This technical analysis examines the physics and economics driving truck behavior on UK motorways, with detailed discussion of driver working conditions (piece-work compensation, 10-hour shifts, 200+ nights annually away from home) and the economic pressures shaping industry practices. While the content demonstrates understanding of truck drivers' perspectives and advocates for empathy and systems-level comprehension, it frames labor conditions as practical necessities rather than human rights concerns, and does not advocate for protections aligned with UDHR provisions on working conditions, rest, or family life.
I was reading the NASA truck aerodynamics thread earlier and realised that commercial freight is one of those fields that touches everyone's daily life (everything you own arrived on a truck) but sits in a complete knowledge blindspot for most people.
I work in fleet fuel efficiency and wrote up the foundational mental model, covering why trucks weigh what they weigh, why they're all doing exactly 56mph, why diesel is so hard to replace, and why 1% fuel savings matters when you're burning 43,000 litres a year.
This is the first in a series, there's already a 2-part deep dive on hydrogen up as well. Tried to keep it accessible without dumbing it down.
Is this correct — HGVs can go faster on dual carriageways than motorways?
"UK speed limits for heavy vehicles are also more complex than most car drivers realise. Articulated trucks over 7.5 tonnes: 60 mph on dual carriageways, 50 mph on single carriageways, 56 mph (limiter) on motorways"
> At 0.5 mph differential, the overtake takes 291 seconds — over a minute of blocking the outside lane. Annoying, but it gains the driver 5.0 extra miles across a working day.
The driver gets there 5 minutes earlier in exchange for causing a 7-km tailback multiple times per day? That seems like exactly the kind of thing that should be regulated away: the truck in front is limited to 90 km/h, you're limited to 90 km/h, you should expect to travel in convoy with that truck even through manufacturing tolerances mean your limiter is actually set to 90.5.
If the 0.5 km/h is actually valuable to the trucking industry, they can invest in more precise limiters at scale.
> This isn’t advisory. It’s a physical limiter in the engine’s ECU. The truck cannot go faster.
I live in Latvia (in the EU) and see a significant part of our ARTICs on the roads go well past 90km/h daily. I presume their fleets do monitor the speed and alert the driver if speeding for a prolonged period of time but they are obviously not physically limited. Maybe the limits do come from the factory but get disabled? I really couldn't say.
A recent journalistic investigation uncovered a problem with the weight limit not being followed on a mass scale too. Specifically by our lumber industry whos drivers are incentivized to break the law. Even if you see a dangerous overloaded truck on the road and call the Police, it is likely no action will be taken because there only a couple of units in the country that are equipped to weigh a freight truck out in the field.
>Most assume the truck driver is being inconsiderate.
You could probably add a whole section of specifically learning to drive a car with trucks on the road to driver education programs and it would do wonders for traffic.
>Anti-idle ordinances exist in several US states and EU regulation is moving in this direction.
Yep, grab a sleeping bag or take your clothes off and use evaporation cooling on yourself. The good news is that car/van camping stuff can apply to trucking as well and that is fairly popular these days.
Another option is simply having places to sleep outside of the truck that are powered by solar/wind and don't cost anything to truckers, but that's only viable when we actually care about reducing emissions over profit.
>Every kilogram you add to the vehicle is a kilogram you can’t carry as freight.
You can save a bunch of weight by not having the sleeper cab if you can readily stop somewhere for a safe place to sleep. There's quite a bit of frontier savings you can do by externalizing costs of transporting stuff to other industries (aforementioned free hotel rooms) and getting tax payers to pay for it, which makes a ton of sense here since trucks are transporting all of the food we eat.
great article but the 44 tonne limit is not "physics", it is regulation. if an electric truck would be allowed to weigh 5 tonnes more all these calculations would be different.
For people that want to make the calculation:
A truck does not need a 15 ton battery. In Europe, we have mandatory breaks for truck drivers. So you need a battery pack for max 400km of range, let's say 500km. When you have a break, you charge. For this, you need like 1500kWh battery pack, which weigths like ... wait, 15 tons.
But this is not entirely correct, the real values reported are between 120-150Kwh/100km, that means a half of the stated number, 7.5 tons for the battery pack.
> Rail is superb for what it does: moving bulk commodities... The problem is last-mile.
Before around 1950x-1970x rail networks were more dense (at least in Europe) - any significant goods source/destination (like a warehouse, a factory e. t. c.) had a railway spur. Lots of rail tracks / spurs were abandoned /removed when it was widely believed that trucks are the future and railways are outdated.
If all these spurs were kept last mile problem would not be as bad for railways. Also electric trucks are well suited to solve this last mile problem.
Tangential, do vehicles detect motion by crosswind or road camber and compensate? I saw some social media post of lots of trucks toppled over by crosswind.
Long haul trucking should be illegal or effectively eliminated by a carbon tax. Use trains for long hauls.
He even said the problem with trains is last mile. Last mile short haul trucks can be and are electric.
It's weird he laid the groundwork for this argument, but he isn't making this argument.
Fix the infrastructure issues that make transferring from rail to truck difficult. Yes, that's challenging and expensive. Guess what else is? The status quo, and the effects of climate change.
The article makes it sound like the Tesla Semi is physically infeasible. Yet, it is in active use on a sufficient number of long-haul routes that ignoring this proof of existence undercuts some of the central points the post tries to make.
The combination of higher efficiency, regenerative breaking, and some regulatory wiggle-room such as slightly higher allowable gross-weight (2000 lbs in the US, and 2000 kgs in the EU), together with reduced maintenance cost and time significantly affect the economics of trucking.
As regulatory frameworks price in more externalities of internal combustion engines, such as the climate and health effects of their emissions, burning diesel will no longer make economical sense. All road transport will end up being battery-electric. The declining cost of owning and operating electric vehicles compared to internal combustion ones will reach this point even without regulatory changes, just at a slower pace.
Maybe they should give the trucks a "turbo boost" button that lets them increase speed by something like 5 KM/hr for 120s every 30 minutes. Just enough to allow truck drivers to pass now and then without causing these types of log-jams on the highways, without causing safety problems. I'm sure there's a more correct combination of speeds and times than this.
Sort of like the silly "boost buttons" on the Honda CR-Z [1] or the Elantra N [2], but just lifting the speed limiter for a bit...
this is well written. thank you - you broke down the economics nicely.
I do think maybe with a hub & spoke model - big trucks move loads to hubs -- then smaller electrified trucks cover the less than 200 miles from hub to spoke. electrified smaller trucks and vans are already economical today.
you get to benefit from using diesel for long haul routes - while also - better economics on the electrified front i.e a hybrid model
Sorry, got mixed up there, will amend, the 60 is for +3.5t!
Edit: Nope, despite the vehicles only being able to propel themselves to 90kmph, the speed limit is indeed 60mph (in England and Wales, Scotland is a more sensible 56mph)
A very well written article! I'd add a few things though.
> Every kilogram you add to the vehicle is a kilogram you can’t carry as freight.
That is only relevant when hauling bulk loads, think ore, soil and the likes, or you're carrying a trailer full of IBC liquid containers. I worked in stage lighting stuff, our trailers were at least 3/4 foam by volume, they didn't even come close to maxing out their weight.
> A battery pack storing equivalent energy would weigh on the order of 16 tonnes at current lithium-ion energy densities.
You don't need to haul a fully equivalent battery. Drivers have to have their mandatory rest breaks of 30+15 minutes here in Germany - that's enough to charge 300-400km of range. Additionally, they can be charged at loading docks, provided the freight base or the customer have chargers set up.
> For a driver paid by the mile, or on a delivery schedule measured in minutes, that overtake is rational.
Payment by mileage is illegal in Germany, as a trucker you need to be paid by the hour and you need to be paid under German minimum wage law as long as you're physically on German roads. Trucker companies from Eastern Europe are infamous for evading that, but as our customs enforcement (who also do the road inspections for rest breaks and minimum wage) ramps up, it's getting better.
The remaining problem are the dispatchers, quite a few of them hand out routes to their drivers that are barely achievable when operating legally (i.e. trucks with working speed governors, drivers taking their rest breaks). Competition is fierce, there used to be talks about passing laws to force dispatchers to not give barely-legal orders but I'm not sure where these went following our government's collapse last year.
> An electric drivetrain achieves around 90%, so you only need roughly 1,600 kWh of battery capacity for equivalent range.
Yup, and most importantly, you mentioned regenerative braking cutting down on brake wear - but it's not just cutting down there, the truck can actually save a fair amount of energy as well, at least outside of highways where the truck is mostly just coasting along.
Trucks, given the right infrastructure, are also viable for running them electrically in the mid-range nowadays as a result.
Probably the first thing to consider is the trucks have their speed calibrated periodically to ensure the accuracy of their tachographs (in the UK at least) so a truck doing 90kmph may show as 100kmph+ in a passenger car, I know my Volvo is 7% out, and my Seat is closer to 10% out.
That said, depending on the truck, there's fuses you can pull, ECU remaps and even for the older trucks with the magnetic sensor in the gearbox, the trick is/was to stick a magnet on the sensor (with a bit of string, so you can pull it off remotely if you get pulled over). All of these methods are becoming less feasible, as things like the aggregate wheel speed sensors used for ABS get used, you can't just fool one thing now.
As for the weight limit problem, that's a whole other rabbit hole!
> That seems like exactly the kind of thing that should be regulated away
This is regulated via "no overtaking by trucks" [1] signs on portions of road that are susceptible to formation of queues, or more dangerous road conditions.
P.S. To bundle some replies:
> but they only apply during busy hours
Don't remember ever seeing the time interval next to these signs. They are tied more to the location than the time. But that's not bad? The goal is to avoid the worst issues, not to force trucks to drive in an ordered line for 8h straight.
Traffic lights also sometimes turn to intermittent yellow late in the night. Why spend a few minutes alone in the middle of the street for a red light?
> Does it still make sense for that to be "default allow?" Why doesn't the trucking industry lobby for every Truck Overtaking zone
The default should be the the one that applies most of the time. Today that's the "allow overtake". I'm allowed to very slowly overtake in my car. And I've seen this when I was driving right at the speed limit and someone else was overtaking at something like 1cm/s. It was painful to watch, at some point I just slowed down a bit to let him get in front and release the left lane.
If you ban truck overtakes and allow them only in specific zones, you'll quickly have kilometers long truck queues that never get drained. For an overtake that takes 1 min at 90km/h the trucks traveled 1500m. Many highways are 2 lanes so just one slow truck on the right lane and one slow car on the left lane screw the entire highway. Those costs go to you whether you're in your car or buying something those trucks deliver.
It’s weird that he’s so in the numbers but then doesn’t carry through with the battery electric truck calculations. He just dismisses it out of hand.
Your cargo may be reduced but your fuel costs will also be reduced. It’s quite a complicated calculation.
Are you hauling sand? Then you probably can’t spare a single kg of cargo limit. Doing LTL work? Then maybe you’re not totally filled anyways. It really depends. If you’re fine with a 35 ton limit you might be able to make good money with the fuel savings.
> Yep, grab a sleeping bag or take your clothes off and use evaporation cooling on yourself.
Talking about driver education, refrigerated trucks never get to turn off the engine until they unload the cargo. So it's not always for comfort.
> if you can readily stop somewhere for a safe place to sleep
That's the missing infrastructure. Drivers pull over to sleep when they hit their daily driving limit and in Europe most of the places to pull over are plain old parking lots maybe with some services like a gas station. Motels are relatively uncommon. I think losing some of the driving day and paying for a motel more than make up for the benefit of a lighter cab.
Those mandatory breaks are 45 minutes long. You're not charging 750 kWh in 45 minutes. With a fast charger 750 kWh is 2 to 7 hours. At the far more common level 2 chargers it's 18 hours. Either mandatory breaks need to be substantially longer, you need a substantially larger battery than just that required to go between breaks, or you need some sort of specialized technology for dramatically speeding up charging rates well beyond those for personal EVs, any of which cut hard into the economics.
Our camper van (which is a tall sail) compensates for sidewinds. Other RVs can have this feature as well, though often as aftermarket fitment. Pretty neat when it works, “man, sure is windy today, but this van is a lot easier drive in the crosswind than our old RV. Oh…”
But an RV is not a semi tractor-trailer setup. In fact, crosswind compensation is something I’ve only seen on RVs that don’t involve a trailer (Class A, Class C). And for a semi, how much is in the trailer? Seems a compensation system would need to know that.
>>That seems like exactly the kind of thing that should be regulated away
Yes, and the regulation should NOT be limiting passing or requiring the slower truck to brake
It should allow a "Push To Pass" button that allows a 10mph boost for enough seconds to make a pass in a reasonable amount of distance so as to not create problems for other traffic.
Current technology would allow these to be easily limited to X uses per hour/day and even geo-fence the usage for safe zones (use could even be limited to passing lanes so the truck being passed cannot start a drag race to stay ahead). They could even require connectivity and disable it in poor road conditions.
The real people being inconsiderate are not so much the truckers (particularly the slower trucker failing to yield and let the other one pass in a reasonable distance), as it is the regulators who created this mess.
I think they gloss over a major factor also. They mention:
> Distribution centres are built around motorway junctions (J24 of the M1, the Golden Triangle in the East Midlands) because that’s where road access is.
But they skip _why_ is that road access and motor junction there. It's there because the government decided building roads was something that was it's responsibility. I know this article is UK focused, but for the US if the government decided to build rails also, then they could put them in more convenient places. Instead they allow rail companies to decide which monopoly corridors the companies get to control.
It kind of annoys me that the article says the people trapped behind the trucks are just inconvenienced, but the truck driver gains time and money. Considering commuting to and from work is what most people are doing on the road, that is exactly time and money. It really could be seen as truck drivers stealing dozens, if not hundreds, of minutes from other drivers to give themselves 5 minutes.
Editorial Channel
What the content says
+0.50
Article 29Duties to Community
Medium Advocacy
Editorial
+0.50
SETL
+0.32
Content advocates for understanding others' perspectives as a community duty. 'Every driver in the UK has experienced this. Most assume the truck driver is being inconsiderate. The actual explanation involves EU legislation from 1992, engine ECU calibration tolerances, and the economics of a 10-hour driving day.' Reframes truck driver behavior as rational given constraints, advocating for empathy over judgment.
Observable Facts
Content states: 'Every driver in the UK has experienced this. Most assume the truck driver is being inconsiderate. The actual explanation involves EU legislation from 1992, engine ECU calibration tolerances, and the economics of a 10-hour driving day.'
Content advocates for understanding: 'From the driver's seat of a car, it looks pointless. But run the maths over a full working day. A driver doing 56.3 instead of 55.8 covers an extra 5 miles across a 10-hour shift. For a driver paid by the mile, or on a delivery schedule measured in minutes, that overtake is rational.'
Inferences
The article advocates for recognizing the rationality of truck driver behavior given their economic and regulatory constraints, asking for empathy over blame.
The emphasis on understanding systemic drivers of behavior suggests a duty to recognize others' positions and constraints before judgment.
+0.30
Article 19Freedom of Expression
Medium Advocacy
Editorial
+0.30
SETL
+0.17
Content expresses complex technical analysis and opinions freely. Demonstrates exercise of free expression with detailed analysis of policy, physics, and economics without apparent editorial constraint.
Observable Facts
Content expresses detailed technical opinions: 'Diesel dominates heavy freight for a reason that has nothing to do with habit, infrastructure lock-in, or industry conservatism. It dominates because of physics.'
Content is published on an open platform as personal technical analysis without apparent editorial limitations.
Inferences
The publication of nuanced technical analysis demonstrates freedom to express complex opinions and analysis.
The accessibility of the content reflects structural absence of barriers to expression on this domain.
+0.30
Article 27Cultural Participation
Medium Advocacy
Editorial
+0.30
SETL
+0.17
Content shares detailed technical and scientific knowledge (physics, engineering, economics) with explicit intent to build understanding. 'Once you understand those, the rest of the commercial freight world starts to make sense.' Advocates for scientific literacy and understanding.
Observable Facts
Content provides detailed scientific analysis: kinetic energy calculations, energy density comparisons, physics of stopping distances.
Content explicitly advocates for understanding: 'Once you understand those, the rest of the commercial freight world starts to make sense, and you start to see why most "obvious" solutions to truck emissions hit hard physical constraints.'
Inferences
The freely shared technical knowledge and scientific analysis contributes to public understanding of complex systems.
The framing positions scientific reasoning and technical understanding as valuable contributions to public discourse.
+0.10
Article 3Life, Liberty, Security
Medium Framing
Editorial
+0.10
SETL
-0.14
Content discusses stopping distances and kinetic energy as safety considerations. 'A loaded articulated truck at 56 mph needs considerably more' stopping distance than cars.
Observable Facts
Content states: 'A car at 60 mph stops in roughly 73 metres...A loaded articulated truck at 56 mph needs considerably more, even with modern disc brakes.'
Content explains: 'This is why trucks leave large following gaps on the motorway. Those gaps aren't an invitation to pull into. They're the minimum distance a driver needs to stop without hitting whatever's in front.'
Inferences
The framing recognizes safety considerations as both physical constraint and rights concern, advocating for understanding rather than blame.
The explanation prioritizes safety margins as a practical requirement of transport physics and driver security.
+0.10
Article 25Standard of Living
Medium Coverage
Editorial
+0.10
SETL
0.00
Content acknowledges drivers' living conditions and practical needs ('The sleeper cab is their bedroom, their living room, and their office for hours at a time' and need for heating/cooling). Framing recognizes conditions without advocating for adequate standard-of-living protections.
Observable Facts
Content describes: 'The sleeper cab is their bedroom, their living room, and their office for hours at a time.'
Content acknowledges climate needs: 'A driver sleeping in their cab in January needs heating. In July, they need air conditioning.'
Inferences
The content acknowledges that drivers' living conditions are improvised and dependent on vehicle systems.
The practical recognition of heating/cooling needs suggests awareness that vehicles serve residential functions for workers.
-0.20
Article 12Privacy
Medium Framing
Editorial
-0.20
SETL
-0.14
Content describes truck drivers spending 200+ nights annually away from home, living in sleeper cabs. Framing is explanatory/practical rather than advocating for privacy or family life protections.
Observable Facts
Content states: 'For a driver on the road 200+ nights a year, the annual fuel cost of idling is roughly £1,000.'
Content describes: 'The sleeper cab is their bedroom, their living room, and their office for hours at a time.'
Inferences
The neutral, explanatory framing normalizes extended separation from family and home without questioning whether this meets privacy or family life standards.
The description frames improvised living conditions in vehicles as practical solutions rather than potential rights concerns.
-0.20
Article 16Marriage & Family
Medium Framing
Editorial
-0.20
SETL
-0.14
Content describes drivers spending 200+ nights away from home annually, implicitly impacting family life. Framing treats this as economic/practical necessity without advocating for family protection.
Observable Facts
Content indicates: 'For a driver on the road 200+ nights a year' as standard working pattern.
Content describes residential work environment: 'The sleeper cab is their bedroom, their living room, and their office.'
Inferences
The matter-of-fact framing of extended time away from family normalizes conditions that limit family life rights without advocacy for change.
The description of drivers' living conditions in vehicles suggests systemic impact on family connection but frames it as practical arrangement.
-0.25
Article 24Rest & Leisure
Medium Framing
Editorial
-0.25
SETL
-0.25
Content describes extended working patterns ('10-hour shift' repeatedly, '200+ nights a year away from home'). Framing is explanatory/practical, not advocating for rest/leisure protections or questioning work hour standards.
Observable Facts
Content references: '10-hour shift' as standard working pattern multiple times throughout article.
Content states: 'For a driver on the road 200+ nights a year, the annual fuel cost of idling is roughly £1,000.'
Inferences
The matter-of-fact description of 10-hour shifts and 200+ nights annually describes working hours that significantly limit rest and leisure opportunities.
The normalization of these extended work patterns without questioning their fairness suggests acceptance of status quo rather than advocacy for rest rights.
-0.30
Article 22Social Security
Medium Framing
Editorial
-0.30
SETL
-0.30
Content describes economic pressures and system structure that constrain workers' social security and economic stability. 'A 30-truck operation spends £1.5 million on diesel annually. Fuel is typically the single largest operating cost after driver wages.' Framing explains system without advocating for protections.
Observable Facts
Content describes: 'A driver paid by the mile, or on a delivery schedule measured in minutes' - describing piece-work compensation model.
Content states: 'A fleet of 30 trucks will spend over £1.5 million on fuel this year.' This shows economic scale impacts on workers.
Inferences
The detailed description of piece-work compensation and economic pressures reveals labor market structures that limit economic stability.
The focus on fleet economics without advocacy for worker protections normalizes economic conditions that constrain social security.
-0.40
Article 23Work & Equal Pay
Medium Framing
Editorial
-0.40
SETL
-0.28
Content extensively describes piece-work compensation, competitive time pressures, and working conditions. 'For a driver paid by the mile, or on a delivery schedule measured in minutes, that overtake is rational.' Explains how workers' economic incentives drive behavior without advocating for fair working conditions protections.
Observable Facts
Content states: 'For a driver paid by the mile, or on a delivery schedule measured in minutes, that overtake is rational' and details that drivers gain 5 miles per 10-hour shift from marginal speed increases.
Content describes unpaid time: 'roughly 60% of a truck's operating time is spent at idle or low load...That idle time accounts for about 2% of total fuel consumption.'
Content notes economic sensitivity: 'One percent of £1.5 million is £15,000 per year. For free. Permanently.'
Inferences
The detailed analysis of piece-work incentives shows how compensation structures create pressure for drivers to engage in risky behavior (blocking traffic lanes).
The description of unpaid idle time reveals how workers absorb economic costs without compensation, compressing effective hourly earnings.
ND
PreamblePreamble
Content does not directly address inherent dignity or UDHR principles.
ND
Article 1Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood
No engagement with equality or fundamental rights recognition.
ND
Article 2Non-Discrimination
No discussion of discrimination or protected characteristics.
ND
Article 4No Slavery
No engagement with slavery or servitude.
ND
Article 5No Torture
No engagement with torture or cruel treatment.
ND
Article 6Legal Personhood
No engagement with legal recognition of personhood.
ND
Article 7Equality Before Law
No engagement with equal legal protection.
ND
Article 8Right to Remedy
No engagement with legal remedies for rights violations.
ND
Article 9No Arbitrary Detention
No engagement with arbitrary arrest or detention.
ND
Article 10Fair Hearing
No engagement with fair legal proceedings.
ND
Article 11Presumption of Innocence
No engagement with presumption of innocence or legal punishment.
ND
Article 13Freedom of Movement
Content describes mobility and residence patterns but not as freedom/rights concern.
ND
Article 14Asylum
No engagement with asylum or persecution.
ND
Article 15Nationality
No engagement with nationality.
ND
Article 17Property
No focused engagement with property rights.
ND
Article 18Freedom of Thought
No engagement with thought, conscience, or religion.
ND
Article 20Assembly & Association
No engagement with peaceful assembly or association.
ND
Article 21Political Participation
Content mentions EU legislation and UK regulations but does not advocate for political participation.
ND
Article 26Education
Content does not engage with education or educational access.
ND
Article 28Social & International Order
Content discusses international/EU regulation but not as systemic framework for rights realization.
ND
Article 30No Destruction of Rights
No engagement with protective interpretation of UDHR.
Structural Channel
What the site does
+0.30
Article 29Duties to Community
Medium Advocacy
Structural
+0.30
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
+0.32
Content structure builds community understanding by explaining economic and physical constraints driving worker behavior.
+0.20
Article 3Life, Liberty, Security
Medium Framing
Structural
+0.20
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
-0.14
Content explains safety margins as physical necessity, framing respect for vehicle spacing as protective measure.
+0.20
Article 19Freedom of Expression
Medium Advocacy
Structural
+0.20
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
+0.17
Blog platform hosts technical content without visible barriers; content is publicly accessible and reflects author's independent analysis.
+0.20
Article 27Cultural Participation
Medium Advocacy
Structural
+0.20
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
+0.17
Blog platform makes technical knowledge freely accessible and shareable; content structure supports knowledge dissemination.
+0.10
Article 25Standard of Living
Medium Coverage
Structural
+0.10
Context Modifier
+0.15
SETL
0.00
Site is free and publicly accessible (from DCP), providing open access to information about living/working conditions.
0.00
Article 22Social Security
Medium Framing
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
-0.30
Content structure acknowledges economic realities but does not advocate for social security or economic protections.
0.00
Article 24Rest & Leisure
Medium Framing
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
-0.25
No structural signals; content describes conditions but site does not appear to advocate for work-hour standards.
