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

[Rev.Vassago]

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.

Wow. That's a huge stretch, considering the reg, nor the interpretation, states anything of the sort. You are reading something into "the power unit and the trailer" that isn't there.

[Myth_Buster]

Lord give me strength to address the issues of the ignorant and assist them in understanding the rules that govern their livelihood without berating their intelligence.

Golfhobo:

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.

§396.1 Scope.

General—Every motor carrier, its officers, drivers, agents, representatives, and employees directly concerned with the inspection or maintenance of motor vehicles shall comply and be conversant with the rules of this part.

So GH what part of the regulations allows a driver with a CDL who passed the air brake test to be a brake inspector?

§396.25 Qualifications of brake inspectors.

(b) For purposes of this section, “brake inspector” means any employee of a motor carrier who is responsible for ensuring all brake inspections, maintenance, service, or repairs to any commercial motor vehicle, subject to the motor carrier’s control, meet the applicable Federal standards.

(e) No motor carrier shall employ any person as a brake inspector unless the evidence of the inspector’s qualifications, required under this section is maintained by the motor carrier at its principal place of business, or at the location at which the brake inspector is employed. The evidence must be maintained for the period during which the brake inspector is employed in that capacity and for one year thereafter. However, motor carriers do not have to maintain evidence of qualifications to inspect air brake systems for such inspections performed by persons who have passed the air brake knowledge and skills test for a Commercial Driver’s License.

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.

Doesn’t boggle your mind just how ill-informed you really are regarding how the rules apply?
FYI, a person with a CDL who has passed the air brake test can inspect air brake systems, they cannot repair them without the required experience.

Quote:
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!

My bad should have read:

There are a few yards the definition of a highway would not apply to but I doubt this is one of those occasions as 400 S Compress is in an industrial park.

It was too early in the AM.

Quote:
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.

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!

GH had the driver performed a proper pre-trip as required by the CDL and the necessary walk around inspections required by Part 392.7 none of the OOS would have occurred. So you’re saying the driver cannot spot non-operational turn signals and cracked wheels? Part 393.75 is listed twice 393.75(a) and 393.75(f) so that leaves all of the other violations as non-detectible by the driver.

As demonstrated Part 396.3 applies to the driver as well as the carrier.

Quote:
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!

I didn’t say a “TOTAL” inspection was required, I said Part 392.7 kicks in. Part 392.7 says:

§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:

Service brakes, including trailer brake connections.
Parking (hand) brake.
Steering mechanism.
Lighting devices and reflectors.
Tires.
Horn.
Windshield wiper or wipers.
Rear-vision mirror or mirrors.
Coupling devices.

I guess GH doesn’t understand “NO CMV SHALL BE DRIVEN”. The language is different from Part 396.11. Different inspection GH, get used to it.

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!

Again Part 392.7 is not the same as a pre-trip inspection. The equipment list in Part 396.13 is not the same as Part 392.7:

Part 392.7:

Service brakes, including trailer brake connections.
Parking (hand) brake.
Steering mechanism.
Lighting devices and reflectors.
Tires.
Horn.
Windshield wiper or wipers.
Rear-vision mirror or mirrors.
Coupling devices.

Part 396.13:

—Service brakes including trailer brake connections
—Parking (hand) brake
—Steering mechanism
—Lighting devices and reflectors
—Tires
—Horn
—Windshield wipers
—Rear vision mirrors
—Coupling devices
—Wheels and rims
—Emergency equipment

Obviously the inspection in Part 392 is not as detailed as in Part 396. Different inspection lists different inspections.

Quote:
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!

So GH let me get this straight, a tire cannot go flat in several hours? Air lines cannot split and develop audible air leaks? As mentioned, there is no requirement for a post trip inspection. There is a requirement for a post trip inspection report. Drivers are required to record any defect discovered or reported to them. Therefore, if a driver performed a pre-trip inspection and then took an eight hour break the driver would have to perform a Part 392.7 inspection before driving the truck.

