Telematics...UPS is wiring your truck

[trplnkl]

Sober my dear friend, I know where they got it from. You and I have been through all this before. And before I reply, I do whole heartedly agree that in the name of safety, UPS needs to develop a long term plan to have all the package cars either junked or retrofitted with lap and shoulder belts.
So you knew the answer before you asked it. The only reason I can see for the question then was to make Backinbrown feel like he didn't know what he was talking about. You other posts to BIB were demeaning and rather hateful sounding. Good job Danny.

You stated that beginning with the 76 year models, lap belts were standard, with a $40 option for the three point belts. That is true for the pickups you are using as proof.

Problem is that this is not the case for the package cars that UPS bought. They are in a different class, with different sets of rules and regs to govern their production and equipment.
Because law didn't include those class of vehicles UPS had an out to not spend a few extra bucks to have 3P belts installed. THey could have put them in, it just wasn't required. Most other vehicles were fitted with them, UPS trucks could been have also.

Therefore, there were never any options available on the delivery trucks, so there are no approved replacements that would allow for the change over.

Oh come on, you can not convince me that if UPS had told Grumman or Olson or who ever, that the wanted 3P belts that they would not have been installed. They built those trucks to UPS specs within the laws and regs (which did not exclude 3pb but didn't require them)

That would mean that any modification to the car to allow for the installation of the three point hitch would not meet the needed requirement to pass the genuine replacement part.

You know this because????

If they had been fitted with the 3PB at manufacturing the genuine replacement would be a 3PB.

In other words, there are no approved replacement parts to do such a change over, and there is no way UPS is going to put their butts in the legal sling to do a modification with non approved replacement parts.
Again, if done at manufacturing it would have been approved.

You can do them all day long to your personal vehicle. But the minute you let someone else drive that vehicle, that modification can come back to haunt you should they be involved in an accident.
Well, we sure don't want UPS to liable or responsible for a driver having to pick his/her teeth out of the windshield, do we.

d

 

[HEFFERNAN]

I would think that a major reason they will not retrofit the belts is because they would be AGREEING that the lap belt was unsafe. That would open themselves to lawsuits from prior accidents and present accidents while driver is waiting for his 3pt belt to be installed.

 

[Big Babooba]

I would think that a major reason they will not retrofit the belts is because they would be AGREEING that the lap belt was unsafe. That would open themselves to lawsuits from prior accidents and present accidents while driver is waiting for his 3pt belt to be installed.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

 

[kasaroo]

Ours are going online in a couple weeks. It's a good time than any to make that sweet sweet overtime. Thank you Atlanta


(obviously I don't follow every safety procedure)

That's MY way of dealing......."I get paid by the hour"

 

[stevetheupsguy]

Heffe

When you get into trouble, I keep hearing people say that after 9 months, everything falls off your record. In a way, yes. Keep your nose clean, dont repeat stupid mistakes, and it does go away.

Problem is that many employees dont. And there lies the rub with the 9 months issue.

The company keeps records as long as it sees fit. And when you transgress, they can and will bring up your past record of misdeeds from day one if it helps their case against you. It helps them show that you have been a long term problem, one that they have tried to fix, but you as an hourly employee just refuse to change your behavior.

So my suggestion would be to work as instructed. Follow their rules. Deliver as instructed. And fasten that seat belt.

Sober my dear friend, I know where they got it from. You and I have been through all this before. And before I reply, I do whole heartedly agree that in the name of safety, UPS needs to develop a long term plan to have all the package cars either junked or retrofitted with lap and shoulder belts.

You stated that beginning with the 76 year models, lap belts were standard, with a $40 option for the three point belts. That is true for the pickups you are using as proof.

Problem is that this is not the case for the package cars that UPS bought. They are in a different class, with different sets of rules and regs to govern their production and equipment.

Therefore, there were never any options available on the delivery trucks, so there are no approved replacements that would allow for the change over.

That would mean that any modification to the car to allow for the installation of the three point hitch would not meet the needed requirement to pass the genuine replacement part.

In other words, there are no approved replacement parts to do such a change over, and there is no way UPS is going to put their butts in the legal sling to do a modification with non approved replacement parts.

You can do them all day long to your personal vehicle. But the minute you let someone else drive that vehicle, that modification can come back to haunt you should they be involved in an accident.

d

You and 555 have made very good points in your posts.

I would think that a major reason they will not retrofit the belts is because they would be AGREEING that the lap belt was unsafe. That would open themselves to lawsuits from prior accidents and present accidents while driver is waiting for his 3pt belt to be installed.

Hmmm, another good point.

 

[dannyboy]

So you knew the answer before you asked it.

Pretty much knew where it started. Problem is people start throwing ideas and numbers around as fact when in fact, they are not. My posts are to get people to think for themselves. If it hurt your feelings, deal with it.

