E log vs paper

I've run both electronic and paper logs and I am indifferent to either one and I can work with both.

With paper I know I can eke out easily an extra 20 to 30 minutes out of those 15-minute segments. Legal? Yes. Loophole? Definitely. But what I don't like about paper is the, well, paperwork, losing my straight edge to make fine lines, putting my carbon paper in between the wrong sheets, scanning my logs in, making mistakes and having to start a new sheet, writing in that small box for duty status changes, especially when you make multiple stops within an hour, not having a new logbook at the beginning of the month or before I finish out the old book.

What I like about elogs, I know my current duty status is always correct, no paperwork (I'm serious, I probably spend no more than 5 minutes total for the whole day on logs), no making math errors, I know exactly how many hours I have on my 8, 11, 14, and 70 with no more than 3 key presses, no keeping track of my mileage on a daily basis. But what I don't like about it is really the fact you are firmly limited to the 8, 11, 14, and 70 hrs before you are in violation. There is no wiggle room.

Who is the more fortunate driver today? Is it the anachronistic p-logger whose primary stance against elogs is the ability to log creatively (illegally, there I said it)? Or is it the technological elogger who doesn't know the ins and outs of the HOS and would be in a world of hurt if their qualcomm/peoplenet crashes and they have to log it on paper for the first time? Both limits himself from potential employers because of his own intransigence.

 

According to the chart, everything declined in 2009. Hmmmm, Isn't that the year that Obama took office and all of the businesses started "pulling in their horns" and the economy went straight south and millions and millions of jobs were lost? Something tells me that those things probably caused less vehicle miles to be driven which resulted in fewer accidents and fewer deaths. I doubt that e-logs had much to do with it either way.

 

Gonna chime in here , I recently , few months back, switched company's where I used to run paper " leagle"with few exceptions , i logged it as i did it ,I now run the big Q , truthfully I was commenting to a friend the other day , seriously when. Was on paper I could never understand why so many seemed to always being impatient and some what aggressive , when on paper i, I just drove and when I stopped I changed status ect , now on elog I now understand why so many run harder than they should, there is something about having the clock taunting you, and with the knowledge that it will "tell on ya "as far as the " should have planned better" argument you would do well to rember what has been said about the best laid plans of mice and men, I do agree that the e log is a small amount quicker to use, but those few minutes a day do not make up for the stress they induce, and yes I have found that for example parking at the shipper or receiver is sometimes nesisary , I also figure they are ideal for a dedicated run driver, who can turn his trip under 9 or so hours with a few hours to spare , I think the real problem ain't paper vs elog , I believe the real problem is the HOS parameters being to ridged with almost no flexibility, for example since it is impossible to stop the 14 hour clock , a driver may not have a choice but to trudge on through say a big city at rush hour , as he may see fit , if given a choice he may decide to take a two or three hour break and then proceed , but he is forced basically to run against the clock, in essence they are constantly "racing" in a sense of the word, and by the same token if driver wants to say beat the morning traffic. For example "nope" can't do that cause your mandatory ten ain't up yet and even if it is well it may not be wise to " start " your 14 hour clock , basically I think this thread is addressing the wrong issue just my .03¢ worth.

 

And now I read we have a replacement, at least temporarily, for Anne Ferro. The new head of the FMCSA is a black attorney from Boston who has some experience being the lawyer for the transit authority in Boston and also has some knowledge about legal matters concerning commuter trains. Doesn't claim to know the difference between the front and back ends of a truck, and has absolutely no experience with the trucking world other than the experience he picked up by being close to Ms. Ferro and her vast first hand knowledge of the way it is in the trucking world. Out of all the possible people that could have been chosen, no one with a working knowledge of the trucking industry (the industry that moves 70% of everything that moves in America) made the cut. The new guy is obviously eminently qualified though, as anyone could tell by reading the first part of this paragraph. God help us!!! It's past time for our federales, the people responsible for selecting heads of agencies that have the power to ruin businesses and destroy the lives and livlihoods of hard working Americans to be replaced. I just hope the people are wise enough to make some real changes this November.

 

Wont happen those that would be worth while to even run dont have enough cash to campaign and it seems once they get enough the attitudes change into being more greedy and its high dollar voting for those with the money to hand out

 

So what has anybody done twords the problem other than complain ?

 

Nothing. They've done nothing.

 

Can't figure out how to keep good people from getting greedy yet once I do ill be ABLE to do something

 

lot of the newbies have no clue how to fill out a paper log.they have a hard enough time speaking english

 

Reading it for sure