Land Line Now Blog

The Land Line Now Blog has moved

2008-10-28T09:24:00.002-05:00

We have moved the Land Line Now Blog from BlogSpot onto our own Web site.

All our future posts will be placed there.

To view future postings on the Land Line Now Blog, go to http://www.landlinenow.com.

thanks,

Mark H. Reddig
Host
Land Line Now

Attitude Adjustment

2008-10-24T11:22:00.001-05:00

I know the economy is bad. I know we’re all struggling to get by. I know sometimes it’s raining and sometimes your dog dies and sometimes you just have a really bad day. And that’s fine. It happens to all of us.

But I’m getting more and more suggestions for RAZZBERRIES these days, it seems, from folks complaining about the attitude that they’ve been getting at truck stops across the country.

I won’t say it’s reached epidemic proportions yet, but the monkey has definitely escaped from the lab and infected more than a few people. I had a couple of calls recently about one truck stop that blocked off the majority of its parking lot and told truckers those spots were reserved for a biker event that was coming to town.

That’s all well and good, but one caller told me he just wanted to park his truck and go take a shower. He was very rudely told by the manager of the establishment that he was not welcome there and that the spaces were reserved for bikers. Another caller told me he had a very similar experience at the same place.

Then there was the guy who went to buy fuel and couldn’t use his card because the pump wasn’t on, so he went to the fuel desk to ask for help and was confronted with a line of people buying everything in the store except fuel. He simply asked the woman at the fuel desk if she could turn the pump on and was very rudely told that he would have to wait in line. He finally had to go and get the manager just to get the pump turned on.

And then there’s Diesel Dave Sweetman’s latest column in Land Line Magazine, for another example.

I don’t know what’s going on out there, but it sounds like some of these folks could use a serious attitude adjustment. So for anyone reading this who happens to work at a truck stop, let me help clue you in on something.

You work at a truck stop. The key word there is “truck.” Truckers are your bread and butter, your lifeblood, your main reason for existing. There are plenty of truck stops out there. And trucks have these things on them called wheels that allow them to keep on rolling right past your truck stop and on to the next one.

You see, the other key word in your business is “stop.” If the trucks don’t stop, your money most definitely will.

You been here four hours! You go now!

2008-10-22T13:04:00.000-05:00

Truck parking is in short supply, and it’s a growing challenge faced by truckers nationwide.

But in some parts of the East and West Coasts, it’s at the crisis stage.

Take New Kent County, VA. An OOIDA member called us recently, saying a truck stop there posted signs that limit parking to four hours. The signs, and apparently some employees at the truck stop, say it’s a county ordinance.

I think anyone familiar with trucking knows that’s nuts. And this is representative of what’s happening in many locations on the East Coast.

A rule like this passed by a local government can only be based on one of two things: It’s either ignorance of the realities of trucking, or – worse – they just don’t want truckers hanging around.

Mind you, they certainly don’t mind eating, wearing or buying what the truckers bring. They just don’t want them around.

So which one is it? I’m betting on option No. 2.

So let’s think about solutions. And here’s where we start: How many of you live there in New Kent County, VA?

If you do live there, have you called your representative in the county government and explained this to them?

Have you explained that you pay taxes too? That truckers have no choice but to rest the amount required by the federal regulations?

Even if you don’t live there, if you just haul there, give them a call. Let them know this is having a detrimental effect on your ability to serve their citizens.

If you’re a citizen of Virginia, call your state lawmakers. Explain that putting a two-hour limit on parking in rest areas – which is also taking place in that state – prevents truckers, who have no other option, from parking in the state at all.

Get Out the Bubbly!

2008-10-21T11:43:00.000-05:00

Let’s pop some champagne and lift our glasses to Rachele Champagne.

Rachele’s the trucker from Gatineau, Quebec, who decided in July to organize the first ever all-female truck convoy to raise money for breast cancer research.

A short three months later, on October 18th, it became a reality when 29 trucks convoyed down Highway 401 in Ontario with 29 women behind the wheels.

By Rachele’s estimate, the participants raised at least $15,000.

“For 29 trucks, I’d say that’s pretty good” Rachele says.

I’ll say!

Plus, Rachele got donors to give all sorts of items that the women could take home – from bags containing things like bracelets and coffee mugs; to jackets and a coffee maker; to $1,500 worth of fuel.

“I think everyone left with a smile,” she says.

Will Rachele and the other women stage another convoy next year?

“Absolutely!” she says – adding that she bets there’ll be twice as many trucks next time.

Personally, given the short amount of time Rachele had to organize this year’s convoy, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were a hundred trucks in the next one.

So, ‘cheers!’ to Rachele Champagne or en francais, ‘Sante!’

Drill, baby, drill

2008-10-20T14:25:00.003-05:00

You’ve heard the chants at rallies across the country: Drill, baby, drill.

Folks are ready to use our domestic oil reserves so we can escape the dependence on foreign oil.

But those folks may have forgotten something. And the sad part is, it’s obvious, and I don’t think anyone – or at least very few people – have figured it out.

We can have all the oil in the world, but what if we don’t do anything to increase our refining capacity?

You can have all the oil in the world, but without the refinery capacity, what you have is a nice reserve of unrefined lubricant. It’s certainly not something you would want to put in your vehicle.

I guess the politicians missed that. Not that I’m surprised.

But we have to think beyond the political slogans and easy solutions. We have to think about the entire process of providing energy to this nation, start to finish.

If we mess up this one, we could damage our nation in ways I don’t even want to think about.

OOIDA employees get TWIC'd

2008-10-17T10:15:00.000-05:00

I recently talked to OOIDA’s Joe Rajkovacz and Rick Craig about the Transportation Worker Identification Credential, or TWIC, program. If you listen to the show at all, you probably already know all about it.

But just in case, here’s a quick recap: It’s the security card that all ports in the U.S. will be requiring by next spring. If you drive in and out of any ports in the U.S., you’ll need to have one.

One of the things Joe and Rick told me that surprised me was that you could use the TWIC card as an ID for airport security as well. I guess it makes sense. It’s a Transportation Security Administration thing, after all, and they run security at both ports and airports.

I had to laugh, though, when Rick flashed his card at Kansas City International Airport and was waived on through. Then Joe went next, only to have the security guy stop and wonder what kind of card it was supposed to be. At least the folks at the Los Angeles airport seemed to know what was going on.

It would be easy to dismiss this because Kansas City is a smaller airport. So what does it matter if they don’t know what’s going on, right?

But consider this: On September 11, 2001, a group of men made their way through sloopy airport security and managed to kill 3,000 people within a couple of hours.

The airport where they started? Portland International Jetport, Portland, ME. I’ve been to that airport many times. It makes Kansas City look like New York’s JFK Airport.

Okay, so the folks at the airports don’t know what’s going on, so what? This card is for ports, right? Surely the folks at the ports know what’s going on. Maybe they know, but for now, at least, they can’t do much with that knowledge. There are no card readers installed at the ports yet.

So does that mean you shouldn’t bother with a TWIC card? Well, that depends on whether or not you want to haul freight in and out of the ports. Flawed program or not, TWIC is here to stay.

Let’s just hope the TSA realizes that, too, and fixes those flaws before they become part of the permanent record.

CARB enforcement, no holds barred

2008-10-16T14:14:00.001-05:00

CARB has taken the kid gloves off.

The California Air Resources Board announced just last week that it was sending members of its staff into the field to begin strict enforcement of its idling rules – including the five-minute limit for commercial trucks.

Here’s how things work in a nut shell.

Trucks, even those with sleeper berths, are not allowed to idle more than 5 minutes in an hour.

The only exceptions for the vast majority of truckers are:

You are stuck in traffic;
Idling to service or inspect your vehicle;
You are using a power take-off device;
You cannot move because of mechanical failure, or bad weather;

If you violate the new truck idling rules, you could face a fine of $300. And if you do it again and again, you could face even higher fines, sometimes running $1,000 to $10,000.

The situation is dire for some truckers, who face forced confinement in their sleepers for rest periods.

The new enforcement effort has caused a lot of trucker reaction. One truck driver told us that the agency was stepping up enforcement in truck stop parking lots, something he questioned. Is it legal to go onto private property to enforce the rules?

It’s a good question.

I asked OOIDA’s Member Assistance Department about that. They concluded pretty much the same thing I did. There is nothing to stop CARB from doing that.

The truck stop is a public place, a business that welcomes members of the general public onto its property. And once CARB enforcers walk on that property, there’s nothing to stop them from ticketing any idling truck they see.

But that’s just another aspect of the situation – not the fundamental problem.

California has decided to single out truckers among all vehicle drivers as somehow responsible for the state’s air quality.

Admittedly, diesel fumes are worse than car fumes. But California has a heck of a lot more cars than it does trucks, and they’re all emitting tons upon tons of pollution.

Will state officials tell cars to shut the engines off and stop idling? I’d say no.

That’s because, first, so many cars run on the roads there, it would be impractical to try to shut them all down.

Second, trucks are an easy target. There aren’t nearly as many as cars, and with so many groups demonizing trucks, it’s easy to get lawmakers or agencies to pass a rule restricting them.

Of course, that leaves us with a number of problems that CARB hasn’t addressed. So let’s take a look at those.

First, this is inconsistent with other laws. Truckers are required to take their 10 hours off to get rest. How can the government expect truckers to get proper rest in a cab where the interior temperature may be well above 130 degrees?

Unfortunately, many of our laws contradict one another. And we the people pretty much have to live with it. Saying “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” won’t get you out of a ticket.

Second, while CARB could make an argument that owner-operators have the option of purchasing idle-reduction equipment such as APUs, no one can argue with any logic whatsoever that company drivers have that option.

So what should they do? Apparently, CARB’s answer is that they should roast out in the desert heat, which is plain bull.

So what can people like you and I do to help out those truckers?

The best thing is to get some useful information out there that can help those truckers.

We’ve spelled out the rules, which is a good step. But we plan to go much further. For truckers who don’t have an APU or other similar system, we’ll do some research and see if we can get some solid advice for you to follow.

But no matter what, be ready – those fines are high enough they could cause some real financial damage.

Are Some Journalists Taking the Easy Way Out?

2008-10-14T10:49:00.001-05:00

When I was in journalism school, I was always taught that question mark headlines – and question mark lead sentences, for that matter – were a no-no. They weren’t expressly forbidden, but they were seen as a last resort of weak writing.

You’d never know that to look at the news today, though. It seems like every news Web site and news network out there is asking questions. Is the economic crisis over? Is the economic crisis just beginning? Are land sharks a danger to you and your family? We’ll have the answer to that question coming up at 11.

ABC News seems to be one of the worst offenders in this category. Look at the headlines from their Web site from Friday, Oct. 10. Early in the morning, the headline read: “Black Friday?” And pondered just how low the stock markets were going to go.

A short time later, the headline was changed to something slightly less apocalyptic: “Gray Friday? World Markets Tank, Dow Flails from High to Low.”

Apparently someone at ABC News decided to adopt the federal government’s color-coded terror watch system and use it for news coverage.

The market threat today has been upgraded from black to gray. I suppose if it recovers, it will go to charcoal gray, then slate gray, followed by light gray. Who knows? If it’s a really good day, it could go as high as off-white.

But I digress. The problem I have with question headlines is that they are a cheap way to draw in readers or viewers or listeners. “Is grass really green?” Well, of course we all know it is, but we might tune in anyway just in case the folks on the news crew know something we don’t.

But think about it this way – if they know so much more than you, why do they keep asking such stupid questions?

I’ll have the answer for you at 11.

Trouble in the land of TWIC

2008-10-13T10:27:00.001-05:00

We reported recently that after years of delays, the federal government has finally opened all the enrollment centers for the TWIC card – the Transportation Workers Identification Credential.

Of course, we still don’t have all port facilities using the cards. And we don’t have the electronic readers necessary to check them to ensure they’re valid.

But, hey, you can enroll. I guess that’s something.

Or is it?

A trucker called in to OOIDA headquarters recently to tell us what we suspected would happen all along. To enter the ports he services, he has to have not only his TWIC card, but also a card for that port, a card for some terminals, a whole box of cards just to do his job.

The whole original idea of TWIC was not only security, but to replace all the other cards.

You may remember that back then, Todd Spencer said that TWIC would not replace the two dozen or so cards some truckers have to carry – it would be just one more card. And here we are, years later, watching that prediction come true.

This is a boondoggle, a waste of taxpayer money that has yet to yield any result for the American taxpayer or the American trucker.

Unfortunately, it’s also a reality right now. Truckers who want to work the ports have to sign up, have to turn over some very personal information, have to travel the miles and miles to get to an enrollment center, have to pay the fee.

It’s been a big concern for me to hear it’s causing truckers this kind of inconvenience … although that word hardly describes what a pain in the butt this has been.

The problem here, though, is not just the pain. It isn’t even charging a fee for what could be your fourth government background check.

It’s a philosophy of how government interacts with industry – a philosophy carried out only halfway.

The federal government has been very reluctant to put more regulation on big businesses. Some of you may read that and think, hey, I thought they wanted to deregulate all business.

But the fact is, you and all the other truckers out there know that the amount of regulation you face has not decreased one iota. You have logbooks and FAST and cargo securement and hazmat endorsements and medical cards and chain laws and spring thaw restrictions and weight limitations and split speed limits and kingpin-to-rear-axle limits and IFTA and IRP and drug tests and on and on and on.

But big business … well, things are running pretty smooth for them. The current folks running things in Washington have been pretty lax in enforcing regulations in regard to them. Ask anyone who’s talked with their carrier about possible violations of the leasing regulations.

So when the feds put TWIC out there, they said it would replace these cards, but then they did nothing to make that happen, no regulation requiring ports or terminals to use it in place of all the other cards. They just accepted that it would happen; call it a faith-based security initiative.

Well, no one is accepting on faith that you fill out your logbook. You are required to meet the regulations imposed on you. Why shouldn’t the shippers, receivers, brokers, big carriers, and yes, port terminals be required to do the same?

If TWIC is going to work, they can’t just enforce it on the trucker; they have to do something about getting the ports to use it to.

Of course, there’s also the other option – they could give up this nonsense and come up with something that actually works.

What a concept, what a radical idea! But then again, we are dealing with the feds … so don’t get your hopes up.

What’s in your wallet?

2008-10-10T10:14:00.001-05:00

Let me see if I’ve got this straight.

We’re on the brink of a financial Apocalypse because greedy Wall Street suits handed out so much bad credit … and our only salvation is to pump billions into the credit markets so the suits can start handing out credit again.

Great.

I’m going to do my patriotic part by running up the credit card at 28 percent interest.

Then I’m going to get one of those adjustable rate mortgages and put the family upside down in our payments.

Will the bank give you a home improvement loan, a vacation loan and a cereal malt beverage loan if you’re not making your monthly house payments?

If so, I’m gonna get me some of those too.

After all, the administration has set the example for borrowing – the national debt now tops $10 trillion, up from $5.7 trillion eight years ago.

That means I – and every other man, woman and child in this country – already owe $33,000, just to pay off the national debt.

China alone has underwritten $500 billion of our debt and unless they pull the ‘nuclear option’ (dumping those US treasury notes) they’ll probably lend us more.

So what’s a little more personal debt, eh?

I say let’s loosen up those credit markets at any cost – and let the good times roll!

Bike and hike? Pay to play

2008-10-07T10:15:00.000-05:00

California is in the midst of a debate about the state’s highway funding.

We say highway funding, but in reality, the proposal on the table would spend a lot of cash for things far removed from cars and trucks. The proposal would use $90 million dollars of highway user money to put a bike and hike trail along a commuter rail line.

One of our listeners did a little figuring. He calculated that for the length of the trail, that would mean the state of California would spend $1.3 million per mile.

Remember, this is a commuter rail line along an existing rail line. The land is there and available, so this is all for bike and hike.

That same listener was incredulous, just as I am right now. What kind of idiot spends $1.3 million a mile for bike and hike trails? What are they paving this thing with, gold dust?

We have a bike and hike path not far from OOIDA headquarters. They used land already owned by the public, smoothed out and leveled the ground with a Bobcat, and then laid down some pea gravel. Project done.

I’m betting it didn’t cost a fraction per mile of what this thing is running.

I don’t object to this kind of thing overall. I’ll admit, I use those trails. I like them. And if I want more, I can vote to raise my own blasted taxes and pay for it. If I’m not willing to pay, and I want to walk, perhaps I can use a unique and highly advanced creation of 20th century scientists – the sidewalk.

What I do object to is money that was paid for paved highways being stolen away for this kind of thing.

If you want this kind of path in your town, be ready to pay for it. But don’t make some trucker who’s already dealing with sky-high fuel prices pay yet more just so you can pedal in peace.

Hot fuel still in the hot seat

2008-10-06T09:48:00.000-05:00

Hot fuel – it’s an issue that OOIDA first brought to the public’s attention years ago. It’s an issue the association and others have fought to fix – and one the oil companies have fought to ignore.

Here’s how hot fuel works. A standard gallon of diesel at 60 degrees contains 139,000 Btu, or British Thermal Units. Run the temperature of that fuel up to 90 or 95 degrees – something that’s not unheard of – and it could contain as many as 2,000 Btu less.

That means you could spend a thousand dollars more a year for fuel, and go fewer miles on each tank of fuel.

Fuel companies compensate each other for the difference. The only people who don’t get some compensation for the difference temperature makes are you, truckers or motorists.

Some time back, we found out the very same oil companies who started this mess have found a way they think they can avoid responsibility.

The ploy involves stickers placed on the pump. I’ve seen or heard of several different versions, but they all follow a similar theme: We sell gas measured by the gallon, not measured by how much energy it provides. We’re not responsible if that energy level per gallon falls below what you expect.

We first became aware of the stickers when they appeared on pumps in California. We’ve been told recently they’ve made it all the way to the East Coast.

It’s clearly an attempt to circumvent the real issue of hot fuel, a disclaimer that in essence says, “We’re informing you officially that we intend to cheat you, so that makes it all legal and OK.”

Well, I have a message for those folks: It’s not OK.

OOIDA is continuing to pursue this issue. Another group is continuing to pursue a lawsuit. Others are still pushing in state and federal weights and measures groups to have the rules for how fuel pumps work changed.

And we’ll keep all of you updated as the issue progresses. But as you know, with our government, really changing anything takes years.

