Speed limiters......

A company is incapable of infringing upon anybody's Constitutional rights. The Constitution places no limits as to what restrictions a private entity may place upon others while on private property or while employed by the private entity. Only the GOVERNMENT has limits and restrictions placed upon it by the Constitution.

In other words, the government bureaucrats are infringing upon the power of the states to set their own speed limits...but a company that downgrades you to a governed truck is NOT violating your rights. If you own the truck and the government tells you to turn it down, you might have a case. If you choose to buy a turned down truck, that's on you.

 

I am no human rights lawyer, especially a US one, so help me out here....does a US citizen/resident have a constitutional right to the security/safety of his/her self?

 

That would be one of the unalienable rights spelled out in the Declaration of Independence (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness) which governments are instituted among men in order to secure. The Constitution is merely the guidelines, if you will, for how the government is to operate. As Americans, we believe the INDIVIDUAL is sovereign, and holds all of the powers. Government is only supposed to have the powers yielded to it by the people, as spelled out in the Constitution. The 9th Amendment states that "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people", meaning that while certain rights of the people are specifically spelled out in the Constitution, it is NOT a complete or exhaustive list...the people retain rights NOT specifically enumerated because the source of those rights is NOT the Constitution itself.

10th Amendment further clarifies this fact, stating clearly that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". This once again reinforces the fact that while government's power is limited only to the powers listed in the Constitution, EVERYTHING else is left to the states and ultimately for the people to decide for themselves.

The Constitution specifies what government is responsible for doing, as well as what it quite simply CAN NOT do. It places no restrictions upon the people, only upon the government.

 

So they can demand that their employee do something dangerous and life threatening as part of his/her job and this is not a violation of C rights?

OK then...let's assume for a second, that a US court agrees that a speed limiter (set at 65) puts the driver at risk. With that in mind:

1...does that violate the driver's constitutional right to L,L and POH?
2. Could the Federal speed limiter law be struck down on those grounds?
3. Are speed limiter's a OHSA violation?

Keep in mind that in Canada they agreed that it put the driver in harms way and therefore it did in fact violate his rights but they said the benefits to the people trumped the driver's rights.

 

There are plenty of jobs that are dangerous, and people get paid to do them every day...

http://www.businessinsider.com/most-dangerous-jobs-in-america-2016-8
http://www.businessinsider.com/deadliest-jobs-in-america-2015-5

If there was a right to never ever be in harms way, everyone would live in their own personal protective bubble and nothing would ever get done. Yes, the highways are dangerous. Yes, limiting truck speeds below that of surrounding traffic makes things worse for EVERYONE. However, it could be argued that the increased risk falls into the laps of the CARS, not the trucks. Sure, the trucks are going to be more likely to be caught up in the cluster when it occurs...but in a car vs truck entanglement, the car always gets the worse end of the deal. To put it into a perspective most anybody can comprehend, the largest SUV's weigh in at around 8000#. That SUV picking a fight with a fully loaded 80,000# tractor trailer is the equivalent of a 20 pound toddler picking a fight with a 200 pound adult. It gets worse for a 2000# car, where it would be like a 10 pound infant taking on a 400 pound sumo wrestler. Bottom line, car vs truck the car looses.

The rights to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness are NOT "Constitutional Rights", but rather unalienable rights endowed upon us by our Creator...but yes, limiting speed might be construed as a violation of one's liberty and pursuit of happiness due to the simple fact that between the HOS and the speed limiters, it essentially caps the earning potential of an individual engaged in this specific vocation thereby limiting the effectiveness of the individual who may venture down this path in his pursuit of happiness. Limiting the speed at which a vehicle CAN travel also infringes upon ones liberty to exceed that speed, which is different than posting a speed limit. States can post speed limits, and you are strongly encouraged to abide by them (but are free to disregard them). If you disregard them, there are consequences...speeding tickets, driving privileges suspended, etc...but it is your choice whether to abide by or disregard a posted speed limit. A federally mandated governor removes this liberty to make that choice.

I highly doubt OSHA would strike down anything the FMCSA does. Heck, states pass laws requiring snow removal, yet OSHA prohibits working that high up without fall protection...doesn't matter, you're still at fault for not removing snow from the top of your trailer. OSHA vs FMCSA is government regulatory bureaucracy vs government regulatory bureaucracy, and where conflicts arise you get into a "darned if you do, darned if you don't" situation. Conflicting regulations simply don't qualify as an affirmative defense to violating one in order to keep another. Bottom line, you're just up a creek without a paddle.

 

Of course jobs are dangerous. In that list of dangerous jobs, the risk is inherent because of the nature of the job. I do two of the jobs on that list, but until speed limiters, nobody has made a law that told me to do those dangerous jobs with one hand tied behind my back. Speed limiters are not the nature of the job. Speed limiters are a danger imposed upon the driver by an external economic and political forces......NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH BEING THE EMPLOYERS THEMSELVES WHO LOBBIED FOR IT. Sure a cop puts himself in harms way by when he makes an arrest but what would the police say if they were going to speed limit his car? Or tell him he has to use plastic bullets. Or a single action revolver.

Another thought. Do these rights that we are talking about extend to US residents that are not citizens? i.e temporary foreign workers on visas etc?

 

Ahh but the driver is within his rights to:
1. refuse to clean the trailer without fall protection, and
2. refuse to drive the truck until the snow is removed.

The question is, how to get a bunch of 4 wheel driving pencil pushers to recognize that speed limiters are a danger so that drivers can refuse to drive a truck with a speed limiter.

 

We've already lost the fight on your comment in your second paragraph. And admittedly, I'm partially at fault. All of us currently driving speed limited trucks will be seen as proof that that isn't an issue. Getting them to see that having ALL trucks limited is dangerous is a different argument. But it scarcely matters what we argue anyway. The FMCSA has already, time and again, proven they don't care what anyone else thinks. They've pretty much went against Congress and numerous court rulings in the past. As well as totally disregarding anything they've learned during any comment periods.

 

It makes me sick.

 

Hmm...time for my next career. I think I'll have about 5-7 years before this actually goes into effect. So what to do now? I've always wanted to be a train engineer. I've seen the country from the highways & interstates, maybe now it's time to see it from the back woods.

This is just my thoughts at this time. I'm pretty sure speed limiter will become law. I currently drive a truck governed at 91 mph. Do I run that fast? Nah, no need to. I usually run 64-65, sometimes as slow as 60 & other times I do run 70. We've all seen how the roads get clogged up when a slow vehicle is in the middle lane & people are having a hard time getting around. Plus the two slow trucks trying to pass each other. The roads will get much more congested so the next plan to "fix it" will be to force trucks to run only in the right lane like going through the gorge on I-40. Trucking is in a bad place & it's going down hill fast. Eventually all these companies will only have the "new breed" of drivers running for them that don't know any different. They won't know how "good" it used to be & they won't get any grief from the drivers. The experienced independents & company drivers will be gone.