Cars Are Crashing Into Trucks On Purpose For Insurance Money PDF Print E-mail
Wednesday, 27 March 2013 21:35
There seems to be a whole mess of four-wheeler drivers who are involved in accidents with big rigs because no one ever taught them not to cut off a tractor-trailer traveling at 55mph when they’re only doing 35 from the on-ramp. Their mental prowess definitely leaves something to be desired, but their lack of intelligence doesn’t even come close to matching the brain-dead group of people who have been cutting off commercial trucks to get in accidents on purpose.

You might think that no one could possibly be that stupid, but that’s exactly what over 100 drivers in the Las Vegas area alone have done over the past year. According to a new report issued by the National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB), they’re doing it to try and cash in on the insurance claims.

Scams like this have been around for a long time, but only recently have they started targeting large trucks. The scam only works if the victim has a good insurance plan which large fleets almost always have. The scammers also like targeting trucks because large companies usually won’t bother challenging the claim where a private citizen might fight the claim and go to court.

This scam is being considered a major problem by the NICB, not just because of the fraudulent insurance claims being paid out, but also because the tactic is incredibly dangerous; not just to the scammer, but to the truck driver and to all of the other cars sharing the road.

The scammers are actually taking it even further in a step that takes the scam from stupid, selfish, and dangerous to downright despicable. They’re filling their cars with unwilling and unknowing passengers. They will often pick up day laborers and tell them that they are driving them to a job site. The workers, who have no idea what’s going on, are there to increase the amount that the scammer can claim in damages from the insurance company. After the accident, they are sent home and the scammer will claim to be filing damages on their behalf, but when the check comes they keep all of the money for themselves.

You can protect yourself from being the victim of scams like these by practicing safe driving habits and following these steps:

  • Install a forward-facing traffic-cam from as high a vantage point as possible. This way it can never be just your word against theirs; it provides irrefutable proof of what actually happened.
  • Take down the name, ID, and contact information for everyone riding in the car, not just the driver. Sometimes a driver will claim there were additional people in the car to increase the payout.
  • Check both the front and back license plates, write them both down and make sure they’re the same.
  • Take pictures of your vehicle, yourself, the other vehicle, and the occupants of the car. Make sure to document exactly what damage was caused by you and what damage was pre-existing.
  • Always call a police officer to the scene, even when there is only minor damage. Having someone there who can file an official report for what damage was caused in the accident will prevent scammers from claiming serious injury or damage later on.
  • Be wary of any medical or legal service providers who contact you about the crash without you reaching out to them first. Some scammers use this tactic to get your personal information.
  • Call the National Insurance Crime Bureau if you suspect a scam at 1-800-835-6422 (24 hours a day, seven days a week). Give license plate number, location of the accident, people involved, why you think this was a fraud, and as many other details as possible.

Source: Truckers Report

Don't Blame the Trucker: PDF Print E-mail
Sunday, 17 February 2013 07:50
There’s a common misconception that because truckers’ vehicles are so large, they think they can do whatever they want. On the contrary, any good driver knows that the heavier the load, the more careful they have to be. In fact, if you ask most drivers, they’ll tell you that accidents involving a car and truck are most often the car’s fault. Well, now people won’t have to just take your word for it, turns out it’s just been proven to be unequivocally true.

According to a new study published by the American Trucking Association, car drivers were assigned as factors in 81% of crashes involving both a car and a truck while truckers were assigned fault only 27% of the time. The totals add up to more than 100% because in about 10 percent of crashes, blame was assigned to both the car and truck. Even so, that means that a car’s driver is three times more likely to be a contributing factor to a crash than a trucker.

The study was conducted by the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute and used a sample size of 8,309 car/truck crashes.

Truckers came out on top in almost every single type of accident including same and opposite-direction sideswipes, head-on collisions, and rear-end crashes. The only collisions where truckers were more often found at fault were backing accidents, and they accounted for less than 1% of the crashes used in the sample.

