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

What's Happening Now

March 3, 2011 11:08 am

The EOBR is a get rich in a hurry gift to the primary company that is making the unit is making a lot of money and on top of that we are forced to pay 40. dollars a month to stay compliant if that is not another way off letting government reach in your pocket to give it to there friends. And the FMCSA wonders why very few owner operators trust them.

March 4, 2011 11:46 am

When we go to the EOBR, will we as drivers need to carry travelling papers to be legal the way a communist country If this wasn’t so serious it would be funny. How anybody can put a computer in your truck to make sure that one is doing what the government says is legal. And this is not a violation of the fourth amendment. Then those amendments only mean what the government says as long as it support them. SO drivers make sure you have your travel papers handy, who’s next the family going on vacation. Freedom in the united states is slowly disappearing, people had better look around it’s not only trucking that is being controlled by government.

March 5, 2011 3:25 pm

Will law enforcement have the right to look at the eobr ? What kind of a question is that ? Except now you will have to let them in your truck so they can do that MN. style profiling when they see your home furnishings. I know that DOT law enforcement does not get enough sleep at home ether T.V’s in their bedrooms and laptops and a partner to keep them a wake doing grown up things. The EOBR’S are nothing more then a tool for law enforcement to use to come into my home away from home.

March 7, 2011 3:18 pm

I understand MODERATOR however you are thinking that the dot police are angles, you moderator I do not believe you have been in a truck and dealt with them. Yes I understand that DOT cops are not suppose to brake the law in order to enforce the law. When is the last time you seen a dot cop parked on an over pass using lazier to catch speeders. Over passes have a no parking zone, so tell me they are not breaking the law to catch speeders. Or parking on the shoulder of the road in which is emergency parking only to catch speeders. They also have a way of stretching their heads in your window to take a look around your truck. Yes the EBOR to some is just away to enforce the HOS laws. It is the FMCSA distrust of drivers, and have totally lost the trust of owner operators and the little guy. So… more »

…you see moderator you see law enforcement as angles, I see them as a tax collecting arm of the government. And no I am not radical I have seen some real sad tickets to me and others, and the sad thing is they know that is easier and cheaper to just go ahead and pay the fines. I do appreciate your response however, thank you. « less
March 7, 2011 3:52 pm

What happens with the smartphone when they make it illegal to handle your smart phone while you are driving your truck

March 9, 2011 2:08 pm

moderator I am against any kind of device put in my truck, that government wants in there to keep track of me. A smartphone or EOBR, makes no difference. I guess the best thing to compare this to is somebody that breaks the law and gets put under house arrest and gets the ankle bracelet to make sure they do what they are told What is the difference. I broke no crimes but they want to watch to make sure I am being a good boy, and if their little black box tells them you did something wrong you have troubles, and this they say will make the roads safer. How I ask? by putting more stress on an already stressful job and making it more stressful having everything you do recorded. And one can not say that is what they are there for, if not why force them into one’s truck.

March 13, 2011 10:27 pm

This is a sad joke, the FMCSA forces an owner operator to by the computer and put it in there truck and then ask the question what should we do to those that tamper with there own property. And somebody is going to tell me this is not invasion of privacy. Makes me wounder what happen to that thing we called freedom. I know,

we will file this under a privilege like driving. Best way to make it tamper proof is to keep it out of my truck

March 16, 2011 4:37 pm

You ask how I feel that the EOBR will make the roads safer? They won’t, at best the accident rates will stay the same. A driver is going to be giving an ETA to the receiver that is going to be mathematically possible time wise with out much extra to spare, forcing a driver to be more aggressive in order to even have a chance of making it, and will constantly be detracted by stressing over time. The FMCSA are discussing making it illegal to handle a cell phone in a truck calling it a distraction. Now they are going to force another piece of electronics in your cab in stead. Also what is going to happen when a driver can not find a parking spot after searching for an hour for a spot and his eobr says you are now driving in violation what are you going todo park on a get on ramp and get… more »

…a ticket. Safer we will see but I think it is away for somebody else to get in a truckers pocket. « less
April 24, 2011 8:23 pm

