# Appendix — Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Del. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385006_2204%3A02 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1981 - **Citation:** 450 U.S. 662 ## Text APPENDIX —_, 3 5? ¢ Za 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) 22 39 49 56 58 62 67 70 74 82 87 ii 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 89 93 113 123 135 140 154 158 171 200 215 228 230 234 243 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, a Robert E. Wrightson, Controller, CF... Joel Leisch, Transportation Engineer... Col. Edward Dickinson, Chief, Iowa State Patrol... Dennis Ehlert, Director Motor Vehicle Enforce- I 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 iv 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 Vv 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 I | 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 2 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. 3 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. 4 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. 5 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. 6 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- 7 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. (c) Exhibit C: a map showing the routing to Plaintiff Consolidated Freightways’ terminal in Des Moines, and (d) Exhibit D: a map showing the routing to Plaintiff Consciidated Freightways’ terminal in Cedar Rapids, 8 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 9 (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. 10 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- 11 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] 12 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 A. 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 ur 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¢ 14 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. 15 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.” 16 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. V. 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. 17 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] 18 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. 19 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: 20 (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. (c) Defendant-Intervenor admits that Exhibit C is a 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. 21 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 22 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. 23 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 24 [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- 25 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: * * * * 26 [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. * * * * 27 [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. * om m ea Sl as) ahs ™ ~ 4 = ais - 7 ~ J SNOILVUSdO WATIVULINAS-YOLIVUL “SA S318NOd 4O NOSIYVdNOD ALZAVS at Axeuuns 35 * * * * 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 * * * * 36 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” I /( /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 — 37 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. 38 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 39 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 40 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. 41 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 42 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. 43 [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. 44 @ 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? 45 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? 46 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 47 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- 48 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 * * © * 49 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. * * * * 50 {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 51 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? 52 [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. 53 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. 54 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? 55 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 56 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? 57 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. * * * * 58 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. 59 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: * * * * 60 [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 61 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 * * * * 62 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. 53 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? 64 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? 65 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. 66 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 * * * * 67 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. 68 [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. 69 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. 70 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. 71 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: * * * * 72 [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 * * * 73 [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 * * * * 74 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. ——— 75 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. * * * * 76 [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- 8 77 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. 78 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 79 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 80 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 81 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 * 82 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. 83 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 84 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, 85 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? 86 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. * * & * 87 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. 88 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 * * * * 89 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 90 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. 91 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. * * * * 92 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 — 93 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 94 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 95 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 96 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 t [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385006_2204%3A02. Public record. Not legal advice.