I'm extremely adept at reading your posts.

Actually, I stated several facts, and provided further documentation to support them, which stonefly responded with:

"Hey Rev.Vassago. I got no interest in you. Why don't you rain on somebody else...I'm here for a reason, and your nonsense ain't got nuthin' to do with it."

Frankly, I think he's grasping at straws, and is ignoring all the data that disagrees with him. The reason being, of course, because he is looking for a legitimate reason to change the regs, because his illegitimate reason just doesn't work.

 

I think you would have a better time providing support for your cause if you could find a poll or study where drivers admitted to driving fatigued due to the new hos. My main problem with the new hos is that you cannot stop the clock. I know a number of drivers who have told me that they continue driving rather than stopping when they get tired so that they can earn a living. Not being able to stop the clock does tend to force some drivers to push beyond their comfort zone. That is the main problem that I have with the new hos rules. Being able to stop the clock could give you what you want in extra time and still keep the sleeper berth the way it is.

 

GMAN, is it my cause, or our cause? I can't do it by myself. Thank you for finding the link to the feds' website. It is helpful. That's called working together. I'm only going to do this as long as I'm working together with others. The feds' comment page on hours of service is the poll...the study...where drivers admit to driving fatigued due to the new hos. Nobody at the FMCSA appears to be listening.

I'm sure you do know a number of drivers who continue to drive when they are tired because they need to in order to earn a living. There are about 400 comments on the Bring Back Trucking web page that echo the sentiment.

You're right. Not being able to stop the clock does force some drivers to push beyond their comfort zone. However, your choice of words may not be the best. Not being able to stop the clock forces some drivers to push into the danger zone.

It's more than that, however. Without split time, bunk time that isn't a full eight hours becomes a liability to the driver. How much time do you have in your life? Can you spend a full eight hours in a bunk when you are not sleepy and cannot sleep?

If you got your wish, and could stop the clock for a sleep break less than eight hours, what will you do when you have made a delivery? If you slept four during your clock stopper, now you still have to take eight more hours in the bunk. That adds up to 12 hours. How many times can you afford to do that in one week?

Stopping the clock is not enough. It is necessary to have all blocks of sleep greater than 2 hours count toward a driver's sleep requirement. I appreciate your help, and any support you can give, but if you think stopping the clock is enough, I must wonder how well you have studied this matter.

 

This is ludicrous.

What you are advocating would allow a driver to drive round the clock, taking 2 hour sleep breaks. A driver cannot get restorative sleep in 2 hours.

Given your statement above, a driver could legally drive 2, sleep 2, drive 2, sleep 2, drive 2, sleep 2, drive 2, sleep 2, drive 2, sleep 2, and have their 10 hours of sleep requirement fulfilled. A driver could theoretically drive from one side of the country to the other having never gotten any restorative sleep. So much for making the highways safer.:roll:

 

Actually, no. The number of blocks allowed has never been more been more than two, as far back as I remember. That being the case, the splits would have to be 2/8, 3/7, 4/6, 5/5, etc... Your driver would get plenty of restorative sleep.

stonefly

 

But that isn't what you said. You said:

You've moved beyond your original claim that any block of sleep should stop the clock, and now want all blocks of sleep more than 2 hours to count toward the 10 hour sleep requirement.

As I said, this is a ludicrous statement you've made.

 

If we must be stuck with logs then my ideal would be to go back to the old hos, but keep the 34 hour restart. Frankly, I think 24 hours is plenty of time for a reset. I usually sleep from 4-6 hours per night. If I sleep 8 hours then I get a headache. I feel like I have been drugged when I sleep 8 hours. That is just my personal body clock. I never need an alarm clock to awaken in the morning. My body knows when it is time to get up. In fact, I am usually awake long before I need to be up. There are those who need more than 8 hours to function. They could not function on the amount of sleep that I get. Being able to stop the clock would help. As I stated, I would prefer the old hos where we only had to take 8 hours in the bunk and that could be split. It made more sense for me but may not work well for those who require more sleep. Actually, I suppose it could work for them as well since this is the minimum amount of sleep that is required.

 

I agree that the numbers are misleading. Remember that signature line that jungleblood used, something to the effect that numbers and statistics will confess to anything if you torture them long enough?

Statistics may never clearly show one way or another the value of a split sleeper berth option. There are too many variables. When there are too many variables in a study science goes out the window.

Statistics may never be anything but a poor tool in deciding whether or not a split sleeper berth provision is in the interest of safety. All that one may do is look at a trend and say "perhaps." Beyond that, statistics don't mean much in this matter. Several forum members here cried out for statitistics when the topic of the split sleeper berth provision came up. As soon as statistics appear, interpretation of the numbers becomes a sort of free-for-all and nothing is accomplished.

You're right again, GMAN, the numbers are inconclusive. Maybe if we torture them some more, they'll confess to something.



stonefly

 

What I would like to accomplish is to revert to the original 2003 rule changes, the ones they began to enforce on January 1, 2004. As soon as I was running under my own numbers, the old rules, the 8 hour break-10 hour driving, were alright. When I was leased to a carrier, they managed to push me beyond my limits...if I let them. In fact, I rarely did. If I needed sleep, I slept. I had to listen to a dispatcher holler when I finally made contact...after my sleep break, "I HAD A LOAD FOR YOU!"

"I was tired, I had to sleep."

"That ain't no good, man, that ain't no good."

"Look, I'm ready to go. Whaddaya got?"

"Nothin' now, call back in an hour."

I think there were some company drivers and lease operators were hurt under the original rules. A man running under his own numbers can call his own shots. When the 2003 rule change was first announced, I was worried, because I thought it would prevent me from having any flexibility with regard to bunk time and delivery appointments. It wasn't long before I realized that the new rules wouldn't shut me down. They were complicated, especially when I was splitting my time. Three overlapping layers of limiting factors had to be considered: The 11 hours of driving, the 14 hour clock, and the 70 hour limit. Add split time into the formula, and there were times when I was staring at my log scratching my head, trying to figure out if I could drive or for how long. Therein lies the weirdness and frustration of the log book. I was awake and ready to get on the road, but studying the log book was putting me into a stupor. All in all though, I looked at it this way, it was confusing at times, but most of the time the rules worked pretty good for me. Under my own numbers, I could take the old rules, the 8 and 10, or the new rules the 10 and the 11, and run either way, without it making much difference to me.

For company drivers and lease operators, I think the 2003 rules are better. I think a company cannot abuse drivers as easily under the 2003 rules.

The loss of the split sleeper berth provision is the rule that messed me up real good. I read about it for the first time in the summer, at a truck stop in some small Utah town in the middle of a desert. They had trucker newspapers and I was flipping through one of them when I saw Annette Sandberg's announcement. I knew that this time, it wasn't going to be something to which I would easily adapt.

I've been living with it, but when I saw all of the comments from other drivers on the feds' website, it gave me the inspiration to try and do something about it, and here we are and that's that.

stonefly

 

I think you are in an uphill battle. MADD and the others are getting together in an attempt to further reduce or change our current hos. They still think we are working too much. I think you will need to find more drivers who are willing to speak out. Of course, that could have the opposite effect in that it could push more for EOBR's. That is something most of us don't want. The ATA is pushing for the EOBR's and speed limiters. If you want to be successful you will also need to get the legislative branch (congress) involved. I think you could gain support from independents, smaller carriers and some owner operators. Many will be cautious since they are afraid that we may wind up with something that is worse that what we have now and will further inhibit our ability to make a living. Most people have adjusted to the current hos.