Truck Driving Jobs

One · #31 02-13-2011, 09:39 PM

lol freebrd

Gman i stand corrected, i thought i saw the proposal as being for only habitually violating carriers, must be the original proposal like you said.
As to spelling, it looks like my post is comprehensible, but i do not see an insult there, as you have admitted you cut and paste stuff you get in an email assuming it is true. I'm just keeping you on your toes and this thread is an example of that working: You posted first hand info straight from the source, not some pre-chewed opinion form dubious sources.

Copperhead · #32 02-21-2011, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GMAN

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.

I agree that EOBR does nothing for safety. Not sure how it will limit competition, though. Do you mean it will limit those that will do the "creative logging" game so that they can out do the driver that would rather get his breaks when he can and run when he can? Regarding cost, if there ever is a total mandate on all trucks to have EOBR, then there will also come increased competition among those that make EOBR units, which will cause some price competition between them to sell units. No, it will not lower the price to a Walmart Blue Light Special, but I would bet there will be units available that will not be very cost prohibitive. Right now the cost is high because there is no real mandate for everyone and only a few EOBR producers out there, so no real competition to make them. Apple made the iPad and everyone wanted one. Now there are similar tablet type units coming from just about everyone who makes electronics. And this all happened in just a few months. Same thing with the iPhone, now everyone has some form of touch phone that runs apps.

I am TOTALLY against any mandate for every commercial vehicle to have EOBR. I have no real problem using one, and it hasn't caused any loss in productivity or increased cost for me. But no two operations are exactly the same. It is because of that fact, I am against wide spread EOBR mandate. But, if there is a mandate, there will be a length of time before the mandate goes into effect (probably 6 months to a year time to get compliant), and that will cause manufacturers to come out of the woodwork and build units and try to outsell the competition. That will lead to more reasonable pricing. Simple economics. I just can't imagine that a unit that connects to the truck with a simple GPS unit to monitor truck movement would be all that expensive to produce. Most of the high prices that are out there are for units that do much more than EOBR, like the Qualcomm MCP200 unit which has a screen that costs $350 to replace. But how many, other than bigger carriers, actually need all those features? GPS location satellites are free to anyone out there who can pick up the signals. The logging feature of the unit could be a simple software program with ability to display log graph. All that is needed beyond that is some way of transfering data to a laptop or PC for record keeping and a way for producing printouts for the DOT at a scale if needed. Simple cellphone service for data transfer would take care of all that (or it would cost nothing extra if you have wifi hotspot ability in your current cellphone like I and many others already have or bluetooth). And of course, the unit would have to have a way to hook up to the truck's ECM. Anyone can buy a USB cable now that hooks up to a truck's ECM data port right in the cab.

Heck, I got just about all those features and GPS in my current Samsung Epic 4G cellphone. All I would need is an app to do the logging and a cable to hook it up to the ECM port.

GMAN · #33 02-21-2011, 03:08 AM

The lowest cost that I have heard is $1,200-1,800. But, I don't know if those figures are accurate. In addition, there will be a monthly fee. The actual cost is something that is very vague at this point. The cost factor will be most detrimental to smaller carriers and owner operators who must fork out the money for these recorders. When I spoke to Lamar Alexander's office, the woman that I spoke with said that we would be able to buy used units and have 3 years from the time the bill passes, to have them installed. Major carriers stand to benefit the most from this legislation. They can take advantage of their large buying discounts and it could lower their compliance costs. They may even be able to order them already installed when they buy new trucks.

I just don't like the government coming in a trying to force me to purchase a product that I neither need or want. We are mandated to keep logs. We should have an option as to how we want to provide those logs. Those who push the envelope and run illegally, will continue to do so, regardless of what laws are in place. Those who want to install electronic logs in their trucks are free to do so. It is a matter of choice. These people have not even bothered to have a study to determine whether electronic logs would accomplish what they state. To my knowledge, there is no proof that those running electronic logs are any safer than those who use paper. Until this has been done, the bill should never see a vote.

One · #34 02-21-2011, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GMAN

The lowest cost that I have heard is $1,200-1,800. But, I don't know if those figures are accurate. In addition, there will be a monthly fee. The actual cost is something that is very vague at this point. The cost factor will be most detrimental to smaller carriers and owner operators who must fork out the money for these recorders. When I spoke to Lamar Alexander's office, the woman that I spoke with said that we would be able to buy used units and have 3 years from the time the bill passes, to have them installed. Major carriers stand to benefit the most from this legislation. They can take advantage of their large buying discounts and it could lower their compliance costs. They may even be able to order them already installed when they buy new trucks.

I just don't like the government coming in a trying to force me to purchase a product that I neither need or want. We are mandated to keep logs. We should have an option as to how we want to provide those logs. Those who push the envelope and run illegally, will continue to do so, regardless of what laws are in place. Those who want to install electronic logs in their trucks are free to do so. It is a matter of choice. These people have not even bothered to have a study to determine whether electronic logs would accomplish what they state. To my knowledge, there is no proof that those running electronic logs are any safer than those who use paper. Until this has been done, the bill should never see a vote.

Of course this is BS legislation but i remind you yet again that the ones pushing for this are the ones standing to profit handsomely. ATA in bed with the makers of this junk ? Its not 'big gooberment gunna gitcha' its interlocking boards of directors and big trucking companies represented by the ATA killing competition including the O/O. the threat here is not government but the corruption of government by corporations wanting to monopolize an industry. One solution: Break up monopolies and prohibit corporatons from buying politicians like we used to do. But since thats not being discussed, i guess we can try and push back against the ATA and their eobrs by phone calls and letters...

Used eobrs?? so whos been using them??wtf? if this becomes law you can bet on some company tied in with chinese manufacturers will be happy to 'fill demand'.

golfhobo · #35 04-13-2011, 05:30 AM

Hey, GMAN..... I think you accidentally CLOSED the other EOBR thread. Could you re-open it please? Thanks.

GMAN · #36 04-13-2011, 05:13 PM

I am not quiet sure how it happened, but the thread is open for business. Thanks for the heads up, Hobo.

DaveP · #37 04-24-2011, 10:38 AM

They aren't worried about how many indies or companies they run out of business anyway. They've already got your replacements in the wings..... --> Mexican Trucks.

Malaki86 · #38 04-24-2011, 10:57 AM

Wonder what will happen now after the lawsuit mentioned in this thread: http://www.classadrivers.com/forum/a...mpany-its.html

GMAN · #39 04-24-2011, 11:35 AM

I am not sure the lawsuit has gone to court. From the article, they count on companies settling prior to the court date rather than dealing with the cost of litigating.

Malaki86 · #40 04-24-2011, 11:55 AM

But what companies will go forward until the mess is cleaned up? Can the government still force you to install something that's a patent infringement? Plus, with the number of companies that are being sued, I'm quite sure some of them are ATA members and will push to stop the EOBR rule until it's decided on.