Thought has been provoked, yes; perhaps by posts here on EO and perhaps because many other people who have never heard of EO had their curiosity raised by the article itself.
Good point.
You and I together can look forward for any clarification that may follow.
I agree, I look forward to OOIDA's clarification.
My energy on this is not against EOBRs and drivers who prefer them. It is against the FMCSA. It is a hopelessly dysfunctional agency and I would love nothing more to see it's applecart upset by a ruling that busts them proper for failing to follow the congressional mandates they are required to follow. They have broken congressional mandates with impunity in the past. I am thrilled to see OOIDA step up to the plate to take on the outlaw FMCSA.
This paragraph seems to be conflictive since you side with OOIDA. Isn't OOIDA AGAINST the EOBR?! Can you clarify? You back OOIDA, as I DID, but I don't "fund" any entity anymore because they are to busy "wasting" money on lawsuits instead of putting this money to better use by helping solve the issues at hand, instead of making the issues worse by lawsuits.
Here we have an economy failing, yet the gov't "gave" funding to help companies that couldn't afford EOBR's, to get them. Case in point, OOIDA backed this idea and then about-faced after someone starts screaming about "harrassment". Can you agree with me on that?
So much so that I am going to contribute $250 to OOIDA's PAC fund and $250 to its litigation fund. It will be done by phone before close of business tomorrow. I have made such contributions before and encourage readers here to do the same.
GO OOIDA!!!!!
To me, OOIDA was great at one time to be a part of, but now, after several issues of yes we are for it, "OH NO, HARRASSMENT, gotta change it now" I can't be a part of that, so my membership expires monday and I have no intentions to renew it, no offense to any OOIDA members. As far as fighting the FMCSA? Me, personally, if it isn't broke, don't try to fix it, BUT if you insist on trying to fix it, why not take the $ 500 dollars total that someone is willing to donate and donate to someone who will fix it right the first time instead of temporarily fixing, deliberately breaking and suing to refix what shouldn't have been broken in the first place.
I am not against the FMCSA, they "write our rules that, by law, we are required to follow". I think that the FMCSA should fully evaluate, run trials and get a FULL UNDERSTANDING of the ramifications BEFORE implimenting a "rule" that has to many uncertainties. Would you agree with that as well?
