Trucks Are Killing Us • Hacker News Board

Re: Trucks Are Killing Us

#211

Post by Retric » Sun, Aug 23, 2015, 2:26 AM UTC

cb18 wrote: post #187

Retric wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In an Efficent market it's to buyers not the industry that pays for regulation. The only way raising rates hurts an industry is when it reduces demand. Full disclosure I have relatives that own and operate a fairly large shipping company they really don't care about industry wide effects like fuel costs. Thinks like software integration with their customers are compeditive advantages, regulation just gets passed alon…

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying. Regulatory capture and efficient markets can't coexist. (My impression of regulatory capture on this matter comes from the OP, it's the first I've really heard of this safety issue.) I already explained in my above post that it is society at large that is currently paying for this with death and destruction on the highways. And that's why this is such a barbaric position. Say…

Suppose the industry margin averages out to 3%.

Suppose 1/3 of shipping cost is fuel and suddenly that increases by 100%. That's a 33% increase in cost. And with 3% margins no shipping company can eat that. So, the industry raises prices by 33%. OMFG that's got to have a huge impact right?

Now step back, If a 3 percent of a TV's cost is shipping that increases 33% to 4% then the TV now costs ~1% extra which has minimal impact on demand. So, people are shipping about as many TV's.

Net result increases in costs only impact customers when shipping is a major component in the total cost. Which is fairly rare. In the end the industry is tied to the overall economy much more than there specific costs.

Re: Trucks Are Killing Us

#212

Post by stevewepay » Sun, Aug 23, 2015, 2:43 AM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #208

stevewepay wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think energy is the driving factor. There are a lot more technical challenges associated with self-driving cars than self-driving drones. Self-driving cars aren't even fully solved at this point. However, even very cheap hobby drones can accurately fly to specific GPS coordinates. Even most plane flights are auto-piloted and even auto-land, so I believe that drones are a lot closer in terms of implementation…

I would expect trucks with drivers to continue to beat drones on cost for a long time, a single trailer load is at least hundreds of drone trips, maybe thousands.

The comparison was between self-driving trucks vs drones, not human-driven trucks vs drones. Obviously those are going to be cheaper than whatever current technology we have.

And there's nothing preventing drones on the rough order of magnitude of trailers from flying around, as long as it's done in a safe and regulated way.

Re: Trucks Are Killing Us

#213

Post by jdc » Sun, Aug 23, 2015, 3:13 AM UTC

jdc wrote: post #210

WalterBright wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people are willing to pay weight fees that reflect the true cost of fixing the road damage, they can continue to use the trucks. But why should taxpayers pay for 2 day delivery instead of 3 day by rail?

I'd guess job creation, possibly with a side of union influence.

Do any of the down voters have another point of view they would like to share?

Re: Trucks Are Killing Us

#214

Post by jimmyspencerjr » Sun, Aug 23, 2015, 3:52 AM UTC

Man, I have always hated trucks, and this is yet another proof of why! But in all seriousness, this is yet another narrative of Congress' rolling back of regulations that prove quite beneficial by way of safety and overall welfare of the nation in favor of vicious profit margins for those warlords of industry. I certainly hope to see restored a body of lawmakers that can get their act together and promote the welfare of a healthy, vibrant nation before the end of my lifetime. We have too many clowns now who are willing to pass laws or not pass laws in downright stupidity, and I'm not sure if it's out of sheer corruption or debased philosophical convictions. For myself, this issue serves as an ideal example of where the government can and should intervene with laws and regulations and oversight in order to promote general safety and welfare, not to mention economic fairness, in preventing the exploitation of the have-nots by the haves. I'm just as weary of government getting too large and intervening in our private lives as anybody else, but who can argue that in cases such as truck driving and highway safety in general, the government cannot easily play a part in saving not only lives but tons of money?

Re: Trucks Are Killing Us

#215

Post by snarfy » Sun, Aug 23, 2015, 4:03 AM UTC

Aloha wrote: post #60

rcarrigan87 wrote: post #48

I'm all for the safety arguments being made by the author but he does paint the trucking industry as this huge money making business when that really isn't the case. Trucking is a very low margin business. These guys live and die based on controlling costs. It's an industry where innovation is very hard because you really need to justify every dollar spent on R&D. Quoting $700B total industry revenue and saying there…

The article bothered me because of the presumption that the author made about hours of service, and as a former driver, in my opinion the issue is not the HOS (hours of service) rules, its the way companies, especially many smaller ones dispatch their drivers - you can be expected to go from working days, to working nights instantly, and it can really fuck hardcore with your sleep schedule - so while you can be compl…

If the government is going to regulate the hours per week, they should be regulating the schedule too. They wouldn't let a commercial jet pilot switch schedules like that.

