Truckers, others weigh in on proposals, exemption requests
Almost every time a federal agency publishes a notice in the Federal Register, the public is given an opportunity to comment, and truckers take advantage of the chance.
Many truck drivers, as well as other members of the general public, often use that chance to weigh in on a variety of topics. In recent months, government agencies have received numerous comments on the Department of Justice’s proposal to reschedule marijuana on the list of controlled substances, as well as exemption requests to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
Here is a compilation of some of those comments.
On a proposal to make marijuana a Schedule III drug:
The trucking industry and every industry with safety-sensitive functions cannot have this. This would have significant impacts on insurance premiums and claims and accidents all rising. The ability to test in real time and know if the person is under the influence would be needed, yet it is not available. The trucking company is held to higher standards, and I believe much more work on tort reform needs to be done.
It needs to be completely removed from the CSA. It’s not fair that most of the United States can use marijuana but us truck drivers still can’t use on our time off, to the point I’m about to file a class action lawsuit against the United States. I’m so sick of being treated like trash because of my profession.
There is no moral, scientific or safety-focused justification for current DOT drug testing policy with respect to cannabis. I would much prefer that any of my employees use cannabis over alcohol, for both their own long-term health and their ability to safely carry out the duties of their jobs. Cannabis reform must continue until DOT drug policy is aligned with science.
As an owner of a trucking company, I am concerned with the potential safety implications of reclassifying marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III. This reclassification could significantly affect the Department of Transportation’s responsibility to ensure the safety of the national transportation network … This reclassification would have serious ramifications because it could eliminate an employer’s ability to conduct and report marijuana testing of DOT-designated safety-sensitive workers including CDL holders. There would be unintended consequences of this reclassification, which could include an increase in motor vehicle crashes.
On motor carriers requesting CDL exemptions:
Even if trainee has passed the skills test, they have no road experience. Even after the CDL is obtained, they still should have a CDL-experienced driver with them until they have many miles under their belt.
Relaxing a safety standard regarding any big rig, or any CDL, driver training is not a good idea. If anything, stricter training is appropriate. Anything that could help decrease deaths on U.S. highways is needed.
On a high school asking to allow 17-year-olds to receive a commercial learner’s permit:
It is my opinion as a professional driver with 21 years of experience that they should not be allowed. Because in the over 2 million miles that I have driven in my career, a child that young has no business behind the wheel of an 80,000-pound machine.
I was driving farm trucks when I was 16. No tickets, no accidents, no problems.
This concept is terrible. Young drivers don’t have the experience or judgment to handle big trucks. Just because there is a shortfall of candidates doesn’t mean we change the laws and lower expectations. Create incentives for mature truck drivers to continue on their career paths and attract new candidates in the same manner.
I have no issues and support the request by Connell High School to allow 17-year-olds to obtain a learner’s permit to drive a semi and then, after completing the high school’s CDL training program, test at 18 years of age to obtain a CDL driver’s license.