Comments on: Would penalties/ enforcement change?

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 23:46:11 +0000

Curious, thank you for returning and continuing to participate in this discussion. We don’t have a position pro or con EOBRs. (Regulation Room is not run by DOT.) The main goal of the Regulation Room is to provide useful and effective comments to DOT. Our job is to help every person air his or her views in the most effective way – whatever those views are. We certainly hope truck drivers will air their opinions to give us that important "on the ground" perspective. However, opinions alone, without providing more explanation or reasoning, are not useful to DOT because they do not help the agency figure out what is wrong with the proposed rule and what needs to be changed. What makes a comment persuasive in a rulemaking? Check out our Effective Commenting page.

By: Trucking

Trucking — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 20:26:42 +0000

By the time the Fmcsa and all their anti trucking friends get done with all their new rules and purposed rules, the only people who will be qualified to drive a truck would have to have the knowledge of a lawyer and that is what I believe their are after. They the DOT could ticket a driver for almost anything they want now.Look at CN not to many years ago they could give a driver a ticket for not having a white sheet on your bunk and making sure it was made at all times that was in in the early 80′s and before, i HAVE NOT PAID MUCH ATTENTION TO IT SINCE for I do not run the east coast unless the money is right. The FMCSA says this is all about safety, I am sorry this has nothing to do with safety but more about control over the INDUSTRY and those who try to make a living. And leave it to the government to try to find something to turn the drivers against each other, they should be happy they have done it. No different then the haves and the have nots. SAFETY is what it is about I don’t think so.

By: Curious

Curious — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 18:38:25 +0000

You know what to say. However, this website is definitely not going to pat you on your back for your response.

They are not looking for the truck drivers to REALLY air their opinions.

By: citizenkane

citizenkane — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 00:03:31 +0000

You make a good point about the categories of recording time. Should the EOBRs include more categories for recording time, and if so, what categories would you suggest? You also make a good point about time that is not recorded in the EOBR itself. How can the proposed rule be changed to make sure that all the time you worked is properly taken into account?

By: citizenkane

citizenkane — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 00:02:43 +0000

Do you have any ideas about how these devices can be made more cost-effective for smaller truckers? For example, do you have suggestions for an exception that FMCSA could make for these smaller truckers? Or do you have ideas about ways in which the rule can be changed to make it more affordable for everyone?

By: aknapke1215

aknapke1215 — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 03:06:27 +0000

That is the point that i am trying to make i guess eobrs have nothing to do with safety, its all about the money. I’m sure someone stands to get rich off of this proposal there always is. At a time when the economy is struggling to recover from a horrible recession and truck statistics are the safest they have been in the 50 years all of a sudden HOS non compliance has become a big issue? why the money I’m sure that eobrs save big fleets plenty of money they don’t have thousands of logs to audit every week, and they have the equipment and the working capital to be able miss appointments and deadlines with small consequences or consequences that won’t put them under. According to ooida the fmcsa can’t even justify this rulemaking without using out dated or inflated numbers from years before the current HOS took effect. So I guess it isn’t all about safety

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 19:46:43 +0000

The current regulations require that a driver reconstruct RODS for the past 7 days in the event of an EOBR failure and then keep a handwritten RODS until the EOBR is fixed. (You can read more here, here, here, and here.) However, it doesn't seem that there's a specific monthly back up requirement. Do you know more about this? For the current proposed rule, do you think there should be a monthly back up requirement?

By: Trucking

Trucking — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 02:27:37 +0000

This is a sad joke, the FMCSA forces an owner operator to by the computer and put it in there truck and then ask the question what should we do to those that tamper with there own property. And somebody is going to tell me this is not invasion of privacy. Makes me wounder what happen to that thing we called freedom. I know,

we will file this under a privilege like driving. Best way to make it tamper proof is to keep it out of my truck

By: TruckerBobS

TruckerBobS — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 18:47:19 +0000

Who do you think pays for idiot legislation like EOBR’s. As Rush always says, “Follow the Money”. Look to see who is sponsoring this legislation and that will answer the questions about “only big company’s can afford to install EOBR’s. Big companies are paying for this legislation precisely so they can run small business truckers out of business, because we can haul it cheaper.

By: TruckerBobS

TruckerBobS — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 18:43:05 +0000

I would like to know exactly how I would be using an EOBR to take my truck the 23 miles I take it every month to get it serviced? Would this be recorded as Off Duty, Sleeper, Driving or On duty but not driving?
I don’t think I can figure that out given the four area’s I’m allowed to record and if it is automatically recorded for me, how will law enforcement distinguish it as being any of the four categories?
How about this. When I work 5 hours BEFORE I start driving because that is what is necessary to keep my job and then I drive 10 or 11 hours following, how will law enforcement know I worked that 5 hours before I started driving. Or, when I get done driving, I work another 5 hours making my day a 20 hour day. As long as I don’t enter that into the EOBR, it will appear to law enforcement that I only worked 10 or 11 hours that day. Slick!!! Now my boss can make me work 20 hours a day and only 10 or 11 hours will show on the EOBR. Just what I needed.
When are you rocket scientist’s going to figure out that you can’t make a 24 hour surveillance device that can track what a trucker does.
The problem is not with the drivers, it is with the company’s that demand a driver put in unreasonable amounts of hours to keep their job or business.
Make the companies PAY THE DRIVERS FOR DELAYS THE COMPANY’S CAUSE. Do that one little thing, and you will find most every driver will quit trying to “catch up” for all the delays that have been forced on them without pay and gladly only put in a 10 or 11 hour day. But I suppose that is way to common sense for all you “never even had your ass in a truck seat” bureaucrats up there in Washington to comprehend.
Why don’t you come up with a mandatory 24/7 personal camera/recording/GPS device that costs each DRIVER $1,000,000.00 and monitor every second of his life. George Orwell would be proud of that. Or better yet, thinking like Obama on job creation. If you hired a personal cop to be assigned to every truck driver 24/7, think of how many great jobs that would create. I think that alone would end our recession. That would create so many jobs that you could eliminate the unemployment bureaus all around the country and all of the unemployment payments. That would save a ton of money and probably bail us out of this recession.