How long does it take a truck to stop & is it criminal if he doesn't?

On 7/11/14 10:34 PM, wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 12:33:01 -0700, Ann Marie Brest
> > wrote:
>
>> What distance does a sand truck take to slow down on a 6% grade?
>> If it can't stop in that distance, is it criminal?
>> http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/local/...hway-17/ngcnY/
>>
>> This accident yesterday blocked the highway for 10 hours, with the CHP
>> saying it was a crime scene where one person died.
>> http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-...hbound-highway
>>
>> The driver is quoted in that article as saying he had too much speed with
>> too much weight with too little distance.
>>
>> How long does it take a truck to stop & is it criminal if it doesn't stop
>> in that distance?
> I can't say how long it takes to stop without knowing the weight of
> the truck,

The weight of the truck doesn't matter for the stopping distance.

> what kind of brakes, what pavement condition, etc. However,
> if the driver, by operating an overloaded vehicle at too high a speed
> with inadequate brakes, and following too closely to allow a safe
> stopping distance can be considered to be driving carelessly - which
> can easily be argued, it IS a criminal offence.

No. In California, there's negligent operation, which is a violation of
the vehicle code and reckless driving, which is in the penal code.

> If someone died from his carelessnes it is arguably vehicular
> manslaughter - or at the very least careless driving causing death.

No. In California, if you're committing an unlawful but non-felony act
while driving and you kill someone, then you may be charged with
vehicular manslaughter if you acted negligently. Ordinary negligence
will get you charged with a misdemeanor; gross negligence may get you
charged with a felony.

(If your unlawful act was a felony, you could be charged with felony
murder.)

> I
> believe both of these (at least in Canada - don't know about
> California) are criminal code violations.
> I would not want to be in the driver's shoes trying to fight the
> charge in court.

It's impossible to say whether your claim is true that a criminal
offense is "easily argued." The driver must have been negligent, i.e.,
he must have acted recklessly and either knew or should have known he
was doing so.

On 7/11/14 11:14 PM, wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 21:54:09 -0500, deadrat > wrote:
>
>> On 7/11/14 3:48 PM, Retired wrote:
>>> On 7/11/14, 4:25 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>> On 7/11/14 2:33 PM, Ann Marie Brest wrote:
>>>>> What distance does a sand truck take to slow down on a 6% grade?
>>>>
>>>> d = V^2/(2*g*(f + G))
>>>>
>>>> Whe
>>>> d = Braking Distance (ft)
>>>> g = Acceleration due to gravity (32.2 ft/sec2)
>>>> G = Roadway grade as a percentage
>>>> V = Initial vehicle speed (ft/sec)
>>>> f = Coefficient of friction between the tires and the roadway
>>>>
>>>> So if the truck were going 55mph, that would be about 80 feet per second.
>>>>
>>>> The coefficient of friction for treaded tires is about .7 on dry roads.
>>>>
>>>> d = (80*80)/(2*32*(.7+.06))
>>>>
>>>> or about 132 feet (from the time the driver hits the brakes).
>>>> Assuming a lot of things, like the brakes don't burn out.
>>>>
>>>>> If it can't stop in that distance, is it criminal?
>>>>
>>>> Of course not. The driver must have been doing something recklessly
>>>> negligent before it's criminal.
>>>>
>>>> <snip/>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Where is vehicle weight or number of tires/brakes taken into
>>> consideration ?
>>
>> The vehicle weight (actually its mass) makes no difference as Galileo
>> showed when he dropped a Mack truck and a VW beetle from the Leaning
>> Tower of Pisa.

> You are right!!! in both cases, they ended up with a deadrat!!

I know you're trying to tag the joke with my nym, but I don't think it
works. How does a rat fit in with the truck and the car? And if it's
me, how did I end up as a contemporary of Galileo?

On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 22:20:24 -0600, rbowman >
wrote:

>Unquestionably Confused wrote:
>
>> It isn't as it's immaterial. Two identical trucks, with the same tires,
>> driving the same speed, traveling on the same pavement will stop in the
>> same distance regardless of one being filled with concrete and the other
>> empty.
>
>Factors effecting stopping distance:
>
>http://www.crashforensics.com/truckc...nstruction.cfm
>
>As far as stopping distance requirements:
>
>http://www.ttnews.com/articles/baset...?storyid=22391
>
>It may have changed, but when I took the CDL test, the official view was an
>empty truck would take longer to stop.
>
An empty truck will take longer to stop than a properly loded truck -
which will stop faster than an overloaded truck.

