E-mail to the Chief of Police in Las Cruces, NM

[Myth_Buster]

C5. El Paso (Texas) Times: Tuesday, January 27, 2009

HEADLINE: Big rig runs over, kills man sleeping in Las Cruces parking lot

Byline: Adriana M. Chávez, El Paso Times Staff

EL PASO -- A Virginia man was killed Saturday when he was run over while sleeping in a Las Cruces parking lot, police said.

Michael Allen Williamson II, 25, had apparently fallen asleep in front of an 18-wheeler in the parking lot of DATS Trucking, 400 S. Compress. Police said Williamson, who may have been intoxicated, was run over at about 3 a.m. Saturday after the driver, El Pasoan Jesus Cano Garcia, 28, began moving the truck.

Police said no charges against Garcia are expected to be filed. Williamson's death was listed as a pedestrian fatality, police said.

End.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Chief Romero, I was deeply troubled by the report of a driver running over a pedestrian at 3:00 AM. If my suspicions are correct the driver of the tractor trailer failed to perform some rudimentary safety checks required by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR.) Had the driver of the big rig walked around his vehicle before moving the vehicle Mr. Garcia would have seen the man lying in front of his truck and avoided the accident.

Mr. Garcia’s negligent behavior caused Mr. Williamson’s death. If Mr. Garcia had obeyed the safety regulations he would have saved Mr. Williamson’s life. Two wrongs do not make a right. At the very least I believe Mr. Garcia’s employer should be chastised for failing to ensure their employees followed the safety regulations.

The news of the incident is additional evidence that drivers fail to obey the safety regulations and protect the public that interact near their vehicles on a daily basis. Drivers of tractor trailers have a “COMMERCIAL” driver’s license and are held to a higher standard.

Thank you for your time in listening to my concerns; I hope the City of Las Cruces examines the accident closer and re-evaluates the culpability of Mr. Garcia in his neglectful actions.

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov) = A link to the FMCSR

FMCSA, Analysis and Information Online (http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/default.aspx) = A link to investigate the motor carrier to determine their driver and vehicle safety performance.

Sincerely;

Mike M

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

§392.7 Equipment, inspection and use.

No commercial motor vehicle shall be driven unless the driver is satisfied that the following parts and accessories are in good working order, nor shall any driver fail to use or make use of such parts and accessories when and as needed:

Service brakes, including trailer brake connections.

Parking (hand) brake.

Steering mechanism.

Lighting devices and reflectors.

Tires.

Horn.

Windshield wiper or wipers.

Rear-vision mirror or mirrors.

Coupling devices.

§396.11 Driver vehicle inspection report(s).

(a) Report required. Every motor carrier shall require its drivers to report, and every driver shall prepare a report in writing at the completion of each day’s work on each vehicle operated and the report shall cover at least the following parts and accessories:

—Service brakes including trailer brake connections

—Parking (hand) brake

—Steering mechanism

—Lighting devices and reflectors

—Tires

—Horn

—Windshield wipers

—Rear vision mirrors

—Coupling devices

—Wheels and rims

—Emergency equipment

§396.13 Driver inspection.

Before driving a motor vehicle, the driver shall:

(a) Be satisfied that the motor vehicle is in safe operating condition;

Be safe.

[Rev.Vassago]

I couldn't agree more. Had the driver performed the required inspection, he would have seen the drunk sleeping in front of his truck.

[cdswans]

I saw that story earlier today and almost posted it. While my intent would have been to raise the issue of an obvious absence of a pre-trip, I had no intention of ratting out the driver or the company as MB has apparently done. I had every confidence there are many astute lawyers in Las Cruces who have picked up on that already.

At the same time, as cold as it was and as drunk as this guy must have been, I couldn't help but wonder if he didn't get exactly what he was looking for. If that's the case, instead of being paid for services rendered, DATS and driver are going to pay through the nose for this. That's a tragedy. That's why I didn't post it.

[Uturn2001]

A lot of assumptions are being made from very little information.

It is possible that a pre trip had been done and Williamson passed out, unnoticed, while the driver was doing paperwork.

It is also possible that the driver had stopped by the terminal during a run to get or turn in something and did not "park" instead simply pulled up along side the office, driver's room or whatever and the victim passed out while the driver was gone for a few minutes and while returning to the truck approached it from the rear and therefore had no way to see someone on the ground in front of the truck.

I do not know exactly what happened any more than any of you do. There are many possibilities as to how this happened, and while the one others here have indicated is certainly possible so are the ones I outlined as well as many others.

One thing I do know is that a full vehicle inspection is NOT required at the start of a trip/day though. All that is required is that the driver ensures that the vehicle is safe for operation. While I know many drivers who actually do VI's at the start of the day, some choose to do them at the end of the day when they fill out their DVIR. Other drivers choose to do the big VI while they are fueling, if they know they will be doing so fairly soon after starting their day.

[Rawlco]

Thank you U-turn for pointing that out. I only pre-trip once per day, plus I pre trip each trailer that I hook to. I do not spend 15 minutes checking everything after every liffle 5 minute stop.

-----------------------------
Question:
The victim was from Virginia and possibly intoxicated in a TRUCK stop located in New Mexico. Now how likely is it that he was also a truck driver and was scared to use Golfhobo's line 5 defense, so he decided to stay out of his own truck entirely?

[Rev.Vassago]

A lot of assumptions are being made from very little information.

It is possible that a pre trip had been done and Williamson passed out, unnoticed, while the driver was doing paperwork.

It is also possible that the driver had stopped by the terminal during a run to get or turn in something and did not "park" instead simply pulled up along side the office, driver's room or whatever and the victim passed out while the driver was gone for a few minutes and while returning to the truck approached it from the rear and therefore had no way to see someone on the ground in front of the truck.

Neither of those scenarios releases the driver from the liability of knowing what obstructions are around his truck. If the second scenario were true, then he would have failed to perform §392.7 prior to operating his CMV. You'll notice that §392.7 states "No commercial vehicle shall be driven", not "No commercial vehicle shall be driven at the beginning of the day".

There is no excuse for not knowing what obstructions are around your truck when taking off from a stop - no matter what the reason for stopping.

[BIG JEEP on 44's]

Neither of those scenarios releases the driver from the liability of knowing what obstructions are around his truck. If the second scenario were true, then he would have failed to perform §392.7 prior to operating his CMV. You'll notice that §392.7 states "No commercial vehicle shall be driven", not "No commercial vehicle shall be driven at the beginning of the day".

There is no excuse for not knowing what obstructions are around your truck when taking off from a stop - no matter what the reason for stopping.


Yep if your gone or been sitting long it warrants a quick walk around , It only takes a minute . When I was at a shipper/receiver I would do a brief check b4 pulling from the dock especially if I had been sitting long enough to hit the sleeper .

[Uturn2001]

Then according to your argument Rev if you were stopped at an intersection waiting, lets say to make a left turn, and had your attention on traffic for a second and someone ran out in front of your truck while your head was turned and you ran over him then you would be at fault and also in violation of 392.7.

If you take the argument you, and others, are attempting to make to its conclusion then drivers would never be able to leave the spot their trucks are parked in because they could never be 100% certain that every obstacle has been removed and no new ones have arisen during the time it would take them to climb into their trucks, bring their log book up to date, release the brakes and proceed.

Please point out to me where it states in any regulation that a driver must do at least a walk around of the vehicle if they are out of the vehicle for any length of time or if a second VI/walk around if the driver has not started driving the vehicle within so many seconds or minutes of completing one.

[Rev.Vassago]

Then according to your argument Rev if you were stopped at an intersection waiting, lets say to make a left turn, and had your attention on traffic for a second and someone ran out in front of your truck while your head was turned and you ran over him then you would be at fault and also in violation of 392.7.

Stopping at an intersection is not the same, but you would still be responsible.

Please point out to me where it states in any regulation that a driver must do at least a walk around of the vehicle if they are out of the vehicle for any length of time or if a second VI/walk around if the driver has not started driving the vehicle within so many seconds or minutes of completing one.

There is no regulation that states that, and nobody made a claim that there was.

Please indicate how you are going to check the items listed in 392.7 prior to operating the CMV without getting out of the vehicle.

[Biscuit Lips]

I am not sure which is worse, that he took the time to send that crap to the C.O.P or the fact that he came here to brag about it? Truck drivers.

[Rev.Vassago]

I am not sure which is worse, that he took the time to send that crap to the C.O.P or the fact that he came here to brag about it? Truck drivers.

He isn't a truck driver. He works for the FMCSA.

[Bandit102]

It was not at a truck stop. It was at their terminal, which is in an industrial area in Las Cruces, right off a very busy street, Avenida De Mesilla. Fleet Pride is right down the street from them on Compress (the cross street) I don't know how many times I've been tooling down the street in my 4 wheeler and almost been creamed by one of these guys flying out of their lot and onto the street. I've literally had my tires squealing from braking so hard on 3 occasions. I had one of them nearly broadside my Freightliner once. Texting on his phones. If not for the train horns, he'd have rolled right out and hit me. I sincerely doubt if any small percentage of these drivers for this particular terminal can speak english in an intelligently conversational manner.

[allan5oh]

"No commercial motor vehicle shall be driven unless the driver is satisfied that the following parts and accessories are in good working order"

Says it all right there. You do not have to check every component of the truck every time you stop to be satisfied it is in good working order.

It all depends on the situation, and we're all speculating at best. What if this guy fell asleep while the driver was finishing up his paperwork, just after a PTI? Or what if his PTI was done 1-2 hours before? All speculation.

Since the guy is dead, we will never know. That's why the driver was not charged.

[Myth_Buster]

cdswans:

I saw that story earlier today and almost posted it. While my intent would have been to raise the issue of an obvious absence of a pre-trip, I had no intention of ratting out the driver or the company as MB has apparently done. I had every confidence there are many astute lawyers in Las Cruces who have picked up on that already.

My intentions were to ensure the police department was aware of the regs. Turns out they called the Sate Police who are still investigating.

At the same time, as cold as it was and as drunk as this guy must have been, I couldn't help but wonder if he didn't get exactly what he was looking for. If that's the case, instead of being paid for services rendered, DATS and driver are going to pay through the nose for this. That's a tragedy. That's why I didn't post it.

I’ll ask you as I asked others: What if the person had been another driver who was hurt, had a heart attack, an epileptic seizure, had slipped and fell, etc., etc., etc. Then what, would it be acceptable, or would you be ashamed to be associated with such an azz?

Uturn2001 is ill informed:

A lot of assumptions are being made from very little information.

It is possible that a pre trip had been done and Williamson passed out, unnoticed, while the driver was doing paperwork.

You see, you’re assuming the man was drunk:

Michael Allen Williamson II, 25, had apparently fallen asleep in front of an 18-wheeler in the parking lot of DATS Trucking, 400 S. Compress. Police said Williamson, who may have been intoxicated, was run over at about 3 a.m. Saturday after the driver, El Pasoan Jesus Cano Garcia, 28, began moving the truck.

Sleeping, may have been intoxicated.

It is also possible that the driver had stopped by the terminal during a run to get or turn in something and did not "park" instead simply pulled up along side the office, driver's room or whatever and the victim passed out while the driver was gone for a few minutes and while returning to the truck approached it from the rear and therefore had no way to see someone on the ground in front of the truck.

The above statement indicates you may not be fully aware of Part 392 function.

There are two instances in the FMCSR where a driver is required to ensure the vehicle is safe before operating the vehicle.

1. Part 392
2. Part 396

Part 392 is CMV operation. Part 392 mandates driver follow local laws, prevent dispatchers from dispatching drivers on runs that require the driver to speed, mandates drivers stop to check cargo, prevents drivers from drinking while on duty or having alcohol or drugs in the vehicle, prevents unauthorized passengers, requires drivers to slow down for railroad crossings,,,, and require safe operation of the vehicle:

§392.7 Equipment, inspection and use.

No commercial motor vehicle shall be driven unless the driver is satisfied that the following parts and accessories are in good working order, nor shall any driver fail to use or make use of such parts and accessories when and as needed:

Service brakes, including trailer brake connections.
Parking (hand) brake.
Steering mechanism.
Lighting devices and reflectors.
Tires.
Horn.
Windshield wiper or wipers.
Rear-vision mirror or mirrors.
Coupling devices.

Part 396 is maintenance related and requires the previous day’s DVIR be examined and the vehicle be in safe condition before driving.

§396.13 Driver inspection.
Before driving a motor vehicle, the driver shall:

(a) Be satisfied that the motor vehicle is in safe operating condition;

(b) Review the last driver vehicle inspection report; and

(c) Sign the report, only if defects or deficiencies were noted by the driver who prepared the report, to acknowledge that the driver has reviewed it and that there is a certification that the required repairs have been performed. The signature requirement does not apply to listed defects on a towed unit which is no longer part of the vehicle combination.

Part 396 also requires a written report of the listing any defects discovered by or reported to the driver:

§396.11 Driver vehicle inspection report(s).

(a) Report required. Every motor carrier shall require its drivers to report, and every driver shall prepare a report in writing at the completion of each day’s work on each vehicle operated and the report shall cover at least the following parts and accessories:

—Service brakes including trailer brake connections
—Parking (hand) brake
—Steering mechanism
—Lighting devices and reflectors
—Tires
—Horn
—Windshield wipers
—Rear vision mirrors
—Coupling devices
—Wheels and rims
—Emergency equipment

(b) Report content. The report shall identify the vehicle and list any defect or deficiency discovered by or reported to the driver which would affect the safety of operation of the vehicle or result in its mechanical breakdown. If no defect or deficiency is discovered by or reported to the driver, the report shall so indicate. In all instances, the driver shall sign the report. On two-driver operations, only one driver needs to sign the driver vehicle inspection report, provided both drivers agree as to the defects or deficiencies identified. If a driver operates more than one vehicle during the day, a report shall be prepared for each vehicle operated.

(c) Corrective action. Prior to requiring or permitting a driver to operate a vehicle, every motor carrier or its agent shall repair any defect or deficiency listed on the driver vehicle inspection report which would be likely to affect the safety of operation of the vehicle.
(c)(1) Every motor carrier or its agent shall certify on the original driver vehicle inspection report which lists any defect or deficiency that the defect or deficiency has been repaired or that repair is unnecessary before the vehicle is operated again.
(c) (2) Every motor carrier shall maintain the original driver vehicle inspection report, the certification of repairs, and the certification of the driver’s review for three months from the date the written report was prepared.

(d) Exceptions. The rules in this section shall not apply to a private motor carrier of passengers (nonbusiness), a driveaway-towaway operation, or any motor carrier operating only one commercial motor vehicle.

Since one is an operational requirement and one is a maintenance requirement it can be argued they are two separate inspections. Hence, any time a driver stops the vehicle, before they start to roll they must meet the requirements of Part 392.7.

I do not know exactly what happened any more than any of you do. There are many possibilities as to how this happened, and while the one others here have indicated is certainly possible so are the ones I outlined as well as many others.

One thing I do know is that a full vehicle inspection is NOT required at the start of a trip/day though. All that is required is that the driver ensures that the vehicle is safe for operation. While I know many drivers who actually do VI's at the start of the day, some choose to do them at the end of the day when they fill out their DVIR. Other drivers choose to do the big VI while they are fueling, if they know they will be doing so fairly soon after starting their day.

No, but a safety inspection per Part 392.7 is required before moving the vehicle again.

Things break in transit; it is common sense to inspect the vehicle each time a drier stops, especially OTR operations where there maybe several hundred miles covered between each stop.

Rawlco is equally ill informed:

Thank you U-turn for pointing that out. I only pre-trip once per day, plus I pre trip each trailer that I hook to. I do not spend 15 minutes checking everything after every liffle 5 minute stop.

Part 392.7 requires an additional inspection, not to mention part 392.9:

§392.9 Inspection of cargo, cargo securement devices and systems.

(a) General. A driver may not operate a commercial motor vehicle and a motor carrier may not require or permit a driver to operate a commercial motor vehicle unless—
(a)(1) The commercial motor vehicle’s cargo is properly distributed and adequately secured as specified in §§393.100 through 393.136 of this subchapter.
(a)(2) The commercial motor vehicle’s tailgate, tailboard, doors, tarpaulins, spare tire and other equipment used in its operation, and the means of fastening the commercial motor vehicle’s cargo, are secured; and
(a)(3) The commercial motor vehicle’s cargo or any other object does not obscure the driver’s view ahead or to the right or left sides (except for drivers of self-steer dollies), interfere with the free movement of his/her arms or legs, prevent his/her free and ready access to accessories required for emergencies, or prevent the free and ready exit of any person from the commercial motor vehicle’s cab or driver’s compartment.

(b) Drivers of trucks and truck tractors. Except as provided in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, the driver of a truck or truck tractor must—
(b)(1) Assure himself/herself that the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section have been complied with before he/she drives that commercial motor vehicle;
(b)(2) Inspect the cargo and the devices used to secure the cargo in the first 50 miles after beginning a tripse any adjustments to be made to the cargo or load securement devices as necessary, including adding more securement devices, to ensure that cargo cannot shift on or within, or fall from the commercial motor vehicle; and
(b)(3) Reexamine the commercial motor vehicle’s cargo and its load securement devices during the course of transportation and make any necessary adjustment to the cargo or load securement devices, including adding more securement devices, to ensure that cargo cannot shift on or within, or fall from, the commercial motor vehicle. Reexamination and any necessary adjustments must be made whenever—
(b)(3)(i) The driver makes a change of his/her duty status; or
(b)(3)(ii) The commercial motor vehicle has been driven for 3 hours; or
(b)(3)(iii) The commercial motor vehicle has been driven for 150 miles, whichever occurs first.
(b)(4) The rules in this paragraph (b) do not apply to the driver of a sealed commercial motor vehicle who has been ordered not to open it to inspect its cargo or to the driver of a commercial motor vehicle that has been loaded in a manner that makes inspection of its cargo impracticable.

Part 392: Driving of commercial motor vehicles

Part 396: Inspection, repair, and maintenance

As mentioned Part 392 and 396 are apples and oranges; therefore, the requirements in Part 392.7 are not the same as in Part 396.13.

Uturn2001 in denial says:

Then according to your argument Rev if you were stopped at an intersection waiting, lets say to make a left turn, and had your attention on traffic for a second and someone ran out in front of your truck while your head was turned and you ran over him then you would be at fault and also in violation of 392.7.

No, it may be a violation of local laws per Part 392.2 as pedestrians always have the right-of-way.

§392.2 Applicable operating rules.

Every commercial motor vehicle must be operated in accordance with the laws, ordinances, and regulations of the jurisdiction in which it is being operated. However, if a regulation of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration imposes a higher standard of care than that law, ordinance or regulation, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration regulation must be complied with.

Uturn2001 continues with the triad:

If you take the argument you, and others, are attempting to make to its conclusion then drivers would never be able to leave the spot their trucks are parked in because they could never be 100% certain that every obstacle has been removed and no new ones have arisen during the time it would take them to climb into their trucks, bring their log book up to date, release the brakes and proceed.

No one is saying the driver has to be 100% certain. The message is get off your azz and walk around the truck to make sure it’s safe.

Please point out to me where it states in any regulation that a driver must do at least a walk around of the vehicle if they are out of the vehicle for any length of time or if a second VI/walk around if the driver has not started driving the vehicle within so many seconds or minutes of completing one.

§392.7 Equipment, inspection and use.

No commercial motor vehicle shall be driven unless the driver is satisfied that the following parts and accessories are in good working order, nor shall any driver fail to use or make use of such parts and accessories when and as needed:

Service brakes, including trailer brake connections.
Parking (hand) brake.
Steering mechanism.
Lighting devices and reflectors.
Tires.
Horn.
Windshield wiper or wipers.
Rear-vision mirror or mirrors.
Coupling devices.

If you’ve gone through a safety lane or your co-driver has performed the checks as required and you’re satisfied the vehicle is safe… No problem. Otherwise check the components listed.

Biscuit Lips do you also go by Rock Jockey?

I am not sure which is worse, that he took the time to send that crap to the C.O.P or the fact that he came here to brag about it? Truck drivers.

Are you willing to learn from the other driver’s mistakes? I hope so. FYI, Myth_buster (http://roundtable.truck.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=76597&p=790007&hilit=I%27m+back#p790007) is not a truck driver…..

Be safe.

[possum]

It wont kill you to take a quick walk around your truck but it may kill someone else if you don't. I was loading some trees one time and the owners to young boys were playing all over that place and when I got ready to go I walked around the truck and one of them was setting in front of my truck and I didn't see the other. They were playing hide and seek and thats where he wonted to hide. He was only about 8 or so. I took him back to his dad and asked him to find the other one before I pulled out. All I am saying is take the time to look. I would have never got over that if I had not looked and something would have happened to that boy.

[Fredog]

this is what's wrong now a days, it's always someone elses fault. why should a drunken slob be responsible for his own actions? let's just blame it on the truck driver, maybe if the low-life drunken slob would have stayed home to get drunk. he would still be alive, how about that? the truck driver broke the law by not walking around his truck? what about breaking the law by being drunk in public? or sleeping in a parking lot? are those things okay? oh that's right, a truck driver is held to a higher standard and should be responsible for everyone elses behavior. Makes me sick.

[Rev.Vassago]

why should a drunken slob be responsible for his own actions? Let's just blame it on the truck driver, maybe if the low-life drunken slob would have stayed home to get drunk. he would still be alive, how about that? what about breaking the law by being drunk in public? or sleeping in a parking lot? are those things okay?

Dead men are not prosecutable. He already paid the price for his crime.

The fact that the dead man broke the law does not forgive the truck driver from breaking the law as well. "But he did it first!" does not apply.

oh that's right, a truck driver is held to a higher standard and should be responsible for everyone elses behavior. Makes me sick.CDL holders are, and should be, held to a higher standard. That's why we have specific regulations and licensing that govern our actions. Regulations such as 392.7.

[Fredog]

Dead men are not prosecutable. He already paid the price for his crime.

The fact that the dead man broke the law does not forgive the truck driver from breaking the law as well. "But he did it first!" does not apply.

CDL holders are, and should be, held to a higher standard. That's why we have specific regulations and licensing that govern our actions. Regulations such as 392.7.

the truck driver did not break the law, there is no law that says you have to walk around your truck every time you stop, it's a good thing to do, but not required by law, as someone stated, the guy may have just stopped for a minute to do paperwork, or to make a phone call,you dont have to do a pre-trip in that case, but hey, lets blame the driver and sue his company, they have plenty of money. now if you will excuse me, I have to go make sure no one is sleeping in my driveway so my son can go to work without running over anyone.

[Rev.Vassago]

there is no law that says you have to walk around your truck every time you stop

The regulation has been cited several times in this thread. 392.7 states that no CMV shall be operated until the driver is satisfied that the items listed are in proper operation, and 392.9 states that every time a change of duty status occurs, cargo and load secuerment devices must be checked. If you are doing those two things, then you are clearly walking around your CMV, and you're seeing the sleeping guy in front of your truck.

I also think it goes without saying that "I didn't see him" is probably the lamest excuse ever for running a guy over and killing him.

[Fredog]

The regulation has been cited several times in this thread. 392.7 states that no CMV shall be operated until the driver is satisfied that the items listed are in proper operation, and 392.9 states that every time a change of duty status occurs, cargo and load secuerment devices must be checked. If you are doing those two things, then you are clearly walking around your CMV, and you're seeing the sleeping guy in front of your truck.

I also think it goes without saying that "I didn't see him" is probably the lamest excuse ever for running a guy over and killing him.

if I stop for 2 minutes to make a phone call a change of duty status has not occurred.
So what do you think they should do to the truck driver? charge him with murder? manslaughter?

[Rev.Vassago]

if I stop for 2 minutes to make a phone call a change of duty status has not occurred.

Can you please cite any source that states the driver in this incident stopped for 2 minutes to make a phone call?

So what do you think they should do to the truck driver? charge him with murder? manslaughter?I have no opinion on what they should do with the driver. If they complete the investigation (which they apparently haven't), and find that there isn't enough evidence to convict the driver of any charges, I can accept that.

But none of that is really relevant to my point (or MB's, apparently) - that any time you change your duty status, and any time you are going to operate a CMV, you are required to perform an inspection. Common sense, as well as the FMCSA regulations, would dictate that you must at the very least exit your vehicle, at which point you would see a person in front of your vehicle.

Ignorance of your surroundings is not an excuse for striking another object, be it a fence, a concrete post, or another human being.

[Fredog]

Can you please cite any source that states the driver in this incident stopped for 2 minutes to make a phone call?

I have no opinion on what they should do with the driver. If they complete the investigation (which they apparently haven't), and find that there isn't enough evidence to convict the driver of any charges, I can accept that.

But none of that is really relevant to my point (or MB's, apparently) - that any time you change your duty status, and any time you are going to operate a CMV, you are required to perform an inspection. Common sense, as well as the FMCSA regulations, would dictate that you must at the very least exit your vehicle, at which point you would see a person in front of your vehicle.

Ignorance of your surroundings is not an excuse for striking another object, be it a fence, a concrete post, or another human being.
can you cite any source that says he stopped for more than 2 minutes? why do you hate truck drivers? I thought you were one

[possum]

How hard is it when you walk back to your truck to take the extra 3 or 4 steps and look in front of your truck. You can look at the back as you walk by but take the few steps to look at the front. If it will kill you to take the extra steps then you don't need to be driving a truck anyway.

[Mackman]

this is what's wrong now a days, it's always someone elses fault. why should a drunken slob be responsible for his own actions? let's just blame it on the truck driver, maybe if the low-life drunken slob would have stayed home to get drunk. he would still be alive, how about that? the truck driver broke the law by not walking around his truck? what about breaking the law by being drunk in public? or sleeping in a parking lot? are those things okay? oh that's right, a truck driver is held to a higher standard and should be responsible for everyone elses behavior. Makes me sick.

x2 well said fredog.

1st off the guy is trespassing on the trucking company's property. Who's to say the driver wasn't going to do some drop and hooks in the yard. Then he would'nt have to do a pre-trip by law as long as he stayed on the trucking company's property.

[Rev.Vassago]

can you cite any source that says he stopped for more than 2 minutes?

I sure can't. But since 392.7 states that prior to operating a CMV you must perform an inspection, it doesn't matter how long he stopped for.

why do you hate truck drivers? I thought you were one I wasn't aware that I hated truck drivers (other than your claim that I do). I do not, however, believe that "sticking together" with law breakers will help the industry overall. It will only serve to entice legislators to create stricter regulations.

If a driver is too lazy to make sure that there are no obstructions present prior to moving his CMV, then it will only serve to make it more difficult for the rest of us - just like when there is a high profile accident involving a truck, and DOT starts cracking down on truck drivers.

[Rev.Vassago]

1st off the guy is trespassing on the trucking company's property.

So as long as someone is trespassing on private property, it's okay to run them over. I see....

Who's to say the driver wasn't going to do some drop and hooks in the yard. Then he would'nt have to do a pre-trip by law as long as he stayed on the trucking company's property.

The FMCSA regulations still apply, even on private property.

[Fredog]

So as long as someone is trespassing on private property, it's okay to run them over. I see....



The FMCSA regulations still apply, even on private property.

I give up you win.. the truck driver is a low-life piece of crap who purposely broke the law and took the life of a fine upstanding drunk, he should be stoned to death. I know it wont happen to you because I'm sure you get out and walk around your truck EVERYTIME you stop. according to what you have stated here, that will apply to stop signs, red lights, crosswalks,, etc.. I feel safer knowing there are repsonible drivers like you on the road
now. let's argue about something else..

[Mackman]

So as long as someone is trespassing on private property, it's okay to run them over. I see....



The FMCSA regulations still apply, even on private property.

Can you post a link with that reg.???

Thanks, Mackman

[Fredog]

for some reason, this thread is making me think of Fozzy

[Rev.Vassago]

Can you post a link with that reg.???

Thanks, Mackman
§395.2 Definitions.

On duty time means all time from the time a driver begins to work or is required to be in readiness to work until the time the driver is relieved from work and all responsibility for performing work. On-duty time shall include:
(1) All time at a plant, terminal, facility, or other property of a motor carrier or shipper, or on any public property, waiting to be dispatched, unless the driver has been relieved from duty by the motor carrier;
(2) All time inspecting, servicing, or conditioning any commercial motor vehicle at any time;
(3) All driving time as defined in the term driving time;
(4) All time, other than driving time, in or upon any commercial motor vehicle except time spent resting in a sleeper berth;
(5) All time loading or unloading a commercial motor vehicle, supervising, or assisting in the loading or unloading, attending a commercial motor vehicle being loaded or unloaded, remaining in readiness to operate the commercial motor vehicle, or in giving or receiving receipts for shipments loaded or unloaded;
(6) All time repairing, obtaining assistance, or remaining in attendance upon a disabled commercial motor vehicle;
(7) All time spent providing a breath sample or urine specimen, including travel time to and from the collection site, in order to comply with the random, reasonable suspicion, post-accident, or follow-up testing required by part 382 (http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrguidedetails.asp?reg=r49CFR382) of this subchapter when directed by a motor carrier;
(8) Performing any other work in the capacity, employ, or service of, a motor carrier; and
(9) Performing any compensated work for a person who is not a motor carrier.






The FMCSA regs go on to say:


Question 9: A driver drives on streets and highways during the week and jockeys CMV (http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/mcregis4/pdf/CMV.pdf)s in the yard (private property) on weekends. How is the yard time to be recorded?

Guidance: On-duty (driving).

[Rev.Vassago]

I give up you win.. the truck driver is a low-life piece of crap who purposely broke the law and took the life of a fine upstanding drunk, he should be stoned to death.

If you say so. I sure as heck know I never did.

[Mackman]

§395.2 Definitions.

On duty time means all time from the time a driver begins to work or is required to be in readiness to work until the time the driver is relieved from work and all responsibility for performing work. On-duty time shall include:
(1) All time at a plant, terminal, facility, or other property of a motor carrier or shipper, or on any public property, waiting to be dispatched, unless the driver has been relieved from duty by the motor carrier;
(2) All time inspecting, servicing, or conditioning any commercial motor vehicle at any time;
(3) All driving time as defined in the term driving time;
(4) All time, other than driving time, in or upon any commercial motor vehicle except time spent resting in a sleeper berth;
(5) All time loading or unloading a commercial motor vehicle, supervising, or assisting in the loading or unloading, attending a commercial motor vehicle being loaded or unloaded, remaining in readiness to operate the commercial motor vehicle, or in giving or receiving receipts for shipments loaded or unloaded;
(6) All time repairing, obtaining assistance, or remaining in attendance upon a disabled commercial motor vehicle;
(7) All time spent providing a breath sample or urine specimen, including travel time to and from the collection site, in order to comply with the random, reasonable suspicion, post-accident, or follow-up testing required by part 382 (http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrguidedetails.asp?reg=r49CFR382) of this subchapter when directed by a motor carrier;
(8) Performing any other work in the capacity, employ, or service of, a motor carrier; and
(9) Performing any compensated work for a person who is not a motor carrier.






The FMCSA regs go on to say:


Question 9: A driver drives on streets and highways during the week and jockeys CMV (http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/mcregis4/pdf/CMV.pdf)s in the yard (private property) on weekends. How is the yard time to be recorded?

Guidance: On-duty (driving).

This is how the driver is going to log it. I want to see something saying he had to do a pre-trip even for staying on private property.

So if an LTL company tells a dock worker (without a CDL) to get in one of their trucks and move it out of a dock and park it. They will be breaking the rules???

I'm just trying to understand thats all. I may be alittle slow with this. But if you are on private property i don't think the DOT rules and regs apply. Logging would be the only one.

Another ?. What if a jockey truck had a headlight out. Could the DOT come on private property and ticket you for that or place the jockey OOS for a flat tire.??

[Rev.Vassago]

Another ?. What if a jockey truck had a headlight out. Could the DOT come on private property and ticket you for that or place the jockey OOS for a flat tire.??

That would be a question better suited for Myth_Buster.

[allan5oh]

I agree with mackman, you didn't even come close to answering his question. Hell, even volunteer time and time spent working on your truck is "on-duty" does that mean that time falls under the guidance of the regs? Not even close.

[Rev.Vassago]

Hell, even volunteer time and time spent working on your truck is "on-duty" does that mean that time falls under the guidance of the regs?

Yes, it does. The only time that does not fall under guidance of the regs is off duty time.

[allan5oh]

show me.

[allan5oh]

Considering most shunt trucks aren't even road legal, that disproves you right there.

[Rev.Vassago]

Considering most shunt trucks aren't even road legal, that disproves you right there.

What is a "shunt truck"? Whatever it is, what does it have to do with a driver who falls under the HOS regulations running over a man?

[allan5oh]

You stated the regulations apply to everyone on private property. Yet on private property, you do not need a CDL to operate a CMV. Also, a shunt truck would be considered a CMV yet lacks many items required in the regulations.

edit: actually I am wrong, a shunt truck or yard dog is not considered a CMV if it is not an on highway vehicle.

[Rev.Vassago]

You stated the regulations apply to everyone on private property.

No, I didn't. I stated:

The FMCSA regulations still apply, even on private property.


Sigh....:roll:


Just go ahead and run people over. See if I care.

[allan5oh]

So then show me which regulations the driver in the article broke.

[Rev.Vassago]

Sigh....:roll:


Just go ahead and run people over. See if I care.

[Mackman]

This is a good debate. I hope myth buster will come in on this. It is a tricky topic cuz it was on private property.

Come on myth buster help us out here.:thumbsup:

[allan5oh]

Just go ahead and run people over. See if I care.

You are confusing a moral issue with the regulations. Of course this tragedy shouldn't have happened. But you and the other guy are merely speculating the application of the FMCSR's, which is very moot at this point.

Do you honestly think the DOT is going to charge this guy with something? Of course not. It will be a criminal charge, and it won't matter what the regs say. He was negligent, period.

Now as to the regulations, and the article, there is NOT enough information to say "he broke this rule" or "that rule" because we do not know if he woke up and started driving, or if he did a pretrip and this "drunk" passed out after the pretrip, or if the drivers team driver did the pretrip, or what have you.

392.7 states "satisfied". I do not need, nor am I required to do a full visual inspection of my vehicle every time I stop. I simply have to be "satisfied" everything is in working order. If I did a pretrip, I would be satisfied. This might've occured hours before operation. May not apply. If I came to my truck 2 weeks after doing a full inspection, I would be satisfied it is safe to operate.

396.11 requires at the completion of each day a report is done. Not at the beginning. Does not apply

396.13 requires the driver be satisfied the vehicle is safe before driving. May not apply

Again, we do not have enough information. To say he broke the FMCSR's is foolish at best.

He did however possibly break criminal laws. Was he criminally negligent? Depends on interpretation of the law. Precedent is also important.

He may also have a huge civil lawsuit in his hands. Is he reasonably expected to check his vehicle to ensure of no obstruction? I would say that's reasonable, yet there is not a single regulation regarding that. There shouldn't have to be.

[Rev.Vassago]

You are confusing a moral issue with the regulations.

Actually, I'm doing anything but. Short of my first post on the subject, I've been, for the most part, discussing the regulations, and where and when an inspection is required. There is no moral issue involved with that.

As I stated over 20 posts back:


But none of that is really relevant to my point (or MB's, apparently) - that any time you change your duty status, and any time you are going to operate a CMV, you are required to perform an inspection. Common sense, as well as the FMCSA regulations, would dictate that you must at the very least exit your vehicle, at which point you would see a person in front of your vehicle.

But since I'm having to resort to repeating myself over and over, I see no point in continuing to do so.

[allan5oh]

Nice diversion, skipping over every damn point I made.

The regs might say an inspection is required, or you are required to be "satisfied" but they DO NOT say you are required to do an inspection immediately before operating the vehicle.

I made points specifically about specific regs. Please do quote and prove me wrong.

[Rev.Vassago]

they DO NOT say you are required to do an inspection immediately before operating the vehicle

Yes, they don't use the word "immediately". Please show me where I said anything to the contrary.


In your listing of regs, I noticed you left out 392.9, which clearly states that you must inspect your cargo at every change of duty status. (which forces you to get out of your vehicle)

[allan5oh]

Your very first post states:

I couldn't agree more. Had the driver performed the required inspection, he would have seen the drunk sleeping in front of his truck.

If he did the required inspection before the drunk arrived, he would be in FULL COMPLIANCE. You seem to suggest immediate here, but I'll let it slide.

You also stated further down the first page:

If you are doing those two things, then you are clearly walking around your CMV, and you're seeing the sleeping guy in front of your truck.

Again, a full walk around was NOT required when the drunk was there, IF it was already performed.

Second page:

that any time you change your duty status, and any time you are going to operate a CMV, you are required to perform an inspection.

Incorrect. You are required to check cargo securement during change of duty status. If there is no cargo, or if the trailer is sealed, you are not required to do a cargo check since there is no cargo to check.

You are NOT required to do an inspection any time you operate a CMV. You are required to be "satisfied" certain items are in working order. I can check most of those items inside the cab anyways.

[allan5oh]

In your listing of regs, I noticed you left out 392.9, which clearly states that you must inspect your cargo at every change of duty status. (which forces you to get out of your vehicle)

You're right, unless the vehicle is unladen, impractical to check, or sealed and driver told not to break seal.

So where in the article does it say he was loaded?

This is the only regulation presented so far that would require the driver to immediately check the load before driving. Did he break it? We don't know.

[Fredog]

Sigh....:roll:


Just go ahead and run people over. See if I care.

put your money where your mouth is.. lay down in front of my truck:)

[Fredog]

Mr. Garcia’s negligent behavior caused Mr. Williamson’s death


this is what ticked me off. that this guy thinks the drunk had no responsibility in this case.. what CAUSED the death was the fact that he laid down in front of the truck in the first place

[Rev.Vassago]

Actually, the truck tires caused the death. I say we go after the Michelin Man.

[golfhobo]

In your listing of regs, I noticed you left out 392.9, which clearly states that you must inspect your cargo at every change of duty status. (which forces you to get out of your vehicle)

How much CARGO do you carry under the front bumper of your truck, Rev?

I can get out of my truck, walk to the back, open the door and check my cargo... get back into my truck and NEVER see a drunk under the front bumper, so we can drop any discussion of 392.9.

Not sure off the top off my head, but I don't think a yard dog (shunt truck) weighs enough to be considered a CMV. Also, not sure if it is considered "used in interstate commerce," so at least SOME regs may not apply. Will have to give that some thought/research.

On the other hand, and although I tend to agree with those who say the driver didn't need to do a pretrip (none do!) to be "satisfied" that everything was working before he started to drive..... it's too bad for the "alleged" drunk that the driver didn't test his air horn!! That would have avoided this whole mess, or so I tend to believe! :lol2:

That's all I have time for right now. Been a rough week. Maybe tomorrow night or Sunday I'll weigh into this one.

[Myth_Buster]

Mackman:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev.Vassago
So as long as someone is trespassing on private property, it's okay to run them over. I see....

The FMCSA regulations still apply, even on private property.

Can you post a link with that reg.???

Thanks, Mackman

§390.5 Definitions.

Highway means any road, street, or way, whether on public or private property, open to public travel. “Open to public travel” means that the road section is available, except during scheduled periods, extreme weather or emergency conditions, passable by four-wheel standard passenger cars, and open to the general public for use without restrictive gates, prohibitive signs, or regulation other than restrictions based on size, weight, or class of registration. Toll plazas of public toll roads are not considered restrictive gates.

Commercial motor vehicle means any self-propelled or towed motor vehicle used on a highway in interstate commerce to transport passengers or property when the vehicle—

§390.3 General applicability.

(a) The rules in Subchapter B of this chapter are applicable to all employers, employees, and commercial motor vehicles, which transport property or passengers in interstate commerce.

Follow the Yellow Brick Road.

North American Standard Inspection Levels
Level I | Level II | Level III | Level IV | Level V | Level VI | Level VII

LEVEL V
Vehicle-Only Inspection – An inspection that includes each of the vehicle inspection items specified under the North American Standard Inspection (Level I), without a driver present, conducted at any location.

CVSA (http://www.cvsa.org)

Allan5oh:

You are confusing a moral issue with the regulations. Of course this tragedy shouldn't have happened. But you and the other guy are merely speculating the application of the FMCSR's, which is very moot at this point.

The inspections are mandated by the FMCSR; therefore, the regulations are relevant. Violation of the FMCSR adds culpability to the crime.

Do you honestly think the DOT is going to charge this guy with something? Of course not. It will be a criminal charge, and it won't matter what the regs say. He was negligent, period.

Citing the administrative law for the violations place the carrier and driver at a higher culpability rate.

Now as to the regulations, and the article, there is NOT enough information to say "he broke this rule" or "that rule" because we do not know if he woke up and started driving, or if he did a pretrip and this "drunk" passed out after the pretrip, or if the drivers team driver did the pretrip, or what have you.

White man speak with forked touge. You rant and rave at others drawing conclusions when you've made a few leaps yourself:

Michael Allen Williamson II, 25, had apparently fallen asleep in front of an 18-wheeler in the parking lot of DATS Trucking, 400 S. Compress. Police said Williamson, who may have been intoxicated, was run over at about 3 a.m. Saturday after the driver, El Pasoan Jesus Cano Garcia, 28, began moving the truck.

Or could have had a stroke or seizure or ????????????????

392.7 states "satisfied". I do not need, nor am I required to do a full visual inspection of my vehicle every time I stop. I simply have to be "satisfied" everything is in working order. If I did a pretrip, I would be satisfied. This might've occured hours before operation. May not apply. If I came to my truck 2 weeks after doing a full inspection, I would be satisfied it is safe to operate.

You and Uturn need to revisit the FMCSR, yes Virginina the vehicle must be inspected:

Question 2: Must both drivers of a team operation comply with the provisions of §392.7 before driving?

Guidance: §392.7 states that a driver must be satisfied that the vehicle is in good working order before operating the vehicle. If a driver is satisfied with a co-driver’s inspection, or a safety lane inspection, then the requirement of this section will have been met.

The interpretations clarify the rule... An inspection is required!

396.11 requires at the completion of each day a report is done. Not at the beginning. Does not apply

Except for the interpretation states to complete the report an inspection is required:

Question 2: Does §396.11 require that the power unit and the trailer be inspected?

Guidance: Yes. A driver must be satisfied that both the power unit and the trailer are in safe operating condition before operating the combination.


396.13 requires the driver be satisfied the vehicle is safe before driving. May not apply

It does apply see 396.11

Again, we do not have enough information. To say he broke the FMCSR's is foolish at best.

I have a saw buck that says several of the FMCSR were violated. :)

He did however possibly break criminal laws. Was he criminally negligent? Depends on interpretation of the law. Precedent is also important.

Which may use the FMCSR to prove culpability.

He may also have a huge civil lawsuit in his hands. Is he reasonably expected to check his vehicle to ensure of no obstruction? I would say that's reasonable, yet there is not a single regulation regarding that. There shouldn't have to be.

Ignorance is bliss, the FMCSR madate the vehicle be checked for safe operation by someone before the vehicle is driven.

Part 392: Driving of commercial motor vehicles
Part 396: Inspection, repair, and maintenance

Two separate sub chapters of the FMCSR two separate inspections.

Get a clue.

Incorrect. You are required to check cargo securement during change of duty status. If there is no cargo, or if the trailer is sealed, you are not required to do a cargo check since there is no cargo to check.

Depends who sealed the trailer, if the driver sealed the trailer, then the exception does not apply.

You are NOT required to do an inspection any time you operate a CMV. You are required to be "satisfied" certain items are in working order. I can check most of those items inside the cab anyways.

You are misinformed, an inspection is required:

Question 2: Must both drivers of a team operation comply with the provisions of §392.7 before driving?

Guidance: §392.7 states that a driver must be satisfied that the vehicle is in good working order before operating the vehicle. If a driver is satisfied with a co-driver’s inspection, or a safety lane inspection, then the requirement of this section will have been met.

The interpretations clarify the rule... An inspection is required!

396.11 requires at the completion of each day a report is done. Not at the beginning. Does not apply

Except for the interpretation states to complete the report an inspection is required:

Question 2: Does §396.11 require that the power unit and the trailer be inspected?

Guidance: Yes. A driver must be satisfied that both the power unit and the trailer are in safe operating condition before operating the combination.

Two separate interpretations two separate inspections.

Fredog:

Mr. Garcia’s negligent behavior caused Mr. Williamson’s death


this is what ticked me off. that this guy thinks the drunk had no responsibility in this case.. what CAUSED the death was the fact that he laid down in front of the truck in the first place

The article never said Mr. Williamson was drunk:

Michael Allen Williamson II, 25, had apparently fallen asleep in front of an 18-wheeler in the parking lot of DATS Trucking, 400 S. Compress. Police said Williamson, who may have been intoxicated, was run over at about 3 a.m. Saturday after the driver, El Pasoan Jesus Cano Garcia, 28, began moving the truck.

What if it was a heart attack, stroke, or he was injured?

Got to keep an open mind. ;)

the truck driver did not break the law, there is no law that says you have to walk around your truck every time you stop, it's a good thing to do, but not required by law, as someone stated, the guy may have just stopped for a minute to do paperwork, or to make a phone call,you dont have to do a pre-trip in that case, but hey, lets blame the driver and sue his company, they have plenty of money. now if you will excuse me, I have to go make sure no one is sleeping in my driveway so my son can go to work without running over anyone.

I've demonstrated several time above; yes the vehicle MUST BE INSPECTED!

Damn some people have no clue:

if I stop for 2 minutes to make a phone call a change of duty status has not occurred.
So what do you think they should do to the truck driver? charge him with murder? manslaughter?

Yes, a change of duty status occurred. You went from driving to on-duty not driving.

Golfhobo:

I can get out of my truck, walk to the back, open the door and check my cargo... get back into my truck and NEVER see a drunk under the front bumper, so we can drop any discussion of 392.9.

Part 392.9 and 392.7 are singular. If your doing a 392.9 check you must do a 392.7 check. ;)

Not sure off the top off my head, but I don't think a yard dog (shunt truck) weighs enough to be considered a CMV. Also, not sure if it is considered "used in interstate commerce," so at least SOME regs may not apply. Will have to give that some thought/research.

Better check that head space, seems to be incapable of seeing the obvious:

Commercial motor vehicle means any self-propelled or towed motor vehicle used on a highway in interstate commerce to transport passengers or property when the vehicle—

(1) Has a gross vehicle weight rating or gross combination weight rating, or gross vehicle weight or gross combination weight, of 4,536 kg (10,001 pounds) or more, whichever is greater; or

I have a significant amount of greenback that says any yard dog used to move trailers has a GVWR or CGWR of 10,001 pound or more.

That's all I have time for right now. Been a rough week. Maybe tomorrow night or Sunday I'll weigh into this one.

We're all waiting with baited breath.... :)

So to surmise all of the above:

A highway includes provate property open to the public.

A Level 5 CVSA inspection can be done at a terminal

Part 392 is operation of a CMV

Part 396 is maintenance

Since Part 392 and 396 are in different sub chapters they are separate inspections

Yes I said inspections. ;)

Part 392.7 inspection is required any time a driver has a change in duty status

Part 396.13 inspection is required prior to starting the shift

Stopping to make a phone call is a change in duty status

Interstate freight is driven by the destination of the freight not the vehicle... If a yard dog is used to move loaded LTL or TL freight trailers chances are the yard dog is in interstate commerce

Myth_Buster hoping that some folks read the material and learn something.

Be safe.

[kc0iv]

Interstate freight is driven by the destination of the freight not the vehicle... If a yard dog is used to move loaded LTL or TL freight trailers chances are the yard dog is in interstate commerce

Myth_Buster hoping that some folks read the material and learn something.

Be safe.

Myth_Buster.
Seems in your haste to define your claim you missed the first part of the definition. i.e. "Commercial motor vehicle means any self-propelled or towed motor vehicle used on a highway in interstate commerce to transport passengers or property when the vehicle." A unit used for moving trailers exclusively on private property do not have to be inspected or even meet safety requirements as far as D.O.T. is concerned.

Anyone who has been involved in private property movement of freight would know "yard dogs" do NOT have to be inspected. In fact the majority of "yard dogs" are NOT licensed for operation on public streets or highways and thereby do NOT fall under the rules of D.O.T. be it state or federal level.

If Myth_Buster is/was the author of this e-mail then it would appear he/she has indeed made a bunch of assumptions. And I'm sure you know the saying about assumption. He/She might be wise to leave the determination of what happen to the police department.

kc0iv

[Rev.Vassago]

How much CARGO do you carry under the front bumper of your truck, Rev?

I can get out of my truck, walk to the back, open the door and check my cargo... get back into my truck and NEVER see a drunk under the front bumper,

The article (as well as every one I read online) stated he was in front of the truck, not under it.

[Fredog]

Actually, the truck tires caused the death. I say we go after the Michelin Man.
but if the tires had not been mounted on wheels, they would have flexed and not hurt him, so it is obviously the wheel manufacturers fault, and also the truckstop is at fault because if they had not provided a parking spot, the truck could not have run over the guy, there are so many people to blame for this, the only innocent one is the poor drunk, he just wanted a nap.

[Rev.Vassago]

the only innocent one is the poor drunk, he just wanted a nap.Let's sue the alcohol manufacturers.

[allan5oh]

The inspections are mandated by the FMCSR; therefore, the regulations are relevant. Violation of the FMCSR adds culpability to the crime.

Did he violate the FMCSR? I have not seen one shred of proof, only pure speculation on your part and rev vagoo. From the article(and I've read several linked from google) there is not enough information to indicate a violation of the FMCSR's occured.

Citing the administrative law for the violations place the carrier and driver at a higher culpability rate.

See above. You are correct if this did indeed happen.

White man speak with forked touge. You rant and rave at others drawing conclusions when you've made a few leaps yourself

Wait a minute here, both you and Rev said he violated the regs case closed. I gave many situations that might have possibly happened where he DID NOT. I cannot believe you're accusing me of drawing conclusions(when I'm merely giving possible situations) when in your mind "the case is closed". If you brought your "evidence" and "logic" to a courtroom you'd be laughed out of the room. #1 rule in any court case is you review all the relevant information. You've done NOTHING OF THE SORT.

You and Uturn need to revisit the FMCSR, yes Virginina the vehicle must be inspected

Prove it to me. If I inspected my vehicle a few hours before, and didn't drive it, why would I need to inspect it again? If I moved it one mile I have to do a full inspection before operation? I think not. I would still be "satisfied" that it is in good working order.

The interpretations clarify the rule... An inspection is required!

Yes, before operating the vehicle. If I inspect at 1300, drive for an hour, and spend a half hour at the loading dock, the inspection at 1300 was still "before operating the vehicle" and I would still be "satisfied" it's in good working order. Prove me otherwise. Show me where your interpretation of the law has been applied in a court case by a judge.

I find it hilarious that you keep saying "keep an open mind" yet your mind is completely shut in regards to violating the FMCSR's. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION IN THE ARTICLE OR ANYWHERE ELSE. You are COMPLETELY jumping to conclusions.

I have a significant amount of greenback that says any yard dog used to move trailers has a GVWR or CGWR of 10,001 pound or more.

Yet you seemed to miss an important part in the first sentence. "vehicle used on a highway". Yard dogs need not apply.

If you were a judge, and you judged in this manner, every case would be tossed out on appeal.

Also you seem to be missing the entirely possible point that perhaps the "inspection" parts of the FMCSR's were satisfied, but there was a time lapse between that satisfaction, and the "tired" individual falling asleep. The ONLY reg that is time sensitive is the cargo check reg. The rest are NOT time sensitive. Like I said, if my rig was parked for 8 hours and I did an inspection before parking it, I would still be satisfied and fully within the FMCSR's. Prove me otherwise. There's nothing in the regs that proves otherwise.

[Rev.Vassago]

Wait a minute here, both you and Rev said he violated the regs case closed.

I must have missed that. In the OP, he was recommending that the agency look into it further (which they apparently already were). I haven't been speaking about the specific case hardly at all, and specifically stated that if the agency found there wasn't enough evidence to convict him of anything, that would be an acceptable outcome.

I'd say we are both keeping a very open mind about it. Are you? Do you know for certain he didn't commit a violation?

Yet you seemed to miss an important part in the first sentence. "vehicle used on a highway". Yard dogs need not apply.

To quote the regs:

§390.5 Definitions.

Highway means any road, street, or way, whether on public or private property, open to public travel. “Open to public travel” means that the road section is available, except during scheduled periods, extreme weather or emergency conditions, passable by four-wheel standard passenger cars, and open to the general public for use without restrictive gates, prohibitive signs, or regulation other than restrictions based on size, weight, or class of registration. Toll plazas of public toll roads are not considered restrictive gates.

Commercial motor vehicle means any self-propelled or towed motor vehicle used on a highway in interstate commerce to transport passengers or property when the vehicle—

[allan5oh]

I must have missed that. In the OP, he was recommending that the agency look into it further (which they apparently already were). I haven't been speaking about the specific case hardly at all, and specifically stated that if the agency found there wasn't enough evidence to convict him of anything, that would be an acceptable outcome.

