Freight better, parking worse, and what about CSA?

The good news is that freight volumes have been improving of late.  Rates have been going up a bit too, although not as much as I would like.  The bad news is, parking is getting to be even more of a problem.

Not only are there more trucks on the road competing for the limited number of parking spaces available, the number of available spaces keeps decreasing.  States are closing rest areas, parking of trucks is being restricted more and more by regulations, truckstops are going out of business, and nobody seems to care.

Areas in which I normally never had a problem finding a place to park are now becoming difficult.  For some time now, I’ve limited the areas in which I operate to those where it’s relatively easy to find a place to park.  Mainly, I stay west of the Mississippi river.  I’ll go a little way east of there, but anything east of I-75 is off limits for me.  It’s just too difficult to find safe and legal parking in that part of the country.

When it comes to CSA  the early results seem to be mixed.  On one hand, most drivers and larger carriers are quite concerned about it, and are taking actions to make sure their scores are low.  On the other hand, some drivers and smaller carriers are simply doing business as usual — and that’s a bad thing.  A carrier seems to have to be really bad (and/or have a fatality) before any action is taken.  A small local carrier could conceivably stay pretty much under the radar by simply not being inspected very often.  If you’re not regularly operating on the interstate system and crossing scales, you’re just not going to be inspected much.  Even if you are, as long as your truck looks halfway decent, you still probably won’t get inspected much.

What I’d like to see, is the DOT move away from their fixed scales, and go more to setting up checkpoints at various other locations.  They should take a particular look at occupational haulers — things like trash truck, gravel trucks, log trucks and the like.  Many of those types of jobs pay rather poorly, so they’re not getting the cream of the pool of drivers.  Some states do this quite often — others, only rarely.

What’s this, you might ask? A truck driver advocating more surprise DOT inspections?  You betcha.

To paraphrase John Donne, “Every truck wreck diminishes me”.  Whenever there’s a spectacular wreck that involves a truck, regulators and enforcers hurry to close the barn door after that particular horse has already gotten out.  For example, there was a major wreck some years ago in Maine that killed a number of teenagers.  It turned out that the truck driver involved had done some very creative mathematics with his logbook.  So, for about the next six months or so, if you went to Maine, you were almost certain to have your logbook looked at.

Ergo, by cracking down on the miscreants, putting the bad companies out of business, and getting the lousy drivers off the road, it will make my life on the road a lot easier.  Eventually.  Maybe.

Hang up and drive, and don’t even think about texting and driving.

td

The Diverging Diamond Interchange

Ok – Here’s my take on the DDI.  I’ve included the email correspondence (with permission) from Gilbert Chlewicki, P.E., who is the President of Advanced Transportation Solutions.

 

Hi Gilbert,

Very interesting website.  I first became aware of the DDI thanks to a post on InjuryBoard.com, where I’m a contributing author.

The particular post is at: http://stcloud.injuryboard.com/automobile-accidents/st-clouds-diverging-diamond-traffic-safety-or-175-mllion-boondoggle.aspx?googleid=287742

I’ve been by the one on I-44 in Missouri many times, but haven’t been through it yet.

I watched the videos with the post, and gave your website a thorough read.

Here are my concerns:

1.  There’s no provision for proceeding back onto the original highway after exiting.

Truck drivers often pull off on ramps to check maps, answer calls etc. Also, they sometimes take the wrong exit.  With this design, there’s no way to get directly back onto the highway again.  This is something that can have very serious consequences in a truck.

Also, sometimes overdimensional or overweight permitted loads sometimes need to use these ramps to get around a low clearance, or weight limited bridge.

2.  The angle of the roadways shown is insufficient to give a semi truck adequate visibility to the right to safely make the left turn. The second attached file (left turn1.jpg)  shows where I’m talking about.
.

How would you address these issues?

Your comments to the post at InjuryBoard would also be welcome.

Thanks,

Truckie-D

Thanks for writing Truckie-D.  Let me try to address your issues as best as possible.

1) No thru movement for ramp traffic – This is true and it is the one small set back of the design.  But for all the benefits that the design has, it is usually worth that one drawback, since the only people who generally need to go straight are people who get off a wrong exit.  But it is only a small inconvenience for most drivers to simply go to the next intersection and make a u-turn.  Admittedly, this movement is a little more inconvenient for truckers.  At the I-44/SR 13 DDI, I saw firsthand that it wasn’t that hard for trucks to make a u-turn at one of the nearby intersections or at a gas station.  There is a large volume of truck traffic through that interchange on both I-44 and SR 13 and that was taken into consideration.

A DDI shouldn’t be designed where there are clearance issues on the highway for trucks.  Any half decent engineer should realize this when designing the interchange.  So I wouldn’t worry about clearance issues at a DDI to force ramp thru movements.

With all that being said, I have designed a DDI that does allow thru movements for the ramps.  It is called an Expanded Diverging Diamond Interchange.  This would allow the use of a DDI in a place like Texas where the service roads next to the interstate will require some sort of thru movement.  The only issue with the Expanded DDI is that in order for it to be an efficient design, it needs a lot more land; at least the size of a full cloverleaf interchange.  And it is still a bit limited on how much ramp traffic that wants to go straight will be able to get through the intersection before the design becomes inefficient.

