Call To Action

[GMAN]

Dear OOIDA Member,

Your immediate help is needed!

Although Congress is preparing to recess for the upcoming elections in November, it just goes to show that OOIDA’s work is never done.

Today, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) introduced a bill that would mandate that all truckers must be monitored by Electronic OnBoard Recorders (EOBRs)for hours-of-service enforcement.

As you are aware, OOIDA has long opposed legislative and regulatory efforts to force EOBRs upon professional truck drivers for numerous reasons.

- There is no justification for the financial or personal privacy costs of the government imposing EOBRs on professional truckers
-
- There is NO research that shows EOBRs used for HOS enforcement will actually increase compliance or highway safety

- EOBRs are no better than paper logs for recording time – they only track when the wheels are rolling and depend on drivers to press buttons to record non-driving on-duty time.

While we believe Senator Alexander had noble intentions, he has bought into the myths about EOBRs that special interests groups are spreading. Big trucking corporations want them mandated to control drivers and squeeze more “productivity” out of them. Diesel cops want them to ease their means of levying fines and putting truckers out-of-service. Trial lawyers want them to build cases against truckers, innocent or not.

Please call Senator Alexander’s office and voice your concerns about his bill. TELL SENATOR ALEXANDER TO SAY NO TO FORCING TRUCKERS TO BE MONITORED BY EOBRS!

Senator Alexander’s office number in Washington DC is (202) 224-4944.

You are also welcome to call OOIDA at (800) 444-5791 with any questions.



THANK YOU!

[Jackrabbit379]

We have OnBoard Computers in our trucks. They're ok. We get our pay, and everything off of them.
Drivers can't afford that stuff. They don't have the time, and worry..

[Rev.]

- There is no justification for the financial or personal privacy costs of the government imposing EOBRs on professional truckers

False.

-
- There is NO research that shows EOBRs used for HOS enforcement will actually increase compliance or highway safety

So then they won't hurt anything either.

- EOBRs are no better than paper logs for recording time – they only track when the wheels are rolling and depend on drivers to press buttons to record non-driving on-duty time.

Paper logs record when the wheels are moving? Neat!

I see OOIDA is still trying to keep rates low.

[RostyC]

False.

Can you prove that it's true?

So then they won't hurt anything either.

So then we've gained nothing. Which brings us back to "Why do it" if there's no gain. Of course the manufacturers of EOBR's will gain substantially from motor carriers.
Are you in favor of government agencies telling you to spend your money on their idea's that hold no water?

Paper logs record when the wheels are moving? Neat!

Yes they do.

I see OOIDA is still trying to keep rates low.

Explain how they keep rates low. I don't understand this statement.

[Malaki86]

As a 10-year company driver, I have no problem whatsoever with companies putting them into the trucks. In fact, I call our log department once in awhile and ask when we'll get them. Luckily, though, Celadon doesn't try to get you to run illegal whatsoever. BUT, I've driven for my share of companies that had no regards whatsoever to the hours of service, how many miles you put in a day, etc. They simply pushed you until you dropped. In fact, those companies even "suggested" to me to carry multiple log books. THOSE are the companies that need them. Plain and simple. Not every company should be forced to install them, whether they have 1 truck or 10,000 trucks. If a driver or company has been caught cooking the books on more than, say, 2 occasions, it should be mandated then. But not until.

[chris1]

Explain how they keep rates low. I don't understand this statement.[/QUOTE]

The hype is that with everyone running "legal" the rates will go up. Just like they went up from the new HOS, just like when all the cheap carriers go out of business,just like anything that is going to make trucking easy street.

[RostyC]

Explain how they keep rates low. I don't understand this statement.

The hype is that with everyone running "legal" the rates will go up. Just like they went up from the new HOS, just like when all the cheap carriers go out of business,just like anything that is going to make trucking easy street.

That I understand. I was more thrown off by the word "still" in that statement.

I see OOIDA is still trying to keep rates low.

I'm asking for him to show a pattern.

[jagerbomber3.0]

I am surprised at the ever growing number of drivers that seem to be just fine with and even inviting to the idea of government crawling even further up into your truck and career all for the sake of someone else making money yet again. When will everyone realize that stuff like this is nothing but a money train for someone on down the line. These things are always masked by campaigns of public safety or for the good of the kids or whatever cause makes the public comfortable with having yet another thing forced down the countries throat when all it boils down to is money in the end. Anyone that truly believes that this is about a true concern for public safety and not about money and control then i just dont know how to relate to you.

[Rev.]

Can you prove that it's true?

Sure can!

So then we've gained nothing. Which brings us back to "Why do it" if there's no gain. Of course the manufacturers of EOBR's will gain substantially from motor carriers.
Are you in favor of government agencies telling you to spend your money on their idea's that hold no water?

That's assuming the statement by OOIDA is in fact true. I don't buy their claim that EOBR's will not increase compliance. Furthermore, they have no evidence to support that claim.

Yes they do.

Please explain in detail how a paper log automatically records every time the wheels are moving without the ability to falsify or alter said recording.

Explain how they keep rates low. I don't understand this statement.