Driver safety may still have a ways yet to go, but when you hold up truckers next to 4-wheelers, I’d say they call us professional drivers for a reason.


Source: The Trucker




1 . Americans spend $36,000,000 at Wal-Mart Every hour of every day.

2.. This works out to $20,928 profit every minute!

3. Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St. Patrick's Day (March 17th) than Target sells all year.

4. Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target + Sears + Costco + K-Mart combined.

5. Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people and is the largest private Employer, and most speak English.

6. Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the World.

7. Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger & Safeway combined, and keep in mind they did this in only 15 years.

8. During this same period, 31 supermarket chains sought bankruptcy.

9. Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the world.

10. Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had 5 Years ago.

11. This year 7.2 billion different purchasing experiences will occur At a Wal-Mart store. (Earth's population is approximately 6.5 Billion.)

12. 90% of all Americans live within 15 miles of a Wal-Mart.

You may think that I am complaining, but I am really laying the ground work for suggesting that MAYBE we should hire the guys who run Wal-Mart to Fix the economy.

This should be read and understood by all Americans

Democrats, Republicans, EVERYONE!!


To President Obama and all 535 voting members of the Legislature,

 It is now official you are ALL corrupt morons:

    * The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775. You have had 234 years to get it right and it is broke.
    * Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 74 years to get it right and it is broke.
    * Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 71 years to get it right and it is broke.
    * War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor" and they only want more.
    * Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 44 years to get it right and they are broke.
    * Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 39 years to get it right and it is broke.
    * The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. You had 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.

You have FAILED in every "government service" you have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars


Folks, keep this circulating. It is very well stated. Maybe it will end up in the e-mails of some of our "duly elected' and their staff (they never read anything) will clue them in on how Americans feel.

Author Unknown




OOIDA: MRB’s apnea cart is before the horse PDF Print E-mail
Friday, 09 December 2011 12:53

Two advisory committees agreed Wednesday to approve recommendations that could pull millions of truck drivers from the road and require billions of dollars to be spent on sleep medicine industry products and services.

In a meeting conducted jointly between the FMCSA’s Medical Review Board and Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee, both groups agreed to recommend that drivers with a body mass index of 35 or greater be required to “be evaluated for obstructive sleep apnea,” and that other drivers with potential sleep problems be immediately disqualified from driving.

Wednesday’s meeting, however, appeared to include little exchange of information between experts on both panels.

Instead, medical doctors on the Medical Review Board appeared to ignore points of concern brought by commercial vehicle experts, MCSAC members, and even medical experts seated in the audience.

Medical Review Board members used a mixture of anecdotal truck crash descriptions and presentations from researchers before moving forward with the BMI recommendation. MRB members appeared to rarely acknowledge dissenting opinion.

OOIDA Executive Vice President Todd Spencer led a chorus of trucking industry and health professionals who questioned the rampant speed with which some MRB members were pushing for an immediate recommendation.

“I think the cart is way ahead of the horse on this issue,” Spencer said. “Everyone we have heard from has had an economic interest in expanding what they characterize as an epidemic.”

Spencer pointed out that examiners aren’t given guidance to look at other sleep disorders, or a simple lack of sleep because of myriad factors U.S. truckers face on a daily basis.

“Unquestionably, apnea is fairly common in society,” Spencer added later. “Does apnea result in very many crashes? Real accident analysis suggests it doesn’t. It’s going to be far more likely that somebody just didn’t have the opportunity to get restorative sleep because that’s not an easy thing for truck drivers to do.

“Every day those who are on the road – their struggle is to find someplace where they can stop and sleep. And where they won’t get bothered, rousted and run out. Those things people need to do to maintain alertness we’re discouraged from. Drivers don’t set their own schedules; they work around everyone else’s.”

Others agreed.

“I take issue with a lot of the data presented this morning,” said Rob Abbott, vice president for safety policy at American Trucking Associations. “I think it’s inaccurate and misleading.”

