Shock, Vibration and Noise Blog

Are we to do away with interstate commerce. The truck uses the same highway as the car. What your implying is these small cars are unsafe to use our highways of today. So now we have to change the highways. Well the highways are all ready there. The number of the fuel efficient vehicles is small. More cost efficient to the public to make the vehicle fit the road.

I would like to know in a crash how anyone can level the playing field between a 2000 lb car and a tractor trailer hauling 40,000 lbs of freight. Even with a Hummer my bets on the truck.

From my experience driving cross country every year I have noticed the interstates getting safer, the Major Cities however are really bad. Everyone is in a rush, trying to cut those seconds off their trip. Even bypass roads are now surrounded by homes and businesses. I think the solution for increasing road safety around big cities would be a true bypass, no exits, no entrances once on the road, this would go a long way to decrease traffic problems in the large cities with interstate highways running through them.

Another solution would be to help out the truckers themselves, they are under a lot of pressure from dispatchers to arrive early, get the load delivered and pick up another. Time is money and the companies push the drivers far too hard, most truckers still keep two log books to get around the rules. What is needed is a data logger that tamper proof by the trucking company. When it is time for the trucker to rest, they get 30 minutes to find a spot to pull off before the truck stops on it's own. Once stopped the vehicle has to sit for a pre-determined time before it can move again.

This would go a long way in relieving the pressure on truckers and also make the interstates safer. As for the fools who drive beyond their ability, they will always exist and we can only hope evolution removes the defective genes.

Yeah don't you just love it traveling at 60 mph and the guy behind you is a foot off your bumper.

I think better educating of drivers is needed. Would solve a lot of the problems.

I get that a lot when I am driving my wife's car, and the fools who pull out in front of you because you are in a small car. When I am driving my Land Rover Defender no one ever gets close to me. Must be the three inch lift and off road amour.

Here even with a 1 ton utility truck they still try and push you down the road. Glad I gave that up stress of driving was becoming worst part of the job.

Wiring the brake lights to a secondary push button switch works wonders for those who just have to inspect the inside of the exhaust pipe

I have a 1-ton truck too. In the city people pull out in front of me all the time. I can't tell if people are in such a hurry they can't wait or if they just aren't thinking.

The biggest safety concern on the highway isn't trucks, it's the fact that in our technology based society people have lost the understanding and respect for everyday things that can possibly kill them.

It's also the people who stay in the left lane driving slow or not passing another driver. Here in Florida using the left lane to pass and drive in the right hand lanes shouldn't be a safety reminder it should be a law.

Your heart is in the right I suppose but that truck stopping on it own is plain stupid.

Perhaps you should move to an island where only walking is required. Then it is only a matter of removing from the island anyone who is to far outside of the safety requirement.

As the author suggested, " the design mindset of the automobile industry has to change." Ask yourself: Which came first the trail or the wheel? Today and into the future with our current technology - neither are necessary. We are just hung up on roads and the boldness to design a better system doesn't seem to exist with our current 'engineers'. After all, vehicles have wheels, how else could they just roll around there? One 'engineer' even suggested that I should go back to my Star Wars pictures. Anything different then what we have doesn't exist here because it's un-American, therefore, not taught in our schools, nor, featured on CSI Miami, nor, the Discovery channel! I was called a 'Communist!"

The Star Wars concept of personal vehicles which fly is a noble venture to pursue, however the drive is the problem. A levitation drive is a possibility, research funding is a totally different issue. Such a breakthrough would indeed revolutionize ground transport as we know it.

Yes, but now you would spread the problem to the sky. I suppose our roofs would need to change (i.e., reinforced bunker concrete) to protect us from the rein of stupidity. Ops, did I say rein? I meant rain. Or, did I? ;-)

I agree - an auto sensing and crash avoidance system would have to be a standard feature and that does not look to be technically insurmountable. Cost is another issue.

That, and keeping things up in the air. We all know about failure modes, and as a pilot I can tell you that in-air failures can be orders of magnitude more deadly than driving on the ground.

Add to the fact that if people fly like they drive I think I would suggest switch your stock portfolio to funeral homes.

Altitude could also be regulated to several feet, just above the existing highway grade.

Inner city transport would need greater regulation, perhaps some sort of rapid transport.

Anything under 500 AGL is generally uncontrolled airspace. However, if you never noticed power lines before, I am sure you will be reminded very soon.

Coasting a few feet above the roadway does nothing for transportation. You need to get at least above the trucks, which are 15 feet. Then there are bridges, which require you do be at least 15 feet above those, then you need a safety margin, which puts you at the lower level of power lines, then there is commercial and emergency helicopter routes that you need to contend with, then you have local airports and their flight paths, towers, buildings, wind...

Plus, I really don't want to be driving my car on a road and be encumbered by some hovercraft derivative that probably has a long stopping distance and poor turn rate.

Last, if you think cars use a lot of energy, imagine how much energy is required just to levitate an object.

I agree completely, I have looked at the existing car/planes and the idea is good but the energy required is no improvement over the existing situation. Something akin to the levitating vehicles in Star Wars or the Fifth Element will eventually be invented, and it will revolutionize ground/air transport. Funny how science fiction has a way of becoming non-fiction.

Crash avoidance system?? Here's a system that won't increase the cost of a vehicle its called... GIYVAD (gee-VAD) Get In Your Vehicle And Drive.

It's a simple system ... Put away the cell phone,I-pod, newpaper, laptop or whatever. Concentrate on driving the car and pay attention to what the hell is going on around you.

the heavy vehicles like truck and buses are running in to the road they have occupied more surface area that's why more friction if change the design of tyre which take less contact with road and tyre, efficiency of vehicle will increase any other method please tell???

There is a flaw as far as speed limits as concerns the mix of Trucks and cars on highways.

A heavy truck needs to go fast with the assistance of gravity, so as to get up the hill.

General acceptance of this fact would help improve safety when heavies and lighter vehicles share the same highway.

As per my imagine there was no scope of speed limit, and no difference in present driving and future driving. There were five to seven channel / lane of electric / magnetic were fitted with road, which provided work of rotater of electric motor. So vehicle will be auto adjusted applicable channel or lane. We can turn the vehicle, overtake the vehicle. What I image that the road will be work as rotater of electric motor and other part Coil of motor will be worked as Engine. This is way to further thinking.

Occasional accidents are going to happen but the lack of safety on highways and roads is due to lack and skill and descency of people in general. There are too many people who shouldn't be driving. When they should be driving, people want to do everything but just that. I go to the grocery store and there are people who can't even handle a shopping cart, let alone a 4000 lb SUV.

My father taught me to drive (in a large parking lot before i was 16) and he was stationed in Germany for 6 years in his early 20's and he learned very important habits and the test to obtain his license over there was exponentially more difficult that here in the US. Many German cars didn't even come with cupholders until they started exporting to the US market heavily. They didn't understand because when you were driving, you were driving, not talking, not drinking, not eating. Just driving.

redoing the roads, driver education, more software in the car that takes away control from the driver are not solutions. Make it harder to get the license so fewer people have htem and they have a higher skill level to obtain it. but that will never happen b/c in the US you "need" a car, it is an entitlement and there is no way the govt would slow down car sales.

Hummer's vs. hybrid sounds like a sitcom.

The large and small vehicle drivers can't refuse to accept physical reality without correction, public dumb or felony stupid actions have their awards too.

Experience tells me we are ten or more years behind the highway improvement curve in the USA. Though models may show traffic volumes within limits reality should prevail. We need to complete projects ten years ahead, having extra roadway is a pleasant memory and the costs of not having are prohibitive inclusively.

The focus should be towards continuity. Developing traffic models with movement of traffic and acknowledging the social facts of interaction.

