The institution of science, like education and media, has become highly politicized.

Once upon a time, true experts in a given scientific field would welcome debate from peers and colleagues. In fact, skepticism was a healthy cornerstone of true scientific consensus building.

Now, like in many arenas of journalism, grounded skepticism has been shut out (our shouted down) in some environmental spheres and replaced with a politicized narrative for advocacy.

Readers of this blog are already aware of my disdain for the 'official' scientific community (and its useful idiots in politics and pop culture) who work tirelessly to silence critics, including other climate scientists, of the Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming agenda, despite loads of evidence that the so-called 'consensus' on AGW is at worst, corrupted, or, more kindly, at least narrow-minded and misplaced.

Unfortunately, it appears that it's not just the AGW lobby that resorts to bullying dissenters.

In this exclusive by Land Line, the official publication of OOIDA, we learn that a veteran UCLA researcher who doubts the science behind CARB's diesel engine retrofit rule is going to lose his job.

According to the article (read the whole thing here), Dr. James Enstrom, who has worked as a research scientist at UCLA for 36 years, questioned claims made by CARB regarding diesel particulate matter and public health.

Enstrom says that the department used a technicality to eliminate his position on the faculty.

"If there is an ongoing controversy in science, you don't put out regulations that cost billions of dollars," Enstrom said.

(You'd think, right?)

Robert Phalen, co-director of the Air Pollution Health Effects Laboratory at the University of California, told Landline that Enstrom is "a good, objective scientist."

And the money quote:



That could apply to a lot of the approved science research these days.

Concurrently, CARB continues to employ its lead researcher for the Truck and Bus retrofit Rule, who last year admitted to faking his resume and lied repeatedly about his doctorate in statistics (he doesn't have one).

Other CARB members even alleged the agency tried to cover the whole thing up. (Keep in mind that these are the people who are apparently assisting the EPA in toughening up the 2010 NOx rule for SCR trucks).

Meanwhile, Enstrom claims that no one even questioned his science on the issue.

I'm not surprised. Debate isn't something politicized scientific bullies are used to.

Just ask Al Gore and moviemaker turned green propagandist, James "shoot it out at high noon with the deniers" Cameron.

Part community centre, part drop zone for kids, and part fuel-refill truckstop that's been going the extra mile for 50 years.

That how the Ottawa Citizen describes family-run Herb's Travel Plaza off the 417 in Vankleek Hill just east of Ottawa.

If you've ever parked there, you'd be inclined to agree.

Read the entire write-up here, and see why regulars like Madame "P'tit Pit" and husband Peter, P'tit Pit (pronounced 'spit') love this joint. Or who "Herb" is and why he's so highly revered by this community.

So, what's your favorite truckstop in Canada, the U.S, or, for that matter, anywhere else in the world? And why?

What do an injured Denver Broncos linebacker, WrestleMania XXVI and a review of the new Madden 2011 video game for Playstation 3 have in common with trucking?

Absolutely nothing, except news stories involving those subjects -- and just about any other issue - turn up over and over again every morning when I do my online industry news searches.

Why? Because the writer or quote machine interviewee decided to recycle the former Motown tune-turned idiom, "keep on trucking," to describe everything from an athlete remaining determined to old people living longer lives because of more bran in their diet -- or something.

Even The Economist is not above using it - and the editors of the Economist think they're above just about everything!

So, purely because it grates on me, I think it needs to disappear and along with it, the prose police can take away other motivational air balls like "peel back the onion," "outside the box "and "do less with more."

OK. I'm done. Thank you for giving me 38 seconds of your life that you'll never have back. You can go back to work now.

A Volkswagen commercial has raised the ire of the American Trucking Associations for its portrayal of how cars share the road with trucks.

You can see the "Shooting the Gap" commercial by clicking here.

In a letter to the car company, ATA boss Bill Graves asked that VW reconsider its campaign and works with the association to promote the "seriousness of reckless driving."

He added that the trucking industry has worked hard to improve safety and has spent resources educating motorists on how to safely drive around tractor-trailers.

I get the ATA's point that this kind of marketing somewhat undermines the efforts of the trucking industry to increase awareness around trucks. But, I think, sometimes we just have to take a step back and see comedic advertising for what it is, no?

I won't completely dismiss the notion that the ad might give some moron kids inspiration to attempt an incredibly stupid act, but on that note, we'd have to ban MTV (yeah, I know what you're thinking...).

I don't think there's anything malicious here. And I have to admit, the commercial did make me smirk - if anything, because it's a departure from some other recent car ads that seemingly make peace with the Green police's desire to suck freedom and fun out of driving..

But, as I often have to acquiesce, I'm not out there everyday like many of you dealing with this sort of nonsense.

What do you think?

Edited: 07/29/2010 at 11:11 AM by MarcoBeghetto

Over the years, the media has been particularly hostile to the trucking industry (although, not always without reason).

We here at Today's Trucking (and in fairness, our competitors as well) have traditionally done a pretty good job of spotting and exposing anti-truck bias in the media.

Along with efforts by the associations, rail lobby-driven, anti-truck rhetoric isn't as common in newspapers and news broadcasts as it once was.

We'd like to think that CRASH has been removed from most reporters' rolodexes (metaphorically, I mean, who still uses rolodexes??)

And every once in while, you'll see stories that treat trucking and truckers pretty respectfully. I highlighted one here last month by a former MPP.

This week, I noticed several in succession.

This one, by a police constable writing in the Vancouver Sun, encourages safe driving practices by four wheelers when driving around trucks.

On the other side of the country, here's another reporter along for a ride 'n drive who conveys a pretty positive 'trucking 101' account of the industry.

Jim Kenzie, the esteemed automotive writer for the Wheels section in The Toronto Star, recently had a personal account of the Ontario Truck Driving Championships, (for a list of winners, click here).

The headline -- The Fine Art of Heavy Haulin' -- sets the tone. It's clear, as a passionate fan of driving and automotive, Kenzie developed a deep respect for the skillful pilots he witnessed at the competition last weekend.

While inside baseball for us in the industry, it's nice to see facts like these in a newspaper article.



You don't read stuff like that too often in the MSM. When you do, I suggest sending the reporter or the editor a short message thanking him or her for not taking the easier, cliched, sensationalist view of trucking we see so often.

Edited: 07/20/2010 at 07:35 PM by MarcoBeghetto

You don't have to be a fan of the former Mike Harris government (although you'd get bonus points from me) to appreciate this column by former Tory cabinet minister-turned-Toronto Sun columnist.

John Snobelen, Harris' former education minister who to his credit took on Ontario's powerful teachers' unions in the 90's, recently penned this heartwarming Father's Day article.

Turns out, Snobelen's dad was a no-nonsense owner-op and small fleet owner. I was surprised to learn that Snobelen was raised in trucking as his father grew the family haulage business.



Kinda' makes you wonder why this guy wasn't transport minister. or did he rise too fast up the party ladder for that job?

Anyway, I like these lines below the best; and I'm sure most of you guys in this business can relate:



I love that, especially as I'm constantly reminded that society is increasingly being shaped by "experts" and technocratic elites.

Usually, the real problem solvers aren't in the halls of the Legislature (with all due respect to Mr. Snobelen) or Academia. They're the ones right in front of us. Those who do it every day.

So here's to the smartest man I've ever known -- my dad. I hold out some hope that my boys will be able to say something remotely similar one day, even if it's hardly true.

Happy belated Father's Day to all of you.

(In case you missed the link above, read Snobelen's column by clicking here).

Edited: 06/21/2010 at 04:17 PM by MarcoBeghetto

Some in the media are starting to pick up on a major contradiction pointed out years ago by observers of the politdrama at the Windsor Detroit Gateway, including myself.

That is, how the owner of the Ambassador Bridge, Matty Moroun, argues that dwindling cross-border traffic at Windsor-Detroit fails to support a second major commercial crossing (Moroun is upset the governments of Canada and Michigan are planning a rival crossing a few klicks away from his private Ambassador Bridge), while at the same time he's trying to build a second crossing in the less traveled corridor of Buffalo, N.Y.-Fort Erie, Ont.

As Ron Rienas, general manager of the Peace Bridge, recently commented in this article, the bridge company's pitch in Fort Erie is the exact opposite from the one it refuses to deviate from in Windsor-Detroit.



Indeed. And, frankly, it's something that media should point out more often.

Meanwhile, Keith Crain of the influential and respected online business journal, Crain's Detroit Business, recently posted an editorial supporting Moroun's bid to twin his Ambassador rather than spend public money on DRIC.



On its sheer surface, this makes a hell 'a lot 'o sense. But, like many who urge the scrapping of DRIC, Crain fails to consider the post 9-11 risk of continuing on with virtually no cross-border redundancy at arguably the most important international border crossing in the world.

Considering Moroun has operated his bridge with complete autonomy and with very limp government oversight -- even allowing hazmat trucks on his bridge when, technically, they shouldn't have been permitted -- allowing him to maintain his sole monopoly at Canada's most vital trade corridor simply can't be considered.

Generally, as a matter of principle, I dislike the government's interference in these matters as much as Crain does. But the security implications here are too significant not to have a more nuanced view of the situation.

If Moroun wants to throw his own money at a new bridge in the Niagara area, I say let him. But it's time for him to step aside and allow DRIC the same opportunity in Windsor.

Edited: 05/31/2010 at 12:46 PM by MarcoBeghetto

In North America there's serious talk about screening drivers for sleep apnea. Everything we're hearing is that a mandatory testing rule will be introduced in the U.S. in the next couple of years and it'll resemble something close to the drug testing rule on the books right now.

In Australia, where truck combos the size of freight trains travel with near impunity, the national trucking association wants screenings for driver depression as part of the medical review standard.

Seriously? Isn't a job where you're isolated in a confined space for half the day; are away from the family for up to a week; and generally offers mediocre pay going to produce some signs of real or perceived depression on a questionnaire?

Most of the truckers I've met like to gripe, sure, but they tend to be some of the cheeriest, friendliest, family-loving people I know.

Besides, who isn't a little depressed? A report by the U.S. government rated personal care providers and those in food services industry as the most depressed professionals at over 10 percent. Transportation workers and movers were in the middle at 6.2 percent, sandwiched between computer scientists (well, no kidding!) and lawyers.

I'm not sure what's so depressing about a job that lets you stick it to everyone else, but according to this, one in five lawyers are depressed.

Postal workers, weirdly enough, didn't have their own category.

In case you're wondering, artists and those who work in "media" also rank very high on the depression scale (9.1%). But everybody knows that the biggest basketcase, alcoholics make the best writers, right?

That reminds me, I have to stop at the liquor store and pharmacy on the way home...

Edited: 05/17/2010 at 01:58 PM by MarcoBeghetto

Don't take it from me. That's what the minister of transportation in Alberta says. The province confirmed not too long ago that it is pushing forward with distracted driving legislation, but leaders had to admit there's actually no real evidence that shows bans on talking and texting while driving reduces crashes.

