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

Oh I hear yah on that(both sides really),,I see myself in the middle really,after 15 years im sort of seeing past the window now and into something eles,seems for the past 7 or so years OOIDA vs PATT/CRASH vs Teamsters vs FMCSA,yadda yadda yadda,and we the drivers are caught in the middle

I see all sides of the subject,and they(the above) are all "self intrest groups,,alll of them,i dont know if you remember a thread i did months back referring to how a driver got paid,I contended if a driver(company) got paid by salary then HOS would not be an issue

We all look at this subject(EOBRs) only one way ,,how it willl affect my compensation,,CPM is the the root of the problem in my opinion,we all have chased that "carrot" for years,the more miles,the more pay,and what will a driver do to make it more???

The EOBR rule was vacated and OOIDA is miffed cause of company's like mine maintain them as a tool,well the rule didnt say a comapny could not maintain what they implemented prior to the ruling

So OOIDA has in effect egg on their face on this,Won the Battle,but not the WAR(as the impending Transportation bill has the EOBR written into it,just has to be tweaked to stay in the courts mandate,still if your company has a bad score it will put that carrier on EOBR's nothing changed with that court order,,it only dealt with driver Harassment,(by the way it all centered on a drivers being told that due to available hours they were assigned loads(Isnt that why we are out here???)

To all that read this,rest assure im not crying that Im on them and you should be too,My Company Is on them(either by choice or score,a lil of both) I like anyone,,chooses where they drive,I just deal with the hand that is dealt

ELOGS really hasnt changed my bottom line much,i still pull the same miles(actually did a 4114 7 day period last week LOL) but i avg right at 3100 a week so im okay with them,,No stress either

 

I find it interesting that anyone who comes on here and is against eobrs is considered a reckless outlaw super trucker who drives around killing families and kicking puppies.. Give me an f'n break, You're a naive moron if you think eobrs will do anything for safety, or garantee 100% compliance..

 

EOBR would not affect my compensation in the least.

So that point does not affect me.

I have said and will continue to say I don't need the intrusive surveillance.

As for ensuring 100% compliance, wrong again. I'm pretty sure somebody has written or is working hard to write a computer program, or virus depending on your stance, that will enable falsification of elogs. Nothing is fool proof.

 

Another kicker for the EOBRS AND ELOGS forcing and providing safer roads... The majority of fatal multi-vehicle crashes (59%) recored were the result of a passenger vehicle rear-ending a semi, Crossing the median to hit a truck head-on or hitting a truck in some other way. In less than 40% of the cases, the crash is a result of the semi truck striking the car. In fatal crashes where the database records a "driver-related" factor, 80.5% of the time the factor was assiged to the driver of a passenger vehicle compared with just 22% of the factors being assigned to the commercial driver.. Check this out!!!!!!!! The most common driver-related factors for commercial drivers are speed(7.3%), failure to maintain lane(6.5%), and inattentiveness(5.7%). Being Tired,drowsy, or asleep was the seventh most common factor at a small percent of (1.4%). There is a little proof that this shouldn't be mandated, Forced upon the ones with no problems.

 

Couldnt the same be said for EZ & Prepass???,they literally are a compliance(passive) measure,,when i used to "stray" out your way had a couple of DOT insp's,,1 in OR,othr in Wa and both times they compared them to paper logs(this was 07-08) we had been warned by company these and Co and Ca would do this,,cali did me twice in 09

When Oregon cued it up on laptop it showed all my times thru scales(as far back as since i got unit) and he had a program to compare my paper logs to it,,said to me"Hope its close son",And to an extent paper(like u said earlier,they would have to dig)

,,Just curious,how is Swift handling the O/O,,L/O's in this regard,,Conway made them absolute last ones on(that was Jun 4 th this year) now every truck has them,,
I mean do you have a option?,cause I saw where you posted they just started installing them,ares was a simple update program by Qualcomm,took 1 min

 

We don't have the new units in all the trucks. My truck has one of the older units not capable of elogging. Swift is requiring L/Os to install the new units, however, they don't seem to have enough to go around. Deadline to get it done was supposed to be Dec 31, but our little shop doesn't have them in yet.

I ran on elogs at Prime. I wouldn't have minded it so much, had the office not been so needlessly involved in my business. Swift has a much different business concept than Prime. Swift gives you the load, you accept it and then it's up to you to make it happen. Prime was on my arse constantly. Much more hands-on than Swift ever thought of being.

However, back to the discussion, elogs would not be such an issue were it not for the 24 hr/day surveillance capabilities it innately carries. That is my biggest objection to it. If there was some sort of protection against that sort of abuse of the technology, I probably would not be such a vocal opponent.

I do not believe it is right to require anyone to install a very expensive piece of equipment without compensating them for it. There has been no cost/benefit analysis done and no real evidence has shown EOBRs will make any difference to road safety. Werner's record is just as bad now as it was when they were first required to use EOBRs for RODS. If anything, this proves only that drivers and company culture will improve safety numbers on the highways.

If an object is unnecessary and enables needless, warrantless surveillance of innocent citizens, there is no reason to have it. Since there is not an enormous market for these abominations, the only way to profit strongly is to mandate it. Somebody will be making money hand over fist if this ever is mandated industry wide, which is FMCSA's goal.

Yes, I understand "public roads" and all that other gobbledeygook. Traversing public roads does not give anybody any right to invade my privacy. I don't care how altruistic the intent. Somebody, somewhere along the line, will find a way to abuse it.

 

It's a sad state when people don't know how to run their business and need the government to step in and stop them from killing more people like the six kids burned to death by the Crete driver whose dispatcher allowed him to run those hours .

 

If these figures are correct it would seem that the reasons the supporters are giving for mandating the EOBR's is not valid. I go back to an earlier statement that this is about money and control. It has little or nothing to do with safety.

 

I guess Swift is not going to just implement them on existing units like the ones we have and go with new fangeled smaller ones(funny thing we were actually one of last "Major" size companies to install Qualcomm),we only have this device,when i was"upgraded" it was merely done back at Joplin by assigning them onto my truck electronically(I was in Dallas) nothing has to be done to actual unit,,,second pic is my actual unit i made the frame out of a laptop stand from Family Dollar,total cost $18

 

The source of your numbers?

And what is an acceptable killing rate for fatigue? I mean just out of curiosity what's acceptable to you. 1.4% if accurate would equal what 5000 deaths? Cool with that number?