In light of recent developments over at the Detroit-Windsor border crossing, I thought it would be appropriate to post an editorial written back in August 2011:

Why are we still trying to make the key connection between the economies of Canada and the United States secure and efficient? You'd think it wasn't important.

One reason alone: the guy who owns the only bridge that ties Windsor, Ontario to Detroit, Michigan - and carries a quarter of all the goods that flow across our long border - is spending millions to defend his monopoly. Can't really blame him, I suppose. And I wouldn't if it weren't for all the misinformation he's been spreading.

Things are still an ungodly mess down there despite encouraging developments earlier this year. It's been a mess for years, starting with the chaos that erupted on September 11, 2001. It was then that smart people realized a single span across the Detroit River wasn't sufficient.

The issue is simple enough: the existing Ambassador Bridge, privately owned by Michigan gazillionaire Matty Moroun, is old and tired. Built in the 1920s, its best days are long past though it has the capacity to handle present traffic volumes. Delays, and they can be significant, are more likely to be a matter of customs capacity than of the roadway itself. And it's not as if there aren't enough customs facilities, just that they're never manned to capacity. That, plus an ever more stringent security regime.

Still, the bridge needs replacement. Moroun's company is willing to do that on its own dime, creating a second span right beside the original. Incredibly, with none of the requisite approvals, they started construction a few years ago. Hard to believe, really.

Aside from that lot, the only others who like this idea are a bunch of Republicans in the Michigan legislature and a lot of extremely misinformed citizens.

Everybody else -- and I do mean everybody, from Michigan farmers to auto makers, plus almost all governments from the lowest level to the highest, and every chamber of commerce you can think of -- wants to build a second bridge a mile or two downriver. The fight for that new bridge is now seven years old, and the only reason construction hasn't started is that the Michigan government hasn't said 'yes'. Their obstruction is really quite amazing in its shortsightedness.

More than amazing, call it idiotic.

Our own federal government wants an additional crossing so badly that it's offered to pay Michigan's $550-million share of the cost. Not as a loan, just outright, the money coming back in subsequent toll revenues. It will not approve the Moroun plan to twin the Ambassador under any circumstances, in large part because the approach to the bridge cuts right through Windsor and truck traffic often causes havoc there. As well, it's just plain unCanadian to allow business monopolies to thrive.

Surprising everyone at the time, and encouraging them no end, new Michigan Governor Rick Snyder gave his personal approval of the new bridge project at the start of the year. He thought he'd made a huge political coup in the process, because the Obama administration agreed to let those 550 million loonies be counted as a state infrastructure investment that would be more than matched by Washington. That meant US$2 billion in federal funds would be available in some abundance for much needed road-building and repairs in the cash-strapped state.

Snyder, a Republican, was going against many members of his party in the process but he nonetheless promised to win the day by summer. He didn't, largely because Moroun's outfit has pulled out all the lobbying stops. They've convinced a lot of Republicans, many of whom don't like government trumping private enterprise anyway, that the new bridge simply isn't needed. They've also convinced Michigan citizens that the new bridge will cost the state millions of dollars it doesn't have.

That's entirely wrong, and in fact Snyder introduced legislation saying very clearly that the state has no financial vulnerability here at all. Yet the great unwashed still think otherwise.

Moroun's crew, unbelievably to my mind, is even running TV ads in Ontario urging citizens to oppose the combined federal/provincial plan to invest some $2.2 billion in an approach road to the new bridge site that would keep cross-border truck traffic out of the city itself.

They won't work on Ontarians, I promise you, but similar tactics are clearly effective in Michigan. I find it pretty sad and not a little scary that the huge national stakes involved in this affair can be put at risk by one rich guy who's convinced a lot of people to abandon whatever common sense they had in the first place. I guess that was in short supply to begin with.

Edited: 01/22/2012 at 10:49 PM by rolf

Nobody listened to me last week when, in this very space, I urged Michigan politicians to get on with it and approve the building of a new bridge across the river between Detroit and Windsor, Ont. Odd, that.

In fact, the unbelievable happened when the issue went to a vote in the state Senate's Economic Development Committee on Thursday, Oct. 20.

Everybody knows that a few very shortsighted Republicans oppose the new crossing and have held things up for ages, despite Republican Governor Rick Snyder's vigorous campaign to have it approved, but it was a pair of Democrats who dealt the project a serious blow by abstaining from the vote. As a result, the tally was three to two against (all five of them Republicans). Had those lonely two Democrats voted in favour of pursuing the bridge, the bill would have passed and would then have gone to the main legislature for a general vote.

I sure didn't see this one coming, but nor did most folks a lot closer to the action than I am.

And what was the logic that led to the abstention? Well, it sounds utterly specious, somehow phony, but apparently they wanted the bill to include a measure that would fund improvements to the Delray community. That's the utterly decrepit part of Detroit where the new bridge would land, a couple of kilometres south of where the Ambassador Bridge stands.

I'm a bit fuzzy on this point but I believe those pro-Delray measures were in fact in the bill but the language was unclear. In any event, that's the issue that felled a multi-billion-dollar project supported by both Washington and Ottawa.

Now, I've been driven through Delray by someone who knows the lay of this awful land, and I can tell you it's a basket case. Heavily industrial, almost devoid of people, many of the few remaining residences boarded up and beyond redemption. There's no crime there any more because there's nothing left to steal. Still, it's the kind of place where you don't stop at red lights. Literally.

I wouldn't bet that it can be retrieved, but if anything could pull that off, the activity surrounding the construction and then operation of the new bridge would help enormously.

Yet again, petty politics and extreme shortsightedness get in the way. And the irony in here is that Democrats have in effect become supporters of Matty Moroun, the guy who owns the old Ambassador Bridge and has been fighting tooth and nail to kill the competition represented by the proposed new bridge.

Whatever else you may think of him, nobody fights quite so well. Nobody in this arena, anyway.



Edited: 10/25/2011 at 03:44 PM by rolf

Oh, man, can we please just say 'yes' and build the new Detroit-Windsor bridge?

The New International Trade Crossing (NITC) that would provide an additional -- and superior -- link between the people and economies of Ontario and Michigan is still treading water. Held up in that state's Legislature awaiting a vote this week, it seems unlikely to be moving ahead any time soon.

Why? Pure politics, yet another example of how polarization is crippling our neighbour, rendering it unable to act on even the most obviously beneficial measures. Blame the idiocy of so-called 'tea party' politicians like Michigan Republican Senator Patrick Colbeck.

This isn't a Republican-vs.-Democrat battle. The Democrats favour the NITC, predictably. But Michigan Governor Snyder is himself a Republican and he's been leading the pro-new-bridge fight. This is about the lunatic fringe within the Republican party. Except, somehow, the fringe is running the show. Or preventing it from running properly.

I find this ridiculous in the extreme, not least because just about Michigan community and business leader, every chamber of commerce even down into Ohio, wants the new bridge and has said so very clearly over the last few years.

Our own provincial government backs it fully, and the feds have even offered to pay Michigan's share of the construction cost and to cover any shortfalls. The people of Windsor are certainly keen to get heavy trucks off one of their main drags leading to and from the existing, built-in-1929 Ambassador Bridge. The new bridge would be connected to Highway 401 by an expressway that would bypass central Windsor altogether.

All that said, there are some Michigan residents who aren't in favour of the new bridge, largely because they've been misinformed by the expensive advertising and lobbying effort constructed by Ambassador owner Matty Moroun and his Detroit International Bridge Company. He also has friends in the state legislature, that's clear, Colbeck apparently among them.

Together, they've been bleating that the state can't afford the cost of the new span. Yet it would cost the state nothing -- Canada has promised $500 million, remember -- and would in fact create about a zillion construction jobs lasting for several years. Not to mention the fact that President Obama has said the Canuck money would count as Michigan's contribution and would engender matching road-improvement funds from Washington.

Clearly, Michigan can't lose.

I can hardly blame Moroun for defending his business, for a new bridge would certainly take traffic away and cut into his revenues. But I can certainly blame Colbeck and his ilk for putting politics before -- way before -- the good of Michigan and its citizens.

Like I said, ridiculous.

Edited: 10/12/2011 at 01:00 PM by rolf

OK, it's about time I did a blog, so let's go.

What's on my mind? Cell phones. I've been thinking a lot about these things in the last couple of weeks, since the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board recommended banning the use of mobile phones by commercial drivers except in emergencies. And the NTSB includes hands-free phones in that recommendation, by the way.

The Board was responding to an awful crash in March 2010 when a northbound tractor-trailer driven by an allegedly distracted and fatigued driver drifted across the I-65 median in Kentucky and hit a southbound 15-passenger van, killing 10 of its 12 occupants. Most of those 10 were unrestrained, not incidentally.

In fact, I've been thinking about cell-phone use in vehicles of any kind since the Ontario ban forced me to get hands-free gizmology in my cars more than a year ago. Works fine. I'm actually reminded of the law pretty much every day because it's painfully clear that a heck of a lot of folks are ignoring it. Just yesterday I had to hit the binders fairly hard because the guy in front of me took or made a call -- I watched the phone go up to his ear -- and moved halfway into my lane as he did it, slowing from 70 km/h or so to about 40 in the process. Not good.

I've also realized that even my hands-free calls aren't without distraction attached. Still have to find the thing and press a button for incoming stuff, and then there's the conversation that ensues. Some are more distracting than others, of course, but none leave my mind 100% focused on driving.

So, useful as they are, as fully integrated into our lives as they are, I'm starting to think that cell phones and driving just plain don't mix at all. Fact is, I don't even like talking to passengers while I'm at the wheel, unless we're on some long, straight and open stretch of road, and even then I'd rather not. Introduce traffic or weather and mum's definitely the word from me.

Just sayin...



Edited: 09/19/2011 at 12:49 PM by rolf

I owe my livelihood to some dude with an eyebrow ring.

Really.

As much of an ego-crusher as it is to admit, I wasn't the first choice to be the associate editor of Today's Trucking 11 years ago. Apparently, I lost out to some Queen Street hipster who charmed his way in.

There was a catch, though. Anyone who's ever spent five minutes with our boss Jim Glionna would probably agree that he and things like forehead bling don't really jive. And so this young man was kindly told he would need to remove the face jewelry, at least when representing the magazine outside of the office. "No way daddy-o. You can take this job back to Squaresville," responded Mr. Too Cool For School. (Or he might have if this were an episode of Leave it to Beaver).

Needless to say, my phone rang shortly thereafter.

And that's how life happens.

I've had a lot of fun ever since. Though, truthfully, back then I couldn't imagine I'd stick in this industry. This gig was supposed to be a pit stop on my destined path to becoming the next Quentin Tarantino.

Obviously, things didn't quite unfold that way. That's because I suck as a screenwriter. Besides that, the more I hung out with you guys - fleet owners and drivers alike - the less I stopped imagining doing anything else.

You're infectious. And your stories are inspiring. To this day I remain fascinated with how a guy turns one truck into 31 trucks and does it by sidestepping through a minefield of burdensome regulations, soaring costs and cutthroat competition.

Thanks for letting me ride shotgun. Hopefully, I won the respect of a few of you along the way. As you may have deciphered from that not-so cryptic headline, I'm saying all this because after 11 years at this magazine, I've decided to move on. I was asked by the Ontario Trucking Association/Canadian Trucking Alliance to join their team as VP of communications & new media and I accepted.

It's certainly a big change, but it's the right challenge for me and I'm excited about what I can offer the group.

I really can't say I know what trucking was like before I started here, but I've witnessed monumental changes during my stint, specifically since 9/11. Though, I sense at the end of my run as a truck writer that despite it all the industry is generally more solid than ever. At least there's less inner turmoil than there once was.

The other day I was googling for news and spent some time poking around the news archive. Most of the headlines from decades past read something like this: Truckers' Resistance Broken, Drivers Say (Hartford Courant, Oct 19, 1954); Violence Continues In Trucker Strike (Oct. 5,1967); Administration Surrenders to Irate Truckers' Demands (Calgary Herald, Dec. 6, 1973). And, if Google's news archives are any indication, it seems that's pretty much how it went until about the turn of the century.

Unlike the streets of Athens or Sydney, truckers are pretty quiet around here. Despite our own record high diesel prices and other operating costs, there hasn't been much unrest. Sure, there were some significant stoppages in what are arguably less sophisticated sectors (like, say, west coast drayage), but generally most of you put your head down and, perhaps a little begrudgingly, rolled along.

My own feeling is the battle worn operators who survived the last couple of recessions are reflexively savvier in adapting to conditions on the ground than truckers of yesteryear.

Bracing for technocratic meteor showers is another matter, however. Unlike cyclical, somewhat predictive market conditions, arbitrary and intrusive rules often come out of nowhere and, at times, with suspect justification.

I'm under no illusion that you're all fans of the associations. Fair enough. But I'll just reiterate what I've always said: Obviously, they can't be everything to everyone, but nobody has done more to improve this industry's public image. Plus, they're all that stand between truckers of all stripes and Big Government's bureaus of compliance. Like it or not, sometimes you have to feed the leviathan if you want to tame it and avoid death by a thousand paper(work) cuts.

Deep down, I think most truckers would admit that business life would be a heck of a lot worse without the associations' efforts in an age where the state attempts to control virtually every aspect of cross-border commerce, among countless other things like how you spec your truck; whether you can smoke in your cab or talk on your CB; the kind of fuel you fill up with; and the body mass index of the drivers you hire.

But regardless of what you may think of all that, I will say that I honestly loved recording your stories.

You remain in good hands. Rolf, King of the Motor Noter Jungle, is still here. Peter Carter is one of the best and wittiest magazine editors on the planet and my replacement Jason Rhyno is more wide-eyed and enthusiastic about this industry than any newcomer I've seen. Treat him well.

So long. Stay safe. And make money.

Edited: 09/06/2011 at 05:07 PM by MarcoBeghetto

By and large, big fleets and big equipment suppliers appear to be satisfied with the Obama administration's truck fuel efficiency and GHG-reduction regs unveiled in Washington yesterday.

it's not at all surprising, considering stakeholders from both camps were instrumental in helping to draft the rules, which - at least in the short-term - permit compliance with relatively simple design improvements, enhancements and technological add-ons.

Though, what happens in the latter stages of the compliance schedule, when heavy trucks have to meet the whopping 20-percent fuel efficiency standard, is a little less clear. (Trailers, will eventually have to be part of the mandate - and, EPA says, they will).

For the most part, the initial annual benchmarks are based on the gains established by the EPA SmartWay program, which many larger carriers already participate in to some extent.

I'm not throwing cold water on the program, but it's reasonable to question whether the fuel savings will offset the projected $7,000 cost of a compliant truck. Washington number crunchers insist that is the case, but considering the economic state of the country over the last five years, you have to wonder whether these are the folks that should be trusted.

