Is It Really True That Truckers Can't Agree? Let's Try.

[zorry]

. Again this is not a skilled trade for 90% or more of us.

And there-in lies the root of SOME of our problems.

Although Cubie, I like your idea about ownership. Real ownership.
Maybe the first time I've ever agreed with you on anything.

 

[ATeam]

You are advocating higher standards for other people but not for yourself. ...

Nobody has commented on more regulation for older drivers? Did you miss that or does that hit too close to home?

Diane and I both come from white-collar professions in which continuing education is a requirement and a fact of life. It is ongoing and, in law, for example, even supreme court justices, must complete the CE courses on an ongoing basis. When I advocate continuing education, it applies to me as much as to any other driver. When you say that I am advocating higher standards for other people but not myself, you are incorrect. What I advocate applies to me too.

 

[ATeam]

You want continued REQUIRED education? Professional standards lol truck driving is not really a profession it is a business or job depending on how you go about it. Driving a tractor trailer takes a bit more skill and you are tested prior to getting your CDL as it is.

Here again, I thank you for sharing, because it shows what an advocacy group would encounter if such a group came into being and became active and effective, at least effective enough to stimulate a public debate.

Notice, readers, how cubansammich is changing the subject. I am talking about safety, he is talking about how unskilled of a job driving a truck really is (and apparently should continue to be).

I do not disagree that the actual act of driving a truck is within the reach of most otherwise unskilled people. But that is not my basis for advocacy. I am not interested in protecting the right of any fool to drive a truck. I am interested in establishing professional standards for drivers, such that highway safety will be improved, and such that the higher standards will also elevate the pay of the drivers who rise to operate at that level. While there are a number of drivers who operate at that level now, there is nothing right about the fact that the "any fool" crowd makes the same money while presenting a far greater safety risk to the public.

If this advocacy approach is going to succeed, we need to keep the debate focused on safety. I'll leave it to others to advocate for the rights of any fool who wishes to drive a truck. This is not about freedom of opportunity. It's about safety.

Any fool can plumb a house. Any fool can wire a building. But without laws to prevent it, a whole lot of fools would be out there victimizing and endangering customers to whom they would sell their services.

 

[cubansammich]

Here again, I thank you for sharing, because it shows what an advocacy group would encounter if such a group came into being and became active and effective, at least effective enough to stimulate a public debate.

Notice, readers, how cubansammich is changing the subject. I am talking about safety, he is talking about how unskilled of a job driving a truck really is (and apparently should continue to be).

I do not disagree that the actual act of driving a truck is within the reach of most otherwise unskilled people. But that is not my basis for advocacy. I am not interested in protecting the right of any fool to drive a truck. I am interested in establishing professional standards for drivers, such that highway safety will be improved, and such that the higher standards will also elevate the pay of the drivers who rise to operate at that level. While there are a number of drivers who operate at that level now, there is nothing right about the fact that the "any fool" crowd makes the same money while presenting a far greater safety risk to the public.

If this advocacy approach is going to succeed, we need to keep the debate focused on safety. I'll leave it to others to advocate for the rights of any fool who wishes to drive a truck. This is not about freedom of opportunity. It's about safety.

Any fool can plumb a house. Any fool can wire a building. But without laws to prevent it, a whole lot of fools would be out there victimizing and endangering customers to whom they would sell their services.

Trucking is not a white collar industry. You come from a white collar industry then try and change your new industry into a complex, rule heavy industry? Aren't you the same guy that is crying over carb rules? Now you want other rules that effect other people? Now you have morphed into requiring on going training to drive a truck down the highway? Are there any studies that show this is necessary? Are trucks that dangerous to the public currently? Haven't the roads and the industry become safer already?

By the way aren't you going into the gym or day trading business anyhow?

FWIW most of us already feel stifled with regulations from government and our carriers. We are not children acting unsafely. There are regulations in place to rid the industry of unsafe drivers. Maybe supporting the existing reg enforcement would help but adding new ones is not in our best interest.

How about we get all states to enact the California rules on vehicles? That would help me greatly and then all these old trucks like yours can go to the scrapheap and we can all be "more professional".

 

[cubansammich]

Since I eat food and want it to be safer, I advocate all reefer trucks require weekly inspection and temp control tests. Since I have a head that could be squashed by faulty hydraulics, I also advocate all liftgates have weekly inspections as well.

It will make the world safer so it must be good!

