Fines for log book violations
Yodldihodl
they vary by state? Is there a difference in fines for not having a log book at
all and not being up to date with the log book? When pulled over and not up to
date, do they allow the driver a certain amount of time to update his log book
before a ticket is issued? Does it make a difference if the log book page for
that date is signed by the driver, even if the log for that day is not up to
date?
Lloyd Hayes
Yodldihodl wrote in message <19990222103452...@ng52.aol.com>...
The rules, tickets, and fines vary from State to State.
Never Sign a Log Page Until It's Completed!
Yodldihodl
Why is that? Please explain.
ORION 300
>>Never Sign a Log Page Until It's Completed!
>
>
>Why is that? Please explain.
>
>
Because when you sign you certify that all entries are true and correct. If you
have lied (now who would do anything like that?) or made and inadvertant false
entry, the cop can't cite you for falsifiying your log book. Usually a much
steeper fine than being behind or not having a log book.
HOWEVER, this does not apply if you run Canada, when driving in Canada, you
MUST sign the log book at the beginning of the day. $300.00 fine for not doing
this.
In addition, if you look at the DOT hand book, it says, and I have seen this
with my own eyes, that if your log book is behind, but you are current to the
previous six days, you MUST be given the opportunity to bring it up to date.
Look it up in your own DOT rule book so you know it is there and can use it if
you need it. Don't let some prick cop BS you on this point.
Yodldihodl
>Because when you sign you certify that all entries are true and correct. If
>you
>have lied (now who would do anything like that?) or made and inadvertant
>false
>entry, the cop can't cite you for falsifiying your log book. Usually a much
>steeper fine than being behind or not having a log book.
Stupid question but how would the cop when he's got the trucker pulled over
know if he has falsifiyed his log book? How would the cop know that when and
where the trucker took his break or from where to where and for how long the
trucker was behind the wheel according to his log book is not true, unless the
trucker admits that his log book entries are a lie? Excuse my ignorance in this
matter : (
Chuck
>>>Never Sign a Log Page Until It's Completed!
>>Why is that? Please explain.
>Because when you sign you certify that all entries are true and correct.
Oh really! ??
So an officer asks to see my logbook at, say, 1500 hours. I have it
completed current to my last change of duty status at, say 1300 hours
when I came off of lunch break. Complete with my signature where is is
required to be. There are no entried after 1300 hours .. the time of
my last change of duty. My signature denotes that I attest to the
accuracy of all entries on that sheet.
Now where are all these false entries that he's gonna cite me for?
There are none.
Gunney
ideas??? You are so full of S___ I had to go out to the barn to get a
shovel. All I will say is this!!! Read 395.8 (d) (5) of FMCSR, if you know
what that is? And it clearly states that if you do what you just stated, I
as a Law enforcement official could charge you with I Quote from section
395.8 (e) Failure to complete the record of duty activities of these
sections and or making false reports in connection with such duty activities
shall make the Driver and or the Carrier liable to Prosecution. If you are
going to give advice, at least do your homework first!! Laws are not
thought up as you go along!!
That is all I have to say about that Issue.
Gunney
Chuck wrote in message <36d303d4....@news.comteck.com>...
Chuck
wrote:
> And it clearly states that if you do what you just stated, I
>as a Law enforcement official could charge you with I Quote from section
>395.8 (e) Failure to complete the record of duty activities of these
>sections and or making false reports in connection with such duty activities .....
Nice thing about being an officer is you can charge anyone with
anything. Making it stick in court when a good attorney gets his hooks
in may be another game.
A most simple scenairo and a most simple question, sir.
The scenario:
My last change of duty was at 1300 hours. It is now 1500 hours. You
stop me and ask to see my log book. I immediately hand it to you. I
have _accurately_ and _honestly_ recorded every thing I have done up
to my last change of duty. I have signed my log sheet for today.
The question [s]:
Where is this false report you're gonna charge me with? What have I
"falsified"?
If you sign your name on a blank sheet of paper, what lies have you
told? What have you falsified? Every entry that I have made is correct
and honest and properly entered. My signature attests to that. Since I
have been on duty driving since 1300 hours I have not had an
oportunity to bring my logs any further up to date. They are as up to
date, as correct, and as honest as it's possible to be. And my
signature attests to that fact. You have a problem with that?
If so, _you_ have a real problem, _PERIOD_!
In all my years on the road it was my normal procedure to start my
logs out before I turned the first wheel. One of the very first things
I did when I started my log was to _SIGN_ the sheet! I can't begin to
count the times I've been asked to show my logs to a duly authorized
officer .. state and/or federal! NOT ONE TIME DID ONE OF THOSE
OFFICERS QUESTION THE FACT THAT MY LOG SHEET WAS SIGNED, SIR! _NOT_
_ONE_ OF THEM! Not only that .. in all my years on the road _YOU_ are
the first person I've ever even heard make a suggestion that signing a
logsheet at the start of the day was, in and of itself, illegal!
If it's 1500 hours and there's no entry for 1600 hours [1500 hours or
beyond], that is not a falsification,sir! Nor is it failure to
complete the duty section blah blah blah ... it isn't time to complete
that portion of the duty section yet for God's sake!
And you'll calling me full of shit!
Edward Justice sr
Edward L. Justice Sr.
Gunney
preference of clothing , I or the others of this group don't really care!!!
What I do care about is the way you mislead others by misinterpretation of
the Law, There are DOT officers that won't care about Signitures, The proper
Date , or not even catch those errors. That is not my Point!! You keep
refering to 1500 or 1300 , this does'nt mean squat!! The law states that
after 2400 the next day starts, if you are off duty from the day before or
sleeping till lets say 0800 and an officer asks for log at a rest area, and
you have just awoke, and there is nothing written in the book for that day,
he will not refer to today he will refer to your last change of duty.
Now here is where the Crap starts flying on your comments. On the day of
duty if it be at 0100 or 1500 you must complete all required information:
395.8 (d)1-11. That is the law in plain english, I Used to enforce those
laws at the Banning Scales from 1991-1994.That's right I was a DOT officer,
I no longer choose to be, due to the Political aspects that go along with
it. I currently have a Trucking Company and an Informational web site . If
you have been on I-10 from Indio to Banning Ca, I was Known on the Radio as
Gunney Bear. Now it's just Gunney. In closing may I say what you get away
with and what the Laws state are 2 different things.
Regards,
Gunney
Chuck wrote in message <36d332a6....@news.comteck.com>...
Chuck
wrote:
>Chuck, When you are in command of your truck ,your log Book , your
>preference of clothing , I or the others of this group don't really care!!!
Gee, that's nice.. Now perhaps you'd care to inform us all just who
the hell said you did? ??
>You keep
>refering to 1500 or 1300 , this does'nt mean squat!!
Well, perhaps to you it doesn't. To anyone who understands military
time is means three PM and one PM respectively. I is both the easiest
and the _least_ misunderstood way of telling time when
misunderstandings need to be avoided. That's why I used it, sir.
>The law states that
>after 2400 the next day starts, if you are off duty from the day before or
>sleeping till lets say 0800 and an officer asks for log at a rest area, and
>you have just awoke, and there is nothing written in the book for that day,
>he will not refer to today he will refer to your last change of duty.
I didn't say one word about being in a rest area asleep. I ask you
specificly to tell me what I would have falsified and or what I would
have failed to document [Which is specifically the grounds you said
you were going to summons me on!] given the scenario that I
constructed.
You have yet to tell us.
I'll tell you,sir. I would have falisfied absolutely _nothing_. I
would have failed to document absolutley _nothing_! There was no
intent to mislead in anything I would have entered on my logs as I
described them.
>Now here is where the Crap starts flying on your comments. On the day of
>duty if it be at 0100 or 1500 you must complete all required information:
>395.8 (d)1-11.
Once more, sir, PRECISELY WHAT IS IT THAT I DID NOT COMPLETE?
PRECISELY WHAT IS IT THAT I FALSIFIED?
>That is the law in plain english, I Used to enforce those
>laws at the Banning Scales from 1991-1994.
Well sir, my logs have been checked at the Banning scales! By whom I
certainly can't tell you ... but they found nothing wrong with my
logs! What a shame that you evidently weren't there at the time! Or
perhaps you were taking your daily siesta at the time I was being
checked out! Or perhaps one of your co-wokrers there at the time knew
how to tell time.
>That's right I was a DOT officer,
I'm impressed. [yawn]
Gunney
another Driver will get some benifits out of the FMCSR Laws as I posted
them.
I am finished with this string Chuck, I have never been in the habit of
having pissing contests with anyone, You have any further Questions that I
may be able to inform you with, Try my Email that is attached to each post.
That way you might be able to save yourself alittle Humiliation....Just a
suggestion....Yawn...Bye Chuck..
Knowledge is Power in this Industry!!!
