The Blame Game

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?

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?

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

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

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

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

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.