Here's Luke Ouellette as quoted in the Ottawa Citizen:



Though, Ouellette notes that Canadian research suggests one in four collisions is attributed to some sort of driver distraction, ranging from cellphones, fiddling with the radio, eating food and who knows what other situations (for me, it's that first wave of summer dresses to hit the sidewalks in late April -- sorry, wife).

A handful of studies in the U.S. also had trouble finding a direct correlation. Most recently, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety analyzed crash rates in states where bans exist and found no evidence the legislation reduces overall collisions.

Look, when someone's weaving in and out of their lane while yakking on the phone or traveling 35 km/h in a 60 zone right in front of me because he's trying to text, I want to grab the loose pennies from my change compartment and heave them at the guy's car as much as anyone else (not that I've, errrr, ever done such a thing).

But plenty of good drivers can talk on the phone, change the radio station, yell at the kids in the backseat without any trouble. My brothers and I can attest that my parents were the all-time, tag-team champions of the Backhanded-Slaps-While-Driving Games. Trust me, it's not as fun as it sounds.

As a driver, I think I'm forced to be more attentive in some of those situations (minus the spanking, in case child services is reading this) compared to when I'm zoning out in stop-and-go rush hour traffic on the 401. Yeah, it even happens to us at the Michael Schumacher-like skill level.
Sure, give someone a hefty fine if they're on the phone and show they're not properly in control of the vehicle.

But at the same time, don't let off the hook those soccer moms putting on lipstick using the vanity mirror and morons trying to light their cigarettes next to an open window -- especially if they're driving anywhere near my Ferrari.

Edited: 05/05/2010 at 12:54 PM by MarcoBeghetto

Just as predicted, hardly any media outlets covering an obviously flawed study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives on workplace injuries bothered to dig beyond the left-wing think tank's claims, specifically in regards to the trucking industry, which it lumps in with "sweatshops."

Moreover, contrary to the automatic 'right-wing' tag assigned to free market groups like the Fraser Institute, not one news report, at least that I saw as of this morning, identified CCPA has a left-leaning group even though it proudly views itself as a "centre-left" think tank that focuses on 'social justice,' 'environmental sustainability' and all the rest of the typical so-called "progressive" pieties.

(Their website quotes Naomi Klein as saying "we need the CCPA to remind us that our dreams of a decent, egalitarian society are reasona-- .......... oh, sorry I fell asleep in the middle of typing that sentence).

As we pointed out in our articleyesterday, the report basically concludes (based on the observations of 17 Labour Affairs Officers), that if said officers were paid more and the feds hired more of them, workplace injuries at federally regulated companies would drop significantly.

Furthermore, the report singles out the trucking industry as one of the most dangerous industries in the country based on the sheer number of injuries. Of course, trucking is one of the largest employers in the country (largest among males) so no kidding its overall injury rates are going to be higher than, say, progressive community outreach workers.

Curiously, the report then hints that the injury numbers in trucking could be even higher, but the industry "is difficult to effectively track because many operations are made up of little more than a basement desk and cellphone," as one LAO officer was quoted as saying.

Sounds very scientific.

I have to ask, how does one run a fleet of trucks, drivers, dispatchers, and handle all the paperwork -- or, as a single operator, haul freight -- with "little more" than a cellphone and a desk?

Or if, as I assume, the report is confusing a carrier with a drive-by-night freight broker, how could there be so many related injuries as a result of using cellphones from behind a basement desk?

Maybe a real reporter will ask.

That's not all that's flawed. To quote the report, "compensation for federal jurisdiction employ¬ees who are injured on the job is paid through provincial Workers' Compensation Boards (WCB). These provincial boards are then reimbursed by the federal Labour Program."

As Bob Dolyniuk, Executive Director of the Manitoba Trucking Association points out in an email:



As for the report's claim that hiring more inspectors at the provincial level has led to a provincial disabling injury rate decline by 25 percent in the last five years, while rising 5% in federal workplaces, Dolyniuk asks rhetorically:



Yeah. What he said.

Edited: 04/28/2010 at 03:33 PM by MarcoBeghetto

While the proposed EOBR legislation in the US has more than a few holes, generally I'm still a supporter of the concept of automatically recorded driving logs.

Big carriers obviously want to have government better regulate their rivals' logbook cheating, but really, mandatory EOBRs is the closest this industry will ever get to forcing shippers to shore up their own operations and pay for the actual time they use trucking services -- whether it's en route on the road, loading at the terminal, or stuck at the border.

Ultimately, that can only be a good thing for the drivers and owner-ops that stick around to see it happen.

Still, there's one thing disconcerting about EOBRs: What happens when personal injury lawyers get their claws on them? Any minor discrepancy could be seized on by lawyers who increasingly see the hours-of-service rule as their own personal ATM. And what about privacy of the rest of the data an EOBR will store? I still haven't seen any meaningful legal safeguards on that front.

Check out this personal injury lawyer's step-by-step instructions to others on how to exploit drivers' HOS logbooks in the courtroom.



Google 'hours of service personal injury' and there's plenty more just like that.

EOBRs will usher in an era of extra vigilance, yes, in more ways than out on the highway.

(Be sure to read all about the Americans' (very flawed) EOBR rule in the May issue of Today's Trucking).

