Planned bigger-rig law bad pollcy

What a shock! Editorial in the Spokesman Review, Spokane, WA 12/18/06
by Dmitri Iglitzin and Steven Hill. (Footnote says Iglitzin is a labor
law atty in Seattle, Hill a "director of the political reform program
of the New America Foundation). Take the credentials for what they are
worth (not much IMO). Any one writing about the trucking industry and
doesn't know the difference between a "truck" and a "trailer"...
Following is the lead-in.

"The FHA is about to issue a regulation allowing 97-foot-long
multi-truck monstrosities to reoar up and down out highways. These
vehicle cominations, called 'saddlemount vehicle transporter
combinations" or simply "four-ways" consist of four trucks all linkded
together with only the first truck having both its front and rear
wheelss on the ground. On the other three trucks, only the rear wheels
touch the gourn, the ront resting on the truck preceding it. From the
side, the four-ways look like elephants holding each others' tails with
their trunks."

I have a problem with such a thing running around the highways. The
article mentions several professional truckers claiming that the rear
most "truck" is unstable and tends to begin 'whipping'.

I at first thought they were talking about the 'road trains' like in
Oz, but no, those trailers have multiple bogies on both ends.

97 feet! I can picture that with two or three lined up going up hill
and one pulled out passing.

Harry K

"Harry K" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> What a shock! Editorial in the Spokesman Review, Spokane, WA 12/18/06
> by Dmitri Iglitzin and Steven Hill. (Footnote says Iglitzin is a labor
> law atty in Seattle, Hill a "director of the political reform program
> of the New America Foundation). Take the credentials for what they are
> worth (not much IMO). Any one writing about the trucking industry and
> doesn't know the difference between a "truck" and a "trailer"...
> Following is the lead-in.
>
> "The FHA is about to issue a regulation allowing 97-foot-long
> multi-truck monstrosities to reoar up and down out highways. These
> vehicle cominations, called 'saddlemount vehicle transporter
> combinations" or simply "four-ways" consist of four trucks all linkded
> together with only the first truck having both its front and rear
> wheelss on the ground. On the other three trucks, only the rear wheels
> touch the gourn, the ront resting on the truck preceding it.

You mean this is NOT legal? ****, I've seen this all the time. I don't
think I've ever seen more than 2 tractors riding on one that's pulling, so
maybe that's the difference? (4 tractors instead of 3?) But this is not
new. And, it's no worse than pulling doubles or triples (which has been
legal for a long time), so I don't see what the big deal would be. Doubles
or Triples, meaning two or three trailers behind one tractor. -Dave

Dave wrote:
> "Harry K" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > What a shock! Editorial in the Spokesman Review, Spokane, WA 12/18/06
> > by Dmitri Iglitzin and Steven Hill. (Footnote says Iglitzin is a labor
> > law atty in Seattle, Hill a "director of the political reform program
> > of the New America Foundation). Take the credentials for what they are
> > worth (not much IMO). Any one writing about the trucking industry and
> > doesn't know the difference between a "truck" and a "trailer"...
> > Following is the lead-in.
> >
> > "The FHA is about to issue a regulation allowing 97-foot-long
> > multi-truck monstrosities to reoar up and down out highways. These
> > vehicle cominations, called 'saddlemount vehicle transporter
> > combinations" or simply "four-ways" consist of four trucks all linkded
> > together with only the first truck having both its front and rear
> > wheelss on the ground. On the other three trucks, only the rear wheels
> > touch the gourn, the ront resting on the truck preceding it.
>
> You mean this is NOT legal? ****, I've seen this all the time. I don't
> think I've ever seen more than 2 tractors riding on one that's pulling, so
> maybe that's the difference? (4 tractors instead of 3?) But this is not
> new. And, it's no worse than pulling doubles or triples (which has been
> legal for a long time), so I don't see what the big deal would be. Doubles
> or Triples, meaning two or three trailers behind one tractor. -Dave

It is (according to the article) 1 tractor with 4 trailers. It is a
proposal at this point. I had heard about 3 trailers in the past but
never saw one. Even 1 tractor, two trailers is not common escept for 1
tractor, 1 trailer and 1 pup.

Harry K

Harry K

> It is (according to the article) 1 tractor with 4 trailers. It is a
> proposal at this point. I had heard about 3 trailers in the past but
> never saw one. Even 1 tractor, two trailers is not common escept for 1
> tractor, 1 trailer and 1 pup.
>
> Harry K

According to what you posted, it is one tractor pulling other tractors.
Otherwise, it makes no sense. Most trailers don't have "front" wheels, and
if they did, they would not be riding off the ground. I've seen triple
trailers. I've also seen tractors pulling at least two other tractors
(where only the FRONT tractor has the front wheels on the ground). If they
are really talking about 4 trailers, then the length of that combination
vehicle would be a lot longer than 97 feet like is mentioned in what you
originally posted.

