All the same, truck drivers’ reactions to this news was perhaps appropriately cynical, judging by some of the comments we’ve seen on our Facebook page. Bethany from the One Girl Trucking site noted for instance that “while I think it is great they are ‘thinking’ of going after ALL drivers, I think correctly training drivers from the start would be a great step in the right direction. If they are going to take cell phones out of vehicles they had better make laws against eating & driving, watching TV & entertaining kids while driving, blowing your nose, sneezing and everything in between. It would just be easier to ban stupidity while driving.”

The folks with Zoomsafer, maker of systems/software for fleets to mitigate against phone use in vehicles that are in motion, published a commentary on the problem of enforcement yesterday, too. They pitched their technological solution as a potentially effective enforcement mechanism on an individual basis, but along the way noted these problems: 1) “Bans alone don’t work” (and in some instances may be a detriment to safety as drivers try to use the phone surreptitiously, misplacing attention). 2) “Bans are difficult and expensive to enforce.” 3) “Ignoring bans is easy for drivers to rationalize,” particularly given the American public’s virtual addiction, at this point, to mobile phones.

Read Zoomsafer’s full post here, where the company takes the addiction metaphor further, speaking of their technology in language reminiscent of an ad for, say, nicotine replacement therapy. (You’ll recall my post about Marsh Carroll’s humorous vid for the company, which also tracks in similar metaphors.)

The likelihood of a nationwide phone-use ban happening thus seems slim to none, particularly given that the states would have to adopt measures individually to create such a ban, and none have one in place at present (a good portion of states still haven’t outlawed texting behind the wheel, for that matter); at the least, the NTSB recommendation puts the distracted-driving problem in the national spotlight, where it will gain prominence in the public mind.

And as any smoker who’s tried one of those nicotine-replacement strategies to quit smoking knows, they’re only effective for someone who really wants to break the habit. No single external measure is incentive enough. What it takes is the inner will to stop.

Check out One Girl Trucking site here.

Reactions run the gamut from muted support to the most common theme — that the problem handheld cellphones represent has long been appreciated by the nation’s haulers, and an outright ban on handheld use might be most effective via an Act of Congress aimed at all Americans, i.e. really address the widespread problem of inattention to the road ahead among the four-wheeled pilots out there.

The grand satirical tradition of Swift’s “Modest Proposal” was last revisited on this blog with J.B. Hunt-leased owner-operators James and Jan McCarter’s Letter to Capitol Hill highlighting what exactly lawmakers should tell their constituents to do given a desire to rid the nation’s highways of trucks in total. Nabisco company driver Buddy Wenners takes a different tack toward highlighting the same problem, with something of a dare. He urges regulators to dispense with all the rigamarole already and shock the system with an outright ban on truck driving.

Sound crazy? Well, be thankful, Wenners says, that he waited till he got home last night to cool down from the road before he wrote his proposal and posted it to Overdrive‘s Facebook page. “Otherwise it would have been longer and a little ‘crazier,’” he says. “Like suggesting maybe they make roads just for trucks to keep them away from cars, or only let us out at night.”

The former isn’t so crazy, if we consider very real proposals that have been made in recent years. Here’s one to create a tolled truck-only parallel route of I-81 (officially axed in 2008). In any case, I thought I’d share Wenners’ proposal in total here, for a little mirth and/or empathy on this fine Friday. Keep the thoughts coming.

Without further ado…

To the U.S. Department of Transportation:

Please just save us all time and effort. Let’s make truck driving illegal! That’s right, I said it. Let’s outlaw truck driving. You are so busy listening to Suzie Homemaker and her important office-dwelling husband that you never seem to listen to the trucking industry. I know that our trucks are in the way of Mrs. America bringing her 2.5 kids to school, or on her way to get her hair done, or Mr. Businessman on his way to the office. Both of whom have a cell to their ear, a coffee in hand, dealing with the kids or looking at paperwork at the same time while sometimes looking out the windshield (never the mirrors). Never mind the young people that are so busy doing anything but driving while in their cars, ignoring stop signs and red lights and constantly zipping through them almost driving into a propane truck — thankfully, the truck driver is paying extra attention, averting the accident, no thanks to the young person. Or the fact that we are in the way of everyone by just going the speed limit (or less because you’ve governed us to 61 mph) on the highways.

The current Hours of Service is fine! Stop changing things that work! No one wants this! Retailers don’t. Truck drivers don’t. Shippers don’t. So why are you changing it? Safety in trucking has improved every year in recent history. The facts and figures are there to prove such things. Talk to the drivers. They know what’s wrong out here. And then do something to fix it!

Have you lawmakers been out on the roads in a commercial truck? Have you seen what goes on in the cars around us? Dogs in laps, people reading newspapers, watching movies on laptops, ignoring (not seeing) stop signs or red lights. And that’s just a few things.

What about those who are supposed to uphold the law? I see them talking on cell phones (not hands-free) and using their laptops while driving. Don’t give me the BS about it being part of their jobs, either. They have radios. Which are much less distracting.

So my proposal to you is this: Ban Truck Driving. Make it against the law! Just imagine how fast the roads become safe. And empty.

Sincerely,
Buddy Wenners

Penske Logistics is a wholly owned subsidiary of Penske Truck Leasing and offers full-service truck leasing, contract fleet maintenance, commercial and consumer truck rentals, used truck sales, and customized supply chain and logistics solutions.

‘Trucker bombs’ or what?
And in law enforcement official Monty Hight’s “Cop talk” column for the Redding, Calif., Record-Searchlight newspaper, the author answers a reader question as to the identity of “numerous water bottles and other containers filled with a colored liquid other than water” left on the roadside. In Hight’s response to the reader’s use of the “Trucker bombs” label to describe such containers, you’ll be happy to find this:

And it’s not just truckers. While working in the Oakland area, I had a supervisor riding with me one afternoon. It was a clear day when all of a sudden moisture was hitting my windshield and it wasn’t clear water. I glanced ahead and observed the passenger in the vehicle directly ahead of me hold what appeared to be a soda can out the right front window and dump its contents, which ended up on my vehicle. Needless to say, I made an enforcement stop on the vehicle.

