CDL, DOT, log book for tractors...

Wis Bang 2 · #61 03/02/10, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bret4207

FWIW- I spent nearly 6 years as a New York State Police CVEU DOT Inspector, the last 6 of my 23 year career. I completed numerous courses to keep my federal credentials (the NYSP dumps any member who fails any test, no "do overs", no one else does that!) and spent many weeks in Albany at training sessions and at the Mass SP Academy for further training. I was instructed by FMCSR rules committee members on our Staff, Instructors from Rhode Island, Wyoming, Delaware and other States. This was no walk in the park and required constant review and updating throughout my time on the CVEU.

With over 30 years in Motor Carrier operations & safety I have to say that NY does train it's MCSAP officers very well. I have had occasions to refute the findings of PA, NJ and CT inspections and at the same time I had to admire the positive application of the regulations by NY. In the early 80's they were training a bunch of additional inspection HM officers and Rt 17 in Broome County was their favorite spot [still is!] to catch the Buffalo bound trucks coming off I-81 to follow Rt 17 to I390 to avoid the NY Thruway. These guys found stuff that had passed by the notice of NJ & PA & CT inspectors as well as our own maintenance staff.

They knew their stuff and did their job w/ out padding the ticket count like PA is currrently doing. It wasn't a revenue grab, it is safety enforcement and education.

I've taught First Responders for the NJ State Police and can attest to the level of training being given to the enforcement community. The DOT's goal is ZERO fatalities. They don't care that fatal accidents have been declining for the past 10 plus years while the annual mileage has been growing at an astounding rate [till the currrent economic downturn]; something the trucking industry is very proud of. Part of the goal is uniformity across the entire transportation community.

Big Brother? Maybe but who can argue w/ a goal of Zero fatals??? Will it place additional pressure on the entire Ag community? Yes but they will be better off once they have moved beyond this.

fordy · #62 03/02/10, 12:17 PM

.................The feds can control IntERstate commerce , across state lines , INTRA state commerce is left up too the Individual state legislatures ! Too get around this division of authority the feds threaten too withhold fed highway funds UNless the states adopt\comply with fed regs . So , how is IT that the DOT thinks it can suddenly compel states too giveup their constitutional authority over INTRA state commerce ? Maybe we need a lawsuit ! , fordy

Bret4207 · #63 03/02/10, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fordy

.................The feds can control IntERstate commerce , across state lines , INTRA state commerce is left up too the Individual state legislatures ! Too get around this division of authority the feds threaten too withhold fed highway funds UNless the states adopt\comply with fed regs . So , how is IT that the DOT thinks it can suddenly compel states too giveup their constitutional authority over INTRA state commerce ? Maybe we need a lawsuit ! , fordy

Now THAT is a whole 'nuther can o'worms. Stuff like that always rubbed me the wrong way. But, common sense tells me with dollars as tight as they are the States will certainly consider any source for funds.

Bret4207 · #64 03/02/10, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wis Bang 2

With over 30 years in Motor Carrier operations & safety I have to say that NY does train it's MCSAP officers very well. I have had occasions to refute the findings of PA, NJ and CT inspections and at the same time I had to admire the positive application of the regulations by NY. In the early 80's they were training a bunch of additional inspection HM officers and Rt 17 in Broome County was their favorite spot [still is!] to catch the Buffalo bound trucks coming off I-81 to follow Rt 17 to I390 to avoid the NY Thruway. These guys found stuff that had passed by the notice of NJ & PA & CT inspectors as well as our own maintenance staff.

They knew their stuff and did their job w/ out padding the ticket count like PA is currrently doing. It wasn't a revenue grab, it is safety enforcement and education.

Thanks, we try to please!

Wis Bang 2 · #65 03/02/10, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bret4207

Thanks, we try to please!

The inspector found one non fuesable nut on one cable of a 7 compartment trailer...a driver had put it on to get the load off after the fuseable portioned failed and never reported it on his post trip. A real needle in the haystack!

Digging back we found out it had been riding around for a few months...

Bret4207 · #66 03/02/10, 06:38 PM

Yeah, HazMat is a game of attention to detail for sure. But, better to be safe than dead I always say...

rambler · #67 03/02/10, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wis Bang 2

The inspector found one non fuesable nut on one cable of a 7 compartment trailer...a driver had put it on to get the load off after the fuseable portioned failed and never reported it on his post trip. A real needle in the haystack!