Because law didn't include those class of vehicles UPS had an out to not spend a few extra bucks to have 3P belts installed. THey could have put them in, it just wasn't required. Most other vehicles were fitted with them, UPS trucks could been have also.

Here is an example of generic assumptions. Just like the one with the 76 chevy. How do you know that they were offered as an option on the delivery vehicles? Yes, they were offered as an option on vehicles destined for the general customer, but where do you get your information that they were for commercial type vehicles? Everything I have seen points to the opposite.

Oh come on, you can not convince me that if UPS had told Grumman or Olson or who ever, that the wanted 3P belts that they would not have been installed. They built those trucks to UPS specs within the laws and regs (which did not exclude 3pb but didn't require them)

You ever see the basic truck before they add the body? Who installs the seat? Grumman or Olson or who ever installs the body, but all the cars I have seen have the seat and belt installed at the frame/engine/trans manufacture. And all the data I have been shown does not show that it was offered at the vehicle manufacturer as an option until much later on. As I stated, what is offered and mandated at the public level is not always what is offered and mandated at the commercial level.

You know this because????

If they had been fitted with the 3PB at manufacturing the genuine replacement would be a 3PB.

Its a legal issue. Been through, and followed several other lawsuits that determine that if you alter the design of function of a vehicle, that makes you responsible for any flaws in that change in design. Any changes UPS makes to a car has to be OKed by the factory. To get that, the factory must do the necessary testing to confirm that the modification is sound and will past the testing needed to put their stamp of approval on it. This can take several if not many years.

Ironically, the same gooberment that regulated the seatbelt issue back then also is the one that makes it hard to get things changed in a timely manner.

Again, if done at manufacturing it would have been approved

And again, when you assume a faulty premise, you end up with faulty assumptions.

I would think that a major reason they will not retrofit the belts is because they would be AGREEING that the lap belt was unsafe. That would open themselves to lawsuits from prior accidents and present accidents while driver is waiting for his 3pt belt to be installed.

Heffe

In a way, you do have a valid point. It is the person that shovels his sidewalk that will get sued if someone slips and falls, not the guy who doesnt touch his.

But then they would pass the blame on to ford, chevy, etc because the testing took too long for an approved harness to be developed, and the auto makers would then point to the gooberment that mandated the strict testing that took too long.

Everybody in this whole issue wants to pass the buck because of the legal problems that affect the installation.

Funny, at our center, you can get them to install a cup holder so you dont spill your drink...........

d

 

[soberups]

Here is an example of generic assumptions. Just like the one with the 76 chevy. How do you know that they were offered as an option on the delivery vehicles? Yes, they were offered as an option on vehicles destined for the general customer, but where do you get your information that they were for commercial type vehicles? Everything I have seen points to the opposite.
d

When UPS placed multimillion dollar orders with the various manufacturers for package cars, they were very specific as to how those cars were to be designed and equipped.

It would have been possible to order the vehicles to be designed with attachement hardware for 3 point belts.

It would have been possible to order the vehicles to be equipped with power steering.

Both of these items were industry standard for heavy-duty delivery vehicles long before UPS was finally forced to include them due to laws or contractual requirements.

I remember as a new driver in 1988 that the FedEx guy on my route had a package car of similar design to mine, only his had a 3 point belt and power steering. Mine didnt.


The deletion of these critical features had nothing to do with their unavailability. It was pure economics. It was a callous business decision that clearly shows the complete lack of regard that UPS has for the safety of its employees.

 

[soberups]

You ever see the basic truck before they add the body? Who installs the seat? Grumman or Olson or who ever installs the body, but all the cars I have seen have the seat and belt installed at the frame/engine/trans manufacture. And all the data I have been shown does not show that it was offered at the vehicle manufacturer as an option until much later on. As I stated, what is offered and mandated at the public level is not always what is offered and mandated at the commercial level.




d

We have 1995 model year P-1000 package cars made by International/Navistar, numbered in the 135,xxx to 136,xxx series.

The 135's are identical in every way to the 136's except for ONE thing....the 135's have a lap belt while the 136's have a 3 point belt.

The 135's have a mounting point for the shoulder belt, just like the 136's....but this option was not included in the units made prior to mid 1995.

Why? Because starting in mid-1995, the DOT required all vehicles to have 3 point belts. Prior to that, lap belts met the legal minimum standard. So UPS, in its quest to save money, continued to order the vehicles to be fitted with lap belts until the very last day that it was legal to do so, even though those vehicles were designed from the factory to be fitted with 3 point belts if so ordered.

 

[stevetheupsguy]

Can't wait to see the response to this one.

 

[dannyboy]

If indeed they are identical, then why dont they retrofit the cars?

IF the hardware is there, why not?

All of the package cars we have here with seat belts only are not in any way similar to any that have 3 point hitches.

