CSA score

I’ve only been driving since May and already have 12 pts for a trailer ABS light

 

Good thing is you don't have any points. You may have contributed to your company's csa score though.

Drivers have a psp report, which states a whole list of items like inspections, wrecks (fault or not), etc. There is, however, no points assigned.

 

Now I am going to circle back to my post in post #55. In all honesty there is no reason a bad carrier should drag you as a driver down in regard to CSA and your DMV records. I would like to think most of the members here know how to safely operate a CMV. You drive for a carrier that compromise's where safety is concerned refuse to operate that piece of equipment. I think I told this story in here not sure though. My father was also a trucker. My father drove trucks going back to his Army days just after Korea. This event happened in the early 70s. My father had his almost new tractor took away from him. He was assigned a load and give a piece of crap to drive. Daddy got that tractor as far as Mississippi. In anger he actually walked into the scalehouse and asked for a DOT cop to put him OOS. He did. My mom and I drove to Mississippi and picked him up. MORAL of this story? Don't drive unsafe crap!

Now in regard to the above let me also start another debate (I guess) about these PTIs. I know of no rule in Title 49 USC that requires that a CMV be inspected before or after a trip. However it is my opinion one of the most asinine things a driver can do is just get into a cold tractor and crank it up hook to a trailer and sail off into the wild blue yonder without taking a few minutes to look at it. EVERYTHING about (OPERATING) a CMV on the highways of the US that deals with operating said vehicle safely is ON THE DRIVER, as it should be! So why are people saying a bad carrier can drag your scores or your DMV down? Makes zero sense to me!

 

392.7 mandates a driver ensuring the vehicle is safe before operation. Seems pretty clear to me.

 

392.7 Equipment, inspection and use.
(a) No commercial motor vehicle shall be driven unless the driver is satisfied that the following parts and accessories are in good working order, nor shall any driver fail to use or make use of such parts and accessories when and as needed:

Service brakes, including trailer brake connections.

Parking (hand) brake.

Steering mechanism.

Lighting devices and reflectors.

Tires.

Horn.

Windshield wiper or wipers.

Rear-vision mirror or mirrors.

Coupling devices.

Wheels and rims.

Emergency equipment.

(b) Drivers preparing to transport intermodal equipment must make an inspection of the following components, and must be satisfied they are in good working order before the equipment is operated over the road. Drivers who operate the equipment over the road shall be deemed to have confirmed the following components were in good working order when the driver accepted the equipment:

—Service brake components that are readily visible to a driver performing as thorough a visual inspection as possible without physically going under the vehicle, and trailer brake connections

—Lighting devices, lamps, markers, and conspicuity marking material

—Wheels, rims, lugs, tires

—Air line connections, hoses, and couplers

—King pin upper coupling device

—Rails or support frames

—Tie down bolsters

—Locking pins, clevises, clamps, or hooks

—Sliders or sliding frame lock

 

Me too, however how many threads do you imagine are in these boards where this has been debated? I would say at least 10. The actual words thou shalt inspect are not there. This is one reason I get so dang angry at the FMCSA sometimes.

 

It is in the headline of the section.

You have to inspect to ensure operational capability of those systems.

And a concession to the inter-modal world actually instructs them because foreigners claimed it was too vague.

 

I'm backing out of this. I'm sure there will be at least 5 people chiming in soon. I think there should be clear language MANDATING these inspections be made with OOS criteria in place for failure to have a report of inspection properly filled out and on the driver. This subject has been debated in these forums now to the point of it being ad nausium, I don't want to be part of this debate any further. I will let ALL my past posts on this subject stand as my position!

 

And yet again here we go...

Nothing there says the driver is the one that has to inspect the vehicle, just be satisfied the list is in working order.

A few ways the driver could be satisfied, but not actually do the inspection.
Truck just rolled off assembly line.
Truck just got a (good) inspection.
Team truck and co-driver just inspected.
Pay someone else to do it.

That said, personally even the brand new truck I would inspect, and paying someone is, in all honesty, an absurd idea
As for the co-driver... Well that actually is not an invalid argument. There are times when the truck is running late I'll let my slip seater do an inspection while I sign in and do paperwork before I go deliver as minutes do

 

This

Yes, but there is no mention of logging this, nor what the minimum time to log is. Nobody is saying a driver should not be sure the vehicle is safe. The argument is around should/must the time logged and if technically it must be logged [according to the FMCSA book]. Logging vehicle inspections ultimately comes down to company policy, and would be probably helpful in the event of a court trial.

Nowhere does it say "if a driver spends an hour of time inspecting a truck, it must be logged as 1 hour of PTI". I "volunteer" most of my vehicle inspection time and only log a few minutes, at least, because it's company policy. So sue me.