AN EXAMINATION OF LOAD SECUREMENT LAWS IN SELECTED STATES PERTAINING TO THE USE OF TRUCK TARPS FOR THE HAULING OF AGGREGATES
Prepared for
CalCIMA California Construction and Industrial Materials Association 1029 J St., Suite 420 Sacramento, CA 95814
March, 2007
Prepared by
Sharon Prager e concepts San Mateo, CA (650)579-5839 [email protected]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
FORWARD………………………………………………… 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY…………………………………. 5
INTRODUCTION…………………………………………. 7
METHODOLOGY………………………………………… 9
FINDINGS…………………………………………………. 11
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION…………………………... 40
APPENDIX………………………………………………… 42
2 FOREWORD
When I started this truck tarp study I was warned that reading state statutes on load securement could serve as an inexpensive sleep aid. Yet, while this venture has often veered between fascinating and frustrating (and sometimes both at the same time), it has never been boring. Although many laws are similar, states differ in their approach, actual practices, and enforcement. In common with many other ordinances, decisions whether to cover dump trucks reflect the shared interests and common values of the residents who live in these jurisdictions.
From an expert’s point of view, sometimes such laws are a response to fictions more than realities, but in a democracy it is difficult to deny the legitimacy of public opinion. From both the perspective of the public and of the trucking and aggregate industries, Walter Lippmann may have said it best: “Looking back we can see how indirectly we know the environment in which nevertheless we live.” If this study helps illuminate issues that directly affect the performance of the trucking and aggregate industries in the public arena, then it will have helped make a contribution.
This study could not have been written without the enormous input, information, and insights from a large number of people around the country and in California. Their companies and organizations are listed under “Acknowledgements” in the Appendix, but that doesn’t do them justice – all of these individuals are remarkably intelligent and interesting, AND returned my phone calls! Thank you so much for your time and thoughts.
Finally, because this study is a rare example of being almost entirely based on anecdotal, as opposed to quantitative data, I have felt an enormous responsibility to present the information as accurately and as fairly as possible, especially given opposing viewpoints. Certainly there is much more to say, but I hope that part of this paper’s purpose will be to progress the conversation.
3
The opinions, findings, commentary, and conclusions expressed in this study are strictly those of the author and are not intended to reflect or represent those of CalCIMA, nor of any individual, company, or organization interviewed for this report.
4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The goal of this study was to sample a selected group of states for the purpose of examining truck tarp laws and statutes specifically related to hauling aggregates. The research focused on three objectives: 1) collection and analysis of state laws and regulations primarily to determine background, context, and legal stipulations; 2) survey actual daily practices and enforcement, and 3) identify the implications of such laws and reveal recognizable trends.
The following results were obtained:
Of the 15 states examined, five (one-third) have laws mandating the use of truck tarps; seven (nearly half) have no mandate but were mostly using tarps – termed “de facto” tarp states for purposes of this study; and three had no mandates (one-fifth), although that is subject to change.
Local city and county ordinances often drive both mandated and “de facto” state tarp laws.
Mandates and “de facto” tarp laws occur as a result of the following, some of which also impel city and county ordinances:
Windshield and/or other damage to vehicles perceived to be from trucks hauling aggregates
Anger and distress regarding general truck traffic issues often initially caused by large nearby projects
Serious accidents from unsecured cargo, even if not specifically caused by aggregates
Environmental concerns; e.g., air quality issues
Public perceptions, especially regarding the trucking and aggregate industries as “one and the same”.
Industry groups and/or companies who take a proactive or “anticipatory” approach toward visible trends and/or potential legislation by choosing to be early and active participants.
The general perception is that states with the strictest laws and enforcement tend to be in the east, but become increasingly lenient the further westward one travels, with California seen as having “some of the weakest laws on the books.” Since this study’s sampling covered 15 states, what was most noticeable was that states further east tend to have longer, more established laws, while southwestern and western states experiencing increased population and strong economic growth are also those whose laws are in the greatest flux.
5 Although California’s statute is judged to be effective and successful by representatives of the state’s trucking and aggregate industries, based on the results of this study it would be wise to watch for any developments to implement local tarp ordinances. Whether these would comply with state law is currently unknown, but might also be introduced under the auspices of another topic, e.g., air quality.
According to this study’s sample, the overall trend is to tarp aggregate haul trucks. Therefore, the concerns of Californians who raise legitimate questions regarding the economics and effectiveness of general tarp use will need to be weighed against a multitude of strategic issues highlighted herein: anticipating future initiatives; public perceptions and personal experiences; health and safety; industry image and community responsibility, and future legislative actions affecting the trucking and aggregate industries. Perhaps this study’s most important finding is that successful outcomes are mostly likely to occur when truckers and aggregate producers work together.
6 INTRODUCTION
Every state in the United States has commercial motor vehicle safety laws, and while all states comply with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and specific requirements for cargo securement, federal regulations do not address tarps at all. The issue of tarps is generally covered under state or local regulations. Thus, not only do the laws that govern tarping of aggregate haul trucks vary from state to state, but so do actual daily practices and enforcement.
This study is comprised of the following sections:
Methodology - Discusses how research for this project was undertaken and its unique difficulties.
Findings – Cites a summary of each of the relevant state statutes pertaining to load securement, followed by commentary of primarily anecdotal and subjective information describing practices and enforcement. A brief review of California’s statute and viewpoints is also included.
Results and Conclusion – Summarizes the findings and identifies trends as evidenced by these states’ past and current experiences.
Appendix – Contains Acknowledgements and copies of relevant documents related to states.
In general, references on truck tarp laws (and those are exceedingly few) claim that the regulations tend to be “strictest on the East Coast and become more lenient as they move westward.” California is considered to have “some of the weakest laws on the books.”1 In examining the 15 states sampled for this study, it was generally found that most states in the east and midwest have fairly established laws, but states in the southwest and west that are experiencing the largest population and economic growth also have laws that are subject to the greatest potential for transition.
Most states have laws allowing some degree of flexibility for how loads are secured and contained to avoid blowing and spillage. Many statutes seem remarkably similar. However, depending on common practice, local ordinances, and enforcement, the end result may be a “tarp mandate” even if not specifically directed by state law. For reference purposes only, this study refers to such states as having “de facto” tarp laws.
Many of these laws have begun at the city or county level and either filtered through to the state level, or maintain their autonomy in the midst of a more flexible state law. States with local tarp ordinances may face greater pressure for similar laws at the state level, especially those in the West.
1 Jamie Swedberg, “The World According to Tarps,” Industrial Fabric Products Review, February 2006, 43.
7 Laws, practices, and enforcement that ultimately influence whether aggregate trucks are tarped frequently have their origins in negative incidents personally experienced by the public. Therefore, these laws are implemented in order to solve diverse issues, including safety, windshield damage, air quality, annoyance and exasperation with truck traffic, and serious accidents caused by unsecured cargo.
Such statutes represent the shared interests and values of residents and are extremely personal because they are perceived to directly affect health, safety, and quality of life. While much of the public feels powerless to influence federal laws, greater efforts are exerted at the local level, and often grass roots public opinion drives regulatory and legislative initiatives.
One of the most interesting developments is taking place in Arizona concerning tarps and their role in air quality. Another fascinating situation is in Texas, for although the industry supports their tarp mandate, a peculiarity in the written law is cause for legislative redress.
Trucking and aggregate associations in states with “mandated” or even “de facto” tarp laws generally respond favorably. Most have taken a proactive approach early in the process, e.g., Colorado, and believe that the laws have served them well – especially regarding industry image, public relations, reduced windshield claims, and “currency” with their legislatures when other issues arise.
Not everyone thinks that mandated tarp laws are a positive development and these concerns have added valid and valuable points to this discussion. However, the purpose of this study is not to advocate pro- or anti-tarp, but rather to report on the experiences and trends noted in other states, which overall tends to be toward increased tarping. This study serves both the trucking and aggregates industries best by relaying the information herein to enable strategic planning for a future that will continue to be built on change.
8 METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study was to survey commercial vehicle laws in selected states to determine whether load securement statutes require that trucks hauling aggregates use tarps.2 This report focuses on aggregates only, and does not include any research on hot mix asphalt. The literature review undertaken incorporated a search for available studies produced by insurance companies, truck tarp manufacturers, industry associations and other public and private agencies such as government departments and institutes.
Research focused on the following areas:
1. A literature review
2. Determination of selected states
3. Examination of each of the relevant state statutes
4. City and county ordinances, as pertinent
5. Wide ranging interviews, primarily by phone and e-mail, to survey a spectrum of significant individuals, organizations, and viewpoints. These interviews were primarily conducted with individuals representing:
Trucking, aggregate, and tarp associations State Highway Patrol, particularly Commercial Vehicle Officers Trucking owners Aggregate producers Government personnel from city, county, state, and federal departments Transportation researchers and research institutes Tarp manufacturers Trade press Local California insurance interests
INHERENT DIFFICULTIES
Lack of Published Studies and Reports Non-availability of Quantitative Data Non-response from some contacted for interviews
An exhaustive and comprehensive literature and quantitative data search was undertaken for this study. Methods utilized included printed materials and digital research covering Internet and database searches, as well as interviewing.
2 No Canadian provinces were examined, although the first law requiring tarps on dump trucks occurred in Ontario, Canada in 1977.
9
Virtually no written research or quantitative data have been collected precisely addressing this topic, or concerns either generally or specifically (at least that is known to be available publicly). No specialized studies from any sources or organizations were found.3 Quantitative data were not found or available even though queries were made to police agencies, institutes, manufacturers, associations, and insurance companies.
Using windshield damage incidents as an example, a representative of the Insurance Information Network of California (IINC), opined that statistical data collection is likely non-existent for three reasons: 1) more often than not statistics would be collected as “damage to vehicle” and not necessarily “windshield damage”; 2) the exact cause of the damage would be unknown; and 3) deductible amounts cause many owners to not file claims, resulting in misleading data. Police databases do not capture or separate out information on vehicle related road debris (VRRD) at the level of detail describing aggregate-related incidents.
With the exception of the IINC, a California AAA spokesperson, and sympathetic local brokers, no representative from any insurance company returned requests for an interview for this study, regardless of state.
Additionally, while most individuals contacted from the aforementioned groups did respond and were extremely helpful, there were also non-respondents. The information presented here is, of necessity, based on views of respondents.
Because of these inherent difficulties, excepting state statutes and USGS data, the study is based on “anecdotal” as opposed to “quantitative” data. Much like responses to written surveys, oral interviews are subjective, often prone to factual error, natural differences in opinion, and possible discrepancies in interpretation by both interviewer and respondent. Respondents can also be influenced by any number of factors, including recollection, self- interest, and positions held by governments, companies, and organizations. Some information related herein, especially related to legislative or regulatory initiatives, is a “moving target” and subject to change.
Finally, the opinions, findings, commentary, and conclusions expressed in this study are strictly those of the author and are not intended to reflect or represent those of CalCIMA, nor of any individual, company, or organization interviewed for this report.
3 The closest study related to this topic is a landmark document on Vehicle Related Road Debris (VRRD) sponsored by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. When the author was contacted he related similar research difficulties and frustrations due to lack of available data. See Gerry Forbes, The Safety Impact of Vehicle-Related Road Debris (Washington, DC: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 2004).
10 FINDINGS
SELECTION OF STATES FOR SAMPLING
Fifteen states were selected for sampling (not including California). The primary criterion for selected states was their ranking in the top 10 for overall aggregate production in the US, particularly from 2004-2006. Additional states were included for comparison, and for recent or current circumstances pertaining to truck tarp law. Below are the rankings based on USGS data:
TABLE 1
RANKING OF STATES FOR OVERALL AGGREGATE PRODUCTION 2003 – 2006*
STATE QTY. RANK QTY. RANK QTY. RANK QTY. RANK 2003 2004 2005 2006
Arizona 72,550 15 93,579 9 96,870 10 96,867 10
California 207,500 2 221,525 1 217,526 1 215,268 1
Colorado 47,900 23 52,213 23 57,731 23 57,438 22
Florida 128,000 3 134,330 3 152,467 3 149,523 3
Georgia 82,890 10 88,967 10 90,536 11 99,526 9
Illinois 110,600 6 113,994 6 113,637 6 110,339 6
Michigan 104,600 7 106,135 7 100,899 8 100,865 8
Minnesota 58,780 19 65,209 18 64,609 19 64,986 19
Missouri 82,100 11 104,822 8 111,571 7 105,003 7
Nevada 44,930 24 54,443 20 61,583 20 63,761 20
North Carolina 77,600 13 83,741 13 86,271 12 88,809 12
Ohio 117,800 5 127,309 5 126,872 4 126,608 4
Pennsylvania 122,400 4 132,894 4 122,968 5 122,139 5
Texas 212,200 1 203,681 2 214,725 2 214,607 2
Virginia 77,800 12 86,506 11 98,237 9 94,353 11
Washington 52,700 20 53,647 21 61,098 21 63,486 21
* 2006 is estimated based on 9 months of data. All quantities are thousand metric tons.
11 INDIVIDUAL STATE INFORMATION
ARIZONA: AUGMENTING AIR QUALITY ATTAINMENT
Arizona Statute Summary: 28-1098. Vehicle loads; restrictions; civil penalties
A. A person shall not drive or move a vehicle on a highway unless the vehicle is constructed or loaded in a manner to prevent any of its load from dropping, sifting, leaking or otherwise escaping from the vehicle, except that either: 1. Sand may be dropped for the purpose of securing traction. 2. Water or another substance may be sprinkled on a roadway in cleaning or maintaining the roadway. B. A person shall not operate a vehicle on a highway with a load unless the load and any covering on the load are securely fastened in a manner to prevent the covering or load from becoming loose, detached or in any manner a hazard to other users of the highway. C. If a person is found in violation of this section and the violation: 1. Does not cause any damage or injury and is the person's: (a) First violation in a sixty month period, the person is subject to a civil penalty of up to two hundred fifty dollars. (b) Second or subsequent violation in a sixty month period, the person is subject to a civil penalty of up to three hundred fifty dollars. 2. Results in an accident causing serious physical injury as defined in section 13-105 to another person, the person is subject to a civil penalty of up to five hundred dollars. 3. Results in an accident causing the death of another person, the person is subject to a civil penalty of up to one thousand dollars.
Commentary: Arizona’s law shares a similar characteristic with a number of other states in that although it does not mandate that trucks hauling aggregates tarp, in practice trucks are tarped to both comply with state statute 28-1098 and numerous county and city ordinances. Maricopa County was the first local jurisdiction to instigate tarp laws, but others have since followed. Arizona’s local laws are particularly interesting because of their different underpinnings. For example, the City of Phoenix’s Truck Route Ordinances are more “traditional”; i.e., their haul restrictions are primarily concerned with safety, congestion, noise, cleanliness, and damage to public streets. However, Maricopa County’s tarp law is an outcome of Rules 310 and 316 ─ regulations that control air contaminants and fugitive dust.
According to an officer with the Arizona Highway Patrol, trucks hauling aggregates must ensure that sand and gravel does not spill, blow, or fall out, and for all intents and purposes that means either a half-full truck or using a tarp. Members of the Arizona Highway Patrol do not have to see actual spilling or blowing to pull a truck over: if it looks like there is a potential problem, they want to stop damage before it happens. Most truckers have newer tarp systems and readily comply with the law. Citations start at $250 and are considered a criminal offense. Trucks, including tailgates, must also be clean.
12 An article in The Scottsdale Times cited a AAA statistic that 30% of glass claims nationwide in 2005 came from Arizona drivers. According to the AAA spokesperson, in November, 2005, “of the 235 windshield claims in Arizona, 75 percent were repairs, not replacements. The majority of those claims were either damaged by rocks or gravel.” State troopers estimate that there is “about one debris-related accident per week in the Valley”, but an officer also stated that “to say it’s specifically construction or dump trucks is too simple.” AAA also reported “that loose gravel and soil in transport account for about one-third of debris- related accidents.”4
A significant development occurring in Arizona that was not found during this study’s examination of other selected states, is the investigation that Maricopa County Air Quality is currently undertaking. This initiative is only in a preliminary stage at the time of this report and may or may not be further reviewed.
Maricopa County is a non-attainment area under the US EPA regarding reduction of PM10 emissions. The County was to have achieved attainment by 2005, and now is mandated to reduce PM10 by 5% per year until in attainment.
As most sources of fugitive dust are regulated, the County is looking at approximately 50 additional and different methods to further reduce these particulates, including the cost effectiveness, or “economic efficiency” compared to the reduction achieved. One potential control is to “Revise Rule 310 Tarping Requirements to Include Empty Backhaul.”
Overall, some regulatory personnel believe that customary tarp systems are ineffective in prohibiting fugitive dust from full aggregate loads, and that redesigned tarp systems that snap down on the sides and back are needed. However, present efforts are also examining empty trucks, because after dumping it is thought that commonly used cantilever tarp systems do not completely enclose or cover the escape of remaining fugitive dust. A current study is estimating time, labor, and truck utilization costs compared to the estimated amount of particulate reduction. While it is important to recognize that both the study and results are only at a preliminary stage, it appears that for an exceedingly small amount of particulate reduction versus the costs involved this would be an economically ineffective and inefficient method to pursue. In addition, it is believed that tarp redesign would be necessary to achieve any measurable results, adding a minimum of $1500 for each new truck tarp system. Ultimately the Maricopa Association of Governments will recommend additional controls for County adoption.
As of February, 2007 there are also two pending State Senate bills relevant to cargo securement. S.B. 1176, assigned to the Transportation Committee, increases the second offense penalties for drivers with unsafe loads. S.B. 1552, assigned to the Natural Resources & Rural Affairs Committee for Caucus and Floor Action, makes changes to statutes related
4 John Dickerson, “Money Pits,” The Scottsdale Times, December, 2005. The officer this author spoke with said that most trucks do tarp, and that whereas Arizona formerly had a major problem with windshields, his impressions were that anecdotally there had been a big reduction in damaged windshields and cars. As calls to the individuals and companies quoted in the above referenced newspaper article went unreturned, there are no other data available for comparison.
13 to air quality control. Its provisions cover leaf blower restrictions, covered load requirements, and miscellaneous.
Arizona is one of the primarily western states whose cargo securement laws are undergoing change. This is a particularly interesting situation, and the recommendation is to “stay tuned.”
COLORADO: COOPERATIVE AND PRO ACTIVE
Whether or not the windshields are being damaged by product off the top of the truck (and there is some disagreement about this), this is a public image issue. We are dealing with perceptions that may not be the truth. Maybe crushed/broken rocks hitting windshields are a “trucker issue” but the perception is that it’s the aggregates industry causing this. Large Colorado Aggregates Producer
Colorado Statute Summary:
42-4-1407. Spilling loads on highways prohibited - prevention of spilling of aggregate, trash, or recyclables. [sections pertaining to aggregates only]
(2.5) (a) No vehicle shall be driven or moved on any highway for a distance of more than two miles if the vehicle is transporting aggregate material with a diameter of one inch or less unless:
(I) The load is covered by a tarp or other cover in a manner that prevents the aggregate material from blowing, dropping, sifting, leaking, or otherwise escaping from the vehicle; or
(II) The vehicle utilizes other technology that prevents the aggregate material from blowing, dropping, sifting, leaking, or otherwise escaping from the vehicle.
(b) Nothing in this subsection (2.5) shall apply to a vehicle:
(I) Operating entirely within a marked construction zone;
(II) Involved in maintenance of public roads during snow or ice removal operations; or
(III) Involved in emergency operations when requested by a law enforcement agency or an emergency response authority designated in or pursuant to section 29-22-102, C.R.S.
(2.7) For the purposes of this section:
(a) "Aggregate material" means any rock, clay, silts, gravel, limestone, dimension stone, marble, and shale; except that "aggregate material" does not include hot asphalt, including asphalt patching material, wet concrete, or other materials not susceptible to blowing.
(3) (a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) or (c) of this subsection (3), any person who violates any provision of this section commits a class B traffic infraction.
14 (b) Any person who violates any provision of this section while driving or moving a car or pickup truck without causing bodily injury to another person commits a class A traffic infraction.
(c) Any person who violates any provision of this section while driving or moving a car or pickup truck and thereby proximately causes bodily injury to another person commits a class 2 misdemeanor traffic offense.
Commentary: Consistent with some other states, Colorado state law was propelled by a local jurisdiction – in this case beginning with an ordinance first passed by the City of Colorado Springs.
Article 20, Section 10.20.104: Spilling Loads on Streets or Highways of the Colorado Springs Code specifically states, among other provisions that
No vehicle carrying sand, dirt, gravel, rocks or liquids shall be driven or moved on any highway, unless the vehicle is securely covered to prevent any of its load from dropping, leaking or otherwise escaping.
No vehicle carrying any substance which is by its nature subject to leakage or spillage, regardless of the manner in which it is loaded, shall be driven on any highway, unless the vehicle is securely covered to prevent any of its load from dropping, leaking or otherwise escaping.
Vehicles carrying loads consisting entirely of freshly prepared asphalt are exempt from the provisions of (the above subsections) [parenthesis added].
Not long after Colorado Springs adopted its code, state legislative initiatives emerged which the aggregates and trucking trade associations felt could harm these industries and result in onerous laws. Consequently, the Colorado Rock Products Association (CRPA) and the Colorado Motor Carriers Association (CMCA) proactively tackled the issue together, and collaborated legislatively to help hammer out criteria for the bill. Aggregate companies also worked individually with their truckers because they are important industry partners. Concerned about the impact the law would have on haulers, each of the large producers met with their trucking companies. It was important that the law not be so burdensome to truckers (by being either too expensive, time consuming or both) that it would result in a low compliance level.
Today the law is viewed as highly successful by both the aggregate and trucking industries. Virtually all trucks hauling aggregates are tarped, and most of them are automatic covers handled electronically from the cab. Aggregate producers did not want the liability of furnishing platforms on their properties for truckers to climb, and while there are still hand cranked tarps on older and/or owner-operator trucks, there is no need for drivers to climb on top of the truck to tarp.
One factor that was declared unanimously successful by those interviewed was that the implementation, compliance, and enforcement of the tarp law was compulsory within about 6 months of its passage. Now, as in other states that routinely require tarps, it is considered a “non issue,” a moderate business cost, and “not that big a deal”.
15 The tarp law is well enforced, and a truck can also be cited and fined for mud, or for sides and tailgates that the officer thinks has materials that could be spilled or flung into traffic.
All comments received from trucking and aggregate interests were positive:
“Before the law, dozens of windshield complaints were consistently received and they’ve been reduced or disappeared in a major way.”
“Colorado has lots of construction and the law is incorporated into state and public works’ contracts.”
“OSHA looks favorably on the law as there is less slipping and falling.”
Summary:
By working together, the aggregates and trucking industries have succeeded in:
Being “ahead of the curve” by anticipating future issues Cooperating and collaborating in a proactive legislative process Increasing public safety and perceptions thereof Decreasing windshield claims Improving public image, and Achieving a successful remedy, i.e., “Once passed it’s ‘off the table’ and works really well”
16 FLORIDA: FULLY TARPED
Florida Statute Summary:
Title XXIII Chapter 316 Title XXIII Chapter 316 View Entire Chapter MOTOR VEHICLES STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL MOTOR VEHICLES STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL
316.520 Loads on vehicles.-- 316.520 Loads on vehicles.--
(1) A vehicle may not be driven or moved on any highway unless the vehicle is so constructed or loaded as to (1) A vehicle may not be driven or moved on any highway unless the vehicle is so constructed or loaded as to prevent any of its load from dropping, shifting, leaking, blowing, or otherwise escaping therefrom, except that sand prevent any of its load from dropping, shifting, leaking, blowing, or otherwise escaping therefrom, except that sand may be dropped only for the purpose of securing traction or water or other substance may be sprinkled on a may be dropped only for the purpose of securing traction or water or other substance may be sprinkled on a roadway in cleaning or maintaining the roadway. roadway in cleaning or maintaining the roadway.
(2) It is the duty of every owner and driver, severally, of any vehicle hauling, upon any public road or highway open (2) It is the duty of every owner and driver, severally, of any vehicle hauling, upon any public road or highway open to the public, dirt, sand, lime rock, gravel, silica, or other similar aggregate or trash, garbage, any inanimate object or to the public, dirt, sand, lime rock, gravel, silica, or other similar aggregate or trash, garbage, any inanimate object or objects, or any similar material that could fall or blow from such vehicle, to prevent such materials from falling, objects, or any similar material that could fall or blow from such vehicle, to prevent such materials from falling, blowing, or in any way escaping from such vehicle. Covering and securing the load with a close-fitting blowing, or in any way escaping from such vehicle. Covering and securing the load with a close-fitting tarpaulin or tarpaulin or other appropriate cover or a load securing device meeting the requirements of 49 C.F.R. s. other appropriate cover or a load securing device meeting the requirements of 49 C.F.R. s. 393.100 or a device 393.100 or a device designed to reasonably ensure that cargo will not shift upon or fall from the vehicle is designed to reasonably ensure that cargo will not shift upon or fall from the vehicle is required and shall constitute required and shall constitute compliance with this section. compliance with this section.
(3)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable (3)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a nonmoving violation as provided in chapter 318. as a nonmoving violation as provided in chapter 318.
(b) Any person who willfully violates the provisions of this section which offense results in serious bodily injury or (b) Any person who willfully violates the provisions of this section which offense results in serious bodily injury or death to an individual and which offense occurs as a result of failing to comply with subsections (1) and (2) commits death to an individual and which offense occurs as a result of failing to comply with subsections (1) and (2) commits a criminal traffic offense and a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. a criminal traffic offense and a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. 775.083.
(4) The provision of subsection (2) requiring covering and securing the load with a close-fitting tarpaulin or other (4) The provision of subsection (2) requiring covering and securing the load with a close-fitting tarpaulin or other appropriate cover does not apply to vehicles carrying agricultural products locally from a harvest site or to or from a appropriate cover does not apply to vehicles carrying agricultural products locally from a harvest site or to or from a farm on roads where the posted speed limit is 65 miles per hour or less and the distance driven on public roads is farm on roads where the posted speed limit is 65 miles per hour or less and the distance driven on public roads is less than 20 miles. less than 20 miles.
Commentary: Florida has had a long-established law that requires tarping. Although the law allows for other “load securing devices meeting the requirements of 49 C.F.R.s. 393.100 or a device designed to reasonably ensure that cargo will not shift upon or fall from the vehicle”, in effect a tarp is about the only apparatus applicable and available. If a driver receives 2 convictions within 5 years for not using a tarp, there is a 6-month suspension of his/her Commercial Drivers’ License.
Not unlike other states the law was precipitated by at least two previous high-profile traffic accidents with serious injuries and death. One concerned a large steel object that fell from a truck and the other pertained to cinder blocks that hit a windshield.
In addition, the state was barraged with complaints about windshields. As an officer related, “we would go to investigate a complaint and be told it was a white dump truck in Orlando and that it happened 3 weeks ago.”
Drivers are supposed to sweep off the tailgate after receiving a load and after dumping, but there is so much construction in Florida and so many dump trucks that even tarps don’t
17 keep rocks out of the road. As the “chicken or the egg” question frequently recited in these interviews claims, mostly it is impossible to ascertain with 100% certainty whether the rock came off a truck or was already in the road.
Florida officers cannot write a ticket unless the materials are actually seen falling out at the time. However, the driver can be cited if the tarp is loose, rolled up, or shredded. If the tarp is broken the truck is not allowed to be on the road until it is fixed.
Although hand cranked tarps are still in use, most tarps are “roll-down” and are automatically operated from the cab.
GEORGIA: GOING THE EXTRA STEP
Georgia Statute Summary:
§32-6-21. Secured loads only.
(a) No vehicle shall be driven or moved on any public road unless such vehicle is constructed or loaded or covered so as to prevent any of its load from dropping, escaping, or shifting in such a manner as to create a safety hazard. However, this Code section shall not prohibit the necessary spreading of any substance in public road maintenance or construction operations.
(b) No person shall operate or load for operation, on any public road, any vehicle with any load unless such load and any covering thereon is securely fastened so as to prevent said covering or load from becoming loose, detached, or in any manner becoming a hazard to other users of the public road.
(c) Nothing in this Code section nor any regulations based thereon shall conflict with federal, Georgia Public Service Commission, or Georgia Board of Public Safety regulations applying to the securing of loads on motor vehicles.
(d) The provisions of subsection (b) of this Code section and regulations based thereon shall not apply to vehicles carrying silage from field to storage and storage to feedlot or vehicles or equipment carrying unginned cotton.
(Chgd. by Ga.L.2002 Act 953(1), eff. 7/1/2002.)
Commentary: Although Georgia law restricts spillage and requires the secure fastening of loads and covers, over the past 3 years the state aggregates industry has “augmented” the law. Aggregate producers recognized that the law didn’t precisely define how to secure the load and felt that the use of tarps is really the only adequate way to do it. As one executive summarized the drive to legislate, “Nothing is done until something happens and then you get more than what you need.”
