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

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

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

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.)

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.

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?

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:

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?

I question that. I would expect the one with concrete to have far more inertia to overcome than the one that is empty.

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!

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 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.

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.

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.

Not at all. Deceleration is calculated as acceleration, inverted (both are limited by friction limit of tires on pavement).

it's force over mass. If mass didn't count, we'd just move the Space Station up in one go rather than a hundred trips!

And that's why my 140hp 1 ton car zips around 3500lb cars of similar power.

I think you're confusing theory and practice. Brakes can overheat, slip, or otherwise fail under enough stress.

I once saw a freight train derail. It was amazing how far the fairly slow moving train moved while off the tracks and wheels sliding along the rock train bed. Momentum is a serious force.

The driver trainer at the company I worked for explained that the company policy forbade firearms in the trucks but common sense suggested a 9mm close at hand was a good idea. A couple of times I had to go to Canada and left my firearm with the terminal manager. Nothing was said.

I imagine ABS has improved a lot, but a bobtail had all the stopping power of a skateboard. Mostly the drivers were rolling or they were locked up unless you were very gentle.

Bullshit.

From: richard Newsgroups: misc.transport.trucking Subject: trailer side skirting ??? Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 14:58:03 -0700 Message-ID:

"What's up with trailers having plastic or canvas skirting between the wheels? I've been seeing more and more of them with it."

Maybe because you don't pay attention?

No, others clarified.

ROTFLOL.. How's that dome home coming?

I take it youve never been to Pisa.

Hi, Those needs different calculations. Driver said speed was too high meaning he was going over the speed limit? From there accident happened. That is criminal. Also did he check the brakes B4 heading down the hill? That is a requirement for big trucks.

Hi, Also no runaway lane there? He should use it if there was one.