The Problem with Libertarianism: A Trucker's Perspective

[Roadtoad]

(I doubt this one will ever make it to the Language Awards, but I'm hoping I'm making this sufficiently coherent for the purpose.)

In reading through some of Shanek's posts, and in reading the continuing debate regarding Federal regulation, (particularly in regards to its excesses), I thought I'd chime in with a few points. While this is a personal view, I'm hoping some will understand that there are some elements to this that cross all lines.

Understand that I hold a California Class A Commercial Driver's License. This has been issued to me after I passed the necessary tests and demonstrated that I could actually drive a commercial vehicle. My license includes endorsements for Tank Vehicles, Doubles/Triples, and Hazardous Material.

When I signed in with the current company I work for, I was issued a copy of the current Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration regulations. This is a small, but very thick book which covers the bulk of the regulations that apply to my profession. (While I'm mentioning this, I should point out that you can pick up a copy of this at any truck stop for around $5. If you can't find it, contact the main publisher of this book, J.J. Keller. You should be able to order it by single copy. If you do any driving at all, you ought to take a look at it.) Because of my HazMat endorsement, I also carry the Federal HazMat regs. Both are within easy reach in the cab of my Kenworth, and at least once a week, I'm checking something out, usually in advance, and as a means of preventing a problem, rather than reacting to one.

Under Federal regulations, I am required:

(1.) To maintain a current logbook, detailing the time I've spent off duty, in a sleeper berth, on duty driving, and on duty performing other tasks. As long as I'm behind the wheel, I must record my activities for each and every 24 hour period, or I must account for time I'm off duty.

(2.) To submit to random urinalysis, as directed by the Department of Transportation. I am also required to submit a urine sample if I am involved in any way in a highway accident or incident, or if a duly sworn peace officer has reason to suspect I'm under the influence of any controlled substance. If necessary, I can also be compelled to submit a blood sample.

(3.) To inspect my truck and trailer, and ensure that they are safe and secure, and that my load is properly secured to prevent it shifting and causing an accident or injury.

(4.) To operate my rig in a manner that is safe for current highway conditions.

I'm going to take these one at a time. I'm hoping you'll be patient with me, because I'm going to go into more detail than is probably necessary.

First, understand that my logbook is basically a bar graph which details the basics of my activities. I also have a recap on the side of each page. Because I regularly cross state lines, the recap MUST be completed, and I am also required to note the time and mileage each time I cross a state line. I'm required to either list in my logbook what I was loaded with, or required to provide a shipping document number, so the DOT knows what I was moving, and so they know I had a legal right to move it.

Let me tell you about my logbook: it's a pain in the butt to fill out. EVERY time I have a status change, I have to update it. If I don't, I get hit with a minimum $200 fine. Further, the DOT will go back over the past few months, and they'll check out what my logbooks have said I've done. Every six months, they contact my employer, and they audit the books, and if I've done something stupid, I get a ticket.

Let me put it another way: If I show that I've driven too fast, (too many miles listed for the hours driving covered), the DOT can issue me a speeding ticket. If I list a shipping document that specifies a HazMat load, and I don't have a HazMat endorsement, I'm screwed.

Further, if I falsify my logbook, the DOT can hit me with another citation. Pull that one, and baby, the fine STARTS at $2,000. The DOT will go back and review company receipts, including those for fuel stops, hotels, or even a quick stop for a doughnut. If this is part of an accident investigation, and it's discovered I've falsified, it's now a felony investigation. It makes the difference between a wrist slap, or a possible manslaughter charge in the event of fatality, regardless of who is initially determined to be at fault!

The Libertarian would tell you that a logbook violates my right to privacy. I should not be providing to the DOT this information, and further, it even becomes a violation of my 5th Amendment rights in certain situations.

Well, I have a problem with that.

I know drivers who are running with two and three logbooks. While usually, most commercial drivers are safe, and it's rare for us to be at fault in an accident, there are those incidents where drivers have continued working while they're tired, and people have died. A recent incident near Woodland bore that out, with the driver not only killing the people in the car he hit, but also killing his young daugters who were riding along.

FMCSA Regs say that at 11 hours, I'm done driving. At 14 hours, I'm done working. This driver pushed it a little too much, and people died. It shouldn't have happened.

Unfortunately, this is the norm more often that you realize. Werner Transportation paid out a huge fine not too long ago, as did Covenant Transportation, both for pushing their drivers to work beyond legal limits. I've also known honest drivers who have been dealing with dispatchers who pull this crap who've walked into a scale house, tossed their logbook onto the desk, and said, "I'm over time. My dispatcher says keep moving." No surprise, but the drivers sometimes get fired.

Sometimes, though, the good guys win. One driver I know dropped his log on the CHP's desk, and wound up starting an investigation into his employer. Without that logbook, that company would still be forcing drivers to work tired. In other words, people could have been killed.

Let's consider drug tests for a moment: I don't like them. I hate being told, "Show up for work about seven." I know what's coming; some dude will be there at the office with a little cup. I pee in the cup, and work for a couple of days, sweating slightly, hoping the test is accurate.

As it happens, a friend of mine got called in at seven one morning, and a couple of days later, he was told, "Clean out your rig." Yup, he'd been doing Crank. Kept him up so he could run a little longer. (Yeah, he'd cheated his book, too.) He was gone in a minute. Problem is, he knew better.

Similarly, another friend of mine hit a car while making a run to the North of us. He didn't report it, and we only heard about it because the victim called us to let us know. She needed to know our insurance carrier because Numbnutz behind the wheel didn't give that information to her.

So, our beloved head wrench, "Mr. Sunshine," drove up and picked up our driver, and took him to the local medical lab. Just as they got there, Numbnutz said, "I'm refusing the test."

Fired. Like, right now.

The Libertarian says drug tests are intrusive. They should be banned, and drugs should be legalized.

Let me ask you, ever see a guy who's driving while he's on Crank? Scary stuff. You don't want to share the road with someone like that. He doesn't react well to stress. Cut that guy off, and you'll get a chrome plated enema. Nor do I want to share the road with someone on crack, smack, herb, or anything else that might diminish their ability to drive safely.

In fact, if I'm on medication, when I take my physical for my medical card, (without which, my Class A license is invalid), that must be listed on the medical form, and if there's anything which I'm prescribed which impairs my ability to drive, I must either get a new prescription, or forfeit my license.

And keep in mind, I run limit loads nearly every time my tires hit the street. That's 80,000 lbs., kids. Your car weighs, what, maybe 2,000? You do the math.

Inspections are also a major sticking point. Right at this moment, my tractor, #450, is sitting in our yard, hooked up to trailer #40-3. This morning, when I pre-tripped that trailer, I had a hell of a time readjusting the brakes. I also noticed that I've got a bald tire on that trailer, and another tire with a very large nail in it. At 1 a.m., Monday morning, that rig is rolling out of our yard for Monterey with a load of structural steel, a tricky load which shifted on me as I picked it up from the iron yard this afternoon and hauled it back to our yard for Monday's run.

Before I show up for work on Monday, the tires will be fixed or replaced, and the brakes will be good. The load will be sufficiently secured, with both straps and chains, and NOTHING is going to be in a position to move before I put that machine in gear. Before I leave, I will pre-trip that truck, and it will be 100%.

The Libertarian will say that it's a matter of personal responsibility. Mandating such an inspection is an intrusion, both of my employer's rights and mine.

Sorry, but if it weren't for the Federal mandates, I know a hell of a lot of trucks that wouldn't be inspected at all.

Right now, even with Federal law in place, I can go down to our yard, and I can find at least five violations on nearly every rig down there. I haven't pulled 40-3 in ages, and the last time I did, I made sure it was solid before I rolled. In the meantime, in the three or four months since it was behind 450, it's been out nearly every other day! If I can crawl under trailers in the rain, in the sun, in the mud, in the dust, and check slack adjusters for air brakes, check air lines, inspect wiring, and make repairs before my truck rolls, why the hell can't these people I work with?

My partner on this run to Monterey just had the service air line on his truck repaired. On the way back to the yard today, it failed. Before I left for home tonight, we fixed it. He will have working brakes. My buddy is a pro, through and through. He doesn't need to be reminded to make sure his load is secure, nor to be sure that his rig is solid.

But, I'm working with a bunch of guys who can't even be bothered to fill out the damn logbook correctly, or to fill out a Driver's Inspection Report, (or "bitch sheet," if you prefer). These jokers are running limit loads, too. Do you REALLY want to be next to some of us, driving along with your wife, your husband, your kids...?

These inspections are enforced at inspection stations all over the country. DOT will examine every truck that rolls through the country at some point or another. Many of these stations have a "Rogue's Gallery" of stupid fixes that drivers thought would fly. The one that really got me: A trailer with a broken leaf spring, held together with a bungee cord!!!

How about driving for conditions? The speed limit for all trucks in California is 55, (65 in Nevada, and a number of other states; California still uses "split limits.") I'm pretty good at handling my rig, and I can still keep control while cruising in the rain at 60. Most of us can. I've had no chargeable accidents. My DMV printout is clean.

And the Libertarian would with some justification say the 55 limit is arbitrary, and should be repealed.

Except, remember that bald tire on my trailer? Remember how long it's possibly been there?

In a heavy rain, or fog, you can't see that well. I am still in amazement that I see drivers blowing past me at 60 and 70 as I'm driving down the freeway at 30, fighting thick fog. I'm a professional, damn you! And you're risking your life for what? Just so you can say you weren't stuck behind that heavy haul rig on I-5? Dunce...

I generally agree with much of what the Libertarians claim they want. But I'm far too realistic to accept that we can do away with much of our current regulations. As Paul Harvey keeps saying, "Self Government does not work without Self Discipline." When I see drunk driving accidents, when I see drivers who are driving dead tired, (pun intended), when I see unsafe rigs, when I see people driving too fast for conditions, when I see people DYING because they refuse to conduct themselves in a disciplined manner, I'm not surprised to see increasing Federal and State regulation. It may, in fact, be one of the few things that keep us alive long enough to complain about its intrusiveness.

[Brian]

Great post.

[Nasarius]

I agree with everything except the implication that legalizing drugs will make it somehow acceptable to be driving under their influence.

Nor do I want to share the road with someone on crack, smack, herb, or anything else that might diminish their ability to drive safely.

Why not add alcohol to that list?

[epepke]

In general I agree with you. While I think that Libertarians have some excellent ideas, I don't think that a completely Libertarian society would work. Nevertheless, the middle is defined by the endpoints, and I think we need the Libertarians to hold their end. Furthermore, Libertarians don't have anyting against self-policing or, as far as I can tell, corporate policing.

On the other hand, you mention truckers. Now, you seem like a decent fellow, so I hope you don't take this personally. But I think that a pure Libertarian viewpoint would hold that without regulations, there might be some collateral damage, but about 75% of truckers would eventually kill themselves with their own stupidity and thus improve the species.

I can't drive 500m on a Florida interstate without seeing a double pair of skidmarks off into the emergency lane. I can't count the times I've had my heart race because I noticed the semi in the next lane had a tire going flippety floppety because some schmuck decided that cold-cap retreads were a kewl cost-saving idea. Florida highways are littered with them, and I have yet to see one even so small as to fit on an SUV, after forty years of living in Florida.

More than once I have taken down the license plate number of a semi in front of me who was doing the ziggies and zaggies, taken the next exit, and called the cops. As far as I can tell, this had no effect.

I will also never forget one time. When I am behind a semi, I stay about one semi-length behind the semi. I never try to "draft" or whatever it's called. I'm going the speed limit behind a semi in the slow lane. Now another semi in the middle overtakes me. So, OK, I figure he's going to pass. Fine. But he stops just when the front of his cab is level with the rear of the trailer in front of me. Now, at this time, the front of my car is level with the back end of the trailer in the lane to the left of me, got it? And all this time there is still a third fast lane to the left of that trailer, which is open. So I'm stuck. There isn't anything to the right except the emergency lane. I can't go left, because I would be dangerously close to the semi to the left of me. I figure, what I should do is slow down, wait for these two trucks to decide what they're going to do, get into the leftmost lane to be most safely away from what seem to be a pair of idiots, stay back if they decide to play Duel, and if the one in the middle lane actually passes the one in the right lane, stay in the far left lane (the third) and try to get past both those idiots so that I don't have to decelerate rapidly in the wake of a bunch of twisted metal.

As I do this, I see flashes in my rear-view mirror. A third semi, doing at least thirty miles over the speed limit, is bearing down on me. Mind you, this is the slow lane, and the fast lane is open. But he isn't turning into the fast lane or slowing down. I do a rapid calculation in my head, and there isn't a damn thing I can do. I instinctively accelerate, which puts the front of my car such that it is to the direct right of the trailer on the left (which I do not like to do; I never pass even a passenger car on the right, let alone a semi). But Mr. Flashing Lights does not decellerate. At the last instant, he turns right onto the emergency lane and whooshes by with enough air disturbance to make not only my car but both the semis visibly shake.

OK, nobody died, and a lesson on how much adrenaline I can take. But what really bugs me is that truckers are supposed to be talking to each other and probably were over their CBs. I can only imagine what those fu- I mean truckers were saying, and it was along the lines of "Yee haw! Looky how we scared that *****!"

It further distresses me that there's probably a special trucker word for what I have used ***** to signify, and there's probably a special trucker phrase for the maneuver that was done to me.

As I said, you seem a decent fellow, and I don't want you to take this personally. But I'm in a bad mood, and this has brought up some rather unpleasant memories. So perhaps you can forgive me when I say, Knights of the Road, my hairy frenum.

[Jaan]

I consider myself a libertarian but I understand that in this world personal responsibility doesn't go very far. However, the one thing that bothers me is that at some point too much regulation becomes counterproductive, and it's just becomes easier to circumvent the law.

Your post reminded me of a guy I knew who used to buy up machine shop equipment, and drive down to Mexico and sell it. I don't know how he did it, but he would just buy a tractor trailer, throw some kind of plates on it, and drive strait from New England to Mexico without any registration or license. He did this all the time ... never got busted.

I also live in a rabidly anti-gun state. People who have had firearms for years are getting the shaft. The regulations are getting more and more restrictive all the time, and it's at the point where trying to be 100% legal is nearly impossible ... any cop with an axe to grind could find something to bust you over. Luckily most police recognize how messed up it all is and don't harass you. It's almost becoming a libertarian situation. The laws are so confusing and contradictory that if you have some license, and are not a bad guy, then you're good to go.

I do think that most laws could be done away with. the situation might just very well improve if there were less laws, but those few laws were actually enforced.

I've always liked the idea Robert Heinlein had in the book "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" ... have a two party system, one party makes laws, the other repeals them (c:

[fishbob]

The Libertarian says drug tests are intrusive. They should be banned, and drugs should be legalized.

Let me ask you, ever see a guy who's driving while he's on Crank? Scary stuff. You don't want to share the road with someone like that. He doesn't react well to stress. Cut that guy off, and you'll get a chrome plated enema. Nor do I want to share the road with someone on crack, smack, herb, or anything else that might diminish their ability to drive safely.

