Some dispute that trucks pay their full costs for highways.
https://truecostblog.com/2009/06/02/the-hidden-trucking-industry-subsidy/
I once found an Iowa DOT study that said about the same as the linked article.
I like everyone else always thought that the subisidy was directed at truckers. While they benefit, the true subsidy is on large shippers who are able to keep their freight rates as low as possible. As was observed, there are many trucking companies out there. If one dares raise their rates, there's always someone else to call. This will make some of them to try to eat some costs if possible instead of passing them along. Because of this, maybe it's time to levy a road use tax directly on the shipper in some way. They are the ones who benefit the most from trucks pounding highway infrastructure into the ground.
Jeff
Shadow the Cats owner No the reason why the highway trust fund is going broke is in the 90s Clinton's DOT sec of Transportation made it a piggy bank for transit projects when they said if you're using highway funds to get traffic off the roads then the federal government will pick up the cost up to 80 percent to start. Ever since then the balance has trained negative. Kinda like social security when Johnson put the trust fund there on the budget to pay for his welfare state.
No the reason why the highway trust fund is going broke is in the 90s Clinton's DOT sec of Transportation made it a piggy bank for transit projects when they said if you're using highway funds to get traffic off the roads then the federal government will pick up the cost up to 80 percent to start. Ever since then the balance has trained negative. Kinda like social security when Johnson put the trust fund there on the budget to pay for his welfare state.
Don't forget that in that same time the tax has not been increased, and with inflation the cost of everything else has gone up, meaning that the tax has actually decreased significantly.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Some factual information on the Trust Fund and proposals:
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-highway-trust-fund-and-how-it-financed
Corrections to the truck person's fallacious account of the mass transit portion and other errors.
The Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1982 and the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 made major revisions to the highway taxes, including another increase in Federal motor-fuel taxes. The 1982 STAA also established a special Mass Transit Account in the HTF and directed a portion of the motor-fuel tax to that new account. [on Reagan's watch] The rest of the tax remained dedicated to the original portion of the Trust Fund, referred to as the “Highway Account.” The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA 90) increased the Federal gasoline tax by another five cents per gallon (up to 14.1 cents per gallon), effective December 1, 1990. It also established a “first” for the HTF: half of the revenues derived from the five-cent increase went to the General Fund of the Treasury for deficit reduction. Before that time, virtually all revenues from Federal motor fuel (and other highway-related Federal excise taxes) had been credited entirely to the HTF.[70] The General Fund portion of the tax was imposed on a temporary basis through September 30, 1995. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA 93) increased the Federal gas tax yet again, this time by 4.3 cents per gallon, effective October 1, 1993 (and with no expiration date). The increase brought the gasoline tax to 18.4 cents per gallon, and the entire amount of the increase was directed to the General Fund of the Treasury for deficit reduction. The law also permanently extended the General Fund fuel tax imposed by OBRA 90 and directed those revenues (except in the case of certain alcohol fuels) to the HTF, effective October 1, 1995.[71]
The Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1982 and the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 made major revisions to the highway taxes, including another increase in Federal motor-fuel taxes. The 1982 STAA also established a special Mass Transit Account in the HTF and directed a portion of the motor-fuel tax to that new account. [on Reagan's watch] The rest of the tax remained dedicated to the original portion of the Trust Fund, referred to as the “Highway Account.”
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA 90) increased the Federal gasoline tax by another five cents per gallon (up to 14.1 cents per gallon), effective December 1, 1990. It also established a “first” for the HTF: half of the revenues derived from the five-cent increase went to the General Fund of the Treasury for deficit reduction. Before that time, virtually all revenues from Federal motor fuel (and other highway-related Federal excise taxes) had been credited entirely to the HTF.[70] The General Fund portion of the tax was imposed on a temporary basis through September 30, 1995.