I would be very interested in actual photos of the two package cars that are identical with the exception of the harness set up. If that is the case, then there would be grounds to open up a can of worms that was closed.

Please do not post them here, PM me for email.

d

 

[stevetheupsguy]

If indeed they are identical, then why dont they retrofit the cars?

IF the hardware is there, why not?

All of the package cars we have here with seat belts only are not in any way similar to any that have 3 point hitches.

I would be very interested in actual photos of the two package cars that are identical with the exception of the harness set up. If that is the case, then there would be grounds to open up a can of worms that was closed.

Please do not post them here, PM me for email.

d

I don't think those pictures will get you "stugged", sober. If you won't post them here, may I be added to the "pm" roster of those pictures.

 

[soberups]

If indeed they are identical, then why dont they retrofit the cars?

IF the hardware is there, why not?

All of the package cars we have here with seat belts only are not in any way similar to any that have 3 point hitches.

I would be very interested in actual photos of the two package cars that are identical with the exception of the harness set up. If that is the case, then there would be grounds to open up a can of worms that was closed.

Please do not post them here, PM me for email.

d

They wont retrofit the cars because it isnt an OSHA requirement to do so, and our lives are not worth whatever money it would cost the company.

Failure to comply with an OSHA mandate will get the company fined.

Failure to save the life of the driver, on the other hand, will simply give the company the opportunity to replace him with a new hire in progression making $10 an hour less.

I will take pictures when I go back to work on Monday.

Why should I not post the pictures here?

 

[stevetheupsguy]

They wont retrofit the cars because it isnt an OSHA requirement to do so, and our lives are not worth the money.

I will take pictures when I go back to work on Monday.

Why should I not post the pictures here?

You can post em, just don't post them with a DIAD or my likeness in the background.

 

[dannyboy]

Maybe I am a bit cautious, but I would sure hate to give UPS any reason to give our boss here at BC any grief. And posting truck numbers and photos of the inside of the package cars might be asking for trouble.

See, I dont know how many times Brown has leaned on Cheryl and for what reasons. But I dont want to be the cause of any "issues".

That might be a good reason to take it off this public site and then maybe post back some of the results?

Also, I would hate to show cards to the other players, when you have a pretty good hand.

As for you steve, I have a few ideas you might want to follow up on.

d

 

[soberups]

There is a fundamental difference between posting pictures of individuals or the inside of UPS facilities, versus posting pictures of a package car that is parked outdoors on a public street.

I will take the pictures on my personal time, and off of company property.

UPS has every right to follow us around, observe us and take pictures of us while on duty, because we are in a public area with no reasonable expectation of privacy.

It works the other way around, also.

The pictures I will be posting here will be no different than what any person walking down the sidewalk could take.

 

[smellthecoffee]

I read through pages and pages of this thread because I was interested in seeing how people felt about Telematics. As you can see, I am not a frequent user of the site but I am often interested to log in and see what people are talking about. I'm a big seatbelt guy and I always have been, both on and off the job. And it appears you guys are too, which is great. I wish the cars all had three point belts in them, I really do. But just look back a month or two at this thread. One of the biggest arguments in the thread was that people were being forced to wear seatbelts and how that was B.S. and how to cheat that part of the system etc. I believe it's true that the reason there is no retro-fitting is not cost related. I think it is legal and very, very complicated. I just hope that you all continue to urge the use of seatbelts a month from now when this thread swings back to how Telematics is just a Big Brother secret spy way of making drivers wear them. Seatbelts are just like so many of the methods we use every day over and over again; we eventually decide we don't really need to use them and then that becomes the habit and then one day, we are very, very sorry for it.

 

[stevetheupsguy]

I read through pages and pages of this thread because I was interested in seeing how people felt about Telematics. As you can see, I am not a frequent user of the site but I am often interested to log in and see what people are talking about. I'm a big seatbelt guy and I always have been, both on and off the job. And it appears you guys are too, which is great. I wish the cars all had three point belts in them, I really do. But just look back a month or two at this thread. One of the biggest arguments in the thread was that people were being forced to wear seatbelts and how that was B.S. and how to cheat that part of the system etc. I believe it's true that the reason there is no retro-fitting is not cost related. I think it is legal and very, very complicated. I just hope that you all continue to urge the use of seatbelts a month from now when this thread swings back to how Telematics is just a Big Brother secret spy way of making drivers wear them. Seatbelts are just like so many of the methods we use every day over and over again; we eventually decide we don't really need to use them and then that becomes the habit and then one day, we are very, very sorry for it.

I have to agree with Mr. Davis on this one. Follow the methods and the telematics worries become a moot point. On another note, I'd really like to see those pictures, sober, though full truck numbers need not be included. You can just blur out the last 3 digits, just in case.

