Letters: EOBRs for Mexico, HOS & EOBR Subsidy, Bogus Letters
These Letters to the Editor appear in the March 28 print edition of Transport Topics. Click here to subscribe today.
EOBRs for Mexico
I cannot believe what I just read: “U.S. to Require EOBRs on Trucks From Mexico and Plans to Pay for Them With Federal Money” (3-14, p. 1).
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is going to pay for electronic onboard re-corders for the Mexican trucks that will be entering this country? The government is forcing U.S. trucking companies to install EOBRs and pay for them out of their own pockets?
I am not getting this at all.
If FMCSA can pay for the Mexican trucks to have EOBRs, why not U.S. trucks? Our government is helping out others and yet not putting or keeping the money here in the good old United States of America.
I do understand that they will be bringing in revenue, but then where will that money go? Not to the government but back to Mexico.
I am just in awe.
Debrah Ekhoff
Trucking Company
Safety Coordinator
Lansing, Ill.
I’m assuming the FMCSA also will be paying for all of our electronic onboard recorders when this becomes mandatory.
I think not.
If anyone needs any more examples of why our country is in such bad shape financially, here you go.
Mike Smith
Vice President
Smith Trucking Inc.
Worthington, Minn.
What’s next? Government-sponsored health care for Mexican drivers? Perhaps repairs paid for by the U.S. Department of Transportation on Mexican trucks broken down in the United States? Or, while we’re at it, even before they enter, to prevent accidents.
And why not give vacation and other mileage pay for the Mex-ican drivers, paid for by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services?
I think Mexican drivers deserve benefits as our public-sector government employees — and definitely must be entitled to a pension.
Leonard Korbel
President
Transport Designs Inc.
Burnsville, Minn.
How about this president? He opens up the borders for Mexican truckers with the requirement that they use electronic onboard recorders — and then tells the American taxpayers we have to foot the bill.
Oh, by the way, the FMCSA also will be requiring American trucking companies to use EOBRs, but American truckers will have to pay the bill for this new regulation themselves.
Yep, welcome to change you can believe in.
Dave Miller
Founder, Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
Gnosis Management Group LLC
Chelsea, Mich.
The current administration does not see the unfairness in favoring Mexican carriers over U.S. carriers. They seem to forget the many taxes U.S. carriers pay, as opposed to Mexican carriers, beginning with Federal Excise Tax and on from there.
This is a money-losing deal all the way around for our government and another bad decision for the U.S. carriers who must pay their own way.
The giant sucking sound you hear is the American economy going south.
Joe Rinehart
Logistics Agent
Atlanta
Can somebody tell me why we, the U.S. taxpayers, are going to subsidize foreign trucking companies by buying and installing EOBRs on their trucks, while making American trucking companies pay for their own trucks to have EOBRs — plus their share of subsidizing their competition?
If the Mexican government does not mandate EOBRs, the same as the U.S. government and the Canadian government, I see no reason why we should have to provide EOBRs at our cost. The Mexican truckers can buy and install them at their own expense if they want to compete for the same business our American trucking companies compete for.
Dain Hansen
Former Truck Driver
Lakewood, Wash.
Our government is out of control. They are going to pay for Mexican trucks to install EOBRs and not do the same for U.S. trucking companies?
The government must have a mindset of unlimited funds at its disposal. No wonder we have a $1.5 trillion deficit.
Greg Roush
President
Smart Lines LLC
Oklahoma City
HOS, EOBR Subsidy
During daylight saving time, the hours of service should be left alone because there are more wrecks and near misses as drivers try to adjust to the hours change. In fact, leave it one way and quit jumping it back and forth and just waiting for more fatigue to kick in.
Also, what a [expletive deleted] that our great government is paying to put electronic onboard recorders in Mexican trucks when they can’t pay us to install them in our trucks. Who is subsidizing American truckers? Why do we have to pay for them? Can’t the Mexicans afford their own EOBRs? They’ll come into our country and cut their rates because the federal government is paying them for the EOBR installation, but they won’t pay us to install them.
Dan Gerster
Owner
DAG Trucking of Wi LLC
Oshkosh, Wis.
Bogus Letters
Insurance industry officials said they’ve been told by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration that a computer glitch is responsible for triggering the issuance of “notice of investigation” letters to nearly 6,000 carriers with cargo insurance policy cancellations pending (3-14, p. 1).
The agency puts out and relies on flawed data regularly; the only surprise here is that they actually are retracting it. It’s just another example of the inferior quality of work from the very agency that is supposed to be the trucking industry’s guru.
What an explanation they gave: “The computer did it, and we can’t make it stop doing it, so it will just have to run its course and send out 6,000 bogus letters.”
I don’t know how much they pay for postage out of our tax dollars, but 44 cents per letter amounts to $2,640 that’s been wasted.
Let’s see how long it takes FMCSA to get this egg off its face.
Lawrence Hartung
Director of Safety
deBoer Transportation Inc.
Blenker, Wis.
