Time for light-duty trucks to scale?

xmudman · May 13, 2013

I spoke to the president of one of my carriers today ( I run for two ), and we discussed the slowdown in van freight. One very interesting thing he shared with me is that one person or firm has started 650 (yes, 650!!) new carriers just recently. This leads to several questions, one of which relates to why the Feds don't smell a rat here.

I think we know who these new carriers are; they're the same shady folks (and no, I don't care about their ethnicities) who are putting those so-called 10,000 lb box trucks on the road.

One way to slow sown this abuse might be for all box trucks, regardless of GVW, to be required to scale. If this occurred, these slim shadies might get caught running overweight, or at least over GVW. This could help thin the herd of some of the biggest bull**** producers.

Thoughts?

Sent from my SCH-I110 using EO Forums mobile app

RLENT · May 13, 2013

Yeah ... get the government more involved in unnecessarily regulating business ...

Sounds like pure genius to me ... ought to work out just great ...

zorry · May 13, 2013

Avoiding CSA issues also. Driver racks up 100pts as Carrier Dave101 shut him down. Before someone else does. Lease him to Carrier Dave102.

tknight · May 13, 2013

Forgive me but isn't running over weight and over gvw the same thing , what's heavier a pound of bs or a pound of lead? I love these little pens keys that can only take 2000 lbs cause of their big heavy box and Persian rugged sleepers
They are above gvw before the first pallet is loaded out in the parking lot cause they can't load in a dock!

xmudman · May 13, 2013

...can only take 2000 lbs

But it hold seex skeed, da?

I'd bet a bottle of Stoli that at least 50% of them are overloaded....

Sent from my SCH-I110 using EO Forums mobile app

xiggi · May 13, 2013

Im not buying it.650 new carriers sounds like cb lore to me.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.

xmudman · May 13, 2013

xiggi said:
Im not buying it.650 new carriers sounds like cb lore to me.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.

I got it from the president of an established carrier, a member of TEANA. They met last week in Kentucky, to try to come up with a plan to deal with it.

Trust me, I've heard my share of CB/truckstop stories on this too; one rumor has these guys earning $60 a day, regardless of mileage

, and $20/day if they sit...

Sent from my SCH-I110 using EO Forums mobile app

zorry · May 13, 2013

We aren't the people that need to know this. If states see there is money to be made pulling them over, they'll be put " on the list".

Telling me isn't helping your situation.

zorry · May 13, 2013

$20 a day with a place to live. Rude around on your *** and you get heat, air, meal money, and a place to sleep.

Might be better than the old country.

xiggi · May 13, 2013

xmudman said:
I got it from the president of an established carrier, a member of TEANA. They met last week in Kentucky, to try to come up with a plan to deal with it.

Trust me, I've heard my share of CB/truckstop stories on this too; one rumor has these guys earning $60 a day, regardless of mileage , and $20/day if they sit...

Sent from my SCH-I110 using EO Forums mobile app

Ok why 650 why not 100 it just makes no sense to my simple mind. I can see no advantage to such a large number other than a ton of tax deductions because of the pile of money it must take.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.

paullud · May 13, 2013

Regulation would be the best thing to happen for CV's in a long time.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

xiggi · May 13, 2013

paullud said:
Regulation would be the best thing to happen for CV's in a long time.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

More regulation is never a good thing.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.

Turtle · May 13, 2013

paullud said:
Regulation would be the best thing to happen for CV's in a long time.

You mean the best thing that would happen TO cargo vans for those who are jealous that cargo vans can haul freight without having to log and scale.

The sole reason for regulating CMVs is because their weight or their cargo is inherently dangerous and poses an unreasonable risk to the public. Cargo vans do not inherently pose such a risk, so there is no valid reason to regulate them as if they did.

paullud · May 13, 2013

xiggi said:
More regulation is never a good thing.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.

It wouldn't be a good thing for the individual but the industry would benefit.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

paullud · May 13, 2013

Turtle said:
You mean the best thing that would happen TO cargo vans for those who are jealous that cargo vans can haul freight without having to log and scale.

The sole reason for regulating CMVs is because their weight or their cargo is inherently dangerous and poses an unreasonable risk to the public. Cargo vans do not inherently pose such a risk, so there is no valid reason to regulate them as if they did.

No, I mean it would be better for the expedite industry. It would cut out a lot of the low rent competition, decrease capacity, and increase rates. The bar for entry would be higher which will help slow the influx of garbage carriers and drivers. I'm not saying I am for the regulations, just that in this case it might actually help business.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

Turtle · May 14, 2013

paullud said:
No, I mean it would be better for the expedite industry. It would cut out a lot of the low rent competition, decrease capacity, and increase rates. The bar for entry would be higher which will help slow the influx of garbage carriers and drivers.

How very "corporate evil" sounding of you.

I'm not saying I am for the regulations, just that in this case it might actually help business.

Unintended consequences. Always.

xiggi · May 14, 2013

paullud said:
No, I mean it would be better for the expedite industry. It would cut out a lot of the low rent competition, decrease capacity, and increase rates. The bar for entry would be higher which will help slow the influx of garbage carriers and drivers. I'm not saying I am for the regulations, just that in this case it might actually help business.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

It has done so much to raise big truck rates. Sorry but there is zero proof it would do anything for rates.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.

layoutshooter · May 14, 2013

"consequences. Always."

I am wondering, not saying that new regulations would help or hurt anything, but what are the "unintended consequences" of doing nothing?

We all know there are truck running that are overweight. We all see trucks that are unsafe to say the least.

There will be "unintended consequences". Will they be good, bad, or indifferent has yet to be seen.

blizzard2014 · May 14, 2013

In order to start up 650 new carriers, you'd have to shell out at least 330k just to cover the new carriers insurance down payments. Then there is the 350 dollar filing fee for your DOT/MC number for each new carrier name. Then it's another 35 bucks a pop a piece for the BOC-3. Then you have to pay for the Unified Carrier Registration. Then it's another 70 bucks for a Standard Carrier Alpha Code. Not to mention the fact that you can't insure the same truck 650 different times. So they must have a lot of spare trucks sitting around to throw primary liability and cargo insurance on them. Then you have to get the company incorporated, or articles or organization with a membership agreement if the carrier is an LLC. That is another 30k in filing fees alone. I don't see why one firm would shell out that kind of money to try and start-up 650 new carriers, let alone all of the new phone numbers, fax numbers; and to try and comply with all of the regulations, filing dates, and yearly fees to maintain the carriers etc.

Also, the BOC-3 filings, Unified Carrier Registration (which ranges from a couple of hundred dollars a year to several thousand dollars a year) as well as the Standard Carrier Alpha Codes all have to be purchased for each individual carrier name. Then some talented CEO would have to come up with 650 new and unique carrier names to boot. Remember I've done all this once before; and trust me, it's a hassle just to start up a single carrier operation. It can take up to a month to do so. Plus there is a lot of leg work involved; a lot of phone calls, a lot of paperwork to fill out, and a lot of emailing and faxing of documents. That's why the bigger carriers like Load One have an entire department, or officer designated just to maintain all of their compliance documents and deadlines. I couldn't imagine trying to keep up with all that on 650 different individual companies. Who is this CEO that you talked to? I think someone is pulling your leg.

Tennesseahawk · May 14, 2013

Turtle said:
You mean the best thing that would happen TO cargo vans for those who are jealous that cargo vans can haul freight without having to log and scale.

The sole reason for regulating CMVs is because their weight or their cargo is inherently dangerous and poses an unreasonable risk to the public. Cargo vans do not inherently pose such a risk, so there is no valid reason to regulate them as if they did.

If we were jealous of all the magnificence of van driving... the laziness, the scraping of pennies due to overcrowding, the glory of Sprinter repair... wouldn't we just get one ourselves, Turtle?