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 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
Discussion: H.R. 1799, The Safe and Efficient Transportation Act of 2009 (4 comments ↓)
No discussion on this article yet.
Learn More
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
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.