This is your Profile page. Use it to check replies to your comments, keep track of comments
you've made or endorsed, and manage your regulation room account.
Have been thinking about this one for a few days now, and have a hard time digesting what the FMCSA is wanting to do. In perspective, they want to suspend a CMV operators CDL for the “act of texting”, whereas a person that is convicted of drunk driving in most states gets a slap on the risk, a fine and continues on with their daily life. That CDL is a persons way of making a living, feeding his/her family and staying off the federal unemployment lines. The only way personally I could see such a penalty would be justified, is if the “act of texting” was the cause of an accident in which an accident occurred which involves property damage and/or injury to an individual(s). And then, only if, through a means of confirming (more than likely through a court order) that the CMV Operator was indeed texting when the accident occurred could such a penalty (CDL suspension) be enforced. This would also require synchronization of the vehicles on OBR and the texting device to confirm time.
Leaving this rule as a judgement call on the part of the enforcing officer would lead to some severe misuse, that will cost everyone in the long run. The CMV operator and/or CMV owner would be forced to pay expensive attorney fees to prove innocence in some cases, and the city, county or state entity that wrote the violation would also have heavy cost to have a trial on such cases. Thousands of CMV operators hang it up every day for many reasons, and one is the increased discrimination of enforcement placed on them, and making it harder to exist on the road. Add to the Federal rules, the varying rules from state-to-state, a CMV operator these days needs a laptop in the cab with GPS, and a pop-up and pull-over screen before crossing state lines so that can be updated and reminded of the differing laws in the state they are entering.
The exception noted in Section 392.80 would handle the emergency situation criteria. The fact that they found it necasarry to specifically use the term “citizens band radio” – a non-licensed communication device, and not go one step further to include the use of licensed devices such as Amateur, GRMS or Commercial Band radio (i.e. company radios) leaves room for mis-interpretation of the rule, for the intent that the sub-paragraph was added. Thank You
Quote: “(ii) Using an in-cab fleet management system or citizens band radio;” End Quote
I for one, as well as many other Licensed Amateur Radio operators would like to see this sub-paragraph amended to include: or utilization of equipment by FCC Licensed Radio operators. Many states have included exception in their current and future mobile legislation that read similar. A portion of Amateur Radio operators provide valuable services in time of disaster, and during events such as Hurricane Katrina, Ike and other have been utilized to relay valuable information to state and federal authorities through direct and/or relayed means. Some modes of Amateur Radio do have the ability to relay text type messages, and these should be exempted in time of emergency or other needs. Then again, I do not advocate this use while in motion, but the need could arise during emergency operations, and such should be allowed.
Quote:”How will any law enforcement entity know when a driver is texting?”End Quote
This is an interesting question, and one that can lead to abuse of the rule by any law enforcement entity that may choose to do so. Officer going down the road, and just decides to pull over a truck and accuse the driver of TWD, request to see the drivers phone, driver refuses – instant ticket and road side inspection, or, driver give the officer the phone, officer sees that a text message was sent 45 minutes ago, officer: where you sitting still when this was sent? Driver – yes Officer: let me see your log book showing that you stopped. OOPS – driver did not log the 3 minutes he pulled over in the rest area to send a quick message home. Instant ticket.
Here is a solution: Instead of the FMCSA or anyone else for that matter passing a non-enforceable and discriminatory law on Commecial drivers, mandate that any cell phone – yes, the general motoring public also, have a program that would turn off all texting, e-mail, internet, etc functions if the phone is travelling at a speed of say, over 5 mph. The cell phone manufacturers could easily flash every phone in use today with a string of code, that would prevent texting at any speed over 5 mph, thus ending the debate over CMV operators, under 18 drivers, etc. Oh yes, this includes all the lawyers, doctors, politicians, and the list goes on. But, what if I am just riding as a passenger – hmm, sorry Charlie, no exceptions.
I cannot count the number of times when I was on the road, that I was cut off, nearly side-swiped, rear ended or any other almost accident, that the driver of the smaller vehicle was distracted playing with a phone, pda, laptop, or other. Of the thousands of decisions a CMV driver has to make a minute, 75% or better are involved in protecting the motoring public that are not aware of their surroundings.
