Trucker is def. going to jail here

[Mr. Ford95]

Fredericksburg.com - Search warrant: Truck didn't have any front brakes

I'm appalled that this guy tried to play coy with the police on something so obvious as a brake completely missing.

[Orangetxguy]

How do you NOT see that the brakes are missing from a wheel???

[Orangetxguy]

Oooooooooh! Wait! I forgot...you don't lift the hood...you don't look down..you don't walk around...you don't open your eyes....THAT is how you don't see that the components are missing for your brakes!!!

Jest climb in the truck and go forward!!

[marcel27208]

that(among other things) just makes ALL drivers look SOOOOO bad....id hate to drive for that company.....other than the fact that they will be under so much scrutiny, everytime someone in that area see one of their trucks they will be in fear.

[Uturn2001]

Given that the driver's name is the same name on the door of the truck I don't think he can pawn off a lack of maintenance on the owner of the truck....then again I guess he could.

[Jumbo]

I (the driver) told me (the boss) that my brakes were missing pieces and inoperable. I then told myself that if I didnt get my loads hauled I would fire me and drive the truck myself.

[marcel27208]

Given that the driver's name is the same name on the door of the truck I don't think he can pawn off a lack of maintenance on the owner of the truck....then again I guess he could.

ooops didnt realize that......hopefully that was his only truck!!

[cdswans]

FMCR 49 § 396.A(1)(B)(A), is very clear on this. Fred Flinstone brakes are allowed as a substitute for front brakes only if you're over 9 feet tall and you're on 5 or fewer medications.

He's going to have trouble with this one.

[Rev.Vassago]

Peters wrote that when he got to the truck, which had "James Smith Trucking" on the doors, he noticed that the driver's side front brake components were missing and the vehicle had no front brakes.

Peters wrote that the driver denied knowing that the front brakes were inoperative. Peters said he wanted maintenance and inspection records and log books to determine if the vehicle had been properly maintained.

Maybe he was satisfied that the brakes were there. That seems to be the generally accepted excuse around here for failing to perform an inspection.

[Jackrabbit379]

FMCR 49 § 396.A(1)(B)(A), is very clear on this. Fred Flinstone brakes are allowed as a substitute for front brakes only if you're over 9 feet tall and you're on 5 or fewer medications.

He's going to have trouble with this one.

I havent seen very many drivers that are atleast 9' tall.

[Mr. Ford95]

My question is, how do you not notice your brakes aren't stopping you very well? Did he think that extra 3K pounds was causing them to not work as well? I'm concerned about the 9 bottles of meds that were found in the truck. I'd like to know what they were and what was in his system at the time. Must have been some good stuff, witnesses said he hit the 3rd car that was crossing the intersection, no skid marks(could be that all the brakes were so far out of adjustment that they never locked) and no air horn was hit. The driver seems to have been in total La-La land before he killed that lady..........

[golfhobo]

Maybe he was satisfied that the brakes were there. That seems to be the generally accepted excuse around here for failing to perform an inspection.

Didn't you read the "related story" Rev?? There have been 27 other crashes within 30 feet of that intersection in the last 3 years, 15 of them due to redlight running.

Obviously, that intersection is in the WRONG place! It should be moved at least 30 feet away from its current location..... AND, they need a more efficient red light. That one is apparently not doing its job!!

But... as for your snide remark... that is the point. IF the driver had done the required post trip inspection AND report, he could NOT have been "satisfied" that the brakes were there unless he reveiwed yesterdays DVIR and found maintenance signatures verifying that the repairs had been made.

[golfhobo]

I havent seen very many drivers that are atleast 9' tall.

Hence the requirement for front brakes.

[golfhobo]

I (the driver) told me (the boss) that my brakes were missing pieces and inoperable. I then told myself that if I didnt get my loads hauled I would fire me and drive the truck myself.

You and yourself just broke every regulation Myth_Buster knows of! You can be expecting TWO sets of violations now, with multiple millions of dollars in fines!

If you (the owner) had just LISTENED to you (the driver,) your safestat rating would still be intact! If I were you.... I would quit working for you, and get a REAL job!

BTW.... when you look in the mirror, are you looking at the boss...or the driver?