The war on drugs is pretty much a waste of time and money, as related to what you do in the privacy of your home, but impaired and driving is stupid and dangerous. These two views do not necessarily conflict.

I work in haz mat cleanup, mostly in remote areas, with project hire crews. Heavy equipment mucking around in spill sites or tearing down abandoned military installations full of asbestos and PCBs. When the contract says provide a drug free work place, we drug screen applicants. When the contract does not say to provide a drug free work place, we drug screen applicants. Violators caught at the job site don't get to work anymore and have to leave on the next ride out. Just something that has to be done.

Typical scene: Asbestos abatement guys suited up, rubber gloves and rubber boots taped to the Tyvek suit, full face respirator, air monitoring devices, water sprays, decon area with showers for when the guys leave the work area. All this to prevent breathing asbestos fibers that might cause lung cancer. So when they take a break, they go through the shower, strip off the Tyvek, peel off the respirator, wipe it down and disinfect it, pull on some clean clothes, and go chain-smoke cigarettes until time to go back to work. Everybody knows the multiplied cancer risk from asbestosis plus smoking, yet they do it anyway.

I have seen smashed hands and broken bones and chemical burns all due to just not paying enough attention. I can only imagine how much worse things could get if cranked up or tranked down guys were on the job.

[shanek]

Okay, there seem to be two major problems with this post which I want to take care of right off the bat:

First is the argument from authority. Although this may not have been your intention, there is the element in your post of speaking with a certain authority; i.e., you're a truck driver, so your opinion is an informed one. Well, by brother-in-law is a truck driver, and while he's not a Libertarian, I can tell you that he and I have discussed these issues on many occasions and he does NOT agree with you here.

Second is a false dochotomy: you're making out as if they only choices are government regulation and a free-for-all. You're ignoring a third option: industry self-regulation combined with basic law enforcement.

I'm going to reorder the post a bit to make it easier to answer point by point:

Originally posted by Roadtoad
(1.) To maintain a current logbook, detailing the time I've spent off duty, in a sleeper berth, on duty driving, and on duty performing other tasks. As long as I'm behind the wheel, I must record my activities for each and every 24 hour period, or I must account for time I'm off duty.

The logbook regulation, like many other government regulations, cane about as a completely reactionary measure to a couple of high-profile trucking accidents where sleep deprivation was cited as the major cause. The government, as usual, used this as an excuse to introduce this regulation. However, there is no evidence at all that this regulation has had anything at all to do with preventing trucking accidents due to drivers' sleep deprivation.

First, understand that my logbook is basically a bar graph which details the basics of my activities. I also have a recap on the side of each page. Because I regularly cross state lines, the recap MUST be completed, and I am also required to note the time and mileage each time I cross a state line. I'm required to either list in my logbook what I was loaded with, or required to provide a shipping document number, so the DOT knows what I was moving, and so they know I had a legal right to move it.

In other words, you're guilty until proven innocent. You MUST prove that you aren't breaking the law, or you aren't breaking the law. And no one here has a problem with that? Shouldn't it be up to the government to prove that you didn't have a legal right to move it?

Let me put it another way: If I show that I've driven too fast, (too many miles listed for the hours driving covered), the DOT can issue me a speeding ticket

I don't see how ANYONE can justify a post facto speeding ticket. They have no way of knowing where you were at the time, how much over the speed limit you were going, or anything at all that they would need to present as actual evidence in any sanely-run Republic.

The Libertarian would tell you that a logbook violates my right to privacy.

No, he wouldn't. Trucking companies have required log books for years if not decades before the regulation. That's no problem; it's just a condition of work. The problem is the GOVERNMENT coming in and taking away freedom; that would be bad enough, but it's made worse by the fact that no one can point to any evidence that this regulation has actually done any good at all.

(2.) To submit to random urinalysis, as directed by the Department of Transportation. I am also required to submit a urine sample if I am involved in any way in a highway accident or incident, or if a duly sworn peace officer has reason to suspect I'm under the influence of any controlled substance. If necessary, I can also be compelled to submit a blood sample.

So much for probable cause...

Let me ask you, ever see a guy who's driving while he's on Crank? Scary stuff. You don't want to share the road with someone like that. He doesn't react well to stress. Cut that guy off, and you'll get a chrome plated enema. Nor do I want to share the road with someone on crack, smack, herb, or anything else that might diminish their ability to drive safely.

Fine. So pull him over, give him a test, and deal with him if he fails it. Libertarians aren't against that. But not only are government-mandated random drug tests a violation of privacy (note that it's a different situation if the trucking company does it on its own), since they aren't completely accurate, they can only result in someone being fired or even prosecuted without cause.

(3.) To inspect my truck and trailer, and ensure that they are safe and secure, and that my load is properly secured to prevent it shifting and causing an accident or injury.

How is that your duty and not that of the trucking company?

Before I show up for work on Monday, the tires will be fixed or replaced, and the brakes will be good. The load will be sufficiently secured, with both straps and chains, and NOTHING is going to be in a position to move before I put that machine in gear. Before I leave, I will pre-trip that truck, and it will be 100%.

The Libertarian will say that it's a matter of personal responsibility. Mandating such an inspection is an intrusion, both of my employer's rights and mine.

Sorry, but if it weren't for the Federal mandates, I know a hell of a lot of trucks that wouldn't be inspected at all.

Can you provide any evidence for that? Can you provide any evidence of more problems stemming from lack of inspections before inspections were mandated, problems that no longer exist or are at least reduced?

Several times through your post, you've provided as "evidence" people violating these regulations...but these violations are occuring under the very regulations you claim are needed to prevent this sort of thing. So, how has any of this been fixed?

(4.) To operate my rig in a manner that is safe for current highway conditions.

In a heavy rain, or fog, you can't see that well. I am still in amazement that I see drivers blowing past me at 60 and 70 as I'm driving down the freeway at 30, fighting thick fog. I'm a professional, damn you! And you're risking your life for what? Just so you can say you weren't stuck behind that heavy haul rig on I-5? Dunce...

Well, I'm glad that you have psychic abilites that let you know exactly what that truck driver's skill level is...He might say that you are the one being unsafe because your slower speed could easily result in an accident from a faster car coming up from behind you and, due to the fog, not seeing how slowly you're driving until he's right on you, causing him to slow down massively, causing the car behind him to slow down massively, etc., and even if there's not an accident directly due to all of that the increase in traffic density would make one more likely anyway.

See the problem with setting one arbitrary limit for everybody?

Okay, so some truck drivers are causing problems. So find out who they are and deal with them. I don't see any justification, though, for putting the responsible truck drivers through this kind of stuff, which only adds to the fantastic cost of regulatory compliance this country suffers from. If you aren't one of the ones causing the problems, you should be left alone. Simple as that.

[DavidJames]

Good post Roadtoad. You present the real world and Libertarians have trouble with the real world.

Here is my favorite woo-woo response:
but these violations are occuring under the very regulations you claim are needed to prevent this sort of thing. So, how has any of this been fixed? This disingenuous argument can be used against any regulation or law to "prove" it shouldn't exist. How any reasonable person can continue to present this argument is beyond me.

[shanek]

Originally posted by DavidJames
Here is my favorite woo-woo response:
This disingenuous argument can be used against any regulation or law to "prove" it shouldn't exist. How any reasonable person can continue to present this argument is beyond me.

I would think that whether or not a piece of legislation has had its intended effect would certainly be of relevance. But I guess that's just me being "woo-woo" again... :rolleyes:

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by shanek
I don't see how ANYONE can justify a post facto speeding ticket. They have no way of knowing where you were at the time, how much over the speed limit you were going, or anything at all that they would need to present as actual evidence in any sanely-run Republic.


Almost every law is applied post facto. All it takes is proof that the crime has been committed. Are you advocating pre facto crime enforcement?


Well, I'm glad that you have psychic abilites that let you know exactly what that truck driver's skill level is...He might say that you are the one being unsafe because your slower speed could easily result in an accident from a faster car coming up from behind you and, due to the fog, not seeing how slowly you're driving until he's right on you, causing him to slow down massively, causing the car behind him to slow down massively, etc., and even if there's not an accident directly due to all of that the increase in traffic density would make one more likely anyway.
[/b]

If someone is driving so fast that they cannot react in time to conditions as they become aware of them, such as a stationary or slow-moving vehicle ahead of them, then they are driving beyond their skill level, and the resulting accident would be their fault.

I'd generalise from Roadtoad's post, and say that from my experience of heavy industry (in my case the oil industry in West Africa), people will get away with whatever they can. In heavily regulated areas (the North Sea, for example), the working environment is very much safer and more comfortable. Self-regulation in these industries would be laughable, because it costs money and therefore those companies that didn't self-regulate would succeed at the cost of those that didn't.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by shanek
Okay, there seem to be two major problems with this post which I want to take care of right off the bat:

First is the argument from authority. Although this may not have been your intention, there is the element in your post of speaking with a certain authority; i.e., you're a truck driver, so your opinion is an informed one. Well, by brother-in-law is a truck driver, and while he's not a Libertarian, I can tell you that he and I have discussed these issues on many occasions and he does NOT agree with you here.

That's fine. His experience is different from mine. If you're brother-in-law would care to post his experiences, I'd love to read what he has to say. Maybe he has a solution where I don't.

Second is a false dochotomy: you're making out as if they only choices are government regulation and a free-for-all. You're ignoring a third option: industry self-regulation combined with basic law enforcement.

I think I covered this. Werner and Covenant were nailed to the wall because they went with "industry self-regulation." Dick Simon Trucking did the same thing, and one of their drivers plowed his Freightliner into the California State Capitol. The driver in question was interviewed by one of Simon's driver trainers, and the driver trainer told the higher ups that this guy NEVER should be allowed behind the wheel of anything larger than a bicycle, and even then, not without direct supervision. Industry self-regulation hasn't worked because the industry has repeatedly demonstrated that its focus is not on public safety, but solely on profits per mile.

The exception is Consolidated. And they're now out of business.

The logbook regulation, like many other government regulations, cane about as a completely reactionary measure to a couple of high-profile trucking accidents where sleep deprivation was cited as the major cause. The government, as usual, used this as an excuse to introduce this regulation. However, there is no evidence at all that this regulation has had anything at all to do with preventing trucking accidents due to drivers' sleep deprivation.

Covered this. You have dispatchers who refuse to adhere to basic law. This is a means by which a driver can protect himself.

As I said before, I know drivers who drop the book on the desks of law enforcement, and declare themselves in violation. There are trucking companies that find themselves in deep sh** because the drivers refuse to put up with being abused. The companies are audited, and they get fined. The drivers wind up abandoned for days, or weeks sometimes, sitting in truck stops, waiting on loads. Tell me again how the regulation is unjust.

I can list times when I've been told, "You have no choice, drive," and I've answered, "I'm in violation." I've found myself sitting without work for a week because I obeyed the law, when my employer would not. The only thing missing here is that the dispatcher ought to be nailed for that sort of thing, not the driver.

In other words, you're guilty until proven innocent. You MUST prove that you aren't breaking the law, or you aren't breaking the law. And no one here has a problem with that? Shouldn't it be up to the government to prove that you didn't have a legal right to move it?

Uh, Shanek, the proof is in my wallet. I can move damn near anything, legally. I've demonstrated I know what to do in the event of a chemical spill, I have demonstrated I know how to hook up a set of doubles. I've demonstrated I can pull a tank, and not have my load sloshing all over the road, and I have demonstrated I know how to adjust and use my air brakes. I'm not proving I'm not breaking the law, I'm demonstrating to the legal authorities that I have earned the privalege of operating a commercial motor vehicle on the road.

I don't see how ANYONE can justify a post facto speeding ticket. They have no way of knowing where you were at the time, how much over the speed limit you were going, or anything at all that they would need to present as actual evidence in any sanely-run Republic.

Something you and I agree on. But the general idea is that if you have a log book that shows you drove too fast, (in other words, if you were averaging over 50 MPH for the hours and mileage you drove), they want to keep you from doing it in the future. I agree with the idea, it's the manner of enforcement that sucks.

No, he wouldn't. Trucking companies have required log books for years if not decades before the regulation. That's no problem; it's just a condition of work. The problem is the GOVERNMENT coming in and taking away freedom; that would be bad enough, but it's made worse by the fact that no one can point to any evidence that this regulation has actually done any good at all.

Considering what I said before about drivers not even bothering to check brakes, drivers not even bothering to check lights, drivers not even bothering to inspect their loads, what good is a regulation from a company that you fill out a logbook? Remember what I said about trailer 40-3?

Has the regulation done any good? It's debateable, certainly, but I would wonder what might have happened without it.

So much for probable cause...

Driving is a privalege. Probable cause plays a lesser role.

Fine. So pull him over, give him a test, and deal with him if he fails it. Libertarians aren't against that. But not only are government-mandated random drug tests a violation of privacy (note that it's a different situation if the trucking company does it on its own), since they aren't completely accurate, they can only result in someone being fired or even prosecuted without cause.

In the case of a positive read, you go back and do a second test. That's mandatory. You have the opportunity to clear your name, and your employer can't smear you by law.

But at the same time, and I'm sorry to say this, but I've seen enough wreckage from trucks and cars on the road to say those of us behind the wheel brought this on ourselves. I can't tell you the number of times I've driven along and seen trucks pulled over, and the DOT standing there with the driver standing on one foot, touching his nose. Why does anyone have the right to pointlessly risk the lives of others?

Dude, I can't even keep a bottle of NyQuil in the cab if I'm going to be using it to get some rest while I'm off duty! Drivers have unfortunately behaved in a manner that has forced communities hands.

How is that your duty and not that of the trucking company?

I'm the driver. I'm required to make sure that rig is ready to roll. It is, in essence, a contract between me and everyone else on the road. If it's not ready, I have the obligation to say, "This equipment is a no-go." I'm the last line of defense. Someone needs to be.

Can you provide any evidence for that? Can you provide any evidence of more problems stemming from lack of inspections before inspections were mandated, problems that no longer exist or are at least reduced?

The DOT has provided some. Keep in mind, many of those Rogue's Gallery photos I saw were YEARS old. The CHP has been reporting that brake violations are down on local news. But, I have to admit, you can't eliminate them entirely. As you pointed out:

Several times through your post, you've provided as "evidence" people violating these regulations...but these violations are occuring under the very regulations you claim are needed to prevent this sort of thing. So, how has any of this been fixed?

In our company, yes, we've got drivers who flout the law. I wish the boss would fire them. It's making my job harder.

Well, I'm glad that you have psychic abilites that let you know exactly what that truck driver's skill level is...He might say that you are the one being unsafe because your slower speed could easily result in an accident from a faster car coming up from behind you and, due to the fog, not seeing how slowly you're driving until he's right on you, causing him to slow down massively, causing the car behind him to slow down massively, etc., and even if there's not an accident directly due to all of that the increase in traffic density would make one more likely anyway.

See the problem with setting one arbitrary limit for everybody?

