Dumb drivers...
 

It continues to amaze me with what drivers believe they can get away with...

On 12/04/2008 at 10:11 AM west of Houston, TX a driver is placed OOS for a 11/14 hour rule violation.

On 12/04/2008 the same driver is placed OOS near Baton Rouge, LA at 5:27 PM for an 11/14 hour rule violation.

Do you believe the driver could have served the eight hours off-duty and still drive from Houston, TX to Baton Rouge, LA?

If so I have a bridge in San Francisco for sale.

The driver lost his job today, the O/O who owns the truck had the lease terminated as it was discovered the office lady was doing the logs before sending them in to the carrier the driver/vehicle was leased to. Oh by the way, the issue with the logs being recreated was discovered when the office lady mailed the driver's original logs and her recreated logs together.

Merry Christmas.....

Drivers please don't be irresponsible, it only takes once and you loose.

The driver will receive a letter from the DOT in about three weeks for his decision to run the OOS order.... Happy New Year....

Oh well some day.....

Be safe.

Sooner.........rather than later. It's going to be one helluva a wake up call for these criminals.

My good friend (a deputy sheriff) sees it all. Including recently:

A driver that had the nerve to show him a log book which showed that the driver was in Little Rock, AR, just 4 hours previous to this traffic stop in Indianapolis.

He recently witnessed at 53' van driver make an illegal u-turn, and initiated a traffic stop. The driver was from Poland. Was driving out of California. Spoke no English......and oh yeah, no CDL, or valid US drivers license of any type.
-------------------------
Yep Myth_Buster, they think that it is all fun and games. Yee Haw! Straight out of the tune "Convoy." Until it all goes horribly and irretrievably wrong in a flash. Then they expect mercy in front of the judge. Same play.....just different actors.

The sooner that EOBRs are mandatory for all CMVs, the better. EOBRs might only be a small step, but they are a step in the right direction.

for who? stupid drivers will still be stupid.

who's gonna pay for this?

EOBR's? ok bel, get out of your guvamint mode and tell me what that stands for.

electronic overtheroad billybig riggers? ;) :D

Would Black Box bring a halt to the double standard that many of these trucking companies have the luxury of operating in and around.

Drivers end up behaving like crimminals.....yet the companies seem somewhat immune.

If took for example all the logs turned in for one year...compared them to the Qualcomm data it would show probably more than half

of the trucking companies revenue was ill gotten by HOS standards.

The face these companies 'put on' is the double standard i am referring to.

Companies are only immune until the FMCSA shows up at their doorstep and starts imposing fines. But I understand where you are coming from - the reward for allowing drivers to log illegally can far outweigh the penalties.

If companies checked all logs all the time and did their comparisons on each log turned in then it would increase their cost of doing business way too much. Much of the cost we incur as a carrier goes for compliance issues. It is still the responsibility of the driver to make sure that he runs compliant. For those who think the EOBR's are a great idea you don't have to pay for them. You also may not like the cost to your paycheck should this come to pass. Some of these ideas, such as EOBR's, may sound good on paper, for those who must comply with dealing with them it could be a nightmare. None of these so called safety concerned citizen groups seem to understand that everyone has a different body clock. Just like the hos rules, it encourages falsification to work around the driver's body clock. I doesn't matter what the hos says, if the driver is tired then he needs to rest. We need to throw the logs away and treat this like any other profession. If we get tired, we rest. We don't attempt to work around some electronic monitoring system to get our job done. We use common sense. Oops! I forgot, common sense doesn't come into play in this business. :roll:

Sorry, Bel.... no reflection on YOU.... but, I don't believe EITHER of these "stories" your good friend told you! LEO's tell bigger stories than truckers!

Most drivers that "cheat" their logs, do so in a retroactive manner. IOW, they would back up their logs to allow MORE time, not LESS, to make a trip. And most Polish citizens speak very good English, and could NEVER have gotten a job driving a truck in America without a license and the ability to ASK for the job in English. Sorry..... just don't BUY IT! IF, and I repeat IF, a Polish immigrant in California could get ANY job driving a truck with no licence or CDL, I doubt seriously that that "outlaw" company would have him driving across state lines all the way to Indiana!

Naw.... just TOO much BS for me to swallow!

Rev:

The economic impact far outweighs the penalties. Carriers with a less than satisfactory rating can no longer remain self insured. Carriers with less than satisfactory ratings loose valuable customers. Carriers with less than satisfactory ratings pay higher insurance premiums.

Procedures have been developed to pierce the corporate veil for carriers that shut down operation “A” to become operation “B”. Once the veil is pierced the new company inherits the old company’s SAFESTAT information and is prosecuted for running the OOS order.

GMAN:

There’s no need to check every driver… Every roadside inspection performed is available to the public at A & I a carrier’s problem drivers have already been identified. Carriers are at a much greater advantage when it comes to checking for false logs as the carrier knows what the driver’s activities are.

How much profit is lost from drivers/vehicles being placed OOS? Isn’t there an obligation to provide reliable customer service? Couldn’t safety be directly tied to customer service?