 

[davekc]

Just to comment on a couple of things, I think safety is probably the way to. Other items would likely feed off of that.
The notion that once every one gets a CDL is good to go is not accurate. Someone going through a three month college program is much more prepared than someone who was rammed through a two week driving school by a carrier.
What more proof does one need when for example you see a Swift (sorry Swift) try to back in a spot in a truck stop and it takes them a good hour. My opinion would be if they lack that skill of backing up, it would be a good quess they have some limitations going forward.
So...not all people with a CDL are equal. Speaking English is a basic requirement and we see how well that requirement is met.

As for fleet owners hiring drivers, that can always be changed but the end result would be the same. If ownership was to every be required, fleet owners would just lease the vehicles to the drivers.

 

[cubansammich]

Just to comment on a couple of things, I think safety is probably the way to. Other items would likely feed off of that.
The notion that once every one gets a CDL is good to go is not accurate. Someone going through a three month college program is much more prepared than someone who was rammed through a two week driving school by a carrier.
What more proof does one need when for example you see a Swift (sorry Swift) try to back in a spot in a truck stop and it takes them a good hour. My opinion would be if they lack that skill of backing up, it would be a good quess they have some limitations going forward.
So...not all people with a CDL are equal. Speaking English is a basic requirement and we see how well that requirement is met.

As for fleet owners hiring drivers, that can always be changed but the end result would be the same. If ownership was to every be required, fleet owners would just lease the vehicles to the drivers.

How about those that are fresh out of school but do the job well, including backing? You would punish them with more regulation because of some? I have seen a few having trouble backing into a spot. Sometimes they are new sometimes not but it doesn't seem to be an epidemic calling for more regulation. I like freedom and the more of it the better. Now if we have an epidemic of unsafe truckers then that changes but you seem to advocating more regulation under the guise of safety to pad your pockets and that is un American in my book.

Compete or get buried don't try and get the government to prop you up with legislation.

Is there an epidemic of accidents with an increased curve to those with limited English skills? If so please share it otherwise it just sounds like old man noise.

 

[cubansammich]

As for fleet owners hiring drivers, that can always be changed but the end result would be the same. If ownership was to every be required, fleet owners would just lease the vehicles to the drivers.

So within this thread where you support more regulation you blatantly post that you would skirt your responsibilities as a business owner if regulations catch up to your independent contractor game on employer responsibilities.

Question for you, are cabbies that drive for cab companies typically employees or contractors? What about a company that rents out a back hoe with a driver to work it, would that driver be a contractor? People in glass houses again.

You guys have a good game going, I wouldn't be pushing for more regs in an industry where I'm gaming it if I were in your shoes.

 

[davekc]

How about those that are fresh out of school but do the job well, including backing? You would punish them with more regulation because of some? I have seen a few having trouble backing into a spot. Sometimes they are new sometimes not but it doesn't seem to be an epidemic calling for more regulation. I like freedom and the more of it the better. Now if we have an epidemic of unsafe truckers then that changes but you seem to advocating more regulation under the guise of safety to pad your pockets and that is un American in my book.

Compete or get buried don't try and get the government to prop you up with legislation.

Is there an epidemic of accidents with an increased curve to those with limited English skills? If so please share it otherwise it just sounds like old man noise.

As I have said before, if more regulation is coming, and we know it is, it is my position to have it to the industry's benefit. They may amend legislation, but they "don't get rid of it".
And again, no one is calling for more regulation, but more is coming. They have already said as much. Better to be out in front of it rather than behind it.
With regard to speaking Engish, I didn't say it was causing accidents, but as a requirement, it isn't adhered to. Thus the purpose of many posts. I am beginning to think there is a language barrier here because you keep bringing up the same thing that has been addressed several times.

I am not seeing someone skirting the law if they hire drivers. If the law changed, and then you lease the equipment to the driver....again.....you would be adapting to a "new law" that doesn't currently exist in order to operate "legally".
As for the cab business, most aren't employees to my knowledge because they don't legally fall under the legal definition of a employee. They work when they want, for as long or as little as they want and the list goes on.

 

[zorry]

Since I eat food and want it to be safer, I advocate all reefer trucks require weekly inspection and temp control tests. Since I have a head that could be squashed by faulty hydraulics, I also advocate all liftgates have weekly inspections as well.

It will make the world safer so it must be good!

If you believe in these things,get to work.

Follow that dream.

 

[ATeam]

Trucking is not a white collar industry.

No it is not. Neither is being a lineman, electrician or plummer but those are considered professions and have licensing requirements. So too should it be for trucking, I suggest.

You come from a white collar industry then try and change your new industry into a complex, rule heavy industry?

Trucking is already a rule-heavy industry. It was when we entered it ten years ago and is more so now. It is less rule heavy than many professions, but part of turning trucking into a profession in which professionals are compensated as such is developing rules that set high standards. Not rules that keep carrier, shipper and consignee boots on trucker necks.

