Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Froggy the Great

Randomness XIV: THE FLOOR IS LAVA!

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Unruly said:

 

If he does that, it should totally be my previous post. I mean, it's only fitting.

 

 

Well, this was the brakes on the rearmost driver's side wheel pair on the trailer. His extinguisher put it out by dumping the entire thing into it(as I said before, the wheel hub and rim were toasted when I looked later). It was one that was maybe twice the size of the one I have under my kitchen sink. The cloud was enormous and covered the whole bridge, and I was just thinking that I hoped another truck didn't come along because in all honesty those guys turn onto that bridge way too fast and he was only maybe his whole truck length from the turn. It's a 2 lane bridge with a wide turn onto it, and half the time the trucks won't slow down enough to take the turn without eating up the entire oncoming traffic lane for a good 20 feet.

 

The city has tried to ban the trucks from using that route into the city because of how the truckers do that, but they can't because it's a state route that the state specifically has marked as a trucking route. And then the state doesn't maintain it for crap...

Seems to me that this would be a good area for the Police to give some extra attention to.  Classify it as a "Safety Zone" and really lean on the worst offenders.  They will either clean up their act or find so much of their pay going into City Coffers in the form of fines that they find a job elsewhere.

And it sounds to me like you have a similar problem with the coal haulers that we have on the West Coast  with the short-haul container monkeys haulers.

Generally under trained.  Usually overdrive their actual capabilities and skill level.  Always in too big a hurry and any smaller vehicle is on its own as far as any observance of safety or common sense goes.  Too many companies that use the major wreck method of screening drivers for actual competency, which ends up with a lot of unnecessary bent metal, hurt civilians, and broken scenery.

What you describe at the bridge approach sounds like an area where the City needs to start stacking the violations, with a basic speed violation and a right of way violation stacked on top of that.  Repeat offenders get higher fines, max points against their commercial licenses, and for the worst violators arrest with impound of the truck and if it's a company truck the company gets to pay the tow bill and yard fees [which then get deducted from the pay of the arrested driver who usually ends up getting fired for costing the company time and money].  It usually doesn't take very long to get these sort of situations under control, and then it only takes a little extra effort every few months to keep it under control.

GEM

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*sits in front of the controls, sees the massive tail of pages behind them growing beyond normal limits, grits his teeth and turns to look through the cockpit* Hang on people, this thread is about to be going to plaid. *pushes lever ahead and activates the hyperdrive*

  • Like 3
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TGP said:

We may have already started the new thread... 

 

... @Froggy the Great May pick a post from the last 80 or so and transfer it, and all that followed, to the new thread. 

Randomness XV:  Off to a Running Start

GEM

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Green Eyed Monster said:

Seems to me that this would be a good area for the Police to give some extra attention to.  Classify it as a "Safety Zone" and really lean on the worst offenders.  They will either clean up their act or find so much of their pay going into City Coffers in the form of fines that they find a job elsewhere.

And it sounds to me like you have a similar problem with the coal haulers that we have on the West Coast  with the short-haul container monkeys haulers.

Generally under trained.  Usually overdrive their actual capabilities and skill level.  Always in too big a hurry and any smaller vehicle is on its own as far as any observance of safety or common sense goes.  Too many companies that use the major wreck method of screening drivers for actual competency, which ends up with a lot of unnecessary bent metal, hurt civilians, and broken scenery.

 

My mom's boyfriend works as head mechanic for a local trucking company. They handle a lot of logging work, which means a lot of terrible, winding roads through the mountains. They fitted their trucks with GPS monitors after they had a few rollovers because the drivers were speeding up and down the hills. You know what happened? The drivers found the wire for the GPS power and cut it or otherwise unhook it, blaming it on things happening on the road. One of the guys was warned multiple times that if he continued to disconnect his GPS, then he'd be fired. He still did it anyways, and he lost his job over it.

 

The reason they do it? They think they know better than the company how fast they can go on the roads and think that getting more loads quicker is better. Except my mom's boyfriend says that for each route they have they send a driver out to time a trip, and he takes the trip at a safe pace. Then they take that time and add more on to it to account for things like traffic. And that's what they base the average turnaround timeframe for a truck on. And they tell the drivers what the average turnaround frame should be, and that that time is the only thing they care about. Anything that's faster is wasted, and means you're being unsafe.

 

The drivers didn't care. They figured "faster means more trips which means better pay" or whatever, despite the fact that to my understanding they're hourly employees, not paid by the trip. And that's how they got rollovers, and that's why they now have GPS trackers.

 

4 hours ago, Green Eyed Monster said:

What you describe at the bridge approach sounds like an area where the City needs to start stacking the violations, with a basic speed violation and a right of way violation stacked on top of that.  Repeat offenders get higher fines, max points against their commercial licenses, and for the worst violators arrest with impound of the truck and if it's a company truck the company gets to pay the tow bill and yard fees [which then get deducted from the pay of the arrested driver who usually ends up getting fired for costing the company time and money].  It usually doesn't take very long to get these sort of situations under control, and then it only takes a little extra effort every few months to keep it under control.

GEM

 

It'd be nice, but I seem to remember a few years back they tried that and it turned into a huge stink and threatened legal action because of discrimination or some BS against the truckers. Something about them being targeted or whatever. Which is dumb, because they're being targeted for being frequent and repeat violators. If they weren't driving like A-holes, they wouldn't be getting stopped.

 

Heck, I remember one time where a truck was trying to turn onto the bridge from the other direction(it's turning entry both sides) and started blaring his horn at a car who was stopped at the traffic light coming into town, at the white line where they're supposed to stop, because the trucker couldn't make the turn. This was right at the start of the PD day shift, I was working at the front desk at the time, and the intersection in question is right outside the front door of the PD. Next thing I know, both day shift supervisors come down and walk out the door. They were wondering what the heck was going on, thinking it was a wreck. By the time they got out there, the trucker was out of his cab, screaming at the person in the car telling them that they had to move because he "had the right of way." The officers then told him he needed to back off, because the car at the light was in the right since the trucker was trying to cross into an oncoming traffic lane, and that if he couldn't make the turn in the alotted space without entering an oncoming traffic lane he shouldn't be driving a truck. And if he didn't shut up, get in that truck, and get it out of the intersection they were going to hit him with every ticket they could - disorderly conduct, blocking an intersection, failure to yield right of way, and driving against traffic were the ones I heard mentioned when they got back into the office.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Unruly said:

 

My mom's boyfriend works as head mechanic for a local trucking company. They handle a lot of logging work, which means a lot of terrible, winding roads through the mountains. They fitted their trucks with GPS monitors after they had a few rollovers because the drivers were speeding up and down the hills. You know what happened? The drivers found the wire for the GPS power and cut it or otherwise unhook it, blaming it on things happening on the road. One of the guys was warned multiple times that if he continued to disconnect his GPS, then he'd be fired. He still did it anyways, and he lost his job over it.

 

The reason they do it? They think they know better than the company how fast they can go on the roads and think that getting more loads quicker is better. Except my mom's boyfriend says that for each route they have they send a driver out to time a trip, and he takes the trip at a safe pace. Then they take that time and add more on to it to account for things like traffic. And that's what they base the average turnaround timeframe for a truck on. And they tell the drivers what the average turnaround frame should be, and that that time is the only thing they care about. Anything that's faster is wasted, and means you're being unsafe.

 

The drivers didn't care. They figured "faster means more trips which means better pay" or whatever, despite the fact that to my understanding they're hourly employees, not paid by the trip. And that's how they got rollovers, and that's why they now have GPS trackers.

 

 

It'd be nice, but I seem to remember a few years back they tried that and it turned into a huge stink and threatened legal action because of discrimination or some BS against the truckers. Something about them being targeted or whatever. Which is dumb, because they're being targeted for being frequent and repeat violators. If they weren't driving like A-holes, they wouldn't be getting stopped.

 

Heck, I remember one time where a truck was trying to turn onto the bridge from the other direction(it's turning entry both sides) and started blaring his horn at a car who was stopped at the traffic light coming into town, at the white line where they're supposed to stop, because the trucker couldn't make the turn. This was right at the start of the PD day shift, I was working at the front desk at the time, and the intersection in question is right outside the front door of the PD. Next thing I know, both day shift supervisors come down and walk out the door. They were wondering what the heck was going on, thinking it was a wreck. By the time they got out there, the trucker was out of his cab, screaming at the person in the car telling them that they had to move because he "had the right of way." The officers then told him he needed to back off, because the car at the light was in the right since the trucker was trying to cross into an oncoming traffic lane, and that if he couldn't make the turn in the alotted space without entering an oncoming traffic lane he shouldn't be driving a truck. And if he didn't shut up, get in that truck, and get it out of the intersection they were going to hit him with every ticket they could - disorderly conduct, blocking an intersection, failure to yield right of way, and driving against traffic were the ones I heard mentioned when they got back into the office.

It's much easier to document unsafe driving now that we have dashcams and body cameras.

As far as "truck drivers" not being able to make a turn without going "over the line", the technical and legal term is "encroachment" and that applies equally to going into an adjacent lane going the same way or crossing over a line into oncoming traffic.  Any rig with a kingpin to rear axle distance of 40' or less should only require two lanes maximum for a tight right hand turn, usually a lane and a half is ample room.

The incident you related last:  Any baboon/buffoon displaying that level of ignorance of the right of way laws needs to be jerked out of the cab right now.  That level of ignorance won't even get you a class B license around my part of the country, and all that qualifies you to drive is a cement mixer or a bus, and you can't even drive the bus without a Passenger Endorsement.

GEM

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most of the short term trucking comments.  I will add that a lot of short haul truckers look at travel times as minimum load requirements and if they can cut even 15 min off the time it's an excuse to hang out or nap or whatever.  I am not judging their reasons, a lot of companies are really not good about providing sufficient breaks, but blowing safety regulations and endangering others because they think they can handle it is not a good way to make up time

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Green Eyed Monster said:

It's much easier to document unsafe driving now that we have dashcams and body cameras.

As far as "truck drivers" not being able to make a turn without going "over the line", the technical and legal term is "encroachment" and that applies equally to going into an adjacent lane going the same way or crossing over a line into oncoming traffic.  Any rig with a kingpin to rear axle distance of 40' or less should only require two lanes maximum for a tight right hand turn, usually a lane and a half is ample room.

The incident you related last:  Any baboon/buffoon displaying that level of ignorance of the right of way laws needs to be jerked out of the cab right now.  That level of ignorance won't even get you a class B license around my part of the country, and all that qualifies you to drive is a cement mixer or a bus, and you can't even drive the bus without a Passenger Endorsement.

GEM

 

Oh, I'm not talking about encroachment. That's when you take up only part of the other lane. These guys will be fully in the oncoming lane, I'm talking their headlights and oncoming traffic's will be pointing directly at each other, for a good 20 feet of travel. And they'll sit there and lay on the horn if you don't get out of their way. Heck, if I go home that way, I've got a 50/50 shot of having a truck try to smash my car to bits because they think they own all the lanes.

 

I understand that the longer trucks need more room to maneuver, but that turn was designed with that in mind. Heck, on that same stretch of road there's another turn that was specifically widened about 5 years ago to make room for large trucks, because it actually was too sharp to take without requiring the whole oncoming lane, and they STILL take up the oncoming lane despite their lane now being twice as wide as it used to be.

Edited by Unruly
  • Like 4
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Unruly said:

 

Oh, I'm not talking about encroachment. That's when you take up only part of the other lane. These guys will be fully in the oncoming lane, I'm talking their headlights and oncoming traffic's will be pointing directly at each other, for a good 20 feet of travel. And they'll sit there and lay on the horn if you don't get out of their way. Heck, if I go home that way, I've got a 50/50 shot of having a truck try to smash my car to bits because they think they own all the lanes.

 

I understand that the longer trucks need more room to maneuver, but that turn was designed with that in mind. Heck, on that same stretch of road there's another turn that was specifically widened about 5 years ago to make room for large trucks, because it actually was too sharp to take without requiring the whole oncoming lane, and they STILL take up the oncoming lane despite their lane now being twice as wide as it used to be.

Sounds to me like the problem is completely with Local Enforcement.  Unfortunately, in most situations like this, they don't get worked on by the proper authorities until there has been a serious enough "accident" to cost somebody their life.

GEM

  • Like 4
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...