[golfhobo]

Originally Posted by Rev.Vassago

He isn't here to "impress" you. He is simply here to pass on his legitimate knowledge of the FMCSA regs, since he has enforced those regs far longer than you have driven a truck.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

I have asked many specific questions, or addressed specific instances. He usually counters with an unrelated reg or instance of some carrier being charged with something I didn't even address.

THAT is one reason why I am yet to be impressed! Perhaps, he is incapable of understanding my question or concern. That is something I've gotten used to. YOU are very good at that as well. And, YOU have never (to my knowledge) been in the military or government service, so you have no "relative" understanding of how the GS (government service) personnel think and operate. I have.

I don't quite understand your defense of him. You once defended Trooper Dial like he was a God, then threw him under the bus when I proved him wrong (or at least to have mispoken.) YOUR credibility is less than HIS right now.

You think I was BORN the day I started driving a truck? I've got more years dealing with government regulations than YOU have, and at LEAST an equal number to MythBuster. (probably more.)

I'm not easily impressed, Rev. You should KNOW that by now. The fact that YOU believe everything he says, or believe that he KNOWS everything about the regs and department that he WORKS for, in an "enforcement" (or auditing) positon, may be good enough for YOU. But, don't even suppose to know that I am wrong about MY interpretations, or my knowledge of how government works, or how people in HIS position go about their daily "duties."

You, with your little "ghost" images and platitudes, have shown yourself to be completely "in his choir" and fully dependent on and married to his posts and opinions. That's fine, if that's what you want. So, YOUR credibility is tied to HIS. NOT what I'd call the "spirit" of an independent trucker, but you're allowed your youthful alliances.

MythBuster is a formidable opponent, what with his "confusion attacks," I'll give him THAT. But, I don't need, nor do I deserve, to have to fight BOTH of you. Especially with YOUR incoherent references to incorrect regs, and total misstatements of the ones you quote. So, why don't you just let him fight his OWN fights, (now that you brought him here to DO so,) and you just stay on the sidelines with the rest of the cheerleaders?

[Rev.Vassago]

Originally Posted by golfhobo

I have asked many specific questions, or addressed specific instances. He usually counters with an unrelated reg or instance of some carrier being charged with something I didn't even address.

That would likely come down to an issue of comprehension on your part, since others have understood him quite clearly.

And, YOU have never (to my knowledge) been in the military or government service, so you have no "relative" understanding of how the GS (government service) personnel think and operate. I have.

To your knowledge.:rofl:

I don't quite understand your defense of him. You once defended Trooper Dial like he was a God, then threw him under the bus when I proved him wrong (or at least to have mispoken.) YOUR credibility is less than HIS right now.

Please cite an example of where I defended Trooper Dial like he was a god.

You think I was BORN the day I started driving a truck? I've got more years dealing with government regulations than YOU have, and at LEAST an equal number to MythBuster. (probably more.)

You were employed enforcing FMCSA regulations? Please cite your references, if you have the brass ones to do so. Myth_Buster did.

I'm not easily impressed, Rev. You should KNOW that by now. The fact that YOU believe everything he says, or believe that he KNOWS everything about the regs and department that he WORKS for, in an "enforcement" (or auditing) positon, may be good enough for YOU. But, don't even suppose to know that I am wrong about MY interpretations, or my knowledge of how government works, or how people in HIS position go about their daily "duties."

When he backs up his explanations with FMCSA regulations (which he does on almost every instance), it lends credence to his interpretations. Since you concern yourself more with "spirits" than actual regulations, your interpretation becomes more of an opinion. Since his interpretation carries weight (the fines levied on motor carriers audited by him), I think everyone here is better off taking his advice over yours. But that's my opinion.

You, with your little "ghost" images and platitudes, have shown yourself to be completely "in his choir" and fully dependent on and married to his posts and opinions. That's fine, if that's what you want. So, YOUR credibility is tied to HIS. NOT what I'd call the "spirit" of an independent trucker, but you're allowed your youthful alliances.

His credibility is backed by the FMCSA, since they are his employer. What is your credibility backed by? The fact that you've been a driver for a couple of years?

