Zipy, the new rules aren't in effect yet and it goes towards the company not the driver. If I can find it again I will post it

 

From what I understood, Mr. Ford, they are going in effect next year. It sounds like they are giving everybody a year to 'straighten up', before they start hammering on everyone.

 

Ok....thanks :thumbsup:

 

It's a PDF file but rule 392.6 reads: Scheduling Run to necessitate speeding, Speeding Related, 5 points, Driver not responsible. It's on page 36 about halfway thru the section listed.

http://csa2010.fmcsa.dot.gov/documen...ethodology.pdf

These new rules/laws go into effect sometime this summer. I've heard June or July.

 

I wished they could do something about that Adobe. Man, it sure puts a lock-down on my computer.

Thanks, Mr. Ford, for the new regs.

 

So what if the paperwork states a must deliver by date, how is the DOT inspector going to be able to determine when the delivery appointment is?(Unless the driver tells him). Does the inspector know that the time was rescheduled? Does he know that the driver is relaying the load to another solo/team who CAN legally get it there.

I don't see how the above rule is enforceable. Besides isn't the DOT looking at an event that is in the future and the law hasn't been broken yet? Well maybe a conspiracy to break the law?

 

Shoot sometimes I don't even know the appointment has been rescheduled till I get there thinking I am late

Remember that CSA2010 does not criminal law but civil law, maybe in civil law you can punish for actions that haven't happened yet. I don't know. Someone help me out with that last part.

Dan

 

There seems to have been some changes in recent years. Or my preception is off. It used to be that they could not arrest someone until the law was actually broken. But with all the sex offenders on the internet, they now go after "intent to break the law". The federal prosicutor from Pensacola that flew to Detroit to have sex with a 5 year-old girl (remember that one), and they got him at the airport. (No, I'm not saying they should have let him go through with it before they arrested him.) There was a time when the cops could have all the knowledge that a crime was about to be committed, and could do nothing until it happened. It seems that today, they can step in as soon as there is provable information about a crime that is going to be committed. It seems like, at one time, they didn't do much with "intent". But, today, it covers a broad range of things. And, they go after "intent" for criminal cases as well. Over the past 10 years, how many women have the arrested for "intent" of having their husbands killed. Trying to hire an undercover cop to take the "hit".