FedEx Freight | Other News

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not saying it has not happened, most brake failures are driver related,as you stated lack of training or observation.
In 3.5 million miles, I've had only 1, the 121,ABS computer failed on a bobtail in 1978.

They disabled the fleet shortly after.
Back in the 50s, before the invent of the spring brake, you broke an airline, you were SOL.
Yes but what about the big handle you had on the wheel to stop it whoa didn't work?:biglaugh:
 
You are completely glossing over the fact that a driver whose brakes failed, as per his admission, did not use a posted runaway ramp. Why would he not have used the available runaway ramp? Signs are posted miles in advance indicating where these ramps are located.

There's a huge language barrier problem in the trucking industry. I've spoken to drivers from India whose ability to actually read English is so bad that they determine if applicable scales are closed or open by counting the letters in the light-up word. By their own admission they do this. They can't read signs and depend entirely on exit numbers to know where they're supposed to go.

BRG isn't accusing anyone of not being able to read here. All he's saying is that a language barrier may have played a role in the crash. Cool your jets. Doesn't change the fact that the driver who drives past a runaway ramp after suffering a brake failure does not belong in the cab, whether it be by language, poor training or lack of observation.

Do we know why he didn’t use the runaway ramp? Has the driver come out and said “it’s because I can’t read English”?

No, you need to go back a re-read what BRG wrote and his tone. There is an agenda.
 
Welcome back George, it's been years...

Speculation is not unreasonable, considering the case. The law is supposed to require the ability to speak and read the English language. Out on the street, we see that this is NOT enforced. In the past we have questioned why not...



Where's your evidence that supports distracted driving in this case? And speaking of agendas, what's your's (this time around)? Seems you're an advocate of cameras in the cab. Not a problem, just don't be shy about it.

I don’t have any evidence. I’ll be the first to admit; however, I did not come into this thread assuming a person killed four because they cannot read English. I’m still waiting for the video to be posted as BRG claims to have seen. I am also still waiting for his Ukrainian story.

Yes, I am an advocate for cameras in the cab. I still have not seen one good argument against them.

Would cameras in the cab helped in this case? I am not sure.
 
I don’t have any evidence. I’ll be the first to admit; however, I did not come into this thread assuming a person killed four because they cannot read English. I’m still waiting for the video to be posted as BRG claims to have seen. I am also still waiting for his Ukrainian story.

Yes, I am an advocate for cameras in the cab. I still have not seen one good argument against them.

Would cameras in the cab helped in this case? I am not sure.
Maybe they should put cameras at office desks. See how management would like that. Goof off time would be radically reduced.
 
Maybe they should put cameras at office desks. See how management would like that. Goof off time would be radically reduced.

I have already spoken about this. I think if you asked management and your office employees you might find that they don’t care. If you’re not doing anything wrong then what does it matter?

In terms of liability from a company stance and general public view point, it makes absolute sense for a company to put a camera in a cab.
 
I have already spoken about this. I think if you asked management and your office employees you might find that they don’t care. If you’re not doing anything wrong then what does it matter?

In terms of liability from a company stance and general public view point, it makes absolute sense for a company to put a camera in a cab.
No reasonable person wants a camera in their face all day regardless of them not doing anything wrong. It’s a huge invasion of privacy. You are obviously NOT a driver. Stick to what you know and leave the driving to us professionals.
 
I have already spoken about this. I think if you asked management and your office employees you might find that they don’t care. If you’re not doing anything wrong then what does it matter?

In terms of liability from a company stance and general public view point, it makes absolute sense for a company to put a camera in a cab.
Put a camera in my cab and they’ll also need to find a driver to put in the seat!! :1036316054:
 
No reasonable person wants a camera in their face all day regardless of them not doing anything wrong. It’s a huge invasion of privacy. You are obviously NOT a driver. Stick to what you know and leave the driving to us professionals.

I understand they have a negative perception but they have such a strong positive effect.

Companies will have to determine in the near future which is more important. A device seen as invasive (don’t forget you’re in company equipment) or is it a device that will show a driver blameless and paying full attention at the time of an accident.
 
Senators introduce bill to limit trucks to 65 mph

https://www.fleetowner.com/regulati...m=email&elq2=218095a9cee141de8af7c2c930d609a1

"U.S. Sens. Johnny Isakson (R-GA), and Chris Coons (D-DE) on June 27 introduced legislation that would require all new commercial trucks with a gross weight of 26,001 pounds or more to be equipped with speed-limiting devices set to a maximum speed of 65 mph and be used at all times while in operation."

More rolling roadblocks anyone? When will speed limiters on cars be advocated? How many lives might THAT save?

