Profile: packrat74871
This is packrat74871's Profile page. Use it to view packrat74871's comments, other users' replies to these comments, and comments packrat74871 has endorsed.
What's Happening Now
April 11, 2011 12:19 pm
packrat74871, the FMCSA has said that EOBRs are meant as a tool to increase HOS compliance and that increasing HOS compliance could increase safety by decreasing driver fatigue. Do you disagree with this argument? Do you believe that law enforcement officials alone could increase HOS compliance without the need for EOBRs?
No comments
This is not a “safety requirement”. The FMCSA already monitors motor carriers by safestats, and either fines or shuts down companies not complying. This is an unconstitutional, behind your back move lobbied by manufacturers of EOBR to force everyone to buy one by using the federal government to back them. You want to see some wasted tax money? You are looking at it now. This new rule says that the folks that are now getting paid to monitor motor carriers are not doing their job. The rule should could be a requirement for motor carriers that have reached a threshold of Violations and have not corrected them. Not by making every owner operator purchase unnecessary equipment. We need to add some checks and balances to our Government.