User Tag List

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #31  
Old 03-30-2011, 12:13 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

At one time this was a very respected profession. I suppose that we could debate the cause of the change in attitude, whether it is society or those in the industry that have caused the change in attitude.

One change that I would like to see is for the government or those who want all the new changes to prove that the sought after changes would be beneficial to the industry. For instance, those who want to force ALL who own class 8 trucks to go to the expense of EOBR's should have to do a controlled study that would prove that they would make the roads safer and would justify the cost of installation. If they cannot prove the need then the legislation should go away. Personally, I don't think that a study about the EOBR's would prove that they will make roads safer, but they will make a few people who have invested in the technology very rich.

I would think that doing a study on the hos would also be beneficial. They keep changing our hos but have yet to demonstrate how roads are being made safer with those changes. The lack of a provision for taking a rest break without impacting your work day is one example of people making rules about things in which they have no knowledge. It just sounded like a good idea at the time. When major changes are made in the hos then it costs this industry millions of dollars. Compliance is one of the major costs of being in this business.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-30-2011, 12:35 PM
Fozzy's Avatar
Senior Board Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Redneckistan
Posts: 2,831
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

I think that the EOBR have already proven their effectiveness in all sorts of ways. Personally this is more about regaining control of an industry that has bankrolled itself on the old world trucker macho myth that somehow their health and well being is less important than their pocketbooks. This industry for too long has profited off of the free work of the drivers who has made them billions of dollars while running all of the profit out of the business for those who do all of the work. The reason that all of the pay is gone is based on the fact that companies who paid a fair wage for all work done by drivers can not compete with the morons who will go out and work and drive for FREE. With mandated EOBR's across the board, that is instantly reduced to those who are going to break the law AND since the next obvious step is the electronic based reporting that results (already in place in several companies) they will not be in business very long. It's well past time to give up trusting the companies and the drivers to follow the rules, the blood bath of companies and drivers slitting each others throats has left this job to the dregs more and more every year. There is a reason that the turnover in the industry is so high and that's because people instantly become part of the nudge nudge wink wink machine.

The hours of service studies have been done and done and done again at the request of the DRIVERS who felt that they were powerless to fight their companies and the shippers and receivers who never seemed to bother with the drivers needs as it related to their fatigue levels or delay times. THEY asked the feds in.. now of course like the abused spouse who has called 9/11 after years of abuse.. its the mean old cop's fault for daring to question their sweetie pie.. The control has to come from outside because self control and professionalism sure isn't coming from within.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-30-2011, 08:31 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)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

I don't believe that the EOBR's have proven their value other than possibly saving carriers who use them, money in compliance costs. It would probably cost less to check logs electronically than to do it manually as it is done with most carriers. I don't know of any studies that provide any evidence that those who use EOBR's are any safer than those who use paper logs. I can see a cost benefit to major carriers. I am not sure the same benefits would apply to smaller carriers such as myself.

My objection to EOBR's are mainly the unknown cost/benefit and that it is yet another control that the government wants over my business. The current bill making it's way through congress is nothing more than a means to limit competition. I have more than 4 million safe miles behind me. I must be doing something right. There are many others who have done the same.

I know that there may be those who still run 2 or 3 logbooks. There are apparently still some who take drugs and drive. There will always be those who think that the rules apply to everyone but themselves. The majority of safe drivers should not be forced to pay the price for the small percentage of those who regularly break the rules.

