jiptwoo:

Cases have been built for 70 hour rule violations using 15 minutes for pre-trip/post-trip inspections, 15 minutes for fuel each fuel stop and 15 minutes for loading/unloading when drivers fail to log such events and the driving time indicated the 70-hour rule was close. Roadside officers do not do the in-depth investigation the DOT does during compliance reviews. When a CR is performed all documentation is used to investigate, i.e. driver trip sheets, payroll, fuel receipts, bills of lading, repairs, roadside inspections, etc. The DOT reviews a minimum of 30 days for the drivers selected for HOS.

Rev.Vassago:

Incorrect, Part 392 states:

I have always considered this the in-transit inspection. Every time the driver exits the vehicle then these items should be checked before the driver continues operation. Drivers are often asked when was the last time they checked the vehicle when safety defects are discovered.

Be safe.

What you consider to be a regulation is irrelevant. It's what FMCSA considers to be a regulation that matters.

The question wasn't whether the items should be checked throughout the trip, but when it was necessary to log it - FMCSA is very clear that a pre-trip and post-trip inspection are required, and that they are considered "On Duty, Not Driving".

Your point? If I perform, and log a pre-trip inspection, and am stopped at a scale where a defect is discovered, I have satisfied the FMCSA rules, and will not receive a citation for my log book. Whether I receive a citation for defective equipment is a completely different issue.

Who are you anyway, and why are you bumping these old threads?

Rev.Vassago:

There?s no question the regulation exist, it?s a matter of interpretation. In the case of Part 392 a driver is responsible for safe operation of the vehicle at all times.

Perhaps, however, you posted erroneous information stating there was no requirement for in-route inspections.

In addition to your comment you failed to list Part 392.7 as a regulation that required an inspection to be performed.

Part 392 varies from Part 396, whereas Part 392 is the operation of a CMV. Part 396 is scheduled maintenance.

It increases culpability for prosecution. The FMCSA does not write tickets, the FMCSA prepares cases. When it can be substantiated the driver failed to do their job the driver may receive a claim letter from the FMCSA.

The FMCSR now requires Special Agents to complete 32 Level 1 or Level 5 inspections each year. Therefore drivers are seeing more of the FMCSA than in previous years.

No but you can be cited for Part 396.7 Unsafe vehicles forbidden or Part 392.7 or other applicable violation for maintenance issues.

Perhaps, however, as indicated you provided mis-leading information so drivers should be educated of the facts.

Someone knowledgeable of the regulations and enforcement procedures.

The posts were on the current page, and uncovering misconceptions is important. You have posted some good information. However, some of the information you supplied isn?t factual.

Be safe.

I worked for an outfit that required the flag at the beginning and the actually logged post trip. I NEVER did it that way as I am in agreement with the way Rev Vassago inerprets the regs. after a while they quit complaining about it. Some of these companies hire some real odd ducks for safety managers and some who have also never driven a truck...

Fozzy

Then again perhaps drivers fail to log realistic times for work performed and never expect to be caught. Is it unrealistic to believe that performing a pre-trip and filling out the corresponding DVIR takes at least 15 minutes? I once worked for a carrier that insisted DVIRs be marked "No Defects Found" and any equipment safety issues be submitted on a separate sheet to the maintenance department. Those separate sheets can be used in documenting false reports, i.e. DVIRs. The DVIR is a required report and covered by Part 390.35.

It's not uncommon for drivers to be cited for false logs when there is unrealistic on-duty time recorded, i.e. 15 minutes for tarping a load of hay. :shock:

Be safe.

Whether a driver is responsible for the safe operation of a vehicle has nothing to do with the question that the original poster asked.

I still contend that there is no regulation requiring an in-route inspection to be logged. Whether or not you are interpreting 392 as such does not make it an FMCSA rule.

Because 396.13 relates to pre-trip inspections, while ?392.7 does not.

No, part 396 relates to INSPECTION, repair, and maintainance. Part 396.13 specifically refers to the driver, not the carrier.

No, the carrier is responsible for maintainance, not the driver.

But if a driver has performed the required pre-trip, and post-trip inspections, they have satisfied all FMCSA rules pertaining to logging inspections in their logbook.

Maintainance issues are not a driver violation, they are a carrier violation.

No I didn't. You are merely changing the subject to something that was not being discussed in this thread.

I think that you should present some credentials before trying to pass yourself off as an expert.

392.7 has nothing to do with pre-trip inspections, and isn't relevant to the discussion at hand.

Rev.Vassago

I disagree, the reason why Part 397 used to specify that tire checks must be flagged is because it complimented Part 395:

That means as soon as the driver stops and he/she is no longer driving the location must be flagged with the city/state. If a driver is no longer driving, i.e. stopping for fuel, to take a break, etc. they are either off-duty, in the sleeper berth, or on-duty not driving.

Both sections state the vehicle shall not be driven or driving why doesn?t Part 392 deal with pre-trip? The sections compliment one another, Part 396 addresses inspecting the vehicle before it is operated Part 392 addresses at any time.

Sorry but drivers have been prosecuted for issues regarding vehicle condition. Regardless of how you want to phrase it if a driver violates Part 396.7 can be prosecuted:

But if a driver has failed to log all stops then the driver is in violation per 395.8 and if the driver has not performed the necessary inspections in-accordance-with Part 392 and is operating a vehicle in violation of Part 396.7 the driver can be prosecuted.

Again I disagree; vehicle condition is a driver?s responsibility. Vehicle condition is tied to maintenance. If a driver operates an unsafe vehicle and kills someone the charge can be changed from manslaughter to 2nd degree murder. Doubt that, look at the driver who had brakes out of adjustment and killed some passengers in a bus on I-90 near Hampshire.

Truck Bus Crash

Did they change the spelling of expert? Seems to me I said I was knowledgeable of the regulations. Besides where are your credentials? This is the Internet and an open forum, people can make a judgement call based on the facts presented and the attached information. I'm under no obligation to reveal my indentity.

I disagree, polonus asked additional questions and you responded:

You and polonus changed the topic. I interjected and addressed some misconceptions and offered Part 392.7 as justification for the in-route inspection.

In reality the topic never hit the true question:

Part 395 has no requirements to identify ?PTI?:

The driver does not have to list ?PTI.? The regulations have no requirement to log the inspection, just the on-duty time required to do the inspection. If the inspection took 15 minutes then 15 minutes must be logged.

Be safe.

And?

If you continue to fail to log on-duty activities you face more serious issues.

Log the hours you work, it may save you money and/or jail time in the future.

Be safe.

That's not the topic of the discussion was it? I logged everything that was required of me to log. I of course is in the staggering majority. I would not work a job where I'd have to falsify to get the job done.