The DOT Doctor’s Blog

October 13, 2014

Fitness Determination for US Trucking Fleets

What saddens me is what I experience when working with my smaller clients. They have some clients with small and even tiny fleets (usually under 50 trucks and some very tiny – <10 trucks). Many are localized and/or generally operate a vehicle that is not subject to roadside inspections. These fleets have little to no interaction with DOT inspectors. As such, they rarely have enough inspections to rank in any category. Yet we see these New Entry companies being shut down before they even get off the ground. Why? Because they had 2 inspections and one was “bad” thus placing them in a percentile above the 35% limit for OOS. This triggers an audit and/or it is New Entry review time and they fail due to their scores or rather lack of scores and evidence that are compliant.

I recall when the New Entry audit was a training process instead of a punitive process. Now with auto fail; the doors are closed for 60 days. A small company like this has no course of recoupment. In 60 days, their accounts will be gone to their competitors. Yes, they need to know how to comply with DOT regulations. Totally in agreement here. Either make these companies pass a test, like our Canadian neighbors do, prior to obtaining their DOT number or return to the training process. Up the audit to 6 months instead of 18 months but don’t close their doors unless they are egregious violators. We need to give small business a chance. I realize we also need to protect highway safety but we need to score a balance. We cannot allow one bad inspection from an untrained, non typical CMV driver to cost a business owner their livelihood.

I have worked with 3 clients in the past 2 months that fall into this category. Ironically, 2 of them, in opposite parts of the country, are being shut down for the same violation. They failed to connect a breakaway cable or it had come loose during transit. These are pickup truck operators, not CMV drivers for the norm. They come under scrutiny when they attach to a trailer, on rare occasions. As such a DOT number is required. Often, transport driving is the last of their qualifications. These are generally service professionals (e.g. technicians) that drive this vehicle as a means of transport to their job site. These are not commercial drivers per se. They are everyday folks that happen to be in a vehicle that occasionally become classified as a CMV due to it being used while they are generating revenue performing their skilled tasks (i.e. other than truck driving).

We all know that DOT regulations are geared towards the OTR company and the CDL driving professional. All other drivers try to fit into these rules and often with much difficulty. Yes, there are exemptions but they do not always fit either. It is this one size fits all mentality that causes non traditional use of CMVs such issues. It may also be these uses that skew the numbers. Perhaps they need a category all their own with rule sets that better apply to their application. This would allow peer group comparison against true peers and not just via size of fleet. I realize that mileage weighs into the algorithm but these non-traditional fleet (i.e. non trucking companies) need their own group(s). It would benefit fleets running locally or regionally to be thus categorized as well. Bottom-line, we need to move from this one size fits all mentality into real world scenarios. This is especially true when a person’s entire business is at risk.

I look forward to seeing the outcome of this new rating proposal. Perhaps it will address some of these issues. Perhaps it will not. We need more “real people” involved in these processes and not just bureaucrats or those industry representatives that have risen so far from their humble beginnings as to forget what it takes to be a small business start up. As your own stats read the other week; most companies with DOT numbers are not the trucking giants but the small business person. Is it not time we have rules and regulations that can relate to both distinct groups?

Reference: http://www.ccjdigital.com/notice-of-new-fitness-determination-rule-in-front-office-fmcsa-safety-chief-says/?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_content=10-13-2014&utm_campaign=CCJ&ust_id=bcb56a0182

Follow us on Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/thedotdoctor or on our website at The DOT Doctor

Advertisements

December 17, 2010

Happy Holidays from The DOT Doctor

The DOT Doctor Newsletter is now in a new electronic format.  Please visit our newest page for electronic newsletters (http://thedotdoctor.com/newsletters).

 

Wishing you and yours a safe and happy holiday!   May your 2011 be full of prosperity and a blank OSHA 300.

 

The DOT Doctor Team

December 2, 2010

Protect Yourself During CSA 2010 Lawsuits

Since deregulation no longer controls the industry and the unions have lost control, we move into a new era.   For years, we have had the DOT punish the driver for the crimes of the company.  This was a ploy to “teach” drivers to choose their company wisely.  Did it work?  Yes, and no but I feel mostly no.  Drivers have greener grass syndrome and go with the flow.  Others are happy just to be employable.  Few know/knew how to grade/judge a carrier so most of these efforts were for not.  The criteria drivers used was based on work of mouth not stats, therefore, these punitive efforts were useless.