2) Visibility for left turns – The sketch that I have on the website is just to show clearly where each traffic movement goes.  When designed in real life, the angle takes into account sight distance issues.  Next time you drive through Springfield, MO take the opportunity to go through the DDI and make a left.  You’ll see that it is very easy and that everything has been designed for large trucks to make the turns easily and see the traffic very clearly.  For other DDIs, where the left turns are a little more difficult, a traffic signal will sometimes be placed for these lefts.

Please feel free to post these comments on to your blog.  If I can assist you in any other way, please let me know.

Gil

Hi Gil,

Thanks for your reply.

On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 7:37 PM, Gilbert Chlewicki <gchlewicki@atsconsults.com> wrote:

Thanks …

… But it is only a small inconvenience for most drivers to simply go to the next intersection and make a u-turn.  Admittedly, this movement is a little more inconvenient for truckers.  At the I-44/SR 13 DDI, I saw firsthand that it wasn’t that hard for trucks to make a u-turn at one of the nearby intersections or at a gas station…

I don’t consider this a minor item.  The company that I lease to has an extremely strict no u-turn policy – and with good reason. Doing one results in instant unemployment.  A u-turn in a semi is extremely dangerous. It exposes the side of the trailer to traffic, and has no underrun protection.  Any smaller vehicle hitting one tends to decapitate the occupants, which is generally frowned upon.  It also results in huge settlement costs.

Also prohibited, again with good reason, are turnarounds on private property.  Doing one is automatically considered as a chargeable preventable collision — even if there’s no damage.  Most of the time, things such as driveways aren’t designed for trucks, and a truck can cause severe pavement damage.  This can get very expensive very fast.   There may also be clearance issues with signs etc. that can be difficult to see.

A DDI shouldn’t be designed where there are clearance issues on the highway for trucks.  Any half decent engineer should realize this when designing the interchange.  So I wouldn’t worry about clearance issues at a DDI to force ramp thru movements.

Mr. Murphy constantly rears his head in the trucking industry.  If a bridge has n feet of clearance, someone will want a load moved through there that requires n+1 feet.

With all that being said, I have designed a DDI that does allow thru movements for the ramps.  It is called an Expanded Diverging Diamond Interchange.  This would allow the use of a DDI in a place like Texas where the service roads next to the interstate will require some sort of thru movement.  The only issue with the Expanded DDI is that in order for it to be an efficient design, it needs a lot more land; at least the size of a full cloverleaf interchange.  And it is still a bit limited on how much ramp traffic that wants to go straight will be able to get through the intersection before the design becomes inefficient.

I’d love to see a diagram of this. Can you send me one?

2) Visibility for left turns – The sketch that I have on the website is just to show clearly where each traffic movement goes.  When designed in real life, the angle takes into account sight distance issues.

Ok, that makes sense.

Next time you drive through Springfield, MO take the opportunity to go through the DDI and make a left.  You’ll see that it is very easy and that everything has been designed for large trucks to make the turns easily and see the traffic very clearly.  For other DDIs, where the left turns are a little more difficult, a traffic signal will sometimes be placed for these lefts.

I’ll try to get through there sometime and take a good look.

Please feel free to post these comments on to your blog.  If I can assist you in any other way, please let me know.

Ok, I’ll do that.  I will make one suggestion – that any of these interchanges that don’t allow thru traffic be signposted on the highway in advance of the ramp.  I really hate surprises like that.

Also, if you ever want a truck driver’s point of view on something, please feel free to email me.  I’m a safety fanatic, so I’m willing to do whatever I can to help.  If you’d like to know more about me, visit my blog, and take a look.

Thanks,

td

 

So, that’s the scoop.  I haven’t heard anything more from Gilbert about the through traffic version.

While it may be a good idea for use in limited circumstances, I’m afraid that I’m going to have to come down quite firmly opposed to the usage of the DDI design, because of the issues noted above.

 

td

Solving the US-Mexico Trucking Problem

Ten steps toward a solution

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you should be aware of the current trade spat between the US and Mexico over allowing Mexican trucks to operate in the US.

There are legitimate causes for concern, particularly from the US point of view.  The thing is, these could be addressed relatively easily.  This post will take a look at some of the items of concern.

First, if you haven’t already done so, read my post about Mexican cross-border trucking here: http://truckied.wordpress.com/2009/03/01/mexican-cross-border-trucking/

For the purposes of this post, when I say truck, I’m referring to a five axle tractor-trailer, as is commonly operated throughout North America.

First on the list of concerns (at least my list) is safety.  We can divide this into three general areas:  vehicles, drivers, and cargo.

Let’s take a look at vehicles first.  The number one key to keeping a vehicle in good and safe working order is proper maintenance and inspections.  From everything I’ve seen, this just does not happen on a regular basis for trucks coming out of Mexico.  Please don’t accuse me of prejudice.  I can tell a safe truck from an unsafe truck.  The issue has been raised that the Mexican trucks I see in the border zone aren’t typical.  Maybe or maybe not.  The bottom line is, they’re being operated on US highways, and need to be in compliance with the regulations regarding equipment.  Period.  The good news is, there seems to be more action by the US authorities on cracking down on these trucks.  I picked up a load in Laredo last week.  When I got to the forwarder, I was told that the trailer hadn’t come across the border yet, but they expected it to arrive in an hour or two.  Nine(!) hours later, here comes the truck and trailer – on a wrecker.  Evidently, the truck had been inspected at the border and placed out of service, so they brought it in on a wrecker.  Works for me — I got my load and went down the road.

When it comes to properly maintaining trucks, it pretty much boils down to money — namely, the willingness (and ability) of the truck’s owner to pay for maintenance and repairs.  To be fair, this is true of all trucks – not just those from south of the border.  If freight rates are too low, profits are small, and one of the first things to go is maintenance — the old “we can get a few more miles out of it before we really have to fix it” mindset.

The ports of L.A. and Long Beach in California have been trying to address a similar problem with the drayage drivers that work the ports.  Their approach was to ban owner/operators, and require all drivers to be employees of a trucking company, the theory being that a company will run newer trucks, and maintain trucks better than o/o’s will.  The whole port thing has been the subject of a bunch of legal wrangling ever since it was proposed, and is still ongoing.

Action #1 – Set minimum freight rates for all freight moved within the US.

I’m not a big fan of government regulation of anything, but I think there should be a reasonable minimum freight rate set, that will allow companies to make enough that there won’t be any excuse for poorly maintained trucks.

Action #2 – Require more frequent vehicle inspections.

Other than a daily pre-trip inspection by drivers, the Federal requirement is only for an annual inspection.  A lot can break on a truck in a year’s time.  This should be bumped up to quarterly.  That’s still quite a while between inspections, but more frequently would help.

Action #3 – Require that vehicle inspections be done by a certified 3rd party inspector.

Right now, trucks can be inspected by pretty much whoever.  I can go buy a blank inspection form and inspection sticker, fill it in, and stick it on the truck myself.  Perfectly legal, as long as I’ve actually done the inspection.  Requiring inspections to be done elsewhere (and auditing inspectors) would help.

Next, let’s look at drivers.  We can further divide this item into operations, and qualifications.

Let’s tackle qualifications first.  All truck drivers are required to hold a valid Commercial Driver’s License (CDL).  There are a series of qualifications required to obtain and maintain that license, which I won’t address here, with one exception.  There are rumors and conjecture that obtaining a CDL south of the border is simply a matter of handing the right amount of cash to the right person.  That wouldn’t surprise me a bit, since it can be done that way here in the US, so I think it likely that is probably true.  Every now and then, some 3rd party CDL tester (in the US)  gets shut down for handing out CDL’s to people who can’t drive.  One of the usual results of this is that everyone who got their license from that tester get pulled back in for retesting.  The perception is, that such things are far more common south of the border.

Action #4 – Mexican drivers should be required to take and pass the CDL skills test at a US testing location.

It may seem discriminatory and unfair, but doing so would silence the critics on this particular issue.

The one CDL qualification that I will discuss here, is the requirement to be able to speak and understand sufficient English to communicate with the DOT and law enforcement personnel.  As mentioned in another post on my blog, there have been quite a number of citations handed out in the US for insufficient language ability.  This requirement should actually be modified to “be able to speak and understand sufficient of the language of the country being operated in to communicate with the DOT and law enforcement personnel”.  Specifically, every CDL holder should be tested on and in the appropriate languages.  There should be three possible endorsements: English, Spanish and French.  If a driver is operating in the US, that driver needs the English endorsement.  For Mexico, Spanish.  For Quebec, French.  Eventually, we may have drivers going to and from other South American countries, so possibly Dutch and Portugese will eventually need to be added.

Action #5 – Add language endorsements to the CDL

Some years ago, I took a load into Quebec.  I know just about enough French to be dangerous in a French restaurant, and that’s about it.  It was one of the scariest trips I ever had, so I can sympathize with how a Mexican driver with only a limited knowledge of English would feel driving in the US.  It may seem like a small thing, but take it from me, it’s really a major issue.

When it comes to operations, the #1 concern raised by many is driver compliance with the DOT Hours of Service (HOS) regulations.  This is nothing new, and has been a problem everywhere since the regulations were first put into effect, and is not limited to drivers from any particular country.  The solution is pretty simple – require Electronic On-Board Recorders (EOBR’s) for all trucks.  The DOT already requires them for trucking companies with safety problems.  Many other companies are also using them, since it simplifies the handling and auditing of driver logs.  The company I lease to uses them, and I like it a lot better than paper – much simpler and faster.  They’re not particularly cheap, but then, they’re not that expensive either.

Action #6 – Require EOBR’s for all trucks operated within the US.

There is a great deal of resistance from many drivers over EOBR’s.  Having one means the elimination of “creative mathematics” when it comes to logging hours.  The perception is, that it’s going to reduce driver’s wages.  My philosophy is, if I can’t make a decent living with one logbook and operating within the regulations, then I’m working for the wrong company.  I don’t want to work that hard, or expose myself to the liability risk.

There’s also resistance from some companies on two fronts:  first, the cost of installing an EOBR, and second, liability issues.  There are a lot of companies that do push drivers harder than they should, and an EOBR would show this.

Another concern is that of having the required insurance and permits for trucks operated in the US.  Our entire system of licensing and permitting trucks is still rather antiquated.  I carry a binder around an inch and a half thick, that has nothing but permits and the like.  Whenever I get inspected by the DOT, I have to drag it out and show the inspector my registration, insurance card, IFTA permit etc.  Usually they don’t check much more than that, unless I’m hauling hazmat.  It’s still an improvement from the days when I started trucking, when the binder was about twice the thickness of the current one, and the truck was covered with all kinds of stickers and plates.  Now, my truck is down to just one plate, with an IFTA sticker on each side.  Not perfect, but better.

What we really need, is a central repository of the required information, and a means for the authorities to verify that information as needed.

We’re actually part of the way there.  Let me digress a moment and talk about Automatic Vehicle Identifiers, or AVI for short.  You’ve probably seen them, and may even have one — basically, we’re talking about an electronic toll tag on steroids.  I have one in my truck – it works as a toll tag, and also identifies my truck to the DOT.

You’ve probably seen the signs on interstate highways around weigh stations that say something like “AVI trucks follow in-cab signals”.  A little further on, you’ll see an antenna or two mounted on poles, and maybe some plates set in the roadway.  What happens is, first, the weigh station interrogates the truck’s transponder, which identifies it.  Next, the truck is weighed (by those plates in the roadway), and the information is transmitted to the weigh station.  The weighmaster can then decide to pull the truck in, or not.  It can be automatically set to pull in trucks over a set axle or gross weight.  Trucks are also pulled in randomly.  Random pull-ins are a percentage, based on a particular company’s safety result, but is at least five percent.  If the weighmaster chooses not to pull in the truck, a green light flashes on the transponder (and it also beeps) , which tells the driver to proceed without stopping.  A red light will illuminate (with a different pattern of beeps) instructing the driver to pull in to the weigh station.  Not getting any indication is treated the same as getting a red light.  After getting a red light, it’s the same thing as a non-transponder equipped truck going through a weigh station.

AVI has a number of benefits for both drivers and the DOT.  Drivers benefit from time saved, and reduced fuel consumption.  When I first got my transponder, I was on a dedicated run, and had to make 6 scale crossings a week.  AVI gave me an increase of about a tenth of an mpg.  This may not sound like a lot, but it works out to around 200 gallons a year of diesel fuel saved — and that’s based on an average of about one scale a day bypassed.  In some areas of the country, there are far more scales, so 200 gallons a year per truck is probably very much on the low side of savings.

For the DOT, it lets them concentrate their enforcement efforts on trucks and companies that are more likely to have problems, and not waste time on compliant companies.  For example, when you go through Colorado, you’ll get pulled in at the first scale you come to.  They’ll do a check of your registration etc. and enter it into their computer system.  After that, it’ll likely be a year or so before you have that checked again, since they already have the information linked to the truck’s transponder.  Saves time and effort for everybody.

Action #7 – Require AVI transponders for all commercial vehicles operated in the US.

A system such as used by Colorado could be done nationwide, and all of the information stored centrally, with insurance companies being required to report policy validity, state operating authority, hazmat authority etc. all maintained, which could largely automate paperwork checks, and allow more manpower to be used for inspecting equipment.  Transponder readers could also be added on highways around the country that could be used to audit fuel tax returns, help track stolen trucks, and those violating the regulations regarding cabotage.

One of the concerns of the trade unions involved is the loss of jobs and erosion of wages due to cabotage.  As applied to trucking, the term means a load is moved within a country by a truck registered outside of that country.  This is a legitimate concern, and a concern of mine as well.  There are a lot of shippers who simply don’t care who moves their freight – as long as it’s cheap.

Action #8 – Implement stiff penalties for shippers, brokers, receivers, and carriers violating the cabotage rules.

These regulations need some serious teeth – as in space alien monster sized teeth.  The penalties need to be substantial enough that nobody will even think of doing it.

I wrote earlier about setting minimum freight rates to help with maintenance.  These are also necessary for companies to pay drivers a reasonable wage.  Most people outside of the trucking industry don’t realize that wage and hour laws don’t apply to anyone subject to DOT hours of service regulations.  No minimum wage.  No overtime.  So, if you can convince somebody to drive a truck for a nickel an hour, and work a 70 hour week with no overtime, it’s perfectly legal to do so.

Action #9 – Set a reasonable minimum wage for all drivers operating in the US.

