Appendix — Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Del.

Supreme Court brief1981

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

APPENDIX

—_, 3 5? ¢

IN THE ary rez |

Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1979

No. 79-1320

RAYMOND KASSEL, ROBERT RIGLER, L. STANLEY SCHOEL-

ERMAN, DONALD GARDNER, JULES BUSKER, ALLAN

THOMS, BARBARA DUNN, WILLIAM McGRATH, JON

McCoy, CHARLES W. LARSON, EDWARD DICKINSON,

RICHARD C. TURNER, and RoBERT D. RAY,

Appellants,

VS.

CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION OF DELAWARE,

a Delaware Corporation,

Appellees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT

OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

APPEAL DOCKETED FEBRUARY 26, 1980

JURISDICTION NOTED MAY 19, 1980

FERC LPR NRE SER eae OE, OT

nr ee ee Oe one oh Late, |

Deposition of Kenneth L. Pierson (Deputy Director,

Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, U.S., Department

ge | ene De eee ae

Deposition of Ernest G. Cox (Ret. Deputy Director,

Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, U.S. Department of

Transportation) .............. seacieuidnadblisaanbaaciamstaatebencecoieomacnc

Deposition of Edward E. Kynaston (Deputy Chief

Commander, California Highway Patrol, Enforce-

ment Services Division)..............00.00000 eee ee

Deposition of Colonel James C. Crawford (Chief, Min-

nesota State Patrol) ..................................... Ake Mie ra ee

Deposition of Francis C. Marshall (Assistant Commis-

sioner, Minnesota Department of Highways ............

Deposition of George E. Moberly (Engineer of Traffic,

Illinois Department of Transportation)...

Deposition of James L. Adkins (Major, Kansas High-

I I Na a eG AL

Deposition of Arland V. Hicks (Transportation Safety

Administrator, Kansas Department of Transporta-

ne ek wv

Deposition of Claud R. McCamment (Ret. Safety Di-

rector, Kansas Highway Commission)...................

Deposition of Thomas E. Doyle (Ret. Director-State

Engineer, Nebraska Highway Department)

Deposition of Colonel Dennis Eisnach (Superintendent,

South Dakota Highway Patrol)

INDEX—Continued

Deposition of Peter DenHamer (Safety Director,

Transport Indemnity Company) ........................----.....--

Deposition of Thurman D. Sherard (Research Direc-

tor, Western Highway Institute) ........000000000..........

Deposition of Fred J. Myers (Professional Engineer) ..

Deposition of Robert D. Ervin (Research Scientist,

Highway Safety Research Institute, Univ. of Mich.) ..

Deposition of George Ternent (Retired Chief Engineer,

Bendix-Westinghouse Corporation) .....0.0.00000000000.02....

Deposition of Archie H. Easton (Professor Emeritus,

University of Wisconsin )....................:..ccccicccecensescecessones

Deposition of Charles J. Calvin (President, Truck

Trailer Manufacturers Association) ..................0..........

Deposition of Andrew Happer (Research Analyst, Mid-

dlewest Motor Freight Bureau, Inc.) .........00.0000000.......

Deposition of Robert D. Ray (Governor, State of

SOD vicdocuiaicceuessnesvcs seemed

Deposition of Michael Freitas (Highway Research En-

gineer, Federal Highway Administration) .................

Deposition of Martin L. Reiss (Vice-President Institute

Dow Datei. DAG oie csscciacoccct ee

Deposition of R. D. Fogo (General Manager, Kansas

TOES DAI D acnevscivinnscctscoabommauamiaee

Deposition of Howard Gillies (Kansas Highway

| OM Mane er, SS es Tots lee,

TIO oS di icccockincecemcinadaniaa enna

TRIAL RECORD

John Nimmo, Assistant Director of Planning, Iowa

Department of Transportation..............-.............. Be

Page

113

123

135

140

154

158

171

200

215

228

230

234

243

iii

INDEX—Continued

Raymond Kassel, Director, Iowa DOT ...................

Michael Gunn, Supervisor of Data Processing, Con-

BOEHERURE FGIGMUWATS .........-.....0cc.ceccceereecceccessececeee-s

John C. Glennon, Doctor of Engineering...

John J. Killilee, Director of Safety, CF...

Eldon J. Yoder, Professor of Highway Engineer-

OR |

Richard D. Markland, Vice-President Maintenance

a sccmessmutuensciinmacs

James A. Schlueter, President, CF Data Services,

Robert E. Wrightson, Controller, CF...

Joel Leisch, Transportation Engineer...

Col. Edward Dickinson, Chief, Iowa State Patrol...

Dennis Ehlert, Director Motor Vehicle Enforce-

Gov. Robert Ray, Governor of the State of Iowa...

Don McLean, Director of Highway Division, Iowa

i LIRR E ed Men a ae PRB TNE ee oa a

Jerry Lee Hall, Professor of Mechanical Engineer-

ing, Iowa State University 0...

Robert L. Carstens, Professor of Civil Engineer-

ing, Iowa State University

Kenneth J. Koehler, Assistant Professor of Statis-

tics, lowa State University

Stuart C. Eischied, Vice-President, Motor Club of

RD hee Hctpecn Ck UAE Res Mace Se a

Leo C. Peters, Mechanical Engineering Consultant..

Donald E. Wandling, Consultant Engineer...

503

INDEX—Continued

Thomas F. Pogue, Professor of Economics, Uni-

I Se BI ig iis cdatdotcastcdnctncevatenaechecee

Robert R. Rigler, Chairman, Iowa Transportation

ELLE TLE ELECT EEO Oe

Steven C. Walgrave, Senior Research Engineer,

Freightliner Corporation —..........-.-----22.-202.-2.2..-.-.-

POST TRIAL PROCEEDINGS

Hearing on Defendants’ Motion for a Stay Pend-

ing Appeal (Held August 20, 1980) ~............00.2.....

Order Denying Stay (Filed August 20, 1980)... ...

TRIAL EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT 2—Sixty-five foot twin-trailers on Iowa

highways—April, 1975 .................eecesecceeeceeeeeeeeees

EXHIBIT 3—Recommended policy on maximum

dimensions of motor vehiclese—AASHTO ............

EXHIBIT 4—Accident calculation with and with-

WI SI eo ss cha dackectas du sketde a oueuctnesaevucescess

EXHIBIT 6—Map—twin-trailer states ..................

EXHIBIT 18—Analysis of statistical studies ........

EXHIBIT 21—Effect of Iowa’s ban on accidents....

EXHIBIT 29—Road wear analysis ..........................

EXHIBIT 53—Summary statutes ...........................

EXHIBIT 55—Level of service analysis ....... AEE

EXHIBIT 62—Photographs of trucks ....................

EXHIBIT 64—Governor’s veto message ................

EXHIBIT 68—Comparison of BMCS data with

and without CF to determine biases ...... eas

Page

539

555

561

578

579

580

602

604

605

607

614

615

617

632

637

641

INDEX—Continued

EXHIBIT 71—Report of the Twin Trailer Study

Commission of Virginia (1970) 0.00.00...

EXHIBIT 511—ASHTO chart of vehicle sizes

EXHIBIT 523—Highway miles showing asphalt

and concrete within the State of Iowa ..............

EXHIBIT 538—The effect of vehicle length on

potential for colkiaiom .............................................

EXHIBIT 542—Comments on the Pierson Study..

EXHIBIT 546—Comments on road accident re-

I ici

EXHIBIT 543—Analysis of the summary data for

RSA AECL ARM rn Rc aR OM Led Aad

EXHIBIT 548—Power of the test for comparing

| IN THE

Siri Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1979

No. 79-1320

RAYMOND KASSEL, ROBERT RIGLER, L. STANLEY SCHOEL-

ERMAN, DONALD GARDNER, JULES BUSKER, ALLAN

THOMS, BARBARA DUNN, WILLIAM MCGRATH, JON

McCoy, CHARLES W. LARSON, EDWARD DICKINSON,

RICHARD C. TURNER, and ROBERT D. Ray,

Appellants,

Vs.

CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION OF DELAWARE,

a Delaware Corporation,

Appellees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT

OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

OPINIONS BELOW

[The Opinions of the District Court and Court of Ap-

peals were printed in the Appendix to the Jurisdictional

Statement, and are omitted from this Appendix. ]

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF

RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES

DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT

June 13, 1978

July 5, 1978

July 26, 1978

January 22, 1979

February 2, 1979

May 29, 1979

June 5, 1979

June 27, 1979

August 16, 1979

August 17, 1979

August 20, 1979

OF IOWA

—Plaintiff Consolidated Freightways filed

its Complaint and Motion for Prelimi-

nary Injunction on the U.S. District

Court for the Southern District of

Iowa.

—Defendants’ Original Answer filed.

—Defendant-Intervenor’s Answer filed.

—Amended Complaint filed.

—Amended Answer of Defendants filed.

—Amended Answer of Defendant-Inter-

venors filed.

—Trial Commenced.

—Trial Evidence Closed.

—Memorandum Opinion, Order, and

Judgment entered.

—Notice of Appeal filed.

—Motion for stay pending appeal denied

by District Court.

EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

September 10, 1979—Motion for stay pending appeal denied

by 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.

October 11, 1979 —Oral argument before 8th Circuit Court

of Appeals.

December 7, 1979 —District Court decision affirmed.

February 1, 1980 —Defendants Notice of Appeal filed.

May 19, 1980 —Probable Jurisdiction noted.

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Filed January 22, 1979

[Caption Omitted in Printing]

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Consolidated Freightways

Corporation of Delaware, a Delaware corporation, and

for a Complaint against the above-named Defendants

alleges as follows:

I. JURISDICTION

1. This Honorable Court has jurisdiction of this con-

troversy under 28 USC § 1331, 28 USC § 1332, 28 USC

§ 1848, 42 USC § 1983 and 28 USC § 2201-02.

2. Plaintiff Consolidated Freightways Corporation of

Delaware is a Delaware corporation with its principal

place of business at 175 Linfield Drive, Menlo Park,

California.

3. Defendant Raymond Kassel is the Director of

Transportation, State of Iowa, and on information and

belief resides at 913 Eleventh Street, Nevada, lowa

50201.

4. Defendant Robert Rigler is a member and the

Chairman of the Transportation Commission, State of

Iowa, and on information and belief resides at 251 South

Locust Avenue, New Hampton, Iowa 50659.

5. Defendant L. Stanley Schoelerman is a member

of the Transportation Commission, State of Iowa, and

on information and belief resides at 307 East Fourth,

P. O. Box 390, Spencer, Iowa 51301.

6. Defendant Don Gardner is a member of the Trans-

portation Commission, State of Iowa, and on information

and belief resides at 3110 Ravenwood Terrace, NW,

Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52405.

7. Defendant Jules Busker is a member of the Trans-

portation Commission, State of Iowa, and on informa-

tion and belief resides at 2902 Jackson, Sioux City, Iowa

51104.

8. Defendant Allan Thoms is a member of the Trans-

portation Commission, State of Iowa, and on informa-

tion and belief resides at 510 St. George Street, Du-

buque, Iowa 52001.

9. Defendant Barbara Dunn is a member of the

Transportation Commission, State of Iowa, and on in-

formation and belief resides at 530-44th Street, Des

Moines, Iowa 50312.

10. Defendant William McGrath is a member of the

Transportation Commission, State of Iowa, and on in-

formation and belief resides at Box 36, Melrose, Iowa

52569.

11. Defendant Jon McCoy is Director of the Motor

Vehicle Division, State of Iowa, and resides at 1412

Harding, Ames, Iowa 50010.

12. Defendant Charles W. Larson is Commissioner

of the Department of Public Safety, State of Iowa, and

on information and belief resides at Rural Route 2, Bit-

tersweet, Newton, Iowa 50208.

13. Defendant Col. Edward Dickinson is Chief of the

Iowa Highway Patrol, Department of Public Safety,

State of Iowa, and on information and belief resides at

1105 SE Innsbruck Drive, Ankeny, Iowa 50021.

14. Defendant Richard C. Turner is Attorney Gen-

eral, State of Iowa, and on information and belief re-

sides at 1054 - 21st Street, West Des Moines, Iowa 50265.

15. Defendant Robert D. Ray is Governor of the State

of Iowa, and on information and belief resides at 2300

Grand Avenue, Des Moines, Iowa 50312.

16. This controversy is between citizens of different

states.

17. This action arises under Article I, Section 8, and

the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Consti-

tution and 42 USC § 1983, as more fully appears here-

after.

18. Yhe amount in controversy exclusive of interests

and costs exceeds $10,000.00.

II. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

19. Plaintiff Consolidated Freightways is a common

carrier duly certificated by the Interstate Commerce Com-

mission under Certificate of Public Convenience and

Necessity MC-42487 and various subnumbers thereunder.

It holds authority to operate as a common motor carrier

of general commodities (exluding certain commodities in

bulk, certain commodities requiring special handling,

household goods, and certain explosives) in interstate and

foreign commerce.

20. Pursuant to its operating authority, Plaintiff rou-

tinely transports general commodities among customers

located in 46 states and Canada. Plaintiff transports

general commodities between points where the most di-

rect, efficient, and rapid routing would be through Iowa,

and Plaintiff transports general commodities between

customers served by its terminals located in Cedar Rap-

ids, lowa and Des Moines, Iowa, and other points in its

system, and in interline service.

21. Interstate 80, beginning in the New York metro-

politan area and terminating in the San Francisco metro-

politan area is the principal east-west transcontinental

highway in the United States, and provides the most

direct route for general commodities from the Chicago

area and points east to the central West Coast. Inter-

state 80 runs through Iowa from Davenport to Council

Bluffs.

22. Interstate 36, beginning in Laredo, Texas and

ending in Duluth, Minnesota is a principal, north-south

interstate routing through Iowa from a point near Silver

Lake, Iowa to a point near Lamoni, Iowa.

23. Interstate 235, is an alternate routing of Inter-

states 80 and 35 through the Des Moines, Iowa area.

24, Interstate 380, is a connector route connecting

Cedar Rapids, Iowa with Interstate 80.

25. Interstate 280 is an alternate routing of Inter-

state 80 around and through the Moline-Rock Island-

Davenport metropolitan area.

26. Interstate 680 is an alternate routing connecting

Interstate 80 with Interstate 29 in the Council Bluffs

area.

27. Interstate 29, beginning in Kansas City, Missouri

and ending at the Canadian border at North Dakota,

runs through Iowa from a point near Hamburg, Iowa to

Sioux City, Iowa.

28. Attached hereto and incorporated herein are the

following:

(a) Exhibit A: a map showing the national Inter-

state Highway System.

(b) Exhibit B: a map showing the portion of the

National Interstate Highway System in Iowa.

Plaintiff Consolidated Freightways’ terminal in Des

Moines, and

(d) Exhibit D: a map showing the routing to

Plaintiff Consciidated Freightways’ terminal in Cedar

Rapids,

29. A 65-foot twin trailer vehicle combination (“twin

trailer”) is the standard vehicle for interstate carriage

of general commodities in the United States other than

in the East Coast and Southeast regions. The vehicle

combination consists of a truck-tractor, a trailer ap-

proximately 27 or 28 feet in length, a dolly and a sec-

ond trailer approximately 27 or 28 feet in length. The

entire vehicle combination has a length of 65 feet. At-

tached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit E are

diagrams illustrating 27 foot twin trailers in combina-

tion and 28 foot twin trailers in combination.

30. Plaintiff Consolidated Freightways owns and op-

erates twin trailers in those states where they are le-

gally permissible, and routinely interchanges twin trail-

er equipment both within its own operations and with

other carriers to provide service to and from areas where

Plaintiff Consolidated Freightways is not authorized to

provide direct service.

31. Section 321.457(6), Code of Iowa, 1977, pro-

hibits the operation of standard sixty-five foot twin trail-

ers in Iowa:

“No combination of three (3) vehicles coupled to-

gether one of which is a motor vehicle, unladen or

with load, shali have an overall length, inclusive of

front and back bumpers in excess of sixty feet.”

32. As a direct consequence of this prohibition, Plain-

tiff Consolidated Freightways is forced to:

(1) divert through traffic from the most direct rout-

ing through Iowa to circuitous routings around Iowa;

(2) operate equipment to serve Iowa customers

which is incompatible with its other equipment and with

the equipment of other carriers with whom it interchanges

equipment; and

(3) operate shuttle operations between other states

and terminals in Iowa in which twin trailers are handled

separately in single trailer-single tractor units between

Iowa terminals and staging areas maintained near the

Iowa border.

33. As a consequence of the lowa ban, Plaintiff Con-

solidated Freightways’ operations are disrupted and frag-

mented, its operating costs are significantly increased,

and it is unable to provide prompt, efficient interstate

transportation of goods.

34. Standard sixty-five foot long twin trailers are as

safe or are safer than fifty-five foot semi-trailers or sixty

foot twin trailer type vehicles which are permitted to op-

erate regularly and routinely in lowa.

35. Standard sixty-five foot twin trailers cause no

greater road wear than is caused by fifty-five foot semi-

trailers or sixty foot twin trailers which are permitted

to operate regularly and routinely in Iowa.

36. Certain of Defendants and/or their predecessors

in office have conducted or caused to be conducted,

studies of sixty-five foot twin trailers. Said studies

have indicated that twin trailers are as safe or safer

and cause no more road wear than sixty foot twin trailer

type vehicles and fifty-five foot semi-trailer vehicles.

37. Iowa has created statutory and administrative

exceptions to its general limitations on length’ which

permit the operation in Iowa of vehicles longer than the

State’s general length limitations, including sixty-five

foot twin trailers, where the operations of such vehicles

are of principal benefit to Iowa industry, business, and

residents.

