Showing posts with label Board. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Board. Show all posts

Monday, 13 January 2014

Safety Board Faults Truck and Bus Oversight

WASHINGTON — Federal safety officials missed or ignored warning signs before four deadly crashes involving heavy trucks or intercity buses in the last year, the National Transportation Safety Board said on Thursday. The government shut down some of the companies, but only after a total of 25 people were killed and 83 injured in the four accidents.

Susan Walsh/Associated Press

Deborah A. P. Hersman, the chairwoman of the National Transportation Safety Board, in Washington on Thursday.

Highway travel by car keeps getting safer, and the rate of heavy truck crashes has decreased, but statistics do not show a decrease in the number of bus fatalities. While the Transportation Department calculates the number of fatal accidents per 100 million miles driven for cars and trucks, it does not do the same calculation for intercity buses, because it does not have mileage figures available for them, a spokesman said.

The board, an independent federal agency, said the four accidents raised “serious questions about the oversight of motor carrier operations” by the Transportation Department.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the Transportation Department agency that regulates commercial truck and bus safety, did not dispute any of the safety board’s assertions. But Anne S. Ferro, the administrator of the agency, said that it had shut down “well over 100” unsafe bus and truck operators since 2010, compared with only about one a year from 2000 to 2009, and that the agency began a comprehensive review of its own operations two years ago.

Ms. Ferro also said that her agency had about 350 inspectors to cover 10,000 bus companies and more than half a million trucking firms.

In the most recent of the four crashes cited by the safety board, in Murfreesboro, Tenn., on June 13, a truck operated by H&O Transport hit eight other vehicles that had slowed down because of an accident. It was dry and clear, but the truck rear-ended a 1999 Oldsmobile Alero, which erupted in a fireball. Two people in the car were killed; six people in other vehicles were injured.

The truck was speeding and on cruise control, and the driver had worked more than 10 hours beyond the 70 hours drivers are allowed to work over eight consecutive days. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration knew that the driver had a history of “hours-of-service” violations, and that the company had a history of such schedule violations, the safety board said. But the administration’s last inspection before the crash had been limited, the board said.

In another accident, a Mexican-owned bus descending a mountain road in the San Bernardino National Forest in California rear-ended a car, crossed into the opposite lane, struck an embankment and overturned, colliding with a pickup truck towing a trailer. Seven bus passengers and the driver of the pickup were killed; the bus driver and 11 passengers were seriously injured.

The bus had “numerous mechanical problems,” the board said, including that all six brakes were defective.

A month earlier, federal inspectors learned of maintenance problems at the bus line through roadside spot-checks. The Motor Carrier Safety Administration said it had conducted a review and found that the line’s performance was “satisfactory,” but it did not inspect any buses, the safety board said, or review many business records, because the company was in Tijuana. After the crash, the Transportation Department ordered the bus line, Scapadas Magicas, off the road.

The safety board, which has no regulatory authority, unanimously recommended more vigorous audits and follow-ups. “They need to crack down before crashes occur, not just after high-visibility events,” the board chairwoman, Deborah A. P. Hersman, said in a statement.

Tuesday, 16 October 2012

Trucks for Change Network elects first board

MISSISSAUGA, Ont. -- Trucks for Change Network has elected its first board of directors.

The network, which connects charities in need of transportation services with trucking companies that have available capacity, elected the board during its first annual general meeting Sept. 26 in Mississauga.

The board includes: Scott Smith, president of J.D. Smith and Sons; Mark Seymour, CEO of Kriska Holdings; Norm Sneyd, vice-president with Bison Transport; and Rick Dalmazzi, a technology industry veteran.

The meeting featured Rob Voisin, national director of Habitat for Humanity Canada’s ReStore division, who thanked the organization for the difference it is making for his charity and others across the country.

Pete Dalmazzi, president and found of Trucks for Change, is still asking carrier members to sign up for the program, so it can expand its network. For more information, visit www.TrucksForChange.org.


View the original article here

Sunday, 10 July 2011

Today’s Item On The Cutting Board: The James Webb Telescope

I can’t have my cake and eat it too. Although I have been known to get combative over the last piece of cake. Yesterday I talked with you about Obama setting our NASA goals on Mars and asteroids. I pretty much said I felt it was a waste of money that could be spent elsewhere towards hopefully something more useful to the everyday folks. 

Today I read an article about NASA budget cuts and one of the biggies that might get the axe is the James Webb Telescope. This telescope is the successor to Hubble. It is a very expensive piece of equipment. They are looking at a total cost of  $6.8 billion once it is complete. Right now the target launch is 2018. 

This telescope of course is improved with new abilities. A big difference is the telescope would be scanning the infrared spectrum rather than visual light. This enhances the probability of new discoveries in our universe. For example; instead of dust clouds appearing opaque, this telescope will be able to penetrate the dust cloud. 

This new ability is one reason this telescope is so expensive. This also makes for a new system of where to place the telescope. It will need to be further from the earth to avoid interference since all objects emit some infrared light. They are seeking to put the telescope four times further from the earth than the moon. 

That distance makes any repairs that could be needed pretty much impossible. NASA has stated there can be no design flaws or “screw-ups”.  A large amount of testing has already taken place towards reaching the perfect, detailed design. 

NASA claims that once in place this telescope could unlock a universe of discoveries. With the distance and its abilities it would see much more than Hubble was ever able to see. And for some real science fun, since light only travels so fast, the further you look out the further you look back. That is one of those scientific doors that makes my brain hurt. 

They say we would be looking at the very first stars and galaxies in the universe, which right now are just fuzzy blobs with the Hubble images. It can also see how dark matter has affected the light as it travels to us. Hold on.  My brain froze up for a moment. 

Now here comes the part where I have to tell myself I can’t have my cake and eat it too. This kind of thing fascinates me. I may not understand all the dynamics, theories, physics and so forth, but to see images in this kind of detail is invaluable. But who gets to figure out what exactly is invaluable and should not be part of budget cuts?  Who gets to say scratch the Mars hoopla and lets pour our money into this telescope?  Why should one be considered more important than the other? 

I am essentially arguing with myself from yesterday’s post. The tension here as I type this is very heavy. I may end up not speaking to myself for a few days after this particular argument. 

I went on to read that this telescope might have the ability to determine if there is other life in the universe. It would have the ability to detect water.  And of course a planet with large amounts of water is a good indication there could be life. If this is possible,  I guess depending on what type of life we actually find would dictate our next steps.

The one fact about this program that bothers the common sense side of me is the potential to waste a large amount of money. If this perfect designed telescope doesn’t set itself up perfectly at a vast distance from earth, you can kiss billions good-bye. The time spent thus far is well past what was predicted and has been much more difficult than predicted as well.  

So I have made full circle. While I love the thought of being able to see such newer, clearer images and discoveries, I can’t justify that amount of money in this economy. So overall it makes sense to me that this project is on the cutting board. And at the same time I don’t understand why I am so against Mars in comparison. Maybe it has something to do with the movie Mars Attacks. 

Take care and stay safe,

KJ

If you liked that post, then try these...

View the original article here