Profile: vganster
This is vganster's Profile page. Use it to view vganster's comments, other users' replies to these comments, and comments vganster has endorsed.
What's Happening Now
Vganster, you say that truck-involved accidents are at an all time low. Would it be possible for you to share where you got this information from? The FMCSA would benefit from having this sort of data.
Additionally, you seem to have some experience with EOBRs. You say that truckers are still allowed to input their duty status when using an EOBR. Could you explain how this works and what your experience with EOBRs has been?
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 »
Because of the “just-in-time” deliver paradymn that we are operating in, shippers are concerned about getting the product out the door. Receivers, once the product is on-site, seem to take a non-chalant attitude about any other deadlines the driver faces for backhaul.
Some shippers/receivers MIGHT appreciate knowing what road conditions are that drivers are facing, but if I ever have trouble on the road I make it a point to contact them. So many times, receivers treat inbound truckers as an extention of their assembly line or freezer, depending on your point of delivery. I’ve sat in the dock in Georgia, stuck because they were running their operations from my truck. Consequentially, I was down for a full day.
Interacting with some shippers/receivers, I get the impression… more »
The Rights of All
I am alarmed and deeply angered at the recent proposal and remarks of Ray LaHood, Secretary of Transportation. In defending his proposal to require approximately 500,000 carriers install Electronic On-Board Recorders (EOBRs) on nearly all trucks, he said, “We cannot protect our roadways when commercial truck and bus companies exceed hours-of-service rules. This proposal would make our roads safer by ensuring that carriers traveling across state lines are using EOBRs to track the hours their drivers spend behind the wheel.”
Here’s a proposal for Mr. LaHood. Let’s put Internet-trackable GPS Electronic Tethers (IGETs) on him and each of the 55,000 people under his command at Transportation. We citizens cannot protect our freedoms when commercial… more »
After Mr. LaHood has developed this IGET system with a very small part of his $70 billion taxpayer-paid-for annual budget, prototyped it on himself and his 55,000 employees for, say, three years, he can expand his program to include all elected politicians and their staff members in the federal government. After that, he should come back to us lowly truck drivers and we’ll discuss together the installation of his EOBR spy boxes in our trucks. Then we can all spy on each other and be one big happy community together. It’ll be great! It’ll make our roads safer, right?
The EOBR spy box defenders say these are not spy boxes, but only monitoring devices that record a limited number of functions (e.g., when the truck is running, the duty status of the driver, etc.). This is the third biggest lie ever told by a politician, right after “the income tax we are creating will never exceed three per cent” and “the social security number will never be used for purposes of identification.” Today’s EOBR spy boxes are a Model T; tomorrow’s will be a 2025 government BMW with metallic paint and the ability to cruise at 35,000 feet. Today, the government will require carriers run the spy boxes and dictate to those carriers how and when they show government their every record, but tomorrow the government will control or own the carriers and their boxes, just as they now control or own car companies, student loans, mortgages, and health care. Remember how employer-provided health care was designed to eventually become government-run health care? Same song, another verse. Government-run trucking. Enjoy.
As Mr. LaHood voluntarily took office on Jan. 23, 2009, he accepted the responsibility to defend the constitution. Its 4th Amendment states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” He has not only failed in this task, but he is abusing the legitimate power of his good office to illegitimately attack the rights he is sworn to uphold. Understand what Mr. LaHood is doing: he is not simply failing to protect our 4th Amendment right with Carter-level incompetance or malfeasance, he has joined (and is leading!) the attack against it!
Mr. LaHood’s stated reason for his perpetration of the EOBR spy boxes on us is to “make our roads safer.” He is not telling the truth. Where’s his proof? Where are the longitudinal studies that support his claim? Who comprised the control group? Where is the statisticians’ report showing a proper interpretation of the raw data? How much “safer” will our roads be if we give up our right to be free from this type of government’s search of us and our things? Where is the ratified constitutional amendment by which we citizens gave up our 4th Amendment right to be free from government searches without a specific, limited warrant?
If a judge were to demonstrate a bias against an innocent defendant as Mr. LaHood’s above remark demonstrates against truck drivers, the outraged defense lawyer would rightly demand the judge’s removal from the case (perhaps from the bench!), but Mr. LaHood continues to sit in judgmental judgment of us. The government’s subjection of certain convicted criminals to its surveillance is appropriate; subjecting law-abiding citizens to this treatment is itself criminal. We are individual citizens who are not only unconvicted, but unaccused, and against whom the only evidence is Mr. LaHood’s prejudice. Mr. LaHood’s remark shows he has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be a public servant. He needs to be removed from office.
Companies have every right to know (therefore, to track) the whereabouts and use of any equipments which belong to them (consistent with employees’ rights), but government has no such right. The government has no right to track innocent citizens where the only evidence of wrongdoing is the prejudice of government leaders. Use of EOBRs is an issue between a carrier and its insurance company, and between a carrier and its employees, and it’s none of the federal government’s stinking business. Butt out, Mr. LaHood: find your new home in the unemployment line.
I favor increasing traffic safety and preserving our constitutional rights. Mr. LaHood favors using traffic safety as an excuse to violate those same rights. We do not need government-required tracking devices around us. As Mr. LaHood is unfit for public office at any level, he needs to find a new job, preferably one in the private sector where his remuneration is based on productivity instead of political connections.
The misdeeds of some is never justification for violating the rights of all. Our constitution and Bill of Rights must stand, and Mr. LaHood must stand down.
Dan the Trucker
truckdrivingdan@yahoo.com « less
Thank you for the link to the fatality statistics, trucking. Hard data and sources are invaluable to the Agency during this process. Do other commenters agree that FMCSA has not fully taken these statistics into account for the EOBR proposal? Do commenters have any more data on this topic?
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811363.pdf
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 »
The FMCSA’s own data and reports verify that EOBRS have nothing to do with improving safety. The manufacturers of these devices are the one’s really pushing them – just follow the money trail. If any company wants to use EOBRs let them have at it, but to mandate such a device on a small operation will put that small operation at an even more cost disadvantage. People Net wants $1500 per device and $60 per month service fee. Small operations are already at a huge disadvantage with respect to fuel costs. We cannot come near the fuel discounts that the big boys get. EOBRS are a tool that should not be forced upon anybody unless they demonstrate that they cannot provide accurate and truthful logs and supporting documentation. Punish the offenders, but do not punish everyone!!
the company i am leased to has not come out with have not come out with firm numbers but estimates are in the 1200 to 2000 dollar range with a WEEKLY charge of 40 to 60 dollars.
I have been an owner operator for over 12 years now and have seen my bottom line drop to almost nothing.
the high costs of over regulation along with the facts that freight rates today are where they were 10 years ago add the fact that maintenance costs are outrageous is pretty much unbearable for the little guy to even come close to making a living.
I have 5 csa points and they are over a paper work issue that I was told that I could have had erased but i didn’t appeal it in time but at the time that this issue came up there was no way to appeal it.
so it isn’t like I am not a compliant driver and not… more »
I have about decided that the government could care less about the small business owner in trucking and have teamed up with the driver mill companies that hire new students that have no idea on how to be compliant and even worse are not safety first oriented so if they want to force me to come up with another 2 to 5 thousand a year to prove that I am following the rules then I will take the loss on my equipment and find some work that is less stressful more profitable in the process and watch the carnage that will surely happen as the proven safe drivers give up in frustration and the new breed of inexperienced super truckers take over from the proven safe old hands « less
I am a company driver and I want to make a couple comments and hopefully you can publish them as nobody seems to want to talk about these points.
1: EOBR’s track us by the minute, but carriers insist on paying via the antiquated method of mileage pay. This antiquated method is dangerous driving habit promoting because it rewards you for driving as fast as you can. Figure out your hourly pay next time you are stuck going through Chicago at rush hour instead of shutting down for a cpl hours and waiting it out.
Now imagine no cheating on your logs, couple that with a record number of inexperienced drivers racing the unbeatable clock. You now have the most dangerous industry in the world!!! For the drivers and the general public.
2: Hourly pay has to be adopted the moment the switch is turned… more »
3: Monitored by the minute, paid by the mile….. Makes as much sense as wiping BEFORE you go poop!
