Where are we heading? If you are a fleet manager or involved with fleet technology - a glimpse of the future came this past week at the 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transportation Systems. Concerned primarily with traffic congestion and the role of various types of highway transportation modes using the nation's highways, there are insights to be learned and money to be saved.
When you dispatch a truck, would you like to route the truck based on current and forecast traffic levels? How valuable would it be for a driver to actively know alternative routes to bypass congestion? Would you like to proactively revise routes in progress to react to traffic flow and still meet customer needs? The obvious answer is yes.
What is this all worth to a fleet? Instead of costing your fleet by the mile, determine your cost per hour and I will bet you'll find it costs $1/minute to keep your class 8 truck on the road. Every minute your trucks are delayed costs you money.
Commercial drivers are restricted to 14 hours consecutive on duty time before they must take a break. If a driver starts his day at 0400, that driver must take a 10 hour break at 1600. Keeping the driver rolling is imperative to the bottom line of the driver and the company.
For those of you not interested in hypotheticals and who do not have time to waste thinking about technology that is not affordable or not available - I have good news. Every component to create such a system is commercially available today. These systems are literally right around the corner. And, do not look to your big companies to bring these systems to market first. It will be the smaller companies who leverage currently available open systems.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
HOS Regulations to Stay
Eight years of legal battles are over - the hours of service regulations are going to stay. The FMCSA this morning released their final rule concerning commercial drivers' hours of service regulations - section 395.
John Hill, FMCSA administrator said "There have been procedural rules that have been identified by the court. We are properly addressing the concerns of the court, I feel confident that moving forward is the best public policy at this time.”
Drivers, shippers, carriers, and enforcement officers do not have to learn yet another set of rules. In my opinion, that is good news.
We have one more ruling we are waiting on regarding hours of service, the revision to the twenty year old electronic onboard recorder (EOBR) regs.
John Hill, FMCSA administrator said "There have been procedural rules that have been identified by the court. We are properly addressing the concerns of the court, I feel confident that moving forward is the best public policy at this time.”
Drivers, shippers, carriers, and enforcement officers do not have to learn yet another set of rules. In my opinion, that is good news.
We have one more ruling we are waiting on regarding hours of service, the revision to the twenty year old electronic onboard recorder (EOBR) regs.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
New Hours of Service allowed driving and rest periods?
The US Court of Appeals back in July of 2007 tossed out certain parts of the "new" commercial drivers hours of service provisions - provisions we have all gotten quite used to. In the case of regular route carriers (many private fleets, postal fleets, and LTL carriers) entire terminal systems were reconfigured. The court responded to a lawsuit, and specifically objected to the increase of allowed driving time from 10 hours per shift to 11 hours per shift, and to the 34 hour restart of the cumulative hours (70 in 8 days or 60 in 7 days).
However, it is important to note that the ruling was tossed because of procedural reasons. The court did not see that the FMCSA actually did what Congress asked it to do back in 2002 - scientifically prove the affect of the hours of service regulations on drivers' health. The court did not toss the rule based on the rule itself. This is important - and why I believe that the rule will not be changed but that there will be proof that these rules changes improve drivers' health.
We'll soon see if I am right. Back in October the agency sent the final rule to the White House OMB. The White House is very adamant about getting the final rule out by the end of this year. Will the final rule that is approved by the White House Office of Management and Budget be the same? As I mentioned, I bet it is the same as this "interim" rule we are operating under now. And will this new rule be challenged again in the courts? Will Congress step in - something that neither party has shown a willingness to do since 2002? We may see by the end of the year.
And by the way, the HOS fun is not over. There is a new ruling on EOBR's that is rumored to be out around the end of the year as well. This new rule, if it is like the proposal (Notice of Proposed Rule making 395.16) will mean substantial technology changes.
However, it is important to note that the ruling was tossed because of procedural reasons. The court did not see that the FMCSA actually did what Congress asked it to do back in 2002 - scientifically prove the affect of the hours of service regulations on drivers' health. The court did not toss the rule based on the rule itself. This is important - and why I believe that the rule will not be changed but that there will be proof that these rules changes improve drivers' health.
