I have read and re-read
THIS and the other thread about the EOBR's until I am nearly blinded. I usually pick a post to "dissect" and opine on, but I can't find the right one to DO so. So, for what it's worth, I'm gonna start from scratch.
As always, I have done my research. I just finished reading the NPRM in the Federal Register for the NEW ruling.... every word of it. For the record, my comments in the "other" thread were made BEFORE the current proposal filed in January of this year. It makes reference to the 2010 ruling that I commented on, and yes.... it DOES "propose" mandatory EOBRS's for
ALL CMV's that aren't subject to timecards. [which I believe is unconstitutional and flawed in its concept and basis.]
The "Lamar bill" apparently died in committee last year, but seems to have been revised in the CURRENT Congress (112th) though I saw no link or connection to that bill. But, what THEY were proposing HAS become the basis of the NEW NPRM on EOBR's.
"Woodie" was ahead of us all when he asked for info to help him compose a "comment" within the timeframe....which has expired. I believe his request for info on how to "cheat" the system was SOLELY for the purpose of DEBATING the efficacy of the bill.... NOT for the purpose of cheating the system. His safety record speaks for itself! I am sorry that I wasn't in a postiion to HELP him sooner.
But, there will be another comment period IF the NPRM becomes a proposed final ruling. I DO intend to make an argument if that happens. I found MANY contradictions in the rationale for the ruling.... and it should be NOTED that the government (as always in these cases,) is PREFERRING a different stance than the one they feel compelled to take.... they just NEED facts and opinons to consider for the "defense."
In researching the subject, I found that REAGAN started this crap, Clinton furthered it, and... as always... the MOST damage was done by our friend Dubya! [Seriously.]
But the whole thing is not as bad as many THINK it will be. Even GMAN will have 3 years AFTER June of 2012 to install such equipment. And even THEN, he could get a waiver if he asks for it!
As always, this is much to do about nothing... in a way. Through competition, the costs should come down to about that of a good GPS system by then, and there SHOULD be some savings if things work out right.
I actually LIKE "Woodie's" idea of a "graduated safety exemption" for those companies (especially small ones) that have good safety ratings, and I believe this is one of the major points that could be considered in the final ruling.
And, though Fozzy is being his usual "antagonistic" self, he has made some very important points. Like Sheepdancer, Twilight, and a few others,
HE is apparently employed in a different capacity in the trucking business than those of us who are drivers or O/O's. But, it should be encumbent on the rest of us to
LISTEN to him.... and consider his knowledge and opinions in OUR personal debates before forming our own opinons.
This is NOT about Constitutional Rights... (and it
IS a "living document,") and I don't believe it is ALL about "the money." But, sometimes it is good to follow the money.
But, after reading the entire proposal, it is clear that ALL of your concerns have been considered. I just don't agree with ALL of their conclusions! But, if anyone thinks it is all Obama's fault, you're an IDIOT. And if you think the government shouldn't have ANY role in regulating THIS particular part of commerce, you must also think that polluting the air your children breathe, and the water they drink, and the water in the gulf of Mexico is INCONSEQUENTIAL! And THAT makes you an idiot.
And I am beginning to lose patience with IDIOTS.
:lol:
/rant off. I'm busy all of a sudden. Carry on! :lol2: