why????
- Thread starter elway
- Start date
Interesting question. Did the few companys that chose not to make use of you and your CDL say it was because of the seatbelt tickets?
If that was the case, perhaps they felt that if you weren't taking advantage of all of the tools useful for your personal safety, you wouldn't use all of the tools useful for the safety of their freight.
If that was the case, perhaps they felt that if you weren't taking advantage of all of the tools useful for your personal safety, you wouldn't use all of the tools useful for the safety of their freight.
2millionplus
Expert Expediter
2millionplus
As we all know, seat belt use, is a DOT regulation. You must use the seat belt whenever you are in a commericial vehicle. If you look in the Green Book, you will see this. Hotfreight has the right idea
Just my two cents, and as a recruiter, I too, would really check these tickets also and disqaulify for non-use.
2millionplus
As we all know, seat belt use, is a DOT regulation. You must use the seat belt whenever you are in a commericial vehicle. If you look in the Green Book, you will see this. Hotfreight has the right idea
Just my two cents, and as a recruiter, I too, would really check these tickets also and disqaulify for non-use.
2millionplus
Elway;
Carriers are bound by insurance comany hiring guidelines. Insurance companies do look at "points", but, what is most important to the insurance companies is "violation frequency". In other words, how many violations (usually "moving" violations) does this driver have within a specified period of time. This is the reason you will see most carriers listing in their hiring requirements things like "no more than three (3) moving violations within a three (3) year period" or "no more than two (2) moving violations in a one (1) year period". Drivers who have violations are much more likely to be involved in an accident. A study conducted by the American Transportation Research Institute shows the following statistics:
Violation/Conviction/Event Increase in Crash Likelihood
Reckless Driving Violation 325%
Improper Turn Violation 105%
Improper/Erratic Lane Change Conviction 100%
Failure to Yield Right of Way Conviction 97%
Improper Turn Conviction 94%
Failure to Stay in Lane Conviction 91%
Past Crash 87%
Improper Lane Change Violation 78%
Failure to Yield Right of Way Violation 70%
Driving Too Fast for Conditions Coviction 62%
False or No Logbook Violation 56%
Any Conviction 56%
Speeding More Than 15 MPH Over Limit Conviction 56%
Reckless/Careless/Inattentive/Negliegent Driving Conviction 53%
Disqualified Driver Violation 51%
Following Too Closely Conviction 50%
Improper Lane/Location Conviction 47%
Hours-of-Service Violation 41%
Any Moving Violation 41%
Following Too Closely Violation 40%
You can see that by having one crash alone, that you are 87% more likely to have another.
I do believe though that there may be a carrier willing and able to hire you. Perhaps consider sucessfully completing a driver improvement course and then apply to many carriers.
Hope this assists you,
HotFr8Recruiter
Carriers are bound by insurance comany hiring guidelines. Insurance companies do look at "points", but, what is most important to the insurance companies is "violation frequency". In other words, how many violations (usually "moving" violations) does this driver have within a specified period of time. This is the reason you will see most carriers listing in their hiring requirements things like "no more than three (3) moving violations within a three (3) year period" or "no more than two (2) moving violations in a one (1) year period". Drivers who have violations are much more likely to be involved in an accident. A study conducted by the American Transportation Research Institute shows the following statistics:
Violation/Conviction/Event Increase in Crash Likelihood
Reckless Driving Violation 325%
Improper Turn Violation 105%
Improper/Erratic Lane Change Conviction 100%
Failure to Yield Right of Way Conviction 97%
Improper Turn Conviction 94%
Failure to Stay in Lane Conviction 91%
Past Crash 87%
Improper Lane Change Violation 78%
Failure to Yield Right of Way Violation 70%
Driving Too Fast for Conditions Coviction 62%
False or No Logbook Violation 56%
Any Conviction 56%
Speeding More Than 15 MPH Over Limit Conviction 56%
Reckless/Careless/Inattentive/Negliegent Driving Conviction 53%
Disqualified Driver Violation 51%
Following Too Closely Conviction 50%
Improper Lane/Location Conviction 47%
Hours-of-Service Violation 41%
Any Moving Violation 41%
Following Too Closely Violation 40%
You can see that by having one crash alone, that you are 87% more likely to have another.
I do believe though that there may be a carrier willing and able to hire you. Perhaps consider sucessfully completing a driver improvement course and then apply to many carriers.
Hope this assists you,
HotFr8Recruiter
Well lucky for me i don't drive for you million or your company. But i guess a guy with no moving tickets aka no points on my MVR or accidents but who has some seat belt tickets i guess i should just give up my CDL. And lets say i do crash and burn knock on wood i don't but who would i really hurt besides me ??? and i guess when it comes to me insurance or not shouldn't i have a say in what i think is best for me ???
>is this because i can think and choose if i
>want o wear one or not ??
To be brutally frank it is probably because they see a poor choice showing a lack of judgement. There is no valid data to suggest going without a seatbelt is smart or beneficial in any way. There are tons of data proving the efficacy of seatbelts in reducing injuries and increasing survival rates in accidents. Additionally, it is the law. They may have concern that someone willing to disregard that law would be more prone to disregard other laws. My thoughts and observations. Others may differ.
Leo Bricker, 73's K5LDB, OOIDA 677319
Owner, Panther trucks 5507, 5508, 5509
Highway Watch Participant, Truckerbuddy
EO Forum Moderator
----------
Support the entire Constitution, not just the parts you like.
>want o wear one or not ??
To be brutally frank it is probably because they see a poor choice showing a lack of judgement. There is no valid data to suggest going without a seatbelt is smart or beneficial in any way. There are tons of data proving the efficacy of seatbelts in reducing injuries and increasing survival rates in accidents. Additionally, it is the law. They may have concern that someone willing to disregard that law would be more prone to disregard other laws. My thoughts and observations. Others may differ.
Leo Bricker, 73's K5LDB, OOIDA 677319
Owner, Panther trucks 5507, 5508, 5509
Highway Watch Participant, Truckerbuddy
EO Forum Moderator
----------
Support the entire Constitution, not just the parts you like.
>Well lucky for me i don't drive for you million or your
>company. But i guess a guy with no moving tickets aka no
>points on my MVR or accidents but who has some seat belt
>tickets i guess i should just give up my CDL. And lets say i
>do crash and burn knock on wood i don't but who would i
>really hurt besides me ??? and i guess when it comes to me
>insurance or not shouldn't i have a say in what i think is
>best for me ???
Who would you hurt besides yourself ? I bet if you rode a motorcycle you wouldn't wear a helmet . Every one of us that pays liability insurance pays higher rates because of medical costs of injuries to people that feel no one should force them to protect themselves
>company. But i guess a guy with no moving tickets aka no
>points on my MVR or accidents but who has some seat belt
>tickets i guess i should just give up my CDL. And lets say i
>do crash and burn knock on wood i don't but who would i
>really hurt besides me ??? and i guess when it comes to me
>insurance or not shouldn't i have a say in what i think is
>best for me ???
Who would you hurt besides yourself ? I bet if you rode a motorcycle you wouldn't wear a helmet . Every one of us that pays liability insurance pays higher rates because of medical costs of injuries to people that feel no one should force them to protect themselves
It also reflects on an applicants respect for authority and attention to detail. In a nutshell it shows that an individual will not do what they are asked to do whenever they don't feel like doing it. (Even after they have been reprimanded).
Responsibility in a few small things leads to greater responsibility and more opportunity for better things.
Scott
Responsibility in a few small things leads to greater responsibility and more opportunity for better things.
Scott
pocketpath
Seasoned Expediter
Stop your whining. Buckle up and drive on!
nightcreacher
Veteran Expediter
2 seat belts is like 1 moving
its the law
its the law
dhalltoyo
Veteran Expediter
I would I have thought after the first ticket the message should have been clear.
And a simple reply to these other seasoned professionals such as, "You guys are right and I will take that driver's improvement course," would have most likely resulted in some one helping you to find a carrier via a personal referral.
Pride is our worst enemy.
And a simple reply to these other seasoned professionals such as, "You guys are right and I will take that driver's improvement course," would have most likely resulted in some one helping you to find a carrier via a personal referral.
Pride is our worst enemy.
themagicoen
Expert Expediter
I'm with him, even though I wear my belt - It should be your choice if want to wear it or not, inside you car/truck/house/etc is your personal private space and you should be able to do what you want inside of it. We get mad at the government for trying to ease drop on our calls, getting into our personal lives yet we let them have stupid laws like this. Okay I'm done rambling.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
You know that the insurance companies pushed the primary seat belt laws. I feel that every motorcycle rider should wear a helmet because I have to wear a seat belt AND that every motor cycle should not be allowed to have straight pipes because I have to have a muffler.
My point is that there should be no exceptions.
My point is that there should be no exceptions.
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
The big reason we have seatbelt laws is cause the insurance lobbyists. Another big reason is because the government is writing laws that "protect" us from being stupid... ie laws against personal choice.
DOT mandates seatbelt use because it gives us the best chance to remain in control of our vehicle, rather than getting tossed out of the seat and have no chance. That, I tend to agree with. It is there, not necessarily to protect our lives, but to protect the public at large. Kinda like those emergency ramps on steep downgrades. Chances are, if you use one, you won't survive. But it's better than not using it, and you protect the public.
"If I claim to be a wise man, it surely means that I don't know." - Kansas
DOT mandates seatbelt use because it gives us the best chance to remain in control of our vehicle, rather than getting tossed out of the seat and have no chance. That, I tend to agree with. It is there, not necessarily to protect our lives, but to protect the public at large. Kinda like those emergency ramps on steep downgrades. Chances are, if you use one, you won't survive. But it's better than not using it, and you protect the public.
"If I claim to be a wise man, it surely means that I don't know." - Kansas
Magic you make some grat points. The funny thing is at one time motorcyle riders protested about wearing a helmet and now they don't have to because they thought it was there choice. I think the only reason a Seat Belt's are laws is beacuse its a quick buck for the states. Just another way big brother is helping us out but the funny thing is i think i know whats best for me some may agree some may not but thats what make it great you have that choice think about it