They closed I-43 several times last year in downtown Milwaukee for the construction. Usually it was very early in the morning, and they advertised it several weeks in advance. No detour created, as the shutdown was only a few hours. The overhead signs simply said "I-43 Closed At Marquette Interchange. Use Alternate Route"

 

Maybe, I muddied this a bit with the use of the "absolute" statement - NEVER. What I meant is: it is not the USUAL practice to shutdown a freeway or highway - for long periods of time - without creating a detour (or advertising the need to find alternate routes.)

THEREFORE, if it IS shutdown for a matter of hours (not minutes) without such prior arrangement for traffic..... it is an UNUSUAL condition for that road, and for that "traffic pattern."

Both of KayCee's scenarios qualify and are "exactly" the sort of thing I was referring to all along. The I-43 situation is different. First, by putting up the signs, you are notified to create your "own" detour, and secondly only an idiot would drive right by those signs and trap HIMSELF on the freeway.

 

NO, it just means that the rev intentionaly excluded a part of the reg because he neither understands nor agrees with it.

Unless you are from the Big Apple, major accidents are not part of the USUAL traffic pattern. :wink:

Exemption allowed. Furthermore..... even IF you got backed out of there and could go around this section of "shutdown" highway, and your driving time/trip plan was "adversely affected," exemption STILL allowed.

 

Nice try sneaking that by me. I certainly DO understand the reg. I just don't read as much into it as you do.

 

I have to take except with you golfhobo. I never checked the St. Louis as to if the state listed this on their web site (I suspect they did) but they did list it for KC construction several months before it happened.

In neither of the examples I used were there any sign placed anywhere near the road in question. Being both of these examples have heavy truck traffic there is no way signs could be place covering all the possible routes into the affected area.

Because of the advance notice I don't see how a driver can claim an exception to the rule. I know and understand no one checks road closures but doesn't mean they shouldn't.

Along this same line I agree with Rev at least in part. The whole exception to the rule should be rewritten. My way of thinking is they should declare what exception are allowed and limit the distance to the next available safe area. No limit neither the 11 or 14 hour rule. The concept of being able to complete the run should should not be involved.

Of course I don't agree with the concept of just-in-time deliveries. This has cause one of the biggest problem with modern trucking.

kc0iv

 

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Just checking to see if you were awake! :wink:

You're right about how different people would interpret things differently. I happen to believe YOU are the one reading too much into it, and therefore believe it is a very LIMITED exception.

I find it interesting that in the guidance, the only question they "pre-loaded" for us was concerning the "emergency conditions" part of the reg. Perhaps, this is because so many drivers cry "911" for every little reason to make more miles.

And perhaps, it is ALSO because they didn't think the "adverse driving" part was so hard to interpret. They clearly used the words UNUSUAL road and traffic conditions. And specifically did NOT say that a dispatcher had to check every state DOT website before dispatching every one of millions of runs. Besides.... they put the hourly restrictions on it pretty heavy, so it couldn't be abused and cause a bunch of sleepy drivers.

Just like "a little bit" of fog, snow, ice, etc. doesn't shutdown a road, neither does a little slow traffic through a construction zone. But.... when ANY of these conditons SHUTS DOWN the road, for any appreciable amount of time, I INTERPRET the regs to say you can take the exemption because it "adversely" affected your run (as long as you weren't told about it in advance by your dispatcher.)

As for what a dispatcher SHOULD have known? Here's a thing to consider. We often have wrecks in the gorge here in NC, that temporarily shut down the highway for several hours. As soon as one of our drivers gets stuck in it, or hears about it on the CB, they usually inform dispatch. Dispatch is then AWARE of it, and sends a fleetwide message. AT THAT POINT, no other driver could use the exemption.

I'm about to leave on a run that will include some 8 states or more. With all the other drivers out there doing the same, there is NO WAY my dispatcher has time to check websites for every state I'll go through (or the others.) And I believe the regs purposely don't say that he HAS to.

And what website might say, be careful drivers there is going to be an accidental overturning of a crane under some bridge in Wyoming - a few days from now - that MAY shut down the road for an UNUSUAL amount of time??

 

That isn't road construction. It's an accident. It would qualify, unless you were dispatched AFTER it happened, and was reported.

 

You're "nitpicking" again, Rev! Go back and read the first post. It was a construction crew/situation, and the road was closed down for some reason. Many truckers were there, and set their breaks.

I merely quoted the regs and indicated, as I still believe, that the exemption would apply.

You came along and started making absolute statements that may or may not have applied. No biggie. Unless it is a USUAL condition of the road/bridge over the Ohio River, the exemption applied to all those truckers who got caught in it because their dispatchers weren't aware of it - as the LOCALS weren't.

 

KayCee: I don't mind you disagreeing. Doesn't make you right (or me either, I suppose.) St. Louis sounds like a certain example. As for K.C? Highway 71??? Not even familiar with it. Certainly not part of the interstate system through and around the city. I would think, especially with such advance notice, that there WOULD indeed be signs on the nearest freeway segment that MIGHT feed onto Highway 71. If so... drivers are expected to go around it. I wasn't there, so I can't say for sure. As to whether my dispatcher in NC should have known about it, when we RARELY go through there? I doubt it. But, if he DID, then no exception. If he DIDN'T... and there WERE NO signs (as you say,) then exception GRANTED.

Don't see anything in the regs that say they SHOULD unless they ARE. I haven't checked the "carrier" sections of the fmcsr's. Perhaps, there's a section there on dispatcher duties. I don't know. I'll look it up. If it's there? You guys win. :lol: If not? all we have to go on is the wording in the reg that questions whether or not, in fact, they KNEW about it. Says nothing about SHOULD HAVE KNOWN about it.

It's apparent to me that they DID declare what is allowed, and they limited the TIME to get to a safe area OR complete the run. If your hours haven't exactly expired when they reopen the road, how is someone going to tell you what DISTANCE you can go? If they started using distances in THIS situation, why not use them for total driving DISTANCE allowed for every driver, every day? Hmm.... could have to do with the different speeds the trucks can go. All they can use is TIME. So.... that's what they DO.

They don't really care how much farther you can go to shutdown, or whether that allows you to complete your run. They just don't want you driving beyond the 14 hour limit that they consider causes fatigue. It's ALL they can go by. They GIVE you THAT.... and that's ALL you get. Them's the REGS! :lol:

 

I don't see anywhere in the reg or the interpretation that setting the brakes is a criteria for the exemption.

Sorry, golfhobo, but I take a very "cut and dry" view of the regs. I don't read more into them than there is. I leave that up to the FMCSA to do in their interpretations.

Leaving as much "gray area" out of the regs keeps the enforcement of them as even as possible, as it leaves nothing to question. I'm sure if two drivers got citations on opposite sides of the country for using this exemption for road construction, and they both fought it using the same "logic", the two different judges would rule differently, because it's a gray area.

Until you can prove otherwise that road closures due to construction are included, I refuse to accept it. Plain and simple.