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.

Too many to recall.

Quote:
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?

Oh I don’t know, helps demonstrate the differences between Part 392 and 396 and demonstrates that a DOT reportable accident can occur on private property.

Quote:
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!

Military bases are limited to those on business; there is a guard, and a place to obtain a pass to gain entry.
Yards have people coming and going, some have personal vehicles parked inside the yard. Sometimes there are more than one business.

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!

Yeah GH, drivers are well informed and taught every aspect of their duties and responsibilities. No driver has ever gone to jail or lost their ability to make a living because they’re so well informed. No driver has ever made a mistake because they knew the regs inside out or were informed of a particular reg and either misinterpreted or forgot what they were told. No driver has ever killed someone or caused severe property damage because they forgot to check for flat tires and left an huge chunk of rubber on the highway. No driver has ever killed anyone because they failed to check for missing lug nuts, broken wheels, checked a hub bearing to ensure ir wasn’t glowing hot, etc. and lost a tire or set of duals.

Quote:
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!

No, if a driver is satisfied with a co-driver’s or safety lane inspection they have met the standard. No where does it say by viewing the previous day’s DVIR are they relieved of performing an inspection.

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.

GH, I perform reviews on single truck carriers and have done one CR on a carrier with 10,000 vehicles. I check intermodal carriers, passenger carriers, OTR, fuel haulers, flat bed, and every thing in between. Illinois has the fifth largest carrier base in the US. There is nothing limited to my experience.

The regs are not skewed toward local carriers, many OTR carriers fail to have proper maintenance plans and have ridiculously high vehicle OOS rates. What attributes to the OTR carriers’ high vehicle OOS rates? Drivers failing to perform a proper pre-trip and en-route inspections.

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!

It’s the interpretation GH, the interpretation states an inspection must be done for the driver to be satisfied. How many times must the interpretation be posted for GH to see the light?

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.

I spent half my career above your paygrade!

GS-12 step 6, so are you telling me a person that cannot spell and makes common punctuation mistakes was a GS-13 or higher? Going from $80,000 a year to $50,000 driving a truck… Good move GH.

KC0IV:

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.

KC if the evidence supports the charges then chances are the challenge is tossed:

Collecting evidence:

Once you have identified the issues, the next step is to collect evidence that will help prove your case. Good evidence wins cases. Evidence includes your own testimony and supporting documents and witnesses that will help you prove the facts of your case. You can start collecting evidence by:

Representing Yourself at an Administrative Hearing

Same would apply to any administrative law hearing.

The FMCSA doesn’t write ticket, they prepare cases and mail Notice of Claim (NOC) letters. The case is prepared by an investigator and reviewed by two other staff before the NOC is mailed. The hearings may take years and cost tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands in attorney fees. The evidence must show, a CMV was used, commerce occurred, and the violation occurred. Admin law does not require the beyond a reasonable doubt be proven, just a strong indication the rule applied.

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

The point was the word MOTOR VEHICLE is regulated by Part 396, not COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES:

§396.1 Scope.

General—Every motor carrier, its officers, drivers, agents, representatives, and employees directly concerned with the inspection or maintenance of motor vehicles shall comply and be conversant with the rules of this part.

Happy? Again, the inspection in Part 392 is separate and apart from Part 396.

[c]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.

The interpretation states an inspection is required for the driver to be satisfied:

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 people can’t you read? This has only been posted about 10 times.

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

Two things KC:

1. Part 392.7 is not a pre-trip inspection. Part 392.7 is under the operation portion of the FMCSR. As demonstrated Part 392 applies to CMVs and Part 396 applies to Motor Vehicles. Part 392.7 states “No CMV shall be driven”; whereas, Part 396.13 states; Before driving a motor vehicle, the driver shall:
(a) Be satisfied that the motor vehicle is in safe operating condition;
(b) Review the last driver vehicle inspection report;
Since Part 396.13 references a point in time (review last DVIR) then it is logical the inspection is a pre-trip inspection.

2. Part 392.7 states someone must inspect the vehicle for the driver to be satisfied:

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 [b]co-driver’s inspection, or a safety lane inspection, then the requirement of this section will have been met.

Therefore, it can be surmised an “INSPECTION” by someone is required. No co-driver, the driver must do it, no safety lane, the driver must do it.

Sheesh KC give me a break, it’s not that hard to comprehend.

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

No, it is a driver vehicle inspection report completed at the end of the day and you cannot fill out the report without inspecting the vehicle. Part 396.11 does not require an inspection at the time the report is completed; therefore, again it is surmised the inspection must have been completed before the driver drove:

§396.11 Driver vehicle inspection report(s).

(a) Report required. Every motor carrier shall require its drivers to report, and every driver shall prepare a report in writing at the completion of each day’s work on each vehicle operated and the report shall cover at least the following parts and accessories:

Please provide a section that requires a post trip inspection. Every section that references a driver inspection states “BEFORE” not “AFTER.”

By the by lets take a quick look at the titles of the regulations in question:

§392.7 Equipment, inspection and use.
§396.13 Driver inspection.

How can people state the regulations don’t require the driver to inspect the vehicle/s? Look at the damn title!!!!!

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.

The regulations call the functions INSPECTIONS how else is a driver to be satisfied? The regulations offer interpretations the vehicles must be inspected and if in a team operation either a co-driver inspects the vehicle or a safety lane does the inspection.

The pre-trip in Part 396 is the same pre-trip inspection used to evaluate a driver’s skills for their CDL. The inspection in Part 392 is a quick look over to ensure the vehicle is safe to operate.

As I explained to GH a driver that passes their air brake test may inspect a vehicle’s air brake system per 396.25. If it wasn’t for the exception in Part 396.25 a driver could not perform a pre-trip inspection as they are not qualified brake inspectors!

Double R nailed it pretty accurately; there are too many drivers who are failing to properly inspect their trucks.

Myth_Buster disappointed in the TS attorneys looking for loop holes to perform safety inspections.

I know some here don’t like my post. IMHO it’s because I point out what a driver is doing wrong after 3, 5, 10 years or more. There are approximately 900,000 registered carriers in the US operating millions of vehicles. The chance of a person being inspected is relatively low; however, when things go south all of a sudden things start falling apart. The penalties associated with a log book violation are nothing compared to the penalties associated with injury and death.

Some here are insistent I’m clueless; well welcome to America. Of course you know opinions are like azz holes; every one has one and they stink.

Take care and as always.

Be safe.

[Rev.Vassago]

Myth_Buster disappointed in the TS attorneys looking for loop holes to perform safety inspections.

That sums it up in a nutshell. I wonder if those who wish to place all the blame on the deceased would feel the same if it were a small child that the driver ran over.

[Myth_Buster]

GH:

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.")

Really? Please provide a passage where it is mandated a “POST” vehicle inspection is required. The regs state; “NO CMV SHALL BE OPERATED” and “BEFORE”. The point is the driver doesn’t drive the vehicle until they’re satisfied the vehicle is safe to operate (IOW INSPECT.)

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.

Hence the en route inspection to ensure the vehicle is safe to operate. The pre-trip inspection is devised to ensure the vehicle is absolutely safe.

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.

Yeah except for two things:

1. The interpretations specify the vehicle must be inspected.
2. The title of the regulation contains the word INSPECTION

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.)

Misconception there GH see 1 and 2 above.

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!

Gee GH a driver runs over a person because they failed to check around their vehicle first and killed someone and you say I shed a negative light on all drivers? Oh well.

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.

§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:

§396.13 Driver inspection.

Before driving a motor vehicle, the driver shall:
(a) Be satisfied that the motor vehicle is in safe operating condition;

Naw I don’t see any requirement the driver inspect the vehicle, what the he11 was I thinking of?

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.

Yeah I’m convinced, with all of the debate on how no inspection is required why should I not believe every driver does a complete pre-trip and at least bumps their tires when the stop and have a change in duty status?

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!

I present the facts, how you perceive them is your choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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!

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!

§390.5 Definitions.

Accident means—

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this definition, an occurrence involving a commercial motor vehicle operating on a highway in interstate or intrastate commerce which results in:

(i) A fatality;
(ii) Bodily injury to a person who, as a result of the injury, immediately receives medical treatment away from the scene of the accident; or
(iii) One or more motor vehicles incurring disabling damage as a result of the accident, requiring the motor vehicle(s) to be transported away from the scene by a tow truck or other motor vehicle.
(2) The term accident does not include:
(i) An occurrence involving only boarding and alighting from a stationary motor vehicle; or
(ii) An occurrence involving only the loading or unloading of cargo.

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.

Oops, I guess it does go to show the driver was subject to all of the FMCSR.
Be safe.

[mike3fan]

Myth_Buster disappointed in the TS attorneys looking for loop holes to perform safety inspections.

Well I'm disappointed in the fact that you keep referring to yourself in the third person.

[Fredog]

That sums it up in a nutshell. I wonder if those who wish to place all the blame on the deceased would feel the same if it were a small child that the driver ran over.

that's one of the stupidest things you have ever said

[Rev.Vassago]

that's one of the stupidest things you have ever said

I disagree. I've said far stupider things than that.

[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?

Did you READ the rule you quoted (396.11). Had you read the rule you would have seen rule 396.11 is for [b]POST\B] trip inspection. The discussion in question is about PRE-trip inspection.


You will also notice in one of my previous post where FMCSA gives examples of where the driver does not perform a inspection.

It is not a matter of doing a inspection you and others says it is the law (rule). I and others content it is NOT.


kc0iv

[belpre122]

The apologists come in many forms.

[kc0iv]

M_B said:

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.
Doesn’t boggle your mind just how ill-informed you really are regarding how the rules apply?

FYI, a person with a CDL who has passed the air brake test can inspect air brake systems, they cannot repair them without the required experience.

M-B said:

No, if a driver is satisfied with a co-driver’s or safety lane inspection they have met the standard. No where does it say by viewing the previous day’s DVIR are they relieved of performing an inspection.

No where does it say an inspection has to be made. Rule 392.7 clearly says the driver must be SATISFIED. 396.13 also says the driver must be SATISFIED.

Show us where it SAYS otherwise.

M_B says:

Representing Yourself at an Administrative Hearing

Same would apply to any administrative law hearing.

What does a How To Represent Yourself At An Administrative Hearing Before The Finance Commission Agencies for the state of Texas have to do with this discussion?

Rules differ from state to state as well as the FEDS. To apply the same rule could cause you to loss the case.


M_B said:

The point was the word MOTOR VEHICLE is regulated by Part 396, not COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES:

Hell a motor scooter is a MOTOR VEHICLE but it sure isn't a COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE and sure doesn't fall under the rules we are discussing.

M_B said:

The interpretation states an inspection is required for the driver to be satisfied:

The Interpretation does not say anything about inspection.

What is does say and I quote "However, a driver may sign the certification of repairs as an agent of the motor carrier if he/she is satisfied that the repairs have been performed." Once again you read in more than is written.

M_B said:

Therefore, it can be surmised an “INSPECTION” by someone is required. No co-driver, the driver must do it, no safety lane, the driver must do it.

Sheesh KC give me a break, it’s not that hard to comprehend.

One more time M_B it is you that seen to not understand between the two phrases.

M_B said:

How can people state the regulations don’t require the driver to inspect the vehicle/s? Look at the damn title!!!!!

I ask how can someone not see the difference between part 396.11 and 396.13?

In the Interpretation on 396.11 it address inspection. So it is clearly talking about an inspection and it's report(s). 396.13 makes no claim that an inspection is required only that the driver be satisfied. With the exception of when repairs were made.


M_B said:

Myth_Buster disappointed in the TS attorneys looking for loop holes to perform safety inspections.

I know some here don’t like my post. IMHO it’s because I point out what a driver is doing wrong after 3, 5, 10 years or more. There are approximately 900,000 registered carriers in the US operating millions of vehicles. The chance of a person being inspected is relatively low; however, when things go south all of a sudden things start falling apart. The penalties associated with a log book violation are nothing compared to the penalties associated with injury and death.

Some here are insistent I’m clueless; well welcome to America. Of course you know opinions are like azz holes; every one has one and they stink.

I don't know about others but to me M_B biggest problem is an attitude where a he/she thinks they are the only ones that can read and understand the rules. His/her complete lack of respect for drivers. A typical government attitude.

In some cases you do appear to be clueless. You have present your case and I for one see it lacking.

With that I see no reason to continue this discussion.

kc0iv

[Fredog]

I disagree. I've said far stupider things than that.

I said one of the stupidest, not THE stupidest

[golfhobo]

I have found it! I've found the source of the disconnect between the viewpoints of Rev/MythBuster and me! Actually, I alluded to it in an earlier post, but now it is much more clear!

Hopefully, I will find time to post it tonight before going back to work for the week. I don't know.... I tire of these constant struggles, and MythBuster talks more than "I" do! After awhile, my mind just goes numb! I see the mountain.... but, I just don't have the energy to CLIMB it!

[Rev.Vassago]

I said one of the stupidest, not THE stupidest

I wouldn't even put it in the top 20.

[cdswans]

I disagree. I've said far stupider things than that.

Take that to the bank.

(1, 2, 3, 4, 5 . . 5 words . . it's a good post.)

[cdswans]

My intentions were to ensure the police department was aware of the regs. Turns out they called the Sate Police who are still investigating . .

From: Little Piggies, The Beatles, George Harrison

In their sties with all their backing
They don't care what goes on around
In their eyes there's something lacking
What they need's a damn good whacking!

Some livestock killed, two truckers injured in I-80 crash (with video) - poconorecord.com - The Pocono Record

[Myth_Buster]

It’s like arguing with a fence post, people cannot see the forest for the trees:

§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:

Service brakes, including trailer brake connections.
Parking (hand) brake.
Steering mechanism.
Lighting devices and reflectors.
Tires.
Horn.
Windshield wiper or wipers.
Rear-vision mirror or mirrors.
Coupling devices.

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.

No you’re correct KC0div, there is no mention of the word inspection in the interpretation or the regulation. The interpretation doesn’t specify that if a co-driver or safety lane made the inspection made the inspection the driver could be satisfied. I guess it’s too much of a leap to summarize that if there is no co-driver or safety lane then the driver must do an inspection. Oh and look the title of the regulation doesn't state EQUIPMENT INSPECTION so how could one possibly believe the regulation requires an INSPECTION?

M_B said:
Quote:
The interpretation states an inspection is required for the driver to be satisfied:

The Interpretation does not say anything about inspection.

What is does say and I quote "However, a driver may sign the certification of repairs as an agent of the motor carrier if he/she is satisfied that the repairs have been performed." Once again you read in more than is written.

KC, there are two separate paragraphs to Part 396.13. The fist one requires an inspection; after all, how else could a driver know whether the repairs were completed?

§396.13 Driver inspection.

Before driving a motor vehicle, the driver shall:

(a) Be satisfied that the motor vehicle is in safe operating condition;

(b) Review the last driver vehicle inspection report; and

(c) Sign the report, only if defects or deficiencies were noted by the driver who prepared the report, to acknowledge that the driver has reviewed it and that there is a certification that the required repairs have been performed. The signature requirement does not apply to listed defects on a towed unit which is no longer part of the vehicle combination.

§396.11 Driver vehicle inspection report(s).

(a) Report required. Every motor carrier shall require its drivers to report, and every driver shall prepare a report in writing at the completion of each day’s work on each vehicle operated and the report shall cover at least the following parts and accessories:

—Service brakes including trailer brake connections
—Parking (hand) brake
—Steering mechanism
—Lighting devices and reflectors
—Tires
—Horn
—Windshield wipers
—Rear vision mirrors
—Coupling devices
—Wheels and rims
—Emergency equipment

(b) Report content. The report shall identify the vehicle and list any defect or deficiency discovered by or reported to the driver which would affect the safety of operation of the vehicle or result in its mechanical breakdown. If no defect or deficiency is discovered by or reported to the driver, the report shall so indicate. In all instances, the driver shall sign the report. On two-driver operations, only one driver needs to sign the driver vehicle inspection report, provided both drivers agree as to the defects or deficiencies identified. If a driver operates more than one vehicle during the day, a report shall be prepared for each vehicle operated.

(c) Corrective action. Prior to requiring or permitting a driver to operate a vehicle, every motor carrier or its agent shall repair any defect or deficiency listed on the driver vehicle inspection report which would be likely to affect the safety of operation of the vehicle.

(c)(1) Every motor carrier or its agent shall certify on the original driver vehicle inspection report which lists any defect or deficiency that the defect or deficiency has been repaired or that repair is unnecessary before the vehicle is operated again.

(c) (2) Every motor carrier shall maintain the original driver vehicle inspection report, the certification of repairs, and the certification of the driver’s review for three months from the date the written report was prepared.

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.

There is no post trip inspection, just a post trip inspection report; therefore, the INSPECTION referenced in Part 396.11 is the pre-trip inspection.

You do see the words INSPECTION in the interpretations for Part 392 and 396 don’t you KC?

Do you notice how wheels and rims and safety equipment are not listed on the items a driver must check in Part 392?

Kc0iv:

M_B said:
Quote:
The point was the word MOTOR VEHICLE is regulated by Part 396, not COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES:

Hell a motor scooter is a MOTOR VEHICLE but it sure isn't a COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE and sure doesn't fall under the rules we are discussing.

Don’t have a clue do you? You’re not reading the applicability to Part 392 which covers CMVs and Part 396 which covers “MOTOR VEHICLES”. Part 390.5 has a definition for CMV and MOTOR VEHICLE. The point of the discussion is since Part 392 and 396 have separate types of vehicles they apply to then obviously the two inspections are treated separately.

Besides, if a scoter was used to transport freight then yes it would be subject to Part 396. Do you know that Table 1 HM materials require placarding for any quantity transported and mandate a CDL with HM endorsement regardless of the size of the vehicle transporting Table 1 materials? If a delivery messenger was transport Division 1.1 explosives on the scoter the driver would require a Class C CDL, D & A testing, a periodic inspection, a DOT medical card, placards, shipping papers, and log book to name a few.

But as I’ve mentioned, you don’t have a clue.

I don’t know about others but I’m distressed that some people cannot accept change and recognize the fact they may be mistaken about what the tooth fairy told them about the regs.

In another forum a driver stated he didn't believe the regs required a complete inspection every time the vehicle stopped. That is not the intent of the post. Part 396.13 requires a complete pre-trip inspection the same as the CDL pre-inspection test. Part 392.7 requires a quick walk around to ensure the vehicle hasn't fallen apart, a tire went flat, lights malfunctioned, etc. Drivers appear too caught up in the innuendo that an inspection is not required at all.

IMHO the post makes many drivers uncomfortable as they know they are probably more inclined to not perform a pre-trip and if they spot something by accident take care of it. The statement can be confirmed at any TS in America as drivers start their day and go about their business. Chances are less than 10% of drivers complete a pre-trip inspection required by the CDL and about as many bump their tires more than once a day.

So I understand the fear this post strikes in the hearts of drivers; after all, no one to believe they could be charged with manslaughter for failing to check around their vehicle.

I’ve asked at least twice and no one has answered yet, what if this had been another driver that was down due to a heart attack, slipped and fell, had a seizure, or fell of their truck while working a load or placing items on the catwalk. What would be the excuse then for running over some one as the vehicle started to move?

I wish you all the best of luck, as this is my last post on this subject.

Be safe.

[cdswans]

It’s like arguing with a fence post, people cannot see the forest for the trees . .

Horribly mixed metaphor.

[allan5oh]

Allan5oh:

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:

Nice dancing around what I said. After a mile, I would still be satisfied.

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.

I understand the second part. The first part is a grey area at best. If I have reason to believe my previous inspection is still valid and satisfactory, another one isn't required. Of course I'm talking about time, not distance.

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:

Not what we're talking about here. Again you seem to think that if someone is being criminally negligent, they're breaking the FMCSR's. They're two completely different set of laws.

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

Apparently you missed the entire last sentence:

“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.

So in other words, if a vehicle(such as a yard dog) is not used on a highway(most yards are NOT highways because they are closed to public travel) it is NOT considered a CMV and most regulations do not apply to it. Think about it for a second, if they did, most yard dogs would be illegal brand new since they do not have most of the required equipment stated in the regs.

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.

I agree, but interpretation of the law is important. You said "before", how long before? Immediately before? That is not stated in the regs. Maybe it should be.

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.

I agree completely, most of these problems have been there for at least a few weeks, if not longer. There is no way I can inspect a vehicle, and 5 minutes later before operation all these "problems" occur. This is "case closed" to me. I agree with you.

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

My point is the regs do not state when this inspection is required. Only that is required "before".

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.

I'll give you a specific example:

I park my truck in the shop. Before parking it, I fully inspect it. I understand there are things as slow tire leaks. But with a tire pressure monitoring system I would not need to inspect the tire visually when I came back, if it was inspected before I left.

Now in this shop, nobody else has access. Therefore I can assume nothing will go missing, and nobody drove the vehicle.

Would the inspection "before" be valid, if it was a few hours before, a day before, a week before?

Let's go item by item here:

Service brakes, including trailer brake connections.

Parking (hand) brake.

Steering mechanism.

Inspected before parking vehicle. No reason to believe any of this would suddenly change.

Lighting devices and reflectors.

Inspected before parking. Inspected again in cab with lights of shop off. I can see they're all working fine.

Tires.

Inspected visually before parking. No reason to believe they would be damaged in the mean time since no one has access. Pressure inspected from cab when I come back.

Horn.

Windshield wiper or wipers.

Rear-vision mirror or mirrors.

All inspected from the cab.

Coupling devices.

No trailer. However it was inspected before I parked it. No reason to believe it has changed.

Would this satisfy 392.7? Again full walk around was done before I parked it. Everything else was "inspected" from inside the cab to ensure no tire air leaks, etc...

I think it would.

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

And to that I can honestly say "thank you". If you ever inspected my vehicle(I've had a few on the road) and you found something, I'd shake your hand and give you thanks.

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

Would that be considered "open to the public" when only employees can drive around?

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

Yet the definition of motor vehicles which includes the word "highway" or "highways". When you look at the definition of highway, a yard that is not open to public is not considered a highway. Therefore any yard dog that is NOT used on a highway, is not considered a CMV or a motor vehicle.

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

The guidance specifically says "CMV". A yard dog is not a CMV, therefore it does not apply. If anything the guidance strengthens what I'm saying.

[golfhobo]

Serious question: What, exactly, is a "safety lane inspection?" I suppose I could have googled it, but I'd like to get a SIMPLE answer.

[mike3fan]

Serious question: What, exactly, is a "safety lane inspection?" I suppose I could have googled it, but I'd like to get a SIMPLE answer.

Some companies require you do go through the shop or a inspection lane upon leaving or entering a terminal to have your equipment inspected before continuing. If you are satisfied that they are doing their job sufficently then I guess you can trust them(I wouldn't) for the pti.