Landstar Satellite Tracking Drivers!!!!

A bill has been introduced in congress that will require all owners of trucks to install onboard recorders. It is sponsored by Alexander of Tennessee and Pryor of Arkansas. Would you care to know where some of the largest trucking companies are headquartered? I called both of their offices to express my opinion and to ask why they are forcing this on this industry. I got a different answer for each office. For those of you who don't want this type of legislation, you may want to call them. By the way, this legislation is being pushed by the ATA.

 

Actually the ATA conditionally supported a pilot program

If the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration conducts a pilot project to determine the effectiveness of electronic onboard recorders (EOBRs) in promoting safety and compliance and adopts various other specific principles in its regulations, the trucking industry’s largest association is prepared to back mandatory use of the devices for hours-of-service compliance. The American Trucking Associations’ board of directors adopted policy language to that effect last month at its annual meeting in Boston.
“ATA is constantly seeking new solutions to improve highway safety for all Americans,” said ATA President Bill Graves. “As this issue is studied by FMCSA, we feel that the policy guidance offered by ATA represents a common-sense approach to a complicated issue.”
In February, two ATA committees – Safety Policy and Technology and Engineering – established working groups to develop proposed policy language related to EOBRs. The groups merged in March and over the next several months developed the policy adopted by the ATA board.
The ATA policy lists nine issues that must be “satisfactorily addressed” for ATA to support a federal regulation requiring the use of EOBRs for hours compliance. Those conditions are that:
· There should be sound, consensus-based evidence that EOBR use leads to enhanced fleet safety performance by such means as accident rate reduction and improved compliance, therefore increasing the credibility of EOBR systems as a cost-effective technology for motor carriers;
· EOBR systems should be based on the minimal, functional and performance specifications necessary to record and report hours-of-service compliance accurately and assure reliability and utility of operation;
· Statutory protections should be afforded to motor carriers pertaining to the control, ownership and admissibility/discoverability of data generated and derived from EOBRs, and to assure the privacy rights of drivers;
· Drivers shall be responsible for operating the EOBR in full compliance with all applicable regulations;
· Any EOBR regulation must address the operational diversity of the trucking industry, continue existing exceptions to the record of duty status, and consider additional exemptions that balance compliance and the evolving industry diversity;
· Motor carriers using compliant EOBRs should be relieved of the burden of retaining supporting documents for hours-of-service compliance and enforcement purposes;
· Any EOBR mandate, if instituted, should be made simultaneously applicable to all vehicles of the affected population of motor carriers, and it also should avoid any implementation inequities identified and take measures to eliminate them;
· Any EOBR regulation that takes an incentive-based approach should allow for reasonable and defensible flexibility in the hours-of-service rules for drivers and motor carriers;
· Tax incentives should be pursued as a means to facilitate adoption of EOBR systems.
FMCSA has announced plans to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking on EOBRs early next year, but it’s unclear whether the agency’s proposal would mandate recorders. ATA’s conditional support for mandatory recorders could indicate a belief that mandatory EOBRs are coming.
But the rulemaking also would need to address other issues, especially the fact that available technologies bear little resemblance to those in place in 1988, when the current standards for voluntary automatic onboard recorders were adopted.
In its rejection of the hours-of-service regulations implemented in January 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit questioned FMCSA’s failure to explore mandatory electronic onboard recorders adequately.






The bill your discussing was backed by 5 major carriers but not the ATA






5 trucking companies back EOBR legislation


Five trucking companies on Wednesday, Sept. 29, announced their support for legislation introduced by U.S. Sens. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) that would require trucking companies engaged in interstate commerce to install electronic onboard recorders in all trucks in order to verify the duty status of their truck drivers.
The five companies – J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Knight Transportation, Maverick USA, Schneider National and U.S. Xpress Enterprises – are forming an industry coalition, The Alliance for Driver Safety & Security, to urge Congress to pass the legislation and also to advance other measures that can improve highway safety within the trucking industry and benefit the motoring public. Executives for the companies have asked all transportation firms that embrace the legislation to join the coalition and support the effort.
The Commercial Driver Compliance Improvement Act would require commercial motor vehicles used in interstate commerce to install the electronic devices within three years after passage. The legislation will require companies to install an electronic device that is engaged to the truck engine that will identify the driver operating the truck, record a driver’s duty status and monitor the location and movement of the vehicle. The legislation calls for utilizing existing technology and devices that are currently in the marketplace.
Passing the bill “will improve safety on our nation’s highways by applying technology to document driver compliance,” says Craig Harper, chief operating officer of Lowell, Ark.-based J.B. Hunt. Kevin Knight, chairman and chief executive officer of Phoenix-based Knight, says the legislation “is a sensible initiative to improve working conditions for commercial drivers and to promote highway safety. … Under a uniform standard, the public will be able to rely on the hours in service of all drivers rather than just some drivers.”

 

My goodness

This is about tracking folks , not how many log books you can run without killing someone ,

Let's talk about what the poster whated to talk about on this thread

 

I'm just parroting what others here have said, don't shoot the parrot...

 

If there was ever a time in the trucking industry to shut down, protest AND strike..........Now is the time...........

 

If your idea of a good driver is one that never killed anyone, then yes, we do have a different definition of "good driver".

 

Funny you should mention that...Because I have gone coast to coast, several times, in 2.5 days. Went to sleep, and slept until I woke up on my own, and went back in 2.5 days... I have driven from West of Amarillo Texas, to the phili market, straight through, without stopping (except fuel, show, togo, and a flat)... And many other times, I have driven over 24 hours straight, from Edicaon New Jersey to my home in East Texas.....

AND I NEVER WRECKED, WRECKED ANYONE, OR KILLED ANYONE....

What part of "sleeping when I get sleepy", don't you understand.

You know, just because smeone told you that driving legal makes you a safe driver, doesn't mean you have to believe them. If you aint got sense enough to pull over and get some sleep when you need it, do you think your gonna have sense enough to remember what the law is and do it when your told?

And please, don't give me the "It's not me, it's everyone else" story. Because you are everyone else. I am everyone else. We are all everyone else.

Truck drivers better wake up soon. Because there will be absolutly no independence in driving, if we let this CSA 2010 go full steam ahead.