Comments about the trucking industry

By David Tanner, Land Line associate editor

Recent statements by the American Trucking Associations that electronic on-board recorders improve driver morale are insulting to say the least.

ATA President and CEO Bill Graves made the claim on Wednesday, April 25, as part of the association’s push to get Congress to mandate EOBRs in all trucks. It shows just how far the ATA is willing to go to further its agenda.

Graves started off his comments by saying EOBRs can help trucking operations improve routes, and manage fuel usage and other aspects involved with a fleet.

“In addition, research shows that drivers at fleets using electronic logging devices report improved morale,” Graves said. He then urged lawmakers to join “the vast majority in the trucking industry who want to further improve trucking’s compliance and safety record.”

These statements are insulting, and here’s why. For starters, the ATA does not represent or speak for drivers. Secondly, EOBR tracking technology likely has the opposite effect on driver morale.

Truckers have been subjected to pressure to meet delivery schedules set by other people since the beginning. Job pressure to keep moving can range from encouragement and incentives to outright harassment and threats.

Drivers routinely get calls and messages during breaks and rest periods and ordered to keep those wheels turning. As long as a driver has available hours left, he or she is expected to move at all costs.

The harassment issue is one of the main reasons OOIDA sued and beat the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s initial rule on electronic on-board recorders in court.

Why then would the ATA, or anyone else for that matter, think that EOBRs would improve driver morale? An EOBR is no different than any other method or device used to keep the truck wheels turning – without regard to whether a driver is tired or in serious need of a break.

Points about efficiency and productivity are one thing, but that hardly qualifies something like an EOBR for a government mandate. Big-business trucking can try to make an argument about safety, but they have nothing to show EOBRs would improve safety over paper logs.

Because an EOBR only logs the time the truck is moving, there’s no accounting for other industry pressures and hours-of-safety concerns such as uncompensated detention time at the docks or shutting the truck off throughout the day to throw off the clock.

If tired drivers are forced to keep driving because an EOBR says they have time left on the clock, then how does that improve safety?

Safety stats for trucking are as positive as they’ve ever been, yet truckers continue to face an ever-broadening onslaught of laws and regulations as if the numbers were getting worse. Talk about a blow to driver morale.

We found something else interesting this week.

The FMCSA has announced it is looking for carriers to participate in a survey about on-board safety systems and driver performance.

These include driver behavior monitoring, lane/roadway departure warning, forward collision warning, fatigue monitoring, alcohol detection, automated onboard recording of driver logs and continuous naturalistic data collection.

No doubt they have “improved driver morale” in mind, as well.

Medical professionals, many who stand to benefit from such a regulation, continue to beat the drum that most truck drivers should be tested for sleep apnea.

I have a short reply:

Americans are 10 times more likely to die because of a medical professional’s error than they are in a crash with a truck.

Let that sink in.

As Land Line reported last week, advisory boards including the FMCSA Medical Review Board approved recommendations that all truck drivers with a body mass index of 35 or greater be evaluated for obstructive sleep apnea.

Some studies estimate U.S. patient deaths by medical errors in at least the tens of thousands, making Americans 50 times more likely to die at the hand of a doctor than by a truck crash.

The annual fatalities tied to wrecks involving commercial vehicles has hovered near the 4,000 mark for years, actually improving the past few years and dropping below 4,000. That 4,000 figure includes any wreck in which a commercial vehicle was involved, including when the driver of a motorcycle or passenger car is killed while rear-ending a stopped truck.

Ben Hoffman is chairman of FMCSA’s Medical Review Board and the chief medical officer for GE and. Yes – that GE – the one that manufactures CPAP machines.

Hoffman took control of last week’s meeting, denigrating opposing viewpoints and largely ignoring anyone who didn’t agree with his opinion that most overweight truckers likely have sleep apnea and need CPAPS specifically to treat the affliction.

I’m stunned that Hoffman apparently doesn’t feel he may have a conflict of interest.

For fans of the NBC show “30 Rock,” this would be a bit like Jack Donaghy, the fictional TV character played by Alec Baldwin as GE’s president of East Coast Television and Microwave Oven Programming overseeing a federal advisory board that regulates television. Well, regulates television and microwaves – and can require millions of Americans to purchase more microwaves.

But I’ll say it again – Americans are at least 10 times more likely to be killed by a medical professional than by a truck wreck – even a wreck caused by you.

After the Medical Review Board voted to recommend drivers with a BMI of 35 undergo expensive testing, OOIDA Executive Vice President Todd Spencer told me he doesn’t disagree that health problems exist for most Americans, including truckers.

The problem is, no one is looking at factors that affect driver rest for all drivers – no matter their body mass index.

Issues like hours-of-service rules that discourage a driver for pulling over and taking a nap when they’re tired, or shippers and receivers who can make a driver wait for hours to be loaded or unloaded.

Board members shouldn’t be able to recommend changes that would directly benefit members’ employers.

“Realistically, the conflict of interest in the makeup of that group is just absolutely glaring,” Spencer said. “They by no means have an objective viewpoint. The Medical Review Board has an economic interest tied to this particular issue.”

The Medical Review Board includes some individuals with lengthy academic resumes. It’s too bad the board still includes no one with knowledge of or background in trucking.

I interviewed the previous Medical Review Board chairman about both the higher number of deaths from medical errors and the conflict of interest issues two years ago. Read the interview by clicking here.

by Sandi Soendker, Land Line Magazine

Like “Lonesome Dove,” the story of speed limits in Texas could be a TV series. Only crazier.

Let’s go back to late fall 1996. At that time, OOIDA headquarters was housed in a remodeled truck stop at Exit 24 in Grain Valley, MO.

The national speed limit had been eliminated in 1995, and it was up to the states to set their own. OOIDA had lobbied hard, along with the National Motorists Association, to get rid of 55. ATA was hellbent against it, preaching that eliminating the national limit would be a disaster. After the double nickel was history, OOIDA set its sights on convincing state lawmakers that uniform speed limits were vital to highway safety.

One of those states with split speeds was Texas. The Texas legislature was scheduled to convene in 1997, and that would be OOIDA’s first opportunity to convince Lone Star lawmakers to get rid of the differential. If the issue did not make it to the legislators, it would be another two years that truckers would be saddled with a dangerous speed variance – nearly four years after the national speed limit was eliminated.

A number of Texas members (T.G. Swarb, Bill Harwell, John Hill, Clifford Floeck and Charles Holman were a few that I remember, along with Frank Owen) worked hard with their representatives to see that the issue of truck speeds came up in the legislature in ’97. Clifford, as I recall, virtually camped out in Austin. And Holman, a bullhauler – well, he never did know the meaning of quit.

OOIDA’s Todd Spencer wrote to OOIDA members in the January/February 1997 Land Line: “Achieving uniform speed limits in Texas will be an extremely difficult battle. Are you in it for the long haul?”

It would be a long haul, for sure. Our members pounded their lawmakers and wrote letters to then Gov. George W. Bush. OOIDA found a sympathetic ear with Texas Rep. Anna Mowrey. She filed a House bill that was approved by the Texas Transportation Committee and felt sure the bill would go on to the floor and pass. She continued her tireless effort until the last possible moment. After her original bill missed a scheduling deadline, she succeeded in attaching a uniform car/truck amendment to a Senate bill as it came up for a vote in the House.

Back in Grain Valley, we were all on pins and needles. The Senate bill passed the House with Mowrey’s amendment and then went to House-Senate conference committee. We went home from the office not knowing the outcome – but things looked good and someone said the beer was in the fridge. The next day we were ecstatic to read the AP news and Texas news reports claiming that split speed limits for cars and trucks had been voted out, eliminated. For a few hours, we were on cloud nine. Then the bad news. The news reports were WRONG.

Lawmakers had left the split speed vote for the last item of the day and the last vote of the session. It seems that the Associated Press reporter who covered it left before the vote. He must have thought it was a sure thing, and he had a deadline to meet. The reporter grabbed up the amended version of Mowrey’s bill instead of the version that was voted down after he left and then signed by Gov. Bush. The speed limit part of the bill? It had, in fact, been yanked at the last minute.

I clearly remember that day. What a disappointment. What happened? In spite of all the last-minute faxes, calls, letters from Texas truckers – the lawmakers voted with the bill’s author, Sen. Chris Harris to strip Mowrey’s amendment. We were flabbergasted. Mowrey had met with Gov. Bush and came away with the assurance that if the bill made it to his desk, he would sign it.

Then why did they flip at the last minute and strip the bill? It remained murky. We later found out it could have been due to a last-minute letter from the commissioner of the Texas DOT who said increasing the speed limit on 18-wheelers was not a wise thing to do in his opinion.

Two years later, we were back at it and Todd and other OOIDA members were again beating a path to Austin. One of our most persistent fighters was Charles Holman. Sadly, he succumbed to cancer before we had a chance to do battle with split speeds again.

Todd met with Rep. Carl Isett of Lubbock, who filed a bill to eliminate the split speeds for cars and trucks. Mowrey co-sponsored it. Sen. Teel Bivins introduced the Senate bill, and it passed. The measure was approved by both houses, but there was a snag over some details and it went back to conference committee.

That committee ended up restricting trucks to 60 on farm-to-market and ranch roads during the day and 55 at night. But at OOIDA, it was a victory. Split speeds were mostly gone. I remember we did a full page ad in Land Line saying “THANK YOU TEXAS OOIDA MEMBERS!”

Fast forward to 2011. In today’s news, State Legislative Editor Keith Goble reports on a big speed limit update in Texas. Starting Sept. 1, there will no longer be a distinction between daytime and nighttime speeds, as well as a slower speed for trucks. All vehicles will be allowed to travel the same speed regardless of the time of day.

At last, 12 years after the battle began, it’s the complete elimination of split speeds on Texas roads.

So – is there any beer in the fridge?

by Bob Martin

Let me see if I’m understanding this right. The U.S. and Mexico are working toward fully opening the border for both U.S. and Mexican trucks. The Mexican trucks are going to have to stand up to our rules, meeting the U.S. safety standards. To name a few things, they’ll be using black boxes (well, EOBRs), which U.S. taxpayers will pay for. There will be driver background checks, past drug history, etc. Drivers must handle English adequately.

It’s been said over and over, and I’ll say it again. In Mexico, it’s not the way they claim it will work. It’s the way it will REALLY work. If they want a driver for the program they are starting, they can take a blank sheet of paper and create him a background, drug-free past, excellent driving record. And how are you going to check it?

That first bunch that comes across will be standing tall, driving late model trucks that are familiar to us. They will have drivers with the proper paperwork, speaking English, doing all the right things, marching to our drums.

By the way: We’ve just learned that your elected representative in the U.S. House is being asked by Congressman “Doc” Hastings of Washington state to sign onto a letter to support a “new” cross-border trucking program with Mexico. I think these lawmakers that are pushing this so hard should go down there and see the real trucking world in Mexico. I don’t mean fly over it in a chopper. Rent a car, leave all black brick gadgets in the motel except cameras, and go where there is heavy truck activity. They would get a sample of the trucks that will be coming across as soon as the newness wears off the program.

What they would see are trucks with name brands they’ve never heard of, and U.S. trucks they bought after we wore them out. You can see these trucks every day, being piggy-backed three or four at a time, one towing two wrecks, flatbed loads of wrecks, engines, drivetrains and so on headed for Mexico. It seems like most of these at some point will funnel into I-35, which of course runs from Minnesota to Laredo. Rest assured, these trucks will be back.

The border towns don’t sound anything like I knew not so long ago. A lot of us drivers went across for a little R&R. I didn’t ever feel threatened. As young as I was when I first drove a truck into Mexico, it was easy to figure some basic ground rules. Don’t get drunk, be friendly, and don’t start nothing. And be ready to pay cash for what you want. One time I “hired” a guard to keep an eye on my truck overnight, like for five bucks. Next morning he was lying in a hammock hooked up under my trailer. Nobody bothered a thing.

Back to U.S. trucks being able to go anywhere in Mexico. With all the violence going on down there I wouldn’t expect many drivers would be too anxious to haul freight down there.

The daily news, however, is reporting that Mexico is amping up security for truckers by posting more police along the truck routes. All this does is make me think about some of the “what ifs.” Everybody knows that so many law enforcement people are on the take. That’s why the drug cartels have them in their pocket; they can pay more than the government. So “what if” a federale stops you for some infraction? Do you think he’s going to give you a ticket, or have you contact the court? Zip your Comdata card? Again, mucho dinero is the answer.

What if he says you need to “go downtown” … trust me, you don’t want to go downtown.

So how much cash would you need to carry on a trip to cover stuff like this? That’s a big concern, carrying cash. Would the boss reimburse you? You ain’t going to have receipts.

This all sounds pretty ugly to me. On the other hand, it could be an opportunity for U.S. truckers with the “soldier of fortune” mind-set.

What if someone offered me a deal with big bucks, bonus, armored truck, a couple U.S. Marine Rifle Squad escorts? I would consider it but not for long.

The recent ruling on the Minnesota lawsuit is a win not just in the decision itself but also in at least one mainstream newspaper’s report. The Star Tribune couldn’t ignore what has been obvious to all of us since the beginning.

The fatigue checklist used by state police was just plain wrong.

The newspaper’s coverage of it came out this week and not only did they write about it once, but also a second time after conducting interviews with personnel from Minnesota.
This is a refreshing change from the usual coverage of anything to do with truckers and their sleep habits.

Readers were eager to take advantage of the comments fields and voice their reactions to the ruling. Some of that dialogue demonstrated sensible insight, such as this comment by “sammymetro” who summed it up nicely:

“We need police. We need safe roads. We do not need police making policy.”

I like that.

Some non-trucking respondents were quick to assume the ruling meant that personal freedom over-rode safety and chaos would soon take over the highways.

“A great win for professional truckers and a great loss to the rest of the motoring public.”

Ouch, that hurt.

However, there were also many informed readers jumping in with good statistics and judging from the ratings of those comments, the well-reasoned trucking folks were winning the information contest.

For too long, it’s been put out there in mainstream that “30 percent of truck crashes are caused by fatigue.” It turns out that statistic is really way off the mark and outright false.

The FMCSA put out a new study this past fall stating that fatigue is a factor in 1.4 percent of truck-related fatalities.

But mainstream media doesn’t seem to latch on to this information, not the way they certainly did with the TSA and airports as far as personal freedom versus safety. Why is that? Maybe if we had cell phone videos of truckers getting body scans and being locked in little glass boxes along the roads we’d get more sympathy.

Or, maybe it makes for an easier sound bite to say “tired truckers” than to say “fatigue is a factor for a very minuscule amount of truck accidents and most are actually caused by passenger vehicle drivers.”

I guess it’s just too tiring for them.