Excuse me, but you tell me how it's safer for someone to drive at 60-70 miles an hour in thick fog? That's a damn fool move, no matter what your skill level, BECAUSE YOU CANNOT SEE THAT FAR AHEAD OF YOU! Any driver with any sense knows you cannot overdrive your range of sight, because you will not have enough time to react in an emergency. You are putting people's lives at risk. My rights are necessarily trumped by my responsibility.

And, for that matter, if things get bad enough, I generally pull over. If I'm needing to go THAT slow to keep moving, I start looking for a rest area or a truck stop, and I call my dispatcher. No load is worth anyone's life.

Okay, so some truck drivers are causing problems. So find out who they are and deal with them. I don't see any justification, though, for putting the responsible truck drivers through this kind of stuff, which only adds to the fantastic cost of regulatory compliance this country suffers from. If you aren't one of the ones causing the problems, you should be left alone. Simple as that.

Unfortunately, how do you locate who's a responsible driver without all of this? Logbooks are a pain in the @$$. A urinalysis is simply a loss of five minutes, another pain in the @$$. Truck inspections are a pain in the @$$. But it's a cheaper pain in the @$$ than the alternative.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by epepke
In general I agree with you. While I think that Libertarians have some excellent ideas, I don't think that a completely Libertarian society would work. Nevertheless, the middle is defined by the endpoints, and I think we need the Libertarians to hold their end. Furthermore, Libertarians don't have anyting against self-policing or, as far as I can tell, corporate policing.

On the other hand, you mention truckers. Now, you seem like a decent fellow, so I hope you don't take this personally. But I think that a pure Libertarian viewpoint would hold that without regulations, there might be some collateral damage, but about 75% of truckers would eventually kill themselves with their own stupidity and thus improve the species.

I can't drive 500m on a Florida interstate without seeing a double pair of skidmarks off into the emergency lane. I can't count the times I've had my heart race because I noticed the semi in the next lane had a tire going flippety floppety because some schmuck decided that cold-cap retreads were a kewl cost-saving idea. Florida highways are littered with them, and I have yet to see one even so small as to fit on an SUV, after forty years of living in Florida.

More than once I have taken down the license plate number of a semi in front of me who was doing the ziggies and zaggies, taken the next exit, and called the cops. As far as I can tell, this had no effect.

I will also never forget one time. When I am behind a semi, I stay about one semi-length behind the semi. I never try to "draft" or whatever it's called. I'm going the speed limit behind a semi in the slow lane. Now another semi in the middle overtakes me. So, OK, I figure he's going to pass. Fine. But he stops just when the front of his cab is level with the rear of the trailer in front of me. Now, at this time, the front of my car is level with the back end of the trailer in the lane to the left of me, got it? And all this time there is still a third fast lane to the left of that trailer, which is open. So I'm stuck. There isn't anything to the right except the emergency lane. I can't go left, because I would be dangerously close to the semi to the left of me. I figure, what I should do is slow down, wait for these two trucks to decide what they're going to do, get into the leftmost lane to be most safely away from what seem to be a pair of idiots, stay back if they decide to play Duel, and if the one in the middle lane actually passes the one in the right lane, stay in the far left lane (the third) and try to get past both those idiots so that I don't have to decelerate rapidly in the wake of a bunch of twisted metal.

As I do this, I see flashes in my rear-view mirror. A third semi, doing at least thirty miles over the speed limit, is bearing down on me. Mind you, this is the slow lane, and the fast lane is open. But he isn't turning into the fast lane or slowing down. I do a rapid calculation in my head, and there isn't a damn thing I can do. I instinctively accelerate, which puts the front of my car such that it is to the direct right of the trailer on the left (which I do not like to do; I never pass even a passenger car on the right, let alone a semi). But Mr. Flashing Lights does not decellerate. At the last instant, he turns right onto the emergency lane and whooshes by with enough air disturbance to make not only my car but both the semis visibly shake.

OK, nobody died, and a lesson on how much adrenaline I can take. But what really bugs me is that truckers are supposed to be talking to each other and probably were over their CBs. I can only imagine what those fu- I mean truckers were saying, and it was along the lines of "Yee haw! Looky how we scared that *****!"

It further distresses me that there's probably a special trucker word for what I have used ***** to signify, and there's probably a special trucker phrase for the maneuver that was done to me.

As I said, you seem a decent fellow, and I don't want you to take this personally. But I'm in a bad mood, and this has brought up some rather unpleasant memories. So perhaps you can forgive me when I say, Knights of the Road, my hairy frenum.

You have just pointed out the biggest beef I have with many people in my industry.

I hate recaps. I just hate them. I know they're cheaper than new tires, and there's some really good ones out there, (usually Bandad and Goodyear), but, dammit, there are times when a recap is the wrong application!

As to the incident you've described, I've actually heard guys on the squawker pulling just that sort of crap. I've taken down names and unit numbers and reported it, and the CHP has looked at me as if I've told them that I've just seen Elvis. It pisses me off no end, because it's only a matter of time before your adrenaline rush becomes a heart attack.

The only thing I can tell you is if you can get a company name and unit number, report it to the outfit's safety officer. Then hope like hell they take action. They may not, but at least you've done something.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Matabiri
Almost every law is applied post facto.

That just isn't true. You don't arrest someone for murder because statistically they must have committed a murder sometime in the recent past. You arrest them for a specific murder of a specific person at a specific time.

So, where is our hypothetical trucker speeding? How fast was he going? How much over the limit? You don't know. You don't know if he sped once really quickly, or just went a few miles over the limit a bunch of times (the latter which he almost certainly wouldn't be pulled over for).

If someone is driving so fast that they cannot react in time to conditions as they become aware of them, such as a stationary or slow-moving vehicle ahead of them, then they are driving beyond their skill level,

And how is someone supposed to divine what that level is for any particular driver?

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by shanek


That just isn't true. You don't arrest someone for murder because statistically they must have committed a murder sometime in the recent past. You arrest them for a specific murder of a specific person at a specific time.

So, where is our hypothetical trucker speeding? How fast was he going? How much over the limit? You don't know. You don't know if he sped once really quickly, or just went a few miles over the limit a bunch of times (the latter which he almost certainly wouldn't be pulled over for).
?

In Illinois, any speed in excess of the posted speed limit is illegal. Simply because a cop won't stop you for it doesn't make it legal.

If the trucker drove 55 miles and arrived in less than 1 hour, it's proof that at some point in time he was driving over 55 MPH. Does it matter specifically when the trucker was speeding?

[American]

Under Federal regulations, I am required:

(1.) To maintain a current logbook, detailing the time I've spent off duty, in a sleeper berth, on duty driving, and on duty performing other tasks. As long as I'm behind the wheel, I must record my activities for each and every 24 hour period, or I must account for time I'm off duty.


What about hooker time? UFO abductions?

[RandFan]

Wow RoadToad,

Great post. I'm libertarian but not a strict one. I eat fish. :D

In any event I support regulation to a certain degree. I'm of the opinion that less is more though and I would like government out of our personal and business lives as much as possible.

Again, good job.

RandFan

[shanek]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
In Illinois, any speed in excess of the posted speed limit is illegal. Simply because a cop won't stop you for it doesn't make it legal.

If the trucker drove 55 miles and arrived in less than 1 hour, it's proof that at some point in time he was driving over 55 MPH. Does it matter specifically when the trucker was speeding?

Yes, and how many times, and how far over the limit he was going. Otherwise, there's absolutely nothing resembling equal protection.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by American
What about hooker time? UFO abductions?

Lot lizards fall under sleeper berth time. UFO abductions are covered under "On Duty, Not Driving."

Only you, Ace. Only you....:rolleyes:

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


In Illinois, any speed in excess of the posted speed limit is illegal. Simply because a cop won't stop you for it doesn't make it legal.

If the trucker drove 55 miles and arrived in less than 1 hour, it's proof that at some point in time he was driving over 55 MPH. Does it matter specifically when the trucker was speeding?

Australia is bringing that in gradually to all the states. Cameras on main freeways take your rego over a set distance. If you arrive to early, you must have been speeding.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


That just isn't true. You don't arrest someone for murder because statistically they must have committed a murder sometime in the recent past. You arrest them for a specific murder of a specific person at a specific time.

So, where is our hypothetical trucker speeding? How fast was he going? How much over the limit? You don't know. You don't know if he sped once really quickly, or just went a few miles over the limit a bunch of times (the latter which he almost certainly wouldn't be pulled over for).



And how is someone supposed to divine what that level is for any particular driver?

This whole, "we'll wait till someone dies" attitude is just so crazy. I would rather my family and I were alive than be satisfied with the knowledge that our killer will be executed. Unless you want me to carry a gun and shoot anyone who likes like a mad truck driver who is just about to kill us through bad driving.

I know one thing, and that is that driving at night on the Melbourne/Sydney road used to be one of the most dangerous experiences you could have. We have had trucks passing other trucks literally take the whole road and not give a damn about a car coming the other way. THe only solution was to slow down and pull off the road.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by RandFan
Great post. I'm libertarian but not a strict one. I eat fish. :D


:big:

Great line RF!

Mind if I steal it from time to time?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Mind if I steal it from time to time? Go for it. Thanks BTW.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by RandFan
I'm libertarian but not a strict one. I eat fish.

This is a signature quote waiting to happen :D

[Thanz]

Nice post, Roadtoad. It is interesting to hear someone who has to wade through tons of government regulations speak out in favour of them.

One question, however, as I am feeling thick as a brick this morning. How does multiple log books help a driver? If you are going to make a false logbook that looks good for the gov't, why keep one that shows the "good" one to be false?

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Australia is bringing that in gradually to all the states. Cameras on main freeways take your rego over a set distance. If you arrive to early, you must have been speeding.

Yeah, they want to set up speeding scameras here in NC, since they've had so much <strike>money</strike>success with the red light scameras.

Of course, they'd NEVER set the speed limit in those areas artificially low just to grab more speeders...oh, no, just like they didn't reduce the yellow-light time on the scamera intersections by 1.5 seconds...

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
This whole, "we'll wait till someone dies" attitude is just so crazy.

Yes, it is. Fortunately for me, it's a strawman and I never said it.

[bug_girl]

shanek's first post said that roadtoad was using a logical fallacy, argument from authority.
i disagree. i tend not to apply that to people who *are* actual authorities in their fields, discussing their field of expertise--which is what roadtoad is doing.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek

Of course, they'd NEVER set the speed limit in those areas artificially low just to grab more speeders...oh, no, just like they didn't reduce the yellow-light time on the scamera intersections by 1.5 seconds...
I am sure that you will correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall that this was done after the control of the cameras was subcontracted out to a private business. Corporations are always better at keeping us safe, right shanek?

Oh, and bug_girl, I agree. It is not an "argument from authority" fallacy if the person happens to be an authority. It is only a fallacy if we use an "authority" who, while being a smart person, isn't an authority on the topic at all. For example, everytime someone trots out quotes from Einstein or Hawking about the existence/non-existence of God.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by shanek

Yes, and how many times, and how far over the limit he was going. Otherwise, there's absolutely nothing resembling equal protection.

I'm afraid I don't really understand how equal protection qualifies, especially under the law as I understand it in Illinois. As I said, any speed in excess of the speed limit is illegal, therefore, if it can be proved that the car was driving in excess of the speed limit, a ticket can be issued.

All methods of speed detection rely on average speed. The only difference being the length of time the average is taken.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
I hate recaps. I just hate them. I know they're cheaper than new tires, and there's some really good ones out there, (usually Bandad and Goodyear), but, dammit, there are times when a recap is the wrong application!

But those tend to be hotcaps, which aren't much cheaper than new tires. Nevertheless, near ever trucker stop, there's a coldcap dealer. And when you're driving in a state where, for half the year, the blacktop is hot enough to produce mirages, this should tell you something.

As to the incident you've described, I've actually heard guys on the squawker pulling just that sort of crap. I've taken down names and unit numbers and reported it, and the CHP has looked at me as if I've told them that I've just seen Elvis. It pisses me off no end, because it's only a matter of time before your adrenaline rush becomes a heart attack.

It isn't the heart attack I'm worried about; it's the jackknife effect. I remember once when it got cold enough around Gainesville that the roads froze. Now, I can drive on ice better than most people. And there were some fun times when someone tried to pass me and I watched him turn around slowly. But I passed three semis that had just jackknifed at the side of the road.

The only thing I can tell you is if you can get a company name and unit number, report it to the outfit's safety officer. Then hope like hell they take action. They may not, but at least you've done something.

Yeah, but I have to be pretty close to get the unit number, and I don't like to be that close. Besides, being Florida and all and not exactly on the way to anywhere else, we seem to get a lot of contractors hopped up on Bennies and caffeine.

But anyway, back to the subject. If the CHP, as you say it, acts like you are reporting a sighting of Elvis, that doesn't exactly support the idea that somehow a central authority prevents abuses. So I can see how someone might conclude that strict Libertarianism couldn't be that much worse. I don't really hold that view, but I can see it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by bug_girl
shanek's first post said that roadtoad was using a logical fallacy, argument from authority.
i disagree. i tend not to apply that to people who *are* actual authorities in their fields, discussing their field of expertise--which is what roadtoad is doing.

The fallacy is because I can and did produce someone who has just as much authority who disagrees with him.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz

I am sure that you will correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall that this was done after the control of the cameras was subcontracted out to a private business. Corporations are always better at keeping us safe, right shanek?

Not when they're in bed with government they aren't.

[shanek]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
I'm afraid I don't really understand how equal protection qualifies, especially under the law as I understand it in Illinois.

Basically, because a method of "catching speeders" (who may not even be speeders in the first place) is different for truckers than it is for other vehicles. The truckers still have to deal with the radar traps etc., but they have this added measure on top of it that regular drivers don't have to use.

As I said, any speed in excess of the speed limit is illegal, therefore, if it can be proved that the car was driving in excess of the speed limit, a ticket can be issued.

But how does this info prove it? How does it prove how fast they were going, and how much in excess of the speed limit? It doesn't.

All methods of speed detection rely on average speed. The only difference being the length of time the average is taken.

Wrong. Regular speed methods measure the average speed over a distance where the speed limit is constant, and the speed has to be above the posted limit. Neither is the case here.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek

Not when they're in bed with government they aren't.
Oh, that poor corporation! Corrupted by gov't! If only the corporation was left to itws own devices, they NEVER would have shortened the yellow light time! Only under the pressure of government would a corporation dare do anything unethical in the name of profits.

What exactly are you smoking? Corporations are good until they deal with the government?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz

Oh, that poor corporation! Corrupted by gov't! If only the corporation was left to itws own devices, they NEVER would have shortened the yellow light time!

No, because they would never have had the power to do so in the first place. Duh! Think! And anyway, it's still the local government that's in charge of things like yellow light times.

What exactly are you smoking? Corporations are good until they deal with the government?

No, just that Corporations don't have the power to force themselves into your life without the government.

[Reager]

Originally posted by shanek

No, just that Corporations don't have the power to force themselves into your life without the government.

Hmmm, so if (for example) all roads were privatized, the entities owning those roads wouldn't be "forced into my life?" I suppose you're right. After all, I don't *have* to leave my house...ever.

Mike

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by shanek

But how does this info prove it? How does it prove how fast they were going, and how much in excess of the speed limit? It doesn't.

Wrong. Regular speed methods measure the average speed over a distance where the speed limit is constant, and the speed has to be above the posted limit. Neither is the case here.

I can prove that you were driving over the maximum speed limit, provided I know:
1) The distance you travelled.
2) The time it took you.
3) The maximum speed limit of the route you took.

For example, let's say I check in at a weigh station at 10:00 AM, and I log that I stop for lunch at 11:59 AM, and the distance between those two points is 110 miles. I can guarantee you I've driven faster than 55 MPH.

Without all of that information, you can't prove that a truck was speeding. I'll also concede that this may not be the basis on which the govt. issues tickets.

I suspect Roadtoad can confirm or deny that all of these things are in his log.

I also wonder how frequently truckers are ticketed using this method.... It strikes me that it's not very often, unless it's an obvious example like mine. Plus, the likelihood you can maintain any specific speed between two stops on US roads is pretty low. I suspect Roadtoad can confirm all that, too.

As to equal protection, I don't think it violates that ideal if the govt. issues tickets on the basis I've described above.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


No, because they would never have had the power to do so in the first place. Duh! Think! And anyway, it's still the local government that's in charge of things like yellow light times.



No, just that Corporations don't have the power to force themselves into your life without the government.

What would you call a truck driven by someone zonked out on speed slamming into my car because he gets the sack if he doesn't meet their schedules?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
What would you call a truck driven by someone zonked out on speed slamming into my car because he gets the sack if he doesn't meet their schedules? A Republican?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
What would you call a truck driven by someone zonked out on speed slamming into my car because he gets the sack if he doesn't meet their schedules? We can only hope.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
What would you call a truck driven by someone zonked out on speed slamming into my car because he gets the sack if he doesn't meet their schedules? About time?

Ya gotta think about that one.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
What would you call a truck driven by someone zonked out on speed slamming into my car because he gets the sack if he doesn't meet their schedules? An answer to shanek's prayers?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
What would you call a truck driven by someone zonked out on speed slamming into my car because he gets the sack if he doesn't meet their schedules? A message from god that Bush is a good guy after all?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
What would you call a truck driven by someone zonked out on speed slamming into my car because he gets the sack if he doesn't meet their schedules? Poetic Justice?

[Tony]

What would you call a truck driven by someone zonked out on speed slamming into my car because he gets the sack if he doesn't meet their schedules?

Please explain how someone can be "zonked" out on speed. Speed is a stimulant, not a depressive.

[shanek]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
For example, let's say I check in at a weigh station at 10:00 AM, and I log that I stop for lunch at 11:59 AM, and the distance between those two points is 110 miles. I can guarantee you I've driven faster than 55 MPH.

But they assume you've driven faster than 55mph if your average is 50mph. How is that justified?

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by shanek


But they assume you've driven faster than 55mph if your average is 50mph. How is that justified? Not that it matters, but pedantic as the auditor in me: The average is 55, not 50. :p

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by shanek


But they assume you've driven faster than 55mph if your average is 50mph. How is that justified?

And the posted limit was 40 :p

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


What would you call a truck driven by someone zonked out on speed slamming into my car because he gets the sack if he doesn't meet their schedules?

A crack sack smack?

[whitefork]

Originally posted by mfeldman


Hmmm, so if (for example) all roads were privatized, the entities owning those roads wouldn't be "forced into my life?" I suppose you're right. After all, I don't *have* to leave my house...ever.

Mike I'm surprised no one's picked up on this. I'd think that privatization of the highway system would be a natural part of the libertarian program. There's a case to be made the the Interstate highway system did some catastrophic damage to the rail industry.

If I own I95 you can bet that I'd require random drug and alcohol testing and my gang of jack-booted highway patrol thugs would put the smackdown on anybody who even looked like they wanted to drive unsafely.

You don't like it, go drive on somebody else's road. Efya.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Not that it matters, but pedantic as the auditor in me: The average is 55, not 50. :p

Not according to RoadToad:

Something you and I agree on. But the general idea is that if you have a log book that shows you drove too fast, (in other words, if you were averaging over 50 MPH for the hours and mileage you drove), they want to keep you from doing it in the future. I agree with the idea, it's the manner of enforcement that sucks.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by shanek


But they assume you've driven faster than 55mph if your average is 50mph. How is that justified?
Truck drivers need to take a leak every hour or so. The rest isn't hard to figure out.

Edited to add:
And RoadToad said over 50mph.

[shanek]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Truck drivers need to take a leak every hour or so. The rest isn't hard to figure out.

Truckers need to pee 24 times a day??? Man, I never need to pee more than 4-5 times a day. I once made a 7-hour trip to DC only stopping twice to pee and get food. So why is this not hard to figure out? Why are truckers physiologically different from the rest of us?

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by shanek

Not according to RoadToad


I stand corrected. I must have missed this from his post.

The 50MPH criteria is not a very fair way to make the assesment. Unless if there is a clear way to prove the driver has disobeyed the speed limit when he achieves >50MPH, it not a regulation that makes sense.

....and it may very well violate equal protection.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by shanek


Truckers need to pee 24 times a day??? Man, I never need to pee more than 4-5 times a day. I once made a 7-hour trip to DC only stopping twice to pee and get food. So why is this not hard to figure out? Why are truckers physiologically different from the rest of us?
It's the effect of continual vibration on the urethra; causes "loose bladder" syndrome.

Cheap jibes aside, the rest is not hard to figure out. If specious_reasons' averaging 55mph on a 110 mile stretch, then at some point he'll have gone over that speed, because at some points in his journey he must've been under that speed– at the start and end of the journey he had to accelerate and decelerate respectively; he carnt simply press a button and be at 55mph then press another and stop being at 55mph. If specious_reasons drives at 55mph max, then the average is going to be less than 55mph, again because at certain points—accelerating and decelerating—his speed will have been less than 55mph.

[Luke T.]

Excellent topic, Roadtoad. I am wondering how the regulations you cited in your opening post apply to independents. Who performs urinalysis, for example, on them? Who checks their logbooks, or do they even keep logbooks?


Originally posted by shanek
Second is a false dochotomy: you're making out as if they only choices are government regulation and a free-for-all. You're ignoring a third option: industry self-regulation combined with basic law enforcement.


I think Roadtoad's opening post made it pretty clear that even with government oversight, the industry tries to circumvent or outright break the laws.

"Basic law enforcement" is exactly what is going on, sounds like to me. I, for one, am grateful the regs Roadtoad described are in place. I think about this kind of stuff whenever I am on the highway when I see a heavily laden truck with straps and buckles holding down what looks like stuff that could do major damage if they fell off.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by shanek
Not according to RoadToad:
Hehe. You were not quoting him in the post where you stated the 50 mph average, you were quoting specious reasons:

For example, let's say I check in at a weigh station at 10:00 AM, and I log that I stop for lunch at 11:59 AM, and the distance between those two points is 110 miles. I can guarantee you I've driven faster than 55 MPH.55? :p

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by BillyTK


Cheap jibes aside, the rest is not hard to figure out. If specious_reasons' averaging 55mph on a 110 mile stretch, then at some point he'll have gone over that speed, because at some points in his journey he must've been under that speed– at the start and end of the journey he had to accelerate and decelerate respectively; he carnt simply press a button and be at 55mph then press another and stop being at 55mph. If specious_reasons drives at 55mph max, then the average is going to be less than 55mph, again because at certain points—accelerating and decelerating—his speed will have been less than 55mph.

Right, my logic makes perfect sense, but Roadtoad said they ticket if the trucker's average rate exceeds 50 MPH. The proof that the trucker has exceeded the speed limit because they achieve an average rate higher than 50 MPH is a lot harder to prove.

It may be possible, but it seems like a much more unfair regulation.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Bjorn

Hehe. You were not quoting him in the post where you stated the 50 mph average, you were quoting specious reasons:

55? :p


I was trying to mke the example simple, not realistic. :)

I got Shane's meaning and have backpedalled accordingly. :)

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


Right, my logic makes perfect sense, but Roadtoad said they ticket if the trucker's average rate exceeds 50 MPH. The proof that the trucker has exceeded the speed limit because they achieve an average rate higher than 50 MPH is a lot harder to prove.

It may be possible, but it seems like a much more unfair regulation.

Roadtoad initially said:

"If I show that I've driven too fast, (too many miles listed for the hours driving covered), the DOT can issue me a speeding ticket."

In a later post he added:

"But the general idea is that if you have a log book that shows you drove too fast, (in other words, if you were averaging over 50 MPH for the hours and mileage you drove), they want to keep you from doing it in the future."

Perhaps he could clear up whether the 50mph in the second post is a generally applied limit (ie if there is one hour where the average speed is 53mph you have a problem) or is over a longer period which could include things such as mandatory breaks (for example if over the course of ten hours you average 50mph but the regulations require you to take a 30 minute break after every four hours of driving then either you have been speeding - max nine hours driving @ 55mph is 495miles - or have not taken the mandated breaks).

I would not support the issue of a ticket for the former (speeding not proven) but in the latter either the speed limit or the regulations have been broken so ticket is due.

[I have no knowledge of the trucking regs but have a vague recollection that in the UK there are mandated breaks to limit continuous driving time.]

[shanek]

Originally posted by Bjorn
You were not quoting him in the post where you stated the 50 mph average, you were quoting specious reasons:

But we were talking about the policy that RoadToad mentioned. Context, people; context.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


Right, my logic makes perfect sense, but Roadtoad said they ticket if the trucker's average rate exceeds 50 MPH. The proof that the trucker has exceeded the speed limit because they achieve an average rate higher than 50 MPH is a lot harder to prove.

It may be possible, but it seems like a much more unfair regulation.
The 50mph sounds like an average used as a guideline which benefits companies closer to open roads and freeways (the longer the time it takes to get to a main road means the more likely a 50mph average indicates breaking the speed limit).

Perhaps your government should look at tachographs (http://www.ltsgroup.co.uk/tachographs.htm) instead, which keeps a record of actual speed.

[odorousrex]

Off-topic (sorta) but I have a newfound appreciation for truckers.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


The fallacy is because I can and did produce someone who has just as much authority who disagrees with him.

The issue is not that all truckers are dangerous drivers, or that all trucking companies coerce their drivers to use unsafe practices. The arguement is that they are out there and need to be regulated because of it.

[Roadtoad]

First, forgive me. I'm home sick. I don't know what I've got, but it's knocked the hell out of me.

50 MPH is generally accepted as the safe mean. It allows me time for gearing up, (driving through a city, or dealing with traffic slowdowns), "checking the tires," and other things. Even if you're just running across open desert, using cruise control, you're probably going to slow down at least once or twice. It also only applies if you're running over a certain length of time.

BUT, also keep in mind, that's primarily here in California. We've got split limits, here. In much of the rest of the country, everyone, trucks included, generally runs 65. (Even if the Feds say you can't do more than 55 in a commercial vehicle.)

As to another point mentioned, I am NOT in favor of the extensive regulations that govern my profession. In fact, I would suggest that someone go into a scale house, drop a copy of the FMCSA regs on the desk, and ask someone to explain it to them. There's no way in hell you'll get the same answer to any question twice. I've had inspectors open their copies, shrug their shoulders, and (thankfully, usually) give me the benefit of the doubt and let me roll.

I'd also point out that not too long ago, a couple of inspectors at the Cordelia Truck Inspection Facility on Interstate 80 found themselves in very deep trouble. They would take a wrench and back off the brakes on the trucks they were supposedly inspecting. (Just so you know: brake violations are among the most common inspection faults, and the fines can be steep.) Needless to say, there were plenty of trucks sitting idle in the parking lot for a while. Both were fined heavily for their actions, though I don't know if they were fired for what they did. (I could wish.)

All I'm saying is that if we don't want the heavy regs we've got to deal with, we need to accept our responsibilities to the general public. Today, I'm home not only because I'm sick, but because I'm in violation on my logbook. I am one and one half hour over my legal working limit. The only reason I worked at all today is because yesterday, I could claim some wiggle room due to adverse weather, (heavy fog), and even then, I'm still over on my hours on duty. I'm worked due to force dispatch. If I get stopped, I'm going to be put out of service for at least the next 10-36 hours, depending on what the inspector thinks.

The reality is, though, I should have been able to tell our dispatcher, "Look, I'm in no condition to drive. That's it." End of story. I go back to bed, I get better, I get the violation off my log, and we're all in good shape.

That's not what happened. If I get stopped, I'll be sent home to bed, and my boss will get a hefty fine.

If I were an independent, I could do just what I said I could. I could call it a day, tell my broker to go to hell, no load is worth anyone's life, and if they tried to take it out on me, I'd just find another broker. (Of course, in that case, piss tests are handled by the DOT, and they call you up at odd hours, asking, "Are you doing anything right this minute? We've got a little plastic cup with your name on it." My father-in-law had to do that a few times. Again, that's what happened locally. Your situation could vary.)

This reminds me of another point: My father-in-law was buying a Freightliner cabover, and he decided to check it out before he took delivery. He rode with a young guy who spent nearly seven hours on the road, his eyes never scanning the dash, never leaving the road, and at no point did he ever slow down or stop.

My father-in-law told the kid, "Son, you need to let me drive. I'm buying this rig, and I need to know how it drives."

The kid simply glared at my father-in-law. No answer, no nothing.

He finally pulled over and let Bill (f-i-l) drive it from around Bakersfield to Tempe, AZ, though he spent the entire time staring at him. Bill discovered the kid had left his left foot on the clutch pedal the entire time, just resting on it. The clutch was smoked.

By the time they made it back to NorCal, Bill decided he liked the truck okay, but he told the owner, "You need to either get that kid tested, or get rid of him. There's something very wrong."

There was. Crank will do that to you.

On the other hand, I work with a short little squirt of a driver named Donna. She's a hoot. Great driver, not long out of school, and yet, she's got a pro's attitude. Only problem is, she's run afoul of a little brown nosing f*** we work with, who for a while, kept reporting her, and insisting she was on something. Considering he had no proof, and no reason to make such an accusation, I thought it was a creepy, crass, and evil thing to do to another driver. (By the way, after four piss tests in the course of one week, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, she was still clean. The only reason she didn't get tested on Friday was because she was out of hours, and spent the day at home.)

In other words, piss tests can be a double edged sword. Just so you know.

One last thing, then I'm back to bed: Shanek said:

The fallacy is because I can and did produce someone who has just as much authority who disagrees with him.

I don't know what expertise the individual in question has. He might have more, he might have less, but what comes across is not so much that as it is that it's someone whose facts he likes, and so, that's the choice he's made. I'd say, maybe if we knew more of the facts from his source, we might find there's more common ground than Shanek wants to realize.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The issue is not that all truckers are dangerous drivers, or that all trucking companies coerce their drivers to use unsafe practices. The arguement is that they are out there and need to be regulated because of it.

I disagree. The issue from my perspective is that there's enough of us out there who don't give a rat's @$$ that we need regulation.

