Que??

[James Deuce]

http://xtramsn.co.nz/news/0,,3882-3301253,00.html

I'm confused. I've NEVER seen a heavy vehicle travelling at 80kph on the open road, including school buses.

How come they get a 10-20km/hr lenience?

[Motu]

Yeah,how many times have you been doing 100kph in your car and have a B train half a metre from your bumper,then he pulls out doing 110 or more? I don't let it happen on a bike,but in a car you can't get out of the way.Obviously the speedo in every vehicle I've owned has been reading wrong.

[Ms Piggy]

I thought it was a bit of a joke really, I mean I wouldn't think any of them travelled at 80. Heck I've happily travelled behind trucks going 110 at times.

[Jackrat]

Yeah bit of a joke that.
Now they can spread cow shit at a higher speed.
Must get better coverage or something.
I travel the Matamata route to Tirau from AK on a regular basis,My wife calls that road "Death ally" due to all the crosses on the road side.35 at last count.
And you are right,I have never seen a truck sticking to the limit down there.
The bloody cops just seem to ignore them while they ping private drivers for a few Kms over.

[MikeL]

The bloody cops just seem to ignore them while they ping private drivers for a few Kms over.

Perhaps someone with more inside knowledge than I have could confirm or refute this. It is certainly my impression - but, hey, anecdotal evidence doesn't count, does it???

(If it is the case, perhaps the rationale is that truckies are all experienced professional drivers and so can be allowed a bit of leeway - not like us amateurs who are just accidents waiting to happen as soon as we hit 101.)

And :Offtopic: I know, but wouldn't the roads be a lot more pleasant to ride or drive on if NZ did what most of the rest of the world does and used trains for freight instead of trucks??

[Ms Piggy]

...the logic behind increasing the trucking speed restriction is safety, while learners riders are still expected to ride at 70kms/hr on the open road :argh: Not that I've ever been pinged for going 100 with my L plate on but sheesh.

[SPman]

Whilst going to the track time the other Friday, it was slightly nerve wracking wending through (Atlas)Truck and trailers at 125KPH, concrete trucks (3x) at 115 (racing to get back to the depot?) and the guy in the Carr & Haslam loaded car transporter who pulled out and passed a T&T just as I was about to!!!
It was a relief to get to the track!

[Hitcher]

I'm confused. I've NEVER seen a heavy vehicle travelling at 80kph on the open road, including school buses.

How come they get a 10-20km/hr lenience?

And cars with trailers!! As Pajeros and Prados are technically trucks, how come they don't get pinged for going faster than 80kmh?

[pete376403]

Is there a weight break which determines car or truck? At the vehicle testing station the other day, while getting a warrant for the GS (which it did, braided hoses, worn disks and all) attached to the brake testing roller console there was a chart of common vehicle weights. Nissan Grand something was a little over three tonnes, in fact everything over 2 tonnes was a Jap SUV. Jeep Cherokee was a relative lightweight at 1.6 tonne

[wkid_one]

And :Offtopic: I know, but wouldn't the roads be a lot more pleasant to ride or drive on if NZ did what most of the rest of the world does and used trains for freight instead of trucks??
Trucks are less inclined to be blinded by spray etc in the wet as they sit above the level of the water.

Also - re your comments about rail - we are as much to blame for this as anyone. We go in to shops demanding the products we want are there that day or the next - thereby meaning road freight is the only way to keep up with this instant demand. Rail is only used for non time sensitive freight purely because it can't be trusted for urgent stuff.

Just as a thought - last time you mailed something - did you specify that it go as rail freight? I thought not - you are perpetuating your own gripe.

[pete376403]

Logs are time sensitive? The Rimutakas are clogged with logging trucks. That, if nothing else, should be going by rail

[wkid_one]

And cars with trailers!! As Pajeros and Prados are technically trucks, how come they don't get pinged for going faster than 80kmh?
No they aren't....refer to the LTSA for the definition of a truck.

A heavy vehicle is defined as follows:

Any vehicle which has a gross vehicle mass of over 3500 kg is classified as a heavy vehicle. This includes trucks, buses, coaches, large passenger vehicles and larger campervans.
What vehicles are limited to 80kph?

Trucks attached to trailers by a drawbar (connecting pole) are currently subject to an 80 km/h limit. There are two types of these - known as truck and trailer units and A-train units.
What is the speed limit for heavy vehicles other than the above?

