Traffic stoppage and logbooks

[golfhobo]

Man, is that post LOADED with "absolutes" or what?

Perhaps you should learn to read. I specifically said:

Until someone proves it further, my opinion of it stands - it says NOTHING about construction delays, and therefore doesn't cover them.

No, you are mixing two different posts. The "loaded" one is different than the "opinion" one. But, even the "opinion" one included more of your "absolutes" such as the word "NOTHING" and "doesn't."

Perhaps, it is YOU who should learn to read. :wink: :P

I just returned from a 5700 mile roundtrip dispatch in 5 days (team.) ALL on different routes. Didn't even GO to the coast! But, that's 5700 miles of different roads in one week!

Good for you. Would you like a medal?

People who drive a few hundred miles a week hauling HHG's, shouldn't be "preaching" to those who DO run the miles in this country!

Nope. No medal required. Maybe, just a little less LIP! My point was that in 5 days I encountered many different road/traffic conditions... MOST of which could not have been "known" to my dispatcher before I began my run. I probably could have used the "adverse" exception several times this week alone - had I been running SOLO. Teams have no right, nor need, for this exception. [Oops! Was that an "absolute?" I'm not sure if I should go that far!]

I DID see several trucks on the side of the road in the middle of nowhere, though. I wonder if THEY shared your understanding/opinion of the regs?

So... BECAUSE the FMCSA does not provide an interpretation of their rules, that satisfies YOU, you can "leave it out" of a discussion about the Regulations?

No, I can leave it out of my OPINION on the regs (which I clearly stated was an opinion.

Because some drivers abuse it, YOU don't THINK the exemption serves its purpose?

No, not really.

IF they did "this" and didn't do "that" you'd ACCEPT it??? I'm SURE they'll be "interested" in your "guidance."

Mr. Psychic.

Reverand Semantic.

I don't have alot of love for government bureaucrats, nor their mastery of the language, but... I don't presume to tell them what regs I will abide by based on MY opinion of them.

Really? You use EVERY reg that is written? Even the ones that don't apply to you?

Define "use." Do I adhere to all of them? Not always. But, that is MY choice, and it is not based on whether I understand or accept their rules or not. Why would I "use" a shorthaul reg that doesn't apply to me?

The regs say what they say. And this part is pretty clear. THEY use the words "unusual road or traffic conditions." Even "I" have been driving long enough to know what is USUAL for a road, or a traffic situation. And, sitting for hours on a freeway that is not moving "freely," is absolutely the definition of "UNUSUAL."

Once again - rush hour traffic CAN have you sitting for hours on a freeway, yet you don't use the exemption for that.

I agree! Rush hour traffic is NOT an UNUSUAL condition. Sitting in traffic in Chicago in the afternoon is NOT the same as sitting still on the Skyway at midnight while a sinkhole (that just appeared that day) is repaired.

Nuff said, :wink:

Enough was said last week already.

Maybe so..... but that was before I was "misquoted" on another thread.

And before the OP (Castanea) "snuck into" his own thread again!!

So..... is Favre coming back next year or what???

[Rev.Vassago]

The regs say what they say. And this part is pretty clear. THEY use the words "unusual road or traffic conditions." Even "I" have been driving long enough to know what is USUAL for a road, or a traffic situation. And, sitting for hours on a freeway that is not moving "freely," is absolutely the definition of "UNUSUAL."

Once again - rush hour traffic CAN have you sitting for hours on a freeway, yet you don't use the exemption for that.

I agree! Rush hour traffic is NOT an UNUSUAL condition. Sitting in traffic in Chicago in the afternoon is NOT the same as sitting still on the Skyway at midnight while a sinkhole (that just appeared that day) is repaired.

What if the sinkhole appeared three weeks ago, and they were shutting down the freeway for an hour today to get equipment in or out?

