How much does EOBR cost for an O/O?

If my memory is correct, I read somewhere that FMCSA estimates the ELD mandate will result in 20 fewer fatalities annually. Assuming there is some kind of margin of error in their estimate, being realistic there is no safety benefit that will result from the mandate.

This is all about money.

FMCSA probably likes the mandate because it will safe time when doing audits and easier to find violations.

ATA lobbied to have the mandate in the highway bill. The benefit to them? Impose higher costs on their competiiton, i.e. the smaller carriers and owner operators who won't be able recover the cost of the systems on just one or several trucks.

Next up, 65 mph speed limit. Thanks ATA!!!

 

I was pondering this nonsense today while cruising down the road, a sure sign I need to seek professional help! But another dimension to this occurred to me that I am not sure has been posted.

While many think that the big carriers are pushing for this to eliminate the independents and small carriers, something did not quite add up. These big guys have their mega accounts and have little if anything to worry about competition from the small truck or single truck outfits. It is pretty naive to think that these multi thousand truck outfits are going to be hurt in amount of freight because an independent O/O can run things faster. Then it dawned on me... they are not trying to eliminate the small guys from operating... they are trying to level the playing field for the drivers they are trying to recruit! If everyone is on Elogs (and eventually speed limiters), then they will not have near the hard time getting drivers in the seats. Right now, a driver may call in to recruiting to get information. But once they hear Elog, then they move on to another carrier. The carriers that are using Elogs are at a disadvantage in recruiting than those that don't run them. Now it all made sense. These guys are already dealing with a "driver shortage" and they want to make it so that the Elog thing is across the board.

I suppose this idea is about as corny or as valid as any other. But I often wondered how the big guys could be hurt or intimidated by a small carrier. They already have a lock on Target, Wally World, Meijer, GM, Ford, Family Dollar, etc, etc, etc. They would have little to fear that an owner op got that 2 load a week account from Joe's manufacturing. But drivers, now that is quite another thing. They need to fill seats and they are having a tough time competing against small outfits that don't run Elogs or speed limit the trucks down to their level. Now it seemed to make sense.

Oh well, probably breathed in a little too much diesel smoke today! Weather is starting to improve and I had the window open for a while!

 

I don't see where it will be of any benefit to the mega's for everyone else to be on ELOG's. They have a problem recruiting and keeping quality drivers because they have sub-standard pay.

 

Only problem with that notion is, except in only a few instances, I see no appreciable evidence that smaller outfits pay and benefits are much, if any, better than pay plus benefits from the big carriers.

 

True but....... If all things are equal and one has elogs and one doesn't I am going to the company without elogs.

 

I know this is trucking and we love to run with all these wild theories But I don't see how it helps generate revenue. First, this will decrease violations and not increase them. And second, the violation revenues don't go over to the FMCSA but to the state that issues the violation. So if revenue was the goal then they wouldn't be pushing for them.

As far as the ATA goes, the Mega's took the stand (because we know the ATA IS the Mega's) that they wanted to have these in carriers that had issues. It was all focused on keeping them from going wide spread like they are. But once they started getting implemented people started seeing the cost savings. Steam lined log auditing alone will pay for them. So with no requirement at all by the FMCSA or DOT they started to implement them. This put them in a difficult situation according to the England that was on the board. How do they reverse course when they are saying they support them for safety reasons.

And bring it back to the competition factor. Even a 10 truck fleet will see the financial benefit in a short period of time. So to say that it puts them at a price advantage just doesn't work any more. Maybe early on.

The other piece is I am seeing more and more RFQ's that are stating satellite tracking/ELogs required. Right now, carriers without them aren't competition.

I personally believe that all the HOS push is because the people at the FMCSA are true believers. They honestly believe, regardless of data, that restricting driving time and increasing rest periods will make drivers safer. And EOBRS are really the only way that they can figure out how to get more drivers running based on those rules.

And we as a industry aren't doing ourselves any favors. About a year ago I was at a listening session and about 50 people got up to make comments. Over half talked about how it restricted them from having the ability to adjust when something happened. After the 5th driver talking about running out of hours at a shipper or an hour from home I wanted to scream and tell these idiots to shut up. They described the exact reason why these true believers are saying we need ELogs.

 

I think you will see a change by the DOT to actually look at the unit to see if there have been any edits done. Then decide they will write false logs as needed.

In addition, when nothing is found, then they will dig as deep as possible for things to write up.

 

That was back to my original point that cropped up in my pea brain the other day.... the reason the big boys, ATA, TCA, etc want Elogs across the board for everyone, is the very reason you stated. They lose a lot of potential candidates because they use Elogs. If everyone has to use them, that levels the recruiting field a little. Many suggest that the reason they want them for everyone is to drive other carriers and owners out of the business. There is no need for them to do that because they already have their big mega accounts and the small carriers and owners are not even putting a dent in what they do. It is putting drivers in the seats that screws them up, because they voluntarily use Elogs. If every one has to use them, they get a better shot at available drivers. So goes the theory.

 

I don't see a single person posting that ELD would force a driver to correctly log and take away the ability to falsify. Why is that? Does everyone agree that no driver falsifies their log to get a few more miles down the road? Not a single case of falsification that ended up being the root cause as to why someones family won't be coming home anymore? This is just absurd to me. Take a look and read this article and perhaps it will shed a little light on why ELD's are being pushed. If there are arguments after that, then I would suggest truck drivers who willingly falsify their logs are the ones doing the complaining! Everything isn't a conspiracy. Sometimes it's just the right thing to do because everyone won't play together safely. So to counteract the effects of a few bad apples everyone gets punished. Remember, a complaint without a solution is just whining!

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/newsroom/w...phne-izer-“champion-change”-truck-safety-work

 

Rush Peterbilt in Tye, Tx can put a qualcom EOBR in by hardwiring it. Son had it done on an 88 425.