Letters to the Editor: Op-Ed Responses, No to Bigger Trucks, Highway Funding, Slow-Pay Blues, Saving on Fuel
These Letters to the Editor appear in the Aug. 4 print edition of Transport Topics. Click here to subscribe today.
Op-Ed Responses
Regarding the recent Op-Ed piece “Truck Crashes Happen: Be Ready” by Curtis Parvin (7-14, p. 5; click here for previous piece) — in an injury crash, a drug and alcohol test is required only if the driver receives a citation and the injury is treated immediately, away from the scene of the accident. The driver then must be tested within the following limits: alcohol testing within eight hours and drug testing within 32 hours.
Tom Pomeroy
Safety Consultant
DOT Compliance Consultants
Minneapolis
In a bulleted item, the author states, “Test the driver for drugs and alcohol. Federal law requires drug testing in any accident with injury.”
Could the op-ed writer or someone at Transport Topics please identify where this is stated in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations? Section 382.303 of the FMCSR clearly contradicts this statement.
According to that section, the injury would require immediate medical treatment away from the scene of the accident, and the driver would have to receive a citation for a moving violation for a drug test to be required. Some clarification would be appreciated.
Kerry Anderson
Safety Coordinator
Willow Run Foods
Binghamton, N.Y.
Editor’s Note: Opinion writer Curtis Parvin’s response to the two letters above follows. To read the rule in its entirety, go to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s Web site at www.fmcsa.dot.gov, type 382.303 into the site’s search engine and follow the link to Part 382 of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations: Controlled Substances and Alcohol Use and Testing.
Author Responds
The purpose of the article was to provide, in very short form, key elements about dealing with an accident. In a short article, going into specific nuances on each issue is not practical. Certainly, much more can be written on each of these topics.
A small handbook might be helpful for day-to-day use. Thus, while the critique is technically accurate, it remains true that as a general rule, drug testing is required in injury accidents, whether by statute or by law enforcement practice.
Indeed, not all moving violations are determined on-site and may be charged after a full investigation has been completed. By that time, it is too late.
In addition, the reality in litigation is that plaintiff’s counsel will make much hay out of the failure to take a drug test, and a jury may not understand the nuances of when it is required and when it is not, nor do they always care.
Therefore, best practices call for a drug test to be performed in any injury accident.
Curtis Parvin
Managing Partner
Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold
Irvine, Calif.
‘No’ to Bigger Trucks
I am writing to you in response to the article in the July 14 issue titled, “Industry Urges Bigger Trucks, But Key Lawmaker Has Doubts.” I would like to know who in the industry is in favor of these increases.
I am 100% opposed to any in-creases in size and weight limits at this time or any time in the future. I do not believe it would benefit the industry as a whole, and it would cause more problems than so-called “increased productivity” would alleviate.
Heavier trucks would accelerate the deterioration of the nation’s roads and bridges. Our roads and bridges are in terrible condition. Funds are not available for repairs and maintenance, and the trucking industry will not be able to absorb increased taxes, fees or tolls to provide the required funds for maintenance or new construction.
If sizes and weights are increased, shippers will expect the carriers to haul the larger loads for the same prices we are hauling them for now. This would be counterproductive and would actually cost the carriers more in terms of operating expenses. This would decrease the profitability of the nation’s carriers at a time when they are struggling to maintain profits.
H.E. Whitener
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
TrailLiner Common Carrier
Springfield, Mo.
Highway Funding
Instead of increasing the federal fuel tax for the motoring public, who can ill afford such an increase at this time, why not create a windfall profits tax for the oil companies’ net profits and apply that money to the federal highway fund (7-7, p. 3)?
With the grossly high profits the oil companies are making at this time, they can afford a tax for the highway fund far more than the motoring public can.
Many in our motoring public are putting food on the table or fuel in the tank — but not both. So, what makes more sense: taxing big oil or taxing commuters and truckers even more than they are paying now?
Robert Fisher
Company Driver
Sonora, Calif.
Let’s hope that the government uses the $8 billion restored to the Highway Trust Fund for what it was intended (7-28, p. 2).
How many people remember 1998, when they raided the Highway Trust Fund for the same amount? Probably the interest on $8 billion would have funded all the bridge work required in the state of Maine. Good article — thanks.
David Litchfield
Account Executive
MMS Inc.
Royal Oak, Mich.
Slow-Pay Blues
I have sat here and watched my accounts receivables grow and grow, but we are not putting any money in our pockets. I also know that if this is happening to us, it is happening to everyone else. Since the Interstate Commerce Commission has gone away, shippers no longer are required to pay freight bills in seven days. In fact, most pay long after 30 days. This delay has sprouted new ideas that are not good for trucking, like factoring and quick-pay companies that just extend the misery.
When you fuel your truck, you must pay the truck stop now. They don’t give you 30 days. Lumpers want their money now, not in 30 days. Shippers and brokers should be required to pay freight bills within 10 days — no exceptions. Shippers want their freight shipped right now, but then resort to slow pay.
Has anyone else had a problem with a broker and then found out that not one government agency will come to your aid? I believe brokers are regulated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, but I don’t think there are any rules under which FMCSA can go after brokers and fine them for violating the rules. We need a set of rules for brokers that FMCSA can enforce — with severe fines.
If rules are good for trucking companies, then rules are good for brokers.
Jerry Morehouse Jr.
President
W.N. Morehouse Truck Line Inc.
Omaha, Neb.
Saving on Fuel
It is a big fuzzy puzzle that fleets still have not found other ways to save on fuel costs that can make money for them.
The old statement, “Purchase fuel in bulk and slow down,” is old-school thinking. There are more ways than that to decrease tractor and trailer drag, taking away miles per gallon — a big saving.
Check out the Web. There are fleets seeing and getting more mileage by using products you’ll find there.
James Poulicek
Manufacturer’s Agent
Andersen Flaps Inc.
Rome, Ga.
