[Rev.Vassago]

Dear Golfhobo,

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

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

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

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

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

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


Love,

Rev.

[BigDiesel]

[Roadhog]

skree...oOoOweeOoOweeOooooooo

[golfhobo]

Dear Rev Vassago:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rev.Vassago]

Originally Posted by golfhobo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are his qualifications:

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

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

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

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

[Roadhog]

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

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

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

[scooter823]

Originally Posted by BigDiesel

Move over , got any hot sauce for the popcorn.

[Rev.Vassago]

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

[golfhobo]

Originally Posted by Rev.Vassago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hobo

[Trukrswyfe]

Originally Posted by golfhobo

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

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

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

I don't know how YOU shop,

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

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

made note.

No skin off my teeth.

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

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

Hobo

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