-0.10
Article 12Privacy
Medium Framing
Structural
-0.10
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
-0.14
Content normalizes living and working arrangements that separate workers from traditional family/home space without questioning alignment with privacy rights.
-0.10
Article 16Marriage & Family
Medium Framing
Structural
-0.10
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
-0.14
Content structure accepts working patterns that significantly limit family time without questioning fairness or proposing alternatives.
-0.20
Article 23Work & Equal Pay
Medium Framing
Structural
-0.20
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
-0.28
Content structure documents labor market pressures and unsafe incentives (traffic-blocking behavior motivated by marginal time/mile gains) without proposing rights-protective alternatives.
ND
PreamblePreamble
No structural signals related to preamble recognition.
ND
Article 1Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood
No observable structural signals.
ND
Article 2Non-Discrimination
No observable signals.
ND
Article 4No Slavery
No observable signals.
ND
Article 5No Torture
No observable signals.
ND
Article 6Legal Personhood
No observable signals.
ND
Article 7Equality Before Law
No observable signals.
ND
Article 8Right to Remedy
No observable signals.
ND
Article 9No Arbitrary Detention
No observable signals.
ND
Article 10Fair Hearing
No observable signals.
ND
Article 11Presumption of Innocence
No observable signals.
ND
Article 13Freedom of Movement
No focused structural signals.
ND
Article 14Asylum
No observable signals.
ND
Article 15Nationality
No observable signals.
ND
Article 17Property
No observable signals.
ND
Article 18Freedom of Thought
No observable signals.
ND
Article 20Assembly & Association
No observable signals.
ND
Article 21Political Participation
No focused structural signals regarding governance participation.
ND
Article 26Education
Site has accessibility features (dark mode toggle, structured HTML) but content itself does not address education rights.
ND
Article 28Social & International Order
No observable signals.
ND
Article 30No Destruction of Rights
No observable signals.
Supplementary Signals
Epistemic Quality
0.60
Propaganda Flags
0techniques detected
Solution Orientation
No data
Emotional Tone
No data
Stakeholder Voice
No data
Temporal Framing
No data
Geographic Scope
No data
Complexity
No data
Transparency
No data
Event Timeline
20 events
2026-02-26 22:03
eval_success
Evaluated: Neutral (0.02)
--
2026-02-26 21:21
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: The Physics and Economics of Moving 44 Tonnes at 56mph
--
2026-02-26 21:19
rate_limit
OpenRouter rate limited (429) model=llama-3.3-70b
--
2026-02-26 21:18
rate_limit
OpenRouter rate limited (429) model=llama-3.3-70b
--
2026-02-26 21:17
rate_limit
OpenRouter rate limited (429) model=llama-3.3-70b
--
2026-02-26 18:43
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: The Physics and Economics of Moving 44 Tonnes at 56mph
--
2026-02-26 18:41
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: The Physics and Economics of Moving 44 Tonnes at 56mph
--
2026-02-26 18:40
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: The Physics and Economics of Moving 44 Tonnes at 56mph
--
2026-02-26 18:39
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: The Physics and Economics of Moving 44 Tonnes at 56mph
--
2026-02-26 18:39
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: The Physics and Economics of Moving 44 Tonnes at 56mph
--
2026-02-26 18:39
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: The Physics and Economics of Moving 44 Tonnes at 56mph
--
2026-02-26 18:38
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: The Physics and Economics of Moving 44 Tonnes at 56mph
--
2026-02-26 18:38
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: The Physics and Economics of Moving 44 Tonnes at 56mph
--
2026-02-26 18:37
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: The Physics and Economics of Moving 44 Tonnes at 56mph
--
2026-02-26 18:35
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: The Physics and Economics of Moving 44 Tonnes at 56mph
--
2026-02-26 18:35
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: The Physics and Economics of Moving 44 Tonnes at 56mph
--
2026-02-26 18:34
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: The Physics and Economics of Moving 44 Tonnes at 56mph
--
2026-02-26 18:34
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: The Physics and Economics of Moving 44 Tonnes at 56mph
--
2026-02-26 18:33
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: The Physics and Economics of Moving 44 Tonnes at 56mph
--
2026-02-26 18:32
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: The Physics and Economics of Moving 44 Tonnes at 56mph