Why CSA 2010 and E-Logs are a good thing.

Are you prepared to back up your claims of safety with evidence? Oh yeah, remember when you tried that several posts back? It's NOT about safety! Nor, should fines and lawsuits be about it.

 

Thanks for trying. Those are some interesting statistics, nonetheless.

 

compliane and safety are separate issues. They do cover some ground where it is mutually inclusive. Without the HOS companies, like mine, would run you until you drop and then we'd call you to tell you to keep going. So in that regard it is about safety, but for the most part running compliant doens't make you any safer, however there does need to be HOS and CSA for that matter to hold carriers and drivers accountable for their actions. EOBR's are just a sign of the times, if you can do something with a computer eventually you will. It's easier for the carrier and can help with addressing HOS issues as they arise, as opposed to a paper log where you deal with HOS issues 30-60 days later. If the goal is to change behaviors it's much easier to do so when the conversation can be had in closer proximity to the violation.

 

First there was on to many zero's in my number. Should have been 500.

Now Injun that is 1.5% of all traffic fatalities. All not just big trucks, four wheelers all. 45,000 and change for 2009 so 500 is close.

Gman and Volvo whom said cars shouldn't have more, and more specifically where have I said it? I haven't, and that argument of" their worse so I shouldn't be better is juvenile. We are not discussing four wheelers here because the FMCSA has no jurisdiction on them.

Should four wheelers be examined absolutely. Hell I have stated several times there should be extensive and permanent consequences to four wheelers for speeding, lane violation, impaiared driving(which could be worded to include fatigued driving). None of which is relevant to a discussion of enforcing HOS on commercial vehicles which is what ELOGS and EOBR's are set to do.

Either you believe the HOS works or you don't. All they do is enforce them despite the paranoid ramblings. No one is going to be able to call up peoplenet and demand the location of a truck but the owner. No one else will have your unit ID. LEO's are not gonna compile the unit numbers matched with certain drivers in certain trucks. Just way to much information that serves no purpose. If LEO's have a reason to want you they have a process called Arrest Warrants that will track you far faster depending on the severity of the warrant. Unpaid parking they wait for you to pop up. Vehicular manslaughter they pull everything on you and have you in hours.



I know the woe is the pitiful truck driver will continue. I'm sure airline pilots, train operaters, crane operators, dairy men, and sewage treatment technicians(all heavily regulated industries) commiserate. Maybe you guys cna get together and throw a pity party in the spring.

 

Tazz, four wheeler crashes are irrelevant to this discusion. We are talking about EOBRs on big trucks. Using the guv'mint's own numbers, I have shown (even though I, too, used one too many 0s) that they are not going to have much, if any, effect on crash data. The number of crashes I used was total fatality crashes involving big trucks. I did not use only the number of crashes involving big trucks and cars. Therefore, the number of people driving cars being killed by a fatigued trucker is even smaller.

Total fatalities in all types of crashes for 2008 was 37,261. That's people killed, not total crashes. I have no idea where you're pulling your numbers from, but you need to take your own advice and research before posting numbers. Your number of 45,000 is more than 17% higher than the actual data.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...hYGEDw&usg=AFQjCNHSJjwq7nLK-PJFVUsFkKXtJFh0gA


Oddly, motorcycle fatalities have continued to rise. How's that helmet law working out?

 

If I had to guess on the reason behind motorcycle fatalities rising, I would say there is a correlation between the increased number of motocycles on the road, and the increased fatalities. Lots of people who shouldn't be riding picked up a motorcycle when gasoline got so ridonkulous, to save money on fuel. Whenever you significantly add to the number of any kind of vehicle on the road, the fatality rate will increase. My best friend's ex-husband was killed in a bike only accident when he made an error late at night and laid the bike over. Should he have been riding? I can't answer that. He did. And he made a tragic mistake that cost his daughter her father.

I'd be interested more in the number of fatalities per x bikes on the road, and the trend there. However, I still say that inexperience is going to account for a good percentage of those accidents as well.

Totally my opinion.

 

Here are numbers from one of the "safety" groups. Even their numbers prove EOBR is not necessary. Look at the numbers first, then see what the writer has to say about it. It almost looks like the writer sees a completely different set of numbers than I do. Additionally, the writer claims truckers can legally drive 77 hours each week. Would somebody please demonstrate how I can do that?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...gfGYDw&usg=AFQjCNE7cqlkriGEo3BWJzcE0AcwKlW-bg

 

Using your statement, truck fatalities shoud have more than tripled since 1975. I will go from vehicle miles traveled, since that's what I have from the link I just posted.

In 1975, trucks travelled 81,330M miles. 3,673 people died in crashes with trucks that year.

In 2008 (latest figures available on this link) trucks travelled 227,458M miles. That's 2.79 times as many miles.

By your statement, total fatalities in 2008 should have been 10,247. Actual number: 3,389. That's a drop of nearly 8%, despite a 279% increase in truck presence on the roads.

Funny how those pesky numbers just keep getting in the way of assumptions and agendas.

 

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Vehicles/VehiclesAllVehicles.aspx

Volvo's 1.5% number is based off total deaths as far as I can tell. He hasn't posted his source.

Truck tractor is 2100 give or take. Using the numbers (for ratio purposes because FARS lacks designation for fatigue) LTCCS of 13% gives a number of 280. However driver inattention is seperately listed at 9% and inadequate surveillance at 14% some of which I would argue is caused by fatigue.

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/research-technology/analysis/FMCSA-RRA-07-017.htm

The LTCCS summary brief.


However like I said. Either you believe the HOS works or not. I do and so do most people. That being my belief enhanced enforcement can only improve the benefit.

Now would it be nice in a world I could trust others to not push beyond their abilities? Sure it would. People should also know not to speed through work zones, inspect their vehicles, not tailgate......... So you'll forgive me if I do not buy into people will not drive tired because it is risky. And further I believe the average healthy adult is capable of operating inside the HOS in a safe manner and adherence to them works.

 

Wo the people that kill innocent civilians and found to be in violation just don't count? Really?

It is about safety. It is about people chasing dollars endangering others. It can only be about revenue(and it is not or the ticket numbers would be approaching 100%) by driver simply following the law.

It is simple, you know the rule do not violate it and you will not recieve a ticket.

Whether you believe the HOS has reduced accidents and deaths or not the simple fact is they are down.