Digging back we found out it had been riding around for a few months...

And someone thinks that's a good idea to apply to farm tractors that spend 93% of their time in the field and the 3% or so traveling 20-25mph between fields?

Oh boy. Gonna be interesting.

--->Paul

Bret4207 · #68 03/03/10, 05:43 AM

No. that's a Haz Mat violation. Nothing at all to do with regular over the road vehicles. And I still want to see it in writing that the proposal is geared towards FARM tractors. I have never heard of any place in the US that registers farm tractors as a motor vehicle. That would be the first step in the whole thing.

stanb999 · #69 03/03/10, 06:19 AM

The thing most are missing is Today, right now in PA if

You earn 50% of your income or greater from farming, You can basically drive anything without any restrictions with in the state of PA. A big Peter Built carrying 100 tons with no lights, mirrors, and bald tires; As long as it's transporting your crop to market is perfectly with in the law (as long as it's day time, only at night do you need lights.) Laws are very dare I say liberal.. when it comes to farmers in PA.

So the laws I'm sure are more strict in other states already.

Edited to add!!!
P.S. I just read the piece from the Farm Bureau... Farm Tractors(deer,New Holland, etc) don't matter. It's trucks IE things like the peter built noted above. Most of the regulations don't apply if less than 100 miles from the farm. The only thing that really matters seems to be the inspections and the logs. They want to stop those driving as above. I can't say I have an issue with that.

Here is a link to the PDF... http://www.pfb.com/news/March-10-CF-ex-farm-regs.pdf

ErinP · #70 03/03/10, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bret4207

but there are parts of the FMCSR that are used for different applications, so without having the correct definition or realizing the differences you can read something and walk off believing you have the proper information and be completely wrong.

We've been dealing with how the FMCSR works on ag. operations for 20 years. My husband has his CDL and has done hired work, as well as on-farm.
I promise you, I'm not encountering this for the first time...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bret4207

The point is the FMCSR, like it or not, is not a simple set of rules and trying to apply local enforcement practices as the "norm" elsewhere just doesn't work. What your local Inspectors or police may or may not do has little to no bearing on what happens elsewhere. .

The FMCSR is what's applied locally. And has been for years...
I thought it was state. It's not.
Upon reading the federal regs, that's what we have. (I thought I already said this?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by stanb999

You can basically drive anything without any restrictions with in the state of PA. A big Peter Built carrying 100 tons with no lights, mirrors, and bald tires; As long as it's transporting your crop to market is perfectly with in the law (as long as it's day time, only at night do you need lights.) Laws are very dare I say liberal.. when it comes to farmers in PA.

In other words, thank God they're cracking down on them! lol
Like the guys on the farm we worked with who used $2 WalMart flashlights for trailer running lights!

Bret4207 · #71 03/03/10, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ErinP

That would probably depend upon usage/purpose and existing state regs.

But for the purpose of this article, pickups are not considered "trucks."

Ya know Erin, you go right ahead and believe what you want. Just reading your post above should give more than enough information regarding your understanding of the FMCSR and how it works to anyone that's interested.

I'm done.

ErinP · #72 03/03/10, 10:48 PM

OK.

But I'm still completely baffled at what your issue is here, I guess.

As stated, it turns out our "state" regs (and every other state I've lived in) is already following the national. And the national regs are quite clear that usage and purpose is indeed a determining factor.
Ie, the exemptions for distance and so on.

And if you re-read the first page of this thread (the posts I was responding to, afterall) people were talking about taking their pickups on runs to town and how rough they were. (You did read the entire thread, right?)

My point was simply that that was not what is in question.
(As well as all of this dither about tractors...)

But obviously you're needing to take someone to task for something, so I guess I was just lucky enough to be the chosen target.

Either that or you really needed to be the BMOC and I was foolish enough to admit I knew something about the laws in question, too.

My sincerest apologies. I genuinely did not mean to take away your limelight.

Bret4207 · #73 03/04/10, 05:59 AM

Thanks for giving out ---- poor information that could get someone several thousand dollars worth of tickets.