Hacker News Reader

Comment by dpcan | Hacker News Reader

If a truck driver (or anyone on the road) gets flipped off, it is usually because they are driving a huge vehicle too aggressively and dangerously.

If his sister died, or he's getting paid peanuts, he still has to drive respectfully and safely to avoid causing any OTHER people on the road to die.

Also, I don't think the financial information is correct. I've spoken with truckers in the past and many are making around $40k per year (hearsay), which isn't that shabby for the lifestyle.

Lastly, welcome to life. Guess what. Work is hard, people are mean, and most jobs become frustrating if you are in them long enough, and everyone has personal problems.

I'm not saying that it's OK to flip someone off, but I understand the helplessness of being in your vehicle with your family and almost getting run off the road by some trucker who seems to be "numb" to the fact that they are driving an enormous and deadly machine 70mph down the highway.

EDIT: Not sure why I'm getting down-voted, perhaps a few rebuttals in the comments??

View on HN

My father's been a truck driver for nearly as long as I can remember and I can tell you, a lot of what's in this article is generally correct and a lot of it is only correct for some drivers, but none of it is total bullshit.

I've known a number of truck drivers and I've seen even more than that. Generally speaking, as a group, they are better drivers and more aware of the road than the average driver on the road. Not all of them are, and some of them do make stupid mistakes or drive dangerously. Sadly, from what I've seen, even the safest ones get flipped off and honked at just because the car driving too closely behind them apparently thinks the truck should be driving faster.

The financial information is pretty spot-on. Some truck drivers are making $40K (or even more than that!). The shabbiness of this depends on where they're based, of course, but it can be pretty comfortable. Some drivers make significantly less than $40K. It's a function of mileage and experience, for the most part. I'd say $500/wk is probably lower than average, but it's certainly not unheard of. Especially right now (I hate the phrase "in the current economic climate", but it's kind of relevant right now) loads are getting harder and harder to come by and the further ones tend to be the first that go. The miles just aren't there and this can kill the driver's family's finances.

Really, when it comes down to it, if a driver runs you off the road, call the number on the back of the truck (please, have a passenger do it if there's one in the car). But if a truck is just slowing you down a little bit, I know you in particular may know that there's no cause to flip anyone off, but this knowledge seems to be lacking in some people on the road.

Most people don't drive defensively, courteously, or safely. When they drive around big vehicles their bad habits just amplify the consequences. It's pretty typical for people to drive in a truck's blind spots by either following too close behind or driving where the mirror's don't have much coverage. Also, many drivers don't seem to understand that trucks have different limitations in driving than cars. Typically I try to avoid driving just behind a truck (even in a neighboring lane) and I try to avoid being side by side with a truck for long.

In my experience truck drivers are generally better drivers than the average non truck driver, but they certainly aren't perfect as a group.

Besides being dangerous, following a truck too closely will destroy the paint on your car because they throw so many rocks up.

Or your windshield (I replaced my windshield last summer, and almost immediately had it dented by a rock from a truck).

the one thing almost EVERYONE seems to forget is there's a lot of space in between that truck and the car in front of him for a reason - he needs more space to stop than that little car. Don't squeeze your vehicle in that space, give him room, then get over so that when you have to slam on the brakes for the exit you almost missed, he'll have room to not rear-end you.

I've always suspected there ought to be a physics portion on the driving exam.

I wouldn't call anybody because a truck drives slower than traffic but I would have called somebody if he is ever in anything but the right lane on the free way.

It is not to go slow in. It is to go fast.

And really flipping people of is the least you can do.

At least in CA, trucks can drive in either of the right two lanes in a road with 4 or more lanes in the same direction, and can always pass on the left regardless of the number of lanes.

And just as an FYI: doing nothing is the least you can do. Flipping someone off is nearly the most you can do if you stay in your car & don't endanger the lives of those involved.

>people are mean

yes, you made it obvious without need to state it explicitly.

Driving a fast, maneuverable and small, compare to a truck, car, i have no problem to accommodate for their much slow and less maneuverable dynamic, just pay attention to what they are doing or intend to do - they are pretty good and accurate drivers and signal their maneuvers in advance.

It isn't trucks who are menace on the road, it is flipping off jerks in cars.

> It isn't trucks who are menace on the road, it is flipping off jerks in cars.

