An e-mail to the Chief of Police in Las Cruces, NM

[Mike_M]

C5. El Paso (Texas) Times: Tuesday, January 27, 2009

HEADLINE: Big rig runs over, kills man sleeping in Las Cruces parking lot

Byline: Adriana M. Chávez, El Paso Times Staff

EL PASO -- A Virginia man was killed Saturday when he was run over while sleeping in a Las Cruces parking lot, police said.

Michael Allen Williamson II, 25, had apparently fallen asleep in front of an 18-wheeler in the parking lot of DATS Trucking, 400 S. Compress. Police said Williamson, who may have been intoxicated, was run over at about 3 a.m. Saturday after the driver, El Pasoan Jesus Cano Garcia, 28, began moving the truck.

Police said no charges against Garcia are expected to be filed. Williamson's death was listed as a pedestrian fatality, police said.

End.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Chief Romero, I was deeply troubled by the report of a driver running over a pedestrian at 3:00 AM. If my suspicions are correct the driver of the tractor trailer failed to perform some rudimentary safety checks required by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR.) Had the driver of the big rig walked around his vehicle before moving the vehicle Mr. Garcia would have seen the man lying in front of his truck and avoided the accident.

Mr. Garcia’s negligent behavior caused Mr. Williamson’s death. If Mr. Garcia had obeyed the safety regulations he would have saved Mr. Williamson’s life. Two wrongs do not make a right. At the very least I believe Mr. Garcia’s employer should be chastised for failing to ensure their employees followed the safety regulations.

The news of the incident is additional evidence that drivers fail to obey the safety regulations and protect the public that interact near their vehicles on a daily basis. Drivers of tractor trailers have a “COMMERCIAL” driver’s license and are held to a higher standard.

Thank you for your time in listening to my concerns; I hope the City of Las Cruces examines the accident closer and re-evaluates the culpability of Mr. Garcia in his neglectful actions.

www.fmcsa.dot.gov = A link to the FMCSR

http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/default.aspx = A link to investigate the motor carrier to determine their driver and vehicle safety performance.

Sincerely;

Mike M

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

§392.7 Equipment, inspection and use.

No commercial motor vehicle shall be driven unless the driver is satisfied that the following parts and accessories are in good working order, nor shall any driver fail to use or make use of such parts and accessories when and as needed:

Service brakes, including trailer brake connections.

Parking (hand) brake.

Steering mechanism.

Lighting devices and reflectors.

Tires.

Horn.

Windshield wiper or wipers.

Rear-vision mirror or mirrors.

Coupling devices.

§396.11 Driver vehicle inspection report(s).

(a) Report required. Every motor carrier shall require its drivers to report, and every driver shall prepare a report in writing at the completion of each day’s work on each vehicle operated and the report shall cover at least the following parts and accessories:

—Service brakes including trailer brake connections

—Parking (hand) brake

—Steering mechanism

—Lighting devices and reflectors

—Tires

—Horn

—Windshield wipers

—Rear vision mirrors

—Coupling devices

—Wheels and rims

—Emergency equipment

§396.13 Driver inspection.

Before driving a motor vehicle, the driver shall:

(a) Be satisfied that the motor vehicle is in safe operating condition;

Be safe.

.................................

[Uturn2001]

Making a lot of assumptions based on very little information. Besides that there is no where in the regs that says a driver must inspect the vehicle from top to bottom prior to driving it, or resuming driving it after a stop during the day. The regs only state that the driver must be satisfied that the vehicle is in safe MECHANICAL condition before driving it.

[Mike_M]

Uturn2001:


Making a lot of assumptions based on very little information. Besides that there is no where in the regs that says a driver must inspect the vehicle from top to bottom prior to driving it, or resuming driving it after a stop during the day. The regs only state that the driver must be satisfied that the vehicle is in safe MECHANICAL condition before driving it.

Really, no need to "inspect" and the driver only has to be concerned with the "Mechanical" condition? Please Uturn provide a portion of the FMCSR that states "mechanical" condition.



§392.7 Equipment, inspection and use.

No commercial motor vehicle shall be driven unless the driver is satisfied that the following parts and accessories are in good working order, nor shall any driver fail to use or make use of such parts and accessories when and as needed:

Service brakes, including trailer brake connections.

Parking (hand) brake.

Steering mechanism.

Lighting devices and reflectors.

Tires.

Horn.

Windshield wiper or wipers.

Rear-vision mirror or mirrors.

Coupling devices.

Question 2: Must both drivers of a team operation comply with the provisions of §392.7 before driving?

Guidance: §392.7 states that a driver must be satisfied that the vehicle is in good working order before operating the vehicle. If a driver is satisfied with a co-driver’s inspection, or a safety lane inspection, then the requirement of this section will have been met.

I guess the rule disagree with your concept that a vehicle does not have to be inspected for the driver to be satisfied.

Damn Uturn, how dense can you get. How in the he11 can a driver be satisfied the vehicle is safe to operate if the driver doesn't inspect the vehicle? Sheesh.



§396.13 Driver inspection.

Before driving a motor vehicle, the driver shall:

(a) Be satisfied that the motor vehicle is in safe operating condition;

Question 2: Does §396.11 require that the power unit and the trailer be inspected?

Guidance: Yes. A driver must be satisfied that both the power unit and the trailer are in safe operating condition before operating the combination.

Strike two.... Guess Uturn needs to get off his azz and inspect his vehicle/s. :(

Part 392: Driving of commercial motor vehicles
Part 396: Inspection, repair, and maintenance

Two separate Sub Chapters of the FMCSR requiring an inspection. One inspection states:


No commercial motor vehicle shall be driven unless the driver is satisfied that the following parts and accessories are in good working order, nor shall any driver fail to use or make use of such parts and accessories when and as needed:

There is no reference to reviewing the previous day's DVIR to set a time line; just a general condition of "SHALL BE DRIVEN". So IOW if you stop to pee, check the vehicle/s; stop for fuel, check the vehicle/s; stop to check cargo, check the vehicles.

Whereas Part 396 says:


§396.13 Driver inspection.

Before driving a motor vehicle, the driver shall:

(a) Be satisfied that the motor vehicle is in safe operating condition;

(b) Review the last driver vehicle inspection report; and

(c) Sign the report, only if defects or deficiencies were noted by the driver who prepared the report, to acknowledge that the driver has reviewed it and that there is a certification that the required repairs have been performed. The signature requirement does not apply to listed defects on a towed unit which is no longer part of the vehicle combination.

If you cannot see the differance between the two subchapters.... Oh well. What color is your truck, I'll make sure to stay away.

Be safe.

[Rockjockey]

Well, Mike, as you have just proved with your reply to Uturn, your disdain for drivers is well known. I'm sure all will cheer you on in your heroic attempt to get a driver jailed, not that the driver doesn't deserve it for running over someone. Even without all the facts, it is hard to see how a professional driver ran over a sleeping drunk.

I do take issue with your usual cut and past reply. Your justification of a driver having to do a complete inspection of his vehicle by pasting this doesn't cut it. Mike wrote:

Quote:
§396.13 Driver inspection.

Before driving a motor vehicle, the driver shall:

(a) Be satisfied that the motor vehicle is in safe operating condition;

Question 2: Does §396.11 require that the power unit and the trailer be inspected?

Guidance: Yes. A driver must be satisfied that both the power unit and the trailer are in safe operating condition before operating the combination.

Here is reg 396.11 in its entirety:

§396.11 Driver vehicle inspection report(s). (a) Report required. Every motor carrier shall require its drivers to report, and every driver shall prepare a report in writing at the completion of each day’s work on each vehicle operated and the report shall cover at least the following parts and accessories:
—Service brakes including trailer brake connections
—Parking (hand) brake
—Steering mechanism
—Lighting devices and reflectors
—Tires
—Horn
—Windshield wipers
—Rear vision mirrors
—Coupling devices
—Wheels and rims
—Emergency equipment
(b) Report content. The report shall identify the vehicle and list any defect or deficiency discovered by or reported to the driver which would affect the safety of operation of the vehicle or result in its mechanical breakdown. If no defect or deficiency is discovered by or reported to the driver, the report shall so indicate. In all instances, the driver shall sign the report. On two-driver operations, only one driver needs to sign the driver vehicle inspection report, provided both drivers agree as to the defects or deficiencies identified. If a driver operates more than one vehicle during the day, a report shall be prepared for each vehicle operated.
(c) Corrective action. Prior to requiring or permitting a driver to operate a vehicle, every motor carrier or its agent shall repair any defect or deficiency listed on the driver vehicle inspection report which would be likely to affect the safety of operation of the vehicle.
(c)(1) Every motor carrier or its agent shall certify on the original driver vehicle inspection report which lists any defect or deficiency that the defect or deficiency has been repaired or that repair is unnecessary before the vehicle is operated again.
(c) (2) Every motor carrier shall maintain the original driver vehicle inspection report, the certification of repairs, and the certification of the driver’s review for three months from the date the written report was prepared.
(d) Exceptions. The rules in this section shall not apply to a private motor carrier of passengers (nonbusiness), a driveaway-towaway operation, or any motor carrier operating only one commercial motor vehicle.
[44 FR 38526, July 2, 1979, as amended at 45 FR 46425, July 10, 1980; 53 FR 18058, May 19, 1988; 59 FR 8753, Feb. 23, 1994; 63 FR 33279, June 18, 1998]
Related Links

Disclaimer (http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/disclaim.htm)
Interpretation (http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.asp?chunkkey=09016334800232b5)



If the driver did that at the end of his legal hours, and then went to sleep, he could arguably be satisfied that his vehicle is in safe operating condition. Again, any competent driver will do a walk around after his truck has been parked for any period of time, but your cut and paste job using reg 396.11 does not mandate it as you seem to be saying. Even reg 396.13 does not specifically state that the driver should do a walk around at the beginning of his run.

As I said before, a competent professional driver does a walk around every time his truck has been parked. But your email to the police chief blatantly lied about what the regulations actually called for. Of course, a LEO lying to get a conviction is nothing new...

[Uturn2001]

Really, no need to "inspect" and the driver only has to be concerned with the "Mechanical" condition? Please Uturn provide a portion of the FMCSR that states "mechanical" condition.

Which parts listed in 392.7 are biological? How about 396.13? To my understanding of the common definition of mechanical everything listed there falls into that category.

I never said a driver never has to inspect the vehicle. I have only indicated the fact that the regs make no mention when any type of basic inspection must be done. The regs only state that the driver must be satisfied that all parts and accessories must be in acceptable working order. If a complete VI had been done the night before by the driver, and the rig had not been used in the time since the VI had been done a few hours before, then as RJ pointed out a compelling argument can be made the driver was satisfied.

Since you want to quote regs a guidances then this one should be right up your alley.


Question 2: Must both drivers of a team operation comply with the provisions of §392.7 (http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.asp?reg=r49CFR392.7#r49CFR392.7) before driving?
Guidance: §392.7 (http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.asp?reg=r49CFR392.7#r49CFR392.7) states that a driver must be satisfied that the vehicle is in good working order before operating the vehicle. If a driver is satisfied with a co-driver’s inspection, or a safety lane inspection, then the requirement of this section will have been met.


While there is specific mention of a team operation in this the argument can be made that the likelihood of a failure of during operation is greater than that during the same time frame the vehicle is parked. So if a team member can be said to meet the requirements of 392.7 without doing a hands on inspection based on someone else's report then it only goes to say that a solo driver is able to meet the requirements of the same reg based on his or her own report and/or knowledge.

The basis of your argument is that the driver failed to conform to the regulations because he did not perform a vehicle inspection prior to moving the truck. There are 2 HUGE holes in that argument that have been pointed out to you several times. First is your assumptions which you have no facts to back it with. The second is your interpretation of the regulations into what you want them to say.

As I pointed out elsewhere, if you were to take your argument to its fullest conclusion then a driver would never be able to move a vehicle even one inch because s/he could never be 100% satisfied or certain that everything was still in perfect working order since the last time s/he inspected them. Lights usually go out without warning, a weak valve stem core could finally fail and a tire go flat, some defective part that is undetectable during a basic inspection could fail without a notice of any kind.

In a way it is humorous in that for years you refused to interpret the regs in any way telling those who asked they must make their own or on occasion going so far as saying that the regs say what they say, but here you are now making interpretations on one of the set of regs that really does not need any.



Any way you want to cut it AQ is making a lot of assumptions.

He is assuming that because this happened at 3 am the driver had been resting and was basically starting his "day".

He is assuming the truck was parked in a designated parking place.

He is assuming that the victim had been laying in front of the truck for a long time.

He is assuming the driver did not do a VI and in between the time the driver inspected the front of the vehicle, completed the VI and returned to the cab and was ready to leave the victim "chose" that time to lay or pass out in front of the truck.

And the list of assumptions goes on.

The only real FACTS in this are:

A man was run over.
He was run over by a truck.
The incident happened on PRIVATE property.
The incident happened at 3 am.
The investigators believe that the victim had been drinking.

If all you want to go on is assumptions then we can go that route. We can just as easily make the assumption the driver did everything right and that the victim passed out from excess drinking in front of the truck while the driver was catching up his log book prior to leaving the yard for either his day or the next part of his run for that day.

So where is the outcry and outrage at Williamson, the victim. He is the one who may have entered private property without permission. He is the one who may have chosen to drink to excess. He is the one who chose to either lay down in front of a truck or passed out in front of a truck. So why isn't Williamson being held at least partially accountable for this? He broke at least one law if not two clearly. Trespassing and Public Intoxication.

[USAF_2T2]

There are alot of variable in this situation that would lead anyone to believe several things could have happened.

Some things that I woild like to know are:
1) What is a guy from Virginia doing in Las Cruces. (I know he may have family etc...)
2) Why is the victim on private property in the first place
3) Does the victim have any mental issues
4) Is the victim on/off any medication
5) Of all the places to sleep why on private property in a trucking company
6) Did the driver just turn in paperwork or someother short stop event and return to his truck to continue his activities
7) Drivers logbook
8) If there is any relation between the victim and the driver (I know a long shot, but a possibility)

Those are some of the thoughts that first pop in my head. I think with answers to these may help the investigative procedure in trying to understand it all. It could be as simple as he passed out in front of the truck. It could be as complex as the driver caught this guy with his wife and he ran him over. That is a little steep, but it happens.

[Mike_M]

RJ, the haranguing continues:


Well, Mike, as you have just proved with your reply to Uturn, your disdain for drivers is well known.

You have it all wrong RJ, it’s ignorance that drives my disdain for people. Drivers are not exempt from the ignorance mode. Uturn posted information that demonstrates he is unaware of the regulatory requirements.


I'm sure all will cheer you on in your heroic attempt to get a driver jailed, not that the driver doesn't deserve it for running over someone. Even without all the facts, it is hard to see how a professional driver ran over a sleeping drunk.

Exactly, how could a person fail to look around their vehicle and make sure it wasn’t falling apart? You’re assuming the person was drunk. The article stated the person may have been intoxicated.

No one has answered my question yet, it seems everyone is avoiding it like the plaque: What if it was another driver who had a heart attack, stroke, slipped and fell, or any one of a thousand other possibilities. Then what would be the defense of running over someone lying near a truck?


I do take issue with your usual cut and past reply. Your justification of a driver having to do a complete inspection of his vehicle by pasting this doesn't cut it. Mike wrote:

That’s your opinion, of course how many vehicles have you placed OOS for flat tires, in operational brakes, non-operational lights, etc.? About 1997 a driver crossed the scale in Cortez, CO sans the left front set of duals from the trailer. The scale house was on the right side of the vehicle. The particular tilt of the trailer caught my eye causing the driver to be stopped and brought inside. The driver admitted to having woke up and jumping in the driver seat without doing a pre-trip or basic walk around.


If the driver did that at the end of his legal hours, and then went to sleep, he could arguably be satisfied that his vehicle is in safe operating condition. Again, any competent driver will do a walk around after his truck has been parked for any period of time, but your cut and paste job using reg 396.11 does not mandate it as you seem to be saying.

Oh I don’t know a slow leak that resulted in a flat tire after the vehicle sat several hours, a broken air line that results, disconnected air lines, loose pig tail, broken springs or other items that may have been missed, etc, etc, etc.

RJ, you appear as clueless as the other folks who want to debate the issue.

DAT Trucking (the employer of Mr. Garcia has had vehicles placed OOS for:


12/4/2008 393.45(A)(4) BRAKE HOSE/TUBING CHAFFING AND/OR KINKING

12/03/2008 393.75(F) Tire-load weight rating/under inflated
172.200(A) No shipping paper provided by offeror

11/13/2008 393.45(A)(4) BRAKE HOSE/TUBING CHAFFING AND/OR KINKING

11/12/2008 393.75(A) Flat tire or fabric exposed

10/15/2008 393.75(A) Flat tire or fabric exposed

Three OOS for flat tires, how easily would it have been for a driver to avoid the OOS if they walked around and bumped the tires before driving?


Even reg 396.13 does not specifically state that the driver should do a walk around at the beginning of his run.

The interpretation states the vehicle must be INSPECTED before the driver operates the vehicle, how else do you inspect the vehicle unless you walk around the vehicle?

Damn you’re as dense as Uturn is.


As I said before, a competent professional driver does a walk around every time his truck has been parked. But your email to the police chief blatantly lied about what the regulations actually called for. Of course, a LEO lying to get a conviction is nothing new...

Really, lied? Damn RJ you continue to demonstrate your inability to read and comprehend what you’re reading:


Question 2: Does §396.11 require that the power unit and the trailer be inspected?
Guidance: Yes. A driver must be satisfied that both the power unit and the trailer are in safe operating condition before operating the combination.


Question 2: Must both drivers of a team operation comply with the provisions of §392.7 before driving?

Guidance: §392.7 states that a driver must be satisfied that the vehicle is in good working order before operating the vehicle. If a driver is satisfied with a co-driver’s inspection, or a safety lane inspection, then the requirement of this section will have been met.

Plain and simple, two separate subchapters, one references an inspection performed in conjunction with reviewing the previous day’s DVIR, the other stating the driver must be satisfied the vehicle is in safe operating condition. The equipment list in Part 392 is different than the equipment list in Part 396. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand the inspections are different.

RJ and Uturn are lost causes if they cannot comprehend the material provided.

Be safe.

[Mike_M]

Uturn continues the denial:


I never said a driver never has to inspect the vehicle. I have only indicated the fact that the regs make no mention when any type of basic inspection must be done.

What part of “SHALL BE DRIVEN” don’t you understand?


§392.7 Equipment, inspection and use.

No commercial motor vehicle shall be driven unless the driver is satisfied that the following parts and accessories are in good working order, nor shall any driver fail to use or make use of such parts and accessories when and as needed:

Seems self explanatory to me, before or during, IOW, if you blow a tire or something break now you must stop,

Unlike Part 396 that states a driver must examine the previous day’s DVIR to ensure all repairs were made then ensure the vehicle is safe to operate, Part 392 does not mention any particular part of the day.


§396.13 Driver inspection.
Before driving a motor vehicle, the driver shall:
(a) Be satisfied that the motor vehicle is in safe operating condition;
(b) Review the last driver vehicle inspection report; and
(c) Sign the report, only if defects or deficiencies were noted by the driver who prepared the report, to acknowledge that the driver has reviewed it and that there is a certification that the required repairs have been performed. The signature requirement does not apply to listed defects on a towed unit which is no longer part of the vehicle combination.

Hasn’t RJ & Uturn every heard of connecting the dots?

Damn, even the language is different:


The regs only state that the driver must be satisfied that all parts and accessories must be in acceptable working order. If a complete VI had been done the night before by the driver, and the rig had not been used in the time since the VI had been done a few hours before, then as RJ pointed out a compelling argument can be made the driver was satisfied.

Sorry to disagree, but a post trip inspection would not catch a flat tire that lost air during the break. In 1,2, 3, 4, or 5 hours a tires go flat; hub oiler caps go missing, fuel caps get loosened, cargo settles, etc. Uturn I am less than impressed with your knowledge of Murphy’s Law and trucks.


Since you want to quote regs a guidances then this one should be right up your alley.
Quote:
Question 2: Must both drivers of a team operation comply with the provisions of §392.7 before driving?
Guidance: §392.7 states that a driver must be satisfied that the vehicle is in good working order before operating the vehicle. If a driver is satisfied with a co-driver’s inspection, or a safety lane inspection, then the requirement of this section will have been met.
While there is specific mention of a team operation in this the argument can be made that the likelihood of a failure of during operation is greater than that during the same time frame the vehicle is parked. So if a team member can be said to meet the requirements of 392.7 without doing a hands on inspection based on someone else's report then it only goes to say that a solo driver is able to meet the requirements of the same reg based on his or her own report and/or knowledge.

I’m dumbfounded, a professional driver that’s too lazy to get out and bump the tires and ensure the vehicle isn’t falling apart. I guess if someone disconnected the glad hands, pulled the pig tail, pulled the fifth wheel, stole fuel, a tire went flat during the break, etc. the previous driver’s inspection would have caught those activities.

Damn guys you’re killing me with your truck stop attorney arguments. NOT!


The basis of your argument is that the driver failed to conform to the regulations because he did not perform a vehicle inspection prior to moving the truck. There are 2 HUGE holes in that argument that have been pointed out to you several times. First is your assumptions which you have no facts to back it with. The second is your interpretation of the regulations into what you want them to say.

So Uturn, how many vehicles have you placed OOS because the driver failed to do the basic safety checks? Sorry guys, the rules are simple; “BEFORE” is clearly stated in Part 396.13. Part 392.7 states the “vehicle SHALL not be operated” until the driver is satisfied. Both sections’ interpretations specify an inspection is required.

IMHO, it’s your logic is flawed.


As I pointed out elsewhere, if you were to take your argument to its fullest conclusion then a driver would never be able to move a vehicle even one inch because s/he could never be 100% satisfied or certain that everything was still in perfect working order since the last time s/he inspected them. Lights usually go out without warning, a weak valve stem core could finally fail and a tire go flat, some defective part that is undetectable during a basic inspection could fail without a notice of any kind.

Well there you go 100%, so you’re going to argue that the rule is flawed if taken to a 100% factor. How about a case such as the one in question. A driver ran someone over who was sleeping in front of their truck. How often does that happen?

What if the person would have slipped and fell, had a stroke, heart attack in front of the truck during the break, would the previous inspection have caught the potential life threatening situation? Would you consider it an acceptable situation where a driver run over another driver?

Your argument is a denial of the basic safety issues of flat tires, broken air lines, failed air lines, etc. If you’ve lived such a sheltered life as to never had any of those things happen while you were off-duty then hurray for you.


In a way it is humorous in that for years you refused to interpret the regs in any way telling those who asked they must make their own or on occasion going so far as saying that the regs say what they say, but here you are now making interpretations on one of the set of regs that really does not need any.

Of course that’s IYHO, it appears you cannot see the forest for the trees. IMHO many are scared because they have failed to perform the basic checks and drove away without checking around their vehicle and now they’re looking for some excuse to cover their azz if they ever kill someone.


He is assuming that the victim had been laying in front of the truck for a long time.


he incident happened on PRIVATE property.

Yeah, and what does that have to do with the price of tea in Boston?


§390.5 Definitions.

Highway means any road, street, or way, whether on public or [u]private property, open to public travel. “Open to public travel” means that the road section is available, except during scheduled periods, extreme weather or emergency conditions, passable by four-wheel standard passenger cars, and open to the general public for use without restrictive gates, prohibitive signs, or regulation other than restrictions based on size, weight, or class of registration. Toll plazas of public toll roads are not considered restrictive gates.

The rule still applied. 400 S Compress appears to be an industrial park:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=400+s+compress

Therefore, the rules applied.



The incident happened at 3 am.
The investigators believe that the victim had been drinking.

So the person was drinking, does that make the driver’s responsibility go away? No.


If all you want to go on is assumptions then we can go that route. We can just as easily make the assumption the driver did everything right and that the victim passed out from excess drinking in front of the truck while the driver was catching up his log book prior to leaving the yard for either his day or the next part of his run for that day.

Well I guess you can, after all you have to convince yourself the driver was doing his best so that way if you ever encounter the problem you’ll be able to sleep better at night.


So where is the outcry and outrage at Williamson, the victim. He is the one who may have entered private property without permission. He is the one who may have chosen to drink to excess. He is the one who chose to either lay down in front of a truck or passed out in front of a truck. So why isn't Williamson being held at least partially accountable for this? He broke at least one law if not two clearly. Trespassing and Public Intoxication.

Mr. Williamson is dead; he has been punished as much as any person is capable of being punished.

Be safe.

[Rockjockey]

So, how many successful prosecutions of your interpretations have you had, Mike? Or do the dummies just go along with you and pay a fine for something they don't deserve?

You can cut and paste all you want, call me names all you want, but the fact is that you have not pasted a regulation that says the driver must do a walk around at the beginning of his shift, or every time the truck stops, as you claim. Should be pretty simple to paste the regulation that states exactly what you claim, but you can't do it because that regulation does not exist.

In answer to your question, which I actually did answer, there is no excuse for running over anyone in the situation described. I already stated the driver was incompetent, but so are the lawmakers who wrote the code that doesn't have anything he can be charged with.

The fact that you have to resort to name calling just shows you can't prove your point. You figure if you call every one else stupid, no one will notice that you don't have facts to back you up. You are the typical LEO who thinks he is god, and no one should dare question him.

[Uturn2001]

there is no excuse for running over anyone in the situation described.

Not needing any more laughs I did not bother to read any more of AQ's responses, but assuming you are talking about the original story there are many possibilities how this guy was run over without the driver of the truck being incompetent in the least. Some of those reason I pointed out already.

There is so little information it is impossible for anyone not directly involved to really know what happened and all of the contributing factors.

This would be like reading a story that only said, "The ship sank below the ocean waves". Can anyone tell me why the ship sank, who was responsible for sinking the ship, or what kind of ship it was?

[Mike_M]

RJ:


So, how many successful prosecutions of your interpretations have you had, Mike? Or do the dummies just go along with you and pay a fine for something they don't deserve?

A sufficent number to have earned an award for 2008.


You can cut and paste all you want, call me names all you want, but the fact is that you have not pasted a regulation that says the driver must do a walk around at the beginning of his shift, or every time the truck stops, as you claim. Should be pretty simple to paste the regulation that states exactly what you claim, but you can't do it because that regulation does not exist.

Damn RJ, how do you inspect a vehicle without walking around it? You can denie it all you want the rule exisit and has been posted. I guess it hurts your feelings to believe you missed it.


In answer to your question, which I actually did answer, there is no excuse for running over anyone in the situation described. I already stated the driver was incompetent, but so are the lawmakers who wrote the code that doesn't have anything he can be charged with.

It's not that there is nothing the driver can be charged with, it's using the tools necessary to prove culpability. The sections I've posted go toward showing negligence.


The fact that you have to resort to name calling just shows you can't prove your point. You figure if you call every one else stupid, no one will notice that you don't have facts to back you up. You are the typical LEO who thinks he is god, and no one should dare question him.

The fact you place your blinders on so tight you cannot see the obvious is mind numbing. As I've stated before, many drivers are in denial because they know they are guilty of the same thing.


Uturn:


Not needing any more laughs I did not bother to read any more of AQ's responses, but assuming you are talking about the original story there are many possibilities how this guy was run over without the driver of the truck being incompetent in the least. Some of those reason I pointed out already.

My opinion of you just took a huge nose dive. For any one to believe it is possible for a driver to run someone over in a parking lot when the situation indicates the driver started to move and the other person was sleeping in front of the ruck is insane. While there maybe a few isolated circumstances in which such an event would be non-preventible the situations are one in a million.

I suppose drivers are looking to ease their minds so that they can believe in a fairy tale that the driver did the right thing so if it ever happens to them that'll be OK to.

Be safe.

[Acorn Trucking]

Theoretically would it be possible that after walking around the front of your truck, proceeding down the passenger side taking note of everything you should, going around the back walking up the drivers side and getting in the truck that someone could stumble along and pass out in front of your truck? I say it is. Not that this is what happened, not enough information has been provided but it is within reason that it could.

[Rockjockey]

A sufficent number to have earned an award for 2008.

Then it should be easy to quote one court case, instead of the deflection of posting that you won an in house award.




Damn RJ, how do you inspect a vehicle without walking around it? You can denie it all you want the rule exisit and has been posted. I guess it hurts your feelings to believe you missed it.

You have not posted any rule that states you have to do a walk around at the beginning of your 14 hours. It obviously hurts you that no one believes your lies.

As I have stated many times now, a competent professional driver will do a walk around at the beginning of his 12/14, but it is not required by law.


The fact you place your blinders on so tight you cannot see the obvious is mind numbing. As I've stated before, many drivers are in denial because they know they are guilty of the same thing.

You have no idea what standards I keep in my job, yet you automatically assume I am guilty. Shows what kind of LEO you are, and it also shows your disdain for all drivers as according to you, they are all guilty. By the way, since I live in the area that you work in, I know exactly what kind of LEO you are, and despite what awards you get from Washington, you have a far from stellar reputation locally.

[Wrongway]

I wish I could think of something prolific to say about this but can't off hand.

I "feel" the driver was negligent only in not doing a walk around just for the sake of
knowing what might be in front or behind.

I know that if the victim had done a fair job of crawling under the front or back, I
wouldn't likely spot that person at 3am.

I recognize there's no regulation for this but to me, it's one of those unwritten rules
that says check what may have snuck in & hidden itself behind or in front of
you while you were parked...just in case.

At 3am, I'm not inclined to do anything but thump tires, check lights & audible air leaks.

I'm not getting under the truck in the dark especially at that time when I could easily
be accosted & no one would see or hear me struggling...or bleeding to death.

Who knows, maybe the guy had a death wish & decided to commit suicide by truck?

[Mike_M]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arresting_Quack
Damn RJ, how do you inspect a vehicle without walking around it? You can denie it all you want the rule exisit and has been posted. I guess it hurts your feelings to believe you missed it.

You have not posted any rule that states you have to do a walk around at the beginning of your 14 hours. It obviously hurts you that no one believes your lies.

As I have stated many times now, a competent professional driver will do a walk around at the beginning of his 12/14, but it is not required by law.
It appears to me people are missing the obvious. The titles of the regulations clearly state the requirement of an INSPECTION:


§392.7 Equipment, inspection and use.

No commercial motor vehicle shall be driven

§396.13 Driver inspection.

Before driving a motor vehicle, the driver shall:

Now combine that with the relevant interpretations:


Question 2: Must both drivers of a team operation comply with the provisions of §392.7 before driving?

Guidance: §392.7 states that a driver must be satisfied that the vehicle is in good working order before operating the vehicle. If a driver is satisfied with a co-driver’s inspection, or a safety lane inspection, then the requirement of this section will have been met.

Question 2: Does §396.11 require that the power unit and the trailer be inspected?

Guidance: Yes. A driver must be satisfied that both the power unit and the trailer are in safe operating condition before operating the combination.

Seems to me the titles and interpretations both make it clear a vehicle must be inspected.

If you look at the equipment list for Part 392 and 396 for the driver inspections you’ll see the list are different further demonstrating different inspections are required:

Part 392:


Service brakes, including trailer brake connections.
Parking (hand) brake.
Steering mechanism.
Lighting devices and reflectors.
Tires.
Horn.
Windshield wiper or wipers.
Rear-vision mirror or mirrors.
Coupling devices.

Part 396:


—Service brakes including trailer brake connections
—Parking (hand) brake
—Steering mechanism
—Lighting devices and reflectors
—Tires
—Horn
—Windshield wipers
—Rear vision mirrors
—Coupling devices
—Wheels and rims
—Emergency equipment

Different list different inspections.

I guess I don’t understand how people can miss the obvious. Perhaps it a tool to reduce their guilt to imply “Well no one said I had to inspect the vehicle.”



Quote:
Originally Posted by Arresting_Quack
The fact you place your blinders on so tight you cannot see the obvious is mind numbing. As I've stated before, many drivers are in denial because they know they are guilty of the same thing.

You have no idea what standards I keep in my job, yet you automatically assume I am guilty.

Really, or am I asking how is it you cannot read the regulations and see the requirement an inspection is required?



Quote:
You can cut and paste all you want, call me names all you want, but the fact is that you have not pasted a regulation that says the driver must do a walk around at the beginning of his shift, or every time the truck stops, as you claim. Should be pretty simple to paste the regulation that states exactly what you claim, but you can't do it because that regulation does not exist.

Damn RJ, how do you inspect a vehicle without walking around it? You can denie it all you want the rule exisit and has been posted. I guess it hurts your feelings to believe you missed it.

Seems to me the comment was made regarding your understanding of the FMCSR, not your personal habits.


Shows what kind of LEO you are, and it also shows your disdain for all drivers as according to you, they are all guilty.

Guilty of what, failing to follow the FMCSR? I doubt any driver or carrier is 100% compliant.


By the way, since I live in the area that you work in, I know exactly what kind of LEO you are, and despite what awards you get from Washington, you have a far from stellar reputation locally.

Please RJ feel free to share, what major issues have you heard of? I am known as a by the book investigator, that’s how I received my award. Have I made a few carriers nervous and dread my arrival? Probably; however, not one can claim they’ve been treated unfairly or had inappropriate cites made during reviews.

After it's all said and done many carriers welcome me back in an unofficial capacity. On more than one occassion I've offered training to the local industry and offered guidance so the carrier could comply as required. So please do share what exploits you've heard of, inquring minds want to know.



Wrongway:


I recognize there's no regulation for this but to me, it's one of those unwritten rules
that says check what may have snuck in & hidden itself behind or in front of
you while you were parked...just in case.

If I have not made a strong case to demonstrate just the opposite perhaps I am speaking to the wrong crowd.


§392.7 Equipment, inspection and use.

No commercial motor vehicle shall be driven

§396.13 Driver inspection.

Before driving a motor vehicle, the driver shall:

Now combine that with the relevant interpretations:


Question 2: Must both drivers of a team operation comply with the provisions of §392.7 before driving?

Guidance: §392.7 states that a driver must be satisfied that the vehicle is in good working order before operating the vehicle. If a driver is satisfied with a co-driver’s inspection, or a safety lane inspection, then the requirement of this section will have been met.

Question 2: Does §396.11 require that the power unit and the trailer be inspected?

Guidance: Yes. A driver must be satisfied that both the power unit and the trailer are in safe operating condition before operating the combination.

Seems to me the titles and interpretations both make it clear a vehicle must be inspected.

If you look at the equipment list for Part 392 and 396 for the driver inspections you’ll see the list are different further demonstrating different inspections are required:

Part 392:


Service brakes, including trailer brake connections.
Parking (hand) brake.
Steering mechanism.
Lighting devices and reflectors.
Tires.
Horn.
Windshield wiper or wipers.
Rear-vision mirror or mirrors.
Coupling devices.

Part 396:


—Service brakes including trailer brake connections
—Parking (hand) brake
—Steering mechanism
—Lighting devices and reflectors
—Tires
—Horn
—Windshield wipers
—Rear vision mirrors
—Coupling devices
—Wheels and rims
—Emergency equipment

Different list different inspections.


Be safe.

[Rockjockey]

Please RJ feel free to share, what major issues have you heard of? I am known as a by the book investigator, that’s how I received my award. Have I made a few carriers nervous and dread my arrival? Probably; however, not one can claim they’ve been treated unfairly or had inappropriate cites made during reviews.

After it's all said and done many carriers welcome me back in an unofficial capacity. On more than one occassion I've offered training to the local industry and offered guidance so the carrier could comply as required. So please do share what exploits you've heard of, inquring minds want to know.


I wonder how much you charge for those 'unofficial' visits...
All I have met agree that you are a good paperwork weenie. All also agree that you are a blowhard, pompous ass, etc. It is not the job you do, but how you do the job that offends people. While you are good at ferreting out things like unsecured crank handles, you are also good at being ferret like. Your attitude towards any who dare to disagree with you here is just an extension of the jerk you are in real life.

[Mike_M]

I wonder how much you charge for those 'unofficial' visits...
All I have met agree that you are a good paperwork weenie. All also agree that you are a blowhard, pompous ass, etc. It is not the job you do, but how you do the job that offends people. While you are good at ferreting out things like unsecured crank handles, you are also good at being ferret like. Your attitude towards any who dare to disagree with you here is just an extension of the jerk you are in real life.

So IOW no specifics? Just general accusations? How about names? You have any names you care to share so the official record maybe posted?

That’s OK RJ, as I’ve said many times…. Personal opinions are like azz holes, everyone has one and they smell bad.

Be safe.

[Rockjockey]

That's right, Mike, I'm going to post names so a vindictive LEO with a god like complex like you can go after them.

Funny how you didn't ask for names when I contacted you via pm about a local company that continually violates HOS rules. You couldn't be bothered with safety then, and gave your usual standard that it was the driver's fault that the company pushed them into working 20 hour days. This even though I told you that the drivers reported them to your agency and to the state police. You couldn't be bothered. How much of the bribe money did you get?

[Wrongway]

I recognize there's no regulation for this but to me, it's one of those unwritten rules
that says check what may have snuck in & hidden itself behind or in front of
you while you were parked...just in case.

If I have not made a strong case to demonstrate just the opposite perhaps I am speaking to the wrong crowd.I'm sorry, No, You didn't make a strong enough case for me.
The rules say I must be confident that the truck will safely roll down the hiway.

I didn't see anything specifying that I needed to do a full body cavity exam just
because I parked for a bit.

When I parked the truck, I was already satisifed that it was ready to go again
short of smacking tires & checking lights.

If I hadn't been satisified of the remainder, I would've known about it from driving it
& brought it to a garage before parking.

With the exception of tires & lights, it's not likely anything else "soured" just from parking.

Um, one other thing I regularly do, I back up under the trailer to make sure the pin lock is set.
I don't completely trust anyone.

If anything else went bad while I was parked, I'll know about it in the first few feet.

There, inspection done, I'm satisfied it will mechanically role safely down the road.

Sure a lot safer than getting under the damn truck at 3am where I could be
crushed by someone backing in/out.

Kinda' the point of the topic isn't it?
Not getting under a truck at 3am?
No one can see you there & will run your ass over.

Let's face it, no one expects some chucklehead to slide
under your truck for a snooze.

Unless you're going to do what amounts to a half baked 3am exam by flashlight, no one is likely
to see an idiot tucked in under the truck.

At 3am, I'm not doing a full checkout of the truck just for that same reason.

George Burns was asked in an interview, "Aren't you worried about sex with
that young girl at your side?"

He said..."Nahh, If she dies....she dies."

[Mike_M]

RJ:


That's right, Mike, I'm going to post names so a vindictive LEO with a god like complex like you can go after them.

Hey it was worth a shot. ;)


Funny how you didn't ask for names when I contacted you via pm about a local company that continually violates HOS rules.

Hmmmm, lets see, LOCAL doesn’t that mean within the state of Illinois? I told you RJ contact IDOT, except for HM, CDLs, and D & A testing the feds doesn’t regulate intrastate commerce.

Believe it or not I do have restrictions in my job.


You couldn't be bothered with safety then, and gave your usual standard that it was the driver's fault that the company pushed them into working 20 hour days.

Wrong venue RJ, you have to contact IDOT for trucking companies that operate wholly within the state of Illinois.


This even though I told you that the drivers reported them to your agency and to the state police.

I have no control over the state police and as I’ve said many times wrong venue. Call IDOT.


You couldn't be bothered.

Seems to me you weren’t interested in contacting IDOT you were too busy blaming me. ;)


How much of the bribe money did you get?

