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.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
There’s a real crisis, and then there’s this …
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.
Monday, July 7, 2008
What is a professional?
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.
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.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)