User Pass
Home Sign Up Contact Log In
Forum > General Discussion > Politics and Religion > The Polarlice State Thread
Page:
 
Cowpoker
offline
Link
 
At the risk of making a simple conversation longer, I think you linked general driving laws and DUI testing by law enforcement and not anything related to the extra layer of implied consent when obtaining or maintaining a valid CDL. You can speak more about what you meant by contradiction, maybe neither Cat or I understood what you meant, Cat doesn't see a contradiction and I do but maybe not what you were describing. For another example, the requirement of a valid health card to maintain a valid CDL, in many cases, your medical conditions and medical records are protected from employers and law enforcement and in most cases, they can not discriminate if you have a medical condition but a CDL is different. Again, not sure if this is the norm for the federal system but in this state, your health card is reported to the database, meaning if your health card is not up to date, you get letters stating that your CDL is invalid. Prior to the automated or connected system (I'm thinking it was 5-6 years ago), the state or the DOT was not aware if you had a valid health card and the only way that they discovered if you had one or not, was if they pulled you over, you were in an accident and the officer actually asked for it, and in my experience, they rarely asked for it. I hope the statute of limitations has expired on this but I actually drove sweet corn truck for years without a valid CDL. I had the CDL but didn't have a valid health card and without a reminder, it was something that I never thought about but I drove locally and at night and the only people who pulled you over was the sheriff or a deputy as the state troopers, especially the commercial vehicle troopers, did not work at night.

I believe our state laws have changed recently as a result of a case that made it to the state supreme court but I honestly don't know what they are because I can't imagine a situation where I need to be aware of a DUI law or a DUI law change.
 
sjmay
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Cowpoker
At the risk of making a simple conversation longer, I think you linked general driving laws and DUI testing by law enforcement and not anything related to the extra layer of implied consent when obtaining or maintaining a valid CDL. You can speak more about what you meant by contradiction, maybe neither Cat or I understood what you meant, Cat doesn't see a contradiction and I do but maybe not what you were describing. For another example, the requirement of a valid health card to maintain a valid CDL, in many cases, your medical conditions and medical records are protected from employers and law enforcement and in most cases, they can not discriminate if you have a medical condition but a CDL is different. Again, not sure if this is the norm for the federal system but in this state, your health card is reported to the database, meaning if your health card is not up to date, you get letters stating that your CDL is invalid. Prior to the automated or connected system (I'm thinking it was 5-6 years ago), the state or the DOT was not aware if you had a valid health card and the only way that they discovered if you had one or not, was if they pulled you over, you were in an accident and the officer actually asked for it, and in my experience, they rarely asked for it. I hope the statute of limitations has expired on this but I actually drove sweet corn truck for years without a valid CDL. I had the CDL but didn't have a valid health card and without a reminder, it was something that I never thought about but I drove locally and at night and the only people who pulled you over was the sheriff or a deputy as the state troopers, especially the commercial vehicle troopers, did not work at night.

I believe our state laws have changed recently as a result of a case that made it to the state supreme court but I honestly don't know what they are because I can't imagine a situation where I need to be aware of a DUI law or a DUI law change.


Yes, I linked general driving laws and refusing tests, the only thing different with CDLs is instead of 2-3 chances, you are banned from holding a CDL if you refuse a 2nd time. If you refuse a 1st time, you are suspended, but essentially your career as a driver is over for the short term, no one will hire you and incur the increased insurance costs associated with that. You can get hired again as a CDL but I've heard stories of guys having 5-7 years without anything STILL not able to get a job due to a DUI on their record etc.

As far as contradiction, CAT just sees what he wants to see, we can tell him the sky is blue and he will say no...it's kind of orange with maybe hints of blue but since you can't read etc...

He wants to pretend he's an expert on this, he can go right ahead.

He wants to ignore implied consent laws, he can go right ahead. http://www.drivinglaws.org/resources/traffic-tickets/commercial-license/utah-commercial-drivers-lice

He's a pseudo-intellect who think he knows everything. Notice how he hasn't responded to your post saying he was muddying the waters? I guarantee he will respond to this post and say something about contradictions.
 
Seric
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by sjmay
He wants to pretend he's an expert on this, he can go right ahead.


To be fair, he started off by admitting he's not an expert in this, so.....

Originally posted by Catullus16
this is not my area of expertise, so i'm not saying you're wrong... but you're the first i've heard make this claim and i've found you to be quite wrong on other matters, so now i'm curious. i found this:
https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/section/382.303
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=1&ty=HTML&h=L&mc=true&=PART&n=pt49.5.382#se49.5.382_1303

i see language in there where tests performed by law enforcement can serve as the tests required by the employer, but i see nothing about a driver needing to comply with tests by law enforcement (only their employer). moreover, i see nothing about consent, especially in the case of a driver who can't give any.

Edited by Seric on Sep 4, 2017 11:03:15
 
sjmay
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Seric
Originally posted by sjmay

He wants to pretend he's an expert on this, he can go right ahead.


To be fair, he started of by admitting he's not an expert in this, so.....

Originally posted by Catullus16

this is not my area of expertise, so i'm not saying you're wrong... but you're the first i've heard make this claim and i've found you to be quite wrong on other matters, so now i'm curious. i found this:
https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/section/382.303
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=1&ty=HTML&h=L&mc=true&=PART&n=pt49.5.382#se49.5.382_1303

i see language in there where tests performed by law enforcement can serve as the tests required by the employer, but i see nothing about a driver needing to comply with tests by law enforcement (only their employer). moreover, i see nothing about consent, especially in the case of a driver who can't give any.



LOL and then every other post he makes, he tries to paint himself as an expert.

That was my point, I know what he first said, but ultimately, his actions speak louder.
 
Seric
offline
Link
 
this may help as well as it explains implied consent. The link you provided only states implied consent, but doesn't really explain what that is.

http://www.rmrplaw.com/standardized-field-sobriety-tests/implied-consent-law/
 
sjmay
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Seric
this may help as well as it explains implied consent. The link you provided only states implied consent, but doesn't really explain what that is.

http://www.rmrplaw.com/standardized-field-sobriety-tests/implied-consent-law/


Thanks for that, each state is different, North Dakota's got struck down because it criminalized it, so I don't believe any other state does that, but they have civil punishments for it etc.
 
Seric
offline
Link
 
no problem.
 
Corndog
Admin
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by sjmay
LOL and then every other post he makes, he tries to paint himself as an expert.

That was my point, I know what he first said, but ultimately, his actions speak louder.


Exactly, his words speak louder than his words. He words the words but he doesn't word the words, if you know what you mean.
 
Page:
 


You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.