This was a two part question.John Q. Public wrote:It has to do with what a reasonable person would consider vacinity. The interpretation indicates the driver can use the vehicle to go to the hotel and dining establishments, not drive home.
One part involving the explicit range in miles for personal conveyance & the term "vicinity".
The term "vicinity" is taken from the context of being "enroute" in a laden CMV.
Terms hotel & dining establishments are guidance but do not appear as the only choices.
You appear to define vicinity as a "reasonable person's idea of distance".
It's been established & agreed upon that a laden CMV cannot be used as personal conveyance.
In your own words elsewhere, "The driver of a laden cmv cannot be off-duty while driving that cmv."
The dichotomy; You say one thing while the rules say it is possible that the driver can drive that laden cmv, off-duty, within a certain vicinity; a "reasonable persons" distance.
The catch 22; The "reasonable person's" idea of what constitutes a reasonable distance.
What is that "reasonable distance"?
A trip home with a laden cmv is not an off-duty activity so let's ignore that one.
What if I want to eat at a certain favorite restaurant in the vicinity of Amarillo? The Big Texan.
I've ended my driving day out of hours & find myself at a TS 50 miles away from the Big Texan.
I don't want the fast food places locally. I don't want the T/S boofet. Nothing else will do.
It's a given that I can't remain at this establishment overnight so I must find my way back to the TS
My company would not have a problem with me driving the truck there permission wise.
It's a given that I cannot drop the trailer due to TS & company liabilities.
The distance is reasonable to me.
I regularly travel upwards of 50 miles to a favorite place when home.
Does this present a problem in the goverments' eyes?
This was not what the original poster said or meant to do.John Q. Public wrote:I don't believe it's a Catch-22, I believe there are folks who push the envelope to try and avoid logging hours that cause may cause possible 14 or 60/70 hour rule violations.
He wanted to know if he could use the truck as personal conveyance to his house for time off between loads? I believe he even stated that his house is in a different direction than the next load. I'd have to check a map on that. I'm not familiar with the geography there.
Agreed, but the example you just presented has nothing to do with vicinity. It has only to do with what constitutes company business.John Q. Public wrote:Is it reasonable to call 30 miles vacinity? I believe it is. Is ti reasonable to call 60 miles vacinity? Depends on the area, carriers have been cited for false logs when drivers who were waiting for loads at O'Hare drove to Gary, IN for fuel and failed to record the driving time. Last time I checked trucks required fuel to operate. So there was no justification for the drivers logging off-duty when driving to optain fuel.
The original poster was not asking to fuel while waiting to load or otherwise perform company business. You present a comparison of apples to oranges. He was asking about using the truck, unladen, outside the scope of doing company business, to his house.
Fueling his truck (now personal conveyance under the rules) for the trip home seems irrelavant since it would be customary to fuel any vehicle for the same reason. If some of the new fuel became used for business purposes later on, so what? It was obtained during a legal act of off-duty personal conveyance use of that vehicle which would not be subject to FMCSA rules.
As an alternative, he could fuel it on duty & then go off-duty for the trip home.
JQP, I can already see what you're going to write which is why I already said it was pointless to debate it. You & the rest of enforcement will always try to make the driver a bad guy using ambiguous, diametrically opposing rules interpreted with the predisposition that the driver or company is guilty of something.