I’ve been reading up a little on the “Super Warranty” issue, which, I must admit, I had never heard of until my Assistant Editor mentioned it. Super Warranties are being mandated by more and more states to cover automotive emission-control systems for 15 years or 150,000 miles, and independent repair shops in those states are not pleased.

The idea was hatched in California, where the Air Resources Board (CARB) decided that it would be a good idea to keep emissions-control hardware under warranty longer. And it is a good idea: People are keeping their vehicles longer, so it makes sense, from CARB’s point of view, to do everything it can to ensure that those vehicles will be running clean for their entire lives. Super Warranties can make sure that this happens, and 11 other states seem to agree, because they’ve adopted similar regulations as part of their clean air initiatives.

But where does that leave the independent service provider, who currently makes a lot of coin repairing emissions-control systems? If vehicle owners are compelled to return to the dealer to get their emissions-control systems maintained, the logic goes, they are likely to have all their service needs taken care of at the dealer, killing two birds with one stone. The independent shops lose out twice: once on the emissions-control work, and twice on the additional service work.

I’m not sure where I come down on this. As I said, I do think the Super Warranties make sense, from a clean air point of view. But I also understand why independent service providers might feel they have had the rug pulled out from under them. It just goes to show you how hard it is to find solutions to the complex issues facing our transportation industry, and our country. Can there possibly be a way to have clean air that doesn’t make someone unhappy?

My blog post from last week, “Squeezed Out,” has aroused some bad feelings in some parts of the fleet world. In that post, I described a chat I had with a vendor who had dropped out of the Technology & Maintenance Council (TMC) because they felt that a competing vendor had dominated the proceedings of a particular TMC Task Force that had developed a new Recommended Practice (RP). One reader thought that I was unfairly accusing TMC of allowing some vendors to run roughshod over Task Force proceedings, and that I should have gotten “both sides of the story” before writing my post.

What I actually said in that blog post was that TMC’s process seemed to have broken down in this particular case, and that it was hard to say why (in my book that’s not exactly pointing a finger of blame at anyone… but I digress). I went on to speculate in the post that the problem might have been that the vendor that had been complaining may not have been willing to volunteer as much time and effort as their competitor. I also said that if this had happened on one Task Force, it has probably happened on others, and it was a shame that TMC wasn’t addressing these issues.

Well, I just got off the phone with Robert Braswell, TMC’s Technical Director, and he made the case that his organization actually does all it can to address problems such as these. For one thing, attendees always have an opportunity to fill out an anonymous meeting evaluation immediately after every Task Force session, so if they have any complaints that’s the easiest and most effective way to get a response from TMC staff. Beyond that, every RP developed by every Task Force is put up for balloting before going on the books, so any member has an opportunity to bring up objections to the content at that time. In addition, even non-members can contact TMC to comment on RPs, and TMC is happy to get the additional input.

So, I stand corrected. The gentleman who felt “squeezed out” could have addressed his issues with TMC in a number of ways, but Robert Braswell told me that he is not aware of anyone lodging any formal complaint. My apologies to TMC.

I had an unusual conversation at the Mid-America Truck Show a few weeks back that keeps rattling around in my brain for some reason (a lot of things rattle around in my brain, but that’s another story). At MATS, I was talking to specific component suppliers about a specific Technology & Maintenance Council (TMC) Recommended Practice (RP). Not only did I assume that all of the component suppliers would be familar with the RP (they were), I also assumed that many of them would have taken part in developing the RP (they weren’t.) And therein lies a problem.

For those of you who don’t follow TMC activities, an RP is a maintenance standard developed by a Task Force that ideally consists of both fleet maintenance professionals and technical experts from OEMs and component suppliers. I said ideally, because it doesn’t always work out that way.

I found that out the hard way when I asked representatives of one of these component suppliers about this particular RP, and I was told that they had wanted to participate but had backed out of the Task Force in question… I asked why, and they said that the Task Force had been more or less “taken over” by a competing component supplier, and that the RP was essentially a reflection of that one company’s needs and concerns. Because of this, the folks I was talking to had pulled their company out of the TMC and never looked back.

Now, obviously, something about the way the TMC goes about its work has failed in this instance, although it’s hard to say just what. TMC Task Forces are volunteer-driven, and the spoils often go to to those who are willing to volunteer. Still, I imagine the type of falling out and disillusionment that was described to me is quite common, and it seems to me that the TMC should be taking a close look at these issues. Losing membership over turf wars is not an acceptable option.

This week I had the pleasure of attending a meeting of the Indiana Motor Transport Association in Indianapolis, IN, and to get to the meeting I drove six hours from Wisconsin to Illinois to Indiana, and then six hours back again. For the most part it’s a boring drive, along boring stretches of Interstate highways, so it gives me a lot of time to think. There was something different going on along the Interstates this time, however, that gave me a whole new thing to think about.

At first I thought it was my imagination, but after a few hours I realized it was very real: trucks are driving slower. It came to my attention because I was making an effort to drive five to ten miles an hour slower than usual, in order to save fuel. I expected the big-rigs to be roaring past me more than ever, but they weren’t… In fact, even at my reduced speed, I was passing most trucks. Now, it’s true that I was driving on stetches of the I-system where the posted speed limit for trucks is five miles an hour slower than it is for cars, but honestly, when in the past has that made much of a difference? The trucks were definitely driving slower than normal.

I mentioned my observation at the Association meeting, and sure enough, virtually all the fleet guys nodded and said that they had recently reduced their fleet’s top speed by at least five miles per hour. And no one was giving any indication that this was a temporary measure…

Sure, at first it’s a little annoying, especially when there are only two lanes, and you’ve got a truck going 65 in the right lane, and another truck passing him in the left lane and going 66… But, hey, if it just makes us all go slower, we’re going to save that much more fuel in the long run…

Has your fleet lowered speeds? If so, how much has it helped? And, if you haven’t lowered your fleet’s speed, why haven’t you?

It really happened. Countless truck drivers across the county shut down their rigs on Tuesday, April 1st, to protest against high diesel fuel prices. Many more slowed to 20 miles per hour on Interstate highways. This event, unorganized as it was, has managed to make headlines around the country and get at least a few people talking about the difficulties faced by truck owners and drivers who lose money every time they start up their rigs.

I’ve been Googling to find some comments on the shut-down from politicians, and so far I can’t find a thing. Not one word from the Presidential candidates, not one word from the Congress, not a thing anywhere. Oh, a few days ago Congress did call the oil company CEOs to explain why they are making such obscene profits while the rest of the economy is on the skids, but that was just a dog & pony show–Congress can’t do a thing to big oil, and big oil knows it.

So, what impact did Tuesday’s slow-down have? The impact may have been small, and it may have been scattered, but its true impact may be on the symbolic level. Truckers are finally saying “enough is enough,” and, judging from one blog entry I found online, they are not simply seeing this as a “trucking problem.” This blogger wrote:THIS IS NOT A STRIKE OR WORK STOPPAGE! THIS IS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO ORGANIZE TRUCK DRIVERS. THIS IS A WAKE UP CALL FOR THE U.S. CITIZEN TO EXAMINE A SYSTEM SO OUT OF BALANCE THAT OUR POLITICIANS & NATIONAL MEDIA REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE & EXAMINE THE ISSUES. AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO HOLD YOUR GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBLE & URGE OTHERS TO DO THE SAME! THIS WILL BE EACH AND EVERY COMPANY OWNER/MANAGER & DRIVER LOOKING IN THE MIRROR, SAYING WITH SINCERITY, “THIS IS NOT ABOUT ME OR MY BUSINESS. THIS IS ABOUT MY COUNTRY! THIS IS MY OWN PROTEST!”

I couldn’t agree more. This isn’t about trucking. It’s about our country, and who’s really in charge. I don’t care if you believe in big government or small government, you ought to believe in government that looks out for every American, not just the fat cats.