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA 93) increased the Federal gas tax yet again, this time by 4.3 cents per gallon, effective October 1, 1993 (and with no expiration date). The increase brought the gasoline tax to 18.4 cents per gallon, and the entire amount of the increase was directed to the General Fund of the Treasury for deficit reduction. The law also permanently extended the General Fund fuel tax imposed by OBRA 90 and directed those revenues (except in the case of certain alcohol fuels) to the HTF, effective October 1, 1995.[71]
In addition to increasing Federal fuel taxes, Congress has also passed laws to redirect certain fuel tax revenues:
The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 redirected the revenues from the 4.3-cents per gallon levied under OBRA 93 from the General Fund to the HTF, effective October 1, 1997. The Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part V (STEA 04-V) redirected to the Highway Trust Fund the portion of the gasohol tax that had continued to be deposited in the General Fund under the provisions of OBRA 90 and OBRA 93. This redirection was effective for the period October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2004. The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (AJCA 04) made the STEA 04-V redirection permanent. It also eliminated gasohol’s partial exemption from the gasoline tax, which had been enacted in 1978 as an incentive to alternatives to petroleum fuels. In lieu of the exemption, AJCA 04 authorized the General Fund to pay a credit to eligible filers.
The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 redirected the revenues from the 4.3-cents per gallon levied under OBRA 93 from the General Fund to the HTF, effective October 1, 1997.
The Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part V (STEA 04-V) redirected to the Highway Trust Fund the portion of the gasohol tax that had continued to be deposited in the General Fund under the provisions of OBRA 90 and OBRA 93. This redirection was effective for the period October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2004.
The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (AJCA 04) made the STEA 04-V redirection permanent. It also eliminated gasohol’s partial exemption from the gasoline tax, which had been enacted in 1978 as an incentive to alternatives to petroleum fuels. In lieu of the exemption, AJCA 04 authorized the General Fund to pay a credit to eligible filers.
Shadow the Cats owner No the reason why the highway trust fund is going broke is in the 90s Clinton's DOT sec of Transportation made it a piggy bank for transit projects................
jeffhergert I like everyone else always thought that the subisidy was directed at truckers. While they benefit, the true subsidy is on large shippers who are able to keep their freight rates as low as possible. As was observed, there are many trucking companies out there. If one dares raise their rates, there's always someone else to call. This will make some of them to try to eat some costs if possible instead of passing them along. Because of this, maybe it's time to levy a road use tax directly on the shipper in some way. They are the ones who benefit the most from trucks pounding highway infrastructure into the ground.
Well, not EVERYONE else. But you sure do understand economic reality a lot better than most people.
The truckers would have to pass the increased costs along to their customers. It's either that or go broke. They can't "eat it". The near perfectly competitive nature of trucking means their rates just cover cost, including their cost of capital. They'd have to pass any increase in costs along, and the only place they can pass those costs to would be their customers.
That sounds similar to a study at Penn State I was made aware of some years ago.
There is really no question that truckers get a big time break. But the question then becomes how do you handle the increased costs that the consumer will have to pay. Using highway trust funds for public transit and bike paths doesn't help matters. The growth of fuel efficient cars, hybreds, and electric cars also makes things worse. Some (mostly urban oriented) politicans want to charge a mileage tax. Of course, they could care less about the rural areas that would be hammered if that happened. The Feds also contribute to the problem by not overruling the highway consruction/repair lobby and their unions when it comes to modernizing road building standards. They are insufficient for modern trucking weights.
The problem really took off many years ago when the legal weights for trucks doubled over time from the original 40,000 standard. I suupose decreasing that over time might help but who knows if politically that could be done. Another possibility might be to require special licenses for truck trips over a certain milage. But with the current wall street driven RR operating practises I don't see the major RR's as having a great desire to really go after shorter hauls.
I expect 5 years from now nothing will have drastically changed and we'll all be taking about the same issues.
[/quote]lking about the same problems and issues.
And it is all about service. A shipping firm calls a trucking company. The transportation provider asks "How many trucks you need and when will they be needed at the dock"? Simple and nothing like the mush that goes on with a rr in a case such as this.
Around 1991 or so a bakery here in Wichita was buying carloads of bulk flour from mill about four miles away. The airslide hopper would be delivered by Wichita Term Assn to the UP transfer. A UP yd job would pull the load and later spot it at the bakery plant. Average normanl transit time from when the car left the mill to when it was delivered at the bakery was three days.
The method of this cross-town food shipment did not last long and wisely, trucks became the replacement
BNSF will go after shorter-hauls if profitable enough! So will most shortlines and reginals.
In the PSR world - railroads will go after short haul business -
Short haul train load business. Not short haul car load business. PSR is predicated on train load movements, not inidividual car movements.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD In the PSR world - railroads will go after short haul business - Short haul train load business. Not short haul car load business. PSR is predicated on train load movements, not inidividual car movements.
"BNSF will go after shorter-hauls if profitable enough! So will most shortlines and reginals."
[/quote]
To what Balt said about 'short haul train load business'. Since PSR is all about 'utilization and service', it would seem to follow that PTC would also work into the equation of allowing more and smaller trains over a given set of track? WE already know that the trucking industry is in an era of business model realignment as to that Regional trucking is becoming a larger part of the picture.
That the practice of long-haul trucking is slowing down, in favor of a smaller pool of individuals willing to go out, and stay out for long periods of time, away from their bases, home and families. Short-haul, or Regional dispatching seems to be the model that is fitting into the 'new' industry recruiting model'(?). As to Dave's comment, out here in SC Kansas, BNSF seems to be running 'shorter' trains and consists, with 'fleeting'[ groups in directional running?] of these trains, being a noticable component of that practice(?). Regular[ timely schedules] appearances of 'types' of trains. [ ie: a friday evening(?) westbound movement of 'yard- type' power and company fuel tankers; returning eastbound on sunday evening(?). a fairly regular fri/sat WB mostly, ReeferTOFC that returns su PM to early mon AM.] These movements are observational, and only on the Mulvane/Augusta,BNSF
Main 3]
samfp1943 BaltACD In the PSR world - railroads will go after short haul business - Short haul train load business. Not short haul car load business. PSR is predicated on train load movements, not inidividual car movements. Dave Klepper noted aslso: Posted by daveklepper on Monday, March 04, 2019 3:17 AM "BNSF will go after shorter-hauls if profitable enough! So will most shortlines and reginals." To what Balt said about 'short haul train load business'. Since PSR is all about 'utilization and service', it would seem to follow that PTC would also work into the equation of allowing more and smaller trains over a given set of track? WE already know that the trucking industry is in an era of business model realignment as to that Regional trucking is becoming a larger part of the picture. That the practice of long-haul trucking is slowing down, in favor of a smaller pool of individuals willing to go out, and stay out for long periods of time, away from their bases, home and families. Short-haul, or Regional dispatching seems to be the model that is fitting into the 'new' industry recruiting model'(?). As to Dave's comment, out here in SC Kansas, BNSF seems to be running 'shorter' trains and consists, with 'fleeting'[ groups in directional running?] of these trains, being a noticable component of that practice(?). Regular[ timely schedules] appearances of 'types' of trains. [ ie: a friday evening(?) westbound movement of 'yard- type' power and company fuel tankers; returning eastbound on sunday evening(?). a fairly regular fri/sat WB mostly, ReeferTOFC that returns su PM to early mon AM.] These movements are observational, and only on the Mulvane/Augusta,BNSF Main 3]
Dave Klepper noted aslso:
In PSR you only operate small trains when needed to balance power and crews. You can't cut costs by increasing the number of trains you run to carry the same level of traffic on a designated route.
Among other movements - CSX operates a dedicated 'Trash Train' between Sealston, VA and Fort Meade, MD. Train operates with empties from a trash disposal site at Sealson to trash aggregation site at Fort Meade. Train drops the empties at Fort Meade and takes the loads from Fort Meade back to the disposal site at Sealston - 6 days a week - roughly 2500 tons of municipal waste per day is moved by one crew.
The drivers that want to run OTR are still out there. However what is killing drivers that want to run OTR is the HOS that were imposed on the industry. Finally the FMCSA and Federal DOT are looking at what they did and going we screwed the pooch on the HOS why. Well 1 year after the ELD mandate was imposed guess what they found out about accidents. Instead of going down like they thought they actually INCREASED by 10% overall. That's right the biggest saftey regulation since ABS that was supposed to lower crashes in the industry increased them and the drivers of those accidents reported that it was due to being forced to race the clock of the HOS to try and find a safe place to park.
The head of the FMCSA admitted to a motor carrier group his agency dropped the ball on the HOS overhaul and the new one due to be created this year will not be done by people with no experience in the OTR industry at all or influenced by groups such as PATT or CRASH and will not rely on the ATA for the input either. They are going to look at real world data and come up with a workable regulation that will fix most of the problems.
charlie hebdo Of course the truck person doesn't mention all the property taxes the rails pay on infrastructure they own and maintain while trucks pay peanuts to maintain the infrastuctures they paid nothing to build and cause far more wear and tear on it that than any other users.
Of course the truck person doesn't mention all the property taxes the rails pay on infrastructure they own and maintain while trucks pay peanuts to maintain the infrastuctures they paid nothing to build and cause far more wear and tear on it that than any other users.
C.H. I would call your argument sort of a 'fruit basket one'. The property, and other ancilary taxes paid by the railroads, and the trucking industries,on their state-by-state operations, are not necessarily the 'same kind of fruit'; but there are similarities.
I cannot speak to the taxation of the railroads, but in the trucking side of transportation; truck taxation and recipropsity of taxes, are a very real, and costly set of expenses. Not to mention the non-compliance, and failures to pay the taxes levied by each state can get very costly, very quickly!
PEANUTS! They are NOT!
Here is a linked site that has state-by-state automotive liscensing fee schedules:
http://www.ncsl.org/Portals/1/Documents/transportation/Motor_Vehicle_Registration_Fees_18014.pdf
Here also is a better graphic representation by the FHWA.dot.gov @
https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?hspart=iba&hsimp=yhs-1&type=sbff_7131_FFW_US&p=Truck%20Liscensing%20Fees%20in%20the%20USA%3F
Just in Fuel taxes alone our tax rate is 20% of our revenue right out the window before we can even start to pay other expenses including other taxes and fees we have to pay to stay in business.
Shadow the Cats owner Finally the FMCSA and Federal DOT are looking at what they did and going we screwed the pooch on the HOS why. Well 1 year after the ELD mandate was imposed guess what they found out about accidents. Instead of going down like they thought they actually INCREASED by 10% overall.
Once again, your comment is inaccurate by being incomplete.
https://www.truckinginfo.com/324416/eld-adoption-fails-to-reduce-number-of-truck-accidents
Not much different than 1974, when the speed limit was reduced to 55 MPH (and gas prices went nuts).
NHTSB (or whatever their letters are) numbers showed that a ten year decline in accidents per mile driven ended and the accident rate actually rose.
The only reason actual deaths dropped was because people were driving less because of gas prices, not because of the 55 MPH speed limit. Miles driven dropped as well.
I would opine that fatigue became a larger factor, as drivers had to spend more time on the road to reach their destinations.
It was about the same time that such facts as most accidents occur within 25 miles of home, and most fatal accidents occur at speeds under 45 MPH disappeared from traffic safety messages.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68Not much different than 1974, when the speed limit was reduced to 55 MPH (and gas prices went nuts). NHTSB (or whatever their letters are) numbers showed that a ten year decline in accidents per mile driven ended and the accident rate actually rose. The only reason actual deaths dropped was because people were driving less because of gas prices, not because of the 55 MPH speed limit. Miles driven dropped as well. I would opine that fatigue became a larger factor, as drivers had to spend more time on the road to reach their destinations. It was about the same time that such facts as most accidents occur within 25 miles of home, and most fatal accidents occur at speeds under 45 MPH disappeared from traffic safety messages.
Figures lie, liars figure.
Everybody parses numbers to 'prove' their point of view.
BaltACDFigures lie, liars figure. Everybody parses numbers to 'prove' their point of view.
The graph - based on a chart from the highway safety folks covering 30 or 40 years - was pretty simple. A downward trend (deaths per mile) bottomed out and started upward again.
Miles driven dropped sharply.
The "why" would be up for discussion.
I might still have that publication, and the graph I put together, but I have no idea where.
tree68 BaltACD Figures lie, liars figure. Everybody parses numbers to 'prove' their point of view. The graph - based on a chart from the highway safety folks covering 30 or 40 years - was pretty simple. A downward trend (deaths per mile) bottomed out and started upward again. Miles driven dropped sharply. The "why" would be up for discussion. I might still have that publication, and the graph I put together, but I have no idea where.
BaltACD Figures lie, liars figure. Everybody parses numbers to 'prove' their point of view.
I am not doubting what you saw -
What I am say is the EVERYONE that publishes numbers (or graphs etc. derived from numbers) is presenting those numbers to 'prove' their own point of view or thier own conclusions from the numbers they present.
A person that is FOR something would be dumb beyond belief to present numbers that shoot down what they are for. While some numbers may be against the proposition, they will be hidden or otherwise discounted as the favorable numbers are presented.
Around here we call the truckinginfo page the ATA toilet paper. Why anything that is critical of anything the ATA wants never sees the presses of that rag. The data I am using is coming straight from my insurance company they would know better than some press trying to slant the media coverage as they are doing the payouts for the accidents drivers are getting in. Trucking info was pushing 3 years ago for 18 year old drivers running interstate. That has been one of the ATA's biggest regulatory goals for the last DECADE. To get kids fresh out of high school that are barely old enough to vote driving a vechile that weighs 40 tons down the road with less than 6 weeks of training to boot.
So just remember that little tidbit about your sourcing Charlie next time. They are backed by a group that wants teenagers not much older than my oldest child running down the road at 65 MPH in all types of weather being trained by 21 year olds some of which will have less than 6 months total time behind the wheel. Yes you heard right at CR England and Swift and Werner after 6 months total time behind the wheel they will make you a trainer for the guys fresh out of the driving schools.
Shadow the Cats owner The drivers that want to run OTR are still out there. However what is killing drivers that want to run OTR is the HOS that were imposed on the industry. Finally the FMCSA and Federal DOT are looking at what they did and going we screwed the pooch on the HOS why. Well 1 year after the ELD mandate was imposed guess what they found out about accidents. Instead of going down like they thought they actually INCREASED by 10% overall. That's right the biggest saftey regulation since ABS that was supposed to lower crashes in the industry increased them and the drivers of those accidents reported that it was due to being forced to race the clock of the HOS to try and find a safe place to park. The head of the FMCSA admitted to a motor carrier group his agency dropped the ball on the HOS overhaul and the new one due to be created this year will not be done by people with no experience in the OTR industry at all or influenced by groups such as PATT or CRASH and will not rely on the ATA for the input either. They are going to look at real world data and come up with a workable regulation that will fix most of the problems.
Yes, trucking was much better when drivers could keep two sets of logs and thumb their nose at HOS. I remember once working as a weekend clerk for a truck load carrier based out of the Twin Cities area at their North Liberty Iowa terminal. (North of Iowa City on I-380.) A driver came in with what he said was a shut-down load. While signing the fuel ticket he mentioned that according to his log book, he had just crossed the Indiana/Illinois state line.
I also remember discussions on here were some of the drivers seemed to be proud of "bending" HOS requirements. Almost to the point that I wanted to say that some of the railroad's problems could be solved if crews could also "bend" HOS.
Shadow the Cats owner Around here we call the truckinginfo page the ATA toilet paper. Why anything that is critical of anything the ATA wants never sees the presses of that rag. The data I am using is coming straight from my insurance company they would know better than some press trying to slant the media coverage as they are doing the payouts for the accidents drivers are getting in. Trucking info was pushing 3 years ago for 18 year old drivers running interstate. That has been one of the ATA's biggest regulatory goals for the last DECADE. To get kids fresh out of high school that are barely old enough to vote driving a vechile that weighs 40 tons down the road with less than 6 weeks of training to boot. So just remember that little tidbit about your sourcing Charlie next time. They are backed by a group that wants teenagers not much older than my oldest child running down the road at 65 MPH in all types of weather being trained by 21 year olds some of which will have less than 6 months total time behind the wheel. Yes you heard right at CR England and Swift and Werner after 6 months total time behind the wheel they will make you a trainer for the guys fresh out of the driving schools.
The citation was an article based on a recently published research paper, not something you appear to be familiar with. Nor was it ATA, or office gossip. but then again, you did not read it. Maybe you should stick to dispatching?
Accidents did not increase by 10% but accidents did increase slightly on the smaller carriers because they engaged in more unsafe driving because HOS were being more carefully checked.
charlie hebdo Shadow the Cats owner Around here we call the truckinginfo page the ATA toilet paper. Why anything that is critical of anything the ATA wants never sees the presses of that rag. The data I am using is coming straight from my insurance company they would know better than some press trying to slant the media coverage as they are doing the payouts for the accidents drivers are getting in. Trucking info was pushing 3 years ago for 18 year old drivers running interstate. That has been one of the ATA's biggest regulatory goals for the last DECADE. To get kids fresh out of high school that are barely old enough to vote driving a vechile that weighs 40 tons down the road with less than 6 weeks of training to boot. So just remember that little tidbit about your sourcing Charlie next time. They are backed by a group that wants teenagers not much older than my oldest child running down the road at 65 MPH in all types of weather being trained by 21 year olds some of which will have less than 6 months total time behind the wheel. Yes you heard right at CR England and Swift and Werner after 6 months total time behind the wheel they will make you a trainer for the guys fresh out of the driving schools. The citation was an article based on a recently published research paper, not something you appear to be familiar with. Nor was it ATA, or office gossip. but then again, you did not read it. Maybe you should stick to dispatching? Accidents did not increase by 10% but accidents did increase slightly on the smaller carriers because they engaged in more unsafe driving because HOS were being more carefully checked. I apolgize to you Charlie however you made no mention of the study in your first posting. This research paper did however hammer home the stupidity of the 14 hour clock home to the FMCSA along with the facts that we in this industry need flexiblity in our HOS regulations finally we are hoping to get back. It helps that the current head while never being in the transportation industry can read with the best of them and seeing that it's not the drivers that causing the delays it is the Shippers and recivicers of the freight that are delaying trucks. Also if accidents were not up 10% then why did my bosses insurance rates jump up more than that for this year. We can tell how much the accident rate was for OTR over the year based upon the quote we get for our insurance plan for the fleet. We hoped for a reduction however it went up by 13% for this year. Oh well maybe next year we finally replace the office air conditioners. accident reductions from smaller firms is that the gains from fatigue reduction were offset by increases in unsafe driving behavior. Hardening the HOS constraint reduces per-worker hours and workers may compensate for this lost income by driving more intensively, namely, covering more miles per hour. Unfortunately, this may also incentivize an increase in unsafe driving behavior, which is more tightly correlated to accident rates than hours of service violations (Craft 2010). After the mandate, unsafe driving violations by owner operators increased by 23.4-33.3%, and speeding between 23.0-31.0%
I apolgize to you Charlie however you made no mention of the study in your first posting. This research paper did however hammer home the stupidity of the 14 hour clock home to the FMCSA along with the facts that we in this industry need flexiblity in our HOS regulations finally we are hoping to get back. It helps that the current head while never being in the transportation industry can read with the best of them and seeing that it's not the drivers that causing the delays it is the Shippers and recivicers of the freight that are delaying trucks. Also if accidents were not up 10% then why did my bosses insurance rates jump up more than that for this year. We can tell how much the accident rate was for OTR over the year based upon the quote we get for our insurance plan for the fleet. We hoped for a reduction however it went up by 13% for this year. Oh well maybe next year we finally replace the office air conditioners.
jeffhergert Shadow the Cats owner The drivers that want to run OTR are still out there. However what is killing drivers that want to run OTR is the HOS that were imposed on the industry. Finally the FMCSA and Federal DOT are looking at what they did and going we screwed the pooch on the HOS why. Well 1 year after the ELD mandate was imposed guess what they found out about accidents. Instead of going down like they thought they actually INCREASED by 10% overall. That's right the biggest saftey regulation since ABS that was supposed to lower crashes in the industry increased them and the drivers of those accidents reported that it was due to being forced to race the clock of the HOS to try and find a safe place to park. The head of the FMCSA admitted to a motor carrier group his agency dropped the ball on the HOS overhaul and the new one due to be created this year will not be done by people with no experience in the OTR industry at all or influenced by groups such as PATT or CRASH and will not rely on the ATA for the input either. They are going to look at real world data and come up with a workable regulation that will fix most of the problems. Yes, trucking was much better when drivers could keep two sets of logs and thumb their nose at HOS. I remember once working as a weekend clerk for a truck load carrier based out of the Twin Cities area at their North Liberty Iowa terminal. (North of Iowa City on I-380.) A driver came in with what he said was a shut-down load. While signing the fuel ticket he mentioned that according to his log book, he had just crossed the Indiana/Illinois state line. I also remember discussions on here were some of the drivers seemed to be proud of "bending" HOS requirements. Almost to the point that I wanted to say that some of the railroad's problems could be solved if crews could also "bend" HOS. Jeff
Jeff my husband before he became disabled was an OTR driver his father also. In their combined 35 years out there neither one got a logbook ticket in their combined 4 million miles of driving. Did they push the HOS at times Yes however they ran LEGAL. My husband has been in a fatal accident while driving a CMV he knows the pain of what that brings and what happens afterwards. Yes there where drivers that abused the HOS however they could not have done so without the Carriers forcing the drivers to do so. When the carriers are the one forcing drivers to run illegal and they can by refusing to give them loads they need to feed their families thats where HOS abuse can come into play. OTR drivers depend on getting miles to get paid. No miles equals they can lose everything.
Shadow the Cats ownerOTR drivers depend on getting miles to get paid. No miles equals they can lose everything.
Your insurance premium increase is not a valid measure of increase in number of accidents. There could be many reasons: insurance company greed, your firm's recent experience and/or that of smaller firms. See below:
[from the abstract of the report cited previously]
"Our results show that accident counts for small carriers did not fall relative to large carriers, and may have increased. Further, drivers for small carriers appear to have increased their frequency of unsafe driving (e.g., speeding) in response to the productivity losses caused by the mandate, which could explain why accidents did not decrease."
I think the laws of supply and demand will fix quite a bit of the issues with over the road trucking. Eventually, the trucking firms will have to pay higher wages to keep attracting employees. Once the pay level gets up to where a driver can maake a decent living, the incentive to go 100 mph and skirt the logs diminishes.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding I think the laws of supply and demand will fix quite a bit of the issues with over the road trucking. Eventually, the trucking firms will have to pay higher wages to keep attracting employees. Once the pay level gets up to where a driver can maake a decent living, the incentive to go 100 mph and skirt the logs diminishes.
If you are caught going 15 over in a commercial motor vehicle it's a major violation on your driver's license. 2 of those in 2 years is a 6 month unpaid suspension of your license. Also most carrier's out there govern their trucks below 70 mph and the biggest fleets are lucky to break 65 mph.
As for pay as long the mega carrier's can keep finding dummies to fill the seats they're not going to change a thing. Until they run out of people who will run at their low pay they're going to bend drivers over .
Shadow the Cats owner Murphy Siding I think the laws of supply and demand will fix quite a bit of the issues with over the road trucking. Eventually, the trucking firms will have to pay higher wages to keep attracting employees. Once the pay level gets up to where a driver can maake a decent living, the incentive to go 100 mph and skirt the logs diminishes. If you are caught going 15 over in a commercial motor vehicle it's a major violation on your driver's license. 2 of those in 2 years is a 6 month unpaid suspension of your license. Also most carrier's out there govern their trucks below 70 mph and the biggest fleets are lucky to break 65 mph. As for pay as long the mega carrier's can keep finding dummies to fill the seats they're not going to change a thing. Until they run out of people who will run at their low pay they're going to bend drivers over .
charlie hebdoYour insurance premium increase is not a valid measure of increase in number of accidents. There could be many reasons: insurance company greed, your firm's recent experience and/or that of smaller firms. See below:
Oh horsefeathers! This is off topic, but I'm going to call BS. This "Insurance Company Greed" accusation has to come from someone who doesn't understand how premiums are set. (I retired from Allstate.)
In the first place, the largest home and auto insurance company, State Farm, is a non profit mutual pool. The policy holders just put money in a managed pool and those unfortunate enough to suffer a loss get paid out the pool. Other insurance companies are organized the same way. I'm insured with such a non profit company, USAA. Last spring my house suffered $31,000 worth of damage in a storm. I was quite happy with the way USAA paid the claim.
Allstate is a for profit company. But insurance is very competitive. It has to compete with the non profit likes of State Farm, USAA, and many other insurance companies organized as non profits. The fact that it can do so is a lesson in the cost of capital and other economic realities.
Insurance premiums are set using a process called "Predictive Modeling". We had platoons of PhD's pouring over statistics trying to predict risks. They were always trying to tweak models to fine tune pricing. If you try to get "Greedy" you'll loose the business. If you charge too little you'll go broke. Got to get it right.
Please quit throwing your BS around.
greyhoundsPlease quit throwing your BS around.
If you actually read what I wrote, rather than letting your temper distort it, you'd see that "greed" was only one of several possibilities, and mostly thrown in as a joke, along with some serious reasons.
BTW, my undergrad degree was a BA, so nothing to throw around. Lighten up.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.