I don't think that you must have a valid medical to keep a CDL, you just have to have one to renew, or obtain the first CDL.

It's a good thing a medical doesn't have to be valid to keep a CDL. Mine was out for over 1 1/2 years, and I would not have renewed it when I did had my license not been about to expire.

I mark that lapse down to pure laziness. The company pays for it. I just kept putting it off.

I do feel much more at ease now when I cross the scales.

 

I'm pretty sure you need a valid medical card in every state when you are operating a CDL type vehicle. When i got my permit, I had yet to do a DOT physical. It wasn't till about 2 months after getting my CDL that I went and had the DOT upon hire at the van line. My D license was still valid without a DOT exam, though.

So, is that 5 to the list?

 

I don't know about other States requirements but here in NY you do not need a medical card if your doing local work, or within the 100 miles driving range. I this this is a FMCSA reg, however I did not look it up. Of course each States requirements can be more stringent than FMSCA. You may want to look it up.

Neckster

 

Make it 6 to the list. When I got my license I had to prove that I've had the DOT physical. Have to carry proof with my drivers license, regardless of the vehicle I'm in. It's good for 2 years, and if I don't renew it on time I'll get a nice letter from the state telling me I can't drive until I do.

 

I find this strange. Liability insurance is on truck not on the CDL holder. As this is written you have to have a vehicle in order to drive a truck.

Looking deeper I find NC has a exception. "The exemption restricts the driver to the operation of "Fleet Vehicles Only". To remove the restriction the driver must pay a $10.00 fee and submit DMV Form DL-123." So if you don't have a personal vehicle and get the wavier then later purchase a vehicle you will cost you an additional $10 bucks. Interesting.

Having taken several exams for a CDL I question requiring "only allows government certified doctors" would gain anything other than increase the cost of the exam. I have also taken several FAA medical exams and find them all lacking. How is the doctor going to know if a person is a diabetic? If that person doesn't declare it on the form. Sure it is against the law but so is many other things that they can't detect. I've had 2 strokes yet I can pass either a CDL or a FAA exam with no problem.

As much as I hate adding anything to the Feds I think it is about time for the Feds to create a Federal license when it comes to CDLs. Get the states out of the loop. One license with one set of requirements. Everyone be required to take the same test. If the states want to issue a license for drivers under 21 then they can do their own thing.

kc0iv

 

The only way it can come close to working with certified doctors is to require medical reports from the drivers personal doctor.

Of course a person could always say they don't have a doctor, or have two doctors. One for real problems, and the other to go to occasionally in order to get a physical, and declare to them you are taking no medications and are fine. You just want a physical to catch any unforeseen problems early.

The doctor you get the physical from is the one you would get the records for the CDL.

 

IN and CA when your medical examiner’s certificate on file with the state expires they reduce your CDL to a Class C license, your CDL is suspended and that shows on the MVR. WI restricts your CDL to intrastate commerce only with a “K” restriction which also shows on your MVR. Drivers in CA, IN, and WI have to send proof of a current medical to the state or their CDL is suspended or the “K” restriction is applied.

The FMCSA formed a medical review board this year. There were several town meetings held to discuss how to handle the registration of approved physicians. There was a NPRM made with the opportunity for comments.

Diabetes is sometimes discovered using the blood sugar test when the doctor dips the paper into your urine sample.

Drivers who falsify medical exam forms face prosecution. A driver was caught at the scale one day when he needed his diabetes insulin shot. The driver was disqualified and prosecuted for falsifying the medical form. If a driver has an accident and it is discovered there are disqualifying medical conditions the driver may face hard time if there is a fatality involved.

The times, they are a changing.

Be safe.

 

[quote="Myth_Buster"]
As I said before the concept of limiting who can give a medical exam will gain nothing except raise the cost of the exam.

This like most other concepts produced by FMCSA seem to be produced by people that have no idea of the real world. They live in a world created by themselves.

You like most of the federal employee believe once the rule is written that ends it. Everyone will follow the rules and no one can find away around these rules. If someone wants to beat the system there are people who know how to do it. Just a few weeks ago a good example was shown on this forum. A known drug uses another person to supply the sample. Sure it's illegal but so what. These type of people could care less. It is like a lock. Locks are made to keep honest people honest.

Example after example can be shown where FMCSA creates rule that fail to gain their intended purpose. In fact in many they create a worse working condition. Doubt me. Just look at the current HOS. It takes a PA lawyer to understand them. Why? Because FMCSA listen to groups that has a agenda. So where are we today? One more lawsuit. Just like the last lawsuit. Million of dollars wasted that only makes lawyer more money yet gains little or no improvement.

I can assure you if FMCSA enacts this approved physicians list it will fail to improve the driving environment. It doesn't work for drugs and it's not going to work here either. Yet people like you say we have rules and regulations. Thousands upon thousands of pages of studies that gain little if anything.

An example is the "The Large Truck* Crash Causation Study (LTCCS)" what did we learn? Most crashes are caused by the auto not the large truck. Big deal. Drivers have been saying this for years. The question really is what has DOT done to improve this? Nothing. More than likely FMCSA will create additional rules and regulations that doesn't address the real problem. But, the feel good bunch at FMCSA says "boy didn't we do good".

Same can be said about the hours of service. The good guys are still doing good and the bad guys are still doing their thing. FMCSA says yep "we did a great job". FMCSA - NO CLUE plain and simple.

Another example. Driver gets a failure on their drug screen. DOT says the have to go to counselor. Does DOT know if the driver attended? NO. Is there a way to determine this. DOT says yes. Reality - NO. There is no system in place to verify this was done. And even if the employer does in fact determine driver went to see the counselor many companies never follow up to see that the driver did the required random test required by the rules. Once again the system fails to perform what FMCSA claims it does. But, FMCSA says - "we did a great job". The rules are one thing reality is another.

You show one example of where a driver got caught and I'm sure you can cite others but for everyone you can cite I can show you 10 that doesn't get caught. Just like the HOS. A few get caught but hundreds still bend/break the rules. FMCSA latest concept EOBR. It didn't work in the 50's and 60's and it's not going to work now.

I could go on and on. You like every other FMCSA and the larger DOT live in a world of their own with no concept of what the world is real like. You can cite rules and regulations to your heart's content and I'm sure you will continue. DOT will continue to create more rules and regulations that do the same but make them feel good. Every time new rules are written someone will find a away to break them. So continue in your little world.

kc0iv

 

QUOTE:FMCSA latest concept EOBR. It didn't work in the 50's and 60's and it's not going to work now.



Ahhh. The good ole Tachograph. Drivers knew how to manipulate these as soon as they came out.

I drove for a company that had on board satellite monitored electronic logging. I could still manipulate the log if I wanted to. Not a lot, but enough so that when I needed a little extra time to get back to the terminal, I could.

 

Just about every driver had one. Most had a stack of pre-recorded Tachograph charts. I know one driver's lounge had them in a box on a shelf. But boy did the companies think they were the greatest thing since sex.
Just think with a little bit of work just how easy it would be.

Just like companies that think the engine computer can't be adjusted without their pass code. I was even told by the local Freightliner shop how safe it was. I just had to laugh.

My concept is still the same. Honest people don't need them - Dis-honest people will find away around them.

kc0iv