Profile: merc
This is merc's Profile page. Use it to view merc's comments, other users' replies to these comments, and comments merc has endorsed.
What's Happening Now
Thank you for your comment Merc. Is there a reason why you believe 24 hours is not enough time when the documents are all electronic as opposed to hard copy? You suggest 48 hours, is there any particular reason you believe it should be extended to this particular point?
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.
You can use any EOBR you want, as long as it meets the current EOBR specifications. If the EOBR breaks, you can use the paper logbooks until it’s fixed. FMCSA’s estimates of how long each EOBR lasts are based on the Qualcom MCP-100 model. Qualcom says that its early units are still working after a decade, so FMCSA has used that to calculate costs per unit over 10 years. Is this a fair estimate? Do you know how long other models last?
Hi Merc. Actually, the FMCSA is deliberately not requiring EOBRs to record things like vehicle speed. FMCSA is requiring location to be recorded, along with information like duty status and the distance traveled, but FMCSA is making efforts to make sure the data is protected and only accessible to certain authorized officials.
Do you think even the information the EOBRs are required to collect is unnecessary or excessive?
Thanks for your comment. As to your and gadfly12′s concern about the actual number of documents that you still need to keep, the new EOBR requirement will ease the burden for documents by eliminating the need for paper RODs, but not for other supporting documents. According to the FMCSA:
“Although the “foundation” RODS Record of duty status burden would drop dramatically, primarily due to the elimination of paper RODS, the overall supporting documents burden would not be reduced.”
Hope this clears things up. Do you think that this requirement would still be of benefit for reduced record keeping, even with the supporting documents requirement?
Being a small bus company in these economic times, we have NO extra money for more regulations. I am all for safety but this is going to put the small guys out in the cold!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1675 retail cost x 7= $11,725
100 installation x 7= $700
$480 yearly x 7 = $3360
$15,785 total first year cost for a small fleet of 7. (We’re assuming no repairs or anything else going wrong here)
$2255 total first year cost for 1.
My first question is “Who do you think is going to pay for this?” I’m assuming you guys sitting behind desks over there will say “You.” My second question is “Why?”
Why do you think we should have to pay for this? You present this as if this is some kind of miniscule cost for a small carrier. Maybe these big guys you’ve quoted can afford these things and they obviously can considering they’ve installed it on their entire fleet. Have you considered that maybe they’ve done this to simplify some of their bloated systems and utilize the government—by… more »
Let me throw some random numbers at you, too. How does $2255 for the first year seem like a small cost to a guy or gal that is operating on thin margins most of the year, factoring and constantly worrying about maintenance fees and random fees that might be incurred? What about the fact that the fuel costs change faster than the freight pays sometimes? They already pay thousands in multiple forms of taxes.
“Simpler to operate than many mobile phones” is a subjective statement. Many drivers violate their logs, but many of the drivers violate their logs because they can’t count or pass basic math classes either, but apparently the simplicity will make this all better.
As per the “cost savings” it is very badly estimated. $27 and $29 an hour savings is not a very realistic figure and you’ve already mentioned that some drivers are not compensated by the hour or compensated to complete their logs. That’s definitely true in my fleet. $27/29 is probably overestimated by as much as 17-19 dollars an hour in some places. You’re much closer on the RODS forms estimate. Additionally you’re assuming that some of these smaller companies even have a staff that large and are compensated for this type of work.
“This means that more than 3.3 million CMVs Commercial Motor Vehicles (vehicles owned or used by a business) lack the devices.” So, were you planning on investing in Qualcomm stock anytime soon?
These smaller carriers aren’t accountants and many times they are not the best organized people in the world either. They’re living from day to day and paycheck to paycheck. I’m not even talking about our operation; I’m simply speaking for the trucking industry in general.
Do I think EOBRs are a good idea? Sure. Many of the things you report are pretty accurate in my opinion.
Do I think smaller companies should bear the burden of purchasing all of this equipment? No, I don’t. I think the government should assist and create a standard to be reviewed every 5-10 years with changes to equipment as they suggest that it should last about ten years.
This type of thing will be considered an additional start up cost as well, so you probably won’t see as many new people entering the industry or able to enter the industry. Many try to enter through the bigger players in the market like Schneider and pan out and do their own thing, but additional costs like this keep the small guy out of the playing field. I can think of several trucking companies that went out of business imply because they couldn’t afford to renew their tags, but their expected add another expensive item to their trucks.
The Feds could always coordinate and subsidize all new trucks produced in the factories to come installed with EOBRs as well. You just need an industry standard device when it comes to using EOBRs so that there is a consistent standard and training is available across the board. I’m sure Qualcomm will get the contract, so everyone should purchase a lot of Qualcomm stock as soon as it drops a little bit.
« less
This is going to cost more money for the carriers that fallow the laws. How about going after all the companies that don’t follow the laws and are making money hand over fist?
Our country and especially our trucking industry stands on the verge of bankruptcy. With this in mind you want to implement a system that would have upfront cost and then continual cost added to an already hurting industry. WHY!! For what reason do you want to do this when the current system is working so well. Why do you want to track every interstate truck in this country? This industry has proven over the past few years that safety and product delivery can work well together. It does not need any higher dollar technology to achieve good safety. I am in favor of EOBRs for those who cannot play by the rules, but the majority of the carriers and drivers are hard working Americans who are just trying to get by. They do not need any more instruments in their cabs to confuse them and cost… more »
I have also seen the results from these items and they are confusing, and hard to audit. The system can be easily fooled and will just cause more problems than good. « less
The trucking industry is already hurting financially and you want to impose another expense to an already small profit margin. We rely on truckers to deliver our product on time. Shippers and receivers need to be made more accountable for what they expect from truckers. Truckers can only do so much with the current regulations placed on them.
Are there exceptions to the 24 hour rule or wiggle room? Seems kinda insane compared to the 13 days we used to have. Actually gives me an incentive not to get my supporting doc in electronically. How’s that for efficiency? Why not 48 hours or something instead?
yeah, and especially the little guys who have to suffer the most. it’s really just a conspiracy among the big truckers to beat out the competition. noticed that five huge truck companies have out and out supported this regulationn.
why are some of these things being recorded such as steering function, vehicle speed, and location? i thought the whole point of this EOBR thing is to accurately record hours? things like vehicle speed–arent they best left to the police instead of EOBRs? so, if i *happen* to drive above the speed limit, would the EOBR police come after me? why can’t the EOBRs just stick to more limited functions??
yeah, don’t really see how we’d have *fewer* documents. and, how’s this a *big* advantage compared to how much it’ll cost?
what happens if the darn thing falls apart on its own? is there some exception or do i get dinged for buying the least expensive eobr then hit again when the thing breaks?