Go broke at Celadon!!!

You obviously have not been involved in trucking for that long. The lawsuits flew the last 3 times that HOS was gonna be revamped, why do you think that they buckled and left them almost unchanged this last time? According to NBC themselves, they have not reported on Bush and his supposed "midnight fixes" as this being one of them. Like I said this was a bored individual calling a trucking show about a month ago and talking about this as wishful thinking, and all of a sudden everybody has heard this here and there and soforth--facts are this is where it came from-a late night truck talk show out of Cincinnati, everybody who has driven has heard this show at one time or another. Here is the actual ruling that was handed down by FMCSA on Nov 18, 2008:

The battle lines are drawn again in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's push to change commercial truckers' driving hours. The final rule published today reiterates the 11 hours of driving within a 14-hour, non-extendable window from the start of the work day, following at least 10 consecutive hours off duty (the 11-hour rule) and restart of the weekly on-duty limits after the driver has at least 34 consecutive hours off duty (34-hour restart) that has upset Public Citizen, which sued and defeated essentially the same regulation last year before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, issued a statement saying the final rule "ignores mountains of safety research, authorizes the exact same 11-hours of driving and 34-hour restart provisions of rules past -- rules that the court deemed were inadequate. Under the rule, drivers may continue to log a physically and mentally demanding 77 hours behind the wheel in a seven-day period, take a mere 34 hours off, then hit the road to do it all over. In addition, drivers can be required to work 14 hours a day, which includes loading and unloading cargo. The rule also fails to require electronic on-board recorders that are essential to assure effective enforcement of the rule.
"This rule will continue to force truck drivers to continue enduring sweatshop-like working conditions," Claybrook continued. "This puts the health and safety of drivers at risk, along with the public who must share the road with tired truckers. From 2003 to 2006, the number of annual deaths among occupants of large trucks increased from 726 to 805, according to the Department of Transportation. Additionally, nearly 4,584 people were killed in 2007 in crashes involving large trucks, while another 76,000 were injured. Research clearly shows the risk of a crash dramatically increases after eight hours of driving."
The rule will take effect Jan. 19, 2009. FMCSA maintains the new HOS rule extends drivers' sleep window and will reduce fatigue. "Opponents of the 34-hour restart argue that, if used to the maximum over an extended period, it allows more driving and on-duty time on a weekly basis than the pre-2003 rule," the agency said in today's final rule. "In theory this is true, but FMCSA at that time concluded that the restart provision, like the 11th hour of driving time, would not be utilized to the theoretical maximum calculated by some commenters. Commenters have not provided nor has the Agency seen any contrary evidence."
"The Obama administration and the next Congress should add the hours-of-service rule to its list of wrong-headed Bush administration policies that should be rescinded," wrote Claybrook, who was administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 1977-1981. "The courts, the truckers' unions and consumer and safety advocates have pushed for a sensible rule to no avail. For real change, it's time to put the safety of truckers and the motoring public first.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

This of course is the same arguments that have been used in the past and the same arguments that gave us the system that we have now. The system that we had worked fine for over 50 years and then a bunch of groups popped out of nowhere and decided to chang e them and of course the great government office FMCSA decided after months of public comment by both the industry and people that are cluless to the industry, that those who are inside the industry and know best, dont have a clue. As far as George Bush fixing this with a "midnight fix" --it's not gonna happen, beleive me this change in the rules was a Bush push(the same people that wrote the current stuff ae Bush appointees, and he is not gonna second guess them by scrapping it on his way out the door), are you sure that you want him to further complicate this on his way out the door? This, like I said was wishful thinking and just a rumor, and the late night panderings of a bored driver who called a radio show. BTW, this rule has been agreed to and signed off by BUSH, this was his proposal, and has been his proposal from the beginning and now he has gotten them to actaully write it into law. SO dont expect anything else, this is it--so like I said we are not getting anything that we dont already have.

 

He could haul fuel for the Seneca's. They are looking for tanker drivers.

 

Well said billsgirl. A different POV is always there but sometimes will not be well received. The folks that run forums are just people too. They have good days and bad and may make decisions that we don't like. Don't take it personal.

I run a local (to me) forum for sport bike enthusiasts. We have similar problems all teh time. In fact, it's local to you too, kinda.

 

Well I think you posted it on the wrong thread that is why they said something to you

 

That's what they REALLY want.

 

Westside does not have that great of a rep either.

 

Not to pick on Billsgirl, but this is an excellent point. having an extra body on the truck DOES cost more money. spend extra $$ and time in truck stops waiting for the other person, not to mention another mouth to feed. it is nice to be with your man on the road, but there is added cost, as minimal as it might be.

If you take into consideration that extra body could be at home working a job, consider the swing in pay compared to how much was being spent to 'ride'. in this economy, both need to be working. if he is working and she isnt (or vise versa) then there is a loss of potential income.