Who said anything about a six hour break? I can run 1500 miles no problem with maybe a 20 minute power nap. So, why should my carrier limit me? I agree; if you can't pull the run don't accept the load offer. But, the run needs to be completed on the drivers terms within the protect times, not the carriers terms within the protect times!
Are you being macromanaged?
- Thread starter blizzard2014
- Start date
Who said anything about a six hour break? I can run 1500 miles no problem with maybe a 20 minute power nap. So, why should my carrier limit me? I agree; if you can't pull the run don't accept the load offer. But, the run needs to be completed on the drivers terms within the protect times, not the carriers terms within the protect times!
I had to stop and take an hour nap on a 400 mile run the other night. I sure as hell will police myself when I hit the rumble strips once or twice. That being said, I have never been late on a load; even thousand milers that I have run straight through with an occasional 20 minute power nap.
This is a business where you are paid per unit. In our case it is the miles that are the units. The more units that you produce; Ie, miles that you run, the more money you earn. If you can't pull thousand milers overnight at least once or twice a month, you are simply in the wrong business. But you need to be able to do it on your own terms; not the companies terms.
By that point you are way beyond policing yourself. What if that first rumble strip is a pedestrian or disabled vehicle?
I believe I know exactly who your friend is at the unnamed carrier!
Hitting the rumble strips once can be a signal. Hitting it twice before considering it a need to "police" oneself should be a wake up call, no pun intended. Legally averaging much over 60mph is a stretch. That's probably why around 750 miles is what's sensibly considered an extended run. Anything over that needs a sensible nap/break built in the total time available.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Blizzard, there is no way you can say legally. The DOT has nothing to do with the company, the contract or the management of the fleet for specific loads. The company can tell the driver what to do with that load, they are in control, not the driver and it is not an employee/contractor thing.
Hate to break this to you but independent is not a word that is use properly in this industry unless the driver/owner works under their own authority, then there is independent. You work under contract to a carrier which you and the carrier are regulated, regardless what you are driving. You have to meet some requirements, like safe driving while the carrier has to meet federal and state requirements.
I am still waiting for some actual proof that they can't do some of these things. I asked OOIDA and they came up with ZERO, I also asked a lawyer who deals with labor issues and they said ZERO.
Self-policing in this industry, that's a frick'n joke. TOO many immature idiots.
Independent contractors often work at company sites, and while there, they must adhere to the company's rules. If contractors choose not to wear hardhats or steel toes or safety harnesses or whatever else the company might require them to do, the company will lessen their liability risk by simply firing them and replacing them with contractors who will honor their regulations.
Being an independent contractor doesn't mean you get free reign to operate as you want, unless you're willing to accept the consequences of not being called back.
To me, blowing off the rules which were implemented to ensure you operate safely and then complaining about being forced to work in an unsafe manner is a little over the top.
So, all this is happening to your "friends"? We are getting whine by way of second hand. I have as little tolerance for second hand storys as I would for second hand beer. Maybe you should jes go er alone hauling those clocks, or, sumpin, steada putting up with all this "crap" YOU don't believe in.
I am failing to see the complication in this. Your "friend" is a leased driver. The carrier has no interest in sharing the liability if he kills someone in the 15th hour of his trip. They (the carrier) shares a percentage of liability if they knowingly let that driver proceed. Has nothing to do with sitting there looking at bugs on the glass for several hours.
If you are wanting to gamble that kind of risk, run under your own authority. Just be prepared for the end result if something happens.
And like the others, don't see the logic in unplugging the QC to prevent a swap only to whine later that the run is too long.
That thought by itself tells me he/she is too tired to think.
I would be concerned with much bigger things IF this is the logic your "friend" is using.
No need to complicate the simple.
If you are wanting to gamble that kind of risk, run under your own authority. Just be prepared for the end result if something happens.
And like the others, don't see the logic in unplugging the QC to prevent a swap only to whine later that the run is too long.
That thought by itself tells me he/she is too tired to think.
I would be concerned with much bigger things IF this is the logic your "friend" is using.
No need to complicate the simple.
Last edited:
Mike99
Veteran Expediter
The unnamed carrier is Panther?
