Do you think this is the future or just going to be used by companies virtue signaling?

It won't happen soon, but someday they'll have a major breakthrough in battery technology, and this stuff will become economically feasible. Right now, running an all-electric vehicle infrastructure with today's battery technology is incredibly expensive. The mining, manufacturing, and charging infrastructure requirements are vast. We're nowhere near ready for this on a major scale. Battery technology needs to improve by 100x.

What I think we're living through now, with attempts at fully autonomous driving and electric vehicles, is real-world learning using someone else's money (taxpayers). Our technological skills are developing and we're solving real-world problems, but are we heading down the best path?

If the government would get out of the way, drones have a much more exciting future than driving vehicles. If the US had to make a commitment to either electric vehicles or drones, I'd much rather pursue drones. When you do a deep-dive comparison of drones to ground vehicles, drones have a million advantages. When you need the practicality of a ground vehicle, which you will, then you'll have it. Most of the time the drone will be the better choice.

If it evolved organically, I think you would see a gradual transition away from ground vehicles to drones over time. Every family would have a ground vehicle, and many would have at least one drone.

Last year I hit my one Million Safe Miles milestone.

WOW! That's amazing!

Oh.. and I have lost 80 pounds too!

WOW! I hate to use up my 'amazing' quota for the week on a Sunday morning, but you're killin' it! That's amazing!

I'll tell ya one of the things I love about you and the other long-time members here - you guys haven't been jaded by life on the road. You guys stay positive, work hard, take tremendous pride in what you do, and never stop improving. All of you promote this career in an honest and encouraging way, and you are the true champions in this industry.

Great job again, Kearsey! I've said that a lot over the years, and it won't be the last time.

I'm building a new AI-driven news system that isn't done, but it's working pretty well already so I'll use it here. I asked about recent news regarding Sean Duffy, who was picked to lead the DOT, and his potential affect on the trucking industry. Here is what it said (hint: the prospects are good!):

From Brett: Duffy was confirmed, so we'll see what he does!

Thanks for bringing that up, PJ!

Here at TT, we've always been firmly against leasing, as you know well, and this story confirms what we've always said: the contracts are designed by the company for the benefit of the company at the expense of the driver.

Trucking has such tight profit margins that you can't afford to have middlemen. In these leasing programs, there's no way to know who is involved. Did the company finance the truck and then provide the financing to you? Where did that money come from? Who is sponsoring all of it, and what do they get out of it?

Who knows? Could be several layers of financing involved coming from different sources.

Then, it should make people wonder why a trucking company would want to buy a truck and lease it to you instead of just hiring you as a driver. When do you see corporations help individual employees become business owners? Not too often!

A few simple questions about the process should throw a ton of red flags:

• Who pays for fuel?
• Who pays for repairs?
• Do I still get health benefits?
• Are there any mileage guarantees? What if I'm not getting enough miles to make my payments?

Just those few questions alone should make anyone take a step back and wonder what they're getting into.

Stay away from leasing trucks. The economics are terrible.

There's a new article out from Zerohedge today:

Fight Over Truck Broker Contracts Awaits Trump's Next Move

This is a pretty unusual proposal because, in most industries, businesses negotiate terms privately, and each party tries to secure the best deal for themselves. The specifics of how much profit a middleman makes or the costs they incur are generally considered proprietary information.

Broker Transparency Rule: This rule departs from the norm by proposing that in the trucking industry, brokers must be more open about financial details related to freight transactions.

Owner-operators and small trucking companies believe it's unfair that they're in the dark about how much a broker is earning from a load compared to what they're being paid. They argue that knowing the full financial details would help them negotiate better rates, ensuring they get a fairer share of the revenue.

I asked AI to give us the rundown:

Broker Transparency Rule: What's Up?

The rule seeks to impose new standards on contracts to ensure that carriers have access to crucial rate information, like the total charges and payments associated with the loads they transport. The goal is to create a more level playing field by preventing brokers from hiding or misrepresenting the financial details of transactions, thereby reducing the potential for unsubstantiated charges and fostering trust and fairness in negotiations between carriers and brokers.

