Arresting_Quack
August 28th, 2005, 14:05
Damn Revenuers! We hear it all of the time; every time someone is caught, doing something wrong the excuse is the government is out to get him or her. According to local sources it’s easy pickings to cite a driver or trucking company for a violation.
Recently I read a post where a driver was issued a citation for a $1,000 for an improperly prepared shipping paper. Had the driver used a driver’s HM handbook and verified the proper shipping name, class, identification number, and packaging group then the violation could have been avoided altogether.
From an economic standpoint, how long do you believe it will take the employer to make up the lost revenue for a $1,000 ticket? Considering that many carriers operate on a 5% profit margin or less, I’d say it’s going to take a long time.
Had the driver, been required to pay the ticket what could the driver have lost? Would the $1,000 be money desperately needed to pay the rent, make the car/truck payment, buy food for the wife and kids? Probably.
Not many states take installments on citations.
Could the $1,000 have gone for a new set of tires for the truck, an overdue service, etc? Probably.
Drivers you are placing yourself and the public at risk when you goof up and cause the carrier to be penalized. Trucking is a tough market with stiff competition, a penny a mile is sometimes enough for a client to jump ship and use and use another carrier.
Is it uncommon for a client to return to the original carrier due to service problems encountered when they shipper saved a penny a mile? No, however, it is just as common the shipper doesn’t care.
When it was mentioned a carrier maybe sent a bill when a JIT delivery didn’t make it and the plant ran out of supplies a poster piped in something to the effect of: “Just do what the shipper does when you send them a bill for detention. Pitch it in the trash, no carrier has to pay a receiver for down time.”
Perhaps the poster was correct. However, it is common for drivers to be barred from accounts and loose the big bucks associated with the larger nicer accounts when they missed a crucial delivery.
In the case of the improperly prepared shipping paper, the basic description wasn’t even close. According to the driver, the shipping paper indicated:
Acetylene, 2.3, UN1234
According to the HM regs the basic description should have been:
Acetylene, dissolved 2.1 UN1001
The basic description for UN1234 is:
Methylal 3 UN1234 II
I have to be careful not to be too critical and on a daily basis remind myself HM is one of my primary jobs and for others HM falls low on the priority list. However, I still can’t help feel frustrated that a driver could not catch the obvious.
Class 2.3 is poison gas, and is shipped using black and white poison labels or placards and in some instances must be label “Inhalation Hazard” Whereas, 2.1 is flammable gas and is shipped with red flammable gas labels and placards.
Not to harp on this for very long… Folks an officer of the law cannot write a ticket for a non-existent violation. If the violation didn’t exist, the officer couldn’t cite the driver carrier. The infraction maybe a difference of interpretation, however, the officer’s interpretation counts.
FYI, the HM Regs are intended to communicate a hazard to the first responders. First responders use the Emergency Response Guide book to develop on-site strategies on how to contend with a vehicle in transit when the vehicle is placarded or carrying HM. The ERG provides first responders with valuable life saving tips. Failing to properly communicate a HM load is placing the public and first responders at risk.
Think it over; Learn the rules and you’ll be a better employee; Pay attention to detail and you may save you self and your employer a buck or two.
Be safe.
Recently I read a post where a driver was issued a citation for a $1,000 for an improperly prepared shipping paper. Had the driver used a driver’s HM handbook and verified the proper shipping name, class, identification number, and packaging group then the violation could have been avoided altogether.
From an economic standpoint, how long do you believe it will take the employer to make up the lost revenue for a $1,000 ticket? Considering that many carriers operate on a 5% profit margin or less, I’d say it’s going to take a long time.
Had the driver, been required to pay the ticket what could the driver have lost? Would the $1,000 be money desperately needed to pay the rent, make the car/truck payment, buy food for the wife and kids? Probably.
Not many states take installments on citations.
Could the $1,000 have gone for a new set of tires for the truck, an overdue service, etc? Probably.
Drivers you are placing yourself and the public at risk when you goof up and cause the carrier to be penalized. Trucking is a tough market with stiff competition, a penny a mile is sometimes enough for a client to jump ship and use and use another carrier.
Is it uncommon for a client to return to the original carrier due to service problems encountered when they shipper saved a penny a mile? No, however, it is just as common the shipper doesn’t care.
When it was mentioned a carrier maybe sent a bill when a JIT delivery didn’t make it and the plant ran out of supplies a poster piped in something to the effect of: “Just do what the shipper does when you send them a bill for detention. Pitch it in the trash, no carrier has to pay a receiver for down time.”
Perhaps the poster was correct. However, it is common for drivers to be barred from accounts and loose the big bucks associated with the larger nicer accounts when they missed a crucial delivery.
In the case of the improperly prepared shipping paper, the basic description wasn’t even close. According to the driver, the shipping paper indicated:
Acetylene, 2.3, UN1234
According to the HM regs the basic description should have been:
Acetylene, dissolved 2.1 UN1001
The basic description for UN1234 is:
Methylal 3 UN1234 II
I have to be careful not to be too critical and on a daily basis remind myself HM is one of my primary jobs and for others HM falls low on the priority list. However, I still can’t help feel frustrated that a driver could not catch the obvious.
Class 2.3 is poison gas, and is shipped using black and white poison labels or placards and in some instances must be label “Inhalation Hazard” Whereas, 2.1 is flammable gas and is shipped with red flammable gas labels and placards.
Not to harp on this for very long… Folks an officer of the law cannot write a ticket for a non-existent violation. If the violation didn’t exist, the officer couldn’t cite the driver carrier. The infraction maybe a difference of interpretation, however, the officer’s interpretation counts.
FYI, the HM Regs are intended to communicate a hazard to the first responders. First responders use the Emergency Response Guide book to develop on-site strategies on how to contend with a vehicle in transit when the vehicle is placarded or carrying HM. The ERG provides first responders with valuable life saving tips. Failing to properly communicate a HM load is placing the public and first responders at risk.
Think it over; Learn the rules and you’ll be a better employee; Pay attention to detail and you may save you self and your employer a buck or two.
Be safe.