Seems to me it’s money well spent.

It’s also the carrier’s responsibility to ensure the driver has the hours to operate BEFORE they offer the driver the load.

Frito Lay has used EORBs since at least 1993.

Seems to me many carriers want the “Don’t ask, don’t tell philosophy regarding HOS. Carriers want to bury their head in the sand and ignore drivers’ false logs.

Most modes of transportation have HOS for the person responsible for other’s safety:

Pilots:

Railroad Employees:

Truckers are no different, without some maximum standards set drivers would go totally ape.

Gman you’re funny.

GOLFHOBO:

Yeah, there are no carriers in the greater Chicago area that have Polish speaking dispatchers; the FMCSA revised their policy for OOS and developed a standard operational tests to tests drivers’ ability to speak English before placing them OOS. Naw, there isn’t a problem with non-English speaking drivers.

Yeah, there’s no way a small fleet owner would hire an illegal alien and have them drive cross country without a CDL. Much as the carrier interviewed and when asked for payroll records it was explained they were six months behind on payroll. Turns out the drivers were indentured servants who were smuggled into the US and now driving truck. Naw there was no CDL scandal where several state employees were prosecuted for selling CDLs to people. Every one is above board and only hiring drivers with impeccable driving records. ;)

Absolutely, keep your head buried in the sand. The carriers doing the things mentioned have no competitive edge and able to bid lower on freight than your employer. You are in no danger of losing your job and having to drive for some sleaze ball outfit for half the money you’re earning now. ;)

Get a clue GH, the job you save maybe your own.

Be safe.

Wow Golfhobo! You really are out of touch. I'm glad that I took the time to read on through and see where Myth_Buster straightened you out.

If you doubt the two stories that I put forth above. I issue an open invitation for you to come up here any time. Not only to meet my best friend "the deputy." But I am also sure that he would be more than happy to take you on a 'ride-along' for a shift. After a shift riding with him, I would love to hear say that you don't believe his stories.

You are bunk Golfhobo! Go back to your Line 5 pursuits!:p

LOL vega! No in that particular case EOBR = Kevin0915 :clap:

I will support EOBRs, but only when they include a video loop that will show the activities of surrounding traffic. Until then, they can put them where the sun does not shine. Evidence that can be used in court when a 4-wheeler tries to pass just before a construction zone and runs into the concrete wall, then tries to sue the carrier and driver for damages as a result of the insane and suicidal meneuver he/she tried, and things like that. Additional benefit beyond compliance.

There are several Private Carriers out there that are running just such systems WW. Unfortunately they are using them more to "hammer on" the drivers of the trucks, than they are to educate or "hammer on" outside offenders.

I have a friend that was working at ARCO/BP in Seattle until last year, when they installed that system. He was called into the Truck Boss' office about three weeks after tha system was installed and repromanded for cursing during a hard braking occurance..due to a SUV short braking him at highway speed. James got upset over the reprimand...and flipped off the camera and cursed into it while doing his pretrip. His rant was directed at the "Hewitt" employee in Houston whom had reviewed the tape, and forwarded her disapproval of the cursing during the hard brake episode.

James was fired after he drove around to the load rack...because "Hewitt" was watching him live as he did the pretrip. CS-BS at it's finest. If BP wants Nuns delivering their fuel...they better fill all those "Outside Carrier" trucks that they are contracting with for fuel delivery, with Nuns.

Sentinel Transportation is another private carrier that is installing that system. I think I saw a multi-camera set-up, in some Wal-Mart trucks out in CA a couple weeks ago...but I'm not certain.

I'm with ya there WW. A friend of mine wrote a statement on behalf of a BP driver not too long ago regarding a situation very similar to the one you mention above. Of course, none of this could be seen with the on board camera system. The driver from another company wrote a statement and the BP driver was absolved of any wrongdoing. So much good that did for him..............BP Indianapolis gave all of their drivers pink slips about 2 weeks ago...........all of their trucks are now gone, along with the drivers.

How can we ever forget this Wal-Mart on-board footage?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS00hb3zsVU

come to think of it...the Black Box might put a stop on those dispatchers that wont let up when you say

you are out of hours and cannot make the pickup by the time given.

It would reinforce 'No' to actually mean 'No' :)

That Donner crash was ugly !!!!!!!!!!!

BUNK?? :lol: Wow...what a lexicon you have! ;)

MythBuster has YET to "straighten me out" on anything I've questioned him on. Most of his answers are OFF TOPIC, confusing, and unrelated. I DO have a certain respect for him, but I am not yet impressed.

As for your "best friend" the deputy.... I didn't mean to get personal. I just know I've heard as many "stories" from them as I have heard from truckers.... some on THIS board. As for meeting him, I fear he might be a buzzkill during our line 5 time. ;)

But, I would love to do a "ride-along" with him. Unfortunately, I fear that when it was over, HE may be much more confused or skeptical than I. I'm not really sure he is "UP TO IT." :lol:

Seriously Bell, I would LOVE the chance to spend a day or less with an LEO on the road. I believe we would have MUCH to talk about, and I'm sure that when it was over, we would BOTH have learned something! Assuming, of course, that he could MANAGE to have an open mind. To START with, I would like to know why he doesn't pull drivers who break the law by not using headlights whenever they use wipers! IMHO, possibly the most dangerous of ALL activities that 4wheelers do!

