# Would you support banning trucks on your states road unless delivering ?



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I think this is real , it was forwarded to me. Georgia has done it in Atlanta and now apparently wants to make it statewide. 

State Senators Donzella James, Harold Jones, and Michael Rhett filed Senate Bill 23 the bill to limit the travel on Wednesday. All three are Democrats.


Senator Harold Jones, Photo: Georgia State Senate

Senator Michael Rhett, Photo: Georgia State Senate
The bill does provide an exception for traveling to or from such pickup or delivery.

Specifically, the legislation states that “No person shall drive or move on any highway any trailer or semitrailer unless such trailer or semitrailer is engaging in the pickup or delivery of persons or property or traveling to or from such pickup or delivery.”


----------



## CIW (Oct 2, 2007)

Rhetorical statement
Why would that be considered? Interstate commerce pays a large portion of the taxes that keep the roads maintained. If you limit their use of a given road then they should have some tax relief. And why else would they be on a given road unless they had business there. Those rigs are expensive just to start let alone go on a joy ride. If you made them break down the loads for smaller trucks that would add expense to the shipping cost.
There has to be more to this story.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

No.
I've read the constitution.
I suggest they do the same.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

It sounds to me like there is an excessively high level of stupid per square foot in Atlanta


----------



## TnAndy (Sep 15, 2005)

So WHO drives around with a trailer not intending to make a delivery or pickup ? 

You mean people are hauling trailers around for fun ? And enough of them that it actually warrants a law ??

Simply more evidence that legislators are idiots with too much time on their hands.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

TnAndy said:


> So WHO drives around with a trailer not intending to make a delivery or pickup ?
> 
> You mean people are hauling trailers around for fun ? And enough of them that it actually warrants a law ??
> 
> Simply more evidence that legislators are idiots with too much time on their hands.


This is one half of the biggest problem with trucking--regulations fashioned by morons who don't know enough to realize that they don't know. The other half is a handful of large companies who buy the cooperation of the aforementioned morons to enact regulations which make their relatively inneficient business model the most efficient legal business model, thus serving to eliminate competition.


----------



## wdcutrsdaughter (Dec 9, 2012)

TnAndy said:


> You mean people are hauling trailers around for fun ? And enough of them that it actually warrants a law ??


I was wondering this too.....seems like an expensive hobby


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

I'd support banning idiots who would suggest such a thing.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Democrats must be running out of things to ban


----------



## Falfrenzy (Aug 20, 2018)

http://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/en-US/Display/20192020/SB/23

Its a massive ploy to generate revenue through citations. Nothing more.


----------



## Alder (Aug 18, 2014)

Makes no sense. Something must be missing from the picture or the place is being run by clueless morons.
Or both.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

It was withdrawn a couple days ago:

"One day after submitting a controversial bill to partially ban trucks from Georgia highways, lawmakers have opted to withdraw the bill."

https://cdllife.com/2019/lawmakers-...-that-arent-delivering-from-georgia-highways/


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Clue morons in charge are not specific to big cities. There are plenty of nitwits in charge of small towns too, they just don't affect large swathes of the public the way the Atlantas and Chicagos and LAs do.


----------



## hardrock (Jun 8, 2010)

Atlanta prohibits trucks inside the loop, not delivering or there for a pick-up. 
This forces trucks to use the loop, adding miles and dollars to the costs of truckers.
Also adds to the # of truck road miles they have to repair.
Most trucks are paid a lot more than $2 per mile so it adds up fast.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I think the idea was to not allow trucks to pass through the state 
Not be allowed to use Georgia roads except for Georgia’s Benifit. 
Just like In Atlanta.


----------



## #1 WV BonBonQueen (Sep 16, 2018)

CIW said:


> Rhetorical statement
> Why would that be considered? Interstate commerce pays a large portion of the taxes that keep the roads maintained. If you limit their use of a given road then they should have some tax relief. And why else would they be on a given road unless they had business there. Those rigs are expensive just to start let alone go on a joy ride. If you made them break down the loads for smaller trucks that would add expense to the shipping cost.
> There has to be more to this story.


We have a town close to us, who when the Gas wells were being drilled all around here, started charging the trucking companies, a hefty fee to travel on a certain road in that town. Now all the trucks who are hauling anything either pays that fee, which from all I have heard is a $500.00 a load, which if they go that way, they must come back which makes them owing a big $1000.00 a load. I would venture the trucking company and that one load isn't worth the first $1000.00 and to have to pay it multiple times a day, in different trucks. 
I don't know if they can stop them from running on the roads, but they can and do make it very hard for the company who owns the trucks from making a living. 
I do realize that it costs a lot of money to upkeep those roads, but... when does common sense kick in and greed gets thrown out?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Irish Pixie said:


> It was withdrawn a couple days ago:
> 
> "One day after submitting a controversial bill to partially ban trucks from Georgia highways, lawmakers have opted to withdraw the bill."
> 
> https://cdllife.com/2019/lawmakers-...-that-arent-delivering-from-georgia-highways/


It's a sure bet they only withdrew it because enough of their colleagues told them it was stupid and would never pass. Regardless, it is obvious these guys are mental midgets elected by people even dumber than they are and they will never be an asset to any governing body.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> It was withdrawn a couple days ago:
> 
> "One day after submitting a controversial bill to partially ban trucks from Georgia highways, lawmakers have opted to withdraw the bill."
> 
> https://cdllife.com/2019/lawmakers-...-that-arent-delivering-from-georgia-highways/


The idiots that proposed this must have gotten some sense from somewhere.
I would've suggested doing just what they wanted and see how long they could go without food deliveries.

Probably the same amount of time, a few days.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

I would guess that those clowns are also too stupid to understand apportioned road use taxes. We get charged per mile which is distributed to the states in which those mikes were driven. Consequently, such nonsense as this would significantly reduce the amount of money available for highway maintenance and construction.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> The idiots that proposed this must have gotten some sense from somewhere.
> I would've suggested doing just what they wanted and see how long they could go without food deliveries.
> 
> Probably the same amount of time, a few days.


 They made a exemption for deliveries. 
It seems to work pretty well for Atlanta it’s everyone else that would suffer.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

1. Trucks on the road are either delivering products, picking up products, or returning to a loading point after delivering.

2. Exactly when would the law apply?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I support public floggings for dumb butt politicians. Yeah. I know ... dreaming.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

"You mean people are hauling trailers around for fun ? And enough of them that it actually warrants a law ??"

That had me puzzled too, but if the law applied only to a core section of the city it would serve to force through-truckers to take a detour.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

There are those who rise to the level of their incompetency.
There are those that have to make a noise to prove they earn their pay.

