Trucks Are Killing Us

1. Banks may not choose to finance small businesses at all, because they can finance bigger businesses which are a lower risk.

2. If banks do finance small businesses, they charge them higher interest rates than a larger business, again, because a larger, more established business is lower risk. A small business that has to finance at a higher interest rate will have to make larger gross profits to pay their financing costs.

3. Larger businesses may have enough cash on hand that they don't require financing at all, which makes it even harder for small businesses to compete.

I wasn't ignoring financing when I said that high up-front costs and low long-term costs create the ideal conditions for large businesses to drive out small businesses. Financing simply doesn't solve this problem.

Ugh. Did you even read it?

"More people will be killed in traffic accidents involving large trucks this year than have died in all of the domestic commercial airline crashes over the past 45 years, if past trends hold true."

"In recent months, Congress has pursued a number of steps to roll back safety improvements ordered by federal regulators. It has pushed to allow truck drivers to work 82 hours a week, up from the current 70 hours over eight days, by eliminating the requirement that drivers take a two-day rest break each week; discouraged the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration from investing in wireless technology designed to improve the monitoring of drivers and their vehicles; and signaled its willingness to allow longer and heavier trucks despite widespread public opposition. Congress also wants to lower the minimum age for drivers of large trucks that are allowed to travel from state to state to 18, from 21."

"The death toll in truck-involved crashes rose 17 percent from 2009 to 2013. Fatalities in truck-involved crashes have risen four years in a row, reaching 3,964 in 2013, the latest data available. Those crashes are killing not only car drivers but also, during 2013 alone, 586 people who were truck drivers or passengers."

"And while a more than 3 percent drop in car deaths over the same period was largely accomplished by technological improvements like airbags, electronic stability control and anti-lock brakes, the trucking industry has resisted most of those safety devices. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates the annual cost to the economy of truck and bus crashes to be $99 billion."

There's plenty of data in there.

> The opinion doesn't say anything about private efforts to fix things.

"And while a more than 3 percent drop in car deaths over the same period was largely accomplished by technological improvements like airbags, electronic stability control and anti-lock brakes, the trucking industry has resisted most of those safety devices."

"Most automakers now include or offer anti-lock brakes, electronic stability control, airbags and collision-avoidance devices in their vehicles, and the technology is included in many of the heavy trucks sold in Europe. But the United States trucking industry has largely avoided using the safety technologies available for vehicles sold here, because of their cost."

"The trucking industry, through its chief trade group, the American Trucking Associations, insists that it needs longer work weeks and bigger vehicles so that more trucks will not be needed on the road, which it says could result in more accidents."

> Now, if that stuff has been tried, and failed, then what have states done? Why do we have to go directly to Federal level?

Because the interstates are exactly that: inster-state. The trucking industry isn't a problem that affects just a few states. This is clearly not a problem that will be solved by fighting it out individually in each state individually.

> Ultimately, we should never give more power to one group unless it really is the only way to do what is needed.

I see you've decided to exclude the trucking industry, which holds all the cards in this situation, from your definition of "group".

> No matter how much we trust that group.

I don't trust the trucking industry at all.

> Thus, whenever someone suggests new regulations, I always question if they are really needed. Especially when we're talking about the USA Federal Government.

It appears that you only question giving a group more power when that group is the US Federal Government. Every solution you've suggested trying gives a group more power.

Let's stop pretending this is about logic or data and recognize that you'll just say whatever to push your anti-government ideology.

Currently those fulfillment centers only use trucks. (I spot checked a few Amazon fulfillment areal photographs on Google Maps.) They would have to be relocated on rail lines, or lines moved to them. There would need to be about 4x more centers, since trucks are about 2x faster. Probably more like 6x more, since trucks and roads go places that trains can't get to because of grade limitations.

Only you know what 'realistic' means to you. We know it's possible to have a rail system that reaches most towns in the US - that's what we had until the automobile. Many of the right-of-ways still exist, but they were also designed for slower, lighter trains than we have now. And for days with more canned and pickled goods that weren't so time sensitive.

Trains don't scale down. Consider a small town grocery store. Currently it will get several different trucks making deliveries - soda, beer, fruit and veg, etc. These make deliveries to many different stores in the area. How does it work if we switch to delivery by rail? Does the train drop off a trailer bundled with all of the daily deliveries? If so, how are thing kept cool that need to be cool? Or are multiple trailers dropped off, and if so, where are they stored and how much room is needed? Does the store need to be next to the tracks?