In fact, why don't YOU ask him that, BEl? And get back to me with the "bunk" he gives you for an anwer!

As for the "invitation," I WILL make it a point someday SOON! I would love to meet you (and your friends.) But, I'm waiting until you guys clear the roads up there! :lol2:

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.

But the question is: Is Mythbuster enforcing the regs or the SPIRIT of the regs?:D:lol:

I bet it depends upon what time of the year it is. Around Halloween, I bet the "spirit" runs rampant. Of course, if he is on line 5, I suppose those "spirits" could play a part as well.

: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?

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

To your knowledge.:rofl:

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

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

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.

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?

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:

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

MythBuster replied:

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.)

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:

Yet I lost my job for refusing to drive tired.
 

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.

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:

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.

Golfhobo wayyyyyy over the edge:

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:

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:

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:

The federal rules clearly state:

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

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.

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

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

Some times my success is better than other times. :)

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….

Actually it’s a silver Impala. ;)

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

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. ;)

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:

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.

Mythbuster,

Please do not confuse Golfhobo with accurate facts that are backed up with printed regs that are easily verified. Thank you.

I am beginning to see that dispatchers are the problem....the r the ones who try every trick to push you

past the limits....

If you decline a load due to 'hours' and a few mins later 'call me' pops up on the QC screen...

thats the secret signal that its about to hit the fan.

if you call Safety Dept they will stop the dispatcher in his or her tracs. (This is a great power to have at your disposal btw)

I dont think the owner wants to drop several thousand in fines...

Yes and no.


While dispatchers will try to push a driver to use everything available to them (and sometimes more), ultimately the fault lies with the driver who accepts the load he can't run legally.

Myth Buster..some of these guys simply haven't ever had the pleasure of seeing the guy's & gal's with the brown cover-alls at weigh stations and rest areas. It is something to pull into a scale and see all the dudes and dudettes, complete with sampling station for taking urine.

I have had the experience in WA, CA, NV and NE. Only sweated on the NV one. :lol::lol:

Ok I remember this happening now...It went down like this ...A large hefty unkempt lady driving a Werner truck zoomed into the T/A stopping and parking behind another truck at the fuel aisle ...well the lady closed her curtains and went to sleep there ,well shortly after a T/A fuel desk attendant politely came out and asked her to move...well she said look here you pasty faced Leprechaun I'm outta hours ,and I'm not moving this truck ...The T/A attendant said once more to please move ,and the Werner driver once again refused saying no Leprechaun can make me move my Weener wagon ,And proceeded to poke fun at the guard speaking to him in a immitated mentaly challenged voice...well the guard knowing Werners loose hiring standards simply asked if she was mentaly handicaped , and the woman became infuriated with the guard tossing a used zip lock bag of urine at him ,Well the guard kept his composure and said if you don't park off the fuel aisle you'll need to go on down the road to the J...Well luckily a straight back opened up ,and the Irate female Werner driver went over to back the slot , And 1hr later she was going door to door selling commercial company ,and the security guard was forced to call law enforcement ,and when the police arrived the officer asked the guard what truck the party was in ,and the guard replied the Werner truck with the bent bumper/fairings , And the guard remarked to the officer that Werner must not pay very well b/c he has this trouble with nearly every female Werner driver on his watch ...Now the officer knocks on the weenie wagon ,but once again a zip lock bag of urine was hurled from the cab ,and off to jail she went .

Good story...wrong thread. :rofl::rofl::rofl:

I think you just validated golfs point. you have been asked a very strait forward simple yes or no question and you avoided answering it. instead you pointed to safety stats etc that anyone could copy and past and provide a link to. simply stating that notice it says us instead of ga doesn't answer his question. it doesn't say who did the inspection only that it wasn't a state official. you may be implying that it is you that did it but your not saying it. I think this is the problem golf is having dealing with government personal, they tend to talk in circles and never answer a simple question.

I believe golfhobo's question is...

Have you initiated and performed a roadside inspection? (A SIMPLE yes or no is the appropriate response no dancing or side stepping the question)

and my own personal question is...

are the inspections that you give examples of, inspections that you personally performed? (once again simple yes or no will do.)

It's pretty clear the answer is yes. In fact, he cited several examples of it.

Again, it's pretty clear the answer is yes.

This line in and of itself answers both questions:

Nope, SOLOFEMTRUCKER posted the story here so I figured I'd share the truth .

Except it is as far from the truth as you can get. First, it is against Werner policy to keep bodily fluids on the truck and I couldn't pee in a baggie if you paid me to do it. Granted Werner pays next to nothing but I am too in love with my boyfriend to disrespect him like that and TOO OLD. LOL. AND I am skinny and anal and clean. So go blow it up your glory hole.