Gunney
Chuck wrote in message <36d37183....@news.comteck.com>...
JuTravler
Edward Justice sr wrote in message ...
BDSPRD
>Date: 2/23/99 10:59 PM Eastern Standard Time
>The log book is supposed to be brought up to date every 4 hours
Sheesh...
I think that is at every duty status change isn`t it?
Hope that magical four hour update doesn`t come on the middle of the Cross
Bronx during rush hour...
Don`t EVER ask me why I drink!
BDSPRD
>Date: 2/23/99 2:02 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Because when you sign you certify that all entries are true and correct. If
>you
>have lied (now who would do anything like that?) or made and inadvertant
>false
>entry, the cop can't cite you for falsifiying your log book.
Ah...the truckstop lawyer...sigh...
http://mcregis.fhwa.dot.gov/395reg.htm#RG395.8
Regulatory Guidance
395.8 Driver`s Record of Duty Status
Question 3
If a driver`s record of duty status is not signed, may enforcement action be
taken on the current day`s record if it contains false information?
Guidance: Enforcement action can be taken against the driver even though that
record may not be signed.
>In addition, if you look at the DOT hand book, it says, and I have seen this
>with my own eyes, that if your log book is behind, but you are current to the
>previous six days, you MUST be given the opportunity to bring it up to date.
This is given so that the enforcement officer may not declare a driver out of
service, but you can bet your shower thongs that he is going to give you a
written reminder with a cash donation required.
If you guys would exert as much energy learning the Regs and the LEGAL ways to
get around them instead of trying to find every little loophole that proves
later to be not there, or even better...RUN LEGALLY!...you might just be
surprised at how much ground you can cover and not be completely worn out.
Sheesh...
Uh...did a Federal Marshal point that one out to you?
395.13 (3) Exception. A driver failing only to have possession of a record of
duty status current on the day of examination and the prior day, but has
completed records of duty status up to that time (previous 6 days), will be
given the opportunity to make the duty staus record current.
DON`T EVER ask me why I drink...
BDSPRD
>Date: 2/23/99 2:16 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Stupid question
Not really...
>how would the cop when he's got the trucker pulled over
>know if he has falsifiyed his log book?
For the most part, an enforcement oficer during a roadside check, doesn`t know
when the driver has taken a break, loaded or unloaded, etc.
What he is looking for is blatant false entries or misfiguring of current
HOS...believe me, they know when something isn`t quite right.
Now what they can do is make notations of carriers and drivers that log to the
excess and request an in-house audit of that carrier`s records at a future
date.
For the most part, that officer can look at the equipment and/or driver and be
able to judge who is running hot and who isn`t.
>Excuse my ignorance in this
>matter : (
There is no ignorance sir, just misinformation.
BDSPRD
>Date: 2/23/99 3:39 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Chuck,Chuck,Chuck......Where in the heck do you come up with all these
>ideas??? You are so full of S___ I had to go out to the barn to get a
>shovel.
Gunney...I think you need to rethink what you just posted sir...it doesn`t
sound too professional for someone who has appointed himself Board Fairy
here...
Chuckster`s statement is correct...
What is it that he posted that got your panties in a wad?
You guys are going to keep on until I have to call the Federal Marshal!
God give me strength!
ROADJUNKIE
>Hope that magical four hour update doesn`t come on the middle of the Cross
>Bronx during rush hour...
>
>Don`t EVER ask me why I drink!
You had to be drunk to be there.....
BDSPRD
>Date: 2/23/99 7:17 PM Eastern Standard Time
Thought the last post was your "last word on the subject" sir?
I wish you would point out EXACTLY where it is you feel the Chuckster has
misled anyone on this site...
In fact, you might want to sit back...
and listen to what it is he is saying...
might learn something...
Reminds me of Tony...hey Chuck?
>The law states that
>after 2400 the next day starts,
Wrong again! But I am tired of fooling with you and will let it go until
another time.
A log sheet MUST BE CURRENT WITH THE LAST CHANGE OF DRIVER DUTY STATUS!
395.8 (d) 1-11 has nothing to do with Chuck`s position...
>I Used to enforce those
>laws at the Banning Scales from 1991-1994.That's right I was a DOT officer,
That`s scary...but a point well taken...
Not only do most drivers not have full comprehension of the Regs...but most
enforcement types don`t either...
If assholes could fly, this place would be an airport!
Sheesh...
BDSPRD
>Date: 2/23/99 10:53 PM
> Maybe
>another Driver will get some benifits out of the FMCSR Laws as I posted
>them.
God...I hope not!
>I am finished with this string Chuck, I have never been in the habit of
>having pissing contests with anyone,
Damn...this is the third time you have mentioned this!
>Knowledge is Power in this Industry!!!
>Gunney
>
And ignorance is bliss...sheesh...
Chuck
wrote:
>I am really sorry that all that information went right over your head, Maybe
>another Driver will get some benifits out of the FMCSR Laws as I posted
>them.
You have yet to answer my simple question. i.e., What was falsified on
the logs as I set them up in the scenario I detailed here for you?
Wahtt was it that I failed to document?
I saw all your huffing and puffing ... but I have yet to see you anwer
my simple question[s].
You remind me of the Illiniois DOT officer that gave me a roadside
walk around inspection one fine day. She wrote me a fix and repair
order on a "chaffed airline". The "airline" actually was the light
chord! Or of the kid DOT officer in PA one day ... he wrote me up for
a right front brake that WAS ALMOST OUT OF ADJUSTMENT! Read that
again if you missed it ... _ALMOST_ out of adjustment!
As I said earlier on .. give some jerk a badge and he can write anyone
for anything he chooses. It's not too smart to argue with a badge
alongside the highway or in an inspection station. But you can't wave
your badge at me here. I'm not at all surprised that you're no longer
with the CA DOT.
Sunshine 70
Disclaimer: I do not intentionally mean to make fun of someone or hurt their
feelings, I admit I have a "different" (warped?) sense of humour.
Having said that I have to say I also love to pass time making up sceneries.
My Scenario for Chuck is to see him as the Lone Ranger. He seems to wade in,
with his one man bandwagon. Then Tonto (aka Bedsrpd) comes along to lend a
hand.
This NG has given me alot of enjoyment and really brightens up my day. Thank
you to all.
Barbara
Frank Workman
You have yet to answer my simple question. i.e., What was falsified on
the logs as I set them up in the scenario I detailed here for you?
Wahtt was it that I failed to document?
If you will scan a log filled out the way you were talking completed as you
would show it to an officer and post it I am sure we could show you what you
would be cited for. Keep in mind it is to be completed the way you would
show it to an officer.
Rick
deal with, Seems we have thread after thread about log books.(I'm not complaining
just an observation) I'm curious ,do these Company and private CDL schools teach
the students how to fill out the log books and what the HOS regs are? Should we
write a book "Logbooks for Dummies"?
Another observation, I tried a software log book once , it took longer to boot the
laptop than it did to just write it in.
rick
BDSPRD wrote:
> DON`T EVER ask me why I drink...
Dixieblume
>the logs as I set them up in the scenario I detailed here for you?
>Wahtt was it that I failed to document?
If I may jump in here... I think what he means is that if you sign your sheet
and you get pulled over at point B when according to your log book you
certified that it is true and correct that you are at point A, a nitpicking
person would be able to claim that you lied (because you are NOT at point A at
the time they checked your log book, even though you certified with your
signature that you ARE).
Rsmorton
MOST law enforcement officers don't have a clue what they're looking at when
they see a log book, shipping papers, or even a big rig, unless there is is an
obvious safety / equipment violation which any john (jane) citizen could'nt
miss.
The exception to this would be, naturally, those LEO's that have been
specifically trained in the field of truck enforcement. They DON'T teach
Trucks 101 in the police academy (except Ohio OSP).
As far as a LEO trying to issue a citation for a non-violation just to see if
it will not be challenged, he would have to be totally f***ing stupid, as this
would amount to a false arrest/summons and unlawful detention which would leave
his (her) ass wide open to a lawsuit.
I recall many many years ago being on the scene of a truck-car collision (not
the trucker's fault, btw) and a supervisor radioing me to "check his log &
papers." I did and had no idea what the hell I was looking at, as far as the
log went. But the driver/company was a local and had left his terminal about
30 minutes before so I told the boss that everything checked out (which on
later checking was true).
You see, the only thing I was concerned with at that time was doing my crash
report & clearing the roadway.
A buddy of mine (trucker) told me that the fine (at that time) for not having
your log book was $50 (Damn, musta left it at that truck stop 2 hours back)
whereas it was like $100 per page not caught up. Don't know how true that is
today.
I'm getting ready to retire and am looking to start driving pretty soon, so I
guess I'll get to see the other side of this coin eventually, like it or not.
Maybe stretched this into $.05 worth.
