User Tag List

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #21  
Old 10-17-2010, 04:53 PM
GMAN's Avatar
Administrator
Site Admin
Board Icon
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 17,097
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

They can throw all the regulations on us that they want, but EOBR's and all the other frivolous regs will not make us or the roads 100% safe. And we will not be any safer with EOBR's than we are today. What they don't want to address are the cause of most truck involved accidents.....cars. At least 76% of all accidents involving trucks are the responsibility of 4 wheelers according to the last statistics that I read. So instead of addressing the primary cause, they are going after the money. They know that they can shake more money out of the trucking industry than the average consumer.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-17-2010, 05:00 PM
GMAN's Avatar
Administrator
Site Admin
Board Icon
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 17,097
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by golfhobo View Post
Why read "articles" when you can go directly to the source? I have read the bulk of the Final Ruling published this year. Sure, it was mentioned that SOME of these advocate Azzholes want an industry-wide mandate.... but, it ain't gonna HAPPEN! At least not for years and years!

I actually LIKE reading these Final Rulings! They are extremely "wordy" .... WAY more than I am! But, I actually get the feeling that they take ALL sides into question, and make MOST of their rulings with alot of common sense and driver appreciation.

ONE is correct. The Fmcsa has no intention at this time of expanding the scope of their ruling BEYOND "remedial" actions against the worst offenders.

Oh, they make a comment about "future" rulings... but, that is just "lip service" to shut these advocate groups up! It will NEVER happen in our lifetime!

For BOOM and GMAN, and any OTHER O/O worried about being forced to pay for and install EOBR's.... chill out dudes! You probably ain't even on the RADAR!

Lamar Alexander from Tennessee and a senator from Arkansas have introduced a bill that would require ALL class 8 trucks to buy and install EOBR's. I got a different answer as to the reasoning why they would want to support such a bill when I called each of their respective offices. It has never been about safety. It is about the money. Forcing 3-5 million trucks to have EOBR's will make someone a fortune. In all likelyhood there will not only be the upfront cost buy a monthly fee, much like having a qualcomm.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-06-2011, 08:08 PM
One's Avatar
One One is offline
Senior Board Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NE Ga
Posts: 1,529
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GMAN View Post
Lamar Alexander from Tennessee and a senator from Arkansas have introduced a bill that would require ALL class 8 trucks to buy and install EOBR's. I got a different answer as to the reasoning why they would want to support such a bill when I called each of their respective offices. It has never been about safety. It is about the money. Forcing 3-5 million trucks to have EOBR's will make someone a fortune. In all likelyhood there will not only be the upfront cost buy a monthly fee, much like having a qualcomm.
Oh My gawd Lamar Alexander the REPUBLICAN that sleeps with big business!( you didnt point out his party afiliation! :P) WOW i thought it was all Obamas fault??

Anyway like I said this EOBR thing is not for all carriers, just the ones that run illegal, so whats the problem?? I know my company will never run qualcom or eobrs or data recorders so im not worried. Besides, i wouldnt run for a company with a bad safety record im too much of a safety hawk even for my company with very good record.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-10-2011, 06:59 AM
Copperhead's Avatar
Senior Board Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Kellogg, IA
Posts: 534
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

I had all the reservations about EOBR... how it would affect my revenue, "big brother" is watching, etc.

My carrier made a decision to go to EOBR early last year. I got one put in my truck in early December. Hasn't had a negative effect on revenue. Matter of fact, January was a particularly good month for me. Carrier does not charge me any more than what they were before with the original Qualcomm unit, even though this one has a pretty decent GPS routing program built in and even has games you can play on it.

I still use the truck to run around on my own time, OFF DUTY, so it doesn't affect breaks and 34 hr resets. I just made a run that I had to use the adverse driving conditions option to drive an extra hour to make it to a safe location. No problem. I have kept myself running primarily regional for the last 12 years, so most of my runs can be done in a typical 14 hr period, and that hasn't changed any with the EOBR. I still drive the same speed and stop at the same places I did before. The only difference for me is that I do use the 8 and 2 split provision a little more often.

You can run, but you cannot hide. All it takes is watching a few Law & Order reruns to see that if the Government or some hot shot lawyer wants to target you, they will find out if you were where you said you were and at the time you said. There is no such thing as privacy anymore, whether in your truck or just about anything else you do in life. The EOBR is just a recording device. Unless you actually give someone a reason to take a look at you, no one is really watching what you do, even with an EOBR. But if someone does target you, then the EOBR can help CYA.

True, they will not enhance safety and they should not be mandated in any way. But I have found it really isn't that big a deal. I had the same fears and concerns as everyone else. I decided to give it a try before "jumping ship". Glad I did so that I could really find out how it would affect me instead of listening to all the banter from those that had never even been around them.

I will agree with the idea that it is all about the money. Much in the same way the new body scanners the TSA is using. Interesting that the former head of Homeland Security is one of the primary executives at the firm that is making these scanners. I am sure that some politician is planning on raking in the bucks by having an EOBR mandate as well. But then, this has been going on since the country was founded.
__________________
Freedom does not mean the choice to do whatever you want. It means the choice to do what you ought.

Last edited by Copperhead; 02-10-2011 at 07:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-10-2011, 10:29 AM
GMAN's Avatar
Administrator
Site Admin
Board Icon
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 17,097
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by One View Post
Oh My gawd Lamar Alexander the REPUBLICAN that sleeps with big business!( you didn't point out his party affiliation! :P) WOW i thought it was all Obamas fault??

Anyway like I said this EOBR thing is not for all carriers, just the ones that run illegal, so whats the problem?? I know my company will never run qualcom or eobrs or data recorders so im not worried. Besides, i wouldnt run for a company with a bad safety record im too much of a safety hawk even for my company with very good record.

I have probably known Lamar Alexander for more than 20 years. He is a Republican in name only. No self respecting Republican would even consider putting forth a bill such as this. When EOBR's were first proposed, they were planning on only having carriers with safety issue install them. This new bill will force anyone who owns a class 8 truck to install them. The only ones who would be exempt are those who are strictly local and run within a 150 mile radius, according to what his office told me. If the bill passes, as it is, all of us will be required to have them installed. Your company safety record won't even be considered. If it passes, your company will have 3 years to install them in all of their otr trucks. If they don't then they will be shut down. So, unless you want to deal with them, then I suggest you voice your opinion before it is too late. If you doubt what I am telling you, then give one of them a call and ask. And Obama really wants this new law. He gets all excited when anyone calls for more controls.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-10-2011, 10:39 AM
GMAN's Avatar
Administrator
Site Admin
Board Icon
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 17,097
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Copperhead View Post
I had all the reservations about EOBR... how it would affect my revenue, "big brother" is watching, etc.

My carrier made a decision to go to EOBR early last year. I got one put in my truck in early December. Hasn't had a negative effect on revenue. Matter of fact, January was a particularly good month for me. Carrier does not charge me any more than what they were before with the original Qualcomm unit, even though this one has a pretty decent GPS routing program built in and even has games you can play on it.

I still use the truck to run around on my own time, OFF DUTY, so it doesn't affect breaks and 34 hr resets. I just made a run that I had to use the adverse driving conditions option to drive an extra hour to make it to a safe location. No problem. I have kept myself running primarily regional for the last 12 years, so most of my runs can be done in a typical 14 hr period, and that hasn't changed any with the EOBR. I still drive the same speed and stop at the same places I did before. The only difference for me is that I do use the 8 and 2 split provision a little more often.

You can run, but you cannot hide. All it takes is watching a few Law & Order reruns to see that if the Government or some hot shot lawyer wants to target you, they will find out if you were where you said you were and at the time you said. There is no such thing as privacy anymore, whether in your truck or just about anything else you do in life. The EOBR is just a recording device. Unless you actually give someone a reason to take a look at you, no one is really watching what you do, even with an EOBR. But if someone does target you, then the EOBR can help CYA.

True, they will not enhance safety and they should not be mandated in any way. But I have found it really isn't that big a deal. I had the same fears and concerns as everyone else. I decided to give it a try before "jumping ship". Glad I did so that I could really find out how it would affect me instead of listening to all the banter from those that had never even been around them.

I will agree with the idea that it is all about the money. Much in the same way the new body scanners the TSA is using. Interesting that the former head of Homeland Security is one of the primary executives at the firm that is making these scanners. I am sure that some politician is planning on raking in the bucks by having an EOBR mandate as well. But then, this has been going on since the country was founded.


A major problem that I have when I see this type of legislation is that they want to force me and hundreds of thousands of other owners to install these EOBR's at considerable expense when there has NEVER been any evidence that they will make roads more safe. It will also not level the playing field for anyone. It will limit competition. That is a primary reason for the computers. We don't even know the cost. I have been told that it will probably run between $1,200-1,800 per truck. I don't know if that includes installation. There is still no actual cost that has been quoted. Those are estimates. In addition, there will be a monthly fee attached. With this economy, the last thing we need is another expense. We have between 3-5 million class 8 trucks in this country. That is some serious dollars.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-11-2011, 10:52 PM
One's Avatar
One One is offline
Senior Board Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NE Ga
Posts: 1,529
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GMAN View Post
I have probably known Lamar Alexander for more than 20 years. He is a Republican in name only. No self respecting Republican would even consider putting forth a bill such as this. When EOBR's were first proposed, they were planning on only having carriers with safety issue install them. This new bill will force anyone who owns a class 8 truck to install them. The only ones who would be exempt are those who are strictly local and run within a 150 mile radius, according to what his office told me. If the bill passes, as it is, all of us will be required to have them installed. Your company safety record won't even be considered. If it passes, your company will have 3 years to install them in all of their otr trucks. If they don't then they will be shut down. So, unless you want to deal with them, then I suggest you voice your opinion before it is too late. If you doubt what I am telling you, then give one of them a call and ask. And Obama really wants this new law. He gets all excited when anyone calls for more controls.
Im sorry, but the releases talking about eobrs DO NOT secify ALL Class 8 trucks but it does state only carrieres that run illegal , We have already established that painstakingly.
Yet you still claim everyone has to have them. And we are supposed to trust you on this not press releases?? So, you, that likes to cut and paste BS 'news' you got in an email from a crackhead and post it as news without any scrutiny? Im sorry, you telling us 'trust me, i know' doesnt fly anymore
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-12-2011, 12:17 AM
GMAN's Avatar
Administrator
Site Admin
Board Icon
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 17,097
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by One View Post
Im sorry, but the releases talking about eobrs DO NOT secify ALL Class 8 trucks but it does state only carrieres that run illegal , We have already established that painstakingly.
Yet you still claim everyone has to have them. And we are supposed to trust you on this not press releases?? So, you, that likes to cut and paste BS 'news' you got in an email from a crackhead and post it as news without any scrutiny? Im sorry, you telling us 'trust me, i know' doesnt fly anymore

When I called Senator Lamar Alexander's office I was told that the bill they proposed was to include ALL owners of class 8 trucks. We could be talking about two entirely different things. The original proposal that the feds were talking about did initially propose those who had poor safety records or had other problems would need to be first to have to install EOBR's. I don't think the Alexander/Pryor bill has had time to make it through committee. Alexander and Pryor wanted to make it a law in order to make it more difficult to change, according to what they told me when I called. I would like to know if this is from the bill that has been proposed or a rule put forth by the fmcsa.

By the way, One. It is much easier to understand your insults when you use the spell check. And I never asked you to "trust me."
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-12-2011, 12:58 AM
GMAN's Avatar
Administrator
Site Admin
Board Icon
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 17,097
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

This is a summary of the bill proposed by Alexander and Pryor. You can check it for yourself by doing a search for the "Commercial Driver Compliance Improvement Act." I did cut and paste the summary from the text. As you can see, if the bill passes as proposed, it will require ALL owners of class 8 trucks to install EOBR's if they are require to comply with the hours of service rules. Apparently, they want to exclude owners who have trucks that run local.



S.3884
Latest Title: Commercial Driver Compliance Improvement Act
Sponsor: Sen Pryor, Mark L. [AR] (introduced 9/29/2010) Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 9/29/2010 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Jump to: Summary, Major Actions, All Actions, Titles, Cosponsors, Committees, Related Bill Details, AmendmentsSUMMARY AS OF:
9/29/2010--Introduced.

Commercial Driver Compliance Improvement Act - Requires all commercial motor vehicles involved in interstate commerce and subject to both federal hours-of-service and record of duty status requirements, in order to improve compliance with federal hours-of-service regulations, to be equipped with an electronic on-board recording device meeting performance and design standards and requirements prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation (DOT).
Denies the admissibility in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding of recorded information retrieved from an electronic on-board recording device installed in a motor vehicle: (1) for any purpose other than to establish compliance or noncompliance with applicable federal hours-of-service requirements; or (2) unless the motor vehicle owner consents to the retrieval of information, or the information is retrieved by a government motor vehicle safety or law enforcement agency and is not used by any person or entity other than that agency.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-12-2011, 02:10 AM
freebrd's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: TENNESEE
Posts: 71
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

Hey one! get the hair out YO AZZ! and chill! why the frustration ?
"some gotta win some gotta lose good time charleys got the blues" haha! lloooollllaaaa!

MOVE ON DOWN THE ROAD! "THE MAN IS WATCHING YOU!!!
Reply With Quote
Reply





Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 02:10 PM.


User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.