What's new

FedEx Freight | Other News

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cedar Rapids, IA.(Coop Daily Blab)
The dream team has announced they will be on hand at Patel’s Sports Bar tonight, and will be firing off the first fireworks at 9:30! BRG added he will have his tribute to the 4th of July posted on Trucking Boards, Hot Girly Thread. Wong will be in charge of the mobile popcorn unit, which pops at 56mph.
 
George Knighton said:
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.
Click to expand...
Bull ::shit::.

The burden of proof is on the accuser be it the state criminally or the plaintiff civilly. Only a complete idiot want them to have more ammunition to use against you, and only a company rat who’s a complete dumbass would support that idea.
 
Canadian Flyer said:
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.
Click to expand...

CF,I think you just wasted a good post, you probably would get better results, talking to a wall.
 
George Knighton said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not if it costs them the ability to hire drivers. You might want someone invading your privacy all day, but most do not. Ask RAT about the ultimate end of cams on drivers. Discipline tool.
Why would a company want the liability of putting a cam on driver? Let’s say the cam catches driver doing something he shouldn’t. The attorneys will say that company should turn over all cam footage of said driver. Then the case will be made that the company knew said driver is a risk and company should’ve fired him. Either way company is liable because driver is on its payroll.
 
Canadian Flyer said:
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.
Click to expand...

When someone first states foreign language as a reason for killing 4 people and not mention anything else. It’s pretty clear what the agenda is. I see it everyday. Such a shame. A nation built on diversity.

I am defending the diversity of our great nation and how we are not all the same. It is okay to have different backgrounds and different cultures, and speak different languages. I want to see the tone changed. No more quick jabs about foreigners here in America. That is why I am pouncing.

I want you guys to think outside of your box. That is all.
 
Last edited:
George Knighton said:
When someone first states foreign language as a reason for killing 4 people and not mention anything else. It’s pretty clear what the agenda is. I see it everyday. Such a shame. A nation built on diversity.

I am defending the diversity of our great nation and how we are not all the same. It is okay to have different backgrounds and different cultures, and speak different languages. I want to see the tone changed. No more quick jabs about foreigners here in America. That is why I am pouncing.

I want you guys to think outside of your box. That is all.
Click to expand...

I heard there is going to be an election some time soon , maybe you should throw your hat into the ring and try to change things.
 
George Knighton said:
I am defending the diversity of our great nation and how we are not all the same. It is okay to have different backgrounds and different cultures, and speak different languages. I want to see the tone changed. No more quick jabs about foreigners here in America. That is why I am pouncing.
Click to expand...
You mean the foreigners that come here because their home country sucks and it's so great here? Why would you not learn the language? Why would you take a job that by law requires you to be able to communicate to public officials in English if you can't?
 
SwampRatt said:
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...
Click to expand...
Usually when I see someone use this phrase, or a variation of it, it reminds me of a quote from Edward Snowden...”Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say”
 
China Reiterates Demand That U.S. Must Lift All Tariffs

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...r-turning-on-demand-that-u-s-lift-all-tariffs

But historically, tariffs have been the more favorable way to finance the federal Government. Also contributing to "Great prosperity" in this country. Better to "tax" foreign production than our own, for a long list of reasons.

*The rest of the story (quite educational):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_in_United_States_history

"Tariffs were the greatest (approaching 95% at times) source of federal revenue until the Federal income tax began after 1913. For well over a century the federal government was largely financed by tariffs averaging about 20% on foreign imports."

The following notable leaders all preferred tariffs:
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
Henry Clay
Andrew Jackson
James Monroe
Abraham Lincoln
Theodore Roosevelt
Donald Trump






 
SwampRatt said:
China Reiterates Demand That U.S. Must Lift All Tariffs

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...r-turning-on-demand-that-u-s-lift-all-tariffs

But historically, tariffs have been the more favorable way to finance the federal Government. Also contributing to "Great prosperity" in this country. Better to "tax" foreign production than our own, for a long list of reasons.

*The rest of the story (quite educational):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_in_United_States_history

"Tariffs were the greatest (approaching 95% at times) source of federal revenue until the Federal income tax began after 1913. For well over a century the federal government was largely financed by tariffs averaging about 20% on foreign imports."

The following notable leaders all preferred tariffs:
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
Henry Clay
Andrew Jackson
James Monroe
Abraham Lincoln
Theodore Roosevelt
Donald Trump
Click to expand...
Funny how none of those notable listed were/are in favor of globalism but rather believe(d) in America First!! :usa: :1036316054: :usa2:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top