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

February 8, 2011 9:12 am

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?

February 8, 2011 9:18 am

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.

February 18, 2011 3:26 pm

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??

February 18, 2011 3:28 pm

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?

February 18, 2011 3:30 pm

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?

February 8, 2011 12:48 pm

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?

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.

February 19, 2011 12:48 pm

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?

February 19, 2011 12:58 pm

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?

February 21, 2011 3:27 pm

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?

February 8, 2011 7:55 am

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!

February 8, 2011 8:01 am

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?

February 14, 2011 10:55 am

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 »

…them money. This whole rule smacks of people backing it who would profit from the sale, installation, and mainteance of EOBR devises. How many lives do you feel this would save? I work with these people every day in the capacity of a safety consultant. They do not need any more items that will cost them money or confuse them.
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
February 16, 2011 10:50 am

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.