Question:
I am currently sitting on the east side of Donner Summit waiting for chain restrictions to be lifted before I proceed. I feel that if conditions are bad enough that chains are required, I should not drive in those conditions. In other words I feel that chains should be used only to get OUT of adverse conditions not to knowingly go THROUGH such adverse situation. As a result I am feeling some heat from my supervisor over this. Are there any laws or DOT regulations that would protect me if the company I drive for takes action against me for shutting down rather than chaining up? If so, what would my recourse be?

Answer:

The Surface Transportation Assistance Act has employee protection provisions which protect drivers (including owner operators) if they refuse to operate commercial motor vehicle because--
1. Driving would violate a provision of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations; or
2. They have a REASONABLE apprehesion of serious injury due to the vehicle's unsafe condition.
Thus, the issues are: 1. Would operation of your vehicle violate a provision of the FMCSR's; or 2. Is you apprehension of serious injury reasonable.
49 C.F.R. sec. 392.14 [I think] provides that operations shall be discontinued if weather is so severe that it would be unsafe to continue driving. If cars are passing through Donner okay with chains, it is an indication [although not necessarily conclusive] that it is safe to proceed.
Is you apprehension of serious injury to yourself or the public reasonable? That I cannot say. I guess it depends on just how bad the weather is. I suppose this could be proven with weather reports, newspaper clippings, and testimony of other drivers.

Answer:

Well 392.14 Talks about "Hazardous conditions; extrem caution." I guess the statement:
"If conditions become sufficently dangerous, the operation of the commercial motor vehicle shall be discontinued and shall not be resumed until the commercial motor vehicle can be operated safely."
Could be considered a judgement call, after all you're driving.
Keep the faith.
M

Answer:

Again the apprehesion of serious injury to the driver or the public has to be REASONABLE. The mere fact that chains are required in an of itself does not, in my opinion, render the the driver's apprehension "reasonable." He would need more evidence concerning road conditions to prevail in Court.

Answer:

This case provides some guidance.

Answer:

Opie,
In my experiance with Donner Pass, when they are calling for chains, you can pretty much bet that the road is snow covered ice, California is pretty quick with posting the chains in effect restrictions because the mountian passes such as Donner pass are long grades that traverse up/down through a good chunk of elevation as relevant to sea level. This diffenence in elevation causes a driver to start up the hill thinkin the road is dry, but after getting into the higher elevations he finds roads that would curl your hair. So they post the chain restrictions and you drive accordingly. The only problem is that when you are sitting trying to make your decision to rollon, you could be sitting on dry pavement,and could very wrongly make the decision to run and find yourself in a world of hurt in a very short time. The other side of this coin is that you may be coming at the end(or very near to the end) of the restriction period, and only find some slight winter conditions on the roadway. I have found myself in these two very different situations more than once on that mountian, and there have been times that I thanked the Lord for getting me through my very stupid decision to run, and times that I patted myself on the back for making such a smart decision. This driver is the one that is sitting there, he is the one that can see if cars are moving from the direction he wants to go,he is the one that can ask(via CB) drivers coming from the west just exactly what they just came through. After attempting all this,and weighing all the information that he is presented,he makes the decision to roll based on the fact of saftey for himself and his equipment. This is strictly a judgement call on the driver, if he in his heart believes it is unsafe to move, then he doesn't move. The case you have attached here shows that the judge ruled against the driver because he was unreasonable in attempts made by the company to rectify the situation. There was a much larger timeframe involved (16 hours)as to the fact that he is sitting at the edge of a chain required restriction that is in effect at the time he has made the decision not to run. He has two options run or not. His dispatch is not there,he has no clue as to what the roads are like,and he has no right to tell this driver to run. As far as cars moving,they can only be used as a guidence for what you decide,if I am trying to decide if I am going over Donner with a light load,iron hung on the rubber,and heavy loaded cars are tellin me they had a tough time. Well its beddy by time till the roads are better,because its suicide to try to run. Another factor to look at is experiance,my last run through Vail Pass in Colorodo, chains were in effect east bound, and I was westbound. I ran the pass without chains, without problems. But there was an accident on the eastbound side that involved four cars with a total driving experiance of 7 years.(two of the drivers were fresh out the box and forced by dispatch to not shutdown). Also I can't remember if you get ticketed in CA. for getting stuck or in an accident if the chain law is in effect,they kinda look at it as a "drive at your own risk kinda deal". Also you may want to talk to insurance companies about liability for an accident under such a situation.
Every rose has it's thorn.....
Mama Sez:Life is like a construction zone....You never know when your lanes gonna run out....

Answer:

The real deal on Donner is that the worst of the road is at the top, a few miles on either side of that great rest area at the summit.
And contrary to what SCN posted, my experience was that the chain-up requirement meant snow covered 'wet pavement'. Slippery yes, but not snow covered "ice". In other words, chains would be required ONLY to release CA from liability and not because passage without them is impossible.
The drivers belief that 'chaining up' for Donner,..."In other words I feel that chains should be used only to get OUT of adverse
conditions not to knowingly go THROUGH such adverse situation."....shows a lack of experience and training, NOT an unreasonable request from the company.
Driving the 25 or so miles at 4 or 5 miles an hour with chains or cables is more time-consuming than dangerous. If 'time' is so plentiful that the driver can sit around and make a case about safety, it seems there would have been time to drop down to 395 southbound and get over the hill where there isn't snow....it's California for goodness sake!!
Sometimes it's too easy to sit in Boomtown and think of reasons to stay. For most guys, the lights, the girls and the buffet are reason enough but for the notably weak-willed, a snow storm on Donner is a sign from God.
I don't think he really wants to be a cardriver, Opie, but that's just my opinion.

Answer:

I drive Donner every day now. At times the road is bad enough for chain. In most cases where you have to chain up at, is the problem.
They have you chain 5 to 10 miles before you get to any so called snow.
Most drivers lose their chains before getting to the snow.
I'm just an old fart, but on a bad day I can chain up (minimum)in 18 min. Max is 30 min.
One can not learn how to chain if he /she sits for hours waiting for the pass to clear.
Driving schools should teach students how to chain and how to make them tight enough so they won't fly off.
You don't need snow to show them!!