Golfhobo wayyyyyy over the edge:
Quote:
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!
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:
Quote:
4. Ensuring Drivers Are Properly Identified
Many commenters discussed how drivers could be properly identified.
Some favored using a password or PIN number for identification, while
others believe these methods would not adequately protect drivers
against fraud and falsification. Technologies advocated by commenters
include smart cards and biometrics, although some were concerned that
biometric technology would be too expensive or unreliable.
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:
Quote:
Privacy was a significant consideration in FMCSA’s development of this proposal. As stated earlier, we recognize that the need for a verifiable EOBR audit trail—a detailed set of records to verify time and physical location data for a particular CMV— must be counterbalanced by privacy considerations. The Agency considered, but rejected, certain alternative technologies to monitor drivers’ HOS (including in-cab video cameras and biomonitors) as too invasive of personal privacy
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:
Quote:
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.
The federal rules clearly state:
Quote:
§396.9 Inspection of motor vehicles in operation.
(a) Personnel authorized to perform inspections — Every special agent of the FMCSA (as defined in Appendix B to this subchapter) is authorized to enter upon and perform inspections of motor carrier's vehicles in operation.
(b) Prescribed inspection report — The Driver Vehicle Examination Report shall be used to record results of motor vehicle inspections conducted by authorized FMCSA personnel.
The inspection below was performed 08/29/2008, notice the
REPORT STATE as
US:
Quote:
Report #: 0769110417
Report State: US
Inspection State: IL
Inspection Date: 8/29/2008
Start-End Time: 17:25 - 18:40
Inspection Level: 2-Walk-Around
Inspection Facility: Roadside
Post Crash Inspection: No
Section Code Unit OOS Violation Category Violations Discovered
171.2(A) 1 N ALL OTHER HM VIOLATIONS Failure to comply with HM regulations
172.301(A) 1 N ALL OTHER HM VIOLATIONS No shipping name or ID# on non-bulk
172.303(A) 1 N ACCEPTING SHIPMENT IMPROPERLY MARKED Prohibited HM marking on package
172.400(A) 1 N ALL OTHER HM VIOLATIONS Package/containment not labeled as required
172.401 1 N ALL OTHER HM VIOLATIONS Prohibited labeling
172.600(C) 1 N EMERGENCY RESPONSE ER info not available
173.24(C) 1 N USE OF NON-SPECIFICATION CONTAINER Unauthorized packaging
177.817(A) 1 N SHIPPING PAPER No shipping papers (carrier)
177.823(A) 1 N IMPROPER PLACARDING No placards/markings when required
385.415(A)(1) 1 N ALL OTHER DRIVER VIOLATIONS NO HM SAFETY PERMIT IN VEHICLE
390.21(A) 1 N ALL OTHER VEHICLE DEFECTS Not marked in accordance with regulations
397.19 1 N ALL OTHER HM VIOLATIONS No instructions/docs 1.1/1.2/1.3
391.41(A) D N MEDICAL CERTIFICATE No medical certificate
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
1/31/2008 IL-2008-35 Compliance Review
172.800(b) Offering or transporting w/o a security plan conforming to Subpart requirements 1 $8,770.00
391.45(b)(1) Using a driver not medically reexamined each 24 months 3 $5,190.00
395.8(a) Failing to require driver to make a record of duty status 18 $18,000.00
395.8(e) False reports of records of duty status 20 $20,000.00
396.21(b) Failing to retain periodic inspection report for 14 months 9 $6,120.00
http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/SafeStat/Saf...m=&PageN=EH#EH
Quote:
8/7/2008 IL-2008-384 Compliance Review
180.417(b) Failing to include all required information on test/inspection report. 1 $3,550.00
Quote:
6/30/2008 IL-2008-372 Compliance Review
395.3(a)(2) Req./perm. property CMV driver to drive after 14 hours on duty 4 $6,120.00
http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/SafeStat/Saf...m=&PageN=EH#EH
Some times my success is better than other times.
Quote:
MY "safety Director" would have had him for LUNCH!
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….
Quote:
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?
Actually it’s a silver Impala.
Quote:
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.
I gave one above here is a sample from another carrier:
Quote:
Inspection Date-Report State-Report Number-Insp. Level-Unit Description-VIN Number-Unit License Number-Unit License State-Vehicle OOS Violations
19 4/17/2008 US 0769110407 2 TRUCK TRACTOR 4V4MD2GF0YN252491 P542272 IL 0
20 4/17/2008 US 0769110410 2 TRUCK TRACTOR 1M2AA13Y6NW018883 P542255 IL 1
21 4/17/2008 US 0769110412 2 TRUCK TRACTOR 4V4MD2GFGYN25247 IL 0
22 4/17/2008 US 0769110414 2 TRUCK TRACTOR 1FUJA3CG61LQ57697 P542243 IL 0
23 4/17/2008 US 0769110413 2 TRUCK TRACTOR 1FUJA3CG61L057750 P542244 IL 0
24 4/17/2008 US 0769110411 2 TRUCK TRACTOR 4V4MD2GF8YN252478 P542273 IL 0
25 4/17/2008 US 0769110409 2 TRUCK TRACTOR 4V4MD2GF0YN252474 P542269 IL 3
26 4/17/2008 US 0769110408 2 TRUCK TRACTOR 4V4MD2GF9YN252473 P542268 IL 0
27 4/16/2008 GA CAS3003372 2 TRUCK TRACTOR 1XKTDR9X7VJ754931 P542296 IL 0
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.
Quote:
The truck driver was sentenced to two years imprisonment for logbook and service violations and although his lack of rest was not proven to have contributed to the train accident, the judge sentencing his trial commented that the driver would have been more able to make safe driving decisions had he had more rest. This error, resulting from a bad driving decision resulted in the deaths and serious personal injuries to many of the train's passengers.
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:
Quote:
1/8/2004 AZ-2004-41 Compliance Review
395.8(e) Failing to properly enter duty status during meal stops 78 $37,440.00
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.