They closed I-43 several times last year in downtown Milwaukee for the construction. Usually it was very early in the morning, and they advertised it several weeks in advance. No detour created, as the shutdown was only a few hours. The overhead signs simply said "I-43 Closed At Marquette Interchange. Use Alternate Route"

Maybe, I muddied this a bit with the use of the "absolute" statement - NEVER. What I meant is: it is not the USUAL practice to shutdown a freeway or highway - for long periods of time - without creating a detour (or advertising the need to find alternate routes.)

THEREFORE, if it IS shutdown for a matter of hours (not minutes) without such prior arrangement for traffic..... it is an UNUSUAL condition for that road, and for that "traffic pattern."

Both of KayCee's scenarios qualify and are "exactly" the sort of thing I was referring to all along. The I-43 situation is different. First, by putting up the signs, you are notified to create your "own" detour, and secondly only an idiot would drive right by those signs and trap HIMSELF on the freeway.

NO, it just means that the rev intentionaly excluded a part of the reg because he neither understands nor agrees with it.

Unless you are from the Big Apple, major accidents are not part of the USUAL traffic pattern. :wink:

Exemption allowed. Furthermore..... even IF you got backed out of there and could go around this section of "shutdown" highway, and your driving time/trip plan was "adversely affected," exemption STILL allowed.

Nice try sneaking that by me. I certainly DO understand the reg. I just don't read as much into it as you do.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Just checking to see if you were awake! :wink:

You're right about how different people would interpret things differently. I happen to believe YOU are the one reading too much into it, and therefore believe it is a very LIMITED exception.

I find it interesting that in the guidance, the only question they "pre-loaded" for us was concerning the "emergency conditions" part of the reg. Perhaps, this is because so many drivers cry "911" for every little reason to make more miles.

And perhaps, it is ALSO because they didn't think the "adverse driving" part was so hard to interpret. They clearly used the words UNUSUAL road and traffic conditions. And specifically did NOT say that a dispatcher had to check every state DOT website before dispatching every one of millions of runs. Besides.... they put the hourly restrictions on it pretty heavy, so it couldn't be abused and cause a bunch of sleepy drivers.

Just like "a little bit" of fog, snow, ice, etc. doesn't shutdown a road, neither does a little slow traffic through a construction zone. But.... when ANY of these conditons SHUTS DOWN the road, for any appreciable amount of time, I INTERPRET the regs to say you can take the exemption because it "adversely" affected your run (as long as you weren't told about it in advance by your dispatcher.)

As for what a dispatcher SHOULD have known? Here's a thing to consider. We often have wrecks in the gorge here in NC, that temporarily shut down the highway for several hours. As soon as one of our drivers gets stuck in it, or hears about it on the CB, they usually inform dispatch. Dispatch is then AWARE of it, and sends a fleetwide message. AT THAT POINT, no other driver could use the exemption.

I'm about to leave on a run that will include some 8 states or more. With all the other drivers out there doing the same, there is NO WAY my dispatcher has time to check websites for every state I'll go through (or the others.) And I believe the regs purposely don't say that he HAS to.

And what website might say, be careful drivers there is going to be an accidental overturning of a crane under some bridge in Wyoming - a few days from now - that MAY shut down the road for an UNUSUAL amount of time??

That isn't road construction. It's an accident. It would qualify, unless you were dispatched AFTER it happened, and was reported.

You're "nitpicking" again, Rev! Go back and read the first post. It was a construction crew/situation, and the road was closed down for some reason. Many truckers were there, and set their breaks.

I merely quoted the regs and indicated, as I still believe, that the exemption would apply.

You came along and started making absolute statements that may or may not have applied. No biggie. Unless it is a USUAL condition of the road/bridge over the Ohio River, the exemption applied to all those truckers who got caught in it because their dispatchers weren't aware of it - as the LOCALS weren't.

KayCee: I don't mind you disagreeing. Doesn't make you right (or me either, I suppose.) St. Louis sounds like a certain example. As for K.C? Highway 71??? Not even familiar with it. Certainly not part of the interstate system through and around the city. I would think, especially with such advance notice, that there WOULD indeed be signs on the nearest freeway segment that MIGHT feed onto Highway 71. If so... drivers are expected to go around it. I wasn't there, so I can't say for sure. As to whether my dispatcher in NC should have known about it, when we RARELY go through there? I doubt it. But, if he DID, then no exception. If he DIDN'T... and there WERE NO signs (as you say,) then exception GRANTED.

