Accident during a restart [Archive] - Truck Driving Message Board

View Full Version : Accident during a restart

VitoCorleone99

06-19-2009, 05:39 AM

Background: A few months ago, I was on the throne at a lovely Pilot truck stop when I came out to discover that my truck had been hit. I called my company's safety department and gave them the information (or lack thereof) concerning the situation. The lady instructed me to make sure that I had noted the accident on my log book. Okay, no worries there.

This evening, I was enjoying a relaxing round of golf on the Black course at Bethpage (http://usga.usopen.com/2009/virtualopen/). I was just about to sink a par putt when my truck rocked sideways. Hit again. Son of a...

The other fella drove off but I made a quick call to the fuzz and then actually ran him down on foot a few minutes later. Good thing there's another truck stop across the street. (He thought he had hit the curb, apparently.) Now I have a police report with the date and time of the incident. Ipso facto, my employer will have a record of the date and time of the incident once I send in the paperwork.

If I'm in the midst of a restart and I am supposed to log accidents, what becomes of my uninterrupted 34 hours? Screwed or no?

golfhobo

06-19-2009, 06:28 AM

The Rev will probably disagree, but I say NO. Filing a police report, calling your company to report an accident, or DEALING with some scmuck who hit your rig does NOT fit the definition of "repeatedly" answering communications from your company that the regs say WOULD inhibit rest... NOR does it amount to "operating a CMV."

Moreover.... that reg basically appliies to "repeated" interruptions (for WORK) on your 10 hour break. It says NOTHING about a 34 hour restart.

The PURPOSE of the 34 hour restart is to give you the opportunity to get TWO full 10 hour periods of sleep/rest... AND another (14 hour) "day off."

Did your escapade(s) INHIBIT that "spirit" of the reg? I doubt it.

There is NOTHING in the regs that says that a short period of time dealing with law enforcement AUTOMATICALLY puts you "on duty not driving." It is NOT A SAFETY SENSITIVE FUNCTION.

I suspect your company safety director is just covering their bases. You could "flag it" under the Rev's "magical 15 minute" provision that covers you everytime you pass through the passenger compartment of your cab! :lol2:

Now, if you had to drive the truck to a service company for repairs, it might be a different story. But, unless your company WANTS you to go back to operating under the 70 rule, any such repairs should NOT be performed until AFTER your 34 hr restart.... when you once again go back on duty.

Myth_Buster

06-20-2009, 01:06 AM

Lost 34 hour reset:

§395.2 Definitions.

As used in this part, the following words and terms are construed to mean:

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:

(8) Performing any other work in the capacity, employ, or service of, a motor carrier;

§395.3 Maximum driving time for property-carrying vehicles.

(c)(1) Any period of 7 consecutive days may end with the beginning of any off-duty period of 34 or more consecutive hours; or

(c)(2) Any period of 8 consecutive days may end with the beginning of any off-duty period of 34 or more consecutive hours.

Be safe.

Rev.Vassago

06-20-2009, 01:30 AM

The Rev will probably disagree,

Do me a favor, and don't answer questions for me. Thanks.

golfhobo

06-20-2009, 06:18 AM

Do me a favor, and don't answer questions for me. Thanks.

Saying that YOU might disagree with ME is NOT "answering a question for you." You have a RECORD of disagreeing with almost anything I say.

I answered the question for ME. YOU are always free to agree with me whenever you like.... and SAYING that you MIGHT disagree with me is NOT against the TOS.

Have a nice day.

golfhobo

06-20-2009, 06:25 AM

Lost 34 hour reset:

Quote:
§395.2 Definitions.

As used in this part, the following words and terms are construed to mean:

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:

(8) Performing any other work in the capacity, employ, or service of, a motor carrier;

Be safe.

You (and another) are like a broken record!

So... the guidance that CLEARLY states that answering a qualcom is NOT considered "work" unless it is REPEATEDLY and interrupts your rest means nothing?

Is it, or is it NOT, considered "doing work in the employ of a carrier? The FMCSR's clearly state that a NON REPEATING interruption that does NOT inhibit your ability to get the required rest, does NOT invalidate even a 10 hour break.... let alone a 34 hour restart.

Get a clue! :eek2::roll3:

Myth_Buster

06-21-2009, 01:32 AM

You (and another) are like a broken record!

So... the guidance that CLEARLY states that answering a qualcom is NOT considered "work" unless it is REPEATEDLY and interrupts your rest means nothing?

No GH, the interp indicates momentary interuptions of a driver's break will not cause the reset to be interpruted; however, if the interuption is a pattern it will interupt the break. When the driver is hit, calls the police, files an inital report, waits for said driver that hit him to be returned, and obtains a copy of the report there is a pattern of interuptions that affect the break.

§395.2 Definitions.

Question 5: Do telephone calls to or from the motor carrier that momentarily interrupt a driver’s rest period constitute a change of the driver’s duty status?

Guidance: Telephone calls of this type do not prevent the driver from obtaining adequate rest. Therefore, the FHWA does not consider these brief telephone calls to be a break in the driver’s off duty status.

*Question 30: If a driver is required repeatedly to respond to satellite or similar communications received during his or her sleeper berth period, does this activity affect a driver’s duty status?

Guidance: Yes. The driver cannot be required to do any work for the motor carrier during sleeper berth time. A driver who is required to access a communications system for the purpose of read-ing messages from the carrier, responding to certain messages (either verbally or by typing a message), or otherwise acknowledging them, is performing work. For the purpose of this guidance, “repeatedly” means a pattern or series of interruptions that prevent a driver from obtaining restorative sleep during the sleeper berth period.

*Question 31: If a driver is required repeatedly to respond to satellite or similar communications received during a 10-hour (8-hour for passenger transportation) off-duty period, does this activity affect a driver’s duty status?

Guidance: Yes. The driver cannot be required to do any work for the motor carrier during the 10-hour or the 8-hour off-duty period. A driver who is required to access a communications system for the purpose of reading messages from the carrier, responding to certain messages (either verbally or by typing a message), or otherwise acknowledging them, is performing work. For the purpose of this guidance, “repeatedly” means a pattern or series of interruptions that prevent a driver from obtaining restorative sleep during the off-duty period.

Is it, or is it NOT, considered "doing work in the employ of a carrier? The FMCSR's clearly state that a NON REPEATING interruption that does NOT inhibit your ability to get the required rest, does NOT invalidate even a 10 hour break.... let alone a 34 hour restart.

Get a clue! :eek2::roll3:

Wrong again, obviously you missed the defintion of On-Duty Time provided the first time:

§395.2 Definitions.

As used in this part, the following words and terms are construed to mean:

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:

(8) Performing any other work in the capacity, employ, or service of, a motor carrier;

Since accident reports are required by the FMCSR it is a service for the motor carrier:

§390.15 Assistance in investigations and special studies.

(a) A motor carrier must make all records and information pertaining to an accident available to an authorized representative or special agent of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, an authorized State or local enforcement agency representative or authorized third party representative, upon request or as part of any investigation within such time as the request or investigation may specify. A motor carrier shall give an authorized representative all reasonable assistance in the investigation of any accident including providing a full, true and correct response to any question of the inquiry.

(b) For accidents that occur after April 29, 2003, motor carriers must maintain an accident register for three years after the date of each accident. For accidents that occurred on or prior to April 29, 2003, motor carriers must maintain an accident register for a period of one year after the date of each accident. Information placed in the accident register must contain at least the following:

(b)(1) A list of accidents as defined at §390.5 of this chapter containing for each accident:

(b)(1)(i) Date of accident.

(b)(1)(ii) City or town, or most near, where the accident occurred and the State where the accident occurred.

(b)(1)(iii) Driver Name.

(b)(1)(iv) Number of injuries.

(b)(1)(v) Number of fatalities.

(b)(1)(vi) Whether hazardous materials, other than fuel spilled from the fuel tanks of motor vehicle involved in the accident, were released.

(b)(2) Copies of all accident reports required by State or other governmental entities or insurers.

It is on-duty time whether you agree or not.

In regard to the 34 hour reset, it is desinged to give a driver a chance to unwind and relax free of all responsibility to lower stress levels. The 34 hour reset allows the driver a chance to relax and rest to relieve the fatigue associated with working.

SUMMARY: The FMCSA revises its hours-of-service (HOS) regulations to
require motor carriers of property to provide drivers with better
opportunities to obtain sleep, and thereby reduce the incidence of
crashes attributed in whole or in part to drivers operating commercial
motor vehicles (CMVs) while drowsy, tired, or fatigued. This action is
necessary because the FMCSA estimates that between 196 and 585
fatalities occur each year on the Nation's roads because of drowsy,
tired, or fatigued CMV drivers transporting property. The FMCSA
estimates that this final rule when adhered to fully will save between
24 and 75 lives each year as a result of giving truck drivers an
increased incremental amount of time to obtain rest and sleep.

DATES: The effective date is June 27, 2003, except for Sec. 395.0
which is effective from June 27, 2003, through June 30, 2004.

The FMCSA has adopted the third alternative for this final rule.
The rule represents a substantial improvement in addressing driver
fatigue over the current regulation. Among other things, it increases
required time off duty from 8 to 10 consecutive hours; prohibits
driving after the end of the 14th hour after the driver began work;
allows an increase in driving time from 10 to 11 hours; and allows
drivers to restart the 60- or 70-hour clock after taking 34 hours off
duty. Together, these provisions (and others discussed in detail below)
are expected to reduce the effect of cumulative fatigue and prevent
many of the accidents and fatalities to which fatigue is a contributing
factor. Because the agency's statutory priority is safety, we have
adopted a rule that is marginally more expensive than the ATA option
but which will reduce fatigue-related accidents and fatalities more
substantially than that option. The FMCSA believes that the rule
represents the best combination of safety improvements and cost
containment that can realistically be achieved.

http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISdocID=543146382383+1+1+0&WAISaction=retrieve

I feel well versed in the spirit of the regulations.

Be safe.

cdswans

06-21-2009, 05:41 AM

The regs are pretty clear on this. I may not have the actual paragraph and verse right, they're not here in front of me but they're easy enough to find.

I'm paraphrasing but here it goes . .

IM4692.1 . . "If, upon the completion of any 34 hour period or nearly a 34 hour period for the purposes of attempting a restart, any Driver subject to these rules who receives a preplan of 1500 or more miles, including minimal layover and said plan includes several opportunities for extra pay, the Driver shall be deemed to have completed the restart and is eligible to accept said plan and to make log entries convenient to said plan regardless of how many hours actually qualify as off duty for the purposes of a restart or irrespective of how the hours were actually spent."

