It is a sad state of affairs when the well-being of an animal is taken more seriously than the well-being of a human. Alas, this is what is happening in the trucking industry throughout the country as more and more anti idling regulations are being passed and as companies limit idling in their attempts to increase their bottom lines. Citing fuel costs, almost all companies are requiring their drivers not to idle the trucks except in extreme temperatures if at all while most are not providing APUs to make sure their drivers can sleep safely and comfortably. States are passing anti idling laws saying that trucks are polluting the air by idling while a driver is taking their mandated breaks. A person can get a ticket for leaving a dog in a not running car even with the windows down, where does concern for the health and safety of the driver come in.

There is a big push on about driver’s health and their driving safely with sleep apnea being determined to cause driver fatigue. No one has addressed not idling as contributing to driver fatigue. Almost all anti idling laws have some sort of rule that allows a driver to idle their truck for 5-10 minutes an hour during their required breaks to cool or heat the sleeper. Think about it. A driver cools their truck down enough to go to sleep initially. Then when they get too cold or hot to sleep, they have to get up, turn on the truck and sit there hoping that in the time allowed, the truck either warms up enough to produce heat or cools the cab down enough to be able to return to sleep. They then have to turn off the truck again only to repeat this routine repeatedly throughout the break time.

FMCSA HOS regulations require, “CMV drivers using the sleeper berth provision must take at least 8 consecutive hours in the sleeper berth, plus 2 consecutive hours either in the sleeper berth, off duty, or any combination of the two.” Consecutive means all at once, not interrupted every hour or so for 10 minutes to get up to heat or cool the truck down.

The body regulates temperature through a process known as thermoregulation, which is the ability of an organism to keep its body temperature within certain boundaries, even when temperature surrounding it is very different. Too low of a body temperature results in hypothermia which is dangerously low body temperature, below 95F; too high of a body temperature results in hyperthermia which is dangerously high body temperature 102F+.

There are no studies done about truckers and the extremes in temperature they will have to endure when not being able to idle their trucks. I did however find studies on extreme temperatures from the military, fire departments and OSHA among others. From Firehouse.com: “From a medical perspective…even when outside temperatures are fairly tolerable (a temperature of 90 degrees Fahrenheit, for example), the interior temperature of a closed vehicle can rapidly become lethal (over 135F) in a very few minutes.”

OSHA has identified the effects of extreme temperatures on workers. “The effects of hypothermia and hyperthermia are, loss of concentration and difficulty focusing on a task for hyperthermia, for hypothermia: loss of ability to do complex motor functions, lethargy and mild confusion. (Moreover, those are just the first signs of it!) Hypothermia can occur not only in freezing temperatures but also is common among the elderly who live in cold houses,” says OSHA. What about a driver in a cold truck, Can the effects on the human body be safe for truckers to chance?

To put a face on those who are suffering from the in justice of the laws and policies about idling, Laurie, a rookie woman driver who has been driving for just 3 months, was told by her company that she could not idle her truck for any reason no matter what the temperature or she would be fired. She runs the West Coast and the Rocky Mountains where temperatures can range from below zero in the mountains to well above 100 degrees in the California deserts. When Laurie requested to be assigned a truck with an APU unit installed, which the company has some of, she was told that she had not earned it yet. Laurie has few options due to her lack of experience other than comply.

Another rookie driver died last year in a truck stop because of his employer putting a gas run generator in the cab of the truck where the jump seat had been removed where it could not be stolen, so the driver could run a fan while trying to sleep instead of idling. Though the generator was vented out the side window, it was not adequate to keep carbon monoxide out of the cab and sleeper berth.

Not only rookie drivers are being affected. I was employed for 21 months by a trucking company where I was one of the top three rated drivers in the company for 2007. By the end of the first quarter of 2008, I stood in great jeopardy of being fired due to my idle times not meeting company guidelines even though I was still in the top tier of drivers. I have to idle the truck while sleeping due to health reasons, but the company did not care. I chose to quit before being fired. Even with my career record, it was difficult to find a company with reasonable idling policies.

Fatigue and driving safety are not the only factors not being taken into consideration by the ‘powers that be’ that set anti idling laws and policies. A driver’s personal safety is also grossly affected. Trucks and truckers have always had a bull’s eye on them marking them as targets for robbery, hijackings and other crimes against a person. A driver who has to leave windows and vents open for ventilation is setting themselves and their equipment up as easy marks for criminals. Not only does it allow devices to be used easier to unlock doors, but for over the 30+ years I have been driving, I have heard of many instances where criminal shoots ether into cabs of trucks to sedate the driver so they can be raped, robbed or the truck and load stolen.

The public does not understand the damage the anti idling laws can do to a trucker, they do not think about us as people affected adversely. A woman at a plant where I was loading overheard me talking about Laurie’s plight and asked what I was talking about. She said, “Trucks cause pollution so shouldn‘t idle.” When I explained it, she was appalled that people would be forced to try to sleep in those conditions. She understood better, when I asked her if she would try to sleep in her car in 70+/- degree weather with just her windows down. She said, “No, she would not be able to sleep due to the temperatures!” When I asked her if she would consider sleeping in the parking lot of the plant or in her driveway at home in her car with her windows cracked or down to stay cool at night, she exclaimed, “heck no...It would not be safe!” Thank you ma‘am...my points exactly.

 
 
One of the most disturbing reasons to promote the use of EOBRs is that it removes ‘the human factor’ from HOS and a truck’s hourly operation. This was brought up during a satellite radio discussion about the EOBRs. The speaker said that the use of EOBRs would help the companies make the shippers and receivers pay detention time or load or unload the truck faster because the driver would be monitored every minute of his/her day and the EOBR would document his/her whereabouts such as arrival and departure times without the driver having to key in that information. Furthermore, it was stated that EOBRs would stop dispatchers and brokers from making a driver ‘cheat’ on their log books to make delivery/pick up appointments, again removing the ‘human factor‘.

The original HOS regulations were put in place to protect the driver from being pushed beyond safety limits by their companies. When the first satellite systems were talked about, it again was suggested that they would not only allow a company to track their freight and equipment, but would also stop falsification of log books and the dispatching of drivers beyond safety limits. The new HOS regulations went so far as to ‘remove the human factor’ to where a driver could not determine for themselves when it was safe to run, whether they were tired or not and once again, was supposed to stop them from being pushed beyond safety limits by their dispatchers and brokers. All of the above were supposed to make shippers and receivers stop detaining drivers at docks and warehouse staging areas and make it so the companies could more easily receive detention time payments.

Removing the human factor from the driver in the seat of the truck might be good in theory, but is it a workable proposition; who in reality benefits? Let’s look at some pros and cons.

The Pros:

The carrier’s insurance rates will go down because the insurance world thinks that truck drivers are unsafe and promote any sort of controls put on the driver.

Carriers will be able to track their drivers, loads and equipment.

Carriers will be able to cut down on office staff due to logs being recorded by computers from satellite feeds.

Carriers may be able to receive detention time payments from shippers/receivers.

Carriers will be more likely to weed out unsafe drivers.

Carriers will be able to monitor a driver’s available hours and ensure that the driver ‘maximizes’ those hours to increase productivity.

Drivers will not have to falsify log books to make pick ups and deliveries thereby avoiding prison time for that crime.

Cons: Many small carriers will not be able to afford the EOBR equipment which runs on average of $3,000.00 a unit and will have to go out of business.

Drivers will lose running time during their shifts due to unavoidable delay such as construction, accident back ups and traffic, thereby cutting their pay.

Drivers will lose any flexibility as to when to shut down due to weather or to avoid rush hour traffic, or if they are ill or tired.

Parking will become even more of a problem than it is because drivers will be forced to ‘maximize’ their hours and will not be able to stop where they can find parking; they will have to stop when the machine says to stop.

Just in time freight will not be able to be run unless relayed or hauled by team trucks, again possibly putting smaller carriers out of competition for this type of freight.

Drivers will be scrutinized for every pit stop that they make, even for stopping just long enough to use the facilities.

In my opinion, EOBRs appear to mainly benefit the larger carriers who can afford to buy them in the first place and provide enough drivers and equipment to move the freight; the driver and small companies will be the most harmed.

Removing the human factor in anything relating to trucks or the driving of them is a huge oxymoron in the trucking world. Trucks are driven by humans, dispatched by humans and repaired by humans. Removing the flexibility required to do any of those things is not the answer to any of the problems supposed to face the industry at this time. Of course, if technology gets to the point that trucks can be driven by robots, then EOBRs might be a good thing, but then you wouldn’t need truck drivers, just technicians to keep the computers running. Wait, that would still be a ’human factor’ wouldn’t it.