The problem we face is that slow speed of change, and the incredible resources possessed by the folks who want to keep things the way they are.

The problem our opponents face is that we have a lot of patience, and a long memory. And we will not forget.

Back to the Future? Instead, let’s consign futures to the past

2008-10-03T11:11:00.000-05:00

Recently, Terry Scruton reported on a Senate hearing where our elected representatives investigated what role that speculation played in this year’s oil price run-up.

Speculation, in this case, pretty much refers to activities on the futures market, which itself is not much more than a legalized, disguised and very dangerous form of gambling.

Here’s the theory: You start by finding a time where you think oil will go up in price over the next three months. You buy a load of oil that’s not scheduled to arrive here for a month to three months in the future. You make the purchase with borrowed money, using virtually none of your own. Then, as the oil is near delivery, you go back to the same market and sell it for the higher amount.

As the stock market and the rest of the economy started to tank, folks thought oil was a good investment. So they started investing in these “futures.”

Remember, over the past year, if you adjust for seasonal variations, the supply of oil and the demand for oil to burn was pretty typical. What there was more demand for was oil futures. And that drove the price of those futures – and eventually, the price of the oil they represented – up.

That’s the case with oil – the very nature of the market encourages further speculation, encourages traders to commit acts likely to drive up the price, so they can take hefty profits and never actually have to possess one ounce of oil (they never take delivery unless the price drops below what they paid for it).

But this problem isn’t limited to oil. Not by far. It’s pretty clear to me that the futures market is at the heart of many of our economic problems over the years.

Ask a farmer how much they were paid for the amount of wheat used in a loaf of bread. It’s pitiful.

Sure, some of the cost of the loaf went to the baker, to the cost of the yeast, to the retail store, and – God willing – to the trucker who brought it there.

But when some brands of bread are running well over $3 a loaf, it’s ridiculous that the person who produced the most important ingredient gets paid the least of anyone involved in the process – in some cases, as little as 5 cents for the wheat that goes into that loaf.

So where did the rest of that money go? A lot of it ends up on the futures market, where a trader who never worked a day on a farm in his life pulls in huge quantities of cash for the wheat in that bread.

That doesn’t even address the ultimate problem: The end consumers – in this case, economically struggling families who have to pay that much more for the food they need – get stuck with the bill.

Here’s a telling statistic: I’ve seen salaries listed for futures traders that run from $80,000 to $300,000 plus – a figure nearly unheard of decades ago. Farmers are often paid no more for wheat now than they were in the early 1920s. Don’t believe me? Check out Kansas History Magazine.

I really do think the same kind of thing is happening with oil. In both cases, the end consumers – truckers or grocery shoppers – are getting screwed.

The only big difference between the oil and wheat situations is that for oil, the producers – in this case, oil companies – aren’t getting paid a pittance like the farmers. They’re getting rich, too.

It’s just one more thing to discuss when you call your representative or your senators.

Only they can pass the laws needed to properly regulate futures trading and prevent this kind of crisis again.

I think we should sleep on it

2008-10-01T11:57:00.002-05:00

Sometimes, issues are real, and require real attention.

Sometimes, they’re artificial, and still get attention because someone inflates their importance in order to serve their own agenda.

Sleep apnea is a little of both.

On the one hand, we have the FMCSA’s Medical Review Board, which wants to force anywhere from a third to half of all American truck drivers to be tested for the illness every year – at an out-of-your-pocket cost of thousands of dollars. They want that test whether you’re really at risk for the disease or not.

On the other hand, you have those who have criticized opponents of that plan – including OOIDA. Some have claimed we haven’t covered it enough on Land Line Now, or that truckers don’t really understand the problems.

I think that’s a criticism I need to address.

First, I don’t think anyone wants someone who really might have apnea to avoid a test.

Also, I think many of us have a very good idea what apnea is. Many of us have it – myself included.

And finally, we actually have talked on this show with a number of medical professionals about what apnea is and what it does to people who have it. We’ve also talked quite a bit about CPAP machines and how they treat the illness.

However, that’s a whole different matter than what the Medical Review Board is talking about. They want any trucker with a BMI, or Body Mass Index, of more than 30 to have the yearly testing. The last estimate I saw indicated that could be around 42 percent of all truckers.

It’s uncalled for, and it’s unnecessary.

In talking with folks on the air and off, virtually all say the simple Body Mass Index test is inaccurate in determining whether someone is obese. And it’s a very inaccurate way to determine who’s at risk for apnea.

Again, this isn’t just some Joe off the street – this is information that comes from medical professionals.

The method used here to measure BMI is to simply compare your weight and height. A truly accurate BMI test involves placing you in a tank of water and measuring your displacement. Far fewer people would show a BMI of 30 with that test.

Second, while obesity – when correctly measured – is one indicator for apnea (not a guarantee you have it), it’s not the only indicator.

Here are just a few of the possible factors that can indicate you are a potential sleep apnea sufferer:

People who are overweight;
Men with a 17-inch neck or larger;
Women with a 16-inch neck or larger;
Older men and postmenopausal women;
Adults and children with Down syndrome;
And children with large tonsils.

Again, that’s just a few of the kinds of people who are at risk.

Whether you get tested for apnea is a decision that should be made by you and your doctor, not by some bureaucrat who is sitting at a desk a thousand and a half miles away.

So why are they doing this? Why use BMI as a method to decide who’ll get tested for apnea?

The answer lies in who is calling for this.

Charlie Morasch, who’s one of our writers down at Land Line Magazine, found some interesting facts when he looked.

For example, he discovered that one member of FMCSA’s Medical Review Board is an executive committee member and board member of the National Sleep Foundation. The National Sleep Foundation is funded largely by drug companies, and also receives funds from CPAP manufacturers.

Gee, do you think that person might have a vested interest in hundreds of thousands of truckers being required to undergo sleep testing – which would be performed by companies represented by the National Sleep Foundation – and being required to buy machines – which would be provided by the CPAP manufacturers?

So here’s the upshot. I’m with those who say we need to treat apnea seriously. But I’m not in favor of forcing people into unneeded medical tests. And I’m not into forcing hundreds of thousands of truckers who don’t have medical insurance to have to pay for those tests out of their own pocket, or give up their livelihoods.

Let’s let doctors who know their patients decide what testing is necessary. That’s the way it is now, and that’s the way it ought to be.

Bad food, few choices, rotten results

2008-09-30T11:44:00.000-05:00

Have you eaten at your favorite truck stop lately?

If you have, it’s very possible that the old sit-down restaurant has been replaced by a fast-food joint.

And that’s a problem. A longtime OOIDA member, Leland Jennings, told us recently that it’s no wonder truckers’ health is in trouble. Look at what they have to eat.

It’s not just truck stops. The local restaurant, or any restaurant that offers something that wasn’t pre-packaged and developed in a lab, is quickly disappearing.

So how do we address this?

There’s only one way: You’re the customer. Talk to the local managers, and let them know what you want.

But don’t stop there. Get the phone number for their corporate headquarters. If the manager won’t give it to you, just Google the company. Most of them put the headquarters number somewhere on their Web site. Call and make them aware as well.

Any company that hears from a large number of customers – well, at least any company whose officers have half a brain among them – will respond.

It’s about the only way to get some action. We can’t expect the government to step in and force truck stops or other restaurants to offer better or healthier food. And I’m pretty sure it’s not a good idea to get them involved.

It’s going to be a hard battle, something that’s especially obvious when you look over this situation. When I’m thinking about eating out, and I see what we’re offered, I start to think that the kind of food all of us like is a thing of the past.

Let’s hope not.

Why bad laws get piled onto good people

2008-09-29T10:16:00.001-05:00

If you’ve been reading the pages of Land Line Magazine’s Web site, you’ve seen that officials in Dane County, WI, were pursuing an ordinance that they hope will reduce truck idling in unincorporated areas of that county.

Here are some of the basics:

The proposal would restrict idling to five minutes an hour.
If temperatures are below 39 or above 80, trucks could idle an additional 15 minutes an hour.
And, like other proposals, ordinances or laws of this kind we’ve seen all around the country, this one focuses on the effect diesel emissions have on the health of the area’s population.

It doesn’t sound much different from what we’ve seen elsewhere. But it raises some questions, such as:

Why do they keep ignoring the health of the trucker?
What about truckers who take along their kids, or pets?
What ultimately is the end game of this; how far are they going to carry this idea?

I had a few thoughts about that.

First – and this is the sad part – in most places that have an idling restriction, the trucker’s health is not protected. But many of those same cities will fine a car driver for leaving an animal in a vehicle that doesn’t have the heat or air conditioning operating.

In fact, when I used to eat lunch every day at a bar and grill up the street, frequently, all the K-9 officers from this county would be eating there, too.

Every single one of those vehicles was idling so the animal would be safe and comfortable.

Second, why is this happening – why are public officials going out of their way to protect some citizens, and not others? Why don’t they understand what this is doing to the trucker?

In part, this is a plain lack of understanding. Some public officials that I’ve spoken to, or that truckers have told me they’ve talked to, say they never thought about what it was like for that trucker to sit in the cab. Some didn’t realize that the regulations require them to be in there at certain times.

I’ve even had one insist to me that all the truckers stayed in hotels every night. Seriously, this person really believed that.

These laws can be set by any level of government, they can be different from town to town, and you can face a fine without ever knowing in advance, or even having a chance to know, that you’re in violation of some law.

I’m no fan of federal regulation, and I prefer a lot of things to be done locally instead. But sometimes the feds or some other nationwide force needs to be setting the rules.

That’s why we have federal trucking regulations. That’s why we have IFTA and IRP.

If only one idling law applied nationwide, at least truckers would know what they faced. And we would have the opportunity to make our case to the feds once, instead of having to deal with the governments of 50 states, as many as 3,000 counties, and tens of thousands of cities and towns.

Again, this is why it’s so important to start calling all your public officials – not just the ones in Congress, but also in your state legislatures, your county commission, your city council.

Otherwise … look at how out of control things can get.

What, is there no crime in Jersey?

2008-09-24T08:31:00.000-05:00

This past week, Land Line Magazine reported about a bill in New Jersey that could put local law-enforcement officers into the truck inspection business.

State Sen. Shirley Turner of Mercer, NJ, introduced a bill earlier this year that would authorize “appropriately trained” local law-enforcement officers to inspect trucks.

Apparently, New Jersey police are brimming with free time – going about their days lacking any actual crime to combat. How else would they get the time needed to conduct Level I inspections?

Plus, don’t we have a state agency doing this now? Why the duplication of effort? Do large convoys of problem trucks clog the highways there, requiring hundreds, if not thousands, of additional inspectors?

The simple answer is no – on all counts. Those officers have some other things to take care of, real crimes, that should take precedence over this.

So why is the state training local cops to fulfill a state function?

The fact is, training local officers to inspect trucks is not about safety. It is – and has always been – a local government fundraiser.

The DOT doesn’t even train those local officers the same way state inspectors are trained. In most cases, one local officer is trained by the state, and then that officer trains the other local police to do the inspections – usually in a much-abbreviated fashion.

Local police should not be involved in this. Period.

If New Jersey needs more money, perhaps they should ask their citizens.

And maybe if they had spent those citizens’ money wisely, they wouldn’t need so much more.

Pirates of the Subprimean

2008-09-23T08:06:00.001-05:00

Friday was “Talk Like a Pirate” day – and that raises the question, are there still pirates out there?

My sources tell me yes – only they wear suits and work on the 40th floor of big investment banking companies.

Their latest caper was a little raid on the subprime housing market. That could end up costing the rest of us $1 trillion or more.

But instead of walking the plank, I’m betting these pirates sail off happily into the sunset with the treasures they amassed just before the subprime ship went down to Davey Jones’ locker.

Another bone-headed idea that needs to die

2008-09-22T15:39:00.000-05:00

Is a 6-foot-5-inch man who weighs 265 pounds and has a 36 inch waist obese?

To most of us, that would seem like a ridiculous question. Of course not – looking at just those statistics, without additional information, it seems to describe someone who’s in pretty good condition, who works and is reasonably muscular.

Obese means something entirely different. I know from obese – I’ve been that way a good part of my life.

The American Heritage Dictionary – which I’ve always regarded as pretty authoritative – defines the word this way: “Extremely fat; grossly overweight.” I may be off-base (although I really doubt I am), but I don’t think of a 36-inch waistline as extremely fat or grossly anything.

And yet that’s exactly what the FMCSA Medical Review Board wants all of us to believe.

For some time, we’ve been following the proposal by the FMCSA Medical Review Board to use BMI – body mass index – as a way to determine which truckers should be tested for sleep apnea.

This idea has brought in as much reaction as any other issue we’ve explored in the three plus years we’ve been on the air.

Part of that reaction was a call from a trucker named Kevin, who is 6-foot-5-inch, 265 pounds and has a 36-inch waistline.

I put those figures into a widely accepted body mass index calculator. And guess what? His BMI is 31.4.

Under the Medical Review Board plan, any BMI over 30 would require you to have regular testing for sleep apnea – testing that can cost thousands of dollars.

Considering the financial state of trucking, the state of the economy, and the number of truckers who lack any kind of health insurance – double the percentage of uninsured in the general population – this is unconscionable.

I sincerely doubt our friend Kevin is a prime candidate for apnea.

In fact, I don’t think he’s overweight, much less obese. But the medical folks are trying to tell us he is.

Wonder why? Here’s the answer: The test they’re using to calculate body mass index is highly inaccurate.

It has no way to tell the difference between weight from fat and weight from muscle. And of course muscle weighs more, so a lot of people who are in very good shape, and who have a very low risk of apnea, are going to get caught up in this if the plan becomes a formal proposed regulation.

Luckily, that hasn’t happened yet. It may not. But if it does, we’ll make sure all of you know.

Meanwhile, I want to put out a challenge to any trucker out there who’s in good physical condition. Plug your height and weight into an online BMI calculator. You can use one here.

If it says you’re overweight or obese, here’s what I want you to do. Next time you see your U.S. senators or representative, ask them to look you up and down and then ask if they think you’re obese.

I’m betting that for many of you, the answer would be no. It’s a great way to show your lawmakers how ridiculous this proposal is.

As some of you know, I have sleep apnea. I know it can be a serious problem if it’s not treated, and if someone really does have it, I want them to get help.

But that doesn’t mean I’m willing to needlessly drain other people’s wallets or subject them to unnecessary medical tests to do that. That kind of activity is why health costs in this country keep spiraling upward, which helps no one but harms all of us.

We need to make sure this bone-headed idea never sees the light of day. Please, make your voice heard today.

Do you see what I see?

2008-09-19T07:33:00.001-05:00

I have to be very careful how I word this. I know a lot of truckers like to ride motorcycles in their spare time, so let me just say this is not really aimed at you.

I live in the Kansas City area and lately I’ve been seeing a lot of signs up around town – some billboards, some on those electronic signs that usually have traffic updates on them. These signs are telling me to watch out for motorcycles. “Look Twice for Motorcycles.” “Watch out. Motorcycles are everywhere.”

I have no problem with this message, and I agree with it wholeheartedly on general principle. Where my problem comes in is this: Not a day goes by that I don’t see some yahoo – usually on a crotch rocket, never on a Harley – come zipping down the interstate, weaving in and out of traffic like he’s the only one with someplace to go.

I usually drive the speed limit, or close to it anyway. Maybe a few miles to the north of 65 or 70, whatever it happens to be. Not excessively fast. These guys come whipping by me like I’m standing still. And usually they’re going so fast I don’t even realize they are there until I hear the engine go buzzing by my ear like a horsefly on steroids. I even saw one guy doing a wheelie for several miles, thinking he was impressing everyone around him. I was not impressed.

I’ve been startled by these idiots on more than one occasion. So much so that I’ve jerked the steering wheel. Thankfully, not enough to cause my car to swerve, but enough to scare the bejeezus out of me. Oh, and did I mention I drive to and from work each day on 40 miles of Interstate with my 19-month-old daughter in the car?

So you can see why I might be a little agitated.

My point is this – somebody at the Missouri Department of Transportation (maybe Kansas, too, I’ve seen the signs on both sides of the state line) has decided to put up all of these signs promoting motorcycle awareness and safety.

And yet every day I see these morons on wheels driving so recklessly it’s a wonder there aren’t more news reports of tragic motorcycle accidents every day in this town.

But you know what I don’t see? A single sign telling folks to share the road with trucks. Not a one.

You know what else I don’t see? Truck drivers swerving in and out of traffic putting other people’s lives in danger because they’re in a hurry or they just want to show off.

Which, again, is not to say that I don’t support the message of motorcycle safety and awareness, because I do.

I just wonder if maybe those messages aren’t being aimed at the wrong people.

Supply and demand rears its lovely head

2008-09-17T11:17:00.000-05:00

Something very profound has happened in the global oil market.

The price of a barrel of oil is suddenly becoming responsive to supply and demand again.

As a result, oil (at this writing) is selling for less than $92 a barrel – as opposed to $147 a few months back.

Saudi Arabia’s oil minister thinks, based on actual demand, it should be selling in the $50 to $65 range – and maybe it soon will.

Some say the big change dates to late summer when the politicians started screaming for the heads of speculators on platters – since some analysts were saying that speculation was accounting for as much as half of the price of a barrel … or even more.

Even the toothless Commodity Futures Trading Commission vowed to “investigate” (but naturally, came up with nothing).

Apparently the CFTC concluded the $69 billion that was pumped into the futures market by big, institutional investors had no impact at all.

Most fourth-graders with a pocket calculator would say otherwise.

In any case, the political and regulatory activity seems to have had a chilling effect on whatever was causing oil to just keep going up in price.

Most chilling is the call by some politicians to close the so-called “Enron loophole” that allowed big investors – who have no intention of actually taking delivery of any oil – to buy as much as they want to protect their money against the weak dollar.

We’ll see how it all unfolds.

But it’s refreshing to actually see oil prices reacting to apparent demand – after being told by fast-talking analysts for years that a single broken pipeline in Nigeria … or a refinery retooling in Botswana … or seagull droppings on an off-shore rig is behind the latest big jump in crude.

A no-brainer the ATA doesn’t get

2008-09-09T11:34:00.001-05:00

Why should a trucker haul two loads for one paycheck – a paycheck no larger than that trucker would have received for the single load?

