DOT targets farm tractors
One
of the rites of passage in rural life comes when parents decide a child
is old enough to help out by driving the tractor. If the Obama
administration has its way that will be a thing of the past. The
Federal government now proposes to require that motorized farm equipment
carry DOT id numbers and that all users have a commercial driver's license. Most of these vehicle never travel on public roads unless it is a short trip to another field or a neighbor's farm.
The
proposed rule change would mean that anyone who drives a tractor or
operates any piece of motorized farming equipment would be required to
pass the same tests and complete the same detailed forms and logs
required of semi-tractor trailer drivers.Drivers
would keep logs of information including hours worked and miles
traveled. Vehicles would be required to display DOT numbers. A CDL in
Virginia costs $64 for eight years, or $8 per year, not including the
cost of an instructional class and the written test.If
the DOT reclassifies farm vehicles and implements as commercial
vehicles, the federal government will have regulatory control over the
nation's farm workers, estimated at over 800,000, by requiring them to
have commercial drivers licenses.
What's
next from the Obama administration? Will HHS require all parents to
have a nursing license before they can dispense an orange flavored low
dose aspirin tablet to their child?
Top Opinion
-
Phyl *In God i Trust* 2011/08/12 23:02:06
CDL liscended drivers bring a higher wage, and that depends also on the number of endorsments they are required to have.
If material carried requires a Hazardous Materials endorsment or even a Tank Vehicle endorsment the wage required could be higher. Any material carried that requires a Placard will require a HazMat endorsement.
it'll be something like this:
http://no-ruler.net/new-const...
you wanna WAR, you bunch of turd eating Federal misfits?????
come on down to the farm and get you some!Q!!!!.
I CAN USE MORE FERTILIZER!
http://image.spreadshirt.com/...
2012 is going to bring a lot of noise from the farmers .
http://www.dot.gov/affairs/20...
Although, many states already require many farm-hands to have a CDL, or contain a farm-specific CDL for machinery, especially truck-trailers used to haul and move machinery.
http://wcfcourier.com/busines...
Once again, we have a shining example of Conservative anti-Obama Hyperbole.
And here's another from the left-supporting ABC News: http://www.welbornfreedomwatc...
And how do you deny that DOT has proposed this silly idea after your second link even confirms it?
Once again we have a shining example of useless idiots infiltrating the liberal ranks.
http://www.federalregister.go...
Read close now. No where does it state there is a proposed regulation for federal DOT marked farm vehicles? It doesn't. The FMCSA was collecting public comments on the subject.
I understand you conservative types have trouble with literacy, but I'll spell it out. The states already have various laws in place to enforced state DOT laws on farm machinery, like Iowa there.
So, your panties are in a twist over conservative misinformation. Did Fox News tell you the DOT was pushing this new law?
If yu possessed any amount of reading comprehension, you may have noticed the topic here is requiring CDL licenses in order to operate farm equipment.
Its obvious that you did not read the links I provided, but had you read your own links, like you expect others to do, you would have read that the the DOT did in fact, consider the requirement of CDL license in order to operate any kind of farm machinery but in later discussions decided to rescind the requirement.
The federal DOT never proposed any laws, which is specifically what your argument said.
"Federal government now proposes to require that motorized farm equipment "
You're moving the goalposts now that I've shown two things--that many states already require this, and that the federal government never proposed such a law--only acquired public input regarding it--"considering" a law. Your use of a logical fallacy demonstrates who here has lost this argument.
As for the links you posted, both right-wing blog sites. I followed their sources. the Pat Dollard blog was patently wrong, and even shows so by quoting the same FMCSA link, where it clearly shows no such proposal of a law. The second link has no sources. It's right-wing mouth breathing at its finest.
My sources? One a federal website. The other a journalists report--with sources.
I have thoroughly shown your claim to be patently false and misinformative. I hope you are planning to post a contraction.
Goodbye.