Will the costs incurred by truck buyers -- especially small fleets and owner-ops --be worth much more than the feel-good PR capital the industry as a whole won this week? (Not that that's in itself insignificant).

Though, who am I to argue against it when fleets appear to welcome the plan, or at the very least there's very little public opposition to it -- save for OOIDA -- unlike the united industry front against the hours-of-service changes?

And while I can't help but roll my eyes at the weightless idea that CO2-cutting schemes like this will -- as Obama once promised -- lower the ocean levels, it's undeniable that there'll be fewer real pollutants hitting the air with every gallon of fuel saved.

And, if nothing else, Americans consuming less oil -- especially foreign oil (other than Canada, of course) -- can only be a good thing for global affairs; not to mention putting money back in truckers' wallets, regardless of fleet size.

Seven to 10 grand up-front for tens of thousands in savings at the pump over the life of the truck -- if that indeed is the case -- sounds like a good deal.

Many questions linger, though.

Such as: After all the design, weight, and component improvements have been found, what technology does the power source use to meet the 20-percent target in 2017 and what will that cost?

Some say engine makers will likely have to use exhaust waste heat recovery (WHR) to meet the EPA's goals. Whatever the system will look like, it'll be complex, weighty, and it won't be cheap.

Plus, will the range of equipment choices shrink in a market long accustomed to as many spec'ing options as possible?

And, as OOIDA points out, EPA completely overlooks "the most effective fuel-savings method of all" - driver training, which, the group says, "is responsible for 35 percent of fuel economy and which costs far less than any new technology." Should this be considered in future adaptations, if there are any?

Stay tuned. This is going to get very interesting.

Edited: 08/11/2011 at 11:25 AM by MarcoBeghetto

You gotta' love the MSM. Even as it points the finger at the 'Internet' and 'changing demographics' for its longstanding woes, it continues to crank up the sensationalism dial while denying it has a severe integrity deficit.

In an article picked up by dozens of newspapers and blogs in both Canada and the U.S. (including the widely-read Huffington Post), the Canadian Press' Steve Rennie reports that a database obtained by CP from the Dangerous Goods Accident Information System shows that there were nearly 20,000 hazmat related transport accidents in Canada over the last 20 years.

About half of them are a result of "human error," although the report doesn't clarify (as I suspect is the case) how many of those reported incidents are the fault of truck drivers or other vehicle operators involved in multi-vehicle events. As many of us know, just about every survey done on the subject in North America and Europe concludes car drivers are overwhelmingly at fault in car-truck crashes.

Other factors cited in the report include "improperly loaded and handling of dangerous cargo, losing control of vehicles, and carelessness and negligence."

Although this CP article is much better reported than a series of alarmist truck safety stories by CBC "investigators" earlier this year (I think I did a reasonably decent job taking a flamethrower to those here, here, and here), the authors or editor still can't help sensationalizing what's clearly the most underwhelming aspect of the data.

Consider this opening lede paragraph (my bold type):





Much farther down in the story we're told just how many "drunk, stoned or impaired" drivers were reported:

"Impaired drivers caused 21 accidents and another 83 happened because drivers fell asleep at the wheel" - that's apparently over 20 years, folks.

That tone-defining lede certainly encapsulates the true landscape in the hazmat sector, doesn't it?

Rather than marveling at the remarkably low impairment rate of truck drivers, CP instead chooses the "what if Charlie Sheen drove truck?" angle.

Nice job.

Edited: 06/27/2011 at 01:43 PM by MarcoBeghetto

The EPA has seemingly acknowledged that there are, in rare cases, a handful of loopholes for maintaining proper levels of diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) in SCR engines.

Read the details by clicking here , but in a nutshell, the EPA is proposing tougher guidelines for monitoring DEF levels, warning drivers when DEF tanks run close to empty and, if required, immobilizing or rendering inoperable trucks with low DEF levels or faulty dosing.

At the same time, though, the EPA has all but dismissed charges by Navistar (the lone OEM not using DEF-reliant SCR engines to comply with emissions rules) that its rivals' SCR engines allow vast numbers of drivers to circumvent the regulation, thereby giving them a "licence to pollute."

The EPA clearly states that it does not believe the rules are easily or routinely bypassed by failing to fill up with DEF or substituting other liquids like water in the tank - as Navistar alleges could happen with some frequency.

Navistar, which in the past threatened to sue the EPA over the standards, has gone so far as calling for the agency to recall SCR engines. Obviously, that isn't ever going to happen.

But it's unclear whether the proposal to revise the guidance will satisfy Navistar in the end. Its campaign against EPA's stance on SCR engines, while laudably toned down recently, had been quite aggressive in the past.

For those who thought the risk that large numbers of drivers will let tanks run dry or substitute DEF with water was virtually non existent anyway -- (filling up with DEF is as easy and routine as topping up windshield washer fluid and the 'derate' inducement for not maintaining DEF is unpleasant at best) - the news that EPA will tighten the standards and further mitigate any risk of misfueling or drivers overlooking fill-ups should theoretically mean an end to this exhausting marketing war.

...I said theoretically.

Edited: 06/22/2011 at 02:05 PM by MarcoBeghetto

Australia's trucking magnate Lindsay Fox says his country needs an infusion of human capital. What to do, then?

"I'd encourage everyone," he told local media, "to go home and make love tonight and create another baby for Australia."

To paraphrase Queen Victoria (or so the legend goes), lie back and think of Down Under.

Presumably, Mr. Fox is looking down the highway and is wondering who exactly is going to pilot his 5,000 trucks, or eat the tons of food he delivers or work the mines his equipment services.

It's a question that businesses all over the western world better be asking themselves as their countries' demographics dwindle away.

Australia's birth rate actually is in slightly better shape than most first-world nations at about 1.8 kids per couple. Canada's is 1.6 - not anywhere close to the societal replacement level of 2.1 - but still more, err, productive, than western European countries like Greece, Spain or Italy, which at around 1.2, are effectively hampered with a completely inverted population - and falling. (Massive illegal immigration notwithstanding).

I know it's a touchy subject, but on the question of immigration, just what are we getting in the industry for the most part?

There's no doubt that the demographic dilemma in trucking will have to be solved with immigrant drivers -- unless we all heed the fabulous Mr. Fox's procreation proclamation, there's just no other way around it. And administered correctly, foreign recruitment can be a very positive thing for the nation.

What we don't need, though, is more minimally skilled laborers or overly skilled professionals who have no interest at all in trucking but slog through it because it's a "landing" or stopgap career until they either find something else or, as independents, drive themselves (and a few others along the way) out of business.

What we need are real, experienced truck drivers from overseas who won't come over for nothing and, upon arriving, will have some real skin in the game.

I suspect, as I look at the very real possibility of serious cultural unrest and societal collapse in some western European basketcase economies over the next couple of decades, that there'll be a lot of decent, hard-working professional truckers (who, by the way are themselves under extreme competitive price pressure from eastern European and North African drivers) that'll be willing to come here and stay here if we make it worthwhile for them.

By worthwhile, of course, I mean pay them and treat them better than we are currently doing with some our own decent drivers. So, obviously, let's start at home first.

Lets put to the test once and for all, the argument that "there's no driver shortage, just a 'professional' driver shortage.

I'm willing to concede that is somewhat true present day. But even if we overhauled the compensation and lifestyle systems overnight, the driver shortage facing us down the road is quite real, and, I suggest, unavoidable.

It's simple math. And the numbers as they are now are unsustainable.

Edited: 05/26/2011 at 03:17 PM by MarcoBeghetto

The thought of voting NDP has never ever crossed my mind and, I can tell you, it never will. (Unlike a huge swath of Quebeckers I actually try to know the name of the candidate I'm voting for)
But NDP Windsor MP Brian Masse is a guy I have a lot of respect for. For one thing, he seems to be a good man. More importantly, though, he's one lefty who's willing to call out pseudo environmental groups when they deserve it.

I'm talking about Masse's recent takedown of Big Environment group, the Sierra Club, which curiously joined the private Ambassador Bridge in trying to derail the proposed public crossing between Windsor and Detroit. (A federal court rejected those complaints this week, BTW).

The Ambassador's opposition to the new bridge is obvious; and frankly, as a private company trying to protect its business interests from government-run competition, I can't say I blame them.

But what's the Sierra Club's angle here? Throwing their lot in with trucking mogul and monopolizer (not that there's anything wrong with that!) Matty Moroun, certainly makes for very strange bedfellows.

Environmentally, its failed court challenge to stop the public bridge project because officials supposedly didn't consider the "rare ecosystem that will cause permanent damage to threatened and endangered species" reeks with hypocrisy.

In their minds, protecting a handful of garter snakes and weeds (assuming they can't slither or sprout elsewhere), trumps the environmental payoff of a new bridge relieving traffic congestion and diesel emissions from idling trucks in residential Windsor.

A couple of years ago, I called Sierra Club Canada to answer for this but I never heard back. But really, what could they possibly say? That the hideous Dense Blazing Star is more important than breathing?

In a quote to the Windsor Star, Masse puts it best:



I couldn't ever vote for Brian if I lived in Windsor, as you can understand. But I'm glad there's a few folks like him in that camp.

Edited: 05/05/2011 at 03:38 PM by MarcoBeghetto

I wouldn't shed even the salt from a tear if Congress got away with scrapping funding for NPR (or, for that matter, the CBC closer to home), but admittedly here's an interesting NPR link I copied to my 'to-blog-about' list a couple of years ago, but never got around to actually mentioning it until I stumbled upon it again while cleaning out that file today.

The article, titled Space Truckers Aren't Science Fiction Anymore, explains that NASA is effectively just a long-haul space transporter these days and even that's being threatened by private companies.



Indeed.

But just wait until the government mandates union pilots; distracted flying legislation; drug-alcohol-and-Tang testing rules; size and weight(less?) limits; cross-planet pre-notification.

And you can bet there won't be a space station in sight to rest when the feds decide to appease space shuttle 'safety' interest groups and clamp down on hours-of-service.

On the bright side, at least the mandatory sleep apnea machines go nicely with the rest of the space gear planted on your face.



Edited: 04/19/2011 at 09:12 AM by MarcoBeghetto

If you're as tired of reading about the CBC's campaign against trucking as much as I am about writing it, you'll be forgiven for moving on. But if you can, bear with once more.

So, why the trilogy if I'm exhausted from the issue?

To my surprise, my previous posts which reveal what appears to be a habitual anti-trucking bias by the CBC actually got some traction in the blogosphere and at the CBC' own readers' forum, and so perhaps it's having a bit of an impact keeping the issue of truck safety in context for the average public reader.

It appears that the "investigative" team at CBC is at it again, exposing more 18-wheeled threats on the highway: From an online report today (parenthesis mine):

"Just weeks after a CBC I-Team report revealed 4,800 Canadian trucking companies were caught violating key parts of safety regulations in the last two years, (more on that below -ed) allegations of bribery involving a safety consultant have also surfaced."

OK, first off, this story about this alleged bribe did NOT in fact occur "weeks after" the CBC's sensational article about 4800 carriers violating HOS rules in the US - despite the author's poor attempt to try and combine these completely separate stories as part of some sort of renegade truck spree in Canada.

The Buffalo News and other outlets reported this story way back in January, more than a month before the CBCs report on the HOS violations and more than two months before this completely rehashed, supposed exposé.

And just what does CBC "discover" on its own? Well, that "some truckers and the companies they work for are willing to pay a lot of money to make safety inspectors look the other way."

Not earth shattering, I know, since such things happen in every industry. But indulge me anyway.

This is what this so-called "investigation" consists of: CBC interviewed one anonymous truck inspector who says he's turned down -- are you sitting down? - four, count 'em, attempted bribes over a six-year span.

A Pulitzer Prize-worthy revelation, I know.

We don't know how specific the bribes were, of course, or, to put it in context, out of how many inspections this nameless officer conducted over the last six years.
CBC either doesn't think to ask or doesn't see it fit to print. But you can imagine. (The average MTO inspector checks about 400 trucks a year, BTW).

I'm not trying to downplay the seriousness of alleged bribes by trucking companies. No doubt it happens, but what industry doesn't experience this?

I have a close family member who's a real estate appraiser and considering the vowel at the end of my name, you can imagine that I know a few people in construction too.

I made a few calls today and asked how many 'bribes' or hints thereof they're offered a year (and, obviously, turn down) in order to, say, inflate property values or cut corners on job sites? Lets just say it's a lot more than one every 1.5 years.

Just like the HOS violations article, this is another alarmist story trumped up as an investigative "discovery." Charlie Sheen's Twitter ramblings have more substance. And at least Charlie's current.

Finally, as I wrote in the last two postings, I've been waiting weeks for a callback from CBC to clarify what the reporter meant by 4,800 "carriers" in the Feb. article. Does it mean the number of violations of truck units or is it individual nameplated companies and owner-ops?

In this latest article, CBC makes the allegation for the third time (that I know of), but this time explicitly states 4800 "trucking companies" rather than "carriers."

I contacted the CBC's media relations official once more this morning, again asking for clarification. (It's been five hours so far).

Why is the distinction so important? As I previously wrote, it's unlikely that CBC means 4,800 unique companies in that report, even though it all but says this is the case.

An FMCSA official explained to me that HOS-related roadside violations are not searchable by specific nameplates, only domicile. If that's the case, (and my own search of the DOT database indicates that it is), I think CBC messed up the data. The number of redundant HOS violations is actually higher than 4800, but since it's out of 97,000 inspections of Canadian trucks, the violation rate (and more importantly, the out-of-service rate) is anything but alarming.

Of course, it's possible that CBC researchers reviewed (or, I'm guessing, FMCSA provided) tens of thousands or more individual carrier safety profiles, extracted 4,800 Canadian carriers from that list and then tallied up the HOS-related violations.

If so, that would actually be worse -- another example of wasted CBC resources (err, taxpayer dollars) to tell us that a few thousand companies had some type of HOS violation (how many were clerical in nature, CBC doesn't say) out of the estimated 60,000 to 80,000 Canadian fleets and owner-ops that cross the border.

It's all quite shameful. If we must have a public broadcaster, I encourage you all to demand that our money is spent on better journalism then this alarmist, tabloid stuff meant to stir up fear at the expense of the trucking industry.

Edited: 03/29/2011 at 05:48 PM by MarcoBeghetto

In a recent report detailing how Atlantic truckers are rallying against the US hours of service proposal, the CBC reporter can't help closing off with a completely irrelevant synopsis of a sensational story it published a few weeks ago on how Canadian "carriers" are supposedly running roughshod over American HOS-logbook regulations.

That previous article was thoroughly debunked, first in our headlines section, then, in greater detail, on this blog . As I explain - I think rather convincingly - the report's theme is grossly overstated, completely out-of-context, and, there's good reason to believe the conclusions of the CBC reporter and producer were pre-drawn.

