Can You Quantify EOBR $$$ Benefits?

[rollincoal]

Maybe in a few very rare circumstances EOBR helps someone make a little more money. For the most part I think a blanket statement that everyone will is a fantasy.

As far as EOBR's are concerned it won't change much about the way I operate seeing as my average length of haul is only 430 miles anyways. I run legal already. I'll still charge premium rates. If I run into a circumstance where EOBR will interfere with being able to get an 800 or 1000 mile load off a little quicker than would be an option now, I'll charge accordingly.

EOBR's are nothing to do with saftey nor liability. They are something dreamed up by fat cat CEO's as a way to push small operations out and corner markets. Nothing new under the sun. Well, this small operator isn't going to be hampered by them. I'll deal with EOBR's if they come to pass.

 

[beachbum]

You make a statement in your reply, that small carriers would be forced out of business if they had to install a EOBR or Elog. Maybe you can explain how this would come about. If everyone is under the same rule, just as of right now nothing changes between paper and electronic logs, except that electronic logs can be set up to log by the minute.

Now to the OP and how you can make more with a EOBR, it comes down to saving those minutes per day that give a person on a mileage contract more time in a day to drive if they want. For a percent O/O or lease driver it comes down to saving time over the long run.

Maybe in a few very rare circumstances EOBR helps someone make a little more money. For the most part I think a blanket statement that everyone will is a fantasy.

As far as EOBR's are concerned it won't change much about the way I operate seeing as my average length of haul is only 430 miles anyways. I run legal already. I'll still charge premium rates. If I run into a circumstance where EOBR will interfere with being able to get an 800 or 1000 mile load off a little quicker than would be an option now, I'll charge accordingly.

EOBR's are nothing to do with saftey nor liability. They are something dreamed up by fat cat CEO's as a way to push small operations out and corner markets. Nothing new under the sun. Well, this small operator isn't going to be hampered by them. I'll deal with EOBR's if they come to pass.

 

[rollincoal]

Whether one agrees with it or not, being able to fudge logs is a fact of life and does give small carriers an edge competing. And then there are just some loads like livestock, where EOBR's will just outrageously increase costs and NEVER work, and produce where the same might be said in some circumstances, again it'll increase costs for small carriers and also likley cut them out of significant business because they are hampered by not having the ability to easily re-power loads. So EOBR's will be a boon to mega carriers like Shaffer or Marten. Not so much so for the small 20 truck reefer operation. Also installing EOBR on a truck is a costly prospect and most operations, especially small ones, are severely undercapitalized. So you see why mandatory EOBR's are being pushed big time by mega carriers and other likeminded folks who are greedy and want to artifically control the markets they work? The fact that it takes some liability off the carrier is an added benefit, although there will always be stupid drivers who do stupid things and no way to ever get rid of all liability. There will even be bad things happen to good drivers that a carrier ends up being held liable for. My remark that it had nothing to do with liability was a little off base but not by much.

You make a statement in your reply, that small carriers would be forced out of business if they had to install a EOBR or Elog. Maybe you can explain how this would come about. If everyone is under the same rule, just as of right now nothing changes between paper and electronic logs, except that electronic logs can be set up to log by the minute.

Now to the OP and how you can make more with a EOBR, it comes down to saving those minutes per day that give a person on a mileage contract more time in a day to drive if they want. For a percent O/O or lease driver it comes down to saving time over the long run.

 

[Turtle]

You make a statement in your reply, that small carriers would be forced out of business if they had to install a EOBR or Elog. Maybe you can explain how this would come about. If everyone is under the same rule, just as of right now nothing changes between paper and electronic logs, except that electronic logs can be set up to log by the minute.

What changes is the cost of doing those logs, and the cost of retaining them. Large carriers can better absorb the costs of installing the EOBR (estimated by the FMCSA to be $1700, which by all accounts is seriously on the low side), and of maintaining them, and of replacing them every 5 years (on the average), and of buying computer server storage to retain the data, and the costs of computer maintenance and security, and for the monthly data fees and other monthly costs associated with operating the units. Smaller carriers are already operating on slim margins as it is, and something that even the DOT admits is one of its costliest mandates in history, will put many small carriers out of business, or at the very least put them in a position of clear disadvantage. Which is precisely what many larger carriers want.