The article states:

- The driver may be "numb".

- He is in emotional distress.

- He has skipped meals

- He has been driving the better half of 14 hours.

THIS is my beef.

There is NO EXCUSE for putting others in danger on the road, and instead of flipping him off, the state police should have been notified maybe, but to say we should just relax is out of line.

I'd argue that NOBODY should be driving under these conditions, let alone a truck driver.

I'd argue that NOBODY should be driving under these conditions, let alone a truck driver.

I wish it could be that way, but things look a lot different when you're the driver and missing the load means your family's going to have a hard time eating.

If you're going to be complaining, the drivers aren't the people to complain about.

Do something about it. Go to your grocery store and ask them to raise prices so they can treat truck drivers better.

That's not the solution. The fleet manager should have seen the condition their driver was in and found a way to get another driver out there ASAP.

So simple!

The fundamental problem is that we have completely inadequate rail infrastructure in the US. Why is it that everything has to go by truck? Trucks are extremely inefficient compared to trains, and are much more likely to be involved in traffic accidents, create congestion on our freeways, and damage our roads requiring tax dollars to repair.

Too many trucks and fatigued drivers is a symptom of the greater problem, which is inadequate rail infrastructure.

Source?

The Economist claims that the US has the best freight rail infrastructure in the world:

http://www.economist.com/node/16636101

The "fundamental problem" is probably that America is a really big country, and there are lots of livable places in the US that are far from other population centers.

"best freight rail infrastructure in the world" and "completely inadequate rail infrastructure" are, sadly, not mutually exclusive.

Well, another fundamental problem is the US government subsidies trucks by providing them with roads. Railroads have to make their own tracks.

Truck and cars do pay taxes but they don't pay sufficient taxes to pay the entire cost of roads (http://moderntransit.org/letters/budget.html).

Cars don't pay enough...trucks do. Not to mention trucks are providing a service that cannot be done effectively by cars or trains.

Railroads make plenty of money on owning the tracks otherwise I doubt they would still be doing it.

On the other hand, railroads don't make enough money owning the tracks to make a significant investment in expanding the rail network.

> The Economist claims that the US has the best freight rail infrastructure in the world

We're talking about the greatest country on Earth. Even with the best freight rail infrastructure in the world, it may still not be up to American standards.

I'm not sure how many people living outside of the US would actually consider it to be the 'greatest country on Earth'. I certainly don't want to live there...

Not sure if this is just a troll actually. If so, good job I guess.

While it may be hip on the net to trash our country, if you ask an average person in a developing country where they want to go, they will invariably want to come here. Even in China, who everyone is waiting for with bated breath to overtake America, people want to come here.

Maybe in developing countries, but that's not the attitude in other first world countries, because they've pretty much all got it better than we do.

Having been to quite a few other first world countries (Europe and Canada) and having relatives there, I would say that the upper middle class life is most definitely not better anywhere else. In America, you can get a nice big house, a nice big car, and have a comfortable life.

For example, I'm in Japan right now, and I miss the central air conditioning (here they have boxed air conditioners in select rooms instead). I miss the ridiculously cheap prices for just about anything I might want to buy. But most of all, while there are certainly advantages to having a convenient public transit system, I have to say that I miss having the wide open road before me and the sweet feeling of metal roaring to go beneath my feet.

Of course, things may be different for the poor, since they certainly have it pretty bad in America, but I am fortunate enough to have never known poverty.

We actually have a pretty good cargo rail network in the US (compare to Europe where passenger rail is better but not cargo). The US is spread out and trucks are it. They do pay quite a bit of fuel tax, and I am not sure it is the trucks themselves that create the problem. I see a lot of non-truck drivers that cause more congestion.

I used to work at a company that worked in Logistics. I don't know if it's gotten better, but at least at that point there really was no good solution for multi-modal loads. If you wanted to go truck->train->truck, you were on your own for arranging all of the details. It was far easier to just use a truck from point to point than the other solutions.

It might have improved in the last 10 years though :)

Yeah, railroads were the most screwed up business in the USA for a long while (I got a story about a "missing" soybean car that is truly unbelievable), but they have actually gotten quite a bit better in the last decade. Some of the railroads now have agreements with different trucks to do complete run. I haven't been near the industry in 3 years, but I know it was getting much nicer than before 2001.

