Originally posted by Catullus16
this is not my area of expertise, so i'm not saying you're wrong... .
Holy shit! I think I just fainted...
this is not my area of expertise, so i'm not saying you're wrong... .
Holy shit! I think I just fainted...
Sooner_Nation
offline
offline
Originally posted by sjmay
That's what makes this an interesting case, hospital can not force a patient to give blood against their consent, they have to have consent. Guy who is unconscious can not give consent.
Trucker involved in accident, HAS to give blood per FMSCA,
The cop/detective erred, he needed to get a warrant, which I believe is what the hospital admin on the cell was asking him to do.
Correct.
That's what makes this an interesting case, hospital can not force a patient to give blood against their consent, they have to have consent. Guy who is unconscious can not give consent.
Trucker involved in accident, HAS to give blood per FMSCA,
The cop/detective erred, he needed to get a warrant, which I believe is what the hospital admin on the cell was asking him to do.
Correct.
Catullus16
offline
offline
Originally posted by sjmay
I never took a side you fucking moron,
calm down. the point is that everyone already agrees that "The cop/detective erred, he needed to get a warrant, which I believe is what the hospital admin on the cell was asking him to do" so it's not like you're taking some sort of principled stand. nor is that some amazing insight, considering it's the entire fucking point of the story. great recap, scooter.
Originally posted by sjmay
And I can prove it, just not going to bother to try and find it. It's common knowledge in the industry.
wow. i'll go ahead and mark you down as not being able to prove it. and i just found the relevant law, plus i'm following this story in other places and literally no one is making the claim you're making. strange for something that is "common knowledge" in industry, no?
I never took a side you fucking moron,
calm down. the point is that everyone already agrees that "The cop/detective erred, he needed to get a warrant, which I believe is what the hospital admin on the cell was asking him to do" so it's not like you're taking some sort of principled stand. nor is that some amazing insight, considering it's the entire fucking point of the story. great recap, scooter.
Originally posted by sjmay
And I can prove it, just not going to bother to try and find it. It's common knowledge in the industry.
wow. i'll go ahead and mark you down as not being able to prove it. and i just found the relevant law, plus i'm following this story in other places and literally no one is making the claim you're making. strange for something that is "common knowledge" in industry, no?
Catullus16
offline
offline
Originally posted by Sooner_Nation
Holy shit! I think I just fainted...
i never make strong claims about things outside my knowledge.
it's surprising that so many people don't do the same, but what's even more surprising is that they admit it by being surprised that i never make strong claims about things outside my knowledge. you following this?
Holy shit! I think I just fainted...
i never make strong claims about things outside my knowledge.
it's surprising that so many people don't do the same, but what's even more surprising is that they admit it by being surprised that i never make strong claims about things outside my knowledge. you following this?
Catullus16
offline
offline
Originally posted by Sooner_Nation
Correct.
welcome to the side everyone is already on, i guess.
did no one bother to read past the headline? goddamn.
Correct.
welcome to the side everyone is already on, i guess.
did no one bother to read past the headline? goddamn.
Sooner_Nation
offline
offline
Originally posted by Catullus16
i never make strong claims about things outside my knowledge.
There are things outside your wonderfully amazing, vast knowledge? Jesus really is coming back soon.
i never make strong claims about things outside my knowledge.
There are things outside your wonderfully amazing, vast knowledge? Jesus really is coming back soon.
Sooner_Nation
offline
offline
Originally posted by Catullus16
welcome to the side everyone is already on, i guess.
did no one bother to read past the headline? goddamn.
God's last name ain't dammit... Watch your language, or it's the bar of soap.
welcome to the side everyone is already on, i guess.
did no one bother to read past the headline? goddamn.
God's last name ain't dammit... Watch your language, or it's the bar of soap.
Catullus16
offline
offline
Originally posted by Sooner_Nation
There are things outside your wonderfully amazing, vast knowledge? Jesus really is coming back soon.
most things are. think of your body of knowledge as if it's a shape that has area. then, as your knowledge grows, its perimeter grows at an even faster rate. and the perimeter? it's the frontier between what you know and what you don't know.
this is why educated people insist on precise language to avoid overstating their claims and why morons are always so cocksure about their opinions.
There are things outside your wonderfully amazing, vast knowledge? Jesus really is coming back soon.
most things are. think of your body of knowledge as if it's a shape that has area. then, as your knowledge grows, its perimeter grows at an even faster rate. and the perimeter? it's the frontier between what you know and what you don't know.
this is why educated people insist on precise language to avoid overstating their claims and why morons are always so cocksure about their opinions.
Catullus16
offline
offline
Originally posted by Sooner_Nation
God's last name ain't dammit... Watch your language, or it's the bar of soap.
i said "goddamn" not "god dammit"
God's last name ain't dammit... Watch your language, or it's the bar of soap.
i said "goddamn" not "god dammit"
Sooner_Nation
offline
offline
Originally posted by Catullus16
i said "goddamn" not "god dammit"
I said, watch your mouth.
i said "goddamn" not "god dammit"
I said, watch your mouth.
Cowpoker
offline
offline
Originally posted by Catullus16
but what about post-accident?
I believe I would be required to submit a test and the truck is inspected with a fine tooth comb.
I am bound by hours of service, I have to keep a log book for at least one week prior to and one week after I haul cows across state lines. It's a little silly because I just fill it out in the morning before the trip, stating that I have be off duty away from the truck for seven days straight. In my experience, our state is by the book, the Dakotas and Wisconsin, Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas are all very farm truck friendly, parts of Iowa, especially I35 are a little more touchy but as long as you have fuel receipts from each state, they are very understanding.
but what about post-accident?