MythBuster is a formidable opponent, what with his "confusion attacks," I'll give him THAT. But, I don't need, nor do I deserve, to have to fight BOTH of you. Especially with YOUR incoherent references to incorrect regs, and total misstatements of the ones you quote. So, why don't you just let him fight his OWN fights, (now that you brought him here to DO so,) and you just stay on the sidelines with the rest of the cheerleaders?

I asked him to come here because I knew I was correct in my interpretations of the FMCSA regulations, which you chose to fight tooth and nail. Since he confirmed that I was correct on most of my points, it would lend credence to the fact that I likely know more about the regs than you do. Since then, you've been reduced to nitpicking over sentence structure and whining about quoting the wrong reg number (even when the wording of the regs was identical). That, and countless posts about how your fingers twitch.

But hey - you've (allegedly) had experience interacting with some government entity. I guess that's all that is needed to interpret the regs these days.:thumbsup:

[Myth_Buster]

I have asked many specific questions, or addressed specific instances. He usually counters with an unrelated reg or instance of some carrier being charged with something I didn't even address.

Perhaps your understanding of the regs prohibits you from seeing the correlation. As I’ve mentioned before, violation of the regulations is not always a direct citation, i.e. signing a roadside inspection indicating all repairs were complete is a violation of Part 396 and 390; however, citing Part 390 has a more severe impact than citing just Part 396.

THAT is one reason why I am yet to be impressed! Perhaps, he is incapable of understanding my question or concern. That is something I've gotten used to. YOU are very good at that as well. And, YOU have never (to my knowledge) been in the military or government service, so you have no "relative" understanding of how the GS (government service) personnel think and operate. I have.

Or perhaps through my knowledge I have a different perspective of the issue and provide relevant information on the topic that you’re unaware of.

I don't quite understand your defense of him. You once defended Trooper Dial like he was a God, then threw him under the bus when I proved him wrong (or at least to have mispoken.) YOUR credibility is less than HIS right now.

I disagree, you took Trooper Dial’s message out of context and tried to apply it to a dissimilar situation. Rev took the message for its true content instead of trying to twist it where he may have been in non-compliance.

You think I was BORN the day I started driving a truck? I've got more years dealing with government regulations than YOU have, and at LEAST an equal number to MythBuster. (probably more.)

I started with government regulations in 1973 in the form of the UCMJ. Obtained my CDL 06/1992 and drive OTR until 1996; I attended the North American Standard Truck Inspector course for the first time 11/1998. I worked the Cortez POE from 06/1997 – 10/1999. In November 2009, I’ll have 20 years of federal service.

The last nine years have been the most educational. Learning the ins-and-outs of the regulations and how they intertwine is mind boggling.

I'm not easily impressed, Rev. You should KNOW that by now. The fact that YOU believe everything he says, or believe that he KNOWS everything about the regs and department that he WORKS for, in an "enforcement" (or auditing) positon, may be good enough for YOU. But, don't even suppose to know that I am wrong about MY interpretations, or my knowledge of how government works, or how people in HIS position go about their daily "duties."

No one here believes everything I say. I often provide the rule and appropriate regulations to support my observations. Free will is yours to do as you wish good bad or indifferent.

I offer information based on situations where drivers have lost their freedom from stupid mistakes. In the situation at hand the driver and his employer lost their incomes a week before Christmas.

Your interpretation of the regulations is only valid until you meet a LEO who disagrees, and then it’s the LEO’s interpretation of the regulation that counts.

I doubt you have any idea of what my daily grind consist of, as a field operative that operates 150 miles from the division office my day is driven by my list of assigned carriers and other obligations as time allows. Provided I complete the assigned task in a reasonable amount of time, I do quality work, and have no issues where I miss-interpreted the regulations I’m home free.

You, with your little "ghost" images and platitudes, have shown yourself to be completely "in his choir" and fully dependent on and married to his posts and opinions. That's fine, if that's what you want. So, YOUR credibility is tied to HIS. NOT what I'd call the "spirit" of an independent trucker, but you're allowed your youthful alliances.