The regulation will instigate a uniform speed limit of 90 km/h for all heavy vehicles, except school buses. While for most heavy vehicles, there is no change, at the moment there are two different speed limits - 80 km/h and 90 km/h - for different trailer configurations. Currently 84% of the heavy vehicle fleet is subject to the 90km/h limit, while 16% are subject to the 80km/h limit. While 16% of the truck fleet will be able to go faster under the new regulation, the discretion for all heavy vehicles applied by police enforcing the speed limit will be reduced from 10 km/h to 5 km/h. This will encourage more heavy vehicles to stick to the speed limit.
This will be in the Heavy Motor Vehicle Amendment Regulations (No. 2) 2004 and Traffic Amendment Regulations (No. 2) 2004
There is also the Vehicle Dimensions and Mass Rule - which requires larger types of heavy vehicles to undergo certification (and in some cases modification) to meet a new static roll threshold (SRT) requirement. The trucking industry has now complied with this requirement which means larger trucks are more stable and thus safer to drive at the 90 km/h speed limit.

Don't bag truck drivers - they can undergo a COF and any weight station or any time they are pulled over by the CVIU.....you car can last 6 -12 months with out a WOF as no one checks.

Also - for trucks drivers - they only make money if their truck is on the road - so they tend to be pretty well maintained as to hire a rental truck when theirs breaksdown costs a fortune.

Truck drivers and firms are also subject to LTSA Audits - whereby the mobile crew will pick a company and undertake a complete audit of the trucks RUC, Logbooks, Truck maintenance etc - this can cost shitloads if your trucks aren't up to spec.

Also - these guys spend a FORTUNE in RUC - none of which they see on the road.

Take a 29 Ton GVM Vehicle with a 11 Ton Tare pulling a 6 Ton Tare trailer - carrying about 24 tonne of metal everyday. A 24 tonne sticker will cost him $240/1000km. They will possibly do 7-10,000km a month give or take. Add that up....that is a lot of money for the priviledge of driving. On top of that - you need to make sure your weights on each axle are within the maximum allowances etc etc etc.

[wkid_one]

Logs are time sensitive? The Rimutakas are clogged with logging trucks. That, if nothing else, should be going by railYes they are time sensitive - more often than not - you are running to the times of the mills and the boats. You then need to have a rail siding as close as possible to the forestry block being felled at the time, along with sufficient clearances in the rail timetable (remember, the main line to Wellington is littered with Urban Trains in both directions every 20 mins). Not as easy as you think.

I work with a couple of the mills in the Wairarapa - and rail is not as easy as you think - or reliable.

[Kickaha]

Having spent some time in and around trucks its quite interesting to hear the comments of the truck drivers regarding car drivers,they're not that much different from what the motorcyclists say.

Recently I got a ride to Picton with a mate who does that run everyday and found the ignorance of the car drivers quite frustrating,if a faster vehicle comes up behind you for F%$Ks sake get outta the bloody way,even when there is room they still don't move over,while I was on the bike every truck I came up behind either moved over or waved me through.

[merv]

I used to work for the railway and its come too late for my career but with the Government buying back the tracks they need to invest money in that infrastructure as well as roads so that freight is attracted back to rail. Biggest problem in my view was every time I drive or ride a highway the highway has had bits cut out of it and its straightened, widened, levelled or whatever making the journey so much easier for trucks but boring for us. With rail there has not been a curve easement to speak of since the "think big" electrification project which was completed in 1988. Rail must now be at least an hour or two slower Auck-Wellington than the comparative truck time improvements since 1988 (some of that is rig power improvements too). That is the pattern for most roads e.g. Wellington-Napier, Picton-ChCh. Michael Cullen is talking some investment, but the amount he is talking about is minimal compared to what would be needed to make a significant difference to rail.

As for speeds, I would prefer to see all speed limits the same so I could tow my trailer at 100 legally.

Also I agree that most truck drivers are far more considerate than the average Joe (represented in that studio audience that only knew 40% of the road rules) and nothing is more frustrating than dorks that won't get out of the way. Holidaying in Coromandel at Xmas time, man the dorks that were heading north up from Coromandel on that narrow coastal road towing their boats at about 20 or more under the limit.

[wkid_one]

PS - regardless of Rail - you still need trucks to transport from the Rail Siding to the end Customer....

[spudchucka]

Perhaps someone with more inside knowledge than I have could confirm or refute this. It is certainly my impression - but, hey, anecdotal evidence doesn't count, does it???

(If it is the case, perhaps the rationale is that truckies are all experienced professional drivers and so can be allowed a bit of leeway - not like us amateurs who are just accidents waiting to happen as soon as we hit 101.)

And :Offtopic: I know, but wouldn't the roads be a lot more pleasant to ride or drive on if NZ did what most of the rest of the world does and used trains for freight instead of trucks??
Can't really comment as I've never worked and aren't interested in working on highway. However, from what I've seen it doesn't really matter if a truck travels at 80, 90, or 110 because if you crash into one you are f**ked regardless. I've always thought the 80kph speed limit for trucks was stupid as it just hinders other traffic and leads to frustrated drivers making stupid passing moves.

[James Deuce]

Can't really comment as I've never worked and aren't interested in working on highway. However, from what I've seen it doesn't really matter if a truck travels at 80, 90, or 110 because if you crash into one you are f**ked regardless. I've always thought the 80kph speed limit for trucks was stupid as it just hinders other traffic and leads to frustrated drivers making stupid passing moves.

I've never seen an A or B train on the open road drive at less that 110, conditions permitting. I've been monstered by the buggers more times than I care to mention, when I've been travelling at 100km/h and they're supposed to be travelling 10-20 km/hr slower than that.

[MikeL]

However, from what I've seen it doesn't really matter if a truck travels at 80, 90, or 110 because if you crash into one you are f**ked regardless. I've always thought the 80kph speed limit for trucks was stupid as it just hinders other traffic and leads to frustrated drivers making stupid passing moves.

With all due respect, I think this comment is indefensible. If a 30 km/h speed differential is of no consequence, because it makes no difference to the survivability of an oncoming driver/rider in a head-on collision, it must mean that existing speed limits are entirely arbitrary and essentially meaningless, (which makes a nonsense of the current advertising campaign that maintains "the faster you go, the bigger the mess"). The only logical response is then to reduce speed limits to a point where all accidents are survivable.
Why, I wonder, were lower speed limits originally imposed on heavy vehicles? Apart from the effects on the road surface, what were those earlier legislators concerned about? Could it have been a simple law of physics which relates impact to mass x velocity? Who were they trying to protect?

[riffer]

I have a concern about the raising of the limits which I'm not sure has been discussed yet.

If I am trying to stay legal (which I must now, given I'm on 90 demerits), I can't afford to overtake at over 100km/h.

If you increase the speed the trucks are allowed to go to 90km/h you have decreased the speed differential to 10km/h.

Does this now give you enough leeway to safely overtake on a passing lane if you don't actually break the speed limit.

Probably a moot point as I will just change down a couple gears and blast past on the bike, then slow down again, but my cage is a 1500cc Nissan Pulsar and it's just not feasible. You have to plan a passing manouevre a fair bit beforehand.

Is there the potential for a safety issue here in passing manouevres if you obey the speed limit to the letter?

I would be seriously concerned about attempting to pass a large truck doing 90km/h now in my cage... I would be putting myself and my family in big danger. This could possibly lead to worse tailbacks and incredibly stupid passing attempts by less patient souls...

[BritStorm]

Mike L makes a good point. Speed limits and the size of the mess are related. There was soemthing in the paper not so long ago that says that the 'mess' caused by a truck at 80kph caused by the energy that it built up given its weight and speed is the equivalent of an average car travelling at 440 kph, yes, that's right, 440 kph. So the faster you go the bigger the mess is cobblers.

I'm not though advocating massive jumps in the speed limit relative to vechicle type - the roads just aren't good enough here for unrestricted speed as on some European roads, nor or the drivers. It's all a metter of risk and this must take into account the damage a vechcile would cause given its kinetic energy (wieght being the dominant factor), conditions, driver training etc. Its also true that most cars could stop quicker than trucks, and most bikes quicker than most cars.

The point is this should be taken into account by HP and a little common sence applied instead of stiking to arbitary measures which we, thorugh our own choice, decide to stick to or not.

Never mind the physics, we all know we're liable to get fined and points if we get caught breaking the limit. We all set our own speed limit depending on the risk we're prepared to take - of having an accident (and coping with the harm we might do to others) or losing our licenses.

[dangerous]

Having spent some time in and around trucks its quite interesting to hear the comments of the truck drivers regarding car drivers,they're not that much different from what the motorcyclists say.

Recently I got a ride to Picton with a mate who does that run everyday and found the ignorance of the car drivers quite frustrating,if a faster vehicle comes up behind you for F%$Ks sake get outta the bloody way,even when there is room they still don't move over,while I was on the bike every truck I came up behind either moved over or waved me through.

