Comments By Partagas

Thanks Susan! I'm expecting a ride on the "roller coaster" thanks to everything I've read on TT. I talked with a West Side recruiter a few weeks back - she was nice and helpful. I'll get back in touch with her when I'm a week into school.

Thanks guys!

I start CDL school at Transportation Center for Excellence in St. Cloud MN at 07:00 tomorrow morning. I'm excited like a kid going to the first day of school in the fall. Really sunk in when I did the drug test and wrote the tuition check Thursday. I do feel like I need to check my Crayola box to make sure all 64 are there though.

Thanks to all for the great info on this sight - hard to imagine prepping for this without TT and The High Road.

Don

So would you say the ability to use the split sleeper rule is important enough to factor into the decision of which company to go with?

Greetings Sno-Boy. Check with your state's DMV or licensing authority to check how they want you to do things. In Minnesota, I did exactly what you are talking about. CLP, Hazmat written test, then TSA Hazmat Endorsement background check. They require an application, fingerprints and about $85. You can do the application and schedule an appointment online in most states, but several states have different procedures. Here's the link to the TSA's page:

https://www.tsa.gov/for-industry/hazmat-endorsement

(Sorry - you'll have to copy and paste - the link wouldn't take).

Don

Thanks OS - That's a great example and you explained it we'll.

I remember reading on one company's website a while back - and for the life of me can't remember which one - that they don't allow their drivers to use the split sleeper rule (assuming I read it right). Are there allot of companies like that? Can the Qualcomm be set to disallow it? Seems like a great tool to have in your HOS toolbox.

Ryan - I'm actually relying on the FMCSA's words:

Guidance: No. For example, an owner-operator using his/her own vehicle in an off-duty status, or a driver using a company truck or tractor (emphasis added) for transportation to a motel, restaurant, or home, would normally be outside the scope of this section.

The guidance covers operation of trucks and tractors, which are defined in Part 390.5. Trailers are not included in the exemption specified in the guidance, while tractors are specifically and singularly referenced.

Pretty picky reading of the regulations and guidance I'll admit, but during 33 years in law enforcement I've seen allot of citations written on picky reading where one word makes a difference and the definitions provided in statue or regulations matter. And, of course, what also matters is what your company thinks the regulation means and what their rules are.

Say your a flatbed driver right? your heading home you buy a case of beer, can you strap it down on the flat bed and that be okay? or would they say something about that too?

No. Section 392.5 prohibits a driver possessing alcohol while on duty or operating a CMV, unless it is manifested and part of a shipment.

Greetings William. I start CDL school Monday and the private school I'm attending requires you have your commercial learners permit (CLP) prior to starting their 160-hour course. Other schools I looked at either included the permit in the first couple of days of training or offered an additional day or two permit prep class ahead of the actual start of the 160 hour course. A couple schools offered that free if you signed up for their course while others charged extra for it. Most of the company hosted CDL training programs included the CLP. Whatever you end up doing, use the High Road Training on this sight and you'll be totally prepared to pass your knowledge tests. Good luck with your plans. Don

Hi Matt - I may be able add on to Rick, Errol's and Chosen's answers and help some with the "why" part of why seatbelt use is not universally required for occupants of school buses and RV's where it is for trucks, which I believe was part of your original question. Warning: This answer is long, wonky, and probably exceeds Matt's original question, but I'm looking for anything I can think of to put off doing my taxes today.

The school bus issue is the best example for the answer as there's a ton of research and policy discussion regarding occupant restraints in school buses. Simply put: it's the money. Not so simply put, it's where do school districts spend the money they have to yield the greatest benefit. School districts have limited funds to accomplish their total mission; transportation is just one part of that. Data shows that buses are by far the safest vehicle on the road in which to travel. In fact, an average of 6 of the more than 26 million K-12 students riding in buses are killed per year in school bus crashes, while an average 11 school children are killed each year by one of the estimated 450 million school buses on American roads or by other vehicles as they're approaching or boarding their bus. School buses are not required to have seatbelts installed by federal rule, making each state responsible, and as Rick pointed out, a handful have done so. Additionally, many school districts have voluntarily installed belts. So why don't the feds require the approximately 30,000 school buses purchased each year to come equipped with restraints; or why haven't more states passed laws requiring it? No one argues that seatbelts in school buses wouldn't help, so what's the hold-up?

It's the Benjamins. The cost to equip a new bus with passenger restraints is estimated to be between $7,000 - $10,000 per bus. The total national cost of compliance then would be somewhere between $210 million - $300 million per year. The typical response is you can't put a price on human life (especially our kids), so let's get it done. What school districts do is try to get the most benefit for their dollar. For instance, we already mentioned more kids are killed getting to or on the bus than do while riding on one. So, districts may opt to address the greater problem by adding more driver training, mirrors, warning lights, strobes, cameras, human spotters, and that swing out thing that keeps kids far enough in front of the vehicle for the driver to see them. They've estimated or calculated that dollars spent on those other items will prevent more fatalities than adding belts will. Buses are already involved in 9 times fewer accidents than cars, and occupants are protected by high back padded seats, which help prevent fatal injuries.

The 2014 measure of occupant fatalities per 100,000,000 (100 million) miles traveled by all buses (school, transit, charter, the 'Hound) was 0.28. By comparison, passenger auto occupant fatalities occur at nearly three times that rate, or 0.85 fatalities per 100 million miles traveled. Heavy trucks, defined by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) as vehicles with GVWR over 10,000 lb., had 0.30 occupant fatalities per 100 million miles in 2014. About the same as school buses. But, that's the rate of truck fatalities with seatbelts required to be installed and used as they have been since 1970.

Historical data from 1975 - the first year data is available for trucks - shows the fatality rate for heavy trucks was 1.2 - meaning the 2014 fatality rate of 0.30 represents a 75% decrease. The data shows the fatality rate remained 1.2 in 1980, before beginning a drastic decline in 1985 to 0.8, dropped again to 0.5 in 1990, and then to either 0.4 or 0.3 (varies back and forth year to year) from 1991 - 2014. Being trained to look for significant changes in data trends and the causation - I googled truck regulation 1984 and found that was the year the forerunner of the FMCSA was empowered to enforce the Federal Highway Administration's truck safety regulations - which I assume included seatbelt use. Coincidence? I know there have been allot of other safety improvements in heavy trucks, and it doesn't make sense that the entire drop in truck fatalities is attributable to seatbelts, but I expect it is one of the more - if not the most - significant factor(s). For example, faster access to better health care reduces fatalities irrespective of vehicle safety improvements. I only looked at fatalities for this example. Obviously, there are thousands of injuries occurring each year as well that would be included in a comprehensive analysis.

As far as RV's, there is no employee safety issue being enforced such as with OSHA does for off-roadway transport vehicles or FMCSA for on-highway trucks. I didn't find any data regarding RV occupant safety based on restraint use.

Overall, this quick analysis shows a little bit of how policy-makers identify issues to resolve through law or regulation. A big part of that is cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness analysis as presented above. But, never forget the ability of an emotional reaction to a tragedy or string of tragedy's to result in a knee-jerk reaction to a problem resulting in a new law, even when the evidence does not support or even contradicts it. Probably a long answer to a short question, but it's what I did for the last 15 years so thought I'd share it.

Take care all - Don