FMCSA's 395.1 states that the split sleeper requires "recalculation at the end of the first sleeper period". In the example I gave, that's exactly what I calculated. A driver who continued to drive until noon would then be required to take another 10 hour break - but there's no reason to wait until noon, if you're parked at 0730 - you can begin driving at 1530 [8 hrs] sleep. I have done it, because I sometimes put myself back in service after 8 hours, and once in awhile, I'll get a load offer immediately. And if it's one that won't permit the 2 hour sleeper I still need [to make the 10], then I have to decline - but that doesn't happen very often. Most of the time, I don't get an offer [or need to leave] until the remaining 2 hours have passed, and I have 10 consecutive hours.
You seem to differentiate between 10 consecutive hours and 10 hours broken into 2 periods, the first of which must be 8, while the actual regs make no such distinction: both equal a 10 hour break. [There are provisions for spending 2 hours before or after 8 in the sleeper, in the passenger seat also, but I don't need them, and so left them out.]
Like EOBRs, I think carriers ought to limit their interventions to those who demonstrate an inability to follow the rules, rather than impose penalties for everyone, in case they might screw up.
I'm sorry that "some companies don't want to complicate things", but drivers didn't create the rules [obviously!] and shouldn't be prevented from using them to full advantage, just because they're complicated.
Carriers should tell the FMCSA to write rules that make sense, IMO.
You seem to differentiate between 10 consecutive hours and 10 hours broken into 2 periods, the first of which must be 8, while the actual regs make no such distinction: both equal a 10 hour break. [There are provisions for spending 2 hours before or after 8 in the sleeper, in the passenger seat also, but I don't need them, and so left them out.]
Like EOBRs, I think carriers ought to limit their interventions to those who demonstrate an inability to follow the rules, rather than impose penalties for everyone, in case they might screw up.
I'm sorry that "some companies don't want to complicate things", but drivers didn't create the rules [obviously!] and shouldn't be prevented from using them to full advantage, just because they're complicated.
Carriers should tell the FMCSA to write rules that make sense, IMO.
Last edited:
