"Spy" is a pretty snide characterization, especially when you proclaim your own willingness to "report to Safety" any conditions and/or situations that you observe or become aware of, without that driver's knowledge.
Who said anything about "without that driver's knowledge?" If I am advocating against another driver, that driver will know it and know it from me.
As Greg says, that's Terry's job, and what he does should please you - or are you just miffed that you weren't offered the job?
No, I am not miffed. I would go on welfare before taking a job like that. First, the job comes with a boss. I'm self-employed because I don't want a boss. Second, the pay, I presume, is too low. I can do far better in my present position. Third, I would not enjoy making a living by looking for the worst in people and justifying my existence by ferreting out the faults. There are many other reasons why I would not want that job but those are the top three.
I know a case can be made for the positive aspects, like enhancing the safety rating for the carrier and maintaining the quality of the fleet but that's not how the job was presented to me by Terry when he explained it. He kept score by the number of inspections he did and violations he found. Not my cup of tea.
3 of the 8 violations stemmed from one light out! Which the driver stated was attended to immediately [but the mechanics found it working just fine], and the second inspection was just after, when the same light got 2 more violations [turn & flasher]. This could happen to any of us, yourself included.
I've already said that one violation [visible wires], was present on my truck when it received a 'no violations' inspection just last week - I had no idea it could be a violation, and bet most others didn't either.
Those two account for half the points, right there!
The fault began when the junker truck was accepted in the first place. It was a truck that prompted increased scrutiny because it looked so bad. Scale cops that might have written one ticket instead of two wrote two to get that piece of crap off the road. A truck that might have been bypassed was pulled in because it looked so bad.
I see no cause to belittle the driver's knowledge or motivation after reading the explanation.
She belittles herself, saying more than once, supported by facts, that she is stupid. She is harsher on herself than she needs to be. It might have been better to talk about the stupid deeds instead of the stupid person. Even smart people make stupid mistakes. On the other hand, some people make more mistakes than others, and those are the kind that end up with 100+ CSA points that others remain free of.
That being the case, one wonders why it's a favorite subject of yours - maybe so you can pat yourself on the back ?
I do not often mention, my CSA score, but I am proud of it, yes.
As Yesteryear's explanation illustrates, the paperwork doesn't always tell the WHOLE story, and terminating the driver [in this case, at least], would be grossly unfair.
We have different views on this. The paperwork may not tell the whole story but it tells enough to justify termination.
What about the fleet owner? Where's his penalty for failing to provide a truck in good condition?
That is an excellent question. A major hole exists in the CSA system that credits drivers with equipment violations while letting the truck owners go unpunished. Unless carriers pick up the slack and land hard of the truck owners too, that state of affairs will continue.
What I think, is that the Texas troopers either plan to ask for a budget increase, or are trying to avert potential cutbacks by scoring as many 'violations' as possible, to use as statistics in defense of their wants, and Yesteryear was just collateral damage.
And it could happen to any one of us, and probably will.
Yesteryear stated that one of the cops said he pulled in the truck because it looked so bad. That would not happen to anyone. It happened in this specific case because the truck looked bad. There is no outcry coming from truckers now about Texas cops who are running up the score. 100+ CSA points is not the result of bad luck or something that can happen to anyone. That is a very high number by any standard. It did not come from a lone, nit-picking cop. It came from a number of cops in a number of inspections.
No, it can't happen to anyone of us, not 100+ CSA points attributable to things beyond the driver's control. You make the case for that yourself when you cite the bare wires you had but did not get cited.
