Profile: dinsmoretransportation
This is dinsmoretransportation's Profile page. Use it to view dinsmoretransportation's comments, other users' replies to these comments, and comments dinsmoretransportation has endorsed.
What's Happening Now
Dinsmoretransportation, could you provide some more information on the PikePass device, such as links to product websites or technical data? FMCSA is looking for as much hard information as possible and anything more you could provide would be very helpful.
Also, you raise some important concerns about privacy. Do you think that the information in the Privacy post addresses your concerns?
EOBRs haven’t been proven to do anything more than satisfy the bank accounts of those that enforce installing them in trucks, and those that manufacture them. If anyone really wants to make sure everyone is safe (which I doubt they really care about) then why not have the DOT or FMCSA pay for, manufacture, and distribute something like the PikePass, a simple little thing that can be read by a scanner and provide basic information without invading privacy? Why does the expense have to be on the Owner Operators? I think this whole issue will ultimately be a test. If we let them get away with it, then more of this kind of thing will surely come. If we fight it, REALLY fight it, they will understand not to try anything like this anymore. It’s a shameful thing that they are trying to… more »
Moderator: The PikePass-similar device is not actually anything that I know of to be in production, but rather a suggestion which would work as well as any EOBR without invasion of privacy concerns, potential abuse by law enforcement, and a wide variety of other effects.
The PikePass works simply by being scanned when a vehicle travels through a toll, where it simply attaches a log file to the account holder, charges or deducts the toll amount automatically, and allows the driver to remain traveling at the speed limit without the necessity to stop and wait in line to pay physical cash to a toll-booth operator.
If the same technology were implemented and adapted to include other information, such as the speed limit at time of “capture” of the device’s data, etc., then it… more »
Of course, this isn’t something that I have studied in great detail, but rather it’s one of the first things that comes to mind in regard to eliminating further discussion in favor of EOBRs.
From what I’ve gathered, requiring these devices is not favored by anyone in the vast majority of the industry, and at last check the industry was composed of somewhere near 80% owner-operators compared to a smaller group of mega-carriers, which happened to be in favor of the EOBR.
It would seem more rational to go with the majority than with the minority, for favoring the minority side’s decisions would imply an inherit amount of bias, and political/business cooperation, which is never a good thing.
Needless to say, I hear a screaming voice from the majority in opposition of the EOBRs and only a few in favor. I would be scared to go against that majority for fear of losing business, and implementing a “big brother” type of control over human beings in the name of what we are being told is safety.
One more thing, concerning the safety issue: I haven’t yet found any compelling evidence that the EOBRs have anything to do with safety. They seem more likely to be used as a time-saving tool for certain things like inspections but as they are not being properly marketed as such, one can only assume other things, hence the uproar and resentment, due in part to the foreknowledge by most that these devices will aide in the reduction of wages and in turn the decrease in the level of financial stability of the lives of the people directly effected.
As for Privacy issues, the only logical conclusion that can I can reach is that these devices invade privacy, whether it can be deemed legal or not. If someone does not want one of these devices capturing certain data then it would seem that doing it anyway is, in fact, an invasion of privacy, or at the very least, knowingly denying a citizen’s request for peace or “non-intrusion”, if you’ll pardon the vernacular.
Thank you. « less
EOBRs haven’t been proven to do anything more than satisfy the bank accounts of those that enforce installing them in trucks, and those that manufacture them. If anyone really wants to make sure everyone is safe (which I doubt they really care about) then why not have the DOT or FMCSA pay for, manufacture, and distribute something like the PikePass, a simple little thing that can be read by a scanner and provide basic information without invading privacy? Why does the expense have to be on the Owner Operators? I think this whole issue will ultimately be a test. If we let them get away with it, then more of this kind of thing will surely come. If we fight it, REALLY fight it, they will understand not to try anything like this anymore. It’s a shameful thing that they are trying to… more »
Moderator: The PikePass-similar device is not actually anything that I know of to be in production, but rather a suggestion which would work as well as any EOBR without invasion of privacy concerns, potential abuse by law enforcement, and a wide variety of other effects.
The PikePass works simply by being scanned when a vehicle travels through a toll, where it simply attaches a log file to the account holder, charges or deducts the toll amount automatically, and allows the driver to remain traveling at the speed limit without the necessity to stop and wait in line to pay physical cash to a toll-booth operator.
If the same technology were implemented and adapted to include other information, such as the speed limit at time of “capture” of the device’s data, etc., then it… more »
Of course, this isn’t something that I have studied in great detail, but rather it’s one of the first things that comes to mind in regard to eliminating further discussion in favor of EOBRs.
From what I’ve gathered, requiring these devices is not favored by anyone in the vast majority of the industry, and at last check the industry was composed of somewhere near 80% owner-operators compared to a smaller group of mega-carriers, which happened to be in favor of the EOBR.
It would seem more rational to go with the majority than with the minority, for favoring the minority side’s decisions would imply an inherit amount of bias, and political/business cooperation, which is never a good thing.
Needless to say, I hear a screaming voice from the majority in opposition of the EOBRs and only a few in favor. I would be scared to go against that majority for fear of losing business, and implementing a “big brother” type of control over human beings in the name of what we are being told is safety.
One more thing, concerning the safety issue: I haven’t yet found any compelling evidence that the EOBRs have anything to do with safety. They seem more likely to be used as a time-saving tool for certain things like inspections but as they are not being properly marketed as such, one can only assume other things, hence the uproar and resentment, due in part to the foreknowledge by most that these devices will aide in the reduction of wages and in turn the decrease in the level of financial stability of the lives of the people directly effected.
As for Privacy issues, the only logical conclusion that can I can reach is that these devices invade privacy, whether it can be deemed legal or not. If someone does not want one of these devices capturing certain data then it would seem that doing it anyway is, in fact, an invasion of privacy, or at the very least, knowingly denying a citizen’s request for peace or “non-intrusion”, if you’ll pardon the vernacular.
Thank you. « less
It is becoming apparent that there is no discussion of whether the EOBR should or should not be required and one can only assume that this means everyone will be required to purchase these units.
Providing any form of cost-savings calculations tends to be moot as those calculations are based on data that, if anything, can only be described as ‘generalized’ or ‘median’, with no real accounting for the myriad differences in carrier size, operating costs, or budget.
If this discussion truly is over and now we are simply trying to find a way to swallow it all in one gulp, I would have to believe that there is little or no point in any further discussion.
Let me be direct here:
Requiring EOBRs doesn’t make sense to the majority of CMV operators on the road. Not only… more »
There is an obvious connection between the forced implementation of the EOBR and Qualcomm and other device manufacturers, for the FMCSA based its calculations on the company’s product.
If anyone can provide evidence linking Qualcomm to any public servant, government official, interest group, or lobby, please let everyone know.
It can’t quite be accepted by the majority that they are to purchase something due to safety if the only incentives in doing so lay with the manufacturers and all disincentives fall into the laps of those most effected by the negative financial consequences of purchasing said devices.
That being said, can anyone out there see if we are essentially backed into a corner (those of us against the use of EOBRs) or if there still is a fighting chance to stop this?
I feel that what we are seeing now is the quieting down of discussion about whether or not we should use the recorders, and we are now moving onto how we will purchase specified units.
WHEN we are ultimately forced to buy these things, will there be any incentive, any immediate incentive, to the carriers and drivers in any form, and how quickly will Qualcomm see profits from this? How much profit will we see on the news at night while people struggle with the expense of these units?
Re: Digital TV Antennae
The government helped people buy television antennae. Will they also help people purchase these EOBRs? « less