[golfhobo]

The regs say what they say. And this part is pretty clear. THEY use the words "unusual road or traffic conditions." Even "I" have been driving long enough to know what is USUAL for a road, or a traffic situation. And, sitting for hours on a freeway that is not moving "freely," is absolutely the definition of "UNUSUAL."

Once again - rush hour traffic CAN have you sitting for hours on a freeway, yet you don't use the exemption for that.

I agree! Rush hour traffic is NOT an UNUSUAL condition. Sitting in traffic in Chicago in the afternoon is NOT the same as sitting still on the Skyway at midnight while a sinkhole (that just appeared that day) is repaired.

What if the sinkhole appeared three weeks ago, and they were shutting down the freeway for an hour today to get equipment in or out?

That's a valid question. If I worked for a company in that area, and my dispatcher SHOULD HAVE KNOWN or DID know about it, the exception would NOT apply.

But, being that I drive out of NC, and rarely ever (never) go through Chicago, and MY dispatcher is under NO obligation to know about such a LOCAL "shutdown," and had not been informed of it by another one of our drivers.... if I got caught in that mess, and it "adversely" affected MY run, the exception WOULD apply.... to ME!! Maybe, it wouldn't apply to OTHER trucks in the area, but it would apply to ME.

Perhaps, you are not seeing that this exception can be applied "differently" to different drivers. There is no "blanket" exception... or LACK thereof.... that applies to everyone at the same time, in ALL situations.

There is no DOT cop running a "checkpoint" at the output of the stoppage, to tell drivers what to do. A driver is expected to plan his trip according to what he KNOWS. If his run is "adversely affected" by something UNFORESEEN to him and/or his dispatcher, he is allowed the exception.

That is what the "remarks" section of the logsheet is FOR. You explain the use of the exception. If, and ONLY if, the logsheet for that day is ever questioned, the "situation" can be verified by local authorities. The location and "usual" routes of your company will be considered. The pattern or lack thereof of usage of this exception will be considered.

If, for some reason, you get stopped by a "rambo" DOT officer, and get a citation for it.... well, that's what LAWYERS are for. This would be an EASY case to get dismissed (under the scenario as I have explained it.)

I guarantee you that those truckers in PA, caught on news videotape, shutdown for snow, or ANY driver caught in the sniper shutdown, will NOT receive violations for driving up to 13 hours, within their 14 hour clock, to complete their run or get to a safe shutdown location. THAT is what the exception is FOR... and THAT is why they bothered to include it in the REGS.

[Rev.Vassago]

That's a valid question.

I know. That's why I've been stating it ad nauseum since this thread started.

If I worked for a company in that area, and my dispatcher SHOULD HAVE KNOWN or DID know about it, the exception would NOT apply.

But, being that I drive out of NC, and rarely ever (never) go through Chicago, and MY dispatcher is under NO obligation to know about such a LOCAL "shutdown," and had not been informed of it by another one of our drivers.... if I got caught in that mess, and it "adversely" affected MY run, the exception WOULD apply.... to ME!! Maybe, it wouldn't apply to OTHER trucks in the area, but it would apply to ME.

This is where I disagree. Nowhere in the regs does it state ANYTHING even close to this. It simply says "SHOULD HAVE KNOWN". In this day and age, with the internet, cellular phones, and 24 hour traffic hotlines, there is NO REASON that dispatch should not be able to find out about ALL scheduled road closures. Because they have the capability of knowing, then they SHOULD know.

I guarantee you that those truckers in PA, caught on news videotape, shutdown for snow, or ANY driver caught in the sniper shutdown, will NOT receive violations for driving up to 13 hours, within their 14 hour clock, to complete their run or get to a safe shutdown location. THAT is what the exception is FOR... and THAT is why they bothered to include it in the REGS.

You're absolutely right. But snow isn't construction, and apples aren't oranges.

[golfhobo]

[quote="Rev.Vassago"]

That's a valid question.

I know. That's why I've been stating it ad nauseum since this thread started.

And, since I ANSWERED it in one of my first few posts, your continued questioning of this "situation" is making ME "nauseous" TOO!!

If I worked for a company in that area, and my dispatcher SHOULD HAVE KNOWN or DID know about it, the exception would NOT apply.

But, being that I drive out of NC, and rarely ever (never) go through Chicago, and MY dispatcher is under NO obligation to know about such a LOCAL "shutdown," and had not been informed of it by another one of our drivers.... if I got caught in that mess, and it "adversely" affected MY run, the exception WOULD apply.... to ME!! Maybe, it wouldn't apply to OTHER trucks in the area, but it would apply to ME.

This is where I disagree.


No Kidding!!?? :shock:

Nowhere in the regs does it state ANYTHING even close to this. It simply says "SHOULD HAVE KNOWN".

The ONLY place the words "should have known" are found is in the "guidance" section. Those words do NOT appear in the REGS!!

In this day and age, with the internet, cellular phones, and 24 hour traffic hotlines, there is NO REASON that dispatch should not be able to find out about ALL scheduled road closures. Because they have the capability of knowing, then they SHOULD know.

Okay, Rev. When was this "exception" first included in the rules??? Look that UP for me, will ya? Was it part of the NEW HOS rules?? Or was it.... maybe.... included in the OLD regs, BEFORE the "digital age?" I TOLD ya before.... find it in the REGS by which the carrier/dispatcher must operate, or give it up!

I guarantee you that those truckers in PA, caught on news videotape, shutdown for snow, or ANY driver caught in the sniper shutdown, will NOT receive violations for driving up to 13 hours, within their 14 hour clock, to complete their run or get to a safe shutdown location. THAT is what the exception is FOR... and THAT is why they bothered to include it in the REGS.

You're absolutely right. But snow isn't construction, and apples aren't oranges.

And "should have known" isn't "WAS known!" The REGULATIONS don't say "should have known." They say "WAS KNOWN."

[making it BIGGER, so he'll understand!]

[Rev.Vassago]

The ONLY place the words "should have known" are found is in the "guidance" section. Those words do NOT appear in the REGS!!

Hate to break this to you, but the interpretations are part of the regs. They just clairfy some of the loosely worded regs. BUT, they are a basis upon which the regs are enforced.

Okay, Rev. When was this "exception" first included in the rules??? Look that UP for me, will ya? Was it part of the NEW HOS rules?? Or was it.... maybe.... included in the OLD regs, BEFORE the "digital age?" I TOLD ya before.... find it in the REGS by which the carrier/dispatcher must operate, or give it up!

Doesn't matter. As technology has changed, it simply has tightened the noose on the reg.

And "should have known" isn't "WAS known!" The REGULATIONS don't say "should have known." They say "WAS KNOWN."

No, they don't. If you think they do, then cite the reg.

[mike3fan]

[Dawn]

:rock:

[golfhobo]

§395.1 Scope of rules in this part.


(a) General. (1) The rules in this part apply to all motor carriers and drivers, except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (o) of this section.

...

(b) Adverse driving conditions.

Isn't it "interesting" that the very FIRST "exception" to the SCOPE of the rules is the Adverse Driving Conditions???!!!!


(1) Except as provided in paragraph (h)(2) of this section, a driver who encounters adverse driving conditions, as defined in § 395.2, and cannot, because of those conditions, safely complete the run within the maximum driving time permitted by §§ 395.3(a) or 395.5(a) may drive and be permitted or required to drive a commercial motor vehicle for not more than 2 additional hours in order to complete that run or to reach a place offering safety for the occupants of the commercial motor vehicle and security for the commercial motor vehicle and its cargo. However, that driver may not drive or be permitted to drive-

(b)(1)(i) For more than 13 hours in the aggregate following 10 consecutive hours off duty for drivers of property-carrying commercial motor vehicles;

(b)(1)(ii) After the end of the 14th hour since coming on duty following 10 consecutive hours off duty for drivers of property-carrying commercial motor vehicles;

GUIDANCE:


Question 5: How may a driver utilize the adverse driving conditions exception or the emergency conditions exception as found in §395.1(b), to preclude an hours of service violation?

Guidance: An absolute prerequisite for any such claim must be that the trip involved is one which could normally and reasonably have been completed without a violation and that the unforeseen event occurred after the driver began the trip.

Drivers who are dispatched after the motor carrier has been notified or should have known of adverse driving conditions are not eligible for the two hours additional driving time provided for under §395.1(b), adverse driving conditions.

The term "in any emergency" shall not be construed as encompassing such situations as a driver's desire to get home, shippers' demands, market declines, shortage of drivers, or mechanical failures

Question 28: Does the emergency conditions exception in 49 CFR 395.1(b)(2) apply to a driver who planned on arriving at a specific rest area to complete his 10 hours driving and found the rest area full, forcing the driver to continue past the ten hours driving looking for another safe parking area?

Guidance: No. The emergency conditions exception does not apply to the driver. It is general knowledge that rest areas have become increasingly crowded for commercial motor vehicle parking, thus, it is incumbent on drivers to look for a parking spot before the last few minutes of a 10 hour driving period. The driver should provide the reason for exceeding the 10 hours driving in the Remarks section of the record of duty status.

Hmmm.... NO qaestions about construction delays! Hmmm..... noted that it is GENERAL KNOWLEDGE about pickle parks being full..... but no "general knowledge" about unforseen road delays due to construction. Perhaps, because it is TOO OBVIOUS to "preload" a question about it!

GUIDANCE under 395.2 "Definitions"

Question 25: When a driver experiences a delay on an impassable highway, should the time he/she is delayed be entered on the record of duty status as driving time or on-duty (not driving)?

Guidance: Delays on impassable highways must be recorded as driving time because §395.2 defines "driving time" as all time spent at the driving controls of a CMV in operation.

This is exactly WHY there is an exemption allowwing a driver to drive an additional 2 hours! The definitions dictate that the time spent sitting still on the road MUST be logged as line 3.... therefore..... the exception is provided so that the driver may "recover" at least 2 hours of this "driving time" to "complete his run."

[Rev.Vassago]

So, where does it say "was known"?

[golfhobo]

So, where does it say "was known"?

From 395.2: .......none of which were apparent on the basis of information known to the person dispatching the run at the time it was begun.

[Rev.Vassago]

So, where does it say "was known"?

From 395.2: .......none of which were apparent on the basis of information known to the person dispatching the run at the time it was begun.

I repeat:

Where does it say "was known"?

[golfhobo]

So, where does it say "was known"?

From 395.2: .......none of which were apparent on the basis of information known to the person dispatching the run at the time it was begun.

I repeat:

Where does it say "was known"?

You're RIGHT, Rev! I added the word "was" to differentiate from "should have."

The past tense word KNOWN stands alone as all the verification needed for my interpretation of the regs.

I don't have the time or patience to teach you Englilsh Comprehension. I'm through with this discussion because, as you said, enuff was said last week.

You can take the exception or not, as you please. But, you have said nothing to change my comprehension of the regulations.

I'll leave it to the others to take what they want from this "discussion."

time for me to go OTR again! C'ra!!

[Rev.Vassago]

So, where does it say "was known"?

From 395.2: .......none of which were apparent on the basis of information known to the person dispatching the run at the time it was begun.

I repeat:

Where does it say "was known"?

You're RIGHT, Rev! I added the word "was" to differentiate from "should have."

The past tense word KNOWN stands alone as all the verification needed for my interpretation of the regs.

I don't have the time or patience to teach you Englilsh Comprehension. I'm through with this discussion because, as you said, enuff was said last week.

You can take the exception or not, as you please. But, you have said nothing to change my comprehension of the regulations.

I'll leave it to the others to take what they want from this "discussion."

time for me to go OTR again! C'ra!!

Plain and simple. It doesn't say "was known", but it does say "should have known".