Vehicle Maintenance Violations and Team driving

[moose]

One more CSA loophole was found.
if you received a Vehicle Maintenance Violations at a team driving truck,
your carrier CSA score will be effected twice.
FMCSA claim the off duty driver was supposed to report the item on his post trip, while the active driver was supposed to mark this in his Pre trip Inspection.

 

[cheri1122]

The good news is that because it doubles the ding to carriers, it will get challenged. The rationale doesn't hold up: nothing says each team member is responsible for one inspection, pre or post, so the same driver can do both, and I'd bet they often do.
CSA is a poorly conceived and executed program that is NOT about safety, as claimed, [truck safety has been improving every year], it's about justifying to Congress the money requested for FMCSA, by compiling as many 'safety violations' as they can write up.
If it were about safety, it wasn't needed in such a hurry that it had to be put into place before all the 'bugs' could be found and worked out [like charging not at fault accidents against the driver and carrier, requiring them to challenge FMCSA to remove it!] but that's what they did.
Making it retroactive is just indefensible, period.
It's too bad they put trucks under the microscope, instead of tour buses - that would have saved quite a few lives this year.

 

[Deville]

Making it retroactive is just indefensible, period.
It's too bad they put trucks under the microscope, instead of tour buses - that would have saved quite a few lives this year.

Amen to that.

 

[greg334]

Actually it makes perfect sense, each person is responsible for that truck when they operate it and if there is something that is not corrected when they are driving it, they are responsible for documenting it at the least on their logs. The DOT has to assume it is a problem that both knew because they are not mind readers.

There is also a question whether to push the officer into giving you a citation in order to appeal it or allowing an unappealable warning to go on the record. There doesn't seem to be a lot of push back on the issue of appeals by the OOIDA who seems to be more worried about other things. But seeing that a warning is still the same as a citation under the csa, it may be better to have them write you up and go through the long process of appeals to get it off your record than not have any options at all.

 

[layoutshooter]

No Greg, it does NOT make sense. The idea that the off duty driver was aware of the problem makes an assumption that the problem we evident when they did their post trip inspection. That is hardly a given. I have been driving and seen a highlight go out. Had I been stopped before I got it fixed BOTH of us would get dinged even though that light was working when my wife quit for the evening. On that occasion I had to travel about 30 miles with that light out to get to a place the I considered safe to change the bulb. There is just no room for normal problems in CSA. It is flawed and ONLY about money.

Lights go out when they feel like it. Changing them on the shoulder of the highway on a dark and rainy night is FAR more of a safety hazard then running without a head light till you reach a rest area or truck stop.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

I was at a warehouse and they had posted their CSA scores and violations...

How is it a seatbelt infraction is a 3x multiplier and a HOS violation is only a 2x multiplier?

What does a seatbelt have to do with the safety of the public?

 

[layoutshooter]

I was at a warehouse and they had posted their CSA scores and violations...

How is it a seatbelt infraction is a 3x multiplier and a HOS violation is only a 2x multiplier?

What does a seatbelt have to do with the safety of the public?

Why is it that not having a FMSCA inspection sticker is worth 4 points but driving without a windshield is only worth 2 points? Double that if you are a team of course.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

I think some have their ties done up too tight....

 

[layoutshooter]

I think some have their ties done up too tight....

Or not tight enough!

 

[TeamCaffee]

Joe I think you are getting a little carried away....

If your tires are worn down to slicks both drivers are going to get hit with points.

A headlight going out can be fought pretty easily as well as other things that go wrong that do not involve a long wear time.

 

[JimmyB]

Joe I think you are getting a little carried away....

If your tires are worn down to slicks both drivers are going to get hit with points.

A headlight going out can be fought pretty easily as well as other things that go wrong that do not involve a long wear time.

I was still driving when CSA kicked in. I was down in New Mexico when I had a headlight go out. I was stopped by Highway Patrol, received a headlight violation. When it showed up on my CSA Report I was able to dispute the infraction by giving an explanation that the light had went out while in transit and it was promptly removed from my report.

Most of these infractions are very very simple to dispute and have removed, you just have to put in the 10 mins to file the dispute, all of which can be done online with no fee involved. I do not remember the URL right off hand but I'm sure one can google it.

 

[iceroadtrucker]

It is all common sense. You dont need a Masters degree for that. But then again some people are so smart because of the college education, that the common sense they were born with got lost some where if they ever had any.

 

[layoutshooter]

Joe I think you are getting a little carried away....

If your tires are worn down to slicks both drivers are going to get hit with points.

A headlight going out can be fought pretty easily as well as other things that go wrong that do not involve a long wear time.

I was just countering Greg. The FMSCA sticker and the windshield was brought up by OOIDA.

Tires etc are the responsibility of the team. I have seen some funny things at inspections. Hard to fight them or even prove it.

