• DATVF.ATLPHL
    1.638
    -0.014
    -0.8%
  • DATVF.CHIATL
    1.963
    0.087
    4.6%
  • DATVF.DALLAX
    0.897
    -0.106
    -10.6%
  • DATVF.LAXDAL
    1.549
    -0.024
    -1.5%
  • DATVF.SEALAX
    0.976
    0.052
    5.6%
  • DATVF.PHLCHI
    0.939
    0.039
    4.3%
  • DATVF.LAXSEA
    2.034
    -0.050
    -2.4%
  • DATVF.VEU
    1.513
    0.037
    2.5%
  • DATVF.VNU
    1.414
    -0.009
    -0.6%
  • DATVF.VSU
    1.223
    -0.065
    -5%
  • DATVF.VWU
    1.505
    0.001
    0.1%
  • ITVI.USA
    10,122.770
    72.300
    0.7%
  • OTRI.USA
    4.880
    -0.040
    -0.8%
  • OTVI.USA
    10,116.640
    68.200
    0.7%
  • TLT.USA
    2.420
    0.000
    0%
  • WAIT.USA
    150.000
    0.000
    0%
  • DATVF.ATLPHL
    1.638
    -0.014
    -0.8%
  • DATVF.CHIATL
    1.963
    0.087
    4.6%
  • DATVF.DALLAX
    0.897
    -0.106
    -10.6%
  • DATVF.LAXDAL
    1.549
    -0.024
    -1.5%
  • DATVF.SEALAX
    0.976
    0.052
    5.6%
  • DATVF.PHLCHI
    0.939
    0.039
    4.3%
  • DATVF.LAXSEA
    2.034
    -0.050
    -2.4%
  • DATVF.VEU
    1.513
    0.037
    2.5%
  • DATVF.VNU
    1.414
    -0.009
    -0.6%
  • DATVF.VSU
    1.223
    -0.065
    -5%
  • DATVF.VWU
    1.505
    0.001
    0.1%
  • ITVI.USA
    10,122.770
    72.300
    0.7%
  • OTRI.USA
    4.880
    -0.040
    -0.8%
  • OTVI.USA
    10,116.640
    68.200
    0.7%
  • TLT.USA
    2.420
    0.000
    0%
  • WAIT.USA
    150.000
    0.000
    0%
NewsRegulationTrucking

Fuel efficiency highlighted in 65 mph speed limiter support

While there’s a strong safety argument to be made in limiting truck speeds to 65 mph, two major trucking groups are emphasizing fuel efficiency benefits as well in officially backing legislation requiring speed limiters on trucks.

The Truckload Carriers Association (TCA) and the Trucking Alliance announced on July 10 their support for S. 2033, introduced on June 27 by Johnny Isakson (R-Georgia) and Chris Coons (D-Delaware).

Known as “The Cullum Owings Large Truck Safe Operating Speed Act of 2019,” the legislation would require new commercial trucks weighing over 26,000 pounds to be equipped with speed limiters set at a maximum speed of 65 miles per hour. Existing trucks that already have the technology installed would be required to set the 65-mph limit as well, while those without speed limiters would not be required to install the technology retroactively. Owners of older trucks without speed limiters would, however, be required to comply with the 65-mph limit or be issued a federal safety violation rather than a state-issued speeding ticket, according to the Trucking Alliance.

The bill is supported by grassroots safety advocates such as Road Safe America, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways and Parents Against Tired Truckers.

David Heller, TCA’s Vice President of Government Affairs, said his group believes that a speed limiter mandate will have benefits beyond safety.

“Specifically, the fuel efficiency of trucks will dramatically increase with lower maximum speeds, showing that this proposal will improve both the environmental and business aspects of the industry as well,” Heller told FreightWaves in a statement.

In lending support for the measure, Trucking Alliance member Reggie Dupré, CEO of Dupré Logistics, said his company “has utilized speed limiters to improve safety and fuel efficiencies for several years.”

Wilson Risinger, Vice President of Safety & Security at KLLM Transport Services, pointed out that “most fleets now utilize speed limiters to improve safety and fuel efficiencies and this legislation will help ensure that all our industry’s carriers do the same.”

The Trucking Alliance cites a 2016 joint rulemaking by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration – which was never finalized – projecting that a speed limiter mandate would result save $848 million per year in fuel savings and greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

S. 2033, which has not yet gained Congressional support beyond its two co-sponsors, has also yet to receive support from the American Trucking Associations (ATA), which backs a uniform standard for cars and trucks to account for safety risks caused by speed differentials between the two classes of vehicles.

The Trucking Alliance claims, however, that such differentials would not affect safety, noting that on rural interstate highways, 10 states restrict large trucks to maximum speeds of 65 mph while cars can legally drive faster. It also points to the European Union, where the difference between the average maximum speed limits for large trucks and cars is 20 mph “with no reported safety risks.”

Tags
Show More

John Gallagher, Washington Correspondent

Based in Washington, D.C., John specializes in regulation and legislation affecting all sectors of freight transportation. He has covered rail, trucking and maritime issues since 1993 for a variety of publications based in the U.S. and the U.K. John began business reporting in 1993 at Broadcasting & Cable Magazine. He graduated from Florida State University majoring in English and business.

15 Comments

  1. If it was truly about SAFETY and a reduction of greenhouse gases or fuel savings. Why not reduce the speed for every motor vehicle? Can you imagine how mind numbing it would be if everyone ran the same speed all the time. Not being able to pass some idiot who swerving all over while playing on their phone, or they’re speeding up and slowing down and you can’t get away from them. No it’s big companies trying to put the small companies out of business. They have put ELDs in your trucks, what did you do? Nothing . They put cameras in your cabs watching you,
    And still you do nothing. Drivers will not stand as a group and they know it. Now bend over and take it!

  2. This is hogwash, you lose more money from the 48 loads less you deliver than you save in fuel costs. 48 loads minimum from each driver able to do the speed limit, times that by the majority of owners and small fleets and it’s nearly 740,000,000,000 billion dollars per year in lost revenue. The fuel savings is a lie unless you own a large fleet and are trying to increase your numbers to hype the information to investers. The argument is pure hogwash. I drive flat bed/stepdeck and it’s less than a gallon difference between an aero truck and my Pete 389 at the same speeds, at 65 the difference is less but my Pete didn’t lose any milage or really gain any. I go from 5.5 mpg oversize step to 5.1 oversize on step at 65 vs 75. .4 mpg doesn’t make up for the lost load each week. Nor does it make up for my lost revenue as a business owner, it also ends up being taxed even .ore through the fuel taxes and soon to come pay per mile taxes. Take your BS horse sheet and shove it where the sun don’t shine.

  3. Having run a fleet at 65 mph only, I can for a fact tell you the fuel savings is very very very minimal. We had half our fleet on it and half not. There is actually a greater loss of productivity then savings on fuel. As far as safety goes, you see the speeding on surface streets increase since the driver now feels like he is behind.

  4. Well, it is always about money. Everything related to government is ALWAYS about money. Somebody, somewhere is making grotesque amounts of money at someone else’s expense. It is such a complex issue. I think 70MPH should be the governed number. People could get behind this.

  5. Why 65 mph? At speeds less than 35 mph the likelihood of a fatal accident plummet dramatically. Fuel efficiency would be increased dramatically at 35 mph as well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Close