Well, contrary to chris1's analogy to the change from 10 hours to 11 hours was supposedly going to raise rates (I don't see how it would), if the ability to falisfy logs is removed, then carriers will be more likely to comply with the log rules. If they are complying with the log rules, then they are likely running slower, and therefore hauling less freight. If each carrier hauls less freight, then rates will naturally go up. That's simple supply and demand. The overall supply of carriers will decrease while demand will remain steady. Rates go up. The end.

[RostyC]

Sure can!

Well? Let's see it.

Please explain in detail how a paper log automatically records every time the wheels are moving without the ability to falsify or alter said recording.

A paper log records a drivers driving time, by the driver entering the information. It can be falsified, and upon an inspection the falsification can be spotted, the driver fined, and possibly put oos. You are required to have the last seven days of logs available for inspection.

EOBR's automatically record when the truck is moving, and this would have to match a drivers log book upon inspection, and the driver could be fined, and possibly put oos. Upon inspection is the key word here.
I think anyone willing to falsify a log will be willing to take a risk at a scale that they won't be inspected. Or they can go around the scale, or try to work at night when a lot of them are closed or just checking weight. Remember they record when the truck is moving, not when the driver is actually sleeping/resting. We could possibly have more tired drivers on the road.

Also, who's to say that you won't be able to alter the data on an EOBR in the near future.
I just don't think it's the end all be all you think it is, I guess.

I'm not sure if you avoided my other question or not so I'll ask again.

Are you in favor of government agencies telling you to spend your money on their idea's that hold no water?

Well, contrary to chris1's analogy to the change from 10 hours to 11 hours was supposedly going to raise rates (I don't see how it would), if the ability to falisfy logs is removed, then carriers will be more likely to comply with the log rules. If they are complying with the log rules, then they are likely running slower, and therefore hauling less freight. If each carrier hauls less freight, then rates will naturally go up. That's simple supply and demand. The overall supply of carriers will decrease while demand will remain steady. Rates go up. The end.

You're right, simple supply and demand. However, the bigger companies could add more trucks and aggressively recruit drivers thereby increasing supply, and the rates will reflect the overall supply of trucks. I find it questionable that a lot of big companies are behind this EOBR law. Perhaps they see an advantage to gain market share?

Nothing is ever about safety, it's about money. You just have to look.

[Rev.]

Well? Let's see it.

Hit the old Google machine and look up any number of cases of a driver who got into a fatal wreck who was running false logs.

A paper log records a drivers driving time, by the driver entering the information. It can be falsified, and upon an inspection the falsification can be spotted, the driver fined, and possibly put oos. You are required to have the last seven days of logs available for inspection.

A paper log records nothing. A driver enters information on it.

EOBR's automatically record when the truck is moving, and this would have to match a drivers log book upon inspection, and the driver could be fined, and possibly put oos. Upon inspection is the key word here.

Funny that you used the same exact words earlier.

I think anyone willing to falsify a log will be willing to take a risk at a scale that they won't be inspected. Or they can go around the scale, or try to work at night when a lot of them are closed or just checking weight.

Not entirely. A log is fairly easy to falsify, as long as all time stamped documents match up to the log. Anything that isn't time stamped is fair game to falsify. An EOBR would reduce the ability to falsify items.

Remember they record when the truck is moving, not when the driver is actually sleeping/resting.

The current log system does not record when a driver is sleeping or resting either. It only records whatever the driver puts on it. And besides, there's no FMCSA regulation stating a driver must sleep (or that they MUST record sleeper berth time ever, for that matter). I could run 11 hours, then take a 10 hour off duty period in which I get zero sleep, and I've met the requirements of the FMCSA regulations.

We could possibly have more tired drivers on the road.

I'd love to hear your reasoning for this statement.

Also, who's to say that you won't be able to alter the data on an EOBR in the near future.

What's to say that you will? I don't think you have any basis for this claim.

I'm not sure if you avoided my other question or not so I'll ask again.

Are you in favor of government agencies telling you to spend your money on their idea's that hold no water?

That's a loaded question. Show me that the idea here holds no water and I'll be happy to answer.

You're right, simple supply and demand. However, the bigger companies could add more trucks and aggressively recruit drivers thereby increasing supply, and the rates will reflect the overall supply of trucks.

Unlikely.

I find it questionable that a lot of big companies are behind this EOBR law. Perhaps they see an advantage to gain market share?

Or they see that the gubberment is tightening up enforcement on the regulations, and as such they are in favor of any tool there is that will shift the responsibility away from them and put it on the driver.

Nothing is ever about safety, it's about money. You just have to look.

That would also include all opposition to the EOBR's, right?

[RostyC]

Hit the old Google machine and look up any number of cases of a driver who got into a fatal wreck who was running false logs.

You made the claim, you back it up. Prove that it will be effective for compliance and that it will cause rates to rise. I was under the impression you already had something, my mistake. I haven't read anything that proves your claim. I need something more than a few accidents one can find on a "Google search". I also would assume there were truck accidents where the driver was in compliance, and still had an accident. Actual unbiased and accurate hard data please.