4: The HOS rules are almost impossible to follow right now on paper logs where you can bend the rules a little to match your needs. Imagine the lack of ability to do the job with the rigid laws we are forced to follow.. Do we just pull over on the side of the road when the EOBR tells us we are out of hours and turn on the flashers and satellite our boss and tell him to send a driver to drive the truck the 10 minutes to the nearest truck stop? Or do we take a 10 hour break and deliver the load a day late when we run out of hours 10 minutes from the consignee’s dock? « less
The answer to the problem is…..
Carriers need to change the way they bill their customers. FMCSA has forced EOBR’s onto us. They track our every movement, BY THE MINUTE.
The Carriers need to get together and as a whole switch to hourly charges for their services and move away from mileage pay!
The technology is now upon us to track each and every minute a truck, or combination of trucks spend moving any given peice of freight shipped.
This can’t be done by one carrier, but instead by an INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE!!!!!!!
This would take all the variables out for all carriers, level the playing field, and allow carriers to compensate their driving staff like the rest of the workplace in North America.
Is your average driver even aware they are not recognized as part of a labour… more »
Why can any body just get in there car, mini van, suv etc with there whole family on board drive cross country non stop.. But a professional driver has to have an EOBR to make sure they are in compliance? I have been on the road all of my 37 years and have seen every scenario.. EOBRS are not the answer.. educating the public is!! Leave the HOS as they are if any changes are made simply Eliminate the 14 hour rule. Give truckers the opportunity to stop and stop the clock as they need to..
Most drivers that like EOBRS that i have talked to are brand new to the Industry and drive for the large carriers, that drilled into there heads while they were in there driving school that EOBRS are the thing.. That is all they know because that is what they were taught!!! I for one have driven two million miles with out an accident or any kind of moving violation.. What is an eobr going to help me with? Besides costing me and my family money!! While some company that makes the EOBRS gets rich because some large carriers are mad because we smaller guys pass them some where along the way..
the companies that want these are either the anti trucking groups or the companies that already have a poor record of compliance.
The financial burden for the Owner-operators will drive many out of business without improving safety, which is suppose to be the stated goal.
the over regulation of this business is driving many small business owners to bankruptcy and the government seems to care less.
for safety?? my aunts petutie
first, there are now roadside inspections, audits of the carries,both of which are used to enforce compliance,
then the with the new CSA rules the bottom 10% of the carries are required to install EBOR’s which is as it should be, and give the carriers and drivers incentive to be compliant in all areas not just with the HOS but all areas CSA covers.
in todays age if someone is not compliant they are gonna get caught and be required to install the recorders,so why put the added expense upon the owners of the trucks in an environment where the profit margins are so slim to begin with.
Pres. Obama has ordered all agency’s to reevaluate regulations that overburden industries and stifle growth and with the cost of the EBOR’s and monthly costs of monitoring which will be passed… more »
and again the primary companies that want this thing are out to kill the independents by driving up the costs of their competition which this will surely do, if the big companies would spend what is necessary they would not be in the bottom 10% and would not have to install the recorders in their fleets,so why not bring them up to the level of the other 90% instead of dragging the 90% down to their level and in the process bankrupt a lot of good and compliant owner-operators. « less
here is the latest figures from landline mag. on accidents which shows that todays drivers are the safest in history so why drive the good and compliant driver out of business with overburdonsome regulations
As miles traveled increase, the 2009 fatality rate of 1.13 deaths per 100 million miles traveled was the lowest since 1950. Highway deaths totaled 33,808 in 2009, and despite a 9.7 percent decrease over the previous year, end quote
while any death on our highway is one too many it will be impossible to completely eliminate them.