Now we move into an era where companies are made liable for their drivers.  Okay, that makes sense.  You are the employer and you are responsible for the actions of your employees.  With the change of HOS the other year, the idea was to raise awareness of regulations with shippers and carriers.  Companies who are still dispatching with the notion of “just get it there” and not looking into available hours need to change their business mode.  These are all attempts at doing so.  Recall when there was talk about having shippers check the logbook to be sure the driver could run the load?  Well this all of that the snowball coming together.

Real problem, the DOT/FMCSA does not have the power to enforce.  Due to this, the policing of regulations are being passed in an outward spiral from driver to company to shipper to who knows next, receiver?  When comes the day that if you sign for your package and don’t check the logbook to be sure it was delivered in a legal manner, then you are liable?  If this is allowed to continue then there is no real end in sight.

What we can do to protect our position – shippers take an active role.  Don’t say well I called my 3PL and now it’s their problem.  Set criteria that your 3PL must follow on your behalf and write it into the contract.  We, The DOT Doctor, have done this for a number of our customers.  Then, at the warehouse level, have someone to check that the carrier you contracted is the name on the side of the door.  If not, don’t load the truck.  Want to go one-step farther, look over the logs or if e-logs, have the company send you the last 8 days to review along with the driver’s information.

This ends sub-brokering and allows each company the right to bid on a job instead of taking a giant’s crumbs.  Who knows, this may in fact, lower the rates in the end.  Of course, you will need those savings to pay for the extra hand you hired to check all this info at the dock.

Bottom-line, each of us plays a role in regulatory compliance.  None of us is free and clear.  Think of the person of steals the TV and then sells it to the pawnshop broker.  They in turn sell it to a buyer who ships it to his kid for Christmas.  Now each party is liable for the movement/handling of stolen goods.  The pawnshop should have asked for a sales receipt or some proof of ownership.  The customer should have asked for proof of ownership before purchasing.  Substitute car for TV and now we are talking major felony.  The point is, everyone is responsible for their own actions in business as in life.  Accountability is what this is all about and always has been.

What score should I cut off the carrier at to protect my company, you ask.  The government says 75% requires intervention.  Well “A”s and “B”s kept mamma happy during school days.  Why not protect yourself with an 80% cutoff for FAK?   If you ship high value or hazmat, I would go for an “A”.  Look not only at the scores but also at the OOS status and why.  Perform a little analyzation on perspective carriers.  Build a database of “approved” carriers.  Re-check their standings at least every 3 months.  Monthly would be better.  Share this list with your 3PL as the only carriers who may haul your freight.  Allow other carriers to “audition” to be on your list.  Build personal relationships with your carriers and not just names on the side of a door.

I created a trucking matrix years ago that allowed my client to see the best rate vs. time of service on a designated lane.  Carrier grading is now being incorporated into this matrix.  The DOT Doctor customizes this list to your needs.  We update it and maintain the database.  This is a service we proudly offer but it is also one a good analyst who understands trucking and has a good working knowledge of Excel and database software (i.e. SQL, Access) could create in house.  Taking the time to do so, helps protect your company and yourself.  It is worth the cost and effort.

Even with this matrix in place, you still need a person to check the doors at time of loading.  This is a two-part ordeal.  Miss either piece and your protection factor is gone.

 

Want to learn more – http://thedotdoctor.com or info@thedotdoctor.com

November 18, 2010

FMCSA Posts Changes to CSA 2010 Calculations

Today the FMCSA released the following news brief.  CSA 2010 goes “live” in December.  The weighted calculation on cargo-related BASIC will be adjusted.  Severity of the violations are being reassessed and a new algorithm is being created.  Once done, the new algorithm will be run on that segment which will provided updated scorings.  Term changes in SMS Basic from “Deficient” to “Alert” will occur along with a color change of red to orange.

FMCSA Announces CSA Safety Measurement System (SMS) Improvements

On August 16, 2010, FMCSA began providing carriers with information about where they stand in each of the new CSA SMS’s Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories (BASICs) based on roadside inspection data and investigation findings.  Based on feedback and analysis from the Data Preview period, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) will roll out the new SMS to the nation in December with the following revisions:

1.     Modify the presentation of SMS BASIC results

    • Change the term “Deficient” to “Alert” when a motor carrier’s score in one or more BASICs is above the FMCSA threshold for intervention.
    • Change the highlight color from red to orange.
    • Improve the language to clarify that BASIC results signify the carrier is prioritized for an FMCSA intervention.

Explanation: Feedback during the Data Preview indicate that the display of SMS results needs to clarify that BASIC percentiles above the FMCSA threshold signify the carrier is prioritized for an FMCSA intervention and do not signify or otherwise imply a “safety rating” or safety fitness determination.

2.     Modify Cargo-Related BASIC

    • Recalibrate the Cargo-Related BASIC by adjusting the cargo securement violation severity weightings based on input from subject matter experts (SMEs).
    • Modify the public display to show the SMS Cargo-Related BASIC violations only.  The percentiles and intervention status will not be on public display.

Explanation: Feedback during the Data Preview period identified a concern that the BASIC was over-representing certain industry segments and potentially creating a misleading safety alert warning.  The Agency conducted additional analysis and concluded that the Cargo-Related BASIC be recalibrated with SMEs providing input on the cargo securement severity weights.  The agency received SME input and will now adjust the severity weights and run the algorithm accordingly.

Also, the agency is conducting additional analysis to further understand the impact on the different industry segments of a carrier’s exposure in this BASIC.  During this analysis period, the BASIC results will continue to be an effective intervention prioritization tool for enforcement personnel based on sound safety principles.  Accordingly, the percentiles and intervention status will be accessible to the FMCSA enforcement community and motor carriers only.

To learn more about CSA 2010 subscribe to the DOT Doctor’s monthly newsletter.  Visit http://thedotdoctor.com/csa_2010 to schedule a consultation today.  The DOT Doctor is here to help.  We cure compliance and CSA 2010 ills!

June 26, 2010

CSA 2010

CSA 2010 is here! Know how to protect yourself and your company.

CSA 2010 is a new minefield that the government has created for truckers and trucking companies to traverse. This one can stop you dead in your tracts. So be prepared!

O/Os remember you are the carrier, the fleet, the driver. Remember DOT does not care if you have 1 truck or 1,000,001 trucks. As long as you have a DOT number, you are bound by DOT regulations and therefore CSA 2010 standards.

CSA 2010 claims to not directly rate drivers as to put them out of work. This is true and false at the same time. It will provide enhanced tools for Safety Investigators (SIs) to identify drivers with safety performance problems during motor carrier investigations. As a result, motor carriers and drivers will have the opportunity to correct the specific safety performance problems. (This is not an “opportunity” but a requirement. Drivers are noted, by name, as to their infractions.) CSA 2010 is designed to meet one overriding objective: to increase safety on the Nation’s roads. (If this were totally true, it will target all vehicles not just commercial vehicles.) Therefore, it is, by design, a positive program for drivers and carriers with strong safety performance records. Also, it will send a strong message that drivers and carriers with poor safety performance histories need to improve. (CSA 2010) In short, low scorers will have black boxes (On-board recording devices) put in their trucks for full monitoring by Big Brother.

CSA 2010 is the answer for allowing the government to “invisibly” ride along side you in the cab of your truck and your only recourse is to outsmart the DOT at their own game.

If drivers are not “directly” rated then explain – driver interventions and notifications.

1. Driver Interventions – Any driver violations identified and addressed during carrier investigations that are not corrected may result in a driver Notice of Violation (NOV) or Notice of Claim (NOC). These are the only driver interventions at this time.

2. Driver Notifications – Drivers will be notified by mail and may be contacted by a FMCSA investigator. Let’s demystify the CSA 2010 initiative. Learn how this new data collection system directly affects you as a driver or carrier.

Download this new paper directed at driver protection by the DOT Doctor. Available at: http://thedotdoctor.com/i/u/10035243/i/Debunking_CSA_2010.pdf

As always, questions and comments welcomed!

April 13, 2010

DAC FOR DRIVERS

Trucking companies have USIS or DAC as most drivers have come to know the report.  Trucking companies can write ANYTHING they want about you and use this a poor retention tool.  Companies low on the ethics scale will purposely falsify a DAC report in a desperate attempt to make a driver unemployable so they are forced to return to that company.

Smarter companies see through this facade.  Many companies have chosen to avoid this untrustworthy service.  The information is not reliable due to the allowed collection methods.  If DAC would take the time to verify the data entered by the companies, notify the driver and ask for their side of the story as well as proof from both the company and the driver; then the information may be more reliable.  At least an attempt for honesty and good faith on the part of USIS/DAC would be recognized.  Even credit reports require proof.  Why then is DAC a one sided street?

