[zipy46]

This looks serious

Welcome! CSA 2010, Comprehensive Safety Analysis

[chris1]

So drivers with bad logging ect. habits are a good thing?

[Orangetxguy]

Originally Posted by chris1

So drivers with bad logging ect. habits are a good thing?

Not so much.


Something the DOT needs to do...is teach thses new Inspectors they are generating out onto the roads, is when, where, and what type trucks, are safely inspected roadside....and which aren't.

[zipy46]

Originally Posted by chris1

So drivers with bad logging ect. habits are a good thing?

No....

....companies that encourage drivers to run outside the law need to be stopped


I am for CSA 2010 and also EOBR

[chris1]

Originally Posted by Orangetxguy

Not so much.


Something the DOT needs to do...is teach thses new Inspectors they are generating out onto the roads, is when, where, and what type trucks, are safely inspected roadside....and which aren't.

They do. It's called the ISS selection system.

[Kevin0915]

Originally Posted by chris1

So drivers with bad logging ect. habits are a good thing?

I hope this isnt another one of those, "...hey this driver was doing a good job getting into an accident and ONLY being found with 3-5 log violations"

[chris1]

At this time there is no way to track a driver who has bad habits,unless they are ticketed. It is not requirement to answer on a pre-employment.

[GMAN]

Originally Posted by zipy46

No....

....companies that encourage drivers to run outside the law need to be stopped


I am for CSA 2010 and also EOBR

If you had to pay for the EOBR you would not like them so much. Besides, any small error on you part as the driver could result in a major fine or worse. Frankly, I don't think that there are that many companies who would encourage their drivers to run outside the law. The risks are too great for the carrier.

[Windwalker]

Looks to me like:

If you team up a horse and a mule, and the mule refuses to pull... Shoot the horse.

Why is it so convenient for everyone to forget that virtually all the studies show that it is the 4-wheelers that are causing the vast majority of accidents that trucks are involved in?
4-wheelers with drugs, alcohol, and sheer stupidity behind the wheel are bad enough.
Then add the majority of the public that is not informed as to what is safe to do around a truck, and what is not,
and you have a whole series of accidents looking for a place to happen.
Every Tom, Dick, and Harry, and all their cousins, absolutely, positively, MUST drive in front of a truck.
And, just 50 feet in front is just find and dandy.

They would be far more effective to inform the public that 1/8 of a mile in front of a truck is a suicide zone.
Simple rule of thumb. No matter what the terrain, or weather conditions, stay out from in front of a truck.
By turning their heads the other way from the major cause of accidents, they are being far less effective in prevention.
Of course, that would not bring in any revenue.
Just another way of coming down on CMVs and getting more money.
So, money, not human life, is the name of the game.

I'm glad I'm going to be retired before it goes into effect.
You guys have fun with it all.

[Orangetxguy]

Originally Posted by chris1

They do. It's called the ISS selection system.

Well. Unfortunately, there are more than a few of these new DOT inspectors, employeed by city's and county's, whom do not understand certain types of dangers.

I personally do not care whether my truck and the trailer I am pulling is inspected by the DOT, as long as the inspection is done at the "scales". Once DOT officers start stopping me along the shoulder of the road, so they can fullfill their daily qouta, then I start having issues, especially when the tank is loaded with nasty stuff.

Last year, I was west bound through Tuscon and was pulled over by a city DOT inspector. I had a tank, loaded with haz-mat, and was stopped about 400 feet west of a TSMT truck that had explosive 1.1 placards, whom was also pulled over by a cith Inspector. Not wishing to fail the inspection and get issued a citation, I held my tongue. Had an AZ Inspector not arrived, and explained to both city Inspectors, what it was they both did wrong. I would have done so....after the inspection was complete.

I was handed my paperwork back by the state Inspector, and told to have a safe trip. The TSMT truck was passing by, as he handed me back all of my paperwork.


It is ok to have an Inspector pull trucks over on the shoulder for inspection. For the most part, when wayward cars end up under those trucks, as they do from time to time, it is preferable that those trucks not be laden with hazardous materials. It doesn't matter if those trucks are pulling a flatbed, van/refer, or tank. Hazardous Material laden trucks should only be pulled in for inspection, at "scales" or "rest areas", not on the shoulder of a highway.











I am on this particular speel....because thursday morning I was pulled over on the I-610 loop in Houston, with a tank loaded with 45K of 95% solution Formic Acid, by a Houston city Inspector.

That (shoulder of 610 loop) is not the place to be inspecting any truck, let alone a hazmat laden truck. Before he got to far into how important a man he was (my first words to him were "What is wrong Officer? Do you see a leak? Was I driving in an unsafe manner?"), I had dialed 911, and was speaking with Texas Department of Public Safety, explaining the situation to them..and the local commander at the DPS office, was quickly speaking to Mr. Houston DOT. I was stopped on that shoulder, about 4 minutes.



CSA is a good idea. Increased and tougher inspections, good idea. However. Train those Inspectors to recognize the dangers involved with the cargos they are delaying. Some things are worse than others.