Aren't you the same guy that is crying over carb rules?

Yes, I object to certain CARB rules. What of it? Objecting to a particular rule does not limit my freedom or anyone else's to advocate for rule changes.

Now you want other rules that effect other people?

Yes. Again, what of it? Have you never met a trucker who did not want the rules changed in one form or another? And with any rule change, of course other people will be affected, because the rules affect other people.

Now you have morphed into requiring on going training to drive a truck down the highway?

Morphed? I do not think so. I propose mandatory driver training. That positon did not morph from anything. It is a straightforward proposal, pure and simple.

Are there any studies that show this is necessary?

None that I know of but I have not looked for any either. There may be some data out there to support my view.

Are trucks that dangerous to the public currently?

Yes.

Haven't the roads and the industry become safer already?

That depends on the study and stats you cite. What vehicle types, conditions, events, time frames, ect. do you wish to consider? We've seen the game in Washington. One study trumps another. One advocacy group produces data that is countered with data produced by another.

By the way aren't you going into the gym or day trading business anyhow?

Yes

FWIW most of us already feel stifled with regulations from government and our carriers. We are not children acting unsafely. There are regulations in place to rid the industry of unsafe drivers. Maybe supporting the existing reg enforcement would help but adding new ones is not in our best interest.

Note the third proposed agenda item: Driving complant under rules that are reasonable and fair.

How about we get all states to enact the California rules on vehicles? That would help me greatly and then all these old trucks like yours can go to the scrapheap and we can all be "more professional".

Whatever the rules are or become, people in the marketplace adapt. If our truck was made illegal nationwide tomorrow, and if Diane and I were not getting out of the business, we too would adapt. When we purchased our first truck, the goal was to pay cash for the second truck after the first one was used up. While our present truck has lots of life in it yet, we are in a positon to pay cash for the second truck now. That would be our response if our truck was made illegal nationwide tomorrow and if we stayed in the business.

The scrap-heap scenario was planned for before we bought the first truck. Rule changes have reduced the value of our truck by taking it out of the California market but it is a change we could adapt to if necessary. Nevertheless, I think it is fundamentally unfair and harmful to any truck owner who bought a new truck in 2006 that was then compliant, only to have rules retroactively applied to undermine that investment.

Notice that nothing in the proposed agenda articulated in this thread is retroactive. Existing drivers would need to complete a certain number of hours of continuing education but only new drivers entering the industry would be required to complete meaningful driver training.

 

[ATeam]

Since I eat food and want it to be safer, I advocate all reefer trucks require weekly inspection and temp control tests. Since I have a head that could be squashed by faulty hydraulics, I also advocate all liftgates have weekly inspections as well.

It will make the world safer so it must be good!

You are free to advocate what you want in the way you want. Good luck, though, in building a broad base of support for your reefer and liftgate safety agenda.

P.S. You are hereby advised to keep your head out from under lift gates and away from their hydraulic components.

 

[cubansammich]

The scrap-heap scenario was planned for before we bought the first truck. Rule changes have reduced the value of our truck by taking it out of the California market but it is a change we could adapt to if necessary. Nevertheless, I think it is fundamentally unfair and harmful to any truck owner who bought a new truck in 2006 that was then compliant, only to have rules retroactively applied to undermine that investment.

Yet you seem to have no problem having rules retroactively applied to undermine that driver.

Notice that nothing in the proposed agenda articulated in this thread is retroactive. Existing drivers would need to complete a certain number of hours of continuing education but only new drivers entering the industry would be required to complete meaningful driver training.

You would require more hoops for complaint law abiding drivers without any evidence of it doing anything to make the roads safer. You should get a job with the government because that is right out of their playbook. Without any evidence that any of these things would make the road safer you would push them off on the rest of us to deal with while you run off to your new business. Please go sooner than later and leave us alone.

What do you propose for under 10 gvw vehicles?

