You make no sense at all. Yes you can brake. Yes you can downshift. The point is you should be doing those things BEFORE you are 15 over the speed limit. No judge is going to let this slide with his record.

Are we judging the guy? Maybe so. But he has FIVE moving violations in less than four years in a CMV. That is a problem. He came here asking for opinions and he got them. May not be what he wanted to hear, but we were honest.

 

WOW! I could have a lot of fun with that much idiocy.. But I'm painting a few rooms in my new house and I just don't have the time.. of course a few more hours in with the paint fumes, I just might be able to understand those ravings a little more.. :lol:

 

You know, I don't think that word is even a word!!! LOL just messing with ya!! :wink: :lol:

 

Well lets have fun then.I'll spell this out for you..If a driver is to overtake a hill they need to gain speed or create momentum to over come that obsticale.By then doing so when you reach the crest or top of the hill that momentum will then be applied to the energy that the engine has created.
Both forces will then cause the truck to gain in speed so you then have to adjust your speed to compensate..That's how you say "adjust your speed" to the cop. The law I'm refering to is that we all have a right to a defence.He's not guilty till he pays the ticket..I don't care if he is wrong or right in his habits.He asked I gave an answer and you both said what I said was stupid and idiotic.I'm not to get upset.Maybe we should get you to a website classaclowns.com then you can pick on,judge, and condescend all you want.Just because you are the best of the best(allegedly)or you never do anything wrong(maybe) does not give you the right to judge.Now I parphrase in this post in hope that you remember what was posted before.I know I know when you assume you make an a** out of you and me..You both have sped sometime in your life, had a beer before you were 18 or 21 what ever the drinking age was "back in da day".Just because you don't get it does not make it wrong..

 

Man, there are a lot of inaccuracies in the replies on this thread!! :lol: It's ONE thing to berate a guy.... but it's another to exaggerate his record in order to do so, or to give him bad info in the process. :roll:

Sorry, Greg, but you said:

Should have read his post a little closer. Here is what he really said:

The first sentence I BELIEVE indicates this is his first job in a CMV, and the first highlighted phrase clearly states he had this record BEFORE this job. I'm assuming that means BEFORE he had a CDL, so the infractions were NOT while driving a CMV.

The DMV apparently "double posted" the illegal lane change, so that's THREE previous violations, NONE in a CMV, and then the current ONE that is in a CMV.

Now, I realize I am assuming, and he may be a 20 yr veteran driver making ALL these in a CMV, but there would STILL be only 4, and I think he is a rookie. I hope he comes back to clarify this, because much of the rest of my post depends on what type of vehicle he was driving during the illegal lane change.


Drew10 said:

NOT TRUE. He didn't indicate what his speed WAS in the first two, but since it was not listed as 15 over, I'm pretty sure these were your basic "speeding" tickets which are NOT considered "major violations." Also, if the illegal lane change (which IS considered a major) was in his POV, the NEW charge of 15 over IN a CMV does NOT constitute 2 majors in 3 years "in a CMV" and therefore will NOT cause a suspension unless his state laws cause him to lose his POV or "non CDL" driving priveleges.

If anyone doubts my interpretation of the regs and the table of offenses, I will gladly explain, but it is confusing. By now, you MIGHT just know to "trust me." :wink:

Uturn said:

Not true (but I'm pretty sure I'm gonna end up explaining and defending this statement.)

And:


Thanks, Uturn for catching your mistake. Indeed you HAVE misquoted this MANY times. (So did "I" once!) And I agree with your last statement about "accurate" information.

I believe, Greg, that the guy was looking for opinions on the LAW, not on his character. He received plenty of BOTH. 8)

Oh yeah, somewhere there was a mention of him being disqualified to operate anything with a MOTOR for 60 days... (I fogot to cut and paste it.) This ALSO is not true. He would ONLY lose his privilege to operate a CMV, unless the court took his driving privileges altogether due to his record or whatever.

I didn't check Uturn's link to "HERE," but I suspect it is a link to subpart "D" and table 2 to section 383.51. If SO, that is exactly where I am getting MY info from, and therefore I suggest there may be OTHERS here who need a better familiarization with the info "THERE."

I'm not making excuses for the O/P or his attitude. But, I think some of the attitude given back to him was a bit over the top.

 

Golf,

It sounds like that forth ticket is still on his record, even though he said the paperwork was submitted. As far as the employer is concerned, until that falls off he has four moving violations. Add the most recent ticket and he has five. Although he has not appeared in court, as an employer they obviously felt that he was too much of a risk to keep around. That would be his third speeding ticket in less than four years. No to mention 15 over in a CMV looks pretty bad.

 

Greg: I believe he said the employer verified the "mistake" with the DMV. Granted, a funny thing about the DMV is that they don't seem to be able to CORRECT such mistakes on your record, but that still doesn't mean he COMMITTED a second offense of illegal lane change. i.e: NO FOURTH ticket. (until this new one!)

I suspect that it was more the insurance company, rather than the employer, who decided he was too much of a risk, but I can't argue with the prinicple of your point.... just the facts. :wink:

Agreed that the new offense is a third speeding violation in 4 years, but if the company policy states a cutoff of 3 years, MOST will honor that criteria, making his most recent one only the second in 3 years. But, I DO agree that it being a MAJOR adds more weight. Too bad he couldn't at least get a decent LEO who might have "under-reported" the speed.

You mean you're NOT gonna challenge my interpretation of the regs?? I was SOoooo looking forward to spending the rest of the evening typing away! :lol: