Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="104Feeder" data-source="post: 1299533" data-attributes="member: 42554">Here, we have had a grievance settlement for over a decade where loaded trailers without paperwork will be treated as rehandles at the discretion of the Driver. They tried subverting that when the new electronic hazmat recording came out, but a few examples of physical hazmats being present without showing up on the electronic record put a stop to that. I read earlier where the DOT was going to accept electonic records, with just a phone number to call to access the hazmats. That seems disingenuous on the part of the DOT as it adds an unnecessary and potentially fatal delay to what should be a simple process. Perhaps the lack of a significant tradgedy as caused them to relax. It will be interesting to see if this new process subverts our previous grievance settlement. Oh and the guy with the 12&#039;6&quot; bridge? How do you not notice a low bridge like that? I had one bridge I had to go under regularly that was posted at 13&#039;9&quot; but you could see where they had paved a few times under it and the heat had caused the asphalt to pool up directly underneath so I never trusted that sign and went under very slowly while visually checking clearance.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="104Feeder, post: 1299533, member: 42554"] Here, we have had a grievance settlement for over a decade where loaded trailers without paperwork will be treated as rehandles at the discretion of the Driver. They tried subverting that when the new electronic hazmat recording came out, but a few examples of physical hazmats being present without showing up on the electronic record put a stop to that. I read earlier where the DOT was going to accept electonic records, with just a phone number to call to access the hazmats. That seems disingenuous on the part of the DOT as it adds an unnecessary and potentially fatal delay to what should be a simple process. Perhaps the lack of a significant tradgedy as caused them to relax. It will be interesting to see if this new process subverts our previous grievance settlement. Oh and the guy with the 12'6" bridge? How do you not notice a low bridge like that? I had one bridge I had to go under regularly that was posted at 13'9" but you could see where they had paved a few times under it and the heat had caused the asphalt to pool up directly underneath so I never trusted that sign and went under very slowly while visually checking clearance. [/QUOTE]

Verification