 

[cheri1122]

I'm puzzled by all those who are opposed to regulation in any form - mention it, and they panic. However, there are regulations that are reasonable and beneficial, and there are those that are arbitrary and accomplish nothing, so my take is to try for more of the first, and hope the second will be stricken [or just die from being ignored].
Inexperienced drivers are more of a safety risk than experienced - do you really need statistics to tell you that? Sure, there are some who just get into the groove naturally, but they are not the majority. Most new drivers of commercial vehicles are not trained sufficiently, which I know because I was one of them. After 3 weeks of driving school, [in the summer], followed by 8 weeks with a codriver, I was in no way ready to drive a T/T over mountains in the snow & ice, but the carrier didn't care how I felt, they wanted the loads delivered, or I could go elsewhere. [Yeah, right.] It was more luck than skill that kept me from wrecking, because I tended to panic pretty easily when I didn't know what to do. And I am hardly unusual: most new drivers are just the same.
One thing I've always admired about FedEx is their way of making it fun to keep driving skills sharp, with 'truck rodeos' and skill competitions. That is something the industry could use more of.
And how many carriers send or sponsor their drivers for skid pad training?
There's a lot more effective ways to address safety and ensure that drivers have and use and retain their skills, and I'm in favor of doing what actually works to make us safer.

 

[zorry]

Hey, Don't pick on Swift.
Last week I saw a Swift newbie trying to get in a spot at a Petro.
I watched him for 15 minutes. Finally I told the misses I just had to help.
I went over, offered to help and he was amazed. I told him I was a rookie once.
I got it in with only three pull-ups.

Thank God he didn't have a trailer.

 

[ATeam]

Yet you seem to have no problem having rules retroactively applied to undermine that driver.

You would require more hoops for complaint law abiding drivers without any evidence of it doing anything to make the roads safer. You should get a job with the government because that is right out of their playbook. Without any evidence that any of these things would make the road safer you would push them off on the rest of us to deal with while you run off to your new business. Please go sooner than later and leave us alone.

What do you propose for under 10 gvw vehicles?

One of the things smart advocates do when building a support base is to bypass the people who do not agree and build a base of people who do agree. No matter what you propose, someone will always rise to argue with it. We would not be doing this to win arguements, we'd be doing it to win votes. And when enough votes are presented to the leaders who respect them, policy changes can be made.

When I was politically active years ago, this is the approach that worked. My friends and I began by going door to door. When someone said no or wanted to argue, we disengaged and moved on. After a few hundred "no's" we had a few dozen "yes's" to work from. Those people found more, and the more found still more. The yea's eventually won because they built a large base and were better organized than the nay's.

Thank you for your input, cubansammich. I am exercising my right to move on and find people who agree.

 

[letzrockexpress]

Which is precisely why standards must be raised. Any fool can drive a truck and many fools do. If we want truck driving to be a profession, professional standards must be applied (higher expectations, continuing education, improved compensation, etc.) and entry standards must be raised.

Thank you for sharing your views, though. It is a preview of what can be expected when higher standards are advocated.

Can we get a clear definition of what "professionalism" is as it pertains to trucking or driving in general? I have heard this term bandied about several times this week. Guido was bemoaning a day or two ago on facebook about losing a load to a less than "professional" expediter. I would like to know what you think a professional driver really is...

 

[cubansammich]

Could you get on board with the smoking ban for commercial drivers A team? I don't smoke so I'll support that and if we rid our industry of all of these smokers then rate4s will surely go up.

Cigarettes and Automobile Accidents

Inattention while driving is a major contributor to automobile accidents. Smoking-related tasks are considered in the category of driver inattentiveness as noted in a 2006 report by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration titled "The Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk." Drivers who are engaged in tasks not related to driving, such as reaching for a cigarette, lighting or extinguishing the cigarette and smoking while driving, increase the risk of having an accident by two-to-three times that of normal driving.


Read more: Accidents Caused by Smoking Cigarettes | eHow

Cigarettes and Automobile Accidents

Inattention while driving is a major contributor to automobile accidents. Smoking-related tasks are considered in the category of driver inattentiveness as noted in a 2006 report by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration titled "The Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk." Drivers who are engaged in tasks not related to driving, such as reaching for a cigarette, lighting or extinguishing the cigarette and smoking while driving, increase the risk of having an accident by two-to-three times that of normal driving.


Read more: Accidents Caused by Smoking Cigarettes | eHow

Safety and higher rates you are winning me over!

 

[cheri1122]

Hey, Don't pick on Swift.
Last week I saw a Swift newbie trying to get in a spot at a Petro.
I watched him for 15 minutes. Finally I told the misses I just had to help.
I went over, offered to help and he was amazed. I told him I was a rookie once.
I got it in with only three pull-ups.

Thank God he didn't have a trailer.

Here's a new regulation I'd support: new drivers who can't back into a spot in less than 6 tries should not be allowed to drive trucks with backing beepers.
I'm serious - goober kept me awake for half an hour last night with the beeping!

 

[davekc]

Here's a new regulation I'd support: new drivers who can't back into a spot in less than 6 tries should not be allowed to drive trucks with backing beepers.
I'm serious - goober kept me awake for half an hour last night with the beeping!

Was he smoking?