Ron I hate to say it but if I were in your shoes I say the same thing, spoken like a true sales man. Somebody needs to explain to me, how me with one truck paying out 1645. dollars to install an EOBR and be forced to pay 40. dollars a month for somebody to make sure I am not breaking the FMCSA idea of laws we should be following. Please tell me how thats going to turn into profit for me. Is this not known as a fixed expense, not profit. Ron how would you like having government sitting in your office with you making sure that everything you are doing is legal,or make sure you are using the right garbage can for the right garbage or having Irs there watching every trans action, and they are going to charge you a monthly fee to do it, don’t worry you will see better returns this way. Ron… more »

…I do not mean to be critical however I do not believe you have ever been in business for yourself. The FMCSA has absolutely no reason to be putting these thing in are truck, and if they can afford to pay the Mexican drivers and pay all the monthly fee’s then they can pay for mine and all the expense to stay connected then my argument about money goes out the window,however privacy is a whole another subject. The FMCSA needs to just stay out of our trucks. « less
April 25, 2011 4:26 pm

By the time the Fmcsa and all their anti trucking friends get done with all their new rules and purposed rules, the only people who will be qualified to drive a truck would have to have the knowledge of a lawyer and that is what I believe their are after. They the DOT could ticket a driver for almost anything they want now.Look at CN not to many years ago they could give a driver a ticket for not having a white sheet on your bunk and making sure it was made at all times that was in in the early 80′s and before, i HAVE NOT PAID MUCH ATTENTION TO IT SINCE for I do not run the east coast unless the money is right. The FMCSA says this is all about safety, I am sorry this has nothing to do with safety but more about control over the INDUSTRY and those who try to make a living. And leave… more »

…it to the government to try to find something to turn the drivers against each other, they should be happy they have done it. No different then the haves and the have nots. SAFETY is what it is about I don’t think so. « less
April 29, 2011 6:47 pm

So now all of a sudden the government is now telling a company that their cost of a unit is to much money, and you have your so called experts that are going to sit there and point their fingers at each other and saying how the other guy is charging to much and trying to take advantage of drivers. So maybe the FMCSA might want to step in and say how much the can charge drivers. Any way you look at it the government is totaly over stepping their power, and they have become a government run by the government for the better of the government and you need a special little room to see this. I do not know if I am the only one that see’s it this way or not but it’s a shame that the FMCSA is going to be the undoing of a lot of little companies and their is no defending that I don’t… more »

…care how you or your little so called expert room fells about it, but I’m so sure that isn’t the intent. « less
April 29, 2011 6:57 pm

Mr moderator look up trucking stats and you will see that even on the FMCSA own web sight you can find this info. AND yes sir there are other neutral sights to see this info, it is out there for anybody who wants to know.

May 1, 2011 8:01 pm

MR. moderator you were asking where somebody else came up with fatality stats that you asked where he found is stats. I do not know where he found them at, but these come right off there on web site.
In 2009 there were 3,3380 deaths in large truck related accidents and that was down 865 from 2008, in which was a 20% drop.
So the numbers have bee on a steady drop since about 1997. So tell me that there is not more to the big push for EOBRS and the push for a change of HOS. Those numbers do not take into consideration the percentage of those accidents that were caused by the other vehicle in which is figured to be at 75%. Now you… more »

…take and run the numbers it just does not add up to all the reticle changes. The FMCSA do not have the facts on their side, and that is a fact. « less
May 3, 2011 9:20 am

MR moderator you asked a question where damnin found his stats, however you can for the most part back much of his stats on the FMCSA OWN WEB site. Look under heavy trucks fatal truck accidents, and start reading. MR RAY LA Hood needs to look at their own stats before he runs of with the mouth, when stating accident stats. And then so many wounder why so many drivers distrust the FMCSA and their agenda

May 3, 2011 10:04 am

Mr Moderator you asked a question of me a few days ago on anybody who should be allowed to comment in your expert room. Yes there is and I do not uderstand why they were not invited from the beginning, that being OOIDA. In your list I have seen a lot of companies that are pro EBOR but none of them that will really question them.

May 3, 2011 11:54 am

Ok Mr moderator lets go to the world of if. In 2009 there were approximately 3300 lives lost related to CMV. Now lets assume that a lot of what I have read is right that 80% of all cmv accidents are caused by the passenger vehicle., so that makes at fault deaths at approximately 264 deaths tied to at fault with trucks. So now The FMCSA says the fatigue rate is 15% in which I do feel is BS however lets go with it that makes somewhere in the area of 40 deaths because of fatigue driving. Now I do under stand that 1 life is to many. But the FMCSA is more about ending a truckers freedoms then they are about safety.

May 6, 2011 10:16 am

Ok so a manufacture is an expert on how well an EBOR works, I will give you that. On the other hand any pit falls that they have with them they are not going to sit and air it out for all to see. Remember they are private companies out to make a profit, so they will always say they are a good thing. And as far as the trucking companies you have brought forward, and did the self imposed EOBR in their own truck. Why some ask? That is an easy one to answer, those companies chose to hire none experienced drivers and found that the EBOR was the easiest way in order to track their rookie drivers and make sure they were doing what the company wanted, an electronic babysitter. So now you say how those trucking companies are experts on the EBOR, maybe but like I said about the manufactures, I will also… more »

…say about the trucking companies that use them, it comes down to profit. So now they think that all should be like them to level the playing field. So are the trucking companies truly experts I think not. Yes Mr Moderator I have become very distrustful of anything that the FMCSA has to offer lately. The FMCSA has no facts to stand on, but keep yelling it is about safety. So you see where the problem lyes with this for me, you can not no matter how hard you try to have a expert room that is not tilted one way or the other. And better yet they can make statements with out being questioned. The room is tilted one way, whether intended or not and the FMCSA is the one who will benefit from it. Sorry for touching a nerve, but who really is going to be a neutral expert? you tell me and why should they. « less
April 29, 2011 11:44 am

Regulation room you have taken and loaded your little EOBR ROOM WITH WHAT YOU SEE AS A LIST OF SPECIALIST I see it as a room of companies that all have an interest in making sure this EBOR law is forced on everyone goes through. You have companies that are there to try to sell their units, and you have trucking companies that are in there that would like to even up the playing field, they chose to put those things in there trucks and were at the time not forced thats their problem not the rest of ours. And this room has the b**** to stand up and give them their own little pro ebor room shame on ya’s, so much for being neutral, but then most comments that I have seen come from this room has been in support of the EBOR’S and every other thing that the FMCSA has pushed for. And now… more »

…the room sets up a room that they can say how great the EBOR’S are with out anybody bring them to task, what a JOKE. « less
April 29, 2011 2:14 pm

How is the EOBR going to prevent a driver that is having one of those days, where no matter what he does he cannot keep his eyes open from getting into an accident? And let us not sit here and blame this all on the driver. Now you have your company with eyes on you, you have the recorder that is against you and your HOS is counting down on you and your ten-hour drive time. So the driver keeps going, and in hour #5, he has an accident due to being fatigue. Now how many fatigue type accidents happen with in the legal day’s hours? And do not think that a driver is not going to feel the added pressure to keep rolling even when their own body says it is time to take a nap. Nothing has to be said directly about continuing, and anybody that has ever driven knows what I am saying. How many accidents… more »

…that already accrue like this that goes down as fatigue driving? How is the EBOR going to stop this from happening? How is it going to stop a company from keeping pressure on drivers to keep rolling?
I know that using the FMCSA’s own accident stats for trucks is way down. I cannot remember for sure, but it seems that the truck related fatalities was less then 3300 lives, and of those most of what I read says that between 75 and 80 percent of those accidents were caused by the four-wheeler. Now lets look at those numbers this way, there are approximately 2.5 million trucks on the road, and there are less then 700 people killed a year due to trucks. And the FMCSA’S Say’s of those fatal truck accidents 3 percent are caused by fatigue driving. I under stand that even one life is to many, however the FMCSA wants to change the whole trucking industry and force truckers to pay money out to have a EOBR put in their trucks and pay a 40. Dollar a month connection fee. Tell me that there are not a bunch of supporters of this administration that are going to get rich of the backs of honest drivers.
And I would be willing to make a wager that with their idea of forcing these EOBR’S in the cab’s of trucks that in the end it is going to create more accidents then they are going to prevent. But I am sure that those accident’s will be blamed on something else, like trucks are just too big to be on the rods with four wheelers or something along that line. One way or other trucks are going to be at fault and the government and all there wisdom will jump in there to save all of humanity from those mean worthless trucks.
Tell me how the government is not over stepping their grounds forcing truckers to buy equipment to monitor our every move, and this dose not have something to do with being a privacy issue. All I know is that numbers do not lie. « less
April 30, 2011 7:06 pm

Thanks for expressing your concerns, Trucking. From your comments and others, it’s clear many truckers feel strongly that no kind of EOBR rule makes sense. But FMCSA might not agree, and then it will be important to know whether there are cheaper, better alternatives than what FMCSA’s been talking about so far. Our goal is to have users like you provide any information that may not be included in FMCSA’s proposed rule (you can learn more about Regulation Room’s goals and purposes here). FMCSA is not interested in what we can provide. They need hard data and sources from you, the public. If you feel that there is information on other websites or elsewhere that FMCSA should know about, please provide links to those websites or that information. FMCSA needs as much data as it can get.

March 5, 2011 7:06 pm

I believe you actually have a username and password and you have to sign into your account inside the scalehouse and they can view it that way.

March 5, 2011 7:10 pm

I do have another question though regarding permanent copies of logs for the driver.
In Canada we get to claim a per diem of $54.00 for every 24 hours we are away from home and claim that amount against our total income at the end of the year. I currently draw this information from my paper logs.
Will employers be required to give us an electronic copy or paper copy of log sheets monthly or at the minimum yearly?

March 5, 2011 8:23 pm

Hi trucking. The DOT does not have the authority to look inside of anyone’s truck. As for law enforcement officials, they must still follow regular legal procedures before looking inside of a truck. Using an EOBR would not void any of those procedures. The EOBRs do not provide personally identifiable information that could lead to profiling. Please see this section Information Collected regarding the information that the EOBRs do collect.

March 8, 2011 1:25 pm

Trucking, smart phones are not at issue in this proposed rule. However, some commenters have suggested that smart phones are capable of doing what an EOBR does, but can do it cheaper. Are you suggesting that you agree or disagree with this?

The most effective comments explain why the agency should or shouldn’t do something. Providing new information or a suggestion can be helpful. To learn more about the rulemaking process and effective commenting click here.

April 25, 2011 2:38 pm

You know what to say. However, this website is definitely not going to pat you on your back for your response.

They are not looking for the truck drivers to REALLY air their opinions.

April 29, 2011 5:15 pm

You have raised some important criticisms of the new expert post. Regulation Room is a neutral site and is run by Cornell University, not FMCSA, but we present proposed regulations based solely on what the Agency has released to the public. Some commenters raised issues concerning the Qualcomm device FMCSA bases some of its cost estimates on. We felt that it would be useful to provide a space for commenters with knowledge about other devices to discuss issues not explicitly mentioned in the rule. If you feel that there are entities or individuals with expert knowledge about these devices and should also be included on the discussion list, please contact us.

May 4, 2011 3:04 pm

This discussion is about more than Pro/Con EOBRs. The rulemaking process isn’t like voting. The decision to have some kind of regulation has already been made, and this is an opportunity for those who will be impacted by that regulation to shape it. We ask that all stay away from ridicule, sarcasm, and personalized attack.

We started the expert post because there was a clear need for answers from equipment manufacturers, installers, and others who know about the technology and actual implementation of EOBRs to speak to other possible devices, market capacity, implementation schedule, costs, etc. We avoided inviting advocate groups because we didn’t want to mirror the discussion already occurring on other topics. If you believe OOIDA has technology experts who can speak to these… more »

…topics without merely expressing a negative opinion on any implementation of EOBRs, let us know and we’ll will invite them to participate. « less
March 27, 2011 8:57 pm

Creative trucker beats speed-limiter ticket in Canada

Persistence and creativity have paid off so far for trucker Lee Ingratta.

The one-truck owner-operator from Gravenhurst, Ontario, has captured the attention of the trucking community for the method he used to beat a ticket for an alleged violation of the provincial law that requires trucks to be equipped with speed-limiting devices.

A judge tossed Ingratta’s case out of court on June 4. Not surprisingly, provincial enforcement officials have filed an appeal.

During a stop at a scale house in July 2009, an inspector with the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario asked Ingratta for permission to connect an external device to a port on Ingratta’s Peterbilt to check for compliance with the speed-limiter law. Under the law, computerized… more »

…settings must not allow a truck to exceed 105 km/h, or 65 mph.

Things got interesting from there.

“He came over with this little gizmo and wanted to plug it in to the computer,” said Ingratta, a self-proclaimed “computer guy” who even owned his own computer shop for 25 years before returning to trucking in 2004.

