Posts Tagged ‘Congress’

Safe and Efficient Transportation Act of 2013

Wednesday, March 6th, 2013

weighing station

Should the permitted weight of tractor trailers traveling on the Interstate be increased?  Would such a measure lead to increased costs or conversely save money and promote a healthier environment?  These are questions being posed after the Safe and Efficient Transport Act of 2013 came to light last month, gaining 11 co-sponsors.

Rep. Mike Michaud introduced the Safe and Efficient Transportation Act of 2013 on February 12th, once again, encouraging a weight increase on Interstate trucks from 80,000 lbs. to 97,000 lbs after being denied passage by Congress for the past four consecutive years. 1

According to the bill, also known as H.R. 612, “a State may authorize a vehicle with a maximum gross weight that exceeds all maximum gross weight otherwise applicable under subsection to operate on the Interstate System routes in the State, if”:

-“The vehicle is equipped with at least 6 axles,” with each axle not exceeding a weight of 20,000 lbs. 2

-“The weight of any tandem axle on the vehicle does not exceed 34,000 lbs.” 2

-“The weight of any group of 3 or more axles on the vehicle does not exceed 51,000 lbs.” 2

-“The gross weight of the vehicle does not exceed 97,000 lbs, including enforcement tolerances.” 2

The American Trucking Associations quickly showed their support for the increase.  According to the ATA, heavier trucks would result in the following:

-Promote safety by reducing congestion via fewer trucks on the road due to more products being carried on a single truck as well as trucks not having to take side roads to avoid weight regulations. 3

-“Save fuel while reducing emissions,” due to fewer trucks. 1

-Help decrease driver shortage by transporting more shipments/weight per truck.

Idaho has already increased their truck weight on roads to 129,000 lbs. in a bill approved last Thursday.

Although some groups are embracing the bill, others believe that it will lead to problems.

According to the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, “While proponents talk about savings from heavier trucks, for the small business truckers that make up more than 90 percent of the trucking industry, heavier trucks only mean higher fuel, repair, and equipment costs, including the likelihood of spending tens of thousands of dollars on new trailers designed to haul the heavier weight simply to remain competitive.” 1

In your opinion, should the weight limit on trucks be raised?  What do you find to be the consequences (positive or negative) of heavier trucks?

For a copy of the H.R. 612: Safe and Efficient Transportation Act of 2013 bill visit

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr612/text.

1http://www.ccjdigital.com/five-years-and-several-pricey-gallons-ago/

2http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr612/text

3http://www.fortworthinjurylawyersblog.com/2013/02/american-trucking-association.html

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Trucking Industry News | Comments Off

Maine/Vermont Truck Pilot Program Proves Fatal Results

Thursday, October 13th, 2011

In December 2009, Congress approved a one-year truck pilot program allowing 6-axle trucks a 100,000 lb gvw in Maine and Vermont.

The program, started in 2010, was believed to decrease the number of trucks on the road since increasing the weight limit would provide greater capacity, adding 20,000 additional pounds of freight onto the typical 80,000 lb restraint.  Increasing the weight limit of trucks would also decrease the traffic on secondary roads, which are what heavy trucks are forced to travel on, being banned from Interstates.

But the results of the truck pilot program are not what members of the trucking industry had in mind, demonstrating a rise in trucks on the road and a significant increase in fatalities since it took affect.

The Truck Safety Coalition (TSC) released information which clearly demonstrated a rise in trucks on the road since the program took affect.  According to the report, “The Vermont DMV tracked the change in permits for 99,000 lb. 6-axle trucks, which increased from 1,500 in 2009 to over 3,000 in 2010 during the pilot” (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/trucking-industry-wrong-on-maine-and-vermont-100000-pound-truck-pilot-program—dead-wrong-131779463.html).

Not only that, but Vermont experienced a commercial motor vehicle fatality rate that was three times that recorded in 2009, increasing from 0.49 fatal crashes per 100 million miles to 1.44, PR Newswire explains in their article.

The Federal Highway Administration and the Maine Department of Transportation released similar results, showing a 43% increase in fatalities involving 6-axle trucks in Maine, the article notes.

As the site acknowledges, advocates are striving to stop heavy-weight truck exemptions from continuing by passing the Safe Highways and Infrastructure Preservation (SHIPA) Act, while Congress is considering permanently allowing overweight trucks to operate.

Road Scholar Transport

While groups continue to fight the operation of overweight trucks on the road, believing that they will have more dangerous and fatal consequences than good, Road Scholar Transport is on the road applying the latest safety technology on its 48’ and 53’ van and reefers, including the Bendix Wingman ACB system, which will cause our truck to maintain a set distance of 8/10ths of a mile marker behind a forward vehicle, preventing accidents.  Visit www.roadscholar.com to learn more about Road Scholar’s safety and security features.

Do you think that Congress should permanently allow overweight trucks to operate on the road?  List your comments below.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in LTL freight, Services, Trucking Industry News | Comments Off

Stronger Security Regulations and Greater Responsibility have Manufacturers Turning Towards More Secure Carriers

Monday, September 19th, 2011

FDAWith 54 major pharmaceutical cargo thefts last year, two of them accounting for over a $10 million loss, the FDA (Food & Drug Association) is seeking more power and stricter regulation in securing the pharmaceutical supply chain.

Feeling that they are unable to fully handle security issues, FDA deputy commissioner Deborah Autor asked that the agency receive “explicit authority to refuse admission of a product into the U.S. if the foreign manufacturer delays, limits or denies inspection of its facilities” as well as new authorities (http://www.procurementleaders.com/news/latestnews/3803-fda-urgent-attention/).

One such authority that Autor seeks is the FDA’s ability to issue mandatory recalls in order to prevent serious health affects, such as those that could be caused during an accident or theft when transported with an unqualified carrier.

Along with tighter regulations, manufacturers could also be facing more responsibility on the quality of their products, an article on ProcurementLeaders.com notes.  In return, manufacturers will be less concerned about finding the cheapest way to transport their freight and more concerned about the quality and reputation of the carrier transporting it.

Just last year, the average loss per stolen load amounted to $3.78 million, making pharmaceuticals the most costly stolen commodity.

Stricter pharmaceutical penalties, such as the Safe Doses Act (S.1002) introduced in May, as well as modernized technology, such as a track-and-trace system, are efforts to cut back on thefts.

The FDA is currently in support of a mandatory track-and-trace system on pharmaceuticals which would increase security measures during distribution, while the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA) remains skeptical, believing that the system is still unproven and rather expensive, especially for smaller companies, offering a risk-base approach and federal grants for those independent pharmacies to incorporate the system (http://drugtopics.modernmedicine.com/drugtopics/Chains+%26+Business/NCPA-cautions-Congress-about-track-and-trace-bill/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/740090?contextCategoryId=40159).

In the first half of this year alone, there were already 14 pharmaceutical thefts which decreased from the 25 reported during the same period last year, due to effort from groups such as the Pharmaceutical Cargo Security Consortium and secure/knowledgeable trucking companies such as Road Scholar Transport.

Security

Road Scholar Transport has the ability to monitor, timestamp, and log the location of the trailer and your cargo.  Need to know where our truck was with your cargo at 11:30 am?  No problem, we can verify.  What about every time the trailer door was opened or closed with your freight inside?  No problem.  Road Scholar has electronic door monitoring and can tell you the exact time the door was opened and for how long.

But what about theft?  That’s a $4 million shipment in there!  Road Scholar not only has satellite tracking but Navalock to ensure that thieves can’t break in.  And, in the unfortunate case of a theft, Road Scholar not only can provide you with the route history but a log of the temperature within the trailer so you know whether your freight has been contaminated.

As ProcurementLeaders.com notes, “If Congress accepts the proposals, the provisions would be introduced as part of the legislation to re-authorize the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA V) next year.”

On a scale of 1-10, how secure do you believe the pharmaceutical supply chain to be?  List your comments below.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Awareness Campaign Articles, LTL freight, Services, Trucking Industry News | Comments Off

Should Stability Control Systems be Mandatory? Some Argue No

Thursday, August 18th, 2011

Awaiting a proposal that would make stability control systems mandatory on tractors, but not trailers, is stirring a range of opinions among those in the trucking industry.

stability control system

Stability control systems, which became available in 2002, are becoming more and more utilized by truck manufacturers and carriers such as Road Scholar Transport to prevent rollovers and increase safety on the road.

Bendix and WABCO, two main contenders manufacturing this technology, have noticed a growth in companies purchasing these products.  Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems’ Fred Andersky states that there are nearly 130,000 stability control systems currently being utilized with 14% of new trucks containing the technology as of last year, an article in truckinginfo.com notes.  Although Andersky explains that market penetration is reaching 23%, Meritor Wabco Vehicle Control Systems’ believes that it could reach 25%, the article explains.

