Ironeagle-

I have some information I would like to share with you. I would rather not post it here, for all the medical experts ( or as my old buddy, Cadillac Smith, used to call them, "schmucksperts") on this forum to debate.

Can you send me a direct email?

[email protected]

I've been close enough to where you are to know what it's like. You have my empathy & compassion. And I do have some informaton that may offer you some hope.

Thanks,

 

You are not a driver anymore ? No reason for you to post here. I could care less about your medical condition.

For your info, I am a driver. Sorry you can't find me in your Swift database.

This post was not directed to you from the start and you want us off? I was telling ironeagle2006 what happened at the meeting. Lets start calling names. You - don't - spell - good - "na - na". This helps.
Grow up, drop the put downs, sorry someone else has a different opinion than you and you can't handle that thought. This is how you prove your side? I don't have a problem with hearing your side. I am not calling you a dumb A**. It just doesn't help your case with the name calling.
We can nit pick every condition why it can be safe, or why it is not. Each side has valid points.
Letting someone with a well controlled seizure condition drive a CMV interstate may only increase the chance of an accident 1 - 2%. You say that 1 - 2% is too much? You and some others say yes. I and some others say no if it is done correctly. You can drive a CMV right now if you have been seizure free for 5 - 10 years without meds. But not if you are 20 years seizure free on meds. But you feel safer because it is the current regulations.
Some other conditions are the same or close in %. But the FMCSA allows them to drive a CMV. The push to allow drivers on insulin to drive a CMV was also said it was just too unsafe. The FMCSA said no for a long time and still said no when it was being reviewed. It took a lot of people, organizations and attorneys to force the FMCSA to allow this. The FMCSA said yes only after being forced to from the courts. The FMCSA put restrictions on these drivers that made it impossible to achieve a waiver. The courts had to step in once more. The FMCSA did not and does not want those drivers driving CMV'S but was forced to.
Court decisions as high as the Supreme Court have already ruled the DOT/FMCSA are in violation on the denial of drivers with well controlled seizures on medication. The FMCSA is still dragging it out.
The FMCSA is making the medical standards higher for all drivers. Yes, I suppose this will make the roads safer for us all. It will force some of off the road. Or more difficult to pass. Or more $ to pass because of more tests. Not today, not tomorrow, but very soon.
Some of you here say all of these new regulations only will effect the "bad drivers". Will it really?
We can't idle. We can't park on the dirt. Right lane only. Speed limiters. No Jake brakes. Black box. Your truck has to shut itself off after X # mins or fines. They are talking about no cruse control. No chicken lights. (I don't know how true that one is, yard talk) CARB. HOS. Medical standards.
Remember, FMCSA said that Mexican trucks are "safer" than U.S. counterparts. (you will say I made that up)
The FMCSA has been ordered to reduce large truck accidents. So this means more regulations. Most people hate large trucks and think they are all unsafe.
Washington state Rep. John Griesheimer "Most people feel trucks are a menace and a danger to them on the highways. Anything we can do to curb the trucks and provide more rules and regulations for them, the better off we are."
You guys don't have to believe me and probably don't. I have been to some of these hearings and know others that go to all of them. This is a big push for stricter and some unfair regulations. So go ahead and not get involved. Its only your "job".
But I guess you don't care. cuzz, sorry because I is a bad speller and must be sipping moonshine.

 

1jcc-

Very well written. Thank you!

 

Big diesel here would be an idea for you. Find your local Epilepsy foundation and spend some timethere trust me they would enjoy it. Like they say you never know someone til you walk a mile in their shoes.

 

Hey Ironeagle,

I have had another minor moment of epiphany on this forum. It seems to me that medical science and technology are advancing at a much faster rate than the levels of empathy, compassion, and indeed the basic intelligence level of the average individual. Or at least that of the average truckdriver, as represented by those here.

I think what this will ultimately mean is that people who fail to evolve will be left behind as a sort of underclass.

And I think I really have to thank Steve Booth again. If his wonderful writings hadn't drawn me into this forum, I might never have thought about these things.

I hope the info I sent you may be of some benefit.

 

Hey ironeagle2006: Here's something you wrote on Trukz:

Please quote anywhere I ever said anything that even remotely resembles that remark. :roll:

 

Here is another one that makes us all safer. ironeagle2006 and LightsChromeHorsepower please don't reply. BigDiesel gets all confused when we all speak at the same time. Besides, I don't like talking to myself.
:roll:

Connecticut bill would require removal of snow, ice from trucks If a leading state lawmaker in Connecticut gets his way, motorists and truck drivers would be forced to remove ice and snow from their vehicles before taking to roadways in the state.

Connecticut law already allows police to pull over drivers for failure to secure a load.

House Speaker Lawrence Cafero, R-Norwalk, said he will introduce a bill for consideration during the upcoming legislative session that specifically targets snow and ice. There have been at least nine attempts since 1991 to enact such a law.

Cafero cited complaints from constituents about wintry precipitation flying from cars and trucks when he reintroduced the measure. It last drew consideration at the statehouse in 2001, The Stamford Advocate reported.

New Jersey and Pennsylvania are the only states to have specific snow and ice removal rules on the books for vehicle operators. Supporters say a specific law for snow and ice removal in Connecticut would make enforcement easier.

Trucking industry officials in the state say the rule would be nearly impossible to comply with. They also cite concerns about requiring people to climb atop large vehicles to remove snow or ice.

New York state Assemblyman Mike Spano doesn’t buy that argument. Spano has offered a measure in his state’s Assembly that would require truckers and others to clear their vehicles of snow, ice, sleet and hail.

Spano said complaints about requiring drivers to climb atop their vehicles to remove the wintry precipitation don’t hold water.

“I firmly believe everything they’re describing are minor inconveniences and do not outweigh the positives,” Spano told The Advocate.

All legislation in Connecticut can be considered during the regular session, which begins Wednesday, Feb. 6.

To view other legislative activities of interest for Connecticut, click here.

– By Keith Goble, state legislative editor

 

kinda on the topic here, but I think your sig should be changed from "forced" off the road, ...due to the fact you weren't forced off, but infact it was more of a public safety move helping save thousands of potentially innocent lifes from your ticking time bomb ass piloting a truck down the road. they need to take more safety haards like you off of the road, and I look at it as more of a small step in the right direction! oh, and a million miles is no big feat at all, you look down on household drivers (who, by the way endure more crap than any steeel mill, or produce wharehouse could throw at you) so im going to guess you haven't done that....have you ever hauled dildos? just curious here...your posts would lead me to believe you have, and still have a few shoved up your butt....ever haul dead bodies?