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

[allan5oh]

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

[Rev.Vassago]

Sigh....


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

[Mackman]

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

Come on myth buster help us out here.

[allan5oh]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rev.Vassago]

You are confusing a moral issue with the regulations.

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

As I stated over 20 posts back:

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

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

[allan5oh]

Nice diversion, skipping over every damn point I made.

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

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

[Rev.Vassago]

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

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


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

[allan5oh]

Your very first post states:

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

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

You also stated further down the first page:

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

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

Second page:

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

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

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

[allan5oh]

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

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

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

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

[Fredog]

Sigh....


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

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

[Fredog]

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


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

[Rev.Vassago]

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

[golfhobo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Myth_Buster]

Mackman:

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

The FMCSA regulations still apply, even on private property.

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

Thanks, Mackman

§390.5 Definitions.

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

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

§390.3 General applicability.

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

Follow the Yellow Brick Road.

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

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

CVSA

Allan5oh:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It does apply see 396.11

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

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

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

Which may use the FMCSR to prove culpability.

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

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

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

Two separate sub chapters of the FMCSR two separate inspections.

Get a clue.

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

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

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

You are misinformed, an inspection is required:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two separate interpretations two separate inspections.

Fredog:

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


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

The article never said Mr. Williamson was drunk:

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

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

Got to keep an open mind.

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

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

Damn some people have no clue:

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

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

Golfhobo:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So to surmise all of the above:

A highway includes provate property open to the public.

A Level 5 CVSA inspection can be done at a terminal

Part 392 is operation of a CMV

Part 396 is maintenance

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

Yes I said inspections.

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

Part 396.13 inspection is required prior to starting the shift

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

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

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

Be safe.

[kc0iv]

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

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

Be safe.

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

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

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

kc0iv

[Rev.Vassago]

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

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

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

[Fredog]

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

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

[Rev.Vassago]

the only innocent one is the poor drunk, he just wanted a nap.

Let's sue the alcohol manufacturers.

[allan5oh]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rev.Vassago]

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

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

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

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

To quote the regs:

§390.5 Definitions.

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

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