I'd say we are both keeping a very open mind about it. Are you? Do you know for certain he didn't commit a violation?

I am absolutely. I never not once said he didn't commit a violation. I said you two were jumping to conclusions, and your application of the FMCSR's was faulty.

Here's what he said:

Dear Chief Romero, I was deeply troubled by the report of a driver running over a pedestrian at 3:00 AM. If my suspicions are correct the driver of the tractor trailer failed to perform some rudimentary safety checks required by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR.) Had the driver of the big rig walked around his vehicle before moving the vehicle Mr. Garcia would have seen the man lying in front of his truck and avoided the accident.

Mr. Garcia’s negligent behavior caused Mr. Williamson’s death. If Mr. Garcia had obeyed the safety regulations he would have saved Mr. Williamson’s life. Two wrongs do not make a right. At the very least I believe Mr. Garcia’s employer should be chastised for failing to ensure their employees followed the safety regulations.

And you followed like a lap dog:

I couldn't agree more. Had the driver performed the required inspection, he would have seen the drunk sleeping in front of his truck.

Sounds pretty "case closed" to me.

To quote the regs:

§390.5 Definitions.

Highway means any road, street, or way, whether on public or private property, open to public travel. “Open to public travel” means that the road section is available, except during scheduled periods, extreme weather or emergency conditions, passable by four-wheel standard passenger cars, and open to the general public for use without restrictive gates, prohibitive signs, or regulation other than restrictions based on size, weight, or class of registration. Toll plazas of public toll roads are not considered restrictive gates.

Commercial motor vehicle means any self-propelled or towed motor vehicle used on a highway in interstate commerce to transport passengers or property when the vehicle—

and is the private property open to public travel? Basically the way I read it any private property that has a "yard dog" MUST have a gate, sign, or regulation. If they do not, the yard dog is considered a CMV and would likely be in violation of the regs considering 90% of shunt trucks out there are not road legal. Of course the flip side is that our CMV's are NO LONGER CMV's once they enter private property with a gate, prohibitive sign, or regulation. Most yard's I've seen have one of the sort. DOT cannot inspect our vehicles under these circumstances.

Of course I'm talking about these guys:

PS_PortTerminal_Terminal_Ottawa_SPECImperial - Kalmar Industries (http://www.kalmarind.com/show.php?id=916)

Notice how there are off road models as well as road legal.

[Rev.Vassago]

and is the private property open to public travel? Basically the way I read it any private property that has a "yard dog" MUST have a gate, sign, or regulation. If they do not, the yard dog is considered a CMV and would likely be in violation of the regs considering 90% of shunt trucks out there are not road legal.

That would be correct, but that's not what you initially stated.

Of course the flip side is that our CMV's are NO LONGER CMV's once they enter private property with a gate, prohibitive sign, or regulation. Most yard's I've seen have one of the sort. DOT cannot inspect our vehicles under these circumstances.

Of course I'm talking about these guys:

PS_PortTerminal_Terminal_Ottawa_SPECImperial - Kalmar Industries (http://www.kalmarind.com/show.php?id=916)

Notice how there are off road models as well as road legal.Now you are introducing new equations into what you first claimed. Initially, it was just "private property". Now it is "private property with gates, prohibitive signs, or regulations".

[allan5oh]

Just following the regs.

You are correct, I did change it because I did not fully understand the reg at the time. Yes an inspection CAN be done on private property if the property is open to public "four wheelers".

And in actuality, on private property marked with a sign, or a gate, or other "regulation" a CMV does not need to be inspected before operating, throwing out the entirety of 392 and 396 since it is not considered a CMV. Of course 392 and 396 need to be complied with before entering a "highway".

Not only is the timing factor in play (we don't know the extent) but the fact that 392 and 396 do not apply at all *IF* the private property has a sign or gate or regulation completely changes everything.

The more I look into this, the more you two look foolish.

[A Smalltown Rube]

I have a saw buck that says several of the FMCSR were violated.


M_B:

It's hard to make a wagering decision based on 3 lines written by a reporter for a local newspaper.

However, if there is a way to post the police report and the driver's written statement I may take you up on that bet.

[Rev.Vassago]

And in actuality, on private property marked with a sign, or a gate, or other "regulation" a CMV does not need to be inspected before operating, throwing out the entirety of 392 and 396 since it is not considered a CMV. Of course 392 and 396 need to be complied with before entering a "highway".

I disagree with this statement. Just because of the location of a CMV does not change its classification of being a CMV. If a CMV is used on the highway, then it is always a CMV. A yard jockey used on private property which is off limits to the public was never a CMV (because it wasn't used in interstate commerce on a public highway), therefore is beyond the scope of the regs.

Commercial motor vehicle means any self-propelled or towed motor vehicle used on a highway in interstate commerce to transport passengers or property when the vehicle—
(1) Has a gross vehicle weight rating or gross combination weight rating, or gross vehicle weight or gross combination weight, of 4,536 kg (10,001 pounds) or more, whichever is greater; or
(2) Is designed or used to transport more than 8 passengers (including the driver) for compensation; or
(3) Is designed or used to transport more than 15 passengers, including the driver, and is not used to transport passengers for compensation; or
(4) Is used in transporting material found by the Secretary of Transportation to be hazardous under 49 U.S.C. 5103 and transported in a quantity requiring placarding under regulations prescribed by the Secretary under 49 CFR, subtitle B, chapter I, subchapter C.

[allan5oh]

I was thinking about that, and you're right. So even if I use my CMV to drag a trailer across private property with a gate, I need to comply with 390-396 as well as have a CDL. If it's a shunt truck, I do not need to because it is not a CMV.

[Rev.Vassago]

I was thinking about that, and you're right. So even if I use my CMV to drag a trailer across private property with a gate, I need to comply with 390-396 as well as have a CDL. If it's a shunt truck, I do not need to because it is not a CMV.

Exactly. But if that "shunt truck" is on private property with public access, then it is subject to the same regulations that you are, because it is a combination vehicle over 10001 lbs, and it is involved in interstate commerce.

[allan5oh]

Yup, so it better be road legal. That's why most yards have "no public access" signs or similar.

[golfhobo]

Thank you U-turn for pointing that out. I only pre-trip once per day, plus I pre trip each trailer that I hook to. I do not spend 15 minutes checking everything after every liffle 5 minute stop.

-----------------------------
Question:
The victim was from Virginia and possibly intoxicated in a TRUCK stop located in New Mexico. Now how likely is it that he was also a truck driver and was scared to use Golfhobo's line 5 defense, so he decided to stay out of his own truck entirely?

:lol2::lol2::lol2:

Good to see you Rawlco!

Problem with your assumption (about my line 5 defense) is that you fail to blame the Rev for his faulty interpretation of subpara 4 of the "on duty reg." ;)

Folks.... this thread has gotten WAY out of hand. So far, that I don't know if I have enough line 5 time to straighten it out!

As usual, the REV is wrong on several points of reg citation and interpretation. And likewise Myth_Buster is wrong in reg application/interpretation.... and generally nonresponsive. But, what's new? :lol2:

I've read as much as I could find on this, (including the discussion on another board) and I come up with the same thing. The POLICE said the man was probably intoxicated.... NOT a seizure, nor heart attack, nor anything of the sort! They said he was ASLEEP and possibly intoxicated. They should KNOW! They also said, no charges were likely to be filed, if for NO OTHER REASON than the fact that pedestrians cannot position themselves in front of a vehicle ON PURPOSE with impunity!!!

Question: What is a "pedestrian" doing on PRIVATE property if he doesn't work there? (but that's not the real issue here.)

What IS at issue here is whether the driver was REQUIRED to see the "drunk" before moving his truck... and whether the REGS have anything to do with it. They DON'T!! Myth_Buster is WRONG, and so is the Rev.

Uturn was correct in questioning the circumstances, which we know NOTHING about, as to the possible quick stop off of the driver at the terminal office.... or whether the truck had been sitting all night. We don't know. What we DO know is that IF the driver had done a quick walk around to be sure there were no "obstructions" the alleged drunk might still be alive. I'll give you that. And it should be a lesson to us all to take that minute or two to DO so in the future.

But, there is NO REG that required the driver to do so!

We don't have enough facts to determine whether the driver "stopped off" for a moment at the office, or whether he was starting out for the day. But, we DO know that several posters here have misinterpreted the REGS, and therefore the responsibility of the driver.

I know we were ALL taught (those of us who WENT to school) to do a "pre-trip," or at least HOW to do one. But, the regs don't require one. They require that we be SATISFIED that the vehicle and trailer we are about to drive is "compliant." This can be done in various ways, the FIRST of which, is to review the POST TRIP .... which IS required.... by the last driver, which MAY have been ourselves... but, might have been another driver if we slip-seat. And we are required to sign off on it ONLY if there were things that needed to be fixed.

If the FMCSA wanted to USE the word "inspect," they could have. But, they DIDN'T! (even when the QUESTION used the word!) They said we must be SATISFIED. So, contrary to what Mike M says, an inspection is NOT required before operating the CMV if the driver (who may very well have BEEN the last one to drive it and inspect it during his POST TRIP, is "satisfied" that it is still in good condition.

And CARGO inspections are a different animal. The reg clearly states when they should be done, and since there is NO CARGO in front of your truck, there would be no requirement, nor assumption, that you would have to walk completely around your vehicle to DO so, and therefore.... that reg has NO BEARING on this circumstance.

The "cargo check" reg, (I don't feel like quoting them by number right now,) is NOT the same as a pre or post trip inspection, and doesn't require you to check for drunks under (or in front of) your front bumper.... so, let's leave that OUT of the discussion for now, okay?

But, one thing is clear, and the Rev is CLEARLY wrong about it, is that a PRETRIP or ANY kind of vehicle inspection is NOT required every time you stop your vehicle for any reason, or at every change of duty status.

Now, for a few questions or assumptions of my own. We don't know if the driver was "stopping by" the office or was in his truck on the yard waiting to start his trip. Perhaps, he had DONE a pretrip an hour ago, and was just now leaving. Surely, he would have done his pretrip and checked his oil while the engine was shut OFF, so... there would be no heat from the engine to entice a drunk to lay down in front of it UNLESS it had been sitting there for awhile, OR had just pulled up to the office. Either way, there is no reason why he would get out and check for drunks unless he was just super cautious... which is not a bad idea.

Also.... what is a "pedestrian" doing on private property at a DATS yard? The report didn't even postulate that he was an employee of the company!

Furthermore, a DATS trucking company yard is private property, and although the public MIGHT be allowed on (to apply for a job or something,) it is NOT considered a HIGHWAY or even a Public Vehicular Area! I don't care if there were fences, gates or whatever! It's NOT the same as a Walmart parking lot!

COULD the vehicle in question have been a "shunt truck" instead of a CMV? Yes. The article didn't say. And I believe Mike M is wrong about whether such a vehicle is considered a CMV, subject to the "inspection regs" he loves to quote. I'll get back to that later!

The point here is twofold. One is that a tragic accident occurred causing the death of a tragic soul who had no other place to sleep than near the (assumed) warm engine of a truck. And that Mike M went out of his way to impose his disdain for truckers, and his belief that we are ALL lazy and unprofessional, (not to mention stupid and clueless) into a police investigation outside of his jurisdiction.... with NO more information than the rest of us.... and with a certain zeal to "prosecute," if not "persecute" the driver, his company, and the industry as a whole!

Mike.... I want the email address to which you submitted your "opinion" as I intend to counter your claims with FACTS about the regs you cited to them. You were WRONG. and as usual, misleading and nonresponsive. I promise NOT to "trash" you. I just want to give them a different, if not objective, viewpoint.

Surely, even YOU would consider that FAIR. Even if I AM, according to you, "clueless" and "small brained was it?" :hellno:

As for the particulars of the regs, and how both you AND the Rev have misinterpreted them, I will get back to that. I DO understand your frustration (as you mentioned on that other site) with truckers who don't realize the gravity of their responsibilities for the safety of the "motoring" public. I also understand "burn out," and I wish you the best in getting a higher position that will give you some respite from it. Whether you believe it or not.... I ENJOY debating these issues with you. What I DON'T enjoy are your constant insinuations that "I", or others, are CLUELESS!

Hobo

[Myth_Buster]

Allan5oh:

Prove it to me. If I inspected my vehicle a few hours before, and didn't drive it, why would I need to inspect it again? If I moved it one mile I have to do a full inspection before operation? I think not. I would still be "satisfied" that it is in good working order.

Because in-accordance with Part 392.7 in order to be satisfied the driver must inspect the vehicle. Part 396.13 is the full pre-trip as taught by the CDL test. Part 392.7 is a quick walk around to ensure things didn’t fall apart:

Question 2: Must both drivers of a team operation comply with the provisions of §392.7 before driving?
Guidance: §392.7 states that a driver must be satisfied that the vehicle is in good working order before operating the vehicle. If a driver is satisfied with a co-driver’s inspection, or a safety lane inspection, then the requirement of this section will have been met.

Tires go flat, cargo settles, a million things can happen in one hour. I can remember a common complaint back about 1998 was; “Someone stole my hub oiler cap.” Well now it’s fuel.

Part 392 falls under the “OPERATION” of a CMV; which is different than the “MAINTENANCE” portion of the FMCSR. Two separate inspections. One’s a walk around, the other is taught as part of the CDL tests.

Yet you seemed to miss an important part in the first sentence. "vehicle used on a highway". Yard dogs need not apply.

Really, you think so? If a yard dog crashes in to another truck and the brakes were non-operational what is the injury law suit going to settle for? Can you say MILLIONS? What of workman’s comp? OSHA rules? And yes Virginia the DOT rules:

I posted it earlier and the Rev posted it again but apparently you missed it:

§390.5 Definitions.

Highway means any road, street, or way, whether on public or private property, open to public travel. “Open to public travel” means that the road section is available, except during scheduled periods, extreme weather or emergency conditions, passable by four-wheel standard passenger cars, and open to the general public for use without restrictive gates, prohibitive signs, or regulation other than restrictions based on size, weight, or class of registration. Toll plazas of public toll roads are not considered restrictive gates.
There are a few yards the definition of a highway would apply to but I doubt this is one of those occasions as 400 S Compress is in an industrial park.

400 s compress - Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=400+s+compress)

While the records of a yard dog may not be examined in detail the rule apply when the private property meets the definition of a “HIGHWAY” per 390.5.


If you were a judge, and you judged in this manner, every case would be tossed out on appeal.

Perhaps in a criminal court; however, in administrative law I only have to prove what a reasonable person would believe. I don’t believe it would be that hard to convince a reasonable person to believe a driver should do a walk around inspection before they move the vehicle.

Since 10/08/2008 DATS Trucking has had two vehicles placed OOS for tire issues, one for turn signals, and one for cracked wheels:

12/14/2008: 393.45(A)(4) BRAKE HOSE/TUBING CHAFFING AND/OR KINKING

12/03/2008: 393.75(F) Tire-load weight rating/under inflated
172.200(A) No shipping paper provided by offeror

11/13/2008: 393.45(A)(4) BRAKE HOSE/TUBING CHAFFING AND/OR KINKING

11/12/2008: 393.19 No/defective turn/hazard lamp as required

10/15/2008: 393.75(A) Flat tire or fabric exposed

10/08/2008: 393.205(A) Wheel/rim cracked or broken

If drivers had performed the necessary inspections as required how many of the OOS could have been avoided? Probably several.

Also you seem to be missing the entirely possible point that perhaps the "inspection" parts of the FMCSR's were satisfied, but there was a time lapse between that satisfaction, and the "tired" individual falling asleep. The ONLY reg that is time sensitive is the cargo check reg. The rest are NOT time sensitive.

Part 392.7 is operation sensitive, once the driver changes duty status, Part 392.7 kicks in:

§392.7 Equipment, inspection and use.
No commercial motor vehicle shall be driven unless the driver is satisfied that the following parts and accessories are in good working order, nor shall any driver fail to use or make use of such parts and accessories when and as needed:

Once you log line 1, 2, or 4 you’re no longer driving; therefore, before you drive again you must follow Part 392.7.

Like I said, if my rig was parked for 8 hours and I did an inspection before parking it, I would still be satisfied and fully within the FMCSR's. Prove me otherwise. There's nothing in the regs that proves otherwise.

Your mistaken, the post trip inspection would not detect a slow leaking tire that goes flat, missing components removed during the break, or freight that settled. Besides, chances are following an eight hour break Part 396.13 would kick in requiring a full pre-trip inspection.

Myth_Buster, placed too many vehicles OOS finding simple defects the driver should have been aware of.

and is the private property open to public travel? Basically the way I read it any private property that has a "yard dog" MUST have a gate, sign, or regulation. If they do not, the yard dog is considered a CMV and would likely be in violation of the regs considering 90% of shunt trucks out there are not road legal. Of course the flip side is that our CMV's are NO LONGER CMV's once they enter private property with a gate, prohibitive sign, or regulation. Most yard's I've seen have one of the sort. DOT cannot inspect our vehicles under these circumstances.

Of course I'm talking about these guys:

PS_PortTerminal_Terminal_Ottawa_SPECImperial - Kalmar Industries

Notice how there are off road models as well as road legal.

Are there more than one carrier sharing the facility? Do employees of multiple companies have cars that drive in and out of the facility?

You see here’s the kicker:

§392.1 Scope of the rules in this part.
Every motor carrier, its officers, agents, representatives, and employees responsible for the management, maintenance, operation, or driving of commercial motor vehicles, or the hiring, supervising, training, assigning, or dispatching of drivers, shall be instructed in and comply with the rules in this part.


