There's a driver shortage

Carryfast:
If you want to go along with the anti fossil fuel use Global Warmist cause you’re going to have to support nuclear energy sooner or later one way or another.In which case great it’s so much better to turn the place into an uninhabitable toxic wasteland all based on a non existent supposed runaway greenhouse effect scare story.Based on the bs theory of Venus’ atmosphere,put up by pot smoking hippy Sagan.

As for the stove burning hippy lifestyle so everyone demolishes their house and lives on a house boat and burns the contents of the house and then start on the local woodland when all that’s run out.Brilliant idea every riverside full of house boat dwellers all fighting for a space and loads of toxic burning plastics emissions and all the woodland cut down to keep everyone warm because they want to leave all the fossil fuels in the ground which will do wonders for the atmospheric quality and oxygen count.Let me guess you call that the good life.As for the irony of eco nazis wanting to burn all the trees to keep warm if not nuclear power either of which would cause more environmental and atmospheric damage than fossil fuel use,you couldn’t make it up.

So there we have it.Hippies moaning about drivers wages while at the same time supporting the draconian anti road transport policies that are causing the problem.All based on a bs eco agenda.

But surely you would want to leave the planet in a better state than you found it, for the sake of your own children?

eagerbeaver:
I think it was one of Carryfast’s rants.

Leave it to me, I’m reeling him in. :stuck_out_tongue:

OK, I’ve got science qualifications, and I’ll bite:

Equalibrium: Too much CO2 in the atmosphere leads to the proliferation of jungle which re-sets the balance.
CO2 concentrations of above 3% would be fatal to life on Earth, including Humanity. It’s never been that high for at least 2 million years then.
The largest source of “new” CO2 going into the atmosphere comes from exhaled human and animal breath - NOT “smoke stacks of factories around the world”.
The Ozone layer has been healing for the past few years, but Greenists are keeping pretty quite about that.

Natural cycles of global climate change happen.

The notion of “Man made climate change” is like trying to read tea leaves into “what this planet intends next within those cycles”.
“The planet doeth to lifeforms upon it” - It is sheer arrogance and hubris to consider that “Mankind is actually putting a spanner in the works all by itself”.
Humanity reacting to climate change needs to involve “sensible habitation” rather than “knee-jerk temporary fixes”.
If you live twenty inches above sea level, then you need to move to higher ground rather than “stop using combustion-based transport” because you reckon that climate change can be halted and reversed by such actions.
Move to higher ground already! - The floods are coming, and Green policies won’t stop that which nature hath already ordained.
There are too many people on this planet. Human interference in what used to be called “natural selection” means a proliferation of poor people where there is ample food, but scarce other resources. On the other hand, where there are few people, huge amounts of resources, and whatever food one brings into the region - ANYTHING can happen, and the sky’s the limit.
Would you rather work in Scandinavia right now, or the Middle East for example?

bubsy06:
What caused the warming of the earth before burning fossil fuels?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

(1) Vulcanism
(2) Precession
(3) Galactic Drift
(4) Cosmic bombardment by Radiation, Comets, Asteroids, & very small rocks.

Over time, anything can happen - and often does.

Harry Monk:

Carryfast:
If you want to go along with the anti fossil fuel use Global Warmist cause you’re going to have to support nuclear energy sooner or later one way or another.In which case great it’s so much better to turn the place into an uninhabitable toxic wasteland all based on a non existent supposed runaway greenhouse effect scare story.Based on the bs theory of Venus’ atmosphere,put up by pot smoking hippy Sagan.

As for the stove burning hippy lifestyle so everyone demolishes their house and lives on a house boat and burns the contents of the house and then start on the local woodland when all that’s run out.Brilliant idea every riverside full of house boat dwellers all fighting for a space and loads of toxic burning plastics emissions and all the woodland cut down to keep everyone warm because they want to leave all the fossil fuels in the ground which will do wonders for the atmospheric quality and oxygen count.Let me guess you call that the good life.As for the irony of eco nazis wanting to burn all the trees to keep warm if not nuclear power either of which would cause more environmental and atmospheric damage than fossil fuel use,you couldn’t make it up.

So there we have it.Hippies moaning about drivers wages while at the same time supporting the draconian anti road transport policies that are causing the problem.All based on a bs eco agenda.

But surely you would want to leave the planet in a better state than you found it, for the sake of your own children?

As I said I’m happy enough with the fossil fuelled world my grand parents and parents gave me.