$1,000,000,000,000.00 that’s a trillion dollars isn’t it? It was deposited in an off shore Cayman account. I’m buying my own island next week and you’re not invited.

Wrongway:


I didn't see anything specifying that I needed to do a full body cavity exam just because I parked for a bit.

Never even implied you had to.


When I parked the truck, I was already satisifed that it was ready to go again
short of smacking tires & checking lights.

Then you probably came close to meeting the requirements of Part 392.7.

One final post on this topic and then I’m done.

1. Part 396.13 requires a full pre-trip inspection per the CDL pre-trip inspection.

2. Part 392.7 requires a quick look around to ensure the vehicle is safe to operate.



Part 392 equipment check list:


Service brakes, including trailer brake connections.
Parking (hand) brake.
Steering mechanism.
Lighting devices and reflectors.
Tires.
Horn.
Windshield wiper or wipers.
Rear-vision mirror or mirrors.
Coupling devices.

Equipment check list for Part 396:


—Service brakes including trailer brake connections
—Parking (hand) brake
—Steering mechanism
—Lighting devices and reflectors
—Tires
—Horn
—Windshield wipers
—Rear vision mirrors
—Coupling devices
—Wheels and rims
—Emergency equipment
Notice wheels & rims and emergency equipment are missing from the Part 392 list.

I wish you all the best of luck and hopefully I won’t be reading about you in the funny papers.

Be safe.

[Rockjockey]

That's funny, Mike. You can take the time to send an email to a New Mexico police chief, but can't be bothered to make an effort in your own area. Hope it's not your wife and kid that get killed by one of those drivers, but if it is, don't complain. After all, it's not in your jurisdiction.

[K C Brau]

Mike, be reminded that the regs only state the driver must be satisfied with the mechanical condition of the vehicle. They state nothing about the driver clearing the roadway of debris or drunks. And at 3 am, walking around in a dark parking lot is the perfect way to get hit over the head and robbed. I myself, in the dark hours, will do a vehicle inspection, but only after dragging the thing over to the fuel islands or an open area so I can be sure of my safety and of what I am looking at.

The responsibility for the death belongs to the drunk, who failed to ensure his own safety and purposely placed himself in a dangerous position. Is is a truck driver's fault if a death occurs because an idiot drives under a legally operated vehicle at twice the speed limit? At some point, each individual must take responsibility for their own actions, no matter who many liberal lawyers have failed to get shot for stupidity.

[u.f.o.]

i don't know how ANYONE who has ever dealt with the media can honestly get bent out of shape for a news story of a paragraph or two. to be honest, the media seldom gets it right, or simply reports so-called "facts" based on their agenda, or "compresses" facts to suit space or time alocated to a story.

in any instance involving death, usually there is plenty of law enforcement on the scene, including PROFESSIONAL investigators, as well as a coroner / medical examiner, who determinies FACTS ON THE SCENE. were i the chief of police of anywhere, an e-mail from an arm chair quarterback 500 miles away from a guy who thinks he's jesus christ on earth in, or out, of uniform, would simply be deleted. it is POSSIBLE the driver simply ran into a building for 30 seconds and returned to move his truck. it is POSSIBLE, the driver had done everything right, and the pedestrian walked very close to the front of the tractor in a dark parking lot, and was simply run over. it is POSSIBLE, by the way the body was found, it simply APPEARED the pedestrian had been sleeping or, more likely passed out near the wheels.

we don't know........ none of us. despite the best efforts of bookhounds who study the position of every comma and period in a book, and are anal retentive to a sickening degree, and demand perfection from everyone they encounter, nobody knows. nobody, even those who think some devine light shines on them personally and gives them wisdom beyond mere mortals, actually know, unless they were an active part of the situation. those people ought not read the comics, lest they become outraged and send an e-mail to the f.a.a. for superman flying without a license and not having the required lighting on his wingtips, and not calling for clearance before landing to catch a bad guy. and of course, batman is a speeder who disregards public safety as he speeds through gotham city.

and about that pesky batmoble. no catalyic converter or inspection sticker? pull 'er over buddy!

there are several tradgedies at work here. first off, a dead guy who MAY have a substance abuse problem, and that problem is a contributing factor in his demise. that person may or may not, have a family who will miss him. lastly, a driver will second guess his actions for the rest of his life, and may suffer some mental issues as his conscience tortures him beyond what any law can do. again, based on a couple of paragraphs, we don't know.

i have known people in law enforcement who remember first an foremost, they are human. they deal with people who are also human, and never forget that simple fact. those officers do their job with compassion and wisdom, and are a credit to the profession and public they serve.

i have also known cops who were hall monitors in school who delighted in running to the teacher for every little infraction. these same types delight in using the shortcomings of their miserable lives to make others miserable, or, simply, use authority to get even with a society thay feel has shortchanged or slighted them. those people, regardless of profession, are a pain in the ass, even to those who have to work with them, and are often the butt of the joke.

in all of this, i may be mistaken. i have some human shortcomings, and i will admit them, although somebody who, for whatever reason, feels they are somehow more enlightened and closer to perfection, can and no doubt will, point out my various shortcomings. it is possible, the chief of the las cruces police dept. suddenly was inspired to hunt down and beat this horrid truck driver for his sins based on an e-mail from a divine source who, with powers and ability for beyond mortal men and offer advise on how the chief should do his job.

better get them lights for your wing tips there buddy. if you cause a plane crash, i'm gonna send an e-mail......

[Joethemechanic]

When the weather is bad, I pull my truck into the shop to do the pretrip (although I do walk around it and check the oil before starting it)

I also knowingly drive unsafe vehicles from their parking spots into the shop in order to repair them.

I believe that the intent of the law does not include motor vehicles being operated on private property.

Although I even look around my forklift before moving it.