 

[soberups]

I have to agree with Mr. Davis on this one. Follow the methods and the telematics worries become a moot point. On another note, I'd really like to see those pictures, sober, though full truck numbers need not be included. You can just blur out the last 3 digits, just in case.

I will take pix on Monday and post them as soon as I get home.

 

[trplnkl]

Pretty much knew where it started. Problem is people start throwing ideas and numbers around as fact when in fact, they are not. My posts are to get people to think for themselves. If it hurt your feelings, deal with it.

First of all, you were not even talking to me at the time, how could it hurt my feelings?
Second, Not to sound ugly, but you aint got what it takes to hurt my feelings.

Here is an example of generic assumptions. Just like the one with the 76 chevy. How do you know that they were offered as an option on the delivery vehicles? Yes, they were offered as an option on vehicles destined for the general customer, but where do you get your information that they were for commercial type vehicles? Everything I have seen points to the opposite.

Not a generic assumption at all, I got the info from the company that I worked for(as a fleet mechanic) at the time, their fleet had 3 point seat belts. Some were built by Grummon, some by Olson.

You ever see the basic truck before they add the body? Who installs the seat? Grumman or Olson or who ever installs the body, but all the cars I have seen have the seat and belt installed at the frame/engine/trans manufacture.

I have also seen this, but that was done for transferring purposes. The final seat belt fitting was done after the body as put on with some of the bracing fastened to the inner structure of the body. Some of the vehicles that UPS has now with 3PB, the upper part is a bracket that extends up from the floor with bolts going down through the frame.

And all the data I have been shown does not show that it was offered at the vehicle manufacturer as an option until much later on. As I stated, what is offered and mandated at the public level is not always what is offered and mandated at the commercial level.

And were did you see this data? Is it available to the general public?
I can promise you one thing, there was never a mandate that 3PB were not to be used.
And as someone else (SoberUps maybe) alluded to, if UPS had told the manufacturers that the company required 3 PB, they would have been put in.

Its a legal issue. Been through, and followed several other lawsuits that determine that if you alter the design of function of a vehicle, that makes you responsible for any flaws in that change in design. Any changes UPS makes to a car has to be OKed by the factory. To get that, the factory must do the necessary testing to confirm that the modification is sound and will past the testing needed to put their stamp of approval on it. This can take several if not many years.

Sorry, just don't buy it. There would be no change in the general function of the vehicle, merely and upgrade of part of the equipment. It would not take a rocket scientist to figure out how to do it with out altering anything. If the companies that build UPS trucks can't do it, UPS needs to find new builders.

Ironically, the same gooberment that regulated the seatbelt issue back then also is the one that makes it hard to get things changed in a timely manner.

Why would a company that claims safety to be their number one priority wait for the "gooberment" to force them to have real safety equipment installed in the new vehicles?
[/quote]
And again, when you assume a faulty premise, you end up with faulty assumptions.[/quote]
There is no faulty premise, if they have put the 3PB in when the truck was built, the would be approved.

Heffe

In a way, you do have a valid point. It is the person that shovels his sidewalk that will get sued if someone slips and falls, not the guy who doesnt touch his.

But then they would pass the blame on to ford, chevy, etc because the testing took too long for an approved harness to be developed, and the auto makers would then point to the gooberment that mandated the strict testing that took too long.

Everybody in this whole issue wants to pass the buck because of the legal problems that affect the installation.

Funny, at our center, you can get them to install a cup holder so you dont spill your drink...........

d

So once again, it comes down to money being more important to UPS that safety.

 

[trplnkl]

I read through pages and pages of this thread because I was interested in seeing how people felt about Telematics. As you can see, I am not a frequent user of the site but I am often interested to log in and see what people are talking about. I'm a big seatbelt guy and I always have been, both on and off the job. And it appears you guys are too, which is great. I wish the cars all had three point belts in them, I really do. But just look back a month or two at this thread. One of the biggest arguments in the thread was that people were being forced to wear seatbelts and how that was B.S. and how to cheat that part of the system etc. I believe it's true that the reason there is no retro-fitting is not cost related. I think it is legal and very, very complicated. I just hope that you all continue to urge the use of seatbelts a month from now when this thread swings back to how Telematics is just a Big Brother secret spy way of making drivers wear them. Seatbelts are just like so many of the methods we use every day over and over again; we eventually decide we don't really need to use them and then that becomes the habit and then one day, we are very, very sorry for it.

Perhaps you mistook a couple of posts, where the poster was indeed upset about being FORCED to wear their seatbelts, for the overall objection most have with the Telematics system. The debate as to what the real purpose of the system is for. UPS claims it is for SAFETY, which brings up many posts to show where UPS could do better for the buck in other ways for increasing real safety. Some drivers contend that instead of safety being the real purpose, that progressive disapline ending in termination is the real purpose. I think you will find most here feel seatbelts should always be used.