The whole idea about setting minimum freight rates and wages, is to create a level playing field.  By doing so, I think it would silence most of the critics about complying with the NAFTA provisions on cross-border trucking.

The final area that I want to address is that of smuggling.  Whether it’s guns, drugs, illegal aliens or whatever, it’s a serious problem now, and opening up our border has the potential to make it far worse than it already is.  In this area, the main stumbling block seems to be the sheer volume of freight moving across the border.  It’s far more than it’s currently possible to inspect.

Action #10 – Inspect 100% of all trucks crossing the border.

This action seems to conflict with the statement I made in the previous paragraph — or does it?  As the system is currently constituted, yes, it’s impossible.  However, we could change the way we do things, and cost effectively inspect 100 percent.  How? By distributed labor.  If you haven’t heard of it already, go take a look at Amazon’s Mechanical Turk here:  https://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome

Basically, what you can do is divide up a task (such as looking at x-ray images of trucks) among thousands or tens of thousands of workers.  So, we require every truck that crossed the border to get x-rayed. First we add a whole bunch of truck x-ray machines.  Then, we set a reasonable amount for each one looked at, throw in a substantial bonus for finding a smuggler, and tack the price on to the customs fee that’s already collected for crossing the border.  While such a system won’t catch everything, it could augment the existing border inspections, and help CBP target their conventional inspection efforts more effectively.  This also has the added benefit for people who are otherwise unable to obtain conventional employment a new avenue to earn a wage.  All they would need is some vetting,  training, a computer, and an internet connection.

The above ten points, while not totally comprehensive, should at least point the way to solving the problem that seems to have eluded the politicians on both sides of the border.

Comments and questions are welcome.

 

 

 

Restaurant Guide

It’s a common saying that “truck drivers know all the good places to eat”.  This is actually pretty much true, at least for places with truck parking.  Drivers, like most people enjoy a good meal.  So, how do they know where to eat?

For drivers on a regular route, it’s pretty simple.  Either trial and error, or word of mouth (or CB). Those of us who pretty much run randomly around the country have to use a different strategy.  Here are some pointers I’ve learned over the years on picking a place to eat when you’re somewhere you’ve never been before.

First, take a look at the outside.  It doesn’t have to be a brand new building, but it should look halfway decent.

Next, check the parking lot.  If it’s around mealtime, especially dinner, look for local cars in the parking lot.  The more there are, the better the food is likely to be.  If the lot is empty except for the restaurant staff, you’re probably better off looking elsewhere.

When you walk in, take a good sniff.  A restaurant that serves good food will smell good.  If it smells bad in any way, shape, or form, turn right around and walk out.  Even if the food was good, who wants to spend an hour in someplace that reeks?

The next thing to check is the cashier.  Ideally, you want to see somebody paying their check.  If the cashier asks “was everything alright” or words to that effect, it’s probably a good bet.  The places with bad food generally know it, and get tired of hearing about it from their (probably very few) customers, so they almost never ask.

Before going to sit down, make a quick visit to the restroom.  If it’s a smelly, filthy disaster area, turn around and leave.  If they aren’t maintaining the bathrooms that their customers are going to see, it makes you wonder what their kitchen hidden away in the back looks like.

Then, take a look at the dining room.  It should be clean and neat, with tables ready for customers.  If there are a lot of tables covered with dirty dishes, that’s a warning sign. You should heed it and go elsewhere.

Even if a restaurant meets all of the above criteria, it’s still no guarantee of good food.  I always ask the waitress how the food is, or how a particular menu item is.  Usually I’ve gotten a reasonably truthful response.  If you’re told that the food is bad, give her a tip for the tip and be on your merry way.  Also be sure to ask what’s the best thing on the menu.  Beware if she tells you that she doesn’t eat there.

I also have a rule, that if it’s not spelled correctly on the menu, I won’t eat it.  For example, a Mexican dish came with “Pico de Gayo” (instead of Pico de Gallo – and in Texas too!). Another ( very expensive)  restaurant offered “Tuna Tar Tar”.  Sounds more like road patch, rather than a tasty Tuna Tartare. My philosophy is, if they can’t even spell it, can they make it properly?

Also, look for the cook.  Eating at a place where the cook is skinny is risky.  In my experience,  good cooks are usually  packing at least a few extra pounds.

Flies and roaches are an immediate trip to the D list.  Yes, even the best of restaurants can end up with a fly on occasion, but the good ones hunt them down immediately.  I don’t like competing with bugs for a meal.

After I leave a restaurant, I record comments on my trusty computer.  I use the A,B,C,D system.  “A” is for “Always stop and eat there, even if you’re not hungry.  “B” is for “if you Be hungry, it Be ok to eat there.  “C” is for “if you Cee this place, Ceep on trucking because the food is Crap.  “D” is for “Don’t even think about stopping there, even to park.  It’s pretty easy to get on my C and D list, and pretty tough to get on my A list.

Where possible, I prefer independent restaurants over the national chains, the idea being that the independent has to be better than the chains in order to compete with them.  While this is frequently the case, it’s not a hard and fast rule.  Some of the most horrendous places I’ve ever seen were independents.  The chains are usually at least mediocre, but not always. Independents also frequently offer regional dishes that the chains don’t.

Bad food is something that I find particularly annoying, because there’s absolutely no excuse for it. I don’t demand gourmet cuisine — just food that’s properly prepared and tastes good. How hard is that?  Evidently, pretty difficult for some restaurants.  I don’t mind paying for good food, but I do expect value for my money.

Truckstop and restaurant managers, please take note:  stops cost a significant amount of money in a truck.  It can take from one to three gallons of fuel just to get a truck back up to highway speed after a stop, so the idea is to make every stop serve multiple purposes. If I’m going to have to eat elsewhere because the food is bad, I’m going to fuel elsewhere too. Even if the pump price is a little higher, it still works out cheaper by eliminating an extra stop.  One bad meal, and you can end up on my C or D list.  It’s the responsibility of management to make the food good, so if your cook is  turning out garbage, then it’s your job to fix it.  Read carefully the items I’ve listed above.  If you fail any of them, then you’ve got trouble.

I hope this guide will help my readers find good food, and maybe even improve a few bad places.

Comments and questions welcome.

Weird stuff on the road

<Whoo eeee oooo weird music> I picked up a load yesterday in Los Angeles, and headed east with it.  While driving across the desert in Arizona, I suddenly began thinking about tsunamis.  I live in the midwest, so tsunamis are not something that usually occupies my thoughts very much — even less so when I’m in the middle of the Arizona  desert.  Imagine my surprise, when I stopped for the night, and read the news of the tsunami that hit American Samoa.  Just plain weird.

Propaganda is an ugly word

This post is an echo of one I made at: http://voices.injuryboard.com/tractor-trailer-accidents/propaganda-is-an-ugly-word.aspx?googleid=271152

We need to get a few things straight here. You can think of this post as a wholesale reply to the IB posts listed at the end of this article. The list of IB posts that I’ve given isn’t complete — there were so many that I finally quit wading through them. All of them either reference the recently published AAJ or CVSA statistics.

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines propaganda as “…the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person; ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect”

Let’s read a comment recently posted here on IB:

In response to http://charlottesville.injuryboard.com/tractor-trailer-accidents/four-out-of-five-aint-bad-new-research-fnds-1-out-of-5-trucks-unfit.aspx?googleid=270194 was the following:

“Posted by Brandon
September 03, 2009 8:31 AM

This “study” by the American Association for Justice–formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America–makes numerous false claims about the trucking industry and appears to be nothing more than an attempt to scare citizens into suing motor carriers.

Facts show that the truck-involved fatality rate is now at its lowest since the U.S. Department of Transportation began keeping those statistics in 1975.

Many of the “violations” cited by the AAJ are merely de minimus paperwork violations that have no effect on safety. In addition, 28,000 motor carriers make up only 4.8 percent of the number of the 579,759 motor carriers in the United States as reported by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

Regarding AAJ’s mention of the July 2009 Government Accountability Office study, except for two references, the report is focused exclusively on bus companies. ATA supports efforts by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to put unsafe trucking companies out of business, and supports giving further resources to FMCSA to help them prevent those companies from reopening under a new name.

The overwhelming majority of fatal truck-involved crashes are caused by passenger vehicles. According to a 2002 study by the American Association of Automobiles, 80 percent of fatal truck-involved crashes are caused by passenger vehicles. A 2006 Virginia Tech analysis of two studies conducted for the Department of Transportation found that 78 percent of crashes were caused by passenger car drivers.”

Much has also been made of the 20% Vehicle Out Of Service (OOS) rate during the 2009 CVSA Roadcheck event.

Let’s talk a little bit about trucks, defects, the CVSA, and their annual Roadcheck event. According to the 2009 CVSA RoadCheck numbers,(http://www.cvsa.org/news/2009_press.aspx) about 20% of the vehicles inspected were placed OOS. Of that number, about 70% were for brakes, lights, or tires. Sounds pretty bad, until you look at it’s actual impact. According to the LTCCS at (http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Articles/ESV/PDF/18/Files/18ESV-000252.pdf), tire and brake failures together accounted for less than 1% of crashes in their sample. Hmmm….that seems to be considerably less than 20%, Let’s take a more detailed look at a couple of the most common defects that inspectors find — air leaks, and brakes out of adjustment, and look at how things really are.

First, let’s deal with brake adjustment. Most air-brake equipped trucks nowadays have automatic slack adjusters on their brakes. These actually do an excellent job keeping brakes properly adjusted. Paradoxicallly, good drivers are actually more likely to have brakes that have drifted out of adjustment. This is because automatic adjusters only function when their preset stroke length is exceeded. Light brake applications (which is what good drivers do) don’t usually reach full stroke, and over time, fail to compensate for wear, causing the brakes to gradually go out of adjustment. This is actually easy to remedy — all it takes is applying the brakes firmly a few times, and that will bring them back into adjustment. Having any of the 10 sets of brakes on a tractor-trailer out of adjustment is DOT OOS.

Air leaks are the other common defect that inspectors find. The DOT OOS criteria are “more than 4 pounds of air loss in a minute for combination vehicles” and “any audible air leak”. The most common are audible air leaks. Are these really hazardous? Mostly not. For example, the air compressor in my truck is capable of maintaining safe operating pressure in my braking system with a completely severed 1/4″ air line. It will also keep up operating pressure for a completely severed 3/8″ air line, as long as the engine rpm stays high enough. That’s actually quite a lot of air. Leaks of this severity are very much the exception rather than the rule — and get fixed quickly. Mostly what you get are minor leaks — a little seepage around a fitting, or a pinhole chafed through a line, both of which are simple (and cheap) to fix. A little twist of a wrench, or cutting the line and inserting a splicer fitting quickly remedies the problem. These air leaks don’t even have to be in the actual braking system at all. There are many accessories on trucks that are air operated, but have nothing to do with the braking system, other than sharing a common air supply, yet are still considered OOS if leaking.

Most of the time, when these minor items are found on an inspection, the result isn’t a citation and being placed out of service. The inspector will simply say “fix it”. A quick twist with a wrench will correct that maladjusted brake, or tighten up that leaky fitting. During Roadcheck, it’s another matter entirely. Then, the idea is to write as many citations as possible, for every flaw that can be found, no matter how minor.

The manner of selecting trucks for inspection also influences OOS rates. Inspectors frequently target older trucks, or from particular companies, or use other strategies in an attempt to raise the probability of finding something wrong. In other words, the 72,782 truck and bus inspections conducted during Roadcheck 2009 are far from being a truly random and representative sample of the trucks on the highway. Therefore, the 20% OOS figure being applied to all trucks on the road, is (at best) a seriously flawed use of statistics.

According to Ralph Waldo Emerson, “Fear always springs from ignorance.”
Bertrand Russell continues in the same vein with “Neither a man nor a crowd nor a nation can be trusted to act humanely or to think sanely under the influence of a great fear.”

If fear springs from ignorance, then what springs from misinformation?

As I said (in part) in a response to: http://voices.injuryboard.com/tractor-trailer-accidents/as-americans-take-to-roads-this-labor-day-new-report-details-epidemic-of-deadly-trucks.aspx?googleid=269704,

“...Rather than using such scare tactics, wouldn’t it be more productive to do something to help alleviate these problems? How about supporting Jason’s Law? If you’re not familiar with it, you can go to (http://truckied.wordpress.com/jason/). What about the serious long-term problems with grocery warehouses? (see: http://voices.injuryboard.com/tractor-trailer-accidents/why-groceries-cause-truck-crashes.aspx?googleid=263138).

Truck bashing doesn’t solve problems; what it does, is give us badly written regulations and ineffective programs, which is the situation we’re in now. Things are slowly changing, but until the hysteria stops, and logic, science, and good sense are applied, there will be a lot more preventable deaths and injuries.”

Mark Twain said: “The history of the race, and each individual’s experience, are thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.”

This seems to be the case with the constant reappearance of this same flawed information over and over.

One of my purposes in writing a blog here on IB is to try to correct this type of misinformation, and to help educate IB’s members and readers about trucks and truck safety. If fear comes from ignorance, then respect comes from education. I’d really like to see more diligence by authors when writing about trucks. If there’s something you’re not sure of, or have a question about, send me an email and ask. That’s what I’m here for. Please help me to educate and inform, and stop with the scare tactics and sensationalism. Leave that to the grocery store tabloids.

Comments welcome.

The following is the list of articles that this is a reply to:

http://virginiabeach.injuryboard.com/tractor-trailer-accidents/trucking-crossroads-interstate-i81-in-virginia-scene-of-spate-of-trucking-accidents.aspx?googleid=271052

http://wilmington.injuryboard.com/tractor-trailer-accidents/mother-hit-by-tractor-trailer-while-changing-tire-on-i40-highlights-need-for-safety-precautions.aspx?googleid=270910

http://bentonville.injuryboard.com/tractor-trailer-accidents/gambling-on-the-road-18-wheelers.aspx?googleid=270524

http://vancouver.injuryboard.com/tractor-trailer-accidents/truck-accidents-on-the-rise.aspx?googleid=270210

http://charlottesville.injuryboard.com/tractor-trailer-accidents/four-out-of-five-aint-bad-new-research-fnds-1-out-of-5-trucks-unfit.aspx?googleid=270194

http://nashville.injuryboard.com/tractor-trailer-accidents/companies-keep-unsafe-trucks-and-drivers-on-the-road.aspx?googleid=270026

http://bloomington.injuryboard.com/tractor-trailer-accidents/report-finds-thousands-of-unsafe-trucks-on-americas-highways.aspx?googleid=269898

http://northdallas.injuryboard.com/tractor-trailer-accidents/are-us-roads-filled-with-unsafe-trucks.aspx?googleid=269794

I got appreciated by Michaels

A few days ago, I got up, and got moving for what I expected to be another routine day.  I headed on up to Fort Worth, Texas, and delivered the load I had, dropping my trailer at the consignee (nice and quick and easy doing that). Dispatch sent me over to Michaels (http://www.michaels.com) warehouse in Fort Worth to pick up an empty trailer.  Purely routine.