[phildonnia]

The law (even for libertarians) has always recognized "injunctive relief"; the idea that you can use the law to prevent someone from doing something before they've actually done it.

The test is usually whether a judgement would be worthless _after_ you had done it.

For example, if you kill someone with your truck, they can't really take it out of your a$$ to any meaningful degree afterwards, so its totally reasonable to try to prevent you from doing it in the first place.

Laws requiring you to fill out log books, etc., have merely transferred this power from the judicial channels to the legislative.

Even though I would call myself a libertarian, I'd say that "personal responsibility" may be enforced in those limited cases where you can screw up beyond your ability to repair.

Thus, I'm in favor of requiring drivers to carry insurance, outlawing DUI, and so on.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
All I'm saying is that if we don't want the heavy regs we've got to deal with, we need to accept our responsibilities to the general public.

This I agree with 100%. The problem is, regulation takes away responsibility rather than promoting it.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


This I agree with 100%. The problem is, regulation takes away responsibility rather than promoting it.

Are you saying that if the trucking industry is not regulated, the problems will go away?

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by shanek


This I agree with 100%. The problem is, regulation takes away responsibility rather than promoting it.

Something we DO agree on.

Much of the time, regulation, like cliches and the like, take away thought, rather than promote it. It becomes a substitute for careful consideration of the facts.

Interesting thing I read not too long ago, based on a true story: A driver got out on the road in the Northern midwest in the middle of winter. He was driving at around 50 MPH, mainly because of high wind advisories, and because of the possibility of icy roads. At one point, he hit black ice, and due to the high winds, the trailer jackknifed.

Thankfully, no one was hurt, but the safety officers in the company tried to pin the blame on the driver. They said that under the conditions I just described, he could have pulled into the left lane of the four-lane highway he was on, since traffic was extremely light, and possibly avoided the jackknife.

Not so, said the DOT. According to their findings, the driver was doing everything right, but because the black ice ran in a sheet completely across the road, there was no fault to be found. Like they say, sh** happens.

Another time, a buddy of mine was pulling a WABO trailer, (used for picking up kitchen grease), when he was coming to a "T" intersection. He was on the main road, and had the right of way, while the other street fed into the main drag.

As it happened, he got T-boned by a car. Now, keep this in mind as you consider the rest of this:

(1.) The woman behind the wheel of the car was drunk. (2.0 BAC)

(2.) She was driving on a revoked (not suspended) license. (Past DUIs)

(3.) She was wanted for a couple of bench warrants. (See above.)

(4.) She was already on parole. (See above.)

(5.) She ran the stop sign at the intersection.

(6.) She was driving at close to 60 MPH in the light commercial/residential area where she hit my buddy.

So take a wild guess who they tried to pin the blame for the accident on: MY FRIEND!

Now, why would the California DMV do something so moronic? Well, after all, they reasoned, my friend had the CDL, so naturally, he should have seen the car coming to the stop sign at a high rate of speed and realized that it wasn't going to stop. (Did I forget to mention that it was the middle of the night, and that there were blind spots near the back of the supermarket where he was pulling in? Did I also forget to mention that she had the lights OFF?)

Even the CHP officers who were investigating this one were standing around shaking their heads in disbelief. This was definitely one for the books.

It took my friend a couple of hundred dollars to call an attorney and get it cleared up.

See what we're up against?

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Are you saying that if the trucking industry is not regulated, the problems will go away?

Good God, I HOPE that's not what he's saying.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Are you saying that if the trucking industry is not regulated, the problems will go away?

No; I'm saying that, sans regulations, people would be forced to be responsible for their actions. That's how it has always worked. For an example, look back at the Montana data back when they had no speed limits on their interstates and rural highways, and people actually drove more safely as a result.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


No; I'm saying that, sans regulations, people would be forced to be responsible for their actions. That's how it has always worked. For an example, look back at the Montana data back when they had no speed limits on their interstates and rural highways, and people actually drove more safely as a result.

So, are you saying the trucking industry should not be regulated.

[davefoc]

I don't see this situation as a libertarian issue.

The libertarian position would be that the roads should be privately owned.

Once they are not, the government is operating the roads and just like the operator of any enterprise the government must regulate the use of that enterprise.

The discussion here isn't about whether the government should issue regulations concerning the road system it operates, it is rather about which regulations are beneficial and which aren't. It would be irresponisble of the government to operate an enterprise without appropriate rules just as it would be inappropriate for a private owner of an enterprise to operate it without appropriate rules.

For instance, overloaded trucks can severly damage roads. Whether the operator of the road system is private or government rules are required to prevent people from operating overloaded trucks on those roads.

Perhaps by nature, libertarians are going to argue for less rules than others, but I don't believe that favoring the existence of rules by the government for the use of a government owned road system is a non-libertarian view.

warning: A digression follows to an analogy that might be a little off point to some people.

In the eighties, under Reagan, there was a large number of banks that went bankrupt leaving the government holding the bag for massive deposit insurance payouts.

The cause of that was what was called banking "deregulation". But this was not banking "deregulation" in the libertarian sense. In this case the government was the operator of a deposit insurance business and this "deregulation" was actually just a case of the government running its deposit insurance business in an incredibly irresponsible way by rescinding appropriate regulations that protected its deposit insurance business. A libertarian might argue that federal deposit insurance is a bad idea, but once the government is in the deposit insurance business a libertarian wouldn't necessarily argue that the government should run that business irresponsibly by abandoning appropriate regulation.

It seems to me that the situation with the roads is exactly the same. Shanek can make arguments for less regulation, as he often does, but I don't think Shanek is necessarily making a libertarian argument with that. I think he is just arguing for less or different regulation of a government business.

[whitefork]

So back to the privatization of the highways. If the trucking industry owned the highways, do you suppose that the regulations governing their use would be of more, less, or about the same stringency as they are today? Would that lead to more or less competition and free trade on the highways, and what sort of consequences for the industry and economy as a whole? Would this address any of Roadtoad's rather disturbing complaints about regulation and abuse?

Speculate for me here.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
So, are you saying the trucking industry should not be regulated.

Not by the government, no. The government should protect other drivers from the truckers who are causing problems and leave the others alone. The industry should self-regulate.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


Not by the government, no. The government should protect other drivers from the truckers who are causing problems and leave the others alone. The industry should self-regulate.

So, you are saying the government needs to be involved in regulating the trucking industry.

[Roadtoad]

Let me add a bit more to this already tangled argument:

Today, I got looped into making a Reno run for a driver who flaked out on us. I open the door to the truck, and what do I find on the floorboards? What else: a roachclip.

Sh**.

I turned it in to our dispatcher, but I also wound up making a VERY long, roundabout route, because, frankly, there was no way in hell I'd go anywhere near a scale in a truck that might have contraband on board.

Anyone care to tell me that I should not have reported this? Or that there's no point to regulation?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Let me add a bit more to this already tangled argument:

Today, I got looped into making a Reno run for a driver who flaked out on us. I open the door to the truck, and what do I find on the floorboards? What else: a roachclip.

Sh**.

I turned it in to our dispatcher, but I also wound up making a VERY long, roundabout route, because, frankly, there was no way in hell I'd go anywhere near a scale in a truck that might have contraband on board.

Anyone care to tell me that I should not have reported this? Or that there's no point to regulation?

I don't think you want a fully loaded truck smashing into you any more than anyone else here.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

First is the argument from authority. Although this may not have been your intention, there is the element in your post of speaking with a certain authority; i.e., you're a truck driver, so your opinion is an informed one. Well, by brother-in-law is a truck driver, and while he's not a Libertarian, I can tell you that he and I have discussed these issues on many occasions and he does NOT agree with you here.


For the umpteenth time shanek, there is nothing inherently wrong of fallacious by making an argument from authority! Do you really think people with an expert knowledge in a field or discipline are NOT a valid resource for information regarding that field or discipline?

How the hell are we supposed to ever learn anything if not from others with more experience then us?

Please, stop making yourself look like a fool and read up on the difference between a valid and invalid appeal to authority. Especially considering how often (like in the quote above) you make an invalid one!

The following standards are widely accepted:

1. The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question

I've read RoadToad's posts for awhile and it's clear he has much experience being a truck driver. He is also old enough that his experience can be considered at a senior level.

We have no evidence either you or your brother-in-law have any expertise on the matter, at all.

2. The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.

Again, RoadToad is truck driver, so no problem here. Heck, even his nickname is a driving reference!

I have no idea what your BIL does.

3. There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.

Considering that the rules and regulations are imposed by other experts in transportation, both in the public and private sector, we can conclude there is a substantial amount of agreement regarding trucking regulation.

You have offered no evidence to the contrary, other than an invalid appeal to authority regarding your supposed BIL, so you lose here as well.

4. The person in question is not significantly biased.

RoadToad has shown to have moderate political beliefs, with a tendency towards the conservative.

We have no idea of your BIL's (if he exists at all) biases and are well aware of yours, so no love for you here either.

5. The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.

Trucking is a legitimate discipline.

6. The authority in question must be identified.

Here's the gotcha, RoadToad is identifiable, at least as himself on this forum.

Your BIL is not (and could be made up or have a totally different opinions, for all we know), so your entire appeal to authority falls apart on this point.

Not so difficult, really.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Let me add a bit more to this already tangled argument:

Today, I got looped into making a Reno run for a driver who flaked out on us. I open the door to the truck, and what do I find on the floorboards? What else: a roachclip.

Sh**.

I turned it in to our dispatcher, but I also wound up making a VERY long, roundabout route, because, frankly, there was no way in hell I'd go anywhere near a scale in a truck that might have contraband on board.

Anyone care to tell me that I should not have reported this? Or that there's no point to regulation?

I once got pulled for having a "roach clip." They even took me downtown, although they didn't arrest me. Fortunately, there was an officer there at the station who knew that a) Radio Shack does not sell drug paraphernalia and b) they're exactly the same as alligator clips, used in electronic wiring to make temporary connections.

So, unless you had other evidence, I'd say this is an overreaction.

(Oh, and by the way, all of the available evidence shows that, if anything, being under the influence of marijuana makes drivers drive more salely. So, unless you're proud of railroading a possibly innocent man AND fostering government misinformation...)

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
For the umpteenth time shanek, there is nothing inherently wrong of fallacious by making an argument from authority! Do you really think people with an expert knowledge in a field or discipline are NOT a valid resource for information regarding that field or discipline?

As I have said before, it is a fallacy, because I can point to someone with just as much authority as RoadToad who disagrees with him. The argument must fall to the evidence, not to who makes the argument.

How the hell are we supposed to ever learn anything if not from others with more experience then us?

So, you just blindly accepted everything your teachers told you? Your parents? Your bosses? You did ABSOLUTELY NO independent corroboration of the things they told you to find out if they were actually true or not? This explains a lot...

No, one thing you've made totally clear is that you only like argument from authority when the authority says WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE. When they don't, you insult and belittle the authority, citing bias and all sorts of other ad hominems, while REFUSING to consider the data presented.

You use it AS A CRUTCH, nothing more, and it's only valid WHEN IT'S CONVENIENT FOR YOU.

[DavidJames]

all of the available evidence shows that, if anything, being under the influence of marijuana makes drivers drive more salely Source(s) of all the evidence?

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by shanek


I once got pulled for having a "roach clip." They even took me downtown, although they didn't arrest me. Fortunately, there was an officer there at the station who knew that a) Radio Shack does not sell drug paraphernalia and b) they're exactly the same as alligator clips, used in electronic wiring to make temporary connections.

So, unless you had other evidence, I'd say this is an overreaction.

(Oh, and by the way, all of the available evidence shows that, if anything, being under the influence of marijuana makes drivers drive more salely. So, unless you're proud of railroading a possibly innocent man AND fostering government misinformation...)

WHAT!?!?!?!?

WHERE IN THE HELL DID YOU EVER GET THAT IDEA???

Got news for you, Dude. I've seen guys trying to drive who were stoned. (Even tried it a few times when I was a hell of a lot younger.) There is NO WAY IN HELL that anyone driving under the influence of marijuana is a safer driver. None. I know this from personal experience, and I see the end result time and again on the road. (Yeah, I read about how "safe" stoned drivers are in the Sacramento Bee. Care to guess about the number of fatalities are linked to drivers who are stoned?)

So, are you suggesting I should now take a few hits before I make my runs?

BTW: ran a heavy one today. Permit load. Oversized and overweight. Now, let's see... Do you REALLY want to be right in front of me if I'm running loaded in BOTH senses of the word and we're heading up to a brake check?

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Perhaps this can help us out to determine who or who is not a legitimate authority:

Judging authority (http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-01/judging-authority.html)

[Roadtoad]

Okay, let me add one more thing, before I forget this:

I had a friend who had been a carpenter. Fell several stories because his safety gear failed, and he was impaled on rebar that wasn't properly covered. Frankly, he was lucky to be alive, and even luckier to be able to walk.

Unfortunately, he was in extreme pain, and it was constant. So, yes, he wound up using medicinal marijuana, (before it was legal, mind you), and I had no problem with that. At least he was able to have something resembling a life, even if he couldn't work again.

Thing is, he didn't drive while stoned. "You just grin and bear it if you have to go anywhere," he told me. Maybe that's true, maybe he was playing me, but it made sense to me. Frankly, if that's the only thing that's going to stop your pain, and make your life liveable, I say more power to you, and if necessary, I'll chip in for a lid for you.

But, when you are driving limit loads, or even if you're running a deadhead, dammit, you cannot, you should not, you will not, operate that commercial vehicle unless your head is clear. There is far too much danger already on the road, and you cannot risk being out of control. You are a danger to everyone on the road from the moment you are not in complete control of your vehicle and your load, until the moment you regain that control!

Frankly, Shanek, I'm surprised your brother-in-law hasn't made THAT clear to you, and done so forcefully.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

As I have said before, it is a fallacy, because I can point to someone with just as much authority as RoadToad who disagrees with him. The argument must fall to the evidence, not to who makes the argument.


I know you've said it before and you were wrong then as well.

In this case, you are wrong because you have not identified your source. We have no idea if you have a brother in law at all, let alone what his opinions on trucking regulation are. By all means, as RT suggested, get him on the board so he can present his opinion.

I could just as easily claim I have a dozen trucker brother-in-law's, all of whom agree with RoadToad, rendering your claim invalid. But I won't, as that would be an invalid appeal to authority and a logical fallacy!

Understand yet?

So, you just blindly accepted everything your teachers told you? Your parents? Your bosses? You did ABSOLUTELY NO independent corroboration of the things they told you to find out if they were actually true or not? This explains a lot...


No, of course not. An appeal to authority is just ONE part of presenting information in a debate. It's not a particularly strong one either, i.e. if RT just said "I'm a trucker and self-regulation in my industry doesn't work" that would not be very compelling. But he did not, he made a very detailed and eloquent argument, which is made all the more strong that he has REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE to back it up!

No, one thing you've made totally clear is that you only like argument from authority when the authority says WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE. When they don't, you insult and belittle the authority, citing bias and all sorts of other ad hominems, while REFUSING to consider the data presented.


