Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 28
28
submitted a petition in 2006 requesting that FMCSA require icant driver productivity losses if speeds were reduced from 75
manufacturers to allow the adjustment of speed-limiting de- mph to lower levels. For a more detailed discussion of the ef-
vices to no more than 68 mph on all new trucks over 26,000 fects of truck speed policies, see Appendix B.
pounds GVW.7 Approximately 77 percent of ATA's members
have speed limiters set at 68 mph or lower.8 The Province of
Unexpected Impacts
Ontario recently passed a law requiring trucks with a model
year of 1995 or newer to be speed limited at 65 mph, and the The fuel economy impacts of the 1973 law were overesti-
Province of Quebec has adopted similar rules.9 mated because lawmakers did not consider the effects of non-
compliance. With respect to the recent increase in highway
speed limits, the negative effects of differential speed limits
Policy Impacts
were not fully expected by legislators and policymakers. The
The safety impact of lowering speed limits and creating dif- safety benefits of these policies have yet to be conclusively
ferential speed limits for cars and trucks has been the subject documented with scientific studies. Nonetheless, many indus-
of debate among researchers and policymakers. Research try safety managers are proponents of reducing truck speeds
clearly finds that lower vehicle speeds reduce the severity of based on their firms' experience.
crashes and the incidence of fatalities.10 Lower speeds also im- A potential unexpected impact of governing speed could be
prove truck-braking distances. On the other hand, differen- higher driver turnover, because many drivers oppose the use of
tial speeds caused by lower speed limits can increase crash speed governors, especially when drivers are paid by the mile
risk. Many researchers have argued that it is the speed differ- or trip. If driver turnover increases and results in experienced
ence between vehicles, not the absolute speed, that is most drivers being replaced with inexperienced drivers, this could
important for creating crash risk. Trucks traveling at speeds increase safety risk. Surveys of drivers have also suggested that
lower than the rest of traffic interact with more vehicles, in- being speed limited at lower speeds can cause fatigue in drivers
creasing risk. In addition to the car-truck differential, speed on long trips. Drivers will obviously be on the road for less time
limits over 65 mph tend to increase speed differentials be- if they travel at higher speeds. Speed-limited drivers also ex-
tween trucks by dividing trucks into company drivers (who pressed frustration at being trapped in the right-hand lane and
tend to be speed limited at lower levels) and owner-operators being forced to constantly deal with merging traffic.12
(who typically can travel at higher speeds). Overall, researchers
and policymakers have not reached consensus on the impact
Aircraft Fuel Tank
of differential speeds.
Flammability Rules
Regarding mandatory truck speed governors, large truck-
ing companies, many represented by ATA, are supportive; Policy Description
they argue mandatory truck speed governors improve safety,
Since 1960, 18 airplanes have been damaged or destroyed
reduce fuel consumption, and lower vehicle maintenance
as the result of fuel tank explosions. Such an explosion was
costs. Small owner-operators represented by the Owner Oper-
determined to be the cause of the 1996 crash of TWA Flight
ator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) have opposed
800 off Long Island, New York. This accident resulted in the
the ATA speed limiter proposal, arguing that it is a public re-
death of all 230 people aboard. Although investigators have
lations stunt by large businesses that could disadvantage
not always identified the ignition source of these explosions,
small firms.11 There are also regional differences in firms'
for some of the most recent incidents, investigators deter-
view of truck speeds. Interview respondents noted that truck-
mined that the explosion involved empty or nearly empty
ing firms with major western operations would suffer signif-
center-wing fuel tanks that contained flammable vapors when
the fuel tanks exploded.13
In response to these incidents, FAA issued a final rule in July
7ATA, "Petition for Rulemaking before the National Highway Traffic Safety Ad- 2008 that requires manufacturers and operators of certain jet
ministration (NHTSA) to amend 48 CFR Part 571 to Require Vehicle Manufac- aircraft (both new and existing) to meet performance require-
turers to Install Speed Limiting Devices Set at No More than 68 MPH on New
Trucks with a GVWR of Greater than 26,000 Pounds," 2006.
ments for reducing fuel tank flammability to an acceptably
8"Truckers Back a National 65-mph Speed Limit," U.S. News and World Report, safe level.14 Although the rule does not direct the adoption of
March 26, 2008.
9"Ontario to Require 65-MPH Speed Limiters on Trucks," Transport Topics,
June 18, 2008.
10TRB, Safety Impacts of Speed Limiter Device Installations on Commercial Trucks 12Johnson and Pawar, November 2005.
and Buses: A Synthesis of Safety Practice, 2008. 13FAA, "Reduction of Fuel Tank Flammability in Transport Category Airplanes,"
11OOIDA, "OOIDA Accuses Feds of Pandering to Big Business by Toying with Notice of Final Rule, July 21, 2008, 73 FR 42445.
Speed Limiter Idea," press release, January 26, 2007. 14FAA, 73 FR 4244442504.
