transporting fuel

[SteveInMD]

I should add that there a few (very few) exceptions to the "in commerce" bit. Some tunnels can prohibit material like propane, even in containers on campers (which are not in commerce).

 

[cp1969]

Here's where I get all confused. I remember distinctly back in the early nineties, a requirement coming from the Federal government that required a Commercial Driver's License for anyone operating a vehicle whose gross weight exceeded 26,000 lbs. It also required various endorsements on that license depending upon the nature of the truck being operated (air brakes, tanker, double trailers) and cargo (hazmat). There were different classes, too...A and B and maybe C. I know school bus drivers had to have a B. Hauling fuel, I had to have an A with Hazmat, Tanker, and Air Brake endorsements. Just to drive my own truck, whether it was hauling fuel or not, or being moved from one place to another, or taken to the shop, etc. If not connected to the tanker, then the tanker requirment goes away, but nothing else.

No mention was made regarding the commercial vs. non-commercial aspect of this licensing requirement--only the 26,000 lb limit. No one, commercial or otherwise, operating under 26k needed a CDL. Everybody operating above 26k did.

This was a Federal requirement, as it was apparently decided that there was too much variance among state licensing procedures.

Did this law get repealed or something? If so, I missed it and the question in my mind is, why does my license have CDL plastered all across the front of it if I don't need any such thing to operate a vehicle heavier than 26000 lbs?

 

[Soundguy]

AFAIK.. the 26k limit is still there.. I think the discussion here was for smaller 'pickup' sized vehicles.. etc..

Soundguy

 

[SteveInMD]

Right, I was just talking about the haz. mat. rules.

But, since you brought it up, lets say that the your truck and trailer weighed 16,000 pounds, and it could haul another 9,999 pounds with no CDL requirement. In theory you could haul about 23 drums of gasoline (guessing they weigh 425 lbs a piece) as long as the drums were not "in commerce". No signs, no placards, and no other DOT haz. mat. rules.

 

[cowpie1]

The Risk of the of the commercial vehicle becoming involved in the accident in the first place is greater because it's being driven more miles on the highway more frequently than the lone individual driving a noncommercial vehicle. The greater the exposure the higher the risk. Why do you think insurance companies base auto insurance rates in part on miles driven per year?
A private party would not likely be transporting thousands of gallons of fuel like a commercial carrier either.
*vehicle carrying a half dozen plastic jugs of gasoline.
*If the commercial carriers were not regulated you'd probably find some of them doing exactly that but it wouldn't be only half a dozen jugs it would be hundreds to thousands of gallons.
That's why Regulation of commercial haulers is needed.
Zeroing in on private individuals does nothing in that area.
The dots time effort and resources would be better spent enforcing regulations covering commercial haulers not wasting them on private individuals.

beep! Wrong answer!

The way to look at the risk is the accident frequency per 1000, 100000, etc miles. Commercial vehicles inherently have a safer accident rating than the general public. FMCSA bears this out in its statisitical data.

I presently have over 2 million documented miles as a commercial driver without so much as a ticket or preventable accident. Likewise, I have NO accidents as a general motorist and only 1 ticket. I know many commercial drivers that are in the same league as I. I defy the motoring public to match up to those stats.

Generally, when accidents with commercial vehicles do happen, they cause far more damage per incident. This is a fact of the physics involved. But being more unsafe or higher accident rate just because they cover more miles in a year show a lack of understanding the scope of the issue.

There is always room for improvement, that I will never dispute.

 

[LBrown59]

beep! Wrong answer!

The way to look at the risk is the accident frequency per 1000, 100000, etc miles. Commercial vehicles inherently have a safer accident rating than the general public. FMCSA bears this out in its statisitical data.

I presently have over 2 million documented miles as a commercial driver without so much as a ticket or preventable accident. Likewise, I have NO accidents as a general motorist and only 1 ticket. I know many commercial drivers that are in the same league as I. I defy the motoring public to match up to those stats.

Generally, when accidents with commercial vehicles do happen, they cause far more damage per incident. This is a fact of the physics involved. But being more unsafe or higher accident rate just because they cover more miles in a year show a lack of understanding the scope of the issue.

