Home

Blog

What People Think

39% For, 61% Against

Take Action

Vote on this Bill
For
Against
Speak Out
Comment on this Bill
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues
Write Your Representative in Congress
Save & Share
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Google
Reddit
Yahoo!

H.R. 1799, The Safe and Efficient Transportation Act of 2009 (4 comments ↓)

H.R. 1799 would amend title 23, United States Code, with respect to vehicle weight limitations applicable to the Interstate System.

(read more ↓)
[76 views]


Visitor Comments Comments Feed for This Bill

Wayne

April 29, 2009, 10:05am (report abuse)

This bill will allow States to take heavy trucks off secondary roads and put them on Interstate Highways where they belong. Great forward thinking keeps citizens safe.

Sabina

June 24, 2009, 9:35am (report abuse)

Bigger, Heavier Trucks Are Less Safe. Bigger trucks take longer to stop and roll over more frequently. Deficient brake systems are already a leading factor in truck accidents, allowing bigger trucks with more wheels would make matters worse.

Bigger, Heavier Trucks Inflict More Damage to Roads and Bridges. Allowing giant trucks weighing 97,000 pounds or more on U.S. roads and bridges would radically increase damage to highway pavement and bridges. Overweight trucks create a disproportionate level of damage to our roads and bridges, consistently documented in research studies conducted by the states, the federal government, and the National Academy of Sciences.

Bigger, Heavier Trucks Guzzle More Fuel and Increase Air Pollution. Allowing bigger trucks would dramatically increase heavy truck fuel consumption and produce much higher emissions at a time when Congress is seeking to reduce the U.S. reliance on carbon-based fuels and to address global warming

David Miller

June 29, 2009, 3:01pm (report abuse)

Instead of spouting off about bigger, heavier trucks without knowledge of the truth, you might want to contact the Federal Highway Department or even the ATA to find that in fact larger vehicle combinations are SAFER than traditional due to equipment specs, route restrictions and driver credentialing requirements. Or, is Sabina yet another voice from Rail funded special interest attack groups?

Another Side of the Story

July 2, 2009, 11:32am (report abuse)

No, I am not part of a Rail funded special interest attack group. Just a concerned mother and citizen. One of the larger and SAFER trucks that you mentioned (that you stated I have no knowledge of) nearly crushed my son to death & disabled him for life. He will need care for the rest of his life. The driver was loaded on drugs and alcohol. 5,000 deaths and over 100,000 injuries occur per year b/c of carelessness & driver fatigue. And, no, I did not contact the Federal Highway Dept.; I went to Washington DC and met with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration people who so generously gave of their time to meet with me. They agreed; stricter adherence to regulations must be made.

Add Comment

Number of characters:

Comments are limited to 1,000 characters. Please do other visitors the courtesy of expressing yourself concisely. WashingtonWatch.com bears no responsibility for comments nor any obligation to publish them. Comments that are impolite, off-topic, violations of others' rights, or advertisements are likely to be removed.

 
(To request new code, make a copy of your comment and hit "Refresh" in your browser.)

RSS Feeds for This Bill

Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)