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.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Friday, August 22, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Looking at the world through rose-colored lenses (or some other color)
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?
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?
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Insult on top of injury
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.
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.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Political horse trading
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.
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.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Big truck insanity
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.
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.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
A revelation in Ontario: Heavy things go down hills fast!
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)