Bad Advice

Really? When did I mention pay? And Mike just posted the rules stating vehicles on rails are logged on duty-not driving. Our trucks run on the rails, so I was right.

I am not concerned with the pay, I am concerned with people trying to steal as much money as possible on a technicality. Or in this case, hundreds of technicalities.

 

Looney,

I agree. However if all the "Americans" stood up and refused to drive it, there would be plenty of non English speaking counterparts that would do it for half the rate. This is what is already happening on a daily basis. Rates are, in some cases lower now than they were in the 80's. It's a unfortunate shame that it has come to this. Years ago, you could make a "good" living if you were willing to stay out 6-8 weeks at a crack. Those days I fear are gone. But if you can get it done, more power to you.

 

I can't argue you with you Bear. You know as well as I do that if we told the companies, especially the big ones out here on the road, "enough of this crap." They would say fine go ahead, I got ten people waiting to get into your truck.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I remember the President of Celadon getting in a lot of hot water when he actually stated a few years ago he would like to hire some foreign drivers and that way he would only have to pay them 17 cents a mile.

 

Mike I won't argue some of your points but I think most of us understand that this is the line of work we chose. Sometimes you don't have the option of getting a second job or moving... hell I don't think anyone can afford to really move right now in this economy.

 

It seems to me that the fact that keeping the truck fueled is part of your job strikes down the personal conveyance excuse for a company driver. It's a little muddier for an owner-operator where you own the truck.

That said, I also think the law here is poorly written, and needs to be rethought. I consider 34-hour resets to be ridiculously long to begin with, but even accepting that, a driver moving the truck from the parking lot to the fuel island and back hardly constitutes a safety hazard for anyone.

This law is in serious need of some common-sense exemptions. One that would cover several of the situations listed would be to allow up to one hour of "miscellaneous activities" (including fueling) with a restriction on how far the truck can move (only within 1 mile, only on the same property, whatever.)

It's really disheartening to me to see that legislators show zero regard for the actual well-being of drivers, yet this is clearly evident in everything from HoS laws to anti-idle laws.

 

You say that driving the truck during the reset interfers with the 34 hour reset. Taking away from the driver's rest time.


Just curious. What about if they rent a car and drive around sight seeing and put about 700 miles or more on the car. They have not been resting. I guess this is now a violation of the 34 hour reset?

 

You are familiar with the original regulations that kept infinite trucking companies from popping up and creating that exact situation. Those rules were done away with, why?

 

I'm actually never off duty. If there is a network outage and people below me cannot fix it, I can get calls 24/7/365. I have no guaranteed (or mandatory) rest period.

Then again, if I fall asleep at my computer, some hapless business may have their connection down, but nobody is going to die. So I do understand the reason for the break. I just suspect there are a lot of people out there who sit in the middle of nowhere twiddling their thumbs for 34 hours when the actual amount of rest needed by the human body is around 8 hours on average.

My personal opinion is that 10 hours off after 11 hours of driving ensures adequate rest for a healthy human being. I am not a physician, but this does also seem to be consensus in the medical literature I've read on the subject. (I did a little lay person research; doctors HATE that. )

Now, drivers should be entitled to some time off here and there, but HoS regulations were not written to take that into account; they were strictly about traffic safety. For example, HoS regulations do not require companies to provide home time at specific intervals, nor do they guarantee the driver paid vacations. I'm just pointing this out because I think there is a difference between "what's needed for safety" and the "drivers should be entitled to some time off" argument.

Agreed, but so does running out of fuel while completing a 34-hour reset. A truck will chug through a substantial amount of fuel in that amount of time, and apart from the hassles of re-priming the engine should that happen, what about driver comfort during that period? A reasonable sleeper temperature is crucial in order to obtain adequate rest.

I agree with you on this; my usual practice was to fuel when I arrived at a truck stop if I knew I was going to be there for a long period of time. However, from a safety point of view, I think cutting the driver some slack in letting them go to the fuel island and back is better than having the driver roast in his sleeper because the truck ran out of fuel. 34 hours in a hotbox does not make for a safe driver. (And ditto for the other extreme in winter.)

I said legislators; I did not make a statement about enforcement agencies. And I am well aware of the responsibilities of both the EPA and their state counterparts, such as CARB. However, I have never seen a rebuttal of the following:

Fact: As per 2009, the majority of company trucks do not have APUs.

Fact: Without an APU, idling the truck is required to maintain a comfortable temperature when ambient temperatures are above or below a certain threshold (let's not argue about exactly where those thresholds are)

Fact: Maintaining a comfortable temperature is crucial not only to driver comfort, but also to driver health

Fact: The laws either don't provide a sleeper berth exemption, or provide one that sunsets in a few years.

Fact: Some laws to provide an exemption for temperature extremes; the ones that do often have pretty extreme "extremes" (for example, no idling unless it's colder than -10F outside)

Given these facts, it seems to me that a driver that finds himself under one of these jurisdictions, particularly when a longer stop is required (e.g. 34-hour reset) has no option for staying comfortable short of paying for a hotel or motel out of his own pocket. If there is something I have overlooked, I will be happy to listen.

I also find it curious that some of these laws DO specifically exempt law enforcement and emergency responders. This really gives me pause. Does a full-size fire truck pollute less than an 18-wheeler? Is a police officer's well-being more important than that of a truck driver? (Before you state that idling is sometimes necessary e.g. to operate fire-fighting equipment, allow me to point out that most anti-idle laws ALREADY have an exemption where idling is required to operate auxiliary equipment.)

If any of my facts are incorrect, I am happy to accept corrections. My goal is not to argue that we should pollute for the sake of it, but rather to point out that there is a reason many drivers still need to idle. I feel this has been completely overlooked in the majority of anti-idle legislation.

Because company B does not have a contract with the shipper. I do see what you're saying here, but the only way I can imagine this would happen is with a return to regulated freight rates and a centralized (government-run? ) dispatch center. I do not believe that is a workable idea.

Here we agree. You too!