Team Caffee, how 'bout a report?

[Special K]

Linda, you said you were getting the new unit on Tuesday, so by now you must have a pretty good idea of how it is. How about a report, please? We're especially curious about the new or different stuff on top of the truck...

[TeamCaffee]

We were in meetings all week and last night we had our first load with the new QC. The install took about two hours as everything has to be replaced. The dome is the same size but the black box is much smaller. The actual QC is about 1/3 of the size as our old QC and I really like that part. The new QC is touch screen or has a pull down key board which is a nice feature. We also have an whip antenna.

We were one of the beta testers for the Driver Tech so many of the features are the same or near enough to the same to make the transition to the new unit very simple. We were not able to use the Driver Tech for anything but GPS for the last several months and we found it very difficult to go back to the OLD QC and lose signal all of the time. We really like the new units as you can be inside a building, under a canopy, under trees, running through cities with tall buildings and you will not lose signal and can send and receive messages.

One of the really nice features about having two GPS units in the truck is that you run your routing GPS and then the Driver Tech gave you the ability to run at a different scale. I am assuming the QC GPS will also allow you to do this. What I like about that feature is when coming into a city you can zoom in enough to read the street names while looking for a customer. It is a nice feature but not necessary.

The EOBR is I feel is easier to use on the QC with a lot of nice features on how you can look at your log. At this time the copy of the logs are not available on the Extranet for us to download for our records. This is something they are working on and their hopes are to actually have these in a report format. Maybe as they get all of our feedback we could have options on how we can get the reports. Right now the thinking is we will download and print our report. The report will be available for the past 6 months.

The unit has finally been approved now to be put on all of the trucks and is compatible with all of the different loads we haul.

As I said though we have only hauled one load with the new unit and we plan to play with the QC as much as possible this weekend and test out more of the QC's features.

[LDB]

One of the really nice features about having two GPS units in the truck is that you

can get lost twice as fast.

[TeamCaffee]

Well I have one GPS leading me and one GPS set to follow me!

You are right though we do not blindly follow our GPS and so we do still get lost! But at least now we know how lost we really are as we see the mileage increase on how to get back to the customer.

[spudhead911]

We were in meetings all week and last night we had our first load with the new QC. The install took about two hours as everything has to be replaced. The dome is the same size but the black box is much smaller. The actual QC is about 1/3 of the size as our old QC and I really like that part. The new QC is touch screen or has a pull down key board which is a nice feature. We also have an whip antenna.

We were one of the beta testers for the Driver Tech so many of the features are the same or near enough to the same to make the transition to the new unit very simple. We were not able to use the Driver Tech for anything but GPS for the last several months and we found it very difficult to go back to the OLD QC and lose signal all of the time. We really like the new units as you can be inside a building, under a canopy, under trees, running through cities with tall buildings and you will not lose signal and can send and receive messages.

One of the really nice features about having two GPS units in the truck is that you run your routing GPS and then the Driver Tech gave you the ability to run at a different scale. I am assuming the QC GPS will also allow you to do this. What I like about that feature is when coming into a city you can zoom in enough to read the street names while looking for a customer. It is a nice feature but not necessary.

The EOBR is I feel is easier to use on the QC with a lot of nice features on how you can look at your log. At this time the copy of the logs are not available on the Extranet for us to download for our records. This is something they are working on and their hopes are to actually have these in a report format. Maybe as they get all of our feedback we could have options on how we can get the reports. Right now the thinking is we will download and print our report. The report will be available for the past 6 months.

The unit has finally been approved now to be put on all of the trucks and is compatible with all of the different loads we haul.

As I said though we have only hauled one load with the new unit and we plan to play with the QC as much as possible this weekend and test out more of the QC's features.

I thought you were testing one of the new units for the past seven or so months, I seem to recall a post about it. Or was that a new unit they didn't go with. Well then again what can you expect from a phantom WG unit.

[ATeam]

The EOBR is I feel is easier to use on the QC with a lot of nice features on how you can look at your log. At this time the copy of the logs are not available on the Extranet for us to download for our records. This is something they are working on and their hopes are to actually have these in a report format. Maybe as they get all of our feedback we could have options on how we can get the reports. Right now the thinking is we will download and print our report. The report will be available for the past 6 months.

The inability to provide contractors with copies of their logs in either printed or electronic form is a serious, major and perhaps fatal flaw (explained here). I am e-mailing my contractor coordinator the strong suggestion that the ability be added immediately. This is important.

A driver's daily log book is a legal document from which no driver should be separated. In the event of a serious accident, which can happen to anyone, even drivers with perfect records, the log book immediately becomes part of the investigation. It would be terrible to not have immediate access to your own log in such circumstances. Your own lawyer will need not just your short term data but your long term logs too.

I know that showing the Qualcomm screen to a scale cop is sufficient for routine log book checks at scale stops. But what happens in an accident if the unit is damaged such that log book information cannot be retrieved at the scene? If the carrier cannot provide log book data, who will?

It is not uncommon at all for a carrier to immediately terminate a driver after a serious accident occurs and well before the investigation is complete. If you find yourself in such circumstances, say an hour from now when you next drive your truck, what kind of access to your log books will you have if you are operating under a system where the carrier alone has the information and that same carrier just fired you?

It is of vital importance that all drivers possess or at least have access to their own log book records at all times. We need more than "something they are working on" and "their hopes are." We need our log books!

In that regard, paper log books are vastly superior. We get a hard copy (the carbon copy) of each day's log in real time as we complete the original page. We have that copy instantly and permanently in our possession. No downloads, costly computers, internet access or other special skills or technology are needed.

Technology, schmecnology. A system that separates drivers from their legal-document log books is not an advance. It is a major step backwards. I will gladly accept the occasional loss of a Qualcomm signal under trees and in buildings for continued access to my log book records.

I am now curious to know how Panther deals with this issue. They have been on electronic logging for a while now. What log book records do they provide to their drivers, if any? I am asking that question in the general forum.

[layoutshooter]

Those log books are also used in the case of a tax audit. They are a hard copy record of the days you claimed your per deim for. I wonder what the IRS has to say on this issue?

[TeamCaffee]

Just because you are on an EOBR does not mean you cannot keep a hard copy of your log books which we will until the company will provide us with the information we need for the IRS.

[layoutshooter]

Not a bad idea, I am thinking we will do the same. That does sort of defeat one of the reasons for the EOBR. Getting rig of paper logs. Things move slow. It will all catch up sooner or later.

[TeamCaffee]

Layout you seem to be under a HUGE misconception the EOBR is not for the drivers ease of use or convenience.

How we look at it is we will take the EOBR and do everything possible to make this system work for us. I also do not like the idea of having to create logs while on the EOBR but the IRS will come after us not the company.

[ATeam]

Just because you are on an EOBR does not mean you cannot keep a hard copy of your log books which we will until the company will provide us with the information we need for the IRS.

How interested will the DOT be to know that you are keeping two sets of log books?

While your intentions may be good and reasons understandable, I would be very careful about keeping two sets of log books in the truck. The carrier will only recognize one set, will it not? Is it even possible to sync a paper and paperless log book up to the minute?

The solution is not to put yourself in the hot seat. The solution is for the carrier to give us full access to the paperless log book info we generate. They are the ones requiring the system. It's on them to make it right, not on you to do work-arounds that raise compliance questions for YOU to answer because YOU are the one trying to patch a hole that you did not create and that should not exist.

This should not be hard. Panther is successfully running a paperless log system now with few complaints if any from drivers.

[ATeam]

Layout you seem to be under a HUGE misconception the EOBR is not for the drivers ease of use or convenience.

We have been reading in the industry press for years that EOBRs are coming. While they may be more convenient for drivers to use, that is not the reason they came into being. They came into being because congress people, senators, regulators and citizen action groups cried out for them for years.

These onboard driver-surveillance systems offer far more to enforcement officials and trial lawyers than they offer in driver convenience.

Think about it for a minute. We forfeit certain rights in return for the privilege of driving a commercial vehicle. The forfeiture mentality is so culturally entrenched that EOBRs are now a reality.

With the presumption of guilt continuing and the increased surveillance EOBRs make possible soon to become the new cultural norm, how much longer will it be before these onboard units are programmed to issue citations to drivers whenever the unit or someone reviewing its data concludes the driver did something wrong?

Once EOBRs are commonly used in all trucks, how long will you think it will take for the advocates that pushed for EOBRs to demand that the GPS locators, speed detectors and other such things be used to detect violations and cite drivers on the spot?

Far fetched? I don't think so. Consider the existence of red-light cameras that did not exist so long ago. An officer does not issue a citation, a machine does. Consider the fact that you must make a Freedom of Information Act request to view your own driver data (your own data!) that is now being kept by the government under CSA 2010. Look at the language you signed and the privacy rights you gave away in return for your TWIC and HAZMAT credentials.

The ability that technology provides for the government to monitor its citizens is transforming rapidly into the bureaucratic instinct to do so.

EOBRs for driver convenience? I think not.

Go back through the literature and study how they came about. I know of not a single instance where the driver convenience argument was made in favor of EOBRs. Big trucking companies want EOBRs because they will level the playing field, they say. Safety advocates outside the industry want them because they do not trust truck drivers and want to control their behavior.

[redytrk]

How interested will the DOT be to know that you are keeping two sets of log books?

While your intentions may be good and reasons understandable, I would be very careful about keeping two sets of log books in the truck.

Continuing to keep up hand made log books should not be a problem as long as both agree.

[ATeam]

Layout you seem to be under a HUGE misconception the EOBR is not for the drivers ease of use or convenience.

I had an additional thought about the motivations of a carrier on this. While it may very well be true that electronic logging may be more convenient, once they get it working right and can supply our historical data, consider too the costs.

With paper logs, our carrier pays one or more people to audit the paper log books and have the logs sent in via TripPak. The carrier also pays a pretty penny (I presume) to print the books and distribute them to drivers. I presume that with electronic logging those expenses are eliminated or significantly reduced. The truck units are more expensive and that cost is passed on to us.

Is that extra cost worth it in convenience? Perhaps. The cost savings to the carrier are clearly a motivating factor for requiring us to put them in our trucks.

If the convenience point is to be considered, let's consider the entire picture. The paper logs we use now are not inconvenient beyond the requirement to keep them in the first place. I spend a maximum of 15 minutes a day on my log books and often less than that. Anytime I want to view my log, I need only pick it up and look.

How exactly are electronic logs more convenient than paper logs? How exactly do electronic logs translate into more profits and/or better time management?

With paper logs, if I need to orbit a truck stop or move from one nearby truck stop to another to find a parking place, I don't need to worry about a 0.7 mile limit that triggers my 14 hour clock. How convenient is it to park in a dangerous or illegal spot because you can't move a mile or so to find a better one? (or to a nearby Walmart to shop or theater to watch a movie) With paper logs, a five mile, five minute, personal conveyance move would not be a loggable event. That's convenient.

Electronic logs box us in between the 0.7 of a mile and 14 hour clock requirements. That's inconvenient.

The "seven-fourteen box" is more problematic to solo drivers than teams but it also affects teams in a significant way. It interferes with the ability for both team members to complete a 34 hour reset while they are on layover. That is if they want to do something more than sit in the same parking place the whole time.

[TeamCaffee]

You bring up a good point on keeping a paper log and also using the EOBR which is why the discussion is good.

We are concerned about the IRS and FCC is concerned about DOT audits. Another option might be to have the past 7 days faxed to you for your records.

The log book records that I would keep for us would not be formal enough to go through a scale. They would be kept strictly for the IRS and to back up the fact that we were away from home.

I think we went through all of this before when we had the speed limiter added to the trucks. You can fight head on or you can figure out how to use the system to your advantage. The decision has been made we are going to an EOBR and in a certain length of time you will sign the new lease and have the new QC installed on your truck. The other option is to look for another company that is not going in this direction right now.