I got to their warehouse, and checked in with security.  The young lady working security at the gate was both pleasant and professional.  Did the normal sign in routine etc. Still normal.  Then, suddenly things changed.  Not for the worse, which would be typical, but for the better.  Lots better.

She  invited me to take one of their gift bags (which was full of bagged snacks, and a small American flag), and to help myself to a bottle of nicely chilled water from the ice chest.

That was a surprise.

When I inquired as to the reason for this generosity, she told me that “It was truck driver appreciation week.  Didn’t your dispatcher tell you?”   This was news to me, since I had gone all week without being appreciated at all. As usual.

The bottle of very cold water was particularly welcome, since the temperature there was hovering around 100 degrees.  It doesn’t take long to hook up a trailer, but in that kind of heat, you lose water pretty fast.

While it doesn’t sound like much, this is so far past the normal treatment of truck drivers, that it turned what had started out as a mildly crappy week, into a good one.  In fact, I’m still in a good mood, and still munching on the snacks.

Thanks Michaels.  It’s really nice to be appreciated.

Comments welcome.

Times are tougher than I thought

Running from North Carolina down into Mississippi last week, I stopped at the Pilot truckstop in Jackson, MS for some diesel and a burger.  After I filled up and had my lunch, (it was straight up noon local time) I got on the phone to my travel agent about a load.  While I was talking to her, a local lot lizard came up and started banging on my door.  I told my travel agent to hold on for a second, and I made go away motions at the lot lizard, who finally gave up and moved on.  When I got back on the phone, my travel agent asked me what all that banging was.  I told her, and she started laughing and said “times must be really tough if they’re coming out during the day”.  I agreed, and added “yeah, and it’s pouring rain here too”.  I had to wait for her to stop laughing to get on with getting a load.

She got me a load into Texas, which is where I wanted to go, so I could stop in and fix the brakes on my daughter’s car.  Even with the extra fuel I had to burn going out of the way to get there, it still worked out to less than a third of  the price the local auto repair place wanted to do the job.  It also took me less than two hours, and that includes getting my tools out, putting them away, and cleaning up afterward.

Freight has actually been better lately.  My miles are back up to around 2800+ a week, which is about as hard as I really want to work.  The selection of freight has been improving too, so I may soon be able to go back to rejecting anything that goes east of I-75 again.  The bad news is that diesel prices have been inching up over the last several weeks.   Overall, not too bad.

Kudos to Michael St. John and Jody Cicero

This post is an echo of a post I made at: http://voices.injuryboard.com/tractor-trailer-accidents/kudos-to-michael-st-john-and-jody-cicero.aspx?googleid=267372

Excuse me while I pick myself up off the floor. I just read a story about a truck crash at: http://www.freep.com/article/20090716/NEWS05/907160605/1007/news/Truckers-averted-worse-toll-on-I-75–cops-say

that actually had NICE things to say about the truck drivers involved. It seems a novice car driver took a turn too fast, and crashed into a tanker load of fuel. The actions of tanker driver and driver of another involved semi turned what could have been a major crash with multiple fatalities into one where all the involved drivers walked away. (One was treated and released for bruises).

A while back, I put up a post regarding the DOT’s statistics that show around 80% of the car vs. truck crashes are the fault of the car driver, and this is a prime example. It’s a nice change to see the media report give the truck drivers credit for their quick thinking and professionalism in keeping a bad situation from turning worse.

Good Job Michael and Jody!

Good News

This post is an echo of a post I made to: http://voices.injuryboard.com/tractor-trailer-accidents/good-news.aspx?googleid=267328

While the economy might be in the doldrums, the good news is highway safety is improving. A story at: http://www.jordannews.com/news/national-politics/minnesota-trucking-related-fatalities-drop-nearly-18-107 relates that truck related fatalities dropped nearly 18% in Minnesota for 2008.

Another story at: http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090712/GPG03/907120644/1247 tells that truck related fatalities dropped 12% in Wisconsin during the same period. It also tells us that safety is a priority for the trucking industry.

Yup. Sure is — at least for most companies. The problem is those few companies who don’t realize their bottom line depends on safety, or (incorrectly) believe that being safe will “cost more money than it’s worth” or have other negative impacts on their business.

Get a clue guys. If you think improving safety won’t improve your bottom line, then you’re conducting business with your head in the sand. Not only that, but you may end up with plenty of time to contemplate this courtesy of either State or Federal authorities. A story here: http://www.wfsb.com/news/19843596/detail.html tells of the six year prison sentence handed to a trucking company owner for a truck with defective brakes. A brake job on a truck is only a few hundred bucks — and I’ll bet his legal fees were considerably higher than that. Hmm….I guess saving the price of the brake job wasn’t such a good deal after all.