Why the growth?  One reason has to do with CSA 2010’s Safety Measurement System.  Instead of carriers being rated under the SafeStat system, which rates trucking companies based on four categories (driver, vehicle, safety management, and accident), both carriers AND drivers are now evaluated under seven Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories (BASICS) including: unsafe driving, fatigued driving, driver fitness, controlled substance/alcohol, vehicle maintenance, cargo-related, and crash indicator, placing those who pose as a risk on “alert” status.

With some saying that CSA 2010 is “abusing” truck drivers, believing that some drivers are cited for instances they have no control over, others are worried that the initiative to remove unsafe drivers from the road will lead to even greater driver shortages, and therefore, carriers are utilizing stability control systems in order to raise their scores.

But although the number of carriers using these systems is growing, the American Trucking Associations (ATA) would like to see more trucking companies using them and suggest an incentive for those who do so, such as a tax break, which has already been considered by Congress in the past.

The National Transportation Safety Board noted an incident that occurred two years ago in which a tank truck carrying petroleum gas rolled over and exploded, recommending “that all tank trailers be retrofitted with a rollover stability control system, and that NHTSA require stability control systems on all new heavy commercial vehicles” (http://www.truckinginfo.com/news/news-detail.asp?news_id=74468).  However, the agency can only give their suggestions, which are very influential, yet they cannot make a ruling.

When looking at the available stability control systems, there are two types: Roll Stability Control (RSC) and Electronic Stability Control (ESC).

Whereas the two systems contain sensors that will reduce the throttle and apply the brakes when necessary to prevent a rollover situation, the two systems contain differences.

As truckinginfo.com notes, whereas ESC “reacts to both roll instability and yaw instability,” RSC only detects roll instability.  Retail cost of an RSC system is $1,600 and is said to prevent 3,489 crashes and 106 (of the 304 death caused by rollovers) each year if it becomes mandatory, whereas the ESC system costs more (between $2,000 and $2,300) and is expected to reduce 4,659 crashes and 126 deaths, the article states.

Road Scholar Transport has incorporated the ESC system on our trucks, preventing rollovers due to unpreventable icy and wet weather conditions, and thus, making roads safer.

Knowing the advanced technology and steps that Road Scholar has taken for its fleet, it’s no surprise that companies rely on Road Scholar for the safe, efficient transport of their freight.

The mandatory use of stability control systems has already won the approval of Bendex and although the ATA supports the systems, they are still hesitant on whether it should become mandatory.

On the other hand, there are those who flat out oppose the mandate.  The Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association is one of these.  According to the group, making the system mandatory would force those with a good safety record to invest large amounts of money on these systems, with the prices of trucks increasing to accommodate the additional feature.

Although the technology is said to cost the trucking industry nearly $107 million a year, the industry will be saving close to $372 million, otherwise added up by damages and delays (http://www.truckinginfo.com/news/news-detail.asp?news_id=74468).

The proposal is expected to be published later this year.

Do you feel that stability control systems should be mandatory?  List your comments below!

want a safe carrier

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Trucking Industry News | Comments Off

Bill Would Require Extensive Training Before Acquiring a Truck License

Friday, July 22nd, 2011

Senator Frank Lautenberg

The number of truck-related fatalities has been recently on the rise, many due to unsafe drivers.  But Senator Frank Lautenberg is trying to change that.

Yesterday, Lautenberg introduced a proposal that “is expected to be included in the larger surface transportation reauthorization package currently being developed in both the Senate and the House,” according to an article in thetrucker.com.

This proposal urges Congress to require truck drivers to undergo extensive training and knowledge/understanding of rules and regulations before they can acquire their license, the article notes.

The American Trucking Association’s Dan England advised the same thing, adding that instead of 18 months, a driver should “undergo an initial safety audit within six months of commencing operations” (http://www.thetrucker.com/News/Stories/2011/7/22/Senatortakesaimatcommercialvehiclesafetyprograms.aspx).

Lautenberg’s bill would also make mandatory the use of electronic on-board recorders (EOBRs) to monitor a driver’s hours of service, thus removing those who are deemed unsafe or registered as a new carrier when in fact they are an existing carrier.  “If drivers are not fully trained, qualified and alert, they should not be on the road,” he said.

England agreed that EOBR’s should be mandatory IF the HOS rules remained the same, since current rules have already shown to increase safety.

The Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association agrees, believing that reducing the number of hours a driver is allowed to operate is not the problem but rather the amount of hours a driver wastes due to detention (waiting for loads to be picked up or delivered at docks).

As the OOIDA’s Joe Rajkovacz explains, “Right now the supply chain is getting something for nothing.  The free market emphasis is on the word ‘free’ when it comes to a driver’s time. Why is it the driver’s responsibility to eat that time?”  (http://www.thetrucker.com/News/Stories/2011/7/22/Senatortakesaimatcommercialvehiclesafetyprograms.aspx).

Other ways to improve road safety included CSA improvements.  According to thetrucker.com, England emphasized the need for “a national system to provide employers with timely notification of drivers’ moving violations and a drug and alcohol test result clearinghouse.”

But while many want changes to improve safety on the road, there are those who continue to argue that truck safety has already improved without any outside help.

new trucks

Road Scholar Transport is continuing their effort to improve safety on the road.  That’s why we recently added new trucks to our fleet equipped with the Bendix Wingman ACB system.  This system will automatically reduce the throttle, use the engine retarder, or apply the brakes in order to maintain a set distance of 8/10ths of a mile marker behind the vehicle ahead.  Learn more at www.roadscholar.com.

Do support Lautenberg’s proposal/agree with those who believe that changes need to take place to improve road safety or do you feel like safety has already improved and that no changes are needed?

news on the trucking industry

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Trucking Industry News | Comments Off

OOIDA Becomes Enraged at Second Cross-Border Agreement Signing Allowing Mexican Carriers to Begin Application Process

Thursday, July 7th, 2011

Yesterday, Ray LaHood, U.S. Transportation Secretary, signed an agreement that would abolish $2.4 billion worth the retaliatory tariffs Mexico placed on U.S. goods back in 2009, believing that doing so would lead to job creation.

U.S./Mexico

According to thetrucker.com, LaHood signed the final agreement with Mexico’s Arturo Pèrez-Jàcome, Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes Dionisio, stating that 50% of the retaliatory tariffs would be lifted within the next 10 days, removing the tariffs completely once the U.S. grants a Mexican carrier operating authority, which is expected to happen within the next upcoming months.

Mexican carriers are now permitted to register for the pilot program at any time, expecting the first carriers to start transporting goods in the U.S. by the end of August, the site notes.

But in order to be granted operating authority, Mexican carriers must meet certain requirements including:  “trucks will be required to comply with all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, they must have electronic monitoring systems to track Hours of Service compliance,” drivers must undergo drug testing and have their driving record carefully reviewed by the U.S. DOT, and knowledge and understanding of the “English language and U.S. traffic signs” (http://www.thetrucker.com/News/Stories/2011/7/6/Cross-bordertruckpactsignedtariffstoendMexicancarrierscanapplynow.aspx).

According to LaHood, “The agreements signed are a win for roadway safety and they are a win for trade.  By opening the door to long-haul trucking between the United States and Mexico, America’s third-largest trading partner, we will create jobs and opportunities for our people and support economic development in both nations,” thetrucker.com posted.

Although it is said that the cross-borders agreement will create more job opportunities, OOIDA believes otherwise.  In fact, the association expressed that the program would instead take away from U.S. jobs, especially those truckers working for small businesses.

OOIDA, who was strongly against the agreement in the first place stating that “Mexico has failed to institute regulations and enforcement programs that are even remotely similar to those in the United States and because there would be no relevant corresponding reciprocity for U.S. truckers,” is now irate with the fact that LaHood signed the agreement “without providing the public or Congress with the final details of the agreement,” believing him to be “sneaking down there to sign it” (http://www.thetrucker.com/News/Stories/2011/7/6/OOIDAUStruckersfumingoveragreementwithMexico.aspx).

OOIDA also fought the fact that U.S. taxpayers are spending their hard-earned money to provide EOBRS (electronic onboard recording devices) for these Mexican carriers operating in our country.

Do you support LaHood’s decision to sign the agreement or are you in favor of the OOIDA’s standpoint?  Post your comments below.

news on the trucking industry

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Trucking Industry News | Comments Off

FMCSA Justifies Why They Must Pay for EOBRs on Mexican Trucks

Wednesday, March 16th, 2011

Much dispute has erupted over the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)’s decision to pay for electronic on-board recording devices (EOBRs) on Mexican trucks traveling into and out of the United States as part of the Mexican Cross-Border Agreement.

The FMCSA would be spending anywhere from a half of million dollars to $700,000 to install mandatory EOBRs in Mexican trucks.  Carriers are expressing disapproval with the agency using taxpayers’ money to do so, some saying that “it is the height of stupidity for our government to subsidize foreign companies” (http://www.cpatrucking.com/eobr-alliance-decries-unfairness-of-dots-plan-to-pay-for-eobrs-on-mexican-trucks.html).

Anne Ferro

Anne Ferro

But Anne Ferro, Administrator for the FMCSA, spoke up to defend the agency’s decision on funding the devices.  EOBRs would not only ensure the monitoring of Mexican trucks, but according to Ferro, there is a larger reason why the agency has to purchase them and it has to do with the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Under the agreement, Ferro explains, the U.S. is only able to mandate Mexican trucks to do the same requirements as U.S. trucks, truckinginfo.com notes.  Since the U.S. currently does not require the installation of EOBRs for all U.S. carriers, the FMCSA cannot mandate Mexican carriers to do so either.  Therefore, in order to monitor Mexican trucks to ensure that they comply to current rules and regulations, such as hours of service and cabotage rules, which “restrict freight hauling between points in the U.S.,” the FMCSA has proposed to fund the installation temporarily until the pilot program ends, which is an estimated three years from now or until the U.S. mandates EOBRs on its trucks, the site notes.

Taxpayers may be questioning why we let Mexican truckers in if it is going to cost us to monitor them.  This is because the FMCSA believes that the agreement with Mexico will save us billions of dollars in the end, one of the reasons why the cross-border agreement came about in the first place.

The proposal came after disputes resulting from the termination of the pilot program in 2009, which led to Mexico retaliating through the installation of tariffs on American goods, resulting in over $2 billion a year in tariff costs.

As Ferro notes, the border agreement was an attempt to get Mexico to withdraw the tariffs, agreeing to “reduce its tariffs by half when the final agreement is signed” and suspend the rest “when the first Mexican carrier is granted operating authority” (http://www.truckinginfo.com/news/news-detail.asp?news_id=73234).

There are three phrases that the agreement must go through.  First is a pre-operations vetting process which would place a set limit on the number of Mexican carriers allowed to partake in the cross-border agreement during the first stage of the program.  These carriers have to undergo inspections to ensure that their trucks comply with U.S. safety requirements as well as be insured by a company in the U.S. while drivers have to be knowledgeable of U.S. traffic laws and be able to speak English, truckinginfo.com states.

The next step deals with the inspection of each Mexican truck every time it crosses the border as well as “clear a Compliance Review and earn a Satisfactory Safety Rating in order to get full operating authority,” the site notes.

Finally, truckerinfo.com states that the public will have a chance to comment on the program, as well as “a web site at the FMCSA home page, creation of an advisory committee and periodic reports to Congress.”

As of right now, the Mexican cross-border project is just a proposal and the public will be given a chance to comment within the upcoming weeks in which the U.S. will again meet with Mexico to discuss.

With Road Scholar Transport, you can be assured that your LTL and TL freight are the hands of a certified, safe carrier.  With satellite tracking down to the street-level, you will always know where your freight is and who has it.

On a scale of 1 to 5, how much do you value knowing where your freight is on demand?

tracking

Road Scholar satellite tracking

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in LTL freight, Services, Trucking Industry News | Comments Off

Cargo Insurance No Longer Mandatory for Most Carriers

Tuesday, March 15th, 2011

Starting Monday, March 21st, many carriers will no longer be obligated to purchase cargo insurance, terminating the 1935 Motor Carrier Act.

are you insured?

With the exception of household goods carriers and freight forwarders, who will still be required to carry the insurance, the rule, published last June, will abolish the current $5,000 minimum per claim.

According to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), most carriers obtain policies that are well above the $5,000 minimum requirement, with most having a $50,000 to $100,000 liability, truckersnews.com notes.  Road Scholar Transport, a leading LTL and TL carrier, is one of these, with a $100,000 cargo liability policy available for viewing at http://www.roadscholar.com/certifications.php.

Although most carriers will no longer be required to carry the insurance, they certain have the option to continue their policies, which the FMCSA believes they will continue to do “because their customers require it,” an article in DC Velocity notes.

According to Transportation & Logistics Council Inc.’s Attorney Raymond Selvaggio, carriers should still be required to carry a certain amount of cargo insurance, believing that terminating all mandatory requirements would “weaken the already fragile system of protection available for transportation service providers” and open “up the marketplace to new entrants that are financially unstable” (http://www.dcvelocity.com/articles/20110314cargo_insurance_mandate_to_end_march_21/).