I also got in touch with a "media relations" official (I wish I wrote down his name) asking for a clarification on the number of "carrier" violators mentioned in the article. He said he would check with the reporter and get back to me. He never did.

In the days that followed, the rebuttal was passed through the Twittersphere and countless drivers took to the CBC comments section to make similar legitimate criticisms. (A selection of my favorites appear below).

So, I find it hard to believe that by now someone at CBC isn't aware of the facts.

Any reporter with any journalistic integrity at all would have to admit that, at the very least, there are some glaring problems with the original article.

I don't expect a retraction or clarification from that organization, but the least the CBC could do is not peddle the same hyperbole again.

Here are a few readers' comments that appear on the CBC message board at the end of that article. Sure, there are a handful of the typical 'get-truckers-off-the-road' comments -- probably from the flip-flop wearing, Toronto Beaches types who keep the CBC afloat -- but the overwhelming majority of the messages are by experienced drivers who take the CBC to task.

(And, yes, my selections are obviously partisan, especially the first two!)



Don't hold your breath w-bob.

If the facts don't fit the theory, Einstein supposedly once said, change the facts. Or, if you work at the CBC, just ignore all the relevant facts and hype up the trivial.

That's pretty much what CBC did in this report which is gaining traction among the network's affiliates and across the internet.

We've done our best contextualize things here.

Basically, CBC sensationalizes the 'discovery' (my air quotes) that 4,800 Canadian "carriers" (not my quotes) violated hours of service and logbook rules in 2009 and 2010.

Not only are most of those infractions minor in severity (which have no bearing on actual fatigue or indicate a significant safety risk), but I suspect that by "carriers" CBC doesn't mean individual fleet companies and owner-ops, but the number of total drivers or truck operators who had violations over the last two years. (I've been waiting for CBC to confirm that for several hours, but haven't yet heard back).

A red herring? I don't think so. While it's hard to peg the exact number of individual Canadian drivers that cross the border, estimates (assuming 25 to 30 percent of our 250,000-driver force crosses the border) of between 60,000 and 80,000 are not unreasonable.

So, then, are 4,800 violations (more than a handful, undoubtedly, clerical in nature) out of tens of thousands of Canadian truckers over a two-year period at all extraordinary or inconsistent with U.S. drivers' rates? Hardly. It's a non story.

I'll bet it's significantly lower than the rate of CBC reporters making typos. But no one's suggesting they pose a risk to broadcasting standards are they? (Okay, lets discuss that another time).

My ROFLOL moment came when I read UofT "fatigue expert" Alison Smiley's paraphrased statement that lack of sleep is a "major" concern in deadly truck accidents. One that's often "overlooked."

And then the alarmist money quote that could have come straight out of a Michael Moore crockumentary:

"We're sacrificing people on the roads to have our strawberries on time and to not have to pay too much for them," Smiley said.

Really? U.S. DOT data shows fatigue is contributing factor in only 1.4 percent of truck-involved fatalities. Would that have been so hard to check before publishing that quote?

I'm flatly suggesting the CBC has an agenda here.

If the tone of the copy doesn't convince you, consider this:

Yesterday, I got a call from a CBC producer looking for commentary about this issue. Because of a prior engagement, I had to pass off the interview to my colleague Rolf Lockwood -- but not before giving this guy an earful about the industry's exemplary safety record as background (not that they considered any of it).

Anyway, Rolf agreed to chat (reluctantly, as it happens, because of bad experiences with the MSM in the past). For 10-15 minutes, he was asked in a prelim interview about the "problem" of fatigue in trucking, to which he responded that it's way overblown; that accident data isn't always accurate; and some accidents are mistakenly attributed to driver fatigue by default, when they're more likely due to four-wheeler error.

Not satisfied, the interviewer asked the fatigue question over and over again, but Rolf stood pat.

Later, the reporter called back and told Rolf he's off the hook. They were going with another "expert."

Rolf will have all the details and more on his response to the reporter in his upcoming editorial in Today's Trucking. But clearly there's an agenda at work with conclusions pre-drawn.

And the Canadian journo community is worried about so-called "Fox News Canada"?

Right. We have standards to maintain, don't we?

<<UPDATE: See additional comments dated Feb 28 below>>

Edited: 02/28/2011 at 10:39 AM by MarcoBeghetto

I think it's about time we had a serious debate in this country about putting an end to the biofuel shell game.

Off the bat, I guess I need to be clear that I'm not suggesting biodiesel should be shunned. If there's a true market for it, then great; and if you fill up with the stuff and it works for your fleet, by all means, go nuts.

But the government mandating of boutique fuels at the expense of truckers and taxpayers - and for the sole benefit of the agri sector - should not happen.

It's a curious time for the Conservatives to usher in a B mandate as governments all over the world rethink their own polices and Environment Canada's own study on the matter clearly shows the costs far outweigh any net carbon savings.

Plus, there are several other alternative energy solutions coming online such as LNG which appears to have far more environmental traction than biodiesel and more worthy, IMHO, of government support.

Like the AGW racket in general, the wheels are starting to come off the biobus and it's time Stephen Harper slammed on the brakes.

As I've mentioned in the past, there's emerging evidence that biofuel provides very little, if any, environmental net benefit as the carbon impact from clear cutting of land, cultivation and production of the stuff is thought to offset the reduced emissions from less consumption.

The demand for corn, sugar and vegetable oil for the ethanol and biodiesel market is said to be having a devastating effect on world food supply and costs, especially in impoverished nations.



As well, turmoil in many of these countries can have geopolitical blowback here, which, as we see quite regularly these days, can upset a variety of North American markets.

As readers of this blog are aware, there's nothing more distasteful to me than government regulation and market intervention purely for political gain.

Look, I don't doubt the biofuel industry set off with good intentions. And I can see how it might have appeared like a very good idea at first.

But, as the folks behind New Coke and the USFL eventually came to realize, sometimes things just don't work.

Unlucky for them that they didn't have the state on their side.

But that's how it should be.

Edited: 02/11/2011 at 02:42 PM by MarcoBeghetto

You can't make this stuff up.

President Obama signed an executive order calling for simpler regulations and to scale back ones currently on the books that stifle economic growth.

"Sometimes, those rules have gotten out of balance, placing unreasonable burdens on business -- burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs," Obama wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.

Err, ya think, Mr. President?

This from a president who, with the ushering of new HOS rules, brought unnecessary burdens on trucking, which will no doubt hamper productivity, purely for political gain?

This from a president whose EPA deemed carbon dioxide to be a "pollutant" and demanded the introduction of truck fuel efficiency standards that even regulators don't know how they'll be achieved?

What about proposed carbon taxes; the Orwellian Employee Free Choice Act ('Card Check') aimed at unionizing private industry; the reclassification of independent contractors; massive expansion of the federal bureaucracy (namely DOT & EPA) and its reach; the state takeover of the auto, banking and health insurance industries?

I could go on.

If that's how you free up the economy stateside, remind me never to complain about the Canadian nanny state again.

A lot happened as we were gearing down to close 2010. For one thing, details of the long-awaited hours of service rewrite came out as I was running out trying to get my kid the latest Bakugan toy for Christmas. (If you don't know what that is, don't bother looking it up, because toys - especially toys for boys - totally suck these days).

