Log transit drivers' hours
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Friday, Feb. 1, 2013, 9:05 p.m.
So, now we have yet another example of a government entity being exempt from its own rules: Port Authority of Allegheny County. From the news story “Port Authority bus drivers' extra hours under study” (Jan. 26 and TribLIVE.com), we discover that the agency's bus drivers are “exempt” from laws regarding their on-duty hours.
How can this be? Commercial truck drivers and private bus drivers must keep an accurate log of their driving hours to help mitigate fatigue, and believe me, that is strictly enforced.
Then we learn that there were 138 “crashes” involving Port Authority bus and light-rail drivers that caused injuries or “significant” damage from December 2011 through November 2012, but these were determined not to be related to “fatigue or overwork.” By whom? Themselves? Not the National Transportation Safety Board or U.S. Department of Transportation? When have you ever seen a Port Authority bus inspection at a DOT truck safety checkpoint?
I think there is something more going on here — pension padding. Aren't drivers' pension amounts based on their total hours accrued during their final two to three years?
If so, are they intentionally driving way over the max hours allowed by law to ensure a hefty pension package (heavily funded by taxpayers)?
Let's make logbook enforcement mandatory for all these drivers. It'll give them something to do on their breaks!
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Funding priorities questioned
- Prison plan & the public’s say
- Ukraine & history
- Proven success
- Shredded Wheat & ‘Low T’
- Drought answer?
- Sovereignty trampled
- Apollo-Ridge excellence
- Beneficial, irreplaceable
- Orwellian redefinitions
- Keep Laurel Point