While entirely anecdotal it is believed that most truckers are definitely using tarps in populous areas, e.g., 100% in metro Atlanta, although it was thought that in rural hinterlands the percentage may be lower. Windshield claims are down and tarps have eliminated climbing on trucks.
18 While strictly voluntary, the industry has developed verbiage for two signs that are being used by quarry operators in Georgia. The policy statement is used more pervasively than the warning statement:
SECURED LOAD POLICY
It is the policy of this company and the industry that all trucks leaving this plant will have safe and secure loads as stipulated in OCGA, Section 32-6-21. Our definition of these requirements is that all loads shall be covered and secured. All trucks leaving this facility are encouraged to meet this minimum requirement.
WARNING
HAVE YOU SECURED YOUR LOAD?
OPERATORS MAY BE SUBJECT TO
DMVS FINES
UP TO
$1500
19 ILLINOIS: INTELLIGENT LAW ─ INDEPENDENTLY ENFORCED
There are two states in Illinois: the State of Illinois and the State of Chicago. - Illinois Police Officer
Illinois Statute Summary:
5/15-109.1. Covers or tarpaulins required for certain loads
§15-109.1. Covers or tarpaulins required for certain loads. (a) No person shall operate or cause to be operated, on a highway, any second division vehicle loaded with dirt, aggregate, garbage, refuse, or other similar material, when any portion of the load is falling, sifting, blowing, dropping or in any way escaping from the vehicle. (b) No person shall operate or cause to be operated, on a highway, any second division vehicle having a gross vehicle weight rating of 8,000 pounds or more loaded with dirt, aggregate, garbage, refuse, or other similar material in or on any part of the vehicle other than the cargo area. In addition, no person shall operate on any highway, such vehicle unless the tailgate on the vehicle is in good repair and operating condition and closes securely so as to prevent any load, residue, or other material from escaping. (c) This Section shall not apply to the operation of highway maintenance vehicles engaged in removing snow and ice from the roadway, nor to implements of husbandry or other farm vehicles while transporting agricultural products to or from the original place of production. (d) For the purpose of this Section “aggregate” shall include all ores, minerals, sand, gravel, shale, coal, clay, limestone or any other ore or mineral which may be mined. (e) Notwithstanding any other penalty, whenever a police officer determines that the operator of a vehicle is in violation of this Section, as evidenced by the issuance of a citation for a violation of Section 15-109.1 of this Code, or where a police officer determines that a dangerous condition exists whereby any portion of the load may fall, sift, blow, drop, or in any way escape or fall from the vehicle, the police officer shall require the operator to stop the vehicle in a suitable place and keep such vehicle stationary until the load has either been reduced, secured or covered with a cover or tarpaulin of sufficient size to prevent any further violation of this Section. (f) Any violation of the provisions of this Section shall be a petty offense punishable by a fine not to exceed $250.
It’s important for the trucking and aggregate industries to work together to come up with what’s best for everyone and then do outreach to members. Aggregates Executive
Commentary: Illinois’ law is a good example of how a statute is developed, interpreted, and enforced, and represents many of the issues that other states have experienced or are currently working out.
Since the law covering tarps required for certain loads on Illinois highways (5/15-109.1) came into effect in 1986, Illinois has had a long history of legislatures attempting to make changes. Although the process has been contentious, ultimately it has evolved successfully: grounded in “common sense” and broad enough to give leeway to local jurisdictions to enforce. Much like Colorado, both the trucking and aggregate associations worked together by participating in legislative developments over the years, and both felt that a cooperative process was a key component for achieving a workable law. While the law does not “mandate” tarps on every load, e.g., boulders, trucks are mostly tarped.
20 How this has come about is based on a number of factors: first, where the truck is traveling in the state determines how the law is enforced. While the Illinois statute is adhered to in most of the state, there are local jurisdictions, e.g., Chicago and Cook County, that have “home rule”. These domiciles may adopt their own ordinances, but mostly they choose to interpret the state law differently than other areas of the state. Basically, when driving through Cook County this statute is interpreted to require that trucks be tarped. Otherwise, commercial vehicle enforcement officers generally need to see spilling or blowing, or must have probable cause to stop a vehicle
Secondly, many trucks already have a tarp or “coal net” because of dual purposes – for example, downstate Illinois is heavily agricultural and many trucks that haul grain or other agricultural commodities use roll-tarps, while throughout Illinois trucks hauling coal use “coal nets”. Although Chicago is one of the few areas of the state without coal, 65% of Illinois sits on coal deposits making it the 7th largest U.S. producer. When these trucks switch to hauling aggregates the tarp or net is already present.
Finally, most trucking companies use tarps, and many aggregate producers have signs, e.g., “Tarp Your Trucks”, on their sites.
According to a state trucking executive, below are some of the reasons why the trucking and aggregates industries support the tarp law and why it has meant an improvement:
Illinois law is broad enough to give local jurisdictions leeway
The law doesn’t force every truck to tarp for every commodity
It’s cheaper to tarp than to pay tickets
Trucking companies were tired of receiving complaints
Insurance claims were draining: deductibles were high and it was not uncommon to receive four windshield claims per week.
Tarps offer important savings in fuel and mileage
Tarps improve public relations and demonstrate community responsibility
Tarp systems have improved, and today are better, easier, and more reasonably priced
Bottom line: Tarps save headaches
21 MICHIGAN: “TOPLESS TRUCKS” TERMINATED
[Michigan’s law] takes care of the nuisance side of the business and has benefits of less dust and broken windshields.
- Aggregates Executive
Michigan Statute Summary: (Portion pertaining to aggregates)
Sec. 720. (1) A person shall not drive or move a vehicle on a highway unless the vehicle is so constructed or loaded as to prevent its contents from dropping, sifting, leaking, blowing off, or otherwise escaping from the vehicle. This requirement does not apply to a vehicle transporting agricultural or horticultural products when hay, straw, silage, or residue from a product, but not including the product itself, or when materials such as water used to preserve and handle agricultural or horticultural products while in transportation, escape from the vehicle in an amount that does not interfere with other traffic on the highway. The tailgate, faucets, and taps on a vehicle shall be securely closed to prevent spillage during transportation whether the vehicle is loaded or empty, and the vehicle shall not have any holes or cracks through which material can escape. Any highway maintenance vehicle engaged in either ice or snow removal shall be exempt from this section.
(2) Actual spillage of material on the highway or proof of that spillage is not necessary to prove a violation of this section.
(3) A vehicle carrying a load, other than logs or tubular products, which is not completely enclosed shall meet either of the following requirements:
(a) Have the load covered with firmly secured canvas or a similar type of covering. A device used to comply with the requirement of this subdivision shall not exceed a width of 108 inches nor by design or use have the capability to carry cargo by itself.
(b) Have the load securely fastened to the body or the frame of the vehicle with binders of adequate number and of adequate breaking strength to prevent the dropping off or shifting of the load.
(4) A company or individual who loads or unloads a vehicle or causes it to be loaded or unloaded, with knowledge that it is to be driven on a public highway, in a manner so as to cause a violation of subsection (1) shall be prima facie liable for a violation of this section.
(6) Subsection (3) does not apply to a person operating a vehicle to transport agricultural commodities or to a person operating a farm truck or implement of husbandry transporting sand, gravel, and dirt necessary in the normal operation of a farm. However, a person operating a vehicle to transport agricultural commodities or sand, gravel, and dirt in the normal operation of the farm who violates subsection (1) or (4) is guilty of a misdemeanor and is subject to the penalties prescribed in subsection (10).
(7) Subsection (3)(a) does not apply to a motor vehicle transporting items of a load which because of their weight will not fall off the moving vehicle and which have their centers of gravity located at least 6 inches below the top of the enclosure nor to a motor vehicle carrying metal which because of its weight and density is so loaded as to prevent it from dropping or falling off the moving vehicle.
(8) Subsection (3)(a) does not apply to motor vehicles and other equipment engaged in work upon the surface of a highway or street in a designated work area.
(9) A person shall not drive or move on a highway a vehicle equipped with a front end loading device with a tine protruding parallel to the highway beyond the front bumper of the vehicle unless the tine is carrying a load designed to be carried by the front end loading device. This subsection does not apply to a vehicle designed to
22 be used or being used to transport agricultural commodities, to a vehicle en route to a repair facility, or to a vehicle engaged in construction activity. As used in this subsection, "agricultural commodities" means that term as defined in section 722.
(10) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $500.00 or imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or both.
(11) Subsection (5)(e) does not apply unless section 127(d) of title 23 of the United States Code, 23 U.S.C. 127, is amended to allow crib vehicles carrying logs to be loaded as described in this section and a waiver of the tiedown requirements under 49 C.F.R. 393.116 is authorized by the United States department of transportation, federal motor carrier safety administration.
Commentary: Much like other states, Michigan has had a “hodge-podge” statute over the years. In the late 1980s pressure from insurance companies due to high numbers of windshield claims tightened the law.
In 1986 an article in a AAA publication urged “motorists who are fed up with being pelted by debris from ‘topless trucks’ [to] unload their grievances with ‘AAA Truck Watch’ or testify before a truck safety committee set up by the state legislature.” (see Appendix for Truck Watch form). In 1987, another article in the same publication stated that
Whatever the costs to truckers for a complete tarping law, they cannot match the dollar loss to motorists and insurance companies for spillage year in and year out. Last year state insurance companies paid out $18 million for broken windshields, $4.5 million of the total by AAA Michigan. The inside story is that if the cost of replacing headlights and sandblasting cars chipped by flying debris, plus the below-deductible cost for windshield damages are added, the $18,000,000 total might double to $60 a year for every motorist.5
For more than 15 years tarps are required in Michigan if something can potentially blow out, which means that aggregates need to be covered with tarps.
Interestingly, Michigan is a state where an officer does not have to witness a spill (Sec. 720, subsec. 2, “Actual spillage of material on the highway or proof of that spillage is not necessary to prove a violation of this section.”), and a truck without a tarp can be in violation. The citation is a maximum of $500 and two points on the driver’s license.
As a Michigan truck enforcement officer explained, “Truckers live with it because they’ve ‘just gotta do it’; it’s a good law and they don’t complain.”
5 Bill Kulsea, “Cars and Trucks: “They Must Mix Safely,” Michigan Living, August, 1987.
23 MINNESOTA: MODEL FOR LOADING ENSURES COMPLIANCE
Minnesota Statute Summary: See Minnesota Trucking Regulations in Appendix
The law’s success was helped by everyone understanding how the measurements are taken. - Aggregates Executive
Commentary: Minnesota’s load securement law is about a decade old and like other jurisdictions has its genesis in vehicle damage. During the building of a major airport the inside lane of a 6-lane highway was solid with dump trucks, and reportedly many broken windshields and road and vehicle damage.
While another example of a law based on “common sense” whereby loads must be secured but tarps are not mandated, it is particularly interesting because of the incorporation of a specific loading diagram, and the stipulation that the driver shall clean the vehicle of loose materials following loading or unloading. Those interviewed believe that there are less windshield claims and that that is directly due to the aggregates and trucking industries abiding by the loading requirement, and by drivers checking the frame, sides, and tailgate of trucks before leaving the property.
Officers do not have to see an actual spill – they can respond to a complaint or to how the truck looks related to the stipulated law.
The aggregates industry has a good image which has been developed by their efforts and diligence at complying with the law and has also had the support of the agricultural industry on this matter.
MISSOURI: INDIVIDUAL DISCERNMENT KEY TO SUCCESSFUL SECUREMENT
Missouri Statute Summary: Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 307 Vehicle Equipment Regulations Section 307.010
August 28, 2006
Loads which might become dislodged to be secured--failure, penalty.
307.010. 1. All motor vehicles, and every trailer and semitrailer operating upon the public highways of this state and carrying goods or material or farm products which may reasonably be expected to become dislodged and
24 fall from the vehicle, trailer or semitrailer as a result of wind pressure or air pressure and/or by the movement of the vehicle, trailer or semitrailer shall have a protective cover or be sufficiently secured so that no portion of such goods or material can become dislodged and fall from the vehicle, trailer or semitrailer while being transported or carried.
2. Operation of a motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer in violation of this section shall be a class C misdemeanor, and any person convicted thereof shall be punished as provided by law.
(L. 1967 p. 417 §§ 1, 2, A.L. 1996 H.B. 1047)
Commentary: Missouri does not have a tarp law per se, but does have state statutes regarding securing loads. In common with other states, Missouri has adopted the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations found in Parts 390-399 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (FMCSR) by reference. Commercial vehicles that fall under the applicability of the FMCSR are required to abide by the cargo securement regulations found in Part 393.100 through 393.136. This body of regulations has been adopted under Chapter 307.400, Revised Statutes of Missouri (RSMo.). Missouri also has a statute that applies to all vehicles, commercial or not, that does not fall under the FMCSR, and that is Chapter 307.010 RSMo. Chapter 307.010, RSMo. appears to have been enacted in 1967 and Chapter 307.400 RSMo. appears to have been enacted in 1984.
Missouri was one of a handful of states where all organizations contacted responded positively to requests for an interview.
Because Missouri “mandates secure loads” but “not mandated tarping”, they defer to an individual’s judgment do whatever needs to be done to keep the load secure – to be creative if necessary. If a tarp doesn’t work in a specific situation, then the driver needs to do what will work. As an officer explained, it is “hazardous to start specifying specific ways to secure loads – that in fact creates loopholes, and if those are ineffective you get a mess. Missouri’s law has been in effect a long time and it is better and more effective for the individual to develop methods that do and give the results required.” Officers do have discretion in determining whether the load is secure.
That being said, Missouri has some 20 or more portable mobile units with scales that can enforce truck safety law – whether for weight, permit violations, or cargo securement. Interviews indicated conflicting opinions whether most aggregate trucks were tarping. At the least it appears that more aggregate and construction operators are choosing to tarp to alleviate complaints, insurance issues, and bad publicity.
Interestingly, in 2005 the City Council of Jefferson City, MO passed a tarp law for aggregate trucks with the intention of decreasing broken windshields and preventing traffic accidents by drivers who swerve when their windshields are struck by gravel.
25 NEVADA: NO GAMBLING ON THE STATUS QUO
Nevada Statute Summary:
NRS 484.771 Load on vehicle. 1. No vehicle shall be driven or moved on any highway unless such vehicle is so constructed or loaded as to prevent any of its load from dropping, sifting, leaking or otherwise escaping therefrom, except that sand may be dropped for the purpose of securing traction, or water or other substance may be sprinkled on a roadway in cleaning or maintaining such roadway. 2. No person shall operate on any highway any vehicle with any load unless the load and any covering thereon is securely fastened so as to prevent the covering or load from becoming loose, detached or in any manner a hazard to other users of the highway. [20.1:166:1925; added 1955, 186]—(Substituted in revision for NRS 484.650) Commentary: Nevada’s statute is blissfully brief, but that doesn’t mean that the state isn’t experiencing some of the flux seen in other western states. While Nevada state law does not require tarps, individual jurisdictions such as Clark County (Las Vegas) and areas north (Pahrump) do − based on either an ordinance or how county judges have chosen to interpret and enforce the state law.6 For enforcement of state regulations, however, the Nevada Highway Patrol usually has to see something fall, blow, or spill. There is a possibility that legislation may be introduced in this session’s legislature to require tarps, but if so it would primarily impact Washoe County (Reno and environs) and rural counties, because most larger truckers are already complying with Clark County’s conditions. During interviews, there was some discrepancy regarding whether most trucks are or are not using tarps. On the one hand, it was stated that most truckers are tarping, because of the preponderance of business in Clark County and to demonstrate good corporate citizenship. Another opined that statewide, most truckers are not tarping. However, that statement was qualified by saying that within the last one to two years, it appears that bigger companies are ordering new equipment with tarp capability. Nevada’s collective practice may ultimately share much in common with many other states – whether or not the state law mandates tarps is almost inconsequential. Between the demands of local ordinances and their enforcement, and the desire of companies to exhibit good neighbor policies and corporate responsibility, increasingly the trend is to tarp. NORTH CAROLINA:
Everybody has a story about trucks, rocks, and windshields. Truckers not only carry, but represent your load, and the quarry’s image. - Aggregates Executive
6 Pahrump has had the Nevada Department of Transportation make signs for them saying that trucks must be tarped, and they are placed on the road approaching town.
26
North Carolina Statute Summary: (portions pertaining to aggregates)
(2) A truck, trailer, or other vehicle licensed for more than 7,500 pounds gross vehicle weight that is loaded with rock, gravel, stone, or any other similar substance, other than sand, that could fall, blow, leak, sift, or drop shall not be driven or moved on any highway unless: a. The height of the load against all four walls does not extend above a horizontal line six inches below their tops when loaded at the loading point; and b. The load is securely covered by tarpaulin or some other suitable covering to prevent any of its load from falling, dropping, sifting, leaking, blowing, or otherwise escaping therefrom.
(3) A truck, trailer, or other vehicle: a. Licensed for any gross vehicle weight and loaded with sand; or b. Licensed for 7,500 pounds or less gross vehicle weight and loaded with rock, gravel, stone, or any other similar substance that could fall, blow, leak, sift, or drop; shall not be driven or moved on any highway unless: a. The height of the load against all four walls does not extend above a horizontal line six inches below the top when loaded at the loading point; b. The load is securely covered by tarpaulin or some other suitable covering; or c. The vehicle is constructed to prevent any of its load from falling, dropping, sifting, leaking, blowing, or otherwise escaping therefrom.
Commentary:
For the past 4 years, North Carolina has had mandatory tarping, and the aggregates association helped take the lead legislatively. Some of the background related to environmentally-minded residents7, insurance companies, and other groups building coalitions and taking the initiative to clean up vehicle related road debris (VRRD), as well as a fatality caused by someone throwing rocks off a bridge. In addition, because most of the aggregate hauling is done by contractors and independent haulers, the quarries felt that once trucks leave the gate so does any control. There needed to be more guidance, as well as more professionalism and responsibility, in hauling practices.
Another issue was effectively responding to windshield claims. Police can’t issue a citation unless they actually see spillage which is a difficult law to enforce. How do we know where the rock that hit the windshield came from? “A lot of people say it came from a truck, but a lot of times, it didn’t.”
While there is no conclusive data, anecdotally since the tarp laws, there appear to be fewer windshield claims.
Quarries also didn’t want truckers climbing on loads which tarps can prevent. Some producers do provide platforms and most have signage that truckers are not to climb on the bed to shift or adjust their loads, as well as pull-off areas after the scale and before the road. However, automated tarps are increasingly used and this has helped cut concern about driver climbing.
7 North Carolina is sometimes referred to as “The California of the East”, not always meant as a compliment!
27 The biggest bonus for the industry has been in public relations. According to an aggregates executive tarps: Enhance industry image Build a case for responsibility Demonstrate we’re “good guys” and controlling our loads Help manage trucking practices because “without truckers we’re not in business”
“This is an issue that isn’t driven by data, but by experiences and perceptions.”
OHIO: ONLY MANDATED TARPING FOR GARBAGE
Ohio Statute Summary:
§ 4513.31 All loads shall be properly secured.
(A) No vehicle shall be driven or moved on any highway unless the vehicle is so constructed, loaded, or covered as to prevent any of its load from dropping, sifting, leaking, or otherwise escaping therefrom, except that sand or other substance may be dropped for the purpose of securing traction, or water or other substance may be sprinkled on a roadway in cleaning or maintaining the roadway.
(B) Except for a farm vehicle used to transport agricultural produce or agricultural production materials or a rubbish vehicle in the process of acquiring its load, no vehicle loaded with garbage, swill, cans, bottles, waste paper, ashes, refuse, trash, rubbish, waste, wire, paper, cartons, boxes, glass, solid waste, or any other material of an unsanitary nature that is susceptible to blowing or bouncing from a moving vehicle shall be driven or moved on any highway unless the load is covered with a sufficient cover to prevent the load or any part of the load from spilling onto the highway.
COMMENTARY:
Ohio’s law is written so that it gives some leeway for how loads are properly secured and kept from blowing or dropping (except for garbage). In common with other states, Ohio is guided by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, whose principal instruction is that loads must be “secured”.
However, some cities do have tarp laws; e.g., Wilmington, Ohio, requiring that trucks be tarped.
For police to enforce state law, load spillage or blowing must be seen, and then it is classified as an “insecure load”, and a violation. The trend is that more truckers are using tarps. However, opinions have been expressed that many of the tarps are insufficient for doing the job, especially those that leave gaps between the sideboards and the tarps themselves. Those that are not tight on the sides do not prevent air from entering the truck bed.
28 PENNSYLVANIA:
Pennsylvania Statute Summary:
§ 4903. Securing loads in vehicles.
(a) General rule.--No vehicle shall be driven or moved on any highway unless the vehicle is so constructed or loaded as to prevent any of its load from dropping, sifting, leaking or otherwise escaping.
(b) Fastening load.--Every load on a vehicle shall be fastened so as to prevent the load or covering from becoming loose, detached or in any manner a hazard to other users of the highway.
§ 4903.1 Loose material.
(a) Carrying loose material. A person may not, in violation of this section, carry any loose material in any vehicle on or across any highway in this Commonwealth.
(b) Loading loose material. A person may not, in violation of this section, load any loose material for carrying in any vehicle on or across any highway in this Commonwealth.
(c) Enclosures generally.
(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (d), the bed the vehicle carrying a load of loose material shall be fully enclosed:
(i) On both sides, by sideboards or sidepanels.
(ii) ON the front, by a board or pane or by the cab of the vehicle.
(iii) On the rear, by a tailgate, board or panel.
(2) (i) The enclosures required by paragraph (1) shall be constructed so as to prevent any part of the load from blowing, falling or spilling out of the vehicle.
(ii) No part of the load touching any of these enclosures may be within six inches of the top of the part of the enclosure that it touches, unless the load is covered with a firmly secured canvas or similar type covering.
(iii) If the vehicle manufacturer’s original design specifications for bed enclosures have been altered to increase the vehicle’s load capacity, no part of the load touching any of these enclosures may be within six inches of the top of the part of the enclosure that it touches and the highest point of the load may not be higher than any of these enclosures, unless the load is covered with a canvas or other type cover approved by the department that is secured as provided in paragraph (3).
(3) This subsection does not apply to:
(i) any load-carrying vehicle with a compartment that fully encloses the load; or
(ii) a vehicle in which the load is suitably covered or secured by other means that prevent the escape of the loose material.
(d) Canvas enclosures.
(1) A vehicle carrying a load of loose material shall have its bed fully enclosed on the top by a canvas or other type cover approved by the department.
29
(2) Any cover required under this section shall be secured in a manner to prevent:
(i) Any part of the load from blowing, falling or spilling out of the vehicle.
(ii) The cover form blowing off the vehicle.
(e) Removal of spillage; securing tailgate; maintenance of bed.
(1) This subsection does not apply to any construction vehicle or mining equipment that:
(i) is moving between construction barricades on a public works project; or
(ii) only is crossing a highway.
(2) A vehicle used for carrying loose material may not be operated on any highway unless:
(i) All spillage from loading loose material is removed from the nonload-carrying parts of the vehicle.
(ii) Whether the vehicle is loaded or empty, the tailgate is closed securely to prevent spillage of a load or of any residue.
(iii) The bed does not have any holes, cracks or openings through which loose material can escape.
(iv) After unloading loose material, all residue is removed from the nonload-carrying parts of the vehicle.
(f) Definition. As used in this section, the term “loose material” includes:
(1) Dirt, sand, gravel, wood chips or other material that can blow, fall or spill from a vehicle as a result of movement or of exposure to air, wind or weather.
(2) Any other kind of material that can blow, fall or spill as specified in rules and regulations adopted by the department. The term does not include agricultural products, including sod, in their natural state.
COMMENTARY:
Attempts by legislators to vote themselves pay increases enraged Pennsylvania citizens to such a degree that in the 2006 election nearly a quarter of representatives were either defeated or resigned from office. Consequently there has been a big turnover this year, and because of a legislative “reform movement”, thus far in 2007 a smaller number of bills have been introduced.
However, great concern has been expressed by the trucking industry because of so many new legislators. The last legislative attempt to mandate tarping resulted in a 17 page bill that few could understand and would have required that even haulers with large pieces of equipment had to tarp. The current law is effective and easy to understand by all involved, including law enforcement. It allows some leeway for judgment and common sense, and most importantly, the law WORKS. According to a trucking executive, for the past two years the majority of larger companies – some 80-90% – primarily tarp, including even after aggregate loads are dumped. Using tarps has helped reduce windshield claims and proactively preempts onerous legislation.
30
TEXAS: TEXAS TARPS
Tarping [a block of granite weighing 10,000 lbs.] is like putting a band-aid on a bazooka.
- Texas trucking executive
Texas Statute Summary: Transportation of Loose Materials Subchapter A. General Provisions
Sec. 725.001. Definitions.
In this chapter: (1) “Load” means a load of loose material. (2) “Loose material” means material that can be blown or spilled from a vehicle because of movement or exposure to air, wind currents, or other weather. The term includes dirt, sand, gravel, and wood chips but excludes an agricultural product in its natural state. (3) “Motor vehicle” has the meaning assigned by Section 621.001. (4) “Public highway” includes a public road or street. (5) “Semitrailer” has the meaning assigned by Section 621.001. (6) “Trailer” has the meaning assigned by Section 621.001. (7) “Vehicle” has the meaning assigned by Section 621.001.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Sec. 725.002. Applicability.
This chapter applies to any motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer o9perated on a public highway except:
(1) a vehicle or construction or mining equipment that is: (A) moving between construction barricades on a public works project; or (B) crossing a public highway; or (2) a vehicle that is operated at a speed less than 30 miles per hour.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Sec. 725.003. Offense; Penalty.
(a) A person or the person’s agent or employee may not load or transport loose material in violation of this chapter. (b) A person, excluding this state or a political subdivision of this state but including an agent or employee of this state or a political subdivision of this state, commits an offense if the person violates Subsection (a). (c) An offense under this section is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of: (1) not less than $25 or more than $200 for a first conviction; ad (2) not less than $200 or more than $500 for a second or subsequent conviction.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
SUBCHAPTER B. REQUIREMENTS FOR TRANSPORTING LOOSE MATERIALS
Sec. 725.021. Containing Loose Materials.
(a) A vehicle subject to this chapter shall be equipped and maintained as required by this section to prevent loose material from escaping by blowing or spilling.
31 (b) A vehicle bed carrying a load: (1) may not have a hole, crack, or other opening through which loose material can escape; and (2) shall be enclosed: (A) on both sides by side panels; (B) on the front by a panel or the vehicle cab; and (C) on the rear by a tailgate or panel. (c) The load shall be covered and the covering firmly secured at the front and back, unless the load: (1) is completely enclosed by the load-carrying compartment; or (2) does not blow or spill over the top of the load-carrying compartment. (d) The tailgate of the vehicle shall be securely closed to prevent spillage during transportation. (e) If the vehicle is a commercial motor vehicle transporting aggregates, as defined by Section 133.003, Natural Resources Code, or refuse, the load shall be covered and the covering firmly secured at the front and back or shall be completely enclosed by the load-carrying compartment. For purposes of this section, “commercial motor vehicle” means a motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer used primarily in the business of transporting property. Leg.H. Stats. 1995 74th Leg. Sess. Ch. 165, effective September 1, 1995; Stats, 20025 79th Leg. Sess., Ch. 938 (H.B. 754), §2, effective Sept. 1, 2005.
COMMENTARY:
Texas has mandated that aggregate trucks tarp since 2005. However, this is an example of how a mandated law can have those “loopholes” described earlier by Missourians. To begin with, this is an unusual traffic law because it references and incorporates the Natural Resources Code. In essence it stipulates that anything coming from a mine or quarry has to be tarped, conceivably even huge boulders. By specifically limiting this law to quarries and mines, an “unintended consequence” has been that other potential sources of blowing or spilling sand, gravel, and dirt are exempted. Efforts are underway to fix the legislation, and currently new wording is being developed that requires tarps on any loose material having the potential or capability of blowing or leaving the truck bed regardless of specific industry.
A cursory look at the history of this law appears to be somewhat more draconian than traditional concerns over windshield damage or cleanliness and in fact was part of a larger package of legislation directed at increased regulation of quarries. As was stated in one interview, this was an “all-out attack on the sand and gravel industry by a state senator out of central Texas where limestone is mined”. State Senator Troy Fraser became involved in quarry permitting issues in 2002 and since then filed several bills related to water, blasting, and transportation to increase state regulations for aggregate operations, and to “raise the bar on industry standards while increasing community safety and awareness.”
It was also orally expressed that this law may have resulted more from the substantial number of public complaints regarding excessive truck traffic and road impacts in an area where hundreds of trucks were traveling small roads due to the proximity of a large limestone operation.
Since passage in September, 2005 virtually all dump trucks tarp because if they don’t it’s a “red light for cops” and the law is strongly enforced.
Above and beyond the issue of “tarp equity” that needs to be rectified, the aggregates and trucking industries have acted positively and proactively.
32 A representative from one large Texas aggregates producer stated that they have designated tarping areas and signs in English and Spanish. These areas are near the scale house and gate and drivers are not allowed to tarp “anywhere” or “in the middle of the minesite”. Drivers must tarp from the ground and there are no platforms on the premises (although some other companies do provide). The site communicates their trucking policies through signage and other means, including disciplinary action.
While the quarry supports use of electric tarp systems activated from the cab, or mechanical tarps systems from the ground, the main problem that has arisen has been with those drivers still using old tarps that require climbing on top. The opinion was stated that the latter should be prohibited by law, allowing only those tarp systems that do not require climbing on the vehicle.
It may be ultimately ironic, but trucking and aggregate spokespeople believe there are good things about the law for the industry. Both the trucking and aggregate industries emphasize the importance of being pro-active, particularly regarding safety and responsibility. Now when legislators are confronted with related issues they can see that “these organizations are already trying to do what they can to make the sand and gravel and trucking industries safe.” Texas trucking interests are showing that they are “good stewards of the road”, and set an example by keeping sand and gravel off highways and streets. They also verify the tailgate is latched because a failure can cause debris to escape and cause serious accidents.
When the legislature passed the tarp law they also increased the penalties (“compare the price of a tarp after a couple of those tickets”). Texas respondents thought that California would be a good market for tarp manufacturers, resulting in competitive prices for astute buyers.
VIRGINIA – VIRTUALLY TARPED
Virginia Statute Summary:
§ 46.2-1156. Construction, maintenance and loading must prevent escape of contents; load covers; exemptions.
A. No vehicle shall be operated or moved on any highway unless it is so constructed, maintained, and loaded as to prevent its contents from dropping, sifting, leaking, or otherwise escaping. No provision of this section, however, shall apply to any (i) motor vehicle that is used exclusively for agricultural purposes as provided in § 46.2-698 and is not licensed in any other state; (ii) agricultural vehicle, tractor, or other vehicle exempted from registration and licensing requirements pursuant to Article 6 (§ 46.2-662 et seq.) of Chapter 6 of this title; or (iii) motor vehicle transporting forest products, poultry, or livestock.
B. The loads of all trucks, trailers and semitrailers carrying gravel, sand, coal or other nonagricultural and nonforestry products on interstate, primary, or secondary highways or roads maintained by cities, counties or incorporated towns shall be either (i) secured to the vehicle in which they are being transported or (ii) covered. Covers used to prevent the escape of material from commercial vehicles used to transport solid waste shall be of such design, installation, and construction as to contain the vehicle's cargo within the vehicle, regardless of the vehicle's speed or weather conditions. Public service company vehicles, pickup trucks, and emergency snow removal equipment while engaged in snow removal operations shall be excluded from the provisions of this subsection.
33 (Code 1950, § 46-307; 1958, c. 541, §§ 46.1-303, 46.1-401; 1975, c. 553; 1979, c. 213; 1980, c. 21; 1986, c. 639; 1988, cc. 662, 897; 1989, cc. 526, 727; 1992, c. 149; 1997, c. 283; 2001, c. 180.)
COMMENTARY:
Virginia is another example of a state whose law does not mandate truck tarps. However while the law is written so as to give “options”, in reality and practice for moving aggregates there are no other “options”. This makes Virginia in essence a “de facto” tarp state.
Windshield damage still does exist, but it was also noted that higher population and traffic volumes also increase the probability of occurrence.
The impression received is that Virginia’s statute is “loosely enforced” for several reasons: first, the law is generally interpreted to punish the “obvious” problems and to act as a deterrent and an incentive to those who would otherwise act carelessly. Second, again anecdotally, it is not greatly perceived by professionals in traffic and transportation that dump trucks are necessarily the problem. On main roads certainly, there is not a lot of loose gravel, and most of the causes seem to be related to “John Q. Public who goes to get a load of gravel in his pickup for landscaping or other purposes.” Other sources are flatbed trailers pulling construction equipment, backhoes, etc., that drive from one job to the next and have picked up mud and rock, and local gardeners/lawn services that have also picked up similar debris.
Additionally, the law is difficult to pursue regarding remedy, as the burden of proof rests with the person that is making the claim.
In summary, while the law does not specifically mandate that trucks tarp, virtually all aggregate haulers do, and have since about 2001. Tarps are considered a cost of doing business, but tarp prices have come down considerably.
WASHINGTON – WATCHING LOCALITIES CAREFULLY
Washington Statute Summary:
34
RCW 46.61.655
Dropping load, other materials — Covering.
(1) No vehicle shall be driven or moved on any public highway unless such vehicle is so constructed or loaded as to prevent any of its load from dropping, sifting, leaking, or otherwise escaping therefrom, except that sand may be dropped for the purpose of securing traction.
(2) No person may operate on any public highway any vehicle with any load unless the load and such covering as required thereon by subsection (3) of this section is securely fastened to prevent the covering or load from becoming loose, detached, or in any manner a hazard to other users of the highway.
(3) Any vehicle operating on a paved public highway with a load of dirt, sand, or gravel susceptible to being dropped, spilled, leaked, or otherwise escaping therefrom shall be covered so as to prevent spillage. Covering of such loads is not required if six inches of freeboard is maintained within the bed.
(4)(a) Any person operating a vehicle from which any glass or objects have fallen or escaped, which would constitute an obstruction or injure a vehicle or otherwise endanger travel upon such public highway shall immediately cause the public highway to be cleaned of all such glass or objects and shall pay any costs therefor.
(b) Any vehicle with deposits of mud, rocks, or other debris on the vehicle's body, fenders, frame, undercarriage, wheels, or tires shall be cleaned of such material before the operation of the vehicle on a paved public highway.
(5) The state patrol may make necessary rules to carry into effect the provisions of this section, applying such provisions to specific conditions and loads and prescribing means, methods, and practices to effectuate such provisions.
(6) Nothing in this section may be construed to prohibit a public maintenance vehicle from dropping sand on a highway to enhance traction, or sprinkling water or other substances to clean or maintain a highway.
(7)(a)(i) A person is guilty of failure to secure a load in the first degree if he or she, with criminal negligence, fails to secure a load or part of a load to his or her vehicle in compliance with subsection (1), (2), or (3) of this section and causes substantial bodily harm to another.
(ii) Failure to secure a load in the first degree is a gross misdemeanor.
(b)(i) A person is guilty of failure to secure a load in the second degree if he or she, with criminal negligence, fails to secure a load or part of a load to his or her vehicle in compliance with subsection (1) or (2) of this section and causes damage to property of another.
(ii) Failure to secure a load in the second degree is a misdemeanor.
(c) A person who fails to secure a load or part of a load to his or her vehicle in compliance with subsection (1), (2), or (3) of this section is guilty of an infraction if such failure does not amount to a violation of (a) or (b) of this subsection.
35 [2005 c 431 § 1; 1990 c 250 § 56; 1986 c 89 § 1; 1971 ex.s. c 307 § 22; 1965 ex.s. c 52 § 1; 1961 c 12 § 46.56.135. Prior: 1947 c 200 § 3, part; 1937 c 189 § 44, part; Rem. Supp. 1947 § 6360-44, part. Formerly RCW 46.56.135.]
Commentary: For the past several years, a reoccurring legislative issue of whether truck tarps should be mandated into law has been a troublesome topic.
This is an extremely emotional issue because of several high-profile and very tragic unsecured load accidents that included flying particle board, a loose tarp, a metal shelving unit, and logs. Although these were unrelated to aggregates, the accidents brought to the forefront of public attention the danger and unpredictability of vehicle related road debris (VRRD) and how it can injure, kill, and cause major vehicle damage. Like issues in other states, whether related to heavy truck traffic, air quality proposals, or windshield damage, the State of Washington’s perceptions and attitudes towards truck cargo and load securement, including aggregates, must be understood within the context of its own social and political environment.
The most far reaching of these occurrences was a tragic accident in February, 2004. Maria Federici was a young college graduate driving home from work when an unsecured 2x6’ piece of particle board fell from a truck in front of her, flew through her windshield, and smashed into her face. The other driver did not stop. Her survival became known as “Maria’s Miracle”, because doctors said she would not live. Maria is now blind and severely disabled. When the driver was eventually tracked down he was found to have had a suspended license and no insurance.
In May, 2005 House Bill 1478 was signed into law – known as “Maria’s Law” – which made it a gross misdemeanor if an unsecured load causes an injury, carrying with it a maximum penalty of a year in jail and a $5,000 fine. A driver whose unsecured items cause property damage can now be charged with a misdemeanor crime. Before the law’s passage, drivers who lost their loads could only be cited for a traffic infraction and a maximum fine of $250.
On March 28, 2006 House Bill 2612 was also signed into law making failure to secure a load a criminal act if it results in a death or injury. The new law also makes victims eligible for funds from the state’s Crime Victims Compensation program.
In January, 2006 members of a Pierce County family suffered severe injuries and death in a massive I-5 pileup. Ironically it was because a rolled up tarp fell off a truck and onto the freeway. The tarp was 2 feet thick and 10 feet long when it fell over the truck. Strangely enough, the injured family ran a trucking company themselves and after the accident commented that the driver should have secured his tarp: “Straps cost money, tarps cost money. The person was either totally negligent or brain dead.”
In August, 2006 a metal shelving unit fell off a pickup truck on Interstate 5. A Honda sedan swerved to avoid the shelving, and was hit broadside by a Lincoln Town Car, killing the Honda driver. Two other vehicles were also involved in the crash. State prosecutors
36 determined that the two men in the truck were responsible for its loading and both were the first to be charged under “Maria’s Law”.
To help enforce “Maria’s Law”, the Washington State Patrol developed an online report form (see Appendix) that allows citizens to report areas where they see numerous unsecured loads. The State Patrol uses these reports to target enforcement efforts where it is believed that loss of loads are taking place. Citizens that have witnessed or been a victim of a lost load are still asked to call 911 or the State Patrol and provide dispatchers with information.
Washington’s aggregate leadership is satisfied with the current law stipulating at least six inches of freeboard (or a secured cover) because it has been a successful standard. The industry has done an excellent job of educating legislators and truckers regarding the origin of mobile rocks, most of which have little to do with whether a truck is tarped. However, convincing the public is difficult because “seeing dump trucks and dirt equals windshields”.
In addition to the unsecured load accidents, urban growth issues have also precipitated the usual trucking and quality of life issues. For several years during the SeaTac airport expansion, hundreds of thousands of loads of aggregates were brought in – it was not unusual to see 400 truckloads a day on the freeway. Needless to say, gravel from axles and undercarriages were on the highway and caused windshield damage, although aggregate companies did set up voluntary chassis washes. Airport construction continues but now there are less trucks. If that weren’t enough, the I-5 portal goes through downtown Seattle.
An aggregates executive believes that tires are the greatest contributor and the solution is to do “due diligence and good housekeeping to minimize, although it won’t be 100% eliminated.” All parties – producers, truckers, and contractors need to be sensitive to this issue and do their part to reduce and control loose material. In addition to physical processes that can be implemented; e.g., scraper bars, street sweepers, wheel washes, etc., community relations training for the aforementioned parties, and educational methods such as signage, i.e., “We’re keeping the road clean for you,” are very important practices.
In addition to the above, tarp mandates have been opposed by the trucking and aggregate industries for the following reasons:
Safety – potential for injuries and a violation of OSHA to get out of truck while on a gravel site; must tarp offsite Cost of system and maintenance; doesn’t reduce liability cost Difficulty and practicality of tarping related to types of dump trucks Enforcement is subjective. At what point is it enforced? There is not a lot of rock or movement off the load.
However, it was stated that “65% of dump trucks have voluntarily tarped equipment anyway,” and a large aggregates company has required covered trucks for several years. It was thought that the decision was based on windshield claims and to improve public relations. Part of the initiative included a one-page advertisement addressing safety issues, and stating that “We cover our trucks”.
37 It may be that in the future truck tarps will be unavoidable, if not as a state mandate, then through “de facto” local ordinances and/or enforcement as evolved and practiced in other states. By acting proactively, companies that use tarps now may be helping to defuse future scenarios that would otherwise contain onerous and unnecessary legislation.
In closing, here are a few typical attitudinal comments received from other states in response to the following questions:
Do tarps keep drivers off trucks, or do drivers still need to climb up to brush off rails and level beds?
“No, they still need to clean the rails and level beds depending on the abilities and qualification of the loader operators. Sometimes that requires the use of ladders, provided trucks are equipped with them, but as a rule of thumb there is usually no unauthorized climbing on trucks. In fact, just last week one company fired a guy that was injured for climbing on his truck. Some have brooms or other tools to get the loose material off of sides and the top lip of the vehicle.”
“Drivers are still responsible for cleaning and leveling loads. Unfortunately, many quarries are not providing proper access to the truck beds. This is normally done in a staging area. The only responsibility taken by the quarries is to ensure that the load is within legal load limits.”
“I believe it greatly reduces the need to climb on the trucks if they have a tarping system that can be completed from the ground level.”
“Drivers still have to brush off the rails if the loader operator does not get the material in the truck bed, but hopefully the driver will use the platform if available to clean the rails. MSHA does not allow the driver to climb on the truck without ‘fall protection’.”
Does properly training loader operators well help reduce or eliminate truckers climbing on trucks? “Yes, a qualified loader can make a world of difference keeping the truck clean and level. Some companies mark a centerline on the beds of their trucks to assist in giving the loader. Tarping mechanisms can be damaged by the loader if they are not careful and tarping mechanism damage is more frequent that many might realize as a result of loading or driver error, i.e., trying to raise the tarp near low hanging structures.”
“Experienced loader operators can help in reducing “unlevel” loads but even with al of the new gadgets on loaders, this still happens. If they are uneven or overweight they have to dump off but that does not entail climbing in most cases.”
“Most loaders attempt to get a distribution of the load in the truck bed. It is not exact and loads can shift in transit so there is no assurance that it will remain static.”
“The loader operator is the MOST important person. An experienced operator will eliminate the driver from having to clean the side rails or remove some of the load because of being overweight.”
38
And in response to “do any or most producers provide platforms or other structures on their site for truckers to use?” the answer was “some do”, but many don’t because of liability and maintenance. It is much likelier to find a designated tarping area.
39 RESULTS AND CONCLUSION
This study examined cargo securement laws pertaining to aggregates hauling for fifteen states in order to determine whether truck tarps were required. The states were selected primarily based on their ranking in the top 10 for overall aggregate production in the US, particularly from 2004-2006. Additional states were included for comparison, and for recent or current events relevant to truck tarp laws.
Of the 15 states examined, five (one-third) have laws mandating the use of truck tarps for aggregate hauling; seven (nearly half) have no mandate but mostly use tarps. These are termed “de facto” tarp states for purposes of this study; and three had no mandates (one- fifth), although that may be subject to change.
The following table illustrates these results:
TABLE 2
TARP LAW AND PRACTICE IN SELECTED STATES
STATE TARP MANDATE “DE FACTO” TARP NO TARP LAW USE
Arizona X
Colorado X
Florida X
Georgia X
Illinois X
Michigan X
Minnesota X
Missouri X
Nevada X
North Carolina X
Ohio X
Pennsylvania X
Texas X
Virginia X
Washington X
40 These results indicate that the predominant trend is to tarp aggregate haul trucks, whether mandated by state law, or as a result of practices often resulting from local city and county ordinances that eventuate in a “de facto” tarp law regardless of state statutes.
Generally speaking the states with the strictest laws and enforcement tend to be eastern, but become increasingly lenient the further westward one travels. However, states in the southwest and west undergoing strong population and economic growth are also experiencing more restrictive developments in both tarp laws and practices. Overall trends for truck tarp laws indicate that over time they are likely to strengthen in favor of these coverings.
Factors responsible for tarp trends vary from state to state but are often based on experiences, perceptions, and social values that most aggregate producers know well: safety, health, and quality of life. Laws to cover trucks are generally an effort by residents to have some control at the local level. These issues include windshield damage from sand and gravel (regardless of origin), frustration with truck congestion and associated impacts, serious accidents generally caused by unrelated and unsecured cargo; air quality and environmental issues, and the assumption that truck and quarries are “one and the same”. Some state trucking and aggregates associations attuned to trends have adopted proactive and anticipatory strategies in order to be part of the legislative process and “retire” the issues favorably. Others continue to protest legislative initiatives successfully but are faced with future “Groundhog Day” reenactments, sometimes annually.
Aggregate companies are also concerned about safety and don’t want to see truckers climbing on trucks, whether on or off quarry sites. As aggregate demand continues to increase, and infrastructure projects move forward, residents and neighbors clamoring about truck traffic and associated impacts will only grow in stridency and intensity making permitting ever more difficult and costly.
Developing strategies now rather than reacting later may offer the best protection. Issues such as changing public perceptions, improving worker safety, broadcasting pride of identity and responsibility, upgrading the image of the trucking/aggregates partnership, and potentially deflating any future legislative edicts all need to be carefully considered. Above all, this study’s most important finding is that successful outcomes are most likely to occur when truckers and aggregate producers work together.
If this sampling of state laws and practices is used as an indicator, then there is a growing trend toward tarping. For those states that primarily do not, the question is whether “topless trucks” will turn into a “ticking time bomb”. A serious accident, some other negative incident, or concerns about particulate matter might suddenly galvanize public opinion and/or legislative action. Alternatively, advanced technologies and new trucks equipped with tarps may eventually make the issue obsolete. In the meantime, it is possible that these hard working truckers and aggregate producers will see their goodwill chipped away, much as the public perceives these industries responsible for the chipping of their windshields.
41
APPENDIX
42 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
With Grateful Appreciation to the Individuals Representing the Following Companies and Organizations
(My apologies if I have inadvertently omitted anyone)
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety Aero Industries, Inc. Aggregates & Ready-Mix Association of Minnesota American Transportation Research Institute Arizona Highway Patrol Arizona Rock Products Association CalCIMA California Dump Truck Owners Association California Highway Patrol California State Automobile Association California Water Service Co. Colorado Motor Carriers Association Colorado Ready Mixed Concrete Association Dalton Trucking Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Florida Department of Transportation Georgia Construction Aggregate Association Granite Construction Co. Granite Rock Company Illinois Association of Aggregate Producers Illinois State Police Illinois Department of Transportation Insurance Information Network of California Intus Road Safety Engineering Land Line Magazine Maricopa County Air Quality Mid-West Truckers Association Michigan Aggregates Association Michigan State Police Missouri Motor Carriers Association Missouri State Highway Patrol Missouri Limestone Association MSHA National Conference of State Legislatures Nevada Highway Patrol Nevada Motor Transport Association North Carolina Aggregates Association Ohio Department of Public Safety Ohio Trucking Association
43 Pennsylvania Motor Trucking Association Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau Pioneer Cover-All Rich Voss Trucking Saylor & Hill Co. Sierra Research Truckhugger Texas Department of Transportation Texas Motor Transportation Association Texas Transportation Institute TXI USGS Valley Aggregate Transport Virginia Department of Transportation Virginia State Police Virginia Transportation Construction Alliance Washington Aggregates & Concrete Association Washington Trucking Associations
And a very special “Thank You” to Kristy Osman at the Truck Cover & Tarp Association for their invaluable Guide to Commercial Vehicle Covering & Cargo Control Laws.
44