Update
At some point in the past, I vowed to keep the blog site current, so I guess I’ve been falling down on that, since I haven’t posted anything in 6 weeks. I guess there’s really not much to report. ATA is continuing to fight DOT on their ridiculous new hours of service rules. The results of that war will not be known for many months; possibly not until after the 2012 elections. DOT announced the electronic on-board recorder final rule will not be published until next year, which means it will probably be 2015 until you are forced, at the point of a gun, to get e-logs in all your trucks. All I can say there is, if you don’t want the e-logs, vote against Obama and Ray LaHood in 2012. DOT’s war against Chinese bus companies is winding down, which is bad news for anyone who isn’t a Chinese bus company.
Finally, in Washington, the debt ceiling, kabuki dance nears its conclusion. I see nothing in what is being discussed that will have any impact on trucking and the DOT. In other words, the FMCSA’s budget is not going to be slashed by 50%. For that matter, it’s not going to be cut at all. That’s all I have for now; I have to go buy some more gold, so I have something to barter with, once the dollar becomes worthless.
Ray LaHood Throws FMCSA Under the Bus
So, let’s recap the Sky Express saga. They were audited in April, 2011. This was no doubt generated due to the 15 fatality bus crash in the Bronx by another bus company. They were found to have enough violations, which generated a pending Unsatisfactory rating. A passenger carrier with a pending Unsatisfactory rating has 45 days to demonstrate to DOT they have improved their safety operations, so DOT will upgrade their rating to Conditional, allowing them to operate. If a passenger motor carrier is making a good faith effort at complying with the rules, DOT can extend the Out of Service date by up to 10 days. Apparently, Sky Express had submitted enough paperwork which justified the FMCSA extending their Out of Service date.
Last Tuesday, May 31, Sky Express had a four fatality accident, where their driver evidently fell asleep. Sky Express was operating in the 10 day extension window granted by DOT at the time. On Thursday, Ray LaHood, Obama Secretary of Transportation rushed to the microphones to declare how disappointed he was in FMCSA, and that there will never be another extension under his watch. FMCSA, at that point, hurriedly revoked Sky Express’ authority to operate.
So, what do we make of this? First, I haven’t seen anything in news on the Richmond accident showing the driver was in violation of the hours rules when the bus crashed. Just because a driver falls asleep, does not mean he violated the hours of service rules. In fact, he probably was in compliance with the rules, otherwise, you would have heard something by now. Second, issuance of the 10 day extension is common practice within FMCSA. The agency usually leans against placing a motor carrier out of business, and gives them every benefit of the doubt before casually throwing private citizens out of work. I would wager the North Carolina FMCSA office did not casually issue that extension, but instead had proper justification for doing so.
So, what’s the fallout here? Basically, this means it’s going to be that much harder to get safety ratings upgraded. FMCSA personnel operate first and foremost under the rule of Cover Your Ass (CYA). Never do anything that may jeopardize your personal standing or job position. Safety, commonsense, the public good, whatever, all takes a backseat to CYA. With Obama flunkie Ray LaHood running wild, threatening to place any and every small business who has an accident out of business, the rules have changed. FMCSA personnel will now make it very difficult to get safety ratings, particularly Unsatisfactory ratings upgraded, just so they don’t have to face the wrath of politician Ray LaHood.
DOT Re-Opens HOS Rulemaking for Comment
Apparently, FMCSA is re-opening its job-killing, nothing-to-do-with safety rewrite of the hours of service rules to comments. FMCSA is presenting four new studies, and is seeking comments on them. At present, there is no timetable as to when they are going to close the comment window, although the courts have directed FMCSA to have a final rule by July 26.
I have not read the new studies. I am not going to read the new studies. But I know what’s in them. This is simply a very educated guess, but FMCSA’s initial statistics justifying their restrictive rules was so slipshod, they would have been beaten in court. So, voila! 4 new studies, all of which undoubtedly state there’s an epidemic of death on the highways caused by fatigue, and only Obama’s new rules can save us. All patent nonsense, of course. Nevertheless, more junk statistics “justifying” the need for more rules. Maybe they explained how a life went from being worth $3 million to $6 million at the stroke of a pen. At any rate, ATA will turn their statisticians on them and have an answer, at some point.
Obama Administration Plans to Tax Miles Driven
Apparently, in the new highway reauthorization bill slowly being crafted in Congress, Ray LaHood and Obama have inserted language requiring the study and implementation of a plan to tax automobile drivers based on how many miles they drive. More information is found in this blog by “The Hill”.