EOBR's automatically record when the truck is moving, and this would have to match a drivers log book upon inspection, and the driver could be fined, and possibly put oos. Upon inspection is the key word here.
I think anyone willing to falsify a log will be willing to take a risk at a scale that they won't be inspected. Or they can go around the scale, or try to work at night when a lot of them are closed or just checking weight. Remember they record when the truck is moving, not when the driver is actually sleeping/resting.

A paper log records nothing. A driver enters information on it.



Funny that you used the same exact words earlier.

You kind of lost me here at what you're getting at so I re-quoted myself and I'll explain it a little better than I did. The point I was getting at was without an inspection the EOBR is useless as are log books. If the number of inspections remains the same as it is now we've accomplished little, but we've spent a lot of money doing it, and it makes some people feel good.

The reason I think that way is that last month I got pulled in VA (Roanoke scale) for a paperwork inspection. (Passed) Very nice DOT guy btw, and so we got to talking, he was telling me how easy it is to catch false logs and that a lot of drivers just aren't clever enough to pull it off.

I'll grant you that a lot are, however if these guys are that dumb, I don't think an EOBR will make that much of a difference.

Not entirely. A log is fairly easy to falsify, as long as all time stamped documents match up to the log. Anything that isn't time stamped is fair game to falsify.

I wouldn't know, sounds like you do. (I'm kidding you)

The current log system does not record when a driver is sleeping or resting either. It only records whatever the driver puts on it. And besides, there's no FMCSA regulation stating a driver must sleep (or that they MUST record sleeper berth time ever, for that matter). I could run 11 hours, then take a 10 hour off duty period in which I get zero sleep, and I've met the requirements of the FMCSA regulations.


I'd love to hear your reasoning for this statement.

My reasoning is sort of in your statement above, EOBR can't prove you were sleeping either. But, let's say a driver drives three hours pulls up to receiver has to wait three hours, does a driver unload (logs half hour) actually takes two. His truck has been shutoff for five hours. Company tells him to wait five more hours and then go to next pick up. The driver isn't tired though and can't sleep. A little extreme but you get the point .

What's to say that you will? I don't think you have any basis for this claim.

But neither do you.

That's a loaded question. Show me that the idea here holds no water and I'll be happy to answer.

I'll rephrase. Do you want the government to tell you how to spend your money?

Unlikely.

It's very likely.

Or they see that the gubberment is tightening up enforcement on the regulations, and as such they are in favor of any tool there is that will shift the responsibility away from them and put it on the driver.

Could be, but it will still reflect on the company.

That would also include all opposition to the EOBR's, right?

Yes very much so, the government is going to try to force me to spend my money on something I'm skeptical of. What's next Rev? That's a scary thought too.

I gotta say I'm a little surprised at your position on this, I'm wondering if you're just playing devils advocate here. I thought you'd be more of a skeptic on something like this.

[jagerbomber3.0]

The Rev's performance here is really quite disappointing. The fact that he is just arguing for the sake of arguing is really shining through on this thread way more than usual.This is one of the weakest perfromances I have seen by the great obstinate one.It's like he is not even trying to be convincing this time.

[Fredog]

reminds me of this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

[GMAN]

I read somewhere that some with the government thinks that they will eventually be able to tap into our onboard computers and check our paperwork without even having to stop us. They just have their computer call our computer and ask for the data.

For me it is a matter of privacy. I hate the idea of big brother invading my life any more than they are currently. Next we will need to account for our bathroom time.

By the way, the ATA (American Trucking Association) is pushing hard for these EOBR's. They think it will push up rates. I am not so sure. I guarantee you that if making money was not involved this would not be an issue. I have no idea what these recorders will cost. I believe a qualcom costs about $3,500. With 3.5-5 million trucks on the highway that is a lot of money.

[Rev.]

Next we will need to account for our bathroom time.

Ummm....You already need to. If you stop to use the bathroom, you need to log this.

[chris1]

Well, contrary to chris1's analogy to the change from 10 hours to 11 hours was supposedly going to raise rates (I don't see how it would), if the ability to falisfy logs is removed, then carriers will be more likely to comply with the log rules. If they are complying with the log rules, then they are likely running slower, and therefore hauling less freight. If each carrier hauls less freight, then rates will naturally go up.[/QUOTE]

If you go back to that time it was the 14 hour rule that was going to necessitate the addition of thousands of trucks to haul the same amount of freight. Lower productivity was going to raise the rates.
If the required use by all of EOBR's slow down the movement of freight then shippers will just demand the use of teams and/or relays with no increases in the rate. A non factor to the company's that already have/do this. The ones affected will be those that don't have that capability and those who will not change with the times.

[Rev.]

If you go back to that time it was the 14 hour rule that was going to necessitate the addition of thousands of trucks to haul the same amount of freight. Lower productivity was going to raise the rates.

Anyone who claimed that was an idiot. Most drivers were already operating within the 14 hour window prior to the HOS change anyway.

[chris1]

Anyone who claimed that was an idiot. Most drivers were already operating within the 14 hour window prior to the HOS change anyway.

All the trade publications and large carriers were claiming that. And it was a 15 hour window that could be stopped at any time by off duty.

[chris1]

Just curious,do you truly believe the requirement of EOBR's will effect rates?