Profile: truckdriversnews
This is truckdriversnews's Profile page. Use it to view truckdriversnews's comments, other users' replies to these comments, and comments truckdriversnews has endorsed.
What's Happening Now
Welcome to Regulation Room. You can find the VTTI study through the Agency Documents page or by going here: http://ow.ly/1thY5
Thanks.
On page 14 of the VTTI study, the researchers explain how they came up with this data: they outfitted heavy trucks with both video cameras and a Data Analysis Reduction Tool that tracked driving behavior. Using these instruments, they were able to track “near misses.” I hope that answers your question.
Hi truckdriversnews. Thanks for your comment.
FMCSA believes that the EOBR’s will help reduce HOS violations and in doing so, lead to fewer accidents caused by driver fatigue. Do you not believe the EOBR’s will be effective at reducing HOS violations? And if so, why is this? Or is your primary concern the additional cost the EOBR’s will impose?
Thanks for your comment, truckdrivernews. Check out FMCSA’s analysis of EOBR Device Costs to see what the agency thinks and whether you agree. You can also comment on what you think EOBRs will cost your business specifically here. Your comment will be most helpful if you draw on personal experiences or specific data.
The fatigue-related accident rate you mentioned came from slide #21 of a webinar by Ralph Craft of FMCSA. Here is what he has to say: “The NHTSA Driver Related Crash Factors are those coded by police at the at the crash scene. Everybody agrees that this number is severely under reported… more »
What do you think? You can read FCMSA’s analysis of fatigue-related crashes in detail
here. « less
According to grldbarnes, a driver who says he uses an EOBR for work, says that his EOBR “is set so once you start your day any time you shut off the truck you go on duty, and once the truck starts moving again you go back to driving. You do have to manuelly change to off duty but that is no big deal.” You can read his full comment here.
What do you think about his take on how EOBRs work?
While I could not agree more that “clearer rules” are very much needed. I do not agree with this EOBR rule.
FMCSA, NTSB, NHTSA, and DOT all have said that adding this pricey mechanical device will make the roads safer. How?
This device will only know what information the driver puts into it. It will not record automatically – it still requires the driver to manually put in information.
How is this different from paper logs?
I would be interested in knowing why the DOT decided to start with Trucks and Buses?
When reports have shown recently that Trucks are at their all time low in fatalities.
Also, where is the data showing exactly how VTTI came to the conclusion that truck drivers are 23 more times to have an accident while reading or sending text messages?
Thank you for the link. Now a follow-up question.
How can 46% of “near misses” be calculated into the equation?
A “near miss” is not an accident.
Moderator, the keyword I am focused on is “believes” I can do the same thing. I “believe” that the number is lower than 10-15% – so who is right?
At any cost to the driver – without any “real hard evidence – is uncalled for. This is the whole entire problem with the FMCSA, DOT, NTSB, etc. they all believe that by adding another regulation on top of regulations – and making drivers buy these “magical EOBRs” that all will be safer on the already safe interstates and highways.
Adding EOBRs will do nothing but add expenses to under paid truck drivers and companies.
Drivers are not robots that you can program to sleep or get up when FMCSA says so. Here in the US we have advanced a little in technology but “Technology… more »
While I could not agree more that “clearer rules” are very much needed. I do not agree with this EOBR rule.
FMCSA, NTSB, NHTSA, and DOT all have said that adding this pricey mechanical device will make the roads safer. How?
This device will only know what information the driver puts into it. It will not record automatically – it still requires the driver to manually put in information.
How is this different from paper logs?
“The principal use of EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder data is to confirm HOS Hours-of-service (HOS) compliance, whether at roadside checks or on-site carrier reviews.”
FMCSA, DOT, NHTSA, NTSB, have all made claims that EOBR’s will make the highways safer… I ask again how?
Just by adding the mechanical device, even though the driver still has to manually add any change of duty status?
This EOBR just sounds like an overly expensive record keeper – like a paper log is.
What about this information? ATA announced that in an effort to rationalize a change in federal Hours of Service (HOS) requirements for professional truck drivers, the U.S. DOT’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) misapplied its own crash numbers so as to elevate driver fatigue… more »
Adding an EOBR will do nothing but add yet another cost to the trucker or trucking company.. « less
Driver fatigue is not a real problem according to an FMCSA webinar, that was publicly was communicated on September 30, 2010, hosted by the FMCSA titled: 2009 – Historic Truck Crash Declines. The number is 1.4% fatigue related accidents in trucking.
No, I do not believe the EOBR will be effective of reducing truck crashes – mainly because it will be on the wrong vehicles.
My primary concern is FMCSA falsifying its own information to make it seem that new regulations and such are needed. Plus, adding yet another COST to the trucking company or owner operator – without a firm reasoning.
Moderator: So, the EOBR does work automatic, it still does not change my view about the whole EOBR deal. Besides, I did not see anything in the comment about how it has made his driving any safer.
My primary concern is FMCSA falsifying its own information to make it seem that new regulations and such are needed. Plus, adding yet another COST to the trucking company or owner operator – without a positive reasoning.
FMCSA has said that only 1.4% of the trucking accidents were fatigue related in 2009.
So why are EOBRs needed? Seems like a complete waste of time and money, at a time that money is tight for everyone. And with the announcement of another Cross-border trucking program, money will be even tighter.
By the way – FMCSA announced they where going to pay (Actually tax payers… more »
« less