Then there are those who do both. This is one of those times.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

AmericanStand said:


> They made a exemption for deliveries.
> It seems to work pretty well for Atlanta it’s everyone else that would suffer.


The problem is that depending details, this could be tantamount to cutting Florida off from truck practical connection with the rest if the country and the only realistic route in being right through Mobile, Alabama. That alone would have the folks from Georgia on the way to federal court before they had a chance to hit the john after voting it up.


----------



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)

If the law did pass all it would take is for all the trucks to band together and make no deliveries for a week not even a walmart delivery when they have no products or groceries on the shelves or fuel at the pumps the people would tar and feather the politicians who wrote the bill and run em out of town on a rail.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

D-BOONE said:


> If the law did pass all it would take is for all the trucks to band together and make no deliveries for a week not even a walmart delivery when they have no products or groceries on the shelves or fuel at the pumps the people would tar and feather the politicians who wrote the bill and run em out of town on a rail.


Nice thought, but I don't see it happening. For quite a few years now, trucking has become increasingly miserable and experienced American drivers have been irritated into finding other occupations only to be replaced by people who don't even speak English let alone feel any loyalty to any of our political causes.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Only a moron would even suggest doing something like this statewide.
The metro Atlanta ban works for Atlanta. I-75 and I-85 merge inside the loop and right after that merge we have the I-20 junction. If all the trucks passed through, traffic would come to a stand still. The heaviest traffic is on 75 and going around 285 on the west side does not add many miles. I-85 has a short run around the east side and I-20 would have the longest detour, but has less traffic.
They have talked about adding a second loop further out and that would add more miles but it would move faster. If u r connecting with another freeway, it would be great.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> They made a exemption for deliveries.
> It seems to work pretty well for Atlanta it’s everyone else that would suffer.





IndyDave said:


> The problem is that depending details, this could be tantamount to cutting Florida off from truck practical connection with the rest if the country and the only realistic route in being right through Mobile, Alabama. That alone would have the folks from Georgia on the way to federal court before they had a chance to hit the john after voting it up.


Exactly.
What else are those trucks doing, if not picking up and delivering goods?
That's what they DO.

Now, we ARE raising a generation that thinks it's a smarty phone that does all the work and brings it to your door by magic.
But the day they finally buy a refrigerator and realize two big guys with a dolly are going to actually have to pull into the driveway and get it up the steps, they are going to realize how things work in the "real world".


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

po boy said:


> *Only a moron would even suggest doing something like this statewide.*
> The metro Atlanta ban works for Atlanta. I-75 and I-85 merge inside the loop and right after that merge we have the I-20 junction. If all the trucks passed through, traffic would come to a stand still. The heaviest traffic is on 75 and going around 285 on the west side does not add many miles. I-85 has a short run around the east side and I-20 would have the longest detour, but has less traffic.
> They have talked about adding a second loop further out and that would add more miles but it would move faster. If u r connecting with another freeway, it would be great.


well, it was politicians Afterall.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

po boy said:


> Only a moron would even suggest doing something like this statewide.
> The metro Atlanta ban works for Atlanta. I-75 and I-85 merge inside the loop and right after that merge we have the I-20 junction. If all the trucks passed through, traffic would come to a stand still. The heaviest traffic is on 75 and going around 285 on the west side does not add many miles. I-85 has a short run around the east side and I-20 would have the longest detour, but has less traffic.
> They have talked about adding a second loop further out and that would add more miles but it would move faster. If u r connecting with another freeway, it would be great.


 OR they could ban making more than one exit or entrance within the loop or better yet Georgia. 
After all it’s a INTERSTATE Highway. !


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

IndyDave said:


> Nice thought, but I don't see it happening. For quite a few years now, trucking has become increasingly miserable and experienced American drivers have been irritated into finding other occupations only to be replaced by people who don't even speak English let alone feel any loyalty to any of our political causes.


Just another consequence of the fall of the teamsters union.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

po boy said:


> The metro Atlanta ban works for Atlanta. I-75 and I-85 merge inside the loop and right after that merge we have the I-20 junction. If all the trucks passed through, traffic would come to a stand still.


 No if the traffic planners had half a brain. If we could get some experienced truck drivers in there instead of college educated idiots it would be simple.
Simply allow trucks to go anywhere and ban cars from the extreme left lane ,perhaps both left lanes.
A few years ago when downtown Chicago was under construction the predicted traffic jams were supposed to back up all the way outside of cook county.
But they restricted the trucks to the left two lanes and allowed them to run the express lanes and guess what traffic was better than it was before or after the construction.
But nobody talks about that .


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> No if the traffic planners had half a brain. If we could get some experienced truck drivers in there instead of college educated idiots it would be simple.
> Simply allow trucks to go anywhere and ban cars from extreme the left lane perhaps both left lanes.
> A few years ago when downtown Chicago was under construction the predicted traffic jams were supposed to back up all the way outside of cook county.
> But they restricted the trucks to the left two lanes and allowed them to run the express lanes and guess what traffic was better than it was before or after the construction.
> But nobody talks about that .


Yes, 4 wheelers often don't have a clue how to drive among professionals or even worse they intentionally antagonize them to cause problems.
I've seen it in person so I won't bother trying to defend that statement. Next time y'all are on the interstate see if a ding dong rides for miles right by the rear wheel of a semi, refusing to pass or slow down a few feet in order to be safe or let others pass safely.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

farmrbrown said:


> Yes, 4 wheelers often don't have a clue how to drive among professionals or even worse they intentionally antagonize them to cause problems.
> I've seen it in person so I won't bother trying to defend that statement. Next time y'all are on the interstate see if a ding dong rides for miles right by the rear wheel of a semi, refusing to pass or slow down a few feet in order to be safe or let others pass safely.


True, it happened to me. a woman in a small red car put herself into my blind spot and stayed there for over 40 miles.. My wife was riding shotgun and I had to make a lane change. I almost forgot that car was there.. lucky for me I asked my wife if that car was still there..
I also had other things that idiots do. like passing me and then slowing way down and causing me to pass them, and then do it over and over..
I could tell you how I cured that fellow, but not on social media.. no I did not cause him to crash..
let's just say that after 15 miles of over 80 MPH with a large vehicle tight to your bumper is a bit nerve wracking..


----------



## Grafton County Couple (Sep 20, 2018)

My response to the original question (aka: thread title) is NO.


