Agency Proposal
Who would have to use an EOBR?
RODs to EOBRs. In April 2010, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration The agency proposing the EOBR rule (FMCSAFederal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule)) adopted a new regulation that requires motor carriers with significant violations of the Hours of Service (HOSHours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive)) rules to install and use Electronic On-Board Recorders (EOBRsElectronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road)) . Many people and groups who commented on that regulation wanted FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) to require EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) more broadly. That’s what this rulemaking is about. (In a different rulemaking, FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) is proposing changes in the HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) rules themselves. This is NOT the place to comment on those changes. Information about the HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) rulemaking can be found here.)
Learn more about Hours of Service.
Learn more about the April 2010 regulation.
Now, long haul generally, >150 mi. from base for property carriers (LHlong-haul; generally >150 mi. from base for property carriers) CMV drivers and about 75% of short haul generally, <150 mi. from base for property carriers (SHshort-haul: generally, < 150 mi. from base for property carriers) CMV operations are required to keep track of on-duty, driving, and off-duty time in a log book, the Record of Duty Status (RODSRecord of duty status (A logbook maintained by CMV drivers to track driving time (i.e., duty status) for each 24-hour period)) . RODS Record of duty status (A logbook maintained by CMV drivers to track driving time (i.e., duty status) for each 24-hour period) has been the primary way for carriers and enforcement officials to check drivers’ compliance with HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) rules. FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) believes that using EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) will produce higher levels of HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) compliance, and so safer CMV Commercial Motor Vechicles operation. (See What will this cost?) Its basic proposal is that all CMV Commercial Motor Vechicles carriers whose drivers are now required to keep RODS Record of duty status (A logbook maintained by CMV drivers to track driving time (i.e., duty status) for each 24-hour period) would have to switch to EOBRs. FMCSA believes that the anticipated safety benefits are greatest for LH operations, because the long daily driving periods and nights away from home create greater risk of HOS-violation fatigue. Furthermore, net compliance costs are likely to be lower for LH carriers than for SH operations not using RODS Record of duty status (A logbook maintained by CMV drivers to track driving time (i.e., duty status) for each 24-hour period) now. (See What will this cost?)
Learn more about RODS & who must use them.
Read what FMCSA said.
Read the text of the proposed rule.
Certain drivers/carriers who do not now generally use RODS Record of duty status (A logbook maintained by CMV drivers to track driving time (i.e., duty status) for each 24-hour period) might be required to use EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) if FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) modifies its basic proposal in any of the ways described next.
Short haul carriers, in general. SH carriers now can use time cards so long as the driver doesn’t exceed certain time or distance limits set out in the short haul rules. FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) estimates that about 25% of SH short-haul: generally, < 150 mi. from base for property carriers operations are non-RODS. On days the SH short-haul: generally, < 150 mi. from base for property carriers limits are exceeded, RODS Record of duty status (A logbook maintained by CMV drivers to track driving time (i.e., duty status) for each 24-hour period) must be used. What would happen to these carriers if FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) requires RODS Record of duty status (A logbook maintained by CMV drivers to track driving time (i.e., duty status) for each 24-hour period) users to switch to EOBRs? This section is about what might happen to SH carriers in general. The next two sections consider possible rules for 2 subgroups of SH carriers: HazMat hazardous materials and passenger carriers.
FMCSA wants comment on which of the following options, for SH carriers in general, best serves the goal of greater HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) compliance without imposing unreasonable costs:
- Require EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) on the specific days when drivers exceed SH limits
- Require that drivers who occasionally exceed SH limits use EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) all the time
- Define thresholds above which drivers who exceed SH limits must use EOBRs. What should the thresholds be — in days? miles? proportion of carrier’s drivers?
- Require all SH short-haul: generally, < 150 mi. from base for property carriers drivers to use EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) all of the time
- Don’t require SH drivers to use EOBRs, period
FMCSA’s basic proposal is to require SH drivers to use EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) only if they exceed time or distance limits more than 2 days out of 7. It estimates that the added safety benefits are lower and the net implementation costs are higher for SH carriers, as a group, than for LH carriers. (See What will this cost?)
Read more about short haul time & distance limits.
Read what FMCSA said.
Read the text of proposed § 395.8(a)(1)(i)
Bulk HazMat hazardous materials carriers. Even if SH short-haul: generally, < 150 mi. from base for property carriers carriers in general aren’t covered under some new EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule, should EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) be required for all bulk HazMat operations? (LH HazMat hazardous materials transporters use RODs, so the question here is really about SH transporters.) FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) points out that crashes of CMVs Commercial Motor Vehicles (vehicles owned or used by a business) transporting bulk HazMat hazardous materials can endanger a large number of people, cause significant damage to infrastructure, and create bigger traffic jams than other CMV Commercial Motor Vechicles accidents. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the agency primarily responsible for safety of HazMat hazardous materials transportation, considers such crashes “low probability, high consequence events.” See the report.
Should EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) be required for SH, as well as LH, bulk HazMat hazardous materials operations? FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) particularly wants data and other information about bulk HazMat hazardous materials transportation safety. A special rule for HazMat hazardous materials carriers is not part of FMCSA’s basic proposal now, but could be part of the final rule. Are there operational and implementation issues for this group of carriers that FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) should know about before it decides?
Read what FMCSA said.
Passenger-carrying CMVs. Passenger carrying CMVs Commercial Motor Vehicles (vehicles owned or used by a business) are another group that FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) is worried about, because crashes can cause death and serious injuries. One of the 7 priorities on DOT’s Motor Coach Safety Action Plan is requiring all motorcoaches to use EOBRs. Again, the real question is about SH operations, since LH motorcoaches and buses fall under the basic RODS-user proposal.
FMCSA is asking commenters for safety data and other information about these carriers and drivers. A special rule for passenger carrying CMVs Commercial Motor Vehicles (vehicles owned or used by a business) is not part of FMCSA’s basic proposal now, but could be part of the final rule. Are there operational and implementation issues for this group of carriers that FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) should know about before it decides?
Read what FMCSA said.
EOBRs for All? The National Transportation Safety Board and other safety groups have urged FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) to adopt what’s being called a “true universal” approach: requiring EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) for all carriers who have to comply with HOS rules. Costs vs. safety benefits is a big question for this approach. You can learn more about and discuss this at What will it cost? Besides cost, are there other operational and implementation issues with a “true universal” approach that FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) should consider before it makes a final decision?
Read what FMCSA said.
For more background information on hours of service, EOBRs, and CMV Commercial Motor Vechicles drivers generally, visit the Background page.
I’m wondering about how this rule will affect commercial motor vehicle drivers who only drive short distances. I notice that the agency is thinking about covering them. If they do get covered, will the agency help them through the process? I’m thinking of training seminars, etc. I think training would be very helpful to those drivers who aren’t already familiar with this type of equipment. I see training being an issue for the other sub-categories DOT is considering covering with the rule as well (hazmat, passenger carriers).
This will be one more thing that some will try to use driving not safe
Thank you for your comment sewest, and welcome to Regulationroom! Improving safety is one of FMCSA’s primary reasons for considering the switch to mandatory EOBR use. It seems from your other comments that you own or operate at least one truck. Do you see some type of mandatory EOBR use improving or harming safety? Any knowledge you have about how these devices would work in the real world would be very helpful for FMCSA.
This is going to cost more money for the carriers that fallow the laws. How about going after all the companies that don’t follow the laws and are making money hand over fist?
yeah, and especially the little guys who have to suffer the most. it’s really just a conspiracy among the big truckers to beat out the competition. noticed that five huge truck companies have out and out supported this regulationn.
Welcome to Regulation Room Jason and Merc! This issue post deals with DOT’s question regarding who would have to use an EOBR. Specifically, the DOT has asked whether short haul carriers (including SH HazMat carriers and SH passenger-carrying CMVs) should be required to switch to EOBRs and, if so, what the best way to implement this requirement would be? Do you have any suggestions regarding who should be covered by this proposed rule?
I think if we are forced to go to EOBR’s that the whole HOS should be looked at so that drivers will have more flexibility in their daily work. there are too many variables in trucking and by forcing drivers to adhere to the rules , there will be a reduction in productivity and would have a negative affect on a fragile economy
Thank you for your comment, Brian! It seems like you may have some knowledge or experience in this industry. Could you explain why or how, in your opinion, requiring EOBRs could restrict drivers’ flexibility and productivity? Do you think that EOBRs should be required at all?
I do not believe EOBR’s are any more necessary for CMV than they would be for cars. I have not seen any evidence that trucks cause any more accidents than cars. If we are serious about safety EOBR’s should be mandatory on all vehicles. As far as productivity is concerned, a lot of products in america are moved with little notice and require trucks at a moments notice as opposed to freight that ships on a continual basis. I think this is what sets America apart from other countries because we can ship anything, anywhere very quickly. many times to move this type of freight quickly you can’t comply with the current HOS but that doesn’t mean you are endangering other people on the road. EOBR’s will have no affect on a large part of the industry but have a huge affect on a smaller part of the industry. FMCSA will have to weigh the cost/benefit.
FMCSA has done a significant amount of cost/benefit analysis which you can find under the section “What will this cost?” on this website. Do you think FMCSA’s analysis fully addresses your concern about shipping flexibility? Can you think of better ways for FMCSA to help small trucking companies use EOBRs without undermining flexibility?
First off Hours of service is not enforced for all players of the trucking industy,Only drivers and companys are made to be held responsible. Dispatchers and brokers have no idea of hours of service rules. Also how many drivers sit at shippers awaiting being loaded. Every hour we sit in most cases we do not get payed for. Do shipper,dispatchers or brokers care, of course not. They get away not paying detention so who cares apparently not FMCSA. I beleive in running an honest logbook,But you cant do it and make your loads on time. Every one who is associated with a load should be held responsible to ensure that drivers and companies follow the rules. Its not fair to hold part of the industry responsible. If FmCSA forces this through ,the system as a whole will suffer. I beleive in safe operation ,but the way it is now it is very hard to do. Ask a broker ,shipper,or dispatcher how the systems works. They dont Know. If the system is to be leveled with everyone competing fairly everone must be held responsible. Safety is # 1 the costs associated with the new systems can be passed to the customers during the new enforsment period,but again all players should be held responsible. You can force it down our throats, But why not fix the system and make it easier to accomlish the task of safe driving,If a company fails to make delivery on time CH Robinson charges $350.00 on a $700.00 . THIS PROBLEM GOES DEEPER THAN JUST COMPANIES AND DRIVERS.
Thank you for your comment pfifreight, and welcome to Regulation Room! You raise an interesting issue about the other players who are involved in the shipping business (shippers, brokers, and dispatchers). How could FMCSA address the problems you mentioned with these players to be able to “fix the system,” as you say? Would it be best to change the hours of service rules to take these problems into account (FMCSA is actually in the process of proposing changes to the HOS rules in another proposed rule. Information about that rule can be found here)? Or would the best solution be to regulate those other players if possible? Is there another way to improve safety while also addressing your concerns?
I agree; the entire staff of a trucking company should have at least some training in the industry. Not only the HOS, but also things like how long it takes a truck (not a car) to drive from Point A to Point B, how many hours drivers spend waiting to be loaded or unloaded, and some idea of the stress the drivers are always under living away from their families.
Thetruckingva, do you think that the training programs you discuss could work better than EOBRs to increase safety? What do others think about thetruckingva’s suggestion?
Our country and especially our trucking industry stands on the verge of bankruptcy. With this in mind you want to implement a system that would have upfront cost and then continual cost added to an already hurting industry. WHY!! For what reason do you want to do this when the current system is working so well. Why do you want to track every interstate truck in this country? This industry has proven over the past few years that safety and product delivery can work well together. It does not need any higher dollar technology to achieve good safety. I am in favor of EOBRs for those who cannot play by the rules, but the majority of the carriers and drivers are hard working Americans who are just trying to get by. They do not need any more instruments in their cabs to confuse them and cost them money. This whole rule smacks of people backing it who would profit from the sale, installation, and mainteance of EOBR devises. How many lives do you feel this would save? I work with these people every day in the capacity of a safety consultant. They do not need any more items that will cost them money or confuse them.
I have also seen the results from these items and they are confusing, and hard to audit. The system can be easily fooled and will just cause more problems than good.
Welcome to Regulation Room ts safety! Thank you for your helpful comment. As a safety consultant for the industry, is there any more information you could provide about the current state of HOS compliance or other safety related information? Information about small businesses would be particularly helpful since they make up 98% of the regulated trucking industry.
I do not think there is any way to accurately account for all the possibilities that can occur in trucking and assign a cost to it. so to say that the benefits are greater than the cost are just a way to justify more regulations. The country is currently rejecting excess regulations through the Congress and my thinking is the FMCSA has to get these laws passed quickly while they can.The main factor i have against these regulations is the assumption that you are guilty and it is up to FMCSA to catch you violating a rule. Why can we not assume drivers are just trying to perform a job to the best of their abilities. I still contend that the industry does not need these regulations!
You are going to create a monster by expemting SH carriers. Large long haul companies will adapt to take advantage of the SH expemtion. Example, I have terminals nationwide. I take a load from California, move it to my terminal within my SH limits drop it and another truck picks it up and does the same thing. By doing this I can get a load across American faster than a LH company, Because some of my “short Haul” drivers will be able to cheat their logs. You have now created an unlevel playing field between the SH and LH companies.