Don't see anything in the regs that say they SHOULD unless they ARE. I haven't checked the "carrier" sections of the fmcsr's. Perhaps, there's a section there on dispatcher duties. I don't know. I'll look it up. If it's there? You guys win. :lol: If not? all we have to go on is the wording in the reg that questions whether or not, in fact, they KNEW about it. Says nothing about SHOULD HAVE KNOWN about it.

It's apparent to me that they DID declare what is allowed, and they limited the TIME to get to a safe area OR complete the run. If your hours haven't exactly expired when they reopen the road, how is someone going to tell you what DISTANCE you can go? If they started using distances in THIS situation, why not use them for total driving DISTANCE allowed for every driver, every day? Hmm.... could have to do with the different speeds the trucks can go. All they can use is TIME. So.... that's what they DO.

They don't really care how much farther you can go to shutdown, or whether that allows you to complete your run. They just don't want you driving beyond the 14 hour limit that they consider causes fatigue. It's ALL they can go by. They GIVE you THAT.... and that's ALL you get. Them's the REGS! :lol:

I don't see anywhere in the reg or the interpretation that setting the brakes is a criteria for the exemption.

Sorry, golfhobo, but I take a very "cut and dry" view of the regs. I don't read more into them than there is. I leave that up to the FMCSA to do in their interpretations.

Leaving as much "gray area" out of the regs keeps the enforcement of them as even as possible, as it leaves nothing to question. I'm sure if two drivers got citations on opposite sides of the country for using this exemption for road construction, and they both fought it using the same "logic", the two different judges would rule differently, because it's a gray area.

Until you can prove otherwise that road closures due to construction are included, I refuse to accept it. Plain and simple.

You're absolutely RIGHT! The regs DON'T specify a complete road shutdown or stoppage! I was just "giving you that" because I knew you wouldn't believe the truth!

Under the definitions, it just mentions snow, etc. blah blah. How much snow is required to "adversely affect" your run? I don't know. It doesn't say it has to be enough to shut down the road. Same applies to all the other "conditions."

Now go back to the actual reg. It CLEARLY states that the BASIS of the exception is ONLY whether or not it keeps you from completing your RUN. I'm "assuming" that they are "assuming" that a run can not legally be dispatched unless it could "reasonably" be completed within the 11/14 hour rules.

So, if the "unforeseen situation" even DELAYS you (moving slowly and NOT setting brakes) to the point that you cannot complete your run, but it could have been completed if traffic moved at a USUAL pace, and your dispatcher wasn't AWARE of this situation (and trying to get around it,) you can complete the run or get to a safe shutdown, as long as you don't exceed the 14 hour rule, or drive more than 2 additional hours.

I, too, take a cut and dried view of them. I don't CHANGE their words. Look through my posts and you will see that I consistently use THEIR words (with the exception of "shutdown.") You seem to want to add, subtract, change, argue, and disbelieve. That's your prerogative.

The fact is they don't even require a SHUTDOWN of the road.... just an ADVERSE CONDITION that keeps you from completing your run (if it could have been completed without the condition.)

Yes, they expect you to know about LONG TERM construction projects (usually with signs saying to be completed some time next year.) It is the "unforeseen" delay that they are creating the exception for.

I didn't write the regs. If you don't want to use the exception.... don't! But, it is there.... and I correctly quoted it. And I believe that I have correctly interpreted it. If they thought such interpretation would be so difficult, they would have been more specific. If they left it "grey," it's because such circumstances ARE "grey" and they are giving you a break! (with limits!)

Help yourself! Until YOU can prove that a complete closure of the road by a construction crew, that was NOT well advertised and known to my dispatcher, is a USUAL CONDITION of that road, I will claim the exception IF and ONLY IF I ever need it.

Gotta go on a run now. Won't be back for about a week. Y'all have fun and try to come up with another good topice by the time I get home.

Enjoyed it! C ya! :wink:

(sneaks back into the thread)
Ummm... that was a little more discussion than I expected on this. :)

To elaborate a bit more on the original situation, they already had one of the two lanes closed on each side of the bridge, doing work on the "other" lane, and there was signage indicating "construction zone," but not suggesting that one should expect stoppages. No doubt they were doing the work in the middle of the night to ease traffic congestion.

The impression I got from what I could see, and from the fact that about a half hour after the stoppage several Dept. of Highway vehicles came through the center turn lane (which was open right up to the bridge) was that there was some kind of unexpected mishap blocking the one open lane.

I learned a lot from you folks. Thank you very much.

..

I always thought that was a crock too. My truck was cut off at 76 mph, and I ran mostly in states where the speed limit was 70, and he wanted me to log 60? On flat roads? Crazy. I logged 67 (in predominantly 70) or 63 (in predominantly 65), and never got in any trouble with the DOT over it. (No longer a problem. I'm on a dedicated run now, and I just log what I do, because it's virtually impossible to eat up my hours in a day, and virtually impossible to speed through all that traffic either.)Me neither. This thread does remind me of a real world situation though. I was on Suicide Circle heading up to Baltimore on the night the DC sniper shot the people at Home Depot. They shut down the Beltway looking for a white van that turned out to be some blue fourwheeler. They had all the exits in Virginia blocked off, and everybody had to funnel toward the Maryland line, and stop there. It was one Pure D fuster cluck and a half.

So after I sat there forever and a day, we finally got rolling, and the scales in Maryland were open. I was the only truck there, and they pulled me in to check me, adding insult to injury. The DOT cop was like "You left such and such at such and such? REALLY?"

Yup. I really sat here with my thumb up my ass for five hours. Can I go to Baltimore and go to bed now, because I have to get up in three hours. Um. I mean eight hours. Yeah. Eight hours.

This was before all the new 14-hour bullshit, I think. If anyone knows different, substitute "10" for "8" in the above account. I don't quite remember when that happened.

Sylvan: The Adverse Condition rule existed before the latest revision. The only question I have for you is this:

Did the DOT officer at the scales shut you down (OOS) for a violation? Or did he let you proceed to your destination?

Granted, this was not a construction related delay, but it DID qualify under the "adverse conditon" rule.

So.... did you sleep at home that night? The REV really needs to know!

Sorry, double post.... CAD's fault! :lol:

Man, is that post LOADED with "absolutes" or what?

I just returned from a 5700 mile roundtrip dispatch in 5 days (team.) ALL on different routes. Didn't even GO to the coast! But, that's 5700 miles of different roads in one week!

MANY of them weren't even interstate miles, which are USUALLY the only ones that WOULD be posted on some nebulous "website."

People who drive a few hundred miles a week hauling HHG's, shouldn't be "preaching" to those who DO run the miles in this country!

REV said:

So... BECAUSE the FMCSA does not provide an interpretation of their rules, that satisfies YOU, you can "leave it out" of a discussion about the Regulations?

Because some drivers abuse it, YOU don't THINK the exemption serves its purpose?

IF they did "this" and didn't do "that" you'd ACCEPT it??? I'm SURE they'll be "interested" in your "guidance." :roll:

I don't have alot of love for government bureaucrats, nor there mastery of the language, but... I don't presume to tell them what regs I will abide by based on MY opinion of them.

The regs say what they say. And this part is pretty clear. THEY use the words "unusual road or traffic conditions." Even "I" have been driving long enough to know what is USUAL for a road, or a traffic situation. And, sitting for hours on a freeway that is not moving "freely," is absolutely the definition of "UNUSUAL."

Nuff said, :wink:

Perhaps you should learn to read. I specifically said:

Good for you. Would you like a medal?

:roll:

No, I can leave it out of my OPINION on the regs (which I clearly stated was an opinion. :roll:

No, not really.

Mr. Psychic. :roll:

Really? You use EVERY reg that is written? Even the ones that don't apply to you?

Once again - rush hour traffic CAN have you sitting for hours on a freeway, yet you don't use the exemption for that. :roll:

Enough was said last week already. :roll:

No, you are mixing two different posts. The "loaded" one is different than the "opinion" one. But, even the "opinion" one included more of your "absolutes" such as the word "NOTHING" and "doesn't."

