| BrianR |
10-01-2009 05:12 AM |
I never said regulations that promote safety were bad, not needed or unwelcome. I personally think about safety all the live-long day. My company is very safety-conscious and will fix immediately any safety-related problem with the truck. I am safety inspected upon entry to most terminals, with problems fixed asap. Heck, I just got through (at 4 am natch) with a repair that I had not noticed...a small crack in my exhaust pipe. Got a whole new pipe from the Y pipe on up the stack.
I am all for safety in the maintenance and behind the wheel. Those who flaunt the regs can and should be punished severely, more so than they are now. Please don't misunderstand. If any company, be it bus or truck, runs unsafe vehicles as a habit, they should be put out of business and the owners prevented from reopening under another name. Plus fines and/or imprisonment.
I merely point out the source of the article as it's strident tone indicts with a mighty broad brush, typical of such lawyers tactics to pollute potential jury pools with hysterical information, carefully selected statistics and skewed opinions. I think the ATA rebuttal was given short shrift too. And they and I rarely see eye to eye. They are only in business to protect the big company's interests in Washington and at state hearings and in the papers. I tend to throw my lot in with the OOIDA, a group representing owner-operators and company drivers at those same forums. What the ATA finds to be a good thing usually does not benefit the individual drivers except in the realm of safety.
Now, I have to get some sleep, I'll post better when I'm rested. |
