Newbie/Wannabe Attitudes

That's just like talking to your co-driver is like driving drunk. Uh huh...lemme guess..you need a law for talking. Get the duct tape

 

"Every truck was overweight . Every driver was over hours ."
What were you on that brought on that paranoia and hallucinations ?

 

I was there....were you?

 

If you don't have a CDL, what were you doing at the scale house?

Must have been a lot of full spots out back if 'every driver' was over hours!

 

I have a cdl.

Have you ever run gravel pits in the oilfield?

I guess this is pretty hopeless, and pointless to boot. Enjoy yourselves at my expense!

 

Wow, you know a poster is talking smack when even a TTRF staff member calls BS on their post!!

 

If you failed a drug test, you don't have a CDL. At least not one that you can use.

 

Hi Scuby,

The phone I use has a button on the side. I can feel and press the button without looking. When I press the button the lady pipes up and says: "Please say a command". And I say: "Call Dispatch" or "Call 650 555 1212" and then she says "Did you say Call Dispatch?" and I say yes and the call completes. --As far as incoming calls... I can press the answer button without looking too. I answer all incoming calls. I don't need to look to see who it is before answering

And from what I'm reading the new ruling doesn't restrict talking on the phone. So if it's true that simply TALKING on the phone is as dangerous as driving drunk, then it is silly to allow talking on the phone, but get all uppity about holding it. LoL. --I can hold a burning object (cigarette) but can't hold a phone???

Like I said, I'm not against the hands-free rules (other then the exorbitant fines). I've been following hands-free rules in my home State for years. I just like pointing out the lunacy of some rules/laws.

So now apparently, They allow me to talk on a phone hands-free (which is as bad as driving drunk) and that will keep my "hands-free" so I can light my cigarette!


The Gryphon mentioned a test that would actually show if the driver is currently under the influence of pot. But that the DOT doesn't use that test. Too bad. Testing to see if a driver is ACTUALLY under the influence (like the BAC test does for alcohol) makes a lot of sense to me.

 

Read the thread that was locked. He gave the whole story.

 

It would make a TON of sense, which is probably why it's not yet DOT approved!

I think that we'll see oral fluids testing approved for DOT use at some point in the not too distant future, especially for post accident testing.

Why do I say that?

1) Short detection window
2) Extremely accurate, proven technology
3) Collections are quick and easy and can be done literally ANYWHERE
4) Comparable in price with urine testing and coming down in price as use/testing volume goes up
5) Already in use by 1000s of employers for non-DOT regulated testing