It seems like a simple question with a simple answer: The trucker should say no.

But that’s exactly what would happen if the ATA is successful in its push for longer, heavier trucks.

This idea is nothing more than a scheme by some of the larger carriers through the group that represents them – the ATA – to save some money and make more profit.

Frankly, they’re not the ones I’m worried about in this economy right now. I’m far more concerned about the plight of small-business truckers, both owner-operators and the small fleet owners. It’s far harder for them to afford upgrades to their equipment or to recover increased costs.

And if the big carriers do upgrade, let’s face it – to survive, most everyone will have to follow suit.

But that isn’t the only reason to oppose this.

First and foremost, there are real safety concerns about these trucks.

That’s not intended in any way to run down the truckers who drive these rigs. But those trucks have to share the road with four-wheelers who have enough trouble figuring out how to drive around a single 53-foot trailer.

I’ve watched how they react around doubles. Believe me, we don’t want the kinds of things I saw happening more often.

And then, there’s the question of what they do to the highways.

Some folks say they aren’t a problem for roads to handle. I even heard from one trucker who pointed out that if you spread the load out over enough axles, the weight per axle is less than a standard, 80,000-pound, 53-foot, 5-axle tractor-trailer.

OK, I’ll admit, that sounds like it makes sense – at least, until you consider this: Which wears more on a highway. One SUV, or 10 SUVs?

Obviously, it’s 10 SUVs. Frankly, it’s a no-brainer.

Yes, if you spread that weight out over more axles, you distribute it, and you lower the pounds per square foot.

But you’re still putting that much more net weight onto the road.

Our roads today were designed with the 80,000-pound semi in mind. And they can occasionally handle larger loads when needed – which is why we have permit processes to handle those loads.

But they’re not designed to handle that much more weight on a day-in, day-out, hour-by-hour basis. And if you add that much, it is going to wear them out faster.

At some point, we have to set some limit on the weight and size of trucks allowed on our highways. And frankly, I think the limits we have now – the ones our roads were designed for – are just fine.

Don’t take the chance

2008-09-04T10:58:00.001-05:00

We recently warned truckers about problems with two drugs – Byetta and Chantix. Both were the subjects of warnings from the FDA – the federal Food and Drug Administration.

But despite the evidence and warnings from that agency, at least one trucker thinks the warnings may have been overblown.

I think that trucker may have a point, but ultimately it doesn’t matter. If you’re taking Chantix, the FMCSA has told your doctor to revoke your medical certification to drive.

Here’s the key sentence from the statement by FMCSA Administrator John Hill:

“… It appears that medical examiners should not certify a driver taking Chantix because the medication may adversely affect the driver's ability to safely operate a commercial motor vehicle.”

That may sound innocuous, but it means that you could be taken off the road. In this economy, I don’t know many truckers who can afford that kind of vacation.

And I’d add this – Chantix may well have worked well for you as an individual. I don’t doubt that one bit. And I absolutely believe that many, if not most, folks on the drug didn’t experience the side effects.

But that doesn’t mean it will work well for everyone, or that everyone won’t get the side effects.

The FDA issued the warning because so many folks did experience the negative side effects that it’s not worth the chance. The fact is, you don’t know till you take a drug whether you will experience bad effects or not, and in this case, it’s just too much of a gamble.

But even with that aside, truckers can’t work without medical certification. And I’d urge everyone out there to not take that risk.

To tax or not to tax … that is the question

2008-09-02T08:12:00.000-05:00

The proposal in Canada that could lead to a carbon tax – essentially, a tax on anything that has exhaust emissions – hasn’t drawn nearly the attention it deserves.

But some folks are paying attention. And some are thinking of ways to divert that tax away from one of its most likely victims – truckers.

First, let me say this: I’m not going to get into the whole discussion on global warming. But the reality is this: Whether you agree with the idea of global warming or not, it is going to drive policy, including proposals to create taxes like this.

So back to our carbon tax. One truck driver called with an interesting suggestion – why not put the tax on the producers of carbon – the oil companies.

I’m no fan of our friends in the oil business, though I use plenty of what they make. But here are a few things to consider.

Number 1: Guess who will really pay? That’s right, you and me, because they’ll pass on the cost to their customers.

Number 2: Do we really think the oil companies’ lobby will allow this? Probably not, and they throw around a lot of money in the U.S., and I suspect in Canada.

Number 3: No matter how a carbon tax is implemented, some businesses will come out ahead and some will get the shaft. There is an incredible danger that this could end up, as so many things do, as corporate welfare for the big guys, and a burden on the small guys. And small businesses make up the bulk of trucking.

We need to find a way to address this issue, to deal with tax proposals like this, that also addresses the needs of small businesses.

A carbon tax that crushes small businesses is not a good idea for trucking, for the economy, for America and Canada, or for the environment.

Taxed to death

2008-08-28T13:05:00.001-05:00

It’s no secret that many truckers – like many other Americans – face so many different taxes, so many things pulling away bits of their income, that they feel taxed to death.

But truckers have specific concerns, and face specific challenges on this topic not faced by other Americans.

On top of the typical income, sales and property taxes, truckers have federal fuel tax, IFTA, IRP fees, 2290s, and on and on. And that’s if you don’t count the most insidious tax of all – tolls.

One trucker asked the obvious question: How many times do I have to pay for the same road before it’s really paid for?

Truckers are not alone in caring about this. We do here at OOIDA, and we’re working hard to fix as much of this problem as we can.

The fact is, truckers pay as much as 36 percent of the money going into the federal Highway Trust Fund. And I’m pretty sure they aren’t 36 percent of the traffic.

One of the first things we’re working toward is to make sure the road taxes you do pay really do go toward roads.

If they were spent on roads, instead of being diverted to other purposes, the government, state, local or federal, wouldn’t need more of your money.

The question that trucker asked me – how many times do I have to pay for the same road before it’s really paid for? – is a good one. And we’re asking it all the time. But to arrive at a real solution, we need your help.

Call your members of Congress, and tell them all the taxes and fees you pay. Explain it all, including the extra tax if you ever buy a new truck. Explain how it’s supposed to be used to pay for the roads you use.

Make sure they understand that truckers are paying 36 percent of that federal Highway Trust Fund. Stress that all that money is supposed to pay for roads, but doesn’t. And tell them that if they don’t want to spend road money for roads, then they need to stop asking for more.

We need to work together. We are making progress, but the job isn’t finished yet. We intend to keep fighting until we’ve won. We hope you’ll join us.

Things are not always as they seem

2008-08-27T13:17:00.000-05:00

I get plenty of suggestions for Roses & Razzberries every day. That’s not to say that I have more than I need. By all means, keep them coming.

Most of them are pretty straightforward. A Razzberry for some ambulance-chasing lawyer here, a Rose for a good truck repair shop there.

There are some, however, that seem to be one thing, but when you start scratching at the surface, turn out to be something else altogether. I have to examine these more carefully. After all, I wouldn’t want to fire off a Razzberry in the wrong direction and hit some innocent bystander.

Roses and Razzberries aren’t things to be taken lightly. Someone could lose an eye.

I recently received a suggestion for a Razzberry for Woman’s World magazine, and, more specifically, for an article that quoted Jason Toews, a man who runs a Web site called Gasbuddy.com.

In the article, Toews was quoted as saying one of the best ways to save fuel is to drive behind a semi. Drafting, I believe, is the technical, NASCAR-approved term. Toews was quoted as suggesting that doing this could save you as much as 10 percent on fuel.

While that may be true, I’m sure everybody reading this is already saying to themselves “yeah, but it’s dangerous as hell.” And it is, no question about it.

So why would Toews recommend this as a way to save fuel? Truth is, he didn’t. I e-mailed Toews when I saw the article and demanded (yeah, I went a little overboard) to know why he would make such a dangerous and irresponsible recommendation.

Here is the response I got:

Although I have not seen the article, I vehemently expressed to the reporter that one should NOT do that because of the dangerous nature of drafting. I had used it as an example of how much impact wind resistance has at highway speeds, and that the impact is exponential as you go faster. If there was no/limited wind resistance at highway speeds, your fuel economy would be significantly better. I’m surprised that they would print this, especially considering that it does not seem to have come with any warnings to NOT do it.

Translation: Jason never recommended drafting behind big trucks. He used it as an example of how wind resistance can affect your gas mileage. Woman’s World took that as a recommendation and ran with it. With no warning whatsoever about how dangerous and stupid it would be to ride five feet from the bumper of a truck rolling down the highway at 65 miles per hour.

What’s more, Land Line Magazine staff writer Clarissa Kell-Holland talked to the folks at Woman’s World, who told her they stand by what they printed, in spite of our warnings and Jason’s insistence that they include a warning in the article.

Now we have moved beyond the realm of simple incompetence and into the realm of willful ignorance, arrogance and just flat-out irresponsible journalism.

I’m glad we checked that out; otherwise, I would have unfairly given a Razzberry to Jason instead of putting the blame squarely where it belongs: with Woman’s World magazine.

Good Samaritans make good neighbors

2008-08-26T15:26:00.000-05:00

I’ve been at OOIDA for over three years, and in that time I’ve seen some heartbreaking stories. One of the most heartbreaking was the story of Randy Jay Tomblin, a truck driver from Flatwoods, KY.

Randy first appeared in the pages of Land Line Magazine in 1999 because of an incident that happened at a truck stop the day his son died. I won’t go into the full details, but Randy got an emergency call from his wife on the road and when he went to the truck stop to try and call her back to find out what happened, the folks at the truck stop were less than accommodating.

But that was just the beginning of Randy’s troubles.

In 2006, Randy stopped to help what appeared to be a stranded motorist alongside the highway. He was rewarded for his good deed with a knock on the head, a gunshot wound to the back and an empty wallet.

All of that was bad enough, but it was what Randy said in an interview after the incident that really broke my heart. He said his days of helping others were over.

I can’t really blame Randy for having that sentiment. What breaks my heart is that we live in a society where that sentiment is even necessary. That we are so afraid for our lives that we can’t bring ourselves to help others in need.

Too many stories like that tend to make for jaded, bitter journalists, and jaded, bitter truck drivers.

Thankfully, there are other stories that come along and balance everything out. The kind of stories that make you think, OK, maybe the world isn’t doomed after all. The kind of stories that give you hope.

The story of Dave Marsden and Bob Griffith is one of those stories. In case you missed the recent broadcast, Bob is a truck driver who is struggling just to get by. He told an Associated Press reporter that he couldn’t even afford to buy a prom dress for his daughter.

Dave is a retired truck mechanic and Navy veteran who read Bob’s story and couldn’t just stand by and do nothing. So he called Bob up and offered to pay for his daughter’s prom dress.

When I first read the story, I knew I had to talk to these guys and I’m glad I did. Dave Marsden reminded me that there are good people left out there. They may be hard to find, but they are there.

You see, what Dave did for Bob wasn’t just a one-time thing. It’s the way Dave lives his life. If he sees someone who needs help, he helps them out as much as he can. It’s that simple. He doesn’t question it. He doesn’t think about it. He just does it. It’s as natural to him as breathing.

And that, my friends, is a breath of fresh air.

Just the beginning

2008-08-22T13:24:00.002-05:00

So the ATA wants bigger, heavier trucks. What’s the big deal? What makes those trucks any different than our regular, 53-foot, 80,000-pound rigs?

We got a wake-up call about a year ago that spelled it out – the I-35 bridge collapse in Minneapolis.

While I hesitate to ever say that trucks were involved in something like this, the incredibly heavy trucks parked on the bridge during construction may have played some role in the event.

Our infrastructure is designed with an 80,000 pound truck in mind.

We have a system for dealing with the occasional load that’s larger – we permit them, we often have special routes for them, and we have a bridge formula that’s specifically designed to deal with them in a way that protects our roads and bridges.

You know, since we’re here in Missouri, I wanted to check that state’s regulations for how and why they permit heavier loads. And I found something very interesting indeed.

It says this: “Economic factors in either the saving of time or costs for routing will not be considered of primary importance in the routing process and the department reserves the right to designate routing and travel time for all movements.”

So what does that mean in English? Just because it costs the carrier less doesn’t mean the state has to let them do what they want with a larger, heavier load. The state has the right to route and set times for the load that protect safety and the integrity of the road.

The bigger carriers and their shipper and receiver allies want to stop this system and let those 97,000 pound trucks roll as a matter of regular routine.

So what happens if we throw that all out and just let these suckers loose on our roads?

I shudder to think. Minneapolis could be just the beginning. And that is a scary thought indeed.

Looking at the world through rose-colored lenses (or some other color)

2008-08-21T12:55:00.000-05:00

Reed Black reported a little while back about research showing that intensely blue light produces alertness – and about researchers in Troy, NY, who are working on a device to take advantage of the light’s effect.

Shortly after that aired, I got a call from an OOIDA member named John Tolbert. John said that on the U.S.S. Missouri – the famed battleship on which the Japanese surrendered at the end of World War II – the bridge used blue lights instead of red during battles.

It thought that was pretty interesting – apparently, the Navy knew about this effect for quite some time.

But then John went on to say that he wears yellow-tinted glasses for better vision at night. Just like the blue lights, I had never heard of that before.

So I checked into it. Often, on the Web, they were referred to as yellow-tinted polarized lenses.

I also found a number of references to those lenses being used in hunting and shooting – and being prescribed for folks who have difficulty seeing at night.

Other sites refer to them being use for enhancing color contrast and depth perception.

But a lot of those sites also note that before you use yellow lenses, you should probably talk to your optometrist and make sure they’re right for you.

It may seem like something far less important than what we usually discuss on this blog – the more serious topics of trucking. But what could be more important than being able to see better at night?

Insult on top of injury

2008-08-19T11:29:00.001-05:00

If you want to get truckers really mad, you only need a few words to do it. One example: brokers.

Another one sure to get a rise is the word, “lumpers.”

A recent call we received here at OOIDA headquarters is a good example of why.

The trucker said he recently delivered to a loading dock in the St. Louis area. The lumper fee was a whopping $120 – a figure that I find astounding, but which – unfortunately – I acknowledge is more common in some places than I really want to think about.

When our friend the trucker tried to pay the lumper with a ComCheck, he was told doing that would cost him $3 extra.

So let me get this straight: Truckers don’t get the surcharge for real increases in fuel costs, but a lumper – someone who’s probably not even reporting the income, someone who may not even be in the country legally – gets to charge him an extra $3 just so they can cash the check he paid them?

It’s ridiculous that you have to pay for a lumper at all; it’s even more ridiculous that you have to pay $120 for the lumper’s so-called service.

To be handed a $3 charge just because of how you paid them – that’s insult on top of injury.

Political horse trading

2008-08-18T13:13:00.001-05:00

We all know about how the Canadian province of Ontario has passed a law requiring speed limiters on trucks there.

One of our callers recently pointed out that the same folks who pushed for the limiters have also pushed for longer, heavier vehicles there in Canada.

For a long time, OOIDA officials have said the push for limiters here was being made for several reasons. I’ve talked most about the competitive reasons, such as driver recruitment.

But here in the U.S., again, those carriers pushing for limiters are the same ones pushing for longer, heavier trucks.

It’s pretty obvious this is an attempt at a political trade. We give you slower trucks; you reward us with bigger trucks.

We need to make sure that our politicians understand what is happening here. Speed limiters make roads less safe. Trucks the same size as a Boeing 707 make highways less safe.

So this isn’t a trade off … this is a combination of two factors both of which will make our highways less safe for everyone.

I encourage everyone reading this to call your elected officials, and make sure they understand those basic facts.

Big truck insanity

2008-08-15T13:18:00.001-05:00

Recently, the ATA and a number of shipper and receiver groups started yet another push to allow longer, heavier trucks onto our nation’s highways.

It’s not really a new fight for them, or for all of us. But this time, they are trying some new angles to get Congress to agree with their request.

But the facts behind this discussion haven’t really changed at all.

One of them I haven’t brought up lately is a simple matter of measurement – there are a lot of places where a double, much less a triple, wouldn’t fit on the existing streets, or into an existing dock.

A trucker recently called in to remind us about that. He mentioned some of the spots he drives in California, but what we’re talking about here isn’t unique to California – not by far.

In fact, there are plenty of cities where the whole infrastructure system is built around a single 48-foot trailer – where they even have trouble with a single 53-foot trailer.

Putting doubles or triples into that situation is insane.

What we’re seeing here is larger carriers whose office-bound bean counters have determined that this will save them cash. And that’s what this is about – their money.

It’s not about safety, it’s not about the environment – it’s money.

We were all taught in Sunday school that the love of money is the root of all evil. Seems sometimes that old wisdom is the best wisdom.

A revelation in Ontario: Heavy things go down hills fast!

2008-08-14T12:48:00.000-05:00

The new speed limiter law in Ontario isn’t yet in effect. The province still has to create a regulation to enforce that law.

The proposed regulation contains the method officials want to use for enforcement.

Here’s how it will work, straight from the proposed regulation:

“A truck charged with a speeding offence … will be deemed not to have a functioning speed limiter.”

That and the rest of the regulation don’t indicate any leniency for a rig going faster due to a downhill grade.

But it’s pretty obvious that will happen. Heavy things go faster down hills, and those speed limiters don’t have a switch that activates the brakes (to all you folks in Ontario government: That was not a suggestion!)

Well, it turns out that not only are provincial officials aware of this little bit of basic physics; they even acknowledged that downhill grades can have an effect.

Another part of the proposed regulation says, “A speed limiting system is functioning properly if it prevents a driver from accelerating to, or maintaining a speed greater than 105 km/h on level ground.”

They seem to be acknowledging that a downhill grade can push the limited truck faster, but they offer no break if that happens.

We’ve encourage truckers to file their comments on this. I hope everyone who reads this will file comments and point out this obvious contradiction.

Thank you for visiting Dallas! Here’s your ticket

2008-08-13T13:22:00.000-05:00

Idling regulations are – pardon the pun – a hot topic right now.

In part, that’s because of the weather – we’re in the heaviest of summer heat, and we’re not that far from winter.

But more important, it’s a big issue now because so many cities, counties and states are continuing to heap regulations onto truckers, despite the truckers’ basic human needs for heating in the winter and reasonable cooling in the summer.

It comes up in all kinds of situations – even in places you might not think about.

For example: the Great American Truck Show in Dallas.