 

[beachbum]

But Turtle, that same 20 truck carrier can at anytime start to install them on a 6 truck per year and not have a large dollar hit. It comes down to understanding how to integrating the EOBR over time, just as large carries do now.

Just as large carriers don't replace all the trucks at the same time the same goes when they integrate new technology they do it over time to spread the costs.

 

[rollincoal]

But Turtle, that same 20 truck carrier can at anytime start to install them on a 6 truck per year and not have a large dollar hit. It comes down to understanding how to integrating the EOBR over time, just as large carries do now.

Just as large carriers don't replace all the trucks at the same time the same goes when they integrate new technology they do it over time to spread the costs.

That's not the point. Point is EOBR's are an anti-competive measure. The mega carriers and mid sized carriers can handle this no sweat. Anything that takes upstarts out of the picture or eliminates existing small carriers is good for them. Competition is a sin. Regulations like this are thought up and pushed for this reason. There will always be those, greed is the motivation, with what they have that want to expand on that and will do anything they can to push for more regulations putting stumbling blocks up for those who could compete in a truely free market. Big and mid sized carriers don't like guys like me that they can't dictate terms to and control.

 

[paullud]

But Turtle, that same 20 truck carrier can at anytime start to install them on a 6 truck per year and not have a large dollar hit. It comes down to understanding how to integrating the EOBR over time, just as large carries do now.

Just as large carriers don't replace all the trucks at the same time the same goes when they integrate new technology they do it over time to spread the costs.

You seem to be missing the point. Large carriers don't replace trucks or technology at the same time simply because they have to many to do all at once, absolutely nothing to do with cost.

Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums

 

[Turtle]

All true, and it wouldn't be much of a problem if it were just a one-time installation cost they had to absorb and/or spread out. The reality is, just the computer hardware and software alone can be a deal breaker for a smaller carrier. The computer costs are roughly the same for 20 trucks (even 6 at a time) as they are for 200 or 2000 trucks, but with large fleets the cost is spread out over a much wider range and becomes far less of a burden. The mere fact that the DOT (and the Congressional Budget Office) admits EOBRs would the costliest mandate in history to trucking should tell you something, at the very least it should tell you that there are far more associated costs than just the cost of the EOBR and installation in the truck. Then there's monthly fees of between $30 and $50 per vehicle, just for the data, not including the hidden fees of computer data and maintenance and training and outsourcing. Computer costs alone can be thousands of dollars per month, whether it's a 5 truck fleet of a 500 truck fleet. A large fleet can take that kind of hit, but a small fleet cannot.

More than one Congressman has called the mandate "catastrophic" for small trucking companies, especially the independent owner-operators. The point of the mandate is increased regulation to force compliance with HOS, because, in fine Ray La Hood fashion, "Fatigue is a leading cause of crashes, and far too many of them cause death and injury. If we can reduce crashes caused by fatigue, there will be a net benefit, which will save trucking companies money."

Which is a load of horse hockey right up there with the distractions of driving while chewing gum. The FMCSA has no evidence whatsoever that e-logs will reduce fatigue - they merely think and hope it will - despite boatloads of available data on trucks that have had e-logs for quite a while now. They're largely ignoring that data in favor of their own phantom data. It's a show, largely financed by makers of satellite tracking a logging companies, and large carrier fleets.

If trucking companies believed that EOBRs would save them money in any way, including operating and insurance costs, they wouldn’t need a government mandate to adopt the technology. They'd do it all on their own. Mandated EOBRs are simply an unjustified, overly burdensome regulation, and it hits the smaller carriers the hardest.

The bottom line really is, for most drivers, they spend about $12 a year on paper logs, but under the DOT mandate they would spend, at a minimum $785 per year doing the same exact thing. While there are certainly many benefits to electronic logs, very few of them are monetary. Like I said, if there were enough of a cost savings for a carrier to do electronic logs, they'd all be doing it already.

 

[blackpup]

EOBRs are not about safety, they are cash flow for enterprising companies. I also understand that some truckers like the EOBR system.

jimmy

 

[cheri1122]

Ray Lahood's proclamation that "fatigue is a leading cause of crashes" is 100% contradicted by DOT's own website, which states "Fatigue was a factor in 1.4% of all fatal accidents last year." A FACTOR, meaning it was present, not that it was a cause, even!!!
The last CVSA Safety check showed that HOS violations are declining, while other statistics show the overwhelming majority of large truck crashes are caused by 4 wheel drivers, and when the crash is caused by the truck driver, 'unfamiliarity with road' is a much greater cause than fatigue. Education and pressure for commercial buildings to display clear addresses [so drivers can watch the road instead of searching for a number] would have a greater impact on truck safety than insisting drivers follow a 'one size fits all' schedule to the minute. So would reinstating the split sleeper provision, which thousands of drivers have told them, but they pay no attention to us.
They pay a lot of attention to the big carriers: the original plan for EOBRs was to mandate them for carriers with poor safety records, but the big carriers didn't care for that idea [wonder why] and suggested that if it's a good idea, everyone should have them [no scarlet letter! and it doesn't hurt that it's far less affordable for the little guys, too] and voila! Here we are: everyone should have them.
Expedite isn't like TL and LTL trucking, but DOT and FMCSA make rules that work for the ATA - even if they have to make up 'facts' to do it.

 

[Turtle]

Ray also says distracted driving is a leading cause of crashes. Apparently, anything that can cause a crash is just automatically classified as a leading cause. It's easier that way.

 

[ATeam]

EOBRs are not about safety, they are cash flow for enterprising companies. I also understand that some truckers like the EOBR system.

EOBR's are about safety to the extent that they help carriers reduce their fatigued driving BASIC scores, but the flaw in that reasoning is that those scores actually have something to do with safety.

There is no question that carriers can significantly reduce driver-made log book errors and roadside inspection violations by going to EOBR's. But all that changes is their fatigued driving BASIC score.

How many log book violations are actually about fatigued driving? If a driver gets up in the moring, does his or her pre-trip, but forgets to mark it in a log book or EOBR, and is then cited for no pre-trip, that is a log book violation that the FMCSA calls "fatigued driving."

Actually, the citation would be for no pre-trip, but notice the language leap that the regulations make. This paperwork error is classified as fatigued driving, so the driver becomes, by that dishonest trick of language, a fatigued driver.

B.S.

So too with log book form and manner violations (wrong dates, bad math, omitted entries, poor handwriting, etc.). A driver may be two hours from home when he or she wakes up from a good night's sleep. Focused on getting there, the driver forgets to update the log or wrongly plans to do it when he gets home. The volation? Fatigued driving.

On the flip side, a driver might have a sleepless night on Sunday night because of a family fight at home. He or she then goes to work on Monday morning and drives tired all day long. No violation there because the EOBR will show him or her having plenty of hours to drive and no paperwork violations were made. Yet the driver has no business behind behind the wheel in that truly fatigued state.

Yes, fatigued driving violations are dropping because of EOBR's but few of them have anything to do with actual fatigue. Nevertheless, the lie is widely told and seldom challenged. Labeling frequent paperwork violations as fatigued driving was a master stroke by the regulators seeking to justify this program. It is regrettable that the carriers and drivers let them get away with that.

If you want to know the true impact EOBR's are having on safety, look at crash rates. I have not researched this in depth but the numbers I have seen show that crash rates in fleets that have changed to EOBR's change little after the EOBR's are put in the trucks.

Saints be Praised! Truck drivers are better at paperwork because of technology. But it is just plain crap to suggest that the roads are safer because of it. Calling a paperwork error fatigued driving does not make it so, but the lie is being told often enough that it is becoming accepted as truth.

 

[cheri1122]

Ray also says distracted driving is a leading cause of crashes. Apparently, anything that can cause a crash is just automatically classified as a leading cause. It's easier that way.

On this one, I agree - the question is: what's causing the distractions? FMCSA has focused their attention on cellphones, while totally ignoring the #1 distraction commercial drivers are forced to deal with: looking for an address/gate/sign/customer provided company name, etc.
While I'm looking, I'm NOT able to watch the road & traffic around me, and it scares me to death sometimes, knowing who'll be blamed if I rear end someone while trying to see if the sign says "Shipping & receiving", because it's too small to read, or half obscured, or whatever.
They'll blame me, of course, and then probably cite it as 'fatigued driving'.

 

[zorry]

Did I miss it or has nobody mentioned that anyone leasing onto Landstar,any division,is required to have an EOBR as of 08/01/12. ?
The weekly fee I believe is $27.25.

 

[ATeam]

Did I miss it or has nobody mentioned that anyone leasing onto Landstar,any division,is required to have an EOBR as of 08/01/12. ?
The weekly fee I believe is $27.25.

The requirement is news to me regarding Landstar Express America. Can't confirm it with the other divisions either since I don't follow them. What is your source?

 

[ATeam]

Regarding the time an EOBR supposedly saves the driver who uses one, the nature of the time saved must be considered. Diane and I are on a run now that delivers tomorrow morning. The load picked up yesterday evening.

On this run, we will make a number of paper log book entries, each of which takes a certain amount of time to make. We will also do our end-of-day log book work which requires more time. If we had an EOBR, much of that work would be done by the EOBR, though a certain amount of time would still be required.

I have no idea what the time difference might work out to be, but for the sake of discussion, let's exagerate the difference, give the big time-saving edge to the EOBR, and say that on this run, the EOBR would have saved us one hour of time that would have otherwise been spent on paper logs.

How valuable is that time? I suggest it is worth nothing at all. No amount of time savings realized on this run would make any difference whatsoever in the possibility of getting an additional load. The Thursday morning delivery time remains the same whichever kind of logging is done.

Also, unless you are really, really bad in keeping a paper log and have a hard time with simple arithmetic, the blocks of time saved don't add up in a way to be useful for other endeavors. With an EOBR, you have to log a note for a fuel stop. So too with a paper log. The two take about the same amount of time. At the end of a driving shift or day, you may save some time on an EOBR that you would otherwise spend on a paper log, but, realistically, and truthfully, what are you going to do with that time that will make a financial difference? Not much, I think.

While it is absolutely true that an EOBR will save you X number of minutes or hours over a month or two, that time does not show up as hours. It shows up as minutes, and only a few of those at different parts of the day.

 

[EASYTRADER]

All government regulations are anti competitive. Thats the point lf regulations, to shut out competition. Thats what fascism is, government and big corporate concerns working together to screw the little guy. Within 30 days of Obamacare almost all of the efected sp 500 companies recieved waivers. The more regulations that get created, the more capital is required to open a bussiness high3er capital requirements means less new business.

 

[Turtle]

How valuable is that time? I suggest it is worth nothing at all.

Depends on how you value your free time. I value mine a great deal, whether it is spent reading a book, watching TV, doing stuff on the computer, playing a game of chess, any time I spend doing exactly what I want to do is valuable time. A few minutes a day not having to spend on childish proof of compliance for the Trucking Overlord is valuable time, indeed. I think.

 

[zorry]

The requirement is news to me regarding Landstar Express America. Can't confirm it with the other divisions either since I don't follow them. What is your source?

Heard it. Called Landstar recruiting who verified it. Only required for new leases, all divisions , as of 08/01/12 .

 

[ATeam]

Heard it. Called Landstar recruiting who verified it. Only required for new leases, all divisions , as of 08/01/12 .

I checked with our operations department today. They are the same people that do the recruiting for LEAM. According to them, EOBR's are not required for new LEAM trucks. Not now, not as of 08/01/12. I did not ask about the other divisions.