 65 is truly a bad idea. I haven't heard one yet.

This is my thinking exactly. I try to get people to engage in here. That's why I started responding to this subject in the first place. I'm not interested in any catfights, as has been inferred. I want people to develop critical thinking skills. I enjoy seeing some of you present a logical well thought out idea. So far we're the only ones with the knee jerk reactions. Robert, I have a lot of respect for you. You've proven to be knowledgeable and helpful on so many things. I just think you've kind of missed it here.

why is it that an organization currently controlled by companies which make up less than 10% of the industry are so determined to implement an industry wide standard which they cannot prove will impact safety in a positive way?

What makes you think they can't present something to prove this? The studies you guys keep talking about left out so many important factors, but we're all singing their praises. I honestly think I know a fifth grader who could present a good logical argument why limiting the speed of big rigs is safer.

Honestly guys, I'm going to be surprised if these 12 states you keep talking about actually all get this done. Do you realize the public uproar that's going to result as soon as we have another bad accident. This is a never ending issue and there are a lot more people bending Congress's ear than the ATA. Most of them are completely against us and are determined to see our demise.

I'd love to know just where he came up with his 450-500 mile legal limit per day. If that's true, then maybe there should be a full audit of his driver's because I'm betting they incur a massive amount of fines.

That's based on a seven day work week. It's pretty much pushing all the limits to average more than 3,500 miles per week. 7 x 500 = 3,500. You may do 650 one day and 400 the next. You're generally going to average 450 - 500 per day in a 7 day work week.

Brett maintains:

I'm still confident we'll get at least one valid argument why limiting trucks to 65 is truly a bad idea. I haven't heard one yet.

A marked increase for bunching and prolonged left hand lane running.

An experienced professional allows (should) a passing truck to do so more quickly by backing off. I see the potential for way more turtle races if this is instituted. Especially so when a downhill passing attempt aided by a heavier weight (which will not be completely controlled by a governor) is equalized when the road flattens.

That said? If this does come to pass, will not change how I drive and it will not effect me.

Old School said: "That's based on a seven day work week. It's pretty much pushing all the limits to average more than 3,500 miles per week. 7 x 500 = 3,500. You may do 650 one day and 400 the next. You're generally going to average 450 - 500 per day in a 7 day work week."

That's exactly right, in my opinion. While I was driving, I never drove over 2,500 miles in a week, although I could have achieved more miles if I had stayed on the road. I drove for Schneider and was limited to 63 MPH. Sometimes I wished I had that extra passing speed to get past a PRIME truck faster. (LOL, shout out to my PRIME colleagues, I love you guys!)

But just think about it: Big companies like Schneider, Prime, etc. have DECADES of empirical data to determine safe, efficient driving practices. Who are we, as individual drivers, to say the company should do this or that?

I followed my company guidelines, made good money and felt safe by following their rules and regulations. It's the mavericks who get into trouble that will derail their careers.

I'll still go back to my original point, which goes back to Rick's original statement. They're bypassing the very organization who is responsible for maintaining safety standards in the industry. They're doing so in regards to an accident where speed was never mentioned and that push came from a non profit. All other things aside, where are their findings to prove their claim of additional safety and why are they taking another route to achieve what they couldn't get passed 2 years ago?