zlacker

[parent] [thread] 17 comments
1. cs702+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-12-06 12:27:32
Interesting.

The OP claims that deregulation efforts from 2016 to 2022, originally meant to address the truck driver shortage, actually led to many minimally trained drivers joining small truck fleets that pay below-market salaries and routinely run 14- to 20-hour days using tampered hardware for logging mileage. These poorly trained drivers, according to the OP, would not pass the vetting of large, compliant carriers. Freight brokers, which now "control" a third of all loads, typically award them to the lowest bidder, pushing spot rates "below the cost of legal operation." The consequences, according to the OP: legitimate carriers are barely breaking even, cargo theft is more prevalent, and roads are less safe.

Hmm... maybe? I'm not sure I agree. There's an alternate narrative that is also compelling. Could it be that the rise of freight brokers and the adoption of new technology by small fleets enables them to compete more effectively with large fleets, making this market much more competitive than it ever was? Could it be that shippers now have more viable truck-shipping options at a lower cost, thanks to less opaque freight pricing? Could it be that society as a whole benefits from less expensive truck delivery services? Won't this market, sooner or later, be dominated by self-driving trucks, bringing prices down much further, benefiting society as a whole even more?

replies(5): >>maratc+81 >>lrem+I1 >>Simula+g2 >>A4ET8a+B4 >>Zigurd+O5
2. maratc+81[view] [source] 2025-12-06 12:38:09
>>cs702+(OP)
> enables them to compete more effectively with large fleets, making this market much more competitive than it ever was?

Here's an idea: using slaves in coffee and sugar-growing plantations. This will enable slavers to compete more effectively with large non-slave plantations, and the society as a whole would benefit from less expensive coffee and sugar.

replies(1): >>cs702+s1
◧◩
3. cs702+s1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 12:41:38
>>maratc+81
Yes, the OP claims many small-fleet drivers are being overworked, but provides zero evidence of it. By evidence, I mean data, not anecdotes. Do you have data on this?

---

EDIT: Link to data is at >>46173013

It looks like crash rates jumped after the pandemic, then declined in 2022 and 2023, contradicting the OP.

replies(1): >>jezzam+U2
4. lrem+I1[view] [source] 2025-12-06 12:45:14
>>cs702+(OP)
Society might care about cost _including externalities_. A truck running on discarded frying oil might offer a lower price and there’s no way to account for the resulting health outcomes. Exceeding capacity lowers unit price and usually doesn’t lead to an accident. Many industries around the world have shown that without functioning enforcement of reasonable rules you immediately get the tragedy of the commons.
replies(1): >>cs702+N2
5. Simula+g2[view] [source] 2025-12-06 12:50:40
>>cs702+(OP)
I was reading a book recently called "the secret life of groceries" by Benjamin Lorr. He took a ride with truck drivers delivering groceries, and he found that they are terribly abused, underpaid, and that the truck driving schools will literally clean out halfway houses, drug clinics, shelters, anyone they can find who will sign on the dotted line and what is little more than indentured servitude.

If anything, deregulation of the trucking industry has had the exact opposite effect. There should be stringent rules on the drivers, but just as equally stringent rules on those that employ and train them. It's a horribly abusive industry, and we should regulate it.

◧◩
6. cs702+N2[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 12:54:49
>>lrem+I1
I agree. The OP claims that small fleets are cutting costs to extremes that are bad for society, but the OP provides no evidence of it. By evidence, I mean data. Do you have data on this?
replies(1): >>Sabinu+Dc1
◧◩◪
7. jezzam+U2[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 12:55:50
>>cs702+s1
The article provide this: "Despite billions spent on safety technology, fatal truck-involved crashes are up ≈40% since 2014"

Though I wonder how much that number compares to how much the trucking industry grew in that time. If it grew 200% that would actually mean a big win for safety.

Edit: some quick, AI driven research suggests it might've grown 20%. So... Still an issue

replies(1): >>cs702+F3
◧◩◪◨
8. cs702+F3[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 13:01:34
>>jezzam+U2
I just looked briefly at the data provided by the NHTSA, and what I see is a jump after the pandemic, followed by declines in 2022 and 2023, contradicting the OP:

https://www.nhtsa.gov/crash-data-systems/fatality-analysis-r...

https://highways.dot.gov/safety/learn-safety/roadway-safety-...

replies(3): >>jezzam+E8 >>xethos+on >>useful+MM
9. A4ET8a+B4[view] [source] 2025-12-06 13:10:25
>>cs702+(OP)
You describe the two states as if those are mutually exclusive somehow. They are not. But that does not answer the real underlying question: is it true?
10. Zigurd+O5[view] [source] 2025-12-06 13:20:05
>>cs702+(OP)
Or could it be that the tech bros have enabled shifting costs to externalities, like road safety, and the tax funded social safety net keeping underpaid drivers fed? Startup ideas that collect ongoing transaction fees are a hot pattern in investing. The money for those fees has to come from somewhere. Not necessarily a productive somewhere.

This sounds like an echo of ride hailing, where people will now pay a bit more to ride a Waymo so they don't have to tell their financially desperate driver that they'll get a bigger tip for calming down a bit.

◧◩◪◨⬒
11. jezzam+E8[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 13:44:42
>>cs702+F3
Good find!
replies(1): >>Tadpol+oF
◧◩◪◨⬒
12. xethos+on[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 15:51:32
>>cs702+F3
Because you only went to 2018. The article mentions 2014, and if we use your own DOT tool to build a table [0] from 2013 to 2023 (the latest year available), and filter to include large trucks and fatal collisions, we see... a ~42% increase in fatal accidents from 2014-2023

[0] https://cdan.dot.gov/files/files/e2451bc7-e1c3-4942-93f2-af6...

replies(1): >>useful+TM
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
13. Tadpol+oF[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 18:18:13
>>jezzam+E8
No, he's intentionally misconstruing the data. It spiked and went down, but it's still almost 50% higher than 2014 - the article's date range.
◧◩◪◨⬒
14. useful+MM[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 19:12:51
>>cs702+F3
Your second link shows a slight reduction from '21 to '22, but even then it's still significantly higher than during '18 - '20. And it doesn't show anything prior to '18.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
15. useful+TM[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 19:13:46
>>xethos+on
I get a 401 unauthorized for that link
replies(1): >>xethos+bC1
◧◩◪
16. Sabinu+Dc1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 23:05:57
>>cs702+N2
From the article: "Despite billions spent on safety technology, fatal truck-involved crashes are up ≈40% since 2014—almost entirely because of untrained, overworked, and inexperienced drivers now operating 80,000-pound rigs."
replies(1): >>edmund+Ty1
◧◩◪◨
17. edmund+Ty1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-07 03:03:52
>>Sabinu+Dc1
Miles driven are up ~20%, and there was an accounting change in 2016, and the NHTSA says <2020 shouldn't be compared to after.

Directionally this still looks accurate, and give thousands of truck driver deaths per year, its significant.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
18. xethos+bC1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-07 03:50:31
>>useful+TM
Yeah, me too. I tried to avoid linking the actual page (the generated table has a yellow banner explicitely calling out that the link cannot be bookmarked), but with a private window I get 401'd too.

Unfortunately I don't have time to go beyond an imgur link, or asking you to generate the table yourself :/

https://imgur.com/a/Zn0UFbG

[go to top]