Why limit them to 65 when most interstates /turnpikes are at 70 and get out west higher yet, I'm just upset cause my colorado is limited to 98 mph. That's all she's got .
 
Why not install speed detectors, similar to cameras at intersections, for instance under overpass’s on interstates, without warning signage, and your speeding ticket comes in the mail to you? You want to drive 75 plus? It could cost you your license. I think most drivers can see that since the states have raised the limit to 70mph in the past 5 years, it has gotten out of control out there.
They already do that in my area, cop standing on overpass or the hill beside it shooting ya and them in a couple of weeks you get it in the mail, no points just a fine. you can go to court to fight it . Only thing is it goes to who the vechile is registered to so somebody else could be driving but the owner pays.
 
So why can’t they be behind the wheel again? You never stated.
They may be at some time hopefully NOT, Let me see coming down a mountain out of control and killing some people, true a young driver, probably never driven in that area before, lack of training and paying attention to signs etc. I know everybody was a rookie at one time and did bonehead moves still doesn't excuse the fact he was not paying attention to the area he was in. I can remember the first few times I went thru that area with a guy that was getting me some seat time, I paid a lot of attention to see how it was done. Climbing the mountain is the easy part, going down the wrong way and this is what happens, I still see guy's with smoking brakes and just shake my head. Now the other guy that ran over and killed 7 vet's on bikes he just has no respect for any of our laws at all , And NO i'm not posting anything to back this up there is plenty of it already posted before. So as I stated before I don't care where they are from and NO never to be behind the wheel again. Have a safe and good day sir
 
Do we know why he didn’t use the runaway ramp? Has the driver come out and said “it’s because I can’t read English”?

No, you need to go back a re-read what BRG wrote and his tone. There is an agenda.
There is no agenda, you are reading way too far into what he said. You're trying to call him a ***** and that's completely uncalled for. He made no assumption, he merely suggested that language may have played a role in the accident. You pushed him to defend that position, he told you look it up. You did, found nothing and came back to tear his head off when once again he did not expressly do anything beyond speculate.

Just because the driver hasn't admitted he can't read English well doesn't mean it's not true. It merely means it is not confirmed. You continue to insist on there being an agenda when a language barrier is a known problem in the industry. Four people died because a driver failed to do what he was supposed to. Why are you arguing about the why when there is no good reason for it? What are you defending, exactly? A properly trained driver knows what to do in the event of brake failure. This driver didn't do that, and was so terrified of dying that he closed his eyes before impact. A trained driver would be looking for a way out right until the last moment, and I speak as someone who is still alive thanks to that training.

This driver was not roadworthy. Stop arguing about why when it's pretty clear that regardless of if it was poor language skills or poor training this driver was not properly qualified. Four people are dead, stop defending the man who killed them. If the brakes were out of adjustment, that's his fault. If the brakes were on fire, that's his fault. If the truck was overweight, that's his fault. It doesn't matter why he killed four people because it wouldn't have happened if he'd done his job right.

Drivers plowing into cars is becoming alarmingly common and it's unacceptable. We should be united in condemning accidents like this and the drivers who cause them instead of arguing over something stupid like the rising number of immigrants driving trucks. We all have our opinions on that, but it doesn't change that all drivers should be capable of avoiding a situation where they kill 4 people due to brake failure. Proper training and education, period.
 
Why not install speed detectors, similar to cameras at intersections, for instance under overpass’s on interstates, without warning signage, and your speeding ticket comes in the mail to you? You want to drive 75 plus? It could cost you your license. I think most drivers can see that since the states have raised the limit to 70mph in the past 5 years, it has gotten out of control out there.

Wong says he will support this, only if he can get a waiver for his truck.
 
If you’re not doing anything wrong then what does it matter?

In terms of liability from a company stance and general public view point, it makes absolute sense for a company to put a camera in a cab.

Never did give much credibility to the argument of "If you’re not doing anything wrong then what does it matter?". Typically used when expecting one to give up their rights to unlawful search, etc.. That's NOT the case here (Co. owned Equip./rules), but it does make most uncomfortable, especially at current pay rates. Without some (significant) monetary offset/gain, significant numbers will walk. 30% maybe? 20%? Can't say for sure.

In terms of liability, I think you have it backwards. Stay with me on this. Under current Company policy, if cameras are installed, THEN there becomes a significant liability. Cameras provide a way to know of any violation. With that knowledge, they would have a "duty to enforce". Failure to use the info (once) readily available would make them absolutely negligent, IMHO.

So, it seems to me, if/when that day comes, policy will have to be brought in line with FMCSA Regs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top