|
|
12-08-2008, 03:30 AM
|
Board Icon
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: the 19th hole / NC
Posts: 9,647
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Now I know how the Rev used to feel when I didn't properly quote someone's response in my reply. Under the current restrictions of this new board, your entire post would disappear. As it should.
As for the rest of it.... I don't have all night to respond to one or two word responses to every sentence I made. How about this.... How about YOU try to string a few words and thoughts together into a sentence or two.... called a paragraph.... and I'll respond to a coherent "thought" if you can find one.
As for the reg you quoted, and I see you posted it twice just SO that I could quote it.... you are a smart one.... ALL of part (a) relates to the same thing. One cannot DRIVE a CMV, or be ON DUTY, unless they meet the requirements of the reg, which is the 4 hour rule and no more than .02 BAC. One cannot be ON DUTY or OPERATE a CMV while the driver "posseses" alcohol.
Please show me the part of that reg that says that a driver who is OFF DUTY, cannot "possess" alcohol when NEITHER he (nor anyone else) is "operating" the CMV in interstate commerce.
Let me make this simple for you. The entire "alcohol prohibition" reg is centered around the fact that a driver cannot OPERATE or be ON DUTY with more than .02 BAC in his system, or within 4 hours of drinking. And cannot OPERATE the vehicle while ON DUTY if anyone possesses alcohol in the truck.
The ONLY phrase still in question is that of "physical control." If you are basing YOUR entire argument on that ONE phrase (which is still under review,) please SAY SO! Otherwise, quit quoting the same reg that so many others do, that says NOTHING about whether a driver can drink on his OFF DUTY time, or whether he can sleep it off in his sleeper.
__________________
Remember... friends are few and far between.
TRUCKIN' AIN'T FOR WUSSES!!!
"I am willing to admit that I was wrong." The Rev.
Last edited by golfhobo; 12-08-2008 at 03:53 AM.
|
12-08-2008, 03:32 AM
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Huntington Beach, Ca
Posts: 97
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfhobo
Would you please CITE the regulation or statute from which you quoted this?
|
Google
Possession of Alcohol in a Commercial Vehicle
|
12-08-2008, 03:40 AM
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Huntington Beach, Ca
Posts: 97
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
you where talking to me
and every thing you said could be responded to,
that was easy enough
you would do better if you knew what you where saying
§392.5 Alcohol prohibition
a)(2) Use alcohol, be under the influence of alcohol, or have any measured alcohol concentration or detected presence of alcohol, while on duty, or operating, or in "physical control of a commercial motor vehicle"
here read it again,
it's not under review it's a regulation
|
12-08-2008, 03:40 AM
|
Board Icon
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: the 19th hole / NC
Posts: 9,647
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdmax
When a personal is legally held liable or accountable for physical control of a commercial motor vehicle
Definitions of Physical control on the Web:
The Physical control is established over the physical aspects (quantity and location) of the vehicle and records in custody. ...
WHAT????
a)(2) Use alcohol, be under the influence of alcohol, or have any measured alcohol concentration or detected presence of alcohol, while on duty, or operating, or in "physical control of a commercial motor vehicle"
the physical control of a commercial motor vehicle is the person that is responsible for that vehicle
|
In order to take your 10 hour break, and be able to drive again, you MUST be Relieved OF DUTY (ROD) by your carrier (implicit in the regs)
That means relieved of ALL responsibility. Again, if the truck is idling, and you're in the sleeper, the jury is out (as far as I'm concerned) as to whether STATE law would consider you "in physical control," but there is NO DOUBT that, per the regs, you are RELIEVED of control or responsibility by your carrier if you are on your required 10 or 34 hour break.
__________________
Remember... friends are few and far between.
TRUCKIN' AIN'T FOR WUSSES!!!
"I am willing to admit that I was wrong." The Rev.
|
12-08-2008, 03:49 AM
|
Board Icon
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: the 19th hole / NC
Posts: 9,647
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdmax
you where talking to me
(yes, I was.)
and every thing you said could be responded to,
yes, it could... but it couldn't be "quoted.")
that was easy enough
(Now try quoting everything I'm saying, and responding to each line.)
you would do better if you knew what you where saying
(And YOU would do better if YOU knew what I was saying.)
§392.5 Alcohol prohibition
a)(2) Use alcohol, be under the influence of alcohol, or have any measured alcohol concentration or detected presence of alcohol, while on duty, or operating, or in "physical control of a commercial motor vehicle"
here read it again,
it's not under review it's a regulation
|
?????
__________________
Remember... friends are few and far between.
TRUCKIN' AIN'T FOR WUSSES!!!
"I am willing to admit that I was wrong." The Rev.
|
12-08-2008, 04:04 AM
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Huntington Beach, Ca
Posts: 97
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Try this reg Golfhobo,
look at the word "include"
Include does not mean solely that line 4).the sleeper berth is exempt from responsiblity
§382.107 Definitions.
§382.107
Safety-sensitive function means all time from the time a driver begins to work or is required to be in readiness to work until the time he/she is relieved from work and all responsibility for performing work. Safety-sensitive functions shall include:
1) All time at an employer or shipper plant, terminal, facility, or other property, or on any public property, waiting to be dispatched, unless the driver has been relieved from duty by the employer;
(2) All time inspecting equipment as required by §§392.7 and 392.8 of this subchapter or otherwise inspecting, servicing, or conditioning any commercial motor vehicle at any time;
(3) All time spent at the driving controls of a commercial motor vehicle in operation;
(4) All time, other than driving time, in or upon any commercial motor vehicle except time spent resting in a sleeper berth (a berth conforming to the requirements of §393.76 of this subchapter);
The Safety-sensitive functions Shall include: "INCLUDE"
To bring into a group, class, set, or total as a (new) part or member; To contain, as parts of a whole
"required to be in readiness to work until the time he/she is relieved from work and all responsibility"
|
12-08-2008, 04:09 AM
|
Board Icon
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: the 19th hole / NC
Posts: 9,647
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdmax
Google
Possession of Alcohol in a Commercial Vehicle
|
okay... I DID. And the only "hit" I got where I found that exact quote was a site by the company that makes the "interlock" sytems for those who must have one to drive. It DOES say that, but where is their cited reference? Where is there credibility? I asked you to quote a STATUTE that says that. Do you KNOW what a "statute" is? :roll:
I REALLY hate "wild goose chases" after blogs, commercial sites, or whatever that some of you consider PROOF. Do the research, as I have. Find me the state law, or federal law that says what you are saying. And furthermore, one that defines "physical control."
__________________
Remember... friends are few and far between.
TRUCKIN' AIN'T FOR WUSSES!!!
"I am willing to admit that I was wrong." The Rev.
|
12-08-2008, 04:21 AM
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Huntington Beach, Ca
Posts: 97
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfhobo
okay... I DID. And the only "hit" I got where I found that exact quote was a site by the company that makes the "interlock" sytems for those who must have one to drive. It DOES say that, but where is their cited reference? Where is there credibility? I asked you to quote a STATUTE that says that. Do you KNOW what a "statute" is? :roll:
I REALLY hate "wild goose chases" after blogs, commercial sites, or whatever that some of you consider PROOF. Do the research, as I have. Find me the state law, or federal law that says what you are saying. And furthermore, one that defines "physical control."
|
http://www.monitechnc.com/Nclaw.html
http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillL...9&BillID=H1499
House Bill 1499 / S.L. 2000-155 (= S1199)
1999-2000 Session
INTERLOCK/OPEN CONTAINER CHANGES
Effective September 1, 2000, North Carolina's drunk driving laws will be strengthened yet again. The new law:
Strengthens the open container law to prohibit anyone in motor vehicle from having open containers of beer or wine while in a public vehicular area. Strengthens the ignition-interlock requirement so that an offender will be required to have the alcohol-sensing device installed not just in his or her primary vehicle, but all vehicle registered in their name.
