FMCSA to Court: It should be so because we think it best.
- Thread starter ATeam
- Start date
Whats new? 
moose
Veteran Expediter
i have noticed that strange respond when i first red the FMCSA court filing. it was like they did not had any real leg to stand on. they did not provide ANY real rezone why they cam up with this none seance.
they basically said: we can't force drivers to step the 11 back to 10 hours, so in return & to try and satisfy the "safety" groups, we will do that 34 hours/2 nights home terminal thing in hope it will fly.
well it rightly did not.
the Gov. WILL loose this case.
i do not see ANY trucking business makes any planned modifications to be prepared for this new 34 limitations. looks like no one ever thought it will become reality.
Annette Sandberg said it best "the HOS will not be resolved during our life time".
the FMCSA dropped the ball with this one.
maybe now they'll stop ignoring drivers input.
probably not, but we can only hope.
they basically said: we can't force drivers to step the 11 back to 10 hours, so in return & to try and satisfy the "safety" groups, we will do that 34 hours/2 nights home terminal thing in hope it will fly.
well it rightly did not.
the Gov. WILL loose this case.
i do not see ANY trucking business makes any planned modifications to be prepared for this new 34 limitations. looks like no one ever thought it will become reality.
Annette Sandberg said it best "the HOS will not be resolved during our life time".
the FMCSA dropped the ball with this one.
maybe now they'll stop ignoring drivers input.
probably not, but we can only hope.
I guess arrogance flows from the top down.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
I bet the gummint wins. There have been a plethora of things that are unconstitutional, and the gummint's only leg on which to stand is, "Well, that's the way we want it," or "We think it needs to be that way." They rarely lose with that strategy.
Remember Kelo vs. New London? The local government and court systems clearly, slam-dunk in the wrong, yet they won.
The portion of the NDAA that allows the gummint to disappear anybody for any or no reason without access to a court was overturned--for about 48 hours recently. Government slam-dunk in the wrong. Then they appealed to another court and that court put a stay on the court order banning the practice, so now the gummint can, again, disappear you.
The ObamaCare law that mandated that you purchase health insurance--slam-dunk unconstitutional. Which side won?
Gun control? Blatantly illegal. Do constitutional arguments have a very good track record in court? A couple of recent victories aside, most times, a court won't even let you present a constitutional argument in your defense if you're prosecuted.
The entire logbook system that allows them to mandate that truck drivers maintain a logbook that they must sign and date and can be used as evidence against them--slam-dunk unconstitutional, but do you think it's going to be repealed any time soon? Drivers in this very board will defend it on ludicrous reasoning, and no court is going to strike down logbooks though they are repugnant to the Bill of Rights.
So don't get your hopes up. Oh, I guess they were slapped down before, but only because their mission statement said there was going to be science behind the new logbook law, and there wasn't.
This isn't Mayberry; the gummint largely does what they want, and court challenges are usually eyewash.