Stories like this are EXACTLY why some people NEED to be 'Macro-Managed', and even need to be MICRO-managed... and are also why eventually we will be forced to log.
Truckers used to run 1000 miles or more at a time too.... and took drugs to stay awake, drugs to sleep, and the death tolls told the story. Therefore we have more safety regulations, EOBR, HOS etc... when a group of people CANNOT or WILL NOT police themselves to provide service safely, then the rules get tighter. People who did this stuff, and caused accidents and deaths are EXACTLY the reason we now have the stronger governmental oversight they love to complain about.. and they are the reason these companies now cover their but by regulating more breaks, etc...
You can't fix stupid.
Dale
Truckers used to run 1000 miles or more at a time too.... and took drugs to stay awake, drugs to sleep, and the death tolls told the story. Therefore we have more safety regulations, EOBR, HOS etc... when a group of people CANNOT or WILL NOT police themselves to provide service safely, then the rules get tighter. People who did this stuff, and caused accidents and deaths are EXACTLY the reason we now have the stronger governmental oversight they love to complain about.. and they are the reason these companies now cover their but by regulating more breaks, etc...
You can't fix stupid.
Dale
danthewolf00
Veteran Expediter
this sounds like stuff bolt use to pull with me.
easyrider2697
Expert Expediter
I doubt it..some of the terms used in the story are Panther terms, but I doubt it was a Panther van...prolly a smaller carrier...but as said before..secondhand info is not always the way it really happened.
I think your way off on saying it was Panther. 1st off the phone calls are recorded. 2nd The people in safety are really tuff and they wouldn't ask that, I know this for a fact. 3rd Panther wouldn't put a single driver on a load like this unless the driver can log a break or take a break.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Well Dan ..... since you decided to go there - why not elaborate on exactly what "stuff" it was that Bolt "pulled" on you.
I can say that Bolt has never even suggested that I not take a break when I informed Dispatch that I was going to (I have had them ask if I wanted a wakeup call
) ...... nor have they suggested I unplug the qualcomm .... nor have they suggested that I stop for a rest break when I am not tired ....They however, do expect me to be a responsible adult, capable of good judgement ....... and to not accept loads that I am incapable of running (and completing) safely, on time .....
It is slightly unfair that you would come on here and accuse something .... but then not even be specific about what you are accusing them of ....
danthewolf00
Veteran Expediter
arcabold,oh to larado,tx called bolt up and told them when a few miles outside of kc that i was going to grab a short nap was called back told to going to a cross dock..took them the 3 hours to find a cross dock and moved to a metro van...
fort wayne,ind to riverside,ca passed on this one do to only given 44 hours to drive it.
mind you rlent alot of staff is no longer there when i was there alot got the layoff or out right fired. glad to see bolt is doing so much better.
* and alot of what you get handed by your carrier is how they see you as a service provider
fort wayne,ind to riverside,ca passed on this one do to only given 44 hours to drive it.
mind you rlent alot of staff is no longer there when i was there alot got the layoff or out right fired. glad to see bolt is doing so much better.
* and alot of what you get handed by your carrier is how they see you as a service provider
Last edited:
Ind to Riverside? I see nothing wrong with that...my whoppy doopy math tells me with good time management a van driver could pull that off no problem...
even IF something came up...I'd blame dispatch for me being late...after all they gave it to ya...
even IF something came up...I'd blame dispatch for me being late...after all they gave it to ya...
These are awfully strong words of condemnation. I challenge you to produce statistics backing up any carnage, any whatsoever, of expedite van drivers. I understand FedEx and Panther drivers are strangled by company policy. Yet, the facts do not show any truth to assertions that expedite van drivers at small carriers which allow drivers to police themselves through common sense have a higher rate of accidents.
I submit any driver who is morbidly obese is a much greater danger to public safety on the highways. In fact, CSA 2010 intends to address this very situation of dangerous fat people behind the wheel. Perhaps, stupid can be fixed through CSA 2010.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
It would be a little tighter than I would personally care for .... but it could be done (safely and on time
) ...... depending on how rested you were when you got the call ......
Last edited: