This is why ELD's are going into effect.

Good example. So if pilot decide to take off (weather report for destination airport prohibit to fly there) and got some delays on start and another pilot landed in to his tail the pilot trying to take off should be charged because weather report was bad.
Lawyers will destroy this country.

 

What about tour bus company?
Was it under scrupulous investigation? How bus driver spent night in casino? Was he slept well?
Driving 76 mph bring him to this tragedy and cost 13 lives. If he was driving 55mph as it required by the law the road will be clear by the time he will be here. Ouch, I forgot the bus company is Cal based, locals are locals.
How I can charge my friend we play golf every weekend.

 

Where exactly have I "gone off the rails"? Walmart is on elogs, and the driver who crashed into Tracy Morgan's limo was in compliance with the HOS. That is fact. So how is that incident proof of why ELD's are needed?

Or are you saying when the 14th Amendment states "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" that it simply doesn't apply to truck drivers? I've read the Constitution, and NOWHERE does it contain any wording that would imply that an individual yields certain rights afforded to ALL citizens on the sole basis of the career which they choose to follow. Equal protection under the law means just that, that the law cannot be applied to one group of people differently than it is to another. That "higher standard" you crave, while good in principal to weed out the bad apples from a profession, is NOT a Constitutional model for the government to follow in the criminal justice system. If a private organization (i.e. the bar) wants to give a member the boot for behavior unbecoming of the group, holding members to a higher standard than would otherwise be expected from the general public, that's fine. Hell, if a state wants to DQ a guy's CDL for not living up to this "higher standard", again, that is well within reason. For members of that group to face stiffer CRIMINAL penalties than they would see if they weren't members, however, is NOT acceptable under ANY circumstance. "But he KNOWS better!" So yank his credentials and boot him out of the club. Any "special" treatment in the criminal justice system is unconstitutional, no matter HOW well intentioned it might seem.

 

You won't get too many folks offering a response back to your post pedigree- because its truthful and ethical

What I'm about to say you may agree with on 100%.......

In General,Society TODAY wants to see his/her fellow man Suffer while they succeed or stay steady with their own lives.....

Too Often I see it with my own eyes..Especially in truck Drivers,

Again,Dozens will read what you have posted in this thread- But will not reply with any logic

 

No where and at no time have I suggested anything remotely close to what I have highlighted in your quoted post above. Fact.

As for the rest...

I have absolutely no idea what you're rambling about, nor how it is connected in any way with the idiot driver parking his truck in the middle of the Interstate, and I most certainly never made mention of it, but I'll take a stab at it. Going strictly from memory, and poor memory at best as I did very little reading on the Walmart/Morgan accident, my recollection is that the Walmart driver was technically compliant with the HOS, but was fatigued due to his excessive commute. Is that correct? If so, then despite his technical compliance with the off-duty period, the Walmart driver should not have been driving as drivers have a responsibility to ensure they are fit for driving. Simple. It isn't just the rules as they are written, but also the intent of what the rules are trying to achieve. Not falling asleep and running people over on the freeway or parking in the middle of an active driving lane seems both basic to understand and exceedingly reasonable.

If you spend your entire ten-hour rest gambling in the casino and then drive are you compliant? Well, yes and no. You may have complied with the requirement to take ten hours off, but you certainly didn't get any rest and are therefore not fit to drive.

Say what? The above is all pretty silly, but, again, I'll address it.

Your 14th Amendment comment is specious. The driver has not been deprived of anything and he is being afforded due process. He has been charged, rightly so, and will have the opportunity to address those charges in a court of law. Or did you miss that part?

Your statement "[t]hat 'higher standard' you crave..." is, again, specious. I have made no such declaration.

The rest is just unrelated ranting... pretty much off the rails. At least with respect to my posts which you have quoted. Got a point to make? Put it in a post separate from the ones you have quoted.

 

The bus driver was also the bus company owner. He is dead. The DA prosecuting the truck driver has stated that the bus driver bears more fault than the truck driver. That fact does not absolve the truck driver of his negligence and culpability.

 

He should be if he is parked on the runway in violation of rules and/or instructions to the contrary.

Much like the laws that prohibit parking your truck in the travel lane of an Interstate and going to sleep.

Of course the fact that the plane shouldn't move until it is known that it can land and therefore shouldn't be on the runway to begin with (trip planning occurs before the engines are even started) makes your analogy unrelated in any manner.

 

If you'd read the thread, you'd see that my comments WERE relevant to the flow of the conversation, starting with an assertion by one poster that professional drivers ought to be held to a higher standard by the law, followed by my argument against such a notion, indicating that the law ought not play favorites. Another poster chimed in, bringing up the Walmart/Tracy Morgan incident as proof of why the higher standard should exist and justification for ELD's being mandated, and again I replied. If I were on my computer, I could quote each relevant line and make my point before quoting the next relevant line and responding to that...idiot-proofing my replies, so to speak, so that people like you can follow along easier. I'm not, though, and my phone can be a PITA when it comes to multiple quotes and such, so you'll just have to read the thread instead of just a single post here or there to understand what I'm talking about. If you can't follow the conversation, it's your problem, not mine. If you're having difficulty understanding the relevance of a post I have made, scroll back and read a few posts leading up to the one you're struggling with and you'll probably figure it out.

 

Meh...

 

It is established already that truckers who illegally park along the shoulder and are struck from behind are heavily at fault for the damages and injuries/death that results. Not sure how anyone could justify a trucker parking IN the roadway and being struck from behind as OK.