Speed Limiter Phone Calls

[ATeam]

I wonder if a solution might be to create a WG International category of trucks. These would be trucks that fully comply with everything all Canadian provinces want them to do and are willing to do border crossings, deal with broker errors, put up with customs officers, and take on all the other issues of international loads.

In return, they get significant special priviliges like a perpetual less-than-75 status that goes wherever they go. It would cost the company nothing to do this and it would free the people who don't want to go to Canada from the obligation to do so. For those who won't go to Canada, it means giving up a place in line to the international trucks when they show up in your express center. That would not be a huge issue since they would be busy running back and forth from Canada anyway. Right?

Just a thought. Tossed out for discussion.

 

[layoutshooter]

It is a real thought. I just don't know if there is enough freight at high enough pay to cover the cost of a TVAL truck. If there was it might be interesting for us. We live right on the border. We did not see many offers last year for Canadian work. I had my stats wrong on a previous post. We ran a TOTAL of 2 runs last year on 6 offers. Not all of the offers went to ON or QC. Most of the 4 we turned down was because the runs did not pay for themselfs.

The best solution is for ON and QC to drop this stupidity and just enforce the exsisting speed laws. That, of course, will never happen.

Layoutshooter

 

[ATeam]

The best solution is for ON and QC to drop this stupidity and just enforce the exsisting speed laws. That, of course, will never happen.

I'm not convinced the Ontario and Quebec speed-limiter rules are here to stay. We have yet to see the effects and, as we all know, laws have unintended consequences. It remains to be seen if the rolling road blocks develop that truckers have warned about. It remains to be seen what impact, if any, the speed-limiter rules will have on the willingness of non-provincial and non-Canadian trucks to service the provinces in question.

If the effects are negative, the laws may be changed. I believe provincial leaders would react quickly if outraged four-wheeler motorists called in by the thousands to complain about trucks that cannot pass each other and take forever to clear out of the hammer lane.

 

[TeamCaffee]

I am really confused as to why you think there will be rolling road blocks in Canada? If this happens I am sure there will be tickets given out.

For many years we have had trucks governed at much slower speeds then Canada is talking about in this country. When was the last time a JB Hunt or US Express truck was rear ended for going to slow? During the very high price of fuel there were even more companies that governed their trucks. Do you think the speed was ever turned back up? When one governed truck is trying to pass the other governed truck most drivers cuss them, then wait till one gets by the other and in the case of many drivers pass the offending truck at a high rate of speed waving a finger at them. It just is not that big of deal for a truck to be governed and the rest of the traffic to put up with it.

 

[ATeam]

I am really confused as to why you think there will be rolling road blocks in Canada? If this happens I am sure there will be tickets given out.

I don't know if it will happen at all but if it does, it will not be because of intentional acts by drivers. It will be because the trucks are all regulated at the same top speed and they will tend to group up. The roadblocks could take one of two forms. It could be when one truck tries to get by another and both lanes are thus blocked. It could happen when long lines of trucks form in the right lane, making it difficult for merging traffic to get on the road. Again, I don't know that it will happen, just thinking it might. Time will tell.

For many years we have had trucks governed at much slower speeds then Canada is talking about in this country. When was the last time a JB Hunt or US Express truck was rear ended for going to slow? During the very high price of fuel there were even more companies that governed their trucks. Do you think the speed was ever turned back up? When one governed truck is trying to pass the other governed truck most drivers cuss them, then wait till one gets by the other and in the case of many drivers pass the offending truck at a high rate of speed waving a finger at them. It just is not that big of deal for a truck to be governed and the rest of the traffic to put up with it.

Everything you say is true. The difference in Quebec and Ontario is that ALL trucks will be governed to the same top speed (granted, some fleets may govern lower but essentially, all will be set to the same top speed). I don't know any time or place where that has been done. I will be watching with great interest to see how traffic patterns change -- if they change at all -- when the law is enforced.

When trucks are not governed or governed at different speeds, they can work around each other and sort themselves out. When they are all governed to the same top speed, the situation is different. Sure, drivers can slow down to let other trucks go by, but when their top speed is limited and they have miles they want to lay down, I'm not looking for many big-rig drivers to do anything other than keep the governed pedal to the regulated metal to optimize their time and miles.

I have heard nothing about Canadian trucking companies moving in mass to govern their trucks. They may well be. Has anyone heard one way or another what the anticipated compliance rate is among Quebec-based, Ontario-based and trucks based in other Canadian provinces?

Same question for U.S. fleets. Does anyone know of any large fleets that have governed down their trucks to comply with the rules of Quebec and Ontario?

 

[piper1]

Most companies limit their speeds up here already, it's more of an insurance thing. When I was at BLM we limited company and brokers to 68 MPH (one of my duties was to thwart out the electronic cheaters), at Ryder everything was at 65. The tanker company I was with (briefly) was 57. At Cargill, the Canadian fleet was limited to 62, the cross border fleet was 65. Laidlaw was 65 too. At all these fleets we did it to get lower insurance rates.

