Post Trip Inspections

I M O. These reg's are severely antiquated and need to be revamped. They put all the liability on the driver and none on the carrier. Even if you turn in a dvir the carrier can just 'can' them and deny they received them.
The driver is the 1 who is stuck out on the road.
Also the carriers use these regs to their advantage and use the excuse -well it's the drivers responsibility to know if there are any defects- and don't have a maintenance schedule and even if there is a defect then what?
Another problem I have run into is the maintenance person being on a bonus system. I could go on. But again IMO

 

Wow, I feel all kind of preeeeeveligided I am the only wun with speel cheek!

 

Correct, good on you for noticing.

When the rules stated that the post-trip inspection need not be turned in depending on content, it absolved motor carriers from responsibility and liability of vehicle defects found and reported by the driver. A carrier could now conveniently loose the "post-trip report" (DVIR) and claim the defect was never reported to them.

The whole reason behind this was not too reduce paperwork, like they had claimed; it was to put the entire liability of the trucks condition on the driver, since they can now 'lose' and DVIR and claim none was handed to them.

For the same reason, these mega-trucking companies often tell drivers the 'post-trip' is not needed. The DVIR is the only evidence a truck driver has to prove he reported a defect to a company.

 

Almost every section of 49CFR was written by people that most likely never has drove a truck or operated a trucking company. These rules are proposed stuck up on the federal register for comments from any interested group. Then the rules are adjusted to strike a balance between the pro and anti groups out there. The ignorant stupid way some of these sections are written is one of the primary reasons some of these kinds of threads are full of arguments. There are about 12 places in 49CFR that are not written clearly and make me want to roll my eyes and bash my head into a wall. I won't list them because I don't want start new arguments. However I would not start holding my breath waiting on this crap to ever get fixed, (aint) happening!!

 

Dare I say it?
The system kind of worked before deregulation and carriers had something to lose.
Now they can just run the company into the ground and change the name and start fresh. Just a paperwork shuffle.

 

You clearly have a reading comprehension issue. Anyway, I didn't read the thread at all. I could care less what you wrote. My response was for the OP.

 

As you see, lots of interpretation here. It's exactly the same out on the road with DOT too. Even they have different views of how the laws are written.

 

And at least in my opinion one reason the FMCSA is deliberately vague with 392.7 because it allows them to be bureaucrats. 49CFR is not anywhere near the only place that federal bureaucrats do this crap.

 

Absolutely!