This is no surprise at all, and will certainly happen if we do nothing and let it happen. It will certainly happen quicker for commercial vehicles, as all will have EOBRs in them within the next 5 years if the Obama Administration and the American Trucking Association get their way. Not a problem to track and tax a truck if it has an EOBR in it.
And now, one of my favorite Beatles tunes, Taxman:
Let me tell you
How it will be.
There’s one for you,
Nineteen for me,
‘Cause I’m the taxman.
Yeah, I’m the taxman.
Should five percent
Appear too small,
Be thankful I don’t
Take it all.
‘Cause I’m the taxman.
Yeah, I’m the taxman.
If you drive a car,
I’ll tax the street.
If you drive to city,
I’ll tax your seat.
If you get too cold,
I’ll tax the heat.
If you take a walk,
I’ll tax your feet.
Taxman!
‘Cause I’m the taxman.
Yeah, I’m the taxman.
Don’t ask me what I want it for,
(Uh-uh, Mr. Wilson.)
If you don’t want to pay some more.
(Uh-uh, Mr. Heath.)
‘Cause I’m the taxman.
Yeah, I’m the taxman.
And my advice to
Those who die.
(Taxman!)
Declare the pennies
On your eyes.
(Taxman!)
‘Cause I’m the taxman.
Yeah, I’m the taxman,
And you’re working for no one but me.
(Taxman!)
I just learned something recently about this song…. it’s actually accurate. I just assumed the part about “One for you, nineteen for me” was George Harrison exaggerating. In truth, he was not exaggerating. Apparently, in the 1960′s the British government taxed high wage earners, like the Beatles, at a 95% tax rate. Therefore, one for you, nineteen for me. Well, coming soon to an IRS office near you.
He’s Dead Jim
Numerous sources are reporting Osama Bin Laden is dead, and U.S. officials have the body. The President to speak shortly. Way to go U.S. Military! Send the bastard to hell.
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.
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
Updates, updates, updates
So, what’s new? I apologize for not posting sooner. I guess I’ve been pretty busy. First, for those of you who have sent me questions: thank you for your interest in Arnold Safety. If I haven’t responded yet, like I said, I’m pretty busy. Use of the word, “please” also makes it more likely I will respond. Offering to pay makes it much more likely I will respond…. or at least respond more thoroughly.
In the news: there was a giant bus crash in the Bronx, NY where 15 people were killed. In the all the articles I saw, they still haven’t pinned down what happened. The driver may or may not have fallen asleep, or he may or may not have been run off the road by another truck. Then apparently there was another bus crash in New Jersey a few days later, killing a few more people, so right now the DOT has the heat on all the bus companies.
DOT’s hours of service proposal marches merrily along. The comment period is closed; now we wait for the final verdict from DOT. Remember, DOT means FMCSA…. I use the two interchangeably. I will be shocked if it’s anything other than what’s already been announced. Yes, we have a GOP house, but as The Who said, “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”.
DOT moved back the deadline for commenting on the EOBR mandate to May 23. I thought about commenting, but what’s the point? My comment was going to center around the crash rates for the last 30 years. I poked around the Internet, and found NHTSA’s fatalities for both car and truck accidents littered here, there, and everywhere on the Internet. After some effort, I pieced the number of crashes together. What I found was the number of fatalities caused by truck crashes since 1980 has dropped very slowly until about 2007, then it has dropped much more quickly.
So, I then compared it to the number of fatalities caused by car crashes since 1980. Those fatalities have dropped very slowly until about 2007, then they dropped much more quickly. In fact, the rate of decline in both fataility rates were virtually identical.
So, what conclusion did I draw from this? As we all know, commercial motor vehicles and their drivers are highly regulated, and becoming more so every day. Therefore, the number of deaths from truck crashes should have dropped at a much more dramatic rate than deaths from car accidents, as car drivers are for the most part, unregulated. After all, in car drivers, we have teenagers, 90 year olds, drug addicts, drunks, drag racers, road ragers, and people who don’t speak English. In short, it’s an unregulated free-for-all.
This is not the case, however. The number of deaths in car crashes and truck crashes have moved in tandem. I conclude the extensive efforts of the DOT over the past 30 years to regulate commercial vehicles for safety have largely been for naught. Otherwise, you would see a greater improvement in the number of truck deaths.
I considered creating charts, graphs, writing up my conclusions, and commenting on DOT’s new laws, but then I thought, “why?” There’s a 90% chance they would not even bother to address the comment, and if they did, they would either invent some new statistics showing me how much safer I am because of their rules. I thought about sending it to my GOP Congressman and Senator, but considering these guys can only find $61 billion to cut in a $3.8 trillion budget….. I might as well talk to the wall. Republicans, Democrats: two sides of the same coin. Big government and Much Bigger government.
Back to DOT having nothing to do with safety: what about the Bronx bus crash? 15 people are dead, how can I say DOT is not safety related? Well, from what I have read, they have not found a violation of the safety regulations which led to the crash. That may change. Nevertheless, many crashes… in fact the vast majority of truck crashes do not involve a violation of the safety regulations. They are accidents. Most are the fault of the car who cut off, or otherwise ran into the truck. Many of the rest can be attributed to carelessness, such as a driver dozing off, even though he is well within his duty hours. Sometimes a driver runs off the road, or into another vehicle simply because he’s not paying attention.
If I were King, I’d leave the current rules alone. Just leave it alone. But, since there’s no danger of my becoming King, the regulatory onslaught will continue. You know what’s really funny? Once the economy picks up, maybe in 5 or 6 years, the number of highway fatalities will go up, despite all these draconian safety measures they are now enacting. How do I know this? The number of people killed on the roads is much more a function of how many people are on the roads, rather than the safety regulations. There was a dramatic drop in deaths over the past 2-3 years, not because of anything DOT did, but because we suffered the worst economic downturn since the Depression.
Independent Review Casts Serious Doubt About FMCSA’s HOS Mandate
The American Trucking Association issued a press release today about FMCSA’s new complicated hours of service rules, coming to a highway near you very soon. It says:
“An independent review of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s Hours of Service “Regulatory Impact Analysis” has found the Agency wildly overstated the proposal’s benefits. While the agency claims its proposal would result in up to $380 million in annual benefits, an Edgeworth Economics’ independent review finds that proposal would result in net costs, and not benefits, of approximately $320 million a year. The Edgeworth report states “…we find that FMCSA has overstated the net benefits of the proposed rule by about $700 million annually.”
Edgeworth Economics, an internationally renowned consulting firm that’s done work for the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the National Football League Players Association, found that FMCSA used questionable logic, inadequate data and sloppy math in attempting to justify its proposed changes to the hours-of-service rules for commercial drivers.
“FMCSA has made a number of substantial changes to its approach since the previous [regulatory impact analysis] issued in 2007,” the Edgeworth report concluded. “We find that, in every instance, FMCSA’s new methodologies and assumptions increase the apparent net benefits of the proposed rule. However, many of FMCSA’s new approaches rely on misapplication of available data, use outdated information, or lack empirical support entirely.”
In addition to being off base by $700 million annually, other notable findings of the Edgeworth study include:
* FMCSA made unreasonable assumptions about the safety of the trucking industry by sampling only carriers it subjected to a compliance review, generally for not following federal safety rules;
* In formulating its proposal, FMCSA used crash data collected before the current rules went into effect, completely ignoring their positive safety impact on the industry;
“Edgeworth’s analysis pretty clearly shows that FMCSA’s proposal isn’t rooted in sound science, good data or logic, and can’t stand up to scrutiny,” American Trucking Associations President and CEO Bill Graves said. “The findings of this study match what we’ve heard from our members and what ATA has been saying since FMCSA launched this ill-conceived overhaul of these rules: As proposed, the new hours-of-service rules would impose significant costs on the trucking industry without improving safety. These rules are a cure for a disease that we don’t have.”
To see the full report go to here.
So here are a few thoughts on this. First, if you’re trying to establish the credibility of Edgeworth Economics, the author of this report, I don’t think I’d bring up the fact they have done work for EPA, who are the kings of junk science. That being said, I’m sure their findings in this case are 100% right on. The FMCSA used “questionable logic, inadequate data and sloppy math” in reaching its conclusions? ATA, you didn’t need to pay Edgeworth to tell you that, I could have told you that for nothing. I agree with the ATA on this one, these new rules are a travesty, and are unrelated to safety.
Initial Thought on EOBR Mandate
I read this rulemaking more carefully, and my first thought is, “It’s a ridiculous, unwarranted intrusion into private business, which has nothing to do with safety”. That was my first thought. Here is the money quote from the rulemaking itself, on page 40:
“The Agency is currently unable to evaluate the extent to which the proposed changes to the supporting documents requirements will lead to reductions in crashes”.
In other words, they have no idea if this will reduce crashes or not. Furthermore, they have no idea if this will increase crashes. Nor do they care. More on this later.