Four-wheeler bombs, anyone? Read the full story here.

Bowers’ argument for the comparable inefficiency of the auto industry, where fuel used per-pound moved is much higher than the same rate in  big-rig diesels, is one echoed in a column in this month’s edition of Truckers News by none other than Albert Transport independent owner-operator Henry Albert, Overdrive‘s 2007 Trucker of the Year and a man regular readers will no doubt be familiar with.

“The Enivronmental Protection Agency,” he writes, “for all its good intentions, was responsible for the light-truck, SUV and big-van craze of the 1970s on…. Automobiles represent the very low-hanging fruit for increased fuel mileage. Most cars get less than 30 mpg and do not carry much weight at all.”

Bowers spelled out the difference in his letter by comparing the fleet of 30 Toyota pickups getting a questionable 25 mpg that would be required to move 45,000 lbs. of freight to the one Class 8 tractor. He asked, Do we “really want the trucking industry to be as efficient as the auto industry? 

“Example: A. 1 big rig, 45,000-pound load, 3,000 miles @ 6 mpg = 500 gal x $3.25 = $1,625. That’s $0.0361/pound, $0.5416/mile, 0.0111 gal/pound. 

“B. 45,000-pound load requiring 30 Toyota pickups hauling 1,500 pounds each @ 25 mpg = 120 gal x $2.95 = $354. To move the same 45,000 pounds would require 3,600 gallons totaling $10,620. That’s $0.236/pound, $3.54/mile, 0.08 gal/pound.” Read his full letter here.

As the debate over the appropriateness of proposed EPA standards for heavy diesels goes on, folks like Albert, who are pushing current diesel efficiency to its maximum levels, continue to view the issue with concern, wondering whether the agency may be misplacing its attention. As Albert concludes, “The real potential for fuel economy gains remains in vehicles used for personal transportation.”

Read Albert’s full column in Truckers News.

See video of Albert’s address to the Overdrive/ATBS Partners in Business seminar at GATS in August 2010.

But when MSN Autos’ correspondent Charles Plueddeman wrote several days ago that “they are frequently the source of aggravation and even fear,” he wasn’t talking about four-wheelers. Rather, he was leading into a listing of what exactly “annoys [auto drivers] most about truckers,” drawing on the expertise of one astute Dr. William Van Tassel, a “manager of driver training programs for AAA.”

It’s an interesting little list, considering that some of the items included are some of the same complaints I hear from truck drivers most often about four-wheelers. Plueddeman at least acknowledges the two-way street that is four-wheeler/truck and driver-to-driver interplay out on the highway. “While it’s true that car drivers can be boorish,” he writes in the his piece’s lead, “truckers are far from innocent in the asphalt interplay between four- and 18-wheelers.”

The list follows. Fair? Or foul… All the mentioned situations have remedies most truck drivers are already well aware of, and in many cases practicing exclusively. At the least, consider it a little reminder of the particular concerns of your motoring cousins …

1. A trucker tailgates.
2. A truck’s tires seem to explode when driving down the road [producing gators].
3. Big trucks spray water all over the place, blinding everyone around them.
4. One truck pulls over to pass the other, and then they run together, blocking two lanes.
5. Trucks don’t slow down when it’s snowing.

Read Plueddeman’s full story.

If you have a motorist in your life who might benefit from some education in what it takes to safely drive a car around big trucks, read my post about Toby Bogard’s “Semi-Aware” book.

While 28 percent of survey respondents admitted to text-messaging while driving, more than half that number, a full 15 percent of respondents, said they “performed sex or other sexual acts” behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. Note that we’re talking four-wheelers here, of course, as survey respondents’ average on-road time per week was below 10 hours.

Said Jonas Forsberg, general manager for North America of GN Netcom’s mobile division, “”It is truly unbelievable what people are doing while driving.” But is it? I imagine you’ve seen worse on occasion.  

Here are the full published results:

DISTRACTING ACTIVITIES PERFORMED WHILE DRIVING
Eating  72%
Kissing another person  29%
Sending text messages  28%
Performing sexual acts  15%
Putting on makeup  13%
Reading emails  12%
Reading newspapers or magazines  10%
Playing video games  5%
Shaving  5%

For years, drivers have complained about the increased number of four-wheeler/truck interactions split limits tended to cause, a common complaint being the rear-enders and quick front cut-offs that have been seen as the garden variety in on-highway behavior for auto drivers by truckers.

At the least, as this story in the Peoria Journal Star newspaper notes, haulers passing through the state can count on a small productivity gain in good weather. But perhaps reflecting the majority of the industry’s opinion on the subject, I’d guess, quoted in the story was Rick Crosson, COO at Star Transport in Morton, Ill., sounding like a professional athlete in his downplaying of the move’s significance for his business and the industry. He emphasized industry focus on situational safety over all else: “It’s all case by case and load by load,” he told the Journal Star, ”and with fuel economy, average speeds and weight limits factored in, the new laws don’t have all that much impact for drivers.”

Or as a commenter posting as thebaldeagle655 in this thread on the ClassADrivers.com site put it, tempering some posters’ enthusiasm about the new law, no doubt: “Isn’t it ironic that we complain about safety of the split speed limits and use the [spectre of four-wheelers rear-ending us] as an excuse, but then we drive 60-65 in a 75-mph zone to conserve fuel and that is safe!? Sometimes you just gotta shake your head and say, Huh?”