[matcat]

Originally Posted by Rat

What is this lunch break thing we speak about? How can someone take an off duty lunch break and not have it go against their 14 hour day?


What the heck am I doing ont he net anyway, I got equipment to install in my pickup.

It will count on your 14, but not your 70 .

[golfhobo]

Rev said:

That statement is absolute, and matches the definition of "On duty" time in the FMCSA regulations. On Duty time includes any time at the controls of a CMV. It says nothing about whether or not you are operating those controls - just that you are at them (the whole "in or upon a CMV except when you are in a sleeper berth" thing).

Once again YOU are wrong, and Trooper dial is either wrong or just not thinking clearly while answering a specific question, as I noted.

From the Regulation of Definitiions....

§395.2 Definitions

Driving time means all time spent at the driving controls of a commercial motor vehicle in operation.

THAT statement is absolute. Trooper Dial's statement is NOT.

And, the results of the "fight" I mentioned earlier is this:

Question 26: Is time spent operating controls in a CMV to perform an auxiliary, non-driving function (e.g., lifting a loaded container, compacting waste, etc.) considered driving time? Does the location of the controls have a bearing on the answer?

Guidance: The location of the controls does have a bearing on the answer. §395.2 defines "driving time" as all time spent at the driving controls of a CMV in operation. If a driver, seated at the driving controls of the vehicle, is able to simultaneously perform the driving and auxiliary function (for example, one hand on the steering wheel and one hand on a control mechanism), the time spent performing the auxiliary function must be recorded as "driving time."

If (however) a driver, seated at the driving controls of the vehicle, is unable to simultaneously perform the driving and auxiliary function, the time spent performing the auxiliary function may be recorded as "on-duty not driving time."

This is a clear (okay somewhat muddy) example of a driver ON DUTY at the controls who can log his time on line 4. The pertinent fact is that the CMV is in SOME kind "of operation." The regs make NO claim that a driver who is ROD by his employer, and therefore OFF DUTY, has any responsibility to record time at the controls of a CMV NOT IN OPERATION as either line 3 or 4.

By definining Driving Time, they are relating to ON DUTY time. And this guidance even shows that not ALL time at the controls of a CMV in operation are necessarily considered "Driving Time."

There are no "spirits" present in the FMCSA regulations, even during Halloween. If the regulations say something, and/or the FMCSA has put guidance for that reg, and/or the courts have provided interpretation of that reg, those three things are absolute until one of those three things changes. You may believe that the authors of the regulation "intended" it to mean something, but until there is legal precedent to support it, that "intention" is irrelevant.

There WAS actually a lawsuit, and legal precedent established as part of this fight. There was MORE to it, in that SOME concrete mixer trucks are operated from the driver control seat, while others were operated from outside the truck. It was not "fair" to some companies that their drivers had to log line 3 while others could log line 4. Hence... the insertion of the words IN OPERATION. The fact that they did not correct ALL the pertinent regs to include this phrase is not MY fault, but that of the FMCSA. Something the government OFTEN fails to do.

BTW, the way Trooper Dial worded the sentence you added the (sic) line to was correct. The error in typing was mine. So if you want to bash someone's grammar, bash my mistake of putting the word "to" instead of the word "of". :roll:

I made no allusion to whose error it was, and I don't care! I simply corrected it to make everything make more sense. I guess you could say I "clarified" it! :lol: I NEVER bashed his grammar, nor anyones. I simply questioned his AND YOUR comprehension of or explanation of the regs.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go grab the latest edition of the Pilot magazine and head back to the bathroom to check the coupons. :lol:

TWICE in one day?? You got the Schlitz?? Might I suggest you pass on the Pilot magazine and read something more useful, like the REGULATIONS book?? :roll:

[Rev.Vassago]

Originally Posted by golfhobo

By definining Driving Time, they are relating to ON DUTY time. And this guidance even shows that not ALL time at the controls of a CMV in operation are necessarily considered "Driving Time."

This would be the point where I pull out the classic golfhobo line and state that "Driving Time" is the same as "On Duty" time, and that there is no difference between the two. Since the regs state that all time in or upon a CMV except time in a sleeper berth is On Duty time, there is no distinction between the two.

There WAS actually a lawsuit, and legal precedent established as part of this fight. There was MORE to it, in that SOME concrete mixer trucks are operated from the driver control seat, while others were operated from outside the truck. It was not "fair" to some companies that their drivers had to log line 3 while others could log line 4. Hence... the insertion of the words IN OPERATION. The fact that they did not correct ALL the pertinent regs to include this phrase is not MY fault, but that of the FMCSA. Something the government OFTEN fails to do.

But they are still logging it as On Duty.

I NEVER bashed his grammar, nor anyones. I simply questioned his AND YOUR comprehension of or explanation of the regs.

Yes you did.

Originally Posted by Earlier, golfhobo

However, he may have a high school education, and failed English Composition the way you obviously did.

[golfhobo]

This would be the point where I pull out the classic golfhobo line and state that "Driving Time" is the same as "On Duty" time, and that there is no difference between the two. Since the regs state that all time in or upon a CMV except time in a sleeper berth is On Duty time, there is no distinction between the two.

There certainly IS, regardless of whether subpara (4) is subordinate to the Topic sentence (which it is) that states that ON DUTY time is all time when a driver is NOT OFF DUTY and ROD and "responsibilities." Either way, "I" never said that Driving time is the same as ON DUTY time. Although any time spent DRIVING is obviously ON DUTY. WTF are you saying here?

But they are still logging it as On Duty.

Yes, but they no longer have to log in as DRIVING TIME, just because they are "at the controls" and the CMV is IN OPERATION.

[Like I said, this was a somewhat muddy discussion, and you are not up to it. Heck.... neither am I at the moment! :lol: ]

I NEVER bashed his grammar, nor anyones. I simply questioned his AND YOUR comprehension of or explanation of the regs.

Yes you did.[/quote]

No I didn't.

Originally Posted by Earlier, golfhobo

However, he may have a high school education, and failed English Composition the way you obviously did.

That's questioning his COMPREHENSION skills, as I do YOURS. Grammar and Comprehension are two different things! I"m not even really questioning his comprehension of the REGS! I'm concerned with his comprehension of the QUESTION the guy asked, and his COMPOSITION in answering it.

But, actually..... I am doing NEITHER as much as I am questioning YOUR comprehension of the regs AND his answer to the question! You "pick and choose" certain phrases by him AND the regs, and think they imply a total and comprehensive answer. But, they do not.

If Subpara (4) was NOT subordinate to the topic sentence of that paragraph, in which it clearly states that ON DUTY time is all time OTHER than OFF DUTY time, and was not part of a list showing what WAS included in ON DUTY time as so stipulated, it would have a PARAGRAPH of its own like the definition of Driving Time. But it doesn't! It is part of a LIST of activities that are considered on duty, when a driver is BETWEEN the beginning of his duty window and the END of it, where he is ROD.

[Rev.Vassago]

Originally Posted by golfhobo

That's questioning his COMPREHENSION skills, as I do YOURS. Grammar and Comprehension are two different things!

Composition is not the same thing as comprehension. Hooked on Phonics will work for you!

[Rat]

Originally Posted by matcat

It will count on your 14, but not your 70 .

That is what I thought


Oh well back to reading the cat fight again.

[Double R]

Originally Posted by Rev.Vassago

Hooked on Phonics will work for you!

HOOKED ON PHONICS :lol:

[golfhobo]

Originally Posted by Rev.Vassago

Composition is not the same thing as comprehension. Hooked on Phonics will work for you!

Well, you got ONE thing right tonight! :roll:

But, comprehension is part OF Composition. There are no classes in High School titled English Comprehension. (At least not back in "my" day! :lol: ) They are called English Composition. Because to COMPREHEND English, you must understand the COMPOSTION of it.

The two skills ARE tested separately, however, on SAT tests and the like.

And there is definitely a difference between them. But, one learns English Comprehension by studying English Composition. And they are taught in the same class.

But, enough about your foreign language skills! Explain to me how you got confused and quoted Reg 398 (Transportation of Migrant Workers) and STILL managed to misinterpret a reg concerning the INTERVALS between rest stops as one that defined the limits OF such rest stops! :shock: :roll:

[Rev.Vassago]

I got as far as

Originally Posted by golfhobo

Well,

and I started to nod off....

[golfhobo]

Apparently, the same thing you did in English class in school! :shock:

And, it shows. Time and time again!