Letters to the Editor: Fifth Wheels, Congestion Fees, HOS Ruling, Hazmat Regulations

These letters appear in the August 6 print edition of Transport Topics.

Fifth Wheels

Allow me to begin by expressing our appreciation for including information about JOST Interna-tional in the July 9 edition of Transport Topics’ Equipment & Maintenance Update supplement in an article titled, “On the Care and Feeding of the Humble Fifth Wheel” (E&MU, p. 1).

I feel compelled to comment on a point raised in the article by Jim Frieze, equipment manager with O&S Trucking.

Frieze said that from a maintenance vantage point, a fleet manager’s life would be a lot easier if fifth wheel companies had products that were more interchangeable. He said as it stands now, you are pretty much stuck with the fifth wheel on the truck when you buy it, unless you go through major modifications.

When JOST launched our North American fifth wheel program in 2000, we found the sentiment expressed in the article by Frieze was quite common and widespread among fleet managers within the heavy-duty transportation industry. At that time, top plates manufactured by other companies weren’t interchangeable; a fleet manager was held captive and had no choice when it came time to rebuild or replace product. They were faced with somewhat exorbitant costs for replacement parts, the reality of intensive labor to rebuild competitive wheels, and some concern regarding the liability exposure involved with rebuilding original equipment.

This opportunity to make fleet managers’ lives easier is the foundation that allowed JOST entry to the North American market. We listened to our customers and do manufacture aftermarket top plates that are interchangeable to competitive brackets, in addition to our full line of fixed mount and slider assemblies for factory first-fit.

In the early years of the JOST North American fifth wheel program, before we gained data book publication with the major original equipment manufacturers, aftermarket fifth wheels were a large part of our business and they remain so today.

Rich Carroll

Vice President, Sales and Marketing
JOST International
Grand Haven, Mich.

Congestion Fees

Congestion fees are not going to solve anything. It is like with gas prices: People have to travel, so they will get to where they have to go, regardless.

These so-called congestion fees are what is causing congestion, pollution and aggressive drivers on the road.

People just want to go, instead of sitting in traffic jams that will change their mood to aggressive.

We need to make decisions that will work. Congestion fees will not solve anything — period. I don’t understand why we even are trying to clean our air, if all we do is stop traffic everywhere we go to collect tolls.

Get rid of all tolls — period — and we will all live in a greener, cleaner house.

Joseph Torres
Director of Driver Training
Keystone Freight Corp.
North Bergen, N.J.

Onboard Recorders

The “Big Brother” argument against electronic onboard recorders is as old as complaints about drivers having to log their hours. As a former driver and now someone who monitors drivers’ hours-of-service compliance, I am 100% in favor of any measure that will require drivers to run legally.

There is no argument out there that will hold any sway in a lawsuit against a driver who was running illegally and ended up killing someone because he or she was driving fatigued.

Truck drivers have been complaining about the hours-of-service laws since they were instituted in the 1930s. They complained about the old hours, and they complain about the new ones. The fact remains that, given the opportunity, too many drivers are willing to drive until they drop before pulling over.

If electronic onboard recorders force drivers to take necessary breaks and end up saving just one life, I say, “Go for it!”

Bob Guyette
Driver Development Coordinator
Paper Transport Inc.
Green Bay, Wis.

HOS Ruling

Regarding the recent hours-of-service ruling in the news July 24: The bottom line is we need a rule where the driver has an incentive to take a break if he feels fatigued. The cur-rent rule encourages the driver to keep going because a one- to eight-hour break will penal-ize him.

I guess common sense will not prevail. Nobody knows better than the driver if he or she is tired. I guess the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration will determine when driv-ers are tired, rather than themselves. In my opinion, this is a very dangerous ruling.

John Lampsa
General Manager
Truckserv
Waukesha, Wis.

Hazmat Regulations

With regard to hazmat regulations, I feel the process is in severe need of adjustment. The government is focused on the wrong direction. Regulators need to redesign the way they oversee certain things.

They are in dire need of a focused leader. They have no clue, especially when it comes to the hazmat regs. They need to simplify the process.

No, I don’t have all the answers. However, if a driver is required to haul hazardous materi-als, a few things need to happen:

• The carriers that require drivers to haul hazardous materials should pay the outrageous fees associated with getting the endorsements added.

• The government needs to focus on the system of getting a hazmat endorsement. There is no need to gouge a driver for $100. That may be stretching it a bit, but it’s close.

• Drivers with hazmat endorsements should be paid more by the industry as a whole.
The government is in severe need of adjustment on hazmat rules and regs.

Dywana Ray
Driver
Janus International
Winston, Ga.

Regarding the fingerprinting requirements for drivers transporting hazardous materials: At our company, we have tried to turn this requirement into a positive asset, one more step in verifying the driver’s background.

Although it’s true a driver hauling paint product compared with a driver hauling anhy-drous ammonia would not seem to be equal, any driver qualified to haul hazmat can pull a hazardous material of any type at any given time, so it would only stand to reason that all hazmat certification would be treated equally.

The real problem would be having a system with different degrees of hazmat endorsements —  that would be a nightmare in trying to determine who could pull what load and who could not.

As for driver statements about the cost of the test and the fact that it was never required before, I’m sure the same statements were made when the Department of Transportation introduced the requirements for keeping an hours-of-service log or when random drug testing became mandatory.

I certainly feel better when driving down the road and meeting another truck that at least some safeguards are in effect, requiring the other driver to answer to some rules and regu-lations concerning the safe operation of his/her vehicle.

As for the added cost, our company pays for the fingerprinting as well as for annual physi-cals. We do this in appreciation for the great job the drivers do each and every day. (I un-derstand that not all transportation companies provide this for their drivers, but maybe they should be required to pay this fee.)

Meanwhile, we also require each driver to abide by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations as a requirement of their employment. The statement that once fingerprinted, you should not be subject to fingerprinting again, would be like saying if you take one drug test and pass you should never be tested again.

Just because a person passes the first fin-gerprint check does not mean nothing can change in the subsequent four or five years.

As for drivers’ giving up hazmat endorsements, there are only so many trucking companies that do not transport hazmat, as many other industries have learned the hard way that if you don’t want to do it, there is always someone else who will.

Instead of complaining about how unfair things are, we should be working for fair and equal working conditions for all truckers, safe equipment and safe drivers.

Larry A. Lile
Safety/Security Director
Louisville Cartage Co. Inc.
Louisville, Ky.