load securement violations no longer part of cargo BASIC

These are more than a few points we're talking about. These are all OOS.

Before CSA, this company was audited back in 2006 just after I got here. According to the auditor it was all the safety violations that triggered the audit. Failed the audit too and they were going to yank the operating authority because there wasn't a single good inspection on record. Then I showed him all the good inspections that the DOT monkeys didn't put into their database and it brought the safety rating back into the acceptable range.

My insurance company wouldn't renew my insurance for 2013 until I explained why the CSA database showed more trucks than I was insuring with them. They thought I was reporting more trucks than I had to improve my safety rating.

My safety rating is good now and I want to keep it that way.

So yeah I care alot.

 

He used 4 chains as 8 separate chains, its perfectly legal, i do it all of the time on coils and equipment...saves lugging a bunch of chains around...

 

Shortchaining. Guess he didnt see the "8 points and 8 binders." Think I should have said 8 points of securement? Even with dogchain, 8 points is overkill for a 20 ton piece.

 

No, I understood what you were explaining. And I still say in the eyes of the NYDOT it is likely to be considered only 4 chains and I wouldn`t have the guts to tempt fate. Believe me I have wanted to do it that way lots of times.

Is there even a provision in the FMCSA rule book you chain the way you described? If there is, I would photocopy it and put it in my log book to show the prick. But I haven't seen it in the book yet and I wouldn't trust a DOT cop or a judge to see it my way.

 

Actually, they are. You just got to know where to look.
http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.aspx?reg=393.122

 

But they aren't subjected to the same rules because that would mean the cops would have to open a door and climb up in there too see it. Much easier to walk around a double drop.

 

Incorrect, Sir. Here is the link and the reg.
http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.aspx?reg=393.106
(d) Aggregate working load limit for tiedowns. The aggregate working load limit of tiedowns used to secure an article or group of articles against movement must be at least one-half times the weight of the article or group of articles. The aggregate working load limit is the sum of:
(1) One-half the working load limit of each tiedown that goes from an anchor point on the vehicle to an anchor point on an article of cargo;
(2) One-half the working load limit of each tiedown that is attached to an anchor point on the vehicle, passes through, over, or around the article of cargo, and is then attached to an anchor point on the same side of the vehicle.
(3) The working load limit for each tiedown that goes from an anchor point on the vehicle, through, over, or around the article of cargo, and then attaches to another anchor point on the other side of the vehicle.

 

Thanks. That's why I said *I think" it's no longer true.

 

Actually, they are subject to the same rules. However, I think we can agree that they are not subject to the same level of enforcement of those rules.

 

I did notice that comment. That is why I clarified it. We all "think" incorrectly at times.