“I’m thinking to myself, if he plugs this in to one guy’s truck, and then he takes it out and tries to plug it in to my truck, what happens if there’s a little charge of static electricity in this thing? Is he grounding the thing out? Is he going to zap my computer? No, he’s not plugging it in until he signs this waiver.”

The “just in case” waiver Ingratta drafted and carried with him says that he will consent to a speed-limiter inspection only if the officer or agency takes full responsibility for any damage that may occur as a result. The officer disregarded the waiver and cited Ingratta for “refusal” to allow entry to the computer port.

The judge, however, said Ingratta did not refuse and tossed the case. It’s not over yet, however, as the province isn’t going down without a fight of its own.

“The Ministry is aware of the case and is appealing the decision,” MTO spokesman Bob Nichols told Land Line. “As the case is still before the courts, it would be inappropriate to comment further at this time.”

The Owner-Operators Business Association of Canada, of which Ingratta is a member, went public with the news of the case following Ingratta’s court decision.

“I think the fact that the province is appealing shows they’re concerned about that,” OBAC Executive Director Joanne Ritchie told Land Line.

Ritchie said OBAC began raising concerns several years ago about issues of driver privacy and the potential for computer-related problems resulting from port-data exchanges.

“This whole thing about warranty issues – they’re worried about that because they could get themselves into trouble because that tool they use is not licensed software,” Ritchie said. “Engine makers don’t give that to just anybody and it’s very expensive.”

Drivers Against Speed Limiter Legislation, a Facebook group operated by trucker Scott Mooney, was abuzz this week with the news about Ingratta’s case.

Mooney, a member of OBAC and OOIDA, is currently fighting a speed-limiter ticket of his own in Napanee, Ontario. His argument is about the safety aspects and speed differentials that speed limiters on one class of vehicles can cause on the highways. He also has concerns with privacy and the potential for the province to inadvertently void warranties.

“Dealerships do not want any unauthorized personnel tampering with a truck’s ECM,” Mooney said.

“If you as an owner-operator have problems with your computer, and you go in to your dealership and they find out that the last person that accessed the computer was MTO, they can use that to say somebody who wasn’t qualified was into this thing, and that voids your warranty.”

Mooney’s own case has been set for July 21 in provincial court in Napanee.

Meanwhile, Ingratta is gearing up for the appeal in his case, which has yet to have a date set.

“Either they’re going to keep shoving this stuff down our throat and we keep taking it, or we need to stand up for ourselves,” Ingratta said.

“It’s our equipment, and it’s our trucks. We have a right. We have some rights left, anyway.”

– By David Tanner, associate editor « less

April 24, 2011 1:46 pm

I own and operate my own truck. The FMCSA now mandates that companies with a “HIGH” safety risk are required to install EOBR’s. Now the FMCSA utilizing manipulated data wants to force EOBR’s on all interstate truckers. Am I to presume then we are all guilty of being unsafe law breaking drivers now? If I don’t want an EOBR in “MY” legally owned truck, that should be my choice, not the governments. I drive safely and responsibly and I don’t need the government to force me to install a spendy piece of equipment to make sure that I do. I also don’t need the “fatigue” that will be created when the data from an EOBR is used to “micromanage” my time.

April 26, 2011 8:42 pm

thanks patrick, your point is one i was trying to make, for not only small trucking companies and owner ops but for farmers and custom harvesters like your self. I am a former custom harvester as well..

April 26, 2011 11:03 am

Your cost estimates for paper record keeping are way high for smaller companies, where the owner does everything. It is a pain for me to keep paper logs, but I can do it between other things and keep up. And driver time submitting is a non-starter. They tear them out of the book and fedex them to me along with BOLs.

April 27, 2011 11:18 am

Some other commenters have mentioned that there might be less expensive and less intrusive EOBRs than the Qualcomm device (You can read their comments here and here). How would a mandate for a less expensive and intrusive device impact your decision about continuing to drive a truck?

April 21, 2011 11:42 pm

The FMCSA would benefit from having it’s own data? Here’s one source

I have no experience with EOBRs. I am not a truck driver. However, I know that unless the EOBR has some sort of magic powers, it cannot tell whether the driver is waiting at a shipper or reciever or securing a load. It knows only whether the truck is moving or not moving. If the truck is moving, then it’s obviously going to be on-duty, driving time. If the truck is not moving, the driver certainly must have a way to input what duty status should be recorded.

