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

Thinking like who's

 

You don't seem to get it. The hos say that we need to be off duty for 10 hours. You have no idea or control over what a driver does during that time. Just because the government or hos rules state that a driver must take 10 hours off doesn't necessarily mean that he is sleeping. His break might come at a time when he is not sleepy. I find it hard to sleep during the day. I also find it difficult to sleep more than 5-6 hours a night. You cannot legislate when people must sleep or for how long. Whether you have a EOBR or paper, your logs could say that you had your break, but you may not be rested. On paper or on your elogs you are legal.

 

The EOBR won't prevent him from running non compliant. The only one who can decide whether to run compliant is the driver. It is the responsibility of every driver to decide how he will run. If there is a EOBR in the truck it can tell on him, but won't prevent him from braking the rules.

 

OOIDA filed an Amicus brief with SCOTUS in a warrantless GPS surveillance case. An appellate court threw out a conviction because the police did not have a warrant to place a GPS tracking device on the defendant's car. Evidence gathered was considered "tainted." So, the prosecution took it to SCOTUS.

In its brief, OOIDA says it is relevant to the EOBR issue because millions of American citizens are in danger of 24/7 electronic and GPS surveillance. We'll see what SCOTUS says about this sometime in the spring.

The way I see it, if SCOTUS agrees with OOIDA on this, EOBRs as they are being used now will be made completely illegal. I'll be watching this one.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...rd3LCA&usg=AFQjCNGLlsOylQOgBpypaZU1hTWVKF3EDQ

 

The major difference would be that police need to follow procedure. A warrant is required to place a tracking device on another person vehicle. However a person could place a GPS on their own vehicle, so likewise a company could do the same thing.

 

Thanks for the link, Injun. This could have very widespread implications. I am glad that OOIDA is on top of this.

 

It could be interesting for carriers who require owner operators to have qualcomm which has gps capability. The final opinion could preclude any company or government entity from using gps technology to track individuals, whether in a criminal investigation or as an owner of equipment if they have drivers in that equipment. If the owner wants to do it that is one thing, but allowing the government to fish for possible evidence is quite another.

 

Wrong, Meltom.

FMCSA is trying to mandate its use and give law enforcement free access to all information contained within, effectively placing GPS tracking devices on every truck without permission of owners or drivers, specifically for the use of police officers to determine whether a crime has been committed, without probable cause or even suspicion of a crime.

OOIDA's stance is, where does it stop? If it's okay to watch truckers every minute of every day, when does law enforcement say, "okay, we're watching enough people." Answer...never. Enough power and intrusion is never enough for law enforcement as a whole or certain guv'mint agencies. OOIDA is saying, "Let's nip this thing in the bud." It's a simple, yet powerful argument.

 

Well, the 4th Ammendment has been under assault almost since before the ink was dry on the paper. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

 

Small problem with the thought about GPS function of elogs. Hate to rain on everyones parade but you are legally tracked now via your RODS albiet imperfectly.

You would have to make the argument that LEO's and the FMCSA has no right to see records of the movement of commercial vehicles. Last ditch because Orida nows their horse dropping about the last decision was just that.

But hey people continue to by lottery tickets too. Good luck.