Does 20 hours off duty = two ten hour breaks?

And again, where in the regulations is that stated?

One example I gave specifically says sleeper bearth, one specifically Off Duty, so if one is not actually specific because the other is a subset, surely this is spelled out in the regulations too.

Or is that an interpretation?

 

I explained it in my video, Off Duty is doing whatever you want in the space of the entire Universe.

Sleeper is Off Duty in a specific place within the Universe.

 

So which regulation we're you citing in your video?

 

I should point out that I am not arguing one is right and the other wrong, my point is that the Regulations are purposefully ambiguous, and what I have listed is an example.

You can say that the interpretation I gave is wrong, but only by giving a different, and probably more accepted interpretation, but not by citing a regulation that disproves it.

Hence the inherent ambiguity I am speaking of.

 

The hours of service have been around since 1938. However ambiguous or not the regulations have been written, sleeper berth has been understood to be a subset of off duty. If anything, before the 1/2 hour break mandate, it was the preferred method of stopping the clock.

395.8(h)2 describes sleeper berth as ...period of time, off duty, resting in a sleeper berth.

Doesn't sound ambiguous to me.

 

These are straght from 395

(A) Must, before driving, accumulate

(1) At least 10 consecutive hours off duty;

(2) At least 10 consecutive hours of sleeper-berth time;

(3) A combination of consecutive sleeper-berth and off-duty time amounting to at least 10 hours; or

(4) The equivalent of at least 10 consecutive hours off duty if the driver does not comply with paragraph (g)(1)(i)(A)(1), (2), or (3) of this section;

Obviously here Sleeper Berth and Off Duty are separate and distinct, they are both addressed.

And here again, separate and distinct:

(A) The term “equivalent of at least 10 consecutive hours off duty” means a period of

(1) At least 8 but less than 10 consecutive hours in a sleeper berth, and

(2) A separate period of at least 2 but less than 10 consecutive hours either in the sleeper berth or off duty, or any combination thereof.

Yet here only off duty is mentioned, not "equivalent of"

(2) 14-hour period. A driver may drive only during a period of 14 consecutive hours after coming on duty following 10 consecutive hours off duty. The driver may not drive after the end of the 14-consecutive-hour period without first taking 10 consecutive hours off duty.

And here also

(2) Any period of 8 consecutive days may end with the beginning of an off-duty period of 34 or more consecutive hours"

The definition you posted mentions off duty... The definition I posted, also directly from the FMCSA web sight, distinguishes off duty from Sleeper Berth.

How anyone can not think this is ambiguous is beyond me.

It mentions both in the 10 hour Break, but not in the 34.

Should it not be consistent of there is a distinction? Why is it specified in one and not the other?

 

The 30 minute break can be conducted in off duty status, sleeper berth status or a combination of the two.

It stands to reason the 34 hour break can also be a combination of the two if the 10 and 30 are also allowed.

 

Dear Lord...Why does hrs. of service always turn into a mensa meeting of truckers?
It is what it is!!! We aint launching rockets here.
Drive your time,break,recap,repeat...
Numbers frighten me,and I suck at math,but even my dumb asp stays legal

 

Right, but by specifying it in one place and not the other, in the same regulation does it not leave it open to interpretion?

One interpretation could easily be "the if it's specific in this paragraph, it must there for he specific in the other paragraph"

Attorneys make a pretty good living picking apart what beauracrats and politicians put together, and in some cases get guilty people off because of it.

My point is the DOT officers is going to interpret it the way he is going to interpret it and point to tue regulations as to why, and it may or may not he the same as the next DOT officers interpretation who also points to the same regs.

 

They do because they are ambigous, which was my original point.