Example:

Jan was driving, I was asleep. She got pulled into a scale in California. Low and behold, we had a bad brake chamber. Now, I can tell just by looking at the gauges when I have a hole in a chamber. So can Jan. We had had NO problems with brakes all day. She saw no problem when she stopped. After the guy had been under there for a bit he had her hit the brakes, I could hear the leak from inside the sleeper. Put out of service and was handed a list of "approved" repair shops who came out there.

I don't believe for ONE SECOND that chamber was bad when we went in there. After all, it was just replace only 2 weeks before. Can I PROVE he cut it? NO. I surely believe he did.

Now, I have had the other side of the coin as well. A scale guy saw a tail light out, just had me fix it. Another one saw a tail light out, he said that the ice had been tearing things up bad all week, he gave me directions to a repair shop.

The point being that there is far too much room for abuse by officials. There also seems that safety is not the driving reason for this. The WIndshield out being only one point is a good example of that.

 

[ATeam]

One more CSA loophole was found.
if you received a Vehicle Maintenance Violations at a team driving truck,
your carrier CSA score will be effected twice.
FMCSA claim the off duty driver was supposed to report the item on his post trip, while the active driver was supposed to mark this in his Pre trip Inspection.

I've heard talk of this but never seen anything official. This loophole you refer to, what is it exactly? Where is it written?

 

[ATeam]

If your tires are worn down to slicks both drivers are going to get hit with points.

A headlight going out can be fought pretty easily as well as other things that go wrong that do not involve a long wear time.

Same question for you that I asked Moose. Where is it written that an off-duty or in-sleeper driver would be cited for a worn tire violation? I can think of several scenarios where the on-duty driver would be presumed to know of the bad tire but the off-duty or in-sleeper driver would not.

 

[TeamCaffee]

My thoughts are if I sign off on a post trip that everything is fine on the truck and there is not any tread on the tires then I falsified the log.

 

[ATeam]

My thoughts are if I sign off on a post trip that everything is fine on the truck and there is not any tread on the tires then I falsified the log.

In which case, you could be charged with a violation. But that has nothing to do with the co-driver, does it?

Setting a context may be helpful. Where and how would it happen that you would sign off on a post trip and then be later found by an officer to be falsly reporting the tire condition on the post-trip inspection form?

But that is not my real question. I want to know where it is in the regs that an officer can cite both co-drivers for an equipment violation when only one of the drivers is on duty at the time.

Officers cite on-duty drivers for violations all the time at the time of inspection. Under what authority and observation could an officer ticket both drivers in a truck when only one if them is repsonsible for the truck at any one time?

 

[OntarioVanMan]

In which case, you could be charged with a violation. But that has nothing to do with the co-driver, does it?

Does a co-driver not fill out a log book?.....how do you get around woren tires? they just don't happen in 11 hours do they?

 

[nightcreacher]

if first driver signs off on a post trip that all is well,but isnt,and the second driver also signs off that all is well,but isnt,on pre trip,they both get the violation
This is for all you guys running California.They have a law that even though your fire extinguisher is inside your cab,not side box,you still need signadge on the door that your extinguisher is inside the cab.They are the only state that requires this.I passed a DOT there at Banning,but in the notes he put about the fire extinguisher.No points at least not yet

 

[greg334]

No Greg, it does NOT make sense. The idea that the off duty driver was aware of the problem makes an assumption that the problem we evident when they did their post trip inspection.

It makes sense because no one has yet to learn how to time travel to see what the other person has done or not done. You as a DOT inspection officer has to assume that the co-driver has either driven the truck or been part of the team - NOT OFF DUTY. You actually mark off duty when you are in the sleeper?

That is hardly a given. I have been driving and seen a highlight go out. Had I been stopped before I got it fixed BOTH of us would get dinged even though that light was working when my wife quit for the evening.

It depends. A headlight out that can be different than say an out of adjusted brake or a broken air line.

On that occasion I had to travel about 30 miles with that light out to get to a place the I considered safe to change the bulb.

Yes it happens but that's not what I am saying.

There is just no room for normal problems in CSA. It is flawed and ONLY about money.

There isn't room for normal problems in CSA because there were never room for it to begin with. CSA isn't the problem, the regs are and they are clear about it.

Money?

I keep hearing this thing about money but where? You get a warning, where's the money part?

Lights go out when they feel like it. Changing them on the shoulder of the highway on a dark and rainy night is FAR more of a safety hazard then running without a head light till you reach a rest area or truck stop.

I know, maybe converting to LED helps, you rich FedEx people should get a group discount for the lights and have that place that does the Qualcomm work install them for you.

I was still driving when CSA kicked in. I was down in New Mexico when I had a headlight go out. I was stopped by Highway Patrol, received a headlight violation. When it showed up on my CSA Report I was able to dispute the infraction by giving an explanation that the light had went out while in transit and it was promptly removed from my report.

Most of these infractions are very very simple to dispute and have removed, you just have to put in the 10 mins to file the dispute, all of which can be done online with no fee involved. I do not remember the URL right off hand but I'm sure one can google it.

This is one of the reasons why many are now looking at telling the officer to give them a violation opposed to a warning, the violation has a way of appeal but the warning doesn't.