Unless Congress interferes, which, as of right now, there have been no objections, the rule will go into effect on Monday; however, Road Scholar will continue to provide its customer’s with cargo insurance and the utmost care and safety of your freight.

Do you think that there should be a minimum requirement of cargo liability insurance that carriers must carry?

protecting your cargo

Road Scholar Transport-Protecting your Cargo

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in LTL freight, Services, Trucking Industry News | Comments Off

FMCSA Wants Drastic Increase in Funding While Purchasing Devices for Mexican Cross-Border Trucks

Monday, March 14th, 2011

According to truckersnews.com, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has recently submitted a fundsrequest to the Government Accountability Office, who then passed it on to Congress, for an increase in its 2012 funds.

Over the years, the FMCSA has required higher funding amounts for its CSA program, going from $2.3 million in 2007 to $6.6 million the following year, to $11.8 million in 2009, $9.5 million in 2010, and finally $14.3 million this year.  Although in 2010 the FMCSA acquired a lower amount of funding than the previous year, the average increase in funding averages around $4.7 million each year (http://www.truckersnews.com/fmcsa-asks-for-more-csa-funds/).

So how much would you expect the FMCSA’s funding request to be for the year 2012?  $19 million?  20 million?  Try $78 million!  That’s a $59 million dollar increase.

The next question you may ask is what the agency plans on doing with that much money.  According to Truckers News, the FMCSA wants to use its funds for “696 positions, 98 of which are new jobs to fully implement CSA,” and afterwards, “increase its interventions and enforcement,” which includes regulating drivers and making their safety data public.

There is current debate on what the FMCSA is using its funds towards, the recent issue involving the Obama Administration’s decision to allow an unlimited number of Mexican trucks/carriers cross-border, with the deal that they can pass inspection.

Road Scholar Transport

Road Scholar Transport- A safe carrier

In order to promote safety, something that Road Scholar Transport is an advocate of, the FMCSA is requiring the installation of EOBRs (electronic on-board recorders) and GPS systems on all Mexican trucks.  EOBRs provide a means of gathering information on driver behavior that can range from hours of service (replacing current paper logs) to driving style; for example speeding, heavy breaking; as well as accident re-construction.

The problem that has the Alliance for Driver Safety and Security group, composed of the nation’s largest motor carriers, angry over is that the FMCSA is the one paying to have these EOBRs and GPS systems installed, calling their action, “the height of stupidity” (http://www.thetrucker.com/News/Stories/2011/3/10/CarrierallianceDeFazioblastFMCSAdecisiontopayforEOBRsforcross-bordertrucks.aspx).

The FMCSA, however, justifies their decision, believing that funding the devices would give them ownership over any data collected, thetrucker.com notes.

As opinions continue to fly over the Mexican Cross-Border Act, Road Scholar wants to hear your viewpoint on the FMCSA’s recent funding request.  Do you agree with the FMCSA’s decision to pay for the installation of EOBRs and other devices on Mexican trucks?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Trucking Industry News | Comments Off

Obama Administration Pushes to Keep Overweight Trucks on Interstate

Monday, September 20th, 2010

The Obama Administration is pushing for Congress to allow the permanent use of six-axle trucks weighing over the 80,000 pound limit “access to interstate highways in Maine and Vermont,” according to truckinginfo.com.

The two programs permitting the increased weight limit were brought out last year by Maine and Vermont senators Susan Collins and Patrick Leahy and are scheduled to expire come December (http://www.truckinginfo.com/news/news-detail.asp?news_id=71703).  Once this happens, trucks over the 80,000 pound limit will be forced to travel on state and local roads instead of the interstate.

The Obama administration believes that allowing the program to permanently go into effect would account for more safety on the local roads that trucks were previously forced to travel on due to their size, as well provide more efficiency, the site noted.

Road Scholar Transport always operates with the utmost in safety on the road.  We have qualified drivers who have all been drug tested and background checked prior to employment and receive another background check every 10 years and drug test on 50% of drivers every year.  Our drivers are also Hazmat certified and can handle the most hazardous material with care.

Not only are our drivers safe, but our equipment as well.  We have newer models that ensure equipment integrity.  All of our trailers are air ride and all of our tractors are equipped with tracking technology so we always know when and where our tractor trailers are.  With roof decals and easily distinguishable trucks, it will be hard for these tractor trailers to be stolen.  And when our trucks are safe, so is your cargo.

For more information about Road Scholar Transport’s safety features visit www.roadscholar.com.

Road Scholar Transport

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Services, Trucking Industry News | Comments Off