A no-brainer the ATA doesn’t get

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.