IM4692.2 . . "In the event of any attempt to actually perform a legal 34 hour restart and the restart is interrupted in any way, shape, manner or form and any Driver subject to these rules receives a preplan of less than 350 miles, is asked to "help" with a hot local load or is asked to otherwise "help out" in any way and said help would cause a sleep deprived Driver to operate a CMV in a dangerous and/or personally unprofitable manner, said Driver is required to imply that any events that could logically or marginally be construed as interfering with a restart are being logged legally, to invoke the spirit of the restart rule, to refuse said offer(s), threaten contact with the company Safety Officer and maintain the requisite degree of readiness to achieve the objectives stated in part .1, above."

golfhobo

06-21-2009, 05:47 AM

:lol2::lol2::lol2::lol2::lol2::lol2::lol2::lol2:

mike3fan

06-21-2009, 08:32 AM

IMO yes it must be recorded as on duty. Does it suck? yep.

golfhobo

06-22-2009, 01:38 AM

IMO yes it must be recorded as on duty. Does it suck? yep.

So... let's say you are parked in a T/S for a 34hr restart, and are 2 hours short of completion. Some overzealous DOT officer rousts you out of your sleeper because someone said you were on the CB offering to sell drugs. You talk to the officer, he comes BACK later for more info and checks your logs. Is THIS "performing work" for your employer?

You gonna SIT there another day and a half because of it?

I repeat my concern that there is almost NO MENTION of "interaction with DOT officers" in the regs. Please SHOW me a reg that CLEARLY states that "any" interaction with DOT or other authorities is considered ON DUTY and would bust your reset.

Do they have the "authority" to interact with/ question you at any time? SURE they do. DO "ANY" regs (other than OOS regs) even MENTION them as part of your daily life? I don't THINK so.

The 34 hour restart is designed to give you TWO full nights of REST.... AND the equivalent of a 14 hour window (day's work) OFF. The whole purpose fo the HOS regs is to insure you have a CHANCE to get rested. That's REALLY all they care about.

The FMCSA cannot consider EVERY possibility wherein you might be "encountered" by an LEO while OFF DUTY. But (as far as I know) they have NO REGULATION that addresses even the REMOTE possibility that it could happen during a restart. They address what the CARRIER can or cannot do, to avoid the circumstance of a CARRIER forcing you to work when the regs say you are OFF DUTY.

But someone... PLEASE.... show me ONE reg that specifically addresses how interaction with an LEO affects your off duty time. :hellno:

IF they don't HAVE such a reg.... I submit, they don't consider interaction with an LEO (unless you are ON DUTY) as being something they CAN... or CARE... to "regulate."

If you read the "final ruling" on the latest (and previous) HOS, you will see that several companies contested certain provisions due to an IMPACT on their ability to maximize profits through interstate commerce. In EVERY case, the FMCSA, in its response, addressed those concerns and found ONLY that the ability for a carrier to make money should NOT outweigh their concern for public safety.... related to the EXTRA hour of driving, OR their requirements for mandatory rest periods.

My point is that the FMCSA is "sensitive" to the need for carriers to make money... AND for the drivers to do the same. They have stated over and over that their rulings give the OPPORTUNITY for a driver to get the required rest, and they REGULATE the actions of the carriers that would affect this. They never ONCE mention an "interruption" by an LEO for questioning while the driver is OFF DUTY. One must wonder WHY?

The FMCSA does not have the power or authority to "regulate" what the Department of Public Safety, or the DOT, or any OTHER LEO agency might deem necessary in THEIR goal. But, likewise.... they make NO MENTION in the "regs" about how such interaction would affect your HOS.

EVEN the much touted ON DUTY reg makes NO MENTION of on duty time being inclusive of interactions between a Driver and an LEO.... unless, of course, you buy into this idea of it being "performing WORK in the employ of." I DON'T!

Consider the possibility that a company like Werner, who might have designs on a particular freight lane and wants to sabatoge the competition. A few well placed dollars and hunting trips could encourage a LOCAL LEO agency to "investigate/question" all competing drivers J-U-S-T before they complete their 34 hour restart. BINGO! Werner has the trucks available to haul the limited freight out of that area! :eek2:

You see my point? The driver has met EVERY aspect of the regulations.... having had TWO consecutive nights sleep AND a day off, but he has to start his 34 hour restart all over again because of an "interaction" with an LEO?? I don't THINK so!

Regardless of what the REV says, there IS a "spirit" to the regs. It was clearly delineated in the Ms. Annenberg speech (available on the FMCSA website.) A 34 hour restart gives a driver the "opportunity" to have two full nights of restorative sleep AND a day off (remaining on a Circadian Rhythm.)

The "guidance" that MythBuster quoted (and I will address later) ONLY addresses activities that would inhibit the CONSECUTIVE hours of rest in the sleeper berth, or on a 10 hour break... because the time is so limited, and the RISK to the public is so high if the driver doesn't GET some rest.

There is absolutely NO mention of "interruptions" during a 34 hour restart. IMHO.... because the "opportunity" still exists for a driver to GET two nights of sleep AND some "time off" REGARDLESS of any "incidental" interruptions.

I would NO SOONER "bust" my 34 hour restart because some driver took my hood off than I would "bust" my 10 hour break because I had to pass through the CAB of my truck (as the REV suggests I MUST) on my way to take a dump!

Rev.Vassago

06-22-2009, 02:44 AM

Regardless of what the REV says,

REV has not commented on the subject of this thread (nor will he be commenting on it), so please leave him out of it. Thanks.

Myth_Buster

06-22-2009, 07:26 AM

The other fella drove off but I made a quick call to the fuzz and then actually ran him down on foot a few minutes later. Good thing there's another truck stop across the street. (He thought he had hit the curb, apparently.) Now I have a police report with the date and time of the incident. Ipso facto, my employer will have a record of the date and time of the incident once I send in the paperwork.

Guess all of this happened in less than 15 minutes huh?

So... let's say you are parked in a T/S for a 34hr restart, and are 2 hours short of completion. Some overzealous DOT officer rousts you out of your sleeper because someone said you were on the CB offering to sell drugs. You talk to the officer, he comes BACK later for more info and checks your logs. Is THIS "performing work" for your employer?

Depends, was there an inspection report associated with the visit? Yes = On-duty.

You gonna SIT there another day and a half because of it?

I don't know did you gain any hours from the 24 hours off-duty the day before?

No? Then you'll have to wait until midnight to gain the hours back.

I repeat my concern that there is almost NO MENTION of "interaction with DOT officers" in the regs. Please SHOW me a reg that CLEARLY states that "any" interaction with DOT or other authorities is considered ON DUTY and would bust your reset.

Gee GH, don't you understand what "any service for the motor carrier" means?

§395.2 Definitions.

As used in this part, the following words and terms are construed to mean:

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:

(8) Performing any other work in the capacity, employ, or service of, a motor carrier;

Provinding information relevant to the accident is in the capacity or service of the carrier.

The FMCSA cannot consider EVERY possibility wherein you might be "encountered" by an LEO while OFF DUTY. But (as far as I know) they have NO REGULATION that addresses even the REMOTE possibility that it could happen during a restart. They address what the CARRIER can or cannot do, to avoid the circumstance of a CARRIER forcing you to work when the regs say you are OFF DUTY.

If you encouter a LEO while off-duty in relation to the truck or trailer, you're on-duty not driving. I'll reverse the table, please provide an exception from the regulations where a drievr is excluded from the HOS while on a 34 hour reset. Please provide one interpretation that even remotely indicates a driver is relieved of duty while on the 34 hour reset.

If you read the "final ruling" on the latest (and previous) HOS, you will see that several companies contested certain provisions due to an IMPACT on their ability to maximize profits through interstate commerce. In EVERY case, the FMCSA, in its response, addressed those concerns and found ONLY that the ability for a carrier to make money [b]should NOT outweigh their concern for public safety[/u].... related to the EXTRA hour of driving, OR their requirements for mandatory rest periods.

My point is that the FMCSA is "sensitive" to the need for carriers to make money... AND for the drivers to do the same. They have stated over and over that their rulings give the OPPORTUNITY for a driver to get the required rest, and they REGULATE the actions of the carriers that would affect this. They never ONCE mention an "interruption" by an LEO for questioning while the driver is OFF DUTY. One must wonder WHY?

Really, in your earlier statement you indicated the FMCSA did not consider making money primary to public safety.

The interpretations clearly state the HOS do not address pay:

§395.2 Definitions.

Question 1: A company told all of its drivers that it would no longer pay for driving from the last stop to home and that this time should not be shown on the time cards. Is it a violation of the FMCSRs to operate a CMV from the last stop to home and not show that time on the time cards?

Guidance: The FMCSRs do not address questions of pay. All the time spent operating a CMV for, or at the direction of, a motor carrier must be recorded as driving time.

If the FMCSA is so concerned about the driver's pay why do the regulations indicate driving from the last stop to home when not being paid must be recorded as driving if at the direction of the motor carrier?

Further if a driver is not relieved of all responsibility the driver cannot log the time as off-duty:

Question 2: What conditions must be met for a CMV driver to record meal and other routine stops made during a tour of duty as off-duty time?

Guidance:1. The driver must have been relieved of all duty and responsibility for the care and custody of the vehicle, its accessories, and any cargo or passengers it may be carrying.

2. The duration of the driver’s relief from duty must be a finite period of time which is of sufficient duration to ensure that the accumulated fatigue resulting from operating a CMV will be significantly reduced.

3. If the driver has been relieved from duty, as noted in (1) above, the duration of the relief from duty must have been made known to the driver prior to the driver’s departure in written instructions from the employer. There are no record retention requirements for these instructions on board a vehicle or at a motor carrier’s principal place of business.

4. During the stop, and for the duration of the stop, the driver must be at liberty to pursue activities of his/her own choosing and to leave the premises where the vehicle is situated.

The FMCSA does not have the power or authority to "regulate" what the Department of Public Safety, or the DOT, or any OTHER LEO agency might deem necessary in THEIR goal. But, likewise.... they make NO MENTION in the "regs" about how such interaction would affect your HOS.

You're correct the FMCSA doesn't regulate other state of federal agencies; however, the FMCSA does regulate how your employer must require drivers to record the time spent with other state or federal agencies. Any time a driver spends performing actions related to their employer is on-duty not driving.

Question 11: Must non transportation-related work for a motor carrier be recorded as on-duty time?

Guidance: Yes. All work for a motor carrier, whether compensated or not, must be recorded as on-duty time. The term “work” as used in the definition of “on-duty time” in §395.2 of the FMCSRs is not limited to driving or other non transportation-related employment.

EVEN the much touted ON DUTY reg makes NO MENTION of on duty time being inclusive of interactions between a Driver and an LEO.... unless, of course, you buy into this idea of it being "performing WORK in the employ of." I DON'T!

So GH obtaining an accident report that is required by Part 390.15 is not in the service of the employer?

I guess fueling the truck or refer, having the truck serviced, filling out your log book, mailing in the paper work so you and your employer maybe paid is not on-duty either is it?

You see my point? The driver has met EVERY aspect of the regulations.... having had TWO consecutive nights sleep AND a day off, but he has to start his 34 hour restart all over again because of an "interaction" with an LEO?? I don't THINK so!

The driver lost the 34 hour reset because there was an accident that required a report. The LEO was strictly the tool used to obtain the record.

The "guidance" that MythBuster quoted (and I will address later) ONLY addresses activities that would inhibit the CONSECUTIVE hours of rest in the sleeper berth, or on a 10 hour break... because the time is so limited, and the RISK to the public is so high if the driver doesn't GET some rest.

The interpreation addresses any time spent answering satellite messages while off-duty. The interpreation offers an out for momentary interuptions of off-duty time.

There is absolutely NO mention of "interruptions" during a 34 hour restart. IMHO.... because the "opportunity" still exists for a driver to GET two nights of sleep AND some "time off" REGARDLESS of any "incidental" interruptions.

Hmmm, I wonder if it's because the interuptions of off-duty time is addressed in the 10 hour break would apply to the 34 reset. The 10 hour break resets the 11/14 hour rule. The 34 hour break resets the 60/70 hour break. It is impeartive the 34 hour break be uniterupted to ensure the driver has the opportunity to relax and decompress the stress associated with working long hours.

Part 395.2 is clear:

§395.2 Definitions.

As used in this part, the following words and terms are construed to mean:

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 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.

Once any of the activities listed occurs the driver is on-duty or driving the 34 consecutive hour cycle is broke nulling the 34 hour reset. The only exception are lose listed that cause a momentary break in the reset period.

I would NO SOONER "bust" my 34 hour restart because some driver took my hood off

Then you would be cited for a deliberate false log as the violation may have hid a 60 or 70 hour vioaltion.

than I would "bust" my 10 hour break because I had to pass through the CAB of my truck (as the REV suggests I MUST) on my way to take a dump!

As you transverse from the sleeper berth to off-duty to take a dump you are required to flag the activity with a city and state:

§395.1 Scope of rules in this part.

Question 26: May a driver record sleeper berth time as off-duty time on line one of the record of duty status?

Guidance: No. The driver’s record of duty status must accurately reflect the driver’s activities.

The transition from the sleeper berth to the cab to off-duty would qualify for a momentary interuption of a 10 or 34 hour reset; therefore, the transition would not interupt the 10/34 hour reset.

Drivers must be concious of video recordings, accident reports, roadisde inspections, fuel purchases, toll receipts, or any other function with a document associated with the activity. If there is a piece of paper that is in conflict with the log the driver has problems.

Be safe.

kreeper01

06-22-2009, 04:33 PM

Myth Buster, Talking to Golfhobo and some of these "so-called" vets of the United States Inter and Intrastate system fails to realize these things you mentioned. Golfhobo and a few others have "I don't give a damn" attitude and falls along the lines of "not holding another drivers hand while they take a dump". In short, Myth Buster, you are talking to a brick wall when dealing with the likes of Golfhobo.

Guess all of this happened in less than 15 minutes huh?

Depends, was there an inspection report associated with the visit? Yes = On-duty.

I don't know did you gain any hours from the 24 hours off-duty the day before?

No? Then you'll have to wait until midnight to gain the hours back.

Gee GH, don't you understand what "any service for the motor carrier" means?

Provinding information relevant to the accident is in the capacity or service of the carrier.

If you encouter a LEO while off-duty in relation to the truck or trailer, you're on-duty not driving. I'll reverse the table, please provide an exception from the regulations where a drievr is excluded from the HOS while on a 34 hour reset. Please provide one interpretation that even remotely indicates a driver is relieved of duty while on the 34 hour reset.

Really, in your earlier statement you indicated the FMCSA did not consider making money primary to public safety.

The interpretations clearly state the HOS do not address pay:

If the FMCSA is so concerned about the driver's pay why do the regulations indicate driving from the last stop to home when not being paid must be recorded as driving if at the direction of the motor carrier?

Further if a driver is not relieved of all responsibility the driver cannot log the time as off-duty:

You're correct the FMCSA doesn't regulate other state of federal agencies; however, the FMCSA does regulate how your employer must require drivers to record the time spent with other state or federal agencies. Any time a driver spends performing actions related to their employer is on-duty not driving.

So GH obtaining an accident report that is required by Part 390.15 is not in the service of the employer?

I guess fueling the truck or refer, having the truck serviced, filling out your log book, mailing in the paper work so you and your employer maybe paid is not on-duty either is it?

The driver lost the 34 hour reset because there was an accident that required a report. The LEO was strictly the tool used to obtain the record.

The interpreation addresses any time spent answering satellite messages while off-duty. The interpreation offers an out for momentary interuptions of off-duty time.

Hmmm, I wonder if it's because the interuptions of off-duty time is addressed in the 10 hour break would apply to the 34 reset. The 10 hour break resets the 11/14 hour rule. The 34 hour break resets the 60/70 hour break. It is impeartive the 34 hour break be uniterupted to ensure the driver has the opportunity to relax and decompress the stress associated with working long hours.

Part 395.2 is clear:

Once any of the activities listed occurs the driver is on-duty or driving the 34 consecutive hour cycle is broke nulling the 34 hour reset. The only exception are lose listed that cause a momentary break in the reset period.

Then you would be cited for a deliberate false log as the violation may have hid a 60 or 70 hour vioaltion.

As you transverse from the sleeper berth to off-duty to take a dump you are required to flag the activity with a city and state:

The transition from the sleeper berth to the cab to off-duty would qualify for a momentary interuption of a 10 or 34 hour reset; therefore, the transition would not interupt the 10/34 hour reset.

Drivers must be concious of video recordings, accident reports, roadisde inspections, fuel purchases, toll receipts, or any other function with a document associated with the activity. If there is a piece of paper that is in conflict with the log the driver has problems.

Be safe.

golfhobo

06-23-2009, 12:17 AM

golfhobo

06-23-2009, 01:09 AM

Mythbuster said:

The transition from the sleeper berth to the cab to off-duty would qualify for a momentary interuption of a 10 or 34 hour reset; therefore, the transition would not interupt the 10/34 hour reset.

But, earlier he said:

As you transverse from the sleeper berth to off-duty to take a dump you are required to flag the activity with a city and state:

According to the REGS.... you would only have to "flag" a city and state" if it was a change of duty status. And if that "dump" indicated a change to line ONE, then you cannot be logging line TWO for 8 hours! What? Do they expect us to **** in our trucks during an 8 hour S/B break? OR... to extend it to 10 full hours because we had to take a dump? :hellno:

Your "arguments" are ridiculous. Your reg quotations are often irrelevant. Your "experience" is LIMITED and your attitude is arrogant! But, HEY! That makes you one of us!

But, you wouldn't stand a chance against me in a court of LAW! Giving a statement to an LEO, and later receiving the written report, is NO more a "repeated" interruption of a 34 hour restart than a few qualcom messages are!

By their OWN definiton, it must meet the threshold of "repeatedly" dong work for the carrier that INHIBITS the driver's ability to get the required REST. On a 34 hour restart... it WOULDN'T!

But, like I SAID.... I wouldn't try to move the truck to have the damage fixed while ON my restart! :hellno:

You see.... subpara (8) is not only subject to the Topic sentence of that reg, but AT LEAST is "modified" by the guidance in questions 30 and 31 (I'm guessing at the numbers) that state that MOMENTARY interruptions, though they qualify as "doing work" .... don't BUST a rset or restart as long as they don't inhibit the SPIRIT of the reg that requires that a driver has an OPPORTUNITY to get the required REST.

Myth_Buster

06-23-2009, 03:57 AM

GH you may continue to do as you please; however, one day your actions will afffect your employer's ability to stay in business:

We were fined for not having done the required amount of drug and alcohol testing
within the selection period, but we did meet the requirements at the end of the year. We
were also fined for failing to maintain proper logs and driving over the 11 and 14 hour
regulations. Since then, we have schooled our drivers and are not driving while out of
hours. Falsifying logs was the other major fine we received. We have talked to each
driver individually and at the safety meetings to not falsify any logs. Our company has
also implemented a Safety Management Plan (SMP), which I have also included.

1. One (1) violation of 49 CFR § 382.303(a)- Failing to conduct post accident alcohol testing for
each surviving driver.
2. One (1) violation of 49 CFR § 382.3Q3(b)- Failing to conduct post accident controlled
substances testing for each surviving driver.
3. Two (2) violations of 49 CFR § 382.305(i)(3)- Failing to ensure that drivers are tested within
the selection period.
4. Seventeen (17) violations of 49 CFR § 395.8(e)- False reports of records of duty status.

382.303(a) NR 1 $1,690.00 $1,690.00
382.303(b) NR 1 $1,690.00 $1,690.00
382.305(i)(3) NR 2 $1,780.00 $3,560.00
395.8(e) R 17 $800.00 $13,600.00

CHARGED:
On or about 5/29/2007, E L & W LLC used driver, Todd A. Shelton, to drive a
commercial motor vehicle in interstate commerce from Van Wert, OH, to Cedar Falls, IA. The driver
made a false report of duty activities on the record of duty status for that date. The driver's record of
duty status is false because driver Shelton's duty status record for this day shows the driver arriving in
Davenport, IA, at 0230 eastern time, when, in fact, an Illinois PrePass Plus entry has him exiting the
Park Ridge, IL, toll plaza at 0210 eastern time zone. Park Ridge, IL, is east of Davenport, I A, by 2
hours and 58 minutes or 173 miles.

Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=AdvancedDocket)

Cases are built on evidence and all too often the evidence is overwhelming.

The DOT sends Notices of Claim, not a ticket:

The Notice of Claim charged Respondent with three violations of 49 C.F.R. § 392.301(a),
using a driver before the motor carrier has received a negative pre-employment controlled
substance test result; and seven (7) violations of 49 C.F.R. § 395.8(e), false reports of
records of duty status. The Notice of Claim proposed a civil penalty of $9,330 for the
charged violations. A copy of the Notice of Claim is attached hereto and identified as
Attachment A.

