electronic logging...good or bad??

Been using them 5 years and honestly it's a gift and a curse at times. I miss my loose leaf during the summer though

 

My contract is not different because of longevity. My contract is different because at the time it was a huge risk for me to lease on at a brand new company where I would become truck #2. The deal had to be pretty sweet for me to consider it because I had orientation scheduled already with Landstar - an established company with a fine, proven reputation.

The way it ended up I brought a buddy of mine over here also and he became truck #3 at the company. Then contracts started changing. That's how it goes. Nothing to do with longevity nor favoritism. If you ever run across a 30+ year Landstar BCO ask him/her how their contract compares to a BCO of today leasing on. Things change.

One of the main things with us F2F drivers is any potential drivers must be able to use a computer have a smart phone, etc. Paper logs are frowned on because they're a waste of time. No-one here is on paper logs as far as I know. We do everything electronically. Send paperwork back and forth via email from smart phones, etc.

I started out here using Driver's Daily Logs software and that's what I still use. I print off my logs daily and load them into a cloud that the office has access to. That's what most of us F2F guys that have been here a while are using.

From my understanding Udrove can either be enabled as fully EOBR compliant or that can be disabled and it functions much like DDL (that is up to the contractor until regulations force us all to otherwise). With the exception being Udrove is app based and logs getting to the office are more assured than with DDL where if I wasn't putting them into the cloud they'd be hounding me for logs.

I don't know any of the drivers using Udrove other than maybe Craig and Anne Leonard? Haven't really heard anything about it. I suppose when the time comes for EOBR mandate that is what I will be using.

 

I'm not a super trucker, and I don't like Elogs. Any other foolish comments?

 

Elogs forces drivers who use to stop and smell the roses to drive like me. It also allows the stupid (those who cannot manage their time) and the spineless (those who cower down from deskjockeys) to have a job.

In a nutshell, it's like a restrictor plate in racing. The guys that really can go get limited, and the idiots, who really shouldnt be driving, can get a driving gig. And the result is more and more Darwin winners behind the wheel.

 

They say you learn something new every day. I just did. Thanks TAfool

 

I think to answer the original question. EOBR are bad plain and simple. Unwarranted, expensive, intrusive, cumbersome government is never a positive thing. Any time you have a government agency that lies and says they are only going to implement mandatory e-logs for carriers that have bad inspection/safety records then several years later says they want to implement them for everyone, that's bad. You can never, never, never let government creep like that because the end result is always the same. Give an inch and they swoop in taking a mile always.

I said it 10 or 12 years ago when they started putting EOBR on the bad apple carriers that it wouldn't be long before they insisted everyone should have them. And probably about 5 or 6 years ago that's exactly what the talk was. So they lied and got a part of what they wanted because of it. Knowing that later on down the road they could take everything they really wanted because they are unaccountable. All the arguments about billy big riggers are beside the point. Because you are forced to use them as a driver and have grown accustomed/used to them does not make them a good thing for you or everyone else out here. They could reasonably and easily enforce the regulations we have without these EOBR's.

 

The funny thing is, the regulations (§ 395.15(j)) state that chronic HOS violators can have their authorization to run e-logs revoked, thereby requiring the use of paper for the "bad actors".

...and that "bad actor" mandate was tossed by the courts because the e-log device can be used to harass drivers. There were several more legal arguments against them, but the court only needed to consider the driver harassment issue to toss the mandate. The law (passed by congress, signed by a president) forbids the FMCSA from mandating electronic logging devices if those devices CAN BE used to harass drivers. That issue STILL has not been addressed, and the law has not been altered...in other words, any future mandate in the works right now WILL be challenged, and it WILL suffer the same fate as the original "bad actor" mandate.

 

What's a log book? Lol

 

I use big road, it's technically not EOBR but it's way better than paper keeps me legal and takes a tenth of the time. I'm going to look into UDROVE, how do you guys like it? The only thing I like about ELOGS is it will help put the industry all on the same playing field with regards to timing. I believe rates would see some uptick, and get rid of some of the trash companies out there that are a hazard to the industry. IMO

 

The only people who believe the "playing field" should be leveled with more government regulations are the ones who find themselves at a competitive disadvantage due to policies they have chosen to implement at their own companies. Rates aren't going to increase, because somebody will always be there willing to haul for less...and now that you've got e-logs and speed limiters holding you back as well, you as an independent/small fleet have no competitive advantage over the megafleet. That is the result the ATA is after...to bring the entire industry's "playing field" down to their level.