§390.5 Definitions.
Motor vehicle means any vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer, or semitrailer propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used upon the highways in the transportation of passengers or property, or any combination thereof determined by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, but does not include any vehicle, locomotive, or car operated exclusively on a rail or rails, or a trolley bus operated by electric power derived from a fixed overhead wire, furnishing local passenger transportation similar to street-railway service.

§396.3 Inspection, repair and maintenance.
(a) General—Every motor carrier shall systematically inspect, repair, and maintain, or cause to be systematically inspected, repaired, and maintained, all motor vehicles subject to its control.

Part 392 applies to CMVs, Part 396 applies to MOTOR VEHICLES.

Myth_Buster has done too many post accident investigations where drivers had their hoods ripped off in truck stops.
And in actuality, on private property marked with a sign, or a gate, or other "regulation" a CMV does not need to be inspected before operating, throwing out the entirety of 392 and 396 since it is not considered a CMV. Of course 392 and 396 need to be complied with before entering a "highway".

400 s compress - Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=400+s+compress)

400 S Compress is an industrial park; therefore, creating a high probability the rules applied.

A Smalltown Rube:

M_B:

It's hard to make a wagering decision based on 3 lines written by a reporter for a local newspaper.

However, if there is a way to post the police report and the driver's written statement I may take you up on that bet.

I don’t make bets unless I’m relatively sure of the outcome. :) I’ve made a FOIA request for the accident reports we’ll see what happens.


Allan5oh:

I was thinking about that, and you're right. So even if I use my CMV to drag a trailer across private property with a gate, I need to comply with 390-396 as well as have a CDL. If it's a shunt truck, I do not need to because it is not a CMV.

Really?

Question 19: Must a civilian operator of a CMV, as defined in §383.5, who operates wholly within a military facility open to public travel, have a CDL?
Guidance: Yes. The CDL requirement applies to every person who operates a CMV in interstate, foreign or intrastate commerce. Driving a CMV on a road, street or way which is open to public travel, even though privately-owned or subject to military control, is prima facie evidence of operation in commerce.

Doesn’t a military compound have gates? Doesn’t a military compound have warning signs?

Wouldn’t a yard used by employees and other trucking companies be a similar scenario?

I say yes.

Golf Hobo shooting from the hip and mistaken as usual:

I know we were ALL taught (those of us who WENT to school) to do a "pre-trip," or at least HOW to do one. But, the regs don't require one. They require that we be SATISFIED that the vehicle and trailer we are about to drive is "compliant." This can be done in various ways, the FIRST of which, is to review the POST TRIP .... which IS required.... by the last driver, which MAY have been ourselves... but, might have been another driver if we slip-seat. And we are required to sign off on it ONLY if there were things that needed to be fixed.

Question 2: Must both drivers of a team operation comply with the provisions of §392.7 before driving?
Guidance: §392.7 states that a driver must be satisfied that the vehicle is in good working order before operating the vehicle. If a driver is satisfied with a co-driver’s inspection, or a safety lane inspection, then the requirement of this section will have been met.
Question 2: Does §396.11 require that the power unit and the trailer be inspected?
Guidance: Yes. A driver must be satisfied that both the power unit and the trailer are in safe operating condition before operating the combination.

Damn the luck, a driver must inspect a vehicle before they can be satisfied it’s safe to operate.

Myth_Buster hoping he doesn’t have some of the yahoos following hin in his car.

So what is it you folks are that lazy, or are you too stupid to do an inspection? :(

Myth_Buster happy not to be driving any more. :)

Be safe.

[golfhobo]

Mythbuster said:


Because in-accordance with Part 392.7 in order to be satisfied the driver must inspect the vehicle. Part 396.13 is the full pre-trip as taught by the CDL test. Part 392.7 is a quick walk around to ensure things didn’t fall apart:


NO... it doesn't SAY that! You are WRONG.


Tires go flat, cargo settles, a million things can happen in one hour. I can remember a common complaint back about 1998 was; “Someone stole my hub oiler cap.” Well now it’s fuel.

Part 392 falls under the “OPERATION” of a CMV; which is different than the “MAINTENANCE” portion of the FMCSR. Two separate inspections. One’s a walk around, the other is taught as part of the CDL tests.


Again, you are wrong. The "maintenance" of a vehicle... per the regs.... is something done by the maintenance people for a carrier. When the maintenance dept fixes something, they sign off on the POST trip inspection or DVIR. THEN, and ONLY if there was such a condition, must the driver sign off that he is satisfied that it was done. The DRIVER is NOT subject to the regulations of a carrier to Maintain the vehicle per the reg you cited. NOR is he required to "re-inspect" the vehicle if he is satisfied that the repairs were made. You are confusing the PRE trip inspection taught by the CDL tests with "maintenance" functions.


Really, you think so? If a yard dog crashes in to another truck and the brakes were non-operational what is the injury law suit going to settle for? Can you say MILLIONS? What of workman’s comp? OSHA rules? And yes Virginia the DOT rules:


I suspect it will be handled "in house" by the carrier. Osha MIGHT get involved IF there is a reason or history. Lawsuits won't be part of it due to company waivers. Worker's Comp will deny everything, as they always do, and the worker who didn't practice safe maneuvering will probably suffer. And, NO.... Virginia.... the DOT will have little or NO bearing on the case IF there IS one! You have NO idea what goes on in a "yard," do you?


I posted it earlier and the Rev posted it again but apparently you missed it:


And I can't respond to it because this LOUSY software program doesn't allow us to quote "quotes."

There are a few yards the definition of a highway would apply to but I doubt this is one of those occasions as 400 S Compress is in an industrial park

My point, exactly. Vety few Private property "yards" would EVER be considered a "highway," and you just blew the Rev's argument (and YOURS) out of the water!

400 s compress - Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=400+s+compress)


While the records of a yard dog may not be examined in detail the rule apply when the private property meets the definition of a “HIGHWAY” per 390.5.


But.... it DOESN'T!!! Not in THIS case.... and not in the minds of everyone who is reading this thread. It is only a figment of YOUR imagination, and that of the Rev's.


Perhaps in a criminal court; however, in administrative law I only have to prove what a reasonable person would believe. I don’t believe it would be that hard to convince a reasonable person to believe a driver should do a walk around inspection before they move the vehicle.


You'd be surprised! Most of US here, are "reasonable people or jurors" and WE don't believe it is required. And WE could easily present regulations as evidence that it is NOT required. Good practice? Perhaps. But, a requirement? NO! A lack of judgement and professionalism? Maybe. But, arising to the point of culpability? NOT ON YOUR LIFE! Not a court in this land would convict a driver (after reviewing the regs) for not getting out of his truck and checking to see if some IDIOT laid down in front of his truck!



Since 10/08/2008 DATS Trucking has had twovehicles placed OOS for tire issues, one for turn signals, and one for cracked wheels:

12/14/2008: 393.45(A)(4) BRAKE HOSE/TUBING CHAFFING AND/OR KINKING

12/03/2008: 393.75(F) Tire-load weight rating/under inflated
172.200(A) No shipping paper provided by offeror

11/13/2008: 393.45(A)(4) BRAKE HOSE/TUBING CHAFFING AND/OR KINKING

11/12/2008: 393.19 No/defective turn/hazard lamp as required

10/15/2008: 393.75(A) Flat tire or fabric exposed

10/08/2008: 393.205(A) Wheel/rim cracked or broken

If drivers had performed the necessary inspections as required how many of the OOS could have been avoided? Probably several.


Well, you said 4 violations, then listed six. So much for your MATH! And NONE of those violations sound like they were "fatal." Do you have some delusion that trucking is a perfect world? Out of your list, I'd say the average driver would have caught only two of them. The OTHERS should have been caught by the maintenance dept under that reg you like to quote that applies to THEM... and not US!


Part 392.7 is operation sensitive, once the driver changes duty status, Part 392.7 kicks in:


Wrong again! NO total vehicle inspection is required everytime a driver changes duty status!


Once you log line 1, 2, or 4 you’re no longer driving; therefore, before you drive again you must follow Part 392.7.


Absolutely WRONG! You are taking the regs completely out of context! If a driver stops to fuel his truck, he goes to line 4. There is NO WAY that the regs say or mean that he must do another full pretrip before pulling off the fuel island! If you believe this, or continue to say so, you are a fool. And that is NOT a "personal attack," that is a fact!


Your mistaken, the post trip inspection would not detect a slow leaking tire that goes flat, missing components removed during the break, or freight that settled. Besides, chances are following an eight hour break Part 396.13 would kick in requiring a full pre-trip inspection.



This is unbelievable! Are you sure of the reg you are quoting? Either way, I'll have to get back to dispelling this at another time. I can only handle so much B.S. at one time! :roll3:


Myth_Buster, placed too many vehicles OOS finding simple defects the driver should have been aware of.


I'm not convinced NOR impressed! ALOT of things go wrong with trucks... WHILE we are driving them! Without listing the safestats for carriers that you are AWARE of that had violations, in simple terms, tell me HOW many trucks you've personally put OOS.


Are there more than one carrier sharing the facility? Do employees of multiple companies have cars that drive in and out of the facility?



Due to the sorry "quote" function of this software, I don't know what you refer to but, it doesn't matter! That doesn't make them a PVA!!


You see here’s the kicker:

Part 392 applies to CMVs, Part 396 applies to MOTOR VEHICLES.

Myth_Buster has done too many post accident investigations where drivers had their hoods ripped off in truck stops.



And WHAT does that have to do with this discussion?

400 s compress - Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=400+s+compress)


400 S Compress is an industrial park; therefore, creating a high probability the rules applied.



Bullchit!!


Doesn’t a military compound have gates? Doesn’t a military compound have warning signs?

Wouldn’t a yard used by employees and other trucking companies be a similar scenario?

I say yes.


I say NO! Most military bases (as you should KNOW, are open to public access. They have commissaries and PX's open to dependents. This is not the same as a gated FedEx yard!



Golf Hobo shooting from the hip and mistaken as usual:



Shooting from the hip, maybe.... cuz I don't have time to wade through all the bullchit you have repeated over and over about the regs you somehow don't seem to understand! You quote a reg that says "satisfied" and then somehow use that to insist that an INSPECTION must be done! You quote a reg that requires a POST TRIP DVIR be done and then somehow convert that to a belief that that is proof that a PRE-trip must be dome! You quote a reg pertaining to periodic maintenance required of a CARRIER, and somehow relate that to what a driver must do after fueling his truck twice a day! And, you have NO IDEA of the regs, or lack thereof, for a yard dog on private property, and then RIDICULE those who do that for a living! :roll:


Damn the luck, a driver must inspect a vehicle before they can be satisfied it’s safe to operate.



NO, they DON'T!! IF they choose to be "satisfied" by the maintenance signature that all defects were fixed, they can sign off on it and drive it off the yard without breaking ANY rules! and IF they happened to be the last driver of the vehicle, and they knew of no defects, and wrote none up, they can be "satisfied" that the vehicle is road worthy! But, when ..... and ONLY when they are done with that equipment.... the regs require that they POST trip it before leaving it to another driver. THIS is what you seem to not understand!

Also... the regs are skewed toward "local wusses" who might not GET the same equipment each day. OTR drivers are "married" to their equipment for weeks at a time. When they post trip at the end of a "shift" (and I have seen no reference to that word in the regs) they have every reason to believe that nothing has changed when they start out again on their next shift. Every OTR driver MUST fill out a DVIR every day [at the END of the day] saying that his equipment is satisfactory. When he wakes up, he is required ONLY to be "satisfied" that it has not suffered some catastrophic breakdown while he was asleep. But, the regs do NOT stipulate a pretrip inspection! You are reading these regs WRONGLY, and IMHO, with a very narrow perspective based on the "local" area you work in.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. the FMCSA has plenty of people who understand the English language, and they are adept at saying what they MEAN to say! With the exception of the wording BEFORE driving, and "satisfied".... please quote me ONE reg that says they require a driver to do a PRE-TRIP inspection!

If you can't DO so..... then, in the immortal words of the REV.... STFU!!!


Myth_Buster hoping he doesn’t have some of the yahoos following hin in his car.

So what is it you folks are that lazy, or are you too stupid to do an inspection? :(



I don't think there are too many "lazy, Stupid Yahoos" on this board, dude! And MANY of us are getting tired of your insults! You have proven yourself to be NONresponsive in most cases, totally out of bounds on others, and basically condescending and egotistical in general!

You don't seem to even understand the regs you quote! I was REALLY hoping for MORE from you, given your position in our regulatory agency. But, you have so far proven yourself to be just another overpaid, incompetent government welfare recipient, with an attitude! :hellno:

I WISH it weren't so! I HOPED you could provide answers. But, I see now that I will probably have to go above your paygrade to get the answers I require. No problem, I spent half my career above your paygrade!


Myth_Buster happy not to be driving any more. :)



And Hobo glad he doesn't have to wait 30 minutes while you try to PARK!

[Rev.Vassago]

Damn the luck, a driver must inspect a vehicle before they can be satisfied it’s safe to operate.

No you don't. You just have to assume it's good enough to operate, and be satisfied with that. You never have to do a pre trip inspection - ever. How do I know? Golfhobo told me.:rofl:

[kc0iv]

Damn the luck, a driver must inspect a vehicle before they can be satisfied it’s safe to operate.

Myth_Buster hoping he doesn’t have some of the yahoos following hin in his car.

So what is it you folks are that lazy, or are you too stupid to do an inspection? :(

Myth_Buster happy not to be driving any more. :)

Be safe.

In respect to "administrative law." A ruling by an "Administrative Law Judge" is nothing more than an order which can be reviewed by either a higher level within the agency or by a court. As far as "what a reasonable person would believe." Is not defined in the rule of law in Administrative Law. The burden of proof is either "Balance of probabilities (preponderance of the evidence)" or "Clear and convincing evidence." Either level may be used in a civil action depending on the case involved.

Part 396.3 Inspection, repair and maintenance has NO bearing in the discussion on driver requirements. It is "motor carrier " requirement.

Part 396.13 does NOT require a "full pre-trip inspection" as you imply. 396.13 says a driver must be "Be satisfied" before driving a motor vehicle. Sign any report where repairs were made.

Part 392.7 says "driver is satisfied" does NOT require a "full pre-trip inspection."

Part 396.11 is a "POST" inspection report. NOT a pre-trip inspection.

So your statement "a driver must inspect a vehicle before they can be satisfied it’s safe to operate" is incorrect. How a driver determines a vehicle safe to operate is NOT stated in the regulations. Two examples are given in the interpretation i.e. co-driver’s inspection, or a safety lane inspection. Other examples could be given.

For those wanting to contact the police Chief Harry Romero by email hromero@las-cruces.org

kc0iv

[Rev.Vassago]

In respect to "administrative law." A ruling by an "Administrative Law Judge" is nothing more than an order which can be reviewed by either a higher level within the agency or by a court. As far as "what a reasonable person would believe." Is not defined in the rule of law in Administrative Law. The burden of proof is either "Balance of probabilities (preponderance of the evidence)" or "Clear and convincing evidence." Either level may be used in a civil action depending on the case involved.

Part 396.3 Inspection, repair and maintenance has NO bearing in the discussion on driver requirements. It is "motor carrier " requirement.

Part 396.13 does NOT require a "full pre-trip inspection" as you imply. 396.13 says a driver must be "Be satisfied" before driving a motor vehicle. Sign any report where repairs were made.

Part 392.7 says "driver is satisfied" does NOT require a "full pre-trip inspection."

Part 396.11 is a "POST" inspection report. NOT a pre-trip inspection.

So your statement "a driver must inspect a vehicle before they can be satisfied it’s safe to operate" is incorrect. How a driver determines a vehicle safe to operate is NOT stated in the regulations. Two examples are given in the interpretation i.e. co-driver’s inspection, or a safety lane inspection. Other examples could be given.

For those wanting to contact the police Chief Harry Romero by email hromero@las-cruces.org

kc0iv


Question 2: Does §396.11 (http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.asp?reg=r49CFR396.11#r49CFR396.11) require that the power unit and the trailer be inspected?
Guidance: Yes. A driver must be satisfied that both the power unit and the trailer are in safe operating condition before operating the combination.




It would appear that the FMCSA doesn't consider the driver "satisfied" that the CMV is in safe operating condition until it is actually inspected. Assuming it is in safe operating condition, and being "satisfied" with just that does not fulfill the requirements.




On a side note, why on earth would anyone not want to perform a vehicle inspection? Not only could it save your life, but it could save you from a huge lawsuit in the event that you were involved in an accident based upon a vehicle defect. Have we become that lazy?

[Double R]

Have we become that lazy?

Yes. And here is a perfect example:

Typical morning in my yard by some of our so-called drivers:

Fire up truck, turn on lights, get out of truck, open back door, yup, two-wheel dolly is in the truck, get reefer hours, get back in truck, push in brakes and leave. WTF? They call that a pre-trip. No walk around, nothing. Most of us do keep the same truck everyday but they don't even post-trip the truck when they come back. Just back into dock and take equipment off and then park it.

I have made it a habit to walk around my truck after I complete a stop. Takes a few extra seconds but it makes sure that no one has tried to open any doors, parked in my way, or are in front of me. And I can have up to 15 stops in one day.

[dobry4u]

Yes. And here is a perfect example:

Typical morning in my yard by some of our so-called drivers:

Fire up truck, turn on lights, get out of truck, open back door, yup, two-wheel dolly is in the truck, get reefer hours, get back in truck, push in brakes and leave. WTF? They call that a pre-trip. No walk around, nothing. Most of us do keep the same truck everyday but they don't even post-trip the truck when they come back. Just back into dock and take equipment off and then park it.

I have made it a habit to walk around my truck after I complete a stop. Takes a few extra seconds but it makes sure that no one has tried to open any doors, parked in my way, or are in front of me. And I can have up to 15 stops in one day.