Others questioned the need to approve a recommendation the very day it was presented.

“I do have a problem rushing this,” said MCSAC member Calvin Sturdivant. “This is too important to rush. I don’t understand why you need to put out guidance now, when you have an agency that’s willing to do this and do it the right way. ‘We need to do it before we leave the room?’ I don’t get it.”

Aside from the timing, an FMCSA regulation that could require millions to be tested might have unintended consequences. ATA’s Abbott said removing drivers who may possibly be at risk for apnea also will severely shrink the truck driver pool.

“We have to approach this very cautiously,” Abbott said. “30 percent of the 6 million (CDL holders) would be affected? I submit that that may be a concern. … This industry is 98 percent small business, and you don’t have the same sort of health benefits for drivers. What you’re doing is pushing them out of the industry. When we push them out of the industry, we’re inviting others in.”

One presenter, Andrew Mouton of Associates in Sleep Medicine, told the group he treats truck drivers for apnea.

Mouton appeared to question why apnea was the sole focus of the two committees.

“It’s not just apnea in truck drivers,” Mouton said. “Sleep is probably a larger issue. … Apnea is probably not the single greatest cause of sleepiness in this population. We need to be screening for sleep disorders.”

Edward Grandi, executive director of the American Sleep Apnea Association cautioned members of both committees about the ramifications of their recommendations. Grandi pointed out that apnea carries a stigma that can both hurt a driver and motivate CDL holders to keep personal health concerns underground.

Diagnosing or red-flagging an individual for sleep concerns is “putting someone on a long journey – a journey that will probably be with them for the rest of their lives,” he said.

“You have to keep in mind there are going to be drivers who will struggle with being compliant,” Grandi said. “Make it a safe place both for drivers to disclose that they have problems and to show they’re compliant.”

Ben Hoffman, chief medical officer for General Electric Healthcare and chairman of the MRB, signaled that he wasn’t interested in dialogue about whether apnea causes truck crashes.

“The train is out of the station, folks,” Hoffman said. “It’s a matter of trying to make this final regulation something that’s palatable to a large number of parties.”

Later, as MRB members quibbled over the required number of nightly hours drivers with apnea would need to demonstrate compliance, Hoffman noted how arbitrary it was to define a specific number.

“But then,” Hoffman said, “all of this is arbitrary in a sense.”

Under the recommended guidance, medical examiners won’t be required to send drivers with a BMI of 35 to sleep labs, but the guidance would serve as a strong hint.

In addition to the guidance, the committees agreed to approve a recommendation that drivers would be immediately disqualified from driving if they admit to falling asleep behind the wheel; have a fatigue-related crash; have an apnea-hypopnea index greater than 20 until they’re treated by CPAP; have undergone apnea surgery, until post-surgical evaluation; and don’t comply with CPAP treatment.

The FMCSA Medical Review Board is advisory in nature, and cannot approve its suggestions. The MRB’s recommendations are forwarded to FMCSA, which can choose to adopt, amend or ignore the recommendations.

A 5-foot-9-inch person weighing 237 pounds has a BMI of 35. The average U.S. female height is 5-foot-4-inches. A 204-pound person at that height has a BMI of 35 and would be subject to the recommended sleep apnea exam.

Larry Minor, FMCSA Designated Federal Official, clarified the power of guidance by saying medical examiners would be told: “If you encounter this situation, you should consider deferring the granting of a medical card.”

“At least you should delay granting a medical card to this individual,” Minor said. “Let’s defer issuing this person’s medical card until he sees someone to get a proper diagnosis.”

4.0 vs 2.0 GPA PDF Print E-mail

I truly wish I could take credit for writing this, but I cannot. This came in my email and is worth publishing. Feel free to copy and use it.



A young woman was about to finish her first year of college.  Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be very liberal, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch conservative, a feeling she openly expressed.  Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs.