To view the full text of this statute, click here .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective July 1, 2000, North Carolina's drunk driving laws are tougher than ever. To target repeat offenders, the new law:
Establishes a blood alcohol content of 0.04 for those who have been convicted of a DWI and have had their license reinstated. Establishes a blood alcohol content of 0.00 for those who have been convicted of a second DWI and have had their license reinstated.
Requires those who are convicted of having a blood alcohol level of .16 or greater -- in other words, at twice the legal limit-- to use an ignition interlock system in their vehicles before their license is restored.
To view the full text of this statute, click here .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, North Carolina can now seize the vehicle of a driver whose license is revoked by another state, if the revocation is for an offense that is "substantially" similar to one -- if committed in North Carolina -- would make the vehicle subject to seizure. This would apply to a DWI violation charged to an out-of-state driver whose license has been revoked for a previous DWI.
Last edited by fdmax; 12-08-2008 at 04:24 AM.
Reason: http://www.monitechnc.com/Nclaw.html, http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=1999&BillID=H1499
|
12-08-2008, 04:28 AM
|
Board Icon
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: the 19th hole / NC
Posts: 9,647
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdmax
Try this reg Golfhobo,
look at the word "include"
Include does not mean solely that line 4).the sleeper berth is exempt from responsiblity
§382.107 Definitions.
§382.107
Safety-sensitive function means all time from the time a driver begins to work or is required to be in readiness to work until the time he/she is relieved from work and all responsibility for performing work. Safety-sensitive functions shall include:
1) All time at an employer or shipper plant, terminal, facility, or other property, or on any public property, waiting to be dispatched, unless the driver has been relieved from duty by the employer;
(2) All time inspecting equipment as required by §§392.7 and 392.8 of this subchapter or otherwise inspecting, servicing, or conditioning any commercial motor vehicle at any time;
(3) All time spent at the driving controls of a commercial motor vehicle in operation;
(4) All time, other than driving time, in or upon any commercial motor vehicle except time spent resting in a sleeper berth (a berth conforming to the requirements of §393.76 of this subchapter);
The Safety-sensitive functions Shall include: "INCLUDE"
To bring into a group, class, set, or total as a (new) part or member; To contain, as parts of a whole
"required to be in readiness to work until the time he/she is relieved from work and all responsibility"
|
Jeez, I can't believe you are trying to school ME in definitions! Where have you been? We've been all through this many times already!
What part of:
"means all time from the time a driver begins to work or is required to be in readiness to work until the time he/she is relieved from work and all responsibility for performing work. "
Do you (and others) NOT UNDERSTAND???? :hellno:
The regs use the SAME wording to describe both ON DUTY TIME... AND.... safety sensitive functions. And BOTH times they clearly state that those functions or times END when the driver is RELIEVED OF DUTY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR WORK!
I'm THROUGH with this conversation with you, fdmax! I've been through it all before with others. My intention now is to clarify any possible misstatements I might have made, and furthermore to provide MORE SUPPORT for my positions that I STILL hold.
YOU can go back and read some of what you missed in this AND OTHER threads in this forum if you wish. But, I'm not going to repeat it all for you.
__________________
Remember... friends are few and far between.
TRUCKIN' AIN'T FOR WUSSES!!!
"I am willing to admit that I was wrong." The Rev.
|
12-08-2008, 04:31 AM
|
Board Icon
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: the 19th hole / NC
Posts: 9,647
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdmax
The new law:
Strengthens the open container law to prohibit anyone in motor vehicle from having open containers of beer or wine while in a public vehicular area.
|
Okay..... I give up. From now on, I will ONLY suggest that drivers have open containers of Jack Daniels in the sleeper! :hellno::lol2:
__________________
Remember... friends are few and far between.
TRUCKIN' AIN'T FOR WUSSES!!!
"I am willing to admit that I was wrong." The Rev.
|
|
|
|
|