We'll soon see if I am right. Back in October the agency sent the final rule to the White House OMB. The White House is very adamant about getting the final rule out by the end of this year. Will the final rule that is approved by the White House Office of Management and Budget be the same? As I mentioned, I bet it is the same as this "interim" rule we are operating under now. And will this new rule be challenged again in the courts? Will Congress step in - something that neither party has shown a willingness to do since 2002? We may see by the end of the year.
And by the way, the HOS fun is not over. There is a new ruling on EOBR's that is rumored to be out around the end of the year as well. This new rule, if it is like the proposal (Notice of Proposed Rule making 395.16) will mean substantial technology changes.
Friday, November 7, 2008
The Case for Adopting an EOBR Now
Although they’ve only recently hit the news in a big way, electronic onboard recorders have been approved for use in lieu of handwritten records in the United States and Canada for 20 years. EOBRs, as the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration calls them, produce paperless electronic truck-driver logs compliant with the federal hours-of-service rules.
EOBR’s were first approved for use in October 1988. In the past twenty years, various groups have called for mandating EOBR use in the name of highway safety. And while it’s almost a Pavlovian reaction for any group, including truckers, to take a negative view of any technology advocated by a vocal pressure group, the fact is that thousands of fleets have adopted EOBRs — even though their use remains voluntary and they are not inexpensive.
Why do fleets spend money on onboard technology? The answer is simple: Fleets implement technology when it increases their returns through increased safety, higher revenue miles, lower operating costs or all of the above. Onboard computers perform many functions that affect the bottom line, only one of which is the ability to keep paperless logs.
It’s not bad public relations, either. Safety and the public’s perception of commercial vehicles and the trucking industry go hand in hand, particularly in the case of an accident. The implementation of an onboard computer system, including an EOBR, creates the positive impression that a company cares about safety and is committed to giving its drivers a reasonable and legal work schedule.
Onboard computers that measure driving performance give the driver feedback on critical driving habits that directly influence safety and fuel efficiency. And an EOBR makes it easier to measure hours-of-service compliance, providing the tools to adjust dispatch schedules with greater efficiency.
It’s also worth noting that this type of professional onboard environment has been shown to improve driver retention — a somewhat surprising development, given all the warnings that drivers confronted with EOBRs and other such onboard devices would simply walk away and find another profession.
A recent survey conducted by the American Transportation Research Institute, a nonprofit research organization affiliated with American Trucking Associations, noted, “Motor carriers using EOBRs have not experienced the negative impacts on driver retention expected by the motor carrier nonusers.”
Perhaps the drivers are simply happy to hand over the perpetual headache of recordkeeping. Increasingly complex U.S. and Canadian rules, especially those regarding sleeper-berth provisions and shorthaul operations, increase the burden on carriers and drivers to keep their logs accurate. With every concession, exemption or exception for a segment of industry, hours-of-service rules become harder to understand and calculate. Drivers and fleet operators are under increasing pressure to comply as the repercussions of noncompliance become harsher for all concerned. In this environment, shifting clerical tasks away from drivers has become a proven “best practice.”
According to the ATRI study, 19% of fleets that use EOBRs report an increase in driver retention and 76% report increased driver morale after they implemented these devices. No fleets reported lower driver retention after implementing an EOBR.
FMCSA estimates that drivers using electronic logs spend 20 minutes less per day filling out paperwork than drivers using paper logs. However, many fleets report greater time savings with paperless logs, especially with the most recent sleeper-berth rules. Properly preparing handwritten logs is time-consuming, difficult and displaces part of the driver’s focus on the real job. Also, more drivers are entering the job market without any previous connection to the trucking industry. Teaching them about today’s hours-of-service rules is hard work.
How does EOBR technology work? The fleet chooses the specific hours-of-service rule they use. This allows the system to operate within the six- or seven-day cycle, intrastate or interstate, applying proper exemptions and exceptions. The driver indicates the beginning and end of work periods by electing on-duty and off-duty status. The EOBR calculates distance, determines location at each change of status and keeps track of worked and available hours.
Fleets can elect to automatically warn drivers when they are in danger of exceeding allowable time and when they have exceeded allowable time. Whenever the vehicle is stopped, drivers can look up a detailed daily log or a summary recap of hours.
Back at the office, the truck communicates via several different methods, from satellite to terrestrial wireless, Wi-Fi hotspots to memory cards. Carriers can review logs current up to the last synchronization. More important, carriers can instantly review who is in and out of compliance, plus plan dispatch schedules, without reviewing each individual log or relying on manually created recaps or summaries.
