The people that are going 80 are the hazard, Not the person going 65!!!!!!

If you read this forum it sounds like a bunch of kids that are mad because they are not going to be able to get away with something that they are not allowed to do in the first place!!

There are too many people that die on the roads now! This person is only trying to help!!




mdahlgren---GOOD JOB
GPS works great !!!

I think that all state/federal government(including police) and commercial vehicles should have GPS tracking, not only to keep the roads safer(speed of vehicle), but the ability to track employee/vehicle at all times.

 

Sorry, but the truck doing 65 in a 75 zone is much more of a hazard than the one doing 80 and keeping up with traffic.

Fritz

 

This thread belongs in "General Discussion". It would get a lot more responses there.

 

JP, if you notice, he asked a question pertaining to a chip to limit his truck speed, other people decided to turn it into something else. Maybe eventually someone with the right info on a chip will chime in and help.

 

I'm not a kid, and I'm not mad. It's extremely rare that I hit 70mph. My girl says I drive like a grandma. I've never had an accident where a deer wasn't involved at low speeds. Nor have I had a moving violation in 13 years of driving. My thoughts are that if you're in that much of a hurry, you should have left the house earlier.

That being said, you can't control the other cars out on the road. If everybody else on the road is going 10-15mph faster than you are, yes, technically, you are not the one creating the hazard, they are. BUT, you can reduce the hazard to everybody by keeping up a little better. Having to hit the brakes or slide to the fast lane at a slow speed, instead of accellerating a bit to allow oncoming traffic to merge safely, is very dangerous.

the point everyone is trying to make is that speed limiting is going to cause more hazardous situations than it will eliminate.

Also, going 65 in a 30mph zone is a lot more dangerous than doing 75 in a 65 zone. A speed limiter is not going to prevent this.

The money you spend on speed limiting can be spent on other things that actually have a positive effect on safety.

Most accidents are caused by judgement errors, distraction, fatigue, or alcohol. If you want to increase safety of your drivers, these are the issues you should be addressing.

 

In bred, your quite correct.
There are a lot of people that hardly know how to use a knife fork and spoon to eat with for all the common sense they display.
Maryland is a very liberal state, politically. There are lot of people that think they have the answer for everyone else.
Just ask them about how much they like the second ammendment, as an example.

 

I notice this, you are in h-town, I used to live in frederick, fairly close. I can tell you 65 is a horrable number, 72 would be acceptable for several reasons. Drive, I 70, 81 or 270 anytime and you'll find the majority of traffic is going more then 65 mph, just look at marylands chart system that will give you real time traffic speeds on most major roads. Another argument is should your trucks ever venture to WV, just a few miles away, they have a speed limited of 70 on many highways. YOU WILL BE IMPEDING THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC. A citable offence.

Secondly, you are not any more legally liable if your truck does 65 or 100 mph. You as a company are responsible for keeping the truck in good operating condition. I have worked with many company/fleet setups, you do not need to set a max speed you need to tell drivers what to do. If they do not obay, a written warning should be given. Hell, if these people get paid by the hour why should they even be speeding unless needed?

I understand that you are trying to deal with the loss of a friend/coworker and it sounds like you are taking the wrong approach to it. Cope with the loss if his truck was governed to 65 he may have been killed sooner or not all who knows. I also hate how you are skewing the statistics at hand, most work related deaths are motor vehicle vs a person so please don't make it vehicle to vehicle (PS Ag industry suffers the most losses, not motor vehicle read the government sites and info)

 

Very good reply Monte.
My replys have been a bit critical because the misguided thoughts of limiting a vehichle in the midst of other traffic is generating a bigger problem than the poster has thought about and apparently unwilling to admit.
I also believe there are other motives or aginda behind it, than just the simple limiting road speed via chip, on the PCM.
I would, however, say that if I ever ran into the rear of a vehichle that has such a change, you could bet your back end there would be a rather large legal suit filed, no matter if I were traveling 55 or 75.
I might be cited for the 75 speed but that's not the point. There could be a dozen cars behind me that also pile into the mess. The accident could not have ever happened in the first place.

 

I agree with you that a speed differential between vehicles is a hazard. However, the background for wanting governors on our vehicles is that we have good reason to believe that our drivers often go "hammer down" which means about 90 to 100 mph in fully loaded F350s and F450s. Maybe governing the speed to 65mph is an overreaction, but we want to do something, because if we know about this condition we have to do something about it. Just lecturing someone has not worked in the past. It is our vehicle and we are responsible for what happens to it even if the driver is liable for his own driving.

But to follow your path logically we should consider JATOs so we can really get up to speed in case we really, REALLY need it. ("JATOs" are Jet Assisted Take-Off rocket boosters designed to shorten the take-off distance for Lockheed Martin C-130 army transport planes.) Just like the guy in the urban legend from Arizona, JATOs will get us up to speed...

 

GPS in each vehicle , ya just what I want , big brother watching over us. Putting a top speed limiter? What happened to the days that each person was responsible for his or her actions? Why not make it a policy if the driver gets a speeding ticket they are written up and if they recieve another its days off without pay and if they recieve another its termination. Come on people its time we as individuals take responsibility for our own actions.

 

As for my statistics there is no skewing and I have read my sites: my source is the US Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Census of Fatal Injuries 2002). And I quote:
In 2002, Construction had 1,121 deaths, Transportation 910 and Ag had 789. Usually 1,121 and 910 is more than 789 in the known universe. However, expressed as a rate, Mining had 23.5 deaths per 100,000 employeed and Ag had 22.7 deaths per 100,000 employeed. Again, 23.5 is more than 22.7. Also from the the same census; "the manner in which workplace fatalities occured": "Struck by vehicle" accounts for 6% of deaths in the workplace, which trails "Highway" (25%), "Falls" 13%, "Assaults and violent acts" (15%).
Or if you want to go with National Safety Council: Odds of dying unintentionally as a pedestrian in a transport accident: 1 to 608 but as an occupant of a vehicle odds are 1 to 247. In other words, you have "better" odds of dying as an occupant of a vehicle. BTW odds of dying in a "special ag vehicle: 1 to 15,452. Not at all very good. (http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm)But I am interested in knowing where you get the basis for your assertion. Perhaps I missed something...

But I agree with you that they should not be speeding if paid by the hour, so why do they speed? We've told them not to. According to NSC and UAW, engineering controls are more effective than training.
To lend some perspective to this let me say that I contacted a local trucking firm (D.M. Bowman in Williamsport, MD). They say they have their semis governed at 65mph. If a driver hits 67mph more than twice he is terminated. End of their story.
As for "65mph"; that limit was a number I posed as AN EXAMPLE!!! I was not interested in all the philosophical ramblings and political agendas of disgruntled retirees or people who refer to themselves. I wanted to know how to govern the speed of an F150, be it to 65mph or 75mph or whatever. I appreciate that you are thinking people with opinions, but you are not answering the question.
But maybe you are right: maybe we should not govern the engines, just monitor the speed with a "CarChip" or similar, and then discipline and fire anyone who speeds beyond what we think is prudent regardless of reason for the speeding. CarChips are about half the cost of an reflashed ECM. I should thank you for giving me this insight.

 

Agreed. My "65mph" was not an absolute number, just an example. The overall question was "How do I govern an F-series engine?" not "What do you think about governing an F-series engine?"

 

Thank You for not misunderstanding my question.

 

I agree with you that there are many factors that affect how and why crashes occur and that most of these involve driver error or decisions such as deciding on going to fast for conditions. I am not pretending that a governor will be a magic solution that suddenly makes everyone drive like angles, but I want to be part of the vehicle management program. I am addressing the other factors in other ways. For the purpose of this discussion, I was only interested in the technical aspect of governing an F-series engine. As a point of interest: If we were talking about Mack trucks, the discussion would be over and the truck would be at the dealership being reprogrammed for $14.00 (our quoted cost.)

 

If, by implication, you are trying to say that I am liberal by living in the state of Maryland, you are wrong. I only recently moved to Maryland from a state that regularly sent Jesse Helms to congress. And I can't say I disagreed with that man on many subjects.
As for my table manners, I use my knife to cut and not the edge of my fork, and I don't shift my fork from left to right after cutting as do so many who have not been taught better. And I chew with my mouth shut (and I have all the teeth with which I was born).
And if the second amendment is a test of my "liberalness" I think that the NRA should be the arbiter of who gets to own a gun. Not all adults are qualified to own or shoot guns and some, like me, chose not to own guns. Not because I don't like guns, but because I have not had reason or opportunity to defend my property in a way that would have made a gun necessary. In our town, the police and neighbors do a decent job of keeping crime to a minimum. But if you feel the need to arm yourself on the order of Ruby Ridge or Waco, have at it! And if I were to get a gun I would pick something like a .38 cal Glock. And I support the idea of "concealed carry". That way people would have more reason to show courtesy because of the "Mutually Assured Destruction" principle.