Jmorris, you raise an important pratical point about some of the gray areas that exist between SH and LH carriers. Would any of the options FMCSA has proposed for covering SH carriers (such as requiring all SH drivers to use EOBRs all of the time) fix the problem you see?
The trucking industry is already hurting financially and you want to impose another expense to an already small profit margin. We rely on truckers to deliver our product on time. Shippers and receivers need to be made more accountable for what they expect from truckers. Truckers can only do so much with the current regulations placed on them.
It sounds like you agree with another commenter, pfifreight, that truckers can only do so much under both current trucking regulations and the proposed EOBR regulations because shippers and receivers are not held more accountable for their part in the process. Is there a way to make shippers and receivers have a bigger stake in compliance to lower the burden on truckers? Are there other ways for FMCSA to lower the costs of the proposed regulation?
I am a company driver and I want to make a couple comments and hopefully you can publish them as nobody seems to want to talk about these points.
1: EOBR’s track us by the minute, but carriers insist on paying via the antiquated method of mileage pay. This antiquated method is dangerous driving habit promoting because it rewards you for driving as fast as you can. Figure out your hourly pay next time you are stuck going through Chicago at rush hour instead of shutting down for a cpl hours and waiting it out.
Now imagine no cheating on your logs, couple that with a record number of inexperienced drivers racing the unbeatable clock. You now have the most dangerous industry in the world!!! For the drivers and the general public.
2: Hourly pay has to be adopted the moment the switch is turned on inside any truck equipped with an EOBR. I for one will be out of this respect free industry the moment an EOBR is activated in my truck without the switch to hourly pay so I don’t have drive dangerously to make a living! I know many many other experienced drivers with the same opinion.
3: Monitored by the minute, paid by the mile….. Makes as much sense as wiping BEFORE you go poop!
4: The HOS rules are almost impossible to follow right now on paper logs where you can bend the rules a little to match your needs. Imagine the lack of ability to do the job with the rigid laws we are forced to follow.. Do we just pull over on the side of the road when the EOBR tells us we are out of hours and turn on the flashers and satellite our boss and tell him to send a driver to drive the truck the 10 minutes to the nearest truck stop? Or do we take a 10 hour break and deliver the load a day late when we run out of hours 10 minutes from the consignee’s dock?
Do you know drivers that already have EOBRs installed? Do they find themselves driving faster to avoid penalties?
It also sounds like you have something to say about the HOS rules themselves. FMCSA is in the process of making changes to those in another proposed rule. You can submit a comment at regulations.gov.
I think the rule should stay as is. Just like the breathalizer modification people have to get after they get too many DUI’s keep it on those grounds don’t punish the innocent. I agree with other comments why put another expense on a industry that is over taxed and has to deal with the risiing cost of fuel and everthing else why add an un-needed expense
It seems like you agree with ts safety’s comment that EOBRs should only be required for drivers who have repeated HOS violations. Do you see any safety benefit to requiring EOBRs for more drivers? Do you think it would increase HOS compliance overall?
If you are interested in the cost/benefit analysis of the proposed regulation, you might want to check out the post.
can an EOBR be put on MECHANICAL engine? I dont have a problem if we have to start useing them but I’m not going to go 170,000 dollars in debt to be compliant
bedbugbob, that is a great question, and many share your concern. Can anyone else share information about this?
I do not feel it is necessary for all Drivers to have to use the EOBRs. I agree with the fact that if a driver or company can not comply with the rules then they should be required to have them. As a former owner-operator I feel there is enough expense in having the truck and all the expenses that goes with it without anything else being put on the owner or company to purchase. There are already so many things a driver is responsible for without adding anything else. The EOBR would just be one more thing they would have to keep up with. A paper log is easy you just mark it when you stop and again when you leave. No electronics involved in doing that. I do not see how the EOBR will improve safety either. If a driver does not break the rules and sticks to the HOS then there will be no safety issues because he or she will have done what they are supposed to without the EORB. I have read articles about the EORB and from what I have read the input in them is not always accurate. If the driver can modify information that goes into the EORB what good will they be. No different than a paper log.
Thanks for the comment, pkcamper! Do you have links to the articles you mentioned? Has anyone else found that the information collected by the EOBR could be easily changed?
The article is in Landline Magazine. Titled “Why EORBs won’t work”. February 2011 Edition. It says EOBRs can not automatically record the information. It has to be entered manually. It goes on to tell how the EORB can be logged but not properly.
If anyone is interested in the article that pkcamper is referring to you can find it here: http://www.landlinemag.com/Archives/2011/Feb11/News/OPED-EOBRs.shtml
The answer to the problem is…..
Carriers need to change the way they bill their customers. FMCSA has forced EOBR’s onto us. They track our every movement, BY THE MINUTE.
The Carriers need to get together and as a whole switch to hourly charges for their services and move away from mileage pay!
The technology is now upon us to track each and every minute a truck, or combination of trucks spend moving any given peice of freight shipped.
This can’t be done by one carrier, but instead by an INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE!!!!!!!
This would take all the variables out for all carriers, level the playing field, and allow carriers to compensate their driving staff like the rest of the workplace in North America.
Is your average driver even aware they are not recognized as part of a labour force under the FAIR LABOUR STANDARDS ACT ???? Don’t beleive me? Here is the link
http://www.dol.gov/opa/aboutdol/lawsprog.htm
If eobrs are mandated I know of numerous including me that will be put out of business, you can not install an eobr in an older model non electronic truck.. EOBRs are not for safety there is no way that an Electronic onboard recorder knows when I or any other driver is tired or fatigued..(EXAMPLE) If I start my day at say 5:30am drive 11 hours with a 30 minute break in there some where that has me shut down for the day at 5:00pm I can not go to bed at 5:00 pm I call my twin four yeard old girls every night at there bed time that is 8:30pm.. regardless I can not go to bed at 5:00pm but maybe at 9:30 or 10:00pm i can so i sat for 5hours then finally ablr to go to sleep by 10:00pm. My alarm goes off 3:00am after my mandatory 10 hour break.. The HOS rules made me stop at 5:00pm I could have easily driven untill 8:00pm.. but as I said the hos and the EOBR said i had to stop at 5:00pm and now I am Ok to drive tired at 3:00am because I am in compliance and my EOBR said I can.. This is CRAZY and should not be Mandated.. it should be voluntary if anything.. I have Twin four year old girls whom my wife and I adopted at birth and a 16 year old son I am all about Highway safety.. Truckers (MOST)are professionals.. The only one that knows when they are tired are them selves.. No EOBRS.. thank you Virgil Tatro..
You raise an interesting point about how the proposed EOBR rule would affect carriers that use older, non-electronic trucks. Do you think the rule would be better if carriers with these older trucks were not required to use EOBRs, but drivers with newer trucks were required to use EOBRs?
It sounds like you might have something to say on a different proposed rule on HOS. You can let FMCSA know what you think on that rule here.
The JJ Keller EOBR system will work with any truck or vehicle. It does not use your ECM or any part of the truck to use. Its $199 to buy the GPS sender unit and $6.00 a month to use. The information is sent to your smart phone (must by a smart phone to use this system) and recorded. you can sent this info to any computer to be put on CD/DVD for your back up storage. the smart phone is able to do both the EOBR thing and can be used as your cell phone at the same time. You cannot text if truck is moving over 8mph. its easy to use and so far works great. 1 small glitch on the backup data but fixed in 10 min.
I forgot to say you can use you phone as a gps to.
I have read the post on the cost savings and to me they do not out weigh the cost of installing and or maintaining of equipment. If you are looking to keep more people compliant how about having law inforcment actually check logbooks when they pull people over or when they go in for inspections. I have been pulled over for various things and pulled in for inspections and have very rarely been asked to see my logbook. I had one DOT officer in Texas say I don’t know how to read it so I don’t want to see it.
Have other commenters been stopped by officers who didn’t check their logbooks? If so, do you agree that having officers actually check the logbooks would increase compliance with the HOS rules?
5 culvers, do you think FMCSA made a mistake in calculating the costs, since for them the benefits outweigh the costs? Go back to the Costs post and let us know where you think there are errors.
what dream cloud are you on?Driver.Everywhere i get inspected,its a level 3,If you been out here long enough.Set aside our yearly 72 hr inspection,its all level 3.In short we want your money.I understand,you may not get that,but law enforcement knows your company pays you to get in the sleepr>>get it?
mikeakakrazy, do you think requiring EOBRs would make enforcement easier for officers and make enforcement stops shorter? You might want to go over to the Penalties & Enforcement post and see how the proposed rule wants to handle those types of problems.
I must say that if everyone always followed the HOS and were always in compliance there would be tired truckers all over..The HOS Force drivers to stop when they are not even close to tired and if they have no common cence will force them to start up and drive when they are not rested!! (EXAMPLE) If I start my day at 5:30am Drive 7 hours stop for my PROPOSED 30 minute break, then finish out my last 4 hours I will be done for the day at 5:00pm! I can not go to bed at 5:00pm especially if I started my day at 5:30am.. So now I am done for the day at 5:00pm who knows where.. so now I sit here for hours and I can not go to sleep it is far to early.. I cal my Children and wife every night at 8:00pm but now by 10:00pm im tired enough to go to sleep.. at 3:00am my alarm goes off after my 10 hour break is complete.. Now if I have no common cence i will be driving tired! The HOS and My EOBR said I can now drive.. My COMMON SENCE Tel me to sleep a while longer.. The HOS and EOBR have done nothing for me…Also I have ran out of hours 40 miles from home a couple of times due to weather conditions.(I live in Montana) Why in the world would any sane person shut down for 10 hours 40 miles from home? Would you? No eobrs and leave the hos alone (EXCEPTION) ELIMINATE THE 14 HOUR RULE..Thank you Virgil Tatro…
I must add1 i Parked my truck in 2008 because my wife had a possible lifre threatening illness.. she is in good health now and I hope to soon be back on the road.. the problem Here is, we have a totally reconditioned 1988 peterbilt truck.. It is non electronic and will not support an EOBR Thus making our truck worthless.. While I have been off the road I have been Mining in an underground Mine.. let me tell you about my day..I get up at 4:00am leave home at 5:00am drive an hour and fifteen minutes to work (one way) attend a half hour meeting. and then we work 12 hours underground, in heat and darkness like you have never seen..underground from 7;00am to 7:00pm then drive one hour and fifteen minutes back home usually in ice and snow.. and rotate days and nights every 7 days..about 16.5 hours per day I do this 24 days per month.. and I have no HOS or EOBR to tell me I can not.. Between my brother and myself we have four Million miles with zero accidents. and i got my very first speeding ticket in october of 2010 coming home from hunting with my son, 40mph in a 35 zone.. Please No EOBRS. and if we must have HOS Leave them as they are..I Love my family first and trucking comes next…
Why can any body just get in there car, mini van, suv etc with there whole family on board drive cross country non stop.. But a professional driver has to have an EOBR to make sure they are in compliance? I have been on the road all of my 37 years and have seen every scenario.. EOBRS are not the answer.. educating the public is!! Leave the HOS as they are if any changes are made simply Eliminate the 14 hour rule. Give truckers the opportunity to stop and stop the clock as they need to..
It is simple No EOBRS and leave the HOS alone why try and fix what is not broke? I had a long conversation with an inpector at a Weigh station on I94 east of St paul Minnesota. I often request an inspection of my truck/trailer and this paticular day he and I had a long conversation about HOS.. It was really neat how he and i had the same Idea On the hos and what they are truly about..
Like with a lot of rules now it seeems to me they are approaching this from the wrong angle, Why punish those of us out here abiding by the hours of service, even if we disagree with them, instead of working on better enforcement of the rules already in place.
FMCSA thinks that by requiring EOBRS, they are working on better enforcement—do you disagree? (If you want to dig into their analysis of compliance with EOBRs, you can do that here.)
I drive for Wal Mart and use EOBR it is a wonderful tool for the type of driving I do. However I think it will put a lot of hard working drivers out of business. Unless some rules are changed and enforced, The wait time loading and unloading will kill them. Also the time waiting for dispatch to give them thier next load will be a problem. You can not help with the latter but the loading and unloading is a major problem for drivers. I have sat a grocery store wharhouse for up to ten hours waiting to get unloaded, when I was on time and did my part. With EOBR this would kill my driving hours. Rules need to be put into force regulating the time they can hold the driver while loading and unloading. Thanks for listening to my 2cents, Gerald
It sounds like you agree with pfifreight and new creation transport that other key players involved in the shipping process (like dispatchers and receivers) should be held more accountable for their roles. What should the FMCSA do to address this problem? Could EOBRs help? If you think the best solution would be to change the hours of service rule you can tell the DOT that here.
You raise an interesting point about how the proposed EOBR rule would affect carriers that use older, non-electronic trucks. Do you think the rule would be better if carriers with these older trucks were not required to use EOBRs, but drivers with newer trucks were required to use EOBRs?
No I do not agree with the EOBR rule at all> i know exactally why this rule is being proposed and i will not support it.. if people and companies want to use EOBRS let them, but do not force everyone to use them.. It is an un necessary burden.. that has nothing to do with safety.. If you read my comments thouroughly you will see my point and reasoning..
it seems that the FMCSA just wants to complicate things! Just leave it alone.. It is fine the way is is…
It is simple No EOBRS and leave the HOS alone why try and fix what is not broke? I had a long conversation with an inpector at a Weigh station on I94 east of St paul Minnesota. I often request an inspection of my truck/trailer and this paticular day he and I had a long conversation about HOS.. It was really neat how he and i had the same Idea On the hos and what they are truly about..
