Are Paper Log Books Coming Back?

[ATeam]

An interesting report appeared on the Land Line web site today regarding EOBRs and the recent court ruling that vacated the FMCSA's EOBR regulation.

In letters written to officials on the topic, OOIDA President Jim Johnston said, "“There is no longer any provision in the rules for the adoption of a device called an ‘EOBR,’ either under and agency mandate or voluntary,” Johnston wrote. “FMCSA has the responsibility to inform both the industry and state law enforcement partners that motor carriers may not lawfully use EOBRs.”

Read the full story for additional details. It raises the distinct possibility that carriers and drivers using EOBRs now are operating illegally.

If OOIDA's point stands, what does that mean for drivers? Will those who are using EOBRs have to create make-good log books by going back and recreating paper logs off electronic logs? I don't know but if OOIDA's point stands, what else might be done to right the lack of legal log books that EOBR users would end up with?

I don't know what OOIDA may do next but the thought crosses my mind that they may sue a carrier or file a complaint of some sort against one for failing to legally log.

I don't know if anything will come of this but I do know OOIDA has some court-won legal points in its favor, and I know OOIDA is not one to give up the fight.

 

[truckn-lace]

We have started using electronic logs and may shock you but accually like using them. We are a team so not sure that makes a difference to you but do have one question if anyone of you know the answer. When you do get stopped by the DOT and they want a print out of your last 7 days how do you print them off? I put my printer in the side of the new qualcom and it did recognize my printer but would not let it print it off. Then I went in to the part fax it to the officer and it would not fax. What step do you take some are saying you then have to call your company and they have to fax the information in. Like I said if any of you can help out on this We would sure appreciate it and thanks for all the info you gave it is also helpfull these everchanging rules but we have to comply. Thanks again

 

[redytrk]

When you do get stopped by the DOT and they want a print out of your last 7 days how do you print them off?

There is a provision for Qualcomm to fax copies of the required logs to the Officer. Detailed instructions for this procedure were included at the time of installation by our carrier. You might want to check with them.

 

[greg334]

Hey Phil, your links don't work.

The key statement in one of the articles seems to make a point that the entire regulation is not vacated;

He pointed out that with the regulation removed from the books, motor carriers can now only use devices that were legal under the regulations prior to June 2010 when the reg went into effect, and they must resume maintaining all supporting documents.

http://www.landlinemag.com/todays_news/Daily/2011/Nov11/110711/111111-01.shtml

 

[beachbum]

Looks like OOIDA writes letters leaving out facts. I have so much fun on the forum at OOIDA with all the OOIDA never does anything wrong crowd.

I always love OOIDA and their flip flops, We were for the rule before we found out that some of our members were in the worst of the worst category.

Then it became we needed to fight this because of the rule FMCSA is working on for all trucks to have EOBR'S. But that was after I wrote on the forum that OOIDA was backing the worst of the worst companies out there.

Just think for OOIDA to file the lawsuit they had to have members that would be harmed by the rule, that means someone that would be required to install a EOBR.

OOIDA could give a rats *** about people running legal since they alway fight anything that would make their members run legal.

BTW I'm a life member, who at one time was afford a return of dues to leave OOIDA, which I turned down because I have to much fun being a outsider. Jim himself the big wig offered to return my life membership dues

 

[LDB]

And here we are with a piece of junk that costs us $260 a year more and isn't half as good from a user standpoint as the units we had before.

 

[Bruno]

I like the e-logs myself. Mainly because it goes by the minute rather than 15 minutes.

 

[beachbum]

I know the junk we had before was paper logs where you could cheat to your hearts content, now that you have a EOBR a persons cheating is next to zero. Yes I know you can still cheat a little, my brother did for up to a hour a day. Nothing compared to the paper log or should I say comic book since everyone knows it's a fantasy what we wrote in the thing.

 

[LisaLouHoo]

Jeffman is having to paper log AND use Qualcomm right now.

"Bruises fade and bones will mend-but a psyche can be ruined FOREVER" : LisaLouHoo, c. 2008

 

[jjoerger]

Jeffman is having to paper log AND use Qualcomm right now.

"Bruises fade and bones will mend-but a psyche can be ruined FOREVER" : LisaLouHoo, c. 2008

Is that for training or is the company making everyone do it?

 

[moose]

I always love OOIDA and their flip flops, We were for the rule before we found out that some of our members were in the worst of the worst category.

. But that was after I wrote on the forum that OOIDA was backing the worst of the worst companies out there.

This is NOT how it came to play.
OOIDA members with decades of safe driving, found themselves forced by GOV. to use EOBR, just because the carrier was less then perfect.
a good example is JBS carriers.
more so, small carriers, found themselves needing to use them, do to a few, or even one incident.
as pointed out by OOIDA many times over, those regs where placed on the book to favored large carriers.
the vast majority of carriers in the country are small carriers with less then 15 trucks. the vast majority of large carriers already have EOBR.
by forcing them on a small percentage, it is just mathematically correct, that more small carriers will be in the hurt.
those regs did very little to none improvement in safety, but did a whole lot to level the economic playing field. eliminating competition by regulation, just in case anyone wondered why the ATA spent 342 million dollars last quarter lobbying WDC.
not saying OOIDA perfect, but in this case, we can all enjoy the win.

 

[EASYTRADER]

Moose - you got it right.

All Governemnt regulation helps the BIG guys at the expense of small business people.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

 

[beachbum]

OVM, how would a carrier or a O/O be hurt by having to use a EOBR? The only hurt I see is that they would have to run legal.

How would a large carrier be at a advantage if independents had to use a EOBR?

If people keep trying to use the we get it there faster then a carrier using a EOBR, then it shows me a independent is cheating on their logs or speeding or both.

BTW, the JBS EOBR was there choice, since they either had to pay a 87K fine or put them on, JBS chose EOBR over the fines and FMCSA looking harder. Yes it might have a small amount of drivers that caused a problem at JBS, I don't know anymore then what was in a small article I read. We also have to remember that Colorado was in the CSA pilot program and we don't know they did during that time.

JBS even with now having to run legal they also need to make sure that their drivers have all their paperwork done right.

 

[beachbum]

OVM, why would a good driver stay at a company that is so bad that they were going to be required to have a EOBR? Could it be they stay because they get away with running illegal, that would be my only guess.

After over 20 years and about 2.5 million safe driving miles I quit driving TT and went to a van so I do know every trick in the book on how to falsify logs with the best of them. I never got caught. I'm one of the good drivers but at the same time I'm one of the bad ones. I changed that about five years ago when I started running legal. I know you cannot run 100% legal but I was **** close over the last five years.

Now I just leave the log books to everyone else, unless I buy a straight truck then I'll have to log again or if I pull hazmat which I don't believe I'll do because I have to log.

 

[skipr4520]

An interesting report appeared on the Land Line web site today regarding EOBRs and the recent court ruling that vacated the FMCSA's EOBR regulation.

In letters written to officials on the topic, OOIDA President Jim Johnston said, "“There is no longer any provision in the rules for the adoption of a device called an ‘EOBR,’ either under and agency mandate or voluntary,” Johnston wrote. “FMCSA has the responsibility to inform both the industry and state law enforcement partners that motor carriers may not lawfully use EOBRs.”

Read the full story for additional details. It raises the distinct possibility that carriers and drivers using EOBRs now are operating illegally.

If OOIDA's point stands, what does that mean for drivers? Will those who are using EOBRs have to create make-good log books by going back and recreating paper logs off electronic logs? I don't know but if OOIDA's point stands, what else might be done to right the lack of legal log books that EOBR users would end up with?

I don't know what OOIDA may do next but the thought crosses my mind that they may sue a carrier or file a complaint of some sort against one for failing to legally log.

I don't know if anything will come of this but I do know OOIDA has some court-won legal points in its favor, and I know OOIDA is not one to give up the fight.

Very interesting thread you posted. My questions to you are these;
1) Are you an OOIDA member? I am.
2) Can you please establish a correct, WORKING link to this "article" you refer to?
3) Did you call OOIDA, as I have, to ensure that your "beliefs" or "understanding" are correct information BEFORE you posted this thread.
4) All your "I don't knows" simply draws concern in the fact that you are trying to speak on OOIDAs behalf BEFORE speaking with OOIDA.
Please understand, I am not trying to sound rude, I just think that you should have called OOIDA and got the information directly from OOIDAs compliance department before assuming, or trying to interprit what the article might be saying. Respectfully, Skip
BTW, if you don't have the number, it is; 1-800-444-5791

 

[ATeam]

Very interesting thread you posted. My questions to you are these;
1) Are you an OOIDA member? I am.

Yes, I am a lifetime OOIDA member and have contributed hundreds of dollars -- over and above my membership dues -- for gift memberships for others and to OOIDA's PAC and litigation funds.

