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

[allan5oh]

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?

I am absolutely. I never not once said he didn't commit a violation. I said you two were jumping to conclusions, and your application of the FMCSR's was faulty.

Here's what he said:

Dear Chief Romero, I was deeply troubled by the report of a driver running over a pedestrian at 3:00 AM. If my suspicions are correct the driver of the tractor trailer failed to perform some rudimentary safety checks required by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR.) Had the driver of the big rig walked around his vehicle before moving the vehicle Mr. Garcia would have seen the man lying in front of his truck and avoided the accident.

Mr. Garcia’s negligent behavior caused Mr. Williamson’s death. If Mr. Garcia had obeyed the safety regulations he would have saved Mr. Williamson’s life. Two wrongs do not make a right. At the very least I believe Mr. Garcia’s employer should be chastised for failing to ensure their employees followed the safety regulations.

And you followed like a lap dog:

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

Sounds pretty "case closed" to me.

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—

and is the private property open to public travel? Basically the way I read it any private property that has a "yard dog" MUST have a gate, sign, or regulation. If they do not, the yard dog is considered a CMV and would likely be in violation of the regs considering 90% of shunt trucks out there are not road legal. Of course the flip side is that our CMV's are NO LONGER CMV's once they enter private property with a gate, prohibitive sign, or regulation. Most yard's I've seen have one of the sort. DOT cannot inspect our vehicles under these circumstances.

Of course I'm talking about these guys:

PS_PortTerminal_Terminal_Ottawa_SPECImperial - Kalmar Industries

Notice how there are off road models as well as road legal.

[Rev.Vassago]

and is the private property open to public travel? Basically the way I read it any private property that has a "yard dog" MUST have a gate, sign, or regulation. If they do not, the yard dog is considered a CMV and would likely be in violation of the regs considering 90% of shunt trucks out there are not road legal.

That would be correct, but that's not what you initially stated.

Of course the flip side is that our CMV's are NO LONGER CMV's once they enter private property with a gate, prohibitive sign, or regulation. Most yard's I've seen have one of the sort. DOT cannot inspect our vehicles under these circumstances.

Of course I'm talking about these guys:

PS_PortTerminal_Terminal_Ottawa_SPECImperial - Kalmar Industries

Notice how there are off road models as well as road legal.

Now you are introducing new equations into what you first claimed. Initially, it was just "private property". Now it is "private property with gates, prohibitive signs, or regulations".

[allan5oh]

Just following the regs.

You are correct, I did change it because I did not fully understand the reg at the time. Yes an inspection CAN be done on private property if the property is open to public "four wheelers".

And in actuality, on private property marked with a sign, or a gate, or other "regulation" a CMV does not need to be inspected before operating, throwing out the entirety of 392 and 396 since it is not considered a CMV. Of course 392 and 396 need to be complied with before entering a "highway".

Not only is the timing factor in play (we don't know the extent) but the fact that 392 and 396 do not apply at all *IF* the private property has a sign or gate or regulation completely changes everything.

The more I look into this, the more you two look foolish.

[A Smalltown Rube]

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

M_B:

It's hard to make a wagering decision based on 3 lines written by a reporter for a local newspaper.

However, if there is a way to post the police report and the driver's written statement I may take you up on that bet.

[Rev.Vassago]

And in actuality, on private property marked with a sign, or a gate, or other "regulation" a CMV does not need to be inspected before operating, throwing out the entirety of 392 and 396 since it is not considered a CMV. Of course 392 and 396 need to be complied with before entering a "highway".

I disagree with this statement. Just because of the location of a CMV does not change its classification of being a CMV. If a CMV is used on the highway, then it is always a CMV. A yard jockey used on private property which is off limits to the public was never a CMV (because it wasn't used in interstate commerce on a public highway), therefore is beyond the scope of the regs.

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
(2) Is designed or used to transport more than 8 passengers (including the driver) for compensation; or
(3) Is designed or used to transport more than 15 passengers, including the driver, and is not used to transport passengers for compensation; or
(4) Is used in transporting material found by the Secretary of Transportation to be hazardous under 49 U.S.C. 5103 and transported in a quantity requiring placarding under regulations prescribed by the Secretary under 49 CFR, subtitle B, chapter I, subchapter C.

[allan5oh]

I was thinking about that, and you're right. So even if I use my CMV to drag a trailer across private property with a gate, I need to comply with 390-396 as well as have a CDL. If it's a shunt truck, I do not need to because it is not a CMV.

[Rev.Vassago]

I was thinking about that, and you're right. So even if I use my CMV to drag a trailer across private property with a gate, I need to comply with 390-396 as well as have a CDL. If it's a shunt truck, I do not need to because it is not a CMV.

Exactly. But if that "shunt truck" is on private property with public access, then it is subject to the same regulations that you are, because it is a combination vehicle over 10001 lbs, and it is involved in interstate commerce.

[allan5oh]

Yup, so it better be road legal. That's why most yards have "no public access" signs or similar.

[golfhobo]

Thank you U-turn for pointing that out. I only pre-trip once per day, plus I pre trip each trailer that I hook to. I do not spend 15 minutes checking everything after every liffle 5 minute stop.

-----------------------------
Question:
The victim was from Virginia and possibly intoxicated in a TRUCK stop located in New Mexico. Now how likely is it that he was also a truck driver and was scared to use Golfhobo's line 5 defense, so he decided to stay out of his own truck entirely?

Good to see you Rawlco!

Problem with your assumption (about my line 5 defense) is that you fail to blame the Rev for his faulty interpretation of subpara 4 of the "on duty reg."

Folks.... this thread has gotten WAY out of hand. So far, that I don't know if I have enough line 5 time to straighten it out!

As usual, the REV is wrong on several points of reg citation and interpretation. And likewise Myth_Buster is wrong in reg application/interpretation.... and generally nonresponsive. But, what's new?

I've read as much as I could find on this, (including the discussion on another board) and I come up with the same thing. The POLICE said the man was probably intoxicated.... NOT a seizure, nor heart attack, nor anything of the sort! They said he was ASLEEP and possibly intoxicated. They should KNOW! They also said, no charges were likely to be filed, if for NO OTHER REASON than the fact that pedestrians cannot position themselves in front of a vehicle ON PURPOSE with impunity!!!

Question: What is a "pedestrian" doing on PRIVATE property if he doesn't work there? (but that's not the real issue here.)

What IS at issue here is whether the driver was REQUIRED to see the "drunk" before moving his truck... and whether the REGS have anything to do with it. They DON'T!! Myth_Buster is WRONG, and so is the Rev.

Uturn was correct in questioning the circumstances, which we know NOTHING about, as to the possible quick stop off of the driver at the terminal office.... or whether the truck had been sitting all night. We don't know. What we DO know is that IF the driver had done a quick walk around to be sure there were no "obstructions" the alleged drunk might still be alive. I'll give you that. And it should be a lesson to us all to take that minute or two to DO so in the future.

But, there is NO REG that required the driver to do so!

We don't have enough facts to determine whether the driver "stopped off" for a moment at the office, or whether he was starting out for the day. But, we DO know that several posters here have misinterpreted the REGS, and therefore the responsibility of the driver.

I know we were ALL taught (those of us who WENT to school) to do a "pre-trip," or at least HOW to do one. But, the regs don't require one. They require that we be SATISFIED that the vehicle and trailer we are about to drive is "compliant." This can be done in various ways, the FIRST of which, is to review the POST TRIP .... which IS required.... by the last driver, which MAY have been ourselves... but, might have been another driver if we slip-seat. And we are required to sign off on it ONLY if there were things that needed to be fixed.

If the FMCSA wanted to USE the word "inspect," they could have. But, they DIDN'T! (even when the QUESTION used the word!) They said we must be SATISFIED. So, contrary to what Mike M says, an inspection is NOT required before operating the CMV if the driver (who may very well have BEEN the last one to drive it and inspect it during his POST TRIP, is "satisfied" that it is still in good condition.

And CARGO inspections are a different animal. The reg clearly states when they should be done, and since there is NO CARGO in front of your truck, there would be no requirement, nor assumption, that you would have to walk completely around your vehicle to DO so, and therefore.... that reg has NO BEARING on this circumstance.

The "cargo check" reg, (I don't feel like quoting them by number right now,) is NOT the same as a pre or post trip inspection, and doesn't require you to check for drunks under (or in front of) your front bumper.... so, let's leave that OUT of the discussion for now, okay?

But, one thing is clear, and the Rev is CLEARLY wrong about it, is that a PRETRIP or ANY kind of vehicle inspection is NOT required every time you stop your vehicle for any reason, or at every change of duty status.

Now, for a few questions or assumptions of my own. We don't know if the driver was "stopping by" the office or was in his truck on the yard waiting to start his trip. Perhaps, he had DONE a pretrip an hour ago, and was just now leaving. Surely, he would have done his pretrip and checked his oil while the engine was shut OFF, so... there would be no heat from the engine to entice a drunk to lay down in front of it UNLESS it had been sitting there for awhile, OR had just pulled up to the office. Either way, there is no reason why he would get out and check for drunks unless he was just super cautious... which is not a bad idea.

Also.... what is a "pedestrian" doing on private property at a DATS yard? The report didn't even postulate that he was an employee of the company!

Furthermore, a DATS trucking company yard is private property, and although the public MIGHT be allowed on (to apply for a job or something,) it is NOT considered a HIGHWAY or even a Public Vehicular Area! I don't care if there were fences, gates or whatever! It's NOT the same as a Walmart parking lot!

COULD the vehicle in question have been a "shunt truck" instead of a CMV? Yes. The article didn't say. And I believe Mike M is wrong about whether such a vehicle is considered a CMV, subject to the "inspection regs" he loves to quote. I'll get back to that later!

The point here is twofold. One is that a tragic accident occurred causing the death of a tragic soul who had no other place to sleep than near the (assumed) warm engine of a truck. And that Mike M went out of his way to impose his disdain for truckers, and his belief that we are ALL lazy and unprofessional, (not to mention stupid and clueless) into a police investigation outside of his jurisdiction.... with NO more information than the rest of us.... and with a certain zeal to "prosecute," if not "persecute" the driver, his company, and the industry as a whole!

Mike.... I want the email address to which you submitted your "opinion" as I intend to counter your claims with FACTS about the regs you cited to them. You were WRONG. and as usual, misleading and nonresponsive. I promise NOT to "trash" you. I just want to give them a different, if not objective, viewpoint.

Surely, even YOU would consider that FAIR. Even if I AM, according to you, "clueless" and "small brained was it?"

As for the particulars of the regs, and how both you AND the Rev have misinterpreted them, I will get back to that. I DO understand your frustration (as you mentioned on that other site) with truckers who don't realize the gravity of their responsibilities for the safety of the "motoring" public. I also understand "burn out," and I wish you the best in getting a higher position that will give you some respite from it. Whether you believe it or not.... I ENJOY debating these issues with you. What I DON'T enjoy are your constant insinuations that "I", or others, are CLUELESS!

Hobo

[Myth_Buster]

Allan5oh:

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.

Because in-accordance with Part 392.7 in order to be satisfied the driver must inspect the vehicle. Part 396.13 is the full pre-trip as taught by the CDL test. Part 392.7 is a quick walk around to ensure things didn’t fall apart:

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.

Tires go flat, cargo settles, a million things can happen in one hour. I can remember a common complaint back about 1998 was; “Someone stole my hub oiler cap.” Well now it’s fuel.

Part 392 falls under the “OPERATION” of a CMV; which is different than the “MAINTENANCE” portion of the FMCSR. Two separate inspections. One’s a walk around, the other is taught as part of the CDL tests.

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

Really, you think so? If a yard dog crashes in to another truck and the brakes were non-operational what is the injury law suit going to settle for? Can you say MILLIONS? What of workman’s comp? OSHA rules? And yes Virginia the DOT rules:

I posted it earlier and the Rev posted it again but apparently you missed it:

§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.

There are a few yards the definition of a highway would apply to but I doubt this is one of those occasions as 400 S Compress is in an industrial park.

400 s compress - Google Search

While the records of a yard dog may not be examined in detail the rule apply when the private property meets the definition of a “HIGHWAY” per 390.5.

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

Perhaps in a criminal court; however, in administrative law I only have to prove what a reasonable person would believe. I don’t believe it would be that hard to convince a reasonable person to believe a driver should do a walk around inspection before they move the vehicle.

Since 10/08/2008 DATS Trucking has had two vehicles placed OOS for tire issues, one for turn signals, and one for cracked wheels:

12/14/2008: 393.45(A)(4) BRAKE HOSE/TUBING CHAFFING AND/OR KINKING

12/03/2008: 393.75(F) Tire-load weight rating/under inflated
172.200(A) No shipping paper provided by offeror

11/13/2008: 393.45(A)(4) BRAKE HOSE/TUBING CHAFFING AND/OR KINKING

11/12/2008: 393.19 No/defective turn/hazard lamp as required

10/15/2008: 393.75(A) Flat tire or fabric exposed

10/08/2008: 393.205(A) Wheel/rim cracked or broken

If drivers had performed the necessary inspections as required how many of the OOS could have been avoided? Probably several.

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.

Part 392.7 is operation sensitive, once the driver changes duty status, Part 392.7 kicks in:

§392.7 Equipment, inspection and use.
No commercial motor vehicle shall be driven unless the driver is satisfied that the following parts and accessories are in good working order, nor shall any driver fail to use or make use of such parts and accessories when and as needed:

Once you log line 1, 2, or 4 you’re no longer driving; therefore, before you drive again you must follow Part 392.7.

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.

Your mistaken, the post trip inspection would not detect a slow leaking tire that goes flat, missing components removed during the break, or freight that settled. Besides, chances are following an eight hour break Part 396.13 would kick in requiring a full pre-trip inspection.

Myth_Buster, placed too many vehicles OOS finding simple defects the driver should have been aware of.

and is the private property open to public travel? Basically the way I read it any private property that has a "yard dog" MUST have a gate, sign, or regulation. If they do not, the yard dog is considered a CMV and would likely be in violation of the regs considering 90% of shunt trucks out there are not road legal. Of course the flip side is that our CMV's are NO LONGER CMV's once they enter private property with a gate, prohibitive sign, or regulation. Most yard's I've seen have one of the sort. DOT cannot inspect our vehicles under these circumstances.

Of course I'm talking about these guys:

PS_PortTerminal_Terminal_Ottawa_SPECImperial - Kalmar Industries

Notice how there are off road models as well as road legal.

Are there more than one carrier sharing the facility? Do employees of multiple companies have cars that drive in and out of the facility?

You see here’s the kicker:

§392.1 Scope of the rules in this part.
Every motor carrier, its officers, agents, representatives, and employees responsible for the management, maintenance, operation, or driving of commercial motor vehicles, or the hiring, supervising, training, assigning, or dispatching of drivers, shall be instructed in and comply with the rules in this part.


§390.5 Definitions.
Motor vehicle means any vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer, or semitrailer propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used upon the highways in the transportation of passengers or property, or any combination thereof determined by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, but does not include any vehicle, locomotive, or car operated exclusively on a rail or rails, or a trolley bus operated by electric power derived from a fixed overhead wire, furnishing local passenger transportation similar to street-railway service.

§396.3 Inspection, repair and maintenance.
(a) General—Every motor carrier shall systematically inspect, repair, and maintain, or cause to be systematically inspected, repaired, and maintained, all motor vehicles subject to its control.

Part 392 applies to CMVs, Part 396 applies to MOTOR VEHICLES.

Myth_Buster has done too many post accident investigations where drivers had their hoods ripped off in truck stops.

And in actuality, on private property marked with a sign, or a gate, or other "regulation" a CMV does not need to be inspected before operating, throwing out the entirety of 392 and 396 since it is not considered a CMV. Of course 392 and 396 need to be complied with before entering a "highway".

400 s compress - Google Search

400 S Compress is an industrial park; therefore, creating a high probability the rules applied.

A Smalltown Rube:

M_B:

It's hard to make a wagering decision based on 3 lines written by a reporter for a local newspaper.

However, if there is a way to post the police report and the driver's written statement I may take you up on that bet.

I don’t make bets unless I’m relatively sure of the outcome. I’ve made a FOIA request for the accident reports we’ll see what happens.


Allan5oh:

I was thinking about that, and you're right. So even if I use my CMV to drag a trailer across private property with a gate, I need to comply with 390-396 as well as have a CDL. If it's a shunt truck, I do not need to because it is not a CMV.

Really?

Question 19: Must a civilian operator of a CMV, as defined in §383.5, who operates wholly within a military facility open to public travel, have a CDL?
Guidance: Yes. The CDL requirement applies to every person who operates a CMV in interstate, foreign or intrastate commerce. Driving a CMV on a road, street or way which is open to public travel, even though privately-owned or subject to military control, is prima facie evidence of operation in commerce.

Doesn’t a military compound have gates? Doesn’t a military compound have warning signs?

Wouldn’t a yard used by employees and other trucking companies be a similar scenario?

I say yes.

Golf Hobo shooting from the hip and mistaken as usual:

I know we were ALL taught (those of us who WENT to school) to do a "pre-trip," or at least HOW to do one. But, the regs don't require one. They require that we be SATISFIED that the vehicle and trailer we are about to drive is "compliant." This can be done in various ways, the FIRST of which, is to review the POST TRIP .... which IS required.... by the last driver, which MAY have been ourselves... but, might have been another driver if we slip-seat. And we are required to sign off on it ONLY if there were things that needed to be fixed.

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.
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.

Damn the luck, a driver must inspect a vehicle before they can be satisfied it’s safe to operate.

Myth_Buster hoping he doesn’t have some of the yahoos following hin in his car.

So what is it you folks are that lazy, or are you too stupid to do an inspection?

Myth_Buster happy not to be driving any more.

Be safe.

[golfhobo]

Mythbuster said:

Because in-accordance with Part 392.7 in order to be satisfied the driver must inspect the vehicle. Part 396.13 is the full pre-trip as taught by the CDL test. Part 392.7 is a quick walk around to ensure things didn’t fall apart:

NO... it doesn't SAY that! You are WRONG.

Tires go flat, cargo settles, a million things can happen in one hour. I can remember a common complaint back about 1998 was; “Someone stole my hub oiler cap.” Well now it’s fuel.

Part 392 falls under the “OPERATION” of a CMV; which is different than the “MAINTENANCE” portion of the FMCSR. Two separate inspections. One’s a walk around, the other is taught as part of the CDL tests.

Again, you are wrong. The "maintenance" of a vehicle... per the regs.... is something done by the maintenance people for a carrier. When the maintenance dept fixes something, they sign off on the POST trip inspection or DVIR. THEN, and ONLY if there was such a condition, must the driver sign off that he is satisfied that it was done. The DRIVER is NOT subject to the regulations of a carrier to Maintain the vehicle per the reg you cited. NOR is he required to "re-inspect" the vehicle if he is satisfied that the repairs were made. You are confusing the PRE trip inspection taught by the CDL tests with "maintenance" functions.

Really, you think so? If a yard dog crashes in to another truck and the brakes were non-operational what is the injury law suit going to settle for? Can you say MILLIONS? What of workman’s comp? OSHA rules? And yes Virginia the DOT rules:

I suspect it will be handled "in house" by the carrier. Osha MIGHT get involved IF there is a reason or history. Lawsuits won't be part of it due to company waivers. Worker's Comp will deny everything, as they always do, and the worker who didn't practice safe maneuvering will probably suffer. And, NO.... Virginia.... the DOT will have little or NO bearing on the case IF there IS one! You have NO idea what goes on in a "yard," do you?

I posted it earlier and the Rev posted it again but apparently you missed it:

And I can't respond to it because this LOUSY software program doesn't allow us to quote "quotes."

There are a few yards the definition of a highway would apply to but I doubt this is one of those occasions as 400 S Compress is in an industrial park

My point, exactly. Vety few Private property "yards" would EVER be considered a "highway," and you just blew the Rev's argument (and YOURS) out of the water!

400 s compress - Google Search

While the records of a yard dog may not be examined in detail the rule apply when the private property meets the definition of a “HIGHWAY” per 390.5.

But.... it DOESN'T!!! Not in THIS case.... and not in the minds of everyone who is reading this thread. It is only a figment of YOUR imagination, and that of the Rev's.

Perhaps in a criminal court; however, in administrative law I only have to prove what a reasonable person would believe. I don’t believe it would be that hard to convince a reasonable person to believe a driver should do a walk around inspection before they move the vehicle.

You'd be surprised! Most of US here, are "reasonable people or jurors" and WE don't believe it is required. And WE could easily present regulations as evidence that it is NOT required. Good practice? Perhaps. But, a requirement? NO! A lack of judgement and professionalism? Maybe. But, arising to the point of culpability? NOT ON YOUR LIFE! Not a court in this land would convict a driver (after reviewing the regs) for not getting out of his truck and checking to see if some IDIOT laid down in front of his truck!

Since 10/08/2008 DATS Trucking has had twovehicles placed OOS for tire issues, one for turn signals, and one for cracked wheels:

12/14/2008: 393.45(A)(4) BRAKE HOSE/TUBING CHAFFING AND/OR KINKING

12/03/2008: 393.75(F) Tire-load weight rating/under inflated
172.200(A) No shipping paper provided by offeror

11/13/2008: 393.45(A)(4) BRAKE HOSE/TUBING CHAFFING AND/OR KINKING

11/12/2008: 393.19 No/defective turn/hazard lamp as required

10/15/2008: 393.75(A) Flat tire or fabric exposed

10/08/2008: 393.205(A) Wheel/rim cracked or broken

If drivers had performed the necessary inspections as required how many of the OOS could have been avoided? Probably several.

Well, you said 4 violations, then listed six. So much for your MATH! And NONE of those violations sound like they were "fatal." Do you have some delusion that trucking is a perfect world? Out of your list, I'd say the average driver would have caught only two of them. The OTHERS should have been caught by the maintenance dept under that reg you like to quote that applies to THEM... and not US!

Part 392.7 is operation sensitive, once the driver changes duty status, Part 392.7 kicks in:

Wrong again! NO total vehicle inspection is required everytime a driver changes duty status!

Once you log line 1, 2, or 4 you’re no longer driving; therefore, before you drive again you must follow Part 392.7.

Absolutely WRONG! You are taking the regs completely out of context! If a driver stops to fuel his truck, he goes to line 4. There is NO WAY that the regs say or mean that he must do another full pretrip before pulling off the fuel island! If you believe this, or continue to say so, you are a fool. And that is NOT a "personal attack," that is a fact!

Your mistaken, the post trip inspection would not detect a slow leaking tire that goes flat, missing components removed during the break, or freight that settled. Besides, chances are following an eight hour break Part 396.13 would kick in requiring a full pre-trip inspection.

This is unbelievable! Are you sure of the reg you are quoting? Either way, I'll have to get back to dispelling this at another time. I can only handle so much B.S. at one time!

Myth_Buster, placed too many vehicles OOS finding simple defects the driver should have been aware of.

I'm not convinced NOR impressed! ALOT of things go wrong with trucks... WHILE we are driving them! Without listing the safestats for carriers that you are AWARE of that had violations, in simple terms, tell me HOW many trucks you've personally put OOS.

Are there more than one carrier sharing the facility? Do employees of multiple companies have cars that drive in and out of the facility?

Due to the sorry "quote" function of this software, I don't know what you refer to but, it doesn't matter! That doesn't make them a PVA!!

You see here’s the kicker:

Part 392 applies to CMVs, Part 396 applies to MOTOR VEHICLES.

Myth_Buster has done too many post accident investigations where drivers had their hoods ripped off in truck stops.

And WHAT does that have to do with this discussion?

400 s compress - Google Search

400 S Compress is an industrial park; therefore, creating a high probability the rules applied.

Bullchit!!

Doesn’t a military compound have gates? Doesn’t a military compound have warning signs?

Wouldn’t a yard used by employees and other trucking companies be a similar scenario?

I say yes.

I say NO! Most military bases (as you should KNOW, are open to public access. They have commissaries and PX's open to dependents. This is not the same as a gated FedEx yard!

Golf Hobo shooting from the hip and mistaken as usual:

Shooting from the hip, maybe.... cuz I don't have time to wade through all the bullchit you have repeated over and over about the regs you somehow don't seem to understand! You quote a reg that says "satisfied" and then somehow use that to insist that an INSPECTION must be done! You quote a reg that requires a POST TRIP DVIR be done and then somehow convert that to a belief that that is proof that a PRE-trip must be dome! You quote a reg pertaining to periodic maintenance required of a CARRIER, and somehow relate that to what a driver must do after fueling his truck twice a day! And, you have NO IDEA of the regs, or lack thereof, for a yard dog on private property, and then RIDICULE those who do that for a living!

Damn the luck, a driver must inspect a vehicle before they can be satisfied it’s safe to operate.

NO, they DON'T!! IF they choose to be "satisfied" by the maintenance signature that all defects were fixed, they can sign off on it and drive it off the yard without breaking ANY rules! and IF they happened to be the last driver of the vehicle, and they knew of no defects, and wrote none up, they can be "satisfied" that the vehicle is road worthy! But, when ..... and ONLY when they are done with that equipment.... the regs require that they POST trip it before leaving it to another driver. THIS is what you seem to not understand!

Also... the regs are skewed toward "local wusses" who might not GET the same equipment each day. OTR drivers are "married" to their equipment for weeks at a time. When they post trip at the end of a "shift" (and I have seen no reference to that word in the regs) they have every reason to believe that nothing has changed when they start out again on their next shift. Every OTR driver MUST fill out a DVIR every day [at the END of the day] saying that his equipment is satisfactory. When he wakes up, he is required ONLY to be "satisfied" that it has not suffered some catastrophic breakdown while he was asleep. But, the regs do NOT stipulate a pretrip inspection! You are reading these regs WRONGLY, and IMHO, with a very narrow perspective based on the "local" area you work in.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. the FMCSA has plenty of people who understand the English language, and they are adept at saying what they MEAN to say! With the exception of the wording BEFORE driving, and "satisfied".... please quote me ONE reg that says they require a driver to do a PRE-TRIP inspection!

If you can't DO so..... then, in the immortal words of the REV.... STFU!!!

Myth_Buster hoping he doesn’t have some of the yahoos following hin in his car.

So what is it you folks are that lazy, or are you too stupid to do an inspection?

I don't think there are too many "lazy, Stupid Yahoos" on this board, dude! And MANY of us are getting tired of your insults! You have proven yourself to be NONresponsive in most cases, totally out of bounds on others, and basically condescending and egotistical in general!

You don't seem to even understand the regs you quote! I was REALLY hoping for MORE from you, given your position in our regulatory agency. But, you have so far proven yourself to be just another overpaid, incompetent government welfare recipient, with an attitude!

I WISH it weren't so! I HOPED you could provide answers. But, I see now that I will probably have to go above your paygrade to get the answers I require. No problem, I spent half my career above your paygrade!

Myth_Buster happy not to be driving any more.

And Hobo glad he doesn't have to wait 30 minutes while you try to PARK!

[Rev.Vassago]

Damn the luck, a driver must inspect a vehicle before they can be satisfied it’s safe to operate.

No you don't. You just have to assume it's good enough to operate, and be satisfied with that. You never have to do a pre trip inspection - ever. How do I know? Golfhobo told me.

[kc0iv]

Damn the luck, a driver must inspect a vehicle before they can be satisfied it’s safe to operate.

Myth_Buster hoping he doesn’t have some of the yahoos following hin in his car.

So what is it you folks are that lazy, or are you too stupid to do an inspection?

Myth_Buster happy not to be driving any more.

Be safe.

In respect to "administrative law." A ruling by an "Administrative Law Judge" is nothing more than an order which can be reviewed by either a higher level within the agency or by a court. As far as "what a reasonable person would believe." Is not defined in the rule of law in Administrative Law. The burden of proof is either "Balance of probabilities (preponderance of the evidence)" or "Clear and convincing evidence." Either level may be used in a civil action depending on the case involved.

Part 396.3 Inspection, repair and maintenance has NO bearing in the discussion on driver requirements. It is "motor carrier " requirement.

Part 396.13 does NOT require a "full pre-trip inspection" as you imply. 396.13 says a driver must be "Be satisfied" before driving a motor vehicle. Sign any report where repairs were made.

Part 392.7 says "driver is satisfied" does NOT require a "full pre-trip inspection."

Part 396.11 is a "POST" inspection report. NOT a pre-trip inspection.

So your statement "a driver must inspect a vehicle before they can be satisfied it’s safe to operate" is incorrect. How a driver determines a vehicle safe to operate is NOT stated in the regulations. Two examples are given in the interpretation i.e. co-driver’s inspection, or a safety lane inspection. Other examples could be given.

For those wanting to contact the police Chief Harry Romero by email hromero@las-cruces.org

kc0iv

[Rev.Vassago]

In respect to "administrative law." A ruling by an "Administrative Law Judge" is nothing more than an order which can be reviewed by either a higher level within the agency or by a court. As far as "what a reasonable person would believe." Is not defined in the rule of law in Administrative Law. The burden of proof is either "Balance of probabilities (preponderance of the evidence)" or "Clear and convincing evidence." Either level may be used in a civil action depending on the case involved.

Part 396.3 Inspection, repair and maintenance has NO bearing in the discussion on driver requirements. It is "motor carrier " requirement.

Part 396.13 does NOT require a "full pre-trip inspection" as you imply. 396.13 says a driver must be "Be satisfied" before driving a motor vehicle. Sign any report where repairs were made.

Part 392.7 says "driver is satisfied" does NOT require a "full pre-trip inspection."

Part 396.11 is a "POST" inspection report. NOT a pre-trip inspection.

So your statement "a driver must inspect a vehicle before they can be satisfied it’s safe to operate" is incorrect. How a driver determines a vehicle safe to operate is NOT stated in the regulations. Two examples are given in the interpretation i.e. co-driver’s inspection, or a safety lane inspection. Other examples could be given.

For those wanting to contact the police Chief Harry Romero by email hromero@las-cruces.org

kc0iv

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.




It would appear that the FMCSA doesn't consider the driver "satisfied" that the CMV is in safe operating condition until it is actually inspected. Assuming it is in safe operating condition, and being "satisfied" with just that does not fulfill the requirements.




On a side note, why on earth would anyone not want to perform a vehicle inspection? Not only could it save your life, but it could save you from a huge lawsuit in the event that you were involved in an accident based upon a vehicle defect. Have we become that lazy?

[Double R]

Have we become that lazy?

Yes. And here is a perfect example:

Typical morning in my yard by some of our so-called drivers:

Fire up truck, turn on lights, get out of truck, open back door, yup, two-wheel dolly is in the truck, get reefer hours, get back in truck, push in brakes and leave. WTF? They call that a pre-trip. No walk around, nothing. Most of us do keep the same truck everyday but they don't even post-trip the truck when they come back. Just back into dock and take equipment off and then park it.

I have made it a habit to walk around my truck after I complete a stop. Takes a few extra seconds but it makes sure that no one has tried to open any doors, parked in my way, or are in front of me. And I can have up to 15 stops in one day.

[dobry4u]

Yes. And here is a perfect example:

Typical morning in my yard by some of our so-called drivers:

Fire up truck, turn on lights, get out of truck, open back door, yup, two-wheel dolly is in the truck, get reefer hours, get back in truck, push in brakes and leave. WTF? They call that a pre-trip. No walk around, nothing. Most of us do keep the same truck everyday but they don't even post-trip the truck when they come back. Just back into dock and take equipment off and then park it.

I have made it a habit to walk around my truck after I complete a stop. Takes a few extra seconds but it makes sure that no one has tried to open any doors, parked in my way, or are in front of me. And I can have up to 15 stops in one day.

That is being professional!

[YerDaddy]

What if the truquero for DTS just pulled the trailer forward a bit out of the weeds so he was able to then get out and do a pre-trip? You guys are nit picking without the facts. Well, freight is slow....carry on!

What happened to personal responsibility? The guy who got squashed into a permanent sleep is ultimately responsible for his own demise. The driver was just a victim of the squashed guy's irresponsibility and will probably suffer emotional tramau to some degree as a result.



Who's Yer Daddy?

[Bandit102]

Just to clarify here, at this place there are NO fences, gates or signs. It is wide open to two major streets at a major intersection. There's even a stop light there!

And DATS runs some raggedy crap!

[golfhobo]

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.

It would appear that the FMCSA doesn't consider the driver "satisfied" that the CMV is in safe operating condition until it is actually inspected. Assuming it is in safe operating condition, and being "satisfied" with just that does not fulfill the requirements.

===== above is a quote. I am having trouble with a sick mouse. =====


I understand what you are saying Rev, but you are wrong. The question you are quoting had to do with whether or not the TRAILER also had to be inspected.

If the PREVIOUS driver did a post trip inspection, and filled out a DVIR on both pieces of equipment, OR the "shop" did one, then the driver can be "satisfied" that all defects were corrected or that there WERE NONE. If he is married to this equipment for a week, he would KNOW.... AND he would have done a POST TRIP (as required) at the end of the previous day (or "shift.")

The FMCSA, in its infinite wisdom, has managed to grasp a simple concept that you and Mike are missing.... and that is.... that problems occur DURING a shift of driving. Therefore, there is a requirement to check your equipment AFTER you have driven it, and BEFORE you leave it to someone ELSE.... or drive it again.

The word "satisfied" is a RARE word in the regs, and therefore I believe it has special meaning. It MEANS what it SAYS! No pretrip is "required" but a driver must be "satisfied" that an inspection HAS BEEN DONE on the equipment, either by the shop or by the previous driver/co-driver.

Like I said, we are TAUGHT to do a "pretrip" and it is a VALUABLE practice for all the reasons stated here. But, per the regs, it is NOT required! A POST TRIP is! Had the driver DONE one, (or a walk around) assuming he wasn't just stopping by the office, he would have saved a life. But, per the REGS..... there is NO culpability on the driver OR the carrier in this unfortunate case. (from what we know per the news reports.)

You are wrong (again) and Myth Buster is both wrong AND a butthole for sending the email to the jurisdiction responsible. He confused the issue by quoting NONresponsive and irrelevant regulations, AND he interfered in their investigation. He further gave a biased and negative view of ALL truckers in doing so! I suppose you want to give him another medal for this!

Again.... they didn't clearly SAY that a driver must INSPECT the combination before driving it. They said he must be "satisfied" that SOMEONE had inspected them before he drove them! That could be the shop maintenance personnel, or the previous driver, OR himself IF he was the previous driver.

And as someone said, he MIGHT have done his nonrequired "pretrip" several minutes BEFORE the (alleged) drunk laid down in front of his truck. This was an unfortunate accident, precipitated by the victim, and "regardless" of the safestat rating for the company, has NO bearing on the professionalism of MOST drivers on the road today.

For YOU and Myth_Buster to lay this at our feet, and insinuate that the majority of truckers today are lazy or incompetent, is the height of ignorance and arrogance! YOU I can excuse.... because you are just ignorant of the regs. But, Myth_Buster should KNOW better, and the fact that he has taken this opportunity to be condescending is reprehensible!

But, I am not surprised.

Hobo

[golfhobo]

Just to clarify here, at this place there are NO fences, gates or signs. It is wide open to two major streets at a major intersection. There's even a stop light there!

And DATS runs some raggedy crap!

Thanks for the clarification, but it makes no difference. It was STILL "private property" and doesn't rise to the level of a PVA. Nothing in the news reports would indicate that the "alleged" drunk was an employee, and it would make no difference if he WAS! You don't have a free pass in this society to lay down and go to sleep in front of a CMV..... ANYWHERE!