Final Summary of Discussion
When would it take effect?
Who Participated?
This post got 4 comments from 4 users; moderators responded 3 times.
Commenters included two CMV Commercial Motor Vechicles drivers, one long haul generally, >150 mi. from base for property carriers and one short haul; an owner the company that owns the rights to repayment of the mortgage principal plus interest of a trucking business with two vehicles; and an owner/operator leased to another carrier. Two of the commenters had experience using an EOBR, AOBRD or fleet A group of motor vehicles owned or leased by businesses or government agencies management system.
Overview. The few commenters on this post were divided. One commenter believes, from his/her own experience, that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) are good for drivers but can put companies in a less favorable competitive situation because non-EOBR carriers push their drivers to violate HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) rules. As a result, this commenter favors a short compliance period. Another commenter, however, doubts that enough devices can be manufactured in a short time period. (Neither of these commenters self-identified as working for a device manufacturer.)
Other more general comments on this post criticized the proposed rule as unreasonably expensive and intrusive.
Three years transition period. One commenter (a long haul generally, >150 mi. from base for property carriers driver who has used an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) or similar device) says the proposed three years compliance time is too long because it gives a big advantage to companies that wait to change over from paper logs: “I have a friend working for a company [that still uses paper RODS] and his company can make promises to customers about delivery times that our company cannot because those drivers still have more flexibility in being able to turn in log sheets that look legal even though they do not match the exact schedule that they operated.” This commenter’s experience is that EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) are a benefit for drivers: “Having EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) has taken all the pressure off the drivers where I work to meet impossible scheduled delivery and pick up times and put that responsibility back in the office where it belongs and has forced the company to talk to shippers and explain to them why we couldn’t run the way we used to and to get better flexibility from the shippers and then it was up to the office staff to run the trucks efficiently so the trucks would pay for themselves and as a result, more often than not now I am making bigger pay checks than with the old operating system and I am getting more rest than ever. My friend can not always say the same.” (Further details are on the Personal Experiences page.) So he/she suggests that all carriers should have to comply within 6 months.
Two commenters say three years is about right. One argues that not enough units could be be manufactured in six months to equip all trucks that would need them. The other commenter who agrees with the three year timeline also comments that the same three years time period should be applied to all fleet A group of motor vehicles owned or leased by businesses or government agencies sizes.
Other concerns. One commenter (an owner the company that owns the rights to repayment of the mortgage principal plus interest of a long haul/short haul trucking business with two vehicles) predicts 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 will end up being like TWIC: “there was a big oh effort made to encourage us to get TWIC. We still don’t have it, and never will. Those who spent the $132.00, really have no better option of getting loaded … Their money was spent merely as the result of a scare tactic that you will not be able to make it unless you have it.”
Another commenter (a long haul/short haul driver) expresses a common frustration that, especially for small carriers, strict HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) compliance and profitable operation is almost impossible: “Do you think shippers care about safety? All they care about is getting their freight delivered. … Simply put you can’t deliver freight legally with all the uncertainty out there on the road, there’s too much to account to just run so many hours and ensure so much deliver.” This commenter reiterates the concern that the rule will help large carriers by putting small operators out of business.
Read what commenters have said about their personal experiences relevant to 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 here.
Thank you for your participation