NATION

PASSWORD

[Last Call] Commercial Vehicle Operator Safety Standards

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Fort Chaffee
Secretary
 
Posts: 32
Founded: Aug 12, 2024
Father Knows Best State

[Last Call] Commercial Vehicle Operator Safety Standards

Postby Fort Chaffee » Thu Jan 02, 2025 3:16 pm

The General Assembly,

Understanding that GAR #83 has created regulations over the safety of commercial vehicles and infrastructure for such vehicles, yet saddened it fails to legislate over driver safety and work regulations;

Noting that commercial traffic makes up significant portions of all traffic in WA nations and that without regulations over the amount of time a driver can work that they are a risk to themselves as well as others on the road;

Declaring that every member nation is created differently and regulations will be adjusted accordingly to ensure all nations are treated equally and that commercial vehicle drivers are protected;

Ensuring that each member nation will have commercial traffic regulations that conform to the technological capabilities of a member nation; and

Appreciating that commercial traffic is a major part of every member nation and due to the increased nature of difficulty in operating a commercial vehicle hereby enacts as follows;

  1. The ITSC (International Traffic Safety Committee) will oversee working regulations for Commercial Vehicle Operators.

    1. This will include rules over working hour limits, mandatory breaks, and weight restrictions on loads to lower the likelihood of accidents and injuries;
    2. This will be enforced through logging devices provided to all commercial vehicles with training on usage provided by the WA;
  2. The ITSC will create the rulesets for member nations to follow for working hours;

    1. These rulesets will vary from nation to nation depending on different factors such as but not limited to speed limits and geography as these factors can affect the fatigue a commercial vehicle operator will endure;
    2. These rulesets will be regulated to make sure that all member nations will be able to pay operators equivalent to their time worked despite size and geographic differences;
    3. These rulesets will have the working hour limits included in them and will be available in the logging devices provided to member nations;
  3. WA member nations must include weight restrictions as well as height limits for bridges, roads and tunnels as well as dedicated truck routes;

    1. Weight restrictions will be enforced strictly by the use of weight stations and weight tables to ensure that the Commercial vehicle is under the GVWR (Gross Value Weight Rating) for said vehicle;
    2. Weight restrictions will be enforced through signage on bridges as well as through police enforcement. The weight will be determined by the maximum safe weight a bridge is capable of holding;
    3. Height limits will be enforced through signage under all bridges and tunnels dedicated for motor vehicles;
    4. Member nations must enact standardized signage as described in (III.1-3).

Definitions to be used throughout this proposal include;

Commercial Vehicles are any vehicle with the capabilities to transport goods over 5 tonnes on a roadway. Roadways are left to be defined by the member nations; and

Operators is any person that is trained by the ITSC to drive a commercial vehicle.
Last edited by Fort Chaffee on Tue Feb 04, 2025 10:32 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Bisofeyr
Diplomat
 
Posts: 995
Founded: Nov 26, 2023
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Bisofeyr » Thu Jan 02, 2025 3:40 pm

https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1 - target for posterity

Welcome back! This is not a shabby first draft, but there are a few issues. Currently, you have laid out three issues: (1) there are not safety protocols for the drivers of commercial vehicles themselves; (2) WA members are stuck bearing an additional burden due to the regulations; and (3) there are not working regulations.

I am not overly familiar with real-world driver safety protocols, but I cannot tell the difference between the issue you describe in (1) and (3), at least at a cursory glance. Additionally, these issues do not so much merit repeal of the target, but rather warrant a new standing piece of legislation to fill such a gap. International freight driver safety regulations likely do fall into the scope of the World Assembly, if you're interested in drafting something along those lines.

As for (2), it's a fairly weak argument. Yes, there are some infrastructural requirements, namely at bridges, tunnels, and customs/border checkpoints, but the bulk of infrastructure standards set by the ITSC are actually not mandated, and instead members are simply "urged" to follow them. This means that related costs would likely be minor, and certainly not to the point of repeal. Additionally, members who genuinely cannot afford such endeavors shall be covered by section one of GA 747, which may supply members with some additional funds in order to maintain compliance.
If you are interested in using any drafts/writing of mine, please telegram me and I will give permission on a case-by-case basis. Good luck with your writing endeavors!