Correcting incorrect DAC reports may be possible however it is a long and complex process.  Just obtaining a copy of one’s DAC is a foreboding process.  Company’s bent on protecting their interests further impede the process by often telling the driver they will clean up their post and then order their “DAC reporter” to not do so or to wait until a protest letter arrives.  If DAC is a report of truth, why make it so hard?

Recruiters are paid to fill seats.  They will promise the world to do so.  Some even do this in good faith not realizing the real story that occurs once a driver passes through the door.  How can they not know?  Because many recruiters have never even visited the terminal.  They work from a remote or home office and have no real contact with the “real world” of the driver.

So what can a driver or O/O or even a fleet owner do to protect themselves?  How can you avoid a potentially bad company?  Research!  Right now the only way to find out if that new job offer is all it appears to be is to take the plunge or do some recon.  Talk to drivers.  Use Facebook or other social networking sites, take time at a truck stop or shipping/receiving location to search out and find drivers from your prospective new company.  Ask the questions that matter to you.  Remember each driver has their own agenda.  What is important to me may be meaningless to you.  Get the facts on what you care about finding in a company.

I once found a company by seeking out potentials in a truck magazine then looking to see if I found them in the area I was stuck in.  When I finally did not find the a potential company, I knew it was right for me.  Why?  Because I was stuck running in a location that I wished to be far from.  At orientation the owner came in and did the Hi, Welcome speach that any good company owner would do.  He then went around the room and asked why we came here and how we learned of the company.  I told my story.  He found it strange but was intrigued.  It was what worked for me.

Other alternatives are internet searches.  Find their Hover report, check Rip Off Report and search for that company on blogs.  Read all you can find.  Check Safer Stats.  Now, take what a driver says with a grain of salt.  We all complain when we are upset at a company.  But when you find bad report after bad report, year in and year out…you can see the pattern.  If you find excellent reports and then sudden groupings of poor ones, find out what changed.  Was the company recently bought out?  Did the kids take over?  What happened?  Take time to investigate.  Interview the company.  Don’t just jump ship and hope you land well.  Do your homework because they are doing their homework on you.

Would it not be easier if there was on place to find this information?  Well here is my proposal.  I propose a DAC type system for companies.  If companies can report on drivers as will, then drivers should be allowed their say.  Drivers and O/Os need a place to gather info on companies and their practices.

What I would like from my readers –
(1) List the company name and address (city, state is fine)
(2) List driver type (O/O, co, regional, local, etc…)
(3) Time in service at said company
(4) Tell your story.  Good or bad.  Share the pros and cons of the company.  List names, facts and dates.
(5) Try to hold opinions and stick to facts but feel free to express yourself.  Do limit the cursing please.
(6) Tell what you tried to do to reverse the issue and with whom you addressed the situation.
(7) What are you doing now?  Are you suing?  Did you file a BBB report?  OOIDA contact?  What avenues are you taking to gain justice?
(8) If experience was good – what type of driver would you recommend to this company?  Who should they contact?  What qualifications are needed?
(9) Anything else you feel is relevant.
(10) If you feel comfortable; leave your name or handle, location and email.  It would be great if other drivers could contact you for more info.  If not comfortable with that, that is fine.  This is all optional.

Let’s get this going on here at one location for us all.  Just leave a comment to this post and you will be heard.
If there is enough response, I am willing to pull Safer Scores and add them to your posts.  I will also expand these postings into their area or web site so we all can benefit.

Now it is all up to you!  Take the bull by the horns and let your words be heard.  Drivers unite!  It is time we fight back to the unjust ways of DAC.

Enter your comments under the DAC FOR DRIVERS BLOG at: http://thedotdoctor.com/the_dot_doctor_speaks

October 28, 2009

CSA 2010 is Coming: Are you prepared?

Filed under: CDL,DOT,DOT Compliance,driver training,Haz-Mat,logistics,OSHA,safety — dotdoctor @ 11:18 am

I have seen the clerk in the Safety Position too often. Many of the clients was serviced or prospective clients feel they are too small to need a safety person. They actually say they do not need to worry about the DOT since they only had x trucks. (generally under 10). Then that audit paper comes and they run crying.

We all know 1 truck or 1 million trucks, the DOT is coming. The free DOT HELP group we run on Yahoo addresses this issue with so many small companies. I speak with their “safety clerk”, who professes they are clerical and haven’t a clue, on how to conduct a safety department. Not only is this unsafe practices; the drivers walk all over them. Drivers are not stupid. They know when the safety person is clueless and they use that to their advantage. Can you blame them?

