Dear Golfhobo, Part 8: THE RESULTS ARE IN!

[Rev.Vassago]

Dear Golfhobo,

So here we stand: at odds with each other on three different subjects - alcohol in a CMV, the ability to be off duty in the cab of a CMV, and whether or not an 8 hour break that is not combined with an additional 2 hour break puts a driver in violation. So I have a proposal for you: A NO HOLDS BARRED BATTLE ROYAL!

Okay, not really. I took the liberty of presenting these questions to a man named Mike M. Who is Mike M., you ask? He happens to be a field officer for the FMCSA. That means he goes to trucking companies and performs audits, and imposes fines. He is what most logical people would consider an expert on the regulations, since he is the man in charge of imposing fines based off them. I asked the questions, he gave the answers. Which brings us to today.

I am offering a proposal to you. I will post the questions I posed, as well as the answers he gave verbatim, under two conditions:

1. The answers he gives are final, and cannot be argued. Whatever his answers are, you have to accept them as correct.

2. You have to accept everything he says as correct. You can't accept one answer, but not accept another. He is either completely right, or I post no further.

It is your choice. I await your decision. You may be surprised at the answers. I know I was.


Love,

Rev.

[BigDiesel]

[Roadhog]

skree...oOoOweeOoOweeOooooooo

[golfhobo]

Dear Rev Vassago:

Your proposal is interesting, no doubt. But, I don't like your conditions.

You recently said in effect, that you will defend your position to the death. Yet, you want me to surrender that right. I am not questioning the "position" Mike M holds, but I have no guarantees that HE is always right. Surely, companies have "challenged" violations and fines before, and I can't help but believe they sometimes WIN those challenges. So, no FMCSA "auditor" is infallible.

Also, in the recent issue of The Trucker, one of our members posed his question concerning taking a nap in his sleeper while his truck was parked at his home during a 34 hour reset. The question was answered (with MUCH deference to quoting the "on duty time" regs,) by Trooper Dial. In the same issue, a driver (not known if one of ours,) posed a question about being ROD while eating his lunch in the CAB of his DAYCAB. The question was answered confidently by another trooper who is part of Ol' Blue.

The two answers are at odds! One of them is wrong! People can and DO make mistakes, or misinterpret the regs..... even when in positions of authority.

And as I have said before, often the answers from Ol' Blue are skewed because of the way the QUESTION was asked. How do I know if you asked the questions correctly?

I am quite confident with my position on the 8 hour sleeper rules.

I am somewhat ambiguous about the On duty time rule concerning time on a CMV, but I am confident about my comprehension of the regs AS THEY ARE WRITTEN. Now, if some "average" guy at the FMCSA used poor grammer and paragraph structure, I may have been mislead. But, if I am wrong, so is the trooper at ol' Blue who answered the question concerning eating your lunch in a day cab. Perhaps, your Mike M knows the actual "spirit" of this reg, and perhaps it is different than the way it was written. But, I doubt it.

As for alcohol in a CMV. I was prepared to go back and moderate my stance on that issue, but you told me not to. I shouldn't have listened to you. I was probably WRONG in suggesting to the O.P. that he should go ahead and kick back in his sleeper with a 6 pack. But, I can't find any REGS that actually adress the issue. The one about "carrying" unopened alcohol while in transit (and off duty) doesn't really cover it. Point that I was making at that time, was mostly that it is DONE all the time, in every truckstop that doesn't have a posted sign prohibiting it. That may not make it right..... but, it IS reality.

So, here's the deal. I, too would like to know what the FMCSA has to say on these issues, and I'm too busy to email them myself. But, I will not give up my right to question a "bureaucrat!" Especially, if his answer is offered based on a poorly worded question.

So... if you can meet me halfway, I suggest you post your QUESTIONS verbatim, so I can see if they are well designed to get the proper answer. THEN, I will either accept or reject your "deal." (although, I am leaning against doing so, simply because your Mike M is not a high enough authority.)

If not, I will simply find my OWN "Mike M," and ask him myself. (after vetting him, of course!)

I went back to the logbook examples section of the FMCSA website tonight, just to check things out, and they have done an extensive revamping of them. I was impressed (although I found a few minor errors or exclusions.) If you go there, and start with example #8, you will find ample proof of what I have said about the 8 hour sleeper berth ALWAYS being off the clock. Example #21 clearly shows the case of two 8 hour S/B breaks used to meet the requirements. And the calculation points always reflect that these periods are off the clock.