Although rumors have circulated for years that electronic logs are going to be federally mandated, trucking has not waited for the government to act. Lower-cost, easier-use, and more reliable technology that increases fleet safety has been adopted without government intervention. So instead of waiting to install a government-mandated, static technology, when it is forced on the trucking industry, consider voluntarily adopting a known — and improving — technology now.
EOBR’s were first approved for use in October 1988. In the past twenty years, various groups have called for mandating EOBR use in the name of highway safety. And while it’s almost a Pavlovian reaction for any group, including truckers, to take a negative view of any technology advocated by a vocal pressure group, the fact is that thousands of fleets have adopted EOBRs — even though their use remains voluntary and they are not inexpensive.
Why do fleets spend money on onboard technology? The answer is simple: Fleets implement technology when it increases their returns through increased safety, higher revenue miles, lower operating costs or all of the above. Onboard computers perform many functions that affect the bottom line, only one of which is the ability to keep paperless logs.
It’s not bad public relations, either. Safety and the public’s perception of commercial vehicles and the trucking industry go hand in hand, particularly in the case of an accident. The implementation of an onboard computer system, including an EOBR, creates the positive impression that a company cares about safety and is committed to giving its drivers a reasonable and legal work schedule.
Onboard computers that measure driving performance give the driver feedback on critical driving habits that directly influence safety and fuel efficiency. And an EOBR makes it easier to measure hours-of-service compliance, providing the tools to adjust dispatch schedules with greater efficiency.
It’s also worth noting that this type of professional onboard environment has been shown to improve driver retention — a somewhat surprising development, given all the warnings that drivers confronted with EOBRs and other such onboard devices would simply walk away and find another profession.
A recent survey conducted by the American Transportation Research Institute, a nonprofit research organization affiliated with American Trucking Associations, noted, “Motor carriers using EOBRs have not experienced the negative impacts on driver retention expected by the motor carrier nonusers.”
Perhaps the drivers are simply happy to hand over the perpetual headache of recordkeeping. Increasingly complex U.S. and Canadian rules, especially those regarding sleeper-berth provisions and shorthaul operations, increase the burden on carriers and drivers to keep their logs accurate. With every concession, exemption or exception for a segment of industry, hours-of-service rules become harder to understand and calculate. Drivers and fleet operators are under increasing pressure to comply as the repercussions of noncompliance become harsher for all concerned. In this environment, shifting clerical tasks away from drivers has become a proven “best practice.”
According to the ATRI study, 19% of fleets that use EOBRs report an increase in driver retention and 76% report increased driver morale after they implemented these devices. No fleets reported lower driver retention after implementing an EOBR.
FMCSA estimates that drivers using electronic logs spend 20 minutes less per day filling out paperwork than drivers using paper logs. However, many fleets report greater time savings with paperless logs, especially with the most recent sleeper-berth rules. Properly preparing handwritten logs is time-consuming, difficult and displaces part of the driver’s focus on the real job. Also, more drivers are entering the job market without any previous connection to the trucking industry. Teaching them about today’s hours-of-service rules is hard work.
How does EOBR technology work? The fleet chooses the specific hours-of-service rule they use. This allows the system to operate within the six- or seven-day cycle, intrastate or interstate, applying proper exemptions and exceptions. The driver indicates the beginning and end of work periods by electing on-duty and off-duty status. The EOBR calculates distance, determines location at each change of status and keeps track of worked and available hours.
Fleets can elect to automatically warn drivers when they are in danger of exceeding allowable time and when they have exceeded allowable time. Whenever the vehicle is stopped, drivers can look up a detailed daily log or a summary recap of hours.
Back at the office, the truck communicates via several different methods, from satellite to terrestrial wireless, Wi-Fi hotspots to memory cards. Carriers can review logs current up to the last synchronization. More important, carriers can instantly review who is in and out of compliance, plus plan dispatch schedules, without reviewing each individual log or relying on manually created recaps or summaries.
Although rumors have circulated for years that electronic logs are going to be federally mandated, trucking has not waited for the government to act. Lower-cost, easier-use, and more reliable technology that increases fleet safety has been adopted without government intervention. So instead of waiting to install a government-mandated, static technology, when it is forced on the trucking industry, consider voluntarily adopting a known — and improving — technology now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)