2) Can you please establish a correct, WORKING link to this "article" you refer to?

Here is the link. It points to the same page as the two links in the original post which have been repaired. Sorry about that.

3) Did you call OOIDA, as I have, to ensure that your "beliefs" or "understanding" are correct information BEFORE you posted this thread.

No. There was no need. My beliefs and understandings, as you call them, were clearly states as such. They were posted with the intention of provoking thought and stimulating discussion on this important topic.

4) All your "I don't knows" simply draws concern in the fact that you are trying to speak on OOIDAs behalf BEFORE speaking with OOIDA.

I don't speak for OOIDA any more than you speak for the Civil Liberties Union or NRA (assuming you don't have a leadership position in the CLU or NRA). Nothing in my post suggests otherwise. You are taking great liberties in drawing that inference.

Please understand, I am not trying to sound rude, I just think that you should have called OOIDA and got the information directly from OOIDAs compliance department before assuming, or trying to interprit what the article might be saying. Respectfully, Skip
BTW, if you don't have the number, it is; 1-800-444-5791

Noted.

 

[cheri1122]

I thought OOIDA's take [the rule was tossed, therefore, EOBRs are not legal] was barkin hilarious, and I hope they keep being the David that pesters Goliath, and I'm happy to help them do it, too.
Gotta wonder how many of the people advocating EOBRs for everyone are the same people who insist we need less regulation, because government just gets in the way of business.....
What we need is reasonable regulation, and this is not it.

 

[greg334]

You know NO ONE has answered my earlier question and OOIDA ignored my request to get this question answered;

How does an EOBR allow the company to screw the driver if the driver is doing everything legal?

This was the foundation of their argument to the court, which in turn the FMCSA argued that there is limited opportunity for the driver to get screwed because the EOBR is just a tool.

Opposed to the CSA which is a cluster**** of a mess and impacts us in many ways, EOBRs are tools to be used for logging, not ONE change in logging is being done nor is there any modifications to the logging requirements by using EOBRs. The HOS still stands, the work we do still is there and if the EOBR unit replaces the paper log to ensure that the logging requirements are met, then the OOIDA is wrong in pursuing the suit and sidestepping a fight on CSA.

AND if one is to complain about the cost of the unit, the simple solution is to move to a company that does not require one.

 

[skipr4520]

Yes, I am a lifetime OOIDA member and have contributed hundreds of dollars -- over and above my membership dues -- for gift memberships for others and to OOIDA's PAC and litigation funds.



Here is the link. It points to the same page as the two links in the original post which have been repaired. Sorry about that.



No. There was no need. My beliefs and understandings, as you call them, were clearly states as such. They were posted with the intention of provoking thought and stimulating discussion on this important topic.



I don't speak for OOIDA any more than you speak for the Civil Liberties Union or NRA (assuming you don't have a leadership position in the CLU or NRA). Nothing in my post suggests otherwise. You are taking great liberties in drawing that inference.



Noted.

Dually noted, thanks for answering the questions I asked. The way I read the post, it sounds as though these were your "beliefs" and that EOBR's are now illegal. I did call OOIDA for clarity on your post and the article you were referring too. I wanted to know, for sure, what OOIDA meant in that article, since EOBR's are such a "hot and touchy topic". I wasn't trying to take away from your thread of "provoking thoughts" or "stimulating discussions", but you did state that EOBR's are now illegal to use, which is inaccurate. The "provoking thoughts". and "stimulating discussions" sounds more to me like wanting people to "argue" the point in how the article and court ruling means. I wanted to know the truth as well becuase the article does mislead the reader.
As far as the CLU/NRA, LOL, nope-no leadership position.
As fa as "taking great liberties in drawing that inference", I apologize, am I not allowed to voice my opinion as well or am I suppose to contact the "CLU" and ask them?! (LOL)

 

[beachbum]

Gregg, you hit the nail on the head about EOBR'S, The reason OOIDA doesn't want them is because most of the solo driver membership would now have to stop cheating.

OOIDA, seems to think that EOBR'S give a large carrier a advantage, what advantage could they get if all trucks had one.

Try this if 2 trucks one large carrier and a small carrier picked up at the same place and left at the same time and both had a truck that could do 70 MPH and both had the same amount of hours where's the big company advantage.

The only time there would be an advantage is if the small trucking company falsified their logs then the advantage would go to the small carrier. That goes for speeding to get form point A to B, both would be illegal.