[allan5oh]

So then show me which regulations the driver in the article broke.

[Rev.Vassago]

Sigh....:roll:


Just go ahead and run people over. See if I care.

[Mackman]

This is a good debate. I hope myth buster will come in on this. It is a tricky topic cuz it was on private property.

Come on myth buster help us out here.:thumbsup:

[allan5oh]

Originally Posted by Rev.Vassago

Just go ahead and run people over. See if I care.

You are confusing a moral issue with the regulations. Of course this tragedy shouldn't have happened. But you and the other guy are merely speculating the application of the FMCSR's, which is very moot at this point.

Do you honestly think the DOT is going to charge this guy with something? Of course not. It will be a criminal charge, and it won't matter what the regs say. He was negligent, period.

Now as to the regulations, and the article, there is NOT enough information to say "he broke this rule" or "that rule" because we do not know if he woke up and started driving, or if he did a pretrip and this "drunk" passed out after the pretrip, or if the drivers team driver did the pretrip, or what have you.

392.7 states "satisfied". I do not need, nor am I required to do a full visual inspection of my vehicle every time I stop. I simply have to be "satisfied" everything is in working order. If I did a pretrip, I would be satisfied. This might've occured hours before operation. May not apply. If I came to my truck 2 weeks after doing a full inspection, I would be satisfied it is safe to operate.

396.11 requires at the completion of each day a report is done. Not at the beginning. Does not apply

396.13 requires the driver be satisfied the vehicle is safe before driving. May not apply

Again, we do not have enough information. To say he broke the FMCSR's is foolish at best.

He did however possibly break criminal laws. Was he criminally negligent? Depends on interpretation of the law. Precedent is also important.

He may also have a huge civil lawsuit in his hands. Is he reasonably expected to check his vehicle to ensure of no obstruction? I would say that's reasonable, yet there is not a single regulation regarding that. There shouldn't have to be.

[Rev.Vassago]

Originally Posted by allan5oh

You are confusing a moral issue with the regulations.

Actually, I'm doing anything but. Short of my first post on the subject, I've been, for the most part, discussing the regulations, and where and when an inspection is required. There is no moral issue involved with that.

As I stated over 20 posts back:

But none of that is really relevant to my point (or MB's, apparently) - that any time you change your duty status, and any time you are going to operate a CMV, you are required to perform an inspection. Common sense, as well as the FMCSA regulations, would dictate that you must at the very least exit your vehicle, at which point you would see a person in front of your vehicle.

But since I'm having to resort to repeating myself over and over, I see no point in continuing to do so.

[allan5oh]

Nice diversion, skipping over every damn point I made.

The regs might say an inspection is required, or you are required to be "satisfied" but they DO NOT say you are required to do an inspection immediately before operating the vehicle.

I made points specifically about specific regs. Please do quote and prove me wrong.

[Rev.Vassago]

Originally Posted by allan5oh

they DO NOT say you are required to do an inspection immediately before operating the vehicle

Yes, they don't use the word "immediately". Please show me where I said anything to the contrary.


In your listing of regs, I noticed you left out 392.9, which clearly states that you must inspect your cargo at every change of duty status. (which forces you to get out of your vehicle)

[allan5oh]

Your very first post states:

Originally Posted by Rev.Vassago

I couldn't agree more. Had the driver performed the required inspection, he would have seen the drunk sleeping in front of his truck.

If he did the required inspection before the drunk arrived, he would be in FULL COMPLIANCE. You seem to suggest immediate here, but I'll let it slide.

You also stated further down the first page:

If you are doing those two things, then you are clearly walking around your CMV, and you're seeing the sleeping guy in front of your truck.

Again, a full walk around was NOT required when the drunk was there, IF it was already performed.

Second page:

that any time you change your duty status, and any time you are going to operate a CMV, you are required to perform an inspection.

Incorrect. You are required to check cargo securement during change of duty status. If there is no cargo, or if the trailer is sealed, you are not required to do a cargo check since there is no cargo to check.

You are NOT required to do an inspection any time you operate a CMV. You are required to be "satisfied" certain items are in working order. I can check most of those items inside the cab anyways.

[allan5oh]

Originally Posted by Rev.Vassago

In your listing of regs, I noticed you left out 392.9, which clearly states that you must inspect your cargo at every change of duty status. (which forces you to get out of your vehicle)

You're right, unless the vehicle is unladen, impractical to check, or sealed and driver told not to break seal.

So where in the article does it say he was loaded?

This is the only regulation presented so far that would require the driver to immediately check the load before driving. Did he break it? We don't know.

[Fredog]

Originally Posted by Rev.Vassago

Sigh....:roll:


Just go ahead and run people over. See if I care.

put your money where your mouth is.. lay down in front of my truck