Ol' Blue at odds with FMCSA expert!
#41
10-23-2008, 06:36 PM
Going back to Sam's question. He CLEARLY stated that he was eating his lunch IN the day cab. If Sgt. Brokaw thought that the "on-duty" reg implied that he HAD to be considered on-duty, he would have cited THAT reg, and said so. What he cited was the reg concerning what conditions must be met for Sam to legally log it as off-duty (which implies that it can be done.)
Nothing in (1) or (4) would indicate that the driver MUST dismount from the vehicle and, in fact, (4) would indicate that the driver MIGHT choose NOT to leave the vehicle or premises. Therefore, if Sam has met these requirements, Sgt. Brokaw and I contend that he MAY log his lunch in the daycab... ON THE CMV.... as off-duty. And if so.... then barring a glaring inconsistency in the regs.... subpara (4) does not trump this situation, because it is dependant on the fact that a driver has NOT been ROD (as stated in the topic sentence of that "definition.") golfhobo I wouldn't waste your time trying to explain it. some people just can't see the "forest for trees". also its better not to argue with stupid people. they just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience
__________________
work harder, millions on welfare are counting on you !
#42
10-25-2008, 11:59 AM
Well, if you're referring to my last post, I wasn't really arguing with Headborg... just discussing. We may disagree on one minor detail, but it's all good.
The main thing was that he made me think about the fact that, either there ARE several glaring inconsistencies in the regs, or there is one reg that is being misinterpreted.
__________________
Remember... friends are few and far between. TRUCKIN' AIN'T FOR WUSSES!!! "I am willing to admit that I was wrong." The Rev.
#43
10-25-2008, 12:04 PM
There is. By you. Over and over. To the point that you've dragged got mud? down with you.
#44
10-25-2008, 12:32 PM
Your interpretation just doesn't make sense, and leads to several inconsistencies in the regs, to wit: Contrary to your continued claims, there is no magic 15 minute rule that allows one to stay off duty while performing work. So, in the following reg guidance the driver would have to log line 4 for even ONE trip into the truck to answer the qualcomm, even though the reg itself says only "repeated" interruptions would require a change of duty status. Question 31: If a driver is required repeatedly to respond to satellite or similar communications received during a 10-hour (8-hour for passenger transportation) off-duty period, does this activity affect a driver’s duty status? Guidance: Yes. The driver cannot be required to do any work for the motor carrier during the 10-hour or the 8-hour off-duty period. A driver who is required to access a communications system for the purpose of reading messages from the carrier, responding to certain messages (either verbally or by typing a message), or otherwise acknowledging them, is performing work. For the purpose of this guidance, “repeatedly” means a pattern or series of interruptions that prevent a driver from obtaining restorative sleep during the off-duty period But, according to you, even ONE trip onto the CMV to respond to the qualcomm would require logging line 4. But, the reg here is not concerned with the fact that the driver is ON the CMV, just that he is not performing work for the employer, which would interrupt his 10 hour break during which he is ROD.
__________________
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; 10-25-2008 at 12:40 PM.
#45
10-25-2008, 12:42 PM
Perhaps, since you want to argue Sgt. Brokaw's interpretation of the FMCSA regulations, you should invite him here to explain himself. Otherwise, you are simply arguing with a news article, which is only slightly better than arguing with a brick wall. In either case, I feel like I am doing both when trying you explain how you are once again incorrect on your interpretation of the regulations. Now if you'll excuse me, I have some quality line 5 time to log. Breaking out the good booze too.
#46
10-26-2008, 12:20 PM
Yep. Here's a few examples:
http://www.classadrivers.com/forum/r...kes#post394142 http://www.classadrivers.com/forum/r...kes#post412231 http://www.classadrivers.com/forum/r...ime-zones.html http://www.classadrivers.com/forum/r...mandatory.html Any parsing of words will be unnecessary. Everyone knows that the essence of your claim is that "passing thru / being ON the CMV" doesn't count if it is less than 15 minutes. But, I don't see anything about that in subpara (4) of the On-Duty reg. So.... the "spirit" (and letter) of the guidance I quoted would indicate that one could get (or BE) IN the truck and answer a message from the qualcom (which is not always located in the sleeper,) with no stated stipulation concerning the time required, as long as it is not a "repetitive" activity..... without being considered "doing work" or "being On duty." Wonder if that is because the concern is whether one is doing work for the employer rather than where he is "resting?" Or maybe it is just one of those glaring inconsistencies in the regs that occur if one misinterprets the ON DUTY reg. :banghead::banghead:
__________________
Remember... friends are few and far between. TRUCKIN' AIN'T FOR WUSSES!!! "I am willing to admit that I was wrong." The Rev.
#47
04-05-2009, 10:34 AM
Bumped for Stonefly. I wouldn't want him to AGREE with me without ALL the facts and ERRONEOUS interpretations! :lol2:
__________________
Remember... friends are few and far between. TRUCKIN' AIN'T FOR WUSSES!!! "I am willing to admit that I was wrong." The Rev. |