Several truckers have called here to OOIDA headquarters saying officers are enforcing idling restrictions around Dallas. Since the truck show, and the lot where truckers will stay while there, are in the heart of that fine city, I think we can rest assured enforcement will happen there as well.

I was curious as to the exact regulations in effect there in Dallas, so I checked the latest issue of Land Line Magazine.

Dallas has a five-minute idling limit running from April through October every year, so the truck show would certainly be included.

But I found some good news in there as well.

The rule has a number of exceptions – including one for complying with the hours-of-service rule.

Frankly, though, if there’s a question, I would err on the side of caution.

I think we all know that enforcement officers who have a question are likely to write that ticket and ask questions later – and, as one of my co-workers here said, sometimes those exceptions aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.

Border Fix

2008-08-11T07:41:00.001-05:00

There’s been a lot of activity lately regarding the Mexican Cross-Border Trucking Pilot Program.

Most important, the House Transportation Committee acted on a bill designed to end the program once and for all.

The members of the House who introduced this bill designed it to avoid the wording problems the administration used to get around previous attempts to stop the program.

But that situation has many truckers skeptical … and concerned. What’s to keep the Department of Transportation from playing word games again.

I understand the concern, and I think it’s a valid point – especially because the Department of Transportation is already very clearly in violation of the law … a fact they refuse to acknowledge.

The only answer I can give is the part of the bill that forbids the DOT from granting operating authority to any other motor carriers based in Mexico, unless the DOT gets permission to do so from Congress.

I think we can all rest assured that Congress isn’t giving that permission any time soon.

It’s a sticky situation. But there’s another light at the end of the tunnel.

In less than six months, most of the current leaders of the U.S. DOT will be out of a job when a new president takes office.

Hopefully, whichever candidate wins, the new administration will be on that takes a dim view of what the current DOT has done.

Speed limiter laws and the encroaching ‘nanny state’

2008-08-09T09:00:00.001-05:00

A few weeks ago the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Highways and Transit had a hearing entitled “Improving Roadway Safety ...” One of the panelists was a safety advocate who argued that stricter speed limits on our national highways should be placed on the national agenda. He argued that this measure would save both lives and energy.

When the debate is framed this way it is difficult to argue against these seemingly noble objectives. It follows that safety and public health are held up as paramount concerns for the government. Although I’m sure that safety advocates have good intentions, much is at stake in this complex debate, including many personal freedoms, standards of living and the livelihoods of small-business truckers.

Small-business truckers are again having to confront burdensome legislation – under the banner of enhancing highway safety – when conducting their occupations. In Canada, the provincial governments of Ontario and Quebec have approved legislation requiring heavy truck engines to be limited to a maximum speed of 65 mph. This legislation was originally pushed in the name of promoting highway safety, in spite of research to the contrary. Unfortunately, these efforts are insidious in several ways: they create congestion, impact the livelihoods of drivers, and make highways less safe.

In the U.S. Congress, there is a bill that seeks to establish a national maximum speed limit of 60 mph on highways (HR6458). Though this legislation is a long shot, it embodies the core dilemma of this debate. The thought behind this bill is that reducing the speed limit will reduce fatalities on our nation’s roads, but with this logic, we could lower the national speed limit for highways to 25 mph and reduce vehicular fatalities even further. Of course, this outcome would also cripple trade and commerce. There are obvious tradeoffs in this debate and a need to strike a delicate balance that promotes safety while not overly burdening highway users.

This issue carries great salience because it represents broader themes of political philosophy. One side of this debate talks about the morality of social protection and the other side talks about the morality of personal responsibility and individual liberty. In addition to calls for speed limitations, many other issues are caught in this philosophical tug of war, including mandatory seatbelt laws, prohibitions of smoking in buildings, mandatory helmet laws for bicycle riders, and laws to combat obesity. What makes all these issues similar is that they share the goal of enhancing safety and “public health.” The social protection camp would argue that one role of the state is to allow people freedom to do what they want up to the point where other people are harmed.

With all this in mind, the question is: At what point are we venturing into “nanny state” territory, where the government attempts to run the private lives of its citizens? To this end, it seems patronizing to make decisions for people in areas that should be subject to individual choice and discretion. One example of governmental over-reaching is the trend toward public health laws aimed at attacking the scourge of fatty foods. It seems to me that if we justify laws based on what’s good for people, there is no end in sight. In the end, life is about living. Many good people willingly choose to drink, smoke and eat fatty foods, and are well aware of the health risks.

Granted, there is a keen need to strike a balance when serious public health issues are at stake. The question remains whether excessive speed limit laws fall into this “nanny state” category. I would argue that excessive speed limitations on highways represent the encroachment of the “nanny state” into the personal lives of citizens.

Now what’s the difference between laws targeting fatty foods and excessive speed limit laws? While the former can be blamed for thousands of deaths, increased disease, and a loss of productivity, the latter has an affect on other people, not just the individual. Surely, one could attempt to argue that the thousands of deaths on our nation’s highways every year call for a more strict scrutiny and regulation of speed limitations for commercial vehicles. Although a persuasive case can be made to the general public in this direction, it is altogether unconvincing because vital philosophical issues hang in the balance.

Safety advocates may push for national speed limitation laws under the banner of increasing highway safety, but they would also be pushing for limiting personal freedom, livelihoods, and individual discretion.

Stopping speed traps

2008-08-08T10:55:00.000-05:00

Florida lawmakers recently announced an effort in that state to cut down on speed traps.

That sounds great to most people. But others ask an obvious question: Why are those speed traps a problem as long as you’re running the speed limit? As one trucker said, “If you break the law, you break the law.”

The problem, and what makes these speed traps and not just speed limit changes, is when a town puts a sign where it’s hard to see till you’re right on top of it, dropping the speed limit so far that you can’t possibly get your speed down in time.

Let’s try a scenario that I’ve actually seen: You’re going right on the speed limit for hundreds of miles. You suddenly turn a tight corner and see a sign just a few feet up the road dropping the speed limit 30 or 40 miles an hour.

You tell me how likely you are to succeed at that task driving a fully loaded rig with 80,000 pounds and a 53 foot trailer.

My view: No way.

Some of these towns deliberately set up that very situation with a goal of raising their city budget not from honest taxes, but from fines on out of town truckers and other out-of-town drivers.

That’s the kind of thing Florida’s lawmakers and lawmakers elsewhere are trying to stop. And I think they have a point.

Cash or credit?

2008-08-07T11:16:00.001-05:00

Cash or credit at the pump? It used to happen at fueling stations all the time. Many thought the practice had gone away. But it never really did.

And it’s raised another question in the mind of some truckers. How is it that a station can charge less based on how you pay? To one trucker who called our program, it sounded like a form of price gouging aimed at credit card-using customers.

But in fact, it’s not.

Most of the discount they’re offering for cash payment is due to how the credit card companies make their money. They charge a percentage of the purchase.

I remember it used to be 4 percent of retail purchases. So when you paid a dollar, 4 cents went to Visa, Mastercard or whoever.

Now that a gallon of fuel is more than $4 … that 4 percent becomes 16 cents to Visa, not 4 cents.

I’m not sure 4 percent is still the number, but I’m pretty sure it hasn’t gone down.

Part of what’s driving this as well is the incredibly thin profit margins local fuel stations have on diesel purchases. Some only pull in a few cents per gallon in net profit. So 16 cents off that becomes a make or break situation.

I’m not trying to justify what they’re doing. I don’t think I could look myself in the mirror in the morning if I tried to justify anything fuel companies did right now. But this is why they’re offering that discount.

That being said, I think one more point needs to be made: If you are charging more for credit card purchases, you should have to put the higher price on your sign.

If cash buyers get a discount, bonus! It’s like Christmas.

But no one should ever be subjected to pulling in for one price, only to be charged another when they walk in to pay.

Getting the priorities straight

2008-08-06T10:45:00.001-05:00

More and more states and cities are passing laws against hand-held cell phone use.

And while there are some studies to indicate using a cell is distracting to drivers, and therefore constitutes a safety hazard, some contend that other, more serious problems should take precedence.

I do think those critics have a solid point. With murders, robberies and violence in the streets, we would seem to have plenty of work for our law enforcement to do. Certainly I think most would agree those would take precedence over stopping Johnny from talking with Buffy on the cell phone.

However, to the credit of the folks in California (you won’t hear me say that often), I do think we need to do something about many four-wheelers’ driving habits.

How many times have you seen someone putting on makeup, turning completely around to discipline a kid, doing paperwork from their job, bending over to pick up something off the car floor … or nearly hitting your rig because they were gabbing on the blasted phone instead of driving?

That’s what the folks in California are trying to put a stop to.

Of course, if instead of that, they required driver’s education, that very well might solve that problem – and a whole mess of other problems.

But I guess that would be too hard for them to do.

Barn door closed, horse long gone, while foxes guard hen house

2008-08-05T07:55:00.001-05:00

U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters recently traveled to Atlanta to “unveil the Bush administration’s comprehensive new transportation plan.”

Her big announcement came only 174 days before the 2,920-day-long Bush administration will end.

Odd timing, it would seem, to announce with fanfare that the administration is, at long last, “completely overhauling” the nation’s transportation system.

The truth is that if Bush and Peters were the parents, and our highway system was the child, they’d both be hauled off by social services for parental neglect.

The only things they’ve done for the system in eight long years is to allow the Highway Trust Fund to go bankrupt and to urge the states to sell off their roads and bridges to Wall Street and/or foreign investors.

OOIDA’s Todd Spencer says they “hung out the for sale sign.”

So, Peters’ insistence that – in 174 days – they’ll fix our “broken” system would be laughable if it weren’t so condescending.

The truth is, they left the barn door open for eight years and, sure enough, the horse (read highway system) that was once the envy of the world galloped off (read went broke).

But, if you can handle mixed metaphors, the foxes who’ve been guarding the transportation hen house will scamper back to their dens in 174 days.

Then maybe that ol’ horse can be coaxed back into the barn.

A constant irritant

2008-08-04T14:34:00.000-05:00

Illinois and its long-running split speed limit are constant irritants for truckers.

Of course, the Land of Lincoln doesn’t stop with that. They apparently have found ways to rub it in.

A trucker called us recently about billboards he had seen in Illinois that said something to the effect of “Truckers, here’s your sign,” followed by a picture of a 55 mph speed limit sign.

Needless to say, that trucker was more than a little irritated by the implied message – that truckers somehow didn’t see the thousand or so speed limit signs already out there? Do they really think truck drivers are that stupid? Or blind?

They must, or why would they spend the tens of thousands of dollars necessary to keep a billboard up?

The state’s government seems to have a long-standing problem with truckers, which is sad, considering the portion of their economy that’s dependent on trucks. The split speed limit is just part of it, but it’s an awfully big part.

Because split speed limits are unsafe, OOIDA has put a massive amount of effort over the years into overturning that law. In fact, the association has done far more than any other group out there to oppose split speed limits, especially in Illinois.

Due to the Association’s efforts, the Illinois General Assembly has voted at least three times I know of to end lower speed limits for trucks. And several of those votes were veto-proof majorities.

Then, each time, the governor vetoed the bill, and a bunch of lawmakers from the Chicago area – which isn’t affected one way or the other by this – changed their votes.

Some of those lawmakers who I spoke to seemed unaware of the problem split speed limits posed. Some simply listened to what the AAA Chicago Motor Club – a supporter of splits – said, but never checked it out to see if those statements were factual. One lawmaker didn’t even seem to know the split speeds didn’t affect her hometown, which sits well inside the metro area.

Shockingly, one lawmaker – a member of the state’s Senate Transportation Committee – didn’t know the difference between an Interstate highway and a U.S. highway with traffic lights.

Informing people like you about that history is one of the most important things OOIDA does – so that the next time the governor or the lawmakers who changed their votes are up for election, truckers who live in Illinois can make their voices heard in the most effective way possible.

‘I’m Mad As Hell’

2008-07-31T08:58:00.000-05:00

In the 1976 Oscar-winning movie “Network” Peter Finch plays a TV network anchor who, after reflecting on how the world works, tells his viewers, “I’m mad as hell … and I’m not going to take it anymore!”

Well, count me mad-as-hell too – about the current state of affairs.

The housing industry tanks because a bunch of greedy suits at big mortgage lending companies take ridiculous risks to lend money to people they know will probably be foreclosed on … and, sure enough, they were.

Now it looks as if you and I – the working folks – will get to pay $25 billion to prop up the quasi-governmental private companies (“Fannie Mae” and “Freddie Mac”) that provide the foundation of the mortgage lending industry.

The suits won’t be paying this tab.

In fact, I suspect they’re busy shifting the money they made on subprime loans from stocks to commodities like oil as a defense against the plummeting U.S. dollar.

Of course, the huge influx of speculative investor money into oil is blamed by many for increasing the price of oil – and diesel and gas – by as much as 60 percent.

So what’s in your wallet? A bunch of commodities futures … or barely enough to fuel up the family car?

One could go on and on about the inequities of our world – the frightening price of groceries … the total lack of government regulation that allowed Enron to collapse and take the life savings of thousands of employees with it, etc.

I don’t know what the solution is.

But trust me. I’m mad as hell and I’m not …

… well, I’m not exactly sure what I’m going to do.

Striking up the (lap) band

2008-07-30T16:15:00.000-05:00

I have a confession to make. I have known several people in my lifetime that have had, or are going to have, or are just considering, weight loss surgery.

No, that’s not the confession. It would be a pretty boring one if it was. The confession is this: until very recently, I always thought of having surgery as the easy way out. A cheat. Just eat right and exercise. It may take a bit longer that way, but it will work. People who have band surgery or stomach staples are just taking a short cut. They just don’t want to do the work, right?

Wrong.

A recent conversation I had with Land Line Now listener Kevin Raines opened my eyes to the reality of something seemingly as simple as Lap Band surgery. Kevin had the procedure himself a few years ago. And hearing his story convinced me that there is nothing easy about it.

Kevin had to give up eating meat, bread, soda and a host of other things. The surgery helped him along, but he still had to work at it to lose weight. There was no short-cut about it.

There’s an entire industry out there that is centered around weight loss. And while many of the products in that industry – such as the Lap Band System – are legit, there are many others that are little more than snake oil.

Diet pills, creams, oils, weight loss contraptions (Thigh Master, anyone?). They all promise to help you lose weight both quickly and easily. And they all lie.

The truth of the matter is this: when it comes right down to it, there is no quick and easy way to lose weight. I’ve been on Weight Watchers since January and it has taken me six months to lose 30 pounds. And I’m still a long way from my goal.

But I’m willing to keep going. To work at it. And no matter what you do, that’s what it’s going to take. Things like band surgery and stomach staples and gastric bypass surgery will help. That’s been proven. But they aren’t overnight miracle cures, either. And they sure as hell aren’t the easy way out.

They can be powerful weapons in the battle of the bulge, but ultimately, a weapon is only as good in a fight as the person wielding it.

Drilling is good, but we can do more

2008-07-22T08:36:00.001-05:00

How to fix the oil price crisis has become one of the great puzzles we’re all trying to solve. Some have proposed drilling for more oil at home.

I think we all agree that more domestic production would be good. Controlling our own domestic supply prevents disruptions in other nations from affecting our economy.

But we’re looking at 10, 20 or 30 years down the road before any of that drilling would have an effect on the price of fuel.

Our government can, and we can, do several things in the meantime that will have a much more immediate effect on fuel prices and our economy.

We’ve discussed those many times on our program. Regulating speculation in oil markets and cutting demand are among them.

For example, many of us look at fuel economy standards as something that just involves the four-wheelers. But if the four-wheelers used 10 percent less fuel, that would significantly reduce demand for oil overall, which could in turn lower prices that truckers pay.

If we find affordable ways to make alternative fuels, if we cut demand for other products that use petroleum, if we find ways to power things electrically that are now powered by oil-based fuels – anything like that could lower demand.

And there’s another issue – the oil companies already have leases to drill on thousands and thousands of acres of land in this country. Why aren’t they exploring or drilling there? And if they’re not going to, should we allow someone else to try?

I do think we need to tap our domestic reserves. But there’s a lot more we should look at as well.

Weighing in on heavier trucks

2008-07-21T17:01:00.002-05:00

The ATA and their big business allies have once again started to push Congress to allow longer, heavier truckers onto our nation’s highways, pushing for increases in both size and weight.

While the push this time is portrayed as a “green” effort – one that will cut back on fuel use and emissions – in fact, the whole thing is once again all about allowing carriers to move more freight with one truck and not pay the trucker one extra dime.

On top of that, there are plenty of reasons to oppose it. One of the chief ones is the wear and tear that the larger, heavier rigs will put on our already overtaxed and undermaintained highways.

Our current highways were built with 80,000 pound trucks in mind, so we have every reasonable expectation that they can take that weight.

Even those that were initially built in an earlier era have been repaved and rebuilt since 80,000 pounds became the standard.

However, not one of those highways was designed with trucks as large as what’s being proposed in mind.

What’s more, those roads were not designed to accommodate those trucks in terms of safety factors.

What do they propose we do? Rebuild every road out there to accommodate the new, larger trucks? It’s bad enough that they expect every single owner-operator to buy new equipment – not only new trailers, but also tractors that have enough power to haul the larger load efficiently.

We’re fine where we are, and our current weight and length standards should stay as they are.

That is OOIDA’s stance, and the Association is working hard to get that message across to our elected representatives.

A damn fine reason

2008-07-17T10:38:00.001-05:00

Plenty of truckers have called to complain about the shape some of our toll roads are in, including some that have been sold to foreign companies.

The public officials who are pushing the idea of tolling our roads say that this is a new way to fund highway building and maintenance. And many of those same officials say that private companies can do a better job than publically elected governments.

I say the proof is in the pudding. Or, to be more scientific about it, the best way to predict how people will behave in the future is to look at how those same people have behaved in the past.

I’ve heard from few if any people claiming that maintenance on Indiana’s Toll Road has improved under the private operators. One, I think, called to say some of the reports of how bad it is were exaggerated. But that’s the best call we’ve received about that road.

As for West Virginia, that state is pulling in more than enough money from its toll road to pay for keeping it in shape.

If the money coming in now isn’t enough to keep the West Virginia Turnpike in good shape, why would we believe a private company could take the same money, do better … and make a profit for shareholders?