The load rating of a truck takes into account the tire load rating,
the axle load rating,the spring load rating, the braking capacity, and
the horsepower and gearing of the prime mover. If there is no Or not
enough) weight on the braking wheels, the truck will slide.
If there is enough weight on the braking wheels, the tires will hold.
If the tires hold more than the brakes, the brakes will limit the
stopping distance.
If the brakes hold more than the tires, the tires limit the stopping
distance.
If the brakes and tires are adequate to stop the load, you stop in
time. If they are not adequate to stop the load, you do not stop in
time.
Required Brake horsepower on a grade is determined by the distance
travelled in feet times the weight being stopped (ft lbs) devided by
the time required to stop it devided by 33000.
1 HP is 33000 ft lbs per minute.
So to stop the descent of a 40,000lb truck on a 100 foot high hill
hill at 60 MPH in 1320 feet (1/4 mile) over stopping the truck on the
level, requires the addition of approxemately 757 HP of braking force.
The same amount of extra power it would require to acclerate the same
load from 0 to 60 up a 100 ft hill over a quarter mile, over just
accellerating it on the level.
Double the weight, double the required horsepower. Double the speed,
double the horsepower. Double the incline, double the horsepower.
Just accellerating, (or stopping) that 40,000 lb truck on the level
requiers 475 HP 0-60 or 60-0 in a quarter mile in 25 secconds.
Increasing the load to 60000 lbs raises the power required to 715HP
Increasing the load to 80000lb requires 950 HP.

SO
Lets stop a 40000 lb truck from 60MPH to a dead stop on a 100 ft high
1/4 mile long hill. The brakes will have to dissipate 1232 HP.
Double the weight of the truck and the brakes are required to
dissipate 2464 HP.Double the incline and the 80000 lb truck requires
3221 HP

Now, not only do we need enough brake to absorb that much Horsepower,
we need enough tire to put that 2464 HP to the ground without breaking
traction with the road surface. The number of tires on braking axles
most definitely comes into play here. (as does the number and capacity
of wheel brakes available) - because as stated before, stopping
distance is limitted by the lesser of brake power and tire traction.

In the case referenced by the OP, the tires ran out before the brakes
as the trailers slid and jacknifed - and if the tired HAD been able to
hold all of the braking force, the brakes most likely would still not
have been adequate to stop the loaded truck in the time/space allowed
from the speed he was going.

Reducing the speed coming into the situation reduces the required
braking power for both the decelleration of the load and the control
of descent of the load much more than the weight by both reducing the
feet per second AND increasing the time/distance available to stop.

Increase the load by 10%, reduce speed by 5% - more or less for the
same stopping distance.

I likely missed a few factors that will skew the numbers slightly -
but theyw are close and show the "trend"

Weight and tires/brakes as well as speed all have a BIG effect on
stopping distance.

Ashton Crusher wrote, on Fri, 11 Jul 2014 22:43:24 -0700:

> major error is thinking that truck tires and truck brakes will come
> close to the maximum available surface friction of the pavement.

The first article in the OP says that the driver, Ravinderbal Singh, said
he jammed on the brakes, which began to smoke, but did little to slow him down.

He's quoted as saying "It wasn't decreasing speed. It kept going up 'cause it was,
like, too steep for me,".

Does that indicate the tires or the brakes were the limiting factor in his
inability to stop until he had crushed the 10 cars in front of him?

On 7/11/2014 10:54 PM, deadrat wrote:
> On 7/11/14 3:48 PM, Retired wrote:
>> Where is vehicle weight or number of tires/brakes taken into
>> consideration ?
>
> The vehicle weight (actually its mass) makes no difference as Galileo
> showed when he dropped a Mack truck and a VW beetle from the Leaning
> Tower of Pisa.
>

I thought he was Italian. Wouldn't it been Italian
cars? VW is German.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Stormin Mormon" > wrote in message
...
> On 7/11/2014 10:54 PM, deadrat wrote:
> > On 7/11/14 3:48 PM, Retired wrote:
> >> Where is vehicle weight or number of tires/brakes taken into
> >> consideration ?
> >
> > The vehicle weight (actually its mass) makes no difference as Galileo
> > showed when he dropped a Mack truck and a VW beetle from the Leaning
> > Tower of Pisa.
> >
>
> I thought he was Italian. Wouldn't it been Italian
> cars? VW is German.

The truck would have stopped faster. It has air brakes.

SH

On 7/12/2014 7:31 AM, Sherlock.Homes wrote:
> "Stormin Mormon" > wrote in message
>>> The vehicle weight (actually its mass) makes no difference as Galileo
>>> showed when he dropped a Mack truck and a VW beetle from the Leaning
>>> Tower of Pisa.
>>>
>>
>> I thought he was Italian. Wouldn't it been Italian
>> cars? VW is German.
>
> The truck would have stopped faster. It has air brakes.
>
> SH

Brilliant deduction!


--
..
Christopher A. Watson
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 18:53:13 -0700, Evan Platt wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 21:31:33 -0400, richard >
> wrote:
>
>>Having been a professional truck driver,
>
> Oh that's funny.
>
> You asked what the skirting on the side of trucks was for.

I believe I had asked if the skirting was required by law.
As I had not seen skirting like this on trucks while I was an active
driver.


>
> I answered after a 10 second google search.
>
> You claimed it was illegal to carry a firearm in a commercial vehicle.
> I proved otherwise.

I may have. But then also said something else to clarify and you never
mention that.

If you have a CCW in state A, you can carry that firearm all you want.
Cross the line into state B, who does not issue CCW, and you could go to
jail.
You can carry a firearm in a ttuck as long as it is properly locked and
stored and not within arm's reach.
But if you work for a company and the company owns the truck, when they
find that firearm, they can and will fire you if they do not allow
firearms.


You're the one who is a frickin laughing joke.
Claiming to be an expert on any topic.

On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 21:54:09 -0500, deadrat wrote:

> On 7/11/14 3:48 PM, Retired wrote:
>> On 7/11/14, 4:25 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>> On 7/11/14 2:33 PM, Ann Marie Brest wrote:
>>>> What distance does a sand truck take to slow down on a 6% grade?
>>>
>>> d = V^2/(2*g*(f + G))
>>>
>>> Whe
>>> d = Braking Distance (ft)
>>> g = Acceleration due to gravity (32.2 ft/sec2)
>>> G = Roadway grade as a percentage
>>> V = Initial vehicle speed (ft/sec)
>>> f = Coefficient of friction between the tires and the roadway
>>>
>>> So if the truck were going 55mph, that would be about 80 feet per second.
>>>
>>> The coefficient of friction for treaded tires is about .7 on dry roads.
>>>
>>> d = (80*80)/(2*32*(.7+.06))
>>>
>>> or about 132 feet (from the time the driver hits the brakes).
>>> Assuming a lot of things, like the brakes don't burn out.
>>>
>>>> If it can't stop in that distance, is it criminal?
>>>
>>> Of course not. The driver must have been doing something recklessly
>>> negligent before it's criminal.
>>>
>>> <snip/>
>>>
>>
>> Where is vehicle weight or number of tires/brakes taken into
>> consideration ?
>
> The vehicle weight (actually its mass) makes no difference as Galileo
> showed when he dropped a Mack truck and a VW beetle from the Leaning
> Tower of Pisa.

Actually that was Jeremy Clarkson on "Top Gear".
Two different things.
When on the moon, Neil Armstrong dropped a bowling ball and a feather at
the same time. Both landed at the same time.
That works in a vacuum.

And the real experiment was done using a ramp.
With various sizes and weights of balls.

On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 22:20:24 -0600, rbowman wrote:

> Unquestionably Confused wrote:
>
>> It isn't as it's immaterial. Two identical trucks, with the same tires,
>> driving the same speed, traveling on the same pavement will stop in the
>> same distance regardless of one being filled with concrete and the other
>> empty.
>
> Factors effecting stopping distance:
>
> http://www.crashforensics.com/truckc...nstruction.cfm
>
> As far as stopping distance requirements:
>
> http://www.ttnews.com/articles/baset...?storyid=22391
>
> It may have changed, but when I took the CDL test, the official view was an
> empty truck would take longer to stop.

And you got that wrong.
Adding weight to a vehicle causes the brakes to work harder to do the same
job. So it will take longer for the "loaded" truck to stop.