I believe I would be required to submit a test and the truck is inspected with a fine tooth comb.
I am bound by hours of service, I have to keep a log book for at least one week prior to and one week after I haul cows across state lines. It's a little silly because I just fill it out in the morning before the trip, stating that I have be off duty away from the truck for seven days straight. In my experience, our state is by the book, the Dakotas and Wisconsin, Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas are all very farm truck friendly, parts of Iowa, especially I35 are a little more touchy but as long as you have fuel receipts from each state, they are very understanding.
sjmay
offline
offline
Originally posted by Catullus16
wow. i'll go ahead and mark you down as not being able to prove it. and i just found the relevant law, plus i'm following this story in other places and literally no one is making the claim you're making. strange for something that is "common knowledge" in industry, no?
I don't need to prove it, I know what the law says, I work in the fucking industry you moron.
Glad you found the relevant law though you probably have no idea what it fucking means.
wow. i'll go ahead and mark you down as not being able to prove it. and i just found the relevant law, plus i'm following this story in other places and literally no one is making the claim you're making. strange for something that is "common knowledge" in industry, no?
I don't need to prove it, I know what the law says, I work in the fucking industry you moron.
Glad you found the relevant law though you probably have no idea what it fucking means.
sjmay
offline
offline
Cat,
Try reading this one, but I doubt you will find it useful,
https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/section/382.303
Try reading this one, but I doubt you will find it useful,
https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/section/382.303
Cowpoker
offline
offline
If I am understanding it correctly, both of you are right. I think Cat's point was that the employer bears the responsibility of collecting the test and I would imagine that most carriers have some sort of contract or contracts with their drivers where the driver legally consents to scheduled drug/alcohol screenings, consents to the random drug/alcohol screenings and consents to drug/alcohol tests following an accident in which the carrier is required to perform/provide the results of the testing.
If I am understanding the story, the nurse did the right thing and the detective was uninformed. The driver could not give consent because of his condition which is an exemption and in order to obtain the test without the drivers consent or a copy of what I have to imagine is standard where the driver gives prior consent to this type of testing, law enforcement absolutely needs a warrant and I wouldn't imagine it is difficult to obtain. My assumption is that most accidents in this case, would be enough probable cause for a judge to quickly issue that warrant but maybe there have been cases where LE has had these warrants challenged in court and judges are a little more touchy about signing off on it.
I didn't see the details in the story, perhaps this driver owns his own truck and is hauling his own loads in which case he is both driver and employer and might not have a consent form signed prior to the accident. Maybe he is a contracted driver, should be easy enough to track and most reputable firms have the proper paper work and are made aware of any incident in almost real time. I personally don't have any sort of consent paper work, I am exempt from the pre-employment and current drug screening but would have no problems with consenting to a test if I were physically able to do it, maybe I should file something in that regard or keep copies in the truck to make investigators jobs a little easier.
Its part of the problem with regulations, they change so dramatically. I've heard that the sleep apnea rules are getting loosened because of the number of people who required restrictions, basically if your neck is 17" plus, you were required to have a sleep study completed (can cost over 5 grand) to rule out any sleep related issues and if you had sleep apnea, you were required to purchase the Cpap with the computer that made damn sure you wore it and sent that information to the fmcsa. I got so pissed off with the reg's that I currently don't have a valid health card, had to file a document that stated that I was farm exempt which also seems silly to me. Easy enough and probably a good policy to have the health screenings but they kept adding cost to it and when the cost outweighs the benefit and/or it starts eliminating a large portion of your available driving work force, you have to reel it in a bit.
If I am understanding the story, the nurse did the right thing and the detective was uninformed. The driver could not give consent because of his condition which is an exemption and in order to obtain the test without the drivers consent or a copy of what I have to imagine is standard where the driver gives prior consent to this type of testing, law enforcement absolutely needs a warrant and I wouldn't imagine it is difficult to obtain. My assumption is that most accidents in this case, would be enough probable cause for a judge to quickly issue that warrant but maybe there have been cases where LE has had these warrants challenged in court and judges are a little more touchy about signing off on it.
I didn't see the details in the story, perhaps this driver owns his own truck and is hauling his own loads in which case he is both driver and employer and might not have a consent form signed prior to the accident. Maybe he is a contracted driver, should be easy enough to track and most reputable firms have the proper paper work and are made aware of any incident in almost real time. I personally don't have any sort of consent paper work, I am exempt from the pre-employment and current drug screening but would have no problems with consenting to a test if I were physically able to do it, maybe I should file something in that regard or keep copies in the truck to make investigators jobs a little easier.
Its part of the problem with regulations, they change so dramatically. I've heard that the sleep apnea rules are getting loosened because of the number of people who required restrictions, basically if your neck is 17" plus, you were required to have a sleep study completed (can cost over 5 grand) to rule out any sleep related issues and if you had sleep apnea, you were required to purchase the Cpap with the computer that made damn sure you wore it and sent that information to the fmcsa. I got so pissed off with the reg's that I currently don't have a valid health card, had to file a document that stated that I was farm exempt which also seems silly to me. Easy enough and probably a good policy to have the health screenings but they kept adding cost to it and when the cost outweighs the benefit and/or it starts eliminating a large portion of your available driving work force, you have to reel it in a bit.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