I used to drive a fairly big sucker on the same rd and onto Nelson...... now what car drivers forget is that if I were to pull over then that would mean slowing down and therefor in the situation of windinng up a hill you need a good head of steam to make it to the top at a reasonable speed (so as to not upset the car) then the truck woud have to stoke it up to 100-120 at the foot of the hill.

Now in fairness I would move over when possible or drive at 100 to keep the traffic moving and once again not to up set the other traffic but at this speed I'm already 10-20 over the limit and that is already risking my licence/JOB

Wkid: you seem to be well informed hows that?

[wkid_one]

I've never seen an A or B train on the open road drive at less that 110, conditions permitting. I've been monstered by the buggers more times than I care to mention, when I've been travelling at 100km/h and they're supposed to be travelling 10-20 km/hr slower than that.
Which is interesting Jim - as many of them are governed to 100kph?

[James Deuce]

Which is interesting Jim - as many of them are governed to 100kph?

Governed to 110. My Brother drives Logging trucks and B trains for a living.

[wkid_one]

Governed to 110. My Brother drives Logging trucks and B trains for a living.Depends on the trucker - many are governed to 100kph (and esp if a B Train carrying full weight) - esp if the driver is running for a larger firm with all their branding across the truck where the potential for whinging drivers to ring and complain is high.

Also - some of the trucks, like the newer Volvos - run with a black box than records data, including speed, which can be very handy in disproving complaints.

The worst to watch out for a drivers bouncing home at night and esp in the middle of the north island - as you will quite often find a couple of trucks racing one another.

Most modern trucks are running with cruise control and automatic speed restrictors similar to pit lane restrictors for when they run through residential areas - which reduces speeding instances.

However at the end of the day most drivers will tell you that they travel at the speed of traffic to prevent inpatient drivers trying to pass them at stupid times. You only have to attend a NZRTA/NRC meeting to hear the horror stories these guys have about car drivers.

I have seen the professionalism of truck drivers increase as more and more of them become Owners Drivers rather than just steerers. The trucks are better maintained and there are less roll overs. I don't however see the need for 580+ HP trucks in NZ however...this is something I can't quite see the need for.

[spudchucka]

I've never seen an A or B train on the open road drive at less that 110, conditions permitting. I've been monstered by the buggers more times than I care to mention, when I've been travelling at 100km/h and they're supposed to be travelling 10-20 km/hr slower than that.
One of the trade offs for the higher limit is that (I understand this is the case but haven't seen it in writing) highway patrol officers will be instructed to enforce a 5kph tolerance on all heavy traffic restricted to the 90 kph speed limit.

[spudchucka]

With all due respect, I think this comment is indefensible. If a 30 km/h speed differential is of no consequence, because it makes no difference to the survivability of an oncoming driver/rider in a head-on collision, it must mean that existing speed limits are entirely arbitrary and essentially meaningless, (which makes a nonsense of the current advertising campaign that maintains "the faster you go, the bigger the mess"). The only logical response is then to reduce speed limits to a point where all accidents are survivable.
Why, I wonder, were lower speed limits originally imposed on heavy vehicles? Apart from the effects on the road surface, what were those earlier legislators concerned about? Could it have been a simple law of physics which relates impact to mass x velocity? Who were they trying to protect?
Indefensible?? I'm simply commenting, as a road user, that in my opinion you are screwed, (especially on a bike) if you collide with a truck regardless of if it is travelling at 80, 90 or 110. You are taking the comment in some other context and using it as an oportunity to flare up about LTSA and the inept tossers who make the rules. So with all due respect, get a grip!

[James Deuce]

Indefensible?? I'm simply commenting, as a road user, that in my opinion you are screwed, (especially on a bike) if you collide with a truck regardless of if it is travelling at 80, 90 or 110.

You're screwed in a car or any forward control vehicle, up to and including a truck of similar mass. Only thing that beats a truck unit is a train.

[Lou Girardin]

Truckies must have immunity. I followed a truck and trailer rig on SH2 at 110 km/h, the local IRD mobile came towrds us, Stalker squealing. Nothing, nada, zilch, the truckie didn't even get the 'naughty, naughty' wave.
Lou

[wkid_one]

With all due respect, I think this comment is indefensible. If a 30 km/h speed differential is of no consequence, because it makes no difference to the survivability of an oncoming driver/rider in a head-on collision, it must mean that existing speed limits are entirely arbitrary and essentially meaningless, (which makes a nonsense of the current advertising campaign that maintains "the faster you go, the bigger the mess"). The only logical response is then to reduce speed limits to a point where all accidents are survivable.
Why, I wonder, were lower speed limits originally imposed on heavy vehicles? Apart from the effects on the road surface, what were those earlier legislators concerned about? Could it have been a simple law of physics which relates impact to mass x velocity? Who were they trying to protect?Mike I am sorry - but I agree with SC here.