Edited: 04/22/2010 at 03:22 PM by MarcoBeghetto

When former Baltimore Trucking Association boss Anne Ferro was nominated to head up the Federal Motor Carrier safety Administration, there was an uproar among the usual suspects: unions, "safety" (ahem) groups, and the mainstream media, particularly The NY Times.

The concern was so great, apparently, that the Times addressed it on its editorial page.



The point, I suppose, is that Ferro as trucking's top regulator is a clear conflict of interest because of her pro-trucking background. (Of course, the Times simply can't imagine that 'pro-industry' doesn't have to mean 'anti-safety.')

Last week, in an obvious attempt to counterbalance the FMCSA's executive branch and appease truck industry watchdogs, the Obama administration appointed a former anti-truck group spokesman to be Ferro's deputy director.

Just asking, but, by the Times' reasoning, doesn't the nomination of a voracious critic -- and former lobbyist -- of the industry represent just as much a conflict of interest?

I await the Times' editorial on the matter ...

UPDATE (April 13)

It appears that the NY Times has won a Pulitzer for its series on texting and distracted driving. In fairness, overall the coverage was quite good and timely. But one article in the series, in particular, is the one I ripped last year in this space (scroll to the bottom 'update' of this post ) because of its attempt to negatively distort the trucking industry's safety record. The Times even issued a lengthy correction to this Pulitzer-worthy article (you can see the cleansed version here). I guess the judges were able to see past the mistakes, eh?

Edited: 04/13/2010 at 12:08 PM by MarcoBeghetto

Wait a minute, I thought, new gas-powered trucks -- as in natural gas -- were a good thing for the environment?

Oh, wait, that's not what US DOT boss Ray Lahood meant when he said his department's goal is to promote the transfer of freight away from "gas guzzling" commercial trucks and onto rail and marine modes, is it?

Is it trivial to point out that the secretary of transportation of the world's last superpower should know the difference between gas and diesel? Yes, yes it is. But that's how I roll.

Anyway, CTA, among others, has responded by noting that transformative modal freight shifts would produce negligible environmental benefits, if any at all, as long as trucks keep getting greener.

Plus, the service levels of those other modes isn't anything to boast about..

Edited: 03/31/2010 at 02:17 PM by MarcoBeghetto

California is the most over-regulated jurisdiction in the 'free' world, and trucking is a highly targeted industry.

As far as emissions rules goes (to be clear, some pollution controls are essential) they usually start in California before they're exported to the rest of the country, and eventually, Canada too. But, as you can see from this video, courtesy of a clever handy-camed OOIDA driver, the green police would prefer truckers do what they say, not what they do.

Amazingly, as the officer gives the driver a $300 ticket for idling (he wasn't idling, per se, he was building pressure back in the air tanks before leaving), the officer's car is running the whole time with the windows down and the air conditioning blasting. Nice, eh?

That video, actually, is sufficiently emblematic of the bloated, bankrupt, overzealous, nanny state that is Schwarzeneggerland. Although it's far from the worst example. Check this out.

You'd be foolish to think that this sort of suffocating regulation won't eventually reach your fleet in Montana or even Manitoba.

Chew on these numbers: As USA Today reported last December, the U.S. DOT had just one employee earning more than $170,000 a year before Obama took office. Now the dept has 1,690 employees making that much or more.

Partisan politics aside, there's only one way to interpret a nearly two-thousand-fold increase to the highest levels of transportation bureaucracy -- more regulation and costs for you.

A lot more. And that not only goes for Canadian cross-border carriers, but in the interests of harmonization, at least some of that will eventually blow onto intra-national truckers as well.

Edited: 04/13/2010 at 12:44 PM by MarcoBeghetto

A few weeks ago I blogged about how so many people go on to do extraordinary things after, or even while they're driving truck. Perhaps there's a link there - miles of open road and solitude gets the creative juices flowing.

After finding out this past weekend that Oscar-nominated Canadian super director James Cameron once drove truck before, get this, Star Wars inspired him to go into film, I thought it might be fun to research which other truckers and industry folk went on to become famous. (We've pretty much put our April Truck World issue to bed, so, as you can tell, I have some time this afternoon).

The most famous former trucker of all, of course, is Elvis. I should have known this before today, since my mom is, like, the biggest Elvis fan in Canada. (She used to make an annual pilgrimage to Graceland and somehow, someway, befriended Elvis' first cousin Patsy Presley, who was The King's first cousin on both sides -- don't ask).

My favorite contemporary fiction writer, Chuck Palahniuk, never drove a truck but he wrote the manuscript of his first breakthrough book, Fight Club, while lying underneath heavy trucks as a diesel mechanic at Freightliner's Portland plant.

this webpage lists a handful of actors who used to haul freight, including Rock Hudson, Richard Pryor, Viggo Mortensen and two of my favs, Liam Neeson and Sean Connery.

Before playing 007, Connery's wheel jockey skills got him a major role in the 1957 flick, "Hell Drivers."

Also, Johnny Van Zant of Lynyrd Skynyrd apparently owned a couple of trucks and drove himself before getting into music.

Which begs the question: If he was behind the wheel instead of inside the tape player, just what the heck were truckers listening to before that??

Feel free to add any others you think of..

Edited: 03/10/2010 at 03:48 PM by MarcoBeghetto

When it comes to the soap opera that is the Windsor Detroit Gateway, I've often said that the owner of the private Ambassador bridge who monopolizes commercial cross-border truck travel has every right to protect his interests.

I've also said that I'm not entirely convinced that, from a pure economic POV, we even need a second bridge right now.