The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.  He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew.  She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by.  All she takes are easy classes, she never studies and she barely has a 2.0 GPA.  She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast.  She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0.  That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair!  I've worked really hard for my grades!  I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work!  Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree.  She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the conservative side of the fence."

If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between conservative and liberal or progressive or neocon I'm all ears.

If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.  (Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he's "offended."



How the heck did FMCSA wind up redoing HOS again? PDF Print E-mail



Ever wonder why the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration seems to keep retooling the hours-of-service regulations?

Well, sit back and kick up your feet. Because it’s a long story and starts back in 1995…

Dec. 29, 1995 – Section 408 of the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995, directed the Department of Transportation to issue regulations addressing fatigue-related issues (that’s code for hours of service) affecting commercial vehicle safety. The DOT was given a deadline of March 1, 1999, to issue the new HOS regs.

Nov. 27, 2002 – Public Citizen, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways, Parents Against Tired Truckers and Teamsters for a Democratic Union filed suit compelling the U.S. DOT to issue the rules, which includes new hours-of-service regulations, ordered by Congress. 

April 24, 2003 – The Bush administration announced final rules to allow truckers to drive longer hours but take more time off between shifts under the first hours-of-service changes since 1939.

Dec. 1, 2003 – Public Citizen, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways and Parents Against Tired Truckers, told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that “far from improving safety, the final rule abandons virtually every principle FMCSA had proclaimed necessary.”

July 16, 2004 – A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit called the new HOS rules “arbitrary and capricious” and threw the regs out.

Sept. 30, 2004 – Congress got in on the act and passed a provision in the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004 that gave FMCSA until Sept. 30, 2005, to reformulate the HOS rules. That allowed FMCSA to keep the April 2003 HOS regs in place during the rulemaking process.

Aug. 19, 2005 – FMCSA unveiled its second attempt to retool HOS since 1939. The 2005 version kept the 34-hour restart, 14 hours of on-duty time and 11 hours of driving from the 2003 rule. However, it revised the spilt sleeper berth provision periods to eight and two hours.

Aug. 29, 2005 – OOIDA filed a petition for reconsideration with the agency. The petition included requests for two “common sense changes.” One request was for the two-hour portion of the split sleeper berth provision to stop the 14-hour on-duty clock. The other request was to allow teams to split the sleeper berth time in something other than the eight- and two-hour periods.

Oct. 1, 2005 – The newly revised hours of service went into effect, despite lingering petitions for reconsideration filed with FMCSA.

Dec. 1, 2005 – In a letter dated Dec. 5, 2005, FMCSA denied OOIDA’s petition for reconsideration.

Jan. 23, 2006 – OOIDA filed a petition for review with the DC Circuit asking the court to review the agency’s changes to the sleeper berth provision, claiming the agency “did not do adequate research to justify the decisions they did make.”

Feb. 27, 2006 – The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the Truckload Carrier’s Association and the Ohio and California Trucking Associations supported OOIDA’s court challenge and filed “motions to intervene” in the petition for review.

Feb. 27, 2006 – A second lawsuit challenging the current regulations was filed by Public Citizen. That case – although challenging the rule very differently – was eventually combined with OOIDA’s suit by the court.

July 24, 2007 – The court tossed the provision that increased driving time to 11 hours from 10 hours and the 34-hour restart provision – on procedural, not safety, grounds. In that same decision, the court denied a petition by OOIDA asking the court to consider the impact of changes to the sleeper-berth provision, thereby removing OOIDA as a plaintiff in the pending litigation.

Sept. 28, 2007 – The DC Circuit denied appeals in the HOS decision and gave the agency until the end of the year to take action on revising the regulations, again.

Dec. 11, 2007 – FMCSA once again retained the current hours-of-service regulation, allowing drivers to use the 34-hour restart and drive the 11th hour, while defending both provisions with additional research.

Jan. 23, 2008 – The DC circuit denied a petition filed by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Public Citizen, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, and the Truck Safety Coalition that asked the court to vacate the interim final rule.

