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

EOBR's wouldn't be necessary with proper enforcement . Dispatchers and managers should be held accountable . A driver can't run without loads and dispatch knows how many miles a driver has run . Allowing or forcing a driver to violate HOS is a felony . Dispatchers and managers of SMALL carriers have been prosecuted AFTER one of their drivers have been involved in an accident . Megacarrier management are exempt . Their drivers kill hundreds of people and they have thousands of HOS violations but the carriers only get petty fines . Make it mandatory felony charges be filed against dispatch every time a driver is put OOS for log violations at a scale and see how fast the violations disappear .
But come to think of it that won't work . Too many drivers would like to see their dispatcher in jail .

 

Rather than requiring that trucks have EOBR's, we need to make better decisions when hiring drivers. If a driver needs an EOBR then perhaps they should find another job where they can punch a clock and not need to over tax their brain cells. We have gotten along just fine in this industry for over 70 years without having an electronic nanny. What we need is to go back to the type of drivers we used to have who could add, draw a line and do simple math and plan their work. Perhaps those who need a EOBR are the same ones who don't know how to read a map or a street sign.

 

That is making the argument that HOS and Log books are unnecessary as well. All an EOBR does is make compliance harder to falsify.

Yes I know all the doomsayers love to make this about people's intelligence, sexual preference, or developement along the evolutionary ladder.

All they are is an electronic log book period. They track nothing that can not be tracked by paper means. Not one #### thing. All of you hear the comments about comic books, making it work, redoing some lines......

All of us read about the accident where they go back and look and see those comic books(though I find nothing funny in them), finding those corrections, and their failure to do anything but commit suicide. Now if the only result for their decisions I would agree let them off themselves. Unfortunately they take van loads of Menonites, bus loads of school children, and a mother taking her children to day care so she can go to work.

This comes down to a simple discussion. Do you feel the HOS improves safety? While they are not perfect I believe they do improve safety on highways, and even OOIDA will concede the numbers are down. Everyone currently holding a license has always had the legal responsibility to adhere to the HOS and RODS rules. None of you predate them so stop the good old day BS.

 

If you'll go read the opinion I posted that is essentially the argument their lawyers stumbled upon(*). It basically says in the opinion that a driver could be told he has to go to work(GASP) if he has the available hours to run.

It is a false argument as the regulations prevent it. This opinion despite what PRAVDA is spewing was about due diligence the court felt was not done in addressing it not about the actual law. That is why I do not trust Grain Valley to provide me with any news as they flat lie to suit their view point. I posted the link to the opinion so those not wanting others to do their thinking for them could go read what it says.

I have every belief that it will be resolved with the across the board mandate as part of the stumbled upon argument was that a driver not classified as a "bad actor" could be forced on e-logs(it was a company regulation) through no conduct of their own.

That entire argument seems to me to protect substandard companies by allowing known bad actors to ride on the compliant actions of a few.















*Stumbled upon because it was not a part of the original breif but discovered in arguments and seized upon because their original brief had all but been dismissed as irrelevant.

 

Drivers will still fall asleep and they will be back to pushing the next whizz-bang device to monitor what drivers are doing.

Take it to it's final conclusion and it will be a camera in his face and a computer running an algorithm in the background... Too many yawns in a specific time period, or a driver taking .6 seconds to blink his eyes instead of .3 seconds and buzzer sounds, a video is sent to your FM, and you have to pullover.

 

There is going to be some on here excited about this and saying it will be good.

 

So tell us O' Seer why this is different from a log book.

Stop the melodramatic bs.

An EOBR or E-Log does not monitor the driver for


It is simply a compliance tool superior to an easily falsified piece of paper.


And if that silly fantasy were ever to become true(it wont but lets entertain the silliness for a minute) a driver can easily avoid any of it by not driving for a living.

 

Well, all of this is fascinating. EOBR's are here on one level or another. Until the regulatory climate in Washington DC changes, all of us will be on some form of EOBR before too long. I actually kinda like the thing. It works fine for my operation. To get past the "big brother is looking" initial reaction, I reasoned that this could be a good thing if something goes wrong and the high paid litigator from the law firm of Burn Em and Run tries to find how the truck driver was not in compliance. No, it won't be a cure all, but it will take one more arrow out of the quiver of a hot shot lawyer. I didn't even consider the arguments about how they make things safer on the road. I just focused on how they could make things safer for the driver in court and how it would make record keeping simpler back at the office.

I have had the thing in my truck for almost a year. No one has tried to use it to push me. Constantly, I am having to let my travel agent know whether I have the hours to complete a run we are planning. I have no indication that operations is even watching the EOBR for hours. My experience is that only safety is concerned about it. I am sure that some carriers are micro managing drivers. But it doesn't seem to be an industry wide thing. In that year, I have yet to have anyone call me up and question about why I am sitting, moving, or wiping my rear end because I have an EOBR. They only seem to be concerned that the loads are picked up and delivered. Not how I do it. I have never been questioned about why I did a OFF DUTY DRIVING and drove 35 miles somewhere. I could back it up that I wasn't doing anything for the carrier and it is my truck. They assume I am a competent individual that has enough experience to know how to do things reasonably legit.

I also realize this is not the situation for drivers at every company, but that driver does not have to stay with a carrier that is wanting to micro manage their life. There are many carriers that do like mine and use the thing only to make record keeping compliance simpler and present a vernier of being modern compliant company, while making themselves less of a target for enforcement. It also seems to be a leverage when it comes to negotiating with shippers/receivers. Efficiency has improved somewhat.

It is characteristic of drivers to get their feathers all ruffled up over change. And we should question anything that comes down the pike. But we should also take the time to think things thru and try and find a reasoned opinion on how something is good, bad, or of no consequence.

 

Hmmmm,lets see for the most part the "Argument" is,,ELOBS/EOBR's WILL NOT make roads safer(Seems that has yet to be proved here)

BUT....

Paper Logs Surely HASNT made the roads safer EITHER

"NO..." the two dont cancel each other out,,sad reality is that the DECADES on paper logs have been instumental in bringing on the advent of EOBR's,

When are the proponents of Paper going to realize that PATT,CRASH,DOT,FMCSA,etc.. have got DECADES of pertinent information that lends to their argument,,and what can truckers say???BUBKUS

When is our industry going to accept that you have to be right/correct 100% of the time,NO GRAY AREA,no mistakes(and for the less than 1% that do ,,,,,

Did you ever think that maybe,,JUST MAYBE EOBR's/ELOGS might be the lesser of two evils compared to what they MIGHT come up with next

 

So, if the E-log doesn't monitor the drivers, 'compliance' to rest/sleep.

How can 'Safety' be a justification for mandating such devices?