Can you cheat an eLog?

Throw in "slaughter a family" for effect. So you'll wear a dog collar to track you when CMV's are a very small part of the problem? You'll give up your rights to apease morons who can't seem to understand numbers?
How many of these horendous accidents happen a year due to this terrible
multi logbook running driver? Most of the horendous accidents are due to CARS! Lets manage the risk inherent here then, get rid of lahood, co. and fmsca.

 

The rain in Spain falls mostly in the plains.

 

It doesn't matter that people driving cars cause more accidents than we do. That doesn't get the headlines, it doesn't get the congressional scrutiny, and in any case there is nothing the government can really do about it.

Are you going to accept government interference in your ability to drive your personal (non-commercial) vehicle down the road? Don't pander to us, you know you wouldn't.

But there is something the government can do about the other side of the equation - and don't paint me as someone who agrees with, or desires to knuckle-under to it. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution allows the goverment to stick their jack-booted thugs into the middle of our business. You may not like it, and I don't appreciate it either. It is what it is. As long as this situation persists you and I have to do our business in this environment.

When someone goes out of their way to run illegally it gives our critics ammunition to use against us. When that behavior results in the death of one of those poor, innocent, non-violating (yeah, the next time one does a kamikazi exit off the big road in front of you say that) then we are the "bad guy." Not just the guy involved - BUT ALL OF US - and that's how the public perceives it. It's not right, it's not fair, it's not even logical. The public looks at this like we are all criminals in waiting, and the cops (it doesn't matter which kind) all treat us like that. Guilty without benefit of crime or trial.

There is only one way out of it... to act as a professional, run within the law, and operate our vehicles conservatively... see Big Bad Bill's thread on jerks driving 18-wheelers.

We are our own worst enemies.

Isn't that a great bit of governmental logic? We're at fault because we are there.

How about Ann Farrow's idea that a reasonable goal is ZERO deaths on the highway, and she's going to go after us to get there!

They must put something in the water in DC. This is nuts.

 

Last time I was in DC I drank from water purchased in the midwest.

 

Handle it like the teamster used too. STRIKE let them get good and hungry and see who the enemy is? Through passiveness the true meaning of the interstate commerce clause has been preverted into to crap we have now. The main intent of the interstate comerce clause was to allow free trade between the states which was hindered by some states to allow free trade as a way to control money and business.

 

When the last strike happened in the 70's, just what was the makeup of the industry and the drivers back then compared to the way they are now.

 

In 1979 over 100,000 independent truckers went on strike over fuel and petty regulations. The strike had more effect on regulations than anything teamsters had done of recent history. We had jimmy carter1.0 in the WH then, we now have carter 2.0 there now. Would be a good time for a strike.
The goverenment and all parties concerned take us as irrelevant and treat as they wish. I remeber the strike well I was driving a service truck then was flats for days to fix. The Alabama boys pretty much shut the roads down for awhile.The biggest difference now and then were drivers then had lots more balls. The ones I see now only ask which acs cheek to kiss when stopped.

 

The problem now is that there are more "larger" companies who would gladly step up for the frieght.

There are more "company" drivers now than there were then.

The actual "independent" numbers are even lower now than what they were.

Changes made by many of the presidents led to the reduced ability to strike. You might review what Reagan did.

Not intended to start a political feud, since I find neither to be appealing anymore.

 

Never happen with me on Elogs. If I am within 60 miles of the house, any direction, I have multiple places to drop a trailer. I then go to OFF DUTY DRIVING and drive on home, whether I am out on my 11, 14 or 70. Even been stopped and checked doing this, with no problem from the DOT cop. I will do an OFF DUTY DRIVING back to the trailer later on, and then go back on duty or driving after I hook it up and go.

I am very much against a government mandate of them also. Unless some operator or carrier is being renegade and can't seem to avoid screwing up with the DOT cops. Then they need to be held by the hand like a child.

What is truly needed, if they do pop off with a mandate, is going back to the split sleeper berth flexibility like we had for years and years. But, don't see that happening.

 

A general strike is overkill. it should be handled in a tactical kind of fashion. The military doesn't place a bomb every 10 feet across a country when they go to blow up things, they surgically strike at critical targets, like communications, and knock it out. Likewise, all truckers need to just target two areas and not go in or out. How about a general targeting of two the big cities? I like the idea of staying out of NYC (the financial capitol of America), and DC (the political capitol of America). After just 72 hrs, those two areas would be in a real bind. Meanwhile, everyone just continues to do their thing across the rest of the country. It would be more than symbolic, and the government or anyone else could lay no charge that we were on strike. Just make a choice to haul the load that goes no where near those two places. But they know that we could put a knot in their colon whenever we want.

Probably couldn't get truckers on board doing this minor thing either, but no one will ever get a mass strike out of truckers, that's for sure.