van line haul distance

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
One size will never fit all and I don't believe anyone is suggesting it will. I believe the suggestion is there needs to be some sort of common sense standards that cover the 80 of the 80/20 in the bell curve. That means there will always be a few who are cut off before they (think they) need to be. There will also be a few who are regularly allowed more than they should be.

As someone said previously, the key is YET. Those so proud of their accomplishments in hyper distance with no problems are the ones with no problems YET. Truthfully, I don't care if some don't like it and I don't care if some know (in their mind only) they are fully capable of more than the sensible limit, they need to be restricted. We all need to be restricted... at some sensible level. My family is on the roadways regularly. That's plenty enough reason to put an upper limit on the few.
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
Leo wrote:

Truthfully, I don't care if some don't like it and I don't care if some know (in their mind only) they are fully capable of more than the sensible limit, they need to be restricted. We all need to be restricted... at some sensible level. My family is on the roadways regularly. That's plenty enough reason to put an upper limit on the few.

For the record, i think most of us here have family on the highways regularly if not daily....

Now i guess that until ALL carriers restrict their contractors, (which might make them employees....) those that want to be restricted need to drive for the comoanies that do, and those that don't feel the need to be restricted, need to drive for the companies that trust them to make the right decisions....because the is a fed mandate to control lower GVW vehicles (something we don't need) it will be up to the companies and the drivers.....
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
"The company has already limited their liability, they can cover their a** quickly by showing that you freely accepted the load, the shipper has no control over what happens so they are left out but you as the driver have all the responsibility and will bear the brunt of the problems. It is you that made that decision and you that, as Leo indicated "turned the key"."

True enough, the carrier can show that you freely accepted the load, but a jury will be asked to decide if that carrier was negligent in knowingly allowing a driver to accept a load that was unsafe to run. And the jury will largely be made up of people who think a 5 hour drive is an exhausting ordeal and a full work day is 8 hours. Most juries will not be able to fathom that you can drive 15 or 16 hours, sleep for 5 or 6 hours, and then keep on driving. If you have an accident near the end of that trip, they won't even bother to fathom whether or not it is safe.

If you are ever on a load and are on the phone with dispatch, and you mention that you are tired, sleepy, or that you'll be glad when you deliver so you can go to bed, and the carrier allows you to continue driving, and you get into an accident, that phone call will be pulled and reviewed by the DOT and by any lawyers involved in the subsequent civil and criminal trials.

In a trial, they will go after whoever has the deeper pocket, be it the driver, the vehicle owner, or the carrier. Guess who that is likely to be? Common sense, integrity and ethics of the driver is meaningless when it comes to potential liability in the millions of dollars. That's why most carriers have rules or policies in place to limit the driver's risk of an accident, and thus limit or eliminate their own liability.

Drivers who run these ridiculous miles without substantial breaks other than fuel, food and restrooms, and then say they completed the trip safely, are really only saying they completed the trip without having or causing an accident. While fatigue cannot be precisely quantified, your level of alertness and your response times are diminished when you are fatigued. Just because an accident didn't occur doesn't mean you weren't fatigued to the point where you were a danger to yourself and to others. A lot of people drive accident-free while drunk, but that doesn't mean they were safe.

A prudent carrier will have limits set on solos drivers to minimize the liability. They have to. Panther's 16 hour rule, while far from perfect, seems to be a very good compromise between limiting their liability and in letting an unregulated driver in an unregulated vehicle keep from being regulated by the same Draconian one-size-fits-all DOT HoS rules as the regulated vehicles are subject to.

By and large it's a good rule, it's just that sometimes it gets applied with absolutely no common sense or intelligence whatsoever. Too often they cling to that 47 MPH thing and make a determination as to whether or not you can deliver the load within the allotted 16 hours (at 47 MPH) without a 5 hour break, and if not, if you add in the 5 hour break, does that still leave you enough time to deliver. Sometimes assuming 47 MPH is the right thing to do. Like, a 1000 mile run from Buffalo, NY to Montgomery, AL. But a far, far different kind of trip would be a 1000 mile run from Tulsa, OK to Flagstaff, AZ. The driving times (not to mention driving stress levels) would be much different for each run, yet Dispatch is locked in on that 47 MPH, with common sense and intelligence not playing a factor.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
There is a huge difference between the federal government illegally breaching the Constitution in regulating firearms and carriers setting a company policy regarding load offers and dispatch.
Well ...... of course there is ..... :rolleyes:

But just as there is a difference, there is also a similarity - the primary one being:

Both are a reduction of freedom - and the confiscation of personal responsibility from the individual. One deprives the individual of a means of defending himself, the other would arbitrarily limit the individuals ability to earn a living.