The Backstory:

Back in 2020, when truckers lined up their rigs on the National Mall to protest, President Trump took notice. He said on "Fox & Friends," "All they want is to be treated fairly, and we’re going to treat them fairly." But now, years later, we're looking at a rule that could change how we see broker deals.

What's Happening Now:

• The comment period for the FMCSA's Broker Transparency rule ends on Jan. 21, 2025, right after Trump's second inauguration. This rule aims to make it easier for us to see the rates brokers are getting, which could level the playing field.

Highlights from the Article:

• Transparency for Fair Play: OOIDA and the Small Business in Transportation Coalition pushed for this rule to give us clearer insight into freight rates. They're not saying it'll set prices, but it will help us negotiate better, without feeling like we're at a disadvantage.

"We support the free market and are trying to even the playing field so that truckers aren’t systematically negotiating with one hand behind their backs."

Safety Concerns: The National Owner Operators Association points out that not knowing the true load value can push carriers to work longer hours, risking safety by messing with Hours of Service rules.

"Carriers under financial pressure may feel forced to work longer hours, potentially violating Hours of Service regulations, which directly impacts safety."

Potential Backfire: Some worry this transparency might actually hurt us. Nadia Martin from Blakeman Transportation argues that knowing how little brokers make off loads could lead to a race to the bottom on rates, hurting carriers even more.

"Carriers would see that brokers don’t make much off the load already, and with transparency, it could cause broker rates to fall even more."

A Broader Debate: There's skepticism about whether this is the right move. Karyn Booth from the NITL questions if this is the best use of FMCSA's time, suggesting they should focus on safety and fraud instead. She also warns about setting a precedent that could affect other industries.

"Where does this go from here? Do you move to the ocean industry and start requiring disclosure of ocean freight forwarder rates?"

What's Next?

With Trump back in office, it's anyone's guess what will happen with this rule. Chris Burroughs from the TIA, who represent brokers, says they're unsure where Trump will land on this issue but are working to educate his team.

Here's the summary of an article just posted by Zerohedge:

California Abandons Regulations Phasing Out Diesel Trucks

Good News for Truckers!

California just pulled the plug on their crazy plan to force all our rigs to go electric. They sent a letter on Jan. 14 to the EPA saying, "Never mind!" and the EPA's like, "Okay, we're done here."

The bigwigs at CARB were trying to make truckers switch from diesel to zero-emission trucks, but with the new Trump administration coming in, they got cold feet. They didn't want to risk getting their plans shot down. Liane Randolph from CARB said,

"We're disappointed, but we had to do this because of all the uncertainty."

But here's the exciting part - this is a win for us! Eric Sauer from the California Trucking Association said,

"We were right from the start; this electric truck thing was just not doable." Now we can focus on reducing emissions in ways that actually work and won't break the bank.

Assemblyman James Gallagher is all for it, saying,

"This is great news for everyone. With this, we're not forcing something that's just not practical."

And let's talk real talk - electric trucks cost a fortune, they don't go as far, and we don't even know how much it'll cost to keep them running. Nelson Sibrian from Sibrian Trucking pointed out,

"We don't have the numbers on maintenance for electric trucks like we do with diesel. It's just too risky."

So, bottom line, we're keeping our diesel engines.

Hey Davy,

I was just reading over your response from last week. I think philosophically you're talking about being demoralized by the perception that the people watching you do not have your best interest at heart, and they have nefarious reasons for watching you so closely.

Here's a couple of quotes:

I've maintained for a long time that not everyone makes the team, not everyone makes the cut. If you require your management to supervise and manage your driving, you probably shouldn't be driving.

It may seem counterintuitive, but the corporations use of the camera eliminates personal motivation and accountability. The driver that grows up under the eyes of the Corp via the camera doesn't learn to take responsibility for his decisions, they don't get the real world repercussions of not paying attention

Your experience racing motorcycles and skiing, both at very high levels, gives you insights into what I'm about to say.

Let's look at today's NFL players. No one on Earth gets more coaching or critiques than NFL players. Every bite they eat, weight they lift, drill they perform, and play on the field are filmed and analyzed. They often use multiple camera angles to catch every detail and scrutinize everything using multiple coaches and AI.

They even use GPS to track each player's movements, speed, and position relative to the ball, the other players, and where they were expected to be on the field. They also use AI to track a player's body position, form, and technique to see if the QB is throwing the ball with good form or if a defensive lineman is in the best stance to accelerate at the snap of the ball.

I put snippets from your post above in parentheses below. If your theories are correct, NFL players should be the lowest-performing people on Earth. They should have:

• weakening physical motor skills and mechanical aptitude
• lower pay (corporations use the cameras and data as tools to devalue labor)
• a lower level of responsibility (The driver that grows up under the eyes of the Corp via the camera doesn't learn to take responsibility for his decisions)
• a lower level of skill (The less responsibility labor has individually, the less skilled they become)
• a lower level of skill because the NFL will use lower grade players (the cameras allow corporations to use inferior grade drivers)
• low motivation and accountability (use of the camera eliminates personal motivation and accountability)
• a lack of responsibility and do not suffer real-world repercussions (doesn't learn to take responsibility for his decisions, they don't get the real world repercussions of not paying attention)
• subpar skills for operating at a professional level (we end up letting people drive who just simply don't have the skills and judgement to do so at a professional level)

So again, I think you're coming from the perspective of being demoralized by the nefarious intentions of the people watching you.

If you wanted to do everything possible to be your best, and you trusted the people helping you, you wouldn't mind the camera so much. You'd see it as an opportunity to get better.

However, corporations have a poor track record when it comes to demonstrating that they genuinely have their employees' best interests in mind. Therefore, the skepticism is justified.

I just wanted to point out that everything you said is true, but only if you're either uninterested in getting better or you don't trust the people you're working for. Obviously, the intense scrutiny has not had a negative effect on the performance of NFL players.

However to help me from boiling over I'm flashing my high beams a lot. lol.

So with the inward facing camera I have become more safe with not touching my phone and 3 second stops. My following distance has improved the past couple weeks.

I can tell everyone that as AI improves and Starlink allows high-speed internet everywhere, you'll see a lot more micromanaging and monitoring. You'll also get sophisticated, real-time feedback as you drive. Eventually, this may turn into augmented reality, where they could use voice instructions or even a heads-up display (HUD) projected onto the windshield to assist the driver.

There will always be a tug-of-war between drivers who want privacy and autonomy and companies and enforcement agencies who want to monitor your every move. I don't expect too much of this to be coded into laws requiring these features, which means companies will use their own judgment to determine how rigorously they want to use technology to enforce strict standards.

From a driver training perspective, these tools will be awesome. Students and companies will love it. But when it comes to managing experienced drivers, I don't have to tell you guys and gals with experience how you'll feel about it. I believe drivers will have the opportunity to find work with lower levels of oversight as they gain experience.

I know Davy recently changed jobs and now has far fewer techno gadgets watching him. I love technology, but I don't like giving up control or being harassed constantly, either. So, I think the technology will continue to evolve, and so will the fight for freedom versus oversight.

These are the circumstances that I'm always talking about when I say drivers need a CB radio. It would have been great to get a heads-up from someone going the other way about the road being blocked by the guardrail, eh? All this technology we have with advanced phones, cameras with night vision, AI-driven object-detection systems, and none of it did any good. A shout-out on the CB would have, though.

Wow, it's odd living in the mountains in Upstate New York and hearing about winter everywhere else. We only have a few inches now and haven't had more than a foot on the ground yet this year, but we've had relatively cold temps with highs in the teens and lows near zero. I've had to use the snowblower four times so far, which is about normal. I wouldn't have to use it that often, but my driveway is 1/4 mile long and it rises about 100 feet. It's rather steep at times.

They say another cold front is moving down from the Arctic next week. Be ready!

Man.. i can't believe there is snow on the ground in atlanta... the roads are all clear.

I lived in Atlanta years ago, and we had an ice storm with cold temps that lasted for a few days. They had no way of salting the roads, so everyone was trapped at home even though there was no snow on the ground at all. Back in Buffalo, we wouldn't have even had to pause for that. They would have had the roads salted before the storm. But in Atlanta, they would say, "God put it there, and God will take it away."