Most drivers that like EOBRS that i have talked to are brand new to the Industry and drive for the large carriers, that drilled into there heads while they were in there driving school that EOBRS are the thing.. That is all they know because that is what they were taught!!! I for one have driven two million miles with out an accident or any kind of moving violation.. What is an eobr going to help me with? Besides costing me and my family money!! While some company that makes the EOBRS gets rich because some large carriers are mad because we smaller guys pass them some where along the way..
Truckers are treated like criminals.. I am a hard working family man.. Have adopted two children and been married 20 years.. I have been harrassed by Inspectors at scales! Been woken up at night and told by the Highway patrol that i had 10 minutes to move my truck or it would be towed! Thus putting my in Violation of the HOS rules.. I could write a book about this.. an eobr will never be in my truck..
…while in theory this proposal seems logical….but what safe guards is the government giving us in delays,that are beyond our control(shippers/companys must be made accountable in driver delays) …distances is still an obstacle,lane restrictions,truck speed limits,antiquated chicken coops..the list of hurdles is long…..yes hos is very important but the gov has got to remember those items around you where moved by truck and quite possibly across country…11 hr drive time,fine with me…but if I waste any of it….the economy suffers….another thing like gentleman above said…places where a big truck can get a rest…the makes the rule but the states tell the big trucks move it or get a ticket…some of us are not crazy about truck stops…and that whole other set of head aches…
No EOBRS for any one..
I hear and read alot about enforcement, everytime I have ever been pulled in to a scale or pulled over, and that has only happened three times in my two million miles i have always had my log book checked.. What is rediculous is that i was actually ticketed in south dakota at a scale for not having signed my log page for the day.. Now i had just started the day at Sioux Falls just a few miles ago, my log was current and everything was as it was supposed to be. I just had not signed it yet. I should not have to sign it untill the end of my day when my log is then complete! As for the Whole EOBR Issue, it and all of this other regulation Stuff is really causing my to lose sleep, Honestly. i Know the EOBR thing is not for safety as I said before A computer does not know when we are tired, Fatigued, or anything else. Any piece of electronics that is not directly hooked up to my body can not tell me this.. I know for a fact that if I or anyone else absolutly ran the way an EOBR says we should we will be driving Tired or Fatigued. I have ran with electronic logs and many times when The HOS or the e-log said i could legally drive I had only been able to sleep a few hours because I ran out of driving time to early in the day to sleep.. so when the HOS and the E-log said I could drive my common sence told me to sleep a while longer. I have twin four year old baby girls and I am also a professional i do not need an ELECTRONIC RECORDER telling me when to stop driving.. or to keep me in compliance, as I am also a grown man and have been on my own for many many years making responsible decisions! Does any body know the back ground checks required to adopt children? i do we adopted two! so i do not need an EOBR to keep track of me!! I would never put a life in jeopardy by driving tired, not mine or any one elses! Truckers move america please do not take that away from me by adding an EOBR to the rest of everything truckers go through!
They travel across our country. In all weather day and night, with a steering wheel in there left hand and a gear shift in there right..
Just spent five hours loading. It would be nice to stop and eat, there is just no time, have to stay in the seat..
The fourteen hour rule, is one of many they are up against. If they could stop the fourteen hour clock, then they could stop to eat and rest..
The people who write these rules must not have a clue, just how many obstacles, a long haul trucker already goes through..
Rules and regulations, Wind, Rain, Snow and Ice. Shippers and Recievers who are very seldom nice. Traffic and Mechanical failure just to name a few. Sometimes months away from there families bringing everything we need to me and you..
Doing what they do just trying to make a dime. A long haul trucker can be fined and placed out of service, for working fifteen minutes of overtime…
Virgil Tatro, your poem is clever, but rulemaking isn’t about voting or just expressing your opinion. The kind of comments that really matter are those that explain exactly why the agency should or shouldn’t do something. One person with some new information or a really good idea will have more impact than 1,000 people who just give an opinion.
So, how do you make comments that count? Focus on parts of the agency proposal that will affect you directly, or that you know something about. Express your concerns and suggestions clearly. To learn more about effective commenting click here.
There are multi reasons these cant be put in trucks. 1 Expense 2 loss of state money 3 conusmer cost would rise. These alone with the way our ecomony is now would cause huge problems. This would add more trucks to our highway which puts our roads less safe and a bigger driver shortage. FMCSA need to give us a break in the last 7 years there has been so many changes and regs that our cost have increased and you are running small companies out of business. Need to focus on the drivers that are getting a license illegally and how to help us. We cant keep up with emmisson and the cost now and you guys want to add more cost now at this time???? you shouldn’t open the door the first time by changing the rule which you thought would help and we are back at square 1.. Stop adding cost and quit changing regs!!!
Shawn, you bring up a few things that others haven’t mentioned here yet, and it would be great if you could explain them more. Why do you think requiring EOBRs would cause a loss in state money, rising consumer costs, and more trucks on the highway?
the companies that want these are either the anti trucking groups or the companies that already have a poor record of compliance.
The financial burden for the Owner-operators will drive many out of business without improving safety, which is suppose to be the stated goal.
the over regulation of this business is driving many small business owners to bankruptcy and the government seems to care less.
for safety?? my aunts petutie
Thanks for your comment, gearjammer. You don’t seem to think that mandatory EOBRs would improve safety. Can you give reasons why not?
first, there are now roadside inspections, audits of the carries,both of which are used to enforce compliance,
then the with the new CSA rules the bottom 10% of the carries are required to install EBOR’s which is as it should be, and give the carriers and drivers incentive to be compliant in all areas not just with the HOS but all areas CSA covers.
in todays age if someone is not compliant they are gonna get caught and be required to install the recorders,so why put the added expense upon the owners of the trucks in an environment where the profit margins are so slim to begin with.
Pres. Obama has ordered all agency’s to reevaluate regulations that overburden industries and stifle growth and with the cost of the EBOR’s and monthly costs of monitoring which will be passed down to the truck owners this is just one of many over-burdensome regulations that will kill the owner operators in this business.
and again the primary companies that want this thing are out to kill the independents by driving up the costs of their competition which this will surely do, if the big companies would spend what is necessary they would not be in the bottom 10% and would not have to install the recorders in their fleets,so why not bring them up to the level of the other 90% instead of dragging the 90% down to their level and in the process bankrupt a lot of good and compliant owner-operators.
Gearjammer, the agency wants to know if there are specific reasons why the CMV costs of the basic EOBR proposal are unreasonable. Can you provide some numbers? Check out FMCSA’s analysis of EOBR Device Costs to see what the agency thinks and whether you agree.
here is the latest figures from landline mag. on accidents which shows that todays drivers are the safest in history so why drive the good and compliant driver out of business with overburdonsome regulations
As miles traveled increase, the 2009 fatality rate of 1.13 deaths per 100 million miles traveled was the lowest since 1950. Highway deaths totaled 33,808 in 2009, and despite a 9.7 percent decrease over the previous year, end quote
while any death on our highway is one too many it will be impossible to completely eliminate them.
BUT thru over regulation and the resulting loss of the demonstrated “good” drivers from the pool you will surely see a large increase in accidents as the new breed of inexperienced drivers take to the highways, many of which will push too hard and cause accidents as they try to make a living due to low wages and their efforts to beat the clock.
as in everything government when there is a good outcome from a little regulation then the powers that be decide that a little regulation did a lot of goo then a lot of regulation will do great things, sorry that never works and in this care will have a decidedly opposite effect.
Eliminat the HOS and the proposed EOBRs for experienced drivers with satisfactory/good records, have them carry an ID card Exempting them from HOS and EOBRS.. Use the EOBRS and the HOS for new inexperienced drivers just out of school, and those with poor safety records.. Use the EOBRS and the HOS for a training tool for new drivers and a consequence for drivers with a bad safety records.. they get alot of citations/tickets etc they abide by the EOBRS and the HOS. ILL bet you would see drivers driving alot safer if they were penalized this way for unsafe driving..
the company i am leased to has not come out with have not come out with firm numbers but estimates are in the 1200 to 2000 dollar range with a WEEKLY charge of 40 to 60 dollars.
I have been an owner operator for over 12 years now and have seen my bottom line drop to almost nothing.
the high costs of over regulation along with the facts that freight rates today are where they were 10 years ago add the fact that maintenance costs are outrageous is pretty much unbearable for the little guy to even come close to making a living.
I have 5 csa points and they are over a paper work issue that I was told that I could have had erased but i didn’t appeal it in time but at the time that this issue came up there was no way to appeal it.
so it isn’t like I am not a compliant driver and not only do I resent being punished because of the few bad apples in this industry, I cannot bear the weekly cost of the monitoring but the cost of buying this monstrosity will take the money I have saved for a vacation for me and my wife,the fist we have been able to plan in over 5 years because of the slim profits that have been able to generate.
I have about decided that the government could care less about the small business owner in trucking and have teamed up with the driver mill companies that hire new students that have no idea on how to be compliant and even worse are not safety first oriented so if they want to force me to come up with another 2 to 5 thousand a year to prove that I am following the rules then I will take the loss on my equipment and find some work that is less stressful more profitable in the process and watch the carnage that will surely happen as the proven safe drivers give up in frustration and the new breed of inexperienced super truckers take over from the proven safe old hands
Gearjammer, you mentioned President Obama’s order for all agencies to re-evaluate regulations. You can see DOT’s request for comments on their regulatory review and leave a comment by visiting the Regulations.gov website,
here.
As far as the costs involved, buying/renting, an on board tracking device. The federal government does not care. Like the EPA, CARB, ect.,if you have to buy a brand new truck to comply with thier regulations, then so be it. The folks with these older trucks that don’t have electronics, they will force you to do whatever it takes to run one of these EOBRs, or you just won’t be compliant to operate. That being said,since they de-regulated trucking in the sixtys, the haul rate has been in a freefall. I would suggest, if they’re going to require all this, that they should also re-regulate the haul rate. Just so we won’t have to keep hauling dollar freight, and pay for all this other stuff too. You just try and pass this off to the consumer. You’ll soon be too expensive to do business with. already saddled up with high fuel prices, fifteen dollar truckstop meals, four hundred dollar tires, won’t mention the price of a road service call. If they are out to level the playing field, cause we all know it ain’t about safety, then they NEED to level it. That’s just my opinion.
Motingator, FMCSA doesn’t have the authority to regulate haul rates. Do you have any specific suggestions regarding the proposed EOBR rule?
Moderator,
You mention that the FMCSA does not have the authority to regulate haul rates. While that is true, you cannot neglect the fact that the regulations the FMCSA does implement have the potential to affect significantly the rates drivers and carriers receive.
You ask people to provide hard data to back up their opinions on EOBRs. That’s brilliant because when this is all said and done, the FMCSA will be able to say that no one could provide such data. Of course they can’t! They’re truck drivers not statisticians.
They know that EOBRs will affect their livelihoods negatively, but cannot show you in your “hard data” terms why that is. All they can do is tell you, and keep telling you, that they don’t want the darned things in their trucks. Part of that is because the results may not be measurable in dollars and cents, or even in safety statistics. Rather, the effect of EOBRs and other “safety” regulations can be measured mainly by the quality of life of the driver who has already seen their standard of living and their quality of life decline significantly over the last few decades.
EOBRs are intended only to increase compliance with HOS. Yet, in the proposed rulemaking and cost/benefit study for the HOS the FMCSA itself admits the Hours of Service cannot be considered the cause for the recent decline in truck-involved fatalities and injuries. The FMCSA also admits that it cannot reliably measure the impact of HOS regulations or compliance on highway safety.
The conversation should go no further. If we don’t know that the HOS save lives, then we CANNOT know whether or not increasing compliance with them will. As soon as we reach this realization, the idea of tracking the movements of every truck driver in the country should be taken off the table.
Vganster, another commenter whose company uses EOBRs says that drivers had some issues with them at first, but after using them for a while grew to like them (you can read the comment here). Do you have experience with EOBRs that leads you to a different conclusion? If so, what has that experience been like?
The fact that some drivers have grown to appreciate some of the benefits EOBRs have to offer has nothing to do with whether or not they should be mandated in every truck.
Every driver in the country could absolutely love them, and that still would not be reason enough to require them to be installed in every truck.
Personally, I am opposed to any mandate, but can see the benefits for requiring the carriers with a long history of HOS violations to use EOBRs. Outside of that, the choice of whether or not to equip a truck with an EOBR should belong to the carrier or truck owner.
Again, I have no personal experience using an EOBR since I am not a truck driver. Anecdotally, I can say that the majority of HOS violations are not due to driving more than ten or eleven hours per day. Rather, the HOS violations I have been able to observe have related to time a truck spends sitting while waiting to load or unload. This is not something EOBRs can effect any change in, since, again, they cannot tell what a driver is doing when the truck is not moving.
Another bigh cause of logbook falsification is to allow a driver a break that would not be doable under the regulations while still allowing the driver to meet any deadlines.
EOBRs would be effective against this type of falsification. However, I’m pretty sure I would rather they weren’t. If a driver is feeling ill, wants to avoid the stress of rush-hour traffic, or simply has an off day and needs a rest break, the EOBR will be there telling them that they’d better keep moving if they want to meet their appointment time.
I’ll take the driver who chooses to take the break and fudge the book anyday over a driver with the same deadline pushing through while remaining perfectly compliant.
Again, I cannot stress enough that the FMCSA cannot have it both ways. The reasoning behind revisiting the HOS yet again is that they cannot be conclusively proven to increase highway safety. Therefore, increasing compliance with those HOS CANNOT be for the purpose of improving safety.
Even if they could conclusively prove a correlation, fatigue-related truck accidents make up only a small percentage of truck-involved accidents. Nothing about a sweeping mandate of EOBR technology makes any sense.
I have never understood how we need to stand toe to toe to protect what we believe is our right to make a living legally, when the government in which we placed our sovereignty in, does not uphold our rights. They merely put more over-burdensome regulations upon us.
These burdens are merely resulting from special interest lobbyist groups putting money into profit-oriented politicians hands, which have a profit share in the industry that produces these items; such as: TWIC Readers, TWIC Cards, Criminal Background Checks to get TWIC, EOBR’s; and then we have desk jockeys that want to make names for themselves with all these brilliant ideas; ALL at our expense.
Why do you make honest law-abiding citizens that try to earn a living without having to work longer to pay for the right to work in the first place, work extra to pay for the right to work?
Give me a break! As I drive down the road, I am forced to try to understand my environment. But I think I would be better off to go home, sit down, and let the government take care of me because I am apparently not mentally competent to do so myself.
AMEN Motingator!!!
I have been using EOBR for 5 years now, it took a little time to get use to. But now that I have gotten use to it, it’s like a lot of new technology you can’t live with out it. There is a very major down side to it though, in oder to make money you have to keep moving. You need to address the drivers time lost to loading and unloading. It is not right that a company holds a driver for hours at a time. Now this is illegal but trust me all drivers due it, they falsify thier log books to not show the time they sit doing these things. With EOBR you can not do this which is good, but it will cost drivers thousands of dollars in lost driving time. DOT needs to some how set max. loading and unloading times and go after companies who violate it.
Thank you for returning to Regulation Room grldbarnes. As an experienced EOBR user, could you explain what you feel the benefits of using an EOBR are? Besides your argument that loading and unloading time issues need to be addressed by the DOT, do you see any other downsides to using an EOBR?
Like I said love using it and could not be without it now. The simple fact that everytime you change status you are not reaching for a log book. It figures your hours automaticaly, you just have to look at it and you know where you are on your 11 and 70. Ours is set so once you start your day any time you shut off the truck you go on duty, and once the truck starts moving again you go back to driving. You do have to manuelly change to off duty but that is no big deal. The only real down side is at the end of the day, last driving hour we have a count down timer. You want to drive as far as you can each day, but you can not go over so you need to start looking for a place to park. Many nights I have shut down with 40 or 50 min. of drive time left because I was 1 or 2 min. short of making the next safe place to park. With a log book you would get to that last safe place wink wink., but that is the only real down side. As I said I drive for Wal Mart now and 90% of our stops are drop and hook. Our dispatch is real good about giving you your next move before reach your last stop. So EOBR works real well for us, but I can see drivers having to do live loads and unloads having major problems with it. Drivers will complain but they always due when something new comes out. But once they use it for a while I think they will like it. Really makes DOT inspections easy, DOT officer looks over your electronic records and sends you on your way. No questions about what this is, or these hours don’t add up. Everything is right and readable, I have never had one officer question anything on my Electronic logs.
These (black boxes) that they want installed, are unrelyable at best. They can and will be manipulated, when folks figure it out. Therefore, it’s not about safety. It is however, all about getting more of our hard earned cash. The people, I should say parasites, that make these devices, city and state revenue collecters,and lobbyists/lawyers are the ones to gain/profit. The only safety that would happen, would be from having fewer trucks on our highways. Can you say, out of business? With only a few carriers that thwart the law, there is no justification to demand these devices in every single truck. Not about safety, it is however, about information, we know where you’ve been. Even though you are off duty, we know where you’ve been. You started your truck yesterday, why didn’t you log that ‘on duty not driving’. You get the point. True,FMCSA can’t regulate the freight rates, they can just regulate everything else. A little side note, the headlines in Detroit read, “Crime Rates Plummet”. Not because the police were doing a better job, or the citizens were better folks. It was because, people were leaving Detroit to live in the suburbs. Everything worth stealing, had already been stolen, they beat their chests like Tarzan, proclaiming a huge victory for their city. I see the same thing on the horizon for the trucking industry. With their pockets bulging with cash, beating their chests, crying,’Victory’for the motoring plublic.
The FMCSA’s own data and reports verify that EOBRS have nothing to do with improving safety. The manufacturers of these devices are the one’s really pushing them – just follow the money trail. If any company wants to use EOBRs let them have at it, but to mandate such a device on a small operation will put that small operation at an even more cost disadvantage. People Net wants $1500 per device and $60 per month service fee. Small operations are already at a huge disadvantage with respect to fuel costs. We cannot come near the fuel discounts that the big boys get. EOBRS are a tool that should not be forced upon anybody unless they demonstrate that they cannot provide accurate and truthful logs and supporting documentation. Punish the offenders, but do not punish everyone!!
Thanks for your comment, Keith. You say that FMCSA’s own data and reports verify that EOBRS have nothing to do with improving safety. Can you point out specifically what you are referring to?
Well, if the FMCSA cannot prove that the HOS increase safety, then it cerainly cannot prove that compliance through brute force ala EOBRs will do anything, either.
What happens with the smartphone when they make it illegal to handle your smart phone while you are driving your truck
Trucking, smart phones are not at issue in this proposed rule. However, some commenters have suggested that smart phones are capable of doing what an EOBR does, but can do it cheaper. Are you suggesting that you agree or disagree with this?
The most effective comments explain why the agency should or shouldn’t do something. Providing new information or a suggestion can be helpful. To learn more about the rulemaking process and effective commenting click here.
moderator I am against any kind of device put in my truck, that government wants in there to keep track of me. A smartphone or EOBR, makes no difference. I guess the best thing to compare this to is somebody that breaks the law and gets put under house arrest and gets the ankle bracelet to make sure they do what they are told What is the difference. I broke no crimes but they want to watch to make sure I am being a good boy, and if their little black box tells them you did something wrong you have troubles, and this they say will make the roads safer. How I ask? by putting more stress on an already stressful job and making it more stressful having everything you do recorded. And one can not say that is what they are there for, if not why force them into one’s truck.
I am against the passing of this new DOT proposed rule. Initially, the new regulation titled “Electronic On-Board Recorders for Hours-of-Service Compliance” was implemented for use with motor carriers that had violations regarding the “Hours of Service (HOS) rules.” Specifically, this rule focused on a narrow group of motor carriers: those whose drivers have a pattern of HOS violations, which leads to requiring the carrier to install EOBRs (Electronic on-Board Recorders) in all of its Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMVs). This is a form of punishment or corrective measure for those motor carriers that repeatedly violate the law. This tactic is very similar to that of the ankle bracelet monitoring devices used on criminals as a result of their illegal activities so they too can be monitored. Sounds like a great system for lawbreakers, but I do not agree that this seemingly intrusive tactic should be implemented or forced upon others, especially those law abiding small business motor carriers that already have a thin profit margin in these tough economic times.
Apparently there were “many people and groups who commented on that regulation [that] wanted the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to require EOBRs more broadly.” Who are these people and groups and why do they think this is a good idea? What is their “interest” in passing this intrusive and expensive rule? Would it also make sense to put ankle bracelets on law abiding citizens to make sure they continue to be law abiding citizens? Of course not, so why is this viewed as a good idea? Who stands to gain from it? Not the law abiding motor carrier who would be required to buy equipment and pay monthly monitoring fees in their already shrinking budget if this rule passes. Compare the cost of this monitoring system with the cost of $0.99 cent drivers log books and explain how this new expensive system will benefit the small business’s bottom line. The obvious answer is that it will only hurt small business, not help it.
Of course, the proponents of the new rule will say that it is a “safety issue,” and that this will reduce the occurrence of fatigued drivers and motor vehicle accidents. The DOT admits in Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 64, that, “the Agency is not aware of any published information that demonstrates that the specific mandate imposed … has contributed to any discernible benefits in safety.” The DOT already has so many rules for motor carriers on the books, everything from drug and alcohol testing, to log book inspections, to weigh station inspections, and the like. Yet, with all of this monitoring and inspection there are those carriers that still push the limits, break the law, falsify the books, etc. A lawbreaker will likely find a way around this rule, and the law abiding drivers will continue to obey the law, but now will do so at an added cost.
Add another layer of costly and intrusive oversight and it will result in putting some carriers out of business and longer lines at the unemployment office. However, I’m sure the Government would gain employees as the new rule needs to be implemented and monitored by someone, costing the taxpayer more money to support another Government rule or program.
Let’s not forget who gets hurt every time another new rule is impressed upon a company. Impose a new expensive rule on motor carriers and they are forced to pass the added cost on to the consumer. In a time when the economy is weak, the last thing we need is another cost added because some person or group thought it would be a good idea for CMV companies to be monitored electronically. In the case of my company, the costs associated with this new rule will be added to the already high cost of health care. My company provides a medical service to rural hospitals. We transport our service via commercial vehicles subject to this new rule. Therefore, the added cost would eventually be passed on to the healthcare system that we bill for our services rendered.
How about fuel transport, or produce, or household goods, or manufacture industry goods? All of these industries and others that depend on commercial transport would likely need to increase the cost to the end user to cover for the added expense imposed by this punishing rule. The result: higher health care costs, higher fuel costs, higher grocery bills, higher materials cost, and the list could go on, all because some person or group thought it would be a good idea to make everyone abide by a rule that was initially limited to be imposed upon lawbreaker CMV drivers and companies.
According to the Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 64, (49 CFR Parts 350, 385, 395, et al. Electronic On-Board Recorders for Hours of Service Compliance; Final Rule) which states, “before prescribing any regulations, FMCSA must also consider their costs and benefits.” They went on to say, “The Agency has taken these statutory requirements into account throughout the final rule.” Yet, by their own admission, they state within the same rule, “For a number of reasons, including lack of adequate cost and benefit data, FMCSA decided not to adopt EOBR regulations in 2003.” In a foot note, they state, “Estimates of benefits and costs that will be developed for future HOS-related rulemaking actions will use more recent baseline data..” To my understanding, the DOT did not provide an adequate cost and benefit analysis due to a “lack of adequate cost and benefit data,” yet they are still pursuing an industry wide implementation of this new rule without conducting a cost and benefit analysis based from recent data as they stated they would. The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance noted within the same referenced Federal Register that “government resources needed to monitor carriers subject to mandatory EOBR use will be substantial, and the benefits will not outweigh the costs.” “FMCSA has determined this rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or more, and is, therefore, an economically significant regulatory action.”
So, in a time when Government spending is out of control, the deficit is through the roof, the economy is in poor shape, unemployment is up, fuel costs are up, and the value of the Dollar is down, this Agency thinks imposing this rule is a good idea despite the dismal facts stated within the current rule.
In my humble opinion it is a very bad idea to pass this proposed rule.
Thank you for your comment frns! We understand that you disagree with requiring this rule for all CMV drivers. We appreciate your research into the cost considerations and ask that you visit our cost post (http://archive.regulationroom.org/eobr/what-will-it-cost/) and comment again after looking at this additional information on baseline data changes: http://archive.regulationroom.org/eobr/agency-documents/regulatory-impact-analysis/#0.1__Toc283386171 And, more specifically, one of the baseline pieces of data that has changed since 2003 is the % of crashes that were fatigue related (now 13%, up from 7% in 2003): http://archive.regulationroom.org/eobr/agency-documents/regulatory-impact-analysis/#0.1__Toc283386184.
Also, in response to your question about who supported expanding EOBR use, we suggest you look at the final rule published April 4, 2010 (http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/rulemakings/final/On-Board-Recorders-for-HOS-Compliance.pdf) where FMCSA includes an overview of the responses they received during the comment period. They specifically mention the National Safety Transportation Board and you can read their comment here: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FMCSA-2004-18940-1164.1.
I work @ sunset logistics in FT WORTH, TX. We are already using the EOBR but since we have a day and night crew, we are having to wait anywheres from 1 to 4 hours for an available truck just to log in to begin or daily HoS. The company says it is how it is done and we just have to “suck it up” as drivers and “grow up”.
I have a friend that works for a major food supply chain that uses the EOBR and they have one in the drivers room to log in when you arrive to start your HoS.
I feel my company is abusing the rules by telling us we have to wait for a truck to log in and the wait time we use before logging in just doesn’t count towards any on duty time.
And if i run a paper log, which they absolutely hate for us to do, i will not have enough time to complete my loads for the day.
And for instance, one occasion i had a break down and my truck was broke down for several hours leaving me with exactly 5 hours of driving and on duty time left. When i finally got back to the yard, I was told to get in another truck, log into the peoplenet (EOBR) and i will have a full daily HoS to complete my run.
I have asked the safety DEPT about this but got the usual “i will look into it” as he heads off to the break room….
I am sure it is not right but am just asking. Maybe somebody will see this and let me know who’s right and what steps i need to take to protect my lively hood.
Thanks very much for your comment idrive. As you said, the point of EOBRs is certainly not to allow carriers to get around HOS requirements by having drivers switch trucks. Is this common, in your experience? Does anyone know if this sort of thing would be picked up during a roadside inspection when the data is analyzed?
idrive, you can let FMCSA know that your employer is making it hard for you to comply with the HOS rules either online at this website or by calling them at 1-888-DOT-SAFT (1-888-368-7238).