Both concepts are really great ways to create a slave state.

If anyone here happens to think that the lessening of - indeed, the theft of - responsibility from an individual results in any betterment of the personal condition of that individual, well then, I would invite you take look around a bit .....

It never has, and it never will.

I'm not talking about a federal law, although I suspect eventually vans will be given the same HOS as 10,001# and larger vehicles.
Yeah ..... you have been singing that one for awhile now - at least the 3 or 4 years I've been around here .... given the amount of times you keep repeating it, you really seem to be a fan of the concept.

While I don't disagree that it may eventually happen - since that is the way these things generally go: It's always about making the individual less responsible for his own actions and conduct, and allowing him less freedom .... what is scary to me is that it is my guess that you would welcome it (regulation - Federal .... or any other variety)

A rather odd view in my estimation, for someone who claims to be a libertarian ..... :rolleyes:

I'm just asking what is sensible at a company level.
I understand - of course that is a question for each company to answer on it's own. It may well vary from company to company - based on a variety of factors.

In any event, the question as you posed it, really isn't a question you need concern yourself with - unless you are planning on buying a company and then calling the shots - if that is the case, then fine have at it .... (dunno .... maybe you plan on buying more vans and sticking drivers in them .....)

Or maybe you plan on signing up as a member of PATT (Parents Against Tired Truckers) .... or sending a check for membership dues into Joanie (Claybrook) over at Public Citizen ...... so you can participate in helping to - as DD put it - "save us from ourselves ....."

The question that you should really be asking is:

What is sensible on a personal level, for a specific individual ?

Of course, the correct answer is:

It varies ..... according to the individual involved ..... (as well as the particular circumstances leading up to, and involved with, a specific load, or loads)
 
Last edited:

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Rlent .. you know and I know ..it has little to do with safety and it is all about "liability" a carrier can say."Hey look at how safe we run" If a driver gets into an accident they can take the high road because they've C.T.A.
Yup.

In all your years on this forum how many CV drivers have you heard that has ditched it?
I know only of one ... the individual involved was a friend (fairly close) .... sadly, he didn't make it ..... :(

Because of lack of sleep ...
I don't know that lack of sleep was involved, and there certainly were other things that may have contributed to what happened (adverse weather conditions, among others)

How many stories have their been about CV's had horrific accident?
None actually on here, and only that one that I am personally aware of.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Rlent,
It is puzzling that there you can create any connection between the second amendment and the interstate commerce clause. I can agree with the assualts on the second amendment but come on with the ICC.

We work in a regulated industry, there are no regulations that have been used to restrict other freedoms, and it is our choice to work here. No one holds someone's family hostage and makes them drive a van or a truck, but this is where it gets to be something of a joke with a few of us over the idea that vans are exempt from any thing to do with the regulations.

The problem is many look at any regulations imposed on a van equats to an infringement on their rights, I have heard this cr*p from van drivers and owners, it's unfair that they have to follow the same rules as trucks like scaling in some states. I say TFB to them because this is a regulated industry so go flip burgers if you can't play by the rules.

States also regulate interstate and intrastate commerce. Michigan defines a commcerial vehicle as any vehicle that is used for commercial purposes. This messed up state further defines a truck within three different regulations from 5500 up to 8500lbs also is clear that there has to be proper signs on the vehicle but a lot of peopel feel that it is not the state to tell them to put a sign on their van. It has no real specific logging requirements but who know it could be anything over 5500 lbs if our state decides to go after more money.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I've thought all along the day will come when vans are required to follow HOS and I still believe that. I have no problem with sensible limitations on van operator HOS. That has nothing to do with illegally limiting one's rights under the Constitution. It has to do with common sense limits on folks who potentially otherwise would overdo it. If this is such a bad idea then maybe we should do away with HOS for big trucks too and let those guys drive the same way some of the van operators brag about driving.
 

Dakota

Veteran Expediter
My neck tightens up like a twisted rubberband when i need to stop...when i start to rub my neck, I stop....Last we i did a Seward Neb to Laredo Tx.. 1036 loaded miles...23 hours was the allotted time, i stopped 3 times and napped and was 3 hours early......I am not about to endanger myself let allone anyine self by driving when I know i shouldnt....now I will drive a Red Bull and a 5 hour energy from time to time, but not to stay awake, more for the boost it gives me ......

And your not bouncing up an down in your seat(Well, you might be i dunno) like I do in my straight truck. My neck is sore after a day on the rough highways:eek: Driving a van sounds appealing if only for ride comfort.
 
Last edited:

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Dakota,

Thank you for pointing out the obvious (although I rather suspect it will be lost on those that seem disinclined to bother looking, and in any event, are incapable of seeing)

You seem like a fellow that one could have a rational discussion with - unlike a (relatively) few other folks that post here .....

