As I stated before, if you didn't like the wording of my questions, then I would re-ask them based upon the altered wording that is mutually agreed upon. I think that is more than fair.

There is a simple reason for that: I am attempting to put the issues to rest. If you don't like the answers, and simply want to hash the whole thing over again, then it serves no purpose whatsoever, other than to create more bad blood for everyone involved. So my solution was to find an expert in the field that we would both agree was enough of an expert that his answers would be accepted as final. Meaning, if his answers agreed with you, then so be it. If his answers agreed with me, then you would have to accept that as well. I didn't want you to take it "ala carte", where you could pick and choose what you wanted to accept. If that is what you wanted to do, then again, it serves no purpose other than to create more bad blood for everyone involved.

That being said, here are the questions I posed:

 

Based on the excruciatingly long-winded replies to the challenge given by "Golfhobo", when a simple "sure" or "nah" would have sufficed, I'd say you're wasting your time...he seems to want to split hairs, argue semantics and generally stir the pot. He doesn't strike me as one who really cares what's legal or how anything is interpreted by those who could put you out of business, so long as his posts garner plenty of attention he's content - until the next thread comes along, of course.

I would like to hear the answers, though...and maybe others would too.

 

Rev.Vassago wrote:

I agree that that is fair. I just didn't accept that I had to AGREE to the deal before hearing the wording of your questions. And having now heard them, I was right in doing so. More later.

Yes, I understood your motives AND your concerns about "a la carte" acceptance, Rev, and I am trying to adhere. I cannot totally gaurantee you what my response will be. I have given you my word that I will be respectfull IF I disagree, and as you said.... we can DISCUSS our reasons for that. It seems as if you have a direct line to this guy, so clarification should not be a major problem as long as I can (if necessary) present a valid reason for seeking it. It's not like he is going to self-destruct in 20 seconds, right?


Ah.... so you HAVE met me halfway! That is good. I really appreciate that.

I have no real problem with the wording, however, it wouldn't matter WHAT combination of lines 1 or 2 he spent that ORIGINAL 10 hour break on as long as it was consecutive.

There are SEVERAL logbook examples on their site that will support MY interpretation, and what I'm sure will be HIS answer. However, if he answers anything other than NO violation.... all bets are off. Sorry, but there is just too much evidence in the logbook examples for me to accept otherwise. And IF he gets this wrong, he has no standing. However.... I am quite sure he will get it right.


I understand your conformance to certain wording of the regs, but this question COULD be misleading as it entices subjectivity and imagination. I am not amenable to your invoking his imagination of scenarios.

First of all, if he knows his regs, his first answer would be yes... that of an off duty O/O driving his OWN (unladen) truck on his own time, OR a company driver (unladen?) on his way to a motel. That much is stated in the regs (IIRC.... and even YOU have said as much.)

Now do you see why I question your questioning? You know full well, as you have STATED the regs concerning it, that there IS this one exception.... at least.

I would respectfully ask that you clarify the situation as that of a CMV (even laden as long as not H/M,) that is parked in a truckstop and NOT IN OPERATION. i.e: the driver is ROD and, as someone said.... the brakes are "popped."

In this LAST case, however, I would not be surprised if his answer is NO WAY! The FMCSA does have a zero tolerance policy, although worded specifically towards DRIVING or being ON DUTY or performing "safety sensitive functions" while possessing or being under any detectable influence of alcohol.

Regardless of the way they have worded their regs, I would be surprised if this expert would be able to conceive of a scenario of an off duty driver having unmanifested alcohol in ANY part of the truck UNLESS he is in transit to a resting place OTHER than his truck. But, I would LOVE to know the reg he cites as prohibitive.... AND I'd love to know what fine would be imposed BY THE FMCSA (not the local or state police.)


Again, I have a problem with your question, and I appreciate your willingness to let me hear it first.

This is supposedly, the question about the "on duty" regulation concerning ANY time spent on or in a CMV that is NOT in the sleeper. Why drag alcohol into the equation?

IF the answer to the "on duty" question is yes.... any time spent on or in a CMV is ON DUTY (regardless of the topic sentence of the subparagraph of the reg that states it doesn't apply to a driver who is ROD,) then it would be OBVIOUS that a driver would be in violation if he had a detectable amount of alcohol in his system while ON DUTY.

The question we have spent hours debating is whether or not a driver who is RELIEVED OF DUTY can be considered ON DUTY simply by being ON OR IN a CMV (NOT IN OPERATION) unless he is in the sleeper! Or whether, once ROD, a driver is free to pursue activities of his own choosing (like eating a burger in his daycab!) .... and (per the FMCSA) no place OTHER than a sleeper is regulated by them for the purpose of attaining the required REST.

By ADDING to your question that the driver has been drinking in the sleeper, you surely would COLOR this experts answer toward zero tolerance issues, when all we REALLY want to know is if even a SOBER driver, on a 34 hour reset, can sit in EITHER the driver's seat OR the passenger's seat of his cab without being considered ON DUTY and busting his 34 hour reset! :roll:

Furthermore, since you love quoting regs, and did so in your FIRST question, I would love for you to point out the "ON DUTY" reg that we have been discussing, and leaving alcohol OUT of the equation, get this expert's opinion on heh, heh.... the SPIRIT of that reg! :wink:

You could even throw in all those "scenarios" of how a driver is supposed to get TO his sleeper without passing through the cab and going "on duty."

Sorry, Rev.... but, just as you have often misinterpreted the regs, you have now also misrepresented the questions! I'd say you have possibly BLOWN a good chance at getting an unbiased "expert" opinion because you colored your questions to advance or support your contentions with me concerning alcohol, instead of just getting answers to the Big 3 questions! But, it was a noble effort.

At this point, since you have already ASKED these questions in this manner, I doubt you can get real answers from your expert. But, IF you think you can reword the questions with my objections and clarifications in mind, and STILL get an unbiased answer, I am willing to listen. Otherwise, I'm afraid there is NO DEAL! this is EXACTLY why I would not accept your deal in the beginning. No offense intended, but sometimes you just don't "get it." And I KNEW that.

If you CAN'T complete the project successfully and intelligently, I would STILL love to hear his answers to your biased and OBTUSE questions. It should be good for a laugh.

How're you guys on the couch doing? Need another beer? :lol:

Seriously, Rev.... I don't mean to belittle you. It is all just for fun.... on the INTERNET. But, I THINK I see you trying to put some of this behind us, and I would actually appreciate that! But, as Sean Connery said in Hunt For Red October, "My god, man.... Halsey had it all WRONG!" :lol:

You looked a gift horse in the mouth and asked him TWO out of three questions wrong!

You SAID I might "like" the answers. Maybe so. I suspect that he answered question one and three (with caveats) in my favor, even though they were poorly worded. Maybe not. Maybe, this was all just a trap. I don't really know. But, I DO know that you need to reword your questions before I will accept his answers! NOT because he is not an expert.... but, because you didn't ask the questions as we've been discussing them.

For what it's worth, I no longer really CARE about the alcohol issue. I agree with most of you that it is a bad practice. I only meant to point out that it is being DONE all over the country, and absent T/F's beer Nazi's, it is going unchecked and unnoticed! And, to my knowledge, truckstops (unless otherwise posted) are what they call a "safe haven." With brakes "popped" and driver ROD, whether or not a truckstop parking lot is considered a PVA, no cops are going to come looking for you! What you do is YOUR responsibility! It's a personal decision, and I HOPE that we all make that decision within the bounds of what WE call "professionalism."

As for the sleeper berth rules, you are totally confused by the wording of the regs, and don't understand the SPIRIT of them! I think perhaps now you might be getting a clue.

As for the ON DUTY reg? I seriously don't know! I know what it SAYS, and how it is worded..... but, I may be missing the spirit of the reg IF they have worded it incorrectly. But, I doubt it! I don't believe the FMCSA would have a DAYCAB driver stand outside in the rain to eat his lunch JUST so he can log that time as OFF DUTY, when authorized by his company to do so, because he HAS NO sleeper! It makes no sense! Not for THEM.... and not for US!

Now, I've about had it with this game. Post your results and take your chances with me, or not. I really don't CARE. But, I suggest you call your friend and reword your questions first. Or NOT.... I really don't care.

If you REALLY want to put this to rest..... I'll GIVE you whatever you want (other than a dui for a .001) on the alcohol issue. If you'll admit your mistakes concerning question 1, AND that one CAN log off duty and STILL be in or on their truck (whether in the sleeper or NOT) as long as they are not performing "safety sensitive functions," and have been ROD either by their company OR by regulations concerning HOS breaks!

That's MY deal! YOU interested? Oh, and you must refrain from answering questions about HOS rules, and specifically split logging regs, until you understand them. :lol:

Hobo

 

 

Your objections are noted, and dismissed, HWD! If you don't like reading my posts, please skip over them and wait to see if REV posts his results.

I considered a simple no or yes answer, but it didn't suit me or the cause.

If and when the question falls to YOU, you can answer that abruptly if you so choose!

And that is where you are wrong. I care deeply about the leagalities and interpretations of these regs and OTHER laws. YOU are the one who relied on misinformation from an NC trooper concerning a DUI arrest for what is clearly ONLY an offense of "operating a CMV after consuming alcohol." You bought the troopers answer lock, stock and barrel without doing ANY research on your own! So, who here is NOT concerned with legalities?

And, for the record, I don't care one whit about the popularity of my posts OR myself! I have probably STARTED less threads on this forum than any other active member.... and certainly less than YOU! :roll:

I RESPOND to posts, especially when they contain inaccurate information, as YOURS have at times!

I didn't realize YOU had taken over moderation or administration of this board, and could set down rules concerning the length of posts!

Perhaps YOU could give shorter answers to such intricate questions, that is IF anyone cared to address one to you! When, and IF, that happens, be sure that I'll be watching to see how short your reply is. Shorter, I hope, than your longwinded description of a poor lost driver who couldn't back into a driveway to turn around! (like THAT was really important!) :roll:

 

[quote="Rev.Vassago"]Dear Golfhobo,

So here we stand: at odds with each other on three different subjects - alcohol in a CMV, the ability to be off duty in the cab of a CMV, and whether or not an 8 hour break that is not combined with an additional 2 hour break puts a driver in violation. So I have a proposal for you: A NO HOLDS BARRED BATTLE ROYAL![\quote]

According to a verry nice NC State Trooper I talked to an 8hour break not combined with a 2 hour break puts the driver in violation.

 

As I suspected, you are already arguing with his answers, and I haven't even posted them.

No. There is no disagreeing with the answers. If you want to debate why an answer is what it is, then that is acceptable.

Then why are you arguing it? Just to see yourself type?


I can assure you, his answer is in relation to the regs.

Debating the answers already? You're making me very glad I didn't simply post them.

Please stop whining and read what you were complaining about in question 3.

Again, trying to debate the answers.......Makes my head hurt.

Because it was originally part of question 2. He provided answers to both questions, so I split the question apart the best I could while still keeping it verbatim.

Again with the debating unposted answers. Sheesh.

Since I've seen the answers, and know they all specifically cite regs, I know my questions were spot on. But alas, since you are choosing to split hairs and debate why his answer should be such-and-such, and if it isn't, then I must have asked wrong, this is where it ends. Thanks for playing. Goodnight.

 

Rev said:

The way YOU cite regs when answering a question incorrectly? (Possibly because you misunderstand the question?)

I've showed you that they were NOT. I wasn't debating unknown answers, I was trying to show how misworded questions could evoke the wrong answer.

If you can't handle me pointing out the fallacies of your questions, then YOU are the one taking your ball and going home. I tried to explain that I would be more WILLING to accept his answers if I knew the questions were asked correctly. I showed why two of your questions were incomplete or misleading, as I thought we had agreed I could.

Whatever..... like I said.... no skin off my teeth!

When I have the time, I will GET the answer to the only one of those questions that still bothers me. And when I do..... I will not engage you in games. I will just post my results. Whether they agree with me or not! And regardless of whether you choose to disagree or argue with them.

You, in the meantime, can go back to your cooking show! :roll:

 

:roll:

BTW, you were right on one question, and wrong on two. I was dead on with two, and received partial credit on the third.

 

Slid over and pass the popcorn....I got the Hot Sauce..... :lol: