Five BAD trucking companies

On the surface, it is not a bad thing. When you start peeling away the layers of this onion, it can be a real hardship for a lot of smaller carriers and safety is not the intended goal.

It isn't only the nice little box in the truck that is used. That would be a cost that could generally be absorbed depending on the requirements for the EOBR unit that would also come out of the legislation, but it is the FMCSA requirement (already in place) to store and have readily retrievable six months of log records at any one time, on any driver, for any day. That would require some sort of server computer that would store the data and also the communications to have that information moved from the EOBR on the truck to the server daily.

Now, when you consider that the local grain hauler, the guy with the 1 ton dually transporting camper units, the one truck operator under his own authority, etc would have the same requirements of those 5000+ class 8 truck operations, it gets clearer that this is intended to drive out more of the competition, irregardless of who it hurts. And there is always the "law of unintended consequences". The focus may be on commercial class 8 trucks, but it will also cause those smaller truck operations to have to comply with the law and since they usually operate on tighter margins than class 8 truck operations, they may not survive the requirement. It has nothing to do with safety. CSA 2010 already addresses the problem of non compliant drivers and truck operations.

I have no problem with EOBR as I will soon be getting one installed in my truck and have already been logging for quite a while just as if I had one already and it will not have any real negative effect on my revenue because of my sort of operation. It will affect some and they will have to modify how they do things. And some, it will put out of business simply because they cannot afford to meet the mandate.

It is just a sleazy underhanded way of getting the government to do the dirty work of knocking out competition instead of trying to gain more market share by providing a superior service at a competitive rate.

I am not a real fan of the FMCSA usually, but their idea of only having EOBR mandates on trucks that show a history of non compliance is more realistic instead of the blanket "one size fits all" approach of this legislation. The carriers that are behind this legislation are just playing the sand box game of "I don't like that Johnny doesn't have to eat his green beans like I have to" They either have made the decision to go with EOBR or are considering it, and they don't like it that there are others who will not do it unless they are strong armed by government to do so. In other words "if I can't go out and play, then Johnny can't go out and play either".

It is no different that a large corporation promoting regulation that would drive the smaller mom and pop type business out of business. We see that everyday when we go thru some of the smaller towns and see small family manufacturing operations that are closed and boarded up. This legislation is intended to do the very same thing to smaller truck operations.

To answer your question: that is why this is a bad thing.

 

http://www.truckinginfo.com/news/news-detail.asp?news_id=71793

 

Read the legislation. You are confusing the mandate that FMCSA has proposed with the legislation in the Senate.

True, the cost may be in the $300-$400 per unit. that is assuming a group buy of equipment by more than just a small truck operation. But that is only the box in the truck. You also have to have off site storage on the last six months information available to recall and produce to FMCSA at any moment, which is a current requirment by the FMCSA. Not to be confused with a truck driver only required to have the last 8 days available at a roadside. And you have to have in place a way for the unit in the truck to communicate its information with the offsite storage daily. And that is only assuming the CURRENT requirements will be the standard. If, as usual, the government raises the bar for reporting requirements, then the costs will go up accordingly. Larger carriers will usually have this off site server storage themselves, but a small one or two truck operation would have to either purchase computer equipment and software that would facilitate this or use a service to do it for them. And we know, that small carriers are not able to negotiate the pricing discounts that larger carriers can for such things.

 

It may or may not force rates up. Remember, the mega carriers already have or are considering such systems. Their costs are not going to change all that much when you figure a per truck cost. So, they could very easily undercut the rate it would take a smaller operation to recover the costs of such a mandate.

I would concede that an EOBR mandate across the board could force customers to change some of the things that go on. There is not a total downside to having an EOBR mandate. But do the costs and the potential destruction of numerous small business really outweigh the assumed, yet not proven, potential improvements? After all, we heard that all before when the CDL regulation was put in place, when the HOS rules were changed the last two times, etc. Yet delays and rates haven't really improved. And just having an EOBR in a truck will not change the fact that, even if you are out of hours, the customer can still force you to leave the property and violate the HOS rules. After all, the customer's property is PRIVATE property, and therefore you can be forced to leave or face criminal trespass charges. And the local cop who would be called could really give a rip if you are on an EOBR. And what, as a smaller carrier, are you going to do about it? Raise your rates and have one of the mega carriers come in and undercut your rates? Hardly. Myself, I could only see rates improving substantially when you cut out the competition by knocking out smaller carriers and then leave a handfull of operations controlling the entire trucking market and then dictate higher rates. Which of course sounds ok when you are with a larger carrier, but there is really no expectation that even a O/O leased on to one of these mega carriers will see a real decent hike in the rate they are paid by the carrier. And it only means the cost for all of us to purchase products at the retail level would go up as well.

Can anyone else see the mess that this can create? Don't we already have enough screw balled regulations that we would be ok with piling on more of them?