Talk:Hours of service

Hours of service is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 26, 2009.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 22, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
May 6, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
May 21, 2008	Featured article candidate	Promoted
January 15, 2022	Featured article review	Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

Trucks High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trucks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of trucks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TrucksWikipedia:WikiProject TrucksTemplate:WikiProject TrucksTrucks articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Occupational Safety and Health Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I'm not good at editing but I wanted to make the following points: 1. Something should be mentioned about the incredible court fights which happened after the rules were amended in 2003. I remember a period of time when the 34 hour restart provision was vacated and then reinstated. 2. There are still ongoing court fights over the latest round of HOS regulations, with some of the most contentious being a limit on the number of 34 hour restarts, and a limit on when 34 hour restarts can be taken, and a requirement to take a 30 minute break within 8 hours of coming on duty. 3. With the August 2011 ruling that vacated the EOBR requirements, FMCSA completely removed all references to "Electronic On Board Recorder" from their regulations. EOBR's which were already in use are actually regulated under the category of the older "AOBR" (Automatic On Board Recorder), with one of the main differences being no requirement to show the current log in a graphical form. 4. There has been considerable comment from truck drivers (available on many, many driver forums on the web) complaining about property and passenger carrying motor carriers being treated differently. Passenger carrying motor carriers have considerably more relaxed hours of service requirements as opposed to property carrying motor carriers P38fln (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A note on the graphic in the article

I think the image should be taken down. The sample size of the chart (12) is far too small to give Pearson's sample correlation coefficient (the R-value in the graphic) any significance or power for inference. This in turn can make the graphic a bit misleading to the reader. I read through the source of the graphic on fmcsa.dot.gov but found no specific sampling technique for this specific chart. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.125.84.214 (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this graph makes very little sense. There is some note about clustering hours over 12. Not sure what this means. Also not sure what the percentage (dependent variable means). The methodology of the graph is questionable; appears to me that there is quite a lot of data minining (using 3rd order, only showing hours at 17, etc). For example if 17 was chosen from all values 13-18 to show the strongest effect, then the results are not valid, etc. cancan101 (talk) 05:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I made some minor cleanup changes, and I have a few other suggestions.

I would recommend moving the History section to the top of the page, as it provides a simple explanation of why these rules are important and how they've evolved over time.
The log book page is important to the article, but should only be used once rather than twice. I would argue that it makes more sense within the article than if it's used as a header photo, but I leave that to you to decide.
The Enforcement section needs sources. Not much else to say on that - it's well-written, and I don't doubt that the info is accurate (as I suspect it reflects your own experience), but it needs sources to back it up.

Good luck in the GA process - you're braver than I... Duncan1800 (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

other HOS

HOS in the US applies to operators of commercial aircraft and water craft. In the US they are all regulated by DOT Other nations have HOS Don't have time for this now but it should be in the lead in, and stubs for the other HOS rules should be created Saltysailor (talk) 06:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, I'll see what I can do about the air and watercraft HOS. As for other nations, the EU is covered under drivers working hours, but that reminds me... I need to add that under the see also section. Thanks. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 07:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting sidelight is that IRS gives special deduction privileges for those subject to HOS including pilots and water craft operators (who normally must have a "masters" license to con a ship. Canada enforces different HOS and Mexico has them. Australia has HOS that allow for the driver to choose from different cycles.

There are also Railroad Hours of Service, as regulated by FRA (a part of USDOT). Since this article seems to deal only with roadborne rules, perhaps it should be changed to "Driver Hours of Service." Skabat169 (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a mention and links to HOS rules in other countries. Kevink707 (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

minor changes to exemptions

couldn't resist some changes Saltysailor (talk) 06:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV

there is some heavy POV problems about fudging Saltysailor (talk) 06:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome your input! I am the sole contributor to this entire article. Outside of some minor edits by passing editors, and a Good Article review, this article is entirely my work. But I would like to hear why you think the Enforcement section is POV. This is a well-known problem within the trucking industry. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 06:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an implication that most drivers cheat on their logs. The example of drivers logging loading and unloading time as off duty is legal if the driver is not engaged in the process. Many drivers pay lumpers so they can sleep while at customers docks. certain carriers have a reputation for expecting their drivers to cheat on their logs while others will not tolerate it. The fact that drivers violate HOS doesn't mean they intended to do so. The HOS is complex enough that human error often is involved. Most carriers who take HOS seriously have the tools to verify the accuracy of the logs as they can track the position of the vehicle and determine if driving is being done. Saltysailor (talk) 04:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As someone with 2 years OTR experience, i can tell you from personal experience that most (nearly all) truck drivers routinely violate HOS rules. I personally have been fired from 2 different companies for refusing to violate these rules. HOS rules such as they are put the driver in charge of making their company obey the laws, if the company is unwilling to play by the rules, the driver is punished. This is why i left truck driving & wont return to the business until these rules are properly enforced or rewritten. The system as it is now creates an extremely dangerous environment for drivers.75.81.148.138 (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My POV is that the biggest problem with HOS is that it has no relationship to reality. There is no requirement to sleep. Most people do not sleep continuously and drivers are punished under HOS for stopping to take a rest when tired. Many old timers simply got out of the business when the rules changed. Another big problem is that dispatchers are rewarded by loads completed and encourage drivers to violate HOS to get the load there on time. Saltysailor (talk) 04:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The implication that drivers cheat on their logs is backed up with surveys. If you read my references, you will see that there are many different conclusions as to how many drivers cheat. I simply stated that surveys have shown 1/4 to 3/4 of drivers report cheating on their log books. This is not an implication that "most" drivers cheat, it simply states the facts.

You bring up a good point about the legality of logging unloading times as off duty. Yes, it is legal in some cases. However, in those cases where a driver is required to log it as on-duty, there is a lot of cheating. That's all I meant to express and perhaps it wasn't clear enough. And yes, some carriers are known for their tolerance for cheating. Yes, some people (especially newbies) do not fully understand the rules and do not intend to violate the HOS. And yes, I agree that most carriers who use qualcomms already have, in effect, an EOBR which would allow them to punish driver's who violate the HOS but they choose not to.

These are all valid points. The only problem I see here is validating these statements. If there are any reliable sources for these statements then I would have no problem adding them. I am a driver myself, so there was no intention on my part to focus the blame on the drivers. As you can see, I also introduced arguments about how drivers are paid by the mile to try and rationalize why drivers cheat on their logs. I welcome any effort to try and expand the scope of this article. As I said, this is a relatively new article created by me alone. I was shocked to see there was no article about the hours of service.

Also you will notice, in the "History" section near the bottom I mention this fact:

In 2005, the FMCSA changed the rules again, practically eliminating the split sleeper berth provision. [...] This provision forced drivers to take one longer uninterrupted period of rest, but eliminated the flexibility of allowing drivers to take naps during the day without jeopardizing their driving time.

As far as the HOS of other countries, it would be better to keep those on separate pages. We already have drivers' working hours, and if other countries specifically refer to their laws as the "hours of service" then we could always add parenthetical country extensions to the article title. I would prefer to keep this article focused on the US since it is part of a series of articles I have created about the Trucking industry in the United States, and it is already a long enough. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 07:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I added a section about companies who violate the HOS. Read the "Enforcement" section again and let me know what you think. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like your changes:-) If you wanted to make it better you might have a secton on contorversy. Elements would be:

law suits
views of different parties
the regulations have very little scientific basis as different drivers have different capabilities and on a given day the same driver will have different capabilities.
HOS is an attempt to use practical tools to solve nearly insoluble problems

Saltysailor (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'm glad you pointed out the imbalance. There was no intention on my part, it just seems there is a lot more information about the drivers who cheat rather than the companies. You have a good idea there... there certainly is a lot of controversy over the HOS and there is no shortage of opinions. If I have time I will see what I can do about it, but you are welcome to do what you can. I only ask that you use citations for at least every paragrph and for different statements taken from different sources. I am trying to get this article neat and tidy so it will pass Featured Article review and will be posted on the front page! I think it would make it in its current state but I wouldn't mind making some expansions before submitting it. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the most dangerous hour

A recent study result shows that the first hour of driving is the the one with the highest rate of accidents! This was bassed on recent data colected by feds and I read it in a trucking periodical. Although no cauaul factors were assumed, in flys in the face of the basis for HOS. Saltysailor (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this has been known for quite some time. If you read the article it says... "Reduced performance has also been observed in the first hour of work as an individual adjusts to the working environment." I remember my first trucking company pounding this fact into our heads in meetings that the first hour was just as dangerous as the 11th hour, because usually you've just woke up and are getting adjusted to driving again. You are correct but this is not new information and I don't see how that contradicts the basis for the HOS. The fact remains that the longer you drive the more fatigued you become. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Glad to see this is a front-page FA - very different type of topic than the usual fare. Tempshill (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In addition to being interesting, it is well presented and readable. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love seeing unusual (in the meaning of not-usual) FAs. Congo rats from me too! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. If you haven't already checked the article history, I basically wrote this whole article from scratch. I did a ton of research, and this is my first FA-class article. Yeah I know I don't "own" this article, but I'm glad everyone liked it! Its nice to know all your hard work is appreciated. If you liked this one, check out Federal Bridge Gross Weight Formula and Trucking industry in the United States. I'm working on bringing those up to FA standards, they don't need much more work. Anyways, thanks again. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes reverted

Gpsman, I reverted your moving the definition of vehicles covered by the HOS to the introduction. I think this information is too detailed for the introduction and belongs in the main body. It is important, which is why I listed it first. It just doesn't belong in the intro. Secondly, I wasn't sure about a lot of the changes which just weren't productive. If you would like to discuss these changes just let me know, otherwise I think it was fine the way it was. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

Excellent article! I am a truck driver here in Canada and may try to write an article similar to this one highlighting the Canadian rules and the changes that occured June 1, 2007 to the federal HoS rules.

Once again, Well done! Nmac-YK (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate it. Good luck with your article. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 13:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

I tried to add a reference (http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/topics/hos/index.htm Hours of service-Retrieved; 2011-09-04), to the first sentence of the lead behind "...Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)...". I did this in the normal format and then as above but on a preview there were article layout changes in the Definition of terms (sleeper berth) section. I have to go to work so would someone check this out? Otr500 (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Error

There is an error in the enforcement section of the article. The second paragraph states, "... although any ordinary police officer may inspect a driver's log book.", and this is simply not so. There is a reference to back up the statement and includes, "Some 250 municipal officers have been trained to patrol county and local roads looking for offenses from tailgating to shoddy maintenance.". The reference provides examples of mechanical deficiencies being found and "summons" issued, but DOES NOT provide any evidence to support that any ordinary police officer, as the content states, can (or did) inspect log books. The reference states, "Bergen County Heavy Truck Enforcement Project, a three-year-old program that pays overtime to municipal police departments to inspect trucks.

A police officer can of course make a traffic stop but police officers "must" be trained in FMCSA regulations, for authorization to make a stop related to those regulations, certainly related to inspecting a commercial drivers log book. These officers, in many locations, usually have a Gold lapel or collar pin to denote this and/or drive a vehicle with insignia with something like "Commercial vehicle enforcement". At any rate, an officer with FMCSA certified training, is not considered ordinary police officers.

Personally I feel the reference, as in many cases, is biased and misleading, with figures related to all fatal accidents in the county (and state) involved heavy trucks, and "...the increased enforcement had dramatically lowered fatal truck accidents.", then citing the number of truck fatalities dropping over a period of time. I am certainly for truck inspections and safety but a news article concerning truck inspections lowering truck fatalities, with no mention about truck "at fault" figures makes it appear that all the fatalities were the fault of the "heavy trucks". The presence of extra police officers because of the program would cause all drivers to "drive more cautious". See a cop, slow down, and all have seen this. Citing these figures does look good on print and is an excellent way to get "funding".

The unsubstantiated material, "although any ordinary police officer may inspect a driver's log book." needs to be correctly referenced or removed. Otr500 (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion page concerning the article. I think the article is well written with the exception of the above issue that I have so far found. Would someone please address this, or enter the discussion, so I do not have to place a tag on the article? I have been an over-the-road truck driver and trainer for over 20 years. An "ordinary" police officer, being one without FMCSA (or approved) training and certification, has no legal grounds to "inspect" a commercial vehicle drivers log book, but certainly can ask. When a states intrastate authority mirrors the FMCSA, such as Connecticut CGS 14-8 (Police authority of Commissioners and Inspectors), authority is vested in a Commissioner, or or those under his direction, and in CGS 14-103 specifically mentions, "All state officers and local police officers, whenever they see a motor vehicle being operated in apparent violation of any statute relative to the equipment of a motor vehicle, may stop such vehicle.....", pertains to just the equipment. The hours of service regulations are federal, any mirror laws would follow those regulations--- and run under those guidelines. The example in the link, supposedly meant to reference the content, involves vehicle and not logbook inspections.

I suppose the removal of "ordinary" and the addition of "trained" such as "Any trained (certified etc.) police officer", would correct the problem.

Why have I just not made the changes? There are several reasons: 1)- Determination if the original author is still active, 2)- The article enjoys FA status and I would rather any changes be made by discussion and consensus without any tags, 3)- The style of the article is good and my writing style might not be consistent with that of the article. Otr500 (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with your proposed changes. If you are not comfortable making the changes yourself, give me some time and I will see what I can do this weekend. Sorry for the late reply, but I have been largely inactive lately. The article could use some updating. Thanks for your help. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 21:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hours of service. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr3206.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hours of service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Hours of service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hours of service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hours of service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018 updates

I updated the Rewriting the Hours of Service section to include 2018 updates. Otr500 (talk) 10:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:URFA/2020

I'm not sure that this older FA meets the current FA criteria. There's uncited text, if "In 1999, two trucking company officials were sentenced to federal prison for violating hours of service regulations." has special significance it's not obvious and I'm concerned about WP:DUE WEIGHT for that, statistics such as "Surveys by OOIDA report 80% of drivers are not paid for waiting times while loading and unloading" are from dated sources, and there's a concerning lack of industry viewpoints about these standards. A featured article review may be necessary here. Hog Farm _Talk 01:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]