Exactly. What really needs to happen is for some state to man up and flat out ban trucks on all state roads travelling more that say 50 or so miles.

What are you going to do about the areas that are more than 50 miles from a train depot? Haul it in several smaller vehicles? Sounds efficient...whats better 60,000 lbs hauled at 8MPG in one truck or 10,000lbs hauled at 15MPG in 6 vehicles.

There is a reason we are still using trucks...good luck without them.

50 miles everywhere should be sufficient to get it to a train yard. The number could be increased for western states perhaps.

Western states? How about eastern states?

I think you really underestimate how big this country is and how small a 50-mile radius is. That kind of coverage would be absolutely impossible to do.

Hence, trucks.

You're not terribly familar with the existing freight infrastructure in the east coast then.

Look at a map of Pennsylvania, one of the larger and more sparse eastern states. 50 miles from any point will get you to Erie, Pittsburg, Philadelphia, Harrisburg, Allentown, Scranton, etc. All of which you can ship and receive freight by train from.

And that is a bad example of a state where it could work. Try looking at Jersey instead!

Aren't trucks much more flexible than trains? Roads are already here, they're everywhere, and they go everywhere. Rails would have to be built, and even if they were, they would never be as extensive as roads are.

Assuming comparable existing infrastructure, trains might be more efficient, but isn't it much more efficient to use the existing infrastructure, to the point that it mitigates the efficiency of a train?

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/news/article.asp?id=16...

According to that 2008 source (which appears to be pro-railroad) freight rail is up to four times more fuel-efficient per ton of freight delivered than freight trucking.

Why would it?

Railroads essentially operate monopolies on transport within a given region, and we're against regulation these days. Plus, those pesky workers know that, so they do inconvenient things like form unions and demand concessions.

So instead, we build a giant taxpayer-funded road system, which in turn results in sprawl, which requires yet more road systems.

THIS is my beef. There is NO EXCUSE for putting others in danger on the road

The sky is not falling, it is not as bad as you think.

If there is no excuse to put others in any danger on the road, you should never, ever, take your own car on the road. Every time anyone drives, there is risk involved.

You're over reacting, chill out. You're not weighing risk rationally. A 12hr strait shot is by no means fun but its not something thats going to significantly deteriorate a driver's ability to the level your post would warrant. An experienced trucker is probably a better driver better than you in his sleep.

Actually, you're the one that's being irrational. Driver's ED manuals recommends taking a break of 15 minutes every two hours, precisely because driving skills deteriorate quickly with fatigue. No amount of experience will make up for it.

e: http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/dmanual/chapter08-manual.htm#dr..., is it that hard to believe that people make mistakes when they're tired?

I never said it was perfect, just that it wasn't as bad as the gp thought. However, the 15 min every 2 hours is a recommendation, and over the top safety. The page really seems geard towards saying awake And no, its not hard for me to believe people make mistakes when tired, I know people who have totaled cars because they fell asleep. However, I assume (and know anecdotaly) that for someone for whom driving long distances is their job, they understand the reality of the situation, know how to recognize when their body can't take it and most importantly know how to plan their sleep schedule for driving.

You can always, always be more safe at driving. Up to and including the point of advocating for the end of motor vehicle use altogether. Everything about driving is dangerous, my point is was just that the situation described wasn't as brick-shittingly more risky as the GP's tone seemed to imply.

None of it is over the top, and none of it recommends to stay awake (only says to take caffeine if needed), you're just not seeing the picture because you want to believe that truck drivers are better drivers than anyone else because they do this for a living. It's a fallacy, of course. They're not immune to fatigue because they get paid to drive. They're reflexes and judgement are impaired as they would for you or me.

It's as dangerous as it sounds, if it was me who didn't get a whole night's sleep, had to drive a long distance on a deadline (no time for breaks), was sedentary, and had to drive through long and boring rural roads, you'd tell me to get the hell off the road before I kill someone.

I understand someone has to drive trucks to get my food to the supermarket, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the obvious risks, and reasons why the current system is a bad idea. I think driverless trucks would be the best solution.

The article states in the very first paragraph: "Let me tell you a little about the truck driver you just flipped off because he was passing another truck, and you had to cancel the cruise control and slow down until he completed the pass and moved back over."

The point is that the truck driver isn't doing anything wrong. He's just trying to get his job done.

Where in the article does it say he put anyone in danger or imply that he was doing anything that might warrant the police being notified?

"- He has skipped meals"

Recently watched a BBC documentary on truck drivers in USA. Apparently majority of truck drivers are constipated. They prefer to eat stuff they can hold in one hand while driving with the other - like beef jerky, cheese sticks, instead of salads. The docu said the average US truck driver visits the restroom only once in 3-4 days. To prove this assertion, they had a group of East-West truck drivers swallow a tiny camera that transmitted pictures of their colon until it was ejected. It was quite gross, vivid and very conclusive evidence. They then had half the group switch to a diet of canned veggies - peas-in-a-can, carrots-in-a-can etc. The truck drivers ended up visiting the restroom 2-3 times per day, were much lighter physically, and a lot more relaxed, chatty and fun.

It was on Discovery I think...if you have a link pls post.

Y'know, I personally would have believed the self-reported pooping frequency, I didn't really need four days of colon footage.

science likes its proof no matter how messy

If the US had a safety net for people who lost their jobs and couldn't afford to pay their rent or grocery or medical bills, and if the US had a more reasonable minimum hourly wage, and if the US had more regulations to protect both truck drivers and other drivers on the road, it wouldn't happen.

Instead, the law says they can drive 14 hours. They are paid peanuts and have to pay for their own gas and repairs. And, as the article explained, if he was late -- due to the fault of his CUSTOMER -- then he'd lose an entire day waiting around. Which he can't afford, because he's paid peanuts, and there's no safety net.

The system is set up to create this exact situation, and if you don't like it, don't blame the individual, blame the system. Blaming the individual gives you that flair of righteous feeling in your chest but it doesn't change a damn thing. If this man decided to drive only 8 hours a day, he'd be out of a job and somebody else would simply take his place and do the 14-hour runs yet again.

I down voted you because

1) I think the way you process driving situations that annoy you is probably to imagine the other driver has ill intentions and to get pissed off, and as a biker in a city I'm tired of dealing with that kind of person

2) your implication that a truck driver making 40k is more than enough "for the lifestyle" isn't your judgement to make. as a person who has heard that line from employers who don't want to pay me fairly, that pisses me off

3) "Lastly, welcome to life". Fuck everything about that.

You're getting down-voted because you are trying to stereotype all truckers as aggressive, dangerous drivers. The author stated at the beginning of the piece that the trucker specifically got flipped off because he was taking too long to pass another truck. You are assuming a totally different case, where a trucker gets flipped off because he has just swerved into your lane.

You're right, work is hard, and perhaps truck drivers don't deserve our sympathy. But, I do think that we owe them common courtesy and respect as they conduct their business on our highways.

Your argument falls into "Misleading Vividness" (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/misleading-vividnes...)

The more common case is a driver being angered by the slight inconvenience of slowing down. Which usually is because they are in fact the one driving over the speed limit and therefore driving dangerously according the law.

Who flips someone off because they had to slow down?

This was my point.

This article was written by a fleet manager protecting the reputation of his drivers, but I am trying to say that there must be more to the story and usually people get the bird because they have done something dangerous.

> Who flips someone off because they had to slow down?

Uh... I can't tell if this is a serious question. Do you drive much? I see it happen all the time, and I live in Canada!

I find the Canada comment odd. I've driven in many states as well as BC and I would rank BC drivers as among the least courteous and most aggressive, even compared to SoCal drivers.

I live in Quebec, and find the drivers bad. However, I don't find them discourteous to the point of slamming on the brakes in front of you, getting out, and starting to talk shit because they cut you off (New York drive in PA).

Granted, I'm from Jersey originally, and I pride myself on the fact that by comparison, even Quebec drivers are safe. =)

Anyways, my point was, Canadians are generally seen as more mellow, and I still see them getting angry on the road.

Granted, this is all just from my experience.

From my experiences Alberta has the most aggressive Canadian drivers.

You can blame Hong Kong immigration for that.

In the summer of 1992 I encountered an amusing statistic. Insurance rates doubled in one year in BC almost entirely because of one kind of accident. Two cars are side by side, with the one on the left driven by a Canadian. A Chinese immigrant from Hong Kong is behind the two. The immigrant sees the opportunity, cuts over, and zooms past leaving the Canadian less than 6 inches of room. The Canadian freaks out, turns the wheel right to avoid what feels like a certain collision, and hits the car next to him.

