So now you are nitpicking on words. You've already lost the argument.

Also, between 2006-2007, the TOTAL deaths in which large trucks were involved decreased by 4.4%. (Table 4). Is that better?

You want to attribute this to people in automobiles driving safer. The data does not support this, as it does not state who was at fault in these crashes.

The data disagrees with your conclusion. Again, with the nitpicking of words.

So? You are making a completely baseless assumption that the two extra deaths in 2007 were caused by a lack of split sleeper berth. The data does not support this at all, as it does not state what the cause was. And as Mike already pointed out, a change from 500 to 502 is negligible.

You are simply ignoring all the data that does not support your assessment, and attributing things to the data that it does not state. The fact remains that our highways were safer in 2007 than they were in 2005, if only by a small percentage.

Why not show some data from before the HOS rule change of 2005? That would show a more accurate picture of what the HOS rule change did:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810583.PDF

Between 2004 and 2005, there was a 5.3% increase in truck related deaths (761 in 2004, compared to 804 in 2005, which beat their projection by a long shot). The new HOS rules went into effect on October 1, 2005, which means that 75% of the year was run under the old HOS rules. After the HOS rules went into effect, the number of truck related deaths became essentially flat. It no longer increased at such a drastic rate as it did under the rules you wish to go back to. The highways became safer. Did the HOS rules cause this? The FMCSA certainly seems to think so, and the data seems to support their conclusion. That's why they haven't changed the HOS rules.

You are grasping at straws, stonefly. You are trying your hardest to make this a safety related issue, when it is solely a monetary issue for you. In fact, even on your website, the comments echo this. People whining that they can't work as long under the new HOS rules, and are making less money as a result.

Why not call a spade a spade, and admit that you simply want to change the HOS rules because you are incapable (or unwilling) to adapt to the new rules?

 

You're right, a 500 to 502 increase, by itself, in one year, is not much justification for anything. What does appear to be relevant, however, is that while motorist fatalities in passenger vehicles decreased by 8.3% over two years, truck driver fatalities decreased only by .25%, only a quarter of a percent.

Again, as I said in my previous post, if removing the split sleeper berth provision were responsible for a general decrease in highway fatalities, then one would expect to see that decrease reflected in truck driver fatalities.

It may be significant that truck driver fatalities increased in single vehicle truck crashes, even though only by 2, while they decreased in multivehicle crashes, and I have already explained why that might be.

There are a lot of good reasons to restore the split sleeper berth provision, and there are a lot of truckers who would like to see it back. That's what I'm doing here, working with other drivers toward that end. I drive under the new rules the same as you do. It's the time I spend on this forum that I use for this matter. Many drivers spend a lot of time on the forum. I feel that my time here is used wisely.



stonefly

 

Support it with data. Show some statistics which show an increase of fatigue related crashes.

 

Hey Rev.Vassago. I got no interest in you. Why don't you rain on somebody else...I'm here for a reason, and your nonsense ain't got nuthin' to do with it.

Did you remove the link to the OOIDA website?

 

As I said, you've already lost. It's a shame you can't actually back up your position with any legitimate facts. But I will be sure to continue to expose your attempt to hide your true intentions - that you want the HOS rules changed because you are incapable of adapting.

 

There are some observations that you may want to keep in mind when you look at these figures, regardless of which side of the split berth you are on. First, the numbers are a little misleading. The feds consider any truck with a GVW of 10,000 or more as a big truck and they are included in these figures. That may not give a fair representation of class 8 trucks. If these numbers only included class 8 trucks or at least separated them then I would have greater confidence in them. Second, no matter which side of this issue you are on, you would need more information to lend support to whether the split berth was responsible for more or fewer accidents involving big trucks. Some of the numbers are subject to interpretation. I am not sure how deeply the compilers of these figures go into the causal effect of these accidents. Unless I over looked it I didn't notice anything mentioned about fault involving big trucks and cars. Of course, any of these numbers will be skewed to some degree due to the smaller trucks being included in their numbers. Simply drawing the conclusion that the numbers may have gone up or down around the time the new hos went into effect may or may not be the result of a change in the split berth. It could be suspect, but you would need to look at other factors to draw an accurate conclusion. I believe the difference was only 2 crashes between the two years mentioned. That really isn't enough of a difference to support either side.

 

You are correct. The numbers presented do not go into detail on who was at fault in these crashes, and they do not go into detail on the cause of the crashes. Perhaps stonefly would have been wise to actually do some research into fatigue studies before launching his campaign claiming that drivers are more fatigued under this set of rules. I know the FMCSA sure did. And the conclusion they came to was that the new HOS rules provided a better opportunity to gain restorative sleep for drivers. Since stonefly has provided absolutely no data to contradict this, his entire argument that the new HOS rules cause more fatigue related crashes is completely and utterly baseless, and is simply a sham to cover up his true agenda.

 

No... I don't think you DID. Let me see if I can help. First, this table (although it was one of a few that drew my attention,) doesn't tell us much about the ISSUE, because (I believe) it only refers to the period from 2005 to 2007. [not actually specified.]

But, the single statistic and percentage you "cherry picked" doesn't prove anything. I'll tell you MY OPINION of why not, though SOME here will accuse me of reading the "spirit" of the chart.

Look again at the FIRST line of the chart. Single vehicle truck crash fatalities of 245 out of 844 (29%) due to "failure to maintain lane control." And another 382 where other vehicles got "caught up" in that crash, for a total of 627 out of 4,881...or 12.8% of ALL truck driver* fatalities... the highest percentage on the chart. [*And MANY more civilians.]

Now... we ALL know that JUST weaving out of your lane doesn't kill you. It's when you LEAVE THE ROAD that you die! The chart actually shows that about 2/3rds of these deaths ocurred on a stretch of road where the driver was ALONE, probably late at night, and no other vehicles were involved.

Since the driver was DEAD in all of these cases, (and probably had his falisified logs in order - if they didn't burn up,) the "reported" cause of the accident will have to be the OBVIOUS that he left his lane as opposed to proving he was fatigued.

Now, you can argue that these numbers are HIGHER than under pre-2005 rules, but personally... I don't think the facts would bear you out.

The POINT is... you can't use that minimal figure allocated to "fatigued drivers" because it is so hard to PROVE...and IF you do, you'll notice that the total (averaged figure of) 1.7% is the SEVENTH highest figure on the chart where others survived and testified to OTHER causes, and the 5.9% figure is the FOURTH highest percentage for single vehicle truck crashes. The .8% you quoted has been diluted by OTHER factors that survivors testified to in MULTIPLE vehicle crashes.

In case I've made this too complicated for ANY reader here.... I contend that the VAST majority of fatalities "attributed" to failure to maintain lane of travel are actually those where the driver fell asleep at the wheel, (or was too sleepy to maintain,) left the lane of travel AND THE ROAD, and killed himself or OTHERS.

We USED to have some former cops on here who, I believe, would support my "analysis."

I will "join" your discussion of the stats and facts on this issue, Stonefly (if you haven't already "dismissed" me as you did the Rev,) and I see no reason not to keep it civil. But, I suspect that you already have your mind made up, and no amount of discussion is going to change it.

In such eventuality, I suggest that when reading tables and charts you AT LEAST pay close attention to the numbers for EACH year of...trucks on the road, MILES driven, and passenger vehicles on the road. ALL of these factors have increased since the "good ole days." You might also want to consider the years when the National speed limit was 55. Then there are also the BY STATE "split speed limits" and increased seat belt usage.

And don't forget the INCREASED numbers of NEW truckdrivers on the roads today, the increased number of drivers of ALL types who are talking on that newfangled "cellphone" thingy, and the number of drivers who are driving beyond their personal limits SIMPLY because they don't understand how to USE the "new" split berth option to make their schedules more adaptable... nor understand that the 34 hour restart has given them MORE hours of driving/working per week than they had under the "old" rules.

Oh.... and while you're at it.... google CIRCADIAN RHYTHM. THIS is the true "basis" of the new HOS rules (in conjunction with crash statistics.)

Hobo

 

Cliffs notes version.

 

WHAT??? You got an ALARM that goes off everytime I post? You were OFFLINE when I posted that. You couldn't possibly read it all in the short time it took me to edit and change my shorts! :lol2:

But, to some exent, you are right. Yes, I believe this is ONE time that we agree and have found common ground. The DIFFERENCE is.... I can provide analysis of my opinion whereas YOU are just STATING an opinion. :moon: