Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 6:28 pm Post subject:

Rev.Vassago wrote:

"Unusual" is not a definition of "Adverse". Heck, it isn't even a synonym.

Never claimed it WAS a synomym. But, I would think it would often be a qualifier for an adverse situation (and so does the fmscsa, since THEY used the word!) I can't see how an adverse situation could be caused by a USUAL situation. But, perhaps you could enlighten me?


And I even went on to point out that anytime TRAFFIC comes to a full stop, for any length of time, on a FREEWAY.... it is UNUSUAL and qualifies for the ADVERSE condition exemption.


Nope. THAT would be something both driver and dispatch should KNOW about without being "notified." How long a period of time? 2 HOURS?? Without moving an inch?? I doubt it. And like you said.... it certainly isn't UNUSUAL, therefore it wouldn't qualify! But, complete road closures in a construction zone on a multiple lane freeway, which have NOT been advertised in advance (you've seen the electronic message boards giving dates of closures in advance, haven't you?...) certainly WOULD!

Again I ask, what part of "Unusual Road or TRAFFIC conditions" do you not understand? If it is USUAL for a freeway to be completely "shutdown" for 2 hours at a time, I'll eat my hat!

Unless of course, you or your dispatcher are psychic!!

I'm NEVER flying blind, Rev! I KNOW what to expect in most areas of the country that I drive in. Like I said, I don't know what part of the "limited" world YOU drive in.... but, where "I" drive, they don't "USUALLY" shut down the freeways completely for construction (unless they create DETOURS.)

Recently, I was in a "backup" going through Searchlight, NV. Two lanes, both north and south. It was SLOW, yes! But, though they were digging up the road at the main "square" in downtown, they had flagmen out and every now and then, they let 10 vehicles or so go through from each side. That is NOT A ROAD CLOSURE. It isn't even UNUSUAL for that area, as it has been going on as long as I've been driving! We were moving by inches, so I couldn't pop the breaks and break out the barbeque!

On the other hand.... though I wasn't there..... awhile back an entire section of overpass collapsed onto I-70 in Denver, CO. Stopped traffic in both directions for hours. THAT is one example of a "road closure." And it qualifies. And yes, it was in a construction zone. Anytime you are driving, without prior knowledge of a road closure - and especially if it was not planned - and for some reason, construction or otherwise, that road is completely closed down - traffic stopped for hours IN PLACE.... you can claim the "Adverse Driving Exemption." In fact, if you read the reg again, it says you can be COMPELLED to drive on after your hours are up! The DOT will NOT let you let your truck sit there blocking traffic just because your 11 hours are up!

I know how to trip plan, too! In fact, I've never been caught in such a situation as we've been discussing. I SURE as Heck would never be stupid enough to drive through Chicago at rush hour!

But, your insults and nitpicking notwithstanding.... the poster asked a question. I gave the correct answer.

It's been an interesting debate.... but I think we've covered it. Any more "delays" and we may have to take an "adverse posting exemption."

Close enough! :lol:

 

I agree. But, how about when they "schedule" NO HOURS shutdown, but they do it anyway? What difference do the hours make?

If the "scheduled" shutdown is not KNOWN to the dispatcher before dispatching the run, the regs are quite clear that it is an "unforeseen" situation that ADVERSELY affects the "scheduled" dispatch of the run.

Assuming that all runs are supposed to be dispatched based on some computer figuring out that there is time available to complete the run, the unforeseen "closure" of the road could impede the driver's ability to "COMPLETE THE RUN" or "get to a safe place to shutdown." (right out of the regs.)

 

[quote="Rev.Vassago"]Okay, let's start over right here. Emergency conditions are not "different than" adverse conditions. They are listed as #2 under 395.1 (b) Adverse conditions. So they are considered an "adverse condition."

They differ in that (per the reg) they FURTHER exempt the driver from the 2 hour provision and the 14 hour limits of 395.1 (b)(1) which covers "non-emergency" Adverse conditions. Since it says the run should OTHERWISE have been reasonably expected to be completed absent the emergency, I would suspect that the 11 hour rule applies, but it may not - given the circumstances. However, if the emergency causes an extension of time that THEN causes the driver to drive past the 14 hour limit, there is NO violation. [I expect alot of debate on this, but I'm quite sure I read it correctly - and we can put that debate off for an hour or so.]

Furthermore, there is NO definition of emergency situations in 395.2 "Definitions." So, the paragraph in the GUIDANCE was just to tell the DOT officers what NOT to accept as an excuse from a driver claiming some kind of emergency. It was TOO obvious that a driver couldn't claim a construction shutdown as an emergency situation.

Under 395.1 (b)(1) Adverse Conditions, it specifies the amount of extended time a driver may drive or be REQUIRED to drive, based on the definitions in 395.2. Which brings us back to the weather conditions which were well delineated, and the ambiguous term "Unusual road or traffic conditions which were not apparent on the basis of information that was KNOWN by the dispatcher." NOTE: Nothing is said about the driver's "Obligation" to know anything!

They could find out about the road construction,

They are under NO obligation to FIND out anything that they aren't aware of.

and if they know about the road construction, then they can easily deduce that the possibility is there that there will be a delay for it.

They are under NO obligation to DEDUCE or SPECULATE about anything. Besides.... we are not talking about DELAYS/slowdowns. We are talking about shutdowns.

That is the nature of road construction. It doesn't matter if the delay is for 10 minutes, or 10 hours.

Yes.... and no. 10 minutes can make the difference in not violating the rules, but I consider a 10 minute DELAY to be different than a 1-2 hour STOPPAGE. I'm quite sure that a 10 HOUR closure would necessitate a detour. Let's stay REAL here.

If you knew there was road construction (which you would have if you would have done proper trip planning), then you knew the possibility existed for the delay.

Again, I'm not talking about a little "delay." Obviously, we ALL deal with these on a daily basis. Nevertheless... there is STILL no obligation for the driver to know about anything! It's all on the dispatcher - per the regs.

This is absolutely correct. Freak weather storms are listed in the adverse driving conditions, and are covered.

Agreed. I only used that to differentiate between what a dispatcher might KNOW about.... and what was unforeseen.

I could have just as easily said "Call the DOT in the state capital of your choice", but I figured this would be more fun.

And it IS fun! Good suggestion though, I think I WILL call the NCDOT.

Anybody but Dawn.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I've seen nothing in the DOT regs that state anything about construction zones being an "adverse driving condition".

That IS interesting, isn't it? I wonder why they weren't more specific about something that affects us everyday? It's not the ZONES themselves that I am referring to, as MOST of them allow for continuous movement, even if slow. But, perhaps it is BECAUSE they are so comonplace that the regs specifically say UNUSUAL traffic or ROAD conditions - which might indicate a complete stoppage.... affecting our schedules to a greater or major degree.

Delays caused by backups due to accidents, sudden road damage (like a tanker blows up and creates a crater in the middle of the interstate), or weather related backups. Basically, anything that cannot be forseen would fall into this category.

Weather related is covered elsewhere. I'm not talking about simple "delays." A sudden explosion of a tanker would be more of a traffic condition/accident than ROAD damage - but is a GOOD example. No... I think road damage is something that requires ALL lanes in a construction zone to be closed for a significant, yet unadvertised, period of time. Like a sinkhole, or perhaps a bridge collapse while under construction. My point is that ALL lanes of a freeway are NEVER closed intentionally without the creation of a detour.

I wouldn't call any sort of rush hour traffic, construction traffic, sports related traffic an "unusual traffic condition", as they are all things that can be forseen, as they are usually announced days (if not weeks) in advance.

All of this I agree with.

That goes for your shutdowns due to construction. If they are shutting down the highway for 2 hours due to construction, you can believe that they announced it prior to it happening.

This part I'm not so sure about. Sometimes things don't go as planned during road construction. Regardless.... if it is a local and UNUSUAL situation, there is no reason to believe that my dispatcher (or myself) knew about it in advance, and therefore I still believe it qualifies for the exemption. A simple evidenciary point might be whether or not they had pre-placed one of those lightbulb signs announcing it.

Heck - when they shut down I-43 in Milwaukee to MOVE CONES, they announced it weeks in advance.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Northerners ARE slow readers! :lol:

Just because you fail to do your homework, doesn't give you a free pass to drive extra hours to make it up. Proper trip planning is the DUTY of every dispatcher and CDL holder.

I agree about the trip planning. But, I maintain that there are many circumstances that one cannot be aware of... and if they affect your run to the tune of say... 2 hours, I believe there is broad coverage in the reg for this, and in fact, are the underlying REASON for the exemption to be placed in the regs.

My personal opinion is that the best solution would be to eliminate the adverse driving conditions clause altogether. It only serves to create a more dangerous environment, as it causes drivers to be on duty for longer than they normally would have.

You have a right to your opinion. But surely, you recognize that the purpose of the exemption is PRECISELY to avoid dangerous situations like truckers being stuck on the side of the road when they "otherwise" could have completed their run (even if just to a truckstop) SAFELY. And they ARE still required to stay within the Driving Window.

 

I think the entire Adverse Driving Exemption leaves way too many "what if's" and should be eliminated as it stands today, and replaced with either more specific wording, or some sort of exemption that allows a driver to get to a safe point to shut down (something the Adverse Driving Exemption doesn't even do if you get up to your 14 hours). Beyond that, it leaves too many holes that aren't explained in the FMCSA regs or interpretation. Perhaps the DOT occifers have some literature that further explains it.

Until someone proves it further, my opinion of it stands - it says NOTHING about construction delays, and therefore doesn't cover them. In fact, the only things that I am willing to acknowledge that it DOES cover are the things that it SPECIFICALLY states, which are:

snow
sleet
fog
a highway covered with snow or ice

Anything beyond that is looking for trouble.

 

 

I think if that were all the reg did, then it would be fine. But when it half-explains other uses for the reg, then it does the entire reg an injustice.

I think this is a pointless reason for the reg. Delays, unforseen situations, and slowdowns are par for the course in trucking. I count on them, and I usually have way more time than I need to complete my trips.

I left that out for a reason - it is open to interpretation that the FMCSA does not provide.

As long as people are trying to use the exemption to get "just a little further down the road", then I don't think the exemption serves the purpose that it was intended to do. If they eliminated all wording about "completing the trip", and kept only the wording about "gettting to a safe place", then I think the reg would be better suited.

As I was typing this, something jumped out at me, which I would like to explore further:

The way I interpret that, is that if you are on a multiple day trip, the only time you can use this exemption OTHER THAN TO GET TO A SAFE SPOT is when doing so will put you at your destination. The wording specifically states "in order to complete the run".

 

 

Ok - I'll toss a log on the fire...

What about an accident on the highway? Say you're 1/2 mile from a major accident that shuts down the highway (such as the wreck last week in FL). This shutdown lasts for 6hrs and because of your location on the highway they can't get you backed out to detour around. We'll just say you can't get backed out or detour because you're hauling a super-heavy load that mandates to the interstate because of low weight limits on area roads/bridges. I'll even specify: clear weather, 11am (to clear up that it's not a weather related shutdown).

You don't have it in your list above. Does that mean that the accident wouldn't qualify for "Adverse or Unusual Traffic Conditions"?

 

Normally I would have said "Yes" that it would, but then golfhobo mucked up that particular section by trying to make it apply to construction delays. :lol:

The way I interpret the reg (as it is written right now), is that a delay for an accident does fall under the Adverse Conditions Exemption if four things are true:

1. The delay occured after you were dispatched, or there was no way for dispatch to find out about it prior to dispatching you, and

2. You are not involved in the accident.

3. The delay keeps you from reaching your final destination, which could have been reached if the delay didn't exist.

4. The delay doesn't put you over your 14 hours.

For the scenario you presented, you could only use the Adverse Driving Exemption if the delay didn't put you over your 14 hours. A 6 hour delay may very well do so. If it does, then even the exemption doesn't help you - not even to get to a safe place. This is where it falls short, and why I think the only thing it should be used for is to find a safe place to park (with no limitation on the 14 hour rule).

 

A little over two years ago I-70 all lanes in both directions, near the airport in Saint Louis, was shut down for construction for over an hour. No easy detour and those which were were city streets.

Another example was when they dropped the bridge on Highway 71 in South Kansas City that was closed for over 6 hours to all lanes of traffic.

Most of these occur at night to reduce the effect on traffic but if your are not aware of these closures it's not hard to get trapped.

BTW both of these examples would be described as "freeways".

kc0iv