‘Overreaching regulation’

Having slow-moving trucks and fast-moving cars on the same road is a recipe for disaster, Sen. Steve Daines says.

That thinking is why Daines, R-Mont., introduced the DRIVE Act, which would prevent the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration from mandating speed-limiting devices on commercial motor vehicles.

“This is a bill that I think is common sense, and it doesn’t take long to make the argument around why (speed limiters) would actually create more dangerous driving conditions,” Daines said in a recent interview on Land Line Now. “You always try to understand why the other side is doing this. They think they are going to make the roads safer. That’s the reason they want to put this mandate in place. We can make a very clear argument around why it will actually create more unsafe conditions. It will have unintended consequences.”

Last year, FMCSA issued an advance notice of supplemental proposed rulemaking that considers requiring that commercial motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of 26,001 pounds or more be equipped with speed-limiting devices. A top speed was not determined in the advance notice, but previous proposals floated the possibilities of 60, 65 and 68 mph.

FMCSA is expected to unveil a formal proposal that includes a top speed later this year.

Opponents of a mandate argue that a top speed of 60 mph, for instance, would create as much as a 25 mph difference between the legal speed for cars and trucks in certain parts of the nation. The OOIDA Foundation points to research from Dr. Steven Johnson and the University of Arkansas that found the frequency of interactions with other vehicles increases 227% when traveling 10 mph below the speed of traffic.

“You fit trucks with these speed-limiting devices, it will increase congestion and create – in my opinion and from others who have studied this – more dangerous conditions by creating more differences in speed for the vehicles on the road,” Daines said. “While I think these bureaucrats in Washington think they’re making our roads safer, I believe they will actually make our roads less safe because of this overreaching rule.”

In recent years, several states have moved away from split speed limits between cars and trucks because they determined it was safer to have all vehicles traveling at the same speed.

“The speed limit across most interstate highways in Montana is 80 mph,” Daines said. “That’s the right level for Montana. A different level may be needed for a more congested state, but that’s where we’re at in Montana. So imagine these bureaucrats in Washington dictating basically where truckers need to drive in Montana when they’ll be well below the moving traffic levels. That actually creates more unsafe conditions. This is about standing up for the rights of the states.”

Arguments for a mandate

As part of FMCSA’s justification for the mandate, it cited 2019 stats reporting nearly 900 fatal crashes involving large trucks in posted speed limits of 70 mph or more.

Cathy Chase, president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, said the DRIVE Act could lead to more traffic deaths.

“At a time when commercial motor vehicle crash fatalities and injuries are skyrocketing, our nation’s leaders should be taking action to make the roads safer for all road users, not hampering the use of proven safety solutions like speed limiters,” Chase said. “This legislation is ill-advised at best and deadly at worst.”

Steve Williams, CEO of Maverick USA and president of The Trucking Alliance USA, also sees the benefit of speed limiters.

“About 98% of the 62,000 trucks operated by Trucking Alliance carriers already use speed limiters, because it’s safe for our drivers,” Williams said. “The science is clear. It takes an 80,000-pound tractor-trailer rig much farther to stop when going 80 mph than it does at 65 or 70 mph. Everybody needs to slow down, and allowing FMCSA to pursue its rulemaking is the right thing to do.”

Do speed limiters stop speeding?

While companies like Maverick may already use speed-limiting devices, the devices do not put an end to all speeding. According to information from FMCSA’s Compliance Safety Accountability website, Maverick had 110 speeding violations in the past two years. Eighteen of those violations were for at least 15 mph faster than the speed limit. In addition, the carrier had 127 crashes included in the CSA SMS data that were not determined to be non-preventable during that span.

The Trucking Alliance is comprised of large fleets Maverick, Bison, Cargo Transporters, Dupre Logistics, J.B. Hunt, KLLM Transport Services, Knight Transportation, May Trucking Company, Schneider, Swift and U.S. Xpress. Over the past two years, they had combined totals of 3,406 crashes (which does not include non-preventable crashes) and 3,481 speeding violations. While the companies have a large number of trucks, these totals show that speed-limiting devices don’t put a stop to speeding or crashes.

DRIVE Act

Rep. Josh Brecheen, R-Okla., introduced the House version of the DRIVE Act this past May. As of press time in early September, HR3039 had 27 co-sponsors.

Daines introduced the Senate version, S2671, on July 27. Despite lawmakers being gone for the August recess, the bill had eight co-sponsors as of press time.

“I think the average person is going to look at and see that it’s going to create unsafe driving conditions,” Daines said. “You have slow-moving trucks and fast-moving vehicles. The truck is on the road for longer periods of time. That’s not a good thing.”

Daines asked truck drivers to reach out to their lawmakers about the issue in hopes of getting more support on both sides of the political aisle.

“It’s really important that the grassroots get out there and make their calls and put pressure on key senators in states we can persuade so that we can get some Democrats on this bill,” Daines said.

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association supports the DRIVE Act. LL