Re: Trucks Are Killing Us

#216

Post by robryan » Sun, Aug 23, 2015, 4:04 AM UTC

Retric wrote: post #211

cb18 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying. Regulatory capture and efficient markets can't coexist. (My impression of regulatory capture on this matter comes from the OP, it's the first I've really heard of this safety issue.) I already explained in my above post that it is society at large that is currently paying for this with death and destruction on the highways. And that's why this is such a barbaric position. Say…

Suppose the industry margin averages out to 3%. Suppose 1/3 of shipping cost is fuel and suddenly that increases by 100%. That's a 33% increase in cost. And with 3% margins no shipping company can eat that. So, the industry raises prices by 33%. OMFG that's got to have a huge impact right? Now step back, If a 3 percent of a TV's cost is shipping that increases 33% to 4% then the TV now costs ~1% extra which has minim…

As long as there is enforcement, so your competitors can't simply ignore or not properly implement changes and gain a pricing advantage.

Re: Trucks Are Killing Us

#217

Post by jsz0 » Sun, Aug 23, 2015, 4:36 AM UTC

> the N.T.S.B. recently reported that they were involved in one in eight of all fatal accidents and about one-quarter of all fatal accidents in work zones

Involved or at fault? It seems like these stats are including accidents where trucks did not even contribute to the fatalities but were simply part of the collateral damage.

Re: Trucks Are Killing Us

#218

Post by WalterBright » Sun, Aug 23, 2015, 5:04 AM UTC

vvanders wrote: post #205

WalterBright wrote: post #119

Driving on I5 from Seattle to Portland is now a long line of semis, one after the other. Trucks, even loaded to the legal limit, cause 9,000 times as much fatigue damage to the road as a car (fatigue damage goes up as the cube of the weight). It's inefficient and environmentally absurd to use trucks that way. Railroad tracks parallel I5. The solution is to pick the container off the semi, put it on a railcar, do the…

That's because they closed the shipping terminal down in Portland so they have to ship it all via semi. From what I understand train has much higher latency(and its being taken up by coal/oil cars). Over the last 6 months its really driven ip traffic on I-5.

I would assume that shifting the truck traffic to the rails would entail improving the rail infrastructure, such as increasing capacity and adding convenient stations optimized for transferring loads between semis and flatcars.

But that's still got to be an order of magnitude cheaper than increasing freeway capacity, and of course all the money spent on constantly rebuilding them.

Re: Trucks Are Killing Us

#219

Post by user_235711 » Sun, Aug 23, 2015, 5:28 AM UTC

douche wrote: post #128

hyperpape wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that would be more informative. But we still need to know about the baseline rates. Trucks are very big, so dangerous to other drivers, and there's a lot of miles driven. On the other hand, there's industry capital to potentially finance safety upgrades, and they're driven by professionals. I'd like to see a more nuanced discussion of what the acceptable risk is, given all those factors.

At least some of that risk needs to be realized by the other drivers on the road. I don't know how many times I've seen a little shit-box commuter car zip into the safe following distance that a heavily-laden truck is maintaining, then stomp on the brakes, forcing the truck driver to burn their brakes and down-shift abruptly to avoid going right over the top of them. You don't stop 100,000 pounds in the same distance…

Definitely. Seems like way too many drivers in traffic only see road space in front of another vehicle as "an opportunity to change lanes and go faster" rather than "that vehicle's following distance". I drove a moving truck halfway across the country one time and was amazed at just how often in the cities small cars sped in to fill whatever following distance I created in front of me. And yes, a couple of them nearly got rear-ended as a direct result of their driving, not mine. I can only imagine dealing with the same scenario but with a semi instead. Scary thought!

Re: Trucks Are Killing Us

#220

Post by dalke » Sun, Aug 23, 2015, 7:35 AM UTC

netfire wrote: post #184

WalterBright wrote: post #119

Driving on I5 from Seattle to Portland is now a long line of semis, one after the other. Trucks, even loaded to the legal limit, cause 9,000 times as much fatigue damage to the road as a car (fatigue damage goes up as the cube of the weight). It's inefficient and environmentally absurd to use trucks that way. Railroad tracks parallel I5. The solution is to pick the container off the semi, put it on a railcar, do the…

I agree that rail seems ideal and much more economical and environmentally friendly, but is the system designed to handle consumer shipping with its demands for quick delivery with tight deadlines? (Which I'd argue constitutes a large portion of truck-based freight) How much longer does it take to load/unload a freight train versus a truck? How much slower is the train and how longer does it take to ship? (and how do…

http://www.bgiworldwide.com/domestic-shipping/rail says "Typical transit time for coast-to-coast delivery is 7 to 10 days."

Figuring 44 hours to drive across the country (NYC to SF), and a maximum of 11 hours long-haul driving per day, gives 4 days. That's for a single driver; a team with a sleeper can go further. Call it 2x faster with a truck.

Amazon has fulfillment locations all around the US, so even with ground-only shipping they don't need two full days on average to deliver. (Map at http://www.amazonfulfillmentcareers.com/amazon-fulfillment/l... )