I’ve heard people say private operators will have better efficiency, that they’ll find waste and cut it, and so on.

Well, we’ve had several roads go over to the private side, and I haven’t seen improved performance yet.

What I have seen is exactly what was predicted – the private companies cut back on service and increase rates.

So if we look at past behavior, what we see is poor performance on the part of the state, and poor performance on the part of private operators.

Want to know the difference between the two?

We can make changes in how the state is run. All state property is ultimately the responsibility of the legislature, which has to answer every election to the people.

Private companies don’t.

Beyond all the other good points made against privatization, that one point alone is a damn fine reason to keep our highway system in public hands.

Are we seeing a pattern here?

2008-07-14T09:59:00.001-05:00

Once again, large carriers and their representatives in our nation’s capital are planning a push to increase the maximum size and weight of the trucks on our nation’s roads.

Rod Nofziger revealed the effort during a conversation with Land Line Magazine Senior Editor Jami Jones on our show last week.

Todd Spencer, the executive vice president here at OOIDA, has said many times, the current rules on length and weight are fine just how they are. We’ve gone far enough, and we really don’t need to go bigger.

But something else about the situation stuck a chord with me. Does it seem to all of you that many of the issues we’ve seen raised in recent years are nothing more than a plan to save shippers money?

Truckers cost too much for your taste? No problem! Just let in some truckers from Mexico who’ll work for one-third the pay.

Shipping costs too high for you to pay it and build your new mansion? No problem! Just increase the size and weight of the truck. You can cut the number of truckers by half and make two shipments for the price of one.

Are we seeing a pattern here?

Some might say that kind of thinking is the sign of a conspiracy theorist. I’d say it’s a possible sign of political savvy.

The nanny government and Big Brother mind control

2008-07-11T16:40:00.000-05:00

Why does everything these days have to be about punishment? Why do we always see stick, but never any carrot?

Speed limiters are a particularly rotten example of this trend.

I know that for the most part, the speed limiter debate has centered on safety. But the fuel-saving and environmental arguments – that using limiters will decrease consumption and emissions – are part of the push for requiring these devices as well.

So once again, instead of encouraging people to do the right thing, we simply force them, control them, coerce them … with the rules all emanating from the ivory tower of the nanny government.

But at least one truck owner is doing things different. He called in recently, identifying himself only as “Mark.” (With a name like that, I already like the guy.)

He said he was offering a little carrot – for every ½ mile per gallon increase in fuel economy, he gives his truckers an extra 2 cents per mile that month.

I like this for a number of reasons.

First, I think it’s always better to encourage people to do the right thing rather than forcing them into a behavior.

Second, just moving slower isn’t likely to do the job. The truckers who really know how to do this are aware of that, and they’ve called us in droves to say so.

I remember a conversation I had with Frank Kennedy, a Life Member of OOIDA. He said a lot of his fuel mileage was derived from feathering up when he started, and feathering down when he came to a stop.

If you jackrabbit start and jam on the brakes to stop, and you do it frequently, I’m not sure it matters what you do in between … and that’s just one instance.

Another example: If you idle when you don’t really need to, you can use 10 gallons every night.

A system that encourages truckers to learn how they can increase mileage, and offers a reward if they do so, is far more likely to yield the results we want. I’d rather see that than all of these Big Brother mind-control-inspired attempts to control, coerce and punish truckers – a system that’s become all too frequent these days.

Nothing is perfect, but this is the best we have

2008-07-10T11:57:00.002-05:00

The price of fuel has brought many other topics to the forefront, not the least of which is the fuel surcharge.

Right now, Congress is considering the TRUCC Act – a bill that would require any fuel surcharge paid by a shipper to be passed on to the person paying for the fuel.

Some truckers have claimed that this act won’t work. The typical concern I hear is that the broker will ask the shipper to not list the surcharge separately, and instead just include it in the rate.

At one time, I was concerned about this. But is the broker going to do this?

First, what is the broker going to tell the shipper? Hey, I know I was billing you for a fuel surcharge, but I was really pocketing that money, so could you roll it into the rate now so I don’t have to pay it to the trucker? I just need you to help me violate this federal law, so I can keep ripping off you and the trucker.

Does that sound like something the shipper is going to go for?

Let’s try this on for size.

We’re assuming that the shipper and broker have the same interests. But they don’t.

Shippers prefer a surcharge. If the rate goes up, it stays up … even if fuel prices drop.

But if the shippers pay a base rate plus a surcharge, then if the price of fuel drops, their cost drops.

The shipper gains nothing, no advantage whatsoever, by going along with some broker’s scheme to line their own pockets.

People in this kind of situation tend to act in a way that benefits their own economic interests. The surcharge is the best situation for the shippers’ economic interest. And the broker can’t make the situation you describe work without the shipper’s cooperation.

The TRUCC Act isn’t perfect. But it’s a good bill, and it’s the best shot we’ve had in many years to fix this situation. If we don’t act on this, we can count on truckers being ripped off for years to come.

And that is something that no one wants.

Some well-deserved Roses

2008-07-08T14:09:00.000-05:00

Here’s one from our latest edition of Roses and Razzberries, heard on the air July 7. This was a particularly good story and some positive news about truckers for a change.

A pair of ROSES goes out to two truckers who are credited with saving the lives of two injured people trapped in a burning car.

The accident happened in Blendon Township, Michigan last week. The Associated Press reported that the victims were in a Lexus that collided with a Jeep and caught fire.

The two truckers – William Rozema of Holland and Derek Bockheim of Grand Rapids – came to the rescue.

Two of the people in the Lexus got out, but two others were still trapped.

The truckers used their fire extinguishers and a crowbar to pry the doors open and get the people to safety just as the car was engulfed in fire.

There’s a real crisis, and then there’s this …

2008-07-08T14:03:00.001-05:00

Several politicians and candidates have been calling for more off-shore drilling as a way to alleviate the fuel price crisis.

But will that really help? I think that’s what some of the folks promoting the idea would say.

But scientists will tell you the best indicator of future behavior is how people behaved in the past. So let’s take a look at recent cases where the amount of oil available on the market increased, but the price didn’t go down.

First, when the government stopped putting oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, that freed up 50,000 barrels a day and put that oil on the market.

The price did not go down.

In May, Saudi Arabia increased oil production by 300,000 barrels a day.

Guess what? The price didn’t go down.

In the past couple of weeks, the Saudis announced that in July – this month – they would increase oil production by an additional 200,000 barrels a day.

Again, the price didn’t go down.

Just this week, many media outlets reported that after a huge down period due to the war and sabotage, that Iraq was preparing to re-enter the world oil market. The country is looking at deals with Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Exxon Mobil, Chevron and others. Up to 500,000 barrels a day – a half million barrels every single day – could become available on the world market after that deal goes through. And that’s just the initial flow. With security improvements in Iraq, it’s more likely than ever to happen.

Surely, that brought down the price.

Nope. The price didn’t go down.

The idea that increased production will lower the price depends on the idea that the futures market is based on reality. Even the Saudis themselves say that if the price were based on real demand, oil should be about $70 a barrel. Yet it hovers around twice that level.

I do think we need to increase production. I also think we need more domestic supplies of energy of all kinds, including oil. I think we need to increase alternative energy production to take some of the pressure off oil.

But I don’t think that the amount of oil on the market has anything to do with the current price crisis.

In 1973, we had a real shortage. People couldn’t buy enough fuel to get a truck more than a few miles down the road.

Have you had any trouble buying fuel? No. That’s because there is no shortage.

The oil market has been manipulated. And it needs to stop.

What is a professional?

2008-07-07T13:36:00.001-05:00

A trucker recently called in and said the dangdest thing.

He objected to folks referring to truckers as professionals. His reason? He said he was taught that a professional knows everything, and since he and other truckers don’t know everything, then they aren’t “professional” drivers.

First off, I’ve never heard the word “professional” defined as someone who knows everything.

In fact, if you use that definition, there’s no such thing as a professional. As that trucker pointed out himself, no one knows everything.

Here are a few definitions I found looking at various dictionaries.

One says a professional is someone who “follows an occupation as a means of livelihood or for gain, as in a professional builder.”

Well, truckers definitely use trucking as a livelihood, and hopefully, they’re gaining a living out of it.

Another says a professional is “a person who belongs to one of the professions.” It then goes on to define profession as “an occupation that requires considerable training.” And, of course, they mean require not in the legal sense, but in the sense of skills you need to have in order to be able to perform the job.

I think trucking qualifies. And I would add that there’s a difference between a professional trucker and steering wheel holder.

As to what that difference is … well, that’s a separate discussion. But suffice it to say, I would bet that the trucker who called that thought in to us meets the definition of professional, as would most truckers I’ve met.

The Blame Game

2008-07-03T14:17:00.001-05:00

Terry Scruton has been keeping a close eye on Congress and how they’re handling the fuel price crisis.

One recent hearing dealt with the folks who trade in oil futures, and the government agency that regulates them. During that hearing, members of Congress questioned officials from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission pretty hard.

A trucker who listened in to that segment said it sounded like more of the same – just a bunch of bureaucrats and politicians blaming each other.

I know it may look like the blame game, but the fact is, if trading isn’t being properly regulated, and it’s the job of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to perform that regulation, then they are to blame.

I don’t like the blame game any more than anyone else. But when someone has a job and they fail to do it, either because they can’t or they won’t, then they should face the consequences.

What would happen to a trucker if he or she simply chose not to deliver a load? You’d face some pretty nasty consequences.

That being said, I don’t just want to see talk and finger pointing. If Congress is going to investigate this, I want them to do something – really do something – to fix the problem.

Otherwise, it really is just a blame game. And that is pretty much a useless exercise.

What has the government done to draw down the price of oil?

2008-07-01T14:03:00.004-05:00

For the most part, the Bush administration has shown little interest in doing anything to bring down the price of oil beyond asking Saudi Arabia and other OPEC countries to increase their daily production. The administration, along with the Republican congressional leadership, believes the price of oil is being driven up by increased global demand and lower global supplies. It’s purely a supply-and-demand issue to them.

Congress has essentially been spinning their wheels on this matter. Though there have been numerous congressional hearings related to oil and fuel prices, they have not been able to come together to pass any significant legislation. Pressuring the White House into ceasing shipments of oil into the already well stocked Strategic Petroleum Reserve was a good start, but only goes so far. For the most part, time and energy is being wasted on Republicans blaming Democrats for oil prices and Democrats pointing their fingers back at the Republicans.

Generally speaking, Democrats believe that conservation, renewable energies, and reining in commodity market speculation are the answers to lowering fuel prices and reducing our nation’s dependency on foreign oil. Republicans tend to believe that increased domestic drilling and oil exploration as well as increased oil refining capacities are the way to go.

Most likely for any legislative effort to have a significant impact on oil or fuel prices, it will have to use, to some extent, all of the aforementioned strategies. For that to happen, Congress and the White House will have to set aside the election year political maneuvering that currently rules their collective mind-set. And for that to happen ... well, that’s not likely to happen.

Who else would tolerate this?

2008-06-26T16:00:00.000-05:00

We’re continuing to get reaction from truckers on Reed Black’s interview with a motor carrier executive on speed limiters, mileage and pay.

And many of those reacting still have things to say that we haven’t heard in this debate yet.

Again, I respect anyone who has a different opinion on this. But I don’t think anyone – truckers included – should have to donate their time.

When you take a trip that requires an extra day because you’re compelled to run under the legal speed limit, and you’re paid by the mile, that’s what you’ve done – you just worked a day for free.

Who else in American society is asked to do this? Who else would tolerate it?

Truckers have to donate time for loading and unloading; they have to donate time for inspections; they have to donate time for all kinds of activities that they perform unpaid.

I understand that for some when you’re going slower that the trip is more relaxing, that there’s less stress involved. Some drivers who favor lowering the speed on limiters have made that point when they call me, and I understand their point about driving slower … even agree with it.

But if that’s what you want, shouldn’t it be your choice? Why should you be forced to whether you like it or not?

And remember, all of this talk about pay and relaxation leaves out the fact that speed limiters hurt safety.

I’m just having a tough time figuring out how this is a good deal for any trucker.

Finding the dark cloud around the silver lining

2008-06-25T15:46:00.000-05:00

On Monday’s show, we brought you several comments by Herb Schmidt of Conway Truckload, and from truckers, about speed limiters, mileage and trucker pay.

The issues are pretty much familiar to all of you out there – but what’s surprising us are the reactions we’re receiving.

Several more of you called in after our latest installment, and one of you had an interesting take on the situation.

That trucker, a woman named Teresa, said that now that her carrier has turned her speed limiter back, if the dispatcher gives her an impossible deliver time, she can basically say, too bad, can’t do it, you set my speed too slow to get it there by then.

She then, very politely, very “sweetly,” in her words, tells the dispatcher that if they have a problem with that, to see the president of the company. After all, that’s who set the speed.

I noticed that when Teresa talked about this, she said it was “the only good thing that I’ve found” about turning down speeds.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I assume that means she normally finds plenty wrong with that.

However, I like her point of view. A carrier really can’t complain about you running compliant, or push you to get there on time no matter what, if you can’t move the truck faster.

I still have concerns, though. And that’s because speed limiters compromise safety.

I have no objection if a trucker – a person actually behind the wheel – looks at the road they’re driving, looks at conditions and traffic, and makes a determination that it’s safe to slow down to save some fuel.

I have a real problem when an accountant who’s never been behind the wheel of a semi, who’s not there, and who can’t see the traffic or conditions, then determines that a truck needs to slow down … even if doing so is unsafe.

I do like the way you’ve found a silver lining in this dark cloud, Teresa. But the fact is, the dark cloud is still with us.

Hot fuel: It’s baa-aaaack

2008-06-24T08:50:00.000-05:00

It was all but certain that hot fuel would become an issue once again.

OOIDA first brought this issue to light years ago through the work of John Siebert, a project leader at the OOIDA Foundation.

Later it became the subject of an investigative series in The Kansas City Star, written by reporter Steve Everly.

That series led to articles in newspapers across the nation and, eventually, coverage on CNN and other television networks.

Now, with a new summer season and record fuel prices everywhere, Fox News has picked up the story again.

Several truckers called to tell us about the coverage. Some were just informing us; some were giving a little ribbing to Fox News for treating it as a brand new story.

I kind of agree – it’s pretty clear that others beat Fox News to the punch on this. But who cares? I’m glad they’re covering it, and I hope all the other networks bring the topic back as well.

We need to convert the outrage that all Americans are feeling toward pump prices, and direct that toward this issue.

It won’t solve the fuel price crisis. But every penny we save counts.

And solving this sure won’t hurt.

Change the channel on this idea

2008-06-23T13:30:00.000-05:00

We continue to get calls about the enforcement effort by Arizona against truckers who use laptop computers in the cabs.

Once again, at this point, the state has declared a moratorium on enforcement, pending a ruling from the FMCSA and CVSA.

A lot of truckers are still hopping mad about this. But some are not so sure.

I have heard from some truckers who talk about folks texting behind the wheel, diverting their attention from the road for long periods while moving, looking at videos on Web sites … the kinds of behavior that I think we’d all agree are best avoided.

But if you glance occasionally at the screen, just as you would glance at any other gauge or meter or device on your dash, and if you only glance, and don’t stare at it – in effect, if you use some common sense – it should be no problem.

We can’t legislate common sense. I wish we could.

But those who act responsibly with their laptops will continue to do so, while those who act irresponsibly about this will either continue to do so in spite of the threat of tickets, or they’ll act irresponsibly in some other way.

Cutting off a useful function for truckers who do act responsibly won’t fix this.

And incorrectly enforcing a regulation meant for televisions on some other unrelated device won’t fix it either.

Disposable people

2008-06-19T08:29:00.000-05:00

A while back, we reported on the show about a problem with drive-through scanners used at border crossings.

The scanner operators are supposed to wait for the cab – and the trucker – to pass through before turning the device on, so the truckers won’t be exposed to the scanners rays.

One trucker called in recently to say operators at some border crossings were being more careful.

I had hoped that was a sign that media attention and complaints had caused them to be more cautious. And while that may be true in some cases, it turns out it wasn’t in all cases.

We heard this week from one of our regular listeners that at least one border crossing in Washington state hasn’t changed their behavior at all. And that is terrible news.

This is plain irresponsible. And especially in light of a sign that same trucker saw posted there. It read, “Caution, High Radiation Area.”

We see this attitude all over – that companies, government agencies, and others regard their workers as important, set up safety protocols for their people, take steps to keep those folks from harm, provide them with benefits and facilities.

But, at the same time, those same people regard truckers as disposable people.

It’s bad enough when a shipper or receiver won’t give a trucker the simple decency of using a clean bathroom. To expose directly them to danger, to risk their health out of pure laziness … that is inexcusable.

I’d urge any other trucker who’s facing this to call the agency involved, call your state lawmakers, call your member of the U.S. House and both your U.S. Senators.

If you don’t get action, call again.

We need to put some public pressure on the workers who are being so careless. It’s worked in some cases, and hopefully it will finish this problem off for good.

All truckers suffer from the high price of fuel

2008-06-18T14:03:00.001-05:00

What is the impact of fuel prices on your life?

It’s a question everyone has an answer for. And none of the answers are good.

We’ve actually heard from some truckers whose carriers pay for their fuel, saying that the price doesn’t affect them.

I wish that statement really hadn’t been made. It seems pretty obvious to me that we are all affected by the high fuel price, no matter what we do for a living, or who we work for.

Even if you don’t pay for one ounce of fuel in that truck, you and your family eat. You buy groceries. You have to pay for fuel to drive to the store, and you have to pay at the store for the extra cost of fuel to haul it there.

Here’s the real kicker, pointed out recently by a trucker named Floyd Miller: Very often, the person who paid for that fuel doesn’t get the extra money you paid at the store.

Pretty much everyone in trucking knows that brokers absorb a lot of the fuel surcharges paid by grocery warehouses, food retailers and other shippers and receivers.

So why does that matter to you, or to your husband or wife, or to any other trucker or their spouse.

Simple. Here’s just one example.

If your carrier isn’t getting that surcharge, you can bet you won’t. Maybe large carriers are getting that money, but what about smaller carriers that often get their loads from brokers.

If you work for one of them, you can bet that raise is even further off than it was before.