All drivers in question drove in complete accord with the rules of the road and common driving practices where they grew up. It was all just a (very expensive) cultural misunderstanding.

Anyways Vancouver with something like a million people absorbed something like 80,000 immigrants from Hong Kong in the 1990s who didn't want to be there for the Chinese handover, and they brought a very aggressive driving style with them. Go to places that were less affected by that wave of immigration, and you should still see something more like the relaxed driving style that was present when I was growing up.

You're saying that the immigrant driver passed on the shoulder?

No, in Canada, like the USA, they drive on the right and the steering wheel is on the left. So the immigrant cut into oncoming traffic to pass on the left. The immigrant had to zoom to make it in the gap between oncoming cars, and left far less room for all parts of the maneuver than a Canadian would have been comfortable with.

The Canadian driver freaked, veered right to get away from the crash, and hit the car beside him.

Got it. Yikes. Funny thing, my heart rate rose just a bit when I finally comprehended this. Just the thought of a car approaching head-on.

You still don't quite get it. It wasn't the car that was being approached head on that got in the collision. That car was in a situation to see the whole thing coming and just put the brakes on.

It was driver who out of the blue realized that there was a car less than 6 inches away, going at least 20 mph faster, who needs to be where they are now or else they'll be in a headfirst collision. That driver's attention is focused on escaping from that threat, leading to a panicked swerve into the next car over.

No, I had it right. I've actually been in that situation -- a car trying to pass me across a double line into oncoming traffic -- and IIRC my reaction was to brake hard. Not necessarily a better reaction.

Ah, the "car approaching head-on" is the perspective of the immigrant.

Yup. That's the scenario exactly. And yes, braking hard is a better reaction. It makes life easier for the passer. The passing car probably came from behind you, and so there is likely a space. If there isn't, the car behind can see the whole scenario unfolding and has the opportunity to react. So all over it is much safer than swerving.

The only case it won't help is if the passing car is swerving, gets hit, and spins out. But in that case there is probably nothing you could do to avoid an accident.

There's not necessarily a car approaching head on at all. It's about someone passing more aggressively than expected (keeping much closer to the passed car than is normal in western countries, for example) causing the passed car to freak out and swerve away, into another car. All the cars involved are going in the same direction.

Who flips someone off because they had to slow down?

Everyone but you.

And me. Generally I only flip someone off if I had to slow down so fast the Anti-lock Breaking System activated. That usually only happens when someone enters my lane without looking and nearly hits me.

I've eased up on screaming and cursing though, usually have one or both of my kids in the car.

Can anyone tell me what they think they're accomplishing with that? I've always been curious but no one's had a good answer for me.

It feels good. It doesn't necessarily accomplish anything, but it can force the other driver to reevaluate the appropriateness of their actions.

>If his sister died, or he's getting paid peanuts, he still has to drive respectfully and safely to avoid causing any OTHER people on the road to die.

Very much this. A few weeks back I had to deal with a truck carrying a portion of a pre-built house, driving 75mph+ with traffic, switching lanes occasionally without using a blinker but mainly staying in the left lane of a two-lane highway. The paved service was minimal on both edges of the highway and there were times when the left tires of the trailer were nearly leaving the paved surface.

Even if he had a shitty week, that doesn't make him immune to criticism.

Though I see what you're saying, and ideally he should still drive his very best, he's human, and he's upset, and that matters. You're getting downvoted because you show little empathy. Everyone's story deserves to be heard, including yours, and why you do what you do when you're not at your best. Excellent article.

I only downvoted you for the "why am I being downvoted" karma whoring.

Sorry, I didn't know that was karma whoring because I never think about it, I was just confused because I was down to -2 with no replies and I wasn't sure what it was people weren't agreeing with. I'm on HN for the conversations, not the points, but points are indicators of the community's opinion of my views, and in this case, I had no comments to back-up the down-voting, so I begged a little //

> If a truck driver (or anyone on the road) gets flipped off, it is usually because they are driving a huge vehicle too aggressively and dangerously

Really? How do you know? Have you done a study?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com