I still fail to understand why some in this business seem to want to run for fuel money. I don't understand why some feel that the only way to gain market share is to undercut the competition. I have been in this business for many years. I have also owned other companies and have NEVER tried to get business by cutting prices in any business that I have owned. I think that if a cheap price is all you can offer that you don't have much to sell. It seems to me that the ones who are pushing this legislation are the ones who will cut their competitors throat to get the business. It can be frustrating when in an area and there is someone who will take a load for $0.70 just to have something on the truck. I refuse to put anything on the truck that will not make at least some profit for me. I don't see the EOBR's or any other regulations changing the attitude of these people. It is sort of like gun control. The only people who are affected by gun controls are law abiding citizens. The criminals will always find a way to get guns. It is the same in this industry. As much as I would like to believe otherwise, I don't see any of these added controls stopping all the dregs.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-01-2011, 11:13 AM
Freedhardwoods's Avatar
Rookie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 26
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 Orangetxguy View Post
See.......Now this is where I disagree with you. There are plenty of trucking companies out there, that would abuse the hell out of something like what I think you are suggesting. An "exemption" that would allow a driver to drive, just because said driver felt it was "safe" to drive. There have always been "Cowboys" in this industry. Those "Cowboys" are why this industry has the reputation that it currently enjoys.
Orangetxguy,

I didn't give a specific example in my previous post, but since I already sidetracked this thread, I will, to get your opinion.

A new driver would get a probationary cdl for a period of time to prove they can operate safely. After receiving your regular cdl, if you received no tickets for 5 years you could get an endorsement on your cdl that would allow you to run Alaskan hours. If you don't want to work that hard, you don't have to get the card. It would be a graduated system where the driver would have to safely work toward the next step only if he wanted to. That would prevent companies from pushing some drivers harder than they can safely work.

I am open to variations of the details, but this would address one problem that many people have with the hos. One size doesn't fit everyone.

Another example of a similar program already in place is the hazmat endorsement. If you don't have it, a company can't make you haul a hazmat load.

An endorsement on your cdl would make it simple to implement and enforce a penalty system if you do something unsafe after earning it.

Under the present system, many companies choose to use rookies because they can pay them less. Under this system, companies would have an incentive to use experienced, safe drivers that would allow them to get the same amount of freight moved with less trucks. There would be a lot less drivers with the endorsement which would encourage companies to pay more, which would give rookies a reason to drive safer and get the exemption if they wanted to.
As I said, I am open to many variations.

Last edited by Freedhardwoods; 04-01-2011 at 12:48 PM. Reason: added info
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-01-2011, 12:35 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)
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 don't know of any carrier who will force a driver to haul a hazmat load unless they have a hazmat endorsement on their license. The risks are much too high for both the carrier and driver if he is caught. However, carriers can require drivers to have a hazmat before they will hire them.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-01-2011, 12:50 PM
Freedhardwoods's Avatar
Rookie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 26
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 don't know of any carrier who will force a driver to haul a hazmat load unless they have a hazmat endorsement on their license. The risks are much too high for both the carrier and driver if he is caught. However, carriers can require drivers to have a hazmat before they will hire them.
Exactly my point.

P.S. I added more info above while you were typing this.

Last edited by Freedhardwoods; 04-01-2011 at 12:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 04-01-2011, 05:06 PM
Fozzy's Avatar
Senior Board Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Redneckistan
Posts: 2,831
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 don't know of any carrier who will force a driver to haul a hazmat load unless they have a hazmat endorsement on their license. The risks are much too high for both the carrier and driver if he is caught. However, carriers can require drivers to have a hazmat before they will hire them.
It was a ludicrous example.. The fact remains that truck drivers (no matter how tough they think they are) are still human beings. Numerous studies have shown the effects of sleep debt on performance studies. Those who are willing to take chances with other people's lives don't care about the research or the facts and that will never change.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 04-01-2011, 10:13 PM
Freedhardwoods's Avatar
Rookie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 26
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

I'm pretty sure that last post was aimed at me, but he quoted GMAN.

Only 13 posts in the last 5 months, and then in the past week, about 1 per day aimed at me. If I was the suspicious type, I might think this guy really doesn't like me.