:clap::bow::clap::bow: That is being professional!

[YerDaddy]

What if the truquero for DTS just pulled the trailer forward a bit out of the weeds so he was able to then get out and do a pre-trip? You guys are nit picking without the facts. Well, freight is slow....carry on!

What happened to personal responsibility? The guy who got squashed into a permanent sleep is ultimately responsible for his own demise. The driver was just a victim of the squashed guy's irresponsibility and will probably suffer emotional tramau to some degree as a result.



Who's Yer Daddy?

[Bandit102]

Just to clarify here, at this place there are NO fences, gates or signs. It is wide open to two major streets at a major intersection. There's even a stop light there!

And DATS runs some raggedy crap!

[golfhobo]

Question 2: Does §396.11 (http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.asp?reg=r49CFR396.11#r49CFR396.11) require that the power unit and the trailer be inspected?
Guidance: Yes. A driver must be satisfied that both the power unit and the trailer are in safe operating condition before operating the combination.

It would appear that the FMCSA doesn't consider the driver "satisfied" that the CMV is in safe operating condition until it is actually inspected. Assuming it is in safe operating condition, and being "satisfied" with just that does not fulfill the requirements.

===== above is a quote. I am having trouble with a sick mouse. =====


I understand what you are saying Rev, but you are wrong. The question you are quoting had to do with whether or not the TRAILER also had to be inspected.

If the PREVIOUS driver did a post trip inspection, and filled out a DVIR on both pieces of equipment, OR the "shop" did one, then the driver can be "satisfied" that all defects were corrected or that there WERE NONE. If he is married to this equipment for a week, he would KNOW.... AND he would have done a POST TRIP (as required) at the end of the previous day (or "shift.")

The FMCSA, in its infinite wisdom, has managed to grasp a simple concept that you and Mike are missing.... and that is.... that problems occur DURING a shift of driving. Therefore, there is a requirement to check your equipment AFTER you have driven it, and BEFORE you leave it to someone ELSE.... or drive it again.

The word "satisfied" is a RARE word in the regs, and therefore I believe it has special meaning. It MEANS what it SAYS! No pretrip is "required" but a driver must be "satisfied" that an inspection HAS BEEN DONE on the equipment, either by the shop or by the previous driver/co-driver.

Like I said, we are TAUGHT to do a "pretrip" and it is a VALUABLE practice for all the reasons stated here. But, per the regs, it is NOT required! A POST TRIP is! Had the driver DONE one, (or a walk around) assuming he wasn't just stopping by the office, he would have saved a life. But, per the REGS..... there is NO culpability on the driver OR the carrier in this unfortunate case. (from what we know per the news reports.)

You are wrong (again) and Myth Buster is both wrong AND a butthole for sending the email to the jurisdiction responsible. He confused the issue by quoting NONresponsive and irrelevant regulations, AND he interfered in their investigation. He further gave a biased and negative view of ALL truckers in doing so! I suppose you want to give him another medal for this!

Again.... they didn't clearly SAY that a driver must INSPECT the combination before driving it. They said he must be "satisfied" that SOMEONE had inspected them before he drove them! That could be the shop maintenance personnel, or the previous driver, OR himself IF he was the previous driver.

And as someone said, he MIGHT have done his nonrequired "pretrip" several minutes BEFORE the (alleged) drunk laid down in front of his truck. This was an unfortunate accident, precipitated by the victim, and "regardless" of the safestat rating for the company, has NO bearing on the professionalism of MOST drivers on the road today.

For YOU and Myth_Buster to lay this at our feet, and insinuate that the majority of truckers today are lazy or incompetent, is the height of ignorance and arrogance! YOU I can excuse.... because you are just ignorant of the regs. But, Myth_Buster should KNOW better, and the fact that he has taken this opportunity to be condescending is reprehensible!

But, I am not surprised.

Hobo

[golfhobo]

Just to clarify here, at this place there are NO fences, gates or signs. It is wide open to two major streets at a major intersection. There's even a stop light there!

And DATS runs some raggedy crap!

Thanks for the clarification, but it makes no difference. It was STILL "private property" and doesn't rise to the level of a PVA. Nothing in the news reports would indicate that the "alleged" drunk was an employee, and it would make no difference if he WAS! You don't have a free pass in this society to lay down and go to sleep in front of a CMV..... ANYWHERE!

[Rev.Vassago]

Question 2: Does §396.11 (http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.asp?reg=r49CFR396.11#r49CFR396.11) require that the power unit and the trailer be inspected?
Guidance: Yes. A driver must be satisfied that both the power unit and the trailer are in safe operating condition before operating the combination.

It would appear that the FMCSA doesn't consider the driver "satisfied" that the CMV is in safe operating condition until it is actually inspected. Assuming it is in safe operating condition, and being "satisfied" with just that does not fulfill the requirements.

===== above is a quote. I am having trouble with a sick mouse. =====


I understand what you are saying Rev, but you are wrong. The question you are quoting had to do with whether or not the TRAILER also had to be inspected.

Wow. That's a huge stretch, considering the reg, nor the interpretation, states anything of the sort. You are reading something into "the power unit and the trailer" that isn't there.

[Myth_Buster]

Lord give me strength to address the issues of the ignorant and assist them in understanding the rules that govern their livelihood without berating their intelligence. :)

Golfhobo:

Again, you are wrong. The "maintenance" of a vehicle... per the regs.... is something done by the maintenance people for a carrier. When the maintenance dept fixes something, they sign off on the POST trip inspection or DVIR. THEN, and ONLY if there was such a condition, must the driver sign off that he is satisfied that it was done. The DRIVER is NOT subject to the regulations of a carrier to Maintain the vehicle per the reg you cited. NOR is he required to "re-inspect" the vehicle if he is satisfied that the repairs were made. You are confusing the PRE trip inspection taught by the CDL tests with "maintenance" functions.


§396.1 Scope.

General—Every motor carrier, its officers, drivers, agents, representatives, and employees directly concerned with the inspection or maintenance of motor vehicles shall comply and be conversant with the rules of this part.

So GH what part of the regulations allows a driver with a CDL who passed the air brake test to be a brake inspector?

§396.25 Qualifications of brake inspectors.

(b) For purposes of this section, “brake inspector” means any employee of a motor carrier who is responsible for ensuring all brake inspections, maintenance, service, or repairs to any commercial motor vehicle, subject to the motor carrier’s control, meet the applicable Federal standards.

(e) No motor carrier shall employ any person as a brake inspector unless the evidence of the inspector’s qualifications, required under this section is maintained by the motor carrier at its principal place of business, or at the location at which the brake inspector is employed. The evidence must be maintained for the period during which the brake inspector is employed in that capacity and for one year thereafter. However, motor carriers do not have to maintain evidence of qualifications to inspect air brake systems for such inspections performed by persons who have passed the air brake knowledge and skills test for a Commercial Driver’s License.

Question 2: Does §396.11 require that the power unit and the trailer be inspected?

Guidance: Yes. A driver must be satisfied that both the power unit and the trailer are in safe operating condition before operating the combination.

Doesn’t boggle your mind just how ill-informed you really are regarding how the rules apply?
FYI, a person with a CDL who has passed the air brake test can inspect air brake systems, they cannot repair them without the required experience.

Quote:
There are a few yards the definition of a highway would apply to but I doubt this is one of those occasions as 400 S Compress is in an industrial park

My point, exactly. Vety few Private property "yards" would EVER be considered a "highway," and you just blew the Rev's argument (and YOURS) out of the water!

My bad should have read:

There are a few yards the definition of a highway would not apply to but I doubt this is one of those occasions as 400 S Compress is in an industrial park.

It was too early in the AM. :)

Quote:
Since 10/08/2008 DATS Trucking has had two vehicles placed OOS for tire issues, one for turn signals, and one for cracked wheels:

12/14/2008: 393.45(A)(4) BRAKE HOSE/TUBING CHAFFING AND/OR KINKING

12/03/2008: 393.75(F) Tire-load weight rating/under inflated
172.200(A) No shipping paper provided by offeror

11/13/2008: 393.45(A)(4) BRAKE HOSE/TUBING CHAFFING AND/OR KINKING

11/12/2008: 393.19 No/defective turn/hazard lamp as required

10/15/2008: 393.75(A) Flat tire or fabric exposed

10/08/2008: 393.205(A) Wheel/rim cracked or broken

If drivers had performed the necessary inspections as required how many of the OOS could have been avoided? Probably several.

Well, you said 4 violations, then listed six. So much for your MATH! And NONE of those violations sound like they were "fatal." Do you have some delusion that trucking is a perfect world? Out of your list, I'd say the average driver would have caught only two of them. The OTHERS should have been caught by the maintenance dept under that reg you like to quote that applies to THEM... and not US!

GH had the driver performed a proper pre-trip as required by the CDL and the necessary walk around inspections required by Part 392.7 none of the OOS would have occurred. So you’re saying the driver cannot spot non-operational turn signals and cracked wheels? Part 393.75 is listed twice 393.75(a) and 393.75(f) so that leaves all of the other violations as non-detectible by the driver.

As demonstrated Part 396.3 applies to the driver as well as the carrier.

Quote:
Part 392.7 is operation sensitive, once the driver changes duty status, Part 392.7 kicks in:
Wrong again! NO total vehicle inspection is required everytime a driver changes duty status!

I didn’t say a “TOTAL” inspection was required, I said Part 392.7 kicks in. Part 392.7 says:

§392.7 Equipment, inspection and use.
No commercial motor vehicle shall be driven unless the driver is satisfied that the following parts and accessories are in good working order, nor shall any driver fail to use or make use of such parts and accessories when and as needed:

Service brakes, including trailer brake connections.
Parking (hand) brake.
Steering mechanism.
Lighting devices and reflectors.
Tires.
Horn.
Windshield wiper or wipers.
Rear-vision mirror or mirrors.
Coupling devices.

I guess GH doesn’t understand “NO CMV SHALL BE DRIVEN”. The language is different from Part 396.11. Different inspection GH, get used to it.


Once you log line 1, 2, or 4 you’re no longer driving; therefore, before you drive again you must follow Part 392.7.

Absolutely WRONG! You are taking the regs completely out of context! If a driver stops to fuel his truck, he goes to line 4. There is NO WAY that the regs say or mean that he must do another full pretrip before pulling off the fuel island! If you believe this, or continue to say so, you are a fool. And that is NOT a "personal attack," that is a fact!

Again Part 392.7 is not the same as a pre-trip inspection. The equipment list in Part 396.13 is not the same as Part 392.7:

Part 392.7:

Service brakes, including trailer brake connections.
Parking (hand) brake.
Steering mechanism.
Lighting devices and reflectors.
Tires.
Horn.
Windshield wiper or wipers.
Rear-vision mirror or mirrors.
Coupling devices.

Part 396.13:

—Service brakes including trailer brake connections
—Parking (hand) brake
—Steering mechanism
—Lighting devices and reflectors
—Tires
—Horn
—Windshield wipers
—Rear vision mirrors
—Coupling devices
—Wheels and rims
—Emergency equipment

Obviously the inspection in Part 392 is not as detailed as in Part 396. Different inspection lists different inspections.

Quote:
Your mistaken, the post trip inspection would not detect a slow leaking tire that goes flat, missing components removed during the break, or freight that settled. Besides, chances are following an eight hour break Part 396.13 would kick in requiring a full pre-trip inspection.

This is unbelievable! Are you sure of the reg you are quoting? Either way, I'll have to get back to dispelling this at another time. I can only handle so much B.S. at one time!

So GH let me get this straight, a tire cannot go flat in several hours? Air lines cannot split and develop audible air leaks? As mentioned, there is no requirement for a post trip inspection. There is a requirement for a post trip inspection report. Drivers are required to record any defect discovered or reported to them. Therefore, if a driver performed a pre-trip inspection and then took an eight hour break the driver would have to perform a Part 392.7 inspection before driving the truck.

I'm not convinced NOR impressed! ALOT of things go wrong with trucks... WHILE we are driving them! Without listing the safestats for carriers that you are AWARE of that had violations, in simple terms, tell me HOW many trucks you've personally put OOS.

Too many to recall.

Quote:
You see here’s the kicker:

Part 392 applies to CMVs, Part 396 applies to MOTOR VEHICLES.

Myth_Buster has done too many post accident investigations where drivers had their hoods ripped off in truck stops.

And WHAT does that have to do with this discussion?

Oh I don’t know, helps demonstrate the differences between Part 392 and 396 and demonstrates that a DOT reportable accident can occur on private property.

Quote:
Doesn’t a military compound have gates? Doesn’t a military compound have warning signs?

Wouldn’t a yard used by employees and other trucking companies be a similar scenario?

I say yes.

I say NO! Most military bases (as you should KNOW, are open to public access. They have commissaries and PX's open to dependents. This is not the same as a gated FedEx yard!

Military bases are limited to those on business; there is a guard, and a place to obtain a pass to gain entry.
Yards have people coming and going, some have personal vehicles parked inside the yard. Sometimes there are more than one business.


Golf Hobo shooting from the hip and mistaken as usual:

Shooting from the hip, maybe.... cuz I don't have time to wade through all the bullchit you have repeated over and over about the regs you somehow don't seem to understand! You quote a reg that says "satisfied" and then somehow use that to insist that an INSPECTION must be done! You quote a reg that requires a POST TRIP DVIR be done and then somehow convert that to a belief that that is proof that a PRE-trip must be dome! You quote a reg pertaining to periodic maintenance required of a CARRIER, and somehow relate that to what a driver must do after fueling his truck twice a day! And, you have NO IDEA of the regs, or lack thereof, for a yard dog on private property, and then RIDICULE those who do that for a living!

Yeah GH, drivers are well informed and taught every aspect of their duties and responsibilities. No driver has ever gone to jail or lost their ability to make a living because they’re so well informed. No driver has ever made a mistake because they knew the regs inside out or were informed of a particular reg and either misinterpreted or forgot what they were told. No driver has ever killed someone or caused severe property damage because they forgot to check for flat tires and left an huge chunk of rubber on the highway. No driver has ever killed anyone because they failed to check for missing lug nuts, broken wheels, checked a hub bearing to ensure ir wasn’t glowing hot, etc. and lost a tire or set of duals.

Quote:
Damn the luck, a driver must inspect a vehicle before they can be satisfied it’s safe to operate.

NO, they DON'T!! IF they choose to be "satisfied" by the maintenance signature that all defects were fixed, they can sign off on it and drive it off the yard without breaking ANY rules! and IF they happened to be the last driver of the vehicle, and they knew of no defects, and wrote none up, they can be "satisfied" that the vehicle is road worthy! But, when ..... and ONLY when they are done with that equipment.... the regs require that they POST trip it before leaving it to another driver. THIS is what you seem to not understand!

No, if a driver is satisfied with a co-driver’s or safety lane inspection they have met the standard. No where does it say by viewing the previous day’s DVIR are they relieved of performing an inspection.

Also... the regs are skewed toward "local wusses" who might not GET the same equipment each day. OTR drivers are "married" to their equipment for weeks at a time. When they post trip at the end of a "shift" (and I have seen no reference to that word in the regs) they have every reason to believe that nothing has changed when they start out again on their next shift. Every OTR driver MUST fill out a DVIR every day [at the END of the day] saying that his equipment is satisfactory. When he wakes up, he is required ONLY to be "satisfied" that it has not suffered some catastrophic breakdown while he was asleep. But, the regs do NOT stipulate a pretrip inspection! You are reading these regs WRONGLY, and IMHO, with a very narrow perspective based on the "local" area you work in.

GH, I perform reviews on single truck carriers and have done one CR on a carrier with 10,000 vehicles. I check intermodal carriers, passenger carriers, OTR, fuel haulers, flat bed, and every thing in between. Illinois has the fifth largest carrier base in the US. There is nothing limited to my experience.

The regs are not skewed toward local carriers, many OTR carriers fail to have proper maintenance plans and have ridiculously high vehicle OOS rates. What attributes to the OTR carriers’ high vehicle OOS rates? Drivers failing to perform a proper pre-trip and en-route inspections.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. the FMCSA has plenty of people who understand the English language, and they are adept at saying what they MEAN to say! With the exception of the wording BEFORE driving, and "satisfied".... please quote me ONE reg that says they require a driver to do a PRE-TRIP inspection!

It’s the interpretation GH, the interpretation states an inspection must be done for the driver to be satisfied. How many times must the interpretation be posted for GH to see the light?

Question 2: Does §396.11 require that the power unit and the trailer be inspected?

Guidance: Yes. A driver must be satisfied that both the power unit and the trailer are in safe operating condition before operating the combination.

I spent half my career above your paygrade!

GS-12 step 6, so are you telling me a person that cannot spell and makes common punctuation mistakes was a GS-13 or higher? Going from $80,000 a year to $50,000 driving a truck… Good move GH. :(

KC0IV:

In respect to "administrative law." A ruling by an "Administrative Law Judge" is nothing more than an order which can be reviewed by either a higher level within the agency or by a court. As far as "what a reasonable person would believe." Is not defined in the rule of law in Administrative Law. The burden of proof is either "Balance of probabilities (preponderance of the evidence)" or "Clear and convincing evidence." Either level may be used in a civil action depending on the case involved.

KC if the evidence supports the charges then chances are the challenge is tossed:

Collecting evidence:

Once you have identified the issues, the next step is to collect evidence that will help prove your case. Good evidence wins cases. Evidence includes your own testimony and supporting documents and witnesses that will help you prove the facts of your case. You can start collecting evidence by:

Representing Yourself at an Administrative Hearing (http://www.fc.state.tx.us/ALJ/selfrepresent.htm)

Same would apply to any administrative law hearing.

The FMCSA doesn’t write ticket, they prepare cases and mail Notice of Claim (NOC) letters. The case is prepared by an investigator and reviewed by two other staff before the NOC is mailed. The hearings may take years and cost tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands in attorney fees. The evidence must show, a CMV was used, commerce occurred, and the violation occurred. Admin law does not require the beyond a reasonable doubt be proven, just a strong indication the rule applied.


Part 396.3 Inspection, repair and maintenance has NO bearing in the discussion on driver requirements. It is "motor carrier " requirement.

The point was the word MOTOR VEHICLE is regulated by Part 396, not COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES:

§396.1 Scope.

General—Every motor carrier, its officers, drivers, agents, representatives, and employees directly concerned with the inspection or maintenance of motor vehicles shall comply and be conversant with the rules of this part.

Happy? Again, the inspection in Part 392 is separate and apart from Part 396.


[c]Part 396.13 does NOT require a "full pre-trip inspection" as you imply. 396.13 says a driver must be "Be satisfied" before driving a motor vehicle. Sign any report where repairs were made.

The interpretation states an inspection is required for the driver to be satisfied:

Question 2: Does §396.11 require that the power unit and the trailer be inspected?
Guidance: Yes. A driver must be satisfied that both the power unit and the trailer are in safe operating condition before operating the combination.

Damn people can’t you read? This has only been posted about 10 times.


Part 392.7 says "driver is satisfied" does NOT require a "full pre-trip inspection."

Two things KC:

1. Part 392.7 is not a pre-trip inspection. Part 392.7 is under the operation portion of the FMCSR. As demonstrated Part 392 applies to CMVs and Part 396 applies to Motor Vehicles. Part 392.7 states “No CMV shall be driven”; whereas, Part 396.13 states; Before driving a motor vehicle, the driver shall:
(a) Be satisfied that the motor vehicle is in safe operating condition;
(b) Review the last driver vehicle inspection report;
Since Part 396.13 references a point in time (review last DVIR) then it is logical the inspection is a pre-trip inspection.

2. Part 392.7 states someone must inspect the vehicle for the driver to be satisfied:

Question 2: Must both drivers of a team operation comply with the provisions of §392.7 before driving?

Guidance: §392.7 states that a driver must be satisfied that the vehicle is in good working order before operating the vehicle. If a driver is satisfied with a co-driver’s inspection, or a safety lane inspection, then the requirement of this section will have been met.

Therefore, it can be surmised an “INSPECTION” by someone is required. No co-driver, the driver must do it, no safety lane, the driver must do it.

Sheesh KC give me a break, it’s not that hard to comprehend.


[b]Part 396.11 is a "POST" inspection report. NOT a pre-trip inspection.

No, it is a driver vehicle inspection report completed at the end of the day and you cannot fill out the report without inspecting the vehicle. Part 396.11 does not require an inspection at the time the report is completed; therefore, again it is surmised the inspection must have been completed before the driver drove:

§396.11 Driver vehicle inspection report(s).

(a) Report required. Every motor carrier shall require its drivers to report, and every driver shall prepare a report in writing at the completion of each day’s work on each vehicle operated and the report shall cover at least the following parts and accessories:

Please provide a section that requires a post trip inspection. Every section that references a driver inspection states “BEFORE” not “AFTER.”

By the by lets take a quick look at the titles of the regulations in question:

§392.7 Equipment, inspection and use.
§396.13 Driver inspection.

How can people state the regulations don’t require the driver to inspect the vehicle/s? Look at the damn title!!!!!


So your statement "a driver must inspect a vehicle before they can be satisfied it’s safe to operate" is incorrect. How a driver determines a vehicle safe to operate is NOT stated in the regulations. Two examples are given in the interpretation i.e. co-driver’s inspection, or a safety lane inspection. Other examples could be given.

The regulations call the functions INSPECTIONS how else is a driver to be satisfied? The regulations offer interpretations the vehicles must be inspected and if in a team operation either a co-driver inspects the vehicle or a safety lane does the inspection.

The pre-trip in Part 396 is the same pre-trip inspection used to evaluate a driver’s skills for their CDL. The inspection in Part 392 is a quick look over to ensure the vehicle is safe to operate.

As I explained to GH a driver that passes their air brake test may inspect a vehicle’s air brake system per 396.25. If it wasn’t for the exception in Part 396.25 a driver could not perform a pre-trip inspection as they are not qualified brake inspectors!

Double R nailed it pretty accurately; there are too many drivers who are failing to properly inspect their trucks.

Myth_Buster disappointed in the TS attorneys looking for loop holes to perform safety inspections.

I know some here don’t like my post. IMHO it’s because I point out what a driver is doing wrong after 3, 5, 10 years or more. There are approximately 900,000 registered carriers in the US operating millions of vehicles. The chance of a person being inspected is relatively low; however, when things go south all of a sudden things start falling apart. The penalties associated with a log book violation are nothing compared to the penalties associated with injury and death.

Some here are insistent I’m clueless; well welcome to America. Of course you know opinions are like azz holes; every one has one and they stink. :)

Take care and as always.

Be safe.

[Rev.Vassago]

Myth_Buster disappointed in the TS attorneys looking for loop holes to perform safety inspections.


That sums it up in a nutshell. I wonder if those who wish to place all the blame on the deceased would feel the same if it were a small child that the driver ran over.

[Myth_Buster]

GH:

If the PREVIOUS driver did a post trip inspection, and filled out a DVIR on both pieces of equipment, OR the "shop" did one, then the driver can be "satisfied" that all defects were corrected or that there WERE NONE. If he is married to this equipment for a week, he would KNOW.... AND he would have done a POST TRIP (as required) at the end of the previous day (or "shift.")

Really? Please provide a passage where it is mandated a “POST” vehicle inspection is required. The regs state; “NO CMV SHALL BE OPERATED” and “BEFORE”. The point is the driver doesn’t drive the vehicle until they’re satisfied the vehicle is safe to operate (IOW INSPECT.)

The FMCSA, in its infinite wisdom, has managed to grasp a simple concept that you and Mike are missing.... and that is.... that problems occur DURING a shift of driving. Therefore, there is a requirement to check your equipment AFTER you have driven it, and BEFORE you leave it to someone ELSE.... or drive it again.

Hence the en route inspection to ensure the vehicle is safe to operate. The pre-trip inspection is devised to ensure the vehicle is absolutely safe.

The word "satisfied" is a RARE word in the regs, and therefore I believe it has special meaning. It MEANS what it SAYS! No pretrip is "required" but a driver must be "satisfied" that an inspection HAS BEEN DONE on the equipment, either by the shop or by the previous driver/co-driver.

Yeah except for two things:

1. The interpretations specify the vehicle must be inspected.
2. The title of the regulation contains the word INSPECTION

Like I said, we are TAUGHT to do a "pretrip" and it is a VALUABLE practice for all the reasons stated here. But, per the regs, it is NOT required! A POST TRIP is! Had the driver DONE one, (or a walk around) assuming he wasn't just stopping by the office, he would have saved a life. But, per the REGS..... there is NO culpability on the driver OR the carrier in this unfortunate case. (from what we know per the news reports.)

Misconception there GH see 1 and 2 above.

You are wrong (again) and Myth Buster is both wrong AND a butthole for sending the email to the jurisdiction responsible. He confused the issue by quoting NONresponsive and irrelevant regulations, AND he interfered in their investigation. He further gave a biased and negative view of ALL truckers in doing so! I suppose you want to give him another medal for this!

Gee GH a driver runs over a person because they failed to check around their vehicle first and killed someone and you say I shed a negative light on all drivers? Oh well.

Again.... they didn't clearly SAY that a driver must INSPECT the combination before driving it. They said he must be "satisfied" that SOMEONE had inspected them before he drove them! That could be the shop maintenance personnel, or the previous driver, OR himself IF he was the previous driver.


§392.7 Equipment, inspection and use.

No commercial motor vehicle shall be driven unless the driver is satisfied that the following parts and accessories are in good working order, nor shall any driver fail to use or make use of such parts and accessories when and as needed:

§396.13 Driver inspection.

Before driving a motor vehicle, the driver shall:
(a) Be satisfied that the motor vehicle is in safe operating condition;

Naw I don’t see any requirement the driver inspect the vehicle, what the he11 was I thinking of?
And as someone said, he MIGHT have done his nonrequired "pretrip" several minutes BEFORE the (alleged) drunk laid down in front of his truck. This was an unfortunate accident, precipitated by the victim, and "regardless" of the safestat rating for the company, has NO bearing on the professionalism of MOST drivers on the road today.

Yeah I’m convinced, with all of the debate on how no inspection is required why should I not believe every driver does a complete pre-trip and at least bumps their tires when the stop and have a change in duty status?

For YOU and Myth_Buster to lay this at our feet, and insinuate that the majority of truckers today are lazy or incompetent, is the height of ignorance and arrogance! YOU I can excuse.... because you are just ignorant of the regs. But, Myth_Buster should KNOW better, and the fact that he has taken this opportunity to be condescending is reprehensible!

I present the facts, how you perceive them is your choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit102
Just to clarify here, at this place there are NO fences, gates or signs. It is wide open to two major streets at a major intersection. There's even a stop light there!

And DATS runs some raggedy crap!

Thanks for the clarification, but it makes no difference. It was STILL "private property" and doesn't rise to the level of a PVA. Nothing in the news reports would indicate that the "alleged" drunk was an employee, and it would make no difference if he WAS! You don't have a free pass in this society to lay down and go to sleep in front of a CMV..... ANYWHERE!

§390.5 Definitions.

Accident means—

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this definition, an occurrence involving a commercial motor vehicle operating on a highway in interstate or intrastate commerce which results in:

(i) A fatality;
(ii) Bodily injury to a person who, as a result of the injury, immediately receives medical treatment away from the scene of the accident; or
(iii) One or more motor vehicles incurring disabling damage as a result of the accident, requiring the motor vehicle(s) to be transported away from the scene by a tow truck or other motor vehicle.
(2) The term accident does not include:
(i) An occurrence involving only boarding and alighting from a stationary motor vehicle; or
(ii) An occurrence involving only the loading or unloading of cargo.

Highway means any road, street, or way, whether on public or private property, open to public travel. “Open to public travel” means that the road section is available, except during scheduled periods, extreme weather or emergency conditions, passable by four-wheel standard passenger cars, and open to the general public for use without restrictive gates, prohibitive signs, or regulation other than restrictions based on size, weight, or class of registration. Toll plazas of public toll roads are not considered restrictive gates.

Oops, I guess it does go to show the driver was subject to all of the FMCSR.
Be safe.

[mike3fan]

Myth_Buster disappointed in the TS attorneys looking for loop holes to perform safety inspections.

Well I'm disappointed in the fact that you keep referring to yourself in the third person.

[Fredog]

That sums it up in a nutshell. I wonder if those who wish to place all the blame on the deceased would feel the same if it were a small child that the driver ran over.


that's one of the stupidest things you have ever said

[Rev.Vassago]

that's one of the stupidest things you have ever said

I disagree. I've said far stupider things than that.

[kc0iv]

Question 2: Does §396.11 (http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.asp?reg=r49CFR396.11#r49CFR396.11) require that the power unit and the trailer be inspected?
Guidance: Yes. A driver must be satisfied that both the power unit and the trailer are in safe operating condition before operating the combination.




It would appear that the FMCSA doesn't consider the driver "satisfied" that the CMV is in safe operating condition until it is actually inspected. Assuming it is in safe operating condition, and being "satisfied" with just that does not fulfill the requirements.




On a side note, why on earth would anyone not want to perform a vehicle inspection? Not only could it save your life, but it could save you from a huge lawsuit in the event that you were involved in an accident based upon a vehicle defect. Have we become that lazy?

Did you READ the rule you quoted (396.11). Had you read the rule you would have seen rule 396.11 is for POST\B] trip inspection. The discussion in question is about [b]PRE-trip inspection.


You will also notice in one of my previous post where FMCSA gives examples of where the driver does not perform a inspection.

It is not a matter of doing a inspection you and others says it is the law (rule). I and others content it is NOT.


kc0iv

[belpre122]

The apologists come in many forms.

[kc0iv]

M_B said:Question 2: Does §396.11 require that the power unit and the trailer be inspected?

Guidance: Yes. A driver must be satisfied that both the power unit and the trailer are in safe operating condition before operating the combination.
Doesn’t boggle your mind just how ill-informed you really are regarding how the rules apply?

FYI, a person with a CDL who has passed the air brake test can inspect air brake systems, they cannot repair them without the required experience.

M-B said:No, if a driver is satisfied with a co-driver’s or safety lane inspection they have met the standard. No where does it say by viewing the previous day’s DVIR are they relieved of performing an inspection.

No where does it say an inspection has to be made. Rule 392.7 clearly says the driver must be SATISFIED. 396.13 also says the driver must be SATISFIED.

Show us where it SAYS otherwise.

M_B says:Representing Yourself at an Administrative Hearing

Same would apply to any administrative law hearing.

What does a How To Represent Yourself At An Administrative Hearing Before The Finance Commission Agencies for the state of Texas have to do with this discussion?

Rules differ from state to state as well as the FEDS. To apply the same rule could cause you to loss the case.


M_B said:The point was the word MOTOR VEHICLE is regulated by Part 396, not COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES:

Hell a motor scooter is a MOTOR VEHICLE but it sure isn't a COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE and sure doesn't fall under the rules we are discussing.

M_B said: The interpretation states an inspection is required for the driver to be satisfied:

The Interpretation does not say anything about inspection.

What is does say and I quote "However, a driver may sign the certification of repairs as an agent of the motor carrier if he/she is satisfied that the repairs have been performed." Once again you read in more than is written.

M_B said:Therefore, it can be surmised an “INSPECTION” by someone is required. No co-driver, the driver must do it, no safety lane, the driver must do it.

Sheesh KC give me a break, it’s not that hard to comprehend.

One more time M_B it is you that seen to not understand between the two phrases.

M_B said:How can people state the regulations don’t require the driver to inspect the vehicle/s? Look at the damn title!!!!!

I ask how can someone not see the difference between part 396.11 and 396.13?

In the Interpretation on 396.11 it address inspection. So it is clearly talking about an inspection and it's report(s). 396.13 makes no claim that an inspection is required only that the driver be satisfied. With the exception of when repairs were made.


M_B said:Myth_Buster disappointed in the TS attorneys looking for loop holes to perform safety inspections.

I know some here don’t like my post. IMHO it’s because I point out what a driver is doing wrong after 3, 5, 10 years or more. There are approximately 900,000 registered carriers in the US operating millions of vehicles. The chance of a person being inspected is relatively low; however, when things go south all of a sudden things start falling apart. The penalties associated with a log book violation are nothing compared to the penalties associated with injury and death.

Some here are insistent I’m clueless; well welcome to America. Of course you know opinions are like azz holes; every one has one and they stink.

I don't know about others but to me M_B biggest problem is an attitude where a he/she thinks they are the only ones that can read and understand the rules. His/her complete lack of respect for drivers. A typical government attitude.

In some cases you do appear to be clueless. You have present your case and I for one see it lacking.

With that I see no reason to continue this discussion.

kc0iv

[Fredog]

I disagree. I've said far stupider things than that.
I said one of the stupidest, not THE stupidest

[golfhobo]

I have found it! I've found the source of the disconnect between the viewpoints of Rev/MythBuster and me! Actually, I alluded to it in an earlier post, but now it is much more clear!

Hopefully, I will find time to post it tonight before going back to work for the week. I don't know.... I tire of these constant struggles, and MythBuster talks more than "I" do! After awhile, my mind just goes numb! I see the mountain.... but, I just don't have the energy to CLIMB it! :rofl:

[Rev.Vassago]

I said one of the stupidest, not THE stupidest

I wouldn't even put it in the top 20.

[cdswans]

I disagree. I've said far stupider things than that.

Take that to the bank.

(1, 2, 3, 4, 5 . . 5 words . . it's a good post.)

[cdswans]

My intentions were to ensure the police department was aware of the regs. Turns out they called the Sate Police who are still investigating . .


From: Little Piggies, The Beatles, George Harrison

In their sties with all their backing
They don't care what goes on around
In their eyes there's something lacking
What they need's a damn good whacking!

Some livestock killed, two truckers injured in I-80 crash (with video) - poconorecord.com - The Pocono Record (http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090202/NEWS/90202006/-1/NEWS)

[Myth_Buster]

It’s like arguing with a fence post, people cannot see the forest for the trees: :(

§392.7 Equipment, inspection and use.

No commercial motor vehicle shall be driven unless the driver is satisfied that the following parts and accessories are in good working order, nor shall any driver fail to use or make use of such parts and accessories when and as needed:

Service brakes, including trailer brake connections.
Parking (hand) brake.
Steering mechanism.
Lighting devices and reflectors.
Tires.
Horn.
Windshield wiper or wipers.
Rear-vision mirror or mirrors.
Coupling devices.

Question 2: Must both drivers of a team operation comply with the provisions of §392.7 before driving?

Guidance: §392.7 states that a driver must be satisfied that the vehicle is in good working order before operating the vehicle. If a driver is satisfied with a co-driver’s inspection, or a safety lane inspection, then the requirement of this section will have been met.

No you’re correct KC0div, there is no mention of the word inspection in the interpretation or the regulation. ;) The interpretation doesn’t specify that if a co-driver or safety lane made the inspection made the inspection the driver could be satisfied. I guess it’s too much of a leap to summarize that if there is no co-driver or safety lane then the driver must do an inspection. Oh and look the title of the regulation doesn't state EQUIPMENT INSPECTION so how could one possibly believe the regulation requires an INSPECTION?

M_B said:
Quote:
The interpretation states an inspection is required for the driver to be satisfied:

The Interpretation does not say anything about inspection.

What is does say and I quote "However, a driver may sign the certification of repairs as an agent of the motor carrier if he/she is satisfied that the repairs have been performed." Once again you read in more than is written.

KC, there are two separate paragraphs to Part 396.13. The fist one requires an inspection; after all, how else could a driver know whether the repairs were completed?

§396.13 Driver inspection.

Before driving a motor vehicle, the driver shall:

(a) Be satisfied that the motor vehicle is in safe operating condition;

(b) Review the last driver vehicle inspection report; and

(c) Sign the report, only if defects or deficiencies were noted by the driver who prepared the report, to acknowledge that the driver has reviewed it and that there is a certification that the required repairs have been performed. The signature requirement does not apply to listed defects on a towed unit which is no longer part of the vehicle combination.

§396.11 Driver vehicle inspection report(s).

(a) Report required. Every motor carrier shall require its drivers to report, and every driver shall prepare a report in writing at the completion of each day’s work on each vehicle operated and the report shall cover at least the following parts and accessories:

—Service brakes including trailer brake connections
—Parking (hand) brake
—Steering mechanism
—Lighting devices and reflectors
—Tires
—Horn
—Windshield wipers
—Rear vision mirrors
—Coupling devices
—Wheels and rims
—Emergency equipment

(b) Report content. The report shall identify the vehicle and list any defect or deficiency discovered by or reported to the driver which would affect the safety of operation of the vehicle or result in its mechanical breakdown. If no defect or deficiency is discovered by or reported to the driver, the report shall so indicate. In all instances, the driver shall sign the report. On two-driver operations, only one driver needs to sign the driver vehicle inspection report, provided both drivers agree as to the defects or deficiencies identified. If a driver operates more than one vehicle during the day, a report shall be prepared for each vehicle operated.

(c) Corrective action. Prior to requiring or permitting a driver to operate a vehicle, every motor carrier or its agent shall repair any defect or deficiency listed on the driver vehicle inspection report which would be likely to affect the safety of operation of the vehicle.

(c)(1) Every motor carrier or its agent shall certify on the original driver vehicle inspection report which lists any defect or deficiency that the defect or deficiency has been repaired or that repair is unnecessary before the vehicle is operated again.

(c) (2) Every motor carrier shall maintain the original driver vehicle inspection report, the certification of repairs, and the certification of the driver’s review for three months from the date the written report was prepared.

Question 2: Does §396.11 require that the power unit and the trailer be inspected?

Guidance: Yes. A driver must be satisfied that both the power unit and the trailer are in safe operating condition before operating the combination.

There is no post trip inspection, just a post trip inspection report; therefore, the INSPECTION referenced in Part 396.11 is the pre-trip inspection.

You do see the words INSPECTION in the interpretations for Part 392 and 396 don’t you KC?

Do you notice how wheels and rims and safety equipment are not listed on the items a driver must check in Part 392?

Kc0iv:

M_B said:
Quote:
The point was the word MOTOR VEHICLE is regulated by Part 396, not COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES:

Hell a motor scooter is a MOTOR VEHICLE but it sure isn't a COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE and sure doesn't fall under the rules we are discussing.

Don’t have a clue do you? You’re not reading the applicability to Part 392 which covers CMVs and Part 396 which covers “MOTOR VEHICLES”. Part 390.5 has a definition for CMV and MOTOR VEHICLE. The point of the discussion is since Part 392 and 396 have separate types of vehicles they apply to then obviously the two inspections are treated separately.

Besides, if a scoter was used to transport freight then yes it would be subject to Part 396. Do you know that Table 1 HM materials require placarding for any quantity transported and mandate a CDL with HM endorsement regardless of the size of the vehicle transporting Table 1 materials? If a delivery messenger was transport Division 1.1 explosives on the scoter the driver would require a Class C CDL, D & A testing, a periodic inspection, a DOT medical card, placards, shipping papers, and log book to name a few.

But as I’ve mentioned, you don’t have a clue.

I don’t know about others but I’m distressed that some people cannot accept change and recognize the fact they may be mistaken about what the tooth fairy told them about the regs.

In another forum a driver stated he didn't believe the regs required a complete inspection every time the vehicle stopped. That is not the intent of the post. Part 396.13 requires a complete pre-trip inspection the same as the CDL pre-inspection test. Part 392.7 requires a quick walk around to ensure the vehicle hasn't fallen apart, a tire went flat, lights malfunctioned, etc. Drivers appear too caught up in the innuendo that an inspection is not required at all.

IMHO the post makes many drivers uncomfortable as they know they are probably more inclined to not perform a pre-trip and if they spot something by accident take care of it. The statement can be confirmed at any TS in America as drivers start their day and go about their business. Chances are less than 10% of drivers complete a pre-trip inspection required by the CDL and about as many bump their tires more than once a day.

So I understand the fear this post strikes in the hearts of drivers; after all, no one to believe they could be charged with manslaughter for failing to check around their vehicle.

I’ve asked at least twice and no one has answered yet, what if this had been another driver that was down due to a heart attack, slipped and fell, had a seizure, or fell of their truck while working a load or placing items on the catwalk. What would be the excuse then for running over some one as the vehicle started to move?

I wish you all the best of luck, as this is my last post on this subject.

Be safe.

[cdswans]

It’s like arguing with a fence post, people cannot see the forest for the trees . .

Horribly mixed metaphor.

[allan5oh]

Allan5oh:

Because in-accordance with Part 392.7 in order to be satisfied the driver must inspect the vehicle. Part 396.13 is the full pre-trip as taught by the CDL test. Part 392.7 is a quick walk around to ensure things didn’t fall apart:

Nice dancing around what I said. After a mile, I would still be satisfied.


Tires go flat, cargo settles, a million things can happen in one hour. I can remember a common complaint back about 1998 was; “Someone stole my hub oiler cap.” Well now it’s fuel.

Part 392 falls under the “OPERATION” of a CMV; which is different than the “MAINTENANCE” portion of the FMCSR. Two separate inspections. One’s a walk around, the other is taught as part of the CDL tests.

I understand the second part. The first part is a grey area at best. If I have reason to believe my previous inspection is still valid and satisfactory, another one isn't required. Of course I'm talking about time, not distance.

Really, you think so? If a yard dog crashes in to another truck and the brakes were non-operational what is the injury law suit going to settle for? Can you say MILLIONS? What of workman’s comp? OSHA rules? And yes Virginia the DOT rules:

Not what we're talking about here. Again you seem to think that if someone is being criminally negligent, they're breaking the FMCSR's. They're two completely different set of laws.

I posted it earlier and the Rev posted it again but apparently you missed it:

Apparently you missed the entire last sentence:

“Open to public travel” means that the road section is available, except during scheduled periods, extreme weather or emergency conditions, passable by four-wheel standard passenger cars, and open to the general public for use without restrictive gates, prohibitive signs, or regulation other than restrictions based on size, weight, or class of registration.

So in other words, if a vehicle(such as a yard dog) is not used on a highway(most yards are NOT highways because they are closed to public travel) it is NOT considered a CMV and most regulations do not apply to it. Think about it for a second, if they did, most yard dogs would be illegal brand new since they do not have most of the required equipment stated in the regs.

Perhaps in a criminal court; however, in administrative law I only have to prove what a reasonable person would believe. I don’t believe it would be that hard to convince a reasonable person to believe a driver should do a walk around inspection before they move the vehicle.

I agree, but interpretation of the law is important. You said "before", how long before? Immediately before? That is not stated in the regs. Maybe it should be.

Since 10/08/2008 DATS Trucking has had two vehicles placed OOS for tire issues, one for turn signals, and one for cracked wheels:

12/14/2008: 393.45(A)(4) BRAKE HOSE/TUBING CHAFFING AND/OR KINKING

12/03/2008: 393.75(F) Tire-load weight rating/under inflated
172.200(A) No shipping paper provided by offeror

11/13/2008: 393.45(A)(4) BRAKE HOSE/TUBING CHAFFING AND/OR KINKING

11/12/2008: 393.19 No/defective turn/hazard lamp as required

10/15/2008: 393.75(A) Flat tire or fabric exposed

10/08/2008: 393.205(A) Wheel/rim cracked or broken

If drivers had performed the necessary inspections as required how many of the OOS could have been avoided? Probably several.

I agree completely, most of these problems have been there for at least a few weeks, if not longer. There is no way I can inspect a vehicle, and 5 minutes later before operation all these "problems" occur. This is "case closed" to me. I agree with you.

Once you log line 1, 2, or 4 you’re no longer driving; therefore, before you drive again you must follow Part 392.7.

My point is the regs do not state when this inspection is required. Only that is required "before".

Your mistaken, the post trip inspection would not detect a slow leaking tire that goes flat, missing components removed during the break, or freight that settled. Besides, chances are following an eight hour break Part 396.13 would kick in requiring a full pre-trip inspection.

I'll give you a specific example:

I park my truck in the shop. Before parking it, I fully inspect it. I understand there are things as slow tire leaks. But with a tire pressure monitoring system I would not need to inspect the tire visually when I came back, if it was inspected before I left.

Now in this shop, nobody else has access. Therefore I can assume nothing will go missing, and nobody drove the vehicle.

Would the inspection "before" be valid, if it was a few hours before, a day before, a week before?

Let's go item by item here:

Service brakes, including trailer brake connections.

Parking (hand) brake.

Steering mechanism.

Inspected before parking vehicle. No reason to believe any of this would suddenly change.

Lighting devices and reflectors.

Inspected before parking. Inspected again in cab with lights of shop off. I can see they're all working fine.

Tires.

Inspected visually before parking. No reason to believe they would be damaged in the mean time since no one has access. Pressure inspected from cab when I come back.

Horn.

Windshield wiper or wipers.

Rear-vision mirror or mirrors.

All inspected from the cab.

Coupling devices.

No trailer. However it was inspected before I parked it. No reason to believe it has changed.

Would this satisfy 392.7? Again full walk around was done before I parked it. Everything else was "inspected" from inside the cab to ensure no tire air leaks, etc...

I think it would.

Myth_Buster, placed too many vehicles OOS finding simple defects the driver should have been aware of.

And to that I can honestly say "thank you". If you ever inspected my vehicle(I've had a few on the road) and you found something, I'd shake your hand and give you thanks.

Are there more than one carrier sharing the facility? Do employees of multiple companies have cars that drive in and out of the facility?

Would that be considered "open to the public" when only employees can drive around?

Part 392 applies to CMVs, Part 396 applies to MOTOR VEHICLES.

Yet the definition of motor vehicles which includes the word "highway" or "highways". When you look at the definition of highway, a yard that is not open to public is not considered a highway. Therefore any yard dog that is NOT used on a highway, is not considered a CMV or a motor vehicle.


Doesn’t a military compound have gates? Doesn’t a military compound have warning signs?

The guidance specifically says "CMV". A yard dog is not a CMV, therefore it does not apply. If anything the guidance strengthens what I'm saying.

[golfhobo]

Serious question: What, exactly, is a "safety lane inspection?" I suppose I could have googled it, but I'd like to get a SIMPLE answer.

[mike3fan]

Serious question: What, exactly, is a "safety lane inspection?" I suppose I could have googled it, but I'd like to get a SIMPLE answer.

Some companies require you do go through the shop or a inspection lane upon leaving or entering a terminal to have your equipment inspected before continuing. If you are satisfied that they are doing their job sufficently then I guess you can trust them(I wouldn't) for the pti.

[golfhobo]

Thanks for the info, Mike3fan. So, the SHOP is responsible, or at least "acceptable" for an inspection that the driver can be "satisfied" with PER THE REGS.

That pretty much clears it up for me. The regs CLEARLY state that, if the driver is "satisfied" with a codriver's inspection, OR a "safetly lane" inspection, and he has reviewed the previous DVIR and signed it ONLY if necessary, then he can be "satisfied" that the combination is safe to drive.

I am NOT against doing a PRE TRIP inspection. I am against someone misinterpreting the regs to tell me that it is REQUIRED.

If I was slipseating a truck on a daily basis, you DANG well should believe that I would pretrip it! But, when on the road for a week at a time, with a codriver or myself doing the REQUIRED post trip inspection and report that all was working fine 15 minutes ago, I will not be "convinced" that the regs require a pretrip from me. And I believe that was the question posed on this thread.

Yes, even if it is my assigned equipment, if I am away from it for a day or so, I WILL pretrip it before I leave out. But, the regs clearly state that I am not REQUIRED to do so if I am "satisfied" with the fact that the combination is in working conditon (as it was when we pulled onto the fuel island to fuel and SWITCH.)

Again I remind SOME here, that we are not ALL "solo" drivers who park for 10 hours overnight in a truckstop. And we are not ALL "local" drivers who may get a different combination each day.

But, even if we WERE..... the regs clearly state that the equipment must have been either POST trip inspected, or SHOP inspected, for us to be "satisfied." It's a simple distinction in phraseology. They don't USE the word "inspected" when referring to the driver about to operate the equipment. They say the equipment must have been INSPECTED before the driver is "satisfied" that it is safe to drive.

That "inspection" (per the regs) could have been done by the codriver, the driver during his previous day's POST TRIP, OR by the shop. And, here is my proof:

§396.11 Driver vehicle inspection report(s).
(a) Report required. Every motor carrier shall require its drivers to report, and every driver shall prepare a report in writing at the completion of each day’s work on each vehicle operated and the report shall cover at least the following parts and accessories...

(b) Report content. The report shall identify the vehicle and list any defect or deficiency discovered by or reported to the driver which would affect the safety of operation of the vehicle or result in its mechanical breakdown.

c) Corrective action. Prior to requiring or permitting a driver to operate a vehicle, every motor carrier or its agent shall repair any defect or deficiency listed on the driver vehicle inspection report which would be likely to affect the safety of operation of the vehicle.

(c)(1) Every motor carrier or its agent shall certify on the original driver vehicle inspection report which lists any defect or deficiency that the defect or deficiency has been repaired or that repair is unnecessary before the vehicle is operated again.

Now, HERE is the "interpretation" that Myth_Buster and I seem to read differently. I will first quote it with RED LETTERS to show the emphasis that HE is comprehending, and then.... I will post it again showing the way I read the emphasis.


Question 2: Does §396.11 (http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.asp?reg=r49CFR396.11#r49CFR396.11) require that the power unit and the trailer be inspected?

Guidance: Yes. A driver must be satisfied that both the power unit and the trailer are in safe operating condition before operating the combination.


And that is where HE stops reading and comprehending.

Here is how I read it:


Question 2: Does §396.11 (http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.asp?reg=r49CFR396.11#r49CFR396.11) require that the power unit and the trailer be inspected?

Guidance: Yes. A driver must be satisfied that both the power unit and the trailer are in safe operating condition before operating the combination.


I see question 2 as asking about the TRAILER, and the CONTEXT of the next few questions/interpretations backs me up. I am NOT saying the equipment doesn't have to be inspected before going on the road again. I am saying it is the responsibility of the previous driver/shop and the current driver must only be "satisfied" as is the wording of the regs.


Question 3: May more than one power unit be included on the DVIR if two or more power units were used by a driver during one day’s work?

Guidance: No. A separate DVIR must be prepared for each power unit operated during the day’s work.


Again, the emphasis is on the UNITS that must be "inspected," just as it was on the trailer that may have been "hooked."


Question 6: Does §396.11(c) (http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.asp?reg=r49CFR396.11-c#r49CFR396.11-c) require a motor carrier to effect repairs of all items listed on a DVIR prepared by a driver before the vehicle is subsequently driven?

Guidance: The motor carrier must effect repairs of defective or missing parts and accessories listed in Appendix G to the FMCSRs before allowing the vehicle to be driven.


And the next 2 "questions" seal my case:


Question 13: Must a DVIR carried on a power unit during operation cover both the power unit and trailer being operated at the time?

Guidance: No. The DVIR must cover the power unit being operated at the time. The trailer identified on the report may represent one pulled on the preceding trip.


So much for the requirement to "pretrip" a trailer!


Question 14: In instances where the DVIR has not been prepared or cannot be located, is it permissible under §396.11 (http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.asp?reg=r49CFR396.11#r49CFR396.11) for a driver to prepare a DVIR based on a pretrip inspection and a short drive of a motor vehicle?

Guidance: Yes. §396.11 (http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.asp?reg=r49CFR396.11#r49CFR396.11) of the FMCSRs places the responsibility on the motor carrier to require its drivers to prepare and submit the DVIR. If, in unusual circumstances, the DVIR has not been prepared or cannot be located the motor carriermay cause a road test and inspection to be performed for safety of operation and the DVIR to be prepared.


Now... WHY would the regs make special circumstances for a PRETRIP and ROADTEST to be performed in order to satisfy the regulation for a post-trip inspection and a DVIR..... If a PRETRIP was required or NECESSARY for a driver to be "satisfied" with the equipment/combination he is hauling?

Notice, PLEASE.... that a pretrip inspection is not good enough in such a situation. A short ROAD TEST is "required." That is obviously because SOME deficiencies are noticed ONLY by driving the vehicle "all day."

I believe that if one considers ALL the questions relevant to the interpretation of this reg, takes them in CONTEXT, and pays specific attention to the wording and rationale.... one will get the "SPIRIT" of this reg!

And, as a "coup de grace" (that's a final death blow for those of you who don't speak French,) while researching for this argument, I noticed that REG 396 is the ONLY one of the few being discussed here, that does NOT appear under the "DRIVER" section of the FMCSA website.

COULD be just another government mistake and FAILING of some GS-13 who is "tasked" with the job, but.... then again.... it could be intentional and "relative" to the discussion. Either way.... it didn't escape MY "inspection."

I suppose you all will make your OWN decision, and M/B and the REV will be along soon to quote some irrelevant "safestat" to attempt to prove me wrong. I really don't care. I believe I've proven my case concerning the regs.

For the record, I believe EVERY driver should do a full PRE-TRIP before starting out on a day's driving. But, NOT because it is required by the regs, or SOME poster's misunderstanding of them.

Hobo