BUT thru over regulation and the resulting loss of the demonstrated “good” drivers from the pool you will surely see a large increase in accidents as the new breed of inexperienced drivers take to the highways, many of which will push too hard and… more »
as in everything government when there is a good outcome from a little regulation then the powers that be decide that a little regulation did a lot of goo then a lot of regulation will do great things, sorry that never works and in this care will have a decidedly opposite effect. « less
Eliminat the HOS and the proposed EOBRs for experienced drivers with satisfactory/good records, have them carry an ID card Exempting them from HOS and EOBRS.. Use the EOBRS and the HOS for new inexperienced drivers just out of school, and those with poor safety records.. Use the EOBRS and the HOS for a training tool for new drivers and a consequence for drivers with a bad safety records.. they get alot of citations/tickets etc they abide by the EOBRS and the HOS. ILL bet you would see drivers driving alot safer if they were penalized this way for unsafe driving..
I am against the passing of this new DOT proposed rule. Initially, the new regulation titled “Electronic On-Board Recorders for Hours-of-Service Compliance” was implemented for use with motor carriers that had violations regarding the “Hours of Service (HOS) rules.” Specifically, this rule focused on a narrow group of motor carriers: those whose drivers have a pattern of HOS violations, which leads to requiring the carrier to install EOBRs (Electronic on-Board Recorders) in all of its Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMVs). This is a form of punishment or corrective measure for those motor carriers that repeatedly violate the law. This tactic is very similar to that of the ankle bracelet monitoring devices used on criminals as a result of their illegal activities so they too can be monitored.… more »
Apparently there were “many people and groups who commented on that regulation [that] wanted the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to require EOBRs more broadly.” Who are these people and groups and why do they think this is a good idea? What is their “interest” in passing this intrusive and expensive rule? Would it also make sense to put ankle bracelets on law abiding citizens to make sure they continue to be law abiding citizens? Of course not, so why is this viewed as a good idea? Who stands to gain from it? Not the law abiding motor carrier who would be required to buy equipment and pay monthly monitoring fees in their already shrinking budget if this rule passes. Compare the cost of this monitoring system with the cost of $0.99 cent drivers log books and explain how this new expensive system will benefit the small business’s bottom line. The obvious answer is that it will only hurt small business, not help it.
Of course, the proponents of the new rule will say that it is a “safety issue,” and that this will reduce the occurrence of fatigued drivers and motor vehicle accidents. The DOT admits in Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 64, that, “the Agency is not aware of any published information that demonstrates that the specific mandate imposed … has contributed to any discernible benefits in safety.” The DOT already has so many rules for motor carriers on the books, everything from drug and alcohol testing, to log book inspections, to weigh station inspections, and the like. Yet, with all of this monitoring and inspection there are those carriers that still push the limits, break the law, falsify the books, etc. A lawbreaker will likely find a way around this rule, and the law abiding drivers will continue to obey the law, but now will do so at an added cost.
Add another layer of costly and intrusive oversight and it will result in putting some carriers out of business and longer lines at the unemployment office. However, I’m sure the Government would gain employees as the new rule needs to be implemented and monitored by someone, costing the taxpayer more money to support another Government rule or program.
Let’s not forget who gets hurt every time another new rule is impressed upon a company. Impose a new expensive rule on motor carriers and they are forced to pass the added cost on to the consumer. In a time when the economy is weak, the last thing we need is another cost added because some person or group thought it would be a good idea for CMV companies to be monitored electronically. In the case of my company, the costs associated with this new rule will be added to the already high cost of health care. My company provides a medical service to rural hospitals. We transport our service via commercial vehicles subject to this new rule. Therefore, the added cost would eventually be passed on to the healthcare system that we bill for our services rendered.
How about fuel transport, or produce, or household goods, or manufacture industry goods? All of these industries and others that depend on commercial transport would likely need to increase the cost to the end user to cover for the added expense imposed by this punishing rule. The result: higher health care costs, higher fuel costs, higher grocery bills, higher materials cost, and the list could go on, all because some person or group thought it would be a good idea to make everyone abide by a rule that was initially limited to be imposed upon lawbreaker CMV drivers and companies.
According to the Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 64, (49 CFR Parts 350, 385, 395, et al. Electronic On-Board Recorders for Hours of Service Compliance; Final Rule) which states, “before prescribing any regulations, FMCSA must also consider their costs and benefits.” They went on to say, “The Agency has taken these statutory requirements into account throughout the final rule.” Yet, by their own admission, they state within the same rule, “For a number of reasons, including lack of adequate cost and benefit data, FMCSA decided not to adopt EOBR regulations in 2003.” In a foot note, they state, “Estimates of benefits and costs that will be developed for future HOS-related rulemaking actions will use more recent baseline data..” To my understanding, the DOT did not provide an adequate cost and benefit analysis due to a “lack of adequate cost and benefit data,” yet they are still pursuing an industry wide implementation of this new rule without conducting a cost and benefit analysis based from recent data as they stated they would. The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance noted within the same referenced Federal Register that “government resources needed to monitor carriers subject to mandatory EOBR use will be substantial, and the benefits will not outweigh the costs.” “FMCSA has determined this rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or more, and is, therefore, an economically significant regulatory action.”
So, in a time when Government spending is out of control, the deficit is through the roof, the economy is in poor shape, unemployment is up, fuel costs are up, and the value of the Dollar is down, this Agency thinks imposing this rule is a good idea despite the dismal facts stated within the current rule.
In my humble opinion it is a very bad idea to pass this proposed rule.
« less
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 »
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
The FMCSA would benefit from having it’s own data? Here’s one source http://www.todaystrucking.com/features.cfm?intDocID=24990
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 »
Moderator,
You mention that the FMCSA does not have the authority to regulate haul rates. While that is true, you cannot neglect the fact that the regulations the FMCSA does implement have the potential to affect significantly the rates drivers and carriers receive.
You ask people to provide hard data to back up their opinions on EOBRs. That’s brilliant because when this is all said and done, the FMCSA will be able to say that no one could provide such data. Of course they can’t! They’re truck drivers not statisticians.
They know that EOBRs will affect their livelihoods negatively, but cannot show you in your “hard data” terms why that is. All they can do is tell you, and keep telling you, that they don’t want the darned things in their trucks. Part of that is because the results… more »
EOBRs are intended only to increase compliance with HOS. Yet, in the proposed rulemaking and cost/benefit study for the HOS the FMCSA itself admits the Hours of Service cannot be considered the cause for the recent decline in truck-involved fatalities and injuries. The FMCSA also admits that it cannot reliably measure the impact of HOS regulations or compliance on highway safety.
The conversation should go no further. If we don’t know that the HOS save lives, then we CANNOT know whether or not increasing compliance with them will. As soon as we reach this realization, the idea of tracking the movements of every truck driver in the country should be taken off the table.
« less
Well, if the FMCSA cannot prove that the HOS increase safety, then it cerainly cannot prove that compliance through brute force ala EOBRs will do anything, either.
The fact that some drivers have grown to appreciate some of the benefits EOBRs have to offer has nothing to do with whether or not they should be mandated in every truck.
Every driver in the country could absolutely love them, and that still would not be reason enough to require them to be installed in every truck.
Personally, I am opposed to any mandate, but can see the benefits for requiring the carriers with a long history of HOS violations to use EOBRs. Outside of that, the choice of whether or not to equip a truck with an EOBR should belong to the carrier or truck owner.
Again, I have no personal experience using an EOBR since I am not a truck driver. Anecdotally, I can say that the majority of HOS violations are not due to driving more than ten or eleven hours per day. Rather, the… more »
Another bigh cause of logbook falsification is to allow a driver a break that would not be doable under the regulations while still allowing the driver to meet any deadlines.
EOBRs would be effective against this type of falsification. However, I’m pretty sure I would rather they weren’t. If a driver is feeling ill, wants to avoid the stress of rush-hour traffic, or simply has an off day and needs a rest break, the EOBR will be there telling them that they’d better keep moving if they want to meet their appointment time.
I’ll take the driver who chooses to take the break and fudge the book anyday over a driver with the same deadline pushing through while remaining perfectly compliant.
Again, I cannot stress enough that the FMCSA cannot have it both ways. The reasoning behind revisiting the HOS yet again is that they cannot be conclusively proven to increase highway safety. Therefore, increasing compliance with those HOS CANNOT be for the purpose of improving safety.
Even if they could conclusively prove a correlation, fatigue-related truck accidents make up only a small percentage of truck-involved accidents. Nothing about a sweeping mandate of EOBR technology makes any sense. « less