electronic logging...good or bad??

I don't find the law to be a policy of my own. That is the rule set forth you don't have to like it, but you do need to abide by it. I am in no way justifying the ATA nor do I support them. I do see it as a problem in many of the steel plants with owner operators who run for pennies, I choose not too. But their actions do hurt the industry.

 

Elogs are NOT the law, they are a business decision. Speed limiters are NOT the law, they are a business decision. There are quite a few things that we are burdened with today because a few powerful players made the business decision to go down that road, it placed them at a competitive disadvantage, so rather than admitting their mistake and reversing their business decision, they doubled down and lobbied the bureaucrats in government to force their competition to also move in that unwise, unprofitable direction in order to remain on a "level" playing field. Even when the ATA gets their way with the bureaucrats, it gets tied up in the courts and sometimes beaten back by those who have made the business decision NOT to follow the ATA's path. The "law" says the FMCSA cannot mandate elogs as long as elogs can be used to harass drivers. Elogs can be used to harass drivers, so guess what? Any elog mandate WILL be tossed by the courts because the FMCSA does not have the legal power to implement a mandate as long as the devices can be used to harass drivers. Even their recent "study" that alleges the devices AREN'T used to harass drivers doesn't meet the standard because the simple fact remains that they CAN be used to harass drivers.

 

This whole e-logs argument is based on the false premise that compliance automatically equals safety. If you accept that premise, e-logs are the Holy Grail of safety. If you have a lick of common sense, you know how foolish the whole idea really is. It's so typical of bureaucracies, if you fit in their little boxes, everything is fine and dandy, if you don't, you're an unsafe menace.

 

I was referring to following hours of service, again I'm not defending elogs or the ATA. I'm stating that I know for a fact there are guys who will run non stop and it hurts the industry as a whole.

 

Since this thread has gone sideways already LOL...

Two things come to mind when I think of the upcoming rule that will eventually come out.

1. This, despite two very recent, spectacular fatality incidents that establish without a doubt that all the latest, greatest innovations in safety gadgets can be defeated by one careless driver. Google "Kevin Roper" and "David Gibbons."

2. Those of you that want to drink the ATA kool aid and believe it's all in the name of safety, see #1. The same unsafe drivers will manage to get to the scene of their fatality accident just fine, no matter what burdens you place on the 99% of drivers that get the job done safely every day. In much the same way restricting guns to law abiding people does not affect criminals, and how the war on drugs solves addiction.

What matters more is to follow the money. Mega carriers that self insure, so they can populate their fleet of rolling sweatshops with high risk rookies that have nowhere else to go. Ambulance chaser attorneys that want to sue and get paid over 4X what they can collect today. Last but not least, the companies that sell the products required to fulfill compliance.

 

every commercial boat in this country from the 30 foot lobster boat in Maine to the 300 foot crab boat in Alaska is under the same regime as elogs. Whether it is a one man operation to a multi boat fleet corp. Each vessel is tracked by Satellite with a whole office of FEDS watching computer screens in Gloucester Mass 24/7
As independent as fisherman are they make truck drivers look like union slobs. If they can do that out to sea they can on the highway if they want to
The goverment even mandated we take observers hired by the goverment to observe our fishing activities while we were at sea were lawful. Then told us we had to pay each observer $250/day
We said we can't do that
They said you don't have to
But don't go outside of 3 miles into federal waters until you comply

 

Apples & oranges.

Fishing boat runs into problems, the Coast Guard can find them...hopefully before they sink/burn/die. Trouble with a truck? Put out your triangles and park your butt in a safe location until help arrives.

Boats can meander anywhere the water is deep enough while the waves aren't too big. Trucks are limited to certain paths...venture off them and you'll be stuck before you get too far.

We have observers, too. They roll around in cars and suv's equipped with pretty (as long as they aren't in MY rear view...) disco lights. They also wait for us at certain locations to make sure we keep it legal. Fishing boat "observers" ride along because they can't realistically patrol the entire area in an economically feasible manner.

Got any more ridiculously irrelevant comparisons to make?

 

I'm not super but I do like a little wiggle room now and then.

Some would be against elogs for the reason mentioned in post 14, some are plain insulted and there are other reasons. But yes, for the most part, those who are against them like to bend the rules now and then.

That doesn't equal supertrucker and it doesn't equal unsafe.

Elogs don't prevent someone from driving fatigued. Look at the Walmart dude in the Tracy Morgan crash.

Elogs are just another example of law makers making rules so they can say they are making the roads safer.

I'll never understand how they think it's a good idea to treat drivers like we're too stupid to know when we're OK to drive. That just lowers the bar and brings people to the trade that are too stupid to make good decisions. Surely that's not who they want controlling large vehicles.

 

as someone in both industries they are exactly the same
and it is just to show you that the governments will if that be the case will be enforced
I dont agree it should in either situation