Semi Runs Into Multiple Vehicles in Sacramento - 1 fatality
- Thread starter georgel
- Start date
- Replies 24
- Views 435
DrScaryGuy
🌈 Loves rainbows 🌈
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Asleep or texting.
I couldn't even tell you how often I see a truck swerving around because the driver is looking at a phone.
I couldn't even tell you how often I see a truck swerving around because the driver is looking at a phone.
Truck driver are really no different then the general public, they have all the same bad habits.
Les White
Less is more
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Member
Life Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
And that dude just happened to have an exterior camera pointed in that direction with the truck perfectly in frame? After the first impact the truck seems to make no attempt to slow?
Looks suspicious.
Looks suspicious.
I was wondering the same thing - who has a camera mounted just before their side mirror?
And what would they have seen before that would make them want to start filming?
Start looking at the mirrors on corporate trucks and you will see cameras on them. Could be a blind spot deal with an option to record. Could be where they mounted the rear facing camera. Could be a company car.
That small correction before impact tells me something is up. My guess would be texting. If they woke up I would assume they would be on the brakes harder. Texters tend to just glance up to make sure they are in their lane but don't really look ahead at traffic.
You could almost understand if it was a curve or hill keeping you from seeing traffic. But that driver had about a mile or so of visibility from that seat. No excuse I can come up with other than negligence.
As to not slowing after first impact, there's almost zero chance to get control of that rig if you are not on the brakes at impact. That driver was being tossed around at impact. Air seats bounce a lot. I've had situations where I was trying to brake and hit a big bump and could not get on the brakes for bouncing around. Or been on them lightly and gotten bounced off the brakes.
That small correction before impact tells me something is up. My guess would be texting. If they woke up I would assume they would be on the brakes harder. Texters tend to just glance up to make sure they are in their lane but don't really look ahead at traffic.
You could almost understand if it was a curve or hill keeping you from seeing traffic. But that driver had about a mile or so of visibility from that seat. No excuse I can come up with other than negligence.
As to not slowing after first impact, there's almost zero chance to get control of that rig if you are not on the brakes at impact. That driver was being tossed around at impact. Air seats bounce a lot. I've had situations where I was trying to brake and hit a big bump and could not get on the brakes for bouncing around. Or been on them lightly and gotten bounced off the brakes.
Last edited:
Sound like s dangerous situation that needs to be under .gov control.
No more spring/air cushioned seats!
Sound like s dangerous situation that needs to be under .gov control.
Don’t give them Any ideas.
And cheaper to make a seat ride nice than try and put a better suspension on the truck. Ever ride in a truck without an air ride seat?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
I was thinking more like a medical situation, heart attack or stroke
9outof10mms
Enginerding, good coffee, and factual opinions.
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
I think Tesla’s have that as standard.
9outof10mms
Enginerding, good coffee, and factual opinions.
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Except they’re driving 50-80,000 pounds at 70MPH. Yeah, I’m gonna hold them to a higher standard.
They’re supposed to be professional drivers.
The trucking industry is a joke, major companies have driver turn over rates of 110%+. The majority of CDL drivers have less than 5 years experience.
It's about making money, safety is always an after thought.
Entirely possible. I’ve seen a couple wrecks that were likely medical. Saw a jackknifed truck going UP Black Mtn. Truck stopped, rolled backwards, and jackknifed into the mountain.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Are they breeding drivers so they can quit? That’s some funky math there. 110 out of 100 drivers are quitting. Maybe Swift maths as good as they drive.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Truck drivers are like every other profession. There are good ones and bad ones and sometimes even the good ones can make a mistake. And just like medical, engineering, LE, Fire etc a mistake can cost lives.
https://www.freightwaves.com/news/driver-issues/truck-driver-turnover-rate-increases
The highest all-time recorded driver turnover rate was 136% in 2005, Costello said last month at the ATA’s Economics Conference. He noted that over-the-road fleets continue to have the most problems with turnover.
Yeah, I'd still like to know the funny math that goes into having more drivers quit than are hired. Which is what that's meant to sound like. It's not possible to have more people quit than are hired. Unless you start fudging the numbers with how many jobs they changed or some percentage of population nonsense. Like tying it to drivers so one driver can quite 5 jobs and it's only listed as one driver hired, Which is as pointless a number as it is idiotic. It's a nonsensical number to drive a point home. The real numbers are in the article, some of which are crazy high. But not over 100% crazy.
Turnover tends to be high for a number of reasons. We are tied to 7 year contracts, so pay is killing us right now. We also live unload our own product in some warehouses and no one wants to touch freight. OTR runs their drivers to death being out months at a time. LTL runs their guys hard and most have to live unload as well. And a lot of drivers have some pretty unrealistic expectations of what the job should be, what pay should be, and what scheduling should be.
No funky math required. Turnover is the ratio of the number of terminations in a period to the number of positions. So say you have a fleet with 100 drivers, and over the course of a year you hired 150 drivers to keep those 100 positions filled. Turnover would be 150%.
I will point out that many of those folks would not have been involved if they’d been over in the right lane.
Still funky IMO. If there are companies turning over all their drivers, they are not going to last. And using that type of percentage to reflect a large turnover in a smaller number of positions does not give you very good information. If that was the case, we have near 100% turnover. But the top 5 drivers have over 10 years with the company. And the next 2 have 8-10 years in. So the bottom half of the company accounting for 100% of our turnover gives you a really skewed idea of what is going on. And a skewed idea of what the solutions are too.
Yeah, doesn’t mean that they lose all of their drivers just that they lose more drivers than they have positions. I’m sure you know of drivers that didn’t last a week, maybe not a day. I’ve been known to hire 7 to fill 2, at least 1 doesn’t ever show and at least 1 is gone by the end of training.