Seriously though, in the example I gave, I am just coordinating programs that are legal and already in place in the US.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 04-01-2011, 11:36 PM
MichiganDriver's Avatar
Senior Board Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,441
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orangetxguy View Post
See.......Now this is where I disagree with you. There are plenty of trucking companies out there, that would abuse the hell out of something like what I think you are suggesting. An "exemption" that would allow a driver to drive, just because said driver felt it was "safe" to drive. There have always been "Cowboys" in this industry. Those "Cowboys" are why this industry has the reputation that it currently enjoys.

I saw where you say that you started driving in 1978. So............given your attitude on this subject....I can only assume you are one of those "Cowboys" that feel driving 20 hours of a 24 hour day is perfectly safe...........just because your eyes are open.

I started driving in 1979...."Professionally". I drove my first truck in 1973. I have seen plenty of people killed over the years. Not just by 18-wheelers...but by all modes of highway transportation. I think trading 1 hour of drive time for one less hour of the work day...was a fair trade (remember....10 and 15 became 11 and 14??)

I don't think someone saying "I am safe because I can handle it" is safe. Not in anyway shape or form. There have been drivers, that I have known over the years, whom should not have been allowed to drive after 8 hours.......let alone 10. There have been plenty also, whom should have never been allowed behind the wheel of a truck. When I voiced my opinion of some of those drivers........I was called bigoted and "churlish".


Having EOBR's on trucks...while it may invade the privacy of the driver, when it comes to seeing that the driver is comitting an illegal act.....that type of driver is exactly why all these "Anti-truck" groups are getting their way....Those drivers and their employers.

I am an "Owner Operator" and I like the Qualcomm. The Qualcomm backed me up several times over the last 20 months. When a manager and a dispatcher tried to say I didn't inform them of my HOS limitations (a load that was forced on me, even though I had informed them, via Qualcomm, that I did not have HOS to make the delivery, was delayed while I did a reset 200 miles from the receiving customer)....it was all right there on the Qualcomm. When I got shafted on a very high revenue load....it was all right there on the Qualcomm...and I got the money I was shafted out of....once in 2009, and 4 times in 2010. A total sum of $10,800 was paid to me, based on the information that the Qualcomm contained (the company paid me 50% of the linehaul on those 5 loads, that I did not haul).
It comes in handy when dispatchers are stupid. When managers are stupid. If the driver is stupid as well....to bad for the driver. The driver knows that the EOBR is there. Some folks have to be forced to "Play safe". And that is to bad.

Giving people a free hand to "Be Stupid".............just isn't a good idea. Bad drivers have affected us all for years.........................and it continues.
The part apart Qualcomm backing you up several times... That sounds like working smarter, not harder to me. :thumbsup:

Why is it that truck drivers are bound and determined to defend their right to work 14 hours for 8 or 10 hours pay? Reducing the hours we can work to 13 won't take an hour's pay out of our wallets, we'll just have to work 1 less hour for the same money.

Last edited by MichiganDriver; 04-01-2011 at 11:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 04-01-2011, 11:59 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)
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 Fozzy View Post
It was a ludicrous example.. The fact remains that truck drivers (no matter how tough they think they are) are still human beings. Numerous studies have shown the effects of sleep debt on performance studies. Those who are willing to take chances with other people's lives don't care about the research or the facts and that will never change.
I rarely sleep more than 5-6 hours. I never use an alarm because I have an internal clock that will wake me after 5-6 hours. I have tried to sleep longer, but if I sleep for 8 hours then I feel groogy all day. It is like I have a giant hangover. I understand that there are some people who need 8 hours or more sleep to function. My wife is one of them. That is why we should allow drivers to sleep when they are tired and work when they feel rested. Sleep deprivation or debt can be a problem. Of course, the real problem is that everyone has a different clock. In my case, I would be more dangerous and less alert on the highway if I were forced to get 8 hours or more of sleep. Someone such as my wife would be a hazard with only 5 hours of sleep. We all need a certain amount of sleep. Since the amount of rest is different with each individual, it makes little sense to have a fixed amount of time that a driver must rest to make the public safe.
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 12:09 PM.


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