Because Golfhobo really is that stubborn you're going to leave the rest of us hanging?

The way you worded the questions, MY answers would have been..

1. NO

2. YES

3. YES (or no depending on which of the 4 questions within that question)

So, which two did I get wrong?

And how did you get "partial credit" on question one? By citing the correct reg instead of the Migrant Workers one? :lol:

Unfortunately, yes. I was attempting to settle this. It's clear from his subtle attacks that he wants to go right back at it. I've invited Mike M, but I have no idea if he will come here, given the obvious attacks that would await him.

Unfortunately that is what ALL lawyers do, 'interpret' laws, rules and regulations, and present their argument. The majority of Government Regs are left vague just for that reason, you have to hire a lawyer to figure it out. It's the game. For every 'expert' you find to back you up, the opposing side will find one who says the opposite.

The same Reg, used in the same way can be decided upon differently at various levels of the judicial system. There is no one single answer, everything is 'gray' and subject to interpretaion. That's one of the main reasons I quit Law School, I want, scratch that, NEED everything Black & White. There was that moral thing too, I couldn't 'leave your morals at the door' as instructed. :wink:

I wish all Lawyers were Jim Carrie in Liar Liar. The world would be a much better place.

I too like things well defined, life is complicated enough.
Lowest common denominator I always say.

Wow... Quite a discussion; hopefully there will be an agreement so all will be happy:

In regard to On-Duty in a day cab, the regs are perfectly clear with very little interpretation required:

Number four makes it pretty clear, only time spent in a sleeper berth counts and must be logged as sleeper berth. There is no off-duty time in a CMV.

Alcohol may be transported in a CMV, but you cannot consume alcohol in a CMV:

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regul...fmcsrguide.htm

In regard to the HOS, in the initial HOS rule in 2003 it was mandatory a driver have two hours in the sleeper berth with any eight hour period:

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/c...le-search.html

In 2005 when the HOS rules were revised the second two hour sleeper berth was replaced with either two hours off-duty or two hours in the sleeper berth:

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regul...fmcsrguide.htm

For those unimpressed with an entry pay scale of GS-9 perhaps you could do better? The entry level for a GS-2123 is GS-5

http://www.opm.gov/fedclass/gs2123.pdf

But that’s another story….

Be safe.

Expect the gates of hell to open when hobo sees this post.

Golfhobo also claims that sleeper berth time and off duty time are the same thing. I say they are not. Who is correct?

Since you're here, let me ask you another one that hobo and I have disagreed on:

In part 395.1, the "Adverse driving exemption" states that it allows for an additional 2 hours to complete a run if certain critera are met. It has been my position that road construction does not fall under this critera, because it can be known to the person dispatching at the time the run began. Furthermore, I am also of the position that temporary road closures within road construction would also not qualify a driver to use this exemption, because if the road construction can be known to the person dispatching, then road closures can be as well.

Golfhobo is of the position opposite mine, that road construction, as well as temporary lane closures, qualify a driver to use the "adverse driving exemption".

Who is right?


Thanks for posting, Mike.


The score stands:

Rev - 2.25 / 3

Hobo - 1 / 3

So... let me see if I have this right.

The mysterious Mike M of the fmcsa audit squad is the same forum poster known as Myth_Buster??

I'll have to admit, I haven't read ALL of his prior posts, but I have muddled through a few of them. And I seem to remember quite a few posts aimed at ridiculing him...... none by me, of course, or at least arguing with him.

Why did you need to "invite" someone here who has been here for some time now and posted 104 times?

I'm just asking. I don't want to waste time going through all this again with the wrong guy. So... Mike M is Myth_Buster??

Did you see the part where I called him "Mike"? :roll:


He was a regular poster on TruckNet under the name John Q. Public, and came here under a different name. When he first started posting, I believed him to be someone pretending to be John Q., when in fact he was one in the same.


And would you look at that! The answers he provided here are the same ones he provided me! I guess my questions weren't so horribly worded like you claimed them to be after all!