IMHO Rev holds his own pretty well. I’ve read post by Rev and moved on as I thought no further comments were required. If I see a comment not 100% on the mark I may pipe in to clarify the issue.

Rev knows his stuff, every now and again he may require some support; however, for the most part he does fine.

MythBuster is a formidable opponent, what with his "confusion attacks," I'll give him THAT. But, I don't need, nor do I deserve, to have to fight BOTH of you. Especially with YOUR incoherent references to incorrect regs, and total misstatements of the ones you quote. So, why don't you just let him fight his OWN fights, (now that you brought him here to DO so,) and you just stay on the sidelines with the rest of the cheerleaders?

I offer friendly advice, you’re not standing in front of me with your log, and I’m not calling you regarding a violation or any other reason. It seems to me you are reluctant to accept advice regarding a misunderstanding of the regulations. It’s your choice; however, I’ve said it a thousand times… Don’t expect me not to do my job when you failed to do your job.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Be safe.

[golfhobo]

Just as a quick example, as I don't have all night to go through EVERY post MB ever made....

Musicman asked:
Does it depend on the actual acts being performed and how strenuous they are as to whether or not I am considered on-duty or not?

MythBuster replied:

Careful, one company volunteered to have their drivers wear bio-rythm wrist devices to monitor breathing and pulse to demonstrate they were sleeping. The carrier was volunteering for consideration to be excepted from the HOS for the testing period.

Now, the fact is.... you are NOT required to be SLEEPING while in the sleeper berth, so the carrier had NO reason to be looking for exception from the HOS for sleeper berth time, and it would NOT be based on whether or not their drivers were SLEEPING!

The O.P. was obviously KIDDING with his question, but MythBuster's answer (although possibly in jest as well) shows his, how do I say this, over zealous desire that the FMCSA might someday have SOME kind of "biomonitoring" device to CONTROL what drivers do during their sleeper berth time.

Maybe this wasn't the best example. I have MANY others. But, the point is, he is "enamored" with his OWN, and his agency's, ability/mandate to control the driver to the point of "biometric" submission to THEIR (and Public Citizens') idea of a "safe" environment for the trucking industry. It ain't gonna happen!

He SAYS he has the right to pull a trucker over on the road for an inspection. Has he EVER done so? I doubt it. He spends his time crunching numbers and searching files in a carrier's office and trying to catch them in a fix. Apparently, he has been successful at THAT. MY "safety Director" would have had him for LUNCH!

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.... there is NO way he would find records at my office that would tell him whether or not I was sitting in the SEATS of my truck while on line 1! And, I am STILL not convinced the regulations prohibit it!

But, when I SAY something like that, he comes back with some "irrelevant" stats about how Swift got caught for something like that. I don't know WHAT happened at Swift, or WHO was stupid enough to get them caught, but I guarantee he is not going to find that kind of evidence at MY last employer!

I hate to be condescending.... :lol: But, MB is a pencil pusher... a glorified "accountant." I just don't SEE him as some kind of "cold case" CSI dude!

And he SURE isn't an LEO who might pull me over on the side of the road for an inspection? What? In his little white govamint cavalier?

He likes to SAY he has that right, but he's been ASKED before. As an answer he gives stats of carrier noncompliance! I have seen NO claim, even by HIM, that he has EVER pulled a driver on the road for an inspection.

When he admits that he "audits" logs and other paperwork at a carrier, and has NO idea (unless the driver can't make them match) what a driver is DOING while out in the frozen tundra of the Midwest, and that he enforces the regs to the limit that he has been "trained" to do so, then I will give him a bit more respect for being honest. But, right now, he is coming off as some kind of John Wayne/Rooster Cogburn of the transportation industry, and I ain't buying it!

Maybe, he is factually correct in his interpretations of the regs. I doubt it, but it is possible. But, his inability to answer my questions with clarity, absense the "smugness" of a government service employee with which I am ALL too familiar, has left me UNCONVINCED.

I don't expect you to understand my position, Rev. YOU have no basis to compare it to. Didn't you say that you NEVER went to a truck driving school? Learned the regs on your own? NEVER been in the military? Of COURSE you believe the "gubbamint" when they tell you something! But, saying that NO ONE else on here has a problem with his explanations is just WRONG!

By MY "unofficial" count, there are several others who, at least, have questions. And nearly evey ONE of them is ex-military! Funny how that works.

I don't expect them to stand up here. I've been fighting this fight without backup for along time now. And I don't intend to offend YOU or MythBuster anymore than I have to. But, YOU have attacked ME and my opinions, instead of asking how I arrived at them. And he has attacked my "sanity" (for lack of a better word.) And, to date, I have no reason to respect EITHER of you more than I do myself. That's just how it is.

So, the debate goes on. (Belpre's collaboration, notwithstanding.)

[golfhobo]

Nice post, MythBuster. I didn't see it before my last post. Not that I would have lightened up on you! :lol:

I will respond when I can. Soon, I hope. But, I DID appreciate the slightly different tone.

I hope you had a Merry Christmas. Mine sucked! :lol::lol:

[solofemtrucker]

I am a compliant driver and I was told to leave a truck stop because I was a Werner driver and female. I had no hours to drive and when I explained that to the short, white security guard, he asked me if I was retarded and told me to drive down the road. When I explained that I would park anywhere else he wanted me to on the truck stop, he said he did not care and that because of trouble with Werner and female drivers before that I was not welcome there. I found a normal parking place but was arrested anyway for criminal trespass 3. The company put me on unpaid suspension for 5 weeks and fired me on Christmas eve. So my Thanksgiving and Christmas were both unbearable. Look around on the internet to read the whole story.

[belpre122]

Originally Posted by solofemtrucker

I am a compliant driver and I was told to leave a truck stop because I was a Werner driver and female. I had no hours to drive and when I explained that to the short, white security guard, he asked me if I was retarded and told me to drive down the road. When I explained that I would park anywhere else he wanted me to on the truck stop, he said he did not care and that because of trouble with Werner and female drivers before that I was not welcome there. I found a normal parking place but was arrested anyway for criminal trespass 3. The company put me on unpaid suspension for 5 weeks and fired me on Christmas eve. So my Thanksgiving and Christmas were both unbearable. Look around on the internet to read the whole story.

I'll be the first to bite.

A link to the story would be most appreciated.

[Orangetxguy]

Originally Posted by belpre122

I'll be the first to bite.

A link to the story would be most appreciated.

No No Bel...She wants us to search it out! It must be a whopper of a news article!

I am feeling less and less sympathy for this chick. Why is she hear crying...instead of out getting results? :zzz::zzz::zzz::zzz:

[Rev.Vassago]

It's a natural reaction. That's why places like "Rip off Report" do so well. People want to vent, but they don't want to get their hands dirty. If half the stuff she is claiming were true, she would have a hefty lawsuit on her hands. The truth of the matter is, she has likely fabricated excuses as to why a private property owner told her to get off their property.

[Myth_Buster]

Golfhobo wayyyyyy over the edge:

Now, the fact is.... you are NOT required to be SLEEPING while in the sleeper berth, so the carrier had NO reason to be looking for exception from the HOS for sleeper berth time, and it would NOT be based on whether or not their drivers were SLEEPING!

The O.P. was obviously KIDDING with his question, but MythBuster's answer (although possibly in jest as well) shows his, how do I say this, over zealous desire that the FMCSA might someday have SOME kind of "biomonitoring" device to CONTROL what drivers do during their sleeper berth time.

Maybe this wasn't the best example. I have MANY others. But, the point is, he is "enamored" with his OWN, and his agency's, ability/mandate to control the driver to the point of "biometric" submission to THEIR (and Public Citizens') idea of a "safe" environment for the trucking industry. It ain't gonna happen!

Hmmmm should I move GH over to the dumb driver category?

GH, the comment made by the poster was a light hearted attempt to inquire how sleeper berth time should be logged. My response was made to remind drivers there is always new technology on the horizon and they should be careful about what they wish for or suggest:

4. Ensuring Drivers Are Properly Identified

Many commenters discussed how drivers could be properly identified.
Some favored using a password or PIN number for identification, while
others believe these methods would not adequately protect drivers
against fraud and falsification. Technologies advocated by commenters
include smart cards and biometrics, although some were concerned that
biometric technology would be too expensive or unreliable.

EPA: Federal Register: Electronic On-Board Recorders for Hours-of-Service Compliance

The topic is already being discussed by the powers that be and the issue of biomonitoring has been discussed:

Privacy was a significant consideration in FMCSA’s development of this proposal. As stated earlier, we recognize that the need for a verifiable EOBR audit trail—a detailed set of records to verify time and physical location data for a particular CMV— must be counterbalanced by privacy considerations. The Agency considered, but rejected, certain alternative technologies to monitor drivers’ HOS (including in-cab video cameras and biomonitors) as too invasive of personal privacy

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/07-56.pdf

So you can dismiss the issue if you choose to; however, what is considered too invasive today maybe readily acceptable tomorrow.

GH continues his digression with:

He SAYS he has the right to pull a trucker over on the road for an inspection. Has he EVER done so? I doubt it.

The federal rules clearly state:

§396.9 Inspection of motor vehicles in operation.

(a) Personnel authorized to perform inspections — Every special agent of the FMCSA (as defined in Appendix B to this subchapter) is authorized to enter upon and perform inspections of motor carrier's vehicles in operation.

(b) Prescribed inspection report — The Driver Vehicle Examination Report shall be used to record results of motor vehicle inspections conducted by authorized FMCSA personnel.

The inspection below was performed 08/29/2008, notice the REPORT STATE as US:

Report #: 0769110417
Report State: US
Inspection State: IL
Inspection Date: 8/29/2008
Start-End Time: 17:25 - 18:40
Inspection Level: 2-Walk-Around
Inspection Facility: Roadside
Post Crash Inspection: No

Section Code Unit OOS Violation Category Violations Discovered
171.2(A) 1 N ALL OTHER HM VIOLATIONS Failure to comply with HM regulations
172.301(A) 1 N ALL OTHER HM VIOLATIONS No shipping name or ID# on non-bulk
172.303(A) 1 N ACCEPTING SHIPMENT IMPROPERLY MARKED Prohibited HM marking on package
172.400(A) 1 N ALL OTHER HM VIOLATIONS Package/containment not labeled as required
172.401 1 N ALL OTHER HM VIOLATIONS Prohibited labeling
172.600(C) 1 N EMERGENCY RESPONSE ER info not available
173.24(C) 1 N USE OF NON-SPECIFICATION CONTAINER Unauthorized packaging
177.817(A) 1 N SHIPPING PAPER No shipping papers (carrier)
177.823(A) 1 N IMPROPER PLACARDING No placards/markings when required
385.415(A)(1) 1 N ALL OTHER DRIVER VIOLATIONS NO HM SAFETY PERMIT IN VEHICLE
390.21(A) 1 N ALL OTHER VEHICLE DEFECTS Not marked in accordance with regulations
397.19 1 N ALL OTHER HM VIOLATIONS No instructions/docs 1.1/1.2/1.3
391.41(A) D N MEDICAL CERTIFICATE No medical certificate

http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/SafeStat/Car...hichForm=start

Currently the FMCSA requires every investigator to complete a minimum of 32 Level 1 or Level 5 inspections each year to stay qualified.

He spends his time crunching numbers and searching files in a carrier's office and trying to catch them in a fix. Apparently, he has been successful at THAT.

1/31/2008 IL-2008-35 Compliance Review

172.800(b) Offering or transporting w/o a security plan conforming to Subpart requirements 1 $8,770.00

391.45(b)(1) Using a driver not medically reexamined each 24 months 3 $5,190.00

395.8(a) Failing to require driver to make a record of duty status 18 $18,000.00

395.8(e) False reports of records of duty status 20 $20,000.00

396.21(b) Failing to retain periodic inspection report for 14 months 9 $6,120.00

http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/SafeStat/Saf...m=&PageN=EH#EH

8/7/2008 IL-2008-384 Compliance Review

180.417(b) Failing to include all required information on test/inspection report. 1 $3,550.00

6/30/2008 IL-2008-372 Compliance Review

395.3(a)(2) Req./perm. property CMV driver to drive after 14 hours on duty 4 $6,120.00

http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/SafeStat/Saf...m=&PageN=EH#EH

Some times my success is better than other times.

MY "safety Director" would have had him for LUNCH!

HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA…. Ummmm huh sure the SD would be on me like white on rice… HA-HA-HA-HA. Sorry folks, some things are too funny….

And he SURE isn't an LEO who might pull me over on the side of the road for an inspection? What? In his little white govamint cavalier?

Actually it’s a silver Impala.

He likes to SAY he has that right, but he's been ASKED before. As an answer he gives stats of carrier noncompliance! I have seen NO claim, even by HIM, that he has EVER pulled a driver on the road for an inspection.

I gave one above here is a sample from another carrier:

Inspection Date-Report State-Report Number-Insp. Level-Unit Description-VIN Number-Unit License Number-Unit License State-Vehicle OOS Violations

19 4/17/2008 US 0769110407 2 TRUCK TRACTOR 4V4MD2GF0YN252491 P542272 IL 0
20 4/17/2008 US 0769110410 2 TRUCK TRACTOR 1M2AA13Y6NW018883 P542255 IL 1
21 4/17/2008 US 0769110412 2 TRUCK TRACTOR 4V4MD2GFGYN25247 IL 0
22 4/17/2008 US 0769110414 2 TRUCK TRACTOR 1FUJA3CG61LQ57697 P542243 IL 0
23 4/17/2008 US 0769110413 2 TRUCK TRACTOR 1FUJA3CG61L057750 P542244 IL 0
24 4/17/2008 US 0769110411 2 TRUCK TRACTOR 4V4MD2GF8YN252478 P542273 IL 0
25 4/17/2008 US 0769110409 2 TRUCK TRACTOR 4V4MD2GF0YN252474 P542269 IL 3
26 4/17/2008 US 0769110408 2 TRUCK TRACTOR 4V4MD2GF9YN252473 P542268 IL 0
27 4/16/2008 GA CAS3003372 2 TRUCK TRACTOR 1XKTDR9X7VJ754931 P542296 IL 0

Again notice the US opposed to GA for number 27.

http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/SafeStat/Veh...art&PageN=INSP

The information is provided for others to determine whether the information offered is legitimate. I keep my ear to the ground and read many of the proposed rule makings and offer comments when warranted.

The fact a driver has never heard of such a thing before is not a legitimate defense.

If GH is so arrogant as to believe when things go south all stops are pulled and an investigation may take years instead of a week perhaps he should revisit the flatbed –vs- City of New Orleans crash from 1999. The driver went to prison after NTSB’s investigation revealed the driver had falsiifed his logs and did not have the required rest as required.

Derailment - City of New Orleans

NTSB Abstract RAR-02/01 -- Note crash took place in 1999, and the NTSB report was filed in 2002.

The truck driver was sentenced to two years imprisonment for logbook and service violations and although his lack of rest was not proven to have contributed to the train accident, the judge sentencing his trial commented that the driver would have been more able to make safe driving decisions had he had more rest. This error, resulting from a bad driving decision resulted in the deaths and serious personal injuries to many of the train's passengers.

A look at the Bourbonnais train accident and the resulting passenger injuries

Two years is a long time in the gray bar hotel.

Drivers who lack a location to log off-duty for breaks face scrutiny. Depending on company policy a driver may not be able to log off-duty during the day except for meal breaks. If a driver logs off-duty against company policy it is a false log; hence, the case against Swift:

1/8/2004 AZ-2004-41 Compliance Review

395.8(e) Failing to properly enter duty status during meal stops 78 $37,440.00

As mentioned before, GH has no clue of what my daily grind consist of and lack insight into how the rules are enforced. Therefore, his advice maybe less than desireable.

Be safe.