User avatar
Fort Chaffee
Secretary
 
Posts: 32
Founded: Aug 12, 2024
Father Knows Best State

Postby Fort Chaffee » Thu Jan 02, 2025 4:12 pm

Bisofeyr wrote:https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=83/council=1 - target for posterity

Welcome back! This is not a shabby first draft, but there are a few issues. Currently, you have laid out three issues: (1) there are not safety protocols for the drivers of commercial vehicles themselves; (2) WA members are stuck bearing an additional burden due to the regulations; and (3) there are not working regulations.

I am not overly familiar with real-world driver safety protocols, but I cannot tell the difference between the issue you describe in (1) and (3), at least at a cursory glance. Additionally, these issues do not so much merit repeal of the target, but rather warrant a new standing piece of legislation to fill such a gap. International freight driver safety regulations likely do fall into the scope of the World Assembly, if you're interested in drafting something along those lines.

As for (2), it's a fairly weak argument. Yes, there are some infrastructural requirements, namely at bridges, tunnels, and customs/border checkpoints, but the bulk of infrastructure standards set by the ITSC are actually not mandated, and instead members are simply "urged" to follow them. This means that related costs would likely be minor, and certainly not to the point of repeal. Additionally, members who genuinely cannot afford such endeavors shall be covered by section one of GA 747, which may supply members with some additional funds in order to maintain compliance.

Alright, I wasn’t sure if I could make a resolution that further added on to this one or if this resolution had to be taken away so that I could create a new one for the regulation

User avatar
Bisofeyr
Diplomat
 
Posts: 995
Founded: Nov 26, 2023
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Bisofeyr » Thu Jan 02, 2025 4:17 pm

Fort Chaffee wrote:
Bisofeyr wrote:https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=83/council=1 - target for posterity

Welcome back! This is not a shabby first draft, but there are a few issues. Currently, you have laid out three issues: (1) there are not safety protocols for the drivers of commercial vehicles themselves; (2) WA members are stuck bearing an additional burden due to the regulations; and (3) there are not working regulations.

I am not overly familiar with real-world driver safety protocols, but I cannot tell the difference between the issue you describe in (1) and (3), at least at a cursory glance. Additionally, these issues do not so much merit repeal of the target, but rather warrant a new standing piece of legislation to fill such a gap. International freight driver safety regulations likely do fall into the scope of the World Assembly, if you're interested in drafting something along those lines.

As for (2), it's a fairly weak argument. Yes, there are some infrastructural requirements, namely at bridges, tunnels, and customs/border checkpoints, but the bulk of infrastructure standards set by the ITSC are actually not mandated, and instead members are simply "urged" to follow them. This means that related costs would likely be minor, and certainly not to the point of repeal. Additionally, members who genuinely cannot afford such endeavors shall be covered by section one of GA 747, which may supply members with some additional funds in order to maintain compliance.

Alright, I wasn’t sure if I could make a resolution that further added on to this one or if this resolution had to be taken away so that I could create a new one for the regulation

The general rule of thumb is that so long as you don't create a clause that is directly contradictory to existing resolutions, you should be okay. Minor duplication is allowed, so long as you include some sort of original provision.
If you are interested in using any drafts/writing of mine, please telegram me and I will give permission on a case-by-case basis. Good luck with your writing endeavors!

User avatar
Fort Chaffee
Secretary
 
Posts: 32
Founded: Aug 12, 2024
Father Knows Best State

Postby Fort Chaffee » Thu Jan 02, 2025 4:25 pm

Bisofeyr wrote:
Fort Chaffee wrote:Alright, I wasn’t sure if I could make a resolution that further added on to this one or if this resolution had to be taken away so that I could create a new one for the regulation

The general rule of thumb is that so long as you don't create a clause that is directly contradictory to existing resolutions, you should be okay. Minor duplication is allowed, so long as you include some sort of original provision.