Again, I don't see this as a big deal. I'm surprised this was previously
illegal. -Dave

Harry K wrote: <brevity snip>
> It is (according to the article) 1 tractor with 4 trailers.

If "multi-truck monstrosities" of "four semitractors" include a
"trailer"... which they don't.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/tr...addlemount.pdf
(1.2MB)
--
Unsafe holidays on the highways, the monster trucks are coming

By DMITRI IGLITZIN and STEVEN HILL

McClatchy-Tribune Information Services

December 17. 2006 6:01AM

Unless there is a sudden about-face on the part of the Federal Highway
Administration, Americans are about to receive an unwelcome holiday
gift that could literally kill them.

The FHA, which oversees our nation's highway system, is about to issue
a regulation allowing 97-foot-long multi-truck monstrosities to roar up
and down our highways. These vehicle combinations, called ''saddlemount
vehicle transporter combinations,'' or simply ''four-ways,'' consist of
four trucks all linked together with only the first truck having both
its front and rear wheels on the ground. On the other three trucks,
only the rear wheels touch the ground, the front resting on the truck
preceding it. From the side, the four-ways look like elephants holding
each others' tails with their trunks - only much, much larger, and more
dangerous.

As one veteran truck driver with 40 years of experience put it in
testimony submitted to the FHA, ''The notion that a saddlemount 97 feet
long and consisting of four semitractors is safe is absurd. All
four-way configurations have the tendency to cause the fourth truck to
whip and sway. It can quickly become a dangerous situation.''

Another driver, who has been driving vehicle combinations for 20 years,
testified, ''While driving these setups, the rear truck is unstable and
wanders excessively from side to side. This type of setup is a danger
to the motoring public, and to myself.''

Under current federal regulations states are allowed to impose an
overall length limit of 75 feet on four-ways, and almost every state
has imposed such limits. But for the trucking companies, longer truck
combinations mean fewer trips and fewer drivers, which cuts their costs
and increases profits. The American Trucking Association, National
Automobile Dealers Association and other industry trade associations
have all pushed hard to overturn these limits.

Last year Congress passed and President Bush signed into law the
''Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users,'' known as SAFETEA-LU. That's a mouthful of
doublespeak for a misnamed law that permits truck combos nearly a third
of a football field long to sway dangerously down our roads. This law
could be interpreted by the FHA as actually prohibiting any state from
passing a law restricting four-ways to less than 97 feet.

But vigorous opposition has emerged. Truckers like J.J. Bishop, a
longtime Teamster driver, testified about seeing a horrible accident
caused by one of these saddlemounts, saying: ''The general public
doesn't realize what a risk these trucks are.'' The American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials testified to
the FHA that the new size limitation ''has raised serious concerns
among some state enforcement officials concerning possible safety and
infrastructure issues.''

Congressman Dave Reichert, R-Wash., has written to the head of the FHA
about what he sees as ''significant public policy safety concerns'' and
urging him to allow states to enact their own limits on four-ways.

The FHA is still considering whether to give the green light to these
behemoths. There may be time to prevent this dangerous policy from
being implemented. But that will only happen if a lot more Americans
and elected officials say ''no thanks'' to this ill-advised regulation.
http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs...7004/-1/living
--

This configuration is already common among tractor transporters, but
with only 3 tractors. Have you ever seen one? Have you ever seen one
being operated unsafely? Have you ever seen one in the ditch?
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/tr...addlemount.htm

The phrase "multi-truck monstrosities" should provide the reader with a
clue of the authors' bias... and ignorance. Practically everyone
thinks they know all about trucks, even though they have zero
experience with them.

The inherent safety risks of the proposed rigs are related to weight
and braking, not length. Plenty of oversize rigs longer and much
heavier than a 4-truck saddlemount are legal by special permit.
-----

- gpsman

> This configuration is already common among tractor transporters, but
> with only 3 tractors. Have you ever seen one? Have you ever seen one
> being operated unsafely? Have you ever seen one in the ditch?
> http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/tr...addlemount.htm
>
> The phrase "multi-truck monstrosities" should provide the reader with a
> clue of the authors' bias... and ignorance. Practically everyone
> thinks they know all about trucks, even though they have zero
> experience with them.
>
> The inherent safety risks of the proposed rigs are related to weight
> and braking, not length. Plenty of oversize rigs longer and much
> heavier than a 4-truck saddlemount are legal by special permit.
> -----
>
> - gpsman

Yeah, 97 feet doesn't sound all that long, so I don't see what the big deal
is. But then to read that some drivers have stated that 4 tractors linked
together is dangerously unstable . . . THAT is what makes me wonder about
this particular combination vehicle. -Dave

Mike T. wrote:
> > This configuration is already common among tractor transporters, but
> > with only 3 tractors. Have you ever seen one? Have you ever seen one
> > being operated unsafely? Have you ever seen one in the ditch?
> > http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/tr...addlemount.htm
> >
> > The phrase "multi-truck monstrosities" should provide the reader with a
> > clue of the authors' bias... and ignorance. Practically everyone
> > thinks they know all about trucks, even though they have zero
> > experience with them.
> >
> > The inherent safety risks of the proposed rigs are related to weight
> > and braking, not length. Plenty of oversize rigs longer and much
> > heavier than a 4-truck saddlemount are legal by special permit.

>
> Yeah, 97 feet doesn't sound all that long, so I don't see what the big deal
> is. But then to read that some drivers have stated that 4 tractors linked
> together is dangerously unstable . . . THAT is what makes me wonder about
> this particular combination vehicle.

Well, first you have to figger that a driver has a financial interest
in delivering 2 trucks rather than 3.

But they don't call triple trailer combos "wiggle-wagons" for nothing.
I've seen more triples in the median than regular rigs, but I attribute
that to driver incompetence, not the configuration itself, although the
inherent problems of stability should be obvious.

As the combination becomes longer and additional pivot points are added
the small misalignment of all those tires becomes more significant. As
velocity increases the trailers begin to wiggle. The lightest trailer
is always last so it wiggles most, but it takes quite a bit of wiggle
to have a pronounced effect on the forward, heavier components of the
rig.

Operated around 55mph on interstates by a competent driver, triples are
relatively safe. Which is to say, not all that safe in many instances.
Most truck drivers are just ****ty 4-wheeler drivers with a CDL.
-----

- gpsman

Mike T. wrote:
> > It is (according to the article) 1 tractor with 4 trailers. It is a
> > proposal at this point. I had heard about 3 trailers in the past but
> > never saw one. Even 1 tractor, two trailers is not common escept for 1
> > tractor, 1 trailer and 1 pup.
> >
> > Harry K
>
> According to what you posted, it is one tractor pulling other tractors.
> Otherwise, it makes no sense. Most trailers don't have "front" wheels, and
> if they did, they would not be riding off the ground. I've seen triple
> trailers. I've also seen tractors pulling at least two other tractors
> (where only the FRONT tractor has the front wheels on the ground). If they
> are really talking about 4 trailers, then the length of that combination
> vehicle would be a lot longer than 97 feet like is mentioned in what you
> originally posted.
>
> Again, I don't see this as a big deal. I'm surprised this was previously
> illegal. -Dave

According to what I posted, I explained that their use of 'tractors' is
incorrect and they are referring to 'trailers'. Yes, tractors pulling
multiple (real) tractors for delivery is common, they come nowhere near
97 feet long. Try in about the same space as a normal tractor/single
trailer combination.

So you are saying that the original article which had information
presumably taken from FHA documents is wrong? 97 feet is supposedly
what is mentioned in the proposed regulation.

Harry K

> According to what I posted, I explained that their use of 'tractors' is
> incorrect and they are referring to 'trailers'. Yes, tractors pulling
> multiple (real) tractors for delivery is common, they come nowhere near
> 97 feet long. Try in about the same space as a normal tractor/single
> trailer combination.
>
> So you are saying that the original article which had information
> presumably taken from FHA documents is wrong? 97 feet is supposedly
> what is mentioned in the proposed regulation.

I've seen these on the road. I never made of note of how many were
riding piggy back,
but it was more than two. I guess I have seen three. I didn't notice
the vehicle behaving any differently than any other truck on the road.
It does sound like this is not a good idea to allow more than three in
a row. I wonder why they wouldn't just put the 4 vehicles on one of
those flat trailers that get used to transport bulldozers, and other
similar loads. It would be long enough and you wouldn't have the pivot
points and mis-aligned wheels that you would when
pulling the trucks on their own wheels.
-------------------
Alex

>
>>
>> Yeah, 97 feet doesn't sound all that long, so I don't see what the big
>> deal
>> is. But then to read that some drivers have stated that 4 tractors
>> linked
>> together is dangerously unstable . . . THAT is what makes me wonder about
>> this particular combination vehicle.
>
> Well, first you have to figger that a driver has a financial interest
> in delivering 2 trucks rather than 3.

Not really. That kind of strategy is called "screw your buddy". If you
have to make 2 trips to deliver your load (in this case being other
tractors), then there are more miles for you to get paid for. That is
obvious. But, until those tractors are delivered, there are LESS potential
miles for the drivers of the tractors being pulled. Or put another way,
another driver needs that tractor you are pulling. If you delay the tractor
getting to it's destination, then you might make more money, but another
driver makes LESS money. So it's a wash, financially, as far as drivers go.

> Operated around 55mph on interstates by a competent driver, triples are
> relatively safe. Which is to say, not all that safe in many instances.
> Most truck drivers are just ****ty 4-wheeler drivers with a CDL.

Ouch. Maybe true. But OUCH. -Dave