[RebelDarlin]

Because Golfhobo really is that stubborn you're going to leave the rest of us hanging?

[belpre122]

[golfhobo]

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

The way you worded the questions, MY answers would have been..

1. NO

2. YES

3. YES (or no depending on which of the 4 questions within that question)

So, which two did I get wrong?

And how did you get "partial credit" on question one? By citing the correct reg instead of the Migrant Workers one? :lol:

[Rev.Vassago]

Originally Posted by RebelDarlin

Because Golfhobo really is that stubborn you're going to leave the rest of us hanging?

Unfortunately, yes. I was attempting to settle this. It's clear from his subtle attacks that he wants to go right back at it. I've invited Mike M, but I have no idea if he will come here, given the obvious attacks that would await him.

[RebelDarlin]

Originally Posted by Rev.Vassago

Unfortunately, yes. I was attempting to settle this. It's clear from his subtle attacks that he wants to go right back at it. I've invited Mike M, but I have no idea if he will come here, given the obvious attacks that would await him.

Unfortunately that is what ALL lawyers do, 'interpret' laws, rules and regulations, and present their argument. The majority of Government Regs are left vague just for that reason, you have to hire a lawyer to figure it out. It's the game. For every 'expert' you find to back you up, the opposing side will find one who says the opposite.

The same Reg, used in the same way can be decided upon differently at various levels of the judicial system. There is no one single answer, everything is 'gray' and subject to interpretaion. That's one of the main reasons I quit Law School, I want, scratch that, NEED everything Black & White. There was that moral thing too, I couldn't 'leave your morals at the door' as instructed. :wink:

[Trukrswyfe]

Originally Posted by RebelDarlin

Unfortunately that is what ALL lawyers do, 'interpret' laws, rules and regulations, and present their argument. The majority of Government Regs are left vague just for that reason, you have to hire a lawyer to figure it out. It's the game. For every 'expert' you find to back you up, the opposing side will find one who says the opposite.

The same Reg, used in the same way can be decided upon differently at various levels of the judicial system. There is no one single answer, everything is 'gray' and subject to interpretaion. That's one of the main reasons I quit Law School, I want, scratch that, NEED everything Black & White. There was that moral thing too, I couldn't 'leave your morals at the door' as instructed. :wink:

I wish all Lawyers were Jim Carrie in Liar Liar. The world would be a much better place.

I too like things well defined, life is complicated enough.
Lowest common denominator I always say.

[Myth_Buster]

Wow... Quite a discussion; hopefully there will be an agreement so all will be happy:

In regard to On-Duty in a day cab, the regs are perfectly clear with very little interpretation required:

§395.2 Definitions.

On duty time means all time from the time a driver begins to work or is required to be in readiness to work until the time the driver is relieved from work and all responsibility for performing work. On duty time shall include:

(1) All time at a plant, terminal, facility, or other property of a motor carrier or shipper, or on any public property, waiting to be dispatched, unless the driver has been relieved from duty by the motor carrier;

(2) All time inspecting, servicing, or conditioning any commercial motor vehicle at any time;

(3) All driving time as defined in the term driving time;

(4) All time, other than driving time, in or upon any commercial motor vehicle except time spent resting in a sleeper berth;

(5) All time loading or unloading a commercial motor vehicle, supervising, or assisting in the loading or unloading, attending a commercial motor vehicle being loaded or unloaded, remaining in readiness to operate the commercial motor vehicle, or in giving or receiving receipts for shipments loaded or unloaded;

(6) All time repairing, obtaining assistance, or remaining in attendance upon a disabled commercial motor vehicle;

(7) All time spent providing a breath sample or urine specimen, including travel time to and from the collection site, in order to comply with the random, reasonable suspicion, post-accident, or follow-up testing required by part 382 of this subchapter when directed by a motor carrier.

(8) Performing any other work in the capacity, employ, or service of a motor carrier; and

(9) Performing any compensated work for a person who is not a motor carrier.

Number four makes it pretty clear, only time spent in a sleeper berth counts and must be logged as sleeper berth. There is no off-duty time in a CMV.

Question 13: What is the duty status of a co-driver (truck) who is riding seated next to the driver?

Guidance: On-duty (not driving).

§395.1 Scope of the Rules in This Part

Question 24: May time spent in sleeping facilities being transported as cargo (e.g., boats, campers, travel trailers) be recorded as sleeper berth time?

