URGENT question about the DOT HOS

Interesting how many times drivers are forced to do dangerous things because they are rushing to stay under hours and (presumably) be safe. Heck, I think I could argue that the stress induced by HOS regs actually make drivers more dangerous as they hurry to some unknown destination so they can "rest". It makes no sense since some drivers can drive for 20 hours and be safe while others drive 3 hours and have problems. The narrow rules apply to everyone regardless of your physical condition, age, experience, or natural circadian sleep rhythms--all of which differ from person to person. So why are we are put in the same box?

A realistic approach would be an individual test to determine what your particular driving endurance level is. Can you drive 14 hours straight and still maintain safety? If so, you should be allowed to do so. Do you need 10 hours off every 24 hours? If not, then why are you forced to take those hours off? Do you need 1/2 hour break ? Well, you get my point. They test you to see if your blood sugar and pressure are withing certain limits. Why not, as part of your physical, test you to see how long you can drive safely? (donning my flame-retardant suit now)

Finally, in the OP's case, if you think that you need to drive beyond your allotted hours because of circumstances then you dammed sure should be able to unilaterally make that determination and drive on as long as you need to. I don't believe that a "rule book approach" to the problem of drive time is a realistic one. It all seems rather arbitrary and based on little supporting evidence.

Personally, EOBR or not, if I think I need to go further to be safe then I go... and dare their pencil-pushing A##es to question my decision.</rant>

 

@quatto, I fully agree with the premise of your post. But, we all know, that unfortunately, things are not done to make common sense, particularly when it comes to any and all government rules and regulations.
We also know, quite likely on a personal basis, drivers who would ride across the country on bennies, if there were no hours of service. These folks, while having a good on time record, (sarcasm intended,) were a danger to themselves and everyone else on the road. And I know that somebody, or maybe several folks, are going to come on and flame me for that statement with words like "I used to do that all the time, and I never had an accident." I've got two answers for that. First off is that you are blatantly lying about it, and second, on the off chance that you are telling the truth, then you were darned lucky. And you know it.

 

I had to laugh at the "bennies" reference. It's been a long time since I've heard that term. Back in my military days when we went on weekend leave to Tijuana .... mmm....never mind! lol

However, I must respectfully point out that most laws are created because a few idiots do things that endanger innocent people. The intelligent folks then have to suffer with new knee-jerk regulations that unnecessarily impose restrictions on those who already have common sense. The responsible person then becomes a victim of over-regulation in hopes that the new laws will ensnare the idiots and prevent bad statistics.

This type of thinking---create new laws when one idiot causes problems---is what gave us the bloated multi-billion dollar TSA where we strip search grandmothers looking for that one terrorist with the bic lighter or finger nail clippers. It's, at best, faulty logic. In many cases, you can't prevent stupidity, criminality, or negligence by legislating laws. You just end up burdening good folks with more constrictive rules that have no real effect on the statistics you're trying to influence. The bottom line is: Accident statistics have not improved as a result of implementing HOS regulations. Therefore, they are unnecessary and ineffective except as an arbitrary way to collect more revenue for the state coffers.

 

It's real simple,, when I get tired I pull over and get some sleep. I don't need a computer or a geek telling me how my body works. And if the weather is to bad to drive in, I will get to a safe place and park no matter what the e-log says.
Even back when I was pulling a reefer coast to coast I never ran 2 long books or took bennies or black beauties. I learned to keep the left door closed and do what I'm payed to do,,drive.

 

Bingo. You have common sense and are more likely to be victimized by the HOS rules than to benefit from them. Most drivers are like you while some are idiots. The HOS laws were created to catch a small minority of idiots and just get in the way of the great majority of drivers who still use common sense....which makes no sense. Would you set up checkpoints at all exits to a city because there are a few criminals at large within its borders? That's what our chickencoops do.

 

I skipped ahead so forgive me for repeating anything.

First thing first. The Logs are your logs, no one else's. The Safe Haven rules have nothing to do with normal HOS they are only for Hazmat rules so forget them.

Stuck in traffic is an unforeseen exception. Provided it isn't 1700 in Chicago. An accident qualifies. If you normally could have completed your run, then continue. From your example, you can extend your 11 hour clock out to 12 hours because of a 1 hour delay. If you have exceeded your 14 hour clock you must stop at the first legal place to park.

Use common sense on these things. We have a Republican in the White House now. No reason to fear the DOT anymore.

The government is not trying to destroy truckers with logs, they are trying to make your life better. They do not want anyone working too hard as that drives wages down for all of us. And with lower wages comes lower taxes. Drive legal and demand good pay, it is the American thing to do.

 

Well. Have yourself a good sleep.

What you had there is pretty common. But let me ask you this...

Why did you not stop in Reno? 3 truckstops up there and you went past all of them? Donner is not that easy nor is it ever a quick hour to Sacremento.

Next time stop in Reno ok?

 

You're preaching to the choir here, quatto! I fully agree with what I quoted here. What I honestly do not know, is what would be a reasonable solution to the problem. Over-regulation? Oh yeah, in almost every facet of our lives.
Knee-jerk reactions? Definitely! Law makers are constantly introducing new laws, that have absolutely no use, other than keeping their names in the lime light, The more crap they propose, the more they can brag to the folks back home, about what a "good" job they are doing.
You've got the media sensationalizing everything, or ignoring it. No in between. They get Joe Sixpack up in arms and screaming for "something to be done." So the lawmakers say, "OK, I'm doing something. I'm proposing a new law!"
Then they create all these "agencies" to enforce the law, bureaucrats are created in the millions, and all of them think they know better than the people who actually DO the jobs. (Most bureaucrats that I have known, would starve to death if they had to actually WORK to put food on the table.)
The laws, the media, the commercials, hell even the video games, are created to appeal to the lowest common denominator as far as intelligence is concerned. And every generation, we keep losing ground on the ability to actually cogitate anything.
Ah shoot, I'm just depressing myself here.
Anyway, quatto, I don't think our basic ideas are that far apart.

 

Big Don....Wow. After 44 years of marriage I'm just not used to anyone agreeing with me. What a breath of fresh air!