Once again, this is an issue where all truckers need to stand together. If we don’t, we’ll all be in a world of hurt.

Remember what Benjamin Franklin said: “We must all hang together, or assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”

It’s a bad idea, I ga-ron-tee

2008-06-17T10:12:00.000-05:00

Lawmakers in the state of Louisiana recently considered a bill that would have kept tractor-trailers from using all the lanes on multilane highways in the state.

For those who haven’t heard of this yet, or who missed our broadcast the other day, the bill is SB341.

The bill is dead now, but it could come back in the future – and we see this kind of bill come up in other states on a fairly regular basis.

It makes no sense to do this. It could have an effect we’ve described on our program many times – an impenetrable wall of trucks in the right lane, keeping cars from merging on or exiting off.

Does that really sound safe? Should we really be doing this? Or is this just a way to make some four-wheelers feel like something’s being done when, really, nothing that actually improves highway safety has happened.

Like we haven’t seen that trick before.

Some states handle this with signs that say “slower traffic stay right.” The problem is all those drivers who simply think to themselves, “I’m not slower, so I’m OK here in the left lane.”

By the way, for any four-wheelers reading this, if you’re going 55 miles per hour in the left lane, and the speed limit is 70, you are slower traffic.

Just a little tip for you there.

In Kentucky, the signs say “stay right except to pass.” You can debate whether you are slower, or what that word is intended to mean. Whether or not you’re passing is a little less subjective.

States that pass this kind of bill aren’t moving ahead … they’re taking a giant step backward. Let’s hope that before any other state considers a measure like this, their lawmakers wake up and smell the coffee.

‘Nobody does anything about it’

2008-06-16T11:19:00.000-05:00

There’s an old quote from a man named Charles Warner. He said, “Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.”

The problem – and the irony – is obvious. No one does anything about the weather because they can’t.

The same can be said about the price of oil. We can’t change it. The only thing we can do is cope.

One of the ways truckers are coping with current fuel prices is by asking for a fuel surcharge.

I don’t need to tell anyone here that truckers aren’t all getting it, that, in fact, most aren’t.

Now, one of our regular callers has found a new aspect to the situation. It turns out that some shippers have been listening to XM Satellite Radio, and heard some of the folks there saying that they’re on a mileage contract, and pay only $1.25 – or a similar, incredibly low figure – for their fuel … no matter what.

The shipper our caller talked to was furious. Why, he said, should he have to pay a 58-cent surcharge for fuel when the trucker was paying a buck 25?

Good question.

I hope our caller explained the reality of the situation as most truckers experience it.

A very limited number of truckers have that deal, where they only pay a set price for fuel, and are insulated completely from the free market forces the bulk of other truckers face.

To those truckers, I say good for you. I’m glad you found a carrier who’s willing to shoot you that deal, and I wish all truckers could get the same deal.

But we all need to be careful and explain to folks outside the industry how this really works. We need to explain how rare that situation is, how most truckers really do pay the price at the pump.

If we don’t, we risk a misinformed public turning on the whole industry. And that would be very bad, indeed.

The only thing limited here is brainpower

2008-06-13T08:26:00.000-05:00

You can always count on truckers to come up with reasons for or against something that you never thought of.

The debate over speed limiters has been no exception.

The big argument being pursued now in Canada is the green one – that speed limiters will save fuel and cut emissions.

One trucker who called in ran the numbers. And he points out that if big carriers are interested in saving fuel and cutting emissions, why not install an APU on every truck in their fleet?

That would save far more fuel than the limiters would. Again, he ran the numbers – and it’s not just a little more savings … it’s a huge savings over what limiters would do.

Yet larger carriers are often the slowest to adapt use of APUs or other idle-reduction technology. We hear from company drivers every day who don’t have any alternative to idling on their trucks.

The fact is, the large carriers who are pushing for speed limiters do it for this reason:

Their bean counters have determined a speed that they think is optimum for fuel mileage. Mind you, this is a figure that leaves out the effect of driving techniques on fuel mileage, but that’s what they arrive at.

So the company limits its trucks to that speed.

Well, turns out many truckers don’t like to drive limited trucks. So recruiting becomes tough. Those truckers who don’t like the limiters sign on with other companies.

So how does a big carrier solve this dilemma? By getting their government to pass a law forcing all trucks to have limiters. If all companies are the same, there’s no recruiting advantage.

The best way to do that? Take some hot-button words – safety, environment, green – and plug what you want into those issues.

Let’s face it folks – speed limiters don’t make you safer, they don’t make you greener and the environment won’t get any better if you have them. There are things that accomplish those goals, but this isn’t it.

There is science for these conclusions – studies conducted, for example, by Professor Stephen Johnson of the University of Arkansas.

His research shows that while the one limited truck may use less fuel and put out less in emissions, because the rest of the traffic has to accelerate and brake and then accelerate again to get around it, they all use more.

Want to get green? Buy an APU. That will actually have an effect.

The arguments used to support speed limiters are false. Those debate points are created to hide the real reasoning; they are smoke and mirrors, a magician’s trick meant to distract you with illusion so you don’t notice the reality that’s about to bite you in the behind.

It’s time to shatter this illusion, break down this false argument, and stop a proposal that will do the exact opposite of its stated purpose.

Don’t forget the hot fuel

2008-06-12T07:40:00.000-05:00

With the price of diesel fuel and gas at an all-time high, with crude oil finding new and exciting ways of rising in price, and with no sign of relief in sight, we need to keep an eye out for any method, any idea that will help truckers get through.

Which brings us to a familiar subject – hot fuel.

A regular caller to our show reminded us of hot fuel recently, and I agree – we will never see a better time to ask lawmakers to address this problem.

There’s a great explanation of how hot fuel works on OOIDA’s special web site, TurnDownHotFuel.com.

The basics are this: When you buy a gallon of diesel fuel at 60 degrees, it contains 139,000 Btu, or British Thermal Units. That’s a measure of how much energy the fuel contains – essentially, the stuff you buy the fuel to get, the energy that makes the truck go.

If the fuel you buy has a temperature of 100 degrees – not really a stretch, as we’ve seen this in a number of fuel outlets – it contains 2,000 to 3,000 fewer Btu.

Now, let’s put it in even more concrete terms.

Let’s say you run 2,500 miles a week – 10 hours a day at an average 50 miles per hour, over five days. Some may run less, but for our example, let’s use this.

Let’s also say you get 6 miles per gallon on average. We usually use 5 mpg, but most truckers who have survived this long are working hard to increase that. So we’ll use 6 mpg.

That means you’re using roughly 417 gallons a week.

If your fuel comes out of the pump at 100 degrees instead of 60, you better make it 428½ gallons. Because that’s how much 100-degree fuel it will take to get you across the same 2,500 miles.

Doesn’t sound like a lot, does it? Try this on for size:

At $4.50 a gallon, that’s $52.50 extra a week.

And over the roughly four-month summer season, when hot fuel is most common, that adds up to roughly an additional $830.

If you faced that extra expense for the entire year – say, if you strictly drive along the southern tier of the United States – that could add up to an extra $2,700 a year.

Sounds like real money now, doesn’t it?

Lawmakers are looking for ways to help consumers with high fuel prices, not only at the pump, but also at the grocery store, the department store, everyplace where the price of fuel affects the costs the general public pays.

And that makes this a perfect time to call your elected representatives about this issue.

The number to call your U.S. senators and U.S. representative is (202) 224-3121.

Call your elected representatives today. And ask for change.

The only thing politicians value more than money

2008-06-10T10:02:00.000-05:00

One of the newest ways federal and state politicians are using to sneak tolling onto roads is a scheme called “congestion pricing.”

The idea is simple – charge higher tolls during rush hour, lower tolls on off hours.

Of course, first you have to add tolls. And they also never account for how the hours of service work for truckers, and how that – along with shipper and receiver schedules – affects when those truck drivers move through cities.

Plenty of truckers have voiced objections to congestion pricing. And many have suggested alternative schemes to cut congestion, or achieve other goals associated with this scheme.

While I like some of the ideas I’ve heard, they miss the real point. Officials may say this is about saving fuel or cutting congestion or helping the environment, but in reality, it’s about one thing – money.

You can always count on politicians to find new ways to take that money from you. And there’s only one thing they want more – votes.

The fact is, there are more four-wheelers than truckers, so it’s unlikely they would do anything that would punish the larger group of voters.

Also, why take cars off the highway. They want those cars out there. More cars means more tolls.

That’s why they like congestion pricing. It makes them look like they’re doing something, and it brings in the cash. As far as the politicos are concerned, everybody – at least everybody they care about – is happy.

That truckers get screwed isn’t on their radar now. It’s our job to put it there.

If you see one of these snake oil schemes in your state, call your lawmakers, and let them know you oppose congestion pricing. Tell them how it would affect you.

We need to make those politicians understand that this will cost them that one commodity they value more than money – votes.

Money for nothing …

2008-06-10T10:01:00.000-05:00

Another aspect to the energy situation that has received attention from Congress is the granting of tax incentives to the oil companies, for such things as exploration.

Congress has indicated they’d like to do something different with that money … besides giving to mega-corporations that do nothing once they receive it.

One of the possibilities Congress has listed is research into alternative fuels.

A trucker who called us recently pointed out that many of those same oil companies do some of that research. Why, he asked, should we stop them from taking money out of our right pocket and then simply let them steal the same money from our left pocket?

Here’s a thought: How about we give some of that research money to our universities, and then make the results of that work public domain?

How many times have we heard about energy-saving discoveries by major corporations that were shelved? Remember what happened to all of the GM electric cars in California once the leases were up – the company crushed them. Although later, a GM official said they were “recycled” instead of simply crushed.

Although we’re no longer convinced that alternative fuels like biodiesel and ethanol are where we’re headed as a nation, the development of those industries is pretty instructive.

Small companies took government subsidies and used them to make those fuels viable, not mega-corporations. Small companies promoted them, developed them, pursued them. The big guys were Johnny-comes-latelys.

We clearly have to pursue some kind of alternative fuel. However, simply putting that task in the hands of the same companies that allowed the current crisis to occur makes no sense whatsoever.

Speculating about speculation

2008-06-09T14:12:00.000-05:00

On one of our recent programs, I spoke with Mike Joyce of OOIDA’s Washington, DC, office about speculation in the energy market.

Experts, public officials and others have serious disagreements about how much of the crude oil price is caused by speculation. But it’s certain that a good part of the price is directly rooted in market manipulation. The question is, how much.

It’s caught the attention of Congress, it’s been the subject of a hearing in the U.S. Senate, it’s on the minds of truckers across the United States.

Several truckers who have called in have suggested that we force people who buy commodities on the market to take delivery, rather than simply buying oil on paper and then selling before it even reaches our shores.

Another said, why not just eliminate the futures market altogether?

I have to admit, it’s an interesting idea … but highly unlikely to happen.

Unfortunately, the futures market is so well established in so many commodities, that I doubt we could ever dislodge it. It’s kind of like a tick that really has its head dug in.

Farmers have complained about this for years. The farmer plants the crop, weeds the crop, fertilizes the crop, raises the crop, harvests the crop … and then gets less income out of it than a trader on the futures market.

And none of those traders ever have to take possession of a single bushel of wheat or a single pork belly.

So what can we do?

For one thing, we can restrict who can trade, or the number of seats on the market. OOIDA’s Todd Spencer pointed out recently that number has increased fivefold in the past few years.

We can also increase the amount of their own money they have to spend to invest in futures.

According to Fox News and other sources I checked, if a trader wants to buy oil on margin – essentially, to buy the oil using borrowed money – that trader has to put up 5 percent to 7 percent of the total in his own money.

On the other hand, on the stock market, regulations require that the trader put up 50 percent of the cost of a stock purchase bought on margin.

That requirement was put in after the big stock market crash in 1929, because one of the many causes of the crash was the huge number of people who had bought stock on margin.

And now, look at our current situation. The price of oil – driven in part by speculation – is causing enormous harm to the economy.

Why should oil traders get by with this when stock traders have been regulated in this fashion for nearly 80 years? Why should these traders be allowed to endanger our economy the same way it was endangered 80 years ago?

We stopped this kind of irresponsible behavior before. And there’s no reason we should hesitate to stop it again.

‘Please, sir, may I have some more’

2008-06-06T13:50:00.000-05:00

We recently ran an encore of our investigative series into highway funding in Pennsylvania.

One of the aspects of highway funding in places like Pennsylvania is the use of road taxes for so-called “transportation enhancements” – things like bike and hike trails, parks, street beautification, museums, historic buildings and so on.

As we’ve made clear all along, this is not a problem restricted to any one state. And it needs to be addressed everywhere it occurs.

Some truckers are taking action, calling their lawmakers and demanding change. And that’s something that’s great to hear.

Calls like that will become more and more important as we inch closer to the next highway bill.

A new highway bill is supposed to be written every six years, not only determining each time how federal road taxes will be spent for those six years, but often guiding how they’ll be spent long into the future.

And while calls to Congress are important, the pressure shouldn’t solely be on them.

State officials are the ones who are making the big decisions on creating new toll roads, tolling existing roads, and privatizing our highways.

We need to make sure they understand that we’re watching how they spend our highway tax dollars, and that we expect those dollars to be spent responsibly.

When they misspend our money, say then that they’ve run out and then return to the trough asking for more, it’s a little like someone finishing a 12-course gourmet meal, letting out a huge belch, and then walking up to the waiter like some bloated, overfilled version of Oliver Twist and saying “Please, sir, may I have some more.”

Until they spend what they have properly, it makes no sense to give them any more. It’s time to say no.

They couldn’t stop Charlie, but they sure stopped those price hikes

2008-06-05T10:16:00.000-05:00

A recent Associated Press story began, “Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has moved inflation up on his list of worries …”

When I was in Vietnam, the Saigon government one day announced it was sick and tired of rampant inflation and that, from that day on, merchants who raised prices would face imprisonment or even death.

Yeah … death.

Inflation in Vietnam ground to a screeching halt.

If Ben took a similar approach here, it would be a bloodbath.

After all, the top dogs at Dow Chemical just announced they’re raising prices across-the-board by up to 20 percent – mainly to offset fuel costs.

And we all know diesel fuel costs 40 percent more this year than last, while gas is up 20 percent.

Come to think of it, the price of eggs is up 60 percent.

Milk is up 26 percent, pasta up 30 percent, and fruits and veggies are up 20 percent.

Amy Brunger of Portsmouth, NH, tells The Boston Globe that she fed her family for years on $125 a week. But this year the cost suddenly shot up to $200.

And now, the natural gas industry is warning that this winter our heating bills will skyrocket because the price of natural gas has gone up 50 percent.

Put all those percentage increases together, and we’re talking some Big Time Inflation.

For the sake of a lot of nice grocers, gas station owners and truck stop fuel desk managers, I’m glad Ben’s in charge – instead of the Saigon generals.

Or at least … I think I am.

Just as smart as fertilizing tomatoes with a bag of salt

2008-06-03T16:46:00.000-05:00

The speed limiter issue continues to boil over in Canada, as Ontario continues to flirt with requiring the devices.

The basic premise supporters of the idea are using is that the limiters promote safety – an idea any trucker knows isn’t the case.

Want some real world examples? Try this on for size.

A trucker called in to our office the other day to tell us what happened recently when he tried to pass another truck in Ohio.

Both trucks were moving at very close to the same speed. And although he didn’t say so, I suspect his truck and the other truck were limited.

As he was trying to pass the other truck, a four-wheeler became impatient, veered onto the shoulder, jammed the accelerator and sped around the two trucks.

This is an excellent case study in why using speed limiters for safety is just as smart as fertilizing tomatoes with a bag of salt.

Every study of speed limiters has told us this is the kind of behavior that’s likely if we require them. It’s what every scientist who’s actually studied the issue has said can happen, what all the evidence points to.

Here are the basics again, for those in the Canadian government who have been sleeping or not paying attention:

Speed limiters create speed differentials on the highways.

Speed differentials lead to increased interaction in traffic – more passing, more speeding up, more sudden braking.

And those things lead to only one end: more accidents, and – God forbid – more deaths.

It’s time supporters of speed limiters come out from behind the safety argument. It simply doesn’t wash.

The real reason this is being pushed has been made clear over and over again. The bean counters at larger carriers tell their corporate overlords that limiting speed will save money. But it’s harder to recruit drivers when you use limiters. So these same carriers want everyone to be limited so they can more easily recruit.

It is not the job of lawmakers to help companies with flawed corporate policies to recruit workers. It is the job of lawmakers to look out for the safety and welfare of the general public.

If lawmakers in Ontario, Quebec or anywhere else are really interested in safety, they should reject this back-door form of corporate welfare.

Putting lipstick on a pig

2008-06-02T13:06:00.000-05:00

Some time back, we reported on a problem caused by the fact that some of the fuel pumps now in use were never designed to show a fuel price as high as the ones we’re facing.

Some states are dealing with it by allowing stations to show the price for a half gallon.

Needless to say, that brought in some calls from truckers, one of whom thought it was so silly that he laughed at the idea. Isn’t it funny, he said, that our lawmakers would step up to help out the very people who are charging us over $4 a gallon for fuel.

I thought the whole mess was a hoot, too.

I suppose we could be angry – everyone has a right to be – but it’s not like we all need something else to raise our blood pressure.

I will say this: At least the states allowing this are putting in some protections, such as requiring those stations to clearly mark on the pumps that the price is for only a half gallon.

On the other hand, that’s a little like putting lipstick on a pig.

But that trucker had a good point. Wouldn’t it be nice if those same state lawmakers who are so interested in helping small fuel businesses cope were just as willing to help small trucking businesses?

You might want to make a quick call to your state lawmakers and point that out. It never hurts to remind them that we’re out there.

Lessons not learned

2008-05-23T22:11:00.001-05:00

Our focus this week is on Pennsylvania, their turnpike, their lease proposal and their highway financing.

But whenever you look at a future possible lease, it’s useful to see how it worked out when it was tried before.

Our best example is the Indiana Toll Road. We kept hearing from the state how the private operator wouldn’t let the road run down, wouldn’t let prices get too high, that private business efficiencies would help them run the road better and make a profit.

OOIDA and others said that was balderdash.

Well, guess who had it right? Just ask the truckers. We did, and this is what one of our listeners told us he encountered:

Long waits just to pay the toll, to get on or get off the road;
Higher-than-ever prices for goods sold at the service areas;
Increased toll rates;
And even some toll tickets that don’t tell you what you’ll pay while on the road.

What a crock.

There’s no reason for that kind of wait, no reason for that level of prices, no reason for the lack of service, and certainly no reason to expect you to run that toll road without knowing what it will cost you.

I wish we could get that road back in the state’s hands. Before this lease was signed, how long had it been since tolls went up? How bad were the lines?

The fact is, while every other cost in our lives went up during the years the state ran that road, the cost of the tolls was stable. The state ran the road well, maintained it well, lines were not so long, things were OK.

We know that some toll roads have problems. And many folks have pointed to inefficiencies in the Pennsylvania Turnpike Authority.

So, here’s how you deal with that: Fix it.

Folks in Pennsylvania's government don’t have the courage to do that. Instead, they figure they can sell the road, get a big wad of cash they can spend to ensure their own political futures, dump the job of fixing turnpike management on a private company with no accountability, and leave the cost to our children and grandchildren.

Privatization won’t fix the problem here. It’s just another way for politicians to avoid their own responsibility for how the government is run.

BMI – a bloody mess, indeed

2008-05-23T22:09:00.000-05:00

We reported recently about a proposal that could force hundreds of thousands of truckers to undergo required, annual, expensive medical tests.

Here’s the basic concept: the FMCSA’s medical review board wants to track truckers’ BMI – body mass index – a method of questionable accuracy at best.

Those above a certain body mass index would be required to undergo testing every year for sleep apnea. And those tests can run into the thousands.

If this idea did become the law of the land, then thousands of perfectly safe truckers could be forced off the road.

One of the biggest reasons that this is a bad idea: Muscle weighs more than fat.

I know I’ve said this before, but I can’t say it enough: According to the BMI test, when Arnold Schwarzenegger was Mr. Universe, he was morbidly obese.

And even if these folks are overweight or obese, that doesn’t automatically mean they have apnea or that they’re unsafe.

OOIDA has made truckers’ views on this known. And I think you can count on us to fight this very foolish idea.

Speed limiters and economics: Looking for feedback

2008-05-21T14:38:00.001-05:00

I would love to get some comments from Canadian folks (or people who regularly run into Ontario) about the closing of a transmission plant in Windsor, Ontario, by GM, and on the efforts of the Premiere and the Transportation Minister to implement speed limiters despite the recent job loss.

Speed limiters will have a direct correlation on the price of goods in Ontario. Who can afford this? Speed limiters will economically disadvantage Ontario trucks and put small-business truckers out of work. Why is this legislation being pursued particularly at this time? I would love to hear some thoughts and feedback from drivers.

You can read an article by The Globe and Mail about the closing here.

You can send me an e-mail with your thoughts here, or post a comment on this blog.

You’re on your own

2008-05-21T09:03:00.000-05:00

I passed a fatal truck accident on my way home from work yesterday.

And, like more than 60 percent of the accidents in which truckers die, it was a one-vehicle wreck.

It happened just east of Kansas City on the exit ramp that westbound I-70 traffic takes to get onto southbound I-435.

The exit is the old-fashioned tight circle type – as close to a hairpin curve as any I’ve ever seen on an interstate.

Once you’re on it, you see a yellow caution sign that depicts a tractor-trailer tipping over.

Trouble is, by the time you see the warning sign – positioned right where the exit curves sharply – it’s too late. You’re already into the hairpin.

As I drove past, emergency personnel in day-glo, lime green vests were crawling over the overturned Marten truck.

The cab was crushed and split open so that personal items were strewn about.

I learned later that the 27-year-old driver was from Brooklyn Park, MN, and that police think a load shift may have caused the wreck.

In my opinion, the poorly designed exit ramp and the lack of adequate signage may have caused the wreck.

Witnesses say the trucker was not speeding.

Being young and from Minnesota, the trucker may not have been familiar with the dangerous exit.

Besides being sad, it also seems unfair.

Unfair that a hazard well known to Kansas Citians, but unfamiliar to many out-of-towners can claim a life.

But it’s a reminder that whether it’s a dangerous exit in Missouri, a snow storm in Washington, a steep grade in the Rockies or smoke and fog on a Florida highway, truckers are expected to deal with it.

In the end – after all the safety regulations and law enforcement – truckers are on their own.

Bringing truckers into focus

2008-05-20T17:03:00.000-05:00

The image of the trucking industry is getting better. But the fact is, we’re still fighting the battle to improve our image with the public, and we will be for some time to come.

Some groups have made a huge difference, and are laying the groundwork for the day when the general public once again realizes what great people truckers are.

And that’s why I love calls like the one I received on the “Listener Comment Line” from an OOIDA member named Matt.

Matt’s a regular caller, and he’s also a Trucker Buddy. He called to thank the truckers who took part in one of that group’s events. It sounded like a success, an event that a load of kids really enjoyed.

This kind of thing is always good news to me.

First, I think we should all thank those truckers who took part, and all the truckers who take part in Trucker Buddy. You’ve not only done a service for those kids – you’ve helped all the folks in this business with you.

The Trucker Buddy program, the World’s Largest Truck Convoy for Special Olympics, the Truckers for Troops Telethon, and on and on. If you ever doubt how good truckers are, take a look at the folks who take part in these events.

But don’t just look and admire. Share what you’ve seen with everyone around you. The best advertising is word of mouth. And when we spread the word to our friends, our neighbors, our families, to everyone we know … that’s when we’ll begin to truly change the public’s perception of this industry.

The three R’s – recovery, rally, reality

2008-05-14T11:53:00.000-05:00

Words are funny things. Unlike numbers, which have the same meaning no matter what context they are placed in – a 3 is a 3 is a 3 no matter what – words can change meanings faster than Hillary changes accents on the campaign trail.

Look at the word “recovery.” What does it mean to you? When I think of recovery, I think of someone getting better after an illness. Someone lying in a hospital bed eating Jell-O after a surgery. Someone bouncing back after being down.

Recovery is a term used a lot by folks who talk about the oil markets. Given the definitions above, you wouldn’t think it would be used much these days. After, all, at upwards of $120, $125 a barrel, what is there to recover from?

And yet, there it is. Day after day, I see reports on how the oil market “recovered” from its latest dip of 10 cents per barrel, or 20, or, heaven forbid, sometimes even 30 cents per barrel.

Recovered, they say, as though we were supposed to be concerned when it fell. As though we are supposed to breathe a sigh of relief now that it has bounced back.

Rally is another term they like to use. When I think rally, I think of the Red Sox coming back from a three-run deficit to beat the Yankees. Or a group of truckers gathered in Pennsylvania or DC desperately trying to get the attention of lawmakers who supposedly work for them.

But to oil market analysts, the market can rally, much like it recovers, after a dip of a few cents per barrel. It rallies, like a come from behind victory, like the underdog coming from 10 points down and scoring the winning basket at the buzzer. Everybody stand up and cheer.

Puh-leeze.

I think it’s time we introduced these oil market traders to another word I like to use – it’s called reality.

See, in reality, boys and girls, the recovery will come when truckers don’t have to take out a bank loan to fill up their tanks. The rally will come when they are able to make enough on a load to earn a decent living.

And reality will hit these folks in the oil market square in the face when they discover that their rallies and recoveries can’t go on forever.

Speed doesn’t kill – but stupid government proposals can

2008-05-13T10:28:00.000-05:00

The Ontario Minister of Transportation recently put on what we in the media call a dog and pony show.

He appeared at a truck show and “turned on” the speed limiter in a new truck. He was trying to demonstrate how easy it is to just turn a speed limiter on and off.

The demonstration was part of a publicity campaign to encourage Canadian lawmakers to mandate speed limiters to be activated on big trucks. Truthfully, it’s not that easy.

So, I think I need to address something about that idea.

The road speed limit is one of the settings on your ECM, and it’s a setting that must be programmed. That means you need a computer – and a trained mechanic – to set it or to adjust it. And that means money – real money – out of the trucker’s pocket.

Let me get this straight. If the mandate passes, then all truckers traveling in Ontario … and possibly Quebec … will have to activate a limited road speed on the truck’s ECM, right? And unless their carrier has set up a geo-fence around Ontario or Quebec via GPS, that means they’ll have to leave them on when they leave, right?

That’s way more complicated than just a switch on, switch off.

Plus, if it’s so easy, it flies right in the face of Ontario’s edict that the speed limiter be tamper-proof.

Why don’t they just enforce the speed limit laws? The reason they give is that they don’t have enough officers to do that.

Heck, even if they require the limiters, it won’t stop speeding. That’s because it’s not the trucks speeding up there. It’s the cars. Their own figures show that.

Even beyond that, the government’s own speed limiter proposal contains funding for dozens of additional enforcement officers – but not to enforce speed limits. These new officers would be added to enforce the speed limiter rule.

So why not just hire the officers to enforce the speed limits?

That’s because this isn’t really about slowing down traffic or stopping speeders. That was just an issue they used to generate support from the general public.

This issue has been pushed from Day 1 by the Ontario Trucking Association. The big carriers they represent use limiters. And like American carriers who use them, they have problems recruiting drivers, in part because many truckers don’t want to drive a limited truck.

So they figure if they force everyone to use limiters, it eliminates the possibility of driving a truck that’s not limited.

No government should force an unsafe road speed limit onto trucks just to give some of their corporate buddies a competitive advantage.

What happens when the race is all tortoise, no hare?

2008-05-12T10:32:00.001-05:00

One of the biggest issues today in the trucking industry is the attempt by two Canadian provinces to require all trucks traveling through their borders to have a speed limiter set at 65 miles per hour.

Few issues have generated this many calls to our program.

One of the chief concerns that some truckers have is the so-called “turtle races” or “elephant races” that develop when one limited truck tries to pass another.

And that aspect of the limiter issue brings up all kinds of issues.

Here’s one:

We hear all the time that the federal Department of Transportation wants to use congestion pricing and tolling to reduce traffic clogs on our highways.

If the government really cares about congestion, how about we avoid a system that guarantees huge backups as one limited truck tries to pass another?

Of course, the reality is that they really don’t care about congestion. They’re just using it as a backdoor way to achieve their real goal – selling off our highways to private corporations, mainly companies from foreign nations.

Here’s another:

One of our listeners witnessed one of these elephant races recently, a passing maneuver that took 7½ miles to complete. And that points to some real safety concerns.

What happened after the first truck finally finished passing the slower rig 7½ miles later? I’m betting that one four-wheeler after another scrambled to get by the two rigs, jumping in and out and accelerating to wild speeds.

I only say that because every time I see that situation on the highway, that’s the next thing that happens. It’s like they all think they have to make up the time they lost while the trucks were side by side.

Well, guess what? Those maneuvers, the passing, the lane jumping, the cutting off, the speeding past slower vehicles … all of that is behavior that leads to accidents.

If the two trucks were allowed to move at the prevailing speed of traffic, if the passing truck were allowed to accelerate enough to complete the passing maneuver in a reasonable amount of time, if it weren’t limited … far less of that activity, if any, would take place.

That makes the roads safer. And it’s just one reason why speed limiters don’t.

Keep on TRUCCin’

2008-05-09T08:13:00.000-05:00

Since OOIDA announced the introduction of the TRUCC Act, some folks have expressed concern about having the government involved in the surcharge.

Of particular concern is the idea that the bill would add to the government bureaucracy, create a new agency, or give the government more power.

This shouldn’t require any additional bureaucracy at all. It’s a simple statement that the surcharge must be passed through, that it must be disclosed. The bill says nothing about creating a new bureaucracy.

Remember, the government’s already involved in trucking up to its neck. But right now, all of its power is aimed at the truck driver, and virtually none of the government’s efforts target the brokers or the carriers.

This is intended to put some power in your hands, not in the hands of the government, not in the hands of the carriers, not in the hands of the brokers.

Some have even expressed a concern that this bill would create additional costs for truckers or others. This shouldn’t add to the cost of doing business; it should bring money that should rightfully belong to the trucker and put it in the trucker’s hands.

Far too often, we find government working against the interests of truckers and in favor of those who exploit truckers. This bill is nothing more than an attempt to level the playing field.

Roses and Razzberries rationale

2008-05-07T14:09:00.000-05:00

I shot a RAZZBERRY into the air. It fell to earth, I knew not where.

Excuse my waxing pathetic there, and my deepest apologies to Longfellow, but a lot of times when I send out Roses or Razzberries – be it in the magazine or on the radio – I never know if anyone is listening (or reading).

And then there are times when I am made all too painfully aware of the fact that, yes, someone is listening. And they are not happy about it.

Take this RAZZY we gave out on a recent radio show, for example:

A tow truck driver in Troutville, Virginia gets a big, fat RAZZBERRY from OOIDA member Steve Pina.

Steve was hauling a load of insulation not long ago when the load shifted and came loose. He stopped and called for help. The police called for a tow truck. Steve was billed for more than $1,600 – $450 an hour for a wrecker that was never used and $100 an hour in labor for the two men driving it. Plus fuel and a fuel surcharge.

Steve said he was billed for 2½ hours of work, when the men were only there for a little over an hour. He asked if he could pay the bill in installments and the towing company refused and called the police, threatening to impound the truck. The police were no help, either, telling him to shut his mouth and get his stuff because they were impounding the truck.

Pretty outrageous stuff, right? Well, I got several calls wondering why we didn’t give out the name of the towing company and that’s a good question.

The answer is, not that we doubt Steve’s claim, but being journalists we have to verify it. And we get so many of these kinds of Razzberries that we just don’t have the manpower to verify them all. But every once in a while, one comes along that’s so outrageous it needs to be said.

Now, if Steve himself wants to shout the name of the towing company from the rooftop or, say, post it in the OOIDA member’s only forum, well, who am I to stop him?

A backdoor path to tolling?

2008-05-06T07:58:00.000-05:00

The price of fuel is driving the national debate over many issues right now. It’s even made its way into the presidential campaign.

Not that it’s a big surprise, with fuel topping $4 a gallon.

A recent round includes a proposal by Sen. John McCain – the presumptive Republican presidential nominee – to drop the fuel tax between Memorial Day and Labor Day.

One of our listeners wondered if the idea wasn’t just a backdoor scheme to promote more tolling and privatization.

After all, if the Highway Trust Fund – which is where the fuel tax is supposed to go – runs out because nothing’s coming in, it would justify all the folks who say we should do away with it and replace it with tolling.

I’ve wondered myself if some folks in DC look at the senator’s plan as a path to getting their way on tolling. Even if that’s not the intention, it probably would have that exact effect.

We already have so much money diverted from the Highway Trust Fund that it’s going to go empty not far in the future.

And please note the reason it’s drying up. It’s not because the fuel tax can’t fund our highways. It’s because they keep taking fuel tax money meant for roads and spending it on God knows what.

No one likes taxes. But if the tax is actually spent on what we paid it for, I think that would be fine.

One other problem with this idea: Fuel taxes aren’t what caused the price of fuel to be so high. OOIDA Executive Vice President Todd Spencer pointed out recently that the fuel tax per gallon now is the same amount it was when fuel was less than a dollar a gallon.

How do we know the price of fuel will really come down? How do we know the oil companies won’t just charge the same price and keep the extra money? Would this idea just be a new way for oil companies to make more profit? I think they have more than enough profit now.

A fuel tax holiday, good as it sounds, won’t help. We need a real solution.

Oh, and one more side note. Some folks have the impression that this trend toward tolling is the work of one political party – the Republicans.

Unfortunately, this is a bipartisan effort to screw us. Remember that one of the biggest advocates of tolling free interstates and then selling our roads is a Democrat – Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania.

In the matter of tolling and highway privatization, we have opponents – and friends – in both political parties.

Maybe the FMCSA should sleep on it …

2008-05-01T15:10:00.000-05:00

A recent decision by the FMCSA’s Medical Review Board that recommends all truckers above a certain body mass index be tested for sleep apnea has plenty of folks up in arms – and rightly so.

We’ve even heard from some truckers who think the new proposal would disqualify anyone above a certain weight.

That’s not the case. In fact, it’s far more insidious than that.

The proposal would require any truckers above that body mass to undergo testing for sleep apnea, a process that costs thousands of dollars. That makes it unaffordable to any trucker whose insurance doesn’t cover it, or who doesn’t have insurance.

Plus, for those few who actually do have apnea, this proposal would require CPAP use.

If you actually have apnea, that’s a good idea. However, some of the discussion I saw on this revolved around monitoring the use of that machine. And I have a real problem with Big Brother watching me while I sleep.

That being said, I agree with what one of our callers said. Government rarely thinks about the consequences when they look at one of these regulations – even though the law requires them to consider the costs to small business.

Truckers will get the chance to speak out on this. And when the time comes, we’ll make sure you know where, when and how you can make your voice heard.

A matter of clarification …

2008-04-30T12:01:00.000-05:00

We don’t often run calls about what’s said on other shows. We figure if folks have a question, or comment or complaint with those shows, they should contact them.

However, recently, OOIDA headquarters has been flooded with calls about radio host Kevin Rutherford, particularly about some of the comments he’s made about OOIDA, and about the fuel surcharge legislation the association is supporting.

As I said, we normally wouldn’t run calls about another show, but as our own Reed Black once said, if you get this many calls about any topic, you ignore it at your own risk.

So I hope you’ll indulge me if I take this opportunity to clarify some things.

First, some of the callers – and folks writing on our forum and others – claim that OOIDA has asked XM Satellite Radio to take Mr. Rutherford’s show off the air.

The association has not asked for that to happen, and would not ask for that. XM controls their own programming.

We disagree with Mr. Rutherford on the fuel surcharge issue. And he has a right to his opinion.

What we encourage all truckers to do is listen to all sides of the debate, do your own research as well, and come to your own conclusion regarding any issue.

As far as the fuel surcharge bill, The TRUCC Act, I can’t understand who would oppose it – outside of the brokers and carriers who stand to profit even more if it doesn’t pass.

The only thing this legislation requires is transparency, so everyone involved knows what is being paid; and it requires it to be passed through – that money collected for increased cost of fuel to the person who pays for that increased cost. What could be simpler?

If I understand Mr. Rutherford’s argument correctly, it’s that he doesn’t want the government involved in the fuel surcharge – or any other part of the business of trucking. I believe his contention would be that it distorts the free market.

However, I would say this: The debate over OOIDA’s fuel surcharge bill is not a debate about the free market.

It is not a distortion of the free market to allow everyone involved in a contract to actually see the contract.

It is not a distortion of the free market to ensure that consumers and shippers actually get what they pay for.

It is a distortion of the free market to fraudulently collect money for fuel when that money’s not being used to pay for fuel.

And that’s what collecting a fuel surcharge and giving it to the middleman is … It’s fraud. Government has a legitimate role in preventing fraud.

We used to call that kind of activity law enforcement. Now, Mr. Rutherford calls it stifling the free market.

Another point of contention are comments Mr. Rutherford made regarding OOIDA. I wanted to hear those comments myself, and I have listened to that conversation, which took place on his show.

Mr. Rutherford said he thinks OOIDA has harmed the trucking industry. He says he doesn’t want to belong to a group representing owner-operators or other truckers because a group like that would distort free market forces.

That’s a very fine ideological stand. However, that type of ideology doesn’t work in the real world, and the real world is where truckers live.

The thing Mr. Rutherford misses is that everyone else, including the big carriers, will and do have representatives in Washington.

He misses the fact that there will be regulation of this industry by our government. It doesn’t matter whether we like it or not. That’s reality.

So do you want owner-operators to be the only people without representation when those regulations are written? Do you want other truckers like company drivers to have no representation as well? Isn’t that a little like unilateral disarmament?

Do you want regulation that screws you and rewards your competition? Or do you want regulation that provides an equal environment for all?

I guarantee you, the other folks who take an opposite side will be there, will have representatives, will ask for a regulatory environment that favors their members, will ask for new regulations that restrict truckers in their daily activities.

And if no one else is there, if there is no voice, a voice like OOIDA, those people and their representatives will get what they want.

Mr. Rutherford seems to live in an ideal world where we live in a truly free market and the government stands to one side, hands off, to allow all businesses to compete in a perfect environment.

I’m sorry, Mr. Rutherford. That world doesn’t exist. Not anywhere on Earth.

Here in the real world, OOIDA exists so that truckers have a voice.

That does not mean we expect the government to do everything for us. It does not mean we oppose anything free market.

And likewise, supporting bills like The TRUCC Act does not mean that we’re socialists. Trust me when I say, nothing could be further from the truth.

But like it or not, the government is already involved in this business, up to their ears.

The only thing we’re trying to do is to ensure that the government’s involvement doesn’t destroy otherwise viable businesses.

Mr. Rutherford often says that when someone has a grievance with him, they should call his show and talk it out.

It’s clear Mr. Rutherford has a grievance with OOIDA. So we’d like to do the same – We’d like to invite him to be a guest on our program and to discuss the issues with someone here from OOIDA.

Green with envy over this fuel …

2008-04-29T10:29:00.000-05:00

Here at the show, we’ve been dealing with the high cost of fuel by talking about what truckers themselves can do to survive the current fuel price crisis.

But we all know about the bigger issues involved. The price of oil and fuel is higher than it’s ever been. And while many think speculation is primarily to blame, others have pointed to different reasons.

The lack of refinery capacity in this country is one. Over the years, because of strict environmental laws here in the United States, more and more have closed, and few if any have opened.

That led one of our callers to ask: Why not locate those refineries just over the border in Mexico?

That would create plenty of jobs for people there, which hopefully would mean fewer entering our nation illegally. It would provide us with plenty of refinery capacity and yet keep those facilities where the EPA frankly doesn’t care about them.

It seems like a win-win. If our environmental laws are holding back construction of new refineries, why not put them there?

I hesitate, however, to suggest moving any business out of this country right now. We really need the jobs here.

The better solution is for them to work out the environmental concerns and build them here. But as everyone knows, we have little control over that.

That same caller asked about the latest trend in supposedly environmentally friendly fuels – using algae to produce biofuels.

Unlike other biofuels that are falling out of favor, that’s pretty interesting stuff – and for a number of reasons.

First, the stuff thrives on carbon dioxide, so the output of power plants could be funneled into it. It would make the stuff grow like mad, and prevent that CO2 from getting into the atmosphere.

Second, growing that algae doesn’t take a fraction of the land required for other biofuels. Farmland could be dedicated to food crops. Land that has little use for crops could be used for algae.

There are still concerns about even this idea – and it’s important to note that it has to stand alone in the long run. Government subsidies may be an option to get something off the ground, but in the long run, no fuel can make it if it continues to require those subsidies past the research stage.

Even if everything goes well, algae-based fuel is still quite a ways off. But it does have some promise.

If you want to read more, click here.

Let people have their grief in peace

2008-04-25T16:14:00.000-05:00

Sometimes, the bills that come out of states irritate us. Sometimes, they anger us. And sometimes, they just seem silly or frivolous.

A recent bill in Missouri struck one of our listeners as belonging in the last category.

The measure aims to replace the makeshift roadside memorials families place along highways with official state ones. However, only memorials to victims of drunken driving would be created by the bill.

Frankly, I thought this was much ado about nothing myself. But I think we have a duty as a news outlet to let people know when lawmakers spend time – and therefore taxpayers’ money – on things like this.

The lawmaker involved thinks these little crosses are a safety hazard. Does he think encouraging people to read the little blue sign instead of paying attention to other traffic is any more safe?

And on top of that, what’s with making a grieving family pay – much less pay up to $1,000? Funeral expenses are bad enough these days. Why are we adding more expense to folks already under incredible personal stress?

We have serious problems in this country. Fuel prices are bankrupting people. The economy is in shambles. Our roads are deteriorating.

Let people who are in grief put up their little crosses and flowers, especially if it helps them get through it. Let’s get out of the business of putting up memorials for them.

Truckers and millionaires do have something in common

2008-04-25T16:13:00.000-05:00

We try to keep you up to date on everything that can affect your life as a trucker – on all the issues linked to transportation.

However, as you can imagine, things happen all the time that you would never think of as transportation issues, but which are very definitely linked to this industry and its interests.

One of those is the so-called tech tax in Maryland.

The concept was simple – the state extended its sales tax to computer services, which previously weren’t covered.

The tech industry had a cow. After a major lobbying effort, they had it repealed. But it’s how they paid to make up the income lost that interests us.

The state diverted 100 million dollars out of transportation and other programs to pay for half of that tax cut on computer repair and other tech services.

The other half was paid for by what the state calls a “millionaire’s tax” – literally, a tax on incomes of 1 million dollars a year or more. I supposed I’m OK with that one, if we have to have a tax. But I think it’s silly to link highway users together with millionaires. I don’t ever recall seeing a trucker light an expensive cigar using a hundred dollar bill.

In reading about this, I saw something interesting. The tech community in Maryland, the businesses small and large in that industry, all worked together to get the tax repealed.

John Eckenrode is the president of Catonsville, MD, computer services company CPSI and a leader in the movement to get the tax repealed. He told a local newspaper that the tax would have a disastrous effect – his words – on his business and others like it.

He added, talking here about the repeal effort’s success, ‘‘If there is any … lesson, it is to get yourself a good publicity team, a good grass-roots team, a good lobbying team and get your fundraising lined up.”

Another leader in the repeal movement, Thomas Loveland, told that same local newspaper that lawmakers in the state didn’t understand the economic impact of taxing computer services. He added this: ‘‘It became all about educating them that this is a huge component for success in the economy.”

Folks, that is what OOIDA is doing every day. Our folks in Washington, DC, are making the case for truckers, and we are always trying to encourage a grassroots effort to back it up. In this case, grass roots means phone calls by truckers like you to Congress.

Those computer folks in Maryland blasted the state capital with phone calls, all talking about how that tech tax would affect them, how it would hurt their business, how it would cut their profitability – and therefore, cut their ability to pay taxes to the state.

Truckers need to learn from that example.

When OOIDA’s DC staffers speak with a congressional office and say truckers aren’t receiving the fuel surcharge paid by shippers, those folks are far more willing to believe that if they hear the same thing from truckers who live in their own districts.

We’ve shown that this works. We’ve done it before, with great success. If we can keep doing it again and again, we will make incredible, positive changes in this industry.

Would they put up with this crap?

2008-04-21T14:28:00.001-05:00

Idling regulations and restrictions continue to proliferate across the country.

Lacking any central decision by the federal government, states, counties and cities have taken the lead on the issue, creating a patchwork of often conflicting regulations that truckers have to navigate in order to avoid frequently prohibitive fines.

It’s an issue that matters to anyone who’s spent a night in a sleeper berth. And it caused one trucker to say this:

Maybe they should try it.

The example he gave was a good one: a proposal in Pennsylvania that would restrict diesel-powered commercial vehicles to no more than five minutes idling per hour. The only exceptions – if the temperature is lower than 40 degrees or higher than 75 degrees.

Why don’t the folks writing the law try living that way, the trucker asked. Would they tolerate living in a house that was 40 degrees inside?

I’ve heard truckers make this case before, and I think lawmakers write it off. They justify blowing off this argument by saying it’s not the same.

Well, it is, plain and simple. You, as a U.S. citizen, are entitled under the 14th Amendment to our Constitution to equal protection under the law.

What other American worker would accept these conditions in their workplace? If there were a business like that, we’d call it a sweatshop.

What other American citizen would accept these conditions in their home? To many truckers, that cab is home. Most over-the-road truckers spend more time in the truck than their own bed, and some live in the cab full time. And if we required people in an apartment complex to live in those conditions, we’d call it a slum.

Electrical generation to warm or cool homes creates far more in the way of greenhouse gas than trucks.

Call your lawmakers, and remind them of that. Remind them that in our nation, those who run things are supposed to follow the same rules as those they govern.

Idle money released into thin air …

2008-04-18T16:32:00.000-05:00

We reported earlier this week about troubles at IdleAire.

The company says it is in financial trouble—and the company says it has “substantial doubt” about its ability to keep operating.

A lot of folks had questions from the beginning about how this thing would survive once the federal money dried up.

A caller to our program asked how they arrived at this point with $55 million in federal money. Let’s show the full picture – they got $55 million, and then they ended up $93 million in the hole this year alone.

Even if you don’t count the losses for previous years – and apparently, they were all losses – that’s $148 million they burned through. The final tally of losses may go much higher.

We not only need an investigation of where the money went – we need to learn some lessons to use the next time someone comes along with a scheme like this asking for our federal taxpayer money.

Every single one of us has faced a scam or two in life. We learn from it, and then we avoid the problem the next time it crops up.

The federal government should be expected to do no less.

It’s a simple matter of survival

2008-04-18T16:31:00.000-05:00

Trucking is a business. No one out there needs us to tell them that.

And everyone knows about the strain that fuel prices are putting on every business in trucking. Again, everyone reading this knows.

Ultimately, though, the solution to the cost of fuel is business practices.

We can’t control the price we pay at the pump. The government could, but it’s so unlikely they will that it’s not smart to put your business on hold waiting for them.

What we can control is how we do business – what loads you will accept, which ones you won’t … you can know what your cost of operations is and you can know what price you need to make a living.

We’ve heard a lot from truckers about how this is playing out on the open road. A recent call to the show’s Listener Comment Line put a familiar spin on it.

Steve, a regular caller based in Massachusetts, said he was offered a load for $1,100. He told the broker he would not move it for a penny under $2,400.

Well, guess what? The broker piped up and said he already had someone to haul it for $2,000. Steve’s refusal stopped that broker from pocketing $900 more of the shipper’s money – cash that legitimately should go to the trucker.

Steve’s story points to exactly what we’ve been talking about, both on the program and elsewhere here at OOIDA headquarters.

Not only did the load pay far more than the broker let on – I’m willing to bet it even paid enough to cover Steve’s $2,400 and give that broker a more than decent fee.

Let’s face it – when the broker couldn’t find someone to take the load for $1,100, he had to pay more. And if that broker hadn’t found the $2,000 dollar trucker, he would have used Steve.

Here at OOIDA, we’ve heard from plenty of truckers who did exactly what Steve did, but they did get their price and they did get the load.

The fact is, truckers can’t make it in the long run without covering their costs and paying themselves a salary. If you want to be around in five years, this isn’t something you should do. It’s something you must do.

It’s better to sit out a few days waiting for the right load than running at a loss and putting yourself into bankruptcy … or an early grave from the stress.

The “city that works” … to take your money

2008-04-17T14:02:00.000-05:00

Among the many ways governments try to get truckers and others to pay for roads is a new trick called “congestion pricing.”

Here’s the basic idea: Tolls go up during rush hour, so people will spread the traffic out over time, traveling before or after the traditional rush hour, so they can avoid the higher tolls.

On the surface, sounds great. Except when you realize that without a true split sleeper provision – one that lets truckers rest a couple of hours to wait out the heavy traffic –there’s no way for them to take advantage of the lower rates.

The feds have been heavily pushing this idea. And now, it turns out someone’s actually put it into practice.

In fact, the Illinois Tollway has had this system in place for some time. And the whole scheme assumes that truckers have far more control over their schedules than most drivers really do.

Chicago also led the way on privatization. They had one of the first highway sales in the Chicago Skyway. It seems as if they’re intent on leading the way into as many bad ideas as possible.

Many years ago, when the first Richard Daily was mayor of that town, it was known by a nickname – “the city that works.”

So how’s it working now? You be the judge – but it doesn’t sound too good to me.

When trucking gets a cold, America sneezes

2008-04-15T14:58:00.000-05:00

Every single person in America is dealing with the high cost of fuel. But truckers face a particular burden. Unlike most Americans, they have to deal with that cost as a fundamental part of making a living.

They track that fuel cost and how it affects their operation. And they’re very aware of how that fuel cost affects everyone they do business with – which means, in essence, everyone else in the economy.

That gives truckers a particular kind of insight. And it’s where most of the public falls short in their understanding of how fuel prices affect our economy.

The folks in government never seem to understand the basic concept here – that when costs go up for truckers, everyone else will eventually pay as well. They still look at trucks as if they’re giant rolling piggy banks full of free cash.

Part of the problem is their basic misunderstanding of the nature of the trucking industry. They think of it as giant fortune 500 companies, whereas the business is – in reality – mostly made up of some of the smallest operations in the American business world.

You see that misconception playing out elsewhere as well. A good example is the Indiana Toll Road. Part of the reason you haven’t seen them learn the lessons of that debacle is that – in part – the ultimate consequences are still developing, with some still years away.

Remember, regular toll increases were built into that lease. But they were designed to happen over time.

By the time the toll rates have gone up over and over and finally reached an unpayable, unaffordable figure, many of the folks who caused the mess will be long retired.

It’s all of us, along with our children and grandchildren, who’ll be stuck with an unaffordable road, few alternatives and a messed up highway system in that state.

The best recourse we have to correct problems like this is public pressure. Make sure you register to vote, and make sure you vote in every election at every level of government. Find out where candidates stand on these issues, and vote accordingly.

And keep those calls coming to your members of Congress – both House and Senate – and to your state lawmakers. Keep telling them how this affects you, how you oppose it.

We’ve proven time and again how a wave of phone calls from truckers can affect how our elected officials vote.

Not so far with the SPR …

2008-04-14T16:52:00.000-05:00

A caller to our Listener Comment Line recently suggested something: Why not release 100 million barrels or so of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, flood the market, and crash prices?

It’s an interesting idea. It certainly sounds satisfying to anyone who’s suffered at the hands of current fuel prices.

But, realistically, that will never happen.

The current administration is not only intent on filling the current reserve – they want to expand the capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve by 300 million barrels of oil.

Our first step has to be to stop adding oil to this reserve. It is very close to its planned capacity – which means that it can and will serve its intended function: to preserve our energy security.

What concerns me now are two things:

First, I worry about the message we are sending to the world markets. A number of oil industry experts have said that continuing to add to the reserve sends a signal that the U.S. government expects a major disruption in world supply in the near future.

Why else would we add oil at the highest price in history? Wouldn’t a careful, prudent planner buy low and sell high? Isn’t that what they taught us in grade school?

Second, I’m concerned about not only our physical security, but also our economic security.

War is a crisis. That’s plain. But the Depression was just as big a crisis to this nation as any war.

I’m not saying we’re headed into a period like that. But I think any clearheaded person knows we’re in a downturn. I simply don’t see any reason to take actions that can only make it worse.

And that, my friends, is the only possible outcome of continued contributions to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

BMI – it stands for “Bums Messing up the Industry”

2008-04-14T16:50:00.000-05:00

Recently, I spoke with Melissa Theriault of OOIDA’s Washington, DC, office about the CDL Medical Review Board.

The board hatched a harebrained idea about using BMI, or body mass index – an inaccurate measure at best – to determine how likely truckers are to get sleep apnea.

Their plan was to decide whether to give truckers only provisional medical certification if they were above a certain body mass index figure. Under their proposal – now pretty much approved by that board – nearly half of truckers would face provisional certification.

The idea has a lot of truckers’ blood boiling.

Here are just a few of the long list of problems with this scheme:

First, what they call overweight is not what I call overweight. Under their standards, when Arnold Schwarzenegger was Mr. Universe, he was technically obese.

The way they figure body mass index is inaccurate. It should not be used, period.

Melissa told me at one point this was little more than an employment plan for doctors, since it will force truckers to undergo an unnecessary exam year after year. I thought at the time she was exaggerating, but now I’m not so sure she was wrong.

Trust me when I say, OOIDA will fight this wrongheaded idea.

Hey, buddy – toll this!

2008-04-14T16:47:00.000-05:00

On a recent program, we talked about tolls on the George Washington Bridge in New York, and what they’re supposed to be used for.

One of the points I brought up was that a lot of the money collected on the bridge isn’t spent on maintenance; it’s diverted to other spending.

Turns out more of the money’s being taken out of maintenance than I thought. A trucker recently called in to point out that the bridge is poorly maintained at best – and clearly, the huge sums of tolls being collected are not being used as they should be.

And he’s not the only trucker who called in to say this.

What’s more, another trucker called me to say that the Indiana Toll Road – now a privately run enterprise – is being pretty shoddily maintained as well.

I think it’s a damn pity.

If truckers are going to pay a premium, a double tax – which, frankly, is what a toll amounts to – then they should get premium service, not substandard service.

How about this: truckers pay the regular price, and you give them the service they’re paying for. That’s a deal I think you’d find most truckers could live with.