Uh, Shane, you've provided nothing to refute RoadToad's initial posts other than an invalid appeal to authority and more of your usual groundless assertions.

Why don't you provide some good, solid evidence that the trucking industry was as safe or safer prior to the current regulations? Perhaps you can't, because it wasn't?

You use it AS A CRUTCH, nothing more, and it's only valid WHEN IT'S CONVENIENT FOR YOU.

Thats a perfect description of your numerous invalid appeals to authority!

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by shanek



So, you just blindly accepted everything your teachers told you? Your parents? Your bosses? You did ABSOLUTELY NO independent corroboration of the things they told you to find out if they were actually true or not? This explains a lot...



I can just imagine a wee shanek :) in a conversation with a friend

L'il Cathy: "I don't play in traffic because my mommy told me not too."

Wee shanek: "My parents told me not to play in traffic: I decided I should test the validity of this statement. I yelled at my parents, "That argument is from authority, and you know it!" Over and over again, I went out into a busy street. One trip to the casualty ward; two; three! I documented the results while I recuped in hospital eating pleasant yellow jell-o. Yep, independant corroboration is my passion."

[Roadtoad]

Thanks for the link, PPG. Let me offer this, based on the questions listed:

1. Most important, does the authority use the skills of critical thinking and evidential reasoning listed in tables 1 and 2? If not, question him using those very skills yourself, and don't believe him until he produces the evidence required.

Check my past posts. While I have made errors, I have also admitted to them, and tried to make corrections.

2. Does the authority have proper credentials? Considerable study or experience in a subject along with the appropriate learning tools are required to become an expert in any field. Does the authority have degrees from a recognized college or university that has the faculty, libraries, and other facilities for proper education in the subject? Has the authority worked in the field for some time for an organization that is known for and equipped for competent dealings in the field?

I have logbooks which will verify that I have driven over one million commercial miles, and can provide evidence that I hold presently the following license and endorsements:

A.) California Commerical Driver's License, Class A
B.) Hazardous Material Endorsement.
C.) Tank Endorsement.
D.) Doubles/Triples Endorsement.

I can also provide documentation which shows that I've driven with the following equipment: Flatbed, dry van, reefer, end dump, lowboy, and doubles (with dolly).

Further, I have earned three safe driver awards over the years, my most recent being just last year from TLC.

3. Does the authority have proper affiliations? Is she identified closely with a reliable organization, such as a university, museum, government agency, hospital, or corporation that practices the subject? If not, ask how she makes a living.

Would you prefer copies of my W2s, or pay stubs? Maybe my tax returns? I'm easy. I can also see if I can post a photo of me by my truck.

4. Does that organization have a stake in the claims made by the claimant? Be suspicious of anyone making claims that support the position or product of their own organization. Seek independent evidence that the claim is correct. This may be hard to do for even relatively common decisions we face, but in its essence, this is simply "comparative shopping." A good comparative shopper is interested not merely in relative costs, but also in the range of products or services available, the quality of the products or magnitude of the services, warranties, and service contracts. Does the expert provide this information, or does he pressure you to decide before you are ready? Be careful of those who will not allow you the time for a carefully reasoned decision.

I would suggest you check out some of the driver's links at Every Truck Job (http://www.everytruckjob.com) and perhaps at Bubba Junk. (http://www.bubbajunk.com) I can and will post others if required.

5. Has the authority subjected his or her work to peer review? In other words, have other experts evaluated the work so that some independent assessment has been made positively? If not, seek that evaluation yourself or find another authority. In our day-to-day dealings, such information is available on the Internet, Better Business Bureaus, and consumer affairs magazines and agencies.

As I said, I've earned three safe driver's awards over the years. If you want citation, I can post a copy of the cert I earned from TLC. It may take some time, but I can do it.

I've also NEVER failed a drug test. I can also make available my DAC report.


6. Is the authority a demonstrated expert in the relevant field? Other trustworthy people should rely on this person's expertise. Do other experts cite their conclusions? If not, find another authority who others do rely on. Do people you know who have used this person's expertise recommend him?

Tricky, but doable. I have my resume out, and I'm getting contacts. I have also been a driver trainer.

7. Does the authority present arguments without undue call on unsupported or untenable claims? Does the authority present sufficient evidence to evaluate? If not, find an authority that can provide evidence supporting the claims.

See 1. above.

8. Does the authority have a past record of making rational claims backed by evidence or not? Check the usual business sources and your friends. See 1. above.

I think I can safely claim that when it comes to trucking, I'm an authority. I might have trouble with, say, rocket science, but I know what the hell happens in the cab of an 18 wheeler.

[shanek]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
L'il Cathy: "I don't play in traffic because my mommy told me not too."

Wee shanek: "My parents told me not to play in traffic: I decided I should test the validity of this statement. I yelled at my parents, "That argument is from authority, and you know it!" Over and over again, I went out into a busy street. One trip to the casualty ward; two; three! I documented the results while I recuped in hospital eating pleasant yellow jell-o. Yep, independant corroboration is my passion."

:rolleyes:

This should go to show the total and pathetic lack of thought in this. One needs hardly be sent to the intensive care ward to realize objectively that playing in traffic is a bad idea.

Besides, we're talking about adults here, not children, although from the behavior of some of the people here you might easily think otherwise...

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
In this case, you are wrong because you have not identified your source. We have no idea if you have a brother in law at all, let alone what his opinions on trucking regulation are.

:rolleyes:

For that matter, we don't KNOW that Roadtoad's a trucker, either, now, do we?

But he did not, he made a very detailed and eloquent argument,

Yes, he did, and the fact that I responded to it in detail shows that I acknowledged this. The authority thing was just a very small part of my rebuttal, once which you'll notice I downplayed, just to point out the fact that there is hardly a consensus among truckers on this issue.

But, I guess any chance you can take to slam me personally trumps any reasonable examination of anything I have actually SAID...

Uh, Shane, you've provided nothing to refute RoadToad's initial posts other than an invalid appeal to authority and more of your usual groundless assertions.

Unless, of course, you could over 95% of what I've written here... :rolleyes: YOU'RE the one focusing on the authority issue.

Thats a perfect description of your numerous invalid appeals to authority!

I challenge you to provide even ONE instance of me appealing to authority. And don't pull the dishonest crap like you did last time and claim me simply citing a source was "appeal to authority." ONE example.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by shanek


:rolleyes:

This should go to show the total and pathetic lack of thought in this. One needs hardly be sent to the intensive care ward to realize objectively that playing in traffic is a bad idea.

Besides, we're talking about adults here, not children, although from the behavior of some of the people here you might easily think otherwise...

Oh, Geez, Shane, IT WAS A JOKE!!!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Oh, Geez, Shane, IT WAS A JOKE!!!

It was a personal slam. And I'm suck and f*cking tired of people using this excuse whenever I get slammed, yet every single time I try to make a joke in PCE&H, even at the expense of absolutely no one, I get piled on. F*CKING SICK OF IT! People take their potshots at me all the time. So FORGIVE ME if I defend myself from them.

[DanishDynamite]

shanek:It was a personal slam. And I'm suck and f*cking tired of people using this excuse whenever I get slammed, yet every single time I try to make a joke in PCE&H, even at the expense of absolutely no one, I get piled on. F*CKING SICK OF IT! People take their potshots at me all the time. So FORGIVE ME if I defend myself from them. You've been sick and f*cking tired for close to a year now, shanek. Perhaps you should take a break from this board. I worry about your health.

[shanek]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
shanek:You've been sick and f*cking tired for close to a year now, shanek. Perhaps you should take a break from this board. I worry about your health.

It wouldn't be a problem if certain people would stop being so f*cking immature.

Someone PMed me and told me that you were claiming I put you on ignore because I can't handle you asking tough questions, which if you said it would be a complete lie. Did you?

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by shanek


It was a personal slam.


Is this a fact or wishful thinking? mind reading? No need to put on my tin-foil cap, as there is no danger of you determining my motives.




Originally posted by shanek

...And I'm suck and f*cking tired...

...if certain people would stop being so f*cking immature..

temper temper


I apologise for whatever offense I have caused. As I am not a mindreader, I had no idea you were so thin-skinned today and that so many posters had irked you in such a short time.

I also apologise for my thinking skills and for my maturity level not being up to your required standards.




Originally posted by shanek

...F*CKING SICK OF IT! People take their potshots at me all the time.


I am not part of this perceived collective conspiracy, which apparantly is ongoing and so focused on irking you.


If this post inadvertantly causes offense I apologise.

[shanek]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
I apologise for whatever offense I have caused. As I am not a mindreader, I had no idea you were so thin-skinned today and that so many posters had irked you in such a short time.

Well, I accept your apology...but mine was not a kneejerk reaction. I read it several times, and it seemed to be nothing more than an immature taunt. How is portraying someone's argument in such a ridiculous and demeaning light not offensive?

[DanishDynamite]

shanek:It wouldn't be a problem if certain people would stop being so f*cking immature.Which means it is a problem, since this will never happen, as your posts exemplify.
Someone PMed me and told me that you were claiming I put you on ignore because I can't handle you asking tough questions, which if you said it would be a complete lie. Did you? Someone PMed you? You're as always a riot, shanek. Are you claiming that this PM was the first time you were made aware of my post?

If this is your immature claim then I can only conclude that you are a liar.

Just to refresh everyone's memory, in the thread "Private Sector Fails, Government Rescues Economy" I posted the following at 10:39 my time:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jon_in_london: So government workers do no work?

shanek: The work they do creates no wealth.


Thanz:You simply cannot apply this to all government workers. What about the workers who actually do provide a service? Garbage collectors? Teachers? The city workers who plow the streets and fix potholes? Firefighters? Police?

shanek:If they provide a service, they could easily be handled via service fees or through the private sector. Again, I must point out that my garbage collector is a completely private company.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, shanek, can we agree that your response to Jon_in_London was too broad? I.e some government workers, those who provide a service, actually do create wealth? Please answer yes or no.

shanek subsequently replied to a post before mine and to one 17 minutes older than mine, but didn't respond to my post, which made me make the following post:
*Sigh*

Once again I'm put on Ignore by yet another forum member who can't handle tough questions. And shanek has the wrong sex for me to start a bit of charm lobbying.

Oh well.
shanek subsequently responded to other posts made after this post.

You are a pathetic immature liar, shanek. No other conclusion is possible. And no other conclusion has been possible for quite a while, which is why I have generaly stopped responding to your posts. You are a believer, shanek, and while debating believers can provide entertainment for a while, it is almost always a hopeless cause to actually make them face the chinks in their dogma.

[shanek]

Oh, I see, I miss ONE post that you make and automatically I'm an immature little liar who puts people on ignore because they ask tough questions? Your question was very reasonable, and had I seen the post I would have answered it, but I missed it. Too bad.

But what you neglected to mention to people is that there is a reply of mine two posts below yours. And as we all know, at least any of us who makes more than one reply in a thread at a time, the way this forum works means that you sometimes miss a post when you reply unless you remember to scroll back up after making it, so it happens quite often in cases like that that posts get missed. Interesting that you didn't mention that little tidbit to people. Hmmmm....

That's happened several times; and sometimes either I see someone else reply and I piggyback on that, or someone points out that I missed the post and I go back and get it. But you didn't even bother to point that out to me. You just automatically started telling people that I put you on ignore because you asked "tough questions."

You've made it clear with this last post of yours that you just want to slam me and throw all of the ad hominems at me that you can. So, why should I take seriously ANYTHING you say anymore, and respond to ANY points that you make, no matter how reasonable they seem to be? You're only interested in personally slamming me and poisoning the well. You have done nothing other than this in any thread I have participated in.

You are a WORTHLESS POSTER, and you are NO SKEPTIC.

[Roadtoad]

I'm beginning to wonder if Shanek is actually a sock puppet for Lord Kenneth/Dark Cobra.

Anyhoo...

Perhaps, (and I throw this out for consideration of ALL, Danish Dynamite included/especially, and perhaps Tricky, too, if he's had a chance to follow this), could it be said that Libertarianism is based upon the same Utopian idealism that doomed Socialism/Communism? Or is there another dynamic at work in this. Any opinions, gang?

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Perhaps, (and I throw this out for consideration of ALL, Danish Dynamite included/especially, and perhaps Tricky, too, if he's had a chance to follow this), could it be said that Libertarianism is based upon the same Utopian idealism that doomed Socialism/Communism? Or is there another dynamic at work in this. Any opinions, gang?
It seems to me that what is dooming Libertarianism is that it is far too rigid and inflexible. What Harry Browne says is the law, no debates thank you.

Why are there no differences of opinion within the Libertarian Party? Does every single one of them actually believe that all roads should be private? That public schools should be abolished? These are lunatic fringe positions, and no one within the party disagrees. It's astonishing.

[shanek]

Originally posted by WildCat
Why are there no differences of opinion within the Libertarian Party?

I have no clue which Libertarian Party you're talking about; it's definitely not the one I belong to. We have differences of opinion, and debates and discussions that make this place look tame.

These are lunatic fringe positions, and no one within the party disagrees. It's astonishing.

No, what's astonishing is how many people feel they have to resort to ad hominem attacks.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by shanek


I have no clue which Libertarian Party you're talking about; it's definitely not the one I belong to. We have differences of opinion, and debates and discussions that make this place look tame.



No, what's astonishing is how many people feel they have to resort to ad hominem attacks.
Where is the ad hominem attack? :confused:

And I don't see any disagreements w/ Harry Browne by the Libs I've seen, granted I haven't looked very hard.

[shanek]

Originally posted by WildCat

Where is the ad hominem attack? :confused:

"Lunatic fringe" isn't an ad hominem?

And I don't see any disagreements w/ Harry Browne by the Libs I've seen, granted I haven't looked very hard.

Harry Browne had to run as an independent in Arizona because an offshoot of the LP in Arizona formed their own party with the same name and got their candidate (SF writer L. Neil Smith) on the ballot as a Libertarian, convincing the Arizona BoE that they were the real LP, even though the other one (the one that nominated Browne) was the one recognized by the LNC. A court case later confirmed that the one that nominated Browne should have been the ones to nominate the candidate, but that wasn't until after the election.

At any rate, that's just one example, albeit the biggest. There are a LOT of Libertarians who have problems with Harry Browne. I'm not one of them, but there you are.

Your perception DOES NOT match reality.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Roadtoad

Perhaps, (and I throw this out for consideration of ALL, Danish Dynamite included/especially, and perhaps Tricky, too, if he's had a chance to follow this), could it be said that Libertarianism is based upon the same Utopian idealism that doomed Socialism/Communism? Or is there another dynamic at work in this. Any opinions, gang?

Mr. Toad,

You might want to read the following web site for a good collection of crtiques of Libertarianism.

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html

In my opinion, I think to some extent their core philosophy is based on the similiar mythological idealism that doomed communism (I don't consider socialism doomed, as there are plenty of successful social democracies!). This being that humans will respect the rights of others in the absence of coercion. As you so eloquently demonstrated, anyone with any amount of real-world experience can see that even WITH coercion many individuals will still misbehave. The idea that these people will suddenly STOP doing this when the element of coercion is removed, is of course, insane.

