Profile:
egreen

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

What's Happening Now

February 25, 2011 9:21 am

FMCSA thinks that by requiring EOBRS, they are working on better enforcement—do you disagree? (If you want to dig into their analysis of compliance with EOBRs, you can do that here.)

February 25, 2011 9:28 am

bedbugbob, that is a great question, and many share your concern. Can anyone else share information about this?

February 28, 2011 9:04 am

Thanks for your comment, gearjammer. You don’t seem to think that mandatory EOBRs would improve safety. Can you give reasons why not?

March 1, 2011 1:30 pm

Shawn, you bring up a few things that others haven’t mentioned here yet, and it would be great if you could explain them more. Why do you think requiring EOBRs would cause a loss in state money, rising consumer costs, and more trucks on the highway?

March 2, 2011 10:40 am

Gearjammer, the agency wants to know if there are specific reasons why the CMV costs of the basic EOBR proposal are unreasonable. Can you provide some numbers? Check out FMCSA’s analysis of EOBR Device Costs to see what the agency thinks and whether you agree.

March 3, 2011 12:05 pm

Gearjammer, you mentioned President Obama’s order for all agencies to re-evaluate regulations. You can see DOT’s request for comments on their regulatory review and leave a comment by visiting the Regulations.gov website,
here.

March 8, 2011 2:04 pm

Thanks for your comment, Keith. You say that FMCSA’s own data and reports verify that EOBRS have nothing to do with improving safety. Can you point out specifically what you are referring to?

March 10, 2011 11:48 am

Thanks very much for your comment idrive. As you said, the point of EOBRs is certainly not to allow carriers to get around HOS requirements by having drivers switch trucks. Is this common, in your experience? Does anyone know if this sort of thing would be picked up during a roadside inspection when the data is analyzed?

February 28, 2011 9:30 pm

first, there are now roadside inspections, audits of the carries,both of which are used to enforce compliance,
then the with the new CSA rules the bottom 10% of the carries are required to install EBOR’s which is as it should be, and give the carriers and drivers incentive to be compliant in all areas not just with the HOS but all areas CSA covers.
in todays age if someone is not compliant they are gonna get caught and be required to install the recorders,so why put the added expense upon the owners of the trucks in an environment where the profit margins are so slim to begin with.
Pres. Obama has ordered all agency’s to reevaluate regulations that overburden industries and stifle growth and with the cost of the EBOR’s and monthly costs of monitoring which will be passed… more »

…down to the truck owners this is just one of many over-burdensome regulations that will kill the owner operators in this business.
and again the primary companies that want this thing are out to kill the independents by driving up the costs of their competition which this will surely do, if the big companies would spend what is necessary they would not be in the bottom 10% and would not have to install the recorders in their fleets,so why not bring them up to the level of the other 90% instead of dragging the 90% down to their level and in the process bankrupt a lot of good and compliant owner-operators. « less
May 10, 2011 12:55 pm

Well, if the FMCSA cannot prove that the HOS increase safety, then it cerainly cannot prove that compliance through brute force ala EOBRs will do anything, either.


No comments