Perhaps, it is YOU who should learn to read. :wink: :P

Nope. No medal required. Maybe, just a little less LIP! My point was that in 5 days I encountered many different road/traffic conditions... MOST of which could not have been "known" to my dispatcher before I began my run. I probably could have used the "adverse" exception several times this week alone - had I been running SOLO. Teams have no right, nor need, for this exception. [Oops! Was that an "absolute?" I'm not sure if I should go that far!]

I DID see several trucks on the side of the road in the middle of nowhere, though. I wonder if THEY shared your understanding/opinion of the regs?

Reverand Semantic. :roll:

Define "use." Do I adhere to all of them? Not always. But, that is MY choice, and it is not based on whether I understand or accept their rules or not. Why would I "use" a shorthaul reg that doesn't apply to me?

I agree! Rush hour traffic is NOT an UNUSUAL condition. Sitting in traffic in Chicago in the afternoon is NOT the same as sitting still on the Skyway at midnight while a sinkhole (that just appeared that day) is repaired.

Maybe so..... but that was before I was "misquoted" on another thread. :lol:

And before the OP (Castanea) "snuck into" his own thread again!! :lol:

So..... is Favre coming back next year or what??? :lol:

What if the sinkhole appeared three weeks ago, and they were shutting down the freeway for an hour today to get equipment in or out? :roll:

That's a valid question. If I worked for a company in that area, and my dispatcher SHOULD HAVE KNOWN or DID know about it, the exception would NOT apply.

But, being that I drive out of NC, and rarely ever (never) go through Chicago, and MY dispatcher is under NO obligation to know about such a LOCAL "shutdown," and had not been informed of it by another one of our drivers.... if I got caught in that mess, and it "adversely" affected MY run, the exception WOULD apply.... to ME!! Maybe, it wouldn't apply to OTHER trucks in the area, but it would apply to ME.

Perhaps, you are not seeing that this exception can be applied "differently" to different drivers. There is no "blanket" exception... or LACK thereof.... that applies to everyone at the same time, in ALL situations.

There is no DOT cop running a "checkpoint" at the output of the stoppage, to tell drivers what to do. A driver is expected to plan his trip according to what he KNOWS. If his run is "adversely affected" by something UNFORESEEN to him and/or his dispatcher, he is allowed the exception.

That is what the "remarks" section of the logsheet is FOR. You explain the use of the exception. If, and ONLY if, the logsheet for that day is ever questioned, the "situation" can be verified by local authorities. The location and "usual" routes of your company will be considered. The pattern or lack thereof of usage of this exception will be considered.

If, for some reason, you get stopped by a "rambo" DOT officer, and get a citation for it.... well, that's what LAWYERS are for. This would be an EASY case to get dismissed (under the scenario as I have explained it.)

I guarantee you that those truckers in PA, caught on news videotape, shutdown for snow, or ANY driver caught in the sniper shutdown, will NOT receive violations for driving up to 13 hours, within their 14 hour clock, to complete their run or get to a safe shutdown location. THAT is what the exception is FOR... and THAT is why they bothered to include it in the REGS.

I know. That's why I've been stating it ad nauseum since this thread started.

This is where I disagree. Nowhere in the regs does it state ANYTHING even close to this. It simply says "SHOULD HAVE KNOWN". In this day and age, with the internet, cellular phones, and 24 hour traffic hotlines, there is NO REASON that dispatch should not be able to find out about ALL scheduled road closures. Because they have the capability of knowing, then they SHOULD know.

You're absolutely right. But snow isn't construction, and apples aren't oranges.

[quote="Rev.Vassago"]I know. That's why I've been stating it ad nauseum since this thread started.

And, since I ANSWERED it in one of my first few posts, your continued questioning of this "situation" is making ME "nauseous" TOO!!



This is where I disagree.


No Kidding!!?? :shock: :roll:


The ONLY place the words "should have known" are found is in the "guidance" section. Those words do NOT appear in the REGS!! :roll:

Okay, Rev. When was this "exception" first included in the rules??? Look that UP for me, will ya? Was it part of the NEW HOS rules?? Or was it.... maybe.... included in the OLD regs, BEFORE the "digital age?" I TOLD ya before.... find it in the REGS by which the carrier/dispatcher must operate, or give it up!

And "should have known" isn't "WAS known!" The REGULATIONS don't say "should have known." They say "WAS KNOWN."

[making it BIGGER, so he'll understand!] :lol:

Hate to break this to you, but the interpretations are part of the regs. They just clairfy some of the loosely worded regs. BUT, they are a basis upon which the regs are enforced.

Doesn't matter. As technology has changed, it simply has tightened the noose on the reg.

No, they don't. If you think they do, then cite the reg. :roll:

:rock:

§395.1 Scope of rules in this part.


(a) General. (1) The rules in this part apply to all motor carriers and drivers, except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (o) of this section.

...

(b) Adverse driving conditions.

Isn't it "interesting" that the very FIRST "exception" to the SCOPE of the rules is the Adverse Driving Conditions???!!!!


(1) Except as provided in paragraph (h)(2) of this section, a driver who encounters adverse driving conditions, as defined in § 395.2, and cannot, because of those conditions, safely complete the run within the maximum driving time permitted by §§ 395.3(a) or 395.5(a) may drive and be permitted or required to drive a commercial motor vehicle for not more than 2 additional hours in order to complete that run or to reach a place offering safety for the occupants of the commercial motor vehicle and security for the commercial motor vehicle and its cargo. However, that driver may not drive or be permitted to drive-

(b)(1)(i) For more than 13 hours in the aggregate following 10 consecutive hours off duty for drivers of property-carrying commercial motor vehicles;

(b)(1)(ii) After the end of the 14th hour since coming on duty following 10 consecutive hours off duty for drivers of property-carrying commercial motor vehicles;

GUIDANCE:


Question 5: How may a driver utilize the adverse driving conditions exception or the emergency conditions exception as found in §395.1(b), to preclude an hours of service violation?

Guidance: An absolute prerequisite for any such claim must be that the trip involved is one which could normally and reasonably have been completed without a violation and that the unforeseen event occurred after the driver began the trip.

Drivers who are dispatched after the motor carrier has been notified or should have known of adverse driving conditions are not eligible for the two hours additional driving time provided for under §395.1(b), adverse driving conditions.

The term "in any emergency" shall not be construed as encompassing such situations as a driver's desire to get home, shippers' demands, market declines, shortage of drivers, or mechanical failures

Question 28: Does the emergency conditions exception in 49 CFR 395.1(b)(2) apply to a driver who planned on arriving at a specific rest area to complete his 10 hours driving and found the rest area full, forcing the driver to continue past the ten hours driving looking for another safe parking area?

Guidance: No. The emergency conditions exception does not apply to the driver. It is general knowledge that rest areas have become increasingly crowded for commercial motor vehicle parking, thus, it is incumbent on drivers to look for a parking spot before the last few minutes of a 10 hour driving period. The driver should provide the reason for exceeding the 10 hours driving in the Remarks section of the record of duty status.

Hmmm.... NO qaestions about construction delays! Hmmm..... noted that it is GENERAL KNOWLEDGE about pickle parks being full..... but no "general knowledge" about unforseen road delays due to construction. Perhaps, because it is TOO OBVIOUS to "preload" a question about it!

GUIDANCE under 395.2 "Definitions"

Question 25: When a driver experiences a delay on an impassable highway, should the time he/she is delayed be entered on the record of duty status as driving time or on-duty (not driving)?

Guidance: Delays on impassable highways must be recorded as driving time because §395.2 defines "driving time" as all time spent at the driving controls of a CMV in operation.

This is exactly WHY there is an exemption allowwing a driver to drive an additional 2 hours! The definitions dictate that the time spent sitting still on the road MUST be logged as line 3.... therefore..... the exception is provided so that the driver may "recover" at least 2 hours of this "driving time" to "complete his run."

So, where does it say "was known"? :roll:

I repeat:

Where does it say "was known"? :roll:

You're RIGHT, Rev! I added the word "was" to differentiate from "should have."

The past tense word KNOWN stands alone as all the verification needed for my interpretation of the regs.

I don't have the time or patience to teach you Englilsh Comprehension. I'm through with this discussion because, as you said, enuff was said last week.

You can take the exception or not, as you please. But, you have said nothing to change my comprehension of the regulations.

I'll leave it to the others to take what they want from this "discussion."

time for me to go OTR again! C'ra!!

Plain and simple. It doesn't say "was known", but it does say "should have known".