The slowest and most vuneralble 'vehicle' on NZ roads in the bicycle......what speed limit to you propose? 10kph? 20kph? Get off your soap box.

In 99% of instances there is usually someone behind the wheel with a BRAIN - who chooses and desires not to have an accident! Rules and Laws are there to prevent accidents - BUT ONLY AT THE BEHEST OF THE DRIVER...

At the end of the day NOTHING we do has a 100% survival rate. You can choke to death on a Pretzel - shit we better make these choke-proof as well. You can drown in a river? My god we better put 1 trillion bath room anti slip mats in all NZ's rivers, slow them down to max flow rate of 1mC/min and reduce the depth to ankle height.

At the end of the day - driving a car is a risk....so long as you treat it with respect....and drive with your eyes open.....whats the problem.

In all honesty - do you know the stats of cars colliding with trucks and the occupants dying - where the car wasn't at fault for speeding etc??? I would guess this would be a small proportion of vehicle fatalities.

Stop whinging for the sake of whinging. Trucks have a place on our roads as they do the world over - and I would guess MOST of the trucks are in a better condition to speed than many of the cars on our roads.

[MikeL]

I see I'm outvoted on this one, so I'll retire gracefully. No more whinges about truck speeds.

Although I have to say that it's pretty discouraging to see (yet again) rational argument and valid questions dismissed as "whinging for the sake of whinging." Read my posts carefully, guys, and try not to let your egos get too involved...

[Lou Girardin]

I see I'm outvoted on this one, so I'll retire gracefully. No more whinges about truck speeds.

Although I have to say that it's pretty discouraging to see (yet again) rational argument and valid questions dismissed as "whinging for the sake of whinging." Read my posts carefully, guys, and try not to let your egos get too involved...

It really seems a certain element in this forum is determined to shut down debate by any means possible including abuse. Rational argument is impossible with people who can only see black and white.
Keep it up MikeL, remember Voltaire.
Lou

[wkid_one]

I'll bite

My point was simply this - if you legislate for the lowest common denominator - you wouldn't get any where at all. To moan about trucks speeding is fine - however - I would guess only a small proportion of car fatalities involve a situation where the truck was speeding. And - a truck travelling at 80kph when a car hits in at 100kph is hardly going to make much difference than if the truck were doing 100kph. Isn't the issue more to do with the lack of median barriers and general traffic and roading safey than the speed at which a vehicle travels?

I just don't see the rationality in MikeL's comments you are talking about? In fact to the contrary - I see a comment based on stereotype? I don't see how reducing the limit or policing it further will save many fatalities in all honesty? If you hit a truck you hit a truck. Given we are only talking about a truck travelling in the open road - if you hit a truck - 10-20kph is insignificant in any event?

As for the comment about reducing the speed limit to a point in which accidents are survivable - we would never have open road limits? Is this a rational argument?? I don't think so - purely an emotional one.

By whinging about the speeds of trucks drivers - you are actually condoning the same stereotype motorcyclists fall in to - reckless road users. Where in actual fact - for most truck drivers it is a living, a lifestyle and a means of putting food on the table for their families. They can have a fortune invested in their units - take the Volvos running the NZ Post runs - these are the thick end of $450k including trailers.

So in summary - after rereading your posts - I still struggle to see any rationality in it which Lou/You espouse. I do read between the lines an underlying detestation of truck drivers however - which doesn't appear rational.

[SPman]

My point was simply this - if you legislate for the lowest common denominator - you wouldn't get any where at all. Isnt this what the LTSA already does?

