EOBRs

[freebrd]

“We cannot protect our roadways when commercial truck and bus companies exceed hours-of-service rules,” Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said yesterday. “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.”

Interstate carriers that currently use records of duty status (RODS) logbooks to document drivers’ HOS would be required to use EOBRs. Short-haul interstate carriers that use timecards to document HOS would not be required to use them. Carriers that violate this EOBR requirement would face civil penalties of up to $11,000 for each offense. Noncompliance would also negatively impact a carrier’s safety fitness rating and DOT operating authority.

[Steel Horse Cowboy]

But I guess the 4 college kids driving at 75mph on their way back from spring break, where they didn't sleep for 4 days are safer.

[Mackman]

Short-haul interstate carriers that use timecards to document HOS would not be required to use them.

Well that rules me out. Let me know how they work out for ya LOL.

Dont worry Rev. will be by to tell you how great they are and wee really need them. It will bring up the rates LOL

[Orangetxguy]

I will believe all these "pad-my-pocket" windbags care about safety...........when they repair and maintain all of the roads. until then.....it is simply "Tool-time" for them.

[GMAN]

[QUOTE=freebrd;493006Interstate carriers that currently use records of duty status (RODS) logbooks to document drivers’ HOS would be required to use EOBRs. [/QUOTE]


Well, that settles it. I will not longer use logbooks. Otherwise, I will be required to have a EOBR in my trucks. If I don't use the logbooks, then I should not have to pay for an EOBR. Problem solved!

[freebrd]

HERES THE LINK.
FMCSA hands down EOBR rule

[GMAN]

Since US Xpress and some of the big carriers want a level playing field, perhaps we should insist that they pay the highest price at the pump so that the playing field will be level. They should also pay higher prices for tires, etc., just like the smallest carrier or independent. After all, we are talking about having a level playing field.

[Steel Horse Cowboy]

Amen to that. But you know that none of the big companies will ever level the field, especially when they hire drivers at .28cpm to pull their freight while the owners and board still make millions.

[GMAN]

I feel sorry for some of those big carriers who can't compete with the independents and smaller carriers. Poor babies!!!

I really don't want to compete with Maverick hauling freight out of south Texas for $0.50/mile. I prefer an uneven level playing field if I have to lower my rates to what they have hauled out of south Texas.

[Copperhead]

I always thought that the EOBR would be the evil ogre that I would not allow in my truck. The carrier I am leased to decided to go to them. I thought I would try it out before I jumped ship. Had it now for almost three months and it has not had a negative effect on me. I rather like the darn thing. Sure has freed me up on the paperwork side of things. I still use the truck for personal use and not log a minute of it. I just select OFF DUTY DRIVING (which just keeps the EOBR in the OFF DUTY line while the truck is moving). So that takes care of when I move the truck around on the weekend while at home and still get in the 34 hr reset. Probably the only thing I do different is that I tend to use the 8 and 2 spit option a little more than I used to. I didn't even put the little sticker on the side letting the world know I have EOBR. To get my log pages for my own records, I just go online at qualcomm with my PC at home and print them up.

Sure, it isn't going to make anyone "safer". In a mishap though, It will make it a lot harder for some enterprising lawyer that wants to find fault with you because of a small mistake you made on a logbook months ago so that he can switch the blame from his client to you.

Maybe the "big" carriers feel the need to do it to "level" the playing field, but the smaller carrier (300 truck) outfit I am leased to just wanted to go to them so that it would remove a lot of headaches in compliance. They didn't raise the fee that gets charged to O/O for qualcomm ($10 a week), even though the new qualcomm not only has EOBR, but also a pretty good GPS routing feature that is as good or better than any of the units you can buy on the market. The board is smaller and is mounted in a way that it is arm's length away, has a pretty good speaker that gives turn by turn directions and will read incoming messages to you without having to take eyes off the road.

This outfit planned freight pretty good before they went to the EOBR, so it really hasn't made a difference for how much I am able to get done. Matter of fact, January was a real good revenue month for me.

In no way do I think EOBR should be mandated. They do not improve safety. I can see why a carrier would choose to use them, and if they are planning freight right, it will not have much of a negative effect on a truck.

[GMAN]

The problem that I have with them is that they want to mandate that I spend money on something that I don't need in order to safely do my job. No one really knows the actual cost, but I have heard figures of $1,200-1,800. It could cost more, especially for smaller carriers. I don't know how much, if any effect it would have on my operation, but it is also the fact that I will have the government getting more and more into my personal business. It is almost like riding around with a camera watching me every minute of the day. I can see how larger carriers would like having them. It could save them some costs in compliance. They have been free to put them in their trucks all along. I have a problem with my competition telling me what I need to do in order for them to be more competitive. That is essentially what it boils down to. I can't help but think that those who are pushing this are going to make a fortune from investing in the technology that the rest of us will need to buy.

[Copperhead]

I agree, GMAN. I have no real problem with a carrier choosing to do it on their own, and I have no issue with using one like I do now. But when carriers band together to get the Government to mess with their competition, that is just plain not right. There should be no mandates, period. I don't mind using one, and it hasn't been a negative effect on my operation, but mandating the things is not serving any real purpose and just costs everyone.