transporting fuel

[cp1969]

I have to throw in with FWJ.

Does anyone not agree that the driver of a 9500 gallon flammable liquid tanker truck should meet the same equipment and licensing requirements, regardless of whether the fuel or its transportation thereof is defined as "commercial" versus "non-commercial?" If said truck uses the public road system, it presents the same potential danger to the public regardless of the enterprise causing it to happen.

If one agrees with that premise, then at what point (gallonage) does the commerical/non-commercial distinction represent less threat to the public? Certainly a container holding far less than the fuel tank of the transporting vehicle itself would seem to merit exemption, no matter what kind of vehicle is hauling it.

It seems to me the line should be drawn through a number of gallons being transported, not how those gallons are going to be used.

 

[Soundguy]

Also, the constant reminder of how much "safer" those metal cans ... Why not require EVERYONE to be safe, regardless of who they are and where they plan on using that fuel?.

I'd be 100% ok with outlawing plastic fuel cans. At work we already have to use metal ones. Wouldn't be much of a hassle for me to switch over to a metal can for my lawnmower and weed whacker at home.

I was raising the point that the DOT would like to (soon) change the definition of "commercial" and "noncommercial", at the very least, lessening the distiction between such. Hence the direction I've taken in my post's on this topic.

Some states ALREADY require CDL/commercial inspection on ANY gooseneck trailers, regardless of use or ownership. .

I'm sure DOT would like to get their hands into -lots- of other things. that's the nature of 'government' thee like to get their paws as deep into our pockets and have as much control over our lives as possible.

Obviously this has to be, to some extent, to have 'civilization.. however.. I'm a big fan of 'less governemnt' The more government we have.. the less rights we as individuals have, and the more money it costs...

As for the cdl/goosneck deal. It's that sort of issue right there why i feel we shold have unified driving laws all over the 50 states. If my DL is good everywhere.. then all the laws should be the same. Here in florida, it is the tow vehicle width that determines what will need a cdl or not ( air brakes , and a few other bits of minutia ).. Also .. for clarity.. I'm refering to class 'd' licenses.. and farmers.. etc...

If florida starts getiing that kind of sideways thinking going.. like some of the north eastern and far western states.. you can bet I'll be one of the first folks onthe bandwagon drumming up an ear chewing campaign so that our fl lawmakes know that many of us don't support that sort of heavy government ( communism ) type of thinking. They can kep that stuff inthe people republic of california.. and some of the new england states....

Soundguy

 

[Soundguy]

I understand your analogy.. but the scope of it invalidates part of it.

Reguardless of comercial or private.. the 9500G moves it into dot range.. let alone the tractor trailer weight, air brakes.. etc.. etc..

Thus your 9500g private tanker is already under dot regulations...

And yes.. a 9500g tanker poses more risk, imho, than a gue with a couple 5g gas cans in the back of his truck. I'm not sure about your state.. but in fl there are alread plaquard limits as to what needs hazmat.. or what falls under the line.. gallonwise..

Soundguy

I have to throw in with FWJ.

Does anyone not agree that the driver of a 9500 gallon flammable liquid tanker truck should meet the same equipment and licensing requirements, regardless of whether the fuel or its transportation thereof is defined as "commercial" versus "non-commercial?" If said truck uses the public road system, it presents the same potential danger to the public regardless of the enterprise causing it to happen.

If one agrees with that premise, then at what point (gallonage) does the commerical/non-commercial distinction represent less threat to the public? Certainly a container holding far less than the fuel tank of the transporting vehicle itself would seem to merit exemption, no matter what kind of vehicle is hauling it.

It seems to me the line should be drawn through a number of gallons being transported, not how those gallons are going to be used.

 

[Farmwithjunk]

In most states, state, county and local police departments are maxed out already, dealing with things like meth labs, murders, and ordinary crime. They're looking for ways to unload some of the burden. I'm thinking most states will be somewhat typical of Kentucky in how their Motor Vehicle Enforcement Dept. is set up. The state funds most of the operation through their state police dept., with federal money picking up a percentage of the tab. If the "feds" decide to take over most of the operation, or even a larger share than they already have, I doubt most state legislators will stand in the way. It SHOULD (in theory) free up more money for states to spend on the more pressing (to their voters) business of fighting crime. (Making those politicians look the hero for finding more money to spend on common crime) And if the feds have ambitions of increasing their scope of operation on the highways, most state governments will gladly hand over the political "monkey on the back" to someone else. D.O.T. wants "it", and state gov. is willing to part with "it".

No matter what side of the issue any of us takes, we must remember that at some point, politics steps in. At that stage, we can forget things like logic or personal freedom.

 

[Soundguy]

At least with politics... a large enough lobby group can have an impact on a politician.

soundguy

 

[Farmwithjunk]

At least with politics... a large enough lobby group can have an impact on a politician.

soundguy

I'm not sure how "tractor owners with fuel cans" stack up against the "victims of violent crime" lobby.

In any event, we got a new secretary of transportation in "W"s cabinet today. Let's hope they stay occupied with airport security and leave us be for a while.

 

[Soundguy]

If it's a cargo law in general.. which it sounds like it would be.. especially if it involved stricter limits and more cdl licensing.. I think it might not be a 'tractor owners with gas cans' issue.. but a 'all licensed drivers' issue.

Lobby groups do make a difference... i was reading up on some statistics on the 'R' party.

No 'r' candidate has become president since the time of carter without the support of the NRA... no 'r' candidate, not endorsed by the NRA has made it into the presidencey.

Just goes to show what a fairly unified group of like minded votors can pull off.

This was just an example.. of lobby groups.. I we are going to continure discussion with a political intent.. lets all go PM.. I'd rather this thread not be deleted..


Soundguy

 

[SteveInMD]

In order for the DOT hazardous materials rules to apply, the material must be transported for commerce. Once you buy fuel from a gas station and are transporting it to use in your vehicle or tractor, the haz. mat. rules do not apply to you.

As in the original post, if you pick up a bunch a fuel from a friend's house and want to transport it to your house, the haz. mat. rules do not apply. You can transport it in a 55 gallon drum, or a Dixie cup, or whatever else you like.

 

[Highbeam]

"In order for the DOT hazardous materials rules to apply, the material must be transported for commerce."

I don't know about that. What if I wanted to fill 5-55 gallon ratty drums with diesel , no racing gas, to refill my home fuel tank? Load them into my adequately rated Toyota pickup bed and then drive through downtown Seattle with it. I think there is a gallonage max for noncommercial guys.

 

[SteveInMD]

As far as the DOT Haz. Mat. rules go...you would be just fine.

"Hazardous materials (hazmat) regulations apply to those persons that ship, offer or transport hazardous material in commerce. The Federal Hazardous Materials Regulations found in Title 49 of the Code of Regulations, parts 100 - 185, govern the transportation of hazardous materials in both interstate and intrastate commerce. "