This really frosts my balls

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

...So stop blaming one person for the fuck ups of a Demoncratically controlled Congress. You guys are going to eat this like a big shit sandwhich if you don't come up with a solution soon. And I will be just like you in a few years pointing fingers and telling you where you failed. The difference will be that I will not be putting the blame on one figure head idiot but a who group of Congressmen and women.

I concede. I will not blame one person any longer. I will blame the entire repubican party and all conservatives. You got us into this mess.

From here.

[Shawnee123]

[glatt]

Nice chart there Spex, but it shows 27 squares going to the Democrats and 24 squares going to the Republicans. If you were posting it to show that the Republicans have had more power since 1977, it doesn't support your point. You should have selected only the years since 1981. Then it would support your point.

[Shawnee123]

The circle gets the square.

[Pico and ME]

.

[Pico and ME]

Originally Posted by glatt

Nice chart there Spex, but it shows 27 squares going to the Democrats and 24 squares going to the Republicans. If you were posting it to show that the Republicans have had more power since 1977, it doesn't support your point. You should have selected only the years since 1981. Then it would support your point.

Keeping it simple is a good idea, but I still got the point.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by glatt

Nice chart there Spex, but it shows 27 squares going to the Democrats and 24 squares going to the Republicans. If you were posting it to show that the Republicans have had more power since 1977, it doesn't support your point. You should have selected only the years since 1981. Then it would support your point.

The facts are the facts. My point is that our current problems have developed on the repubican watch.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yes, but they had help.

[BrianR]

Redux:

The hours of service have NEVER been that high. It was merely proposed. The challenges to the HOS are to make them SHORTER, not longer. Giving us that one extra hour a day to drive did not cause accidents. There has been ONE since that happened in '03. Most accidents tend to happen in the first TWO hours, not the end. I had as cite in my other computer but this one is too old to have that history. I'll have to go find it again.

But I can't find a single time that the rules allowed 77 or 88 hours to work (not necessarily drive) ever. It's been the 60/70 hour rule for decades.

I can and have driven for 11 hours straight. And could go more. Not everyone can. YOU likely couldn't, but then again, you're not a long-haul trucker. We eat driving hours with a spoon! We're used to it.

If *I* were going to rodo the HOS, I'd throw out the 70 hour rule entirely and leave the 11 and 14 hour rules alone. It serves no purpose. Then I'd reinstitute the "old" rule regarding split breaks...to wit: ten hours off duty in a 21-hr period, in any combination of a minimum of two in the bunk. Many team drivers like to go 5x5, thast is, five hours driving, five hours asleep...around the clock for weeks at a time. That works nicely. ten hours asleep is plenty for anyone. Most rookies can do five hours at the wheel.

For the last two weeks, I have been running against my 70. The best I can do is about 6-8 hours on duty a day, because of that rule. I can easily do more but the government says I'm tired. BAH! I have plenty of sleep. I have had one-hour days before and will again, so sayeth the 70 hr rule.

There are four principal groups against the HOS right now...only ONE knows the slightest thing about trucking...the Teamsters. The rest are "concerned citizen groups" who know nothing about driving trucks, only what they see on paper. They work 40 hour weeks and say they're tired and WE do 70??? We must be EXHAUSTED! But they don't see the hours wasted waiting to be loaded, which could be used to sleep but cannot due to the regulation changes. They count our lunch break as time on duty for the day even though the HOS does not.

None of them has ever even spent the night in a truck. Yet they propose to tell us how to work/sleep/drive. They have no idea what we do or the time that gets wasted. If only we could have those hours back!

I say, let truckers regulate truckers...we know what is needed and how to get it. It's what we do! Each driver knows his or her sleep requirement and can get it....from four to ten hours a day. Nearly ALL of us are concerned with safety first. None of us wants to be too sleepy to drive and we certainly don't want to kill anyone due to our own inattention. But telling us one-size sleep regs fit all doesn't work either. Most of us can go six hours or so on a two-hour nap. I drove from Hazleton PA to El Paso, TX that way (the HOS doesn't cover our POV). I drove until I got sleepy, had a snack, slept for a few hours (2-3), walked the dog, then drove six or so more.. How long did the trip take? 41 hours start to finish. In my truck, that same trip would have taken three full days.

Please stay out of my truck unless I invite you in. Thanks.

I have the same thoughts about the people who wrote the idling regs. To wit: none allowed. THEY go home to w warm/cool house. They don't sleep out in the cold or heat in their cars. *I* do. That engine is my heat/AC, power, light and charges my batteries so I can go in the morning. Their way, I shiver/sweat all night, barely sleep due to that, then wake up to a warm cooler, spoiled food and a dead battery pack because the truck takes power to just sit there. Now I need a jump start just to get going. Better to either let us idle or use some other way like APUs or shore power. Scarce things but I think a tax break would stimulate that handily. Make it worth while to install shore power in a truck stop (think extension cords for trucks), IdleAire systems (better idea) or just build a truck stop! They are not profitable items anymore. Especially in/near cities. Strip malls offer much better return on valuable land. We just don'r spend enough money per visit to turn enough of a profit. Fuel offers a small profit (about six cents a gallon), food a bit more (a meal in the choke-and-puke costs around $10-12 for a cost to the stop of half that) but that's about all. Incidental purchases (coffee, sodas, snacks, cigs, parts for the trucks etc) don't make up the rest. So many truck stops either franchise out to a chain or close. Mom and pop operations are disappearing fast, along with the parking spaces. Soon, there will be only one truck stop chain (debate rages as to whether it will be T/A or Pilot) and little else. No more personal service from a family friend for generations (White family in TN). No more Flo, slinging hash and telling stories in AL. No more doses of Jesus with your coffee (PA), no more interesting stuff (nearly all indian res stops). Just bland crap that is the same everywhere, same coffee, same fast food (the restaurants are disappearing faster than the truck stops).

I used to have a thread following me around the country. I have a blog, too. Few here followed my thread, which I allowed to die. No one has asked me anything about my life, experiences or things I see/do. TW argued with me over fuel pumps once. I try to meet you all but few ever managed to meet me. I understand that sometimes your life and mine don't coincide. Or you aren't interested in leaving the wife and kid at midnight to go out. I understand, really. For those of you who were interested enough to give me a phone number to coordinate (or not), I will continue to use it when I am available to you, time considering. I promise not to call in the middle of the night! For the rest of you, forget it. I'm not wasting my time and data count to bother anymore.

If you know about my blog, I will keep that up. All five of you. Everyone else, don't bother. Trucking may not interest you, my life sure doesn't. I have few people to talk to at all and I do get lonely. But I have friends I can call to get me through the lonely hours and long miles. At least until they ban cell phone use (with a headset) for us, too. And you probably won't even notice.

Even that article I posted. No one notices that it was written by the AAJ, formerly ATLA, the ambulance-chasers who are out to sue anyone and everyone and reapportion blame from the parties involved to the ones with the deepest pockets.. And turn a mighty tidy profit to themselves in the process. Consider the source! Of course they think it's the truckers and the parent companies. It's in their best interest to claim big numbers and carnage on the highways from "unsafe trucks", when they mostly mean buses and dump trucks, not long haul class 8 trucks and truckers. Makes better fodder for juries. But those lawsuits have far-reaching effects not immediately seen.

More regulation that is not needed, higher out-of-pocket expenses for YOU, the consumer of what we haul. You think the fines a company pays for a truck safety violation comes out of their pockets? Not a chance! YOU pay it when we raise the rates to cover our costs and our customer raises their prices for everything to cover higher shipping cost.

If truckers ever got together and organised, we could run this country. We could change whatever we wanted! CARB needs to go? Boycott California until it does. Within a week, there would be riots in the streets when the gas runs out, the food runs out, the mail doesn't move, the shelves go bare. It won't take very long, I assure you, to find out how much us truckers touch your life every day.

Keep regulating us to death, and you are I promise, and there won't me any of us left, except the third-world drivers they bring in to replace us. EOBRs are being foisted on us to better enforce laws, not to make us safer or make fleets more productive. These things are costly! and unsafe, but that's another rant. HOS changes from strident but unrelated "safety" groups are slowly strangling us. Idling regulations are literally killing us (Yes, Phoenix, I'm looking at YOU), yet all most people can do is point at the environment and feel better about themselves because they "did something". Many trucks are being taken off the road and either parked or destroyed because of new emission laws. A new engine from Cummins will now cost $9000 more due to new emission technology MANDATED by the government, who will not rest until all emissions are pure air and potable water. This costs a lot of money, yet they just expect US to pay for it. In CA, many truck owners are facing $20000 or more in upgrades to their trucks to re-engine them to comply with draconian new laws. CSA 2010 can potentially cost 175,000 drivers there [sic] jobs due to new reporting rules and databases, and the list goes on and on and on.

All of this will cost YOU. You pay the costs, not us. How much is enough? How much is too much? Only you decide.

[BrianR]

that wasn't pointed solely at Redux, just the first bit. The rest was in general. My hot buttons have been pushed and there's all these soapboxes around.....

[Pico and ME]

So what frosts your balls about this article is not the point that companies who are flaunting industry regulations are causing serious accidents but that this point is being driven by lawyers?

Brian:

Thank you for your insight and perspective on the issue. I dont doubt for a second that you know about it than me.

But here is where we part ways.

I dont believe any industry that affects public health and safety should be left to self-regulation, whether its truckers, pharmaceutical companies, meat processors, industrial polluters, etc.

Your experience and knowledge should be more heavily weighted in the regulatory process than others but that is where it ends for me.

Recent history is too full of examples of industry and the private sector put profit above public health/safety.

I also understand your skepticism about trial lawyers. On the other hand, the trucking industry has been major financial contributors to lawmakers (more to Republicans than Democrats).

Trucking: Long-Term Contribution Trends

[xoxoxoBruce]

That's just to drive the independents out.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by glatt

Nice chart there Spex, but it shows 27 squares going to the Democrats and 24 squares going to the Republicans. If you were posting it to show that the Republicans have had more power since 1977, it doesn't support your point. You should have selected only the years since 1981. Then it would support your point.