Dumb drivers...

[got mud?]

It's pretty clear the answer is yes. In fact, he cited several examples of it.

Again, it's pretty clear the answer is yes.

This line in and of itself answers both questions:

rev your the first person to read things black and white. now your reading into things? none of those answers is a CLEAR yes or no. they are easily deniable. for instance say it is proven that he never has done a roadside inspection, he could easily say I never said I did one I only stated that we are required to do inspections. (not saying I don't believe him) his statement doesn't say they are real road side inspections. for all we know they could be refresher inspections done on a range or class room setting or he could be tailing along with another person watching the inspection. I believe that is golfhobo's point. his answers leave a lot of wiggle room. something government personal a famous for. and if you have ever worked in that environment you would know how easy it is to get shafted with things like that.

[Orangetxguy]

Nope, SOLOFEMTRUCKER posted the story here so I figured I'd share the truth .

My bad...I didn't see that earlier!

So sorry. So sorry!

[Rev.Vassago]

rev your the first person to read things black and white. now your reading into things?

I don't see that I read anything into it. He clearly stated that inspectors are required to do a certain number of inspections per year to maintain their qualifications. Since he is still qualified, then it stands to reason that he has done the required number of inspections per year.

[Myth_Buster]

I think you just validated golfs point. you have been asked a very strait forward simple yes or no question and you avoided answering it.

Sure it would, why would any one pose to be someone they’re not? Afterall this is the Internet.

instead you pointed to safety stats etc that anyone could copy and past and provide a link to. simply stating that notice it says us instead of ga doesn't answer his question.

Hey you know what, if any one can do it, you find a group of inspections identifying the inspection state as US and then I’ll know the error of my ways.

it doesn't say who did the inspection only that it wasn't a state official.

That’s your opinion. Perhaps if you knew how to read the data you would know exactly who did the inspection…

you may be implying that it is you that did it but your not saying it.

Denial is a state of mind, if you cannot draw a logical conclusion based on the information presented then me jumping up and down demanding you listen to me won’t do much good. IMHO, you want a reason not to believe so you don’t. That’s fine by me free will.

I think this is the problem golf is having dealing with government personal, they tend to talk in circles and never answer a simple question.

Oh so now I’m a government official talking in circles? Can’t win for losing can I?

I believe golfhobo's question is...

Have you initiated and performed a roadside inspection? (A SIMPLE yes or no is the appropriate response no dancing or side stepping the question)

Nothing is ever simple as it seems, I presented relevant information to substantiate my job. You’ll have to figure out the rest.

and my own personal question is...

are the inspections that you give examples of, inspections that you personally performed? (once again simple yes or no will do.)

Asked and answered, you make up your own mind. How else can I substantiate who performed the inspections except by knowing where they are and who was inspected?

rev your the first person to read things black and white. now your reading into things? none of those answers is a CLEAR yes or no. they are easily deniable. for instance say it is proven that he never has done a roadside inspection, he could easily say I never said I did one I only stated that we are required to do inspections.

If FMCSA personnel don’t perform inspections and remain qualified they cannot perform reviews and must attend all training again…

CERTIFICATION OF VEHICLE INSPECTORS, SAFETY AUDITORS, AND SAFETY INVESTIGATORS

FMCSA published an Interim Final Rule to meet the requirement of Section 211 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (the Act). The Act requires that a certified safety auditor perform any safety audit or compliance review conducted after December 31, 2002. The rule requires certification and maintenance of certification for anyone who performs a motor carrier compliance review, safety audit, or Level I and V inspection.

This document is divided into four parts:

Part 1 - Certification Process
Part 2 - Decertification Process
Part 3 – Temporary Waiver Process
Part 4 - Recertification Process

Maintenance of Certification:
Each individual certified to conduct motor carrier compliance reviews (including those conducting compliance reviews as of July 17, 2002) must meet the following requirements to remain certified:
• Complete six (6) motor carrier compliance reviews annually (for purposes of certification, annually shall mean every fiscal year); and
• Complete thirty-two (32) Level I and/or V inspections annually (for purposes of certification, annually shall mean every fiscal year); and
• Successfully complete any FMCSA required refresher or in-service training; and
• The compliance reviews and Level I and/or V inspections must be conducted in accordance with the FMCSA Field Operations Training Manual and applicable policies.

All of the information is available to the public, anyone who knows where to look can obtain the information provided… So how does all of this verify who I am? How does just offering a yes or no answer add credibility? Your choice Got mud?, you believe or don’t believe what you want.

(not saying I don't believe him)

Naw, just the information offered doesn’t answer the questions.

his statement doesn't say they are real road side inspections.

Sure, training material is attached to carriers’ DOT numbers to screw with their SAFESTAT scores. That way the FMCSA can screw with carriers’ DOT numbers and create an opportunity to do a compliance review… You know frame them.

for all we know they could be refresher inspections done on a range or class room setting or he could be tailing along with another person watching the inspection.

Absolutely!

The link was posted last month, perhaps you and GH missed the post.

Guess Who…

I believe that is golfhobo's point. his answers leave a lot of wiggle room. something government personal a famous for. and if you have ever worked in that environment you would know how easy it is to get shafted with things like that.

Got Mud? How do I know you’re a truck driver? Maybe you’re a janitor that longs for the road so you come here and pose as a driver?

Does anyone really know what time it is?

Be safe.

[golfhobo]

Here's a good example:

Miles driven and Total Mileage for the day?

[golfhobo]

I don't see that I read anything into it. He clearly stated that inspectors are required to do a certain number of inspections per year to maintain their qualifications. Since he is still qualified, then it stands to reason that he has done the required number of inspections per year.

I hope to get time to debate more with M/B this week, but let me get THIS out of the way first....

When asked if he EVER actually "pulled" a truck over to do a roadside inspection, M/B failed to answer the simple question. But, he DID offer up this tidbit about how "auditors" like himself are required to do 32 level 1 or 5 inspections per year "to stay current." [NOTE: one of his examples referred to a level 2... so that probably wasn't HIM.]

That's 2.66 inspections per month. A number easily achieved by performing the "occaisional" inspection at a carrier, or maybe even while "visiting" a weighstation or those famous "pop-up" inspections in rest areas. Or, as MUD suggested, possibly in a classroom setting or on a practice range. Who really knows?

You don't get paid what HE gets paid for doing 2.66 inspections per month. You get that pay for working long hours in the back rooms of carrier's offices "auditing" records.

Anyone who has been in the military (including M/B) will understand THIS simple concept: There are "fighting jobs" and there are "support jobs" where one is required to maintain CURRENT proficiency levels in some type of fire-arm. I had to "go to the range" myself at least once a year to show I could still hit the broad side of a barn with my M-16!

IF a person's JOB consisted of a DAILY dose of doing inspections.... there would be NO NEED for a "proficiency requirement!"

But, we got way off track here. I never thought that M/B was, or ever acted as, an LEO with the "responsibility" (although I will admit he might have the authority) to do roadside inspections either randomly or with cause. His failure to admit that, and clearly explain his duties, is one of the foundations of my suspicions.

By "defending" his authority with the "requirements" he, himself, stated... he has proved my point and confirmed my suspicions. He even stated, in his own words, that he is "Home free" if he performs his "auditing" duties within a reasonable time, does (what the gubbamint considers) quality work, and has no issues of misinterpetation of the regs.... which begs the question that people in his job MIGHT misinterpret the regs. (you DO know, don't you, that companies often contest and WIN when regs are misinterpreted by FMCSA "auditors" - or whatever they call themselves right?) :roll2:

My point was that... assuming the driver had company permission to log enroute and meal stops as OFF DUTY, HE.... in his backroom auditing duties would have NO way of determining whether or not the driver was sitting in the cab, or the sleeper, or a bar while logging line 1.

The sooner he admits this, and quits answering my questions with safestat references, (and references to NTSB investigations that I DOUBT he was party to,) the sooner we MIGHT have an intelligent discussion about what the regs really MEAN.

BTW..... It's midnight here.

Happy NEW YEAR everyone!!! (you too, Rev!)

[Myth_Buster]

GH, I don't believe you understand:

§390.3 General applicability.

(e) Knowledge of and compliance with the regulations.

(e)(1) Every employer shall be knowledgeable of and comply with all regulations contained in this subchapter which are applicable to that motor carrier's operations.

(e)(2) Every driver and employee shall be instructed regarding, and shall comply with, all applicable regulations contained in this subchapter.

(e)(3) All motor vehicle equipment and accessories required by this subchapter shall be maintained in compliance with all applicable performance and design criteria set forth in this subchapter.

The FMCSR requires carriers and their employees to be knowledgeable of the regulations. It's not uncommon for at least two sets of log books to be manufactured:

1. One set for the roadside inspection
2. One set for the carrier

About five years ago the field staff of the FMCSA was asked why didn't investigators find as many 11/14 hour rule violations as the roadside officers. After all a compliance review uses a targeted selection based on roadside inspections. It was determined the logs examined at the carrier were different than the logs examined during the roadside inspection.

This has been substantiated by the scales in Idaho, Oregon and Washington when officers would photocopy drivers' logs as they crossed the scale and forward the logs to the next scale. It was amazing how many driver were placed OOS for false logs when the logs at the second stop didn't match the first set. So take the information presented and the shallow statement that a driver indicating he had no problem with his logs... The fact Swift paid $37,000 in penalties proved there were problems with Swift drivers logs doesn't it.

Nothing is ever easy as it seems. My posts are based on cases prepared and a different perspective of trucking operations.

Be safe.

[Myth_Buster]

GH:

When asked if he EVER actually "pulled" a truck over to do a roadside inspection, M/B failed to answer the simple question. But, he DID offer up this tidbit about how "auditors" like himself are required to do 32 level 1 or 5 inspections per year "to stay current." [NOTE: one of his examples referred to a level 2... so that probably wasn't HIM.]

Actually I said a minimum of 32 inspections:

Currently the FMCSA requires every investigator to complete a minimum of 32 Level 1 or Level 5 inspections each year to stay qualified.

10/14/2008 US 0769110419 3 TRUCK TRACTOR 1M1AE06Y91W009135 P639309 IL 0

http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/SafeStat/Dri...art&PageN=INSP

10/14/2008 US 0769110438 3 TRUCK TRACTOR 1FUJBBCG82LK41057 P550702 IL 0

http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/SafeStat/Dri...art&PageN=INSP

10/14/2008 US 0769110436 3 TRUCK TRACTOR 1FUWZMCA95L695360 1654TK IL 0

http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/SafeStat/Dri...art&PageN=INSP

10/14/2008 US 0769110432 3 TRUCK TRACTOR 2FUYDXYB3WA955743 P659885 IL 0

http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/SafeStat/Dri...art&PageN=INSP

I work with the FRA about four times a year. We do a driver/carrier check at the rail yards around the Chicago Loop. On 10/14/2008 I made 29 contacts with drivers, if there were no violations the contact was recorded as a Level 4, if there was a driver or vehicle violation it was either a Level 2 or Level 3 inspection depending on whether the violation was vehicle or driver related. The inspection numbers tell the tale, US 0769110419 is a low count and US 0769110438 is near the end 38 – 19 = 19 inspections.

3/13/2008 US 0769110398 3 TRUCK TRACTOR 1M1AA12Y7XW091141 P557776 IL 0

http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/SafeStat/Dri...art&PageN=INSP

3/12/2008 US 0769110380 3 TRUCK TRACTOR P479062 IL 0

http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/SafeStat/Dri...ageN=INSPLarge

On 03/12 & 03/13/2008 I made 33 driver contacts US 0769110374 – US 0769110407.

Notice all inspections listed are Level 3.

If you follow the links provided and click the number in the far left column you can see the violations.

Now how do I know where all those inspections are that begin with US 0769110***?

Naw, an average of 2.2 inspections per year, that’s all I do:

6/9/2006 US 0769110264 2 STRAIGHT TRUCK 3FECF47F1VMA18368 23803F IL 0

http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/SafeStat/Veh...art&PageN=INSP

438 – 264 = 174 inspections in 2.5 years 174/2.5 = 69 inspections a year 69/12 = 5.8 inspections per month. Damn, I’ve double GH average already…

You don't get paid what HE gets paid for doing 2.66 inspections per month. You get that pay for working long hours in the back rooms of carrier's offices "auditing" records.

No need for back rooms GH, I’m usually given an office or conference room to work in.

Anyone who has been in the military (including M/B) will understand THIS simple concept: There are "fighting jobs" and there are "support jobs" where one is required to maintain CURRENT proficiency levels in some type of fire-arm. I had to "go to the range" myself at least once a year to show I could still hit the broad side of a barn with my M-16!

For the FMCSA the Safety Investigator is the front line. So ensuring the personnel are trained to complete the job efficiently is imperative. Without SI performing reviews to monitor carriers performance there is no FMCSA.

IF a person's JOB consisted of a DAILY dose of doing inspections.... there would be NO NEED for a "proficiency requirement!"

Of course there is, most professional associations require any professional to perform a set number of functions per year to remain proficient. There are MCSAP officers and vehicle inspectors with the prime purpose of performing Level 1 inspections every day. Then there are state troopers who have additional training to perform Level 2 inspections. FMCSA personnel have a multitude of functions, i.e. perform compliance reviews, offer public outreach, perform HM package inspections, prepare enforcement cases, etc. So the minimum standards are measured to ensure each employee is qualified to perform their job.

By "defending" his authority with the "requirements" he, himself, stated... he has proved my point and confirmed my suspicions. He even stated, in his own words, that he is "Home free" if he performs his "auditing" duties within a reasonable time, does (what the gubbamint considers) quality work, and has no issues of misinterpetation of the regs.... which begs the question that people in his job MIGHT misinterpret the regs. (you DO know, don't you, that companies often contest and WIN when regs are misinterpreted by FMCSA "auditors" - or whatever they call themselves right?)

In 2008 I’ve met my performance goals;

36 Compliance Reviews
220 HM package inspections
At least 32 roadside inspections

In addition to the minimum I prepared 19 enforcement cases:

6/30/2008 IL-2008-372-US0769 Compliance Review

395.3(a)(2) Req./perm. property CMV driver to drive after 14 hours on duty 4 $6,120.00

http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/SafeStat/Saf...rt&PageN=EH#EH

5/21/2008 IL-2008-363-US0769 Compliance Review

375.507(a) Failing to weigh a shipment for each move transported on a non-binding estimate. 1 $2,900.00

http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/SafeStat/Saf...rt&PageN=EH#EH

5/8/2008 IL-2008-108-US0769 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/Saf...rt&PageN=EH#EH

6/10/2008 IL-2008-62-US0769 Compliance Review

172.800(b) Failing to adhere to a required security plan. 1 $10,000.00

http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/SafeStat/Saf...rt&PageN=EH#EH

1/31/2008 IL-2008-35-US0769 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/Saf...rt&PageN=EH#EH

9/5/2007 IL-2007-371-US0769 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

http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/SafeStat/Saf...rt&PageN=EH#EH


Offered four public out reach presentations

And;

Mailed approximately 1,300 accident investigation kits to local police departments.

My point was that... assuming the driver had company permission to log enroute and meal stops as OFF DUTY, HE.... in his backroom auditing duties would have NO way of determining whether or not the driver was sitting in the cab, or the sleeper, or a bar while logging line 1.

And my point is that if there is a fatal accident and someone wants to know bad enough every tool available will be used, i.e. video surveillance tapes from stores, ATMs, banks, etc. Interviews with persons in the area, cell phone records using GPS tracking by cell phone tower, etc. etc, etc.

The sooner he admits this, and quits answering my questions with safestat references, (and references to NTSB investigations that I DOUBT he was party to,) the sooner we MIGHT have an intelligent discussion about what the regs really MEAN.

The references in SAFESTAT substantiate case work and violations cited proving there is a firm base for my comments. You have a narrow reality of trucking. The FMCSA has every record ever generated by the carrier to prove a case, it only takes one instance and the case is documented and mailed.

GH your exposure to an enforcement body is limited; what ever experience you had with the government is vaguely comparable to a field position where you work independently. Our office is 142 miles from my field office. I see my supervisor maybe once a quarter. That’s because he knows the work is getting done. Do I work more hours than allotted? Yes; however, I’m dedicated to the job. I enjoy the work; however, I don’t always agree with the penalties assigned by the system. My time spent at these forums trying to help drivers and carriers avoid prosecution is a tool to ease my conscience as I try and help those willing to listen.

Be safe.

[Windwalker]

Just one question for you, Myth-Buster...

In reading your posts, my bet is that you keep meticulous records.

Have you ever inspected a '00 freightliner, with the logo for "ELITE CARRIERS" on the door? And, was the truck a dark blue classic?

[Myth_Buster]

WW:

Just one question for you, Myth-Buster...

In reading your posts, my bet is that you keep meticulous records.

Lots of notes and information scaned into the mainframe. I have a court hearing pending sometime in January 2009 from a CR closed 01/2002. I was called on to provide notes, copies of the review, and an electronic copy of the review to assist our attorneys prepare for the case. I believe the current attorney is the third attorney I've discussed the issue with since the CR closed in 2002.

So yes, I keep meticulous records.

Have you ever inspected a '00 freightliner, with the logo for "ELITE CARRIERS" on the door? And, was the truck a dark blue classic?

The system is set up to record inspection numbers by US DOT number or my ID number. I checked the database back to 08/17/2005 for US DOT #589271 for my ID number with no hits on my inspection list... So I have not inspected an Elite Carriers truck since 08/17/2005. Can't guarantee any thing from 10/1999 - 08/17/2005.

So let me flip the question... Have you ever been approached while in the Quad Cities, on I-74 near Carlock, IL, on I-80 near Frankfort, IL, on I-55 near Bolingbrook, IL or Williamsville or Collinsville, IL, I-70 between Matoon, IL and Terre Haute, IN, or in the Greater Chicago area at one of the Intermodal rail yards by a US DOT inspector about 6' tall with white hair between 01/01/1999 and 08/17/2005?

I've performed inspections at multiple places so I thought I'd cover all of the bases.

Be safe.

[Windwalker]

WW:



Lots of notes and information scaned into the mainframe. I have a court hearing pending sometime in January 2009 from a CR closed 01/2002. I was called on to provide notes, copies of the review, and an electronic copy of the review to assist our attorneys prepare for the case. I believe the current attorney is the third attorney I've discussed the issue with since the CR closed in 2002.

So yes, I keep meticulous records.



The system is set up to record inspection numbers by US DOT number or my ID number. I checked the database back to 08/17/2005 for US DOT #589271 for my ID number with no hits on my inspection list... So I have not inspected an Elite Carriers truck since 08/17/2005. Can't guarantee any thing from 10/1999 - 08/17/2005.

So let me flip the question... Have you ever been approached while in the Quad Cities, on I-74 near Carlock, IL, on I-80 near Frankfort, IL, on I-55 near Bolingbrook, IL or Williamsville or Collinsville, IL, I-70 between Matoon, IL and Terre Haute, IN, or in the Greater Chicago area at one of the Intermodal rail yards by a US DOT inspector about 6' tall with white hair between 01/01/1999 and 08/17/2005?

I've performed inspections at multiple places so I thought I'd cover all of the bases.

Be safe.

No, I can not say that I have. I was just wondering if we might have met, but I guess not. If we had, I could varify for some of the DOUBTING THOMAS'S that you're real. You've been on this board before, about a year or two ago. I suspect you may have been lurking until you've surfaced again. I'm glad you did. You've given us some very good information.