Nov. 19, 2008 – FMCSA published “new” final rule in Federal Register, which made no changes to the regulation the industry had operated under since October 2005.

Jan. 19, 2009 – The current hours-of-service regulations officially went into effect.

March 9, 2009 – The third chapter in the HOS saga kicked off when four groups filed a lawsuit asking that the current version of the regulation be tossed. Filing suit were International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Public Citizen, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, and the Truck Safety Coalition.

Oct. 26, 2009 – FMCSA and Public Citizen were granted a joint motion by the court to delay legal action in order to allow FMCSA to craft new HOS regs.

Dec. 23, 2010 – FMCSA rolled out its proposed hours-of-service regulations. For a complete breakdown on the current proposal, check out the February issue of Land Line.

Jan. 27, 2011 – Public Citizen and FMCSA asked the court for “an order continuing to hold proceedings in abeyance pending the issuance of a final rule.” The court agreed ordering the parties to update the court every 60 days beginning March 29 and to file another joint motion 30 days after the final rule is published.

Information contained in this timeline was compiled by Land Line Magazine Senior Editor Jami Jones from OOIDA resources and Land Line Magazine articles.

JUDGE RULES on Minnesota Fatigue Program PDF Print E-mail
Saturday, 29 January 2011 22:17

Minnesota fatigue program violated Fourth Amendment

Friday, Jan. 28, 2011 – In what the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association legal team calls a “major victory,” U.S. District Judge Donovan W. Frank ruled the Minnesota State Patrol’s use of CVSA Level III inspections to determine fatigue violated truckers’ Fourth Amendment rights.

OOIDA and its member plaintiff Stephen K. House filed the lawsuit against the Minnesota State Patrol and individual officers on May 13, 2009, on behalf of truck drivers placed out of service after members of the patrol consulted a checklist and arrived at the conclusion the drivers were “fatigued.”

“We got a major victory on the Fourth Amendment. The court held that fatigue inspections are beyond the scope of CVSA’s Level III inspections,” Paul Cullen Sr., of The Cullen Law Firm, told Land Line Magazine shortly after Judge Frank issued his order on Friday, Jan. 28.

Cullen explained that Judge Frank ruled that, in order for Minnesota law enforcement to conduct a fatigue inspection, the officers are required to have “reasonable articulable suspicion.”

“None of the observations made in House’s inspections – which include neck size, urination habits, presence of Playboy magazines, TVs, and computers in the cab – none of those factors satisfy reasonable articulable suspicion,” Cullen said.

The decision will affect fatigue enforcement around the country, not just in Minnesota, Cullen said.

“The judge’s findings, if followed, will affect other states as well that are conducting fatigue inspections,” he said. “Level III inspection procedures are not broad enough to allow officers to inspect for fatigue. This means that they will need to have reasonable articulable suspicion or probable cause in order conduct such inspections.”

Judge Frank also ordered that OOIDA and member plaintiff House are entitled to attorney’s fees.

“That’s a very big victory,” Cullen said.

Editor’s Note: OOIDA’s legal counsel is continuing to review Judge Frank’s order and will provide further analysis in the coming days. Watch for updates on OOIDA and Land Line Magazine’s websites as well as coverage on the Association’s radio show, Land Line Now on Sirius XM.

Copyright © 2011 OOIDA

Are WE Tired, SICK and Tired.. PDF Print E-mail
Friday, 07 January 2011 19:12

Times in our Great Nation are hard enough, families are losing everything due to lack of Jobs, Land is being seized and too many of our Homes are in foreclosure. It doesn't have to be this way America. We all have a voice and it's that Voice that will being about the changes; We need to take back our country, OUR LIVES!

I am a simple man; lead a simple (but struggling) life. But I have never, NOT voiced my opinion. Here on War on Truckers is a great place to do just that. Join In, speak your mind, offer your ideas. People in Very High Places take notice to the Squeaky Wheel, BET ON IT..Start SQUEEKING!!!!

