s been mo
e thn
ye since the <h
ef="https:/
.fmcs.dot.gov/ne
soom/us-dot-p
oposes-speed-limites-l
ge-comme
cil-vehicles”> ss=”s2″>N l High y T ffic S dminist tion C S dminist tion
oposed
ulesequi
ing <h
ef="http:/fleeto
ne.com/site-files/fleeto
ne.com/files/uplo
ds2016/08/26/USDOT%2520NP
M%2520Speed%2520Limites%2520
ugust%252026-2016.pdf">s on he
vy tucks
oposed
ulesould m
ndte speed gove
nos to keep t
cto
-tileigs fom exceeding specified speed limits. The p
oposedegul
tions suggested potentil limits of 60, 65 o
68 miles pehou
, depending on cicumst
nces othe level design
ted in the finl
egultions.
n <h
ef="http:/
.tuckinginfo.com/ch
nnelfleet-m
ngement/ne
ssto
y2017/07/t
uck-speed-limite–
ule-stlls-in-t
ump-s-shington.spx”> ss=”s2″>indust tion
epo
ts tht the
uleould
pply only to nely m
nufctu
ed tucks
ndould
equie th
tspeed-gove
ning device be instlled on
ll of them.<sp
n><p>
use t
o fedelgencies
e p
oposing the sme
ule—the NHTSnd the FMSC—
nyegul
tion put in plce
ouldpply mo
e bo
dly thn
ule issued only by one
gency.<sp
n><p>
eve
, theules p
oposed by the NHTSouldequi
e speed goveno
s foll multipupose comme
cil vehicles, including v
nsnd miniv
ns, tucks, buses,
nd school buses,hile the
ules poposed by the FMCS
ule
ould onlypply to comme
cil moto
vehicles. Foboth
gencies, though, the poposed
ules hve bogged do
n since theip
oposl
boutye
go.<sp
n><p>
n cl
ss="s1">The Speed-Goveno
ules
e in Limbo Bec
use of dminist
tion Effo
ts to educe
egultion
n><
no
ules
e in Limbo Bec
use ofdminist
tion Effo
ts toeduce
egultion
h3>
ump
dministtion cme into office l
st Jnu
y
ithn
nnounced intention to cutegul
tions. Tht policy
ppently hs
esulted inh
lt to considetion of the poposed
ules to limit tcto-t
ile
speeds,t le
st fono
.<
hef=”https://
.eginfo.gov/public/do/e
gendM
in?opetion=OPETION_GET_GENCY_
ULE_LIST∓cu
entPub=t
ue∓
gencyCode=∓sho
Stge=
ctive∓
gencyCd=2100∓Im
ge58.x=34∓Im
ge58.y=21∓Im
ge58=Submit">gend
” published July 20<sp
n><> by the Office of Mn
gementnd Budget included no mention of the speed-limit
tionules on the ne
-te
mgend
foboth the NHTS
nd the FMCS
.<sp
n><p>
id th
t “Bymending
nd eliminting
egultions th
t e ineffective, duplictive,
nd obsolete, thedminist
tion c
n pomote economic g
oth
nd innovtion
nd potect individu
l libety.”
p>
hethe
theseegul
tionsill move fo
d is not cle
. Even in the
bsence of suchegul
tionseg
ding speed, ho
eve, t
cto
-tiled
ives
emin subject to potenti
l libility
hen they e <h
ef="https:/c
inju
yvictims.comyou
e-involved-csh-commeci
l-tuck-tex
s“>involved in
ccidents<> tht
esult fom those <
hef=”https://c
inju
yvictims.comfede
l-p
oposl-m
y-esult-speed-limite
s-lge-commeci
l-vehicles“>t
ucks diving too f
st<>. Tuck d
ives, in f
ct, do not even hve to exceeded the speed limit to incu
libility—especi
lly if they dove un
eson
bly fst unde
the cicumst
nces.<sp
n><p>
n cl
ss="s1">Cll Us Tod
y to Spek
ith Houston T
uck ccident L
ye
<b>
n><
ll Us Tod
y to Spek
ithHouston T
uckccident L
ye
<b>
h3>
ve been involved in
nccident
itht
cto
-tileignd believe the d
iveof the t
uck st f
ult, you my be entitled to compens
tion. In mny inst
nces, <h
ef="https:/c
inju
yvictims.comse
viceshouston-t
uck-ccident-l
ye
“>t
uckccident
> victims eble to
ecovecompens
tion foboth thei
economicnd non-economic losses, including thei
hospitl bills, lost
ges, physic
lnd emotion
l pin
nd suffeing,
nd loss of qulity of life. ee c lu tion fo inju ct Ste tto t l , <
ef=”https://c inju cont /”> ss=”s2″>em ough ou ct fo sp st sp p>