Our virtual safety director service has helped some companies. It is nice for a long term contract on our part but it really feels better when you can go in and educate management on the importance of a good safety department. While you are their virtual director for a bit to get the ball rolling; it is great to see them learn to value this position and place a full time, qualified person in the spot. Maybe this new ruling will draw more attention to the need for safety and achieve what we have been trying to do for over 10 years in our little part of the world.

Having said this – I want to share a posting from LinkedIN

SEASONED EXPERIENCED SAFETY DIRECTORS NEEDED
Over the years several carriers have tried to cut expenses by using safety clerks instead of experienced or Certified Safety Directors.

This mindset has worked for some carriers, over the years, because the carrier’s Safety Rating would only be affected when a compliance review was conducted. THINGS ARE ABOUT TO CHANGE!

CSA2010.com states: “DON’T WAIT! What you and your drivers are doing RIGHT NOW will affect your company’s new safety rating with CSA 2010. FMCSA assessment has already begun and will use the data they have been collecting to levy corrective actions or even declare drivers and companies “unfit” to continue service!”
Carriers can not afford to NOT have an experienced and seasoned Safety Director in control of the day-to-day operations. Carriers MUST develop educational and progressive discipline programs to prevent their drivers, contractors and even their own company from being declared “UNFIT” to continue service.

A carrier can no longer afford to allow a clerk to carry the title of Safety Director and live in denial or the fantasy world that CSA2010 is not going to affect them. This mentality has already cost several carriers large fines and even more to close their doors.

The attached link is an interview with a carrier from one of the test states which is currently using CSA2010. After reading the interview: Ask yourself can you afford not to have a seasoned certified and experienced Safety Director in charge of your company’s future?

http://www.csa2010.com/articles/Interview_CSA_2010_Test_State.htm

Please take a couple seconds and answer two quick POLL questions and then view the results of the others.

What has your company done to prepare for CSA2010? http://polls.linkedin.com/p/62919/kmfwb

Who is in charge of your company’s DOT Compliance and Safety? http://polls.linkedin.com/p/62918/lywoh

I would like to hear your thoughts.

 

_____________________

 

Need help getting ready!  Drop us a line –

info@thedotdoctor.com

Our experts are here to help you!


Remember Safety is everyone’s

business

September 2, 2009

Establishing Yucca Mt as America’s Nuclear Waste Dump

Filed under: 49 CFR,CDL,DOT,driver training,EPA,Haz-Mat,NRC,OSHA,safety — dotdoctor @ 9:46 pm

August 31, 2009

Virtual Office of The DOT DOCTOR: Rt. 8A, Idunn, SL

Virtual Office Place in SL Visit our virtual office place in Second Life – http://slurl.com/secondlife/Idunn/182/23/98

DOT issues? Driver training? Safety management? Ifta filing? Log book auditing and training? Transportation related issue? Regulatory compliance issue? Claims service.

—————-

Information security apprasial Policy and procedure writing Web site design Marketing Banner creation Graphic Arts SEO Image Consulting and improvement BBB, PUC or other agency issues – we can help!

The DOT Doctor cures your ills!

info@thedotdoctor.com

http://thedotdoctor.com

Curing all your virtual and RL needs!

June 18, 2009

New GVW Proposed at 97k

Might the Obama administration be minded to look favourably on a mooted increase in US GVW?
This report suggests that upping maximum GVW to 97000 lbs (43998 kg) on six axles from the current 80,000 lbs (36287 kg) on five could reduce US diesel consumption by an annual three billion gallons, and take 32.6 million tons of CO2 out of the atmosphere at the same time.

The Safe and Efficient Transportation Act of 2009 or HR 1799 is legislation that supports the increase in GVW on heavy trucks. The trucks must have 6 axles with a triaxle group supporting 51,000 lbs. Axle weights would increase by 2,000 each for this GVW. Weights are only applicable on interstate roadways. This comes with a tax hike in highway usages taxes to $800.

In theory, the idea is a good one but let us examine this a bit closer. Our infrastructure is suffering collapses now under the 80k rule. In the present economy, there are no or limited funds for fixing and repairing what is in place yet alone replacing our bridges and overpasses to accomodate this extra weight. Longer trucks and extra axles may be the norm in MI but they do not work on the east coast in all that congestion. Not that I support Unions, but they opposed doubles and triples claiming it “stole a driver’s work” and their opinions are not very different on these new proposed monsters.

