Posted on 04/24/2003 11:04:15 AM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
WASHINGTON - Truck drivers will be allowed to drive longer hours but must take more time off between shifts under the first changes since 1939 in the federal rule governing such drivers.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, an arm of the Transportation Department, is seeking to reduce fatigue-related accidents. Officials planned a news conference today to announce the changes, which take effect in January.
A trucking industry official familiar with the changes said they would permit drivers to spend up to 11 straight hours behind the wheel, a one-hour increase from the current level. But truckers also will be required to take off at least 10 hours between shifts, two hours more than now required.
Safety groups and the trucker's union criticized the new rules.
"An extra hour of driving time will just add to driver fatigue," said Rob Black, spokesman for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
David McCorkle of McCorkle Truck Line in Oklahoma, the former head of the American Trucking Associations, said the trucking industry supports the changes.
"We can live with this one," he said.
Federal officials decided not to require breaks during driving shifts, which the trucking association said are unnecessary. The group conducted a survey three years ago and found that truck drivers automatically take breaks because they have to eat and use the bathroom, said David Osiecki, the association's vice president for safety and operations.
"Rest breaks are built into a driver's day," Osiecki said.
The National Sleep Foundation objected to provisions that allow drivers to be assigned non-driving duties, like loading and unloading trucks, after they have driven for 11 hours.
"Eleven hours of driving time might be fine, but three hours of non-driving duties is getting away from what the established research says is safe," said Darrel Drobnich, a foundation spokesman.
The new rule doesn't require trucks to have on-board recorders, which keep track of wheel movement. Drobnich called that "ludicrous" because the devices, which he said cost about $300, would allow the government to better enforce driving regulations.
"It's been proven that about 75 percent of truckers falsify their logbooks," Drobnich said. "We have no confidence these new rules will be any more enforceable than the old rules."
The number of people who died in large truck accidents declined 3.5 percent last year, from 5,082 in 2001 to 4,902 in 2002, according to preliminary estimates released on Wednesday by the federal government.
The impression that most of us were given is that the allowable hours of driving will actually be reduced per any given 24 hour period from the current law. Maybe that's what they mean by "11 hours" driving. Under current law, a driver can drive 16 hours in a 24 hour period with an 8 hour break in between 8 hour periods.
Supposedly DOT was also asking for a 48 consecutive hour off duty period every 7 days, in the new rules.
In any event, drivers will find a way to falsify the logbooks, as they have done since these asinine rules went into effect in the 30's. The real problem is not the rules per se, it's that DOT has no real effective enforcement mechanism, and they refuse to prosecute trucking co execs and shippers who do everything they can to move freight, illegally or not. If the current rules, much less the new ones were really enforced, the impact on the economy would be significant, and so-called "just in time" delivery would be a memory.
I read in one of the trade mags that the ATA(I think) calculated that under the new Hours of Service rule, just to keep up with the current volume of freight it will require another 200,000 tractor trailers to keep it moving. At the current pace of production the factorys will take about 3 years to satisfy this demand. Then you have to have that many more drivers. Then you have to find places to park all of the out-of-service trucks.
This could be a nightmare.
Insanity on 18 wheels.
I ride the interstates all the time and I can't tell you the last time I saw a trucker driving the speedlimit.
If I had my way, semis would not be allowed to drive with cars and light trucks. But seeing that I'm a reasonable man, it would suit me almost as well if semi motors were required to have governors that limited their speed to 55mph, and it would be illegal for them to drive between 6-9AM and 4-8PM.
Unfortunately, my sensible approach to dealing with these deadly trucks simply won't cut it with the politicians and lobbiests who see lives lost to truckers as the price of doing business.
Surely you can come up with a better argument than that.
It's a matter of physics and values. I think we can enforce some simple rules that restrict truckers and make the roads safer for the vast majority of drivers.
Trucks that don't run over cars (GOOD); Trucks that run over cars (BAD FOR CAR OCCUPANTS).
I see. You have the sensible approach that the rest of us don't get. In your mind you probably don't sound the least bit condescending or elitist. Mind if I change a few words of your post?
Unfortunately, my sensible approach to dealing with these deadly guns simply won't cut it with the politicians and lobbiests who see lives lost to shootings as the price of doing business.
Hmmmm. What do you sound like now? How about this one?
I think we can enforce some simple rules that restrict truckers and make the roads safer for the vast majority of drivers.
Let's re-write that to say -
I think we can enforce some simple rules that restrict gun ownership and make the cities safer for the vast majority of people.
Sound familiar? Congratulations! You have mastered the language of the victim-class that assumes no responsibility for themselves.
I drive on a lot of highways, too. I see lots of tailgating at high speeds, two-lane no signal shifts, excessive speeding and other hazardous driving techniques practiced by people in automobiles. Any idiot stupid enough to cut off a tractor-trailer deserves what he/she gets.
But then, we couldn't blame the eeeevilll trucks, could we?
You need rest.
If you had your way, everything that you own would rise significantly in price, and there could be shortages of goods, especially perishables.
The next time some moron car driver tries to use his vehicle as a lethal weapon, I'm going to overcome the urge not to retaliate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.