Guidance: No, it cannot be recorded as sleeper berth time.

Question 26: May a driver record sleeper berth time as off-duty time on line one of the record of duty status?

Guidance: No. The driver's record of duty status must accurately reflect the driver's activities.

Alcohol may be transported in a CMV, but you cannot consume alcohol in a CMV:

§392.5 Intoxicating Beverage

Question 3: Does the prohibition against carrying alcoholic beverages in §392.5 apply to a driver who uses a company vehicle, for personal reasons, while off-duty?

Guidance: No. For example, an owner-operator using his/her own vehicle in an off-duty status, or a driver using a company truck or tractor for transportation to a motel, restaurant, or home, would normally be outside the scope of this section.

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regul...fmcsrguide.htm

In regard to the HOS, in the initial HOS rule in 2003 it was mandatory a driver have two hours in the sleeper berth with any eight hour period:

[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 49, Volume 4]
[Revised as of October 1, 2003]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 49CFR395.1]

[Page 1159-1162]

TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION

CHAPTER III--FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

PART 395--HOURS OF SERVICE OF DRIVERS--Table of Contents

Sec. 395.1 Scope of rules in this part.

(g) Sleeper berths.

(1) General property-carrying commercial motor vehicle. A driver who
is driving a property-carrying commercial motor vehicle that is equipped with a sleeper berth, as defined in Secs. 395.2 and 393.76 of this subchapter, may accumulate the equivalent of 10 consecutive hours of off-duty time by taking a combination of at least 10 consecutive hours off-duty and sleeper berth time; or by taking two periods of rest in the sleeper berth, providing:

(i) Neither rest period is shorter than two hours;

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/c...le-search.html

In 2005 when the HOS rules were revised the second two hour sleeper berth was replaced with either two hours off-duty or two hours in the sleeper berth:

§395.1 Scope of rules in this part.

(g) Sleeper berths.

(g)(1)(ii)(A) The term “equivalent of at least 10 consecutive hours off duty” means a period of

(1) At least 8 but less than 10 consecutive hours in a sleeper berth, and

(2) A separate period of at least 2 but less than 10 consecutive hours either in the sleeper berth or off duty, or any combination thereof.

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regul...fmcsrguide.htm

For those unimpressed with an entry pay scale of GS-9 perhaps you could do better? The entry level for a GS-2123 is GS-5

http://www.opm.gov/fedclass/gs2123.pdf

But that’s another story….

Be safe.

[Rev.Vassago]

Expect the gates of hell to open when hobo sees this post.

Golfhobo also claims that sleeper berth time and off duty time are the same thing. I say they are not. Who is correct?

Since you're here, let me ask you another one that hobo and I have disagreed on:

In part 395.1, the "Adverse driving exemption" states that it allows for an additional 2 hours to complete a run if certain critera are met. It has been my position that road construction does not fall under this critera, because it can be known to the person dispatching at the time the run began. Furthermore, I am also of the position that temporary road closures within road construction would also not qualify a driver to use this exemption, because if the road construction can be known to the person dispatching, then road closures can be as well.

Golfhobo is of the position opposite mine, that road construction, as well as temporary lane closures, qualify a driver to use the "adverse driving exemption".

Who is right?


Thanks for posting, Mike.


The score stands:

Rev - 2.25 / 3

Hobo - 1 / 3

[golfhobo]

So... let me see if I have this right.

The mysterious Mike M of the fmcsa audit squad is the same forum poster known as Myth_Buster??

I'll have to admit, I haven't read ALL of his prior posts, but I have muddled through a few of them. And I seem to remember quite a few posts aimed at ridiculing him...... none by me, of course, or at least arguing with him.

Why did you need to "invite" someone here who has been here for some time now and posted 104 times?

I'm just asking. I don't want to waste time going through all this again with the wrong guy. So... Mike M is Myth_Buster??

[Rev.Vassago]

Originally Posted by golfhobo

So... Mike M is Myth_Buster??

Did you see the part where I called him "Mike"? :roll:


He was a regular poster on TruckNet under the name John Q. Public, and came here under a different name. When he first started posting, I believed him to be someone pretending to be John Q., when in fact he was one in the same.


And would you look at that! The answers he provided here are the same ones he provided me! I guess my questions weren't so horribly worded like you claimed them to be after all!