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

What's Happening Now

March 2, 2011 2:45 pm

There is a problem at this point: how can a truck stop just because of cell phone usage without consideration of team trucks? Just because a cell phone is in use in the truck, does not mean that it is definitely the driver.

March 2, 2011 2:47 pm

If the government wants us to install the EOBR’s, then they ought to supply them freely to us. They can recoup the cost by eliminating the unnecessary law enforcement that would not then be needed.

March 2, 2011 3:26 pm

In response to fairgov:

The very same thing will happen to EOBR’s as to what happened with TWIC. Oh, there was a big oh effort made to encourage us to get TWIC. We still don’t have it, and never will.

So those who spent the $132.00, really have no better option of getting loaded than we do. (We stay loaded, and I’m not talking about drugs/alcohol either.)

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.

Well, when enough of us say: “Enough is Enough”, the message will hit the American Taxpayer’s pocketbooks by paying excessive freight costs for the loads that do get delivered, and the store shelves will be much less stocked. The absence of desired items to purchase will make everyone… more »


We’ll be WAITING to answer their needs when they realize they DO need us. And if they find they don’t need us, all I can say is Adois Amigos!

TWIC, EBOR’s, and any other brilliant idea that some desk jockey can come up with, is merely another ticket for someone to make money from us.

What they need to do is let the government pay to install these EOBR’s, and then lay-off the law enforcement that will not be needed as a result thereof. « less

March 2, 2011 4:06 pm

If the government wants to enforce HOS, then they need to foot the bill.

Why should we pay the cost for some alien device to be planted in our vehicle, at our expense, to be used against us as an enforcement tool? This is no more than Big Brother overstepping his sovereign authority. We did not place sovereignty in our government to merely penalize us for making a living, while they fatten their pockets from all of the public lobbyists groups.

Fire/Layoff unneeded law enforcement, pay for these devices yourself.

We already pay: for trucks, trailers, all maintenance, registration, authority, process agents, IFTA Stickers, UCR (another subject that erks me), 2290 Highway Road Use, Fuel Taxes, Ad Valorem Tax, fuel and supplement purchases, insurance, Drug Consortium, ungodly enforcement penalties… more »

…(sometimes by crooked law enforcement that never even crawl under your vehicle, but charge you with brakes out of adjustment), forced to keep extensive records and documentation, income taxes (federal and state), self-employment tax, health physicals, cost of cash flow, and many other numerous things. And don’t forget: We have been informed of the proposed 1099′s that we must issue to EVERYONE that we do $600 in business with in a year.

It takes so much time for all of that, that we really don’t have time to drive now.

Oh, I can see you desk jockeys now: let us create robo-trucks so that the real drivers can take care of the dirty work! « less

March 2, 2011 4:43 pm

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… more »

…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. « less

March 2, 2011 5:18 pm

This is merely another phase of Big Brother. For all we know, they could have listening devices installed within.

One thing about it: If the door is opened even merely enough for someone to get their foot inside, they always tend to take more and more.

That is exactly how this government has grown so out of control.

Now they are financing their purses with more money which could have been better spent in maintenance of our vehicles or the payment of taxes we already owe.

If you just think about it: why did they just go through hiring so many new law enforcement officers?

Law Enforcement needs to focus more on those who PURSUE making money illegally, and let a person earn a fair income honorably.

March 3, 2011 1:42 pm

To the Moderator,

They could just as easily mail us our citations than to have another dual enforcement system in place that costs taxpayers even more.

If we have to bear the cost of EOBR’s, then law enforcement ought to bear the cost of their jobs because they would not be needed.

Afterall, they can monitor our violations by satellite, and sending the violations by mail would allow them a much greater profit margin.

It would be cheaper than to pay for unnecessary employess + their benefits.

March 3, 2011 1:47 pm

To the Moderator,

How can a cell phone to considered as a worthy backup? A driver may have their spouse in the vehicle that is using the phone. Or—it may be a team truck and the off-duty driver may be using the phone.

Therefore, tracking of the cell phone could only indicate GPS of the cell phone, but not the drivers’ use of it in these circumstance.

March 3, 2011 1:49 pm

AMEN Motingator!!!

March 3, 2011 1:58 pm

To the Moderator,

Cost is only one of the factors I’m speaking about. Violations of our right to work without being harassed at every turn of our step is also taken into my consideration.

How is it fair for our every move to be tracked, while every other working individual is allowed freedom of movement? If we have to have EOBR’s, then every motorized vehicle needs one as well.

My logbook works just fine. Although I don’t agree with all the little quirks which have been implemented merely as a result of some lobbyist group such as: MADD, Public Citizen, and many others.

Therefore, no I do not agree, as many others will not either.

When the public sees that the owners are not willing to foot the cost of “Self Law Enforcement,” they will also enjoy the greater cost of all delivered goods.

March 3, 2011 2:03 pm


You are exactly right.

Look at the TWIC Cards. Look at the criminal background checks. Look at the TWIC Reader. Look at cost to be qualified to haul coils in Alabama.

Who is the recipient of the profit behind that list?

March 3, 2011 2:18 pm

To The Moderator:

The design of this website included responding to someone by a Reply Key, which makes it much easier to see all responses made to our comments on our Profile Page.

Do you think that you could possibly use the Reply Key so that we can locate ALL responses made to us?

March 3, 2011 4:00 pm

Justice could become out of control!

Just as George Orwell’s book revealed the possibilities of many things that have become a reality during our lifetime, our thought to be friend of the people: Our “Sovereign Government” could become the same as the subject of the book written by Attorney Gerry Spence.

Atty Gerry Spence wrote a book by the name of: From Freedom to Slavery, which spoke this following statement:

“But over the years, as a criminal defense attorney, my in-court experiences with the police forced me to the realization that police, like the rest of use, want to win. we are a competitive people who, from the earliest times, have donned a jersey of one color or another, and we have been taught that we should fight for that color jersey, and win. Many police,… more »

…perhaps most, struggle under the misguided belief that when the accused is guilty it becomes the duty of the police to see that the accused is convicted and punished. Many police seem to weigh one wrong against the other — their own wrong of fiddling with the evidence, of intentionally omitting exculpatory facts, even the criminal wrong of planting or manufacturing evidence or, equally reprehensible, lying under oath, against what many police see as the greater wrong of permitting the guilty to escape his just dues. Indeed, the argument that it is all right for the police to cheat if, in the process, they catch the criminal, is commonly dramatized in the movies and on the television screen.; This idea, in fact, is applauded by many a citizen as justice in the raw without all the bothersome loopholes that permit the guilty to escape. On the screen we often witness the cop blithely picking the lock of a suspect’s home and illegally entering and searching his room. We watch the illegal phone tap being made or the cop, the hero, smashing a witness up against the wall and brutally pounding information out of the hapless creature, and we cheer him on.”

This could be the misguided use of this equipment. « less

April 25, 2011 2:38 pm

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.

March 3, 2011 11:35 am

It looks like you’re worried about how much EOBRs will cost and the amount of time their use will take up.  FMCSA thinks that EOBRs will actually save drivers time, because they won’t have to fill out paper logs or deal with as many supporting documents.  Do you agree?

March 3, 2011 12:11 pm

Thank you curious for responding to rwwelker’s comment. Do you believe that cell phones are not a good option for back up purposes? Do you have any other suggestion besides relying on paper logs?

March 3, 2011 12:15 pm

Thank you for your comment. I thought it might be helpful to clarify a certain point. EOBR’s would not eliminate enforcement, but rather DOT believes EOBR’s will make it easier and more efficient for truckers because it would get rid of a lot of the extra paperwork.

March 4, 2011 10:07 am

Curious, it’s clear that you don’t want FMCSA to issue this regulation. However, the rulemaking process isn’t a yes or no vote. Federal agencies aren’t allowed to decide based on majority rule.  To learn more about the rulemaking process and how to write effective comments, see How Does Effective Commenting Work.

March 4, 2011 10:08 am

We’re always looking for new ways to improve our site. Thanks for the feedback and I’ll pass it along to our webmaster.

March 4, 2011 3:21 pm

The US tax payers will be paying for the NEW Mexican drivers EOBR’s in the Crossboarder Program, so why not pay for ours?

March 4, 2011 7:08 pm

You are able to use the cell phone and have it do the EOBR thing at the same time. All smart phones are able to do that now. The new Iphone will be able to do 3things at a time. if im at a truck stop i go off duty and take my phone with me the unit only logs trk movement. there is an off duty driving on the system so you can move trk up to 20min if needed at trk, home, or you want to go to the movie. the rule is you can do this but it cannot be used to further commerence. (you must return to your start point or you will be charged the time driving. The system knows i’v tried to beat it and lost.) While not happy 100% with system it works great, DOT likes it. The pnly problem with the system is the fact it is always legal as far as driving. if you are in a traffic jam in LA at rush hour you could loose 3hours going only 50 miles.

April 27, 2011 7:46 pm

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.

February 6, 2011 10:35 am

Tampering has been a big problem in Europe. Is this something that will be checked for at roadside inspections? Do cops know how to do this? What happens if the device fails on its own and it’s not the driver’s fault?

March 2, 2011 3:00 pm

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… more »

…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. « less
March 3, 2011 11:08 am

The EOBR is a get rich in a hurry gift to the primary company that is making the unit is making a lot of money and on top of that we are forced to pay 40. dollars a month to stay compliant if that is not another way off letting government reach in your pocket to give it to there friends. And the FMCSA wonders why very few owner operators trust them.

March 13, 2011 10:27 pm

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

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.

March 23, 2011 9:21 am

As a small trucking company owner, the the proposed EOBR doesn’t pass the cost/benefit test. To pay $785 a year for something I currently do for $12 a year when I get absolutely no benefit is unnecessary financial burden.