38. The burdens placed on interstate commerce by the

Iowa ban are not justified by legitimate local concerns

or interest, are discriminatory, and violate Article I,

Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

III. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

39. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 38 of

this Complaint.

40. The actions of Defendants violate the Fourteenth

Amendment of the United States Constitution.

IV. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

41. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 40 of this

Complaint.

42. The actions of Defendants are done under color

of state law.

43. The actions of Defendants violate 42 USC § 1983.

V. RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, on each of the causes of action, Plain-

tiff requests that this Honorable Court:

1. Enter a declaratory judgment holding that § 321-

.457(6), Code of Iowa, 1977, and any other statute, reg-

ulation, or ordinance which places greater restrictions

on the question of sixty-five foot twin trailers than are

placed on the operation of fifty-five foot semi-trailers or

sixty foot twin trailers on Interstate Highways 80, 35,

280, 380, 29, 680, and 2385, access routes to and from

Plaintiff’s terminals, and reasonable access from said

Interstate Highways to facilities for food, fuel, repairs,

or rest are unconstitutional.

2. Enter an injunction restraining Defendants, and

any other official of the State of Iowa, operating under

Defendants’ control, authority, or direction, and any

other official charged with the enforcement of laws, or

regulations, or ordinances, of the State of Iowa, or of

any subdivision, local government or municipality there-

of, from enforcing § 321.457(6), Code of Iowa, 1977),

or any other statute, regulation, or ordinance that would

limit or burden the operations of sixty-five foot twin

trailers on Interstate Highways 80, 35, 280, 380, 29,

680, or 235, access routes to and from Plaintiff’s ter-

minals, and reasonable access from said Interstate High-

ways to facilities for food, fuel, repairs, or rest, to a

greater degree than the operation of trucks generally

is limited or burdened.

3. Enter a judgment awarding to Plaintiff from De-

fendants and Defendant-Intervenors the reasonable at-

torneys’ fees, costs and interests in this action.

Dated this 22nd day of November, 1978.

/s/ John H. Lederer

JOHN H. LEDERER

DEWITT, MCANDREWS &

PORTER, S.C.

121 South Pinckney Street

P. O. Box 2509

Madison, Wisconsin 53701

(608) 255-8891

/s/ Terry C. Hancock

TERRY C. HANCOCK

BRADSHAW, FOWLER, PROCTOR

& FAIRGRAVE

11th Floor, Des Moines Building

Des Moines, Iowa 50309

(515) 243-4191

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Consolidated Freightways

Corporation of Delaware

[Certificate of Service Omitted in Printing]

2401 133HS

SNOISNIMKD OT1NCD UTTIVYL S379N0d

IHLIVYd GIGNINNWOITY WNL

SUDUVWUL JSON IWNOILN3ANOD a

wid oni ‘NIW usm

pr o———— o PL

ol OWIRMODIe Te + Loy

UTI Vel ONIMOL BH SV JANIS

Ql 03dd1NDI 3G QINOHS WITIVYL HOWI—"A.

SNOILINISIO LHOIIH T33HM HIS

FIWVII Iddv BOs 10L-F FVS OL WII —-d.

6re-F IVS —S¥ITIVYUL SITVENCI YOs

SNOILVY301 AYOSSIIDV BP NOILIINNOD —-Ge

1OL-F 3VS — SUOLIVYUL JIKW Z HLIM

ISN BOs DM LINS OL NOISNIKHO —.¥%

:310N

2 «V.3LON et ae —_

aon on TS st

43u

a4az “ .0C

tal Oe ed

aaee

——

LL-SL “ON du

JONVHIYZLNI YOS SNOISNINIG Y3ATIVYEL S3I71ENCd

13'

2 JO 2 133HS

SNOISNINID GINS WITIVEL SITENCD

3DILIVUd GIGNINNOIIY WNLIL

SYDTIVYUL ISON TING

BDVIVEL ONIMOL 3H1 SV JANIS

1 03dd1NDI 36 DINOHS BIVivYL HIVI =e

SNO!ILINIS3O LHOISH 33HM HLS

BWV ddv wOs 10L-F BVS CL WISTY —+D~

679-6 3VS — SuUTIVeL STTIBNOO Os

SNOILVIOT AYOSS32IV FB NOILDINNOD —WGe

10L-F 3JVS— SYOLIVUL FIKW Z LIM

3SN BOs DM) LINS OL NOISNINNG —.¥.

mas oe i

Nid ONOw UL?

5 UI ;

#. JLON 22

ae! ONINFOD nue

L1ms 01 ae eae. ee

1407

Nid -

— LL-SL “ON dB BJONVHIYILNI YOS SNOISNIWIG

ywaTIiveL sI71EN0Cd LLIsl¢

ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS, RAYMOND KASSEL,

ET AL., TO PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT

Filed February 2, 1979

[Caption Omitted in Printing]

COMES NOW, Defendants, and in answer state as

follows:

I. JURISDICTION

1. The allegations contained in I, paragraph 1 of the

Plaintiff’s Amended Petition are denied.

2. The allegations contained in I, paragraph 2, of

Plaintiff’s Amended Petition are admitted.

3. The allegations contained in I, paragraphs 3 and

4 of Plaintiff’s Amended Petition are admitted.

4. The allegations contained in I, paragraph 5 of

Plaintiff’s Amended Petition are denied. The Commis-

sioner replacing Mr. Schoelman is Bruce Van Druff

whose address is 806 Prospect Street, Red Oak, Iowa

51566.

5. The allegations contained in I, paragraphs 6 through

10 of Plaintiff’s Amended Petition are admitted.

6. The allegations contained in I, paragraph 11 of

Plaintiff's Amended Petition are denied. Jon McCoy is

no longer the Director of the Motor Vehicle Division,

State of Iowa. The position is currently vacant.

7. The allegations contained in I, paragraphs 12 and

13 of Plaintiff’s Amended Petition are admitted.

8. The allegations contained in I, paragraph 14 of

Plaintiff’s Amended Petition are denied in that Thomas

J. Miller who resides at the State Capitol Building,

First Floor, Des Moines, Iowa 50309, is now the duly

elected Attorney General, State of Iowa.

9. The allegations contained in I, paragraphs 15 and

16 of Plaintiff’s Amended Petition are admitted.

10. The allegations contained in I, paragraphs 17 and

18 of Plaintiff’s Amended Petition are denied.

II. FIRST CAUSE OF .CTION

1. The allegations contained in II, paragraph 19 of

Plaintiff’s Amended Petition are admitted.

2. The allegations contained in II, paragraph 20 of

Plaintiff’s Amended Petition are denied.

3. The allegations contained in II, paragraph 21 of

Plaintiff's Amended Petition are denied. It is admitted

that Interstate 80 runs through Iowa from Davenport,

Iowa to Council Bluffs, Iowa.

4. The allegations contained in II, paragraphs 22,

23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 of Plaintiff’s Amended Petition

are admitted.

5. The allegations contained in II, paragraph 28 of

Plaintiff’s Amended Petition specifically Exhibits set out

in subparagraphs (c) and (d) ‘are denied for lack of

sufficient information. Exhibits set out in subparagraphs

(a) and (b) are admitted.

6. The allegations contained in ‘II, paragraphs 29 and

30, of Plaintiff’s Amended Petition are denied.

7. The allegations contained in II, paragraph 31 of

Plaintiff’s Amended Petition are denied. It is admitted

that:

Section 321.457 (6), Code of Iowa; 1977, reads:

“No combination of three (3) vehicles coupled to-

gether, one of which is a motor vehicle, unladen or

with load, shall have an overall length, inclusive of

front and rear bumpers in excess of sixty feet.”

8. The allegations contained in II, paragraph 32 and

subparts 1, 2, and 3 of Plaintiff’s Amended Petition are

denied.

9. The allegations contained in II, paragraphs 33, 34,

35, 36, 37 and 38 are denied.

Ill. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

1. Defendants reanswer paragraphs 1 through 38 as

set out in III, paragraph 39 of Plaintiff’s Amended

Petition.

2. The allegations contained in III, paragraph 40, of

Plaintiff’s Amended Petition are denied.

IV. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

1. Defendants reanswer paragraphs 1 through 40 as

set out in IV, paragraph 41, of Plaintiff’s Amended

Petition.

2. The allegations of IV, paragraph 42 and 43, of

Plaintiff’s Amended Petition are denied.

WHEREFORE, Defendants, on each the alleged causes

of action, request that this Honorable Court:

1. Deny the Plaintiff any relief requested

2. Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Petition, assessing

costs and fees of this action to Plaintiff.

IOWA DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION

THOMAS J. MILLER

Attorney General of Iowa

ROBERT W. GOODWIN

Special Assistant Attorney General

and General Counsel to

Department of 'Transportation

By /s/ Lester A. Paff

LESTER A. PAFF

Assistant Attorney General

Department of Transportation

Ames, Iowa 50010

1-515-296-1636

Copies to:

Richard Bittner

600 Union Arcade Bldg.

Davenport, Iowa 52801

Terry Hancock

Bradshaw, Fowler, Proctor

and Fairgrave

11th Floor Des Moines Bldg.

Des Moines, Iowa 50309

John Varda

DeWitt, McAndrews & Porter

121 South Pickney Street

Madison, Wisconsin 53703

[Proof of Service Omitted in Printing]

DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR MOTOR CLUB OF

IOWA’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Filed May 29, 1979

[Caption Omitted in Printing]

COMES NOW the Defendant-Intervenor, Motor Club

of Iowa and for answer to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint

states:

1. Defendant-Intervenor admits that 28 USC § 1331,

28 USC § 1332 and 28 USC § 1348 are federal jurisdic-

tional statutes. Defendant-Intervenor denies that 28

USC $1983 and 28 USC §§ 2201-2202 are federal

jurisdictional statutes. Defendant-Intervenor denies that

these statutes confer jurisdiction in this matter.

2-4. Defendant-Intervenor admits each and every al-

legation of paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the Amended Com-

plaint.

5. Defendant-Intervenor denies each and every allega-

tion of paragraph 5 of the Amended Complaint. Mr.

Schoelerman has been replaced on the Iowa Transporta-

tion Commission by Bruce VanDruff whose address is

806 Prospect Street, Red Oak, Iowa 51566.

6-10. Defendant-Intervenor admits paragraphs 6, 7,

8, 9, and 10 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.

11. Defendant-Intervenor denies each and every alle-

gation of paragraph 11 of Plaintiff’s Amended Com-

plaint. John McCoy is on longer the director of the

Motor Vehicle Division, State of Iowa. This position is

currently vacant.

12-13. Defendant-Intervenor admits each and every

allegation of paragraphs 12 and 13 of Plaintiff’s Amended

Complaint.

14. Defendant denies each and every allegation of

paragraph 14 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. Thomas

J. Miller is currently the Attorney General of the State

of Iowa.

15-16. Defendant-Intervenor admits each and every

allegation of paragraphs 15 and 16 of Plaintiff’s Amended

Complaint.

17-18. Defendant-Intervenor denies each and every

allegation of paragraphs 17 and 18 of Plaintiff’s Amended

Complaint.

II. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

19. Defendant-Intervenor admits each and every al-

legation of paragraph 19 of Plaintiff’s Amended Com-

plaint.

20. Defendant-Intervenor admits that pursuant to its

operating authority, Plaintiff routinely transports gen-

eral commodities among customers located in 46 states

and Canada. Defendant-Intervenor admits that Plaintiff

transports general commodities through Iowa and trans-

ports general commodities between customers served by

its terminals located in Cedar Rapids, Iowa and Des

Moines, Iowa, and other points in its system, and in

interline service. Defendant-Intervenor denies each and

every other allegation of paragraph 20 of Plaintiff’s

Amended Complaint.

21. Defendant-Intervenor admits that Interstate 80 is

an east-west transcontinental highway in the United

States and, further, that Interstate 80 runs through Iowa

from Davenport to Council Bluffs, but denies each and

every other allegation contained in paragraph 21 of

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.

22-27. Defendant-Intervenor admits paragraphs 22-27

of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.

28. Defendant-Intervenor in answer to paragraph 28

of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint states:

(a) Defendant-Intervenor admits that Exhibit A is a

map showing the national Interstate Highway System.

(b) Defendant-Intervenor admits that Exhibit RP is a

map showing the portion of the National Interstate High-

way System in Iowa.

map showing the routing to Plaintiff Consolidated

Freightways’ terminal in Cedar Rapids.

(d) Defendant-Intervenor admits that Exhibit D is

a map showing the routing to Plaintiff Consolidated

Freightways’ terminal in Cedar Rapids.

29-30. Defendant-Intervenor denies each and every al-

legation contained in paragraph 29 and 30 of Plaintiff’s

Amended Complaint.

31. Defendant-Intervenor admits the existence of Iowa

Code § 321.457(6), but denies each and every allegation

contained in paragraph 31 of Plaintiff’s Amended Com-

plaint.

32. Defendant-Intervenor in answer to paragraph 32

states:

(1) Defendant-Intervenor denies each and every alle-

gation of subparagraph 32(1) of Plaintiff’s Amended

Complaint.

(2) Defendant-Intervenor denies each and every allega-

tion of subparagraph 32(2) of Plaintiff’s Amended Com-

plaint.

(83) Defendant-Intervenor denies each and every alle-

gation of subparagraph 32(3) of Plaintiff’s Amended

Complaint.

83-38. Defendant-Intervenor denies each and every

allegation contained in paragraphs 33, 34, 35, 36, 37

and 88 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.

III. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

39. Defendant-Intervenor answers paragraph 39 by

incorporating herein by reference its answers to para-

graphs 1-38 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.

40. Defendant-Intervenor denies each and every alle-

gation of paragraph 40 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.

IV. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

41. Defendant-Intervenor answers paragraph 41 of

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint by incorporating herein

by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-40 of Plaintiff’s

Amended Complaint.

42. Defendant-Intervenor denies each and every al-

legation of paragraph 42 of Plaintiff’s Amended Com-

plaint.

43. Defendant-Intervenor denies each and every alle-

gation of paragraph 43 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.

V. RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, Defendant-Intervenor prays that all

the claims for relief asserted by Plaintiff be dismissed

and that the costs of this action be taxed to Plaintiff.

By: /s/ R. Richard Bittner

R. RICHARD BITTNER

By: /s/ Robert D. Lambert

ROBERT D. LAMBERT

Attorneys for Defendant-

Intervenor, Motor Club

of Iowa

Of Counsel:

BETTY, NEUMAN, MCMAHON,

HELLSTROM & BITTNER

600 Union Arcade Building

Davenport, Iowa 52801

Telephone: (319) 326-4491

DEPOSITION OF KENNETH L. PIERSON

Filed August 17, 1978

[Caption Omitted in Printing]

* x * *

[3] EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE

PLAINTIFF

BY MR. AXELROD:

Q Mr. Pierson, will you state your full name, title

and business address.

A Yes. My name is Kenneth Lantz Pierson. L-a-n-t-z. .

P-i-e-r-s-o-n. I am Deputy Director, Bureau of Motor

Carrier Safety, Federal Highway Administration, De-

partment of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 20590.

Q What is the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, Mr.

Pierson?

A The Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety is a regula-

tory and [4] enforcement agency that regulates the

safety of operations of trucks and busses engaged in

interstate or foreign commerce.

* * Be *

[7] Q How prevalent are 65-foot twin trailers among

motor carriers in interstate commerce

A The majority of the states allow 65-foot twin

trailers, combinations.

[8] Q Is the 65-foot twin trailer an industry stand-

ard with respect to any commodity?

A Yes. It’s used generally by general commodity

carriers.

Q How prevalent are 60-foot twin trailers today?

A They are a rarity. To my knowledge, used only

in one state.

Q What state is that?

A Iowa.

Q Why are 60-foot twin trailers an oddity?

A Well, they are captured in that state because they

cannot be interchanged economically with other fleet

vehicles in bordering states.

Q Could you tell us when 65-foot twin trailers were

first used in interstate commerce?

* * * *

A I am not sure about the overall dimensions, but

there are reports of twin trailers being used as early

as 1917. However, they came into general use following

World War Ii, beginning with the development of the

interstate highway system, around [9] 1955.

Q Are 65-foot twin trailers permissible under the

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations?

A Yes, they are.

Q Can 65-foot twin trailers meet all the standards in

the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, including

kut not limited to the standards with respect to brak-

ing and stopping distances?

A Yes, they can.

* * * *

[10] Q What has the safety experience of the Bureau

of Motor Carrier Safety been with respect to 65-foot

twin trailers as opposed to tractor semitrailer combina-

tions of 55-foot?

A According to the data available to the Bureau,

65-foot twin combinations are as safe as, if not safer

than, the standard tractor semitrailer configuration.

Q Do you have any data supporting your statement

that twin trailers are safer or as safe as 55-foot semi-

trailers?

A Yes. The Bureau issued last fall a report of the

summary of eight years of data from fleets who have

operated both singles and doubles in the states where they

are authorized.

. * ” on

[12] Q Would you summarize the rates for the eight-

year period, Mr. Pierson?

* * * *

[13] A Yes. This tabulation shows that the doubles

rates were lower in terms of accidents, injuries, fatali-

ties and property damage over that of single units.

* * * *

[14] Q What general conclusions, if any, are you able

to make as a result of Exhibits 2 and 3 with respect to

the relative safety of 65-foot twin trailers when com-

pared to tractor semitrailers?

A This data and other data convinces us that doubles

are as safe as, if not safer than, singles.

Q Does the data in the Department survey, which is

in Pierson Exhibits 2 and 3, conform to your own qualita-

tive experience as the chief enforcer of the Federal Motor

Carrier Safety Regulations?

A Yes, it does.

Q As the deputy director of the Bureau of Motor

Carrier Safety do you have any objections in terms of

safety to 65-foot twin trailers?

A No, I do not.

[15] Q Why are 65-foot twin trailers as safe or safer

than 55-foot tractor semitrailer combinations?

A Well, there are a number of considerations. First,

doubles track better because they have more turning

points; doubles have better braking capability because

there are more axles and therefore more tire footprint;

doubles maneuver easy in traffic and doubles have a

better turning radius and therefore less off-tracking.

Q What is off-tracking?

A Off-tracking is the ability of the towed units to

follow in the path of the power unit.

Q How is off-tracking a significant factor, if it is a

significant factor, in terms of safety?

A It is significant because of the avoidance of run-

ning tires over curbs or having the tires go off the pave-

ment on cloverleafs and otherwise avoiding objects which

the driver is steering around.

* * * *

[16] Q Can you compare the propensity to jackknife

of 65-foot twin trailers to 55-foot tractor semitrailers?

A Yes. The singles units, or even doubles units of

the lower dimensions, tend to jackknife before the longer

units because the jackknifing is a question of brake im-

balance or power imbalance, and the more units the less

likelihood of them off-tracking or being out of balance.

* * * *

[17] Q Can you compare the 65-foot twin trailer in

terms of passing and passing times with the 60-foot

twin trailer and the 55-foot tractor semitrailer?

A The difference in terms of time would be less than

one second at free flow traffic speeds.

Q On interstate highways, in your judgment would a

fraction of a second be significant in terms of safety?

A No, it wouldn’t, because there are dual highway

installations with good sight distance and controlled

grades.

Q In terms of safety, what is the effect of the state

[18] requiring a particular vehicle combination such as

65-foot twin trailers to use a circuitous route around

that state at an increase in vehicle miles traveled?

A Well, one of the problems that we foresee with

circuitous routing is that it increases the exposure of the

vehicle to other traffic; therefore, increases the likelihood

of accidents, which “i happen ultimately.

* . . *

EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE

DEFENDANTS

BY MR. PAFF:

* * * *

[35] CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. PAFF

Q Now, with regard to your study, you call it

“Safety Comparison of Doubles Vs. Tractor-Semitrailer

Operation”; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q Now, does this study attempt or seek to break

down doubles as referred to as 65-foot double-bottom

tractor combinations as opposed to 60-foot double-bot-

toms?

A No, it does not.

Q So that the dovbles as referred to in that report

would cover all spectrum of vehicles of the configuration

that you previously described; is that correct?

A As doubles, yes, that is correct.

Q So this report, this summary of statistics, which

has been prepared at your direction, would not articulate

those two differences, would they not, on a statistical

basis?

[36] A _ It would not.

Q Now, you described in your definition section, I

believe—I am referring now to an unnumbered page in

the definition section; Doubles, one truck tractor pulling

one semitrailer and one full trailer. Is that correct?

A Yes.

* * * *

Q So there was a letter prepared that went out to

the carriers; is that correct?

A That is correct.

Q Now, with regard to that letter, do you know the

number of carriers that that letter was sent to?

[87] A Basically those listed as participants, except

for the period 1974 through 1976 there was one addi-

tional letter.

Q To whom did that go, sir?

A Consolidated Freightways.

* * * *

[38] Q And this data was requested from Consoli-

dated Freightways for the ’74 through ’76 period; is that

correct?

A Yes, it was.

Q And according to your data sources listed on the

page they did not respond. Is that correct?

A That’s correct. They advised the agency that they

had changed computer programs and could not readily

produce the information, but would if we wanted to delay

the report until they generated it.

Q And have they subsequently produced that infor-

mation for you?

A No. We advised them that we would simply select

another [39] carrier.

* * * *

[40] Q Was there any check made after the data was

received back with the carriers to substantiate that in-

formation that you had obtained before you included it

in that report?

A No, there wasn’t.

Q Was there any follow-up letter sent to the carriers

with regard to supplying information or—

A Yes. I wrote a letter thanking them for their

participation.

* < a *

[44] Q Do you know which type of driver, or was

there any control in this particular data with regard to

the type of driver and his experience that was reported

by the companies?

A We did not pursue that with the companies, al-

though it’s, I think, common knowledge that the more

senior drivers under the union contracts bid for the

higher-paying jobs of driving the doubles as opposed to

the singles.

Q In your opinion would those be more experienced

drivers with regard to the operation of an articulated

vehicle?

A Yes.

Q Also, with regard to the roads upon which these

are operated, was there any reporting—anything on the

reporting matrix that had the carrier designate upon

which particular route these models would travel?

A No, there was not.

Q So within the numbers that are provided here there

is no way to distinguish the number of miles operated

on dual divided highways or interstate system as op-

posed to two-lane highways?

A There’s not.

Q I think you also mentioned that maintenance was

a big [45] component of safety; is that correct?

A Yes, I did.

Q In other words, a well-maintained 55-foot tractor

semi may be safer than an ill-maintained 65-foot or 60-

foot double bottom, isn’t that correct?

A That’s correct. Although I would not want to mis-

lead you. The bulk of the accidents, the primary cause

is a driver failure.

Q So the bulk of the accidents even reported in this

study relate in your opinion to driver failure rather than

vehicular failure; is that correct?

A That’s correct.

Q Was there any contro! built into this study to indi-

cate driver failure?

A No, there was not.

Q What percentage of these accidents related to

driver failure?

A These specific ones I have no idea.

Q Based upon that assumption, Mr. Pierson, that

driver failure accounted for more errors and assuming

that it’s common knowledge that the more senior drivers

operate the double bottom vehicles, is it fair to assume,

also, then, that that fact would [46] reflect in the statis-

tics that you have presented?

A Yes.

Q What percentage could you indicate for us would

that be?

A My opinion about the levels of causal factors in

accidents goes to my review of the general accident data

which we developed from the 18,000-plus accident reports

filed with the agency; kind of a gross production would

be something on the order of 75 percent driver error,

perhaps 20 percent vehicle, and perhaps 5 percent road-

way and all other causes.

Q Now, with regard to the 75 percent driver error,

would that relate to an error made regardless of the type

of truck that was being driven whether single or double

or triple or whatever?

A Yes, it would.

Q And with regard to the 20 percent, which I didn’t

mark down what you considered that, sir—

A It would be vehicle defects.

Q Vehicle conditions.

A Vehicle conditions.

Q Does that relate to maintenance by and large?

A Yes, it does. Maintenance and inspection

[47] Q Then 5 percent roadway conditions snd other

related causes.

A Yes.

* * * *

Q So I assume that that 5 percent might relate to

what you describe as a comparison in this study; is that

correct?

A No, I don’t think that is correct. What the data

shows, [48] in my judgment, is that it’s possible to

operate doubles at a rate of accident involvement which

is lower than singles.

Q But it certainly doesn’t show that they are any

safer when you take into the consideration the opera-

tional aspects that you have just testified to, does it?

A I don’t believe I agree with that. One determines

whether—one determines comparative safety by assess-

ment of whether they perform better, and better means

less accidents or less fatalities.

* * + an

[49] Q So there is no way to directly ascribe the 86

or the 119 directly to the configuration on the vehicle,

is there, without taking into consideration these other

particular factors?

A I think I agree with that.

Q So again I will ask my question: There is no way

particularly to tell with relation to this data the specific

safety aspect of which goes directly to the issue of

whether or not it is an articulated vehicle or not, is

there?

A No, I don’t agree with that statement. What the

data shows is that for these carriers that operate in a

franchised territory, in the case of the for-hire carriers

or a general territory with respect to the private carriers,

that they had two different experiences: One rate of acci-

dents with doubles and one rate of accidents with singles.

Q I follow your thinking to that point, but then you

further testified that making up that safety experience

are other things related to driver error and so forth

that relate to that [50] accident experience, isn’t that

correct?

A I’m not sure I can compare apples and oranges.

One has to do with their performance, the other one

has to do with the proximate cause of the accidents.

Q And all these other aspects are reflected in the

statistic that you provided or the numbers that you have

put down here; is that correct?

A Yes, they are reflected in it.

Q And there is no way then to specifically ascribe

that to the type of vehicle which was operated? The

single aspect of the double versus the tractor semitrailer

combination itself.

A No, I don’t agree with that statement. My state-

ment is, and the report’s purpose was to show that there

were two—that there were different experiences by

doubles and by singles by these companies.

* * * ¥

[54] Q Is there any compilation, and I meant to ask

you, in your study regarding the amount or the weight

of the vehicle involved in this particular accident sta-

tistic?

A No, there isn’t.

* * * *

Q But you would concede, would you not, Mr. Pier-

son, that there are times when a fraction of a second

could be critical with regard to avoiding an accident?

A Well, I would suggest if less than a second was

the critical tolerance you ought not to have passed in the

first place.

[70] FURTHER EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL

FOR THE PLAINTIFF

BY MR. AXELROD:

Q Is it fair to say that if the projections in Pierson

Exhibit 3 are correct, that the maximum utilization of

doubles would actually save lives in terms of raw num-

bers?

A That would be my estimation.

MR. AXELROD: Thank you.

MR. PAFF: Mr. Pierson, with regard to that point,

though, isn’t that in terms of the number of vehicle miles

traveled and not in terms of the number of actual fatali-

ties?

WITNESS: My logic is that there is “X” amount of

traffic out [71] there and can move in large number of

singles or a lesser number of doubles, and the logic that

I follow says that there would be savings if all of the

freight moved in the lesser number of vehicles.

* * * *

JURAT

» * « *

EXHIBIT FILE COPY

DO NOT REMOVE

Safety Comparison of Doubles

Tractor-Semitrailer Operation

November 1977

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

TECHNICAL REPORT

A SAFETY COMPARISON OF DOUBLES VS.

TRACTOR-SEMITRAILER OPERATIONS

November 1977

Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety

Federal Highway Administration

9z9’h | 920° | BT"T | 6€00"| #90" | 166° | SPB" v60'Ser 8 | PT SOT |6zC‘ozT TSs9°T) 9 yees-aL

696T

Toz‘® | 920° |SE6" |ZZ00°} 6£0° | S6R" | 67S" s8o’ese 8 | TOT GOT [$20 F0z TeL‘t} 9seTqnag

sec’S | €L0° | 196" | 7S00°| 020° | Sz76° | €96° 89S’ 8S6 €t | Tt BLT | 728°PeT zee’z] + Fees-IL

; 0L6T

ZL6°S | OOT° | €S8* | LE00"| 790° | CES | ¥z9" £90’092'T | TZ | O8T Tiz | Tte’cee 88S‘Z| seTqnag

zve’9 | 990° | OT6" | 0S00°| 6b0° | 669° | B9L° T66’00'T | OT | ZIT 9ST | SET’Z0Z ZTe’Z| yues-2

TL6t

98S°9 | 920° |S98° | Z900°| 6PO" | HSS" | 089" BTT’es9’T | 6T | LIz TSz | 790’Z6E 199°Z| + setqnag

LIz’S | TOT” | LEG" | THOO*| Teo” | SPL" | SEL" 6SE‘b78 9T | Bet BST | 999° 86T €8z7'z| Fees-1L

716

69z‘S | €LO° | €£8° | SE00"| BkO* | OSS" | 099° ece’zZIs’T | TZ | 6Ez Lez | 08S’ PtP 668'2} soTqnog

Z00‘L | 780° | 69L° | 9900°| BLO | EZL* | OFE" OTe’ oLz’T | ST | OPT ZET | ZSS‘C6T sab: Tees-1L -

9zZ‘9 | ¥S0° | 999° | LbOO"| THO | ZEB" | TOL" T69’pet’z | 6 | Lzz TSE | Zze’ TOP 8TO’E| § setqneg

ove’9 | zS0° | €8L* | LS00°| 990° | B89" | O88" y09/08L 9 06 STT | Op2’OeT 6tr'T Fws-t st

¢$99’9 | S80° | 8€8" | 6E00"| OSO* | S&B" | OFS" 999'998 Tr} GOT | O€T | vET‘OZZ oTe’T] seTqag

z9t’s | TTT” | 008° | 8S00"| 620° | 995° | LOL’ S19‘bEL ot} wz 06 | 66T‘LzZT Lee’t| = Fees-1L

; Sé6T

0vz‘OT | THO" | 099° | SL00°] O£O" | Cap” | CEL* 06z‘sos‘Tt | 9 46 LOT | 999007 Lze’T §9=seTqnag

OOT’L | 990° | ETL” | 0900"| 950° | S09” | BPE’ 6€27'998 8 18 22T | gee’ ecot zest —s.

oes’L | 9TT* | LES* | EFO0")| 990° | LOE" | ZLS° 7zz'L16 ot; $9 Tet | Teo TIz 9T8’T] serquog

EE3| Ee ESERVSZ RET BEE | FTE UEE/EE|EE| Eh | EF

ee RH 8 * Als = 5 aa je hal Fs 5. £5

2-3] 3c] 38] -d8 cB sB mito Ife] Se | xe Eso | 80

s& +4 — & ——- Ore “Ss Gc “” > om m ea Sl as)

ahs ™ ~ 4 = ais - 7 ~ J

SNOILVUSdO WATIVULINAS-YOLIVUL “SA S318NOd 4O NOSIYVdNOD ALZAVS at

Axeuuns

* * * *

Data Sources

For 1969 through 1973, data represents:

IML Freight, Inc.

Pacific Intermountain Express Company

Pacific Motor Trucking Company

Boise Cascade Corporation

Garrett Freightlines, Inc.

Navajo Freight Lines, Inc.

Consolidated Freightways

For 1974 through 1976, data represents:

IML Freight, Inc.

Pacific Intermountain Express Company

Pacific Motor Trucking Company

Boise Cascade Corporation

Garrett Freightlines, Inc.

Navajo Freight Lines, Inc.

Georgia-Pacific Corporation

* * * *

EXHIBIT No. 3

622°9| gz0°| 188°|'€s00] 990°} 9pz"| cse| gez*6ea'o | 98} ov6 | a's PS-AL

‘ 4 st; 230

ov! pzo*| 692"|.2000] gyo"| z0s‘| zs9] zse*zse*oul ei sez"t 909°t} 69¢'zop‘zbbe‘al] sopanaq”

/SeTI TTeIey

~Q00)

STH

/sozmfuy

\QQU 000)

oTw

wapTsoy

VEER IRE] 86

ae a

SNOILVUddO UATIVULINES-YOLOVUL “SA SH 1dno0d dO NOSIUVdNOD ALBAVS

9161-6961

—

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT No. 23

[EMBLEM]

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety

Washington, D.C. 20590

May 8, 1979

In Reply Refer to:

HMC-21

Anthony R. Varda, Esq.

DeWitt, McAndrews & Sundby, S.C.

121 South Pinckney Street

Madison, Wisconsin 53703

Dear Mr. Varda:

This replies to your letter of April 18 to Mr. Donnell

W. Morrison requesting supplemental information to the

1977 report entitled, “Safety Comparison of Doubles Vs.

Tractor-Semitrailer Operations.”

After careful consideration, we have decided to partially

grant and partially deny your request. The three items

you seek will be discussed in the order they are presented

in your letter:

1. Copies of the actual letters soliciting data in both

1974 and 1977 would serve no purpose, since all

were identical form letters. We are enclosing copies

of the 1974 and 1977 form letters.

2. The 1977 report reflects virtually the entire con-

tents of each response from participating motor

carriers. Hence, we see no point in forwarding

copies of the actual responses. Several motor car-

riers merely sent back the form without a cover

letter.

We question the propriety of identifying those mo-

tor carriers who were sent requests but did not

participate, since there is an easy-to-draw implica-

tion that these motor carriers have something to

hide. It is our best judgement that there is no

validity to this implication; rather, the recordkeep-

ing systems of the carriers involved did not permit

extracting the requested data without unreasonable

manual effort. A total of three motor carriers fell

into this category during the two reporting periods.

3. The motor carriers represented for each of the two

reporting periods are identified as follows:

1974-1976

A—Georgia-Pacific Corporation

B—Pacific Intermountain Express Company

C—Navajo Freight Lines, Inc.

D—IML Freight, Inc.

E—Pacific Motor Trucking Company

F—Boise Cascade Corporation

G—Garrett Freightlines, Inc.

1969-1973

A—Navajo Freight Lines, Inc.

B—Boise Cascade Corporation

C—Pacific Motor Trucking Company

D—Pacific Intermountain Express Company

E—Consolidated Freightways

F—IML Freight, Inc.

G—Garrett Freightlines, Inc.

We trust the foregoing responds adequately to your

needs.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Kenneth L. Pierson

KENNETH L. PIERSON

Deputy Director

2 Enclosures

DEPOSITION OF ERNEST G. COX

Filed September 28, 1978

[Caption Omitted in Printing]

* * * oe

[4] EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR

PLAINTIFF

BY MR. AXELROD:

* * *£ *

Q What is your occupation, Mr. Cox?

A Actually I’m retired. I do serve as consultant in a

limited number of cases where in my opinion a useful

public service purpose is to be served. I retired in 1969

from [5] government service and following that served

as a full-time consultant to American Trucking Associa-

tion in the field of commercial vehicle safety and retired

from that position in February 1976.

* * * .

[7] Q Mr. Cox, could you describe precisely what your

duties were, both as Deputy Director of Bureau of Motor

Carrier Safety, both in the Department of Transporta-

tion and earlier when that bureau was in the Interstate

Commerce Commission?

A As chief of the section of safety—this, of course,

was during that period of time beginning in December

of 1951—it was my responsibility to serve as a senior

adviser to the Interstate Commerce Commission with re-

spect to the formulation and adoption of regulations re-

lating to commercial vehicles, commercial vehicle opera-

tions in interstate and foreign commerce, [8] pursuant

to requirements of Section 204 of the Interstate Com-

merce Act and Section 304 of the U.S. Code. These

regulations were basic and very comprehensive, relating

to qualifications and also the maximum hours of service

permitted for motor carrier employees in both truck and

bus operations, regulations requiring certain procedures

in vehicle operations, regulations relating to the parts

and accessories of vehicles, brakes, lighting systems, cou-

pling devices, tires, suspensions of vehicles operating in

interstate commerce, and particularly requirements that

were essentially necessary in the transportation of ex-

plosives and other dangerous articles under the provisions

of the Transportation Explosives Act, which at that time

was provided in Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Sections 831

through 835.

My duties also included direction of field staff em-

ployees in the special investigation of accidents of sub-

stantial consequence, the development of reports to be

published setting forth the facts of those accidents and

the recommendations to be made by the Commission

relative to measures to prevent recurrences.

* >» * *

[9] Q Mr. Cox, who holds the position presently that

you retired from at the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety?

A Kenneth Pierson. It’s Spelled P-i-e-r-s-o-n.

Q Mr. Cox, are you familiar with a combination of

truck vehicles known as 65 foot twin trailers?

A Yes.

Q Are you familiar with a combination of vehicles of

approximately 55 feet, commonly known as tractor semi-

trailers?

A Yes.

Q And are you familiar with 60 foot twin trailers?

A Yes.

* * * *

[10] Q During your tenure as Deputy Director of the

Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, were twin trailers per-

mitted to carry explosives?

A No. For many years the transportation of ex-

plosives was prohibited in a combination of vehicles that

included two trailers up until such time as the regulation

was changed.

Q When did that change occur?

A 1961.

* 7 * *

[12] Q Do you know the origin of the provision in

Exhibit 2 that prohibited the transportation of explosives

on twin trailers?

A No. That provision was adopted a number of years

prior to my association with the Interstate Commerce

Commission.

* * a *

[13] Q Was it within the power of the Interstate

Commerce Commission to change this rule without the

necessity of the filing of a formal petition?

A Yes, it was, and, in fact, a very common practice

for the Commission to either initiate new regulations or

change existing ones on the recommendation of its staff,

including me, wherever this seemed to be a suitable

course of action.

Q So you had the power to initiate a change in the

regulation to permit explosives on twin trailers even

absent [14] this petition?

A Yes. And, in fact, for a very considerable period

of time, I have been importuned by a number of motor

carriers to take the action which the petition sought.

Q Did you do so?

A No. I resisted the efforts consistently for a con-

siderable period of time for the reason that I was not

satisfied that in those states where relatively short full

trailers were permitted to be attached to a semitrailer

drawn by a power unit, that the use of such short trailers

was consistent with the standard of safety which was

essential in the transportation of explosives. I had for a

long period of time been aware of substantial evidence of

instability and of mishappenings, accidents, involving the

operation of these short semitrailers—those operated in

the state of Michigan were known as pups—and experi-

ence on my part and knowledge of the experience of the

motor carriers in whose service they were operating con-

vinced me that the safety responsibilities of the Commis-

sion could not be satisfactorily met by the operation of

such vehicles in the transportation of dangerous goods.

Q After the petition was filed, what, if anything,

were you directed by the Commission to do with the peti-

tion?

[15] A I was not specifically directed by the Commis-

sion to take any particular action, but it was a normal

part of my responsibilities to deal with the filing of such

a petition as this just automatically. It was my re-

sponsibility to analyze it, to study the arguments in

support of the action that the petition sought, to recon-

cile the proposed action with what our previous experi-

ence had been, to study as thoroughly as possible from

whatever source what the likely safety results of such

an action would be.

* * * *

[17] Q What about the stability of 65 foot twin trail-

ers in particular?

A The stability, always assuming that the wheelbase

provision that I have already referred to [at least 184

inches] is observed as a minimum—and that, of course,

is possible in combinations of 65 feet—the safety per-

formance in my opinion is highly [18] satisfactory. It’s

excellent.

Q What was your recommendation to the Commis-

sion?

A I recommended the change in regulation be made

subject to the provision of the minimum length of wheel-

base at 184 inches.

Q Was this change permitting twin trailers to carry

explosives made by the Commission?

A Yes.

Q When was it made, Mr. Cox?

A In 1961.

[20] Q Where does it appear in that exhibit, Mr. Cox?

A In Exhibit 5, this provision appears in Title 49,

CFR Section 177.835 (c) (2).

Q Would you bracket that, Mr. Cox?

A (Witness complied.)

Q Can you tell us whether or not that would be

substantially similar to the regulation that’s been marked

as Cox Exhibit 4?

A Yes. With respect to this particular restriction,

they are identical.

Q What is the significance of requiring a wheelbase

of at least 184 inches on each of the trailers?

A It’s critically important to be as sure as one can

be, within the conditions of the real world necessitating

the transportation of any kind of goods, that whatever

reasonable provision can be made to assure the stability

in the operation of combination vehicles be taken. Now,

the longer a trailer is, which is drawn by another trailer

attached to a power unit, the greater is the likelihood

that this trailer will track properly, not cross the center

line of a roadway or get off of the payment edge to its

right, the likelihood is substantially lessened that it will

be overturned. In every respect the safety performance

is enhanced. There are other aspects to

* * * *

[21] Q Now, back in 1961, 10w long a vehicle combi-

nation are we talking about when we talk about two

trailers having a wheelbase of at least 184 inches?

A Well, certainly during the late 1940’s and the early

1950’s, 60 feet combinations were permitted in the West-

ern states. However, as time went on and a year subse-

quent to 1954, the use of 27-foot semitrailers rather than

24-foot semitrailers, full trailers, became much more

common in the Western states, and it was because of

this general trend and change in overall length that made

it practical and possible for this regulation to be changed

where this stipulation of minimum wheelbase length be-

came possible.

@ And in 1961, how long were these units that had

the [22] 184-inch wheelbase in total, taking the two

boxes and the dolly and the tractor?

A 65 feet in most states where such trailers were

permitted.

Q Since the change in the rule in 1961, have ex-

plosives in fact been safely carried on twin trailers?

A Yes, indeed. The experience has been remarkably

good over the years, and so far as my recollection is

concerned, in those cases in which an explosives mishap

has occurred, the configuration of the vehicle combination

has not been a contributing cause.

Q From 1961 until your retirement in 1969, what

was the safety experience of the Bureau Motor Carrier

“afety with respect to twin trailers as opposed to tractor

semitrailers?

A The experience was very satisfactory and superior

over the course of a number of years. It was very satis-

factory.

Q In terms of safety, Mr. Cox, do you have an opinion

to the affect of Iowa requiring 65-foot twin trailers to

use circuitous routes around the states from Missouri

and Kansas at an increase in mileage?

A Yes. Speaking now from a safety standpoint as

contrasted with whatever economic values are involved,

but purely [23] from a safety standpoint, any require-

ment that results in a greater mileage or the use of more

vehicles than necessary to perform a particular quantity

of transportation inevitably increases the exposure to

mishap, to accident. Whenever you operate a vehicle a

greater distance than would otherwise be necessary or

whenever you operate more vehicles than would other-

wise be necessary to perform a particular measure of

transportation, you unavoidably have increased the risk

of mishap.

Q That was my next question. In terms of safety,

what affect does the required use of 60 foot twin trailers

have in lieu of 65 foot twin trailers?

A Am I to consider, in response to this question, the

condition you mentioned in the earlier question with

respect to avoidance of a particular state?

Q Well, I guess the question I am asking you, if you

require 60 foot twin trailers in lieu of 65 foot twin

trailers, what affect on safety will this have?

A Well, wherever it happens, it would tend to in-

crease the operational requirements, add to the number

of vehicles operated or the distance operated, and, there-

fore, would be disadvantageous from a safety standpoint.

[24] Q Now, do you have an opinion today, Mr. Cox,

as to the relative safety of 65 foot twin trailers when

compared to the relative safety of 55 foot tractor semi-

trailers?

A Oh, yes.

Q What is that opinion?

A My opinion is [that it is] decidely superior from a

safety standpoint to have goods transported in a combi-

nation of two trailers with a 65 foot limitation than in

a single trailer such as is possible with a 55 foot limita-

tion.

Q Do you have an opinion today as to the relative

safety of 65 foot twin trailers as compared with 60 foot

twin trailers?

A Yes. My opinion is that with the increased length

possible under a 65 foot combination, you certainly have

a greater measure of stability and safety than with the

shorter length.

* * * *

EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR

DEFENDANTS

BY MR. PAFF:

* * * *

[27] Q How soon after you left government employ

did you go into this consultant retainer relationship with

American Trucking Association?

A I retired from government service on June 30,

1969, I began my association with American Trucking

Associations on September 22 of the same year.

Q Do you have an approximation of your income as

paid to you by the American Trucking Association be-

tween September 22 of ’69 and September 22 of 1970:

A Yes.

MR. AXELROD: You want it on an annual basis?

BY MR. PAFF:

Q Just roughly on an annual basis.

A I began this work at $15,000 a year, it was in-

creased to 17,500 prior to my departure.

Q And you were called in basically to study particular

problems in which your expertise might be required, is

that correct?

A I think it requires a little more explanation than

that.

Q Okay. Fine.

[28] A American Trucking Association in its under-

taking to improve the overall safety performance of

motor carriers had long had a safety department. Many

of the state associations also carried on varying types of

safety activities. In an effort to find means of improving

the overall safety performance, both nationally and state-

wide, the American Trucking Association established an

executive level policy committee in 1967, which it called

Safety Committee on Review and Evaluation. The pur-

pose of that committee was to bring the interest of motor

carrier executives consistently into support of improved

safety undertakings.

After my departure from government, it was suggested

to me that I might usefully further that purpose by be-

coming the coordinator of that safety committee. Later,

because of the interest of the Association in environ-

mental matters, as well as safety performance, the scope

of the Committee’s interest was broadened and its name

was changed to Safety Committee on Research and En-

vironment, so my purpose was to, in effect, carry out the

same objectives that I had while I was in government

service by acting through the Association’s facilities.

* * * *

[44] Q But the basis of that study and the observa-

tions was based on a mix that included the operation of

60 foot doubles?

[45] A In the early years, I would say prior to ap-

proximately 1954, 60 foot doubles were commonly used.

But in the late 1950’s, the trend was toward longer

combinations using 27-foot trailers which was possible

only under a 65-foot limitation, but as the years went

on, this trend coi..:nued and it was especially widespread

in the Western states.

Q But in 1961 when that regulation was changed, the

common experience was with something less than the

60 foot double combination, was it not?

A No. On the contrary. The bulk of the experience

was with operations of doubles exceeding 5) feet.

* * * *

[48] Q Now, would that [stability] vary from, in your

experience, based upon what you have testified to, be-

tween a 60 foot double combination and a 65 foot double

combination?

A Generally, yes.

Q And upon what do you make that conclusion, sir?

Your personal observation?

A My personal judgment of which I am aware of the

fact [48] that the shorter a vehicle in a combination of

this type is the more likely it is to be subject to in-

stability.

* * ” *

Q I believe you also testified that with regard to

a situation where you would route a truck a more cir-

cuitous route, the chances of having an accident would

go up, is that correct?

A Yes, sir.

Q And that same principle would apply whether those

two points were within one state or within several states,

would it not?

A Correct.

Q And it’s a question of where the road goes, so to

speak, when we are dealing with a truck and not neces-

sarily where trucks have to go, is it not?

A Well, the testimony to which you are now refer-

ring related to the fact that in such states as have what

I would call restrictive requirements lengthwise, there is

inevitably the necessity for major motor carriers to find

alternative [50] routes. When that occurs, it results in

a substantially increased exposure to accidents. The very

fact that you operate x number of miles above what is

normally necessary, it creates an inevitable accident risk

that would not otherwise occur.

Q And the same logic would apply, would it not, when

you have an increased number of trucks on the road?

A Yes, it would.

Q In other words, if I operate two trucks instead of

one, my chances of having an accident would increase?

A Of course.

* * * *

JURAT

DEPOSITION OF EDWARD E. KYNASTON

Filed May 18, 1979

[Caption Omitted in Printing]

[4] EXAMINATION BY MR. AXELROD

BY MR. AXELROD:

Q Would you state your name for the record, Chief

Kynaston?

A Edward E. Kynaston.

Q And what is your business occupation, sir?

A Iam a Deputy Chief Commander of the California

Highway Patrol Enforcement Services Division.

* * * *

[5] Q What responsibilities do you have in your pres-

ent position with respect to commercial vehicles spe-

cifically?

A I have on-going responsibility for program man-

agement, that is, on a staff level wherein we develop, as-

sist in the budgeting and equipping of the department’s

field program relating to the safety and inspection of

heavy commercial vehicles.

* * * *

[6] Q How long have 65-foot twin-trailers been per-

mitted in California, Chief?

A Since about 1959.

Q Prior to 1959, were shorter twin-trailers permitted

in California?

A Yes, I think starting about 1950.

Q How long were the twin-trailers that were per-

mitted in California from 1950 to 1959?

A 60-foot, I believe, is the maximum.

* * * *

{8] A Yes. As traffic officer from 1957 through 1975,

I served on a regular beat patrol enforcement duties on

Interstate 80.

Q How busy is Interstate 80?

A It is a busy highway. It is probably being the only

east-west highway in California north of Los Angeles.

It bears a large share of the interstate traffic.

Q Have 65-foot twin-trailers posed any unique prob-

lems on Interstate 80, particularly in the Donner Pass

area during bad weather?

A No.

* * ” *

Q What was the safety experience been in California

with respect to 65-foot twin-trailers?

A I believe it is quite comparable to that of other

types of heavy commercial combinations.

Q How does the 65-foot twin-trailer compare in terms

of safety with the tractor semi-trailer?

A I believe it is very comparable.

Q How has the public reacted to 65-foot twin-trailers

in California?

A I don’t believe there has been any adverse public

reaction. [9] I think there is a public concern about

large trucks, and by large trucks, I mean trucks of any-

thing much larger than a passenger car.

Q Have you received any complaints directly aimed at

65-foot twin-trailers?

A No.

Q Would you have any hesitation in recommending

65-foot twin-trailers through officials of other jurisdic-

tions?

A No,I would not.

. * * *

Q Does the extra fraction of a second which it takes

to pass a 65-foot vehicle as opposed to a 60-foot vehicle

create any problem in terms of safety on four-lane high-

ways in California?

A No.

* * * *

[10] Q Does a 65-foot vehicle offer any safety advan-

tages over a 60-foot vehicle in terms of length alone?

A None that I can think of, unless you think in

terms of the total amount of cargo that might be car-

ried. If you can carry more in one combination, the ad-

ditional five feet theoretically, I presume, that would

lessen the total number of combinations that would have

to be on the highway to transport the same amount of

loads. That is the only thing I can think of.

* * * *

[11] Q Have 65-foot trailers created any unique safety

problems in terms of the traffic mix between large vehi-

cles and smaller vehicles such as compact cars?

A No, not to my knowledge.

Q Chief Kynaston, I would like you to assume that a

60-foot twin-trailer and a 65-foot twin-trailer are both

similarly equipped with the same required safety equip-

ment, and that the 60-foot vehicle weighs 60,000 pounds

and the 65-foot vehicle weighs 65,000 pounds. Do you

have an opinion as to the relative safety of operation

of these two vehicles?

A Well, assuming that they are operated in the same

type of safe manner and with comparable levels of main-

tenance on the equipment, I would see no difference in

the operation.

[22] EXAMINATION BY MR. PAFF

[29] Q Is the [congestion] problem accentuated by

having longer trucks traversing the grade as opposed to

a shorter truck traversing that grade?

[30] A No, I don’t believe the length would have

anything to do with it, because we are full freeway now

going over Interstate 80, and I presume what you’re talk-

ing about is if it were two-lane, there might be a passing

problem, and I guess you could talk about the time it

takes to pass a longer truck than the shorter, which would

probably not be a very significant time. I don’t believe

that I see that as a problem in our four-lane or even on

Highway 50, which is a parallel to Interstate 80 to the

south, which is two-lane in some portions, except maybe

a very slight difference in the time it takes to pass.

Q You have investigated singular accidents where a

fraction of a second could make a difference between an

accident occurring and not occurring, haven’t you?

A Yes. Virtually every accident there is that moment

when vehicles contact that if you can alter that one way

or the other, it will make a difference.

Q Same with regard to length—five feet, ten feet.

There have been situations in which that may be a criti-

cal distance in a specific accident?

A Yes, I think you would have to say if it was five

feet shorter, they may have missed or something like that.

Q Specifically, have you investigated an accident with

regard to a truck of a 65-feet in length where if the

truck would have been five foot shorter, that accident

might have not occurred?

A I can’t honestly recall finding that kind of differ-

ence. I have investigated accidents of all types where a

vehicle had been struck on one end or the other at right

angels and in [31] middle, and I presume you could make

that kind of an assumption. I just really can’t think of

any.

Q But there could be theoretically—there could be a

situation where that would occur?

A Oh, yes.

MR. AXELROD: I object. I think it’s speculation.

MR. PAFF: Q Based upon your experience that

situation could indeed occur, could it not?

A Yes, I suppose it could.

[50] Q With regard to the more minute distinction,

but possibly significant with what we are working with to-

day, the difference between 60-foot double bottoms and

65-foot double bottoms—there is nothing in this study

that would tell us anything about that?

A No, there is not. There is no way we can break

that down.

[54] Q Would you ever see a particular problem with

not being able to back up a certain vehicle on the Cali-

fornia highways?

A Not really, because vehicles don’t back up. Com-

binations of vehicles don’t back up on our highways. The

only place you would find this is possibly in a loading

situation, near loading docks and/or industrial areas.

And unless you have an extreme condition where possibly

because of an accident or something and someone is try-

ing to remove a vehicle, then you generally have traffic

control.

€ * ab —

[60] EXAMINATION BY MR. AXELROD

[63] Q Yes. Are there any adverse effects in terms of

overall accidents that you believe would happen if you

cut the length of vehicle down to 60-feet or to 55-feet?

[64] A No, I wouldn’t see any adverse effect unless

we're talking about—unless you’re thinking in the area

that if it would reduce the amount of cargo that could

be transported, we would have more trucks on the high-

ways which, I guess, increases exposure and could cause

problems.

Q That’s exactly what I was getting at. Do I cor-

rectly understand, then, that you’re saying that decreas-

ing length carries with it the drawback that you can

increase exposure?

A Yes, I think that’s a theory that’s probably reason-

able.

Q Okay. In terms of overall safety to the public, what

would most denigrate safety in your judgment, going

from 65-feet down to 60-feet and thereby increasing the

exposure, or going up from 60-feet to 65-feet and there-

by increasing the size of your target, if you will?

A I think probably the increased exposure.

Q Increased exposure would—

A By going down to the 60-feet.

[68] EXAMINATION BY MR. PAFF

[71] Q Also, with regard to exposure, when you can

talk about exposure in a number of ways. Assuming the

amount of truck traffic would increase on a particular

highway, wouldn’t the amount of exposure of other

people to that truck traffic increase?

A Yes.

Q And wouldn’t you expect, then, in that situation

more accidents as a result of that greater exposure?

A Could be, yes.

Q And directly with that, now using exposure in a

different context. If we talk about one vehicle moving

from San Francisco to the Donner Pass which is 10-feet

longer than another vehicle, in the singular now, we’re

talking about exposure, [72] doesn’t the longer vehicle

—setting aside any assumption about reducing the num-

ber of trips—doesn’t the greater length of that particular

vehicle create more exposure in that, you know, singular

situation?

A Yes, I would think it probably would have to take

up a larger amount of given space.

Q And it might, again, using a broad term “might,”

but it might create the same type of situation with re-

gard to accident experience, it might go up due to the

increased exposure; is that a fair assumption?

A I suppose you could say that. I think you would

probably have to talk in degrees.

Q That’s true. This whole thing is a matter of de-

gree.

A That’s right. A lot of it is conjecture.

* * * *

JURAT

DEPOSITION OF JAMES C. CRAWFORD

Filed November 2, 1978

[Caption Omitted in Printing]

[3] EXAMINATION

BY MR. AXELROD:

Q What is your title, Colonel Crawford?

A I’m Chief of the Minnesota State Patrol.

* * * *

[5] Q Now, have you had the opportunity to observe

twin trailers on the highways of Minnesota—

A Yes, I have.

Q —of 65 feet?

And what has the safety experience of the Minnesota

State Parol been with respect to 65-foot twin trailers

as opposed to tractor-semitrailers?

A Well, we have, since 1973, only recorded one fatal

accident with the so-called twin trailers, and we feel it’s

a pretty safe type of unit.

* * * *

[6] A Well, I think, you know, what you’re asking,

on the designated routes, which are mostly rural, that

the twin would be as safe, or safer than the single unit.

Now, when you get into the metropolitan, or urban,

then it’s, we feel, significantly safer.

[8] EXAMINATION

BY MR. PAFF:

* * * +

[13] Q And would that be a concern of yours—that

longer length vehicles in a mix with shorter cars?

A No, it doesn’t, if—what bothers me the most is

the fact that there is the size differential that exists

right now, and the five foot, and, you know, the two,

three thousand pounds is not significant. I think when

you talk about truck size in general—you know, even a

55-foot—and then a Volkswagen Rabbit you’re talking

about a disaster. You know, that potentially is there,

but that exists in the traffic mix today. I don’t think the

five foot, for instance, between a 60 and 65 is that

significant.

* * * _

[23] (FURTHER) EXAMINATION

BY MR. AXELROD:

* * * *

Q And Mr. Paff asked you some questions with re-

spect to passing time, and my question would be: Is the

longer passing time that it takes to pass a twin trailer

[24] of 65 feet on these designated highways at all

significant?

A Not on the designated.

Q And, again, all interstate highways are designated

highways. Is that right?

A That’s correct.

* * * *

DEPOSITION OF FRANCIS C. MARSHALL

Filed November 2, 1978

[Caption Omitted in Printing]

* * * *

[3] EXAMINATION

BY MR. AXELROD:

* * * *

Q What is your title, Mr. Marshall?

A Assistant Commissioner of Minnesota Department

of Transportation.

* * * *

[4] Q Mr. Marshall, are you designated by the Minne-

sota Department of Transportation to testify with re-

spect to this matter?

A Yes.

n * * *

[7] Q Are 65-foot twin trailers permitted in Minne-

sota?

A On designated routes, yes.

Q How long have they been permitted in Minnesota?

A Since July of 1978.

* * * *

[8] Q What vehicle in Minnesota would be the in-

dustry standard for general commodity common carriers?

[9] A It would be the 65-foot twin trailer unit.

Q What has been the safety experience of your De-

partment from the time 65-foot twin trailers were first

permitted in Minnesota until the present time?

A From its approval in July of ’73 until approxi-

mately one year later, when we made a check, there was

one twin trailer involved in an accident which had

nothing to do with the configuration of the unit. It was

a slide condition on sheet ice on a very steep hill, so I

would say our experience has been very good.

Q And what has the experience been since the first

year?

A I have made only one spot check since then and

that was verbal conversation with our District Traffic

Engineers, and they responded to me that they saw it

as no problem.

* * * *

[11] Q What has the experience of the Minnesota

Department of Transportation been with respect to 65-

foot twin trailers under Minnesota’s adverse weather

conditions, such as snow, or ice, or high winds?

A They have been performing equal to or better than

the standard tractor-trailer combinations. They have

not been identified by our traffic, or maintenance engi-

neers as being any problem.

Q As a result of Minnesota’s safety experience with

65-foot twin trailers since 1973, Mr. Marshall, would

you have any hesitation in recommending 65-foot twin

trailers to other jurisdictions?

A No, not from a safety point of view, a far as

their performance.

* * * *

[13] Q Now, assuming that you have drivers of equal

abilities, and assuming the same degree of maintenance,

and assuming proper loading, and assuming the same

roadways and weather conditions, do you still have an

opinion as to the relative safety of the 65-foot twin

trailer equipment as opposed to the equipment in tractor-

semitrailers?

A Based on our experience I would say they were

safer.

[17] EXAMINATION

BY MR. PAFF:

* * * *

[27] Q And why did you think it judicious to restrict

these longer vehicles on other segments of the road?

A Because of the political decision there. The truck-

ing industry was only asking for certain routes. The

legislators were only inclined to give certain routes under

certain conditions, and with that political [28] climate

I felt for me to indiscriminately approve routes all over

the State would have been contrary to the intent of the

law.

Q Is there any basis for your decision other than

the fact that you wanted to deny them particular ap-

provals that they sought?

A My only basis so far for denial has been based on

my testimony, when asked a direct question in front of

the Senate Transportation Committee, as to whether I

would abuse the law that was passed.

Q Have any been denied because of some feeling of

concern of safety on your part?

A No.

[29] Q Do you do any truck studies, with regard to

the approved routes, as to how many 65-foot twin trailers

are using them?

[30] A No, we do not. We do—we take truck sur-

veys, but we do not differentiate between twins and

straight rigs.

Q Has the traffic on these various routes increased as

a result of Minnesota’s designation?

A Not appreciably.

Q And what do you mean by that, sir?

A Some trucking companies have been able to re-

duce, I’m sure, the number of trips because they have

more flexibility in the twin trailer and they have more

cubic area of payload.

* * * *

[57] Q Now, with regard to that accident in Roseville,

would it be a safe statement to say that the bigger the

vehicle was that went into this outer control situation,

the more apt it would be to hit something, or do some

damage?

A The bigger the vehicle, the larger the mass the

greater the damage to the object struck on impact.

[58] Q And plus the greater—

A I shouldn’t say, “the bigger.” The heavier. The

heavier.

Q And how about sheer size?

A I think mass—weight has more bearing on damage

than does size.

Q No; I’m speaking with regard to a matter of

physics. Isn’t a bigger object just more apt to hit

something? If it’s five foot longer it’s—

A Oh, yes, but I’d rather get hit by a pillow than

a pound of lead.

* * * *

[60] BY MR. AXELROD:

Q Now, in your journey on I-85 through Iowa to

Des Moines that you’ve just referred to, did you see

any part of I-35 in Iowa which, in your judgment, would

not be adequate for 65-foot twin trailers?

A No.

* * x *

> JURAT

* * * *

DEPOSITION OF GEORGE MOBERLY

Filed October 12, 1978

[Caption Omitted in Printing]

* * x *

[4] DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. AXELROD:

* * * *

Q And what is your business or occupation?

A I’m the Engineer of Traffic with the Illinois De-

partment of Transportation.

* * * *

[6] Q Are you familiar with a combination of vehicles

known as 65-feet twin trailers?

A Yes.

Q Does Illinois permit 65-feet twin trailers?

[7] A Yes.

Q How long have 65-foot twin trailers been allowed

on Illinois highways?

A They were allowed on designated highways in 1963

with a permit from the Department; and then in 1967

the legislation was revised to permit them without per-

mit to travel on any four-lane highway and other high-

ways designated by the Department.

Q And you testified that you are the official in II-

linois who is responsible for designating 65-feet twin

trailer highways.

A Yes.

* * * ”

[8] Q What has the safety experience been in Illinois

with respect to 65-feet twin trailers in qualitative terms?

A They’ve—their experience has been as good as any

other truck unit that we have in the State.

Q Do you have an opinion, Mr. Moberly, as to the

relative safety of 65-feet twin trailers as opposed to 55-

feet tractor semitrailers?

A All of our evidence would indicate that they are

equally safe.

Q Mr. Moberly, would you have any hesitation in

recommending 65-feet twin trailers to other states?

A No.

Q Does the fact that 65-feet twin trailers are—

strike that.

Does the fact that 65-feet twin trailers are not per-

mitted on all highways in Illinois carry with it any judg-

ment by you that 65-feet twin trailers would not [9] be

safe on these highways?

A No.

Q Why, then, aren’t they permitted on all highways?

A The Legislature, in authorizing the Department

to designate routes, indicated that there should be some

consideration and limitation given to those. We developed

a series of criteria that we thought would permit them

where they were most generally needed and limit the

routes in those areas where normally there was very

little need of activity.

* * * *

[14] Q Do you know the reason why 65-feet twin

trailer traffic would appear to be heavier on U.S. 36

as opposed to some of the other highways in the State?

A In part, I believe it’s due to the fact that they

can’t go from the northern part of our State or other

states around the Great Lakes straight west through

Iowa. Therefore, they have to drop down and go west

through the central part of this State in order to go into

Missouri and on west.

* * * *

[15] Q Does the Iowa ban on twin trailers—on 65-feet

twin trailers have any effect on traffic safety in the State

of Illinois?

A Well, it certainly forces a number of trucks to use

a longer route through the State, and it forces a number

of trucks to utilize two-lane routes as opposed to four-

lane routes. And both of those conditions would indicate

that simply mathematically there ought to be more acci-

dents because of that.

Q How many additional miles in fact does the Iowa

ban require a twin trailer operator to travel, say, when

he heads west from Chicago to the West Coast?

A Well, it’s something like 160 miles across the State

in the Interstate 80 line. From Chicago to Springfield to

Quincy is something like 320 miles.

Q So you’re in fact doubling the mileage in the State

of Illinois as a result of the Iowa ban.

A Yes.

[16] CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. PAFF:

[29] Q Now, you state that you have not had a high-

way accident rate with regard to the operation of 65-

foot double-bottoms; is that correct?

A I think that I said that I have no evidence to

indicate there is any higher accident rate with double-

bottoms than there is with any other truck unit.

Q Would your office be where that evidence came?

A The accident reports are filed with the Department

of Transportation, the Division of Traffic Safety. The

Division of Traffic Safety brings to our attention any

problems that arise with any particular location or type

of operation and provides us any accident information

that we request at specific locations or types of opera-

tions.

Q In other words, if there was a field problem,

[30] it might not get to you because of the level of

involvement?

A If there is a field problem, it would normally get

to me through our district traffic people. If they are

experiencing a problem in the field at a spot location,

they forward that information to us with a request for

detailed study of that location.

* * * *

[52] REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. AXELROD:

[55] Q Is there anything about the 60-feet twin trailer

that you believe makes that vehicle more safe than the

65-feet twin trailer?

A No.

Q Is there anything about the 55-feet tractor semi-

trailer that makes that vehicle more safe than the 65-feet

twin trailer?

A No.

Q Is there any reason that you can think of [56] to-

day, Mr. Moberly, that would justify permitting a 60-feet

twin trailer on a certain lane—length of two-lane high-

way in the State of Illinois where you wouldn’t want to

permit a 65-feet twin trailer on the same road?

A I have no evidence that one is any safer or more

operational than the other.

Q Has there been anything in your experience to sug-

gest that the 65-feet twin trailer should, in fact, be

restricted to four-lane highways?

A No.

Q In terms of accident rates in general, which would

be a safer highway—the two-lane highway or four-lane

highway?

A . The four-lane highway.

Q How rare or how common are the 60-feet twin

trainers in the State of Illinois today?

A Well, I really don’t know but we—my general im-

pression is that 60-foot double-bottoms are fairly rare.

Q Mr. Lambert asked you certain questions with re-

spect to the denial of requests for designation of certain

highways as 65-feet twin trailer highways. My question

is: Have you ever denied an application for 65-feet twin

trailers because you thought that the [57] 65-feet twin

trailer would not be safe on that particular highway?

A No.

* * * *

JURAT

* * * *

DEPOSITION OF JAMES L. ADKINS

Filed October 12, 1978

[Caption Omitted in Printing]

* * * *

[4] DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. AXELROD:

* * * *

Q And for the record, Major, you’re testifying here

today pursuant to a subpoena that was issued by the

United [5] States District Court?

— A Yes, sir.

Q What are your particular responsibilities, Major,

with the Kansas Highway Patrol?

A I have the supervisory responsibility for the south

half of the state of Kansas, the Kansas Turnpike, and

capital area security.

* * * *

[6] Q When were the 65-foot twin trailers first al-

lowed in the state of Kansas?

A I believe it was in 1965 we started.

* * * *

[8] Q Now given the 13-years experience that the

Kansas Highway Patrol has had with 65-foot twin trail-

ers, what is your opinion as to the safety of the 65-foot

twin trailer?

A We do not believe that there is a significant safety

factor when comparing the 65-foot double to the semi-

trailer unit.

Q Based upon the experience of the state of Kansas

with 65-foot twin trailers, would you have any hesitation

in recommending them to safety officials in other juris-

dictions? z

A No, sir.

[9] Q And during that 18-year period have you re-

ceived any evidence to suggest that the fraction of a

second which it takes to pass the longer 65-foot twin

trailer as opposed to the 55-foot tractor semitrailer has

any significant effect in terms of safety?

A We do not believe that it does.

MR. AXELROD: That’s all I have, Major. Thank

you.

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. PAFF:

* * * *

[20] Q Is it a fact, Major, that in the years after

1965 Kansas experienced some difficulties with the opera-

tion of twin trailers in Kansas?

A Not that I’m aware of.

Q Okay. Have you seen any studies or referred to

any statistics that show the amount of fatalities involved

in truck motor collisions increased as a result of the

legalization of twin trailers in Kansas?

A No, I don’t have statistical information to indicate

that.

Q From your field position in 1965 did you observe

any specific problems with their operation?

A No. I believe generally as an agency we were

skeptical when the operation started up. The length, this

kind of thing, tended to bother us in law enforcement.

Q And why does length tend to bother you, sir?

A Well, we felt at the time that it would be a more

significant factor than it has turned out to be. * * *

* * * *

[21] The additional length does take a little larger

amount of [22] time to complete a passing operation on

a two-lane highway. We do not believe that it is a sig-

nificant safety factor, that amount of time.

Q Now the amount of time would also increase in

passing a longer vehicle on a four-lane highway, would

it not?

A Yes.

Q Now with regard to that and that fact alone, the

passing time, with your experience as an officer in law

enforcement and investigating accidents and so forth,

have you investigated accidents where an accident could

have been avoided or in your opinion would have been

avoided if the times involved had been a second or two

different?

A Yes.

Q Any accident involving passing that created a

hazard or created a safety concern in your behalf?

A Have I investigated this type accident?

Q Yes, sir.

A Yes, I have.

Q In other words, timing is very critical in terms of

safety on the highway, is it not?

A The driver’s estimate of the time required to pass

is very critical, yes.

* * * *

[26] REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. AXELROD:

* * * *

Q You also indicated to Mr. Paff that in the begin-

ning in 1965, that you were skeptical about twin trailers

because of their increased length, and my question is,

sir, is [27] whether your skepticism has been overcome

in the last 13 years based on actual twin trailer opera-

tions in this state?

A Yes, sir, it has.

DEPOSITION OF ARLAND V. HICKS

Filed October 27, 1978

[Caption Omitted in Printing]

* * * *

[4] DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. AXELROD:

* * * *

Q Now what is your title, Dr. Hic»s?

A Transportation Safety Administrator.

Q And that’s in the Kansas Department of Trans-

portation?

A Yes.

* _ * *

[8] Q Given now over ten years of experience with

65-foot twin trailers in the state of Kansas, what is your

opinion as to the safety of 65-foot twin trailers?

A We have identified no problem peculiar to twin bot-

tom trailers.

Q And do you have an opinion as to the relative safety

of [9] 65-foot twin trailers as opposed to 55-foot tractor

semitrailers?

A My opinion is there’s no significant difference.

[28] Q Has there ever been a situation in which you’ve

closed a highway to the operation of 65-foot twin combi-

nations and no other vehicle?

A No.

* * * *

[29] Q And what would be those occasions where you

would designate a particular detour for truck traffic as

opposed to automobile traffic?

A This would primarily be in a city area where the

traffic congestion is such that all trucks should be limited.

Q Does a longer truck create any difficulties in a more

congested area, in your opinion?

A Yes.

Q And would five feet be a significant distance with

regard to a longer truck in a congested area?

A Inmy opinion it would not be significant.

Q Would ten feet be a significant difference with re-

gard to truck length?

A I would accept ten feet as being significant.

Q And why would ten feet be significant?

A When one has opinions based upon observation and

records and what have you it’s real difficult to say why

one picks one figure over another.

* * * *

[35] Q Now assuming, Doctor, that the evidence in

this case establishes that the state of Iowa by prohibiting

65-foot twin trailers had the effect of forcing those twin

trailers off I-80 through Iowa and down onto U.S. 36 in

Missouri and Kansas, what effect on safety would that

have, Doctor?

* * * *

A I would answer that question in this aspect: that

as any type of traffic increases on a highway the num-

bers of accidents go up, and this is especially true on a

two-lane road and more especially true on a two-lane

road that is not full pavement width or with full

shoulders.

Q Is Highway 36 without shoulders and full pave-

ment in sections?

[36] A Yes, in a number of locations.

* * * a

[38] RECROSS EXAMINATION

[39] BY MR. PAFF:

* * * *

[40] Q And with regard to passing a 55-foot single

and a 60-foot—strike that: and a 65-foot double combi-

nation, would you see that passing time as being signifi-

cant?

A It would be about eight percent additional and I

would not find that to be too significant.

Q What do you mean by too significant?

A Eight percent is identifiable and is measurable,

therefore it’s significant, but I would not attach a great

deal of significance to it or weight or importance.

Q Okay. In one specific accident might that be a

critical difference?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Now with regard to the overtaking vehicle

passing a 60-foot double combination, in that situation

that would mean an additional pass of five feet, is that

[41] correct?

A Yes.

Q Now would that be quantifiable in terms of time?

A Yes.

Q And what percentage would that be, sir?

A Well, the difference between 60 and 65 is five feet

and five-sixtieths would be one-twelfth, one-twelfth is six

and two-thirds percent, I believe—no, correction, about

eight percent.

Q And would you view that difference as significant

in the overall traffic operation?

A In the overall traffic operation I would not.

Q But again in a specific situation, in a specific acci-

dent that occurred that might become significant?

A Yes.

a * * *

[55] REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. AXELROD:

Q But you’re not aware of any of these specific situa-

tions right now, Doctor? These are all hypothetical, I

take it?

A These are most unlikely and are hypothetical.

Q Okay. And being unlikely and hypothetical, do you

believe that a safety judgment can reasonably be made

to exclude 65-foot twin trailers on the basis of those un-

likely hypotheticals?

A It would be my opinion that they would not.

* * * *

JURAT

* * * *

DEPOSITION OF CLAUD R. MCCAMMENT

Filed March 2, 1979

[Caption Omitted in Printing]

* * * *

[5] DIRECT EXAMINATION

QUESTIONS BY MR. VARDA:

* * * *

Q What is your occupation, Mr. McCamment?

A At the present time I’m retired. I’ve been doing

consulting work for attorneys, and also up until about

five months ago, I was a consultant for the Automobile

Club of Kansas.

[6] Q Is that the local Triple A affiliate?

A Yes. It’s the state automobile club.

* * * *

[11] Q During the course of your duties as Safety

Director for the State of Kansas Highway Department,

do (sic) you have occasion to study the operational char-

acterization of the 65-foot twin trailer?

A I do—I did, I mean.

* * * *

[14] Q Could you describe the study you’ve performed

on these 65-foot twin trailers?

A I might—yes. I might say that this was on official

action of the Highway Commission. We have a director

and six-member commission, and they felt that our de-

partment was the only department that was qualified

to make the study.

* * * *

[17] Q During—how long did the study of twin trail-

ers last?

A The complete study lasted over a period of approxi-

mately three years.

———

Q During this time did you monitor in any way acci-

dent reports?

A Yes. The accident reports section was required to

put into a special file all accidents involving twin trailers

and all accidents involving semis.

* * * *

[19] Q Now, what were the results of the study?

A The summation of the study was made after I per-

sonally had traveled with several of our engineers and

enforcement people over practically all of the original

routes that permission had been requested for approval

on and had followed double bottoms, twin trailers in rain,

under all types of adverse weather conditions and at

night, and examined the reports of the individuals mak-

ing the studies that were made to me personally—these

reports were made to me personally, and identification by

license number of the vehicle that was being studied.

We examined the—as a part of this study we examined

the tracking of the vehicles, whether they stayed on their

side of the road, whether or not they were affected by the

velocity of the winds, whether or not the adverse weather

conditions caused any problems to not only their track-

ing and staying on their side of the road, but to the

vacuums caused by their wheels so that other vehicles

going in the same direction and passing them were caused

any more inconvenience or, in bad conditions, than that

was caused by these vehicles passing semi-trailer trucks

on these same highways. We found that weather condi-

tions did not affect the double bottoms nearly as much

as the wind conditions affected the semi-trailers [| 20] be-

cause where the breaks in between the double bottoms

were, where the pintle hooks were, the air was able to

go through—the wind was able to go through that area,

where on the long semi-trailers that were 4214 feet in

length, they often times were caused to jackknife or other

conditions to occur that did not occur to the double bot-

toms under the same conditions.

* * * *

[21] Q With respect to passing maneuvers, did you

note anything unusual about passenger automobiles and

their passing maneuvers with the twin trailers?

A We not only didn’t notice this, but we had other

vehicles at various times from our department pass the

units and not ask them until after they had passed as

to any—

* * * *

[22] And the people said that they had more wind

spray from the first units—not even identifying them;

the first units were the semis—and muck was sprayed

onto their windshields than they had when they were

passing these second units, the same day, the same hour,

the same place.

Q Mr. McCamment—

A In turn, I personally, with my driver, passed a

number of these units and a number of semi units and

noted personally that less muck and spray was thrown

onto my windshield during this inclimate weather by the

double bottoms, by far less than by the semi trucks on

the same highway and at the same time.

* * * *

[23] Q (By Mr. Varda) Mr. McCamment, during the

three-year study, did you happen to note the character-

istics of—the hill-climbing characteristics of the 65-foot

double bottoms?

A Idid.

Q And could you describe those characteristics?

A Well, yes. The hill-climbing ability of the double

bottoms was not hindered nearly as bad as with some of

the semi-trailers, especially under inclimate weather when

there was ice and snow on the highways. Their tracks

appeared to be much better because they appeared to—

they not only appeared but they did have more tire sur-

face on the highways than the semis and they were bet-

ter under control when braking conditions, going down-

hill, occurred. So they didn’t jackknife [24] nearly as

much when the road surfaces were slippery as did the

semis.

Q Did you have occasion to note anything about the

maneuverability of the 65-foot twin trailer as opposed to

the 55-foot semi-trailer?

A The maneuverability of the twin trailer is much

better than the semis.

* * * *

[25] Q What were your final recommendations to the

Highway Commission?

* x © *

[26] A I recommended to the Highway Commission

and prepared a resolution for the Highway Commission’s

approval for the use of these double bottoms or twin

trailers on our two-lane highway system. * * *

* * * *

[28] * * * House Bill No. 563, prepared by the Com-

mittee; and in that they made the changes that we recom-

mend—that I recommended and that the Commission

recommended, as I testified before this committee in re-

gards to this matter—since previously I had testified on

three different occasions against the use of the double

bottom 65-feet in length, and now I was changing my

testimony based upon actual studies of their operation

upon our highway system.

* * * *

[36] Q Mr. McCamment, during your years as Safety

Director and from your experience in reviewing the acci-

dent records and the general accident safety statistics of

the State of Kansas, can you derive any conclusions with

respect to the effect of increasing vehicular mileage on

the number of accidents?

A Oh, correct. The greater the exposure, the greater

number of accidents.

Q And when you say exposure, are you referring to

mileage?

A Mileage traveled, number of vehicles on the high-

ways.

Q Are you familiar with Highway 36 in Kansas?

A Iam.

Q And particularly I invite your attention to the

northeast corner of that highway in Kansas. Do you

[37] recall the accident experience that you had had on

that section of highway during your tenure as Safety

Director?

A The accident experience was very bad.

Q Now, again—

A We recommended that to have top priority for

reconstruction purposes. It’s now, as I understand it, all

contracted. It should have been contracted years ago for

reconstruction.

Q But at this point in time, however, Highway 36 in

the northeast corner of Kansas has not been upgraded.

Is that your testimony?

A Just a limited part of it.

Q Now, again, drawing on your experience as Safety

Director in Kansas, can you state any general observa-

tions with respect to the relative accident experience on

two-lane as opposed to four-lane divided limited access

highways?

A The accident experience in Kansas on four-lane lim-

ited access highways such as the interstate system is

approximately 66% better. In other words, there were

three to one ratio more accidents on the two-lane system

than on the interstate system.

* * * *

[39] A We actually have made studies, both on the

two-lane highway system and on the interstate highway

system as to the time requirements for the passing of

various lengths and various size of vehicles and equip-

ment moving at various speeds; and we found that the

difference, especially in regard to a ten-foot divergence

between our original vehicle, or original trucks were 55

feet in length that were approved by the Legislature that

were being passed and the 65-foot length vehicles that

were being passed on the interstate system was very

minute. In fact, the average person, unless he had a

very good stop watch, could not even record the addi-

tional time that was required to pass for the additional

ten feet.

* * - *

Q (By Mr. Varda) Mr. McCamment, do you feel,

based on [40] your experience, that this minute amount

of time is significant and passing maneuver in terms of

safety?

A Now, you’re referring to the interstate system?

Q Yes.

A I feel it’s not significant for many reasons. One is

that you do not have any approaching traffic on the in-

terstate system. You can make your passing movement

at a higher speed on the interstate System and resume

normal speed without breaking the laws nearly as much

as you would in passing any type of vehicle on either

the two-lane or the interstate system because you are

not creating a tenseness in passing longer vehicles on the

interstate system because you do not have the conflict

of the approaching vehicles that you have on two-lane

systems.

« * * x

[41] CROSS EXAMINATION

QUESTION BY MR. PAFF:

* * * *

[44] Q What occurred then in 1965 with regard to the

Legislature?

A The Legislature at that time passed a bill—passed

the law the same as they had considered previously, re-

quiring the State Highway Commission to make the

studies as to those highways for the people who owned

and wanted to operate 65-feet long twin trailers and

requested the same for and authorized the State Highway

Commission to .rant approval or disapproval [45] for

the use of these sections of highways that were requested

for use by the various trucking companies and organi-

zations.

* * * *

[49] Q —is that you could have a combination of—

which would fit the definition of a double bottom and

would be, say, 60 feet in length, could you not, under

that statute?

A Yes. You could have a combination, and we do

have—often times when individuals are pulling boats

and pulling another trailer behind a passenger car, that

could be up to 55 or 60 feet.

* * * *

[61] Q So when you stated in your previous testimony

that you went 20,000 miles, is that a typo or incorrect?

A It’s probably incorrect.

Q Now, with regard to the 2,900 miles that you fol-

lowed these vehicles, did you ever stop one and measure

it to see if it might be a 60-foot combination?

A We measured all of these vehicles that were on

certain highways as they entered the state at our weight

stations. We have weight stations, permit weight sta-

tions where the vehicles are measured as to [62] height,

length and, of course, as to weight. We do this because

also we make arrests of vehicles traveling with special

permits that exceed the special permits. So that our

operators in making the weighing operations also make

the measurement operation, and the height is recorded

because of a height bar at the top.

Q I understand that. Mr. McCamment, my testimony

is that when you were engaged in this 2,990 miles of

following vehicles, was there any way that you as the

driver or sitting in that car can determine whether or

not that was the 60- or 65-foot?

A Oh, yes, I see what you’re getting at. We also—

Q Or 58eéoot or 62-foot?

A We also at certain locations where we had a wide

enough area or where we had a roadside park, would

have some of these units, many of these units in fact at

one time, because on certain days all the units were

measured. _We measured these. I measured them and I

was there when a number of them were measured. I

was there when approximately—well, during this whole

period I probably was there when between 350 and 400

were measured.

Q Did you find them all to be exactly 65 feet?

A No. Combinations, according to where the pin is

put in, and that varies from one to two to three feet.

[63] Some of them vary as much as four and five feet.

But most of them were 64 to 65 feet in length by far.

* * am *

DEPOSITION OF THOMAS D. DOYLE

Filed October 30, 1978

[Caption Omitted in Printing]

- * * *

[2] DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. AXELROD:

* * * *

[4] Q Now, Mr. Doyle, are you familiar with a com-

bination of vehicles known as 65 foot twin trailers?

A Yes, I am.

Q What, if any, was your relationship to 65 foot twin

trailers while Director-State Engineer?

A Well, since the Director-State Engineer is responsi-

ble for the overall highway system and its [5] operation

in the State of Nebraska, any vehicle including these

twin trailers which would be operating on our state

systems would be under the jurisdiction of the Depart-

ment of Roads in terms of the operation. So, I would

have firsthand and direct knowledge of any circumstances

peculiar to that particular configuration, as well as any

other as Director-State Engineer.

* * * *

[6] Q How long have they been permitted in Ne-

braska?

A Since 1965. I believe it was May of 1965 the

state law was changed from—to permit from a maximum

of 60 up to 65 foot.

* * * *

[9] Q Is it—as a former state transportation official,

would you have any hesitation in recommending 65 foot

twin trailers to officials in other states?

A No.

Q What particularly has been the safety experience

of the 65 foot twin trailer as compared to the 55 foot

tractor semitrailer?

A I would have to say the experience is the same,

because I’m not aware of any difference.

* * * *

[10] Q Mr. Doyle, would you state whether or not the

extra fraction of a second which it takes to pass a 65

foot vehicle as opposed to a 60 foot vehicle or 55 foot

vehicle has any significant terms on safety?

A The only significance is that you pass a vehicle

based on whether or not you can safely do it, so whether

it’s 65 or 55, you must allow the necessary time. So, it’s

a matter of driver judgment more than any other fact

as to the absolute length of the vehicle that’s important

in terms of safety.

Q So, would or would not the extra ten feet have any

[11] significance in terms of safety?

A I would say not.

as * * +

[12] Q From your experience, can you state whether

or not the Iowa ban on 65 foot twin trailers has had

any effect of safety in the State of Nebraska?

A Okay. I have to develop that answer because it’s

—it has been our experience that the—that the fact that

the twin trailers must go through the States of Missouri

or South Dakota in order to bypass the State of Iowa

where they are not permitted, that these tractors, these

trailers do come in the state, for example, northern

Missouri, Cherry County drops them off, and at Brown-

ville, Nebraska, they come across on Highway 73-75

which is one of the more narrow and more hilly routes

in the State of Nebraska, and by virtue of the fact that

there’re just simply more trucks on that 73-75 route,

there is a greater exposure than there would be if they

were allowed to remain. on the interstate system. They

come through Auburn, Nebraska, the citizens complain

about the large amount of trucks. True, not all of the

trucks are twins, and therefore, they would be there

anyway, but the twins add to the congestion in that sense

and because—the twin trailers do in that sense. So, yes,

there has to be an effect because of the greater exposure

in that sense. [13] Then, they progress onto Highway

No. 2, make a turn in Nebraska City to the west and go

some 55 miles right past the Department of Roads

offices in the state, in the City of Lincoln where they

eventually pick up Interstate 80 then go on west. So,

yes, there is greater exposure.

Q When you say greater exposure to accidents, what

do you mean?

A Two lane road undivided on systems that are not

as highly designed as the interstate system. You have

more exposure and more congestion. The larger equip-

ment being on narrow roads is just simply going to be a

less efficient movement, and therefore, a higher risk.

Q Are you speaking of exposure to accidents?

A To accidents, that’s the—to accidents and there’s

more congestion and slower movement of traffic.

Q With respect to the two lane roads that you men-

tioned, including Highway 73-75, would you make a dif-

ferentiation and allow, say a 65 foot tractor semitrailer

on these roads and not allow 65 foot twin trailers?

A The length of the truck is not critical in that

respect. It’s just the fact that there’s a better system

for any truck to be on, and that’s the [14] Interstate

System.

* * oe *

Q Are you in a position to state whether or not Inter-

state [15] 80 in the State of Iowa is suitable for 65 foot

twin trailers?

A It was built with Federal funds, 90 percent Fed-

eral interstate funds, and as a prerequisite for that,

necessarily it had to meet the same standards as the

State of Nebraska, and therefore, on that basis, it’s

adequate just as Nebraska is because the condition of

the contract with the Federal Government.

” . - *

[16] Q Before, you indicated that the Iowa ban on 65

foot twin trailers resulted in the trailers using two lane

highways in the State of Nebraska. Has that resulted

in any additional mileage in the State of Nebraska?

A In my judgment it definitely has because the

necessity for the north-south traffic in Nebraska, whether

they come up 73-75 or some point east or west of that,

because the fact that you have to drop down, come across

and up on a Nebraska road to get on Interstate 80, con-

siderably more wear on 73-75 Highway, Highway 2 in

Lincoln, and I assume, up in the northern tier of coun-

ties, the same would be true because of the additional

traffic that’s on perhaps Highway 20 rather than getting

down on Interstate 80 or getting down on 80 and onto 77.

So definitely there’s more mileage traffic in Nebraska as

a result of the circuitous route.

[17] CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. PAFF:

[22] Q Did you, while you were with the Nebraska

Department of Roads, initiate any formal studies relat-

ing to the safety of these vehicles?

[23] A No.

Q Did you participate in any other studies in con-

nection with any other states that were studying this

particular matter?

MR. AXELROD: You personally, or his department?

BY MR. PAFF:;

Q You or those under your direction?

A Only to the extent that we would respond to any

questionnaire type of information that might have been

sent to us, but I don’t have any personal knowledge of,

to what extent that was done or the period other than

from time to time through AASHTO or some other such

organization.

* * & *

DEPOSITION OF DENNIS EISNACH

Filed October 17, 1978

[Caption Omitted in Printing]

* * * *

[3] DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. AXELROD:

And what is your title, Sir?

Superintendent of the Highway Patrol.

Of the State of South Dakota?

Yes.

p> O Pp

* wu * *

[5] Q Are 65 foot twin trailers permitted in South

Dakota?

A Yes, they are.

Q And how long have they been allowed in South

Dakota?

A The 1959 Legislature passed the law initially allow-

ing this type of unit to be operated in South Dakota and

the law would have become effective July 1, 1959.

Q And are 65 foot twin trailers permitted on all

roads in South Dakota?

A Yes.

* * * *

[6] Q Due to the experience of the Highway Patrol

since 1959 with 65 foot twin trailers and your own eigh-

teen years of experience as a Highway Patrol Officer,

what is your opinion as to the safety of 65 foot twin

trailers? !

A I guess we haven’t been concerned with them be-

cause over the years there hasn’t been anything signifi-

cant that would indicate to us that there has been a

safety problem with those type of units.

Q How would you compare the safety experience with

effect to the 65 foot twin trailer as compared to 55 foot

tractor semi trailers?

A We don’t see any difference.

Q Based upon the experience of the South Dakota

Highway Patrol with 65 foot twin trailers, would you

have any hesitation in recommending them to officials in

other states?

[7] A No.

Q In your eighteen years of experience with the

South Dakota Highway Patrol have you received any

evidence to suggest that the additional ten feet when

comparing a 65 foot twin trailer with a 55 foot tractor

semi trailer creates any problems in terms of safety?

A That particular issue, I guess, has never been a

concern to us. Like I said, the record hasn’t indicated

that there is any particular problem with those and,

frankly, I guess we have never related it down to the

extra ten feet.

Q Have you ever received any evidence to suggest

that the extra fraction of a second which it takes to pass

a 65 foot vehicle as opposed to a 60 foot: vehicle or 55

foot vehicle creates any problems in terms of safety?

A No.

* * * *

JURAT

* * * *

DEPOSITION OF PETER DEN HAMER

Filed October 5, 1978

[Caption Omitted in Printing]

* * * a

[3] EXAMINATION

BY MR. AXELROD:

* * * *

Q And what is your occupation or position?

A Iam director of safety and engineering for Trans-

port Indemnity Company.

* * * *

[4] Q And as director of safety and research and

engineering, do you have any responsibilities with re-

spect to reviewing claim files and loss reports to deter-

mine the causes of accidents?

A Yes. We review the file to try to analyze cause,

to get the information that is revealed by the adjustor,

and we then sometimes go back to the account for more

information.

We are looking for cause in our instance and not liabil-

ity as the claims department does.

* * « *

[5] Q What has the safety experience with Transport

Indemnity Company been with respect to the 65-foot twin

trailers as opposed to 55-foot tractor semi-trailers?

A No difference. The doubles—we use the word “dou-

bles” here on the west coast—doubles might be slightly

safer than the semis.

Q What are the safety advantages of twin trailers or

doubles that make them a little bit safer than tractors

semi-trailers?

A Greater maneuverability, better braking, and one

other item on a set of twins as compared to a semi is

that when you get into a congested area, you can break

them up and get around in a local community a lot easier

than you can with anything classified as a semi.

Q Lastly, Mr. Den Hamer, does the use of twin trail-

ers or doubles have any effect on cargo loss prevention?

A Sure.

Q How is that?

A Like you can load doubles and again break them

up and deliver it direct without cross-dock handling, and

there is better maneuverability in congested areas for

[6] delivery purposes, and you can deliver directly off a

70-foot trailer much easier than a 45 or 55. The less

handling, the less exposure.

* * * *

[12] FURTHER EXAMINATION

BY MR. AXELROD:

Q I think, Mr. Den Hamer, it wil be useful if you

would explain precisely why there is less cross-dock

handling with the twin trailers as opposed to the semi-

trailer that results in fewer losses.

A Every time you handle any kind of cargo, it is

exposed to damage. The least number of times, the least

amount of damage.

Q Now, why—

A So, therefore, on a set of 27’s, you can go bring

them into a terminal. Most of the time they put a local

man on.

They can split them up and deliver directly off. They

do not have to go across dock.

Q is it possible to eliminate some of the break-bulk

handling points by using twin trailers?

A Oh, yes.

Q Would you explain why that’s so?

A That’s—say I am on a run from here to Chicago,

which is Los Angeles to Chicago, and you have a 27-foot

as opposed to a 40 or 42 and a half feet.

You can load 2,100 in a 27-footer—say, a [13] straight

Chicago load. He may not have enough to fill out a 40-

foot box, but it is enough for a 27-foot.

If you load a 40-foot, it must be broken out, say, in

Oklahoma City, and whatever you put in the back has

to be taken out, and in Chicago it has to be taken out

and loaded with other freight, because the object is to

have a full box payload, so with a 27-foot, you can split

the boxes and not handle the cargo.

Q Why is this important in preventing theft?

A Again the box is closed. Most of the time the em-

ployees do not know what is in it, and it goes directly

to the destination.

Q Does the use of twin trailers have any advantage

in terms of misloading and physical damage?

A Yes; yes.

When you are bulk-breaking any cargo, and you have

to meve it onto other trailers, you depend on people to

look at labels and markings, and it can be put on the

wrong trailer and sent to the wrong destination.

This is why we like to seem them line loaded, the doors

sealed, go to destination and opened without being han-

dled in route.

Q Mr. Paff asked you some questions with respect to

old 24-foot boxes which resulted in a configuration of

60-feet.

What is the present industry standard for the car-

riage of general commodities?

A Twenty-seven-foot boxes overall length with trac-

tor of 65 feet.

[14] Q When did the industry standard change from

60 to 65 feet?

A In the State of California, I think it was around

1960.

* * * *

FURTHER EXAMINATION

BY MR. PAFF:

ae az * *

[15] Q Now, with regard to your other comments, you

say [16] that that’s an industry standard.

Is that the California standard or industry standard?

A It’s an industry standard.

Q And who creates the industry standard?

A State laws.

Q Have you read any studies of standards of manu-

facturers of these 24- or 27-foot boxes or 40-foot boxes?

A Now, are you talking about manufacturing stand-

ards?

Q Yes.

A Yes.

Q Will the industry manufacture a box that’s less

than 24-foot long if you want it?

A Oh, yes. You can order any type of equipment.

Q So there is no industry standard? We are talking

about what the state allows on the highway?

A That is correct.

* * * *

JURAT

* * e oa

—

DEPOSITION OF THURMAN D. SHERARD

Filed November 6, 1978

[Caption Omitted in Printing]

* * *% *

[2] EXAMINATION BY MR. AXELROD:

* * * *

Q And what is your occupation, Mr. Sherard?

A Civil engineer.

* * * *

Q And, Mr. Sherard, are you the person that has

been designated by the Western Highway Institute to

appear pursuant to the subpoena that was served by the

plaintiff on the Institute?

A Yes.

Q What is the Western Highway Institute, sir?

A Western Highway Institute is a non-action, non-

profit organization, organized to conduct research in the

fields of motor vehicle transportation in the Western

United States and the five Western Provinces of Canada.

* * x *

[3] Q What is the historical relationship, if any, be-

tween the Western Highway Institute and the develop-

ment of a combination of vehicles known as 65-foot twin

trailers or doubles, as they call them here in the West?

A Well, I came to work for Western Highway Insti-

tute in 1965, which was just following the development

period of 65-foot doubles in the Western States. But

Western Highway Institute was formed in 1947 with the

purpose of testing, researching and developing the safety

and feasibility of more productive trucks. And the first

more productive truck which came into mind was the

65-foot doubles. In 1941, there were three states out here

that in the West that already were running 65-foot dou-

bles back in 1941. And these were developed in the West-

ern States as a result of research studies, I wouldn’t say

completely developed, but I mean the Western Highway

Institute were instrumental in conducting the research

and providing the data that lead to the adoption of 65-

foot doubles in all the Western States.

Q Since you became employed by the Western High-

way Institute, what has been your personal involvement

with 65-foot twin trailers?

A My personal involvement has been in the testing

and [4] research of more productive vehicles in which

we used the 65-foot doubles as a standard by which to

compare other vehicle configurations. The 65-foot double

was known to be, known and accepted in the West to have

good safety characteristics, good economic characteristics.

Q What are precisely some of the studies that you

have been involved in where 65-foot twin trailers have

been compared to other vehicles?

A Splash and spray. Offtracking. Braking distance.

Braking stability. Dynamic stability. Traction. Front

end loading. Practically all of the research into vehicle

characteristics and safety characteristics have involved

the doubles as a comparison with other vehicles.

* * * +”

[7] Q I show you what has been marked as Sherard

Exhibit No. 2 and ask if you can identify this exhibit?

A That is a report of our Technical Research Com-

mittee involving several splash and spray tests. It is the

report of that committee. I was involved in setting up

the tests and supervising the tests, and in coordinating

and writing the final report.

Q What is meant by the term splash and spray?

A There are really two things involved with splash

and spray. One is splash, which is the large droplets that

are thrown outwardly by the truck tires at the impact

with the road surface.

Spray is a product of splash when it impacts the side

of the truck or the under-carriage or is thrown around

by the truck’s tires, and at a high velocity when it im-

pacts these surfaces it is atomized into very fine droplets.

Then the aerodynamic disturbances of the vehicle throws

it outward and in all sorts of directions, depending upon

what the aerodynamics of the vehicle are.

Q Why are various splash and spray characteristics

of vehicles important in assessing highway safety?

A Well, it is a matter of visibility, especially in pass-

ing. There has really been no accident statistics that

have shown [8] any great degree of accident severity

resulting from splash and spray, but it is a visibility

problem which is of concern to the passing driver.

* * * *

[10] Q Before I ask you about the worst, tell me which

configuration was the best or created the least splash

and spray?

A The twin trailers configuration produced about 80

percent of the total emitted by the worst configuration.

Q And which vehicle combination put up the worst

all-around characteristics in terms of splash and spray?

A The worst, actually, there were three that were

fairly close, the van, the tractor-semitrailer, 55-foot

tractor-semitrailer with the van. The tank semi. And

the autotransporter. The tank semi was probably a little

more severe than the other two.

Q Would you compare in terms of severity of splash

and spray the 65-foot twin trailers as opposed to the

55-foot tractor-semitrailer?

A Well, the tests made by Southwest Research Insti-

stitute and the tests made by Systems Technology and

Aerodynamics of Southern California have all produced

the same answer, that the twin trailers, 65-foot twin

trailers are about 20 percent, put out about 20 percent

less splash and spray than the 55-foot tractor-semitrailer

unit.

Q And how did those findings compare with your

own findings?

A Identical.

* * * *

[11] Q To what do you attribute these variations be-

tween the 65-foot twin trailer in terms of splash and

spray and the tractor-semitrailer and these other ve-

hicles?

A Basically, it is the axle configuration. The twin

trailers have single axles throughout. Your tank truck,

your autotransporter, your tractor-semi have tandem

axles. The tandem axles are working in opposing direc-

tions so that the wind current are thrown off by the

wheels, are meeting at a point just above and between

the two tandem axles, causing a great area of turbulence

which is blasted outwardly and various spray with it.

The other reason, with the tractor-semi, the 40-foot

box on a 55-foot tractor-semi is that you have a large

area which creates a greater turbulence and this is also

blasted outwardly and carries the splash and spray

with it.

The tank truck creates an updraft along the sides of

the tank which makes a pattern which goes out farther

and higher than the other. The autotransporter you just

have several loads, you have quite a few loads in there

all working in different directions and creating different

forces and different turbulences when they oscillate,

which creates a very severe turbulence pattern.

* * * *

[13] Q How did the original Fort Stockton tests com-

pare with the later tests that you did in Oregon?

A There was no difference between—the only thing

we did in the later tests is that we verified visual read-

ings and previous tests with more sophisticated instru-

mentation. But they correlated in every respect.

Q Have your test findings been verified by any other

research agency?

A Yes. As I mentioned, the Southwest Research In-

stitute. The Systems Technology, Incorporated of Haw-

thorne, California. Aero-Environments. I forget their

address, it is near Los Angeles. Also the Oregon High-

way Department has made tests of their own which

verify ours.

* € * a

[15] Q Could you compare 65-foot twin trailers and

55-foot tractor-semitrailers in terms of offtracking?

A The equation for offtracking is a formula which

involves basically the square root of the sum of the

Squares. So a long wheelbase vehicle will offtrack con-

siderably more than a short wheelbase vehicle or a com-

bination of short wheelbased [16] vehicles. So the 55-

foot tractor-semi offtracks, say, on a 90-degree turn ap-

preciably more than your 65-foot twin trailer combi-

nation.

o * = *

[17] Q Could you compare a 65-foot twin trailers and

55-foot tractor-semitrailers in terms of maneuverability?

A 65-foot twin trailers are more maneuverable than

the 55-foot semi.

* m * *

[18] Q Can you tell us whether there is any signifi-

cant differences between twin trailers and tractor-semi-

trailers with respect to fishtailing?

A Well, there is—both vehicles operate well within

the limits that are set forth in the Federal law that you

can’t deviate more than three inches to either side of

the wheel path of the preceding axle. The fact that your

tractor-semi has tandems on the back and one less point

of articulation might be a very, very small percentage

in its favor, but I don’t think you could probably notice

it. But in any case, they are both well within the limits.

* _ a *

[19] A You have two types of jackknifing. You have

the tractor jackknife and the trailer jackknife. The trac-

tor jackknife is where the trailer overrides the tractor

and pushes the rear wheels of the tractor out of line and

they jackknife, they fold up with the trailer swinging

around to meet the tractor.

The trailer jackknife is where the rear wheel of the

trailer loses traction and the trailer swings around rather

than your tractor axles losing their traction.

Q Would you compare 65-foot twin trailers and 55-

foot tractor-semitrailers in terms of their propensity to

jackknife?

A Well, you are much more liable to get a tractor

jackknife with the 55-foot semitrailer combination. For

one thing, you will have the advantage of the extra

length. You have one solid mass behind your tractor

drive axles so that when you get the forces overriding,

you push the tractor axle out of line and you result in

a tractor jackknife.

With a twin trailer combination, it is more probable

to get a trailer swing or a trailer jackknife. The rear

wheels of the trailer will lose traction and swing around.

This type of a jackknife is easier to recover from because

the tractor is still in a straight line and by accelerating

he can pull the vehicle back into its original configura-

tion.

With the tractor jackknife, it is much more difficult

to recover from it, after you get beyond 15 degrees,

why, you have lost it.

The other thing in favor of the doubles is the fact that

[20] the second trailer tends to cancel some of the deviant

forces or some of the side forces which are trying to

cause the jacknife, the second trailer will cancel some

of the forces and you won’t have as many side forces

working at your rear and as you would have with a single

trailer combination.

Q Would you compare the 65-foot twin trailers and

the 60-foot twin trailers in terms of the propensity to

jackknife?

A With the same weight?

Q Yes.

A I would say that the 60-foot would have a very,

very slight tendency, if any, to jackknife faster than the

65-foot, because of the additional stability due to the

length, additional 5-foot length.

Q What is meant by the terms dynamic stability and

braking stability?

A One is the stability during the braking operation.

The other is the dynamic stability is the stability as the

truck goes down the highway in normal operation.

Q How does the dynamic stability of 65-foot twin

trailers and 55-foot tractor-semitrailers compare?

A About equal. As I mentioned on the question about

fishtailing, I think that applies to your question there.

Q Okay. How does the braking stability of 65-foot

twin trailers and 55-foot tractor-semitrailers compare?

A Our tests have shown that the 65-foot doubles

brake in a shorter distance than the 55-foot tractor-semi,

under the same load.

Q Why is that?

A Due to the fact that you have [21] a little more

braking horsepower per unit of load. You have your

axles spaced more evenly on the pavement surface. I

think that is probably the—

Q How does the braking facility of a 65-foot twin

trailer compare to that of the passenger car?

A On a dry surface, high coefficient pavement, the

automobile can stop in much shorter distance and prob-

ably in a fairly stable condition. But when you get into

lower coefficient surfaces such as wet surface or icy

100

surface or snow pack surface, the twin trailers exhibit

better stability and also better braking distance.

Q Is it desirable that twin trailers and tractor-semi-

trailers be able to stop in the same distance as auto-

mobiles?

A It would be highly undesirable I would say.

Q Why is that?

A Well, I think if a truck stopped in the same dis-

tance on a dry road as a passenger car does, you would

break the structure down, you would probably collapse

your suspension and you might have your cargo coming

through the back of the cab. It is just too many forces

there, too much forces to stop in that short a distance.

Q Is slightly longer stopping distances in twin trail-

ers and tractor-semitrailers compensated for in any way

by the fact that the vehicles are larger?

A Well, you have got, you are talking now between

who?

Q Passenger cars.

A A passenger car. I think you have two big ad-

vantages in the twin trailer operation. First is that you

generally have [22] a professional driver who knows his

business and is trained in operating the vehicle. The

second is that he is sitting up where he can see much

farther ahead and so he is prepared for unexpected

things that might require sudden stops.

Q Will the allowing of 65-foot twin trailers in lieu

of 60-foot twin trailers or 55-foot semitrailers have any

effect on the number of truck trips?

* * * a

A It should reduce the number of truck trips; if you

put the goods in a 65-foot twin trailer, you have five more

feet of cargo space so you would actually be eliminating

trips.

MR. AXELROD: Q You may have already answered

this, but how prevalent are 60-foot twin trailers today?

101

A I don’t know that I have ever seen one here in the

West.

Q In terms of the states with which you are familiar,

what vehicle combination would be the industry standard

in terms of the transportation of general commodities?

A Well, in the Western States and in the Western

Provinces of Canada, the 65-foot twin trailers is really

the work horse you might say for general commodities.

* * * *

[23] Q What does the term cubing out mean?

A That means when you fill your boxes with freight

before you reach your weight limits. You have utilized

all the cubic area before you reach your weight limits.

Q And can you tell:us whether or not this phenom-

enon is significant in terms of general commodity car-

riers?

A It is becoming more significant all the time. The

density of freight intercity and general freight commodi-

ties has been decreasing at a steady rate for, gosh, the

last 15 years. And it is now down to where in the West-

ern area in particular, it is down in the area of 8 and 9

pounds per cubic foot. One of the main reasons for that

is the packaging of goods. Goods that used to be hauled

in bulk are now put in cardboard cartons and plexiglass

cartons and they take up a lot of space for one little

item. So space really becomes a very important item

with the general commodity carrier.

Q Do you have an opinion as to whether 65-foot twin

trailers [24] operated on four lane interstate highways

are more safe or less safe than 55-foot tractor-semi-

trailers operated on the same highways?

A Well, I just want to say that 55-foot tractor-semi

is a very safe vehicle and that the 65-foot twin trailers

are just as safe, possibly a little more. I think the sta-

tistics and tests have shown it to be a safer vehicle.

But I want it understood that both vehicles are very

well within the safety requirements,

102

Q Do you have an opinion as to whether a 65-foot

twin trailer operated over a four lane interstate high-

way would be less safe or more safe than a 60-foot twin

trailer operated over the same route?

A Well, that is getting into nit-picking. I just, I

mean the 5-foot difference is so hard to evaluate. It is

certainly, 65-foot trailers certainly would be just as safe

and because of the, again the factor of length that was

brought out in the study by Illinois Institute of Tech-

nology, the additional length is an additional safety fac-

tor. Like I say, I just haven’t been around 60-foot doubles

enough to make some real quantitative, bring up any

quantitative data on that.

Q In terms of passing with a 65-foot twin trailer

on an interstate highway as opposed to passing a 60-foot

twin trailer on an interstate highway, is the additional

5 feet in any way significant in terms of additional pass-

ing time?

A Let’s see, the average pass is made at about 10

miles an hour speed differential and that is 14 feet 8

inches per second. So it would be about one-third of a

second longer to pass the [25] 65-foot rig than a 60-foot

rig.

* * * *

Q And how significant would that one-third of a

second be in terms of safety on a four lane interstate

highway?

A Well, I think your judgment is as good as mine

there. It is pretty insignificant.

Q Could you—

A The one thing about passing length that has been

proven in several tests and particularly by the Nevada

Highway Department, that is that the tendency for a

passing vehicle is to accelerate during the pass in pro-

portion to the length of the vehicle. So that the average

passing time is almost the same for a 70-foot vehicle,

say, as for a 50-foot vehicle because people get up, when

103

they start their pass, they see it is a little longer than

they have been used to, they just step on the accelerator

a little more and hold their speed a little longer, before

they go around the total elapsed time of pass is about the

same. I don’t know how you can split one-third of a

second down much.

« * * *

[29] Q Did the twin trailers which met the standards

of MVS 121 in Sherard Exhibit 6 have the electronic

gear—

A No.

Q —that is now required?

A No.

Q Were they able to meet the Federal standard with-

out the electronic gear that is now required?

A Very easily. But I think I better point out that

these doubles or these twin trailer configurations were

equipped with a faster transmission and release valve

which got the air back to the rear axles simultaneously

with the application at the front axles.

* 2 ” *

(31] Q What about backing up twin trailers on an in-

terstate [32] highway, would that have any effect?

A Our tests have shown that there is no problem

there, that you can back up sufficiently to get off the road

or get out of the traveled way.

* * * *

Q Have you had the opportunity, Mr. Sherard, to

test 65-foot twin trailers under adverse weather con-

ditions?

A Yes. Quite a few times.

Q When and where was this test?

A We tested them on a low coefficient surface at

Utica, New York back in about 1967, I guess it was. We

put two coats of traffic paints on the surface and made it

equivalent to the slickness of a snow-packed road. We

104

tested them in, you want all the places, Alberta, Wyo-

ming, Montana, Washington, Oregon, Utah, Idaho, Ari-

zona, New Mexico, Nevada, California. That is one of

the standard tests that we have used in comparing the

characteristics of more productive trucks is a test show-

ing their braking ability both in a dynamic—both on high

coefficient and low coefficient surfaces.

EXAMINATION BY MR. PAFF:

[35] Q So it was basically set up by operators of motor

truck vehicles on the highway?

A Western operators.

Q And did they receive most of their financing from

that particular organization?

A Western Highway Institute receives about 50 per-

cent of its income from fleet operators and about 50 per-

cent from manufacturers of trucks, tires, axles, other

truck components.

We do also have members in the railroad field. We have

Southern Pacific, Burlington Northern, Santa Fe. We

have three ocean carriers, the American President Lines,

Matson and Sea-Land. Also membership from numerous

banks and insurance companies which are involved in

the financing accident responsibility of trucks.

Q To your knowledge, is Consolidated Freightways a

member of that organization of carriers?

A Of Western Highway Institute?

Q Yes, sir?

A Yes.

Q Is Transport Indemnity Casualty Company also a

member of that?

A Yes.

* * * *

[38] MR. PAFF: Q I believe you said then that,

what do you mean by the more productive trucks, was

105

that the charter purpose of this organization to study

basically how to make—

A Yes, the policy that has been set forth by our

executive committee is to find ways and means to im-

prove the safety, the efficiency and productivity of exist-

ing components of trucks, primarily through the addition

of an extra trailer or an extra component to a commonly

used configuration.

Q And was this the basic policy of it to your under-

standing when you joined this organization in ’65?

A Yes. It was my first assignment, some road tests

of that nature.

oo * a *

[44] Q So would you say the speed of the vehicle is

more detrimental to splash and spray than the vehicle

configuration?

A Well, they are all intertwined. It is very difficult

to separate them because your different configurations

create different turbulence in the air which, when you

involve speed in there, it makes them even worse.

* * * *

[45] Q Directing your attention to that very point,

and we are talking about the same configuration of a

twin trailer combination, one being an overall length of

60-foot and one being an overall length of 65-foot, you

are talking about five additional feet and you are talking

about a certain area on the side of the box, are you not?

A Yes.

Q Depending on the height of the trailer?

A That is right. If you are talking only about the

air turbulence which is created by the size of the box.

But there is other air turbulence and other factors in-

volved with length. .

Q I understand that. But according to that particu-

lar sentence, that would indicate that if mass, if we are

just talking about mass alone, you have air turbulence,

more air turbulence?

106

[46] A If you are talking strictly about area of the

side of the box, there is more turbulence, the more the

area is, that is right.

Q So that would be a disadvantage in terms of splash

and spray with regard to a 65-foot overall length or a

24—-excuse me, strike that, a 27-foot box as opposed to a

24-foot box?

A That would be one of the factors which would be

negative to offset some of the factors on the 65-foot which

are positive.

Q And what are those?

A The greater length between your two axles on the

box gives you more open space underneath and so you

have more escape area for the air turbulence underneath

the box, and you don’t have as much outward wind blast

from that area.

* + * *

[47] Another thing is your skin friction at the tag end

of your box which helps gives you a little downstream

effect and offsets a little bit of your turbulence on the

side. It is a very complicated subject, as we found after

10 years of testing.

* * * *

[52] Q_ I believe you said there were some other later

tests that verified your basic data from Systems Tech-

nology and [53] Aero-Environments?

A Yes.

Q Were you personally involved in any of those high-

way projects?

A Yes.

Q Have these been within the last three and four

years?

A One was in November of 1977 and one was in

June of 1978.

107

Q And which was that?

A They were both at Fort Stockton, Texas, both done

under the DOT project reduction of adverse aerodynamic

effects of large trucks.

* * * *

[54] Q Assuming the articulation was the same in

both doubles and you reduce the length five foot, it is a

matter of distance, isn’t it, between the axles as to how

they are going to track?

A Yes, if what you are trying to get at is would a

60-foot twin trailer combination offtrack better than a

65-foot twin [55] trailer combination, the answer is yes.

* * * *

* * * Or your 65-foot doubles, in the shorter wheel

base on your 60-foot would give you a slightly less off-

tracking. Normal highway driving I don’t think you

could measure the difference.

* * * *

[58] Q Have you done any specific studies related to

jackknifing?

A Well, we have done braking studies which have

always a possibility of resulting jacknifing, on both

dry and wet surfaces and on ice. We found on ice that

it was easy to jackknife a tractor-semitrailer, but the

doubles had more resistance to folding up and getting out

of line.

Off the record.

(Discussion off the record. )

MR. PAFF: Q_ I believe it was also your testimony,

Mr. Sherard, that when you get in trouble, so to speak,

and have a jacknifing situation with a double, that the

guy can

* + * *

108

[59] shoot on more power and the back trailer tends

to hold that second trailer in line. Is that correct?

A No. What I said then is that you are more apt to

have a trailer jackknife with a set of twin trailers which

means that your rear wheels of your rear trailer start

to lose traction and swing around. The tractor is still

going straight ahead. So by accelerating, he can pull the

configuration back into line because he still has traction

on his drive axles and direction on his tractor axle. But

on the other one, if you jackknife your tractor, your

tractor is not going in a proper direction and you have

lost traction on your drive axles. So you get into deep

trouble.

I think maybe the thing I mentioned that you are

referring to is the fact that the rear, the second box has,

cancels some of the deviant forces.

* t * *

[67] Q And you would be in the area of splash and

spray for a longer time passing a longer vehicle?

A That is right.

Q Now, I believe you discuss—

A But intensity, the thing that is important there is

the intensity, and the intensity on the tractor-semi is

such that you have probably are flying blind for the

whole time, whereas with the doubles it is 20 percent

less intensity, you may be able to see through or you may

be able to see daylight sooner.

* * * *

[68] Q But it [the fast air transmission valve] is not

a Federal standard with regard to braking of trucks,

is it?

A No. You see, trucks are required to meet a stand-

ard which is that they be able to stop within a prescribed

distance within a 12-foot lane, and it is an end result

type specification which does not spell out what you have

to have on the truck in order to do it. They put these

109

systems on there because they know from a safety stand-

point it is plus and an accident cost them a hell of a lot

of money, so they are doing the best they can to prevent

accidents.

JURAT

SHERARD DEPOSITION, Exhibit 2

SPLASH AND SPRAY CHARACTERISTICS

OF TRUCKS AND TRUCK

COMBINATIONS

Research Committee

Report No. 5

Western Highway Institute

* * + «

Comprehensive controlled tests of nine different splash

and spray suppression devices and thirteen separate truck

configurations were conducted in July of 1972. This is

the last test included in this report. It may have pro-

vided the clue by which the total problem, rather than

just the problem at the rearmost wheels, can be solved.

[70] Section 3. Ft. Stockton Test, July, 1972

[72] d. Test Equipment

Ten different types of trucks, truck-trailers and semi-

trailers allowed the evaluation of fifteen different con-

figurations which represent the basic characteristics of

a majority of commercial vehicles in daily operations on

major highways.

a 4 € *

110

[91] Summary and Conclusions

* * * *

[92] (4) Of eleven typical truck and truck combina-

tion configurations, the truck tractor-tank body semi-

trailer was rated as having the most severe splash and

spray characteristics. In second and third positions re-

spectively in the most severe category were the auto-

transporter and the truck tractor-40-foot van semitrailer

combination [55 ft. semi].

The typical 65-foot doubles combinations was rated

as creating the least splash and spray.

* * * *

111

SHERARD DEPOSITION, EXHIBIT 3

AR-955

TRUCK SPLASH AND SPRAY TESTS

AT MADRAS, OREGON

SwRI Project No. 11-4029-001

Contract No. DOT-HS-5-01040

Thomas E. Ritter

farts ce ™

October 1974

FINAL REPORT

Prepared for

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Department of Transportation

Washington, D. C. 20590

Reprinted by:

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

Lffice of esearch

112

Prepared for the Department of Transportation, Na-

tional Highway Safety Administration, under Contract

No. DOT-HS-5-01040. The opinions, findings, and con-

clusions expressed in this publication are those of the

authors and not necessarily those of the National High-

way Traffic Safety Administration.

* * * *

[17] The results of the photometer measurements com-

pare closely with those results obtained with the densito-

meter. * * * To summarize the results of the photometer

data, * * *. The triple- and double-trailer vehicles pro-

duced the same amount of spray, which was 20 percent

less than the bogie vehicle. [The bogie vehicle was the

55 foot semi].

113

DEPOSITION OF FRED J. MYERS

Filed November 6, 1978

[Caption Omitted in Printing]

[2] EXAMINATION BY MR. AXELROD:

[3] Q And what is your position or occupation, sir?

A At the present time, I am a consulting engineer

and retired.

Q And from what firm or office are you retired, Mr.

Myers?

A Western Highway Institute.

Q And do you have any present association with the

Western Highway Institute?

A Working for them on a consulting basis.

Q And what was the position that you held with the

Western Highway Institute prior to your retirement?

A Iwas Director of Research.

* * * *

[4] Q What is the historical relationship, if any, be-

tween the Western Highway Institute and a combination

of vehicles known as 65-foot twin trailers or as doubles

here in the West?

A Well, that goes back many years. Of course, even

before Western Highway Institute was started, we were

operating doubles combinations in, I believe, all but one

of the Western States, at shorter lengths. We were also

operating, of course, the truck and trailer which is the

case in most of the states around the country. But after

the 1956 Federal Aid Highway Act was passed, which

posed the gross weight and the axle load limits, by that

time the density of freight had been decreasing until it

had reached a rather low level, 12, 13 pounds per cubic

foot. One of the great needs of the common carrier, at

114

least general freight common carrier, was the need for

additional cubic capacity rather than gross weights and

all the segments of the motor carrier industry in the

West were interested in a type of vehicle that would give

them more cubic capacity within the gross weight limits.

* * * *

[5] Q What was your own particular assignment with

respect to investigating 65-foot twin trailers?

A Mine personally?

Q Yes, sir.

A Mine personally, the same as for the Institute as a

whole, I might add, was to investigate and determine

whether such equipment could be operated on our exist-

ing highways which at that time were nearly all two-

lane highways, whether they would be compatible with

other traffic or whether they could be operated as safely

as other vehicles then being allowed under our size and

weight laws. What the operating costs might be. What

fuel consumption might be. Any savings there, the rela-

tive fuel economy. Offtracking, which is a safety factor

as well as a factor in the adequacy of the highway plant.

The ability of such vehicles to climb grades along with

other heavier vehicles.

* * * *

[10] Q When did 65-foot twin trailers come into com-

mon use for the first time?

A Well, in the Western States, at least where I am

most familiar, of course, I think it would be safe to say

that by 1962, we had them operating in all of the 11

Western States.

Q When were they first used out here in the West?

A In the middle ’30’s, late ’30’s, I guess they started.

[11] Q What did your research into 65-foot twin trail-

ers consist of?

A What did it consist of?

115

Q Yes, sir.

A It consisted of an evaluation or a determination to

put it that way of—

' Q I guess my question should be what procedures did

you utilize in making your evaluation to determine

whether or not this equipment could be safely operated?

A I see. A large part of our work, particularly

back in those days, certainly a major part of the Insti-

tute’s work, was done upon request from the state truck-

ing associations in connection with the 65-foot combina-

tion tests. The plans were made in each individual state

to have the tests conducted by or in cooperation with

state highway departments, state police and other inter-

ested state officials. Reports were prepared sometimes

actually by the state officials. That was about it.

* * * -

[16] Q Have there been any change in recent years

in the density of freight carried by general commodity

carriers and, if so, why so?

A Well, as I mentioned previously, the average density

of [17] general freight has been going down for a num-

ber of different reasons. Perhaps the most important be-

ing the weight of the material that things are now built

of, compared to what they used to be. Also, the packag-

ing of freight is vastly different today than it was a

short number of years ago. For example, fountain pens

used to be several gross of them put in a box and it was

heavy. Today, each fountain pen you find it on a piece

of cardboard or a piece of plastic over the top of it and

it takes quite—only a few of them to fill up a lot of

space.

* * * *

[18] Q And does your report compare the offtracking

characteristics of 65-foot twin trailers as opposed to 55-

foot tractor-semitrailers?

116

[A] The five-axle tractor-semitrailer combination, 55

foot overall, on this curve, would offtrack a maximum of

4.2 feet.

The 65-foot doubles would offtrack three feet.

xu * * *

[19] Q How does offtracking relate to maneuverabil-

ity?

A Well, offtracking is, it is quite important; negotiat-

ing curves, it can be a factor in the maximum speed that

the vehicle can negotiate the curve, particularly if it is a

relatively sharp curve. It is a factor in weaving, if you

call it that, or changing from one lane to another. It is a

factor in whether the vehicle, the trailing vehicle can

trail definitely in a straight line.

[21] Q On four-lane interstate highways, are these

differences in passing times significant in terms of

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.