You knew it was coming. DOT bans handheld cell phones in trucks.

[OntarioVanMan]

someone turn off the life support in this thread?

so officer..why did you take so long to respond and these people died from gunfire?

I had to pull over and type in my response sir....

 

[layoutshooter]

Gunfire has nothing to do with cell phones. Back on topic please!

 

[BigCat]

I have a motor trend from pilot. It was around $59 plus tax but I love it. The wife tells me she can here me fine too!

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Well NO one NEEDS a radar detector..except those intending to break the law and speed...

You all can whine all ya want...fact remains..no cell phone use for trucks....

The only thing I can't stand more than whiners, are people who tell me what I need or don't need, and why I need or don't need it. It's really nunya if I plan to speed or not, unless I run over you while doing it.

 

[Turtle]

That's exactly it. If you talk on a cell phone and have an accident, then you should be put through the ringer, but if you talk on one and don't have an accident, then you've done nothing wrong.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

That's exactly it. If you talk on a cell phone and have an accident, then you should be put through the ringer, but if you talk on one and don't have an accident, then you've done nothing wrong.

No doubt! Government is trying to legislate people from being stupid; when all it really does is make us stupider. Yes, stupider is a word. Surprised me too. LOL

 

[greg334]

OK this isn't a law, it is a regulation. A bit of a difference.

When you come down to it, how will it be enforced and will it hold up in court if someone decides to challenge it?

I really am thinking that there isn't much to worry about for most who don't use the 'handsfree' thing, like those with hearing aids because they can't police most of the roads now, let alone police the millions of cell phones out on the road.

 

[moose]

OK this isn't a law, it is a regulation. A bit of a difference.
No kiden, a law ,by law must past strikers guidelines, like an environmental study, the effect on fmall businesses, and funding.
while a Regulation can avoid all those none seances
When you come down to it, how will it be enforced and will it hold up in court if someone decides to challenge it?
are you talking about an individual case where a driver is questioning the ticket,
Or a court action questioning the Regs itself ?
so far i did not read about even one group seeking a court challenging the new regulations.

I really am thinking that there isn't much to worry about for most who don't use the 'handsfree' thing, like those with hearing aids because they can't police most of the roads now, let alone police the millions of cell phones out on the road.

not NOW, but they are going to police every single call made in the US.
the goal is to make those records available for EVERY local LEO in real time, by 2018.

Utah's $1.5 billion cyber-security center under way | Deseret News

 

[greg334]

The point is that some among us don't see it that way, they miss the idea that the regulation is just a regulation can be overturned by a lot of different ways. Laws are a bit different, they are enacted for those who think they are the same as regulations.

I'm speaking of a court action from on a ticket based on a federal regulation through the state. In this case, the FMCSA may have done the same thing they did with HOS and no one will care as it is and has been a concerted effort to fix the problems of poor drivers by attacking the distraction and not the driver. So from my point of view, this is almost impossible to enforce, especially when the states already lack the means to enforce speedlimits and other more important things.

not NOW, but they are going to police every single call made in the US.
the goal is to make those records available for EVERY local LEO in real time, by 2018.

Utah's $1.5 billion cyber-security center under way | Deseret News

Really, this is already being done through the FBI and other federal agencies, don't see the need for them to "build" something else that will be ineffective. I think this may be challenged in court by the ACLU which would be a good thing. The invasion of privacy is still a valid issue and will be for a while.

 

[moose]

Greag i do not see this as an enforcement issue,
it is more of liability problem for truckers.
at this point the FMCSA simply ignored OOIDA request for clarifications , regarding other uses of the devices. such as for navigation.(i can go more into details here)
but the FMCSA did say that LEO DO NOT have the right to look into the call records and match it to let say a loog book, to verify compliance.

the US Gov. openly admitted it's spying on American, and it DID stand court challenges in the past.
this is not only going to be used against truckers, but mainly HLS, and crime wars.
as LEO will have a personal file on every single American, on the top of the, taxpayer issued, laptop.
every single online post, picture taken Ext. if it online it will be filed under the user SSC#.
science fiction ?, no more.

 

[greg334]

I understand, the liabilities seem to be there but again how does one get caught?

using a hands free device doesn't mean much then, right?

 

[moose]

I understand, the liabilities seem to be there but again how does one get caught?

Simply, while the roadside inspector do not have the authority to look into the phone, any judge will issue a warrant at the request of ANY LEO/crash investigator/layer/you name it.
and WILL compare phone records to driving logs, and technology found inside the cab.
id betchy'ah it'll quickly becomes a routine part of the DOT auditors.
it will becomes the truckers responsibility to show they owned the technology to obey the new Regs.
(one mounted fire extinguisher, one truck,Ext., and if a cell phone, one BlueTec air piece with a voice command, Ext.)

 

[greg334]

OK goes right back to how many of us actually get pulled into for an inspection and how many of us deal with DOT cops who are looking for things like this?

When they had their "blitz" for brake checks this year, I didn't see one truck pulled over those three weeks.

In my state, you know the place where hardly no one lives, there is a need to actually see proof of something when issuing a ticket, for example one reason why we don't really have traffic cams. The issuing officer has to have more than "opps there's a record" of it and seeing that this is an issue of using a handheld device opposed to using the phone at all, it is more of a burden for the officer to issue a ticket based on usage record because they have to prove that you were not using the speaker feature on the phone or a handsfree unit.

 

[BigCat]

Still don't know why this is such an issue for one here to understand. Get a headset with all that money your making and quit whining about it. What is the problem here? Government can/will enforce it the same as they do where handhelds are illegal all together. They won't be able to get everyone just the same as they can't get every speeder or litterer. If you are in an accident I bet the first thing checked is logs and cell phones.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Simply, while the roadside inspector do not have the authority to look into the phone, any judge will issue a warrant at the request of ANY LEO/crash investigator/layer/you name it.
and WILL compare phone records to driving logs, and technology found inside the cab.
id betchy'ah it'll quickly becomes a routine part of the DOT auditors.
it will becomes the truckers responsibility to show they owned the technology to obey the new Regs.
(one mounted fire extinguisher, one truck,Ext., and if a cell phone, one BlueTec air piece with a voice command, Ext.)

You're forgetting two things... the 4th and 5th Amendments. The trucker will never have the responsibility to prove his innocence in a criminal matter. A cell phone is NOT a piece of truck equipment. It is a personal item, much like underwear or earrings are. If they want to compare logs to phone records, why don't they do it now with Qualcomm? Because they can't. It will be shot down time and again, for being a breach of the 4th and 5th Amendments.

 

[BigCat]

You're forgetting two things... the 4th and 5th Amendments. The trucker will never have the responsibility to prove his innocence in a criminal matter. A cell phone is NOT a piece of truck equipment. It is a personal item, much like underwear or earrings are. If they want to compare logs to phone records, why don't they do it now with Qualcomm? Because they can't. It will be shot down time and again, for being a breach of the 4th and 5th Amendments.

Because as of right now you haven't had an accident so there is no need for an investigation of your personal property. The minute you are in an accident they will tear your truck apart and go through it with a fine tooth comb and your phone then becomes evidence. If they feel you were distracted they will start trying to eliminate distractions.

Besides most states the troopers have the same power as d.o.t and if they know your breaking the law when they see you on the phone they can take action.

 

[moose]

The trucker will never have the responsibility to prove his innocence in a criminal matter. A cell phone is NOT a piece of truck equipment. It is a personal item,

Apparently, you did not took the time to read Linda's Post.

http://www.expeditersonline.com/forum/layover-lounge/51163-transportation-regulatory-trends.html

"The FMCSA, as part of its ongoing responsibilities, audits carriers and asks them if they use GPS to track their trucks. If a carrier says yes, they compare the GPS data to the paper logs. Between 30 and 70 percent of the time the entries don’t match."
...
so what you saying? , GPS - yes , CellPhone - no ?

 

[moose]

. The minute you are in an accident they will tear your truck apart and go through it with a fine tooth comb and your phone then becomes evidence..

not to mention, that there's a growing numbers of privet company's that offer this kind of service to the higher paying costumer, being it an investigations officer, of a lawyer .
those cellphone hold an stoning amount of information, and if you know how to get to that information. you gonna win any court case.

 

[pearlpro]

So when laws like this are passed the Carrier should have to provide a stipend to help purchase the technology,Then maybe they wouldnt be so quick to let this pass by, assuming the driver should be responsible. Ive used these technologies for a long time, Voice activated tech has been around for a while, many of the latest smartphones do it standard. But I too feel its an affront to drivers, are we not PROFESSIONAL, Capable of handling communications, GPS, Qualcomm while travelling, its done Millions of times each day without incident. If your incapable of doing two things at once maybe you best find another job. Im often manuevering traffic, watching the GPS, talking to dispatch all in City Traffic, I pride myself on safe driving, You dont need to be Unsafe to operate these devices efficiently, But Oh the Statistics. Ask a pilot how many things he has to do while in flight, while Im not a pilot Im watching traffic, Gauges, Anticipating traffic patterns and I do it day in and day out, in great conditions and Bad weather. They pass laws and take freedoms from us little by little soon well be robots riding along in an autonomous vehicle along for the ride to sign the paperwork !!! Seems the Lowly incompetent truck driver is the scapegoat for all Ills of society, Mistakes are made by citizens every day there are thousands killed each year by Mistakes/Accidents, But the truck driver gets blamed and then Laws are passed to make sure these Men and Women who have MILLIONS of safe driving miles are kept in check from being a danger to society, BAH HUMBUG