Former FMCSA John Hill Comments on HOS Issues
There was an interesting article published on April 20, 2011 at www.truckinginfo.com. The article is here. It is an interview with the former head of FMCSA, John Hill. His opinion on the new HOS rules is the rules are being pushed by the Obama White House, and the bureaucrats at FMCSA are being told what to do. He doesn’t name names as to who’s calling the shots, whether it be Ray LaHood, Rahm Emanuel, or William Daley, but he makes it clear the Obama Administration are the ones who are pushing these dumb, counter-productive regulations, which have nothing to do with safety. He also points out the agency was able to make the cost-analysis numbers work by doubling how much a human life is worth from $3 million to $6 million.
Right there, that should tell you a lot of what the FMCSA does is justified with junk statistics. What’s a life worth? Uhhhhhhh…. how about $3 million? Sounds good! No, that doesn’t work, we can’t justify all the rules we want. Well….. I know, we’ll double it! Sure, that makes sense. Hey, why not make it $30 million, especially in today’s economy, $6 million doesn’t buy what it used to. As far as I’m concerned, by the agency admitting one of their measures was off by 100% just means all their statistics are junk.
Hill’s conclusion is this back and forth between the regulatory crazies, like Public Citizen and the trucking industry will forever continue going back and forth until Congress passes a law which codifies the hours of service regulations into law, which will hopefully remove the FMCSA and the Courts from making up the rules. I agree, but I highly doubt that’s going to happen, as I think Congress is perfectly happy with the all out regulatory assault which has been going on.
DVD Packages Are Out of Stock
I created a DVD package about 4 years ago, which was a nifty package designed to assist New Entrants in passing their New Entrant audit. Presently, this item is still listed on my home page, but is listed as “out of stock”. Well, it’s not really out of stock. I have a bunch of them sitting here in the office. In fact, the cat is sleeping on one as we speak. I just can’t sell them, because they’re obsolete. Basically, with DOT totally re-writing both the hours of service and supporting documents rules (IE… EOBRs), 30% of the package is out of date information, and I can’t charge you for out of date information.
Nevertheless, if you are facing a New Entrant audit, or you just want to know what you need to do to stay out of trouble, call me. Chances are, I’ll be able to walk you through the rules in 1-2 hours for a reasonable cost.
_________________________
Eric Arnold is a Former Enforcement Manager with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and a leading expert on USDOT compliance for small businesses. Do you have a question for Eric Arnold? Email him at eric@arnoldsafety.com.
Learn more about Arnold Safety compliance consulting services at ArnoldSafety.Com.
Dan the Trucker Thinks EOBRs Stink
A man named “Dan the Trucker” stopped by the blog the other day, and posted a rather lengthy comment after one of my EOBR posts. I decided to re-post it in its entirety, because 1) I mostly agree with Dan the Trucker, and 2) it’s an easy way to generate content on the blog. I will briefly summarize Dan’s comments. EOBRs are an infringement on truck drivers’ rights, specifically the right against unreasonable search and seizure. EOBR boxes are nothing more than “spy” boxes, used to monitor truck drivers, for which there is no justification in the Constitution. There is no link between EOBRs and safety. EOBRs should be put on government workers and politicians. My summary does not do Dan’s post justice, I urge you to read it for yourself.
—————————————————————————-
I am alarmed and deeply angered at the recent proposal and remarks of Ray LaHood, Secretary of Transportation. In defending his proposal to require approximately 500,000 carriers install Electronic On-Board Recorders (EOBRs) on nearly all trucks, he said, “We cannot protect our roadways when commercial truck and bus companies exceed hours-of-service rules. This proposal would make our roads safer by ensuring that carriers traveling across state lines are using EOBRs to track the hours their drivers spend behind the wheel.”
Here’s a proposal for Mr. LaHood. Let’s put Internet-trackable GPS Electronic Tethers (IGETs) on him and each of the 55,000 people under his command at Transportation. We citizens cannot protect our freedoms when commercial politicians like him exceed the constitution’s rules. This proposal would make our nation safer by ensuring that politicians who rule across state lines are using IGETs so we can track the hours they and their staffs are spending.
After Mr. LaHood has developed this IGET system with a very small part of his $70 billion taxpayer-paid-for annual budget, prototyped it on himself and his 55,000 employees for, say, three years, he can expand his program to include all elected politicians and their staff members in the federal government. After that, he should come back to us lowly truck drivers and we’ll discuss together the installation of his EOBR spy boxes in our trucks. Then we can all spy on each other and be one big happy community together. It’ll be great! It’ll make our roads safer, right?
The EOBR spy box defenders say these are not spy boxes, but only monitoring devices that record a limited number of functions (e.g., when the truck is running, the duty status of the driver, etc.). This is the third biggest lie ever told by a politician, right after “the income tax we are creating will never exceed three per cent” and “the social security number will never be used for purposes of identification.” Today’s EOBR spy boxes are a Model T; tomorrow’s will be a 2025 government BMW with metallic paint and the ability to cruise at 35,000 feet. Today, the government will require carriers run the spy boxes and dictate to those carriers how and when they show government their every record, but tomorrow the government will control or own the carriers and their boxes, just as they now control or own car companies, student loans, mortgages, and health care. Remember how employer-provided health care was designed to eventually become government-run health care? Same song, another verse. Government-run trucking. Enjoy.
As Mr. LaHood voluntarily took office on Jan. 23, 2009, he accepted the responsibility to defend the constitution. Its 4th Amendment states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” He has not only failed in this task, but he is abusing the legitimate power of his good office to illegitimately attack the rights he is sworn to uphold. Understand what Mr. LaHood is doing: he is not simply failing to protect our 4th Amendment right with Carter-level incompetance or malfeasance, he has joined (and is leading!) the attack against it!
Mr. LaHood’s stated reason for his perpetration of the EOBR spy boxes on us is to “make our roads safer.” He is not telling the truth. Where’s his proof? Where are the longitudinal studies that support his claim? Who comprised the control group? Where is the statisticians’ report showing a proper interpretation of the raw data? How much “safer” will our roads be if we give up our right to be free from this type of government’s search of us and our things? Where is the ratified constitutional amendment by which we citizens gave up our 4th Amendment right to be free from government searches without a specific, limited warrant?
If a judge were to demonstrate a bias against an innocent defendant as Mr. LaHood’s above remark demonstrates against truck drivers, the outraged defense lawyer would rightly demand the judge’s removal from the case (perhaps from the bench!), but Mr. LaHood continues to sit in judgmental judgment of us. The government’s subjection of certain convicted criminals to its surveillance is appropriate; subjecting law-abiding citizens to this treatment is itself criminal. We are individual citizens who are not only unconvicted, but unaccused, and against whom the only evidence is Mr. LaHood’s prejudice. Mr. LaHood’s remark shows he has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be a public servant. He needs to be removed from office.
Companies have every right to know (therefore, to track) the whereabouts and use of any equipments which belong to them (consistent with employees’ rights), but government has no such right. The government has no right to track innocent citizens where the only evidence of wrongdoing is the prejudice of government leaders. Use of EOBRs is an issue between a carrier and its insurance company, and between a carrier and its employees, and it’s none of the federal government’s stinking business. Butt out, Mr. LaHood: find your new home in the unemployment line.
I favor increasing traffic safety and preserving our constitutional rights. Mr. LaHood favors using traffic safety as an excuse to violate those same rights. We do not need government-required tracking devices around us. As Mr. LaHood is unfit for public office at any level, he needs to find a new job, preferably one in the private sector where his remuneration is based on productivity instead of political connections.
The misdeeds of some is never justification for violating the rights of all. Our constitution and Bill of Rights must stand, and Mr. LaHood must stand down.
Dan the Trucker
truckdrivingdan@yahoo.com