"would like to contest the violations stating that we were unknowingly
violating Federal Motor Carrier regulations on all counts as we are a newly formed
corporation that grew very rapidly in a very short time with untrained personnel".

II. BACKGROUND AND JURISDICTION
Respondent is a for-hire carrier transporting general freight in interstate
commerce by means of commercial motor vehicle, and is subject to the jurisdiction of the
Secretary of Transportation, and the FMCSA Administrator, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §
13501. Jurisdiction over Respondent is established by the nature of the interstate
movement and by the use of a commercial motor vehicle to effect such movement.

Because Respondent's statements in its response to the Notice of Claim did
not comply with the regulatory requirements for a reply, its response was not a reply, and
no reply was received. See Blue Mack, supra. Once a respondent has admitted, or failed
to deny, a violation or violations for which it is charged and failed to contest the
calculation of the proposed penalty, it should either pay the full amount of the civil
penalty, or seek binding arbitration on the amount of the civil penalty and/or length of
time in which to pay the penalty. Because Respondent chose none of the above, a finding
of default is appropriate. See In the Matter of Archie Palmer, Docket No. FMCSA-2007-
26787 (Final Order, May 11, 2007).

' In the Blue Mack decision, the Assistant Administrator cites to several previous
decisions: In the Matter of Spring Lake Farm Transportation, Inc., Docket No. FHWA-
1997-2469, (Order, September 13, 1999), at 3; /« the Matter ofJ.B. Hunt Transport, Inc.,
Docket No. FHWA-1998-3578, (Decision on Review, August 18, 1999), at 3; In the
Matter of Carolina Carbajal dba Border Transportation, Inc., Docket No. FHWA-1997-
2566, (Order On Reconsideration, May 28, 1999), at 2-3; In the Matter of Carolina
Carbajal dba Border Transportation, Inc., Docket No. FHWA-1997-2566, (Order,
January 19, 1999), at 2-3; In the Matter of Spirit Express ofWNY, Inc., Docket No.
FHWA-1997-2380, (Final Order, June 2, 1998), at 4- 5; In the Matter ofLAR-NO
Trucking, Inc., Docket No. FHWA-1997-2511, (Final Order, November 3, 1997), at 2-3;
In the Matter of Arctic Express, Inc., Docket No. FHWA-1997-2519, (Order Modifying
"Order Appointing Administrative Law Judge," January 20, 1998), at 5.

As a result of this review, violations were discovered. This letter constitutes a Notice of Claim by the
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
against ADLR Transportation Inc for the amount of $9,330.

Unless settled or otherwise resolved in a manner set forth below, the FMCSA can recover these
penalties, with interest and costs, in a civil action brought in a United States District Court. Additional
collection efforts may include, but are not limited to: Internal Revenue Service offsets against tax
refunds, and the referral to and the use of collection agencies to collect penalties. Also, under 49 Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) §§ 386.83 and 386.84, once a final order has been issued, the
FMCSA may prohibit ADLR Transportation Inc from operating in interstate commerce until
the civil penalty is paid in full and, if applicable, your FMCSA registration will be suspended.

382.301(a) NR 3 $1,430.00 $4,290.00
395.8(e) R 7 $720.00 $5,040.00

CHARGE #1:
On or about 08/27/2007, ADLR Transportation Inc used driver, Gustavo Garcia, to drive a
commercial motor vehicle in interstate commerce from Fontana, CA to Tolleson, AZ. The driver
made a false report of duty activities on the record of duty status for that date. The driver's record of
duty status is false because log book shows driver was off duty all day in Fontana, CA and driver's
trip sheet shows that driver performed a trip from Nestle to Smiths Food m Tolleson, AZ. A second
log that was completed by the driver shows the driver drove from Fontana, C A to Ehrenberg, AZ on
that date.

CHARGE #2:
On or about 08/28/2007, ADLR Transportation Inc used driver, Gustavo Garcia, to drive a
commercial motor vehicle in interstate commerce from Ontario, CA to Goodyear, AZ. The driver
made a false report of duty activities on the record of duty status for that date. The driver's record of
duty status is false because driver's log book shows that driver was off duty all day and in fact, driver's
trip sheet shows that driver performed 2 trips on that day.

CHARGE#3:
On or about 08/29/2007, ADLR Transportation Inc used driver, Gustavo Garcia, to drive a
commercial motor vehicle in interstate commerce from Fontana, CA to Tucson, AZ. The driver made
a false report of duty activities on the record of duty status for that date. The driver's record of duty
status is false because it shows that driver started driving at 11:15AM from Fontana, CA and arrived
in Phoenix, AZ at 4:45PM, however, straight bill of ladiiig ishows that driver was picking up a load
from Nestle Waters in Ontario, CA between 14:55 and 19:00. And driver's trip sheet shows that driver
got paid waiting time for pick up #3180137 that was headed from Nestle in Ontario, CA to Sams Club
in Tucson, AZ.

CHARGE #4:
On or about 9/4/2007, ADLR Transportation Inc used driver, Gustavo Garcia, to drive a commercial
motor vehicle in interstate commerce from Pomona, CA to Denver, CO. The driver made a false
report of duty activities on the record of duty status for that date. The driver's record of duty status is
false because it shows that driver went off duty at 4:15PM in Fontana, CA after complating a trip .
from Las Vegas, NV, however, driver's trip sheet shows that driver performed a delivery of Spa from
Pomona, CA to Denver, CO.

CHARGE #5:
On or about 9/5/2007, ADLR Transportation Inc used driver, Gustavo Garcia, to drive a commercial
motor vehicle in mterstate commerce fix)m Pomona, CA to Denver, CO. The driver made a false
report of duty activities on the record of duty status for that date. The driver's record of duty status is
false because it shows that driver was off duty all day in Fontana, CA and in fact driver performed a
trip from Pomona, CA to Denver, CO.

CHARGE #6:
On or about 9/6/2007, ADLR Transportation Inc used driver, Gustavo Garcia, to drive a commercial
motor vehicle in mterstate commerce from Denver, CO to Albuquerque, NM. The driver made a false
report of duty activities on the record of duty status for that date. The driver's record of duty status is
false because it shows that driver was off duty the entire day however, driver's trip sheet shows that
driver performed a trip from Denver, CO to Albuquerque, NM.

CHARGE #7:
On or about 9/13/2007, ADLR Transportation Inc used driver, Gustavo Garcia, to drive a commercial
motor vehicle in interstate commerce from Cabazon, CA to Aurora, CO. The driver made a false
report of duty activities on the record of duty status for that date. The driver's record of duty status is
false because it shows driver was off duty the entire day however, driver's trip sheet shows that driver
performed a trip from Cabazon, CA to Aurora, CO.

Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=AdvancedDocket)

So you abide by what you consider to be the spirit of the rule and log as you wish; however, when things go south and you're in violation things may not be the way you thought they were.

I offer facts based on how the rules are written, the spirit of the rules are not relevant. If there is not an interpretation to back up your thoughts you will probably fail in oppsing the violation.

The interpretations and rules present facts based on the scenarios presented. It appears your limited knowledge cannot make the correlation between the subject at hand and the facts offered.

Please note the first plea to have penalties reduced due to the carrier being broke.... So much for the FMCSA watching out for the carrier's ability to make a profit.

Be safe.

cdswans

06-24-2009, 05:49 PM

Windwalker

06-25-2009, 04:08 PM

Myth_Buster

06-25-2009, 11:06 PM

Here, MB, you seem to have lost a few of these . .

You are correct on all counts. You freaks can write tickets based on any interpertation of any reg that happens to suit you on any given day. Write away. Good or bad, you can choose to interrupt the career of just about any Driver you wish and probably ruin a few along the way. If that's what blows your skirt up, you just keep on writing.

I don't write tickets. Haven't written a ticket since I left the Port of Entry in Cortez, CO in 1999. When a CARRIER is discovered to have false logs, 11, 14, no logs, no supporting dcouments, or 60/70 hour rule violations the CARRIER receives a Notice of Claim (NOC). The NOC includes the statment of charges and a list of all relevant supporting documentation relevant to the case. The CARRIER ot its attorney may challenge the charges following the administrative rules.

An administrative law judge will review any challenges using the evidence presented.

But you know and I know, your word is not the last one.

No but I have yet to loose a case once it was submitted.

Your interpertation of the spirit of anything is perfectly irrelevant beyond whether you choose to write the ticket in the first place.[/quote]

Again, I haven't written a ticket since 1999. Cases against CARRIERS have evidence to support the case. When the driver falsifies their logs it is the CARRIER that pays the penalty.

Do you honestly think a judge is going to impose or uphold a fine on someone for not logging a trip to the head?

I believe that if a driver was logging sleeper berth and a video tape indicated the driver was not sleeping then it would raise culpability in the event of a fatal crash.

That's the problem with you police state finks.

Haven't been employed by a state since 1999. Obviously you have me confused with someone else.

What ever happened to the driver in New Mexico you stepped up to destroy? Is he hanging by his thumbs in a DOT dungeon somewhere?

If the driver hadn't killed someone he wouldn't have any problems, would he?

I guess if it was your uncle or brother or dad you'ld have no problems with the issue of them being run over by a truck in a parking lot.....

Drivers that make poor choices and cause death or destruction need attention to ensure they don't replicate the mistake.

Drivers that falsify theor logs and cost their employer money are usually terminated for good causes.

Be safe.

allan5oh

06-26-2009, 12:23 AM

The "letter of the law" the way it is stated means MB is right. I don't think this is logical however. A few minutes attending an accident scene while you were not driving, nor expected to be in a state of readiness, should not disturb your 34 hour reset.

But even then, just having 15 minutes for one day should set you up as far as hours go. I don't think it's that big of a deal. You don't NEED to reset.

golfhobo

06-26-2009, 06:24 AM

allan5oh said:

The "letter of the law" the way it is stated means MB is right.

Obviously, I disagree. But, at least I respect your opinon. Tune in this wekend when I hope to have time to make this all a bit more clear.

I don't think this is logical however. A few minutes attending an accident scene while you were not driving, nor expected to be in a state of readiness, should not disturb your 34 hour reset.

I agree, and unless your hood is taken off REPEATEDLY during your 34 hour restart, I don't think it WOULD.

But even then, just having 15 minutes for one day should set you up as far as hours go. I don't think it's that big of a deal.

I'm not sure I follow this. Please explain.

You don't NEED to reset.

Often times, you DO. IF you reset LAST time....and you just burned your 70 in 5 days and sat for nearly TWO, your 8th day back will be 0 hours, so you'll sit another day or two. Consider this:

Let's say you started Tuesday at 12:01 a.m. and ended your 70 hour week (in 5 days) at midnight on Saturday and took Sunday and half of Monday off. You SHOULD be able to start work halfway through Monday, right? (actually... 10 a.m.)

Now, Swifty takes your hood off just before you can go back to work, putting you BACK on the 70 hour rule.

1) At midnight Monday night, you will STILL have worked 70 in the last 7 days. So, you have to gain hours back to move. At midnight Monday, you will STILL have worked 70 hours in 8 days because you were OFF last Monday. So, you have to sit ALL DAY Tuesday! At midnight Tuesday night, you will gain back whatever hours you worked AFTER midnight last Sunday.

2) Assuming best case scenario, and you worked until 2 p.m. last Sunday (instead of taking the whole weekend off,) you will have a full 14 hour clock for Wednesday... but, you may have much LESS.

3) So, you have been off work since midnight Saturday night, and can go back to work at midnight Tuesday night. That is 72 hours OFF DUTY and not making any money! That exceeds even the number of hours you are allowed to WORK in 8 days! (Not meaning to confuse... that just means you sat longer than you WORKED!)

4) Furthermore.... because you were "on duty" for the time M/B says you had to be to answer a few questions for an LEO on Monday, you have exceeded your 70 hours in 8 days, and you can't even start work until you have "erased' those hours from your 70 hour rule. So you can't even start driving at Midnight Tuesday night without being in violation of the 70 hour rule, and NO driving that day should be done UNTIL (or unless) you wait that additional time.

So, now it's about 2 a.m Wednesday before you can go back to work. You've been sitting since Saturday night at midnight!

Now... NONE of that matters! Because, if the accident report was taken 2 hours before your 34 hour restart would have been over at 10 a.m Monday, and you went BACK off duty.... you would have ANOTHER 34 hour restart in by about 6 p.m Tuesday night! So, you got in TWO 34 restarts before you could even gain back any hours under the 70 hour rule!

I don't know about you.... but, this sounds totally ridiculous to ME!

Carriers would REVOLT! Drivers would REVOLT! And it does NOT fit the "spirit" of the regs that clearly state that a MOMENTARY interruption, that doesn't prohibit getting the required rest or "sleep," would NOT bust your reset, retart, a 10 hour break, etc. About the ONLY thing they are adamant about is uninterrupted opportunity to SLEEP! (especially where it concerns the 8 hour sleeper berth requirement.)

Gotta go! See ya'll some more this weekend! :lol:

cdswans

06-27-2009, 01:47 AM

MB states "No but I have yet to loose (sic) a case once it was submitted."

You wouldn't care to post a few docket #s to back that up, would you?

Regardless, you're missing the point. If I reset at a truck stop and log lines 1 + 2, I need to flag for turds? Yet, if I leave my truck at the same truck stop and reset at the adjacent Shady Rest Motel, I can then drive a demolition derby, drink in the bar until they throw me out, then compete in a triathalon without once hitting the hay or having to log a log and, in the eyes of the law, I'm a rested and ready trucker. In the meantime, your successor minions up in Cortez are using suppository interrogatories trying to flush out scofflaw evacuates.

Do us all a favor . . hop in the company chopper and make your way to the Will Rogers Turnpike. I want to know the status of that Driver's phone for the 30 minutes preceeding today's octofatal.

Stop wasting your employer's (me) money.

golfhobo

06-27-2009, 05:15 AM

Don't forget, Swanny..... that if you are an O/O and doing a 34 hour restart at HOME (or anywhere) you can get in your truck and drive it OFF DUTY to the nearest liquor store to stock up. You come out and put all that alcohol in your truck and ... BANG.... a Swifty takes your hood off!

The cops come and take a report and notice the liquor in your truck.

They can't do a DAMN thing about it because you are OFF DUTY. Oh wait.... M/B would say that when they ask you a few questions for THEIR report, which YOU will need for your insurance (because YOU are the carrier) you are now ON DUTY and therefore they can bust you for the alcohol in your truck! :eek2::roll::hellno:

AND you just blew your 34 hour restart! :lol2:

It is becoming increasingly clear to me that, there is M/B's way of interpreting the regs.... and then there is what the FMCSA intended.... and fairly cleary stated.

When one takes ANY government reg TOO literally.... the combined effect through extrapolation into actual events leads to contradictions that the regs just can't explain.... or accomodate.

Which is the REASON for the "spirit of the law." It permeates our entire society and judicial system. It sets things right in the universe.

The purpose, intention, wording and spirit of the 34 hour restart (which anti-trucking groups have fought) is stated over and over in the final ruling.

Looked at from two different viewpoints, it is like this:

1) It gives you a FULL 24 hour period off duty which they assume is a full nights sleep and a FULL DAY off.... PLUS another full night's sleep (10 hour "break") to put you BACK on your circadian rhythm of working DAYS.... so you don't switch shifts every week, or...

2) It gives you the opportunity to get TWO FULL NIGHT'S sleep and a full day off inbetween, so that you will be fully rested and STILL on your circadian rhythm of working days and sleeping nights.

That is pretty much ALL they care about! And they are fighting those "groups" in court for our RIGHT to take ONLY that much time before going back to work. The groups would prefer a mandatory 48 hours (two full days) off.... but that means your company can dispatch you at midnight for the next week.... interrupting your circadian rhythm!

THEY have clearly stated that they can't regulate your off duty time UNLESS you are logging the 8 hour sleeper berth for the purpose of splitting your break! (and I doubt they intend you to have to take another 2 hours just because you ran to the toilet!)

YOU gave an extreme example which, although WITHIN the regs, COULD come back to hurt you IF you had a fatal accident.... because they GAVE you the "opportunity" to get restorative REST.

AND, they have clearly stated that your EMPLOYER cannot "repeatedly" interrupt your ability to GET that rest with phone calls or qualcomm messages. (they don't have the authority to tell the LEO he can't talk to you!)

But, they have said NOTHING that clearly indicates that a "momentary" interruption EVEN to interact with an LEO, which does NOT inhibit your ability to get those TWO full nights sleep, and basically be "at liberty" for a full day off, would put you ON DUTY and BUST YOUR RESTART.

In fact, they HAVE clearly stated that in ANY such case, the "definition" of doing work for the employer MUST be "modified" as a REPEATED interruption.

Otherwise, you couldn't get and accept a "preplan" until you finish your 34 hour restart! I've never dealt with these "preplans," but.... how many of you finish your 34 hours and THEN sit and wait for a preplan?

Rev.Vassago

06-27-2009, 07:26 AM

Show some court cases to back up your "spirit" of the law. It is up to judges to interpret the law, not you. If they haven't done so, then your "spirit" of the law is meaningless drivel.

Orangetxguy

06-27-2009, 03:37 PM

Some of the arguments here have exceeded the extreme!!

Myth_Buster

06-28-2009, 12:11 AM

allan5oh said:

Obviously, I disagree. But, at least I respect your opinon. Tune in this wekend when I hope to have time to make this all a bit more clear.

GH the interpretations allow a driver responding to satellite communications a reprieve from having their reset interrupted except when a pattern of satellite communications occur. The interpretation clearly states a driver may not perform any work for a carrier.

Interpretations for Part 395.2 states:

Question 11: Must non transportation-related work for a motor carrier be recorded as on-duty time?

Guidance: Yes. All work for a motor carrier, whether compensated or not, must be recorded as on-duty time. The term “work” as used in the definition of “on-duty time” in §395.2 of the FMCSRs is not limited to driving or other non transportation-related employment.

Obtaining an accident report is work as the carrier MUST obtain and retain the accident report:

§390.15 Assistance in investigations and special studies.

(a) A motor carrier must make all records and information pertaining to an accident available to an authorized representative or special agent of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, an authorized State or local enforcement agency representative or authorized third party representative, upon request or as part of any investigation within such time as the request or investigation may specify. A motor carrier shall give an authorized representative all reasonable assistance in the investigation of any accident including providing a full, true and correct response to any question of the inquiry.

3) So, you have been off work since midnight Saturday night, and can go back to work at midnight Tuesday night. That is 72 hours OFF DUTY and not making any money! That exceeds even the number of hours you are allowed to WORK in 8 days! (Not meaning to confuse... that just means you sat longer than you WORKED!)

GH everyone else in America works 40 hours and gets 48 hours off for the weekend. Doesn't drivers deserve the same?

Get a grip your hyperventalating and not focused. :)

4) Furthermore.... because you were "on duty" for the time M/B says you had to be to answer a few questions for an LEO on Monday, you have exceeded your 70 hours in 8 days, and you can't even start work until you have "erased' those hours from your 70 hour rule. So you can't even start driving at Midnight Tuesday night without being in violation of the 70 hour rule, and NO driving that day should be done UNTIL (or unless) you wait that additional time.

Stay focused GH the post is regarding an accident where the driver was hit, called the police, ran a truck down on foot to a truck stop accross the street, walked back to his truck, waited for the officer, offered his side of the report, probably took photographs, completed his company's accident report, waited for the LEO to interview the other driver, waited for the LEO to complete an accident report, and obtained the report.

Seems obvious to me the accident being discussed involved at least 30 - 45 minutes.

I don't know about you.... but, this sounds totally ridiculous to ME!

It seems ridiculous to me that you are off topic and ranting about something that may or may not be the same to the topic at hand.

Carriers would REVOLT! Drivers would REVOLT! And it does NOT fit the "spirit" of the regs that clearly state that a MOMENTARY interruption, that doesn't prohibit getting the required rest or "sleep," would NOT bust your reset, retart, a 10 hour break, etc. About the ONLY thing they are adamant about is uninterrupted opportunity to SLEEP! (especially where it concerns the 8 hour sleeper berth requirement.)

The 34 hour reset is designed to allow the driver to relax and gain some much needed rest. The only time the sleeper berth is relevant is when the sleeper berth provision is used and the driver must have eight hours of sleeper berth to be combined with two hours off-duty time.

Any time a driver has a time stamped document inside of a 34 or 8 or 2 or 10 hour rest period there is a possibility the reset was not valid; thereby, creating a possible HOS violation.

MB states "No but I have yet to loose (sic) a case once it was submitted."

You wouldn't care to post a few docket #s to back that up, would you?

All of the information has one common thread, I'll let you figure it out. The dockets have to do with cases challenged and the challenge lost. The penalties provided are for closed cases.

Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=AdvancedDocket)

See docket FMCSA-2001-10078-0001, 0002, and 0003

See docket FMCSA-2004-18026-0001-0001, 0001-0002, 0002, and 0003

http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/SafeStat/SafetySea.asp?ais=&dot=164297&WhichForm=&PageN=EH#EH

1 9/5/2007 IL-2007-371 Compliance Review

392.6 Scheduling a run which would require exceeding speed limits 5 $9,450.00
395.8(e) False reports of records of duty status 7 $5,250.00

1 1/31/2008 IL-2008-35 Compliance Review

172.800(b) Offering or transporting w/o a security plan conforming to Subpart requirements 1 $8,770.00

391.45(b)(1) Using a driver not medically reexamined each 24 months 3 $5,190.00

395.8(a) Failing to require driver to make a record of duty status 18 $18,000.00

395.8(e) False reports of records of duty status 20 $20,000.00

396.21(b) Failing to retain periodic inspection report for 14 months 9 $6,120.00

http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/SafeStat/SafetySea.asp?ais=&dot=222612&WhichForm=&PageN=EH#EH

1 11/21/2008 IL-2009-315 Compliance Review

172.200(a) Offering a HM without preparing a shipping paper. (None at all) 1 $4,650.00

173.33(a)(3) Specification cargo tank filled and offered w/past due retest/reinspection dates 1 $6,060.00

http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/SafeStat/SafetySea.asp?ais=&dot=269095&WhichForm=&PageN=EH#EH

1 5/8/2008 IL-2008-108 Compliance Review

382.305(b)(2) Failing to do random drug tests at applicable annual rate 6 $28,320.00

390.35 Requiring, permitting or making false statements or records. 1 $5,730.00

395.8(a) Failing to require driver to make a record of duty status 19 $15,770.00

396.11(c) Failing to correct Out-of-Service defects reported on DVIR. 3 $27,720.00

http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/SafeStat/SafetySea.asp?ais=&dot=355502&WhichForm=&PageN=EH#EH

1 2/22/2009 IL-2009-10 Compliance Review

390.35 Requiring, permitting or making false statements or records. 3 $2,340.00

396.17(g) Failing to repair parts not meeting inspection standards 1 $4,560.00

http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/SafeStat/SafetySea.asp?ais=&dot=1123061&WhichForm=&PageN=EH#EH

1 9/3/2008 IL-2008-393 Compliance Review 387.7(a) Inadequate or no financial responsibility 3 $8,550.00

2 4/27/2007 IL-2007-333 Compliance Review 385.403 Transporting hazardous materials requiring a hazardous materials safety permit. 1 $2,340.00

http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/SafeStat/SafetySea.asp?ais=&dot=602519&WhichForm=&PageN=EH#EH

1 5/9/2008 IL-2008-357 Compliance Review 392.9a(a) Operating w/out registration (49 USC 13902) 1 $25,000.00

Regardless, you're missing the point. If I reset at a truck stop and log lines 1 + 2, I need to flag for turds? Yet, if I leave my truck at the same truck stop and reset at the adjacent Shady Rest Motel, I can then drive a demolition derby, drink in the bar until they throw me out, then compete in a triathalon without once hitting the hay or having to log a log and, in the eyes of the law, I'm a rested and ready trucker. In the meantime, your successor minions up in Cortez are using suppository interrogatories trying to flush out scofflaw evacuates.

People tend to take things to the extreme, the topic of the original post had to do with a driver that spent a considerable amount of time to deal with an accident.

Drivers tend to forget there are video surveillance tapes at truck stops and loading docks. If there is a fatal accident and the video tapes are acquired with the driver being some place else other than the sleeper berth the driver has increased their culpability; whereas, if the driver was supposedly in the sleeper berth for eight hours and a video surveillance has the driver on the dock or inside the terminal the driver is going to have a difficult time proving the required rest was acquired.

Likewise if a driver has a time stamped document in when they are supposedly in the sleeper berth the carrier/driver will be cited for a nominal false log as the log indicated the driver was in the sleeper berth.

Do us all a favor . . hop in the company chopper and make your way to the Will Rogers Turnpike. I want to know the status of that Driver's phone for the 30 minutes preceeding today's octofatal.

Cell phones can be tracked by cell phone towers with a road map of the locations a driver was each time they made or received a call. Cell phones run off mocrowave technology requiring the cell phone to hae line of sight with the tower it is using. No tower, no signal, no service.

As mentioned cases are built on electronic records every day. A & R Transport learned the lesson the hard way when GPS records were used to prove false logs.

http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/SafeStat/SafetySea.asp?ais=&dot=138986&WhichForm=&PageN=EH#EH

1 10/19/2006 IL-2006-64 Compliance Review 395.8(e) False reports of records of duty status 160 $124,800.00

Not my case, but I know the details.

Stop wasting your employer's (me) money.

I have prepared a sufficent number of cases over the years where I am self supporting. If I did not prepare another case for five years my annual salary plus expenses have been paid by carriers discovered to be in non compliance with the FMCSR and HMR.

If that isn't enough there is the other thing:

TruckNet® Drivers RoundTable • View topic - I'm Back... Here's some picts... (http://roundtable.truck.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=76597&p=790121#p790121)

Drivers have no idea of the amount of documentation available at the their employer's place of business that maybe used to disprove their log books. Carriers have paid thousands of dollars in penalties for mistakes by their drivers and failure to manage the HOS. Carriers that fail to follow the HOS pay for their mistakes.

Don't forget, Swanny..... that if you are an O/O and doing a 34 hour restart at HOME (or anywhere) you can get in your truck and drive it OFF DUTY to the nearest liquor store to stock up. You come out and put all that alcohol in your truck and ... BANG.... a Swifty takes your hood off!

The cops come and take a report and notice the liquor in your truck.

They can't do a DAMN thing about it because you are OFF DUTY. Oh wait.... M/B would say that when they ask you a few questions for THEIR report, which YOU will need for your insurance (because YOU are the carrier) you are now ON DUTY and therefore they can bust you for the alcohol in your truck!

An O/O without a fore hire DOT and MC number is never the carrier.

It also depends on the circumstances surrounding the run. Did the O/O fuel at any time while on the liquor run? Did the O/O purchase parts for the truck while on the liquor run? Was the O/O making a road check of repairs while on the liquor run? Was the O/O returning from having the vehicle serviced while on the liquor run? Did the O/O just come back from a local wash cleaning the truck? If ANY of the conditions are true the O/O was on-duty driving.

With the cost of repairs, fuel, and the increased possibility of damaging a truck I don't see many O/Os taking their truck for a drive that doesn't something to do with keeping the truck road worthy.

Now if the O/O just dropped a trailer and was bobtailing from the local yard to their home for off-duty time. Then the O/O may transport alcohol in the vehicle used a personal conveyance.

It is becoming increasingly clear to me that, there is M/B's way of interpreting the regs.... and then there is what the FMCSA intended.... and fairly cleary stated.

When one takes ANY government reg TOO literally.... the combined effect through extrapolation into actual events leads to contradictions that the regs just can't explain.... or accomodate.

Then I guess the cases prepared against the carriers would be dropped when the counts are challenged.

I offer insight to extreme conditions when the rules may work against a driver affecting their ability to avoid jail time following a fatal accident or other conditions when a driver's actions could affect their employer. If drivers want to ignore the regulations and interpretations to operate longer that's their choice. However, drivrs that heed the advice and modify their logging habits to be more realistic may avoid severe repurcussions when things go south.

Which is the REASON for the "spirit of the law." It permeates our entire society and judicial system. It sets things right in the universe.

The purpose, intention, wording and spirit of the 34 hour restart (which anti-trucking groups have fought) is stated over and over in the final ruling.

The Constitution guarantees each citizen to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That guarantee is valid provided one citizen has not acted irresponsibly and caused another citizen’s right to pursue their inalienable rights. This is backed up by the Supreme Court that ruled a person’s freedom of speech does not allow them to yell “FIRE” in a crowed theater. The point is further driven home by the fact that people cannot joke about hijacking planes at the airport.

Each person has the responsibility of acting responsibly and ensuring their actions do not potentially cause harm to the public. The laws allow regulatory agencies to arrest, convict, or penalize citizens that act irresponsibly. Such is the rules that govern the HOS. When drivers fail to log known activities they set up their employer and themselves for potential penalties pertaining to false logs or HOS violations. If the HOS violation resulted in death or property damage the carrier’s penalty has increased significantly and the driver may loose their job and/or freedom.

Looked at from two different viewpoints, it is like this:

1) It gives you a FULL 24 hour period off duty which they assume is a full nights sleep and a FULL DAY off.... PLUS another full night's sleep (10 hour "break") to put you BACK on your circadian rhythm of working DAYS.... so you don't switch shifts every week, or...

2) It gives you the opportunity to get TWO FULL NIGHT'S sleep and a full day off inbetween, so that you will be fully rested and STILL on your circadian rhythm of working days and sleeping nights.

That is pretty much ALL they care about! And they are fighting those "groups" in court for our RIGHT to take ONLY that much time before going back to work. The groups would prefer a mandatory 48 hours (two full days) off.... but that means your company can dispatch you at midnight for the next week.... interrupting your circadian rhythm!

Nice try GH; however, too many carriers have paid siginificant penalties for false logs. The rules are clear:

§395.8 Driver’s record of duty status.

(f)(7) Signature/certification. The driver shall certify to the correctness of all entries by signing the form containing the driver’s duty status record with his/her legal name or name of record. The driver’s signature certifies that all entries required by this section made by the driver are true and correct.

When a supporting document is discovered that contridicts the drivers' log book the carrier and/or driver is subject to a citation for a false log.

False logs come in three varieties:

1. Nominal false log = Less than 50 miles or less than one hour

2. Critical false log = 50 miles or more or one hour or more off

3. Deliberate false log = It can be proven the falsification caused an HOS violation

An example of the critical and nonminal falsification is listed below, The 61 counts for $25,620 = $420 a count. The two counts of false logs non-critical are for deliberate false logs 2 counts for $1,900 = $950 per count. This was the carrier's first case knocking per count penalties down significantly.

http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/SafeStat/SafetySea.asp?ais=&dot=603523&WhichForm=&PageN=EH#EH

1 5/2/2006 IL-2006-314 Compliance Review

395.8(e) False reports of records of duty status 61 $25,620.00

395.8(e) False reports of logs, inaccurate log (not critical) 2 $1,900.00

Not my case, but I knew of the details.

Swift was basically cited for nominal false logs:

http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/SafeStat/SafetySea.asp?ais=&dot=54283&WhichForm=&PageN=EH#EH

2 1/8/2004 AZ-2004-41 Compliance Review

395.8(e) Failing to properly enter duty status during meal stops 78 $37,440.00

Because so many drivers fudging and falsifying their logs cases are prepared against carriers for false logs on a REGULAR basis. It is no longer relevant what the spirt of the rules meant. The driver falsified their log end of story.

Not many carriers are prosecuted for HOS as drivers falsify their logs to hide the HOS violations. Any defense a driver may have as what they believe was right or wrong regarding their duty status will have to have an allowed exception from the HOS. I challenge any driver to provide a clear cut exception indicating they are not required to flag each change of duty status. Not flagging a chage in duty status is at least a nominal falsification.

THEY have clearly stated that they can't regulate your off duty time UNLESS you are logging the 8 hour sleeper berth for the purpose of splitting your break! (and I doubt they intend you to have to take another 2 hours just because you ran to the toilet!)

Moot point, if an activity changes the off-duty time to on-duty time the event must be flagged. Failing to flag the activity = false log. If there is a document to indicate the event occurred the driver must log the event or face a false log.

YOU gave an extreme example which, although WITHIN the regs, COULD come back to hurt you IF you had a fatal accident.... because they GAVE you the "opportunity" to get restorative REST.

I have dealt with the the extreme on three occassions.

1. Driver from Chicago rearended stopped cars on I-80 in Wyoming - Driver was jailed

2. Fatal accident 10/01/2003 on I-90 at the Hampshire Tollbooth - Driver was charged with manslaghter

NTSB - Publications (http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/H_Acc.htm)

3. Fatal accident involoving a Chciago based motor coach 10/04/2004 in Arkansas.

All an attorney has to do is demonstrate a driver or company had safety violations discovered, once the violations are documented by the FMCSA or a state the public may request the reports through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA.) If a driver is cited for false logs because a documents examined demonstrated the driver was not in the sleeper berth as indicated it will be next to impossible for the driver or carrier to prove in a civil or criminal court the driver had the needed rest.

Drivers have to understand, it doesn't matter whether you had the rest or not if the driver doesn't log the activity associated with a time stamped document the log is false. The time stamp is proof the driver was performing a fuction that was on-duty not driving or driving. I cannot tell you how many drivers have had toll receipts while in the sleeper berth. It did not matter the driver was off-duty and could have used the vehicle as a personal conveyance. The fact is you cannot drive from the sleeper berth!

AND, they have clearly stated that your EMPLOYER cannot "repeatedly" interrupt your ability to GET that rest with phone calls or qualcomm messages. (they don't have the authority to tell the LEO he can't talk to you!)

GH if you're talking with a LEO in performance of functions associated with reports the carrier must have it's ON-DUTY NOT DRIVING. If there is an accident report generated at 10:31 AM and you logged SB from 9:00 AM - 7:00 PM without flagging 10:31 AM with a city and state it is a false log. The FMCSA does not have to prove or charge you with an HOS violation. You will be cited for a false log as there was a documented activity with no indication the event occured.

In fact, they HAVE clearly stated that in ANY such case, the "definition" of doing work for the employer MUST be "modified" as a REPEATED interruption.

The rules state that momentary interuptions of the sleepr berth or off-duty time will not interupt a rest period. No where in the regulations does it state the driver is not required to record the activity in-accordance-with Part 395.8. If there is evidence of satellite communications and the driver responded without flagging the activity it is a false log.

Otherwise, you couldn't get and accept a "preplan" until you finish your 34 hour restart! I've never dealt with these "preplans," but.... how many of you finish your 34 hours and THEN sit and wait for a preplan?

If the driver responded the activity would have to be flagged with a city and state.

Some of the arguments here have exceeded the extreme!!

IMHO it is a case of some drivers trying to justify their actions as they currently perform them. I hope it is clear that any time there is a time stamped document the driver must flag the activity to indicate the event occurred. Failing to flag an activity associated with a time stamped document is flirting with disaster.

It's amazing how many drivers are cited for a false log and speeding because they neglected to log a fuel stop associated with a daily fuelo summary on-file at the carrier. The time from point "A" to "B" was sufficent; however, the fuel stop at point "C" was too far from point "A" or "B" and the time logged from point "C" to point "A" or "B" indicated the driver was doing 80 mph. Carrier cited for nomianl false log as the driver did not log the fuel stop and for speeding as the driver's log indicated they were driving at 80 mph.

GH can argue the spirit of the regulation all he wants to as chances are if drivers fail to record an event with a time stamped document they will be cited for a false log. The only exception I can think of is toll receipts. Then it is imperative the driver's log can sustain the driver was in the vacinity when the toll receipt was issued.

I want to emphasize the original post indicated the driver's truck was hit, the drivr called the police, the driver chased the offending truck down on foot to a truck stop accross the street, the driver whose truck was hit had to walk back to his truck, wait for the officer to arrive, provide information, wait for the other driver to provide information and for the LEO to complete the report. If there is one driver that feels the activity could be flagged opposed to logged is clueless. Do not expect the DOT ti be as gulible as you are.

IMHO it is a case of some drivers trying to justify their actions as they currently perform them. I hope it is clear that any time there is a time stamped document the driver must flag the activity to indicate the event occurred. Failing to flag an activity associated with a time stamped document is flirting with disaster.

It's amazing how many drivers are cited for a false log and speeding because they neglected to log a fuel stop associated with a daily fuel summary on-file at the carrier. The time from point "A" to "B" was sufficient; however, the fuel stop at point "C" was too far from point "A" or "B" and the time logged from point "C" to point "A" or "B" indicated the driver was doing 80 mph. Carrier cited for nominal false log as the driver did not log the fuel stop and for speeding as the driver's log indicated they were driving at 80 mph.

GH can argue the spirit of the regulation all he wants to as chances are if drivers fail to record an event with a time stamped document they will be cited for a false log. The only exception I can think of is toll receipts. Then it is imperative the driver's log can sustain the driver was in the vicinity when the toll receipt was issued.

I want to emphasize the original post indicated the driver's truck was hit, the driver called the police, the driver chased the offending truck down on foot to a truck stop across the street, the driver whose truck was hit had to walk back to his truck, wait for the officer to arrive, provide information, wait for the other driver to provide information and for the LEO to complete the report. If there is one driver that feels the activity could be flagged opposed to logged is clueless. Do not expect the DOT to be as gullible as you are.

Be safe.

Orangetxguy

06-28-2009, 07:43 PM

Myth_Buster

06-29-2009, 07:35 AM

MB (Mike)? Are you suggesting that an "off duty driver", whom is using a "Bobtail" tractor as "Personal Conveyance", must flag a Toll booth or Pre-Pass of a weigh station, even though the driver is off duty during the event?

I'm saying that if a vehicle was being road tested, used to obtain parts, being returned after repairs were made, or fueled then the driver is on-duty driving or on-duty not driving.

If there are toll receipts associated with the activity/activities listed above then the driver's log would have to be in the vacinity where the toll receipt was issued at the time it was issued.

I also mentioned that drivers cannot have toll receipts when they log sleeper berth time. While a driver may have received toll receipts while off-duty and not logged the driving time, a driver cannot drive the truck from the sleeper berth; therefore, if a driver is logging sleeper berth and a toll receipt is presented it would be a false log.

The driver cannot drive from the sleeper berth regardless of their status.

Be safe.

Rev.Vassago

06-29-2009, 01:21 PM

What if I put a steering wheel in my sleeper berth?

chris1

06-29-2009, 01:25 PM

What if I put a steering wheel in my sleeper berth?

It's a pete,put the seat in the back holes,slide it all the way back,lay the column down and your in the sleeper.

golfhobo

06-29-2009, 11:49 PM

What if I put a steering wheel in my sleeper berth?

Well, if it's connected to the internet through your laptop, and you are "training" in how to drive a big rig, then you would be performing WORK for you employer, and you would have to log it on line 3.... or 4..... or something, and it would BUST your restart! ;)

And, don't even THINK about taking a dump while you're in that sleeper berth, cuz that will automatically change your 8 hour S/B into a 10 hour Off Duty time! And you'll be LATE for your delivery! :lol2:

golfhobo

06-29-2009, 11:53 PM

It's a pete,put the seat in the back holes,slide it all the way back,lay the column down and your in the sleeper.

:rofl::rofl:

But, you can't LOG it as sleeper, cuz you're "at the controls" of a CMV.... with NO REGARD to whether or not it is IN OPERATION! :hellno:

golfhobo

06-30-2009, 01:52 AM

Interpretation of rule 392

Question 3: Does the prohibition against carrying alcoholic beverages in §392.5 (http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.asp?reg=r49CFR392.5#r49CFR392.5) apply to a driver who uses a company vehicle, for personal reasons, while off-duty?

Guidance: No. For example, an owner-operator using his/her own vehicle in an off-duty status, or a driver using a company truck or tractor for transportation to a motel, restaurant, or home, would normally be outside the scope of this section.

If you are OUTSIDE the scope of the alchohol prohibition section while OFF DUTY... I submit you are OUTSIDE the scope of the so-called "on duty" reg!

Why? Because, per the topic sentence of that reg, you have been RELIEVED of duty and have not yet gone back ON DUTY.

You don't have to log turd breaks! You don't have to log NON-REPEATING interruptions of that break for qualcomm or phone calls. There is JUST AS MUCH "paper trail" for qualcomm and phone call messages as there is for an accident report. But, THEY have been excluded if they are not "repetitive" and don't inhibit your ability to get REST!

If you can show AT LEAST 8 uninterrupted hours in the sleeper berth TWICE during a 34 hour restart, 30-45 minutes during the other 18 hours OFF DUTY (which they don't regulate) .... if not REPEATEDLY... does NOT inhibit your ability to get rest! It sucks, it happened. You have to "take" a report from the LEO. But, it doesn't rise to the level of performing REPEATED work for the employer that inhibits your ability to get restorative rest!

For the record... and for M/B who THINKS I am trying to cheat the system.... I would NOTE the time of the report in my remarks section. That section is not scanned in on scannable logs. I would not "FLAG" it as a change of duty status.... anymore than I would FLAG a qualcom message that didn't become a "repeated" interruption!

IF, under the worst case scenario, a fatal accident occured after I went BACK on duty.... I will have covered my azz by "reporting" on my log that the parking lot incident happened. I won't be 100 miles away as he likes to use as a basis for his NOC's!

And, given the "exceptions" in the regs for MOMENTARY interruptions of a break (of any length,) I doubt there is a court in the land that will convict me of falsifying a log, driving when I'm not supposed to, or driving sleepy!

There is NOTHING in the regs, or the interpretations, concerning "momentary" interruptions of a break that says you are REQUIRED to flag it as a change of duty status. M/B is making that chit up!

Even a "flag" of a momentary interruption in an 8 hour sleeper berth break, means you have to start all over or count it as an "off duty" 2 hour break at the most.... or change it into a 10 hour break!

A "momentary" flag of change of duty to ON DUTY NOT DRIVING, during a 34 hour restart would require that you start all over, or revert to the 70 hour rule... at BEST!

I dont think this fits into the "spirit of the regs," and I have heard NOTHING from M/B to change my mind. He quotes cases where SOME companies or drivers (mostly Mexican) have cleary violated the regs. I'm GLAD he in "on duty" to stop that!

But, he has given NO examples of a ticketed or fined violation for the "topic of this thread" that he claimed to adhere to!

I'm quite CLEAR on what the O.P. was discussing. I gave MY opinion, based on MY understanding of the regs. I stand BY that opinon! I am STILL not impressed by MythBuster's responses that include cases and situations that are IRRELEVANT. He has a REAL problem with being "relevant."

If I'm on a 34 hour restart, and someone hits my truck, I'm going to call the police and file a report. I'm going to put that report number, and the responding agency in my remarks section. I'm also going to consider it a "momentary" interruption of my break as concerns "doing work" for my emplioyer. I'm NOT going to FLAG it to an "on duty" line and BUST my restart! (anymore than I'll FLAG a turd from the sleeper!)

The O.P, and the REST of you can do what YOU believe is right. I submit that you should call your SAFETY Dept with this question, instead of asking US!

Buit, I SURE wouldn't rely on the irrelevant case histories that M/B provides to make your decision. EVERY one of them relates to a driver who intentionally falsified his logs and wasn't WHERE he said he was at a certain time! THAT is not in question here!

The closest M/B got to the original question is to state that if you're on an 8 hour S/B break, and you need to run inside to take a dump, you HAVE to "flag" it as a change of duty status.... that will change your break to a 10 hour "off duty" break!" :hellno:

I believe he ACTUALLY said that, (as the REV claims,) "passing" thru the cab of your truck requires a duty status change (flagged) regardless of whether or not it is less than the "magical number" of 15 minutes that the REV somehow has come up with! :hellno:

But, the REGS actually state that any such "flag" is a change of duty status, and could ALTER your break time.

So.... I'm not "flagging" the time I get out of the sleeper to take a dump, anymore than I'm "flagging" the time while on a 10 hour break that I enter my sleeper to get a change of clothes!

And if I'm on a 34 hour restart, I'm not "FLAGGING" anything that is not consiered REPEATED work for my employer! And if I EVER should end up in court, I believe the regs will back me up!

Y'all can do what you WANT! :hellno:

Orangetxguy

06-30-2009, 03:52 AM

I'm saying that if a vehicle was being road tested, used to obtain parts, being returned after repairs were made, or fueled then the driver is on-duty driving or on-duty not driving.

If there are toll receipts associated with the activity/activities listed above then the driver's log would have to be in the vacinity where the toll receipt was issued at the time it was issued.

I also mentioned that drivers cannot have toll receipts when they log sleeper berth time. While a driver may have received toll receipts while off-duty and not logged the driving time, a driver cannot drive the truck from the sleeper berth; therefore, if a driver is logging sleeper berth and a toll receipt is presented it would be a false log.

The driver cannot drive from the sleeper berth regardless of their status.

Be safe.

Thanks for the clarification!

Now...back to :argue: :argue: :banghead:

ssoutlaw

06-30-2009, 05:29 PM

Boy we got a bunch of road cop judges.....lol Im with you GH, I will not log a famous turd break either. I cant believe they allow this crap to waste their space on this site!!!! or for that matter REV would even get involved!!!!! To many armchair quarterbacks trying to be judge and jury!!! this place has not changed. So whats up GH, still love to read your posts....lol Well gotta go smuggle some more drugs for work...lol
Now the law says you can not have drugs on your person with out a perscription, but I have lots of hard narcotics with me all day long while I am working. I know I do this for a living, but sounds as dumb as the rest of the comments people are making saying you need to do this or that....lol Remember this is my personal opinion!!!! and I have a right to express it in this forum!!!! Peace out......lol!!!!!

Rev.Vassago

07-01-2009, 12:07 AM

or for that matter REV would even get involved!!!!!

What the hell did I do?:confused:

Cueball

07-12-2009, 06:14 PM

I had a friend of mine called a radio show and asked a TX DOT officer this question and was told unfortunately under this circumstance your restart is blown. And you would have to start your 34 over.

VitoCorleone99

07-13-2009, 01:55 AM

I knew that before I posted the question. I was just curious to see what kind of angles people would take. It is a pretty asinine result though.

golfhobo

07-13-2009, 03:17 AM

I had a friend of mine called a radio show and asked a TX DOT officer this question and was told unfortunately under this circumstance your restart is blown. And you would have to start your 34 over.

I wonder if that TX DOT officer was Monty Dial.... cuz he's been proven to be wrong. Not only that, but.... he's admitted that he's not SURE about many things in the regs.

I got a roadside inspection once from a TX DOT officer. We talked a bit about regs. I mentioned something about him being the "expert" on the subject and he laughed and said.... "Not really. YOU guys probably know more about this stuff than we do." :eek2::roll3:

In 2005, when I started driving, I met a couple of NC DOT officers at a truckstop. I asked one of them about the new provisions for HOS in the new ruling. He said: "We don't know yet. It's all very confusing right now. It will take us a long time to figure it all out."

Referencing your post.... I wonder why the officer didn't say that the driver COULD revert to the 70 hour rule?

Perhaps because, once you get SOME people thinking in ONE LINE of thought, they can't consider all the options.

As I stated earlier. I wouldn't falsify my log in this case. I would make an entry in the remarks section to CMA and mention that it was NOT a "repeated" interruption of my break. The chances of it coming to light in an audit are infinitesimal. And if it did.... I would be charged ONLY with a minor violation of the 70 hour rule. Wouldn't even include a violation of either the 11 or 14 hour rules. [and I would appeal!]

IF by some GOD AWFUL chance I had, or was involved in, an accident that resulted in a death once I started driving again, there is not a court in the land (IMHO) that could prove or reason that I had not had adequate REST before driving that next day.... NOR that I intentionally falsified my log to be drving without rest.

If the guy who turned his truck over on the interstate, and was hit by a sleepy bus driver, wasn't charged..... I don't think "I" would be. And, unlike him, I doubt I would lose any CIVIL lawsuit either. (if I had been operating/resting legally.)

When put before a judge and/or a jury.... there is NO WAY that a 45 minute interruption in a 34 hour restart can be construed to imply that I was not fully rested before going back ON DUTY.

The guidance CLEARLY states that "NON-repeated" interruptions are expected if not excused. The "spirit" of the reg is to disallow the COMPANY from waking you up every hour (when you're trying to SLEEP) to answer a call or message!

If you get TWO full 8 hour sleep periods during a 34 hour restart you have met the intended requirements of the provision. What you do with the other 18 hours, (other than working on your truck or in another "DIRECTED" capacity for your employer) is your own business.... and is NOT regulated (according to the Rev.) .... oops.... I mean the REGS! ;)

If someone takes your hood off during a restart, you are NOT required to inform your company. You have been relieved of all responsibility for the equipment and the load. If you make a phone call to tell them about it, it is NO DIFFERENT than a "non repeated" message from them to you. From there.... THEY can communicate with the LEO or responding agency.

What about the guy in the truck NEXT to you? When the cop knocks on HIS door and asks him if he saw what happened, does it bust HIS restart TOO?? :hellno:

Show me ONE SINGLE REG that specifically (not the generic "doing work for") addresses the interaction between a driver OFF DUTY and an LEO!

Can't FIND one, can you? I wonder why? Perhaps, because it is "outside the scope" of the regulations. In keeping with the regs concerning interactions of a driver ON DUTY with an LEO.... I wonder why he doesn't give you an OOS order to MANDATE when you can drive again? Perhaps, because (if you've met the required times,) he doesn't CARE! :eek2:

I've never HAD my hood taken off while off duty. Probably because I stay out of Pilots and away from Swifties! ;) Let's hear from someone who HAS!

Did the cop check your logs? Did he TELL you that your break was "busted?" Did he give you an OOS order? NO??? Then was he doing his JOB to protect the motoring public from a tired driver? If NOT.... and you had a fatal accident.... HE would be likewise "culpable" in any lawsuit that followed!

Let's go one more. Has anyone here ever had his hood taken off during a restart and had his COMPANY tell him that he had to restart his "restart?" :eek2:

Not that I haven't argued (and won) with my Safety Director more than once, but.... that would go along ways towards settling this discussion! :smokin:

Has ANYONE here ever had this very possible eventuality even DISCUSSED during a company orientation, or any other discussion with their Safety Director?

Jackrabbit379

07-13-2009, 05:08 PM

I wonder if that TX DOT officer was Monty Dial.... cuz he's been proven to be wrong. Not only that, but.... he's admitted that he's not SURE about many things in the regs.

I got a roadside inspection once from a TX DOT officer. We talked a bit about regs. I mentioned something about him being the "expert" on the subject and he laughed and said.... "Not really. YOU guys probably know more about this stuff than we do." :eek2::roll3:

You'd be amazed to know what they don't know.
One time (back when I was going on harvest), we were cutting wheat here at home. (before we headed up north) I got pulled over by a DOT man. I was heading back to the field from the elevator. The DOT man walked along the right side of my truck, and waved me to come out in front of the truck. He asked me how much I had on. I told him I was empty. Luckily, he didn't ask to see my scale tickets from the elevator. He asked to see my insurance, permits, etc. He thumbed through the binder, and then he asked for my 'Texas harvest permits'. I told him that all the harvest permits are in there. He said, 'Yes, I see them. You don't have Texas'. I said, 'We don't need Texas harvest permits.' He looked at me, and said, 'You don't?' I said 'Not unless they changed it, but Texas residents are not required to have Texas harvest permits'. He knodded his head, and said, 'If you don't mind, just hang tight for a minute. I'll be right back'. He got in his car, and a minute later, he came back. He said, 'Ok, everything checks out. Be safe out there, have a good day'.