Why CSA 2010 and E-Logs are a good thing.

Just why fire people not following HOS regs? Clearly it's NOT about safety. They are not hurting anyone accept the issue of compliance. Which seemingly can only be used as a LEO revenue generator.

 

Yes they are hurting others . Why are they violating HOS . With our carrier the violators were hiding hours so they could have extra available hours to take loads that should have gone to others that had worked less hours .
The violators got caught during an audit an ALL employees were required to take online HOS training and the carrier got a poor safety rating which meant all drivers were inspected more .
The carrier went to e-logs and the drivers that had been he worst violators left . They weren't missed .

 

Ok, this makes sense... It's about jealousy and envy. Some go getters want to work hard, and make some extra cash... even if it means pulling a few HOS strings to do so(the git-r-done types), conversely some other drivers don't like this as it might take work from them(the whine to dispatch, I'm out of hours... cannot git-r-done types)... and they wonder why dispatch will not give them extra, better paying, more important loads... HOS issues level their lazy ### playing field....

Yup, I totally get it.

Thanks for being honest about it.

 

It's interesting to me to read this forum. As one who is about to retire from a 25+ year career in the regulatory agency of a very highly regulated industry, aviation, with a significant in-depth understanding of the federal regulatory process in the DOT, I read most of these posts with a smile because very few of them tie the myriad parts of creating a regulation together.

As a fed, I can tell you that if I invest in anything having to do with aviation, the local U.S. Attorney will be a-calling as soon as he learns about it--my comfy fed job will be gone and, depending on the severity, I might be spending some time as an all-expenses paid guest at a local institution. Doing so is a clear conflict of interest and is punishable under federal law. In spite of what most posters say, safety regulations, whether relating to trucks or airplanes, are not money-driven, though most of them have a money component. In fact, the federal regulatory oversight agency must produce accurate cost/benefit analyses of proposed regulations. And guess what? Each of you, collectively and individually, has the right to comment on any NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) and the oversight agency must consider and answer your comments in the preamble to the final rule. Many times, the final rule looks very different from the proposed rule because of input from the public. Your voice really does count.

Really, folks. Regulations are not designed to take money out of your pocket or put anyone out of business. Safety regulations are written in blood and are designed to save lives. They come about because some failures in the system require it. Sure, they are cumbersome, tiresome, hard to follow, and sometimes difficult to comply with. And being compliant is always more expensive than being non-compliant, so you might lose some money by running legally versus illegally. You have a recourse; call and/or write to your elected representative to complain, but be compliant while you do.

Try to imagine an aviation industry with lax regulations. Suppose a pilot operates beyond safety duty and flight time limitations so he can make more money flying his cargo or passengers. Would you allow your family to fly on an airline under those conditions? Would you even tolerate the possibility of that happening or would you be screaming to your elected representatives for stronger safety regulations or greater oversight from my agency?

As I write this, my staff is investigating two fatal airplane accidents involving five people who were alive two days but are deceased now. It appears that the pilots were operating contrary to safety regulations and made the final, fatal mistake. Not much of a Christmas gift to the families. We have all read stories about tired and/or distracted drivers losing control of their vehicles and killing motorists on the highway. It happens in cars and trucks and airplanes, too, and almost every one is caused by the same basic issue--the nut behind the wheel. The difference is that airplanes and trucks operate in high-risk, high-hazard environments and are highly regulated by a federal agency. Cars are not.

 

Because they endanger the company in several ways.

By violating HOS they open the company to fines, lawsuits, and lossed revenue. In addition operating in the unsafe manner outside of the HOS leaves the company liable for any harm caused by those drivers.

Their can be no revenue generation without people violating the rules. Further even in their "blitzes" only 30% recieve any kind of ticket. If your silliness of being all about revenue and your belief they can always cite you that number would be far higher.

I know your paranoia leads you to these conclusions but simple logic disproves them.

 

Instead of violating the law, and operating in an unsafe manner so you can be a real boy why not charge more.

Try not to hurt yourself pounding your chest now. You must be related to Ellsworth.

 

While I can agree with some of what you have stated, safety related issues are primarily pushed by money and profit. I doubt that we would see nearly as many regulations unless there was profit to be made. I have previously stated that I am not against some regulations, but when it comes to this industry, we seem to be inundated with regulations, many of which serve little or no useful purpose. For instance, those who have pushed so hard for EOBR's for everyone were primarily a few major carriers. Their reasoning was either about safety or making it a level playing field. Neither are proven facts. It very well could limit competition. To my knowlege there has never been any meaningful independent studies which would demonstrate that having EOBR's would make road any safer than using paper logs. There is also no comprehensive studies, to my knowlege, that would prove that the hos or logs are even necessary to provide for the safety of the general public. Somebody had an idea that this might make roads safer and that is all it takes.Even these issues have never been proven, they are jammed down our collective throats. All it takes for someone to design a computer model or have a family member that has been killed in an accident involving a big truck and all of a sudden we have a push for more regulations. As an industry, we spend billions of dollars each year on safety and compliance issues. I agree that we do have a certain responsibility to do our part to keep roads safe, we will never be able to make roads 100% safe. It will not happen. Nor will we be able to make our airways 100% safe. People make mistakes and anything mechanical will eventually fail. We can reduce some of the risk factors, but we will never totally eliminate risk.If you look at any of the safety regulations that have been thrust upon us as a nation in the last few decades there is a profit motive. Just consider seatbelts. While a good idea, it was mostly the insurance industry that pushed for them. Police have made a push to fine those who don't buckle up. Trucks are often hit with much stiffer fines than those in cars. It isn't right. Insurance companies pushed for this legislation so that they would have fewer claims. It was also in the best interest of seatbelt manufacturers to also push for greater enforcement. Seatbelts have more to do with personal safety than the public. It should be a personal decision as to whether we use them or not. If we don't comply then we could face fines and points on our drivers license. Profit pushing regulations.I could cite a number of other things that we have seen that were introduced and became law from those who stand to profit. Government also profits from fines levied on citizens.

 

Where is the cost/benefit analysis for EOBRs?

Oh. That's right. They won't cost the guv'mint a durned dime. The $5K/unit cost is thrust on the industry participants. Well, what about the independent O/O's cost/benefit analysis? It will cost him money, but benefit him nothing. He can keep just as good records without the tracking device. Why does the guv'mint need to know his whereabouts 24/7?

 

They are not as good of records. Everybody readily admits how easy an eraser can make hours appear or disappear. Going to be far more of a trail with elogs. And the gubmit(how quaint ) cares less where an OO is until they use a public road for business purposes. Then he falls under the same reporting old log or elog.

And people like Rand McNally, and DDL are looking into compliant equipment programs that will bring the market price down. While qcom, and peoplenet hold the large market now others are looking to fill other smaller needs that have no use for the dispatch and management tools they provide. I'll have to find it but I remember an article I think from around MATS where Qcom was saying an HOS only unit under a grand with service in ththe$ 20 range. Just an article mind you I have not seen any advertisements for it yet.

 

I. Heard on the xm trucker talk shows that this eobr rule was set too cost the industry atleast 1 billion dollars the rule was on a list of regs that was dumped on the news on friday butt those on the list were gonna cost the industry they applied too atleast 1 billion dollars so we can safely say it will probably cost 10 bil since govt can never estimate anything rite