How often have you noticed while traveling signage indicating a "by-pass" wow you think no congestion only to realize a series of intersections requiring a stop at each one??????? Where did this ludicrous idea come from and how to purge it from our systems.

I've notice increased use of circular type intersections and how wonderful they can/could be if planners considered either greater volumes or realized large vehicle traffic would crash the model of efficiency or crash the planter etc..

When asked how fuel efficient a vehicle is I always think much better if the roadways didn't require repetitive stopping and going enroute.

Some cities have roads within roads; lanes of continually moving traffic unaffected by vehicles digressing or egressing.

Let us sharpen our points and design projects mindful of safety and usefulness.

*A dream: Pay corporately for the greater good rather than design around a short sighted municipal/political oriented budget process.

If vehicles are removed from this paradigm - highways will not be needed. It seems that because everyone wants to get from point A to point B on their own and in the quickest time - 'vehicles' will be required. but can 'vehicle' even be defined? Is 'mode of transport' the best to be offered for a definition? 'Quickest time', I assume = speed, but, relative to what? If everyone just walked those highways, speed would be relative to physical strength for example. In this instance, 'vehicles' would be irrelevant. That leaves us with 'want'. This, then, goes beyond the realms of engineering, beyond the text book into poetry and art, or, psychology, or even, surrealism! MY MY, what am I even thinking? Anything different then what we already have; what is already "engineered' is surely plumb dumb! Asking too much! Surely.

Might be better for all concerned if the rail system were used more instead of tractor-trailors...more efficient mode of transportation and fewer trucks on the road. Additionally it would be reduce the number of accidents if driver's training were more thorough.

Not well to kick our economy when it's down too!

Try an in depth research of the standards by which our USA commerce is based before knee jerk suggestion, please. National security and trucks, trucks and national security there is a link there; read a book

I think you may have misunderstood the intent of my message. I was not suggesting that we eliminate the trucking industry. Just that a reduction in traffic would increase overall safety. The rail system is already in place and last time I checked they are still hiring, thus helping our economy.

VMI998: Thank you at least someone is thinking. Of course all factors involved need to be debated - except CHANGE! My personal goal has been aptly stated in earlier postings. But, that is me and I could have done that to seed suggestions and a debate. Certainly the state of our roads; transportation system; usage and efficiency can and will be changed as the world turns. But our leaders need to know in what direction we want to go and how far we want to take this change. Once objectives are simply stated, " we are going to the moon!" Keyboards will click, graphs and drafts will began to appear and the debate will ensue. Advanced and a whole new kind of engineering will come about. Shovels will break the ground, people will be working and this mess we call highways will be, in my own opinion - corrected. Maybe then, I will be able to float in the air to go some place!

Guest, GOOD! Now I have to think about that for a bit. BY the way you wouldn't happen to be Bill Clinton, would ya?

You failed to define what you mean by "highways." This is not trivial...for example, California Motor Vehicle code defines a highway as any public throroughfare...whether or not elevated above surrounding terrain (as in high way) which is the customary/historic usage (even if not commonly understood as such).

The context of your question, and responses to same, would very much vary as pertains to which definition or definitions of "highway" are to be addressed.

TexEx

Guest TexEx:

Actually, I earlier suspected you were attempting a legal approach, however, it's now plain to me that the engineer in you might want to more clearly define the problem. I don't want to be presumptuous, but that is now how it seems to me. You are right, the opening statement and the question are not sharply defined and can be misinterpreted. Personally, I tend to agree with the California Motor Vehicle Code definition of highway. As a pharaoh, I am too deep in the pyramid to see out that clearly anymore and can only base my opinions on memory and a certain amount of anxiety. Yes, I am old enough to seek nirvana and crazy enough to believe it exists.

Definitely..that major highways will become interactive with vehicles electronically...in similar fashion as train vehicles interact with rails mechanically. As with all system upgrades there will be losers. I this case the losers (or, one might say, winners) will be motorcyclists...as these vehicle types will likely be subjected to restrictions.

TexEx