Almost all the carriers that belong to the OTA are already at 65 or below. If they provide the insurance to the brokers for free (that is common up here) they have to play by the fleets rules.

Phil, I love your idea of having "International" status, sign me up! I already limit myself to 57 so I can qualify yes?

Joe, don't worry about performance, the only way it can affect your hill climbing ability is if you are putting you foot into it to go way fast before the hill to get a run at it. You might have to drop a gear to get a wee bit more horsepower out of it part way up some hills.

 

[spudhead911]

Right now there are a lot more trucks then loads. I am sure on most loads that for every load you refuse there are going to more than enough trucks to pick up the slack.

If all the White Glove trucks decide to refuse to put the speed limiter on there are several trucks within the company and outside the company more than willing to take your spot with White Glove.

I still think the problem that is really looming is the CARB laws in California. This speed limiter is nothing compared to what is going to start happening next year. After the past year and this year how many can afford to retrofit their truck and also upgrade their generators to be compliant?

No offence but I expected just that type of company rhetoric to come from you about the speed limiters, and non WG trucks, such as yours, ready to take WG loads away from us.

If we have to we will comply with the speed limiter policy set by FECC. But why just have the WG trucks put the speed limiters on? I thought it was FECC policy that ALL trucks in the FECC fleet be able to go into Canada, if so then why are they not forcing the non WG trucks to have the speed limiters put on.

 

[piper1]

But why just have the WG trucks put the speed limiters on?

I might be wrong here, but wouldn't WG customers be the first folks to get ****y if their loads got cross-docked.

No Pom Pom's, but I think FX is being proactive here to ensure the customer gets good service, perhaps other companies are just waiting to "react" to whatever problems non compliance causes.

 

[layoutshooter]

Thanks Piper1, we shall see what happens. I hope there are no problems. I do still resent the idea that ON and QC think that I am too stupid to drive at 105kph without an on board nanny. It is kind of insulting. So is the notion that they are so sure I will commit the horrible crime of speeding that they have to insure the I can't. Implied guilt sucks. My real concern, as stated many times before, is the loss of my accelerator to get out of trouble. I wonder, IF we have an accident because of this if ON, QC or FedEx are going to cover all of the costs? It would be interesting to see. IF it could be proved that a particular accident would have been avoided had they NOT been limited if the truck owner could come back on all involved. That is a VERY interesting idea. Layoutshooter

 

[nightcreacher]

in albuquerque nm,you cant go up the west bound hill in the left lane, if you run under 65 mph.Have you not seen rolling road blocks in the right two lanes there.
have you not been in a rolling road block with a jb and schneider trying to pass each other.when you have a truck with 500 hp grossing 80000 lbs and a truck with 435 hp grossing 75000 lbs,put a hill in front of them,rolling road block.unless canada puts up signs saying no passing,guess what.you guys in the straight trucks are'nt the ones going to cause the road blocks,but your going to be in the middle of them,as your trucks run up hill much easier than a 80000 lb tractor trailer.back in the states,cant wait to hear about your first trip out west

 

[TeamCaffee]

Joe FCC is not forcing you to get the speed limiter they are giving you a choice. If you choose to stay in T-Val then you will have to make the choice to put the speed limiter on.

 

[layoutshooter]

I agree, I have the choice, it is just not a good choice. My choices are, be forced to do something that I feel is dangerous or lose my livelyhood. Anyway, I will adapt. I always do. It will be interesting to say the least. I really hope it causes no problems. Only time will tell. Nothing is for sure. Layoutshooter

 

[TeamCaffee]

No offence but I expected just that type of company rhetoric to come from you about the speed limiters, and non WG trucks, such as yours, ready to take WG loads away from us.

If we have to we will comply with the speed limiter policy set by FECC. But why just have the WG trucks put the speed limiters on? I thought it was FECC policy that ALL trucks in the FECC fleet be able to go into Canada, if so then why are they not forcing the non WG trucks to have the speed limiters put on.

No offence meant but have you never taken an Express Load when an Express truck was sitting there just because you had more dwell time? The hard truth is we can probably run cheaper then you can.

The rules change every day out here and the rules have changed once again. You have a choice learn to live with them, move on or work on what you can by working with the company to get the rules changed.

Read your letter again I believe it explains why and how the policy has changed.

 

[layoutshooter]

It is a tough world out there. The rules will continue to change. It will be hard to for TVAL trucks to stay in business and FDCC needs the TVAL trucks. The will soon be a "crunch" time and there will have to be something worked out. From what I can see the business is moving away from "Expedited" freight to "Special needs" freight. That will require more expensive trucks. Only time will tell what will happen. Some will make it, some won't. So far this year we have run only ONE express load. Far different from last year where we ran almost 20% express loads. We don't get too many offers other than WG that we can afford to run. It is going to get interesting. Layoutshooter

 

[fatboy1]

my opinion this is one way for the fed to help get speed limiter for the ata, when all that was going on here fedex corp was one of the top ones pushing for this,wal-mart, etc. if this works they will us as a stepping stone for that,i would say let the ones go who wants to,w/g.surface, like a-team said give them less than 75 in the express centers where they are . i would give up my spot for them so i wouldnt have to go up there. i could give all kinds of thoughts on where this is going but all i can say is by-by for the true indepents out here,what happened to non forced dispatch.

 

[ATeam]

Joe FCC is not forcing you to get the speed limiter they are giving you a choice. If you choose to stay in T-Val then you will have to make the choice to put the speed limiter on.

When someone gives you a choice between A, which you want to do and B which you don't want to do and uses authority, bonuses and penalties to require B, it is not a choice, not a free choice anyway.

The DOT requires truck inspections once a year. FDCC requires them every six months as a condition of being a contractor. Key words, "as a condition of." If getting your truck inspected every six months while you are with FDCC is viewed as a choice at all, it is a forced choice.

If a CDL was not required to drive a truck, only a non-commercial license, how many of us would go out and get one? None. But because it is required, we are forced to get one if we want to drive a truck.

One could argue that because you choose to drive a truck, you also choose to get a CDL. That would be a false premise. People don't get CDL's because they want to, they get CDL's because they have to.If drivers were given the free choice of having a CDL or not, and could keep driving their trucks, CDLs would drop to the ground by the millions, because their real choice would be to not have them.

Requirements are requirements. Choices are choices and the two are not the same.

 

[spudhead911]

We may be in the same business but we all have our own bills to pay and we each do what it takes to make our business survive.

Every year there is talk of a strike but each year the question is who are we actually striking against? FCC did not set the laws for Canada they are just trying to abide by them. The White Glove fleet usually commands a higher price per mile for their sensitive freight and having a seal. If the speed limiter is so bad come join us down in Express and use the cross dock system into Canada.

If FCC gives up all the freight into Canada another company will be more than happy to pick up that slack and what has that gained us?

I kind of get the feeling that you type the words but the words come from some one else.

 

[spudhead911]

No offence meant but have you never taken an Express Load when an Express truck was sitting there just because you had more dwell time? The hard truth is we can probably run cheaper then you can.

The rules change every day out here and the rules have changed once again. You have a choice learn to live with them, move on or work on what you can by working with the company to get the rules changed.

Read your letter again I believe it explains why and how the policy has changed.

Yes I have taken an express load when an express truck was sitting at the same spot. What diffrence does it make if another truck can run cheaper than I can, it has no bearing on anthing as long as I make a profit on the load.

As far as giving a load to a non WG truck over a WG truck, now that's a horse of a different color. We special build our trucks for WG and are in WG, WG trucks should get WG loads over non WG trucks, even if the non WG trucks have WG equipment.

Once again I see you are typing but think someone else is telling you what to type.

I know the rules change and we have no problem changing with them, as long as the rules apply to everyone. It just sometimes seems that FECC have their favoites they treat special, which is wrong. Know what I mean?

 

[spudhead911]

When someone gives you a choice between A, which you want to do and B which you don't want to do and uses authority, bonuses and penalties to require B, it is not a choice, not a free choice anyway.

The DOT requires truck inspections once a year. FDCC requires them every six months as a condition of being a contractor. Key words, "as a condition of." If getting your truck inspected every six months while you are with FDCC is viewed as a choice at all, it is a forced choice.

If a CDL was not required to drive a truck, only a non-commercial license, how many of us would go out and get one? None. But because it is required, we are forced to get one if we want to drive a truck.

One could argue that because you choose to drive a truck, you also choose to get a CDL. That would be a false premise. People don't get CDL's because they want to, they get CDL's because they have to.If drivers were given the free choice of having a CDL or not, and could keep driving their trucks, CDLs would drop to the ground by the millions, because their real choice would be to not have them.

Requirements are requirements. Choices are choices and the two are not the same.

Well put Phil.

 

[nobb4u]

I remember an old joke my daddy told,

"Two elderly women were sitting in the front row of church the preacher was preaching on those in the church that were doing things that were not believed by the congregation.

"There are people in here who are drinking, smoking, dancing, and wearing make-up".
And after each of these terrible things were mentioned by the preacher each of the women shouted,

"Amen Reverend"

And the he said "There are those who are dipping snuff."

The one elderly lady turns to the other and says "He's done gone from preaching to meddling"

And this is how this post is going. What if Canada suddenly says no one with a pet can enter Canada, or you have to have all red lights on your truck or you have to have blue lights in the corners of your windshield, all lettering on your truck must be black or all tires must be 20 ply.

Where does this end?