As opposed to a load of idealistic misguided hippies wanting to leave future generations a country with much of its woodland burnt for fuel and/or an uninhabitable nuclear disaster ravaged wasteland.With an economy sent back to the pre industrial revolution era.All based on the fact that Sagan couldn’t sort out the difference between a planet cooked by its atmospheric pressure v content or in fact trying to compare the oranges of Venus’ atmosphere with the apples Earth’s.

Although having said that yes Diesel is an obsolete relatively dirty fuel that should have been replaced with something like LPG in commercial vehicles long ago.

Carryfast:
As I said I’m happy enough with the fossil fuelled world my grand parents and parents gave me.

But are you happy with the world your own children will inherit? :stuck_out_tongue:

Harry Monk:

Carryfast:
As I said I’m happy enough with the fossil fuelled world my grand parents and parents gave me.

But are you happy with the world your own children will inherit? :stuck_out_tongue:

Bearing in mind the fact that I’m happy with a fossil fuelled world which I was left in seeing it the best and safest option.Why wouldn’t I then be happy for them to inherit that on from me. :confused:

Bearing in mind that the German government at least have decided that the benefits of continuing with a fossil fuelled economy outweigh the risks and dangers of nuclear.To the point of rightly prioritising the former over the latter.While also taking an open minded approach regarding LHV’s. :smiley:

Probably on he same basis that alternatively fossil fuelled trucks are a better option in the long term than nuclear powered trains.Which is realistically what we’re discussing here in the two points of view. :bulb:

I’m calling bulls hit. One of the admins is posting as Carryfast. He can’t be real.

Carryfast:

Harry Monk:

Carryfast:
As I said I’m happy enough with the fossil fuelled world my grand parents and parents gave me.

But are you happy with the world your own children will inherit? :stuck_out_tongue:

Bearing in mind the fact that I’m happy with a fossil fuelled world in seeing it the best and safest option why wouldn’t I then be happy for them to inherit that on from me. :confused:

Well, so long as your children are happy, then that’s the most important thing. :wink: :wink: :wink:

America say the same …The trucking industry is in crisis for one simple reason: It cannot find enough people to sit behind the wheel.
The American Trucking Assns., a trade group, estimates that trucks carry more than 67% of the country’s total freight by weight. Trucking is the nation’s most important mode of commercial shipping.
Currently, there are about 3.5 million people with commercial driver’s licenses, and 2.6 million drivers are on the road, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. That may sound like a lot, but the ATA and others estimate that we’re short 35,000 to 40,000 drivers, and they believe that shortfall will expand to 240,000 drivers by 2022. Many carriers have trucks sitting idle because there’s no one available to drive them; many want to buy new trucks but won’t do so for the same reason. Carriers need more operators to fulfill shipper requests not only as the economy expands, but also as it stands now.
The shortage is most acute in long-haul operations. However, it is now affecting short haul and regional carriers as well as drayage trucks that do short hops between, say, a railhead and a nearby port. The driver shortage also hurts other transportation modes such as ocean shipping and rail, which rely on trucks to carry their freight “the last mile.”
The industry has tried to mitigate the shortage by offering drivers signing bonuses and shorter routes so they can be home more often, paying the cost for commercial driver’s license training, reaching out to ex-military, women and immigrant groups, and paying more for tenure. Carriers say these incentives help only incrementally and the shortage is not abating.
There are several reasons for the shortfall. First, drivers are older, on average, than the general working population, 49 versus 41.9 years, and many are retiring because they can no longer keep up with the physical demands of the job. Young people are not signing on to replace the folks who are leaving.
Second, federal regulations have cut back on the number of hours that a driver may spend behind the wheel, so additional drivers are needed to pick up the slack.
The most important reason, however, becomes obvious if you ask drivers directly. They’ll say the problem is how they get paid. Not how much, but how.
While the simple answer is to pay drivers by the hour instead of by [the mile], carriers are reluctant to do so because it would mean a dislocation of their business model.
Consumers may not realize that drivers are paid by the mile and not the hour. This means that they make no money for sitting in traffic or waiting at a warehouse.
It is not uncommon for a trucker to pull into a warehouse a few minutes after it closes and sleep in his truck until it opens the next day. This is time on the job but not money in his pocket. As one driver told me, “Because payment is by the mile, warehousers and others don’t respect drivers’ time. Any inefficiency in their operation — and even from my own carrier — is soaked up by the driver at no cost to anyone else.”
Paying by the mile is both unsafe and unfair. It encourages truckers to speed in order to make money. Getting paid by the mile, moreover, means truckers never know how much they will make for any given week (they can’t predict breakdowns, traffic, weather or man-made delays at warehouses). Drivers report that inconsistent pay is even more of a drawback than low pay.
While the simple answer is to pay drivers by the hour instead of by the distance traveled, carriers are reluctant to do so because it would mean a dislocation of their business model, which dates to the 1930s when the trucking industry looked very different than it does today. President Franklin D. Roosevelt exempted trucking from the Fair Labor Standards Act, which mandated a minimum wage.
I have found only one carrier that pays by the hour, Dupré Logistics in Lafayette, La. Started as a tank truck hauler in 1980, the company has 1,200 drivers and 600 trucks. About 15 years ago, the company realized that even though it was following the rules governing how many hours a trucker could be on the road, its drivers were fatigued, and therefore accident prone.
“We were compliant, and we were legal, but we weren’t safe,” Reggie Dupré, the company’s chief executive, told me. To keep drivers alert, the company moved to a schedule that would allow them shorter stints on the road. And to save drivers from losing income because of the new scheme, the company decided to pay by the hour instead of by the mile.
Dupré reports that the company’s crash rate plummeted. Dupré also says the company has attracted experienced, reliable drivers. People want to work there, and it has no shortage of applicants. The company’s driver turnover hovers around 17% in an industry where more than 90% is common.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated in 2012 that fatal crashes of large trucks and buses cost the U.S economy $40 billion that year. Fatigue and speeding are major crash factors. It’s better for everyone if drivers don’t have to engage in dangerous behavior just to clock more miles, in the name of simply making a living.

Harry Monk:

Carryfast:

Harry Monk:

Carryfast:
As I said I’m happy enough with the fossil fuelled world my grand parents and parents gave me.

But are you happy with the world your own children will inherit? :stuck_out_tongue:

Bearing in mind the fact that I’m happy with a fossil fuelled world in seeing it the best and safest option why wouldn’t I then be happy for them to inherit that on from me. :confused:

Well, so long as your children are happy, then that’s the most important thing. :wink: :wink: :wink:

To be fair I don’t have any.But as I said why ‘wouldn’t’ I be happy for later generations to inherit the relatively safer fossil fuelled world which I was left.As opposed to your ideas of living on a house boat burning the local woodland to keep warm or taking the risk of a nuclear disaster if they can afford the electricity generated by it and having to compete for a few train driving jobs.Or earn minimum wage driving the few trucks left running from the rail head to the shops.

Nope. Carryfast aint real. Somebody is pulling our leg.

rearaxle:
America say the same …The trucking industry is in crisis for one simple reason: It cannot find enough people to sit behind the wheel.
The American Trucking Assns., a trade group, estimates that trucks carry more than 67% of the country’s total freight by weight. Trucking is the nation’s most important mode of commercial shipping.
Currently, there are about 3.5 million people with commercial driver’s licenses, and 2.6 million drivers are on the road, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. That may sound like a lot, but the ATA and others estimate that we’re short 35,000 to 40,000 drivers, and they believe that shortfall will expand to 240,000 drivers by 2022. Many carriers have trucks sitting idle because there’s no one available to drive them; many want to buy new trucks but won’t do so for the same reason. Carriers need more operators to fulfill shipper requests not only as the economy expands, but also as it stands now.
The shortage is most acute in long-haul operations. However, it is now affecting short haul and regional carriers as well as drayage trucks that do short hops between, say, a railhead and a nearby port. The driver shortage also hurts other transportation modes such as ocean shipping and rail, which rely on trucks to carry their freight “the last mile.”
The industry has tried to mitigate the shortage by offering drivers signing bonuses and shorter routes so they can be home more often, paying the cost for commercial driver’s license training, reaching out to ex-military, women and immigrant groups, and paying more for tenure. Carriers say these incentives help only incrementally and the shortage is not abating.
There are several reasons for the shortfall. First, drivers are older, on average, than the general working population, 49 versus 41.9 years, and many are retiring because they can no longer keep up with the physical demands of the job. Young people are not signing on to replace the folks who are leaving.
Second, federal regulations have cut back on the number of hours that a driver may spend behind the wheel, so additional drivers are needed to pick up the slack.
The most important reason, however, becomes obvious if you ask drivers directly. They’ll say the problem is how they get paid. Not how much, but how.
While the simple answer is to pay drivers by the hour instead of by [the mile], carriers are reluctant to do so because it would mean a dislocation of their business model.
Consumers may not realize that drivers are paid by the mile and not the hour. This means that they make no money for sitting in traffic or waiting at a warehouse.
It is not uncommon for a trucker to pull into a warehouse a few minutes after it closes and sleep in his truck until it opens the next day. This is time on the job but not money in his pocket. As one driver told me, “Because payment is by the mile, warehousers and others don’t respect drivers’ time. Any inefficiency in their operation — and even from my own carrier — is soaked up by the driver at no cost to anyone else.”
Paying by the mile is both unsafe and unfair. It encourages truckers to speed in order to make money. Getting paid by the mile, moreover, means truckers never know how much they will make for any given week (they can’t predict breakdowns, traffic, weather or man-made delays at warehouses). Drivers report that inconsistent pay is even more of a drawback than low pay.
While the simple answer is to pay drivers by the hour instead of by the distance traveled, carriers are reluctant to do so because it would mean a dislocation of their business model, which dates to the 1930s when the trucking industry looked very different than it does today. President Franklin D. Roosevelt exempted trucking from the Fair Labor Standards Act, which mandated a minimum wage.
I have found only one carrier that pays by the hour, Dupré Logistics in Lafayette, La. Started as a tank truck hauler in 1980, the company has 1,200 drivers and 600 trucks. About 15 years ago, the company realized that even though it was following the rules governing how many hours a trucker could be on the road, its drivers were fatigued, and therefore accident prone.
“We were compliant, and we were legal, but we weren’t safe,” Reggie Dupré, the company’s chief executive, told me. To keep drivers alert, the company moved to a schedule that would allow them shorter stints on the road. And to save drivers from losing income because of the new scheme, the company decided to pay by the hour instead of by the mile.
Dupré reports that the company’s crash rate plummeted. Dupré also says the company has attracted experienced, reliable drivers. People want to work there, and it has no shortage of applicants. The company’s driver turnover hovers around 17% in an industry where more than 90% is common.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated in 2012 that fatal crashes of large trucks and buses cost the U.S economy $40 billion that year. Fatigue and speeding are major crash factors. It’s better for everyone if drivers don’t have to engage in dangerous behavior just to clock more miles, in the name of simply making a living.

If I’ve heard it right isn’t a lot of the problem the massive loss of long haul coast to coast traffic to double deck container and piggy back rail freight.Leaving the dross of LTL/ and/or short haul tramping from one short haul location to another on a continuing basis.Often also requiring more time time spent away from home waiting for scarce loads.As opposed to NY to LA return and quality rest days off between runs for example.Like here not helped by the even worse stagnation in the interstate gross weight allowance which hasn’t changed much if at all since at least the 1970’s ?.

the nodding donkey:
Nope. Carryfast aint real. Somebody is pulling our leg.

Let me guess anyone who disagrees with you can’t be real. :unamused:

Carryfast:

the nodding donkey:
Nope. Carryfast aint real. Somebody is pulling our leg.

Let me guess anyone who disagrees with you can’t be real. :unamused:

No . But you disagree with anything, just to argue. Even your self. .

the nodding donkey:

Carryfast:

the nodding donkey:
Nope. Carryfast aint real. Somebody is pulling our leg.

Let me guess anyone who disagrees with you can’t be real. :unamused:

No . But you disagree with anything, just to argue. Even your self. .

Where have I contradicted myself ?.Or not made my position clear.IE you aren’t going to be able to create any major improvement in the wage regime at least without a corresponding improvement in the fuel cost as a proportion of costs issue and productivety stagnation.

Carryfast:

the nodding donkey:

Carryfast:

the nodding donkey:
Nope. Carryfast aint real. Somebody is pulling our leg.

Let me guess anyone who disagrees with you can’t be real. :unamused:

No . But you disagree with anything, just to argue. Even your self. .

Where have I contradicted myself ?.Or not made my position clear.IE you aren’t going to be able to create any major improvement in the wage regime at least without a corresponding improvement in the fuel cost as a proportion of costs issue and productivety stagnation.

So you say that if cost are reduced, wages can be increased?

the nodding donkey:
So you say that if cost are reduced, wages can be increased?

Costs in the form of fuel taxation preferably together with an increase in gross weights obviously.It ain’t rocket science.

Carryfast:

the nodding donkey:
So you say that if cost are reduced, wages can be increased?

Costs in the form of fuel taxation preferably together with an increase in gross weights obviously.It ain’t rocket science.

Sounds a bit Socialist to me.

Hello?