The Libertarians also try and sugar coat many crimes, like securities fraud, by claiming no harm is being done. So deregulating the securities market will not hurt anyone as hey, no crime was being done in the first place! Of course, by the same logic, driving while intoxicated should be legal, as no one is hurt either (until they cause an accident, of course).

Its the above type of rationale that leads me to think many Libertarians are little more than white-collar criminals looking to get the big evil gubbmint of off their back. The remainder are mostly selfish rich folks that resent the fact that a sizeable chunk of their income should go to their country against their will (which, of course, made them rich in the first place).

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
You might want to read the following web site for a good collection of crtiques of Libertarianism.

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html

You might also want to check the threads in this forum wher we discuss and debunked Huben's claims.

This being that humans will respect the rights of others in the absence of coercion.

This is not a claim of Libertarianism. The claim is that force should ONLY be used to prevent this coercion, not that this coercion would not happen. Hence the noninitiation of force principle. You've been told that several times, Yeti.

The idea that these people will suddenly STOP doing this when the element of coercion is removed, is of course, insane.

Of course it is. Fortunately, Libertarians don't believe that.

The Libertarians also try and sugar coat many crimes, like securities fraud, by claiming no harm is being done.

That's not securities fraud, but insider trading. I've pointed out several times, to you and to others, that this does NOT count times when actual fraud is being committed. And yet, here you are, repeating the strawman yet again.

Of course, by the same logic, driving while intoxicated should be legal,

Again, NOT a Libertarian stance, and the legitimacy of DUI laws has been supported many, many times by me.

Its the above type of rationale that leads me to think many Libertarians are little more than white-collar criminals looking to get the big evil gubbmint of off their back.

Well, considering that that rationale is NOT what Libertarianism is all about, it appears to be merely your own bias that leads you to this.

The remainder are mostly selfish rich folks that resent the fact that a sizeable chunk of their income should go to their country against their will (which, of course, made them rich in the first place).

How did their country, and not their own hard work and dedication, make them rich?

[whitefork]

Would privatization of the highway system resolve the issues that Roadtoad raised in the first post of this thread?

[Luke T.]

So I'm doing a preventive maintenance spot check one day on a young sailor. The task was a simple one. Lubricate the threads on a valve wheel stem with some grease. Halfway through the spot check, the young sailor stops and asks me why the hell he has to be wearing heavy duty rubber gloves and safety glasses for such a simple task. I had to explain that safety regs are written according to the lowest common denominator. I said there is a Seaman Schmuckatelli out there who doesn't wash his hands before he eats, and while the grease was not necessarily poisonous if you got it on your skin, it was toxic if swallowed, or if he scratched an itch in his eye with some on his hands. I also explained the whole reason we were even doing a spot check was because there are some sailors who won't do their preventive maintenance unless someone does spot checks.

The young sailor nodded as if he knew a few Seaman Schmuckatelli's, and carried on with the task at hand.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kullervo
Would privatization of the highway system resolve the issues that Roadtoad raised in the first post of this thread?

I don't know. It seems to me that a lot of the issues, such as weight affecting the wear and tear on the roads, would be transferred from the government to whomever owned/managed that particular road. Any trucker or trucking company choosing to use the road would agree to abide by their rules, such as weight restrictions or paying a maintenance fee.

A lot of the others would still be criminal activities enforced by the government, such as DUI.

I don't know if private roads would be any better for truckers than government roads, but OTOH, I don't see how they could be worse.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by shanek


I don't know. It seems to me that a lot of the issues, such as weight affecting the wear and tear on the roads, would be transferred from the government to whomever owned/managed that particular road. Any trucker or trucking company choosing to use the road would agree to abide by their rules, such as weight restrictions or paying a maintenance fee.

A lot of the others would still be criminal activities enforced by the government, such as DUI.

I don't know if private roads would be any better for truckers than government roads, but OTOH, I don't see how they could be worse.

I had to read this twice, and I'm glad I finished eating before I did. I'd have choked on my "country style spare ribs," and fried potatoes. (Both of which are considered too evil to mention by the Center for Science in the Public Interest.)

Uh, Shanek, with the bears already riding herd on us, do you really want me to go into the number of trucks I see that are pulled into the detention area in places like Reno or the Sunol Grade because of an overweight? Do you really think that someone who has built a private road will have any more muscle in stopping the abuses when the only penalty is a civil court and a lawsuit? The only people making money at that point are the attorneys.

The only way you might get this to work is if you position a scale at the entry and at the end of the private road, and no one gets in without a weigh-in and weigh-out. The problem here is that you're going to need to allow some way around the weigh stations and back onto public thoroughfares for those that don't make the cut.

You might also have a problem with trucks that are simply not well maintained, (one of the big problems I've got with NAFTA, since there's no way really that we can prevent a truck driven by a 17-year-old duly licensed in Mexico with brakes that are shot, a jake that won't slow the rig, a clutch that's slipping and a gearbox which won't mesh from entering the U.S.), which would not only present a safety hazard to those driving on your private road, but could present a very serious liability issue for your insurer. Something to consider.

Again, that's why we don't go with privately owned freeways.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Luke T.
So I'm doing a preventive maintenance spot check one day on a young sailor. The task was a simple one. Lubricate the threads on a valve wheel stem with some grease. Halfway through the spot check, the young sailor stops and asks me why the hell he has to be wearing heavy duty rubber gloves and safety glasses for such a simple task. I had to explain that safety regs are written according to the lowest common denominator. I said there is a Seaman Schmuckatelli out there who doesn't wash his hands before he eats, and while the grease was not necessarily poisonous if you got it on your skin, it was toxic if swallowed, or if he scratched an itch in his eye with some on his hands. I also explained the whole reason we were even doing a spot check was because there are some sailors who won't do their preventive maintenance unless someone does spot checks.

The young sailor nodded as if he knew a few Seaman Schmuckatelli's, and carried on with the task at hand.

Something you should know: I get the trailers that haven't been driven in a while. I seem to be the only one in our yard, aside from a couple of others, who actually adjusts the damn brakes! One of the first things they teach you about driving is that you are REQUIRED to inspect the brakes BEFORE you even think of putting the tractor and trailer on the road. This is a five minute task with a 9/16 wrench, and that's if you really want to make it more work than it needs to be.

For the past few weeks, I have had to readjust the brakes on EVERY FRIGGING TRAILER I'VE PULLED! I can't be the only guy in the company who knows what a 9/16 wrench is.

But, hell, most of these jokers have come here from other companies. Makes me wonder what their PM policies are, and if I'd really be doing any better if I switched employers.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Roadtoad


I had to read this twice, and I'm glad I finished eating before I did. I'd have choked on my "country style spare ribs," and fried potatoes. (Both of which are considered too evil to mention by the Center for Science in the Public Interest.)

Uh, Shanek, with the bears already riding herd on us, do you really want me to go into the number of trucks I see that are pulled into the detention area in places like Reno or the Sunol Grade because of an overweight? Do you really think that someone who has built a private road will have any more muscle in stopping the abuses when the only penalty is a civil court and a lawsuit? The only people making money at that point are the attorneys.

The only way you might get this to work is if you position a scale at the entry and at the end of the private road, and no one gets in without a weigh-in and weigh-out. The problem here is that you're going to need to allow some way around the weigh stations and back onto public thoroughfares for those that don't make the cut.

You might also have a problem with trucks that are simply not well maintained, (one of the big problems I've got with NAFTA, since there's no way really that we can prevent a truck driven by a 17-year-old duly licensed in Mexico with brakes that are shot, a jake that won't slow the rig, a clutch that's slipping and a gearbox which won't mesh from entering the U.S.), which would not only present a safety hazard to those driving on your private road, but could present a very serious liability issue for your insurer. Something to consider.

Again, that's why we don't go with privately owned freeways.

I can sell you a very good weigh-in-motion system.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I can sell you a very good weigh-in-motion system.

Actually, we've got Bypass in California. You install weight sensors on the trailers and tractor, and the scale house uses radios to download your weight as you roll down the Interstate. The only time you roll into the scale house is if the signal box on your dash tells you that you're due for an inspection.

Of course, you have to actually buy the boxes, and you have to subscribe to the service. In the end, you do safe at least 15-30 minutes on a run, but you pay for the time savings out of pocket. Some companies have decided they'd rather send the drivers through the scales, anyway. Sucks to be us, I guess.

My point, though, to Shanek, is that if you've already got cheats and slackers already, a privately owned road is not necessarily an improvement.

[Loon]

Originally posted by shanek
(Oh, and by the way, all of the available evidence shows that, if anything, being under the influence of marijuana makes drivers drive more salely. So, unless you're proud of railroading a possibly innocent man AND fostering government misinformation...)

I must politely request evidence for this claim.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Roadtoad


Actually, we've got Bypass in California. You install weight sensors on the trailers and tractor, and the scale house uses radios to download your weight as you roll down the Interstate. The only time you roll into the scale house is if the signal box on your dash tells you that you're due for an inspection.

Of course, you have to actually buy the boxes, and you have to subscribe to the service. In the end, you do safe at least 15-30 minutes on a run, but you pay for the time savings out of pocket. Some companies have decided they'd rather send the drivers through the scales, anyway. Sucks to be us, I guess.

My point, though, to Shanek, is that if you've already got cheats and slackers already, a privately owned road is not necessarily an improvement.

Yep, I know that's your point, but the fact is, we have a weigh in motion system here in australia that is much simpler, you just have to drive over the sensors in the normal road. Only if you look like you are overweight are you pulled over for a legal weigh.

[Darat]

Originally posted by shanek


...snip...

(Oh, and by the way, all of the available evidence shows that, if anything, being under the influence of marijuana makes drivers drive more salely. So, unless you're proud of railroading a possibly innocent man AND fostering government misinformation...)

It appears that it has less effect on driving then say alcohol but that it still impairs ability compared to a "clean" driver.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/309603.stm

...snip...

The research was led by Alison Smiley and conducted at the University of Toronto.

She compared studies that looked into how serious the impairment was from marijuana compared with alcohol.

She said: "Both substances impair performance.

...snip...

Even a pro-drug site doesn't seem to be aware of this research:

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5448

...snip...

Moreover, emerging scientific research indicates that cannabis actually has far less impact on the psychomotor skills needed for driving than alcohol does, and is seldom a causal factor in automobile accidents. The following documents provide a comprehensive overview of the scientific evidence regarding marijuana's impact on psychomotor skills and driving.

...snip...


And



...snip...

Marijuana and Driving: A Review of the Scientific Evidence

It is well established that alcohol increases accident risk. Evidence of marijuana’s culpability in on-road driving accidents is much less convincing.

Although cannabis intoxication has been shown to mildly impair psychomotor skills, this impairment does not appear to be severe or long lasting. In driving simulator tests, this impairment is typically manifested by subjects decreasing their driving speed and requiring greater time to respond to emergency situations.

Nevertheless, this impairment does not appear to play a significant role in on-road traffic accidents. A 2002 review of seven separate studies involving 7,934 drivers reported, “Crash culpability studies have failed to demonstrate that drivers with cannabinoids in the blood are significantly more likely than drug-free drivers to be culpable in road crashes.” This result is likely because subject under the influence of marijuana are aware of their impairment and compensate for it accordingly, such as by slowing down and by focusing their attention when they know a response will be required. This reaction is just the opposite of that exhibited by drivers under the influence of alcohol, who tend to drive in a more risky manner proportional to their intoxication.


...snip...


(No pro or anti-drug driving stance being taken here.)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Uh, Shanek, with the bears already riding herd on us, do you really want me to go into the number of trucks I see that are pulled into the detention area in places like Reno or the Sunol Grade because of an overweight? Do you really think that someone who has built a private road will have any more muscle in stopping the abuses when the only penalty is a civil court and a lawsuit? The only people making money at that point are the attorneys.

Why would a private company running the roads not have the authority to pull you over? Would you not agree to whatever enforcement measures they have in place simply by driving on the roads? After all, if you don't like one enforcement method, you can always choose a road that uses a different one.

This seems like a non-issue to me.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Loon
I must politely request evidence for this claim.

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5450

[shanek]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
My point, though, to Shanek, is that if you've already got cheats and slackers already, a privately owned road is not necessarily an improvement.

And if you'll notice above, I most certainly did say that I don't know if private roads would be any better for truckers than government roads.

[Loon]

Originally posted by shanek


http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5450

Thanks (also to Darat).

Gotta say, that surprises me. But hey, that's what science is all about.


Would it be accurate to say, shanek, that your general position is not that regualtion is bad, but the the regulatory control should sit with a non-governmental agency?

You've talked about different roads having different owners. What would you (as a representative of Libertarians) think of one non-governmental entity controlling all the roads?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Loon
Would it be accurate to say, shanek, that your general position is not that regualtion is bad, but the the regulatory control should sit with a non-governmental agency?

Government regulation is bad because it treats everyone as criminals and punishes everyone equally, regardless of whether or not they've done anything wrong. There are two alternatives to reglations: laws, which only punish people if there's probably cause to believe that they have or will commit the activity being restricted, and industry self-regulation such as UL. Sometimes you'd want the former (such as with drunk driving; don't pull over everybody and give them tests, just the ones you have reason to believe (through driving patters or whatever) are endangering others), and sometimes you'd want the latter.

You've talked about different roads having different owners. What would you (as a representative of Libertarians) think of one non-governmental entity controlling all the roads?

It'd be pretty much as bad as government roads. There would need to be some sort of competition. But as long as the government didn't grant a monopoly to them, I'm confident that there would be such competition. Of course, a lot of that would depend on how you would turn over the existing roads to private interests.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by shanek


Why would a private company running the roads not have the authority to pull you over? Would you not agree to whatever enforcement measures they have in place simply by driving on the roads? After all, if you don't like one enforcement method, you can always choose a road that uses a different one.

This seems like a non-issue to me.

I'll present it to you this way:

Let's say I'm overloaded, my brakes are out of adjustment, and just for the hell of it, I'm running with a second logbook. (All three are serious violations under current law, and the third thing listed will lose you your Class A license like right-now quick.)

I have a choice of three roads: One is the current federally funded highway, with a scale house somewhere down the road. The second is a "hybrid," partially paid for by private funds, but underwritten by the Feds. The third is a completely private enterprise. You pay a fee, and off you go.

If I go down the main Federal highway, I know that once I hit that scale house, I'm going to be flagged once they see that I'm overloaded. They're then going to want to take a long look at my trailer, and they'll find my brakes are out of adjustment. Then, they'll find my second logbook in the cab. Bingo! I'm not only out of service, but I'm also out of a job. A genuinely unsafe driver is off the road, and people are safer.

But let's say I take the hybrid road. Maybe there's a scale house, but let's assume they only charge a fee for an overweight. They'll never know about my bad brakes, and they'll never find that second logbook. Maybe they will check for all that stuff, but if they want me to keep using the road, and paying user fees, guess who calls the shots?

On that third road, where pure Capitalism runs rampant, I'm paying a fee, KNOWING that I can skate. If they want users on that road, they can post all the rules and regs they want, but the bottom line is that I'm paying for the use of that road specifically so I can break the rules. Okay, so maybe I have a few close calls. Someone cuts me off, and I nearly rear end them. Or maybe the load on the trailer is off center, and it nearly tips on a curve. Or I'm dead tired, and I ought to be in bed or in the sleeper. So what? I pay the fee, and off I go. So maybe the cops are patrolling this road. Or maybe they aren't. If the owners of the road want to keep me and my friends on it, they need to allow practices which would be unsafe on the other road. Otherwise, they would go broke, and quick. (I deliver lots of material for State, Federal and County projects. I talk to the engineers and the foremen. I know what these jobs cost.)

I don't really want privately owned roads. There's plenty of evidence that you're talking about (pardon the pun) a Highway to Hell. After all, look what Enron did to California, and eventually its investors.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
On that third road, where pure Capitalism runs rampant, I'm paying a fee, KNOWING that I can skate. If they want users on that road, they can post all the rules and regs they want, but the bottom line is that I'm paying for the use of that road specifically so I can break the rules.

How on Earth did you come to that conclusion?

I don't really want privately owned roads. There's plenty of evidence that you're talking about (pardon the pun) a Highway to Hell.

Such as?

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by shanek
Such as?

Do such things as the Tyco mess, the Enron debacle, Martha Stewart's trainwreck and such miss your attention? Consider this: granted, much of the regulation we encounter is stupid regulation, but for God's sake, Shanek, consider what we'd see if there were NO regulation.

As I already pointed out, we have people who ignore current regulations as they already exist. While there's some regulation in the trucking industry that's genuinely stupid, and genuinely wasteful as a consequence, there's a lot that needs to be obeyed, and it's not happening.

Remove the regulations, run things privately, and you can bet things will become a lot more dangerous very quickly.

[Roadtoad]

A couple more things:

1.) I didn't reply earlier because I'd just gotten in from a couple of days out on the road. Odd how you can drive with a bunch of guys, and learn while you're out that one of 'em can't hold his tequila. (No, I wasn't the one who was puking on the carpet. I didn't drink any.)

2.) For a guy who complains loudly when people counter his points, claiming that they either werent' paying attention, or they hadn't read them, (even when they had), you sure seem to pass on what I've written an awful lot, Shanek. Maybe before you complain that you're not being read, you ought to consider that maybe, just maybe, some people simply disagree with you.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Do such things as the Tyco mess, the Enron debacle, Martha Stewart's trainwreck and such miss your attention?

Martha Stewart's situation was a paragon of bogosity. As for the rest, how many times do I have to point out that outright fraud would be severely limited in a Libertarian society? This is one case where a Libertarian government would severely punish people who just get a slap on the wrist today.

Consider this: granted, much of the regulation we encounter is stupid regulation, but for God's sake, Shanek, consider what we'd see if there were NO regulation.

Freedom?

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by shanek
Freedom?

Freedom is only possible where people accept their responsibilities to one another as part of the social contract.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Roadtoad

Remove the regulations, run things privately, and you can bet things will become a lot more dangerous very quickly.

If the Libertarians would just admit this, I really wouldn't have a problem with them. I do not see anything inherently wrong with the philosophy that the extra risk of deregulation is an acceptable cost for an increase of personal freedom (for some).

I happen to not agree with it, but at least it is consistent with reality.

But no, the Libertards take the position that somehow LESS regulation will make individuals behave MORE responsibly.

This is, of course, totally insane.

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
But no, the Libertards take the position that somehow LESS regulation will make individuals behave MORE responsibly.

Speaking of behaving responsibly, how about not painting with such a broad brush? The view you've just described may have been expressed by some individual libertarians, but it is by no means an accurate characterization of the views of most libertarians.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by DoubleStreamer

The view you've just described may have been expressed by some individual libertarians, but it is by no means an accurate characterization of the views of most libertarians.

Care to point out any?

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Care to point out any?

Not particularly, unless you have something more specific you'd like to ask about. The purpose of my comment was simply to correct your description of a libertarian position, not to start a discussion of libertarianism.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by DoubleStreamer

Not particularly, unless you have something more specific you'd like to ask about.

Thought so.

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Thought so.

This seemed like a strange response to someone pointing out an error, so I checked some of your earlier posts, and I think I see the problem.

First, you've apparently been relying on Mike Huben's website, at least to some degree, as a source for what libertarians believe. Big mistake, if credibility is of any importance to you.

And judging by some of your comments that accompanied your reference to that site, you also seem to share his affinity for confidently criticizing views held by only a few (if any) libertarians as if they are held by all (or most) of them, and not particularly interested in responding with either an apology or a rebuttal when such instances are pointed out to you.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by DoubleStreamer

First, you've apparently been relying on Mike Huben's website, at least to some degree, as a source for what libertarians believe. Big mistake, if credibility is of any importance to you.

Actually, my main sources for information on the Libertarian party are, surprise, www.lp.org and our own resident LP candidate, Shane Killian. I provided a link to Huben's website only to provide a collection of contraian views to those interested in reading some criticism of their beliefs.

And judging by some of your comments that accompanied your reference to that site, you also seem to share his affinity for confidently criticizing views held by only a few (if any) libertarians as if they are held by all (or most) of them, and not particularly interested in responding with either an apology or a rebuttal when such instances are pointed out to you.

Again, feel free to point out any big name Libertarians that will accept that deregulation will have a very signifigant human cost associated with it.

I understand there are some folks, like Michael Schermer (and myself) that are referred to as "(small l) libertarians)". Considering how much the big L ones hate us however, I really don't feel comfortable associating myself with the party.

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Actually, my main sources for information on the Libertarian party is, surprise, www.lp.org and our own resident LP candidate, Shane Killian.

In the first place, the Libertarian Party, and those who strongly support the platform, represent only a small subset of actual libertarians. But even if the political party is what you were talking about, can you point out where it takes the position that "somehow LESS regulation will make individuals behave MORE responsibly"?

And once you've done that, how about then demonstrating that your comments about Libertarian views from about a week ago (the ones Shane responded to) are also supported by the platform?


I provided a link to Huben's website only to provide a collection of contraian views to those interested in reading some criticism of their beliefs.

Problem is, for the most part, the beliefs being criticized are not beliefs that are widely held by libertarians.


Again, feel free to point out any big name Libertarians that will accept that deregulation will have a very signifigant human cost associated with it.

How about sticking to the subject? I believe the words I challenged you on were "somehow LESS regulation will make individuals behave MORE responsibly". Can we address the accuracy of that characterization before moving on?

Besides, if "big name Libertarians" is what you want to base this on, it is up to you to provide the names of those who have taken the position you described (preferably by citing their own words), not up to me to demonstrate that any of them has not expressed it. Kinda gets back to that old thing of proving a negative.

Moreover, if it is specifically the political party you're trying to describe, unless you can cite several examples of these big names, I would think the party platform would be the best way to demonstrate what its members believe.


I understand there are some folks, like Michael Schermer (and myself) that are referred to as "(small l) libertarians)". Considering how much the big L ones hate us however, I really don't feel comfortable associating myself with the party.

I've often been referred to that way as well, and though I don't particularly associate myself with the LP, I have no trouble getting along with most of the people who do. It might have something to do with not misrepresenting their views. :D

[shanek]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Freedom is only possible where people accept their responsibilities

And that's something that you take away when you use regulations to punish everyone, not just the ones causing the problems.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
But no, the Libertards take the position that somehow LESS regulation will make individuals behave MORE responsibly.

This is, of course, totally insane.

How, then, do you explain Montana's experience with removing all speed limits? Without speed limits, people became safer drivers. How do you explain that?

EDITED TO ADD: I should probably produce at least one link about this, even though it's been discussed elsewhere:

http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm

[shanek]

Originally posted by DoubleStreamer
First, you've apparently been relying on Mike Huben's website, at least to some degree, as a source for what libertarians believe. Big mistake, if credibility is of any importance to you.

You've probably also seen, then, that I've pointed out the problems with Huben's reasoning and arguments many times. He just won't listen.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by shanek


How, then, do you explain Montana's experience with removing all speed limits? Without speed limits, people became safer drivers. How do you explain that?

EDITED TO ADD: I should probably produce at least one link about this, even though it's been discussed elsewhere:

http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm

Germany doesn´t have a speed limit on highways, either, except in some places like (relatively) sharp turns or near construction site; there is only a "recommended" top speed of 130 kph (80-odd mph)

The only effect this seems to have is that highway accidents take place at higher speed. People driving one-handed at 200+ kph while talking on the cell phone. People going 150+ kph into fog. Cars crashing into the rear of traffic jams. THAT´s what "no speed limit" means.

The only thing that EVER significantly reduced fatalities was the regulation that required people to fasten seat-belts.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Chaos


Germany doesn´t have a speed limit on highways, either, except in some places like (relatively) sharp turns or near construction site; there is only a "recommended" top speed of 130 kph (80-odd mph)

The only effect this seems to have is that highway accidents take place at higher speed. People driving one-handed at 200+ kph while talking on the cell phone. People going 150+ kph into fog. Cars crashing into the rear of traffic jams. THAT´s what "no speed limit" means.

The only thing that EVER significantly reduced fatalities was the regulation that required people to fasten seat-belts.

One of these days, Chaos, if you're ever in the Central Valley of California, you ought to endure what we call the Tule Fog. (Pronounced "TOOlee".) There's something about it that is simply malevolent. It comes on you suddenly, thick one moment, thin the next, and I have yet to see ANYONE figure out that once you enter it, you're only option is to SLOW DOWN!

Keep in mind, I'm sitting six feet up in the air, in a vehicle equipped with fog lamps and enough safety lights to put a cathouse to shame. I slow down usually to around 25-30 miles an hour when the fog hits. I have dimbulbs blowing past me well past the legal 55 MPH, and at least once during these trips, I will come up on someone who's either in the ditch, or in a wreck. The CHP has posted warnings all over the Valley, and people DO NOT GET IT!

Right, less regulation is gonna help.

[Chaos]

From what you say, Roadtoad, I thik I should rather avoid that valley AT ALL COSTS.

I mean, if those idiots who probably found their driver´s license in the easter egg would only harm themselves, that would be fine by me...but, no, they kill and maim others, and more often than not escape without a scratch.
Just a few weeks ago there was a trial of two Daimler-Chrysler test drivers who killed a 22-year-old woman and her 2-year-old daughter while having an (informal) race on the highway, going at 300+ kph.
As long as I have to share the roads with such people, I will take ANY regulation that has at least a slight chance of keeping them under control, or at the very least make d*mn sure they don´t do it again.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by shanek


How, then, do you explain Montana's experience with removing all speed limits? Without speed limits, people became safer drivers. How do you explain that?

EDITED TO ADD: I should probably produce at least one link about this, even though it's been discussed elsewhere:

http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm


What is the population density of rural Montana? Urban Montana?
What percentage of people live in rural areas?
What was the population growth in various centres?
Did the number of vehicles in ratio to miles of road change?
What kind of vehicles and what kind of safety features were people in Montana purchasing during the years referenced? How has tourism fared in Montana in recent years, and how has that affected traffic congestion?

The author of the article at www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm makes reference the autobahn. How is Montana similiar in culture, geography, vehicle ownership, economics, and population density to Germany?

The author says that:The sooner we as nation follow these precepts as adopted in the Highway Safety Act of 1966 our roads will be as safe as they reasonably can be while protecting your rights too. How is Montana on 2000 to 2004 similiar in culture, vehicle ownership, economics, and population density/distribution to Montana in the 1960s?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Chaos
The only effect this seems to have is that highway accidents take place at higher speed. People driving one-handed at 200+ kph while talking on the cell phone. People going 150+ kph into fog. Cars crashing into the rear of traffic jams. THAT´s what "no speed limit" means.

How can you say that, without any basis of comparison, since those roads have never had speed limits, at least in recent history? The above link showed the exact same roads in a relatively short amount of time from no speed limits to speed limits. There was a start contrast in driver behavior and accidents and fatalities both fell. YOU DON'T KNOW how many fatalities there would be on the roads you mentioned if speed limits were to be introduced. You seem to think they would be higher; the above evidence strongly suggests they would be lower.

[shanek]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
What is the population density of rural Montana? Urban Montana?
What percentage of people live in rural areas?
What was the population growth in various centres?

All irrelevant.

Did the number of vehicles in ratio to miles of road change?

Doesn't matter, because the ratio is accounted for in the figures.

What kind of vehicles and what kind of safety features were people in Montana purchasing during the years referenced?

There were no major safety features introduced in cars during this time period, which was years after the introduction of air bags. And even if there were, this should cause the numbers to do down, not up.

Also, look at the numbers: this was NOT a gradual rise over time. There was a sharp jump right after the reintroduction of speed limits. Are you saying we should just accept that as coincidence? Also, why the stark change in driver behavior at that time, if not the lulling effect&mdash;the ILLUSION of safety&mdash;that a speed limit gives them?

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

These links might be of interest:

The Effect of Increasing Rural Interstate Speed Limits in the USA (http://www.ipenz.org.nz/test/ipenztg_cd/cd/2002_pdf/11_Patterson.pdf) (PDF file)

In the four years following the elimination of the Federal mandate for the NMSL [National Maximum Speed Limit], the states that increased their rural interstate speed limits had higher fatality rates than would have been expected based on the fatality rates in the states that kept their rural interstate speed limits at 65 mph. In total there were estimated to be almost 1,900 more fatalities than expected in the states that increased their speed limits to 70 or 75 mph between 1996 and 1999, associated with the speed limit increases.
These findings reinforce a long-established pattern in which increases in speed limits have been associated with crash increases, and decreases with the reverse. [my emphasis]

post hoc fallacy (http://skepdic.com/posthoc.html)

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by shanek
All irrelevant.

As I've said elsewhere: Don't get a CDL. You'd be a menace on the road.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Chaos
From what you say, Roadtoad, I thik I should rather avoid that valley AT ALL COSTS.

I mean, if those idiots who probably found their driver´s license in the easter egg would only harm themselves, that would be fine by me...but, no, they kill and maim others, and more often than not escape without a scratch.
Just a few weeks ago there was a trial of two Daimler-Chrysler test drivers who killed a 22-year-old woman and her 2-year-old daughter while having an (informal) race on the highway, going at 300+ kph.
As long as I have to share the roads with such people, I will take ANY regulation that has at least a slight chance of keeping them under control, or at the very least make d*mn sure they don´t do it again.

You don't have to avoid the Central Valley at all costs, Chaos. Just use your head when you drive. Drop your speed, open your driver's window a crack, (and LISTEN), and use your low beams and your fog lights. Getting too thick? Getting sleepy as a result? No prob. On both Interstate 5 and CA 99, there's plenty of places to stop and kick back for a bit.

In other words, use your head. Sounds to me like you would when driving here. Others, I'm not so sure.

We're talking about understanding that there's more than just yourself out there. Much of what I am seeing called Libertarianism is nothing more than selfishness. These are the same sort of people who dump toxic sludge in our rivers, then bitch about environmental regulations. HELLOOOOOO!!!