Connect the dots
As a little kid, I developed a love for puzzles. The ones in coloring books introduced me into the world of logic and abstract puzzles. I was especially a fan of connect the dots.
The challenge of being able to see the whole picture without going through the effort of actually connecting the dots was my favorite part. Sure the actual purpose was to teach young children their ABCs and 123s, but for me it was all about cracking the visual code.
Funny thing is, when you approach a puzzle with that kind of mindset and develop a bias as to what the picture is supposed to look like, it can easily backfire. Once that image or “solution” is in your head, you’re likely to not trust the process of connecting the dots in the order and design intended. You force a preconceived result at the peril of the actual solution.
Instead of a smiley-faced clown, you could wind up with some screwed-up connect-the-dot version reminiscent of a Picasso.
That’s kind of what is going on with the federal, state and local regulators right now.
At the federal level within the U.S. DOT, they are saying a lot of the right things. They talk about work-life balance for drivers, improving driver pay, making the job more attractive so talented drivers stay, and so forth.
And there’s a lot of upside to focusing on those improvements.
Well-compensated drivers with substantial and robust experience will inevitably be safer drivers. The ones who bounce into the industry after minimal training and get paid squat are ill-equipped for the task and will realize it’s not worth the risk for such low pay and poor work-life balance.
Problem is, it’s not just one federal agency in control of this puzzle. Throw in a mix of federal, state and local regulators trying to create a masterpiece, and things go sideways fast.
Their inherent biases are coming into play. That has regulators straying off course and adding dots into the mix that just don’t fit – a la speed limiters and more emission regulations, to name two biggies
Speed limiters are a terrible idea from a safety perspective. Period. Spend any amount of time on the road around speed-limited trucks and you’ll see lots of bad driving decisions of passenger vehicles around them. It takes control away from truck drivers when more speed could be the solution to an impending crash. Slower trucks mean fewer miles and lower pay. So to make up for that, what happens in parking lots and work zones?
I could go on and on here, but I don’t have to. Truckers are turning out in force against the latest proposal from FMCSA. We dive deep into the proposal and the mountain of comments filed in opposition starting on Pages 10 and 11 and picking up again on Page 16.
Emission regulations. Lordy, how quickly the EPA and CARB forget – or maybe are choosing to ignore. The lessons learned starting back in October 2002 and still happening today because the previous round of emission reduction regulations are not sinking in. Countless truckers are still daily casualties of the current technology.
Pages 32 and 38 focus on CARB and EPA’s latest numbskull ideas. This is another issue where truckers need to tune in and turn up in opposition.
So the picture of bright, shiny, well-paid, happy truckers isn’t as clear now.
There are still plenty of dots in play that would improve life for truckers. Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., is getting serious about truck parking. Read more on that starting on Page 20. And brokers, especially the not-really-broker brokers could be targeted in the future. The details are on Page 26.
The trick to this puzzle is we can’t let the regulators go any further off track adding random dots (regulations) that skew the picture of a better life in trucking. Rather, let’s keep the board clear of that clutter so actual progress can be made. LL