I started a thread Friday night on trucking that didn't go very far (http:www.greenspun.com.bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000mPv), so I'm going to try again. Thanks to Leslie Zinser and Deborah, we know that Yellow Freight is ready. Maybe. Or maybe not. The question remains: has any found credible information about the readiness of the trucking industry? Think about it. This could be the difference between Just In Time and Maybe Next Week. Anybody? If not, I'll shut up and go back to lurking.

-- Thinman (thinman38@hotmail.com), May 03, 1999

Answers

Thinman,

It's a good question. A very good question. My guess is that not many of us know the trucking industry very well and how it is progressing. I wonder if Chuck (the night driver) has any insight... if he's got a cb in his car. Chuck?

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), May 03, 1999.

The trucking community doesn't rely very heavily on computers, so the question isn't terribly relevant. One of the largest shipping brokers (ie, a company that matches drivers with loads) on the East Coast still does it with paper, pencil, and telephones.

My brother worked for them for a while, and the way it worked was, MacDonalds(tm) would call and say, "we've got 30,000 lbs of frozen beef that needs to move from Wilmington, NC to Chattanooga, TN; we'll pay $xx." The broker matched the load with a driver (taking his cut of the "$xx", of course [g]), and moved to the next load.

This is a perfect example of where a computer is a convenience, not a necessity. The computer eliminates paper clutter and that's about it. The job can easily be done with sticky-notes and a big ugly gridboard on the wall (and in fact, one national line, which had a big terminal near my previous home in NC, still does it that way).

Some Y2k'ers have pointed out that some drivers now have satellite and computer linkups in their cabs. If you ask them, most of 'em hate the things (they don't like Big Brother watching over their shoulder). They'd probably be delighted to see the things crash in January [g].

So ... you're left with the billing systems. These don't generally use date-sensitive calculations. (I wrote some software for a private shipper way back when; there were NO date-sensitive calculations in mine; but I leave the door open for special cases -- such as late charges and interest on unpaid bills, maybe.) The calculations basically boil down to weight and the rate charged per mile and/or pound.

Finally, if you're worried about embedded systems in the trucks themselves, that's a non-issue. Notwithstanding some (dubious) examples over at Sir Gary North's site which have entered Y2K folklore[g], there's no evidence that date-sensitive computers which could stop the trucks from running are used on board.

(I love Gary's story about the firetruck. That one has long since been proven to be a fake, and he keeps it posted at his website.)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 03, 1999.

Times I've been in the big truck stops I see the tables with telephones reserved for the truckers -- they often line up their next load that way. Without telephones the long haulers might have a real problem. Of course they need fuel too....

Seems like we're in a long line dance, with great music on the side, where nobody can just let go and drop out.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), May 03, 1999.

A friend and his wife both drive for Swift. They spend all their time either on the road between destinations or at a destination only for as long as it takes to unload and reload the trailers.

The trucks they, and all other Swift drivers, drive, belong to the company. They are equipped with on-board computers that are linked to the home office via satellite. The link is continuous, and does not need any human input for the on-board computer to maintain communications with the home office.

Not only do the drivers receive their new destinations via that link, but each truck's mechanical condition, accumulated mileage, and other information is continuously being sent to the home office via the computer/satellite link. Each time the driver leaves the truck, he enters that fact into the computer, so the company knows that he's not on board.

Both of them have repeatedly complained to me that they never stop at truck stops except for emergencies, and for as long as it takes to replenish their on-board pantry. They equipped their trucks with 12 V. appliances because they got sick and tired of eating junk food while driving to their next destination. Both have visibly gained weight since last year, because they are always on the road, and have no time to eat proper meals, or exercise.

They tell me that many of the major trucking/shipping companies are using satcom and computerized trucks. They say that's why most of the business at the truck stops is smaller companies, and independents.

They both have confirmed that, if the computer or link goes out for any reason, the company knows it immediately, and they know that their truck will be pulled for service when they arrive at their next destination. They have both said that the company is totally dependent on this system, and couldn't maintain the level of transport that they now provide without it.

Both of them are y2k aware, and are DWGI, and they say that most of the company's employees are the same. They also claim that Swift is "on top of the problem," and will be ready for the rollover, if they are not now. The trouble is, neither of them are computer literate enough to be able to authoritatively make such a claim, and they don't have the time to stay updated on remediation efforts anywhere, much less within Swift.

If Swift is a typical trucking/shipping company, then they had better be ready for the rollover. If not, they have no contingency plans in place.

FWIW.

-- LP (soldog@hotmail.com), May 04, 1999.

Tom,

We're going in circles because some folks want to keep bringing the "iron triangle" into it -- telephones, in this case. There's no reason to believe that the phone system won't keep working in 2000.

LP,

Your example illustrates the real problem: your friends are not computer literate. If they were, they'd know that computers fail all the time now, and we work around them.

I assure you that Swift would swiftly (heh) institute something like a, "call in when you reach your destination for the next load" if the fancy-dancy satellite systems went out. :)

Besides, there's no evidence that the systems will fail next year. Everything I've read shows that they'll continue working just fine, so it's probably a moot point, anyway.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 04, 1999.

I agree completely with your assertion regarding the crucial role your industry plays in the overall health of the "System". There are just sooo many variables to the equation that it will be very, very difficult to gauge the security of it. Just a few areas that "must" work, that come off the top would be:

Fuel supply of course: last I read the National Reserve should last about 90 days

Fuel delivery systems: From refinery to pump

Urban traffic control systems:

Compliance of the Warehousing systems:

Compliance of the Shippers systems:

Compliance of the Recieving systems;

Compliance of the Purchasing systems:

Compliance of the Accounting systems:

Complinace of the Marketing systems:

Availability of Banking systems:

Emergency Response systems: from the Police and other public safety orgs. (including towing services , snow clearing, etc, etc.)

Availability of parts:

Compliance of the US Postal Service:

Availability of Marine Highway:

Availability of Air cargo:

Availabile in-route filling/repair stations: The in-betweens ya know

Lack of civil unrest: remember Reginald Denny (sp?)

Open access to highway infrastructure:

Compliance of mechanical bridges:

It seems the list goes on ad infinitum. To make the incredible balancing act that we have become so reliant on, more the wonderous and truly spectacular, unless I miss my guess, each and every one of these and many many more become "mission critical" if a tiny percentage of the whole were to become critically damaged for a very short time. The cascading effect will be unpredictable. Try to imagine what the system would look like if just one of the integral parts became unavailable. We would, at the very least be in for a period of adjustment. Now try to imagine the compound effects if multiple parts became ineffective at the 'same' time.

So it becomes real clear, that the day to day, salt of the earth, guys like you and I, need to heed the advice of those that propose we prepare for a possible period of confusion. The personal empowerment from doing a little in advance far outweighs the fear of the "Unknown" I encourage you to do all that you can to become personally responsible for yourself and those you love. Hopefully you will find time to bring the strength and hope you find in this quest, to another who will not have had the opportunity to GI yet.

Since I am basically anti-violent, I find my strongholds in my faith and my preparations. The greater my faith and my preparations, the less I fear. These are completely compatible concepts, if you percieve them as I do. If you do not, I respect your right differ. But,I will never accept a precept that allows you to execise your rights at the expense of mine. Ergo the term "basically"

-- spun@lright (mikeymac@uswest.net), May 04, 1999.

Fuel supply of course: last I read the National Reserve should last about 90 days

That assumes that someone stops ALL oil imports overnight, without warning.

In a real-life worst-case (and I emphasize "worst-case," because oil rigs in general do NOT use date-sensitive computers) scenario, we might lose say, 10% of imported oil -- in which case the national reserve would serve nicely until all those capped wells in Texas and Louisiana are opened again.

Fuel delivery systems: From refinery to pump ... Urban traffic control systems ... Compliance of the Warehousing systems ... [snip]

Ah, yes. The old, "This Stuff Is So Complex, Kill One Link And The Whole Thing Dies!" -- which has never been true. When Hurricane Fran ripped through NC in 1996, several major suppliers (including some JIT vendors to the auto and other industries) were hammered, and Da System just sort of worked it all out within a few days.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 04, 1999.

Oh yes!

Listen to this pearl of wisdom! (worse if you check out the propaga ,, uh, web site)

Are you ready?

Here goes.......

"In a real-life worst-case (and I emphasize "worst-case," because oil rigs in general do NOT use date-sensitive computers) scenario, we might lose say, 10% of imported oil"

Copywright Stephen M. Poole, CET (Certified Elevated Tosser),

Read the words CAREFULLY beacause this class one AOK Buggs Bunny MAROON doesn't even know he's saying them...

And I quote...

"we might lose say, 10% of imported oil"

more - Einstein here HAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE PROBLEM OF PETROLEUM (NEVER MIND REFINING) BEING DELIVERED VIA NON-COMPLIANT WELL-HEADS, PIPELINES, PORTS, SHIPPING, REFINERIES ETC. ETC.

OH YES!!! JUST 10%

LISTEN TO UNCLE STEPHEN, HE'S A COMPUTER GUY, HE KNOWS OF WHICH HE SPEAKS :))) Whoooaaaa, slow down George...

JUST 10%?

Remember 1973-4?

Just 10%...

Sounds REALLY convincing, YO, acceptable... "I can live with that..."

It's gonna be more like 100% you fucking maroons.

Hence the "war" in Kosovo, the eternal presence in Saudi Arabia, the push into Kuwait...

Wake up!!!

DO NOT LISTEN TO POOLE CET BECAUSE HE IS A BLOODY FOOL at best and government shill at worst.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 04, 1999.

Someone up top here took my name in vain, so I'll see what I can find out. One of my Brothers is a senior maintenance person for a local trucking co. he and I are probably the only GI's in our Lodge. I'll ask him tomorrow (err tonight as it's 0443) and see what he has to say.

And it 0443 because I just got back from a trip to Detroit. errrrr that's why I'm posting now, not why it'ss that time now.... .... .. . . . . . . .

Must be bed time. C

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 04, 1999.

G 2 bed chuck,

wade in later :}

Ernold Same is a classic - check it out....

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 04, 1999.

Andy,

Prove that you're smarter than me. I won't ask you to back up all of your Doomlit screed. Just answer a few questions:

NON-COMPLIANT WELL-HEADS

Name a brand and model number of a well-head that could fail to produce oil because of Y2K bugs.

SHIPS ... PORTS

Name the equipment and describe how a Y2K failure in that equipment could cause the ship to be unable to carry oil, or the port to be unable to receive the ship.

REFINERIES ETC. ETC.

Name the brand and model of equipment used in a refinery which could fail to crack the crude properly due to Y2K bugs. And then, of course, there's my favorite:

Define "Compliant."

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 04, 1999.

Mr. Poole

most times you write so lucidly i can read your posts, without agreeing, but still quietly. not this time.

in an earlier post on this thread, you make two statements to which i must respond. first, you say you've seen no evidence the system will fail. if you are referring to Swift's dispatch system, then possibly your statement makes sense. if you are referring to overall systems, then, speaking as an ex-programmer, let me assure you that code that assumes 20th century when it rolls over into the 21st will indeed fail. it may fail in vague, uneasy to detect manners, but it will fail.

second, you complete your thought by stating "it's probably a moot point." sorry, you can't have it both ways. you can't state categorically that the computers are going to keep right on working and leave 'probably' in your statement. either it *is* a moot point, or you're not sure if the computers will keep working or not.

IMO that probably was a freudian slip that tells us you're really not sure of your position.

-- Cowardly Lion (cl0001@hotmail.com), May 04, 1999.

me again.

sorry, for you purists out there, it's not the 20th rolling over into the 21st until 2000 rolls into 2001. i should have said 'code that assumes 19xx when it rolls into 20xx will indeed fail.'

-- Cowardly Lion (cl0001@hotmail.com), May 04, 1999.

http://www.dictionary.com/

Searched for _compliant_

2 entries found for _compliant_.

_compliant_ in Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary and _compliant_ in WordNet . 1.6

_compliant_ in Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary:

Compliant \Com*pli"ant\, a. Yielding; bending; pliant; submissive. ``The compliant boughs.'' --Milton. Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

_compliant_ in WordNet . 1.6: _compliant_ adj 1: disposed or willing to comply; "children compliant with the parental will" [ant: defiant] 2: willing to carry out the orders or wishes of another without protest; "too acquiescent to challenge authority"; "a gentle and biddable soul"; "children compliant with the parental will" [syn: acquiescent, biddable] 3: easily influenced or imposed on 4: evidencing little spirit or courage; overly submissive or compliant; "compliant and anxious to suit his opinions of those of others"; "a fine fiery blast against meek conformity"- Orville Prescott; "she looked meek but had the heart of a lion"; "was submissive and subservient" [syn: meek, spiritless] Source: WordNet . 1.6

http://www.m-w.com/netdict.htm WWWebster's Dictionary

Searched _compliant_

Main Entry: com7pli7ant Pronunciation: -&nt Function: adjective Date: 1642 : ready or disposed to comply : SUBMISSIVE - com7pli7ant7ly adverb

Searched comply

Main Entry: com7ply Pronunciation: k&m-'plI Function: intransitive verb Inflected Form(s): com7plied; com7ply7ing Etymology: Italian complire, from Spanish cumplir to complete, perform what is due, be courteous, modification of Latin complEre to complete Date: 1602 1 obsolete : to be ceremoniously courteous 2 : to conform or adapt one's actions to another's wishes, to a rule, or to necessity

I would look at it like this:

ready or disposed to comply, perform what is due, complete, OR, adapt/ed/ to a rule, or to necessity, to perform what is due, complete.

I hope this helps. I just woke up after only 4 and 1/2 hours sleep.

G'morning all!

-- J (jart5@bellsouth.net), May 04, 1999.

Thinman,

I believe the Senate Report on Y2K had some things to say about the trucking industry. I can't remember details right now, but you can access this information online.

-- Sharon (sking@drought-ridden.com), May 04, 1999.

Sharon,

You would think that the Senate report would have some useful information, but it didn't. That's what got me wondering about this. All it said was how important trucking is to the economy and how dependent trucking is on computers. There was some old, very limited survey data. As for actual evaluation of the industry--zip.

Everybody else,

I feel so much better now. Like all things Y2K, clear as mud.

-- thinman (thinman38@hotmail.com), May 04, 1999.

Again, I know several drivers at Yellow Freight. At least a year ago Yellow announced compliance to it's employess. I am in the process of finding the letters they sent out.

Yellow is only one co. but they are the largest cartage (sp? sorry) co in the USA (UPS handles smaller packages). It has only been within the past couple of years that they started using computers. (for managing freight) It is true that this part they can handle without computers. This really doesn't help them if they are trying to pick up a 'container' at a rail yard, which can't be located due to to rail problems, (kind of back to the vender compliance issue---customer compliance).

Fuel shortages/price spikes can/will hit this industry hard.

If the social climate gets chaotic, I wonder how many drivers will remember the L.A. riots, and the driver that was beaten on live T.V., and opt to stay home? OTOH drivers go into areas every day that are so unsafe you wouldn't believe the stories they have to tell. (Their freight is quite valuable after all)

The State of Illinois on it's y2k & small business page stated that the Transportation Industry was at risk for delays etc. due to communication problems/problems locating freight. (I don't have the address handy, I know I posted it here in the past)

I know these Teamsters well. They are big, tough guys. They have the potential to get freight delivered under the worst circumstances. Unfortunately Corporate America has invaded even this industry. Drivers are treated like a liability - threatening the profits of the giant (why should they earn enough money to support a family, or operate safe eqipment for that matter?) Forgetting that without the drivers their corp. cannot exist (and that often times the driver is the only co. rep that the customer ever meets). My point being that co. loyalty simply does not exist, it has turned into a game of survival. If TSHTF drivers won't do ANYTHING out of loyalty to the co.

Also, freight might get delivered, but if the paychecks can't be printed, cashed etc., how long will they stick around, especially if their families need them?

So how will the trucking industry fare during y2k? I don't know, but I know drivers that are preparing for y2k. If anyone understands how the industry works, it would be them.

-- Deborah (infowars@yahoo.com), May 04, 1999.

Stephen

"The American Petroleum Institute (API) maintains a data base of equipment its members have found to be Y2K compliant and non-compliant. We would encourage the API in its recent efforts to provide access to this data base to non-API members. This could help some companies save a considerable amount of time re-checking components already tested by the major international companies. Even if companies do not have time or resources to replace many of the defective components identified, they can at least have a better idea about where problems are likely to occur, and this could aid them in their contingency planning."

Testimony to US Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem (April 22, 1999)

William C. Ramsay, Director, Non-Member Countries Division, International Energy Agency, Paris, France

So, Stephen, if Mr. Ramsay is to be believed, many non-compliant components exist in the oil industry world-wide.

-- Doug (Doug@work.now), May 04, 1999.

I wrote: "Without telephones the long haulers might have a real problem." Note my use of the word "might," indicating conditionality.

Stephen M. Poole, CET replies: "We're going in circles because some folks want to keep bringing the "iron triangle" into it -- telephones, in this case. There's no reason to believe that the phone system won't keep working in 2000."

A curious response.

Is the "iron triangle"an illusion? Is each element of the infrastructure independent of the others? This is very good news, if true. (Confirmation would be nice.)

If computer-based functions are essential to telecommunications, will all critical computer operations function correctly across the rollover? Is there certainty that the phone system willl "keep working"?

Credible, affirmative answers here would also be very good news.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), May 04, 1999.

cowardly lion,

speaking as an ex-programmer, let me assure you that code that assumes 20th century when it rolls over into the 21st will indeed fail ...

Of course it will, and I never said otherwise. You're putting words in my mouth. But where the disconnect occurs -- and has occurred from day one with Y2K -- is the automatic assumption on the part of Doomlits that "code failure = disaster." It depends on the failure.

I've used this example too many times, but here goes again: many of the standard EAS machines used in broadcast facilities only take 2-digit year figures, and/or could print some dates incorrectly after 2000. Technically, then, you might argue that these machines are "non-compliant." OK?

You can even imagine the headline on Gary North's Web site: "XX% OF ALL EAS MACHINES ARE NON-COMPLIANT, SAYS FCC! What would happen if these machines failed in the New Year, and the government was hampered in its ability to communicate emergency information to the public ... the government's primary means of disseminating information could be brought down by Y2K!"

(Does that sound about right? [g])

But the fact is, that "non-compliance" has no bearing on the ability of the machine to perform its primary function -- which is to warn the public. The worst that will happen is that the printout logging the event will have an incorrect date -- which we will fix with a felt-tip pen, if need be. But the system itself will function fine (we test it at least once a week).

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 04, 1999.

Doug,

See my reply to cowardly lion. Not only can no one provide a single, detailed definition of "compliance" (as it relates to Y2K -- nice try above, though [g]), in the real world, some machines which are technically "non-compliant" will still function.

The simple fact of the matter is, statements like, "only 88% of Wizzergigs are compliant!" are absolutely, utterly meaningless in ability to predict (or even give indication of) disaster.

Reread that sentence a couple of times, because that's Y2K Doom and Gloom in a nutshell: people becoming needlessly concerned over meaningless percentages of something which no one can define with any consistency. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 04, 1999.

Hello, Thinman,

This thread has received a lot of activity since I last glanced at it. Concerned about the trucking industry long ago because I suspect these vehicles have noncompliant chips, plus the industry generally has been reported in more than one document as "being behind the curve," I began researching it over a year ago. With little success. I can provide you with parts of an email written by a govt. spokesperson in Canada and a few links that you may want to investigate further. Sorry I cannot help more than that, but my general sense is that much of the industry falls into the "oblivious" category.

Ryan Timms, CAN2K, Oct. 7, 1998, said this:

"Unfortunately, there are not many resources available on the Year 2000 Problem and how it will affect the North American trucking industry. The CAN2K team has done an extensive search and it seems as if the trucking industry is not taking this problem very seriously. You are very correct in stating that the modern automobile contains a number of computer chips embedded into their systems. My advice to you would be to contact the manufacturer and company that sold you the trucks. Obtain in writing that these vehicles will not be affected (hopefully!) by the Year 2000 Problem. The manufacturer of the automobile has to be aware of this problem."

In her testimony to Industry Canada in November, 1998, Michelle LeBlanc indicated that their research on the Canadian trucking industry in the summer of 1998 indicated that the large companies believed they would be ready on time. However, from 70% to 80% of the trucking companies in Canada are small, "mom and pop" operations, and the small companies did not respond to the survey, in general, because they are far more concerned with the day-to-day operations of their companies than they are with an event reaching "far into the future." She believes that the US has far more large companies that may be accordingly farther ahead than the Canadian ones. However, the large Canadian companies indicated to her that their suppliers and customers were of greater concern: customs, fuel, electricity (the ice storm showed them it didn't matter whether or not there was fuel at the pumps if there was no electricity to get it out of the ground).

A quote from her testimony about border crossings: "Having said that, if it (customs) fails on either side of the border, a five- minute backlog of one truck translates into a 17-hour backlog after a few hours. It's considerable. I believe the numbers are probably similar with trains, in terms of the number of wagons or whatever you call them, wagons in French. But with trucks, one truck crosses the border every three seconds, I think. So you don't want to have too long a backlog."

Automotive Industry Action Group (Chrysler, Ford, GM, Volvo and Toyota North America) (and, yes, Volvo manufactures semis, too) Year 2000 Information Centre

Their home page says: "Your timeframe should be the same as ours: all computer related equipment and systems affecting continuity of supply must be compliant by December, 1998."

American Trucking Association

This one has absolutely nothing on its homepage about y2k.

US Transportation

A y2k page, it includes "Highway Transport."

Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (Canada, US, Mexico

Again, its homepage does not mention y2k.

Hope this helps. Happy hunting!

-- Rachel Gibson (rgibson@hotmail.com), May 04, 1999.

Poole:

"Reread that sentence a couple of times, because that's Y2K Doom and Gloom in a nutshell: people becoming needlessly concerned over meaningless percentages of something which no one can define with any consistency."

Meaningless percentages: correct. Needlessly concerned: hopelessly, helplessly, cluelessly, dead wrong. Maybe literally dead wrong.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 04, 1999.

I haven't been able to find much about trucking. On autos, all I have found is the following excerpted from an article by excerpt from article by Dr. M. Ray Perryman, president and chief executive officer of The Perryman Group and Business Economist-in-Residence at the Edwin L. Cox School of Business at Southern Methodist University http://www.amarillonet.com/stories/041399/bus_bite.shtml:

"The automotive industry is facing a daunting task in preparing for the new millennium. During the last decade, microprocessors have become essential components of many automotive functions. The typical automobile has 10 to 15 processors; high-end cars can have as many as 80! Changing one line of code often can create new problems, and an engine controller can have more than 100,000 lines of code. The automotive industry also is concerned about its suppliers. If suppliers experience problems due to Y2K, it could disrupt operations within the automobile industry."

There is also the issue of y2k compliancy of the satellites in the GPS system. (See other thread)

-- marsh (armstrng@sisqtel.net), May 04, 1999.

Stephen,

You make an excellent point which I had not fully considered before. Certainly some devices and systems with Y2K errors will continue to function sufficiently, if not optimally.

However, a second danger seems obvious. If the system continues to operate and the non-compliance is not noticed or corrected, it has the potential to produce non-compliant data and gum up the works over a period of time, right?

As an example (and I'm not making a prediction here), it might be better to have air traffic control monitors go dark at midnight than to appear to be functioning properly while displaying increasingly faulty data. Y2K failures don't have to be instant disasters (although some could be) in order to have a Doom and Gloom scenario.

Nobody knows what's going to happen when the world takes the ultimate Y2K exam, but I think just about everyone agrees that there will be problems. It's wondering how those problems will interact that has me worried.

-- Doug (Doug@work.now), May 04, 1999.

Yellow Freight just delivered my wood stove yesterday. Driver said he had one on order, as well as a generator.

-- dave (wootendave@hotmail.com), May 04, 1999.

Mr. Poole

i didn't put words in your mouth, as you state. see earlier post:

Besides, there's no evidence that the systems will fail next year. Everything I've read shows that they'll continue working just fine, so it's probably a moot point, anyway.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 04, 1999.

i agree with you disaster is a function of percentage of sys failure, where we disagree is the per cent required before things start falling apart. IMO it will take less than 5% across the board failures to turn a fragile infrastructure (defined financially, dependence on oil, dependence on food supply, however you like) to create a disaster. NOT, you understand, teotwawki globally, necessarily, but teotwawki, certainly, in at least isolated spots (read countries). what happens in the first two weeks after rollover will set the stage for the next ten years. if trucking *does* tank and not make it back up in two weeks, we're looking at a disaster.

if you cannot admit doubling back on your statement above, instead of accusing me of putting words in your mouth, i'll just have to begin boycotting your posts. that would be a shame, because you do frequently raise thoughtful points.

-- Cowardly Lion (cl0001@hotmail.com), May 04, 1999.

I have to interject here,

You are all forgetting RAIL, the lifeblood certainly of the power industry. Their systems are in a shambles, remediation-wise.

Trucking will need to take over. That needs oil. I sound like Al Gore. It's all about oil now. But oil isn't good enough. It needs to get to this country. Via ports. Be refined. Delivered.

The chain, which I have greatly simplified above, is VERY fragile. I could go into details but I think (with the exception of Poole) you can all work it out for yourselves.

Stephen,

I don't have to back up my statements for the likes of you. By asking me to back up my statements you are basically saying I am a liar. I take umbrage at that. You have a keyboard and a search engine - DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. I am not here to provide you with hot links. they would be wasted on you - THAT is patently obvious. From my dealings with you so far on this forum - I am not impressed.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 04, 1999.

Doug,

If the system continues to operate and the non-compliance is not noticed or corrected, it has the potential to produce non-compliant data and gum up the works over a period of time, right?

Sure it's possible in something like an accounting database. It's not very likely in a control system. The vast majority of these don't even use dates; those which do use them primarily for logging and maintenance functions.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 04, 1999.

Cowardly Lion,

There has been a failure to communicate here, and I'll accept my share of the blame. When I said that there's no indication that the "systems" would fail next year, I was indeed referring to the little satellite linkup thingies in the truck cabs, NOT to computer systems in general.

I thought you were putting words in my mouth, when it was my words that were not clear enough. Accept my apologies and let's agree to disagree where we have to. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 04, 1999.

Andy,

By asking me to back up my statements you are basically saying I am a liar.

On the contrary. I don't think you're a liar; deluded, maybe, but not a liar. (A fine, but important, distinction.)

You have a history of ducking and dodging requests for SPECIFIC information like those above. You'd much rather make Milne-ish claims without challenge or question.

(For that matter, most of you IT types prefer it that way. In general, you don't like to be questioned very closely.)

On those rare occasions when you do respond, it's to cut-and-paste an entire page of gibberish that doesn't really prove anything.

Why don't you just be honest and admit that you CAN'T name a wellhead (or shipboard system or etc.) that could cause the failure you describe? And given that, that you are SPECULATING (madly) when you assume that these things will fail next year?

From my dealings with you so far on this forum - I am not impressed.

It would probably astonish you to know how little I care what you think of me. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 04, 1999.

"Venezuela and Saudi Arabia lag from a year to 18 months behind the United States in Y2K preparations, raising concerns about the availability of oil and other critical imports, the report said.

International ports are widely described as far behind in their Y2K efforts, prompting worries that the maritime industry will face shipping problems that could interrupt commerce, the report added."

Washington Post

-- none (none@none.none), May 04, 1999.

Stephen,

. It's not very likely in a control system. The vast majority of these don't even use dates; those which do use them primarily for logging and maintenance functions.

Intuitively, that seems true, although I won't pretend to be a programmer. However, it must be more complicated than that or the FAA wouldn't have made that three hour test at Denver a couple of weeks ago. They would have announced that there is no problem right now--not there will be no problem after we remediate and test the systems.

I know I have moved my responses from a more specific topic of trucking reliability to general Y2K issues, and I apologize to the forum for that. I'm new and am just picking up on the protocol.

But Stephen, you probably answered this a million times already and I don't know how to find it, but why are you so optimistic? Something is coming that will cut the legs off of a world increasingly dependent on its computers for life support. At a minimum, I would expect unexpected surprises, none of which will be good. Am I missing something, or am I simply equating your writing skills with a reasoned position?

-- Doug (douglasjohnson@prodigy.net), May 04, 1999.

Something From Industy Canada

We have one last group, the Canadian Trucking Alliance. We have Ms. Michelle LeBlanc, the director of policy and research. Ms. LeBlanc.

Ms. Michelle LeBlanc (Director, Policy and Research, Canadian Trucking Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Snip

CTA, in the summer, undertook an informal survey of its members. Now, we have 2,000 motor carrier members across Canada from coast to coast, large and small, some of them local and many of them international. The informal survey results were that most of them claimed either to have finished their testing or to be undertaking their testing, and they were confident that there would be no problem at all in their making the transition with their computer and other equipment. Certainly our investigations with the vehicle manufacturers show that they expect their vehicles to be compliant without any problems.

There is a definite difference, however, between our large and small operators in how they responded to our survey. The large companies rely on customized systems and they have really undertaken a lot of effort to address the Y2K problem. However, smaller companies rely on off-the-shelf applications and many of them feel it's not a problem for them. They either plan to replace the off-the-shelf software or they feel it is compliant.

My personal observation is that this is probably something they really ought to look at more carefully. But small companies, especially in the trucking industry, have a lot more pressing issues oftentimes, and it's difficult for them to look ahead a year or two when they're just trying to keep their heads above water.

Now, from my perspective, one of the biggest problems is that many of these companies, even when they do address their year 2000 problems, haven't really thought about contingency planningwhat'll happen if for some reason their system doesn't work or a system they rely on doesn't work? The impact of failure on the economy, the failure for trucking to make the transition, is quite large. If trucking fails to make the shift, the repercussions could be devastating to the economy if it is for more than a very short time. However, we're confident that widescale failure is highly unlikely, assuming that the supply chain is readysupply chain meaning, in our case, not so much vehicle manufacturers but electricity, the custom services in Canada and the U.S, fuel supply, banks and communications. This is a real fear for our members.

 1600

As for the impact of failure on safetyand I expect this is why road transport is generally not included in a lot of examinations of the year 2000 problempeople don't expect trucks to fall out of the sky on January 1. However, there is an impact on safety from the trucking perspective and it has to do with things outside of our control, such as traffic management systems and the enforcement and emergency services' ability to cope with the year 2000 problem.

Most of the trucking companies, especially smaller onesand they make up the large majority of trucking operations in Canada; probably about 70% to 80% are smaller, mom-and-pop kinds of operationssurvive on an operating ratio of over 95%, and that makes it difficult for them to think a year ahead or two years ahead, about the potential problems they will face then. They are worried about just keeping the business alive. Their more immediate problems that fall perhaps under the area of this committee are things such as the proliferation of U.S. franchise taxes, the Agreement on Internal Trade, the national safety code and so on.

Notwithstanding that, there are certainly a number of recommendations that we would like to see considered, but I'm going to focus on two of them.

One is the need for more recognition of the issues regarding road transport. Practically anything that you can think of in Canada has at some point moved by truck, and it's important to remember that mode whenever we're dealing with any issues that may have an economic impact.

Snip

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. LeBlanc.

-- Brian (imager@ampsc.com), May 04, 1999.

Come now, Stephen. Don't bother Andy with mere trifles, like actually backing up his statements!

He says Rails are in a shambles, thus they must be.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 04, 1999.

Okay, so trucks depend on fuel, and electricty and phones, and a about another bajillion things to not get in their way, all of which may be subject to Y2K failures. Sounds secure to me.< /sarcasm>

If these things remain essentially intact in January, this thread is moot. If they don't, it's only a miniscule part of the problem...

-- Doug (douglasjohnson@prodigy.net), May 04, 1999.

My contact in the industry has said to me that "the big ones are just gettin bigger and the small ones are closing down" which I told him wasn't too helpful. At which point he pointed out that the big companies have all gone to Qualcomm for dispatch so the only problems will be in fuel, and in th econsignees/receivers being compliant. Qualcomm is a company Mrs Driver works with all the time, and has provided her company with IV&V documnts of compliance in both their internal and satelite functions.

Chuck

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 05, 1999.

Chuck,

Purely out of idle curiosity, who is the biggest now? Swift? Saia? Harold Ives? Yellow? J. B. Hunt?

If you know, say; if not, don't sweat it. I'm just interested. You're right about the mergers and buyouts.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 05, 1999.

Doug,

The best way to answer that question is to refer you to my Web site, where I discuss it in great detail.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 05, 1999.

So you are still sticking with ten per cent Stephen?

You are a complete idiot to make such a statement - worse, to try and defend it.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 05, 1999.

Andy,

And you, as usual, refuse to answer a direct question. I admire the way you're trying to squirm away from it, but it's pretty obvious that you CAN'T name a single make and model of well head that could fail due to Y2K bugs.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 05, 1999.

And incidentally -- I do stand by the 10% figure. I'm not going to try to defend it, either. Let's just wait and see next year. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 05, 1999.

Mr. Poole

I accept, and agree. Thank you.

-- Cowardly Lion (cl0001@hotmail.com), May 05, 1999.

My contact also indicated that, after watching the merger in the Western US, and the grid lock and filled yards after the rail lines found out that the computers they had were not able to communicate with each other; and that the surviving corp wanted to build trains by computer while the bought corp had been building them by hand, that the rails would be in a world of hurt.

He also pointed out that the CSX merger hereabouts was going VERY SLOWLY so they didn't make the same mistake again. One wonders how far along the Y2 work has gone seeing the delays in the effectuation of the merger.

Chuck who appologizes for the ungrammar but it is 0538 again and soon will be time for bed. (CO1998 from Houston gets in at 0130 and the client lives 55 min away from the airport, so it all adds up!! If I crash at 0430 or 0500, I wil NOt hear the alarm and see that the other half rises.)

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 06, 1999.

Stephen,

Yellow claims to be the largest.

Just a thought: Up until a year or two ago, (as large as they are) all of the shipping paperwork, tracking of packages etc. at Yellow was done without computers.

-- Deborah (infowars@yahoo.com), May 06, 1999.

smpoole,

If you read my post more carefully, you will see that I said that, "...neither of them are computer literate enough to be able to authoritatively make such a claim..." I did not say that they were not computer literate.

They are computer literate enough to effectively use not only the computer in their truck, but their own computers at home. They are old enough to know how computers have affected our infrastructure. One of them is a retired US Forest Service employee.

I am old enough to remember a time when the word "computer" was used to refer to a clerk that used a mechanical adding machine, or pencil and paper. I have college transcripts that show the slide rule classes I took over thirty years ago. My friends are older than me. We all are very aware how computers influence our daily lives, and what can happen when a computer fails, and we don't need to know how computers work in order to know how heavily committed our society has become on the speed and efficiency computers have offered. We can remember a society without computers. We are acutely aware that our society has, in effect, "put all of our eggs in one basket," and have the experiences of many years of living to remind us of the folly of that philosophy.

They are ignorant, not stupid, and prefer to use their time in pursuits other than computer related pastimes. That is, when they're not on the road.

They say the satcom/computer system has failed, from time to time. Each time a failure occurred, they had to stay at the yard where they were at the time of the failure until it was repaired, and full function restored. As a result, some shipments were delayed, others cancelled. That translated, they said, into a loss of revenue for the company.

They cannot be, and do not claim to be, authorities in this matter. Nor do they wish to be. But, since they are closer than most to the inner workings of a major shipping company, and have first-hand experience in the reliability of the satcom linked computer system, their experiences and opinions are more authoritative, and thus valuable, than those that come from one that has no ties to the company at all, and therefore no direct information upon which to base an opinion.

-- LP (soldog@hotmail.com), May 06, 1999.

Hello, I hope that the Electronic systems don't fail in the trucking industry. Bob.

-- (bobsimms@email.com), June 05, 1999.

I hope everyone is at least getting prepaired locally, Regards Bob.

-- (bobsimms@wmail.com), June 13, 1999.