Trade patterns are shifting rapidly and there's a decent argument to be made that increased coastal containerization and hub 'n spoke intermodalism, plus the reduction of Great Lakes-based auto manufacturing, could offset any projected rebound in freight volumes going forward.

We just don't really know how it'll all play out.

At the same time, it's absolutely absurd that in a post 9-11 world there's no crossing redundancy at the most vital trade gateway in the world -- one that controls 25 percent of our land trade with the U.S.

It's nonsensical to reply solely on a private bridge, which operates with near impunity and to which we have virtually no oversight on security and safety.

There were rumors that the Canadian government has approached the Moroun family about buying the bridge. If the company is serious about selling and we're serious about buying, I'd say it's a no brainer.

Somehow, though, my guess is that neither is true, not to mention that Michigan is broke and the cost of buying the current structure and then building a much-needed twin span down the road is too steep.

This column from the Detroit News points out another flaw of private ownership with no public alternative.

In it, Kirk Steudle, director of the Michigan DOT, alleges that the Ambassador folks have refused to partner with the nearby public Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron in providing real-time traffic information for the benefit of drivers and truckers crossing the border.



Ambassador President Dan Stamper has since responded by denying that his boss has ever rejected such a plan. "If Mr. Steudle is serious, tell him to pick up the phone or send me an e-mail and we'll sit down and work it out tomorrow," Stamper said.

Who know what's true? I doubt any deal that takes toll dollars away from the Ambassador will ever happen.

I'm all for protecting private, proprietary business. But this isn't exactly McDonald's keeping its secrete sauce away from Burger King. This is a not-so-insignificant part of our economy at stake, here.

Edited: 03/03/2010 at 02:42 PM by MarcoBeghetto

Who's seen the Super Bowl ad from Audi that depicts normal everyday citizens being arrested by the 'green police' for such infractions as throwing away a battery or using plastic shopping bags? (BTW, weren't paper bags ditched once upon a time in the name of, ahem, save-the-trees environmentalism?)

Well, there's a pretty interesting debate going on here at the office over the commercial, which you can see by clicking here.

Both me and my friend David Menzies, who's also editor of our sister book, Canadian Technician, are so-called global warming skeptics.
'cept he loves the commercial and I certainly don't.

David thinks the ad is a proverbial middle finger to the eco control freaks that are bent on regulating every aspect of our lives. He likes that in the end the sustainability Stasi are "tricked" by the sporty 'green diesel' Audi A3 TDI, which my pal Dave says is depicted as a "wolf in sheep's clothing."

I don't see it that way at all. While the commercial is quite funny, and I agree it takes some lighthearted shots at smiley-faced green fascism, my interpretation is that Audi is acknowledging -- and thereby accepting -- the future eco order. It isn't saying, "stop this madness, drive what makes you happy," it's saying "well, joining them if you can't beat them isn't a bad thing if you drive Audi."

Hey, if driving a A3 TDI would truly make the green snobs leave me alone, I'm in.

But that's not the message here at all. It's very peculiar that after a century of marketing the automobile based on such themes as the wide open road, individuality, expression -- in a nutshell, pure freedom -- Audi is arguably the first manufacturer in history to market a vehicle based on compliance and conformity -- with the authorities!

So far, the few people I've asked about this agree with me that the driver in the commercial isn't trying to trick the cops, but he's allowed to proceed through the "green light" only because his clean diesel car has been given the green stamp of approval.

I wonder what the great P.J. O'Rourke would say about it?

Jonah Goldberg, the conservative commentator, had the same reaction, first thinking it was a fun parody from a free-market think tank "about the pending dystopian environmental police state" before realizing that ...



And it's not only conservatives who saw it that way. Over at the 'progressive' Huffington Post ultra liberal David Roberts agrees the "ad only makes sense if it's aimed at people who acknowledge the moral authority of the green police."

Exactly. So, count me out.

Jonah sums it all up for me:



At the very least, Audi is trying to balance itself on the fence here. At the very least.

What say you guys?

Edited: 02/16/2010 at 05:19 PM by MarcoBeghetto

Every decade or so, the 'consensus' experts seem to drum up a new apocalyptic disaster scenario to send us running to the hills.

In the late 60's Paul Ehrlich's influential tome argued that the world was 10 to 20 years away from gross overpopulation and massive global starvation. Thanks for that.

Ten years later, in the late '70s, more than a couple of the scientists who today obsess over global warming were warning of global cooling and a new coming ice age.

Of course, as Lorne Gunter mentions today in the Post papers, no doom 'n gloom thesis had the wheels fly off faster than Y2K.



You'd think that policy makers would have learned to add a dash of skepticism or realism to their political pallet? But again, they and many who vote for them, I assume, continue marching on like Lemmings over the cliff.

A truck-writing friend of mine in the U.S. agrees with Gunter and a growing number of so-called 'skeptics' who think that, similarly, the wheels are starting to come off the anthropogenic global warming VW minibus.

Based on the salvo of revelations of fraud, manipulation, distortion, charges of group-think and intimidation of peers that has rocked the climate change industry -- and, make no mistake it's a growing mega industry -- I'm tempted to agree.

However, I can't help being skeptical that the skepticism is finally taking root in our mainstream. While the UK and a select few other media markets (including at left-lib publications like The Guardian) have done an adequate job of reporting on the series of controversies, the North American media has reacted painfully slow, if at all.

The most recent charge that the supposedly prestigious and authoritative IPCC based much of its recent report on melting glaciers on the anecdotal 'eye witness' accounts of environmentalists and naturist hikers, is the latest example of activism posing as science; and other than a handful of columnists, the story has been hardly touched by news reporters on this side of the pond.

My journalist friend thinks that the house of cards will inevitably cave in on the UN's IPCC: "Either the UN kills the climate change nonsense," he says, "or the climate change nonsense kills the UN. Do you suppose ... the UN (has) enough of a clue to see the handwriting on the wall yet?'"

You would think, eh?

Edited: 02/04/2010 at 10:30 AM by MarcoBeghetto

Lawfare is a term that's been getting a lot of play lately. These days, it mostly refers to those who employ hideous pro-censorship bodies like so-called human rights commissions to threaten litigation against anyone who speaks or writes anything they don't agree with.

But it's a tactic that's been used in the business world forever. Big corporations threaten to bleed dry small players in court until the big guy gets what he wants or, alternately, forces the small guy to back off of some sort of infringement complaint.

Ambassador Bridge owner Manuel (Matty) Moroun is no stranger to lawfare. By many accounts, he's been on both sides of the trench, and he doesn't necessary only go after low hanging fruit. He's battled federal governments in both Canada and the U.S., despite their (or should I say 'our') near bottomless pockets.

As this Detroit Free Press article explains , he isn't backing off of the legal blitz strategy, not even in these tough economic times, in order to halt the construction of a new public toll bridge in Windsor-Detroit.



The payoff might not even be that far off. There's increased concern among the pro-DRIC crowd and industry watchers that the budget-hamstrung state of Michigan could kill funding this spring, as it almost happened last year. (In the end, DRIC hung on after the Legislature approved a modest budget at the 11th hour, provided no money on construction would be spent).

In the meantime, Moroun recently bought a swath of land that overlaps part of the footprint of the proposed bridge site on the U.S. side. Transport officials say they aren't worried about the move, citing eminent domain as an option (something that, despite all of DRIC's good intentions, does not sit well with this libertarian blogger, actually). In any event, what would expropriating the land lead to? More court battles and delays, of course.

If nothing else, it's one of the most fascinating games of political chicken I've observed, pitting a reclusive billionaire against the State.

Perhaps, for the first time in a long time, I sense momentum could be swinging back Moroun's way. I also realize how strange that sounds considering just how much has been invested in the public bridge project to date and how how most people on both sides of the border think that a publicly controlled bridge is in the best interest of long-term CanAm trade.

But, as The Freep states:



Fire in the hole.

Edited: 02/12/2010 at 12:10 PM by MarcoBeghetto

By no means are the current HOS rules perfect, nor will they please every type of driver or carrier in all vocations.

But I think it's safe to say that they're generally acceptable for a wide variety of carriers and drivers and even original skeptics in the owner-op community have gotten used to them.

In fact, the biggest complaint I hear over and over again from drivers and owner-ops -- you know, the folks that the gadfly special interest groups, who trying to destroy the current HOS system, claim they are here to protect -- is that the rest periods aren't flexible enough.

Knowing their own bodies and sleep habits better than a Public Citizen litigator, many drivers want the split sleeper berth provision back which allowed them to split their off-duty rest hours in two periods of their own choosing (as long as one was at least two hours long).

Ironically, the DOT -- most likely in an effort to keep the special interest watchdogs satisfied -- dumped the split sleeper in 2005.

But throwing that bone didn't exactly work. The opposition in the form of Citizen, the Teamsters and CRASH kept coming, until their tenacity paid off with what I think is a much more sympathetic Obama admin.

There's been half a decade of truck-related (not faulted) crash figures that show fatalities and injuries have steadily improved in the last five years despite overall increased miles and congestion on the road.

And as we report today, truck fatality rates in the U.S. posted the largest ever year-to-year drop on record from 2008 to 2007. No doubt, another inconvenient truth the special interests will continue to ignore.

As I've said before, there's currently no qualitative data to confirm that the HOS rules are the direct reason (though, there should be), but clearly, anyone with any sense at all can conclude that they play a role, or at the bare minimum, are bolstering constantly improving safety rates achieved by other means, like better and safer equipment and technology.

There's rumors that DOT will cave in and 'tighten' up the rules -- perhaps even drop driving hours to 10 and alter the 34-hour restart -- but Obama's DOT needs to review the available data as it is rather than return political favors for the folks who got their boss the top job in Washington.

Edited: 01/21/2010 at 12:35 PM by MarcoBeghetto

In case some of you still think that Big Environment's interests aren't as political as, say, Big Business check out this interesting item out of Windsor today:



You can read the whole thing here, but basically the Sierra Club, which claims a new bridge would harm "species and habitat" along the Canadian shore of the Detroit River, is helping the owner of the existing, private crossing maintain his toll monopoly at the Windsor-Detroit Gateway.

For bridge owner Matty Moroun, God Bless him, he's well within his right to do what it takes to protect his business interests. In fact, I have to applaud his determination and creativity.

Here, though, is Sierra's take, according to Toronto director Dan McDermott: "For the life of me, I can't see why this project is attractive for government to fund. We need to move away from (vehicles) as a means to get around."

So, let me get this straight: Having only one crossing in downtown Windsor -- where on busy days a long queue of idling trucks can bottleneck along Huron Church, spewing diesel into residential air, is the preferred system, environmentally? Or, as I'll bet green-loving Sierra will argue, the lesser evil?

Odd.

Or, what of Moroun's own (possibly withering) hope to twin his Ambassador? Would that project not have similar environmental impacts; and will Sierra try to block that in court as well?

After the Sierra Club shows just exactly how and what species of ameba, or whatever, will be destroyed from the Detroit River shoreline, maybe it can answer those questions too.

Edited: 01/15/2010 at 01:36 PM by MarcoBeghetto

Tim Costello was a Boston native, long-haul truck driver who went on to become a labor advocate and respected author.

Costello, who died this week, was a blue collar, hard working trucker whose personal experiences with deregulated trucking and open markets also led him to become a union advocate and harsh critic of globalization.

You can read the complimentary N.Y. Times obit here .

As an aside, I don't agree with Costello's and other anti-globalization advocates' premise that open markets hurt workers here at home while exploiting the poor in Asia and south America.

While some on assembly lines and factory floors undoubtedly absorbed bumps and bruises, to argue that globalization, overall, hasn't made nations around the world wealthier while at the same time exponentially growing the middle class of poor, third world countries, is patently absurd.

To suggest, for example, that NAFTA hurt future generations of Canadians or that India was better off in the 1970s is something only the most old school of Marxists or balaclava-clad Seattle college kids still believe in.

Trucking sure still leaves scars. But 50 years ago, my grandfather could come to Canada and put scraps of food on the table by hauling gravel up and down some unpaved road.

Fast forward: Today, because of globalization and large scale consumerism, there's plenty of drivers that (with some personal sacrifices in all likelihood) can actually send their kids to university by doing essentially the same kind of work. On the face of it, I find that remarkable.

I don't post all this to take cheap shots at the departed. Costello leaves behind a far more important lesson than his economic views.

He did and thought extraordinary things from the inside of his cab. He had a great mind and he used all the time a trucker has to himself to his advantage.

His path is a reminder that there's plenty of learning and self-fulfillment to be done just before bunking for the night or during that hour while you're waiting for the dock manager to wave you in.

Edited: 01/07/2010 at 08:22 AM by MarcoBeghetto

The wretched 2009 year is officially behind us and while things are expected to chug along ever so slowly, the economy should awaken in the latter half of this year.

Of course, there's going to be plenty of obstacles and pitfalls along the way. Some will make you better, leaner, greener in the long run, while others are, well, simply a pain in the 'cost-of-doing-business' butt.

Be sure to pick up a print copy of the inaugural 2010 print issue of Today's Trucking magazine for a alphabetized rundown of the top issues affecting you this year and, likely, beyond.

Here's a taste from the middle part of the first-ever TT Alpha Log:

Best wishes to all my readers and contributors and your families.
This last year, in all likelihood, hasn't been the most profitable for most of you. Hopefully you've hung in there. Even better, if you've done it by standing firm (as much as possible) on your rates and services.

Here's hoping you'll see some light at the end of this recessionary tunnel in the New Year.

In the meantime, I hope the greatest trucker of all, Santa, leaves something special for the family under the tree this year.

God Bless.

In a report downplaying somewhat the net benefits of switching freight completely from truck to rail, I was glad to see that Noel Perry of FTR Associates also made brief mention (albiet indirectly) of made-made CO2's relatively minor contribution to GHG emissions compared to other pollutants.

Water vapor (which, like powerful climate-altering sun spot activity, is never factored into AGW modeling) makes up about 70 percent of GHGs, of course. But in this case, Perry refers namely to NOx (a real pollutant, by the way not just a politically classified one).

As Perry points out:



I'd also add, it's pretty much the only GHG that a legion of climate industrialists in Copenhagen are using (on dubious grounds) to completely overhaul the western world's economic-tax systems. Just had to throw that in.

Any way, Perry is right in suggesting that for rail to be truly environmentally superior to trucks, it would have to comply, as trucks currently do, with far more stringent engine emission standards governing soot and NOx output.

Edited: 12/17/2009 at 11:17 AM by MarcoBeghetto

Sleep apnea is the trucking issue getting the most attention these last few months.

As you can read in the current December print issue of Today's Trucking, U.S. regulators recognize undiagnosed OSA (Obstructive Sleep Apnea) as being a growing problem and plan to address it with a regulatory pen. Canada, it's said, will have little choice but to draft a "Made in Canada" version that passes muster with the Americans.

In all likelihood, ongoing treatment for OSA could be required to keep your CDL. There are several options, but the most mainstream right now is a Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) device. They're supposed to be effective, but can be bulky and uncomfortable for many people.

Upon seeing one next to his grandfather's bed, my five-year old asked his nonno why he "sleeps with a vacuum cleaner on his face."

Luckily, for more moderate, manageable forms of OSA, dieting and healthy eating can go a long way -- something truckers should try, with or without sleep disorders.

According to a recent Harvard Medical School study , sleeping and eating are intricately intertwined in shaping truckers' health. Addressing one aspect of your lifestyle, greatly improves the other:



Edited: 12/14/2009 at 10:03 AM by MarcoBeghetto

Say it isn't so! Climate change scientists are cooking the books in order to overstate the threat of global warming and perhaps, even worse, juke the stats to "hide the decline." By decline, of course, I mean the falling off of global temperatures during this decade..

I can't say I'm at all surprised (But more on that below).

For those of you who haven't been following this story out of the UK, someone apparently hacked into computers at the Climatic Research Unit in England -- one of the global warming research Mecca's in the world -- and collected 3,000 emails from CRU scientists. A bunch of them were posted on the Internet and, to say the least, are quite embarrassing for the global warming mongering movement.

Read the story here, complete with email examples. Basically, more than a few emails suggest that the scientists -- claiming to be under pressure from us right-wing denialist types -- consciously manipulated or "tricked" their data to better support their agenda; ignored evidence that didn't fit their theories; deleted material under request of the UK's Freedom of Information Act; and pressured scientific journals to blacklist dissenting scientists.



(You can click here for a more extensive view of the exposed emails).

Whenever I mention in conversation my suspicion that this stuff occurs routinely, I'm often asked 'why?' I'm anything but a conspiracy theorist, so I offer that the explanation is hardly Machiavellian.

What's happening in science -- particularly within the climate change movement -- isn't all that different than what pervades many other institutions -- such as media, education, and, of course, government -- when they are overrun or heavily influenced by lawyers, unions, NGOs and other interest groups (although I will say that the religious-like zeal affecting climate science is unprecedented).

Time and time again, we've watched, quite apathetically, institutions in the modern age pursue solutions in search of problems. Truckers, so very accustomed to redundant over-regulation, know this better than anyone.

There several forces at play. Behind the scenes, there's the overarching, Al Gore-types who lead the movement purely for profit. In part, they're lawyers who have recognized environmental law is a better bet than personal injury. They're unions who try to secure placement in new sectors as they fade in traditional industries. And the left-minded politicians and lobbyists who correctly view the movement as a perfect wealth-transferring vehicle.

Then, there's what I call the silent majority of processors. And, I must say, I sympathize somewhat with this group. They're the enviro activists that are truly interested in a greener world and climate change is the best chance they have to be heard; they're do-good scientists and researchers who understandably followed this discipline because that's where the grant money is. They're the bureaucrats who were just answering calls to fill up swelling enviro-based government agencies; They're the science teachers who are reading out the course material mandated by the school board.

Now think about them. The millions of them who are directly or indirectly tied to the industry. And think whether it's in their best interest to treat the 'evidence' that exists before them honestly, which is to say with a degree of skepticism.

There is another pillar among the processors: The media. While it's understandable a newly-named "environmental" reporter might not want to undermine the specific beat he was hired to cover, I singled these professionals out for a reason.

But National Review Jonah Goldberg's thoughtful response to the email scandal says it better than I could:



When trillions of dollars from the world economy are being siphoned off to fight man-made, carbon-driven global warming -- some of that money is directly your hard-earned money, dear truckers -- you'd want to think that the science would be sound enough on its own so that scientists wouldn't need to juke the stats. Wouldn't you?

I'm just saying...

Edited: 11/25/2009 at 10:14 AM by MarcoBeghetto

U.S. truck operators are under pressure to improve energy efficiency as rail companies tout their green credentials and bid to win more freight haulage.

That's the lede from this Reuters story. The article will give any fleet owner who'll have to spend 10 Gs more per smog-free truck in 2010 a nasty case of the eyerolls, but here's my favorite part:



Really? It's truckers that don't want to talk green?

From a purely economy of scale perspective, is rail more fuel efficient than trucking? Well, sure. Because rail, obviously, hauls a lot less freight and naturally utilizes less carbon-producing equipment. Keep in mind, as well, that trucks can safely get a lot bigger and thereby more fuel efficient per unit if governments allow it.

But from a broader perspective, it's silly to completely ignore that, while rail moves more tons of product per gallon of fuel, you're hardly removing any trucks out of the system. You're just shifting the freight from over-the-road trucks, to, eventually, drayage trucks -- more of which will be required to put freight on the tracks and take it off for distribution and then retail.

Sure, the hauls are shorter and engines running less, but you're also taking trucks away from where they're most fuel efficient -- the highway (where trucking routes are more direct than rail) -- and putting them in more congested stop-and-go, mega-idling situations.

Also, constantly missed by the media is how much more environmentally friendly trucks generally are than trains, considering the myriad of engine emissions and fuel regulations trucking has been made to comply with.

Rail, air and marine are way behind in meeting similar environmental standards. In fact, the latter mode has to be pulled kicking and screaming towards even the most basic pollution reduction benchmarks, while trucking is adopting-- many times voluntary -- new, expensive, technology like altfuels, wide-base tires, aerodynamic add-ons, APUs and hybrids.

Going forward, trucking gets greener at a rate no other mode comes even remotely close to.

Edited: 11/12/2009 at 01:49 PM by MarcoBeghetto

Today, there's not much else to say except 'thank you' to all the soldiers and their families who sacrificed for our country in the past and present.

There's been lots of noise this week about rail making a big comeback after Warren Buffett -- one of the world's savviest investors -- went "all-in" by putting over $34 billion down on the tracks.

While his confidence in the future of the general freight market should be encouraging to truckers as well, much has been made by freight analysts that, long-term, the scales could be tipping away from highways.

This interesting Forbes article says as much:



I believe many of these points, along with the fact that diesel prices will skyrocket once again, are mostly true. But what's missing -- and what's always missing whenever we hear about an inevitable rail renaissance -- is that the sector has been here many times before.

Fuel prices cripple truckers and related surcharges frustrate shippers every few years; congestion is mostly an urban issue and, arguably, more trucks would be needed at those major rail stops along the line to load and offload the additional freight; plus, trucks have been coping with far more stringent engine and fuel rules than rail for years.

Yet, over and over rail has failed to react. It hasn't been able to take advantage of similar friendly market conditions before; it's slow and inflexible and, in Canada at least, bogged down by union grievances all the time.

So, we'll see..

Edited: 11/05/2009 at 11:39 AM by MarcoBeghetto