And your not bouncing up an down in your seat (Well, you might be i dunno) like I do in my straight truck. My neck is sore after a day on the rough highways Driving a van sounds appealing if only for ride comfort.
Ahhh .... so ...... you mean that it might be possible that it is in fact, more fatiguing to drive a big truck than it would be drive a vehicle whose ride and handling more like my wife's 2000 VW Passat ?

Seems like a reasonable premise to me .....
 

Dakota

Veteran Expediter
Dakota,

Thank you for pointing out the obvious (although I rather suspect it will be lost on those that seem disinclined to bother looking, and in any event, are incapable of seeing)

You seem like a fellow that one could have a rational discussion with - unlike a (relatively) few other folks that post here .....


Ahhh .... so ...... you mean that it might be possible that it is in fact, more fatiguing to drive a big truck than it would be drive a vehicle whose ride and handling more like my wife's 2000 VW Passat ?

Seems like a reasonable premise to me .....
Exactly, if your truck is uncomfortable, if the roads are rough, if you are fighting the wind all day. You will be more fatigued. I know that straight trucks have these problems in spades. A semi might be more comfortable with their air ride suspensions and air ride cabs etc. I know even in a van especially a Sprinter the wind problem can be very fatiguing.
Weather also has something to do with fatigue. I hate driving on snow and ice it is stressful. most of this stress is due to the other drivers around me, especially the SUV 4x4 drivers, who think that 65 is a safe speed on snow and ice. I drive as fast as I feel is safe and that is all. At the end of the day I am very fatigued. I don't think I could drive 11 hours in those conditions. I'd be done at around 8 I believe. We shall see this winter
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
As i read this thread I was wondering how long it was going to take before someone asked how we would feel with the government regulatiing guns more then they do now because of the reckless few....thank you Randy for asking...
CD,

You are quite welcome. The parallels are in fact fairly obvious ..... even if some here are incapable of making the connection.

What we are talking about here is, at it's most basic level, freedom .....

Some folks are fans of that (freedom), other folks not so much - despite what they claim. One has to look very closely, and in some detail, at the things people actually advocate - it can be very telling in terms of who they really are (as opposed to who they claim to be)
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
lets see..

after a big snow storm should we regulate a snow plow contractor? Who can be out there on our roads sometimes in excessive of 24 hours at a time?

How about a taxi operator...lets regulate him as well...


Regulate....= take away choses of the individual on someone elses perception of how things should be done....:eek:

We still have our choice when to be responsible or not...we have the freedom to chose....

Just because you big trucks gave up your right to drive/or were forced to comply..don't think we should to...
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Anarchy is a better solution??

You of all people in here Leo...

you are advocating restricting rights and
government control of an individuals responsibilities?

The rights of the few should be diminished for the rights of the many?
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
You guys are frickn' joking?

You are worried about regualtions in vans?

Your freedoms are being taken away by any suggestion of regulating vans?

Give me a break. There is no connection between freedoms and the use of a van in interstate commerce.

You are already regulated.. the dot officer in any state can tell you to sit for 10 hours to sleep. It is something that is not in your control because your work is interstate commerce, not deliving pizzas.

This is too funny.... but sad because some yahoo will read this and think it is alright to drive 18 hours and then get another load the next day with 4 hours sleep.

OVM, hate to break the news to you, taxis and taxi drivers are regulated. NYC has the strictest laws on the books and there is even a law limiting the on duty time for them.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
You guys are frickn' joking?

You are worried about regualtions in vans?

Your freedoms are being taken away by any suggestion of regulating vans?

Give me a break. There is no connection between freedoms and the use of a van in interstate commerce.

You are already regulated.. the dot officer in any state can tell you to sit for 10 hours to sleep. It is something that is not in your control because your work is interstate commerce, not deliving pizzas.

This is too funny.... but sad because some yahoo will read this and think it is alright to drive 18 hours and then get another load the next day with 4 hours sleep.

OVM, hate to break the news to you, taxis and taxi drivers are regulated. NYC has the strictest laws on the books and there is even a law limiting the on duty time for them.

And some yahoo as you put it...may read it and become responsible? ...other side of the coin...

NYC is not O/O's like other cities.....
I had NO regulations on hours of work....

I hear ya...we are regulated to some degree...but lets not give away the farm like the heavy trucks did....
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Rlent/Turtle....I am I sensing some wheel envy from these guys?*LOL*

Maybe us vans are hurting the straights..:confused:..and they want a pardon the liberal pun.."level playing field" :rolleyes:

By taking our advantage away from us vanners....
 

Moot

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
Top