Skudds
Chuck
wrote:
>If I may jump in here... I think what he means is that if you sign your sheet
>and you get pulled over at point B when according to your log book you
>certified that it is true and correct that you are at point A, a nitpicking
>person would be able to claim that you lied (because you are NOT at point A at
>the time they checked your log book, even though you certified with your
>signature that you ARE).
If my last change of duty status was at 1300 hours, at which time I
started driving, and I so enter that change on my logs, then I'm
stopped and asked for my logs at 1500 hours, it should be painfully
obvious to anyone. Unless they have a problem telling or understanding
the hour of the day.
Dixieblume
>started driving, and I so enter that change on my logs, then I'm
>stopped and asked for my logs at 1500 hours, it should be painfully
>obvious to anyone. Unless they have a problem telling or understanding
>the hour of the day.
But that wasn't his point I don't think. Of course it would be no problem if
you hadn't signed your log, but if you sign and certify and that you are at
point A when actually you are point B, they could consider this a
falsification. Everything that is not up to date to the minute you get pulled
over would be a lie because according to your log you certified that you are
at point A, no matter if point A was your last change of status. That's why he
said never sign your log in advance, because if it is a nitpicking cop that's
what he might be able to claim.
Yodldihodl
>the students how to fill out the log books and what the HOS regs are? Should
>we
>write a book "Logbooks for Dummies"?
I do not drive a truck, that's why I posted and asked the original question. If
I had known it would turn into a shouting match, I guess I would have thought
twice about posting the message and would have just asked my truck driving
husband when he gets back.
Dave Smith
> What are the fines for log book violations, are they the same nationwide or do
> they vary by state?
The fines are set by the states in the US and by the provinces in Canada. Here in
Ontario, it is $315 (including surcharge and court costs).
> Is there a difference in fines for not having a log book at
> all and not being up to date with the log book?
Not in Ontario. Failing to have one, failing to carry one, failing to complete one,
violations for driving over your daily hours or exceeding cycle limits are are the
same out of court settlement if you get a ticket here. If you are a repeat
offender, you could get a summons instead and the fines could be higher.
> When pulled over and not up to date, do they allow the driver a certain amount of
> time to update his log book before a ticket is issued?
That seems to be one of the great misunderstandings among drivers. Some claim there
is a 15 minute allowance to get caught up, but that is not true. Logs are required
to be kept up to the last change of status and are required to be surrendered for
inspection upon demand. I understand that US regulations allow a driver time to
catch up a log in cases where he has not complete one to the last change of status,
and he has that time to catch it up to before an officer can put him out of
service.
> Does it make a difference if the log book page for that date is signed by the
> driver, even if the log for that day is not up to date?
When you sign a log, you are verifying that everything on it is true. That is hard
to do before the end of the day and you have gone off duty..
Chuck
wrote:
>But that wasn't his point I don't think. Of course it would be no problem if
>you hadn't signed your log, but if you sign and certify and that you are at
>point A when actually you are point B,
I certified no such thing.
I certified that at 1300 hours I started driving at point A. It is now
1500 hours! I have been driving for _two_ hours, No logical person
would even attempt to say that I was certifiying myself at point A at
1500 hours!
>Everything that is not up to date to the minute you get pulled
>over would be a lie because according to your log you certified that you are
>at point A, no matter if point A was your last change of status.
Everything is as much up to date and accurately recorded as it is
possible to be, sir. No one of that I'm aware of ever suggested that a
driver is supposed to be updating his logsheet as he is in the process
of operating a comercial vehicle on a highway! No _reasonable_ person
goes around trying to pick flyshit out of a train load of pepper.
Over the course of my lifetime behind the wheel of a commercial
vehicle I've probably met my share of "flyshit pickers". Even so, not
_one_ of them ever blinked at the signed log sheet that they were
shown by me when they asked me to do so.
Chuck
>I do not drive a truck, that's why I posted and asked the original question. If
>I had known it would turn into a shouting match, I guess I would have thought
>twice about posting the message and would have just asked my truck driving
>husband when he gets back.
Just don't ask him when one of his trucker buddies is present or
you're likely to have a shouting match in your kitchen! ;o)
Dixieblume
>would even attempt to say that I was certifiying myself at point A at
>1500 hours!
Maybe not a logical person but a picky cop might.
>No one of that I'm aware of ever suggested that a
>driver is supposed to be updating his logsheet as he is in the process
>of operating a comercial vehicle on a highway!
Of course not, that's why he suggests you don't sign the page until it's
finished so no one could suggest that that's what you should have done.
That's just the way I read the other poster's message. Maybe he could clarify.
BDSPRD
>Date: 2/24/99 5:57 AM Eastern Standard Time
>My Scenario for Chuck is to see him as the Lone Ranger. He seems to wade in,
>with his one man bandwagon. Then Tonto (aka Bedsrpd) comes along to lend a
>hand.
>Thank
>you to all.
>Barbara
What you mean "you all?" White squaw speak with forked tongue...hope not rubber
squaw...cause heap big heartbreak...sheesh...
Would you like to hear my scenario?!?!? That`um French? Hmmph!!!
Meanwhile...back at the ranch...The Lone Stranger is disguised as a pool
table...and Tonto...his faithful Indian companion...racks his balls...sheesh...
BEDSPREAD
BDSPRD
>Date: 2/24/99 10:57 AM Eastern Standard Time
>What perplexes me the most
What perplexes me the most is that I cannot find a female trucker type to feel
sorry for me...
>he log book is a pretty simple document to
>deal with,
Well not really...
>I'm curious ,do these Company and private CDL schools teach
>the students how to fill out the log books and what the HOS regs are?
No...most "schools" are CDL churns that only convey the skills necessary to
allow the "student" to pass the skills and road test.
The actual teaching of FMSCR is left to the training/employing carrier so that
the "fresh mind" can be indoctrinated to their current interpretation of the
FMCSR.
There was once upon a time a required written exam to test the knowledge of the
FMCSR. It was resinded, the reasoning being "it was too much paperwork."
In other words, Congress was bought off again by the ATA so that carriers can
coerce the newbie to run like the wind. A continuing dumbing down of the driver
force.
BDSPRD
>Date: 2/24/99 4:29 PM Eastern Standard Time
> If
>I had known it would turn into a shouting match, I guess I would have thought
>twice about posting the message and would have just asked my truck driving
>husband when he gets back.
With a handle like Yodler...what else would you expect other than a shouting
match...sheesh...
BDSPRD
>Date: 2/24/99 4:46 AM Eastern Standard Time
>You had to be drunk to be there.....
Probably was....
JuTravler
Question 3: If a driver's record of duty status is not signed, may
enforcement action be taken on the current day's record if it contains false
information?
Guidance: Enforcement action can be taken against the driver even though
that record may not be signed. The regulations require the driver to keep
the record of duty status current to the time of last change of duty status
(whether or not the record has been signed). Also, §395.8(e) states that
making false reports shall make the driver and/or the carrier liable to
prosecution.
Question 24: When must a driver complete the signature/ certification of the
driver's record of duty status?
Guidance: In general, the driver must sign the record of duty status
immediately after all required entries have been made for the 24-hour
period. However, if the driver is driving at the end of the 24- hour period,
he/she must sign during the next stop. A driver may also sign the record of
duty status upon going off duty if he/she expects to remain off duty until
the end of the 24-hour period.
This should settle your argument.
Source http://mcregis.fhwa.dot.gov/395reg.htm
Sunshine 70
(snip)
>What you mean "you all?"
concern/etc etc
> White squaw speak with forked tongue
I do? (not that I am white squaw), and what brings you to that conclusion?
I simply wanted to thank everyone on this NG for providing me with heaps of
entertainment, and information.
Barbara
Rick
difficulty in filling out the log book is( could be its the only thing I understand
in life) BTW Check with that gal and her husband on I-80 in PA. you can get her to
feel sorry for ya, But I think her husband will want to watch ;)
rick
rick
BDSPRD
>Date: 2/24/99 11:25 PM Eastern Standard Time
>I simply wanted to thank everyone on this NG for providing me with heaps of
>entertainment, and information.
>Barbara
Sheesh!
Lighten up will`ya?
http://www.fomoco.com/install_com.gif
Read the instructions s-l-o-w-l-y....
Sunshine 70
installation!!!!!!!
Barbara
ETCtankers
>What perplexes me the most is that I cannot find a female trucker type to
>feel
>sorry for me...
I feel sorry for you, Bedspread....
(feel better now?) LOL.
Bashful
"The Quality Link"
Chuck
Show me the regulation or the law that says it's a violation to sign
the sheet at the start of the day. Untill you do that you are merely
offering _your_ interpretation ... which is no more valid an
interpretation than the next person's.
As I have repeatedly stated, over the years my logs were checked
dozens of times and not one of the officers that checked my logs even
blinked at the fact that my log sheet for that day was already signed.
Furthermore, I have attended several logging seminars and the
signature issue never came up one time. In my opinion some of you
people are trying to make a mountain out of a non-existent mole hill.
Let's examine the signature issue from a different perspective. .
A driver is stopped and asked for his logs at 0900 hours. Driver hands
logs to officer. Logs show driver in sleeper from 0200 hours untill
1000 hours. Quite obviously the log sheet is incorrectly filled out up
to that point. Indisputably so. _GROSSLY INCORRECT_!! Logs are not
signed. Officer writes summons to driver for falisfying logs. OK?
Now, since the log sheet is not signed, the driver has legally not
falsified _anything_! Not untill the log is signed by the driver has
the drivers attested to anything on that specific log sheet. Granted,
the driver's logs are not current to the last change of duty and the
driver could be charged with that ... but that is not falsifying the
log and _falsifying_ the log is what the summons says the driver did!
Also granted that it would take a good attorney, [and the fees for
same] and probably an appeal to higher courts [and the attending fees]
to get it thrown out of court .... but technically the driver is not
guilty as charged.
Untill you sign a document you have not authorized the contents of
that document. No legal document is binding untill/unless the
necessary and proper signatures are affixed thereto. If you hand me a
check for a million dollars it's not worth the paper it's written on
_UNTILL/UNLESS_ you _SIGN_ it! Even if the check is properly signed
but post dated, it's not worth a penny untill the date that the
signature says it's authorized! Hand me a notorized title deed to your
home ... unless _YOUR_ signature is on it it means absolutely nothing!
Ladies and gentlemen ... the signature is _EVERYTHING_! Without the
signature a legal document is just another piece of scrap paper.
A log sheet that is not signed untill 2400 hours legally means nothing
untill 2400 hours. [Well, for the flyshit pickers it could mean that
the driver has not completed his logs up to the last change of duty!
And the flyshit pickers would be technically correct ... untill the
sheet is signed none of the entries that are on that sheet are
officially entered. All those lines legally mean _nothing_
untll/unless there is a signature affixed. ] Once again, a lower
kangaroo court would likely rule in favor of the officer in question
..but in the name of consistency a higher court would surely rule the
summons void.
Think about it.
Dixieblume
>PRECISELY WHAT IS IT THAT I FALSIFIED?
I don't think he's trying to say your log was falsified or not complete. What
he is trying to say is that with your signature already there it could be
interpreted that way by a picky cop. He's also not saying that you WILL be
fined because of it but that if you happen to get pulled over by the wrong
person, you MIGHT get a fine. Because after all, your log book is NOT what you
certified it to be: up to date to the time when you got pulled over, no matter
if it was up to date to your last change of status. It is simply a game of
words the cop could play if he wanted to. Just my interpretation....
BScott97
>Furthermore, I have attended several logging seminars and the
>signature issue never came up one time.
Would'nt doubt that for a minute. I think most people would just treat a log
page like any other document.........to be signed when completed, not before.
The issue would'nt come up. Can you name any other document which is properly
signed before (exceptions for unusual circumstances not-withstanding)
completion?
>In my opinion some of you
>people are trying to make a mountain out of a non-existent mole hill.
After this statement, you go on to another 350+ word essay on why your way
(which lacks common sense) is THE way.
Which people _sir_ :), are making mountains???
Chuck
>After this statement, you go on to another 350+ word essay on why your way
>(which lacks common sense) is THE way.
Evidently you misunderstand my motivation. Personally I couldn't care
less if you or anyone else signs a log sheet today or next year. The
whole debate started when someone [I don't care to go back and
determine who exacty it was and who is totally irrelevant to the
debate/discussion] said that a log sheet was not to be signed untill
completed. I questioned that statement. That's all. I was then told
how stupid I was.
I doubt that any DOT or state police officer would make an issue of
whether or not today's log sheet was signed by the driver. If anything
I'd suspect that if the officer was about to issue a summons due to
some perceived discrepancy in the entries on that log sheet, the
officer would hand the sheet back to the driver and ask the driver to
sign the sheet before the officer issued the summons ... I don't
_KNOW_ that ... I _SUSPECT_ that would be the prodecure. As I have
pointed out, an unsigned legal document is roughly equal in value to a
piece sheet of toilet paper.
So then, you're prepared to say that an unsigned legal document is
binding on the party whose signature is missing? ??? Your statement,
"you go on to another 350+ word essay on why your way
(which lacks common sense) is THE way.", seems to indicate. ???? As I
say again, I could not care less when you or anyone else signs a log
sheet or anything else ... unless you're handing it to me and expect
me to attach value to whatever you're handing me. It is isn't signed
it means nothing. You think that statement "lacks common sense"? ???
>Which people _sir_ :), are making mountains???
As I said, I was tolk how stupid I was when I questioned the You sign
it before midnight and you're in for a ticket statement. Actually, I
was told that the dude would be forced to arrest me for falsifying a
log sheet. I'm still waiting for the dude to answer my simple
questions ... "What did I falsify? What statement did I make that is
false? What did I fail to document? Sometimes it's necessary to fight
fire with fire .... or flyshit-out-of-the-pepper pickers by picking
flyshit out of the pepper.
An unsigned document means nothing. If you think that statement "lacks
common sense" then I'll be more than happy to hand you a check the
next time you want to sell your home! You just _sign_ the deed over
and I'll hand you the check in whatever amount!
Yeah ... I'm stupid as hell!
Chuck
wrote:
>>Once more, sir, PRECISELY WHAT IS IT THAT I DID NOT COMPLETE?
>>PRECISELY WHAT IS IT THAT I FALSIFIED?
>
>
>I don't think he's trying to say your log was falsified or not complete.
Well, here is what the man said .. copy and
pasted:"Chuck,Chuck,Chuck......Where in the heck do you come up with
all these ideas??? You are so full of S___ I had to go out to the barn
to get a shovel. All I will say is this!!! Read 395.8 (d) (5) of
FMCSR, if you know what that is? And it clearly states that if you do
what you just stated, I as a Law enforcement official could charge you
with I Quote from section 395.8 (e) Failure to complete the record of
duty activities of these sections and or making false reports in
connection with such duty activities shall make the Driver and or the
Carrier liable to Prosecution."
And for the umteenth time here is my question[s] which all of you keep
tap dancing around:"Once more, sir, PRECISELY WHAT IS IT THAT I DID
NOT COMPLETE? PRECISELY WHAT IS IT THAT I FALSIFIED? "
I did not fail to complete anything that was required of me to
complete at the time that I was stopped in the hypothetical situation
which I constructed. Nor did I falsify one single entry!
> What
>he is trying to say is that with your signature already there it could be
>interpreted that way by a picky cop. He's also not saying that you WILL be
>fined because of it but that if you happen to get pulled over by the wrong
>person, you MIGHT get a fine.
I know what he said.
>Because after all, your log book is NOT what you
>certified it to be: up to date to the time when you got pulled over, no matter
>if it was up to date to your last change of status.
The _HELL_ it isn't up to date! It is as up to date as it is possible
to be up to date!
>It is simply a game of
>words the cop could play if he wanted to. Just my interpretation....
Well ,once again AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY said, any officer can cite
anyone for anything he chooses any time he so chooses. Making it stick
if the defendant chooses to make a fight of it in court ... a fight
complete with a good attorney and, if necessary, appeal[s], is another
thing altogether. The officer could just as easily issue a summons for
an "incomplete log sheet", or eailure to complete the necessary
entries" in the case of a driver handing the officer a log sheet that
was not signed! As a matter of practicality it seems to me that the
latter two would be much more likely to stand up in a court than would
the one I was threatened with.
BScott97
>Evidently you misunderstand my motivation. Personally I couldn't care
>less if you or anyone else signs a log sheet today or next year. The
>whole debate started when someone [I don't care to go back and
>determine who exacty it was and who is totally irrelevant to the
>debate/discussion] said that a log sheet was not to be signed untill
>completed. I questioned that statement. That's all. I was then told
>how stupid I was.
>
>
You seem to "care" about it, rather deeply. Someone did make the statement
(about not signing until end of day), and you did question it. Does that mean
you were saying that he/she (statement maker) was stupid? You did'nt say he was
stupid, nor did anyone say you were stupid.....full of s___, but not stupid. If
you care so little about it (caring about it is no crime); Why do you argue
your position so feverently. I think you do care about it, that's o.k.. I just
think that your position on when the log is to be signed (going to the point of
arguing that signing at start is a REQUIREMENT) is incorrect.
>I doubt that any DOT or state police officer would make an issue of
>whether or not today's log sheet was signed by the driver.
Agreed, but the question was asked. Someone answered it. Again, if you truely
did'nt care, why even respond with your post? As you said, "the officer
probably would'nt make an issue of it" (not a direct quote). Many of us are
convinced that it is to be signed AFTER completion (by aledged knowledge of the
specific regulations, or common sense). If you really did'nt care, this whole
thread would'nt have even went past a couple posts/responses.
>So then, you're prepared to say that an unsigned legal document is
>binding on the party whose signature is missing? ???
.>Your statement,
>"you go on to another 350+ word essay on why your way
>(which lacks common sense) is THE way.", seems to indicate. ????
No, I'm not prepared to say that. The document in question (log sheet) has a
place for a signature with the following heading...."I certify these entries
are true and correct". How can one certify that the entries are true/correct,
PRIOR to the entries having been.....well...entered? The fact that a driver may
be held responsible for entries made before he signs the log sheet is'nt the
issue. That burden of responsibilty is dictated by regulation, much the same as
other record-keeping requirements we all face in daily life. Example: Taxes; A
business is required to keep adequate records, and file the appropriate forms,
Even though these records are not neccesarily "signed", that business is still
responsible for their (the records) accuracy. I'm sure there are other
examples as well. My point is, being held responsible for record-keeping, and
signing a document attesting to it's accuracy are not one in the same. The fact
that an officer may cite you for not having your record (log sheet not current,
or inaccurate) adequately filled out, is possible due to regulation. One could
(and this would be interesting) argue the point in court; That one is not
responsible for the records (log sheet) accuracy, because one did'nt attest
(sign) to it's accuracy with a signature. Of course this would go right back to
the REQUIREMENT that you keep accurate records, signature notwithstanding.
So....yes, it is possible to be held responsible for an unsigned document,
depending upon regulations that may require that document. This is not the same
as a blanket statement saying that an unsigned legal document is binding. Just
so we're clear on this......My statement (common sense) was not meant to mean
ALL legal documents are binding prior to signature. That's what your question
seems to infer
>As I
>say again, I could not care less when you or anyone else signs a log
>sheet or anything else ... unless you're handing it to me and expect
>me to attach value to whatever you're handing me. It is isn't signed
>it means nothing. You think that statement "lacks common sense"? ???
Yes, I think your position on this lacks common sense......Again "I certify
these entries are true and correct"....how can you certify their truthfullness
and correctness PRIOR to them (the entries) being made??
>As I said, I was tolk how stupid I was when I questioned the You sign
>it before midnight and you're in for a ticket statement. Actually, I
>was told that the dude would be forced to arrest me for falsifying a
>log sheet. I'm still waiting for the dude to answer my simple
>questions ... "What did I falsify? What statement did I make that is
>false? What did I fail to document? Sometimes it's necessary to fight
>fire with fire .... or flyshit-out-of-the-pepper pickers by picking
>flyshit out of the pepper.
Or to make mountains out of non-existant molehills :).......I disagree with
your position on this subject...that's all. I did'nt say you were stupid. You
made the comment about making Mountains.....You're making as big of a mountain
as anyone....so be it. It's just that you seem to indicate everyone else is
doing the construction, and your just an innocent by-stander who was insulted
and drawn into this grand landscaping project. Your boots are muddy too, Chuck.
>An unsigned document means nothing. If you think that statement "lacks
>common sense" then I'll be more than happy to hand you a check the
>next time you want to sell your home! You just _sign_ the deed over
>and I'll hand you the check in whatever amount!
Apples and Oranges.....all documents are not created equal. Is a log sheet
more appropriately refered to as a record, or a legal document....Maybe that's
where you're having this mental block. BTW.....You did'nt answer my first
question: Can you name any other document which is properly signed prior to
it's completion?
>Yeah ... I'm stupid as hell!
Chuck, I never said you were stupid.....I disagree with your stance, I think
you're not using common sense when you argue this point....that's all. You're
arguing your point with technical scenarios (which some including me are
refuting), just try looking at it with common sense, and less defensiveness.
Tenacious, rather than stupid, would describe you.......
BDSPRD
>Date: 2/25/99 8:10 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Let's examine the signature issue from a different perspective. .
Chuckster...take your pack off and stand easy...sheesh...
As I and another have pointed out to you and the others of the peanut gallery,
official interpretations of the regulations SPECIFICALLY state that it doesn`t
matter if the damn thing has been signed or not...you falsify...you
pay...PERIOD!
Sheesh...
jocko
twice and do not see any reference to time of day to sign log. I have
signed at the start of the day for 27 years and today is the first I
have ever heard of any problem with that. 395.8(7)
Signature/certification The driver shall certify to the correctness of
all entries by signing the form containing the drivers duty status
record. Am I missing something? I do admit the FMCRS is not one of my
favorite pieces of reading material Jack
JuTravler
Chuck wrote in message ...
snipped..........
>thing altogether. The officer could just as easily issue a summons for
>an "incomplete log sheet", or eailure to complete the necessary
>entries" in the case of a driver handing the officer a log sheet that
>was not signed! As a matter of practicality it seems to me that the
>latter two would be much more likely to stand up in a court than would
>the one I was threatened with.
Hey Chuck read it again. This is the Official DOT interpretation.
§395.8 Driver's Record of Duty Status
Question 24: When must a driver complete the signature/ certification of the
driver's record of duty status?
Guidance: In general, the driver must sign the record of duty status
immediately after all required entries have been made for the 24-hour
period. However, if the driver is driving at the end of the 24- hour period,
he/she must sign during the next stop. A driver may also sign the record of
duty status upon going off duty if he/she expects to remain off duty until
the end of the 24-hour period.
Source http://mcregis.fhwa.dot.gov/395reg.htm
And if you want to send me a postdated check it will clear the bank
as long as it has sufficient funds available. In most States postdating
checks is illegal and the banks do not check the date. As a matter of
fact an unsigned check would usually clear also but the bank would
have to make good on it if you contested it. People don't process the
checks anymore, machines do.
Gunney
string once and for all!!! Hats off to ya!!!!!
Gunney
JuTravler wrote in message <7b4poi$f...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
Ckrepp
>From: "Gunney" <Truck...@Email.com>
>Date: 2/25/99 5:41 PM Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: <g5mB2.23$oe3.5540@PM01NEWS>
>
>Thankyou!!!! JuTravler!!!! Now lets hope that will put an end to the
>string once and for all!!! Hats off to ya!!!!!
>Gunney
We wish Gunney, but as you know......Some people are just thick. :)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bartenders are Pharmicists with a limited inventory.
For E-mail:Remove "AntiSpam"
Chuck
>No, I'm not prepared to say that. The document in question (log sheet) has a
>place for a signature with the following heading...."I certify these entries
>are true and correct". How can one certify that the entries are true/correct,
>PRIOR to the entries having been.....well...entered?
My point exactly, sir. Since there are no entries beyond the time of
day that the officer requested to examine my log[ in the hypothetical
scenario], there can be no falsification! Since the log was filled
out up to the last change of duty, there are no omissions.
Untill/unless the driver signs the log, the driver has attested to
absolutely nothing! Therefore, any lines or notations entered are
merely "hen scratches on a wortless piece of paper ..._UNTILL/UNESS
the driver has signed the sheet!
My point exactly sir!
>That's what your question seems to infer
What my question infers, sir, is simply where in the hell does anyone
get the idea that a driver signing a logsheet of and by itself open
the driver to a summons. The drivers daily log is a legal document and
_does_ require the driver's signature. If the dirver's signaure is not
required, then why sign it? ??? If _legal_ validation of the
information entered is not the reason the signature is required, then
why? ???
>Your boots are muddy too, Chuck.
I didn't tell anyone they were full of shit .. and if that isn't
telling the same as telling them they're stupid then you and I speak
different street English!
>Apples and Oranges.....all documents are not created equal. Is a log sheet
>more appropriately refered to as a record, or a legal document....
Oh really? I was always told that a log sheet is a legal document.
>.You did'nt answer my first
>question: Can you name any other document which is properly signed prior to
>it's completion?
So? No one has yet even addressed my simple questions. But I'll answer
yours with another question .. Where is the law that stipulates the
log cannot be signed after the first entries? ????? Where is the law
that stipulates that you or I cannot sign a check untill it is fully
completed? And so on?
>Chuck, I never said you were stupid.....I disagree with your stance, I think
>you're not using common sense when you argue this point....that's all. You're
>arguing your point with technical scenarios (which some including me are
>refuting), just try looking at it with common sense, and less defensiveness.
>Tenacious, rather than stupid, would describe you.......
You've refuted my point? I must have missed it! As I said at the start
of this post .. you made my point!
Chuck
>Hey Chuck read it again. This is the Official DOT interpretation.
>
>§395.8 Driver's Record of Duty Status
>
>Question 24: When must a driver complete the signature/ certification of the
>driver's record of duty status?
>
>Guidance: In general, the driver must sign the record of duty status
>immediately after all required entries have been made for the 24-hour
>period. However, if the driver is driving at the end of the 24- hour period,
>he/she must sign during the next stop. A driver may also sign the record of
>duty status upon going off duty if he/she expects to remain off duty until
>the end of the 24-hour period.
I read it Dude. It does _NOT_ say the driver must not sign the log
prior to filling out the last entry. It says that it must be signed
when the last entry is made. If I sign the log after making the first
entry then it damned well is signed at the time the last entry is
made.
_YOU_ read it again!
BScott97
>>No, I'm not prepared to say that. The document in question (log sheet) has a
>>place for a signature with the following heading...."I certify these entries
>>are true and correct". How can one certify that the entries are
>true/correct,
>>PRIOR to the entries having been.....well...entered?
>
>My point exactly, sir. Since there are no entries beyond the time of
>day that the officer requested to examine my log[ in the hypothetical
>scenario], there can be no falsification! Since the log was filled
>out up to the last change of duty, there are no omissions.
>Untill/unless the driver signs the log, the driver has attested to
>absolutely nothing! Therefore, any lines or notations entered are
>merely "hen scratches on a wortless piece of paper ..._UNTILL/UNESS
>the driver has signed the sheet!
>
>My point exactly sir!
Your point exactly?.....You take a quote from the begining of the paragraph,
ignore the rest of the paragraph, and then say that my quote makes your
point?.....Read the rest of the paragraph (admittedly lengthy). I explain
exactly why your contention (log sheet being meaniless hen scratchings until
signed) is absolutely not correct.
>>That's what your question seems to infer
>
>What my question infers, sir, is simply where in the hell does anyone
>get the idea that a driver signing a logsheet of and by itself open
>the driver to a summons. The drivers daily log is a legal document and
>_does_ require the driver's signature. If the dirver's signaure is not
>required, then why sign it? ??? If _legal_ validation of the
>information entered is not the reason the signature is required, then
>why? ???
Your original question ("So then, your prepared to say that an unsigned legal
document is binding on the party whose signature is missing???) seems to infer
that my comment from my previous post about common sense meant that I felt all
legal documents were binding without signature. Again, refer back to the entire
paragraph you pulled that quote from. I fully explained the meaning there.
>>Your boots are muddy too, Chuck.
>
> I didn't tell anyone they were full of shit .. and if that isn't
>telling the same as telling them they're stupid then you and I speak
>different street English!
Once again Chuck....you did'nt read (or comprehend) the entire paragraph. I
did'nt say YOU told anyone they were full of s___. You had posted previously
of others making a mountain out of a non-existant molehill. I was telling you
that YOU were as guilty as anyone of making mountains out of non-existant
molehills. As to your contention that someone saying you are full of s___, (not
me by the way), is the same as saying you are stupid in your English; No, in my
English it means you are wrong. You CAN be wrong without neccesarily being
stupid. But again, I was'nt refering to the s___ business. I was refering to
the mountain building.
>>Apples and Oranges.....all documents are not created equal. Is a log sheet
>>more appropriately refered to as a record, or a legal document....
>
>Oh really? I was always told that a log sheet is a legal document.
A log sheet is a REQUIRED record of your daily duty status, until it is signed.
THEN it becomes a legal document. Until you sign it, it is merely evidence of
your aledged duty status, but it is required to be kept current (to last change
of duty) regardless of the fact that it is (until it's completion) as yet
unsigned. The fact that it is properly unsigned until it's completion in no way
diminishes it's stature as a REQUIRED record of duty.
>>.You did'nt answer my first
>>question: Can you name any other document which is properly signed prior to
>>it's completion?
>
>So?
That's what I thought............see, partial quotes can be misleading.
>Where is the law that stipulates the
>log cannot be signed after the first entries? ????? Where is the law
>that stipulates that you or I cannot sign a check untill it is fully
>completed? And so on?
Now your grasping at straws..........I know of no law that says you can't sign
a check before it's fully completed. COMMON SENSE would apply, just as in the
case of the log.
>>Chuck, I never said you were stupid.....I disagree with your stance, I think
>>you're not using common sense when you argue this point....that's all.
>You're
>>arguing your point with technical scenarios (which some including me are
>>refuting), just try looking at it with common sense, and less defensiveness.
>>Tenacious, rather than stupid, would describe you.......
>
>You've refuted my point? I must have missed it! As I said at the start
>of this post .. you made my point!
Yes you did miss it.......just completely READ what I said, rather than taking
one sentence out of a paragraph, and then saying "SEEEE, you made my point". I
did'nt make your point, I along with others have refuted your point.
The fact that you refuse to comprehend my point(s) is beyond my control. The
other folk's points are their's, not mine, and I'm in no position to defend or
argue some of those points, only my own.
Chuck
>>From: cws...@delete.comteck.com (Chuck)
>
>
>
>
>
>>>No, I'm not prepared to say that. The document in question (log sheet) has a
>>>place for a signature with the following heading...."I certify these entries
>>>are true and correct". How can one certify that the entries are
>>true/correct,
>>>PRIOR to the entries having been.....well...entered?
I read your entire paragarph.. I read and understood your entire post,
sir!
You say: "How can one certify that the entries are true/correct, PRIOR
to the entries having been.....well...entered? " [To quite the rest of
your statement.]
First point ... "the signature certifies that all entries are true and
correct". In the scenario which I constructed there were absolutely no
false entries. That, sir is my point. The man said he was going to
write me for incomplete logs. The log was current to the last change
of duty. That is as current as it can possibly be. Furthermore, the
signature affirms that the entries are true/correct. Without the
signature the log _technically_ would have been incomplete at the time
I handed him the log. Untill that signature is affixed I have affirmed
_NOTHING_!
Second point ... There are no entries beyond my last change of duty.
There are no falsifications. He said he was going to cite me for
falsifying my logs.
We keep going around the same old same old same old and I keep
explaining it over and over and over.
[1] I never said the log _HAD_ to be signed before the completion of
the day. I said it _COULD_be. _HE_ said he was going to ticket me
because the log was signed. I say he can't make it stick! I feel so
strongly about this that I sincerely wish I was still driving and he
was still wearing that badge ... I'd love to present him the
opportunity to write me up on the grounds and under the condtions
outlined. I"D LOVE TO GIVE HIM THAT OPPORTUNITY! As I stated, I've
been checked out at the Banning scales. I passed with flying colors
and my log sheet _was_ signed when I handed it to the officer!
[2] He told me I was full of shit. Where the hell are all you in
telling me that I'm out of line. Nothing I said is a full of shit
statement. If anyone is full of shit in this instance, it the guy
flaunting the tin badge.
[3] In 45 years on the road I never once received any kind of a
citiation or warning for incorrect logs. And I've handed my logs to
many a officer. _SIGNED_ logs, sir! But I'm full of shit!
[4] The DOT did a field audit on one company where I worked back in
the '60's. Company had about 80 drivers at the time. As best I recall
now all but three or four drivers were cited for log violations. I WAS
ONE OF THE VERY FEW THAT RECEIVED NO CITIATION! But I'm full of shit!
[5] Show me the law that says I'm in violation if I sign my log at the
time I make my first entries for the day. You can't! But I'm full of
shit!
[6] I have repeatedly ask him and any of the rest of you to specify
what was falsified or what was omitted in the hypothetical log that I
detailed. He bailed out and some of the rest of you have been trying
ever since ... you none of you can point out _ONE_ falsification or
one omission. But I'm full of shit!
[7] But still some of you continue to feebly attempt to back the guy
that tells me I'm full of shit.
[8] I'm outta here ... you people are hopeless!
Chuck
wrote:
Yeah. The tin badge say's you're full of shit!
>
Dixieblume
>when the last entry is made.
That's not what it says. It says "immediately after", not "when".
after = later in time than, behind, afterward, subsequent to the time that
(Webster's Dictionary)
BScott97
>I read your entire paragarph.. I read and understood your entire post,
>sir!
Obviously, your "Street English" definition of "I read and understood your
entire post sir!" , is different than mine. Again, you took the first sentence
of my entire paragraph (in that instance) and used it to supposedly make your
point. Completely ignoring the rest of my explanation.
>First point ... "the signature certifies that all entries are true and
>correct". In the scenario which I constructed there were absolutely no
>false entries. That, sir is my point. The man said he was going to
>write me for incomplete logs. The log was current to the last change
>of duty. That is as current as it can possibly be. Furthermore, the
>signature affirms that the entries are true/correct. Without the
>signature the log _technically_ would have been incomplete at the time
>I handed him the log. Untill that signature is affixed I have affirmed
>_NOTHING_!
In my original post, I responded to your contention (of attending several
logging seminars, and the issue of signing logs never came up). I said this was
entirely possible, since most people(using common sense) would expect the log
to be properly signed upon completion.
>Second point ... There are no entries beyond my last change of duty.
>There are no falsifications. He said he was going to cite me for
>falsifying my logs.
Not once did I say you falsified anything.......I responded to your contention
about the logging seminars. You read (possibly) my statement, and responded to
other peoples points.
>[1] I never said the log _HAD_ to be signed before the completion of
>the day. I said it _COULD_be.
Well ...no, Chuck, that's not really true. You did in essence (in response to
MY posting) say that you MUST sign the log at the begining, lest it be a
meaniless/worthless piece of toilet paper. You're contention was/is that the
log is worthless without a signature. If that is'nt saying it _HAS_ to be
signed before completion, then we're back to your contorted definition of
"Street English". I pointed out to you why it is possible for you to be
responsible for an accurate log, signature notwithstanding. Nowhere in any of
MY postings did I say you would've been ticketed for signing before completion.
>[2] He told me I was full of shit. Where the hell are all you in
>telling me that I'm out of line. Nothing I said is a full of shit
>statement. If anyone is full of shit in this instance, it the guy
>flaunting the tin badge.
I never said you were full of s___. I said (in subsequent postings) that you
were wrong. I also challenged you to offer any other document where a signature
is PROPERLY affixed prior to it's completion. You chose to ignore that
question, or come back with non-sensical examples of me handing over my
(property) deed vs. your unsigned check, etc. Again, I showed/explained to you;
How a record of duty status (which is REQUIRED), is not the same as a
check/etc., and you can be held responsible for it's accuracy WITHOUT a
signature.
>[3] In 45 years on the road I never once received any kind of a
>citiation or warning for incorrect logs. And I've handed my logs to
>many a officer. _SIGNED_ logs, sir! But I'm full of shit!
Good for You.....Once again, where did I ever say you would receive a citation
for this? Where did I .....or to use your favorite emphasis
style....._I_..........where did _I_ say you were full of shit?
>[4] The DOT did a field audit on one company where I worked back in
>the '60's. Company had about 80 drivers at the time. As best I recall
>now all but three or four drivers were cited for log violations. I WAS
>ONE OF THE VERY FEW THAT RECEIVED NO CITIATION! But I'm full of shit!
Once again....Good for You....Completely irrelevant to the discussion; Which
was.......When is the proper time to sign your log sheet...before or after
completion. How would an audit at your companies premises after the fact, bear
any weight with that question? It only seems to showcase your attitude that
somehow, because you received no citation (in a situation where the question at
hand would not be relevant), you can not POSSIBLY be WRONG.
>[5] Show me the law that says I'm in violation if I sign my log at the
>time I make my first entries for the day. You can't! But I'm full of
>shit!
I never said anything about a law. If you recall, I was making a point about
common sense. You continue to (attempt to) argue my points with questions about
others posts. Never refuting my points, based on common sense. Never said you
were full of s___.
>[6] I have repeatedly ask him and any of the rest of you to specify
>what was falsified or what was omitted in the hypothetical log that I
>detailed. He bailed out and some of the rest of you have been trying
>ever since ... you none of you can point out _ONE_ falsification or
>one omission. But I'm full of shit!
Did I once say you falsified anything? Have I been trying to say you falsified
anything?......no. Never said you were full of s___.
>[7] But still some of you continue to feebly attempt to back the guy
>that tells me I'm full of shit.
I'm not backing anyone......You made the comment(s) about the logging seminar.
I observed that what you said (about the seminar) was entirely possible. That
common sense would have most people not even question when a document (to which
you are certifying to be true and accurate) is to be signed. My attempts were
not feeble, nor were they in an effort to back anyone. I made points based on
common sense. You chose to ignore them. So be it. Never said you're full of
s___.
That does seem to be your re-occuring theme here. Someone else said you were
full of shit, you take that to mean you're stupid. You go on to show us how
smart you are (the company audit thing) with something that's completely
irrelevant to the discussion. You can't seem to grasp the concept that you
could POSSIBLY be WRONG without that meaning you are entirely stupid.
Again, I was originally responding with an argument about common sense, and to
your contention that OTHER people were making mountains out of non-existant
molehills. That seems to be another of your problems, YOU can mountains, but
you dismissively discount others for the same thing.
>[8] I'm outta here ... you people are hopeless!
Obviously..........anybody who would dare to disagree with you, is by
definition hopeless. :)..........to quote someone earlier in this
thread.."Chuck, Chuck, Chuck.
grump...@webtv.net
updated every 4 hours---especially when you are in California--unless
there has been a change in duty status within that time. Perhaps I am
wrong (and I am sure some Harvard graduate with a fourth grade education
will not hesitate to tell me so) but in the seven years that I have been
driving I have never had a logbook violation.
Everyone stay safe!
"Without Trucks America Stops"
Gunney
else did ,But I did'nt. You can drive any amount of time you want!! UP TO 10
HRS. drive 2 take a break, Drive 9 take abreak and drive 1 more and then
sleep 8. There is no..I repeat nowhere that says you have to stop and take a
break after 4 hours.
Just to set the record Straite!!
Gunney
grump...@webtv.net wrote in message
<6470-36D...@newsd-224.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
Dave Smith
> Ummm, I have to agree with Gunney. I was taught that the logs had to be
> updated every 4 hours---especially when you are in California--unless
> there has been a change in duty status within that time. Perhaps I am
> wrong (and I am sure some Harvard graduate with a fourth grade education
In Ontario, logs are required to be up to date to the last change of status.
We do not expect drivers to pull over on the highway to note that they are
still driving. Any log that shows extended periods of time without a change
from driving status are going to be suspect, and would be presumed to be
driving time. That is, after all, what the last line showed and there is no
record of any change.
We have a similar deal with pre trip inspections. If you driver past
midnight, you don't have to pull over and do a pre trip. You look after that
at your first rest stop.
grump...@webtv.net
than 15 minutes you don't have to log it right? It does not take me 15
minutes to draw a line. Forgive my miscommuication o' Great One. ;)
<groveling, curtesying>
"Without Trucks America Stops"
skateboard'n
accordance with the law. Now.......I,like you,sign mine at the
start of the day & NEVER have had a problem either. BTW can I get
a Tom'ster is right from your shadow? Kinda' reminds me
of......Hey Ralph,whata' wanta' do now Ralph?.....huh
Ralph?.......huh Ralph?............Whata' wanta' do now
Ralph?......
--
Tom
$$24$24$$24$$24$$24$$
'95 Champ !
'97 Champ !
'98 Champ !
'99 CHAMP !!!!
Chuck wrote in message <36d69cdb....@news.comteck.com>...
skateboard'n
kinda' grumpy!
--
Tom
$$24$24$$24$$24$$24$$
'95 Champ !
'97 Champ !
'98 Champ !
'99 CHAMP !!!!
grump...@webtv.net wrote in message
<6470-36D...@newsd-224.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
Ummm, I have to agree with Gunney. I was taught that the logs
had to be
updated every 4 hours---especially when you are in
California--unless
there has been a change in duty status within that time. Perhaps
I am
wrong (and I am sure some Harvard graduate with a fourth grade
education
K Mullins
See here we go again.........people your not reading the posts.....your
looking for talking points or something geeeeeeze louise read and understand
what the guy is saying before wasting bandwidth!!!
,- |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| ========
___|| | K Mullins aka:2step | -----
//__||| | http://truckingol.tsx.org | ----
,----'| ~ ||| | K.R.M...@worldnet.att.net | --
|o---|___|||- -`======-------------------------------' =========
`-(*)===~~~~~~(*)(*)| (*)(*)| -------
K Mullins
that piss on the floor over nothing!!
Chuck Guney and Bdsprd....the guy was saying that if you do falsify..you
better not sign until you've shut down for the night and know that in the
morning you'll be kosher.
People need some comprehension courses on here that's for sure.
K Mullins
an easy document to understand and fill out.
Why do you think they call it a coloring book instead of a book report?
K Mullins
no you made my point
nu uh you made my point
no sir you made my point
no way man you made my point
did not
did so
did no
did so
nu uh
uh huh
:P
:P
Damn where's the squelch knob on this newsreader!!
,- |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| ========
___|| | K Mullins aka:2step | -----
//__||| | http://truckingol.tsx.org | ----
,----'| ~ ||| | K.R.M...@worldnet.att.net | --
|o---|___|||- -`======-------------------------------' =========
`-(*)===~~~~~~(*)(*)| (*)(*)| -------
BScott97 wrote in message <19990226130434...@ng-fc1.aol.com>...
BDSPRD
>Date: 2/27/99 1:04 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Chuck Guney and Bdsprd....the guy was saying that if you do falsify..you
>better not sign until you've shut down for the night and know that in the
>morning you'll be kosher.
Thank you so much for clarifying the argument...
What would we do without you?
Sheesh...
Greggo
Greggo (aka Flattop)
Rick <mud...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in article
<36D4DD9B...@nycap.rr.com>...
> actually the FMSCR test was still there when I started. I still don't see
what the
> difficulty in filling out the log book is( could be its the only thing I
understand
> in life) BTW Check with that gal and her husband on I-80 in PA. you can
get her to
> feel sorry for ya, But I think her husband will want to watch ;)
>
> rick
>
Greggo
Greggo (aka Flattop)
Edward Justice sr <Hill...@webtv.net> wrote in article
<23145-36...@newsd-111.bryant.webtv.net>...
> The log book is supposed to be brought up to date every 4 hours
>
>
>
>
>
> Edward L. Justice Sr.
>
>
grump...@webtv.net
Ok Ok I know when I'm out of my league...I quit this string.
Stay safe
"Without Trucks America Stops"
take a guess..
> It is simply a game of
> words the cop could play if he wanted to. Just my interpretation....>
We just finished a few months worth of TV time on a discussion of what
the word "is" is in our exalted Capitol. If all those lordly ladies &
gents can't agree on a 2 letter word's definition ( let's not even
attempt that 3 letter word's definition that Bubba had so much trouble
with), how are a dumb old truckdriver & an overworked DOT inspector
supposed to be able to figure out something as intricate as who's where,
when from a logsheet?
Just wondering........
Bob C.
Chuck wrote in message <36d3d43a....@news.comteck.com>...
>On Wed, 24 Feb 1999 03:53:38 GMT, "Gunney" <Truck...@Email.com>
>wrote:
>
>You have yet to answer my simple question. i.e., What was falsified
on
>the logs as I set them up in the scenario I detailed here for you?
>Wahtt was it that I failed to document?
>
I didnt read the entire scenario but in my limited
understanding, had you been sitting in the drivers seat, I'm
thinking you should have logged on duty for that time.
Bob C.
Lloyd Hayes
Federal Law states that by signing the document, you are saying the the
facts described on that same document are truthful and factual. It becomes a
Federal Document only after it is signed. A Federal Document can not be
altered or destroyed, by Federal Law. That's why you never sign your logbook
until it is completed!
Gunney
After 80 Postings on the subject, you would think that the string will die!!
But there must still be a couple of drops of blood still left in it
I guess!! LOL
Lloyd Hayes wrote in message ...
BDSPRD
>Date: 2/28/99 2:39 PM Eastern Standard Time
>DIE!!!!!STRING!!!!DIE!!!!
>
>After 80 Postings on the subject, you would think that the string will die!!
>But there must still be a couple of drops of blood still left in it
>I guess!! LOL
>
I truly believe the only recourse is to call the Federal Marshal and put some
of these guys in Leavenworth...
If assholes could fly, this place would be an airport!
Sheesh...
mike kienast
the lenth of this string and the varrious answers just prove one thing EVEN
WHEN ITS WRITTEN IT IS STILL OPEN TO INTERPRETATION if you ask 10 dot
officers this question you will get 10 different answers and if you ask 10
different drivers you get 20 different answers(he said with a grin).
the one and only GHOSTRIDER
>
>
ROBERT KRAMER
were you,though am glad you've seen the light..Radar
ROBERT KRAMER
for was my logs.Which 90% of the time I kept current up to the last
change of status. I always felt iif I had to falsify my logs to make
enough money, I was working for the wrong company...Radar
Dave Smith
> Let me tell you something Robert, DOT officers are no different than the
> Trucking Industry, In this Respect; There are so many new ones out there
> just like Truck drivers , that they don't know what the hell they are
> doing!! Let alone enforce the Commercial Vehicle code. And I just about had
> as much as could take!! I can recall in 1994 just before I quit, they wanted
> to inforce the Quota in March of that year from 8,800 truck violations to
> over 10,000. just for the sake of money and not for the sake of safety.
I have been in truck enforcement for eleven years in Ontario. We have had
tremendous increases in fines for truck safety violations and even introduced
impoundment of commercial vehicles for critical defects, but we have never had a
quota for tickets. There are performance requirements for the numbers of
inspections performed by officers, but never on the number of charges laid.
Eugenia Heist
book while waiting at bridge going into California, got stopped just
over the bridge in Truckee for DOT random check. Sat for over 8 hrs.
cooling heels while night shift went home and day shift came on. He was
fined over $500.00 and this was a first offense. Better be the last
one, too. Mama said so.
CHAI...@webtv.net
Answer: None, they would rather sit in the dark and bitch about it.
Ya ya I know old joke.
Pickin' up new scoot this week, to hell with truckin'
CHAIN
Gunney
Trucking Industry, In this Respect; There are so many new ones out there
just like Truck drivers , that they don't know what the hell they are
doing!! Let alone enforce the Commercial Vehicle code. And I just about had
as much as could take!! I can recall in 1994 just before I quit, they wanted
to inforce the Quota in March of that year from 8,800 truck violations to
is when I knew it was time to come to the other side.So far luv every minute
of it, and on occation, will take one of my trucks out on a run, and love to
get pulled in the back into an Inspection bay, because I find that I am able
to Quote more FMCSR
guidelines off my head then they knew what the hell they were doing.
Since I have left the West Bnd side of the Banning Scales is nothing but a
cluster "F". Example: 3 Months ago I took one of my trucks from Phoenix to
Oxnard,Ca,and when I got to the Banning Scale,I noticed that not only were
the trucks backed all the way out to the road by they also still had the
open sign on!! That is very much as illegal and unsafe a state can get
Gentlemen. I will only speak for myself, but I tell my 3 drivers and myself
included, that if a scale is showing open ,and trucks are backed out onto
the road!!! Blow right on by!!! And if an officer stops you, not only let
him give you a ticket(which he would be ass to do anyway) but to get his
badge # and Supervisors name. Needless to say they are usually too busy to
stop my trucks, because they have to do this constantly!!!
Anyway people, I am sorry for babbling, just wanted to get some truth out
there in the open.I am about Safety!! I am about Knowledge of the Industry I
represent!! Which happens to be the Trucking Industry!! Not the DOT!!
Regards to you all.
Gunney
ROBERT KRAMER wrote in message
<10288-36...@newsd-173.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
Gunney
That is the way it should be,but unfortunately that is not the way
California operates anymore, That's why I no longer have that sewn on badge
on a Jumpsuit. I hear what your saying Dave, believe me!!
Regards to Canadian Commercial Vehicle Enforcement!!
Gunney
Dave Smith wrote in message <36D9F295...@sympatico.ca>...
>Gunney wrote:
>
>> Let me tell you something Robert, DOT officers are no different than the
>> Trucking Industry, In this Respect; There are so many new ones out there
>> just like Truck drivers , that they don't know what the hell they are
>> doing!! Let alone enforce the Commercial Vehicle code. And I just about
had
>> as much as could take!! I can recall in 1994 just before I quit, they
wanted
>> to inforce the Quota in March of that year from 8,800 truck violations to
>> over 10,000. just for the sake of money and not for the sake of safety.
>
Sunshine 70
they had an hour, they would have to retrain them
Gunney wrote in message <0BmC2.153$oe3.17901@PM01NEWS>...
ETCtankers
The Puppy quits whinning after a while!
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!
Bashful
"The Quality Link"
charles.t....@gmail.com
> On 24 Feb 1999 21:29:52 GMT, yodld...@aol.com (Yodldihodl) wrote:
>
>
> >I do not drive a truck, that's why I posted and asked the original question. If
> >I had known it would turn into a shouting match, I guess I would have thought
> >twice about posting the message and would have just asked my truck driving
> >husband when he gets back.
>
> Just don't ask him when one of his trucker buddies is present or
> you're likely to have a shouting match in your kitchen! ;o)
SO TRUE
nrus...@gmail.com
richard
> Wrong on canadian regulations. Federal regulations state sign at the end. Provincial laws are different, but if your crossing the border as a federal carrier federal laws apply.
If you are in Canada as an Anerican trycker, you comply with Canadian laws.
Used to be, that when you drove in Canada, you used a seperate log book.
For the Canadian log book, mark the first seven days as off duty.
For the US log book, mark off duty for the time in Canada.
Then turn both logs in to the company.
Or at least write "Canada" across the top of each page.
Geezus H. Khryst
"richard" <nor...@example.com> wrote in message
news:1kuecg3b7ns78$.9s25efsjwk7$.dlg@40tude.net...
Larry Sheldon
> Just wondering.... is it painful to be that st00pid?
--
The unique Characteristics of System Administrators:
The fact that they are infallible; and,
The fact that they learn from their mistakes.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
donnas...@gmail.com
paussi...@gmail.com
richard
> What about carring 2 log books what happens to the deiver
Possible even shut down for 10 hours.
To avoid that, use loose leaf and let them see only the current 8 days.