Anyway, as we were the first to report in this feature e-news bulletin at the time, the FMCSA handed down its decision (sort of) on whether to change the amount of hours drivers can be behind the wheel. The verdict? Well, it's that there's still no official decision.

That's right. Even though it issued its proposal, the agency hasn't yet determined whether it'll keep the 11-hour driving limit or cap it to 10 - although it states it prefers the latter approach.

Some of the other six changes (click here for details and look for updates in our upcoming February issue) seem to come out of left field.

In an attempt to try and appease both sides, the FMCSA seems to have satisfied no one. In fact, they probably made life even worse for their lawyers (or 'better' if you know how lawyers think).

Predictably, critics of the current rule such as the Teamsters and Public Citizen say it doesn't go far enough and they could take aim at the agency in court again for the betrayal of not turning truckers into proverbial pumpkins at midnight. Meanwhile, carrier groups like the ATA insist (rightfully so) that the changes are unwarranted, unscientific and they too could launch their own lawsuit.

Truckers - who, ironically, the Teamsters and Public Citizen profess need protection - are, from what we can tell, overwhelmingly opposed to the changes.

The loads of emails and comments we've received have one common thread: Truckers are unanimously pissed off at needlessly being messed with - again. And they see through the political motives this time more than ever.

You can argue, as the CTA recently did, that the changes are not as bad as some of us more pessimistic observers expected. That's true, assuming regulators don't tamper with the 11-hour limit (my guess is that they will).

But then, why the heck did the FMCSA even bother if it wasn't going to appease the special interests to their complete satisfaction and stave off further litigation? Sure it's more benign than people feared, but what's the justification for inconveniencing so many hard-working people for this dog's breakfast proposal?

My personal feeling is that regulators were stuck between a rock and a hard place (and, no, I don't mean they're from Newfoundland).

Assumingly, more than a few of these same DOT bureaucrats were involved in the decade-long rule-writing process that concluded with the 2004 rule; believed in it, and some even spent a lot of time defending it from Citizen et al.

Then an Obama-administration beholden to Big Labor passes down a mandate to 'toughen' up the rule and the department didn't really know what to do without completely turning the industry upside down.

Just an outsiders' guess, but I bet this silliness we got is the result.

After nearly two decades, the HOS conundrum is far from settled.

Edited: 01/05/2011 at 02:47 PM by MarcoBeghetto

I wasn't even born when some of you guys starting hauling freight, but over the last 10 years covering this cyclical industry through all the ups and downs, there's at least one thing I'm convinced of:

This industry produces the most passionate and generous folks on the planet.

From truckers who risk their lives to save the lives of others on the road to fleet owners who use their companies and assets to give the less fortunate a boost, trucking is filled with people whose place in heaven is saved.

There's the Rosenau's who every year roll out a decked-the-halls-out tractor-trailer or two to pick up and deliver perishable goods to the local food bank; or the staff at H&R Transport who collected and delivered 80 gifts for patients in the children's unit at Chinook Regional Hospital.

Of course, such generosity is not limited to Christmas. Throughout the year we post countless stories about carriers and individual truckers who help special needs children, the critically sick, close families who have lost loved ones, or entire communities devastated by disaster.

To those people and everyone else who recognizes that their role in this great industry can be used to give back, we here at Today's Trucking thank you.

To everyone, have a fantastic Christmas and joyous New Year.

And be sure to come back for more rantings in 2011!

Peace.

Edited: 12/22/2010 at 01:25 PM by MarcoBeghetto

One by one, large retailers and shippers in North America are declaring war on Canada's oilsands and demanding that their transport service providers identify where their fuel is sourced.

As reported here by CTV, cosmetics giant Avon has joined nearly 10 other large retailers in announcing that it will avoid logistics suppliers who use fuel derived from the Canadian oilsands.

As a result, one of its main carriers, Concord Transportation, says it will take steps to "identify sources for the fuel that we purchase, primarily in the U.S., and work to lessen or minimize purchasing fuel from vendors that were deriving their feedstock from the tarsands."

The international anti-tarsands movement decries the "social impact" of Canada's supposedly "carbon-heavy," "dirty" oil. The bandwagon is piloted by the usual suspects - Green Peace, the Sierra Club and a gaggle of celebrities like the cowardly James Cameron, whose own carbon footprint for making mega-blockbuster movies and promoting them around the world makes Al Gore look like a hobo.

Never mind the extreme difficulty for carriers, especially small ones, in identifying their fuel's feedstock and then making arrangements for alternate suppliers. Lets just say that it would be possible to do so relatively easily. So, if not from the tarsands, then where?

Most likely it'll be coming from OPEC countries like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria or Venezuela.

How rich is it that companies yearning for green cred fret about Albertan oil's "social impact," but don't seem to have any problem with oil sourced from Saudi Arabia, where militant wings funnel the revenue to radical madrassas all over the world, or a socialist thug state like Venezuela?

How many of these companies source products from China? Do they publicly comment on that country's human rights or appalling environmental record?

That's just one of many rebuttals made in the bestselling new book, Ethical Oil, by preeminent free speech warrior and author Ezra Levant. Ezra exposes the rhetorical fraud behind the anti-tarsands campaign as well as the mainstream media's willingness to keep parroting lobby groups' absurd claims that Canada is a "climate criminal" and our oilsands "kill" people around the world.

I chatted with Ezra today about retailers and big box shippers putting pressure on their transport providers to verify that their fuel isn't from tarsands feedstock.

He chalks up most of these PR stunts to companies not doing their homework.

"Most companies don't even know what they're saying or bother doing any due diligence. They're probably presented with a turnkey press release by a lobby group and from a PR point of view, it might seem like a good idea at the time.

"In this case, I believe they signed on to something without doing their homework."

Ezra can't help noting the irony of Avon -- whose products are mostly marketed to women -- indirectly lobbying for the competing Saudis.

"Is Avon saying that they prefer the ethics of the Saudis or Iranians, which have atrocious gender discrimination records? If they thought it through, that would have to be their conclusion because if not the tarsands, then where?

"What they're proposing would actually lower the ethical quality of oil. For Avon, I would think that the equality of men and women is a very high priority."

Asked about James Cameron's and other celebrities' impact on the debate, Ezra said "we should be polite to these people, but we should also push back a bit.

"We should ask them 'what's in your gas tank?' Cameron is a huge energy user. He's from California, which imports most of its oil from Saudi Arabia and produces a bit of its own, which is very carbon-intense."

[I wonder how many devices Cameron had to plug in to create, screen and promote Avatar, a film that has no discernable societal benefit other than entertaining sci-fi fans and keeping popcorn manufacturers afloat.]

I've watched Ezra in debates and he absolutely steamrolls over his critics when he shines the spotlight back on them and demands that they list real-world "ethical" alternatives to Canadian oil. Many simply can't answer.

"The only debate these people want to have is the oilsands versus perfection - some utopian fuel source with no side effects. Well, it doesn't exist. That's only suitable for the science fiction movies Cameron (is known for)."

Cameron & Friends should stick to that.

For the complete takedown, get Ezra's Ethical Oil here.

Edited: 12/06/2010 at 03:27 PM by MarcoBeghetto

As someone who's spent his entire adult life (keep the jokes to yourself) voting for the only Canadian party with any semblance to real conservatism, I regret to say that I'm seriously reconsidering continuing the pattern for the next federal election.

There's more than a few reasons for this -- the biggest, if you'll allow me to digress, is Stephen Harper's refusal to slap down the corrupt and increasingly rouge 'human rights' (mock quotes intended) commission and restore free speech in this country.

But it's also based on how parts of this government remind me of the cronyism that infected the other guys while they were in power.

If you've been reading NewsFirst this last week, you'll know a little game of political chicken has emerged between the Canadian Trucking Alliance and Tory MP Dean Del Mastro over the long combination vehicle program in Ontario. You can read the details here and here but basically, Del Mastro is a proud pro-rail politician, who, armed with a list of highly selective, rail industry-spun talking points, is using his position to sink an operational initiative by a competing mode.

I'm no shill for the CTA and there's been plenty of things I disagree with them on (as I'll get into later in his post), but David Bradley's basic point that there's something not appropriate about an MP who uses his position on the so-called "rail caucus" to take aim at trucking rings true to me.

Del Mastro's concerns about LCV's impact on safety and the environment have been thoroughly debunked by the CTA and others, including this magazine. His rhetorical 'Trains Belong on Tracks campaign is just a thinly veiled attempt to boost his preferred mode of transporting goods.

Naturally, as a lobbying group CTA is doing the same thing, of course, except that's its job and it's not with taxpayer dollars. Nor does it as a matter of practice launch unprovoked assaults on competing modes.

Many of Del Mastro's arguments should be read to a Disco theme because that's the era he's taking the truck-rail debate back to.

Lets review his three main concerns:

Safety: Although he's been informed of the facts, Del Mastro continues to cite 20-year-old research from the U.S. that suggests LCVs "are likely to have fatal accident involvement rates at least 11 percent higher than today's single tractor trailers."

There's a reason Del Mastro (or whoever supplied him with the info) settles on that point. That's because it's from one of only a handful of LCV studies in North America over the last 25 years to highlight a possible increase in accident risk.

I've spent some time reviewing the overall conclusions of about a dozen studies done in the last two decades and, while there's caveats, the overwhelming majority of them - including two subsequent follow-ups from the DOT-FHWA - could find no evidence of increased crashes or fatalities with LCVs compared to five-axle, 53-ft tractor-trailers; while some others suggest there's as much as 90 percent reduction in collisions.

It's worth mentioning here that at least two comprehensive reviews of the available literature both concluded that it was difficult to determine the true safety impact from many of these older studies since at the time most jurisdictions didn't have adequate crash reporting systems or a uniform definition of LCVs to strongly support safety claims one way or the other.

However, it still can't be ignored that most of the research, as it was, still sided with LCVs.

As does more contemporary research based on better reporting and vehicle definitions.

Conveniently, Del Mastro plucks that outdated data from the U.S, rather than looking specifically at the available Canadian research, which, since 2000, is nearly unanimous that LCVs are at the very least safety neutral with 53-footers.

That's not surprising since LCVs, including the ones that have been operating in Alberta and Quebec since the late '60s, have been under strict guidelines, which no doubt contributes to the above average safety record. (Del Mastro should be ensuring this remains the case going forward, rather than trying to take them off the road entirely).

This is why it's what Del Mastro doesn't say that is more troubling than some of the erroneous talking points that he does peddle.

He refuses to acknowledge that LCVs are limited to certain four-lane divided highways only; during non-winter, off-peak hours; with only experienced qualified drivers whose truck speed is capped. As well, unlike the U.S., LCVs represent an increase of length not weight over standard semis in Canada.

As the Canada Safety Council rightly pointed out in its own review of the research, "this means that information about LCV use from the united states cannot be extrapolated to Canadian conditions without qualification."

On top of this, much of what LCVs haul doesn't overlap with rail's market anyway. Del Mastro carries on like he's not aware of any of this.

I wonder, then, why he has taken up this cause when even the railways are not publicly objecting to LCVs. Or maybe that is why. Who knows?

Environment: OK, this one's been done to death, but obviously it's well known that rail is "greener" than trucking simply because of the sheer quantity of fuel-burning trucks out on the road.

On a per unit basis, rail locomotives are far dirtier than the modern truck engine, with new engines all but eliminating particulate matter and NOx, while the sulfur content in highway fuel is down to 12 parts per million, compared to 500 ppm for rail.

As TT.com reader M Morissette points out:

So, then, rail can only be described carbon-friendly because it simply moves more freight per single unit. Well, isn't the trucking industry trying to move closer to that model with LCVs? Thus, Del Mastro's enviro talking point basically comes down to 'trains are good, but longer trucks are bad because they operate more like trains.' He's funny like that, huh?

Public Perception: Del Mastro continues to plant seeds of protest on infertile ground. He says the Canadian public is ready to rise up against LCVs without acknowledging that in several provinces they've been sharing the road with them for decades.

In Ontario, the program has been in place for 18 months with nary a word from concerned citizens, other than the odd Toronto Star letter writer. Little uproar from the media too, for that matter.

Del Mastro professes that he hasn't met a single constituent that wants to share the road with LCVs. Luckily for his constituents, then, that LCVs are not permitted on roads around Peterborough.

If the MP has a point it is that that the LCV project in Ontario was approved without public consultation. Fine. But like I have said in the past in regards to the speed limiter rule (not a fan, by the way), if you don't like it or how it was handled, then take it up with the provincial government.

Don't rush to Queen's Park all at once everyone.

Alas, what exactly is approved by governments with public consultation these days? Will I get a say how Del Mastro's government decides to spend my money in the next federal budget? Do I get a say on whether I want my money spent on the aforementioned, perversely Orwellian human rights commissions that fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Justice Dept.?

Well, no. All I get is a vote every four years. The supposed legion of opponents of LCV will get one too. If he wishes, Del Mastro should encourage them to use it, but that's pretty much where his advocacy as a public servant should end.

So, here's some friendly advice for Mr. Del Mastro: Do not pursue this agenda. Assuming the mainstream media does its homework (and some are), this isn't something you can win. The facts are nowhere near on your side.

If not, well then, I issue this challenge: At least address the above points. Provide real proof LCVs cause more crashes; show that that a truck carrying more freight per unit is somehow less environmentally friendly (and if the answer to that is that LCVs divert freight from more fuel efficient trains, well, prove that too); and identify all the concerned citizens who are upset this policy passed without their input.

For every single one, I'll show you 10 far more upset with more pressing matters that this government could be addressing.

Edited: 11/18/2010 at 05:37 PM by MarcoBeghetto

Industry opponents of the electronic on-board recorder rules pushing through the regulatory system in Canada and the U.S. appear to have an inconvenient ally.

Apparently, some trial lawyers don't like the rule either. Why? Well, supposedly it's bad because it doesn't make it any easier for lawyers to sue truckers. As if they needed any more help, right?

Carriers who are concerned that it's just a matter of time before "creative" plaintiffs' attorneys push to get at sensitive EOBR data, beyond just hours-of-service records, probably aren't wrong. Whether they end up winning is another question.

Some law firms are complaining that the proposed Senate bill on EOBRs will give carriers the cover they need to appear safe when they're not. The only way to prevent this, (drum roll, please), is to open up all EOBR records to lawyers.

Consider this scaremongering press release from one, Kinnard, Clayton & Beveridge in Nashville:



It gets better:



Uh huh. So, let me see if I'm following this. Paper logbooks are better for highway safety because log falsifiers will be exposed in court, right?

Or, perhaps - and I'm just throwing this out there -- EOBRs will take many HOS rule breakers off the road and a reliable revenue stream for personal injury attorneys will pretty much dry up, at least without access to other, non HOS-related goodies buried somewhere in a truck's data.

Or put more diplomatically from the firm:



And after referencing a 60's song that mentions truck drivers using amphetamines to stay awake, it's nice the law firm thought well enough to include this qualification about the industry:

"Granted, there may be trucking companies that are genuinely concerned with driver fatigue and its effect on safety..."

Indeed, I've heard folklore about such fleets.

So to wrap up: Paper logbooks -- Bad for safety because drivers falsify them. EOBRs -- Bad for lawyers because drivers can't falsify them.

Talk about self-serving.

Edited: 11/30/2010 at 03:39 PM by MarcoBeghetto

What do computer hard drives and Viagra have in common? No, it's not even close to what you're thinking.

According to a professional cargo thief, they're two of the most sought-after items by the ringleaders of truck theft across North America.

The anonymous trucker makes the claim in a CBS news report earlier this week.

He tells reporter Amen Keteyian that he has been given up to $1.5 million cash for a trailer load of goods. And then he shows how he can break into a truck and drive off with it in less than 30 seconds.

Check it out here.

Sure, you've heard it before. And if you haul pharma, food or electronics, we bet you've had it happen to you more than once.

Still, the footage is alarming and worth forwarding around the shop.

And there are some interesting new facts (at least to me). Like how some stolen drugs become deadly when they hit the black market because once they're swiped, the temperature isn't controlled properly.

Or how cargo thefts have jumped a staggering 350% in just two years.

Like it or not, the role of the American Trucking Associations has a huge impact on your business, even in Canada.

For cross border operators, the reasons are obvious. But domestic carriers are also well aware by now that many of the rules dreamed up by transport bureaucrats in the Beltway have a way of blowing north of the border under the banner of safety and economic uniformity.

So, the ATA's lobbying efforts are important here too, even if they're not immediately apparent.

It's notable then, that this week the ATA elected Barbara Windsor, the President of Maryland-based Hahn Transportation, to serve as chair of the organization.

Yes, she's the first-ever woman chair. But it's a couple of other features that caught my interest.

Based in Maryland, Windsor is probably quite familiar with how the gears grind in D.C.

She comes from a long line of Maryland Motor Truck Association chairs, including her Grandfather and mother before her.

And guess who else was a top official of the Maryland truck group? Perhaps not so coincidentally, Anne Ferro, the recently appointed director of FMCSA, was president of the MMTA until 2009.

I don't profess to have any idea what sort of relationship the two have, but one can assume they've worked closely together and at one point shared a reasonably similar vision for the industry.

On the surface, this appears like good news for trucking.

Or is it?

The unions and special interest gadflies wasted no time in objecting to Ferro's appointment to FMCSA, pointing out her supposed close ties to the trucking industry -- (funny, though, we haven't heard a peep on that since Ferro's FMCSA announced it would reconsider the hours-of-service rules, just as the Teamsters and Public Citizen wanted ).

I'm just wondering out loud if Windsor's appointment to lead the ATA now puts more pressure on Ferro to openly distance herself from the industry she's charged with regulating.

No one doubts that Ferro would perform professionally regardless, but the special interests have already seized upon the perception she's too close to industry once before - with results.

Who knows how noisy they'll get, then, if they don't get what they want on HOS and other things.

Ah, all what I love and hate about politics.

OK, all you Rocky Mountaineers. I know exactly how skilled you are and how you sometimes need nerves of steel up there in the winter. But get a load of this.

Ah, tres bien, says my pal Steve Bouchard from Transport Routier, but this is how they do it in La Belle Province!

Truckers in Greece are marching on Athens to protest their government's commendable attempt to liberalize the trucking industry.

And I say 'liberal' in the classic, free-market sense not the oxymoronic version that socialists like Greece's adopted for themselves after WWII .

According to reports, the Greek Parliament is finalizing passage of the controversial bill that would open up the over-regulated trucking sector as well as other so called "closed" professions.

Specifically, the government wants to increase the number of trucking licenses it doles out to certified operators in order to spur competition and reduce exorbitantly high freight costs. Truckers, upset the value of their licenses (currently worth as much as €200,000) will be severely undercut, have responded with massive protests, blockades and clashes with police.

While it's understandable that truckers would be angry about the likely end to the absurd level of protection they've enjoyed until now, they need to realize -- as does even the socialist government as its basketcase economy teeters over the abyss - that the current economic model there is unsustainable.

From top to bottom, this and other western European economies are overly centralized and controlled by huge, bloated civil services.

While that's the biggest problem, "private" sector workers are also highly dependent on government subsidies and regulation. Basically, they're rioting to be able to retire earlier, be less productive and cost-efficient and continue to be protected by the nanny state at a level that few workers in other parts of the world are afforded.

Greece's debt is 125 per cent of GDP. The World Bank ranks it the 109th freest economy out of 183 countries. That sounds good only if you live in North Korea.

As even the ruling class is starting to figure out, who's going to keep paying for that model? Not Greeks, that's for sure. Greece competes with a handful of other countries for the lowest birthrates on the planet and has very strict immigration laws.

There'll be a day very soon when Germany, one of the only real functioning economies of the EU, refuses to keep bailing out untenable nations that continually refuse to implement their own market reforms - like Greece, Italy and Spain.

I say all this because I look around Canada and the U.S. -- under Obama especially -- and I see some of the same union-inspired, protectionist temptations that led Europe to this disaster, albeit on a much smaller scale.

Look at the ports. We go into this in more detail in the upcoming October print issue of Today's Trucking, but there's a movement afoot at the ports of Vancouver and L.A. to control the number of "independent" truckers in the drayage sector, standardize how they're paid, and even dictate the sorts of drivers carriers can hire.

No, it's not Greece or Spain - not even close. But is the container hauling sector just an isolated case in North America or is it - particularly if we consider the salvos of strict regulations in recent years -- a symptom of something far more encompassing down the road?

Edited: 09/24/2010 at 09:16 AM by MarcoBeghetto

The truth is that most truckers would be happy with more rest stops all around, never mind ones that cater only to truck drivers, considering how woefully inadequate truck stop supply is in North America.

But one stop in New Jersey reportedly banned four-wheelers from its lot. It's apparently the only rest stop along the 70-mile-long section of Interstate 287 in New Jersey and, naturally, car drivers are ticked.

Well, I can't say that I feel bad for them. At least they know how truckers feel. How many of you have picked up a load in the afternoon, knowing by nightfall there'll be nowhere for you to park because the one nearby rest stop (if there even is one) will be full by dusk?

So, how about it? Would you welcome truckers only rest stops if you could get them? Do you like trucker-only food counters when they're available?

Here's an interesting Facebook discussion on the question and the comments are somewhat mixed. Turns out, some truckers don't want to hang with just truckers, but most would love a rest area not overwhelmed with campers and vacationers:



That's good stuff. Check out the Facebook thread and feel free to sign up and comment here too.

Edited: 09/21/2010 at 01:09 PM by MarcoBeghetto

A pumpkin orange Pete pimped up with its exterior shaved of most of its original details; one of the sweetest working rigs never to appear at a truck show; and an up close look at custom riggers known as dekotora --- or "art trucks" - in Japan.

I'm not really one to obsess over spit-polished, hyper-chromed show trucks, but this photo essay, titled Pimp My Truck: The World of Custom Big Rigs, from Time magazine.com shows some very impressive iron.

Not that it's a surprise, but my fav shot is #12 of the 15-pic photo essay!

I stumbled upon this photo series while reading an interesting article at Time.com about the exodus of truck drivers from Russia to North America after the 2008 global recession.

Do svidaniya!

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.