Why not address exactly how the FMCSA believes that mandated EOBR technology is not a major invasion of privacy? Why not… more »

…address the fact that fatigue is an unquantifiable factor and that the statistics citing fatigue as accident causation are therefore unreliable? « less
April 26, 2011 6:09 pm

I believe that if the Government wants us to have EOBRS then they should have to pay to have them put in. MY TRUCK..MY PROPERTY..if they pay for it no problem. I am a legal driver.

April 21, 2011 6:20 pm

EOBRs are a huge privacy invasion to truckers. It is akin to slapping an ankle braclet on them as if they were criminals on house arrest. Confinement and tracking is supposed to be reserved for people who have been proven guilty of commiting crimes. The FMCSA has no probable cause to record the movements of drivers, especially those who are off duty and using the CMV as a personal conveyance. It speaks to the mentality of those who wish to regulate the industry to death that nearl ALL truck drivers should be treated as convicted criminals.

If EOBR-recrded records are subject to FOIA release, they could also amount to a government advocation of corporate espionage.

It is baffling, when looking at highway safety numbers, to see EOBRs being advanced. Truck-involved accidents are at an all-time… more »

…low, and yet, we must push to make the roads ever safer as if there is some way to prevent every accident and keep everyone safe all the time.

Even if highway safety numbers supported such drastic intervention and forgetting that they amount to a Constitutional invasion of privacy, EOBRs are still not the solution.

If the idea is that drivers are common criminals who cannot be trusted to enter information accurately and truthfully, why in the world would we consider a solution than still requires them to input their duty status? Sure, an EOBR can tell when the truck is moving and where it is, but it cannot tell what the driver is doing when the truck is not moving. Why aren’t we just moving on to technology that requires drivers to connect themselves to sensors to record whether they are actually in their sleepers and whether they are awake or asleep?

Enacting EOBRs will not make anyone safer. If there was an EOBR in every single vehicle on the road, I would not feel a whit safer. There are good truck drivers, there are bad truck drivers, and EVERYONE is liable to make a mistake at any time regardless of how professional they are. As a motorist, I will continue to give trucks wide berth for that very reason.

The cost/benefit analysis cannot convince me otherwise. It is completely unreliable. Fatigue is unquantifiable. Just because a driver has an HOS violation or mistake in their logbook does not mean that they were actually fatigued. Law enforcement officers filling out crash reports are not, and cannot, be qualified to determine fatigue, either. And yet, we rely on those statistics, recorded on an unquantifiable factor, as a way to measure whether or not better HOS enforcement through EOBRs will protect us. We can’t even know that the HOS prevent fatigue in truck drivers, but somehow better enforcement of those regs will?

« less

April 21, 2011 6:10 pm

The cost of the EBOR equipment is high, the monthly cost is another fee the O/O does not need ….

The average O/O is probably the safest of all truck drivers out here .. they know the cost of what has to be completed on their trucks…the cheapest way is the most expensive…

Their trucks are their livelihood..

Most O/O’s know that if in an accident running illegal logs just isn’t worth it.
Their truck should not have been on the road when it should have been shut down for a reset…

Every O/O I have met keeps legal logs.

The Electronic logs are costly and I’m totally against them just because of some dumb a** that got in accident because he was driving when he should have been doing a reset.

Illegal logs…This is not the norm out here for the long term Owner Operator.

EBOR’s are just another cost the O/O does need in my opinion.

April 21, 2011 11:54 am

I have been working Safety in trucking for more than 20 years. I have seen crash causation data improve virtually year after year….and fatality rates improve year over year. I have also served on many committees at ATA and other industry groups over the years and have often been involved with these issues “on the front side”. At some point.. somebody that actually counts….somewhere…. has to envoke some common sense. Government can restrict and regulate trucking to the point where there will be no one left to do it except a few of the huge carriers. (Perhaps there is something to that…anyone ever heard of “lobbyists”?) Data can be skewed to show whatever a person wants it to show. Statistics are available to prove ANY POINT on ANY TOPIC you… more »