[Windwalker]

There was a time that trucks did not have brakes on the front axles. But, I don't believe any of those trucks have survived outside of a museum somewhere. However, since there were no skid marks from him trying to stop, I would want to know the condition of the wheel seals on the rest of the axles. Brakes completely missing from the front axle, and were the rest of the shoes greased?????

[Mr. Ford95]

DOT made it mandatory for all trucks on the road to have front brakes many years ago. No truck was to be grandfathered in but yes as WW said, there was a time they didn't have front brakes.

Hobo, I witnessed a wreck at that very intersection 2 years ago between 2 4-wheelers. That particular one wasn't the red light that mattered, the kid was going to be in a wreck sooner or later, he was high on coke when he plowed the 2nd car that was crossing over. Most of the crashes there have been with 4 wheelers hitting other 4 wheelers. The road heading north is dangerous, you have trees on the right side of the road as you round an S curve before the lght and those trees obscure the light for a few moments. When you pop out from behind them, your on top of the light and it might already be red. If you happen to be in a car in the left lane and a truck is in the right lane, you won't be able to see the light until your 100 ft away if your far enough back on the trailer.

[Rev.Vassago]

But... as for your snide remark... that is the point. IF the driver had done the required post trip inspection AND report, he could NOT have been "satisfied" that the brakes were there unless he reveiwed yesterdays DVIR and found maintenance signatures verifying that the repairs had been made.

Does it hurt when you talk out of both sides of your mouth?

[golfhobo]

Does it hurt when you talk out of both sides of your mouth?

Could you give me an example or an explanation? My comments were in line with my position on that "other" thread.

And, for the record, I was just having a little fun with you. You know... trying to lighten things up a bit around here. Lord knows that since YOU took over, we NEED it!

[golfhobo]

DOT made it mandatory for all trucks on the road to have front brakes many years ago. No truck was to be grandfathered in but yes as WW said, there was a time they didn't have front brakes.

Hobo, I witnessed a wreck at that very intersection 2 years ago between 2 4-wheelers. That particular one wasn't the red light that mattered, the kid was going to be in a wreck sooner or later, he was high on coke when he plowed the 2nd car that was crossing over. Most of the crashes there have been with 4 wheelers hitting other 4 wheelers. The road heading north is dangerous, you have trees on the right side of the road as you round an S curve before the lght and those trees obscure the light for a few moments. When you pop out from behind them, your on top of the light and it might already be red. If you happen to be in a car in the left lane and a truck is in the right lane, you won't be able to see the light until your 100 ft away if your far enough back on the trailer.

Mr. Ford, I don't dispute anything you said, but you DO know I was just having some fun, right?

As a matter of fact, though...after reviewing pictures of the intersection, I see that Poplar Rd does not seem to "cross over" Hwy 17 there. It butts into it from the east. (compared to the N/S designation of 17.) Hwy 17 is a divided hwy at this intersection, and from the picture I viewed taken from the left side of the car that would have been turning left in front of the truck, there is about 1/2 mile of open ground, and a grass median (no trees) across which the driver of the car SHOULD have been able to see the truck coming at FULL SPEED. Green light or no, a driver would have to be a fool to pull out in front of a truck that made no attempt to stop or even slow down before trying to "run" the intersection.

Furthermore, from reading posts on the newspaper's site, the lights on that stretch of 17 are "ill timed" and seem to "encourage" both truckers and others to try to "make" the light to avoid constantly stopping and going through the gears. Not an excuse, I know. Just thoughts and observations.

In fact, after viewing the picture they showed, I can't understand why ANY accidents should happen at such a WIDE OPEN intersection!

[Mr. Ford95]

That's just it, it's not wide open. 17 goes around an S curve right before it meets with Poplar going north and you have trees on the shoulder that block your view of the light for most of that S curve. You start in, the light is green and you lose sight of it, you come out the other side and see the light again, it's now red. Pulling out from Poplar, your blind on your left until you get to the stop bar for the light because you have trees on your left all the way up to the junction with 17.

I wouldn't say the lights are ill-timed to encourage red light running, it's just the mentality of the 4 wheelers to believe that because that's all they do around here, run red lights. I have no problems starting from a red at I-95 and going north and never hit another light red until I get out to the county line. Anyone who says they are ill-timed has no idea what they are saying. The only ill-timing is the drivers who aren't paying attention to stale green lights.