There is always room for improvement, that I will never dispute.

----->> *********** ......>>>
If milage has no bearing on risk then why do insurance compaines base their premiums on distance driven per year?
Also why is their commerical rates higher than private rates?

 

[Soundguy]

My guess is the insurance company categorizes 'per occourance', based on 'x miles'.. and As was noted earlier.. it's likely that when accidents do happen with commercial vehicles, the 'average' accident is probably more expensive, liability wise.... thus commercial vehicles have a higher premium.. etc.
Individual driver records also matter to some degree. For instance.. our insurance company will ask us to remove an employee from driver status, after 2 tickets, or.. if it is a 'reckless' or other agravated charge, after 1 ticket. If a driver has his license suspended or revoked from dui, they cannot go back on the insurance for 5 years, and -never- after the 2nd dui.

Soundguy

 

[cowpie1]

My guess is the insurance company categorizes 'per occourance', based on 'x miles'.. and As was noted earlier.. it's likely that when accidents do happen with commercial vehicles, the 'average' accident is probably more expensive, liability wise.... thus commercial vehicles have a higher premium.. etc.
Individual driver records also matter to some degree. For instance.. our insurance company will ask us to remove an employee from driver status, after 2 tickets, or.. if it is a 'reckless' or other agravated charge, after 1 ticket. If a driver has his license suspended or revoked from dui, they cannot go back on the insurance for 5 years, and -never- after the 2nd dui.

Soundguy

That's right Soundguy. Insurance companies will have the carrier drop high risk truck drivers. Also, the CDL requirements mandate that you cannot have more than 2 tickets in a year or you CANNOT drive commercial vehicle for 6 months. Another ticket after that in a year and you lose your driving priveledges for a full year. I wouldn't mind seeing that requirement for ALL drivers with some of the stupid antics I see on a daily basis.

Also, commercial vehicles are required to carry a minimum $750K cargo liability ALONG with the normal vehicle insurance, which in and of itself is not cheap. This is for ALL cargo, even if I haul 1 roll of paper towels.

Also, commericial vehicles are subject to roadside inspections frequently.

Now, all this being said. The safety record on a per 100K mile basis can always be improved, but far exceeds the general public. Also, I would like to see the motoring public have to undergo random drug testing like commercial drivers (even at scale inspections like I have had) and not be able to drive more than 11 hrs after a 10 hr break. Oh, and when on board log recorders come down the pike, all autos will be required to have them. The minimum distance/tire checks required for hazmat loads such as fuel, Pretrip and post trip inspections of all equipment, paperwork for hazmat placed in drivers door or on seat when not with vehicle, stopping at all railroad crosssings, etc should all be required as well. And I have only scratched the surface. How many general vehicles get brake and equipment checks at random by Barney Fife like commercial vehicles do. Do all the general public carry a fire extinquisher like ALL commercial vehicles?

When ALL motorists are required to submit to the mountain of regulations placed on commercial drivers, then we can have a relative discussion about who is safer. Most of all, if all these regs were mandated for all drivers then maybe we could get the attention of the politicians who put out this stuff.

 

[Soundguy]

I don't mind the drug testing issue. I take care of much of the HR at work, and drug testing is one of the programs I'm over.. so we all get them periodically. Inspections would be fine too. All company owned or leased vehicles get scheduled inspections. i do the same with my private vehicles. I have found a good mechanic in town, and he does all my work and service at regular intervals. On more than a few occasions he has identified, thru a safety inspection, a problem that could have occoured 'x' miles down the road.. etc.

Fire extinguishers? I deffinately wish everyone had to have one. I've always had one in mine... every vehicle I've owned has had a FE rack.. same with any tractor I use for other than show. First aid kit in all my vehicles and my work tractors too.

I'd stop short at the random inspections by LEO. For noncom drivers.. it just isn't needed for safety... and that starts getting into "bill of rights' issues / police states.. etc.

Soundguy

 

[stardrilling]

After all theses pages can someone give me it straight. If I want to strap a 500 gallon tank on my trailer and go to the truckstop where off road D fuel is 17cent a gallon cheaper--what do I need for a truck with farm plates?