Search results

My question is, what does the FMCSA say about it?

Not really. It's actually in the FMCSA. Not the part about others reporting him, but the part about unfit to drive for any reason, including emotional upset. There's something in there about no carrier permitting any driver to drive while he's unfit for any such reason and something in there...

Ummmm, no, not really applicable. We're talking about something statutory here, something that does, indeed, exist as a concrete matter of law, whether it should or not. My question is, what does it say?

Let's say a driver (commercial) says he feels sorry for the next person who crosses him and everyone around him feels that he's about to erupt all over someone. He's really unfit to drive because he's either going to have some sort of conniption fit behind the wheel or punch somebody out...

But you missed the best part: "And my dog. I need my dog." Grrrrrrrrrrr! "I don't need my dog."

The protagonist in The Jerk loses a class action lawsuit. Each plaintiff gets a paltry $1.09. The lawyers got rich, of course. Iron Balls McGinty was somehow also awarded money, because the protagonist kicked him in the groin, injuring his foot in the process, because, well, he wasn't called...

I got one for $1.09 but it was made out to "Iron Balls McGinty."

(sic) A mysterious fire, perhaps?

(sic) There are certainly worse places to get stuck. Always enjoyed going to Seattle, though I think I'd have pulled up stakes and been gone long before the 2-week mark.

We should all endeavor to be wreckless.

I just had my physical. I was kind of worried about it, given all the changes I had heard of. But it was the same old physical. Had my neck measured the previous physical, but not this time.

That's fairly recent. The FMCSA lags behind. I'm betting it will take quite some time--years or even decades--for the FMCSA medical regs to catch up. And they're still only taking about raising the bar for when medications become involved. They still call 120/80 normal for adults regardless of...

At least that's just once every couple years. What's worse is applying restrictions over and above what the FMCSA lists as the restrictions, because you never know what they could add next if they get away with this one. The medical community has talked about again redefining normal BP, this...

Are you a big boy or normal sized?

I think that's one reason Congress stepped on them. Not only was this done absent proper rule making procedure, but they really can't even quantify the problem they're purporting to use to financially enrich the medical community, er, I mean, the problem they're purporting to solve. And know...

The desecration? What if they leave it up to the discretion of the doctor to disqualify those with brown eyes? The FMCSA doesn't allow it as a disqualifying factor. As Turtle pointed out in another thread, the medical/sleep industry wanted to make it one but Congress rejected their attempts.

Anybody hear if OOIDA is weighing in on this? I would think they'd be interested in notifying congress that an agency of the executive branch is doing an end run around them this way, imposing a regulation that's not a regulation after they've already said the regulation can't be imposed in its...

Falls into the category of "You know it, and I know it, but tell that to..." In this case, doctors, and drivers who have been sent for mandatory sleep studies as a condition of getting their medical card. I can hear it now: "Doctor, have you been sued yet?" "What do you mean?" "For applying...

It won't be money well spent for the driver who wouldn't run over anyone without spending it. Also, keep in mind that the $100 or whatever it is is just for the physical. If a driver is caught in the sleep study/CPAP scam, we're talking thousands, not hundreds, all for something he may not...

Oh, I'm sure it still happens now and then. But it's hardly the 80s out there.