Yes, many truck drivers are professional in their attitude, (but, from my experience, not enough.) I have driven trucks and realise that, yes, most car drivers act like fuckwits. I can see the sensibility of bringing legal truck speeds nearer legal car speeds. In an ideal world, if vehicles travelled at about the same speed, it would probably be safer. But, when it comes to beauracracy, when does sense have anything to do with it.
The LTSA is trying to make the driving Joe Public slow down....speed kills..5k over the limit you're as bad as a junkie, pathological killer, etc. The faster the speed the bigger the mess, etc etc.Then they turn around and up the limit for 42 tonnes of vehicle. So, 1 1/2 tonnes of car or 1/4 tonne of motorbike are safe at 100k but unsafe at 110k and 42 tonne of truck is safe at 90k and unsafe at 95k.
Physics would indicate otherwise.
The LTSA's rationale, to the public, becomes as disjointed and erratic as my post! Of course people get pissed off! They're being told they are irresponsible, reckless and killers if they are over the (arbitrary) limit. Then they are told trucks can legally go faster.! Not as fast as cars, but, hey,we are getting a double message here.

The only answer is a 4 lane highway from North Cape to the Bluff, for all trucks and cars, (with a few branch lines to secondary centres), leaving the bulk of the roading system free for bikes!:laugh:

[Jackrat]

I'll bite

My point was simply this - if you legislate for the lowest common denominator - you wouldn't get any where at all. To moan about trucks speeding is fine - however - I would guess only a small proportion of car fatalities involve a situation where the truck was speeding. And - a truck travelling at 80kph when a car hits in at 100kph is hardly going to make much difference than if the truck were doing 100kph. Isn't the issue more to do with the lack of median barriers and general traffic and roading safey than the speed at which a vehicle travels?

I just don't see the rationality in MikeL's comments you are talking about? In fact to the contrary - I see a comment based on stereotype? I don't see how reducing the limit or policing it further will save many fatalities in all honesty? If you hit a truck you hit a truck. Given we are only talking about a truck travelling in the open road - if you hit a truck - 10-20kph is insignificant in any event?

As for the comment about reducing the speed limit to a point in which accidents are survivable - we would never have open road limits? Is this a rational argument?? I don't think so - purely an emotional one.

By whinging about the speeds of trucks drivers - you are actually condoning the same stereotype motorcyclists fall in to - reckless road users. Where in actual fact - for most truck drivers it is a living, a lifestyle and a means of putting food on the table for their families. They can have a fortune invested in their units - take the Volvos running the NZ Post runs - these are the thick end of $450k including trailers.

So in summary - after rereading your posts - I still struggle to see any rationality in it which Lou/You espouse. I do read between the lines an underlying detestation of truck drivers however - which doesn't appear rational.
Well how's this for rational.
Iv'e had a guts full of assholes in trucks tail gating me at high speed every time I get on the Matamata Rds.If I can stick to the speed limits I don't see why a so called Pro' driver has such a hard time doing the same thing.
Pro' drivers my ass,,Bloody cowboys more like it. :ar15:

[MikeL]

Wkid_one:
1. I didn't moan about trucks speeding. I asked legitimate questions about the reasons for specific speed limits, and questioned the logical consistency of the current situation.
2. The argument about reducing the speed limit to a survivability level was clearly hypothetical, to show the arbitrary nature of the speeding laws. Emotion does not enter into it.
3. While I have criticised or questioned official policies and practices I have not denigrated truck drivers. Quite the contrary. If I were to accept any stereotype, it would in fact be that most truck drivers are thoroughly professional and competent. Your defence of them as only trying to put bread on the table for their families is emotive and irrelevant.
4. Your inference that I have an underlying detestation of truck drivers is irrational. I wrote that the roads would be more pleasant for the rest of us if freight was largely confined to rail is my opinion but it can be supported with logical arguments, none of which involve the behaviour of truck drivers.

Rational? emotional? I rest my case.
:done:

[dangerous]

Well how's this for rational.
Iv'e had a guts full of assholes in trucks tail gating me at high speed every time I get on the Matamata Rds.If I can stick to the speed limits I don't see why a so called Pro' driver has such a hard time doing the same thing.
Pro' drivers my ass,,Bloody cowboys more like it. :ar15:

Na na na, you are no were near it JR. Ok there is the odd cowboy around that goes for trucks and bikes.

As far as trucks speeding a driver has a time schedual to deliver and a time that he is aloud on the rd.... we all know this, your not thick now are ya? :msn-wink:
So this means that the preasure is put on the driver by those well above him cos if he does not do the job then he will be sent down the rd which is not good if he has a family to feed.

So is speeding his fult, his employers or ours for wanting whatever his cargo is yesterday???????

FWIW I used to pull up to a 20hr day (11hr driving and 14hr on duty is the legal limit) so as my boss would not loose his contract and me my job....do you get it?
I left the job because of these reasons which is a pity cos its a great job being out ther on the open rd, just like biking :apint: