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

What's Happening Now

March 14, 2011 12:26 am

i believe eobr’s would be a disaster for the small business in point,i had an 18:00 appt., my 14 hrs were up at 21:30,i thought that would be plenty of time to unload,at 01:30 they were done and told me i could not stay on the property,the nearest safe haven was 1hr. away. i would like to know how i would put that into an eobr?
thank you for listening,alcanman

March 14, 2011 12:53 am

i dont know about anyone else but it sounds like our government is trying to put small fleets out of business with all these new rules and gadgets we have to buy and conform to

No comments

April 24, 2011 1:46 pm

I own and operate my own truck. The FMCSA now mandates that companies with a “HIGH” safety risk are required to install EOBR’s. Now the FMCSA utilizing manipulated data wants to force EOBR’s on all interstate truckers. Am I to presume then we are all guilty of being unsafe law breaking drivers now? If I don’t want an EOBR in “MY” legally owned truck, that should be my choice, not the governments. I drive safely and responsibly and I don’t need the government to force me to install a spendy piece of equipment to make sure that I do. I also don’t need the “fatigue” that will be created when the data from an EOBR is used to “micromanage” my time.

March 23, 2011 8:48 am

According to recent news reports, an agreement was reached between The US and Mexico that the US taxpayers would pay for the EOBR’s required in Mexican trucks operating in the United States. The next day a jubilant Mexican president announced that there would be no limits on the number of Mexican trucks allowed to operate in the United States. It is my interpretation the United States carriers will have pay the entire themselves. Recommendation: This is a disaster. Get rid of the EOBR requirement, don’t pay for Mexican truck EOBR’s, pay for all US and Canadian truck EOBR’s. This is what happens when politics trumps safety. Either pay for everybody or pay for nobody.

March 23, 2011 9:33 am

It is not clear what benefit the United States of America receives from this proposed regulation. All we are told is this regulation is necessary “to ensure compliance with hours of service regulations”. What does that mean? Since DOT decided to include log book “form and manner” and other trivial logbook violations as evidence of “fatigued driving” in CSA 2010. The information provided by CSA 2010 is useless for measuring actual fatigued driving issues. Also, since there is no way to actually measure fatigue, the DOT position becomes a mixture of subjective opinions and political agendas, all stuffed under the banner “fatigued driving” since no one can measure fatigue or refute assertions of opinion that are masqueraded as statements of fact.… more »

…Recommendation: DOT delay this prohibitively expensive regulation until they can provide “peer reviewed” scientific studies that provide facts about how to measure fatigue, how much fatigue actually costs, and what are the true costs of this regulations. « less
February 15, 2011 1:39 pm

We have 4 trucks and are a small company, having to pay for these would place a great burden on our company.

March 23, 2011 7:58 am

the cost savings are incorrect. I buy 12 log books a year at approximately $1 each for a total of $12 per year. Since I fill out , file, etc., the RODS myself there are no other costs. If the big companies find the cost EOBR’s cost effective, they should use them. If Qualcomm made a product that was cost effective, I would buy it. Unfortunately, this is another example of a company using the federal Government to mandate use of a product they can’t sell in the free market to enrich themselves. Recommendation – rework the cost saving as they are unrealistic.