Then why are large carriers with EOBRS and speed limited trucks 3 times more likely to have a crash then smaller carriers?
Because the exposure that 100 times the number of trucks and 1000 times the number of miles that a large carrier runs gives them more exposure. But since the accident rate you quoted is only 3 times that of a small carrier, in fact, they are safer.
Why not wait until november, when the ruling gets published........ Heck, between now and then, alot can happen..........
Bull poop. Look at the crash analysis for Landstar Ranger and Inway. That's 8,000 trucks combined. And 3 to 1 is 75% more likely to cause a crash, I'd say that is a big friggin difference and only on Earth 2 where math is backwards would that be considered safer!
OOIDA, the study was between the 3 biggest carriers with EOBR'S, and speed limited trucks, against the 5 largest carriers without either, study was done by a outside source, but OOIDA help fund it. Large carriers make up only 30% of trucks on the road, so they do not out number small carriers. I push my log just so I can get a nap, not to make a delivery on time. Most trucks I see in the ditch, have a EOBR strapped to it, because the driver is pushed everyday to run 14 hours out without a good nap if tired.
Check out their ticket history in SMS... that tells quite a story right there. A well-managed large carrier will be "safer" than any small guy that's had trouble. The real number to look at is accidents per million miles.
And this is the exact study by OOIDA. Believe your eyes, I see more large carriers in wreaks then small ones all the time. When it comes time to put a EOBR in my truck fine, I'll just play by the rules and drive drowsy like "safe" guys. And by the way, I speak from experience, I use to be leased on to a large carrier years ago. EOBR's are more of a danger by putting Saftey in a office, instead of the truck.
That's 'cause the big guys run around with BIG names on the side of their trucks, but the little guys sneak around with "EXTRA" on the sides of their trucks! Wasn't that you I saw the other night snorin' behind the wheel in the hammer lane?!! The technology isn't responsible for that. It's the same jerks in dispatch and operations that force the guys on paper to do unsafe things. The difference? Now they have something with a computer in it to blame the wrecks on.
Pft please feel free to PROVE WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that for 7 years you have NEVER ONCE gone over on hours, or fudged a log. I've seen my fair share of ######## living in Nebraska but that right there takes the cake. No need to what so ever. One of the threads I posted earlier shows the statistics on this. Regarding large carriers and elogs being unsafe. The ones pushing the elogs have the worst safety scores CRST, WERNER, ENGLAND SWIFT. They need to worry more about fixing their junk equipment and treating their drivers right than trying to get elogs federally mandated and putting a hurt on the little guys. Feel free to read that thread I posted a while back. Those numbers came right out of landline magazine, and that came right off the SMS results posted on the safer system. You call us super truckers for fudging our logs or cheating them. Least I'm not going to be the idiot posted all over the internet because my truck shut down for my 30 minute break in downtown Chicago traffic at rush hour! Or the idiot sitting at a truck stop on the phone with dispatch having them edit my log so I can make a delivery. As for your first statement I quoted. Once again who are you kidding? You can cheat an elog...if the driver can't dispatch can have it edited. So you're only as honest as the person controlling the elog. How is that any different than a guy running 2 paper logs? It isn't. The poster above mine is talking about the same study I posted a while back. Might want to take a gander at that and rethink your statement.