In summation, pure and simple, I need to know HOW you phrased your questions. Your recent and continued misunderstanding of the S/B regs does not give me confidence in how you might have worded them.

If you choose to take this as a rejection of your "deal," that is up to you. If I had intended it to be so, I could have used a lot less words! :wink:

[Rev.Vassago]

You recently said in effect, that you will defend your position to the death. Yet, you want me to surrender that right.

I am giving up my position so that these three issues can be resolved. I am asking you to do the same.

I am not questioning the "position" Mike M holds, but I have no guarantees that HE is always right. Surely, companies have "challenged" violations and fines before, and I can't help but believe they sometimes WIN those challenges. So, no FMCSA "auditor" is infallible.

I agree, but at the same time it is fair to say that he has more experience with dealing with the actual FMCSA regulations as they are written on a daily basis than both of us combined. It is one thing to know the regulations as they pertain to you, a driver. It is another thing to have your job description completely deal with the regulations. So it is safe to say he is more of an expert than either of us is.

And as I have said before, often the answers from Ol' Blue are skewed because of the way the QUESTION was asked. How do I know if you asked the questions correctly?

If you agree, I will post the questions as I asked them prior to posting the answers. If you have a dispute with a question, I will go back and re-ask him.

So, here's the deal. I, too would like to know what the FMCSA has to say on these issues, and I'm too busy to email them myself. But, I will not give up my right to question a "bureaucrat!" Especially, if his answer is offered based on a poorly worded question.

Well, that is an unfair request, as you want to debate a pre-answered question by someone who isn't here to clarify his answer. If you want to discuss his answers, I have no problem with that. If you want to pick them apart and say he is wrong and you are right, then the discussion will end here.

So... if you can meet me halfway, I suggest you post your QUESTIONS verbatim, so I can see if they are well designed to get the proper answer. THEN, I will either accept or reject your "deal." (although, I am leaning against doing so, simply because your Mike M is not a high enough authority.)

Here are his qualifications:

In 1999 he was hired as a GS-9 as a GS-2123 Motor Carrier Safety Specialist.

He is now a GS-12 Step 5 soon to be Step 6.

He is in the process of becoming a GS-13. I think that makes him more than qualified to answer the questions, assuming you agree to the way I asked them.

If you wish me to proceed, please let me know.

[Roadhog]

What are my qualifications?
Ah. Well... I attended Juilliard... I'm a graduate of the Harvard business school. I travel quite extensively. I lived through the Black Plague and had a pretty good time during that. I've seen the Exorcist about a hundred and sixty-seven times, and it keeps getting funnier every single time I see it....not to mention the fact that you're talking to a DOT guy...now what do you think?

I'm the GS-2123 Motor Carrier Safety Specialist who started as a GS-9, now a GS-12 Step 5 soon to be Step 6, and in the process of becoming a GS-13, host with the most beeotch!

Are we halfway to heaven? Are we halfway to hell? And... how long is this gonna last?
Ohhhh...I can hear it coming now....
There are geographical and temporal perimeters. Functional perimeters vary from manifestation to manifestation.
Oi vey. :sad:

[scooter823]

Move over , got any hot sauce for the popcorn.

[Rev.Vassago]

I guess he can't accept my very simple, very fair terms. It's a shame. He may have liked the results....

[golfhobo]

I guess he can't accept my very simple, very fair terms. It's a shame. He may have liked the results....

I'm still thinking..... :wink:

Besides, only TWO on a couch ain't much of an audience!

I have no doubt that I might like the results, because I expect them to be mostly in my favor..... with the exception of the alcohol bit. And remember, I made no assertions that any of that was legal. I only questioned the lack of clear regs pertaining to it, and corrected some people's misconceptions about automatic DUI's with "any" alcohol in the system, etc.

My problem is still with the requirement to give up my right to question a "ruling" by your friend if I find reason to question HIS understanding of the regs. It could happen... and HAS.

Futhermore, you decided NOT to meet me halfway concerning the wording of your questions. You offered only maybe 1/4 of the way. You still want me to AGREE to the deal before you will tell me how you worded the questions. I see no reason for this.

Nor do I see any reason why you should withhold your "findings" regardless of whether they support YOU or ME. You have made the effort to get an answer, and I see no reason why you shouldn't just post the results you got. That would be a service to all concerned.

All in all, though, and especially considering your most recent modifications, I find it an interesting offer. I also appreciate your much more amenable tone.

As for the delay, besides having to work some these past few days, I have been "vetting" the qualifications you listed. Although I have never been overly impressed by most government workers, and found the requirements for his hiring in 99 at a GS-9 level to be somewhat lenient, I will admit that having reached the level of GS-12 (if all that time was spent in this capacity,) should have and probably has afforded him the opportunity to become an "expert" in this field. Certainly moreso than the revered Trooper Dial.

I have made clear my reservations concerning Trooper Dial's level of expertise (and with good reason.) And to some extent, both he and Mike M are involved in the "enforcement" of the regs and not the formulation of them. But, I don't mean that to sound overly derogatory.

And I have certainly questioned YOUR references to and interpretations of the regs. As you have mine.

I have often said it would be nice to have some truthful information FROM the FMCSA on the questions we have debated, and now it seems, you have endeavored that.

So, trust that I am not a complete fool, as I trust that you understood his answers better than someone else who recently said he called the FMCSA for answers, and POST your findings without attempting to take away my rights.

I will give you THIS much: I believe that Mike M has the qualifications and experience to be considered an expert in the field (even though "I" didn't get a chance to talk to him personally.)

You may post your questions first and see if I have a need to discuss the wording. OR, you may post the complete dialougue and see if I want to "discuss" your questions as they may affect his answers.... OR that I might want to discuss his answers. But, I promise that I will do so intelligently and with respect to both of you.

But, as you said about the unfairness of HIM not being here to defend his answers, I will not concede that his answers are automatically correct en toto before hearing both the questions and the answers.

I don't know how YOU shop, but I won't buy a pig in a poke (with no return policy) without ensuring it is not an oppossum!

If you consider my position to be a deal breaker, then you can keep your information to yourself. No skin off my teeth.

I know the regs concerning the 8 hour sleeper rule, and I am fairly confident about the "off duty" in a cab rule. Regardless, I'll continue to log off duty and sit anywhere I damn well please in my truck when it is parked.

I have no need nor desire to drink beer in the sleeper, and I am not concerned with the fact that I might have a detectable amount in my system after having a few at the Outback and returning to my truck. If someone takes the nose off my truck while I am in the sleeper, I am quite convinced that "dealing" with the issue is NOT considered a "safety sensitive" function. However, I have given MUCH thought to the one example offered where, to save a life, I had to jump under the controls and move the truck! That was a good one.... and has given me reason to think!

So, you do what you WANT, Rev. This is your show! Your "thread" as it were. At this point, all I can promise you is that I will respond with as much professionalism and decency as I am SHOWN. Right now, you are doing a good job.

Hobo

[Trukrswyfe]

I guess he can't accept my very simple, very fair terms. It's a shame. He may have liked the results....

I'm still thinking..... :wink:

Besides, only TWO on a couch ain't much of an audience!

I'm sorry did you say you need an audience to cock fight? Done. Now Get To It. :wink:

I don't know how YOU shop,

True, but atleast we know how he cooks. yeh.

but I won't buy a pig in a poke (with no return policy) without ensuring it is not an oppossum!

made note.

No skin off my teeth.

Translation: I see the bait, and I bumped it but .... still no fish on.

So, you do what you WANT, Rev. This is your show! Your "thread" as it were. At this point, all I can promise you is that I will respond with as much professionalism and decency as I am SHOWN. Right now, you are doing a good job.

Hobo

Well played Golf don't show your hand till your past the turn and see the River. Way to "hold'em"

[Rev.Vassago]

My problem is still with the requirement to give up my right to question a "ruling" by your friend if I find reason to question HIS understanding of the regs. It could happen... and HAS.

Futhermore, you decided NOT to meet me halfway concerning the wording of your questions. You offered only maybe 1/4 of the way. You still want me to AGREE to the deal before you will tell me how you worded the questions. I see no reason for this.

As I stated before, if you didn't like the wording of my questions, then I would re-ask them based upon the altered wording that is mutually agreed upon. I think that is more than fair.

Nor do I see any reason why you should withhold your "findings" regardless of whether they support YOU or ME. You have made the effort to get an answer, and I see no reason why you shouldn't just post the results you got. That would be a service to all concerned.

There is a simple reason for that: I am attempting to put the issues to rest. If you don't like the answers, and simply want to hash the whole thing over again, then it serves no purpose whatsoever, other than to create more bad blood for everyone involved. So my solution was to find an expert in the field that we would both agree was enough of an expert that his answers would be accepted as final. Meaning, if his answers agreed with you, then so be it. If his answers agreed with me, then you would have to accept that as well. I didn't want you to take it "ala carte", where you could pick and choose what you wanted to accept. If that is what you wanted to do, then again, it serves no purpose other than to create more bad blood for everyone involved.

That being said, here are the questions I posed:

Question 1:Let's say a driver just came off a 10 hour sleeper berth break. He drives for 5 hours, then takes an 8 hour sleeper berth break. He then drives 6 hours, then takes an 11 hour sleeper berth break.

Based on §395.1((g)(1)(ii)(A), which states:

§395.1 Scope of rules in this part.

(g)(1)(ii)(A) The term “equivalent of at least 10 consecutive hours off duty” means a period of

(1) At least 8 but less than 10 consecutive hours in a sleeper berth, and

(2) A separate period of at least 2 but less than 10 consecutive hours either in the sleeper berth or off duty, or any combination thereof.

Was there a violation? If so, what?

Question 2:Is there any scenario you can think of where it would be legal for a driver to have alcohol which is not part of a manifested shipment in the cab or sleeper of a CMV?

Question 3:Let me take this one a bit further: Let's assume a driver is on a 34 hour reset in his truck, and is consuming alcohol in the CMV. That driver climbs into the cab to sit in the driver's seat to have a smoke. Does the fact that they are at the controls of a CMV (even if they do not intend to operate the CMV) mean they just went On Duty, and are now in violation? What if they were in the passenger seat?

Is it possible to be in the cab of a CMV and not be On Duty, other than the "personal conveyance" exception?

[HWD]

Based on the excruciatingly long-winded replies to the challenge given by "Golfhobo", when a simple "sure" or "nah" would have sufficed, I'd say you're wasting your time...he seems to want to split hairs, argue semantics and generally stir the pot. He doesn't strike me as one who really cares what's legal or how anything is interpreted by those who could put you out of business, so long as his posts garner plenty of attention he's content - until the next thread comes along, of course.

I would like to hear the answers, though...and maybe others would too.

[golfhobo]

Rev.Vassago wrote:

My problem is still with the requirement to give up my right to question a "ruling" by your friend if I find reason to question HIS understanding of the regs. It could happen... and HAS.

Futhermore, you decided NOT to meet me halfway concerning the wording of your questions. You offered only maybe 1/4 of the way. You still want me to AGREE to the deal before you will tell me how you worded the questions. I see no reason for this.

As I stated before, if you didn't like the wording of my questions, then I would re-ask them based upon the altered wording that is mutually agreed upon. I think that is more than fair.

I agree that that is fair. I just didn't accept that I had to AGREE to the deal before hearing the wording of your questions. And having now heard them, I was right in doing so. More later.

Nor do I see any reason why you should withhold your "findings" regardless of whether they support YOU or ME. You have made the effort to get an answer, and I see no reason why you shouldn't just post the results you got. That would be a service to all concerned.

There is a simple reason for that: I am attempting to put the issues to rest. If you don't like the answers, and simply want to hash the whole thing over again, then it serves no purpose whatsoever, other than to create more bad blood for everyone involved. So my solution was to find an expert in the field that we would both agree was enough of an expert that his answers would be accepted as final.

Meaning, if his answers agreed with you, then so be it. If his answers agreed with me, then you would have to accept that as well. I didn't want you to take it "ala carte", where you could pick and choose what you wanted to accept. If that is what you wanted to do, then again, it serves no purpose other than to create more bad blood for everyone involved.

Yes, I understood your motives AND your concerns about "a la carte" acceptance, Rev, and I am trying to adhere. I cannot totally gaurantee you what my response will be. I have given you my word that I will be respectfull IF I disagree, and as you said.... we can DISCUSS our reasons for that. It seems as if you have a direct line to this guy, so clarification should not be a major problem as long as I can (if necessary) present a valid reason for seeking it. It's not like he is going to self-destruct in 20 seconds, right?

That being said, here are the questions I posed:

Ah.... so you HAVE met me halfway! That is good. I really appreciate that.

Question 1:Let's say a driver just came off a 10 hour sleeper berth break. He drives for 5 hours, then takes an 8 hour sleeper berth break. He then drives 6 hours, then takes an 11 hour sleeper berth break.

Based on §395.1((g)(1)(ii)(A), which states:

§395.1 Scope of rules in this part.

(g)(1)(ii)(A) The term “equivalent of at least 10 consecutive hours off duty” means a period of

(1) At least 8 but less than 10 consecutive hours in a sleeper berth, and

(2) A separate period of at least 2 but less than 10 consecutive hours either in the sleeper berth or off duty, or any combination thereof.

Was there a violation? If so, what?

I have no real problem with the wording, however, it wouldn't matter WHAT combination of lines 1 or 2 he spent that ORIGINAL 10 hour break on as long as it was consecutive.

There are SEVERAL logbook examples on their site that will support MY interpretation, and what I'm sure will be HIS answer. However, if he answers anything other than NO violation.... all bets are off. Sorry, but there is just too much evidence in the logbook examples for me to accept otherwise. And IF he gets this wrong, he has no standing. However.... I am quite sure he will get it right.

Question 2:Is there any scenario you can think of where it would be legal for a driver to have alcohol which is not part of a manifested shipment in the cab or sleeper of a CMV?

I understand your conformance to certain wording of the regs, but this question COULD be misleading as it entices subjectivity and imagination. I am not amenable to your invoking his imagination of scenarios.

First of all, if he knows his regs, his first answer would be yes... that of an off duty O/O driving his OWN (unladen) truck on his own time, OR a company driver (unladen?) on his way to a motel. That much is stated in the regs (IIRC.... and even YOU have said as much.)

Now do you see why I question your questioning? You know full well, as you have STATED the regs concerning it, that there IS this one exception.... at least.

I would respectfully ask that you clarify the situation as that of a CMV (even laden as long as not H/M,) that is parked in a truckstop and NOT IN OPERATION. i.e: the driver is ROD and, as someone said.... the brakes are "popped."

In this LAST case, however, I would not be surprised if his answer is NO WAY! The FMCSA does have a zero tolerance policy, although worded specifically towards DRIVING or being ON DUTY or performing "safety sensitive functions" while possessing or being under any detectable influence of alcohol.

Regardless of the way they have worded their regs, I would be surprised if this expert would be able to conceive of a scenario of an off duty driver having unmanifested alcohol in ANY part of the truck UNLESS he is in transit to a resting place OTHER than his truck. But, I would LOVE to know the reg he cites as prohibitive.... AND I'd love to know what fine would be imposed BY THE FMCSA (not the local or state police.)

Question 3:Let me take this one a bit further: Let's assume a driver is on a 34 hour reset in his truck, and is consuming alcohol in the CMV. That driver climbs into the cab to sit in the driver's seat to have a smoke. Does the fact that they are at the controls of a CMV (even if they do not intend to operate the CMV) mean they just went On Duty, and are now in violation? What if they were in the passenger seat?

Is it possible to be in the cab of a CMV and not be On Duty, other than the "personal conveyance" exception?

Again, I have a problem with your question, and I appreciate your willingness to let me hear it first.

This is supposedly, the question about the "on duty" regulation concerning ANY time spent on or in a CMV that is NOT in the sleeper. Why drag alcohol into the equation?

IF the answer to the "on duty" question is yes.... any time spent on or in a CMV is ON DUTY (regardless of the topic sentence of the subparagraph of the reg that states it doesn't apply to a driver who is ROD,) then it would be OBVIOUS that a driver would be in violation if he had a detectable amount of alcohol in his system while ON DUTY.

The question we have spent hours debating is whether or not a driver who is RELIEVED OF DUTY can be considered ON DUTY simply by being ON OR IN a CMV (NOT IN OPERATION) unless he is in the sleeper! Or whether, once ROD, a driver is free to pursue activities of his own choosing (like eating a burger in his daycab!) .... and (per the FMCSA) no place OTHER than a sleeper is regulated by them for the purpose of attaining the required REST.

By ADDING to your question that the driver has been drinking in the sleeper, you surely would COLOR this experts answer toward zero tolerance issues, when all we REALLY want to know is if even a SOBER driver, on a 34 hour reset, can sit in EITHER the driver's seat OR the passenger's seat of his cab without being considered ON DUTY and busting his 34 hour reset!

Furthermore, since you love quoting regs, and did so in your FIRST question, I would love for you to point out the "ON DUTY" reg that we have been discussing, and leaving alcohol OUT of the equation, get this expert's opinion on heh, heh.... the SPIRIT of that reg! :wink:

You could even throw in all those "scenarios" of how a driver is supposed to get TO his sleeper without passing through the cab and going "on duty."

Sorry, Rev.... but, just as you have often misinterpreted the regs, you have now also misrepresented the questions! I'd say you have possibly BLOWN a good chance at getting an unbiased "expert" opinion because you colored your questions to advance or support your contentions with me concerning alcohol, instead of just getting answers to the Big 3 questions! But, it was a noble effort.

At this point, since you have already ASKED these questions in this manner, I doubt you can get real answers from your expert. But, IF you think you can reword the questions with my objections and clarifications in mind, and STILL get an unbiased answer, I am willing to listen. Otherwise, I'm afraid there is NO DEAL! this is EXACTLY why I would not accept your deal in the beginning. No offense intended, but sometimes you just don't "get it." And I KNEW that.

If you CAN'T complete the project successfully and intelligently, I would STILL love to hear his answers to your biased and OBTUSE questions. It should be good for a laugh.

How're you guys on the couch doing? Need another beer?

Seriously, Rev.... I don't mean to belittle you. It is all just for fun.... on the INTERNET. But, I THINK I see you trying to put some of this behind us, and I would actually appreciate that! But, as Sean Connery said in Hunt For Red October, "My god, man.... Halsey had it all WRONG!"

You looked a gift horse in the mouth and asked him TWO out of three questions wrong!

You SAID I might "like" the answers. Maybe so. I suspect that he answered question one and three (with caveats) in my favor, even though they were poorly worded. Maybe not. Maybe, this was all just a trap. I don't really know. But, I DO know that you need to reword your questions before I will accept his answers! NOT because he is not an expert.... but, because you didn't ask the questions as we've been discussing them.

For what it's worth, I no longer really CARE about the alcohol issue. I agree with most of you that it is a bad practice. I only meant to point out that it is being DONE all over the country, and absent T/F's beer Nazi's, it is going unchecked and unnoticed! And, to my knowledge, truckstops (unless otherwise posted) are what they call a "safe haven." With brakes "popped" and driver ROD, whether or not a truckstop parking lot is considered a PVA, no cops are going to come looking for you! What you do is YOUR responsibility! It's a personal decision, and I HOPE that we all make that decision within the bounds of what WE call "professionalism."

As for the sleeper berth rules, you are totally confused by the wording of the regs, and don't understand the SPIRIT of them! I think perhaps now you might be getting a clue.

As for the ON DUTY reg? I seriously don't know! I know what it SAYS, and how it is worded..... but, I may be missing the spirit of the reg IF they have worded it incorrectly. But, I doubt it! I don't believe the FMCSA would have a DAYCAB driver stand outside in the rain to eat his lunch JUST so he can log that time as OFF DUTY, when authorized by his company to do so, because he HAS NO sleeper! It makes no sense! Not for THEM.... and not for US!

Now, I've about had it with this game. Post your results and take your chances with me, or not. I really don't CARE. But, I suggest you call your friend and reword your questions first. Or NOT.... I really don't care.

If you REALLY want to put this to rest..... I'll GIVE you whatever you want (other than a dui for a .001) on the alcohol issue. If you'll admit your mistakes concerning question 1, AND that one CAN log off duty and STILL be in or on their truck (whether in the sleeper or NOT) as long as they are not performing "safety sensitive functions," and have been ROD either by their company OR by regulations concerning HOS breaks!

That's MY deal! YOU interested? Oh, and you must refrain from answering questions about HOS rules, and specifically split logging regs, until you understand them.

Hobo

[Double R]

[golfhobo]

Based on the excruciatingly long-winded replies to the challenge given by "Golfhobo", when a simple "sure" or "nah" would have sufficed, I'd say you're wasting your time...he seems to want to split hairs, argue semantics and generally stir the pot. He doesn't strike me as one who really cares what's legal or how anything is interpreted by those who could put you out of business, so long as his posts garner plenty of attention he's content - until the next thread comes along, of course.

I would like to hear the answers, though...and maybe others would too.

Your objections are noted, and dismissed, HWD! If you don't like reading my posts, please skip over them and wait to see if REV posts his results.

I considered a simple no or yes answer, but it didn't suit me or the cause.

If and when the question falls to YOU, you can answer that abruptly if you so choose!

He doesn't strike me as one who really cares what's legal or how anything is interpreted

And that is where you are wrong. I care deeply about the leagalities and interpretations of these regs and OTHER laws. YOU are the one who relied on misinformation from an NC trooper concerning a DUI arrest for what is clearly ONLY an offense of "operating a CMV after consuming alcohol." You bought the troopers answer lock, stock and barrel without doing ANY research on your own! So, who here is NOT concerned with legalities?

And, for the record, I don't care one whit about the popularity of my posts OR myself! I have probably STARTED less threads on this forum than any other active member.... and certainly less than YOU!

I RESPOND to posts, especially when they contain inaccurate information, as YOURS have at times!

I didn't realize YOU had taken over moderation or administration of this board, and could set down rules concerning the length of posts!

Perhaps YOU could give shorter answers to such intricate questions, that is IF anyone cared to address one to you! When, and IF, that happens, be sure that I'll be watching to see how short your reply is. Shorter, I hope, than your longwinded description of a poor lost driver who couldn't back into a driveway to turn around! (like THAT was really important!)

[Mack2]

[quote="Rev.Vassago"]Dear Golfhobo,

So here we stand: at odds with each other on three different subjects - alcohol in a CMV, the ability to be off duty in the cab of a CMV, and whether or not an 8 hour break that is not combined with an additional 2 hour break puts a driver in violation. So I have a proposal for you: A NO HOLDS BARRED BATTLE ROYAL![\quote]

According to a verry nice NC State Trooper I talked to an 8hour break not combined with a 2 hour break puts the driver in violation.

[Rev.Vassago]

As I suspected, you are already arguing with his answers, and I haven't even posted them.

I have given you my word that I will be respectfull IF I disagree, and as you said.... we can DISCUSS our reasons for that.

No. There is no disagreeing with the answers. If you want to debate why an answer is what it is, then that is acceptable.

Question 1:Let's say a driver just came off a 10 hour sleeper berth break. He drives for 5 hours, then takes an 8 hour sleeper berth break. He then drives 6 hours, then takes an 11 hour sleeper berth break.

Based on §395.1((g)(1)(ii)(A), which states:

§395.1 Scope of rules in this part.

(g)(1)(ii)(A) The term “equivalent of at least 10 consecutive hours off duty” means a period of

(1) At least 8 but less than 10 consecutive hours in a sleeper berth, and

(2) A separate period of at least 2 but less than 10 consecutive hours either in the sleeper berth or off duty, or any combination thereof.

Was there a violation? If so, what?

I have no real problem with the wording, however, it wouldn't matter WHAT combination of lines 1 or 2 he spent that ORIGINAL 10 hour break on as long as it was consecutive.

There are SEVERAL logbook examples on their site that will support MY interpretation, and what I'm sure will be HIS answer. However, if he answers anything other than NO violation.... all bets are off. Sorry, but there is just too much evidence in the logbook examples for me to accept otherwise. And IF he gets this wrong, he has no standing. However.... I am quite sure he will get it right.

Then why are you arguing it? Just to see yourself type?

Question 2:Is there any scenario you can think of where it would be legal for a driver to have alcohol which is not part of a manifested shipment in the cab or sleeper of a CMV?

I understand your conformance to certain wording of the regs, but this question COULD be misleading as it entices subjectivity and imagination. I am not amenable to your invoking his imagination of scenarios.

I can assure you, his answer is in relation to the regs.

First of all, if he knows his regs, his first answer would be yes... that of an off duty O/O driving his OWN (unladen) truck on his own time, OR a company driver (unladen?) on his way to a motel. That much is stated in the regs (IIRC.... and even YOU have said as much.)

Debating the answers already? You're making me very glad I didn't simply post them.

I would respectfully ask that you clarify the situation as that of a CMV (even laden as long as not H/M,) that is parked in a truckstop and NOT IN OPERATION. i.e: the driver is ROD and, as someone said.... the brakes are "popped."

Please stop whining and read what you were complaining about in question 3.

In this LAST case, however, I would not be surprised if his answer is NO WAY! The FMCSA does have a zero tolerance policy, although worded specifically towards DRIVING or being ON DUTY or performing "safety sensitive functions" while possessing or being under any detectable influence of alcohol.

Again, trying to debate the answers.......Makes my head hurt.

Question 3:Let me take this one a bit further: Let's assume a driver is on a 34 hour reset in his truck, and is consuming alcohol in the CMV. That driver climbs into the cab to sit in the driver's seat to have a smoke. Does the fact that they are at the controls of a CMV (even if they do not intend to operate the CMV) mean they just went On Duty, and are now in violation? What if they were in the passenger seat?

Is it possible to be in the cab of a CMV and not be On Duty, other than the "personal conveyance" exception?

Again, I have a problem with your question, and I appreciate your willingness to let me hear it first.

This is supposedly, the question about the "on duty" regulation concerning ANY time spent on or in a CMV that is NOT in the sleeper. Why drag alcohol into the equation?

Because it was originally part of question 2. He provided answers to both questions, so I split the question apart the best I could while still keeping it verbatim.

IF the answer to the "on duty" question is yes.... any time spent on or in a CMV is ON DUTY (regardless of the topic sentence of the subparagraph of the reg that states it doesn't apply to a driver who is ROD,) then it would be OBVIOUS that a driver would be in violation if he had a detectable amount of alcohol in his system while ON DUTY.

The question we have spent hours debating is whether or not a driver who is RELIEVED OF DUTY can be considered ON DUTY simply by being ON OR IN a CMV (NOT IN OPERATION) unless he is in the sleeper! Or whether, once ROD, a driver is free to pursue activities of his own choosing (like eating a burger in his daycab!) .... and (per the FMCSA) no place OTHER than a sleeper is regulated by them for the purpose of attaining the required REST.

By ADDING to your question that the driver has been drinking in the sleeper, you surely would COLOR this experts answer toward zero tolerance issues, when all we REALLY want to know is if even a SOBER driver, on a 34 hour reset, can sit in EITHER the driver's seat OR the passenger's seat of his cab without being considered ON DUTY and busting his 34 hour reset!

Again with the debating unposted answers. Sheesh.

Sorry, Rev.... but, just as you have often misinterpreted the regs, you have now also misrepresented the questions! I'd say you have possibly BLOWN a good chance at getting an unbiased "expert" opinion because you colored your questions to advance or support your contentions with me concerning alcohol, instead of just getting answers to the Big 3 questions! But, it was a noble effort.

Since I've seen the answers, and know they all specifically cite regs, I know my questions were spot on. But alas, since you are choosing to split hairs and debate why his answer should be such-and-such, and if it isn't, then I must have asked wrong, this is where it ends. Thanks for playing. Goodnight.

[golfhobo]

Rev said:

Since I've seen the answers, and know they all specifically cite regs,

The way YOU cite regs when answering a question incorrectly? (Possibly because you misunderstand the question?)

I know my questions were spot on.

I've showed you that they were NOT. I wasn't debating unknown answers, I was trying to show how misworded questions could evoke the wrong answer.

But alas, since you are choosing to split hairs and debate why his answer should be such-and-such, and if it isn't, then I must have asked wrong, ......

If you can't handle me pointing out the fallacies of your questions, then YOU are the one taking your ball and going home. I tried to explain that I would be more WILLING to accept his answers if I knew the questions were asked correctly. I showed why two of your questions were incomplete or misleading, as I thought we had agreed I could.

this is where it ends. Thanks for playing. Goodnight.

Whatever..... like I said.... no skin off my teeth!

When I have the time, I will GET the answer to the only one of those questions that still bothers me. And when I do..... I will not engage you in games. I will just post my results. Whether they agree with me or not! And regardless of whether you choose to disagree or argue with them.

You, in the meantime, can go back to your cooking show!

[Rev.Vassago]

I wasn't debating unknown answers,

However, if he answers anything other than NO violation.... all bets are off.......First of all, if he knows his regs, his first answer would be yes....... In this LAST case, however, I would not be surprised if his answer is NO WAY!..........IF the answer to the "on duty" question is yes.... By ADDING to your question that the driver has been drinking in the sleeper, you surely would COLOR this experts answer..........I'd say you have possibly BLOWN a good chance at getting an unbiased "expert" opinion.........I doubt you can get real answers from your expert...........I suspect that he answered question one and three (with caveats) in my favor

BTW, you were right on one question, and wrong on two. I was dead on with two, and received partial credit on the third.

[Drew10]

Move over , got any hot sauce for the popcorn.

Slid over and pass the popcorn....I got the Hot Sauce.....