This new weight limit will not reduce congestion as some law makers lead you to believe. Trucks are not the only factor in congestion. Mainly the problem is all the 4-wheelers especially at rush hours. If states would make a left hand lane or two just for trucks that are looking to do nothing but pass through their city and restrict those 2 left lanes to just trucks; that would help solve congestion. It never made sense to me why trucks were restricted to right lanes where there is constant merging of 4-wheelers and motorcycles causing the trucker to constantly be on the brakes. Trucks generally want through a city unlike 4 wheelers who are looking to go or come from work, shopping and other errands. Many cities came up with HOV lanes to help the “long distance” commuter. Why not do the same for the trucker?

Trucks already pay too much in taxes. A rise in the Highway Usage Tax is not justified. It is just another excuse to tax the trucker for the benefit of all motorists.

If the weight is only raised for interstates; how will the load be delivered? Are we going to implement the NY Tollway rule? You can pull highway doubles but only to the exit then the units are broken apart or off loaded. Five axle units find it hard enough to maneuver on the coasts and in town delivery areas. Triaxles and 6 axle vehicles will find it even more difficult if not impossible to maneuver those small streets of Philly or Fairfax. NYC – forget it! Moreover, the state roads and city streets will not support the weight.

Do we have cross docking facilities created at interstate exits for local drivers to deliver the goods? Now that would be a reasonable idea IF, and this is a big IF, companies could “play” that well together. Let the big rig roll the highway while the straight trucks and local drivers load the city work and carry it to/from the cross docking facilities. It would be a new trucking horizon. The city drivers could do as NYC suggests and deliver in the off hours reducing congestion. Road drivers could stick to the highways. Everyone would have a job and get a piece of the pie. Road drivers no longer would have to contend with driving back streets trying to find their delivery or pick up location. Local drivers, familiar with the area, would handle those aspects. It would be safer and easier for all. IF companies would share the pie in this fashion.

Supporters such as the Univ. of MI Transportation Research Institute claims their research shows that these heavier and longer trucks “would yield significant improvement in fuel consumption, cost, congestion, distribution efficiency and driver availability”. I have to question this since my experience with 25 years in the industry showed me that the move to 53ft trucks yielded lighter loads filled with bulk goods like toilet paper. Occasionally you were able to add the 2 extra end pallets but then the driver generally had to be concerned for bridge and axle weights. Why not make the adjustments there instead of this large GVW increase? Maybe area increases like in MI where they haul products that are conducive to this increase and already have the multi-axle vehicle on the roadways. Even their state roads accomodate the 90K GVW allowed during the “season”.

Personally, I fell this increase should be handled on a state level where states can supplement their state highways to handle any GVW increase they allow. States that handle product transports, which are generally under a 500 mile radius, of a nature to require this need should handle this internally. Coal, rock and cement haulers could benefit from the increase as would the specialized/permitted hauler. These products are naturally heavy as well as localized. The general freight hauler would not.

Are manufactures going to build better brake systems to accomodate this additional load? To work properly, this would not be just a trailer issue but a full rig issue that is spec’d to pull these heavier and longer trailers. Trucks already take longer to stop than smaller vehicles. Stopping an additional 17k on a downgrade requires better mechanics and driver considerations. Think Eagle Pass, Eisenhower, Donner, Cabbage or Grapevine. The proposed governor to limit top speed at manufacturing is not the answer here. I do not think it is the answer to anything unless you are going to do the same to ALL vehicles else you are just creating another road hazard like Swift and Schneider trucks already do on the highways due to their inability to maintain highway speed.

Are bridge lengths and overall truck lengths going to be increased as well? It is already ridiculous to allow a 53 ft, 57 ft or 62 ft trailer and still require it to meet the bridge laws of a 48ft. Imposing those restraints is what defeats the purpose of the longer trailer. Yes, the roads cannot accomodate the longer pin to wheel which brings me back to point 1. Who will pay to change all the roads if this increase is passed? How long will it take? What will the trucks do in the mean time that will try to run under the new laws without an adequate infrastructure? Less us not even discuss vehicles that will be involved in border crossings?????

COMMENTS WELCOMED! Voice your opinion to your Congressman or local Motor Truck Association.

Leave comments at: http://thedotdoctor.com/the_dot_doctor_speaks

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.