Profile:
5 culvers

This is 5 culvers's Profile page. Use it to view 5 culvers's comments, other users' replies to these comments, and comments 5 culvers has endorsed.

What's Happening Now

February 22, 2011 8:25 pm

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

February 23, 2011 12:50 pm

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.

February 24, 2011 8:26 pm

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.

March 6, 2011 11:18 am

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?


No comments