ARKANSAS English Checks Have Begun, They’re checking ALL trucks

Last week, the security guard told that guy about one lane traffic, not to turn left but go around the building to the assigned dock. There were signs too. He turned left anyway.
The law enforcement must be able to communicate with drivers during inspection, intervention. Shippers too. The cmv drivers must know the nature of the cargo they haul, must know what's on the BOL - if they sign something they don't have a clue about, that can have unpredictable legal consequences too.
Driving CMVs is not the same as coming from overeseas on vacations, renting a SUV and going on a tour with a little book entitled "English for beginners".

It is utter b.s. to say that the requirement of English is unconstitutional to get CDL as if someone wanted to prohibit, say a bunch of Latinos, to speak English only at their barbecue festivities in a public park.

 

How many loading docks have you gotten into and had to wait for them to go get the guy that speaks english?

 

Point blank come June 25. It officially takes affect and you can bet there’s gonna be several states I could see Wyoming kicking it into high gear Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee, Florida, and Michigan at least Ramping it up soon… wrecker drivers are gonna be very busy here soon

 

The TEXAS CDL handbook has an English requirement also! And you’re right the people giving those CDLs out need to spend a couple years behind bars!

 

It does not take much imagination to forsee that someone proceeding against the traffic flow can, did, and will cause safety problems and avoidable property damage.
We can take your logic further and argue there's no licensing needed to drive cmvs at all. The purpose of issuing the license is to make sure that a person who gets it is well predisposed in driving a big truck meeting uniform, homogeneous standards. Being able to use English is a part of it.

My impression is that too many who want this regulation to be enforced are not so much concerned about the public safety but their livelihoods and try to use this enforcement as a means to an end which is to rid of all too many work visa workers. I agree with them 100% on the livelihoods protection but disagree that that's how it is should be done. The work visas allowance must end. How about we invite from the undeveloped World civil engineers, doctors, plumbers, brick layers, to do the work and maybe then the shingles replacement will cost me $3 500 not $15 000?
That's one part of the problem.
Then there are those on refugee visas, turning into professional drivers in a matter of few weeks. Unfortunately, I can't see how those Somalians that you trained or Ukrainians coming here on their refugee visas can be prevented obtaining their CDLs once they get work permits but at least the practices of turning a blind eye on issuance CDLs to these groups has to end. There's no way, they can pass their CDL examination without English, especially that there's the oral part that you must converse with the examiner.

 

Exactly my point. The real issue here isnt read/write english, because 28% of AMERICANS cant do that (but they can still read street signs). The issue these people REALLY want is immigrants=bad.

Well, as you say, they ARENT bad. $3500 roof vs $15,000, $4 strawberries vs $15 strawberries. Do people HONESTLY think that tossing all the "illegals" out is a good thing? Undocumented Immigrants Pay $1.8 Billion in Florida Taxes a Year, National Study Finds 1.8 billion in taxes paid by illegals in Florida alone... Musk could pay that and not even notice it...
3 jobs that illegals do that the 16-24 year olds #### sure aint going to do (and there are many many more)...

• Construction: This sector has the highest concentration of undocumented workers, comprising an estimated 13.7% of its workforce.

• Agriculture: Undocumented immigrants are heavily involved in farm labor and food processing, making up roughly 12.7% of the agricultural workforce.

• Hospitality: This industry also relies on undocumented labor, with over one million undocumented immigrants employed, accounting for 7.1% of its workforce.

So the prices for those goods is going to skyrocket - thats housing, food, and hotels/restaurants. And thats just 3. Course people on this board dont care about that. They want them out of trucking so rates go up. Which will in turn raise the costs of everything else. But in all fairness, once a company has raised the prices on its goods and/or cut the portion size as much as they can, they arent going to drop the price any time soon. Look at eggs for example. Gee, people are still willing to pay $4 a doz, why should we lower our price?

The wife refuses to let me build a chicken coop.

The REAL solution is to tax stocks like they are cash, eliminate income taxes, and start paying off the national debt. But that wont happen because the top 1% richest people in the country are either in office, or own someone that is...

Honestly, the only way this is going to turn out good for the "people" is to let it spiral out of control until the people revolt, and we start over.

Glad I wont live that long

Civilian unemployment rate
The current unemployment rate is 4.2% For a "healthy" economy it should be between 3% and 5% so its just about perfect right now. Tossing all the "illegals" is going to lower that, which means companies will have to take what they can get which means the quality of workers goes down, and I think its easy to see where this ends up...

The key here isnt to reduce the workforce in trucking. The KEY is to increase consumer spending. In order for THAT to happen, families are going to need more disposable income. If we take the money we SHOULD get from that top 1% it would lower the tax burden on the lower classes, thus making more disposable income, more consumer spending so on and so forth...

Honestly, its time to toss these rich ######## out of office and put REAL people, people that CARE about people in their place.

But what do I know? Im just a dumb trucker...

 

I think you are going in circles again

Well honestly I do not care who you voted for. My point is to poke you for a rather dumb reason to vote for someone who was not even there for the election.

As for Carlin, he was part of the system, playing a lot of people to make money.

The founding fathers disagreed with you and a lot of others. As my lawyer said to me a long time ago, this is a close shop monopoly where the people are screwed over to keep lawyers, judges and the government in business.

My beleif in the courts has to do with a narrow scope of powers, constitutionally given to them, not taken.

I will ask this again, where exactly is there a violation of the first amendment?

I don't think you answered this at all the first time I asked it.

And I don't believe you can with an orignial thought.

What makes restrictive speech prevalent in the regulation? I don't even see it as possible because it balances the rights of the individual with the rights and common interest of safety for the public.

It seems most of the time, all people with this argument do is parrot someone else without understanding what creates a violation.

Unlike the AI-generated stuff, this has been addressed in the courts a number of times and when it comes to a regulated industry, there is a lack of standing on the complaining party.

Don't take my word for it, just have your lawyer friend dig into the subject with a narrow scope.

Specifically look at the FAA court cases where the subject about the use of English as a standard language was decided on by the SC, which courts after that have consistently came done on the side of the FAA.

Wow you googled it?

I guess I'm behind the times, I called my lawyer about this a long time ago when one of my former drivers pulled some crap with an officer in Ohio.

NO, I didn't say they have no say, I am saying they should not have a say and the courts have addressed this several times, and they have weigh in on it carefully but not to your liking.

There is a balance within a highly regulated industry = > the obligation of the driver to fulfill those duties to remain safe and legal.

This is the court saying this, not just conjecture.

Part 2 next ...

 

Again you framed the question too broadly so you can get the answer you want to get.

The SC has ruled that there is no violation in an administrative action where the person must provide information for an inspection and to make sure the driver/carrier/truck meets regulatory requirements. This came out of four court cases, two of which upheld the regulatory creation process of being balanced (one is inspection of the sleeper for a mattress but not for contraband), and the other is the required records doctrine that is part of how the FMCSA/USDOT operates to enforce regulations.

I think when you frame a question about the 5th, you are doing it so you ignore the requirements of the driver/carrier to fulfill well established regulations that are constitutional, and it appears that you are esposing a Sovereign S*itczen's form of truck operation.

The question again, can a driver invoke the 5th (which is really a court thing) during a roadside inspection?

NO!

Don't care, if you use his advice, will he help you win a case when you lose your license and truck?

Doubt it.

See you attorney is also a bit wrong, you must talk to the officer when you are driving that truck, there are no exceptions, it is a regulated industry which is in the Constitution. If you don't like it, tell your attorney to bring it up to John Roberts to get the half a dozen or so cases overturned.

Mine advises the complete opposite: provide what they want, take a ticket, and deal with it in court. By obstruction of their work, there are a lot more things they can do to you other than your ticket.

He also advises the drivers that this is a regulated industry, it isn't a right to drive and unless they cause an accident (which is an exception to all of this), just get it done, answer the questions and let them do what ever they are going to do.

You obviously didn't comprehend what I said.

So here is a recap of my point, you are from Michigan, you go to Alabama. They require you to have a blue light on your beanie as you drive, but you don't have one. They pull you over and give you a billion-dollar fine for not having one.

This is unconstitutional.

Why?

Because you are a citizen of Michigan, but you are under the constitution allowed to go to Alabama to gain access to their markets. When you are targetted outside the scope of the agreed vehicle regulations, you are now denied that access.

This is what CARB has been doing to foreign trucks - READ MEANING TRUCKS REGISTERED OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA.

This is unconstitutional because it restricts interstate commerce, aka access to the state's markets.

 

No I didnt. I was quite clear. ANY interaction involving police you have your 5th amendment right to remain silent, and your 6th amendment right to a lawyer.

Dont believe me? Ask a lawyer. ANY lawyer. Or you could watch the video I linked that explains it quite clearly. Like I said repeatedly and quite clearly. It also explains quite clearly Why you should never talk to police. You arent going to lose your truck for invoking your rights. Remaining silent doesnt mean you dont give him whatever paper work he asks for. You just simply dont answer his questions. You are under NO OBLIGATION to make small talk with him. You dont have to tell him where you are going or where you came from. He can see that on your logs and paperwork. There is no need for you to tell him that.

Case in point. In about 2000 I was going FROM Minneapolis to Milwaukee. Paper logs. I left Mpls at 4:30. I log from off duty to driving. I NEVER go to the "on duty not driving line" (or didnt on paper). At about 7:30 am I stopped for an hour In Mauston Wi (about 200 miles) to let the sun come up (driving directly into it). I STAY on the DRIVING line. About 10:30 a cop pulls me over near Pewaukee Wi (about 120 miles from Mauston. I have been on the driving line since 3:30 (took me an hour to get to the BMC from the yard and get loaded). This is how it went down:
Morning officer, my lawyer advises me to invoke my 5th amendment right to remain silent.
Ok, I need your paperwork and logs.
Here you go.
Ummm, it doesnt take 7 hours to get here from Minneapolis.
Yeah, so?
Have a nice day.
You too.
I dont have to explain the 2 hour time difference. I invoked my 5th amendment right. I am not in violation of any HOS regs. I am legal. Im sure the cop would have LOVED to have grilled me on it, but she couldnt... And just as importantly, she knew she couldnt. Didnt even try.
(I did get a warning for 72 in a 65).

And yes, actually you CAN invoke your 5th on a roadside. You are not legally obligated to assist an officer in his duties. There is no rule or reg that requires it. Now IF YOU DO that, they WILL put you out of service for failing an inspection, but the fact is you CAN do it.


You can also do it at a DUI checkpoint. ANY interaction with police, you have your 5th and 6th - well actually ALL your rights, but specifically them.

 

I comprehended it just fine.

Still got this in my wallet from 2008. Issued to us by R&L Carriers when I started there. Basically says our driver invokes his 5th and 6th amendment rights... We will cooperate, give you any paperwork you require, but we will NOT make any statement.



Never talk to the police. Dont know who gave you your legal advice, but its time for you to shop around I think...