Large fleets have very accurate means to track their trucks, the loads, and most critical data on the operation of the truck. These systems, one such is Qualcomm, also allow for dispatch to truck, and truck to dispatch communications, i.e. texting of sorts, and even some fleets have accounts set-up so drivers can use the system for e-mail. A few fleets, very few also have video data recorders in the cab. There is no system that I am aware of, that would allow a Fleet Manager, Dispatcher or anyone for that matter, to track communication exchanges from a drivers personal cell phone, laptop or other device capable of relaying wireless messages. Many fleets have rule in their drivers handbooks, prohibiting the use of a variety of devices, including personal cell phone while the vehicle is in motion. But these rules are hard to enforce, rely on an honor system, and rarely become an issue unless a driver is involved in a MVA and the cell phone records are investigated or the company is using the rules to justify firing a driver.
Quote: ” CMV Commercial Motor Vehicle drivers who text were 23 times more likely to have a “safety critical event” than non-texters.”End Quote
While I find this statistic interesting, since this is a rule FMCSA is trying to shove on CMV operators, since that is their only jurisdiction, multiple other studies have shown, that as a whole, any driver that is distracted by texting is anywhere from 20 to 50% more likely to have a critical incident, then non-texting drivers. Other studies have also shown, that in incident involving a CMV and a non-CMV, that over 80% of the time, the non-CMV operator is at fault. But, because the general motoring public would scream murder and boot the congressman and senator out of office at the next election if they messed with their cell phones and texting priviledge, the government as a whole, will only pick on the one segment of highway users that they have ultimate jurisdiction over, and the is CMV operators. Note for those not in the know, the federal government has very limited power, if any at all, over the general motoring public. Laws and Enforcement of those laws on the General public falls on the individual states.
While there are some bad actors as they say in the trucking industry, the majority are safer and more concious of their surroundings then the average general driver.
In-Cab video devices are used by a rare few companies, more for time – motion studies for looking at ways to save cost, more so, than keeping tabs on the drivers themselves. Another problem with in-cab systems is invasion of privacy, which always becomes a debate when discussing HOS and other regulatory means. Trying to implement this type of system just in fleet trucks would be near impossible, then you add in the million plus Owner Operators that not only not allow such intrusions, but could not afford the technology to start with. As stated in a previous post, the only way that such a regulation would be enforceable, would be to regulate the technology and the providers to such, that motion over a set speed would disable the devices ability to text. This would have to be done on a nationwide basis, and effect every one that owns such a device. Oh can you hear the cries now. “It is my right to use my device anywhere, anytime” < sorry Charlie – Driving is not a right, it is a privilege enabled by the states.
Have been thinking about this one for a few days now, and have a hard time digesting what the FMCSA is wanting to do. In perspective, they want to suspend a CMV operators CDL for the “act of texting”, whereas a person that is convicted of drunk driving in most states gets a slap on the risk, a fine and continues on with their daily life. That CDL is a persons way of making a living, feeding his/her family and staying off the federal unemployment lines. The only way personally I could see such a penalty would be justified, is if the “act of texting” was the cause of an accident in which an accident occurred which involves property damage and/or injury to an individual(s). And then, only if, through a means of confirming (more than likely through a court order) that the CMV Operator was indeed texting when the accident occurred could such a penalty (CDL suspension) be enforced. This would also require synchronization of the vehicles on OBR and the texting device to confirm time.
Leaving this rule as a judgement call on the part of the enforcing officer would lead to some severe misuse, that will cost everyone in the long run. The CMV operator and/or CMV owner would be forced to pay expensive attorney fees to prove innocence in some cases, and the city, county or state entity that wrote the violation would also have heavy cost to have a trial on such cases. Thousands of CMV operators hang it up every day for many reasons, and one is the increased discrimination of enforcement placed on them, and making it harder to exist on the road. Add to the Federal rules, the varying rules from state-to-state, a CMV operator these days needs a laptop in the cab with GPS, and a pop-up and pull-over screen before crossing state lines so that can be updated and reminded of the differing laws in the state they are entering.
The exception noted in Section 392.80 would handle the emergency situation criteria. The fact that they found it necasarry to specifically use the term “citizens band radio” – a non-licensed communication device, and not go one step further to include the use of licensed devices such as Amateur, GRMS or Commercial Band radio (i.e. company radios) leaves room for mis-interpretation of the rule, for the intent that the sub-paragraph was added. Thank You
Quote: “(ii) Using an in-cab fleet management system or citizens band radio;” End Quote
I for one, as well as many other Licensed Amateur Radio operators would like to see this sub-paragraph amended to include: or utilization of equipment by FCC Licensed Radio operators. Many states have included exception in their current and future mobile legislation that read similar. A portion of Amateur Radio operators provide valuable services in time of disaster, and during events such as Hurricane Katrina, Ike and other have been utilized to relay valuable information to state and federal authorities through direct and/or relayed means. Some modes of Amateur Radio do have the ability to relay text type messages, and these should be exempted in time of emergency or other needs. Then again, I do not advocate this use while in motion, but the need could arise during emergency operations, and such should be allowed.
