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.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Monday, May 12, 2008
What happens when the race is all tortoise, no hare?
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.
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.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Keep on TRUCCin’
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Roses and Razzberries rationale
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?
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?
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
A backdoor path to tolling?
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.
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.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Maybe the FMCSA should sleep on it …
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
A matter of clarification …
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)