…wish to prove. The costs benefits of an EOBR mandate are a JOKE. Currently, our fleet is just shy of 100 tractors. I WILL SAVE ZERO by my drivers not having to fill out a log page. I WILL SAVE ZERO by my drivers not having to submit paper logs (they have to turn in several other trip documents anyway). And while I might save a little in clerical time, maybe, the savings certainly will not be what the study suggests! By a show of many small trucking companies pay their clerical staff between $27 and $29 dollars hourly….the answer is ZERO. Unrealistic numbers generated by unrealistic people who are use to spending TAX DOLLARS and NOT operating profit! And they get to do whatever they want for as long as they want! There is VERY LITTLE, IF ANY, offset in costs for us!!! EOBR’s are simply a massive hit to our bottom line…plain and simple. Stop my drivers and check their logs… audit me if you want to….but DON’T MAKE ME SPEND A QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS and a bunch of money every year from now to forever to help you do your job!! Will this EOBR initiative reduce the number of enforcement officers in the field? It should. 40% to 60% less violations has to correlate to less of a need for officers. Right? I haven’t heard anything about that? If there were to be a downsizing of enforcement officials….wonder if they would be for this mandate?? WAIT!!! here’s an idea…..there would be ZERO HOS violations IN ALL OF TRUCKING if every company had to hire one enforcement official per truck to ride in the truck with every driver!!! This would create a whole bunch more overpaid government jobs…..and the TRUCKING INDUSTRY CAN PAY FOR ALL OF IT!!! Sound stupid?? Not so fast!!!….there WILL be someone or some group that just may grab this idea and run with it!!! Last thing… there is one number I would love to see. How much money has been spent by government, special interest groups, the trucking industry, the “think tanks” that come up with their skewed data….etc…on the issues of HOS and EOBR’s? SOMEBODY GIVE ME THIS NUMBER!This number has to be both astronomical and tragic!!! Considering our current economy, the conditions of our highways, FUEL COSTS!!….and a never-ending list of other issues that are more pressing to trucking AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC….what a waste of cash and time and resources all of this has been. And the people WHO ARE GETTING PAID will continue to beat this horse…for YEARS TO COME… as long as their government checks cash. Is it just me? « less
April 14, 2011 1:52 pm

The use of EOBRs will tell you how long the truck has been in operation. Road conditions and other delays are not addressed. Shippers/receivers have no respect for deadlines they have placed on drivers to move their products. Once they get the truck loaded their job is done.
I’ve sat in a loading dock for 13hrs before and then I had to be at my delivery site in 10hrs. I couldn’t sleep while in the dock because the truck would shake everytime the forklift loaded another pallet.
It also sounds to me that FMCSA is mandating the use of EOBRs REGARDLESS whether those of us in the industry think that they will be effective or not. The shippers and receivers are an integral part of the problem that can’t seem to be addressed by FMCSA.

April 11, 2011 7:30 pm

During a period of great recession, DOT & FMCSA will require trucking companies to spend millions of dollars to meet new regulations. The new requirements seem to be presupposed at most.

Electronic driver monitoring technology has been available for more than 15 years. Why the big push now? Profit !

May 1, 2011 1:58 pm


March 3, 2011 4:00 pm

Justice could become out of control!

Just as George Orwell’s book revealed the possibilities of many things that have become a reality during our lifetime, our thought to be friend of the people: Our “Sovereign Government” could become the same as the subject of the book written by Attorney Gerry Spence.

Atty Gerry Spence wrote a book by the name of: From Freedom to Slavery, which spoke this following statement:

“But over the years, as a criminal defense attorney, my in-court experiences with the police forced me to the realization that police, like the rest of use, want to win. we are a competitive people who, from the earliest times, have donned a jersey of one color or another, and we have been taught that we should fight for that color jersey, and win. Many police,… more »

…perhaps most, struggle under the misguided belief that when the accused is guilty it becomes the duty of the police to see that the accused is convicted and punished. Many police seem to weigh one wrong against the other — their own wrong of fiddling with the evidence, of intentionally omitting exculpatory facts, even the criminal wrong of planting or manufacturing evidence or, equally reprehensible, lying under oath, against what many police see as the greater wrong of permitting the guilty to escape his just dues. Indeed, the argument that it is all right for the police to cheat if, in the process, they catch the criminal, is commonly dramatized in the movies and on the television screen.; This idea, in fact, is applauded by many a citizen as justice in the raw without all the bothersome loopholes that permit the guilty to escape. On the screen we often witness the cop blithely picking the lock of a suspect’s home and illegally entering and searching his room. We watch the illegal phone tap being made or the cop, the hero, smashing a witness up against the wall and brutally pounding information out of the hapless creature, and we cheer him on.”

This could be the misguided use of this equipment. « less

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