I started a Facebook page titled TS2011, Truck_Strike_2011, become a part of it, Join the Group. Facebook has gotten it's notoriety and being a part of it may just make a difference, it can't hurt. Check it out here; join the Group if you really want to make things better for yourself, your family and all of ours.




Minnisota State Patrol starts Fatigue enforcement again PDF Print E-mail


Tuesday, Nov. 2, 2010 – Although the court has not yet ruled on OOIDA v. Minnesota State Patrol, the patrol is back on the job – with retrained officers and new policies – enforcing its regulations and policies regarding ill and/or fatigued truck drivers.

At the end of the federal trial in September in which the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association and member plaintiff Stephen K. House challenged the fatigue enforcement practices of the Minnesota State Patrol, the MSP agreed to a moratorium on the fatigue impairment plan per a Sept. 2 internal order issued by the state patrol. This order halted fatigue enforcement until officers were “further trained.” The roll-out of the new enforcement program was planned for Oct. 1.

In court, OOIDA attorney Paul Cullen Sr. asked for a stay on the MSP’s fatigue enforcement program beyond that Oct. 1 roll-out. The state agreed to stay their enforcement program until the end of October.

OOIDA was informed on Nov. 1 that the moratorium was over. One week before a ruling is expected in OOIDA’s suit over the state’s fatigue enforcement practices, Minnesota Office of the Attorney General officially notified OOIDA that it would be “enforcing the applicable laws, regulations and its policies regarding ill and/or fatigued commercial vehicle drivers.”

Maj. Kent O’Grady, head of the MSP’s training project confirmed Tuesday that the training is now complete and the patrol is back in the enforcement business regarding ill and/or fatigued commercial drivers.

O’Grady is currently serving in Operations Support Services, a section of state patrol that oversees litigation and training, among other areas.

“All of our officers have undergone some increased training including constitutional rights, how to detect impairment at roadside, how to properly document that impairment,” O’Grady said. “We’ve got increased supervision in the program. Before somebody is placed out-of- service for illness or fatigue by a Minnesota State Patrol employee, that decision needs to be run past an on-duty supervisor.”

O’Grady said every North American Standards-certified inspector, including people from the commercial vehicle department and other departments, as well as MSP’s civilian counterparts – inspectors with Minnesota DOT – were included in the training. The training consisted of six different classes during October, an 11-hour course when completed.

OOIDA President and CEO Jim Johnston says the Association does not believe there is any accurate way to determine fatigue at roadside and has “clearly established this in court.” He said OOIDA is suspicious of any attempt by the Minnesota State Patrol to restart such a program.

“We want to know if drivers see an effort toward some type of illness/fatigue enforcement being carried out on Minnesota highways,” said Johnston. “Drivers can phone us 24/7.”

During business hours, Johnston said drivers can call OOIDA Business Assistance Department at 1-800-444-5791. After hours, drivers can call Land Line Now’s listener comment line, 1-800-324-6856, and press 3. Make sure to leave a name and phone number.

Johnston said he expects a ruling from the U.S. District Court in Minnesota soon.

– By Sandi Soendker, managing editor
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

The parking problem continues - the fight over rest area commercialization. PDF Print E-mail
Written by David Jeffers   
Wednesday, 22 September 2010 22:28

Available truck parking in the U.S. has been a crisis for some time, and the closure of highway rest areas only compounds the issue. Some states with major budget issues have proposed the commercialization of their rest areas in order to keep open or re-open the rest areas. NATSO (National Assn of Truck Stop Owners) is dead set against the idea and is fighting it in Washington citing a law written in 1956 that bans the commercialization of rest areas. NATSO criticizes any proposed changes to the law because it will affect local businesses near freeways. NATSO of course wants to prevent any competition for the Truck Stops it represents.

The year is 2010, not 1956. Times have changed! In 1956 there were alot less trucks. Truck parking wasn't a major issue. Today it has hit critical mass in much of the country. If we can legalize abortion, marijuana, and same sex marriage then surely we can legalize the commercialization of rest areas. The benefits are obvious, RESTED TRUCK DRIVERS!

If the concern is the loss of profits to local businesses, then pass laws that the vendors operating in the rest areas come from the same state that the rest area is located. It's not rocket science. The people that are most against commercialization of rest areas are the TRUCK STOPS. Motorists can park anywhere they want, trucks cannot. The truckstops will still be full every night, they will still have business.

Fatigue is the hot topic in trucking. More truck parking will go a long ways to ensure that truck drivers can get a good night's sleep in a safe and secure location. Commericalizing rest areas will give truckers more options with services he/she needs like a hot meal and a place to rest.

Call your representitives today, repeal the 54 year old law. Legalize the Commercialization of highway rest areas.

CARB admits using faulty science, will change off-road diesel rules PDF Print E-mail
Tuesday, 12 October 2010 17:55


The California Air Resources Board acknowledged last week that its research behind an off-road diesel rule missed the mark by 340 percent.

The acknowledgement comes on the heels of last year’s revelation that a CARB researcher faked his resume and repeatedly lied to his employer while developing science behind CARB’s proposed on- and off-road diesel rules.

As reported in the San Francisco Chronicle, CARB admitted last week that its scientific analysis overestimated diesel pollution levels by 340 percent in 2007. That research helped form the foundation for comprehensive off-road diesel engine rules that affect many construction businesses.

The same researcher, Hien Tran, also analyzed science behind CARB’s on-road truck and bus regulation, which has been estimated to cost the trucking industry $10 billion to comply with.

The off-road rule has been amended. The on-road rule has been amended multiple times and is slated for formal adoption at CARB’s December board meeting.

CARB’s recent on-road truck and bus amendments include not requiring particulate matter filters to be retrofitted for trucks with model year engines 1997 and older. Also, no trucks would need to be replaced until 2015. All trucks must have 2010 MY engines by 2023, and companies must replace trucks at least 20 years old between 2015 and 2020. Trucks with 2009 and older MY engines must be replaced between 2021 and 2023.

CARB says the on-road amendments should decrease the trucking industry’s burden by 60 percent.

Joe Rajkovacz, OOIDA director of regulatory affairs, said OOIDA was critical of scientific “guesstimates” in comments the Association submitted during the rulemaking process of California’s Drayage Truck Rule.

That practice of stretching science has hurt CARB, Rajkovacz said.

“Coupled with the scandal involving Tran’s falsified education credentials and Mary Nichols’ lack of transparency in disclosing that information to her own board, CARB has a credibility gap with most of industry,” Rajkovacz said.

In comments the Association filed with CARB during the agency’s process adopting the statewide drayage truck rule, OOIDA pointed out the power of CARB’s regulatory actions and the importance that its science and rules be carefully constructed.

Rajkovacz said CARB should welcome public examination of its science, or risk damaging its reputation.

“Political support for initiatives designed to clean the air we breathe are significantly harmed when both the science and process used to justify the regulations are themselves a puff of smoke,” Rajkovacz said.

– By Charlie Morasch, staff writer
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Truck-related traffic fatalities drop 20% PDF Print E-mail
Wednesday, 22 September 2010 22:20

WASHINGTON  –  The number of truck-involved traffic fatalities declined 20 percent in 2009, dropping from 4,245 in 2008 to 3,380 in 2009, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced Sept. 9.


The reduction is the lowest level in recorded Department of Transportation history and also shows a 33 percent decrease in fatalities since........



Page 1 of 3

JoomlaWatch 1.2.12 - Joomla Monitor and Live Stats by Matej Koval
Copyright © 2017 warontruckers.com. All Rights Reserved.
Joomla! is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL License.
<br/><a href='http://www.fitlink.com/bmi-calculator'>BMI Calculator</a>