All the Eobr will do is keep a driver on his 14 if he understands the 14hr ruler and that he does not have to move his trk after 14hrs but because most driver are not tot the 14 hour rule is a Federal law he will violate the rule for the company so they do not lose the contract at a shipper or consignee and how they will do this they will be told how to bypass the eobr’s recording of movement in a way that it will not show up how is this making it safer out on the roads
not necessarily, we run a 12/15/8 cause we are aggregate, intrastate. You can just as easily log out and move the truck. Some company’s do have the alarm that doesnt go off till the truck is shut down. but my point was, when we cross the state line, we go to 11/14/10 and the system doesnt change it from 12/15/8 or gives me the option to change it. What i do is go off my paper log when i cross the state line or when i have down time before i can log in or whatever and adjust my remaining time accordingly. my issuse is i am getting grief @ my job for doing so and am getting written up on some occassions cause my company is taking advantage of the rules and bending them in their favor.
Ok here I sit tonight in reed point Montana. i am only driving part time, as i have a mining job that i am employed at full time awaiting these redicoulous rules.. If they are passed I will never drive a truck again but i love trucking so i am doing it part time.. Ok i just took a trip to red deere alberta canada.. I am sampeling AN e-log, as i said i am sitting on an exit ramp in Reed Point Montana, 16 miles from my home and I have to sit here for 10 hours before I can legally drive the 16 miles home.. I could legally unhook from my trailer and drive home, Personell conveyance.. but not with an electronic recorder.. so ill sit here on this exit ramp for 10 hours and then drive the 16 miles to my home.. makes alot of sence..
Listen Fellas…and Ladies…these new rules are part of a bigger picture…This is another area where the government needs to “close down an open, and free society”…These “black boxes” are already in most cars, especially new ones…surveilance cameras are everywhere…We are being tracked by our cell phones…Tracking the trucks that move around the country serves just ONE purpose…tracking citizens…Look at where this country is heading and you will understand the reasoning behind these “rule changes”…Sen. Graham, and Sen. Schumer met with the President a few days ago to clean up the details on how to enact a US Worker ID badge…They are moving to destroy the American idea of a free society and embedd every aspect of your life with some kind of monoriting device…Do your research, read about what’s really going on…and then this will all make sense…I am a former Marine…25 yr veteran of the trucking industry, and owner operator…never had an accident, and no moving violations in the last 15 plus years…These EOBR’s are not about safety…They’re about tracking citizens…PERIOD.
Drivers, it seems to me that we are arguing a moot point. There are three areas I would like to quickly address: Legal authority for EOBRs, privacy of information, Liability and Risk Assessment.
The legal authority for EOBRs comes directly from Article 1, section 8 of the US Constituiton pertaining to the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce and the Reasonable and Proper clause. When we as drivers climb behind the wheel of our trucks, we have a weight of greater regulation and a lessor reasonable expectation of privacy because we are actively engaged in interstate commerce as provided for under law. We are no longer John Doe, private citizen. Given this, congress has given the USDOT the right to make regulation as deemed necessary and proper to ensure legitimate and safe operation of transportation of goods.
The second point is Privacy of information. This too is a moot point because all of our personal information is readily accesible by almost anyone who chooses to view it. The companies keep complete dosiers on every driver (as required by law) and combined with the new 2010 driver safety datebase, there is no such thing as private information. Evet company, law enforment officer or agency, as well as any other interested party may gain access at any time. The privacy issue is a red herring in the debate.
The third point is liability and risk assessment. It has been my experience as a fleet owner and driver that there is a good reason why some drivers do not want anyone seeing what they are doing. There is an ideology that suggests that if we wont police ourselves, then someone will do it for us. That being said, in this present age, I welcome EOBRs because they take the falsification argument out of trucking opponents hands. I would even welcome 24/hr serveillance camerasand a complete onbord recording set up. As long as I am in accordance with the law, it makes the job of some personal injury lawyer that much harder. Remeber, people dont just go after companies anymore. They will go after we the drivers also. I for one do not want to owe the rest of my life to some other person because I could not prove my case. If we will accept and use the new regulations as a tool for our benefit, I belive that it will eventually make the best of us more valuable in the long term.
To sum up , truckdrivers are not like in our society, and for a few good reasons. However, the government has the authority to madate EOBRs and enforce their use, information privacy for truckdrivers does not exist in any substantial form, and in present day, the risk of not having one outweighs the cost of having it.
Since you seem to think EOBRs are a good idea, do you think it makes sense to require them for for both long haul and short haul trips? Or at least for all trips that involve carrying passengers or hazardous materials?
It also sounds like you might be interested in looking at the Privacy post and the Cost post and responding to DOT’s questions and concerns of other commenters.
I have been behind the wheel for 23 years and I have argued for two changes that would greatly enhance the effectiveness of the new regulations. The first is that the shipper loads the truck and consignee unloads. In our present state, there is no reason for a driver to be required to do anything but drive. The Second is to lose the 70 hour recap for longhaul drivers and replace it with a system of mandatory 1.5 to 2 days off for every week out.
My reasoning is that the issue of recapturing lost sleep has been debunked. Better to enable the driver to recouperate at home rather than try to stretch it out while on the road.
With this in mind, 10 hrs/day is plenty of workloaf for the average driver due to the increased amount of mental stress as oppesed to old style physical stress in the past. Let the drivers drive and the other parties involved take care of their parts in the load shipments.
The EOBRs mean less paperwork on the part of the drivers and companies, and gives drivers to operate by the book, which will increase safety.
As a side note, I am so fed up with the present state of the trucking industry that I now only drive on weekends and attend college full time to finish my graduate work in psych and criminal justice. Trucking is a youngman’s game anymore.
The trucking industry is on the verge of collapse. Increasing fuel prices, cheap horrible rates,and now MORE regulation?? When is enough,enough? I used to love this job/way of life. Not anymore. The government regs,fuel costs and greedy brokers have have done a great job of destroying the american truck driver. We sacrifice so much for this job, IE. Family,hometime,health. We used to be compensated for it. Will an EOBR force me to drive when I’m tired?Of course it will.Maybe the other driver that said he now makes more money with an E-log has never made a good pay check in this industry. Let us do are jobs. Most of are professionals,we know are limitations. Its time to make the shippers and receivers accountable for their actions and not put everything off on the driver. Over regulating this industry is causing more and more good drivers to seek employment outside of the trucking business, myself included..
I am a good example of what the administration refers to as a “small business” A one truck operation that seems to constantly on guard in order to comply with a myriad of govt regs in order to be compliant. what may be compliant in one state is not compliant in the next, never could understand that one. safety seems to be a word that is being used if the govt has an agenda that needs to be pushed thru congress in order to “pin a rose” on some politicians lapel. i would love to extend an open invitation to any one on the hill to spend a full day with me to see what safety really means. too many road signs to read, poorly maintained roads, texting drivers, in use dvd players, computers in use, gps,cell phones, radar detectors, cb radios, xm radios , overhead or roadside electronci info boards, restricted lanes , cpap machines if youre fat, 17″necks “great if your in the cpap business, auxilliary power units at 9000.00 a copy many of which are no longer in business be cause california said these machines wer e not commpliant. and finally the onboard hours of service recorder. her goes the feds spending my money again. why should i, a compliant driver pay for the sins of a few, i do not favor this proposed legislation but like everything else, big business will profit from this and another small business goes down the drain. ps do airline pilots use cpaps?
Do you think that requiring EOBRs automate some of the tasks truck drivers have to do is enough remove some of these distractions and increase safety? If not, then how could FMCSA improve the proposed requirement for EOBRs so that drivers are less distracted and more compliant, but also aren’t overly burdened by more regulation?
I harvest grain from Texas to Montana. Most of my trucking is on rural roads and exempt from HOS rules under 395.1k. However there are between 10 and 15 days a year where I operate under RODS. Requiring EOBRs for carriers that infrequently have to log hours will be a substantial addition burden in both cost and complexity of use than what over the road carriers will face under this rule. When I am moveing under RODS there is very low probability of violating HOS. I am moving in convoy with up to 10 units and pulling oversized loads which can only move in daylight hours. All of my RODS trips except one is less then 440 miles. The EBORs rule is a one size fits all rule. Motor carriers are not all over the road haulers carrying freight everyday across the country. There are a lot of utility trucks, farm trucks, and pickups that will be swept into this EOBR rule even though most of their miles do not require RODS.
I beleive that EOBRs should only be required as a penalty for carriers that are shown to be habitual offenders of HOS under CSA compliance reviews. The penalty of having to purchase and operate EOBRs is enough of an incentive to stay in compliance with HOS. If carriers decide that there is an economc advantage to useing EOBRs then they should be able to do so as under current rules. This will mostly be large carriers where electronic data is more effective for keeping track of thier HOS compliance. If EBORs are mandated there needs to be a clear line of who has to use them and how does not. This line has to be extremely clear to enforcment so there is no roadside misintrerpratation of who has to comply. The idea of any carrier that has to do RODS more than 2 days a week must use EOBRs is to vague. Is that in just one week a year or all 52 weeks? What if a carrier has to do RODS for 5 da
Sorry my comment was posted before I edited and comlpeted it. From the end:
What if a carrier has to do RODS for 5 days in one week and never at any other time of the year. I would suggest that the EOBR rule applying to short haul carriers needs to be based on number of miles driven per year per power unit or total number of days per year requireing RODS or Number of miles per year requireing RODS. This metric could be based on information provided in an MCS-150 and than the CSA data could state weather a carrier has to be compliant with EOBRs.
Jmorris is another commenter on this post who worries about exempting short haul drivers at all. He feels that exempting these drivers would give current long hail carriers a loophole for avoiding the requirement. You can read his full comment here here. Do you think this could be a real concern? Is there a way to avoid having a rule that isn’t just one size fits all, but also doesn’t create a loophole like this?
There is no definitive method of determining who is a long haul or short haul carrier. Any method used will cause carriers to get on the non EOBR required side. Some might consider this a loophole but it is not. If a carrier does what meets the definition of a short haul carrier than they are a short haul carrier. If the EOBR rule is then moved over to short haul carriers the cost of compliance figures are greatly under estimated. Instead of 2 million power units required to use EOBR over 10 million units will be required. At FMCSA’s estimated cost of $785 per unit a year that is almost $8 billion a year. The majorities of these short haul units are used very few miles a year and are not at risk of HOS violations. It is clear that this rule is made to enrich an industry that is lobbying for its implementation and has nothing to do with safety and fatigue related issues. It would make more practical sense to do what is currently being implemented under CSA and only require HOS deficient carriers to install EOBRs. This is enough of an economic incentive for HOS compliant carriers to remain compliant. CSA reporting has only been in place for one year and has not been given long enough to show its effects on industry compliance. Carriers are becoming much more aware of the penalties to being deficient under CSA and how cost prohibitive being non HOS compliant is. This rule requiring EOBRs on the trucking industry will cost it $2 billion to $8 billion a year. If FMCSA could prove that most carriers were non HOS compliant, most carriers would already be required to have EOBRs under current rules. This is a huge negative industry cost with no increase in safety.
There are a couple of items that I would like to address.
1. The “one study” that FMCSA is using to say that there is a 55% non compliance rate is not an accurate number. We all know that if we look long enough we can find ONE study to say what ever we want. I drive and have a small compay. My motto is if you can not do it legal do not do it. I know there are a very few who do not run legal but I can assure you there will be those when you have EOBRs. Contrary to those who don’t know better these devises are not fool proof they depend on driver input and there can be mistakes. I just talked to a Ms. DOT officer who told me that a large carrier who allows 6 mo. old drivers to become trainers often come in with their EOBR logs that are all messed up, ie both drivers on duty, wrong driver on duty ect. So I dont believe EOBRs will solve this problem. That being said I do not believe that all companies should have to spend the money to buy and install these devises in their trucks. I do agree that companies who can not operate in a safe manner should be forced to install these devises and but more importantly should be followed up with vigorously to insure compliance both in the back office and on the road.
2. How about intergrating the federal system with all the state systems so when one of these carriers comes up to a scale they are flagged a checked on a more stringent basis. Also make sure that they can not operate a prepass, this way they have to come thru the scales, these companies could also be checked at roadside inspections more often.
3. It is a sad day when all these special interest groups lobby to pass regulations on an industy that has shown consistant improvment in safety when such regulations are often burdensom and do not really solve the real problem.
Your comment about FMCSA’s safety estimates is very important. What would you estimate the actual compliance rate to be? It’d be really helpful if you have a source for your information, like a news article or a report. FMCSA is specifically looking for this type of information, so anything you have would be very useful.
This is not a “safety requirement”. The FMCSA already monitors motor carriers by safestats, and either fines or shuts down companies not complying. This is an unconstitutional, behind your back move lobbied by manufacturers of EOBR to force everyone to buy one by using the federal government to back them. You want to see some wasted tax money? You are looking at it now. This new rule says that the folks that are now getting paid to monitor motor carriers are not doing their job. The rule should could be a requirement for motor carriers that have reached a threshold of Violations and have not corrected them. Not by making every owner operator purchase unnecessary equipment. We need to add some checks and balances to our Government.
packrat74871, the FMCSA has said that EOBRs are meant as a tool to increase HOS compliance and that increasing HOS compliance could increase safety by decreasing driver fatigue. Do you disagree with this argument? Do you believe that law enforcement officials alone could increase HOS compliance without the need for EOBRs?
The Rights of All
I am alarmed and deeply angered at the recent proposal and remarks of Ray LaHood, Secretary of Transportation. In defending his proposal to require approximately 500,000 carriers install Electronic On-Board Recorders (EOBRs) on nearly all trucks, he said, “We cannot protect our roadways when commercial truck and bus companies exceed hours-of-service rules. This proposal would make our roads safer by ensuring that carriers traveling across state lines are using EOBRs to track the hours their drivers spend behind the wheel.”
Here’s a proposal for Mr. LaHood. Let’s put Internet-trackable GPS Electronic Tethers (IGETs) on him and each of the 55,000 people under his command at Transportation. We citizens cannot protect our freedoms when commercial politicians like him exceed the constitution’s rules. This proposal would make our nation safer by ensuring that politicians who rule across state lines are using IGETs so we can track the hours they and their staffs are spending.
After Mr. LaHood has developed this IGET system with a very small part of his $70 billion taxpayer-paid-for annual budget, prototyped it on himself and his 55,000 employees for, say, three years, he can expand his program to include all elected politicians and their staff members in the federal government. After that, he should come back to us lowly truck drivers and we’ll discuss together the installation of his EOBR spy boxes in our trucks. Then we can all spy on each other and be one big happy community together. It’ll be great! It’ll make our roads safer, right?
The EOBR spy box defenders say these are not spy boxes, but only monitoring devices that record a limited number of functions (e.g., when the truck is running, the duty status of the driver, etc.). This is the third biggest lie ever told by a politician, right after “the income tax we are creating will never exceed three per cent” and “the social security number will never be used for purposes of identification.” Today’s EOBR spy boxes are a Model T; tomorrow’s will be a 2025 government BMW with metallic paint and the ability to cruise at 35,000 feet. Today, the government will require carriers run the spy boxes and dictate to those carriers how and when they show government their every record, but tomorrow the government will control or own the carriers and their boxes, just as they now control or own car companies, student loans, mortgages, and health care. Remember how employer-provided health care was designed to eventually become government-run health care? Same song, another verse. Government-run trucking. Enjoy.
As Mr. LaHood voluntarily took office on Jan. 23, 2009, he accepted the responsibility to defend the constitution. Its 4th Amendment states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” He has not only failed in this task, but he is abusing the legitimate power of his good office to illegitimately attack the rights he is sworn to uphold. Understand what Mr. LaHood is doing: he is not simply failing to protect our 4th Amendment right with Carter-level incompetance or malfeasance, he has joined (and is leading!) the attack against it!
Mr. LaHood’s stated reason for his perpetration of the EOBR spy boxes on us is to “make our roads safer.” He is not telling the truth. Where’s his proof? Where are the longitudinal studies that support his claim? Who comprised the control group? Where is the statisticians’ report showing a proper interpretation of the raw data? How much “safer” will our roads be if we give up our right to be free from this type of government’s search of us and our things? Where is the ratified constitutional amendment by which we citizens gave up our 4th Amendment right to be free from government searches without a specific, limited warrant?
If a judge were to demonstrate a bias against an innocent defendant as Mr. LaHood’s above remark demonstrates against truck drivers, the outraged defense lawyer would rightly demand the judge’s removal from the case (perhaps from the bench!), but Mr. LaHood continues to sit in judgmental judgment of us. The government’s subjection of certain convicted criminals to its surveillance is appropriate; subjecting law-abiding citizens to this treatment is itself criminal. We are individual citizens who are not only unconvicted, but unaccused, and against whom the only evidence is Mr. LaHood’s prejudice. Mr. LaHood’s remark shows he has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be a public servant. He needs to be removed from office.
Companies have every right to know (therefore, to track) the whereabouts and use of any equipments which belong to them (consistent with employees’ rights), but government has no such right. The government has no right to track innocent citizens where the only evidence of wrongdoing is the prejudice of government leaders. Use of EOBRs is an issue between a carrier and its insurance company, and between a carrier and its employees, and it’s none of the federal government’s stinking business. Butt out, Mr. LaHood: find your new home in the unemployment line.
I favor increasing traffic safety and preserving our constitutional rights. Mr. LaHood favors using traffic safety as an excuse to violate those same rights. We do not need government-required tracking devices around us. As Mr. LaHood is unfit for public office at any level, he needs to find a new job, preferably one in the private sector where his remuneration is based on productivity instead of political connections.
The misdeeds of some is never justification for violating the rights of all. Our constitution and Bill of Rights must stand, and Mr. LaHood must stand down.
Dan the Trucker
truckdrivingdan@yahoo.com
The Rights of All
I am alarmed and deeply angered at the recent proposal and remarks of Ray LaHood, Secretary of Transportation. In defending his proposal to require approximately 500,000 carriers install Electronic On-Board Recorders (EOBRs) on nearly all trucks, he said, “We cannot protect our roadways when commercial truck and bus companies exceed hours-of-service rules. This proposal would make our roads safer by ensuring that carriers traveling across state lines are using EOBRs to track the hours their drivers spend behind the wheel.”
Here’s a proposal for Mr. LaHood. Let’s put Internet-trackable GPS Electronic Tethers (IGETs) on him and each of the 55,000 people under his command at Transportation. We citizens cannot protect our freedoms when commercial politicians like him exceed the constitution’s rules. This proposal would make our nation safer by ensuring that politicians who rule across state lines are using IGETs so we can track the hours they and their staffs are spending.
After Mr. LaHood has developed this IGET system with a very small part of his $70 billion taxpayer-paid-for annual budget, prototyped it on himself and his 55,000 employees for, say, three years, he can expand his program to include all elected politicians and their staff members in the federal government. After that, he should come back to us lowly truck drivers and we’ll discuss together the installation of his EOBR spy boxes in our trucks. Then we can all spy on each other and be one big happy community together. It’ll be great! It’ll make our roads safer, right?
The EOBR spy box defenders say these are not spy boxes, but only monitoring devices that record a limited number of functions (e.g., when the truck is running, the duty status of the driver, etc.). This is the third biggest lie ever told by a politician, right after “the income tax we are creating will never exceed three per cent” and “the social security number will never be used for purposes of identification.” Today’s EOBR spy boxes are a Model T; tomorrow’s will be a 2025 government BMW with metallic paint and the ability to cruise at 35,000 feet. Today, the government will require carriers run the spy boxes and dictate to those carriers how and when they show government their every record, but tomorrow the government will control or own the carriers and their boxes, just as they now control or own car companies, student loans, mortgages, and health care. Remember how employer-provided health care was designed to eventually become government-run health care? Same song, another verse. Government-run trucking. Enjoy.
As Mr. LaHood voluntarily took office on Jan. 23, 2009, he accepted the responsibility to defend the constitution. Its 4th Amendment states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” He has not only failed in this task, but he is abusing the legitimate power of his good office to illegitimately attack the rights he is sworn to uphold. Understand what Mr. LaHood is doing: he is not simply failing to protect our 4th Amendment right with Carter-level incompetance or malfeasance, he has joined (and is leading!) the attack against it!
Mr. LaHood’s stated reason for his perpetration of the EOBR spy boxes on us is to “make our roads safer.” He is not telling the truth. Where’s his proof? Where are the longitudinal studies that support his claim? Who comprised the control group? Where is the statisticians’ report showing a proper interpretation of the raw data? How much “safer” will our roads be if we give up our right to be free from this type of government’s search of us and our things? Where is the ratified constitutional amendment by which we citizens gave up our 4th Amendment right to be free from government searches without a specific, limited warrant?
If a judge were to demonstrate a bias against an innocent defendant as Mr. LaHood’s above remark demonstrates against truck drivers, the outraged defense lawyer would rightly demand the judge’s removal from the case (perhaps from the bench!), but Mr. LaHood continues to sit in judgmental judgment of us. The government’s subjection of certain convicted criminals to its surveillance is appropriate; subjecting law-abiding citizens to this treatment is itself criminal. We are individual citizens who are not only unconvicted, but unaccused, and against whom the only evidence is Mr. LaHood’s prejudice. Mr. LaHood’s remark shows he has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be a public servant. He needs to be removed from office.
Companies have every right to know (therefore, to track) the whereabouts and use of any equipments which belong to them (consistent with employees’ rights), but government has no such right. The government has no right to track innocent citizens where the only evidence of wrongdoing is the prejudice of government leaders. Use of EOBRs is an issue between a carrier and its insurance company, and between a carrier and its employees, and it’s none of the federal government’s stinking business. Butt out, Mr. LaHood: find your new home in the unemployment line.
I favor increasing traffic safety and preserving our constitutional rights. Mr. LaHood favors using traffic safety as an excuse to violate those same rights. We do not need government-required tracking devices around us. As Mr. LaHood is unfit for public office at any level, he needs to find a new job, preferably one in the private sector where his remuneration is based on productivity instead of political connections.
The misdeeds of some is never justification for violating the rights of all. Our constitution and Bill of Rights must stand, and Mr. LaHood must stand down.
Dan the Trucker
During a period of great recession, DOT & FMCSA will require trucking companies to spend millions of dollars to meet new regulations. The new requirements seem to be presupposed at most.
Electronic driver monitoring technology has been available for more than 15 years. Why the big push now? Profit !
Jdnutt, FMCSA has said that they are now proposing this rule in order to increase safety. Do you think that using EOBRs would increase HOS compliance and therefore increase safety?
If you are interested in the FMCSA’s cost/benefit analysis visit our Costs post.
The use of EOBRs will tell you how long the truck has been in operation. Road conditions and other delays are not addressed. Shippers/receivers have no respect for deadlines they have placed on drivers to move their products. Once they get the truck loaded their job is done.
I’ve sat in a loading dock for 13hrs before and then I had to be at my delivery site in 10hrs. I couldn’t sleep while in the dock because the truck would shake everytime the forklift loaded another pallet.
It also sounds to me that FMCSA is mandating the use of EOBRs REGARDLESS whether those of us in the industry think that they will be effective or not. The shippers and receivers are an integral part of the problem that can’t seem to be addressed by FMCSA.
Barney, FMCSA wants to get as much information as possible from people like you with experience in the trucking industry before it makes its final decision. Do you think that shippers and receivers would appreciate road conditions and other delays more if the EOBRs were required to record this information and then display it to the shippers and receivers when you arrive?
If so, could EOBRs help truckers with shipper and receiver problems?
Because of the “just-in-time” deliver paradymn that we are operating in, shippers are concerned about getting the product out the door. Receivers, once the product is on-site, seem to take a non-chalant attitude about any other deadlines the driver faces for backhaul.
Some shippers/receivers MIGHT appreciate knowing what road conditions are that drivers are facing, but if I ever have trouble on the road I make it a point to contact them. So many times, receivers treat inbound truckers as an extention of their assembly line or freezer, depending on your point of delivery. I’ve sat in the dock in Georgia, stuck because they were running their operations from my truck. Consequentially, I was down for a full day.
Interacting with some shippers/receivers, I get the impression that they are concerned about putting in their time but not responsible for the stray driver that missed a pickup/delivery.
Everyone wants safety until safety costs anyone any money. If the DOT is going to pay for the Mexican trucks on US Highways to have eobr’s, when they pass this law, they had better pay for my eobr or the DOT will have the biggest class action discrimination lawsuit against them ever.
Okcarhauler, it sounds like you want to comment on the FMCSA’s “Pilot Program on NAFTA Long-Haul Trucking Provisions.” In that proposal, the FMCSA discusses the issue with Mexican trucks that you discuss. You can comment on that proposal here.
I have been working Safety in trucking for more than 20 years. I have seen crash causation data improve virtually year after year….and fatality rates improve year over year. I have also served on many committees at ATA and other industry groups over the years and have often been involved with these issues “on the front side”. At some point.. somebody that actually counts….somewhere…. has to envoke some common sense. Government can restrict and regulate trucking to the point where there will be no one left to do it except a few of the huge carriers. (Perhaps there is something to that…anyone ever heard of “lobbyists”?) Data can be skewed to show whatever a person wants it to show. Statistics are available to prove ANY POINT on ANY TOPIC you wish to prove. The costs benefits of an EOBR mandate are a JOKE. Currently, our fleet is just shy of 100 tractors. I WILL SAVE ZERO by my drivers not having to fill out a log page. I WILL SAVE ZERO by my drivers not having to submit paper logs (they have to turn in several other trip documents anyway). And while I might save a little in clerical time, maybe, the savings certainly will not be what the study suggests! By a show of hands..how many small trucking companies pay their clerical staff between $27 and $29 dollars hourly….the answer is ZERO. Unrealistic numbers generated by unrealistic people who are use to spending TAX DOLLARS and NOT operating profit! And they get to do whatever they want for as long as they want! There is VERY LITTLE, IF ANY, offset in costs for us!!! EOBR’s are simply a massive hit to our bottom line…plain and simple. Stop my drivers and check their logs… audit me if you want to….but DON’T MAKE ME SPEND A QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS and a bunch of money every year from now to forever to help you do your job!! Will this EOBR initiative reduce the number of enforcement officers in the field? It should. 40% to 60% less violations has to correlate to less of a need for officers. Right? I haven’t heard anything about that? If there were to be a downsizing of enforcement officials….wonder if they would be for this mandate?? WAIT!!! here’s an idea…..there would be ZERO HOS violations IN ALL OF TRUCKING if every company had to hire one enforcement official per truck to ride in the truck with every driver!!! This would create a whole bunch more overpaid government jobs…..and the TRUCKING INDUSTRY CAN PAY FOR ALL OF IT!!! Sound stupid?? Not so fast!!!….there WILL be someone or some group that just may grab this idea and run with it!!! Last thing… there is one number I would love to see. How much money has been spent by government, special interest groups, the trucking industry, the “think tanks” that come up with their skewed data….etc…on the issues of HOS and EOBR’s? SOMEBODY GIVE ME THIS NUMBER!This number has to be both astronomical and tragic!!! Considering our current economy, the conditions of our highways, FUEL COSTS!!….and a never-ending list of other issues that are more pressing to trucking AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC….what a waste of cash and time and resources all of this has been. And the people WHO ARE GETTING PAID will continue to beat this horse…for YEARS TO COME… as long as their government checks cash. Is it just me?
Jeffs, you have provided a lot of useful information about FMCSA’s cost estimates and what the proposed rule may cost your company. You mention that your company will save little if anything from the paperwork reductions. Do you have any rough figures for how much your company may save (or lose) overall?
Your concerns will have the most impact if you can provide FMCSA with hard data and figures.
The cost of the EBOR equipment is high, the monthly cost is another fee the O/O does not need ….
The average O/O is probably the safest of all truck drivers out here .. they know the cost of what has to be completed on their trucks…the cheapest way is the most expensive…
Their trucks are their livelihood..
Most O/O’s know that if in an accident running illegal logs just isn’t worth it.
Their truck should not have been on the road when it should have been shut down for a reset…
Every O/O I have met keeps legal logs.
The Electronic logs are costly and I’m totally against them just because of some dumb a** that got in accident because he was driving when he should have been doing a reset.
Illegal logs…This is not the norm out here for the long term Owner Operator.
EBOR’s are just another cost the O/O does need in my opinion.
Crusin, you seem to be arguing that most truck drivers drive safe and follow the rules, so they don’t need EOBRs. However, do you think that EOBRs are a good idea for those drivers that have significant HOS violations?
what I’m saying is I’m an O/O…I keep correct logs… a stupid thing to falsify logs..
But the FMCSA IS GOING TO MAKE ME(force me to use them) USE EOBR’s….
because some dumb xxx’s falsified logs and got into an accident…and operated THEIR TRUCKS while fatigued..
we as (O/O’s, ) don’t operate that way..unsafe…safety is THE FIRST PRIORITY…I keep the equipment in good order…repair just about everything on the rig’s in order to keep the vehicles SAFE and mainly to ovoid breakdowns…
The pay scale has dropped significantly over the years…
..and FMCSA is going to force me to install that expensive equipment in my trucks…an expense I don’t need or want.
I’m really against the idea of the FMCSA forcing me me to install this expensive equipment ,EOBR’s,
mainly because we
(my other drivers who haul for me) operate within the HOS now…I really do not need an electronic device to keep CORRECT, LEGAL logs…
IT’S ANOTHER EXPENSE I DON’T NEED AT MY COMPANY!
crusin
yes, for very repetitive offenders…drivers that purposely create false logs…not drivers that have been cited for a honest mistake on their logs over the years.
I had a State Police Officer tell me to my face that he was
” writing a many violations as possible to keep myself employed as a State Police Officer”…
That’s non sense…
EOBRs are a huge privacy invasion to truckers. It is akin to slapping an ankle braclet on them as if they were criminals on house arrest. Confinement and tracking is supposed to be reserved for people who have been proven guilty of commiting crimes. The FMCSA has no probable cause to record the movements of drivers, especially those who are off duty and using the CMV as a personal conveyance. It speaks to the mentality of those who wish to regulate the industry to death that nearl ALL truck drivers should be treated as convicted criminals.
If EOBR-recrded records are subject to FOIA release, they could also amount to a government advocation of corporate espionage.
It is baffling, when looking at highway safety numbers, to see EOBRs being advanced. Truck-involved accidents are at an all-time low, and yet, we must push to make the roads ever safer as if there is some way to prevent every accident and keep everyone safe all the time.
Even if highway safety numbers supported such drastic intervention and forgetting that they amount to a Constitutional invasion of privacy, EOBRs are still not the solution.
If the idea is that drivers are common criminals who cannot be trusted to enter information accurately and truthfully, why in the world would we consider a solution than still requires them to input their duty status? Sure, an EOBR can tell when the truck is moving and where it is, but it cannot tell what the driver is doing when the truck is not moving. Why aren’t we just moving on to technology that requires drivers to connect themselves to sensors to record whether they are actually in their sleepers and whether they are awake or asleep?
Enacting EOBRs will not make anyone safer. If there was an EOBR in every single vehicle on the road, I would not feel a whit safer. There are good truck drivers, there are bad truck drivers, and EVERYONE is liable to make a mistake at any time regardless of how professional they are. As a motorist, I will continue to give trucks wide berth for that very reason.
The cost/benefit analysis cannot convince me otherwise. It is completely unreliable. Fatigue is unquantifiable. Just because a driver has an HOS violation or mistake in their logbook does not mean that they were actually fatigued. Law enforcement officers filling out crash reports are not, and cannot, be qualified to determine fatigue, either. And yet, we rely on those statistics, recorded on an unquantifiable factor, as a way to measure whether or not better HOS enforcement through EOBRs will protect us. We can’t even know that the HOS prevent fatigue in truck drivers, but somehow better enforcement of those regs will?
Vganster, you say that truck-involved accidents are at an all time low. Would it be possible for you to share where you got this information from? The FMCSA would benefit from having this sort of data.
Additionally, you seem to have some experience with EOBRs. You say that truckers are still allowed to input their duty status when using an EOBR. Could you explain how this works and what your experience with EOBRs has been?
The FMCSA would benefit from having it’s own data? Here’s one source http://www.todaystrucking.com/features.cfm?intDocID=24990
I have no experience with EOBRs. I am not a truck driver. However, I know that unless the EOBR has some sort of magic powers, it cannot tell whether the driver is waiting at a shipper or reciever or securing a load. It knows only whether the truck is moving or not moving. If the truck is moving, then it’s obviously going to be on-duty, driving time. If the truck is not moving, the driver certainly must have a way to input what duty status should be recorded.
Why not address exactly how the FMCSA believes that mandated EOBR technology is not a major invasion of privacy? Why not address the fact that fatigue is an unquantifiable factor and that the statistics citing fatigue as accident causation are therefore unreliable?
Mr moderator look up trucking stats and you will see that even on the FMCSA own web sight you can find this info. AND yes sir there are other neutral sights to see this info, it is out there for anybody who wants to know.
EOBRs haven’t been proven to do anything more than satisfy the bank accounts of those that enforce installing them in trucks, and those that manufacture them. If anyone really wants to make sure everyone is safe (which I doubt they really care about) then why not have the DOT or FMCSA pay for, manufacture, and distribute something like the PikePass, a simple little thing that can be read by a scanner and provide basic information without invading privacy? Why does the expense have to be on the Owner Operators? I think this whole issue will ultimately be a test. If we let them get away with it, then more of this kind of thing will surely come. If we fight it, REALLY fight it, they will understand not to try anything like this anymore. It’s a shameful thing that they are trying to do, but it’s more shameful that cottage industries will show up to subsidize the cost of these units, in effect taking yet another piece of the proverbial pie, and leaving the Owner Operator with less income, all in the name of “more money” for the fat cats under the guise of safety.
Dinsmoretransportation, could you provide some more information on the PikePass device, such as links to product websites or technical data? FMCSA is looking for as much hard information as possible and anything more you could provide would be very helpful.
Also, you raise some important concerns about privacy. Do you think that the information in the Privacy post addresses your concerns?
Moderator: The PikePass-similar device is not actually anything that I know of to be in production, but rather a suggestion which would work as well as any EOBR without invasion of privacy concerns, potential abuse by law enforcement, and a wide variety of other effects.
The PikePass works simply by being scanned when a vehicle travels through a toll, where it simply attaches a log file to the account holder, charges or deducts the toll amount automatically, and allows the driver to remain traveling at the speed limit without the necessity to stop and wait in line to pay physical cash to a toll-booth operator.
If the same technology were implemented and adapted to include other information, such as the speed limit at time of “capture” of the device’s data, etc., then it would alleviate the supposed need for EOBRs.
Of course, this isn’t something that I have studied in great detail, but rather it’s one of the first things that comes to mind in regard to eliminating further discussion in favor of EOBRs.
From what I’ve gathered, requiring these devices is not favored by anyone in the vast majority of the industry, and at last check the industry was composed of somewhere near 80% owner-operators compared to a smaller group of mega-carriers, which happened to be in favor of the EOBR.
It would seem more rational to go with the majority than with the minority, for favoring the minority side’s decisions would imply an inherit amount of bias, and political/business cooperation, which is never a good thing.
Needless to say, I hear a screaming voice from the majority in opposition of the EOBRs and only a few in favor. I would be scared to go against that majority for fear of losing business, and implementing a “big brother” type of control over human beings in the name of what we are being told is safety.
One more thing, concerning the safety issue: I haven’t yet found any compelling evidence that the EOBRs have anything to do with safety. They seem more likely to be used as a time-saving tool for certain things like inspections but as they are not being properly marketed as such, one can only assume other things, hence the uproar and resentment, due in part to the foreknowledge by most that these devices will aide in the reduction of wages and in turn the decrease in the level of financial stability of the lives of the people directly effected.
As for Privacy issues, the only logical conclusion that can I can reach is that these devices invade privacy, whether it can be deemed legal or not. If someone does not want one of these devices capturing certain data then it would seem that doing it anyway is, in fact, an invasion of privacy, or at the very least, knowingly denying a citizen’s request for peace or “non-intrusion”, if you’ll pardon the vernacular.
Thank you.
I believe that if the Government wants us to have EOBRS then they should have to pay to have them put in. MY TRUCK..MY PROPERTY..if they pay for it no problem. I am a legal driver.
What do other commenters think of thudder1j’s statement that an EOBR mandate would not be a problem if FMCSA paid to install the devices?
i just wish this was over so I could decide what to do next.
Some other commenters have mentioned that there might be less expensive and less intrusive EOBRs than the Qualcomm device (You can read their comments here and here). How would a mandate for a less expensive and intrusive device impact your decision about continuing to drive a truck?
Is compliance really safety? NO!! compliance is often un safe putting drivers in harms way because they are out of hours to drive. and often times when they do park due to being out of hours are forced to drive by the police and for many other reasons. Cmon we all know why they want EOBRS..
moderator, i dont really know what to say, i am totally against the whole EOBR proposal, why should I or any other professional driver have to have this device, when my wife can get in our mini van with our children and drive strait through from our home in Montana to her moms home in south georgia. im against the reasoning for this device. i admit to violating the hos rules at times but only to get to a safe place to park or to beat the storm. whats the point in stopping when its raining at 33 degrees and the forecast is for tempuratures to fall and everything to turn to ice in just a few hours when you are perfectally able to continue for a little longer and make your destination without driving in the ice etc. i have to add that our truck is a 1988 model peterbilt, non electronic. I recently removed all of the decals from it, as it sits beside of our garage waiting for the out come of these potential changes. do you know that as an rv i can drive this truck non stop. i am 37 years old and was homeless as a child for twenty years living with my family as transients, we are on page 44 of the book into the wild and kristen stewart plays my sister in the movie. as a child my only dream was to be an otr trucker and to have a home. in 2008 i lost my 2003 kenworth due to fuel cost and an ilness my wife had. now i own a 1988 pete and can not wait to be trucking again. but with these proposed rules it will all be gone. i can not afford an electronic truck at this time. the eobr rule is so out of reason. more people die from starvation, abuse and homelessness in the usa than in truck crashes, lets do something about that!
Regulation room you have taken and loaded your little EOBR ROOM WITH WHAT YOU SEE AS A LIST OF SPECIALIST I see it as a room of companies that all have an interest in making sure this EBOR law is forced on everyone goes through. You have companies that are there to try to sell their units, and you have trucking companies that are in there that would like to even up the playing field, they chose to put those things in there trucks and were at the time not forced thats their problem not the rest of ours. And this room has the b**** to stand up and give them their own little pro ebor room shame on ya’s, so much for being neutral, but then most comments that I have seen come from this room has been in support of the EBOR’S and every other thing that the FMCSA has pushed for. And now the room sets up a room that they can say how great the EBOR’S are with out anybody bring them to task, what a JOKE.
You have raised some important criticisms of the new expert post. Regulation Room is a neutral site and is run by Cornell University, not FMCSA, but we present proposed regulations based solely on what the Agency has released to the public. Some commenters raised issues concerning the Qualcomm device FMCSA bases some of its cost estimates on. We felt that it would be useful to provide a space for commenters with knowledge about other devices to discuss issues not explicitly mentioned in the rule. If you feel that there are entities or individuals with expert knowledge about these devices and should also be included on the discussion list, please contact us.
So now all of a sudden the government is now telling a company that their cost of a unit is to much money, and you have your so called experts that are going to sit there and point their fingers at each other and saying how the other guy is charging to much and trying to take advantage of drivers. So maybe the FMCSA might want to step in and say how much the can charge drivers. Any way you look at it the government is totaly over stepping their power, and they have become a government run by the government for the better of the government and you need a special little room to see this. I do not know if I am the only one that see’s it this way or not but it’s a shame that the FMCSA is going to be the undoing of a lot of little companies and their is no defending that I don’t care how you or your little so called expert room fells about it, but I’m so sure that isn’t the intent.
How is the EOBR going to prevent a driver that is having one of those days, where no matter what he does he cannot keep his eyes open from getting into an accident? And let us not sit here and blame this all on the driver. Now you have your company with eyes on you, you have the recorder that is against you and your HOS is counting down on you and your ten-hour drive time. So the driver keeps going, and in hour #5, he has an accident due to being fatigue. Now how many fatigue type accidents happen with in the legal day’s hours? And do not think that a driver is not going to feel the added pressure to keep rolling even when their own body says it is time to take a nap. Nothing has to be said directly about continuing, and anybody that has ever driven knows what I am saying. How many accidents that already accrue like this that goes down as fatigue driving? How is the EBOR going to stop this from happening? How is it going to stop a company from keeping pressure on drivers to keep rolling?
I know that using the FMCSA’s own accident stats for trucks is way down. I cannot remember for sure, but it seems that the truck related fatalities was less then 3300 lives, and of those most of what I read says that between 75 and 80 percent of those accidents were caused by the four-wheeler. Now lets look at those numbers this way, there are approximately 2.5 million trucks on the road, and there are less then 700 people killed a year due to trucks. And the FMCSA’S Say’s of those fatal truck accidents 3 percent are caused by fatigue driving. I under stand that even one life is to many, however the FMCSA wants to change the whole trucking industry and force truckers to pay money out to have a EOBR put in their trucks and pay a 40. Dollar a month connection fee. Tell me that there are not a bunch of supporters of this administration that are going to get rich of the backs of honest drivers.
And I would be willing to make a wager that with their idea of forcing these EOBR’S in the cab’s of trucks that in the end it is going to create more accidents then they are going to prevent. But I am sure that those accident’s will be blamed on something else, like trucks are just too big to be on the rods with four wheelers or something along that line. One way or other trucks are going to be at fault and the government and all there wisdom will jump in there to save all of humanity from those mean worthless trucks.
Tell me how the government is not over stepping their grounds forcing truckers to buy equipment to monitor our every move, and this dose not have something to do with being a privacy issue. All I know is that numbers do not lie.
Thanks for expressing your concerns, Trucking. From your comments and others, it’s clear many truckers feel strongly that no kind of EOBR rule makes sense. But FMCSA might not agree, and then it will be important to know whether there are cheaper, better alternatives than what FMCSA’s been talking about so far. Our goal is to have users like you provide any information that may not be included in FMCSA’s proposed rule (you can learn more about Regulation Room’s goals and purposes here). FMCSA is not interested in what we can provide. They need hard data and sources from you, the public. If you feel that there is information on other websites or elsewhere that FMCSA should know about, please provide links to those websites or that information. FMCSA needs as much data as it can get.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811363.pdf
MR. moderator you were asking where somebody else came up with fatality stats that you asked where he found is stats. I do not know where he found them at, but these come right off there on web site.
In 2009 there were 3,3380 deaths in large truck related accidents and that was down 865 from 2008, in which was a 20% drop.
So the numbers have bee on a steady drop since about 1997. So tell me that there is not more to the big push for EOBRS and the push for a change of HOS. Those numbers do not take into consideration the percentage of those accidents that were caused by the other vehicle in which is figured to be at 75%. Now you take and run the numbers it just does not add up to all the reticle changes. The FMCSA do not have the facts on their side, and that is a fact.
Thank you for the link to the fatality statistics, trucking. Hard data and sources are invaluable to the Agency during this process. Do other commenters agree that FMCSA has not fully taken these statistics into account for the EOBR proposal? Do commenters have any more data on this topic?
EOBRs are a bad idea for the trucking industry no matter how you look at it.
Forcing a company or an owner-operator to install these units is an expense that we just cannot afford. And let us not forget the UNCONSTITUTIONALITY of such a decree. Do I need to remind you of the current lawsuits going on concerning the health care bill??
If this passes I can foresee the same types of lawsuits.
From a driver’s perspective, I have a hard enough time making enough money to pay my bills with the current FMCSA rules and regulations. From everything I have heard about these EOBRs, they will do nothing but make it impossible make enough money to pay my bills and provide for my family. Increased downtime means less money for the driver, no matter how you look at it.
From a company’s point of view, first there is the increased cost of installing the devices, then the training of the drivers in the use of said devices, and the cost of the upkeep of those EOBRs. More costs equals less profit to the company. Less profit to the company means that the company must look for a way to save more money or go out of business. My guess on how to save money? Fire a driver or two. Instant savings.
And why?? All so that the Almighty Federal Government may protect us from ourselves.
My vote is NO to the EOBR.
WHY DON’T YOU JUST CHANGE H.O.S. TO 5 HRS DRIVING/ 5 HOURS OF DOCKING AND 14 HRS OF SLEEPER BERTH/OFF DUTY TIME. NOW WE HAVE TIME FOR EVERY THING, AND THE DRIVER STILL GETS NOTHING.
FMCSA is actually in the process of making changes to the HOS rules in another proposed rule. Information about that rule can be found here. Unfortunately, that rule closed for commenting in February, but you can still read the proposal at regulations.gov. Additionally, your comments about HOS on this site will be made part of the summary of this conversation on EOBRs that Regulation Room submits to FMCSA.
Providing you are a company that educates and monitors your fleet you have nothing to worry about with EOBRs. A lot of the fear of EOBRs seems to stem from a lack of good practises following the HOS in the first place, maintaining safe and operational vehicles and having to be accountable for everything in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation handbook. Drivers and the Company’s they work for need to truly understand what is required by law when operating a trucking operation. Before CSA and EOBRs there was no universal USA wide to understand or score carriers. We’ve heard from many companies that CSA makes it a lot clearer what they are buying into.
At Gorski Bulk Transport, we have a long history of winning countless safety awards for being a safe carrier and we are committed to continuous improvement.
Thank you for your input, gorskibulk. Many commenters who identify themselves as experienced drivers say that EOBRs feel like a punishment and that the devices do not improve safety. Do you have any experienced drivers at your company who switched to EOBRs, and if so, could you describe their view before and after making the change?
Most of our drivers accepted the change as no different than paper logs, understanding that this is the nature of the industry. We have drivers that have been with us from anywhere between 1 to 30+ years. A few at first refered to it as the ‘egg timer on the dash board’ – but after using it for a few months and learning the software I haven’t had a single complaint. In fact, when there are computer problems or a driver needs to go to temporary rental unit they complain that they have to keep paper logs again! Our fleet is actually 100% EOBR and have been for almost a year.
We gradually introduced them to our team and we work with our entire fleet so that they are fully capable of using them with confidence. There has been no issue in terms of safety either. We also have had a 100% satellite tracked fleet for some time and this is a natural addition to this feature.
Perhaps the difference is that we are deeply committed to our team and that’s why we have had success with EOBRs? I would like to think so.
Mr Moderator you asked a question of me a few days ago on anybody who should be allowed to comment in your expert room. Yes there is and I do not uderstand why they were not invited from the beginning, that being OOIDA. In your list I have seen a lot of companies that are pro EBOR but none of them that will really question them.
This discussion is about more than Pro/Con EOBRs. The rulemaking process isn’t like voting. The decision to have some kind of regulation has already been made, and this is an opportunity for those who will be impacted by that regulation to shape it. We ask that all stay away from ridicule, sarcasm, and personalized attack.
We started the expert post because there was a clear need for answers from equipment manufacturers, installers, and others who know about the technology and actual implementation of EOBRs to speak to other possible devices, market capacity, implementation schedule, costs, etc. We avoided inviting advocate groups because we didn’t want to mirror the discussion already occurring on other topics. If you believe OOIDA has technology experts who can speak to these topics without merely expressing a negative opinion on any implementation of EOBRs, let us know and we’ll will invite them to participate.
Ok so a manufacture is an expert on how well an EBOR works, I will give you that. On the other hand any pit falls that they have with them they are not going to sit and air it out for all to see. Remember they are private companies out to make a profit, so they will always say they are a good thing. And as far as the trucking companies you have brought forward, and did the self imposed EOBR in their own truck. Why some ask? That is an easy one to answer, those companies chose to hire none experienced drivers and found that the EBOR was the easiest way in order to track their rookie drivers and make sure they were doing what the company wanted, an electronic babysitter. So now you say how those trucking companies are experts on the EBOR, maybe but like I said about the manufactures, I will also say about the trucking companies that use them, it comes down to profit. So now they think that all should be like them to level the playing field. So are the trucking companies truly experts I think not. Yes Mr Moderator I have become very distrustful of anything that the FMCSA has to offer lately. The FMCSA has no facts to stand on, but keep yelling it is about safety. So you see where the problem lyes with this for me, you can not no matter how hard you try to have a expert room that is not tilted one way or the other. And better yet they can make statements with out being questioned. The room is tilted one way, whether intended or not and the FMCSA is the one who will benefit from it. Sorry for touching a nerve, but who really is going to be a neutral expert? you tell me and why should they.
BOTTOM LINE…
YOU GOTTA BE AN IDIOT TO RUN FALSIFIED LOGS…1 ACCIDENT AND 2-5 HEAVY TRUCK INVESTIGATORS + ILLEGAL LOGS+ SERIOUS PROBLEMS…
WHO WOULD BE THAT STUPID?
Me personally…I drive for my allotted time…11 hours…rest the correct amount of hours…then `run the next day for 11…
I need to or want to run for anymore crazy hours..
I don’t need to or want to run for any more than the 11 hours….
I feel that there is a place for EOBR’s. You are already using them where I feel they make the best sense! On drivers & company’s that have a very bad habit of disregarding the HOS & Safety Rules. To mandate them on Every truck is punishing (financially, morally,& ethically ) those who have already proven that we obey the laws the FMCSA have on the books.
This mandate will do less for safety , and more for the industry that produces and maintains the records! We DO NOT need more Big Brother!
The government & FMCSA are so busy regulating the DRIVER, that they are going to put us out of business at this rate!
Being a Owner-Operator I know trucking is NO 9 to 5 job! We have to be flexible in so many ways the average person could not believe. This is no dreamy job, no great adventure. We work long hours, do hard outdoor labor ( I run a Step Deck trailer) in every kind of weather, we have loads of paperwork to keep up to date. We also need to eat, sleep, shower, house keep, maintain our equipment, & relax, for we have a high stress job.
So you ask what can the FMCSA do for the Trucker? Well here are a few areas that the FMCSA, the government & states need to do some changing!
#1. We need safe places to park for our down time & rest periods!
People sure want their products BUT 85% of them DO NOT want the trucks in their communities. We are human being! When its 85* outside in the sun its 110* to 125* inside our trucks, there are times we need to idle! I am all for the end of unnecessary idling! Not only is it a waste of fuel & money, its just not smart! The solution is a APU unit, well have you ever parked next to one with your windows open?? They are vented to the passenger side of trucks, so the exhaust comes right into the truck next to them. Its really not easy to sleep with APU exhaust pouring into your truck. It brings fatigue to a whole new level.
#2. We need quit being a major source of revenue!
The laws & rules we have to abide by are left to interpretation. That means there is very little consistency in how & when they are applied. They need defined nation wide so everyone enforces the SAME Rules.
#3. There needs to be rules for detention time on the books!
No matter what kind of freight you move there is alot of sitting time both at the shipper & receiver that is basically unpaid time. Now you tell me your time is free?? If your at work you expect to be paid right? We rarely get paid for our detention time. It also can greatly eat into our available time for working.
Thus making it so we have to break the rules to get the freight where it needs to be, and pushing a 14 hr day is tough!
#4. Transparency of the shipping contract!
1. from point of shipment to the
2.carrier/driver to the
3.receiver/customer paying the freight bill
This would do a great deal to balance out the pieces of the pie. I know it would cut the costs of moving freight, and in due cut the cost of goods to the consumer! While the FMCSA is so busy regulating the driver of the truck they do nothing to support the drivers on a whole. Here’s a example: Say a shipper ( Caterpillar for example) has a order of 50 bobcats, he calls a Broker, the says ok I can move these 10 loads for $3.50 a mile including the fuel surcharge. Now these loads start in NC, they are all going to the state of TX., but various destination city’s in the state of TX. Now that Broker puts those loads out there on a load board ( ITS, GetLoaded, LoadMax, ect.) He posts these loads for say $1.75/ml. now out of the 10 trucks he hires or books these loads for @ $1.75/ml he is making as much as the trucks moving the freight ($3.50-$1.75= $3.50). Now I don’t know about you but I have yet to see a brokers office that meets or exceeds the overhead cost of operating a Tractor Trailer! We not only pay a outrageous cost on fuel ( on a average a Tractor Trailer gets @ 5.5 to 6. miles per gallon of diesel @ a cost of $4.20/gallon that is $.75 to $.82 per mile just in fuel costs) , highway tax, road use tax, repairs, leasing of/payment of our equipment, normal repairs, both Cargo & Truck/Trailer insurance ect. On a whole a driver that owns all his equipment, needs a average of $2.00 to $2.10/ mile to pay all costs, and have a paycheck for securing these loads, driving them to the destination in a timely manner , All the while living on the road, eating truckstop or fast food, being away from home and family!
after alot of reading and contacting numerious trucking companies and even trying elogs i still vote no to the eobr rule. NO EOBRS!!!!
The option that would best serve the short haul industry [in my opinion] would be to define thresholds, 2 or more out of 7 days on the road would be reasonable. That threshold would remove landscapers, farmers, septic system businesses, carpenters and other typical small businesses using trucks over 10,000 lbs but less than 26,000 lbs from the costly burden of EBOR requirements.
As a safety consultant/educator I am in contact with many small business operators using small CMV’s. Many of these operations use a CMV to transport their goods 5 or less times a month. It simply is unreasonable to make a universal mandate that would include a small business using a truck 5 times a month or one who travels within less than a 100 mile radius. Limiting the scope of the carrier type required to use the EBOR would make the most sense.