Here's a newbie mistake...

basically i will para-phrase what you are saying...."companies can and will route a driver, if the driver asks for this. however, many times a driver will forgo such routing once he/she LOOKS at an atlas to determine the validity of routed by company".

however, many truckers and i feel especially newbies/rookies/students, are as lazy as can be to verify such company routing, expecting the company to be flawless in routing the driver.

as you say and i and many will agree, it's STILL THE D RIVERS RESPONSIBILITY once he/she is driving.......

i hope he likes it at his new job.....if you already ain't read my earlier posting with a link about fines.....

 

you went here...??...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preservation_Society_of_Newport_County

 

no.....I wish. It was a little brick building about 3/4 mile from the end of that toll bridge, I think it was like there warehouse?




American Trucker

 

And you know so much about Swift and their policies? How is this...you have experience(?) with one outfit...W/S....and you sure show (or attempt to show) SO MUCH EXPERTISE AND KNOWLEDGE OF OTHER COMPANIES AND THEIR POLICIES! Swift has an "out of route" exception and limits to what each driver is allowed to go "out of route"! The fuel route given by Swift to the trucks is expected to be followed, and the driver not following this route will get warnings, write ups, and as a last resort terminated. Many companies have this action in their guidelines and policies. By having this policy, and the ramifications to abusing this policy, Swift has put themselves in a control position and can be held liable in this case and others with this policy. And already has lost several battles in court regarding this policy and it's repercussions to their drivers.

Yes the driver is responsible for his/her actions...but a company can be held complicit with these same policy requirements.

Swift doesn't update customer information or directions to customers...even though the drivers send in updates/changes to these places...let alone send out temporary highway advisories to the trucks...Swift's fault on this also. But with this $7k fine...they just might on this one!

Many USX drivers aren't driving for USX after not following the fuel/travel route. company policy by the way!

 

I don't care what policies a company has, if YOU, the DRIVER, drive someplace you're not allowed, IT'S ALL ON YOU, no if, ands or buts...

Better to sit still if they don't give you any leadway and wait for better routing or your next employer to call...

And you only need a brain to know this stuff, not experience...

 

Why para-phrase(?)...we could all read what she really said!

You obviously DON'T know how Swift operates...only L/O and O/O don't get fuel routes. All company trucks get a fuel route (the travel route is computer generated for least miles from point "A" to point "B") for EVERY load assignment...even the 30 mile local delivery load. Swift also has an "out of route" policy and they are very strict about adherence to this policy! In this case, the road/bridge restriction was a temporary change, and if you look at the Atlas you will see it is a truck route. Now the question comes down to the simple fact.....Was the restriction sign located in a place where a truck proceeding on this highway would have a legal and safe place to turn around or alter course to avoid the upcoming restriction? In this case, it appears from other posts that the signage WAS NOT sufficient or placed in a location allowing the large truck to alter course.

Verifying this routing prior to going down this highway doesn't seem like it would have changed anything for the simple reason as I stated above.

Companies can and will be held complicit in certain events...due to their position on adherence to company policy/policies!

Nice link...but an officer can (and it has happened) the officer could write the ticket in the name of Swift (in some cases) and not the driver. They do it all the time out here in CA!

 

This case is very very different from regular truck allowed highways!

The question still remains was the signage sufficient for truck safety, or was the signage set up in such a way as to trap a non-local truck who had no prior knowledge of the restricted route?

Let's see how far YOUR common sense applied against a W/S policy travels! If you violate company policy...won't you be "dealt with accordingly"? Even at W/S?

 

>>>>Was the restriction sign located in a place where a truck proceeding on this highway would have a legal and safe place to turn around or alter course to avoid the upcoming restriction? In this case, it appears from other posts that the signage WAS NOT sufficient or placed in a location allowing the large truck to alter course.

Then he stops and sits until a solution is found, seems pretty simple to me...Proceeding once you know, whether given sufficient time or not, means nothing, it then becomes 'all on you'...I highly doubt, in my limited experience, saying, "the company gave me this routing" will hold any water...If they attempt to send you under a 12'8" bridge, does Swift insist you still try it?...Of course not, the same thing goes for a weight restriction whether temporary or permanent...

Policies are not laws and hold no weight in regard to what the driver does, he's the captain of the ship and takes full responsibility, unless he's a liberal, in that case he blames everyone else...


>>>>Let's see how far YOUR common sense applied against a W/S policy travels! If you violate company policy...won't you be "dealt with accordingly"? Even at W/S?


It's simple, we use a common item called a phone(or qualcomm) and get a solution...We don't violate signage, laws or restrictions because a company policy dictates we do...This is common sense for most people, I don't understand you're attempts to shift the blame from the only one at fault here...COmpany policy can't be used a defense for committing a violation of any kind...

 

Were you in the truck with him to know this for a fact?

My question was did he have an alternative? Was he able to turn that truck around when he realized his predicament?

I feel sorry for him that he learned the hard way, many drivers do learn the hard way. He said he'd been solo for two weeks, and you just assume that his wife/SO would be an excellent navigator, not to mention where on his atlas do you think they put the update about the bridge having an restriction on a truck route, hmm? I 'm betting you forgot what you went through when you were new. This speaks volumes about his training also, or lack of in this case.

My point, which was lost on you, was that this trooper knew of the weight restriction and saw some easy work. Why didn't the DOT put up adequate signs, or here's a news flash, a detour for trucks?

Then why are the companies routing the drivers through these areas? Do you really think these truckers would do this knowing they could be fined thousands of dollars? Maybe one or two would, but not as a whole.

I can guarantee that if Swift is left holding the bag, this driver is history, not just with Swift but with the trucking industry. I hold Swift responsible for routing him this way when they, more than likely, had knowledge that this bridge had a restriction. I can pretty well guarantee there have been other Swift trucks on this bridge prior to this driver, so they could not not have known, but routed him that way anyhow.

And that's the $65,000.00 word....."detour". In the newbie's case there was no DETOUR. If you ignore signs for truck detour, I agree, you should have known better and shame goes on the driver.

 

i was para-phrasing what walstib said.....and a driver can still run out of route if need be, and i do not have to have been a driver for swift.....out of route happens all the time, you call, you tell them, you do it.....