----------



## Bob M. (Nov 5, 2018)

Some people should never be allowed to have power or ability to make decisions for others. ever. Is it really their fault, or is it the fault of the fools who actually gave or allow them to have that power in the first place? That would really be a liberal type of question to ask I think. Me, I say yes it is their fault, and hold them to personal accountability, and think they should be removed from said position as a solution. Can anyone imagine if these people just had the ability to 'just do it' on their own? and be the deciders? Well, it gets fairly close to that when through the silliness, people actually allow a bunch of them into positions to decide as a collective such things. 
Was the bill withdrawn? perhaps...but the truth is, chances are it wasn't withdrawn merely because they seen the idiocy which it really was, but instead merely as a type of 'maneuver' for appearances sake and yet even more manipulation. The truth is, if gave the actual chance in the future, these people would probably still push this insanity through. Which is exactly why we go back to the first point. Do not EVER allow them or other like minded individuals the position to have that power.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I’d really like to know what their rational was in the first place ?
Did they have a more or less reasonable idea and not understand the ramifications?


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)




----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> I’d really like to know what their rational was in the first place ?
> Did they have a more or less reasonable idea and not understand the ramifications?


It's possible they had a small amount of rational thought in their head but I doubt it. More likely they were reacting to whiners complaining who had equal brain power.
Atlanta already has a bypass (275) and restricts big trucks from taking I-75 thru the middle.
This is why I suggested they do exactly what they asked for, and let them get real hungry first to allow their brains to think normally again. 



AmericanStand said:


> No if the traffic planners had half a brain. If we could get some experienced truck drivers in there instead of college educated idiots it would be simple.
> Simply allow trucks to go anywhere and ban cars from the extreme left lane ,perhaps both left lanes.
> A few years ago when downtown Chicago was under construction the predicted traffic jams were supposed to back up all the way outside of cook county.
> But they restricted the trucks to the left two lanes and allowed them to run the express lanes and guess what traffic was better than it was before or after the construction.
> But nobody talks about that .


The problem has multiple causes ( experienced drivers) and they ARE known among the industry, people just don't like or accept the answers.
ANY experienced tradesman requires a certain wage level. Employers hate that part so they try to get it done another way.
Then the problems start..................


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Next time y'all are on the interstate see if *a ding dong* rides for miles right by the rear wheel of a semi, refusing to pass or slow down a few feet in order to be safe or let others pass safely.


Truck drivers are just "ding dongs" in larger vehicles.
They are no different in their behaviors.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Truck drivers are just "ding dongs" in larger vehicles.
> They are no different in their behaviors.


Probably true on average, but that doesn't change the fact that the moron who apparently thinks the trucker needs a wingman is setting himself up to get hurt really bad.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> Probably true on average, but that doesn't change the fact that *the moron *who apparently thinks the trucker needs a wingman is setting himself up to get hurt really bad.


The trucker is just as big a "moron" if he doesn't do something about it himself.
The people in the car are simply driving down the highway.
If the trucker doesn't like it, they can do something about it instead of jumping on their CB and whining about the "4-wheelers".

I'd like to find the moron trucker who tore down 50 feet of my wood fence when he lost a tire but didn't bother to stop. There's no way he didn't notice.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The trucker is just as big a "moron" if he doesn't do something about it himself.
> The people in the car are simply driving down the highway.
> If the trucker doesn't like it, they can do something about it instead of jumping on their CB and whining about the "4-wheelers".
> 
> I'd like to find the moron trucker who tore down 50 feet of my wood fence when he lost a tire but didn't bother to stop. There's no way he didn't notice.


You are telling me that it is the trucker's fault some stupid (Edited) flew up on him and then dropped 10 mph or more to camp his trailer tandems?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> You are telling me that it is the trucker's fault *some stupid SOB* flew up on him and then dropped 10 mph or more to camp his trailer tandems?


The claim was they "rode for miles".
Details matter. 
You're making them up to fit your agenda.
It's the trucker's fault if *he* sees it as a "problem" and doesn't do something about it himself.
If he does nothing, he gets the "stupid SOB" title.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The claim was they "rode for miles".
> Details matter.
> You're making them up to fit your agenda.
> It's the trucker's fault if *he* sees it as a "problem" and doesn't do something about it himself.
> If he does nothing, he gets the "stupid SOB" title.


1. It is the responsibility of the person who created the problem. I refuse to to accept responsibility for protecting the stupid from themselves nor do I expect anyone else to do so. I will add to this that effectively ending such a situation often requires completely unreasonable measures.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The claim was they "rode for miles".
> Details matter.
> You're making them up to fit your agenda.
> It's the trucker's fault if *he* sees it as a "problem" and doesn't do something about it himself.
> If he does nothing, he gets the "stupid SOB" title.


Its not really a claim drivers do it quite often, hoping the truck driver will loose awareness and bump them enough to create an accident without hurting them, or just trying to draft in the trucks suction.

Not alot you can do other than pull off the road, but times money and how many times a day can you do that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

coolrunnin said:


> Its not really a claim drivers do it quite often, hoping the truck driver will loose awareness and bump them enough to create an accident without hurting them, or just trying to draft in the trucks suction.


It was the claim in this thread.



coolrunnin said:


> Not alot you can do other than pull off the road, but times money and how many times a day can you do that.


You can slow down or speed up just like the driver in the car could do.
You're not going to convince me people in cars *want* truck drivers to hit them.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The trucker is just as big a "moron" if he doesn't do something about it himself.
> The people in the car are simply driving down the highway.
> If the trucker doesn't like it, they can do something about it instead of jumping on their CB and whining about the "4-wheelers".
> 
> I'd like to find the moron trucker who tore down 50 feet of my wood fence when he lost a tire but didn't bother to stop. There's no way he didn't notice.


While it's true there are bad drivers in all kinds of vehicles, I would defer to the laws of physics.
Whether or not the bigger one _*could*_ "do something about it" there isn't any advantage for the smaller vehicle to insist on putting themselves in danger. 
It might make a cute tombstone.."Well at least it wasn't *my* fault".......but that's not much consolation.


But I can see at the end of your post, the reason for the negativity.
I'm sorry your fence was torn up, but there's a good chance the driver *didn't* see the results after his tire blew.
Possibly, but no guarantee. It would have been nice if he had and stopped to see what he could do about fixing the damage, but I doubt that's the norm for that kind of event. 



IndyDave said:


> Probably true on average, but that doesn't change the fact that the moron who apparently thinks the trucker needs a wingman is setting himself up to get hurt really bad.


LOL. 
I never heard it called a 'wingman' but you're right.




Bearfootfarm said:


> The claim was they "rode for miles".
> Details matter.
> You're making them up to fit your agenda.
> It's the trucker's fault if *he* sees it as a "problem" and doesn't do something about it himself.
> If he does nothing, he gets the "stupid SOB" title.


Yep.
At 60+ mph, miles equal minutes. So in a few minutes, the miles add up.
And if the traffic is heavy, many minutes can pass without anyone changing their position. It's a sad fact, but it happens often and that's when a bad situation can go to the worst kind.
This post has a good example of that, a tire blowing apart.
The relevant point blew by ya like a triple digit truck.
It isn't that the trucker is going to "see it as a problem", because for him, it will probably be minor compared to the vehicle that's 1/10th or less of his weight. If he's lucky, it won't be any more noticeable than a speed bump.
But the car won't see it that way ........if the driver lives to tell about it, that is.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It was the claim in this thread.
> 
> 
> You can slow down or speed up just like the driver in the car could do.
> You're not going to convince me people in cars *want* truck drivers to hit them.


Do you have any OTR experience?
The reason I ask was this statement.........


> You can slow down or speed up just like the driver in the car could do.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> While it's true *there are bad drivers in all kinds of vehicles*, I would defer to the laws of physics.


The laws of physics have nothing to do with what I said.
The bolded portion above is what I pointed out. 
Everyone has admitted that is factual. 



farmrbrown said:


> But I can see at the end of your post, the reason for the *negativity*.
> I'm sorry your fence was torn up, but there's a good chance the driver *didn't* see the results after his tire blew.


I don't believe for an instant he couldn't tell he had lost a whole tire off his trailer.
I just think he didn't want to stop and be held responsible for any damages he may have done.

My so called "negativity" is a figment of your imagination. I just stated some facts.



farmrbrown said:


> *The relevant point* blew by ya like a triple digit truck.


Nope.
The "relevant point" *I *made was you can't always blame the driver in the car.
Anything other than that has nothing to do with my comment. 
It's a fact there are just as many bad truck drivers as there are bad car drivers, percentage wise, since they are all still humans.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Do you have any OTR experience?
> The reason I ask was this statement.........


That's irrelevant.
I know trucks can slow down and speed up.
I realize you want to explain how it's "not as easy" for them, but that really makes no difference. 

They will slow down or speed up to cruise next to a car driven by a woman in a short skirt while telling all their CB buddies the 10-20.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's irrelevant.
> I know trucks can slow down and speed up.
> I realize you want to explain how it's "not as easy" for them, but that really makes no difference.
> 
> They will slow down or speed up to cruise next to a car driven by a woman in a short skirt while telling all their CB buddies the 10-20.


It is very relevant. In your ignorance of the subject, you have failed to understand that it isn't necessarily easy to modify speed in the course of accepting responsibility for someone else going out of his way to create a situation. The driver with the 600 hp 120 mph truck is going to have an easier time than the driver with the 325 hp 60 mph truck. Throw in variations for load and terrain, and it can get even more challenging. Of course you will still claim it is irrelevant since you have all the answers even though you don't have a clue.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The laws of physics have nothing to do with what I said.
> 
> 
> I don't believe for an instant he couldn't tell he had lost a whole tire off his trailer.
> ...





Bearfootfarm said:


> That's irrelevant.
> 
> I know trucks can slow down and speed up.
> I realize you want to explain how it's "not as easy" for them, but that really makes no difference.
> ...


I'll take that as a "no, I don't."


For all the things you DO know about big rigs, it's clear there's much you don't know.
It's ok though, there are more than a few on here that can provide the correct information.
I'll bow out now............


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It was the claim in this thread.
> 
> 
> You can slow down or speed up just like the driver in the car could do.
> You're not going to convince me people in cars *want* truck drivers to hit them.


You've never driven truck have you?

Or you wouldn't use terms like "just" slow down or speed up...lol

These trucks carry a million+ in liability insurance, that's a lot of incentive to create a payday. I don't need to convince you, i seriously doubt it will ever affect you.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The laws of physics have nothing to do with what I said.
> The bolded portion above is what I pointed out.
> Everyone has admitted that is factual.
> 
> ...


You would actually be surprised, depending on the repair or lack of of the roadbed, what was wrong with the tire a whole host of variables whether the driver actually knew, but yea your probably right the driver didn't want to take responsibility.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's irrelevant.
> I know trucks can slow down and speed up.
> I realize you want to explain how it's "not as easy" for them, but that really makes no difference.
> 
> They will slow down or speed up to cruise next to a car driven by a woman in a short skirt while telling all their CB buddies the 10-20.


Yea.that crap rarely happens outside of traffic jams.

You don't realize I imagine, that you can't see that seat cover in the right lane, she has to be passing you...lol


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

First cleanup.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

coolrunnin said:


> You don't realize I imagine, that you can't see that seat cover *in the right lane*, she has to be passing you...lol


I said nothing at all about "right lane".


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

coolrunnin said:


> You would actually be surprised, *depending on the repair or lack of of the roadbed*, what was wrong with the tire a whole host of variables whether the driver actually knew, but yea your probably right the driver didn't want to take responsibility.


The road was in perfect condition.



IndyDave said:


> It is very relevant. In your ignorance of the subject, you have failed to understand that i*t isn't necessarily easy* to modify speed in the course of accepting responsibility for someone else going out of his way to create a situation.


I answered that one before you said it.



coolrunnin said:


> You've never driven truck have you?
> Or you wouldn't use terms like "just" slow down or speed up...lol


We already had this conversation.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> For all the things you DO know about big rigs, it's clear there's much you don't know.
> It's ok though, there are more than a few on here that can provide *the correct information*.


There's nothing "incorrect" in *what I said*.
You and a couple of others just don't like it, hence all the word games and name calling.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I said nothing at all about "right lane".


Thank you for demonstrating once again that you don't have the vaguest idea what you are talking about


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> Thank you for demonstrating once again that you don't have the vaguest idea* what you are talking about*


I'm talking about truck drivers who have bad manners.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

You guys might want to consider finding a different hobby.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm talking about truck drivers who have bad manners.


No, you are trying to move the goalposts now that it has been clearly demonstrated that you are clueless.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

I have a question. Are you guys grumpy after you engage in these online tinkling contests? Does it effect the rest of your day? Do you feel good afterwards? 

Seriously. I want to know.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Do you feel good or bad after the conversation?


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Yes. I tried the dark room, and couldn’t deal with the climate, and I have blocked one person.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> No, you are trying to *move the goalposts* now that it has been clearly demonstrated that you are clueless.


Nothing has been "moved".
It's all there to see for anyone who can read and comprehend.
Why keep repeating yourself?


----------



## cornbread (Jul 4, 2005)

More Democrats morons.

One week with out trucks and or the power company we will see what happens.

Before long they will be telling us where we can and cannot live and telling us how much water we can have.

It looks like we are lousing our county and the freedoms we love.

What are we going to do when we loose our pioneering sprit.

In 12 years we wont be around.



"Your love of liberty -- your respect for the laws -- your habits of industry -- and your practice of the moral and religious obligations are the strongest claims to national and individual happiness."


--George Washington


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

cornbread said:


> Before long they will be telling us where we can and cannot live and telling us how much water we can have.
> 
> It looks like we are lousing our county and the freedoms we love.


 Lol you are a little late on that one this has been going on over 100 years.


----------



## 1948CaseVAI (May 12, 2014)

IndyDave said:


> It sounds to me like there is an excessively high level of stupid per square foot in Atlanta


Off topic, but quick Atlanta story: Had an afternoon to kill one weekend while in Atlanta for software conference and wanted to visit a civil war site in my rental car. Got lost so stopped at convenience store to ask directions. The clerk said "You can't get there from here." I asked had she ever been there and she replied "Of course I have. But I didn't go there from here..." Good grief.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> I have a question. Are you guys *grumpy* after you engage in these online tinkling contests?


I'm not grumpy before, during or after.
Some seem to take it all too seriously.


----------



## manfred (Dec 21, 2005)

I believe these trucks do more damage to the road than they pay in taxes and then we have to drive on these torn up roads.
I know a hauler that only goes at night to avoid weigh stations.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

manfred said:


> I believe these trucks do more damage to the road than they pay in taxes and then we have to drive on these torn up roads.
> I know a hauler that only goes at night to avoid weigh stations.


I doubt you know how much we pay in taxes.

If you had ever seen a highway go a decade or so unused you would realize that much of that degradation happens without any use whatsoever.

I make a point of avoiding weigh stations myself. Your comment seems to suggest that you believe weight to be the only issue. In fact, not only do you get weighed, but you get your paperwork scrutinized and also get your truck scrutinized. Most of the fine money is in the paperwork. Even if you are perfect in every regard, it can still be very time consuming and irritating.


----------



## dyrne (Feb 22, 2015)

For the most part I'd assume this is baked into fuel taxes. If you're heavier you burn more fuel and pay more taxes. It strikes me as a perfect-enough use tax as-is. 

As to the original post, I doubt the men that sponsored that bill have done much real work or produced anything of lasting value in their lives.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

dyrne said:


> For the most part I'd assume this is baked into fuel taxes. If you're heavier you burn more fuel and pay more taxes. It strikes me as a perfect-enough use tax as-is.
> 
> As to the original post, I doubt the men that sponsored that bill have done much real work or produced anything of lasting value in their lives.


There is fuel tax plus road use tax (per mile) plus the actual plate.

I would say you're right about the politicians.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> I think this is real , it was forwarded to me. Georgia has done it in Atlanta and now apparently wants to make it statewide.
> 
> State Senators Donzella James, Harold Jones, and Michael Rhett filed Senate Bill 23 the bill to limit the travel on Wednesday. All three are Democrats.
> 
> ...



Another democratic intrusion on the constitution to restrict the right of free travel...…..the right of free travel for all, not some.


Quit spending the states budget on GARBAGE and keep the roads fixed...….

In a nation of problems this has to be at or near the bottom of any perceived problem they think this might fix.....


All or most have lost sight of what their elected position is, to facilitate the will of the people, not push some agenda or project they feel is good, their feelings are meaningless, they are a instrument for the will of the people and should have no opinion at all, no position at all and no agenda at all.



They need to stop clogging up the system with insanity and regulation,....this has to be a lobbied position that has corporate gain wafting from it like a stench.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

manfred said:


> I believe these trucks do more damage to the road than they pay in taxes and then we have to drive on these torn up roads.
> I know a hauler that only goes at night to avoid weigh stations.





IndyDave said:


> There is fuel tax plus road use tax (per mile) plus the actual plate.
> 
> I would say you're right about the politicians.



Yeppers, trucks weigh more and cause more wear, but they also pay more. Cars also outnumber the trucks so the wear factor is mitigated even more over time.
IMO the biggest factor in why roads aren't maintained well is not because they didn't collect enough money, but rather they used the money elsewhere or spent it unwisely.
Go over any of y'all's state's DOT budgets and revenues collected and you'll find a few unpleasant surprises.


----------



## nehimama (Jun 18, 2005)

I'd bet my next SS check that unpleasant surprises abound.


----------



## Qwertyuiop (Feb 20, 2018)

Just what we need , more regulation that won't be managed.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

IndyDave said:


> There is fuel tax plus road use tax (per mile) plus the actual plate.
> 
> I would say you're right about the politicians.


I'm assuming the road use tax you mention is IFTA but if the US is like Canada, we also need permits for OD loads, permits to cross provincial boarders (single trip, quarterly or annual), annual permits for various that we occasionally haul and those also include a little something for highway use.


----------



## 101pigs (Sep 18, 2018)

IndyDave said:


> I doubt you know how much we pay in taxes.
> 
> If you had ever seen a highway go a decade or so unused you would realize that much of that degradation happens without any use whatsoever.
> 
> I make a point of avoiding weigh stations myself. Your comment seems to suggest that you believe weight to be the only issue. In fact, not only do you get weighed, but you get your paperwork scrutinized and also get your truck scrutinized. Most of the fine money is in the paperwork. Even if you are perfect in every regard, it can still be very time consuming and irritating.


Got quite a few truckers here that go a few miles on back roads to dodge the weight station and also the cop that is always stopping them to shake them down for a few bucks. Like you said time is money when you are driving and the weight stations are a pain.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wr said:


> I'm assuming the road use tax you mention is IFTA but if the US is like Canada, we also need permits for OD loads, permits to cross provincial boarders (single trip, quarterly or annual), annual permits for various that we occasionally haul and those also include a little something for highway use.


That's a good point.
I'm not sure of the details anymore nationwide, but it used to be a trucker had to have stickers/permits/tags for every state he hauled thru. 
Of course that didn't mean standing in multiple DMV lines every year, but how would the average person react if they had to buy "tags" for 20 states before they went on vacation to Yellowstone from the East Coast?
Gotta pay your fair share for using the road, ya know.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

It costs me $160 to cross about 20 miles of the corner of AZ because they won’t recognize my IL plates. 
Wish IL wouldn’t recognize theirs!


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

IndyDave said:


> Probably true on average, but that doesn't change the fact that the moron who apparently thinks the trucker needs a wingman is setting himself up to get hurt really bad.


 The worst thing is it’s against the law for the trucker to do anything about it.
A Georgia trooper. Once explained to me that if I did anything to influence the driving of another driver it was a crime. I forget the specific name he called it but it was a road rage, intimidation ,thing. 
Technically he pointed out even exiting the highway so he would have the road to himself would fall under the statues!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> The worst thing is it’s against the law for the trucker to do anything about it.


It's not illegal to slow down, speed up or change lanes.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

wr said:


> I'm assuming the road use tax you mention is IFTA but if the US is like Canada, we also need permits for OD loads, permits to cross provincial boarders (single trip, quarterly or annual), annual permits for various that we occasionally haul and those also include a little something for highway use.


Rather than have to get permits or multiple registrations to cross state lines, we have what are called apportioned plates where your state collects the money and pays it out to the other states by the mile driven.



101pigs said:


> Got quite a few truckers here that go a few miles on back roads to dodge the weight station and also the cop that is always stopping them to shake them down for a few bucks. Like you said time is money when you are driving and the weight stations are a pain.


We still have plenty of roadside shakedown, but out illustrious governor went on record a couple of weeks before being sworn in stating that commercial vehicle enforcement was an "underutilized revenue stream". I don't like being called a revenue stream any better than I like being called a bitter climber or deplorable. In practice, the state has been on the lookout for any opportunity for an audit since that is where the real money is found.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not illegal to slow down, speed up or change lanes.


Do you really think that someone who has already changed what he is doing in order to be under your feet is going to give up that easily? Then, remember that he can accelerate, brake, and maneuver faster than you can.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> Do you really think that *someone who has already changed what he is doing in order to be under your feet* is going to give up that easily?


You keep saying it's "intentional" but have shown no evidence to support that claim.



IndyDave said:


> Then, remember that he can accelerate, brake, and maneuver faster than you can.


Not really. Trucks slow down and speed up constantly.
You're just making excuses rather than listening to what I said in the *context* in which it was stated. They are the same ones used earlier, so let's not do it again.



> AmericanStand said: ↑
> The worst thing is it’s *against the law* for the trucker *to do anything* about it.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You keep saying it's "intentional" but have shown no evidence to support that claim.
> 
> 
> Not really. Trucks slow down and speed up constantly.
> You're just making excuses rather than listening to what I said in the *context* in which it was stated. They are the same ones used earlier, so let's not do it again.


I was about to explain yet again how you have no clue what you are talking about, but a the end of the day you are going to scream that your theory is right and the reality the rest of us live in doesn't exist.

Why don't you get some idea of the reality involved and then get back with us?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> yet again


And again and again.......still thinking "*This time* will be different".
If repetition is all you have, don't bother to quote me.



Bearfootfarm said:


> so let's not do it again.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And again and again.......still thinking "*This time* will be different".
> If repetition is all you have, don't bother to quote me.


It isn't a matter of repetition. The bottom line is that I live in reality. You look into other people's reality and develop theories about how it should be. Review the scientific method. If the hypothesis does not match the results, the proper response is to discard the hypothesis, not discard the results.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> It isn't a matter of repetition.


The facts speak for themselves.
You can't seem to stick to the actual topic.

I'm not playing your game today.
It's more repetition.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not illegal to slow down, speed up or change lanes.


 The law here in Cali is safe and prudent...…….


Any action can be justified and any action can be nullified by safe and prudent...……….



That opens the door to be ticketed for anything...…….especially truckers, they are seen as a money generator, the upside is you can prepay for scale passes so you do not need to go thru the scales, your scale pass lights up green and you just drive right by them.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

shawnlee said:


> The law here in Cali is safe and prudent...…….
> 
> 
> Any action can be justified and any action can be nullified by safe and prudent...……….
> ...


 Not everyone has the prepass option.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Not everyone has the prepass option.


Ya do if you have a good enough csa score


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

IndyDave said:


> Do you really think that someone who has already changed what he is doing in order to be under your feet is going to give up that easily? Then, remember that he can accelerate, brake, and maneuver faster than you can.


 Remember my trooper acquaintance says if you do that hopeing to change the other guys behavior it’s a crime. 
Now doing it to change YOUR own behavior is perfectly fine. 
Wonder how they tell ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

coolrunnin said:


> Ya do if you have a good enough csa score


 No not true. Some trucking is singled out for special pain.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> No not true. Some trucking is singled out for special pain.


Yea I know they single you out for beatings everywhere you go


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Remember my trooper acquaintance says if you do that hopeing to change the other guys behavior it’s a crime.
> Now doing it to change YOUR own behavior is perfectly fine.
> Wonder how they tell ?


I think they can tell who's acting out and who's just driving defensively


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Remember my trooper acquaintance says *if you do that* hopeing to change the other guys behavior it’s a crime.
> Now doing it to change YOUR own behavior is perfectly fine.
> Wonder how they tell ?


It's not a crime to speed up or slow down to avoid a dangerous situation.



shawnlee said:


> Any action can be justified and any action can be nullified by safe and prudent...……….


You would be the only one who knew you did anything.

There has to be some common sense applied too.
I'm beginning to think there's none left.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

coolrunnin said:


> Ya do if you have a good enough csa score


Don't forget that those scores are based on comparison with similar-sized companies such that there are no objective standards and that you score can be affected by things not under your control like not at fault accidents and my favorite, someone hitting your legally parked truck while you are sound asleep.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

coolrunnin said:


> I think they can tell who's acting out and who's just driving defensively


But weirdly enough that doesn’t have anything to do with it.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

coolrunnin said:


> Yea I know they single you out for beatings everywhere you go


 Lol. You act like you know about trucking. You know exactly what kind of trucking I’m most involved in.
If you actually knew much about trucking ,OR even bothered to read the signs at the scales. You would know That type of trucking AND some others is not eligible for prepass.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not a crime to speed up or slow down to avoid a dangerous situation.
> 
> 
> You would be the only one who knew you did anything.
> ...



The problem is who gets to determine that,...…...which would be who ever pulled you over, one determination absolves you of any guilt and any monetary consequence, the other results in a monetary consequence...…...I will let you determine which way you think that ball rolls.

That's the problem with interpretative laws, it can be interpretated in a way that supports the desired outcome, which in this case is fines and quotas.


While it varies every where, I have seen cases where people have been violated here for following the law because it was interpreted it was not safe and prudent, a prime example is doing the posted speed limit in the fast lane, yet every car on the highway is passing you on the right causing a unsafe obstacle that could be prevented by switching lanes, making you in violation of safe and prudent for following the law.

This has prompted many states to adopt the drive right laws in the last few years, because it does not sit well prosecuting a violation for following the posted speed limit.

A key in the puzzle to remember is what was a noble profession of protect and serve has been manipulated in to a revenue generation unit which is a sent on missions to select out certain actions for the day or week to crack down on, which also has minimum ticketing strings attached to it, you had better come back with a minimum of X tickets or face performance review repercussions...…...that's how the interpretive laws get abused now.


Like almost every thing, it has turned into a revenue generation scheme with very little of what made it great left in tact, with most of it being a "what it looks like on the surface " as all that remains.....which covers almost all things now.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

shawnlee said:


> The problem is who gets to determine that,...…


Who will *know* that you varied your speed a couple of MPH?
I didn't say lock up your wheels, or swerve into their lane.
Let's be realistic.



shawnlee said:


> I have seen cases where people have been violated here for following the law because it was interpreted it was not safe and prudent


Then they must have done something *noticeable*.



shawnlee said:


> that's how the interpretive laws get abused now.


You're on an anti-police rant.

I'm talking about slowing down or speeding up a little to change the relative positions of two vehicles. 

Rant on, but leave me out of it since it doesn't relate to my comments.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Who will *know* that you varied your speed a couple of MPH?
> I didn't say lock up your wheels, or swerve into their lane.
> Let's be realistic.
> 
> ...


1. In my experience, when this happens it generally requires an adjustment between 15 and 25 mph to get someone to stop matching speed with you. Your couple of miles per hour isn't going to get you anywhere, but then again if you weren't well outside the realm of subject matter of which you have any understanding, you would already know that. 

2. Not necessarily. With something that subjective, making no change whatsoever when the cop has it in his head you SHOULD have done something is equally punishable.

3. It isn't an anti-police rant. That is the reality where rubber meets the road.

4. Again, a small change isn't going to work. Those people are almost as bad and as stubborn as the ones who repetitively pass you so they can slow down five to ten miles per hour slower than you were travelling.

5. You are right that the things the rest of us are saying don't relate to your posts. We understand the reality of what we do. You do not.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

IndyDave said:


> 2. Not necessarily. With something that subjective, making no change whatsoever when the cop has it in his head you SHOULD have done something is equally punishable..


Lol that’s the truth !
I once had a cop ticket me for speed in excess of 100 mph. 
His story was that he had seen me go by and since he had to drive over 100 to catch me I must have been doing over 100
The truck I was in was governed at 54 mph (bad old days)
I showed the judge the spec sheet and wasn’t excused 
The prosecution should have stopped then. But they had the officer tell his story. 
Luck for me he told the truth with enough land marks we could calculate the Speed ratio Since I couldn’t have been doing more than 1/3 of his speed I couldn’t have been traveling over the speed limit. 
Now apply that. Sorta cop logic to the situation we are talking about and there you are getting a ticket cause ya slow on a hill....
Or don’t.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

IndyDave said:


> Don't forget that those scores are based on comparison with similar-sized companies such that there are no objective standards and that you score can be affected by things not under your control like not at fault accidents and my favorite, someone hitting your legally parked truck while you are sound asleep.


Okay yup you got me on that, so far knock on wood I haven't lost a hood to one of these guys.

But these days I'm mostly out and back in a single day. Rarely over 500 miles helps a ton


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> But weirdly enough that doesn’t have anything to do with it.


Weirdly enough yes it does


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol. You act like you know about trucking. You know exactly what kind of trucking I’m most involved in.
> If you actually knew much about trucking ,OR even bothered to read the signs at the scales. You would know That type of trucking AND some others is not eligible for prepass.


Sure if your over dimension or heavy haul. But you do drive away or at least that what you said.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

coolrunnin said:


> Weirdly enough yes it does


 No it doesn’t wanna do this all night ?
Claiming you were Driving defensively would probably prove you were guilty.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

coolrunnin said:


> Okay yup you got me on that, so far knock on wood I haven't lost a hood to one of these guys.
> 
> But these days I'm mostly out and back in a single day. Rarely over 500 miles helps a ton


This regulation was bought by the handful of largest companies so that as long as they are all equally bad, they can hire a pack of kamakazi pilots and as long as they are all more or less equally bad they can still have smaller competitors with objectively better safety pushed out of business.

I am with you on the schedule. I an generally running around 350 miles a day 3 days a week.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> No it doesn’t wanna do this all night ?
> Claiming you were Driving defensively would probably prove you were guilty.


First I'm not claiming anything to the cop, the time to fight a ticket is when you go to court not on the side of the road.

Maybe if you tried that approach you wouldn't get beat so often.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

coolrunnin said:


> Sure if your over dimension or heavy haul. But you do drive away or at least that what you said.


Ta Da!
So you Know those signs that exempt driveaway towaway transporter and dealer plates from bypassing scales ?
That means even if we have a prepass unit we still get pulled in and usually A thorough paperwork check too.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

IndyDave said:


> This regulation was bought by the handful of largest companies so that as long as they are all equally bad, they can hire a pack of kamakazi pilots and as long as they are all more or less equally bad they can still have smaller competitors with objectively better safety pushed out of business.
> 
> I am with you on the schedule. I an generally running around 350 miles a day 3 days a week.


Oh I agree with you 100% on the ATA and their crap of student drivers and such nonsense.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

coolrunnin said:


> First I'm not claiming anything to the cop, the time to fight a ticket is when you go to court not on the side of the road.
> 
> Maybe if you tried that approach you wouldn't get beat so often.


How often do you drive 500 miles for your 5 minutes in court ?
I never suggested arguing with the cop you made that up.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Now apply that. Sorta cop logic to *the situation we are talking about*


In the situation being discussed here, there's no logical reason to think a cop would be involved at all. 

That's just the current straw man distraction.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> In the situation being discussed here, there's no logical reason to think a cop would be involved at all.
> 
> That's just the current straw man distraction.


Whenever there is a law governing trucks, there are cops whose only job is commercial vehicle enforcement in addition to the regular cops. The cops WILL be involved. It isn't a straw man, it is just the other side of the same coin.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> How often do you drive 500 miles for your 5 minutes in court ?
> I never suggested arguing with the cop you made that up.


Luckily very rarely, but I have done it.

Once was 1500 out to LA


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> How often do you drive 500 miles for your 5 minutes in court ?
> I never suggested arguing with the cop you made that up.


Who else are you claiming defensive driving to?


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> In the situation being discussed here, there's no logical reason to think a cop would be involved at all.
> 
> That's just the current straw man distraction.


You would be wrong, everyone in law enforcement is looking at your truck as a huge cash cow waiting to give forth more green.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

coolrunnin said:


> Who else are you claiming defensive driving to?


 Homesteadingtoday ?
Lol I didn’t specify the cop was your idea.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

coolrunnin said:


> You would be wrong, everyone in law enforcement is looking at your truck as a huge cash cow waiting to give forth more green.


Exactly. Otherwise we wouldn't have an entire subset of law enforcement dedicated to hunting us.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

coolrunnin said:


> You would be wrong, everyone in law enforcement is looking at your truck as a huge cash cow waiting to give forth more green.


 Now brother you speak the truth !


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

coolrunnin said:


> You would be wrong, *everyone in law enforcement is looking at your truck* as a huge cash cow waiting to give forth more green.


That still has nothing to do with this scenario.
You're talking about something that supposedly happens 24/7.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That still has nothing to do with this scenario.
> You're talking about something that supposedly happens 24/7.


So?


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That still has nothing to do with this scenario.
> You're talking about something that supposedly happens 24/7.


How does it not have everything to do with the scenario?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

coolrunnin said:


> How does it not have everything to do with the scenario?


No one has shown why a cop would be involved other than some vague "they are out to get truckers" rhetoric.
If a car is riding beside you and you don't like it, simply changing your speed will change that juxtaposition. 

No laws are broken, and there's nothing to see other than a relative change of positions


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one has shown why a cop would be involved other than some vague "they are out to get truckers" rhetoric.
> If a car is riding beside you and you don't like it, simply changing your speed will change that juxtaposition.
> 
> No laws are broken, and there's nothing to see other than a relative change of positions


Once again, if they weren't out to get truckers, they would not have a special division of law enforcement for that sole purpose. No amount of concrete in one's ear is going to change that.

Rarely do you just have a car happen to be beside you for any significant time and distance. Nine times it of ten, they come flying up on you and then match speed on your left side. You slow down, they slow down. You speed up, they speed up.

Laws vary by state but there are some which are pretty stupid. Law firms airing commercials which are pretty much tutorials on manufacturing billable collisions doesn't help either.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

The only excuse for a car to match your speed is when one of you come on the highway and at the end of the acceleration you happen to be beside a car that is going exactly your speed .
That does happen, it’s a factor of most drivers aiming for a fairly narrow cruising speed band. 
But a few seconds off the accelerator will let them get out of your aggravation zone. 
If that doesn’t work they are trying to aggravate. 
One way to minimize the problem is not to move over in to the hammer lane for merging traffic.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

AmericanStand said:


> The only excuse for a car to match your speed is when one of you come on the highway and at the end of the acceleration you happen to be beside a car that is going exactly your speed .
> That does happen, it’s a factor of most drivers aiming for a fairly narrow cruising speed band.
> But a few seconds off the accelerator will let them get out of your aggravation zone.
> If that doesn’t work they are trying to aggravate.
> One way to minimize the problem is not to move over in to the hammer lane for merging traffic.


You just have to love the geniuses on the ramp who are already going fast enough in a position to get in front of you by a comfortable margin and then slow down to match speed.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one has shown why a cop would be involved other than some vague "they are out to get truckers" rhetoric.
> If a car is riding beside you and you don't like it, simply changing your speed will change that juxtaposition.
> 
> No laws are broken, and there's nothing to see other than a relative change of positions



Bet you have never seen these officers or even know about the task force they are on...…...it has to do with certain drivers.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

We also have rooms full of people watching these.....

Just a couple of the hundreds, you might not be able to access all the streams from these links.


http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist8/tmc/cctvhtm/cctvcajonrotate.html


http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist8/tmc/cctvhtm/cctv15rotate.html


http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist8/tmc/cctvhtm/cctv215rotate.html


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

shawnlee said:


> Bet you have never seen these officers or even know about the task force they are on...…...it has to do with certain drivers.


Which state do Beavis and Butthead work for?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

shawnlee said:


> *Bet* you have never seen these officers or even know about the task force they are on...…...*it has to do with certain drivers*.


You're still on your anti-LEO rant.
It has nothing at all to do with anything I've said.

They guys in the picture are clocking speeders with a radar gun.
The CCTV cameras are looking for actual violations.

Changing your speed a few MPH isn't illegal.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're still on your anti-LEO rant.
> It has nothing at all to do with anything I've said.
> 
> They guys in the picture are clocking speeders with a radar gun.
> ...


I don't think you get the fact if you change speed so does the car. Up down whatever, unless you do something radical hence chargeable the car just stays there in your blindspot hoping you loose track and he gets a big payday.

It happens everday in every state, I really don't understand your arguing from a point of ignorance.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

coolrunnin said:


> It happens everday in every state, I really don't understand your arguing from a point of ignorance.


It is the love of making an argument out of any discussion, disrupting the discussion which would otherwise be happening, and believing that developing a theory based on very limited knowledge is superior to the knowledge of what actually happens in reality.

There is no intent to understand because the platform for contentiousness depends on not understanding.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Blah, blah, blah...


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

oneraddad said:


> Blah, blah, blah...


Good morning to you too!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

coolrunnin said:


> I don't think you get *the fact* if you change speed so does the car.


I get the fact you keep repeating that.
I don't believe it's actually a fact.
You nor anyone else has been able to show any real evidence.
It's just been the same people repeating the same lines.
It's not working.



coolrunnin said:


> It happens everday in every state, *I really don't understand* your arguing from a point of ignorance.


I can tell you don't understand.
It's because you aren't really trying.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

you are cruising along at 65mph because that is the max speed limit. 2AM . No traffic in either direction. for a half hour. then you see headlights way behind you. in a few minutes a car passes. you know he is speeding because you are going the max speed limit and he just caught up and passed you. as soon as he gets in front of you he starts to slow down.. you do the same, It is not a divided highway.. finally you are going 45mph.
you see a chance to pass and take it. withing 5 miles, the car passes you again. same old story. this happens four times.. 
OK, now what ? stop ? here in the dark way far from any town ? does the guy in the car have a gun ? what are his intentions ?? why is he out after 2AM playing this game ??
these are all facts.. not assuming that he is along side on a four lane highway..
I do not carry, by the way.. so that answers your next question..
now, you with all the answers, tell me what you would have done ??


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> you are cruising along at 65mph because that is the max speed limit. 2AM . No traffic in either direction. for a half hour. then you see headlights way behind you. in a few minutes a car passes. you know he is speeding because you are going the max speed limit and he just caught up and passed you. as soon as he gets in front of you he starts to slow down.. you do the same, It is not a divided highway.. finally you are going 45mph.


That's a whole new scenario.
It's "The Never Ending Story".



[email protected] said:


> you with all the answers, tell me what you would have done ??


It's your fantasy.
You can write your own ending.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Second cleanup.


----------

