I made a point of reading the article mentioned in today's headlines. I thought if was a fairly accurate article. There were some factual errors regarding the increase in driving hours. The re-set provision that was long sought by The ATA means that a 70 hr/ 8 day driver could drive actualy 77 hours legally. That the ATA doesn't agree with the article is no surprise: it is most of their buddies that the Bush admin. placed into high positions...
Additionally, it is also no surprise that the DOT, that thinks the new driving rules are the greatest thing since sliced bread, also wants to discredit the article. The 8/2 split, not stopping the clock for the two hour period, is a crock. Besides, the increase in driving to 11 hours, actually increases fatigue, especially since any break for a nap (like the 2 hr. for instance) doesn't stop the clock.
My beef with the article is that its liberal slant makes it seem as though this would not have happened with the Dems in power. That is the biggest crock of all. Notwithstanding the obvious cronyism involved, I highly doubt the Dems would have done the driving rules differently!
Additionally, it is also no surprise that the DOT, that thinks the new driving rules are the greatest thing since sliced bread, also wants to discredit the article. The 8/2 split, not stopping the clock for the two hour period, is a crock. Besides, the increase in driving to 11 hours, actually increases fatigue, especially since any break for a nap (like the 2 hr. for instance) doesn't stop the clock.
My beef with the article is that its liberal slant makes it seem as though this would not have happened with the Dems in power. That is the biggest crock of all. Notwithstanding the obvious cronyism involved, I highly doubt the Dems would have done the driving rules differently!