Quote:”How will any law enforcement entity know when a driver is texting?”End Quote
This is an interesting question, and one that can lead to abuse of the rule by any law enforcement entity that may choose to do so. Officer going down the road, and just decides to pull over a truck and accuse the driver of TWD, request to see the drivers phone, driver refuses – instant ticket and road side inspection, or, driver give the officer the phone, officer sees that a text message was sent 45 minutes ago, officer: where you sitting still when this was sent? Driver – yes Officer: let me see your log book showing that you stopped. OOPS – driver did not log the 3 minutes he pulled over in the rest area to send a quick message home. Instant ticket.
Here is a solution: Instead of the FMCSA or anyone else for that matter passing a non-enforceable and discriminatory law on Commecial drivers, mandate that any cell phone – yes, the general motoring public also, have a program that would turn off all texting, e-mail, internet, etc functions if the phone is travelling at a speed of say, over 5 mph. The cell phone manufacturers could easily flash every phone in use today with a string of code, that would prevent texting at any speed over 5 mph, thus ending the debate over CMV operators, under 18 drivers, etc. Oh yes, this includes all the lawyers, doctors, politicians, and the list goes on. But, what if I am just riding as a passenger – hmm, sorry Charlie, no exceptions.
I cannot count the number of times when I was on the road, that I was cut off, nearly side-swiped, rear ended or any other almost accident, that the driver of the smaller vehicle was distracted playing with a phone, pda, laptop, or other. Of the thousands of decisions a CMV driver has to make a minute, 75% or better are involved in protecting the motoring public that are not aware of their surroundings.
Large fleets have very accurate means to track their trucks, the loads, and most critical data on the operation of the truck. These systems, one such is Qualcomm, also allow for dispatch to truck, and truck to dispatch communications, i.e. texting of sorts, and even some fleets have accounts set-up so drivers can use the system for e-mail. A few fleets, very few also have video data recorders in the cab. There is no system that I am aware of, that would allow a Fleet Manager, Dispatcher or anyone for that matter, to track communication exchanges from a drivers personal cell phone, laptop or other device capable of relaying wireless messages. Many fleets have rule in their drivers handbooks, prohibiting the use of a variety of devices, including personal cell phone while the vehicle is in motion. But these rules are hard to enforce, rely on an honor system, and rarely become an issue unless a driver is involved in a MVA and the cell phone records are investigated or the company is using the rules to justify firing a driver.
Quote: ” CMV Commercial Motor Vehicle drivers who text were 23 times more likely to have a “safety critical event” than non-texters.”End Quote
While I find this statistic interesting, since this is a rule FMCSA is trying to shove on CMV operators, since that is their only jurisdiction, multiple other studies have shown, that as a whole, any driver that is distracted by texting is anywhere from 20 to 50% more likely to have a critical incident, then non-texting drivers. Other studies have also shown, that in incident involving a CMV and a non-CMV, that over 80% of the time, the non-CMV operator is at fault. But, because the general motoring public would scream murder and boot the congressman and senator out of office at the next election if they messed with their cell phones and texting priviledge, the government as a whole, will only pick on the one segment of highway users that they have ultimate jurisdiction over, and the is CMV operators. Note for those not in the know, the federal government has very limited power, if any at all, over the general motoring public. Laws and Enforcement of those laws on the General public falls on the individual states.
While there are some bad actors as they say in the trucking industry, the majority are safer and more concious of their surroundings then the average general driver.
In-Cab video devices are used by a rare few companies, more for time – motion studies for looking at ways to save cost, more so, than keeping tabs on the drivers themselves. Another problem with in-cab systems is invasion of privacy, which always becomes a debate when discussing HOS and other regulatory means. Trying to implement this type of system just in fleet trucks would be near impossible, then you add in the million plus Owner Operators that not only not allow such intrusions, but could not afford the technology to start with. As stated in a previous post, the only way that such a regulation would be enforceable, would be to regulate the technology and the providers to such, that motion over a set speed would disable the devices ability to text. This would have to be done on a nationwide basis, and effect every one that owns such a device. Oh can you hear the cries now. “It is my right to use my device anywhere, anytime” < sorry Charlie – Driving is not a right, it is a privilege enabled by the states.