Alright, thank you for the help

User avatar
The Overmind
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1995
Founded: Dec 12, 2022
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby The Overmind » Thu Jan 02, 2025 6:34 pm

Hello! Support in principle without replacement.

In my opinion, this is not something that should be legislated at the international level by a body (i.e. the World Assembly) that oversees nations that range from having no roads built at all to nations that are so advanced that their passengers and freight are moved by air, space, or interuniversal portal.

Hence, I would support as written with this argument included and the "[h]oping" clauses removed.
Last edited by The Overmind on Thu Jan 02, 2025 6:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Free Palestine
2024 Kenmoria Award
2024 Contributor of the Year Award
Trans men are men | Trans women are women | Sex is non-binary
Assigned sex isn't biological sex | Trans rights are human rights

Neuroscientist | Heavens Reach | He/Him/His

User avatar
Fort Chaffee
Secretary
 
Posts: 32
Founded: Aug 12, 2024
Father Knows Best State

Postby Fort Chaffee » Thu Jan 02, 2025 6:51 pm

Bisofeyr
WA General Propsoal

The General Assembly,

Understanding that GAR #83 has created regulations over the safety of commercial vehicles and infrastructure for such vehicles but has failed to address any concerns over any regulations over driver safety and regulation.

Understanding that commercial traffic makes up significant portions of all traffic in WA nations and that without regulations over the amount of time a driver can work that they are a risk to themselves aswell as others on the road.

1. The ITSC (International Traffic Safety Committee) will now oversee working regulations for Commercial Vehicle Operators.

a. This will include rules over working hour limits and weight restrictions on loads to lower the likelihood of accidents and injuries.

b. Any corporation in a member nation found in breach of these regulations will incur a fine for both the operator and company.

1. The ITSC will create the rule sets for member nations to follow

a. These rule sets will vary from nation to nation depending on different factors such as speed limits and geography as these factors can affect the fatigue a commercial vehicle operator will endure.

b. These rule sets will be regulated to make sure that all member nations will be able to be economically equal based on these different factors despite size and geographic differences.

1. WA member nations must now include weight restrictions as well as height limits for bridges and roads as well as dedicated truck routes.

a. Weight restrictions will be enforced strictly by the use of weight stations and weight tables to ensure that the Commercial vehicle is under the GVWR (Gross Value Weight Rating) for said vehicle. Fines will be issued to the operator for failure to meet these regulations.

b. Height limits will be enforced through signage under all bridges and tunnels dedicated for motor vehicles.

1. All money collected through the fines will be split between the ITSC and the member nation that the incident occurred.

User avatar
The Overmind
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1995
Founded: Dec 12, 2022
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby The Overmind » Thu Jan 02, 2025 6:54 pm

Fort Chaffee wrote:Bisofeyr
WA General Propsoal

The General Assembly,

Understanding that GAR #83 has created regulations over the safety of commercial vehicles and infrastructure for such vehicles but has failed to address any concerns over any regulations over driver safety and regulation.

Understanding that commercial traffic makes up significant portions of all traffic in WA nations and that without regulations over the amount of time a driver can work that they are a risk to themselves aswell as others on the road.

1. The ITSC (International Traffic Safety Committee) will now oversee working regulations for Commercial Vehicle Operators.

a. This will include rules over working hour limits and weight restrictions on loads to lower the likelihood of accidents and injuries.

b. Any corporation in a member nation found in breach of these regulations will incur a fine for both the operator and company.

1. The ITSC will create the rule sets for member nations to follow

a. These rule sets will vary from nation to nation depending on different factors such as speed limits and geography as these factors can affect the fatigue a commercial vehicle operator will endure.

b. These rule sets will be regulated to make sure that all member nations will be able to be economically equal based on these different factors despite size and geographic differences.

1. WA member nations must now include weight restrictions as well as height limits for bridges and roads as well as dedicated truck routes.

a. Weight restrictions will be enforced strictly by the use of weight stations and weight tables to ensure that the Commercial vehicle is under the GVWR (Gross Value Weight Rating) for said vehicle. Fines will be issued to the operator for failure to meet these regulations.

b. Height limits will be enforced through signage under all bridges and tunnels dedicated for motor vehicles.

1. All money collected through the fines will be split between the ITSC and the member nation that the incident occurred.

Resolutions cannot be amended. You would need to repeal it and then write a replacement. That replacement would need its own drafting thread.
Free Palestine
2024 Kenmoria Award
2024 Contributor of the Year Award
Trans men are men | Trans women are women | Sex is non-binary
Assigned sex isn't biological sex | Trans rights are human rights

Neuroscientist | Heavens Reach | He/Him/His

User avatar
Fort Chaffee
Secretary
 
Posts: 32
Founded: Aug 12, 2024
Father Knows Best State

Postby Fort Chaffee » Thu Jan 02, 2025 7:04 pm

The Overmind wrote:
Fort Chaffee wrote:Bisofeyr
WA General Propsoal

The General Assembly,

Understanding that GAR #83 has created regulations over the safety of commercial vehicles and infrastructure for such vehicles but has failed to address any concerns over any regulations over driver safety and regulation.

Understanding that commercial traffic makes up significant portions of all traffic in WA nations and that without regulations over the amount of time a driver can work that they are a risk to themselves aswell as others on the road.

1. The ITSC (International Traffic Safety Committee) will now oversee working regulations for Commercial Vehicle Operators.

a. This will include rules over working hour limits and weight restrictions on loads to lower the likelihood of accidents and injuries.

b. Any corporation in a member nation found in breach of these regulations will incur a fine for both the operator and company.

1. The ITSC will create the rule sets for member nations to follow

a. These rule sets will vary from nation to nation depending on different factors such as speed limits and geography as these factors can affect the fatigue a commercial vehicle operator will endure.

b. These rule sets will be regulated to make sure that all member nations will be able to be economically equal based on these different factors despite size and geographic differences.

1. WA member nations must now include weight restrictions as well as height limits for bridges and roads as well as dedicated truck routes.

a. Weight restrictions will be enforced strictly by the use of weight stations and weight tables to ensure that the Commercial vehicle is under the GVWR (Gross Value Weight Rating) for said vehicle. Fines will be issued to the operator for failure to meet these regulations.

b. Height limits will be enforced through signage under all bridges and tunnels dedicated for motor vehicles.

1. All money collected through the fines will be split between the ITSC and the member nation that the incident occurred.

Resolutions cannot be amended. You would need to repeal it and then write a replacement. That replacement would need its own drafting thread.

So long as I get the resolution repealed I am free to write a resolution for it without consequences?

User avatar
The Overmind
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1995
Founded: Dec 12, 2022
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby The Overmind » Thu Jan 02, 2025 7:08 pm

Fort Chaffee wrote:So long as I get the resolution repealed I am free to write a resolution for it without consequences?

Once the resolution is repealed, you can write its replacement if you so choose. Generally speaking, by replacement, it is meant that the proposal you want to replace it with would be illegal for contradiction until you pass a repeal. If you simply intend to build on an existing resolution without changing it, you do not need to repeal anything. How successful you are at that depends on what you write. Amendments, however, are not possible within the coding of the World Assembly, and are illegal for Game Mechanics:

"Game Mechanics: A proposal clause cannot affect any aspect of how the game works. This includes and is not limited to mandating ejection of member nations for non-compliance. Clauses apparently contradicting Issues-based Policies do not violate this rule. Suggestions for improving or modifying gameplay can be posted in the Technical forum."
Last edited by The Overmind on Thu Jan 02, 2025 7:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Free Palestine
2024 Kenmoria Award
2024 Contributor of the Year Award
Trans men are men | Trans women are women | Sex is non-binary
Assigned sex isn't biological sex | Trans rights are human rights

Neuroscientist | Heavens Reach | He/Him/His

User avatar
Fort Chaffee
Secretary
 
Posts: 32
Founded: Aug 12, 2024
Father Knows Best State

Postby Fort Chaffee » Thu Jan 02, 2025 7:28 pm

The Overmind wrote:
Fort Chaffee wrote:So long as I get the resolution repealed I am free to write a resolution for it without consequences?

Once the resolution is repealed, you can write its replacement if you so choose. Generally speaking, by replacement, it is meant that the proposal you want to replace it with would be illegal for contradiction until you pass a repeal. If you simply intend to build on an existing resolution without changing it, you do not need to repeal anything. How successful you are at that depends on what you write. Amendments, however, are not possible within the coding of the World Assembly, and are illegal for Game Mechanics:

"Game Mechanics: A proposal clause cannot affect any aspect of how the game works. This includes and is not limited to mandating ejection of member nations for non-compliance. Clauses apparently contradicting Issues-based Policies do not violate this rule. Suggestions for improving or modifying gameplay can be posted in the Technical forum."

Alright, my question I have then with my proposal I sent that isn’t the repeal is that I’m just trying to add on to the original resolution, not trying to amend it, how should I word it to be able to fit in to that without making it illegal because I am leaving the original alone but just adding on to it

User avatar
The Overmind
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1995
Founded: Dec 12, 2022
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby The Overmind » Thu Jan 02, 2025 7:30 pm

Fort Chaffee wrote:
The Overmind wrote:Once the resolution is repealed, you can write its replacement if you so choose. Generally speaking, by replacement, it is meant that the proposal you want to replace it with would be illegal for contradiction until you pass a repeal. If you simply intend to build on an existing resolution without changing it, you do not need to repeal anything. How successful you are at that depends on what you write. Amendments, however, are not possible within the coding of the World Assembly, and are illegal for Game Mechanics:

"Game Mechanics: A proposal clause cannot affect any aspect of how the game works. This includes and is not limited to mandating ejection of member nations for non-compliance. Clauses apparently contradicting Issues-based Policies do not violate this rule. Suggestions for improving or modifying gameplay can be posted in the Technical forum."

Alright, my question I have then with my proposal I sent that isn’t the repeal is that I’m just trying to add on to the original resolution, not trying to amend it, how should I word it to be able to fit in to that without making it illegal because I am leaving the original alone but just adding on to it

You would have to read the original and make sure that nothing you are legislating contradicts it:

"Contradiction: A proposal cannot enact any policy which would conflict with an active resolution."

You would also need to change this from a repeal thread into a drafting thread and accordingly change the title and OP.
Free Palestine
2024 Kenmoria Award
2024 Contributor of the Year Award
Trans men are men | Trans women are women | Sex is non-binary
Assigned sex isn't biological sex | Trans rights are human rights

Neuroscientist | Heavens Reach | He/Him/His

User avatar
Fort Chaffee
Secretary
 
Posts: 32
Founded: Aug 12, 2024
Father Knows Best State

Postby Fort Chaffee » Thu Jan 02, 2025 7:41 pm

The Overmind wrote:
Fort Chaffee wrote:


I’ve read over the resolution multiple times and I don’t think I’ve contradicted anything that the original proposal stated

User avatar
The Overmind
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1995
Founded: Dec 12, 2022
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby The Overmind » Thu Jan 02, 2025 7:51 pm

Now for some general advice:

Make sure you read up on the rules for drafting proposals in the Proposal Comprendium to ensure that this draft is and remains legal. You'll want to look at passed resolutions, particularly newer ones and ones on similar topics to your proposal, to get a sense of the prevailing style and for how successful proposals are generally formatted, written, and argued.. You can keyword search passed resolutions in the passed resolutions thread or peruse the resolution titles in the first reply for similar-sounding topics. I also suggest taking the time to look at other drafting threads in this forum to get an idea of how to layout your OP and keep it updated, preserve your previous drafts, and do good bookkeeping as your draft develops. Finally, it would be good to familiarize yourself with BBCode, particularly around the use of lists:

  1. Clause 1,
    1. Subclause 1,
    2. Subclause 2,
    3. Subclause 3,
  2. Clause 2,
    1. Subclause 1,
    2. Subclause 2,
  3. Clause 3,
      Subclause 1.

Code: Select all
[list=I][*]Clause 1,
[list=1][*]Subclause 1,
[*]Subclause 2,
[*]Subclause 3,[/list]
[*]Clause 2,
[list=1][*]Subclause 1,
[*]Subclause 2,[/list]
[*]Clause 3,
[list=1]Subclause 1.[/list][/list]

I hope that all helps you get this into shape, which, as a rule of thumb, takes at least a month of active drafting in the forum, assuming the topic is not controversial (which would take longer).


That all being said, opposed in principle for the reason I gave above :p
Last edited by The Overmind on Thu Jan 02, 2025 8:22 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Free Palestine
2024 Kenmoria Award
2024 Contributor of the Year Award
Trans men are men | Trans women are women | Sex is non-binary
Assigned sex isn't biological sex | Trans rights are human rights

Neuroscientist | Heavens Reach | He/Him/His

User avatar
Fort Chaffee
Secretary
 
Posts: 32
Founded: Aug 12, 2024
Father Knows Best State

Postby Fort Chaffee » Thu Jan 02, 2025 8:25 pm

The Overmind wrote:Now for some general advice:

Make sure you read up on the rules for drafting proposals in the Proposal Comprendium to ensure that this draft is and remains legal. You'll want to look at passed resolutions, particularly newer ones and ones on similar topics to your proposal, to get a sense of the prevailing style and for how successful proposals are generally formatted, written, and argued.. You can keyword search passed resolutions in the passed resolutions thread or peruse the resolution titles in the first reply for similar-sounding topics. I also suggest taking the time to look at other drafting threads in this forum to get an idea of how to layout your OP and keep it updated, preserve your previous drafts, and do good bookkeeping as your draft develops. Finally, it would be good to familiarize yourself with BBCode, particularly around the use of lists:

  1. Clause 1,
    1. Subclause 1,
    2. Subclause 2,
    3. Subclause 3,
  2. Clause 2,
    1. Subclause 1,
    2. Subclause 2,
  3. Clause 3,
      Subclause 1.

Code: Select all
[list=I][*]Clause 1,
[list=1][*]Subclause 1,
[*]Subclause 2,
[*]Subclause 3,[/list]
[*]Clause 2,
[list=1][*]Subclause 1,
[*]Subclause 2,[/list]
[*]Clause 3,
[list=1]Subclause 1.[/list][/list]

I hope that all helps you get this into shape, which, as a rule of thumb, takes at least a month of active drafting in the forum, assuming the topic is not controversial (which would take longer).


That all being said, opposed in principle for the reason I gave above :p

Alright thank you for the help, I appreciate the feedback so that I can make this resolution legal

User avatar
Fort Chaffee
Secretary
 
Posts: 32
Founded: Aug 12, 2024
Father Knows Best State

Postby Fort Chaffee » Wed Jan 08, 2025 12:40 am

/bump

User avatar
Fort Chaffee
Secretary
 
Posts: 32
Founded: Aug 12, 2024
Father Knows Best State

Postby Fort Chaffee » Sun Jan 12, 2025 11:42 pm

/bump

User avatar
Of The Revived Soviet Union
Diplomat
 
Posts: 647
Founded: Jun 21, 2024
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Of The Revived Soviet Union » Mon Jan 13, 2025 3:02 am

Full support in principle.

I can help write a repeal.
Political Views>
https://leftvalues.github.io/results.html?a=11.8&b=54.7&c=53.3&d=57.1&e=42.3&f=33.3&g=29.4
Those are my political positions within the left - I consider myself to be a market socialist, which isn't a surprise. https://politicaltests.github.io/12axes ... &k=31&l=88
This is my 12axes test, which said I'm Revolutionary Socialist.
I stand with Palestine!
LGBTQIA+ Rights are human rights!
Pronouns: He/him. Am a cisgender half-Lebanese guy, but I'm more progressive than most people you'll meet.
'Capitalism and social conservatism are just the political manifestations of narcissism.' - Me.
Fixed my signature for being too long. You're welcome :)

User avatar
Fort Chaffee
Secretary
 
Posts: 32
Founded: Aug 12, 2024
Father Knows Best State

Postby Fort Chaffee » Mon Jan 13, 2025 5:25 am

Of The Revived Soviet Union wrote:Full support in principle.

I can help write a repeal.


I’m not looking to removed GAR#83, what I am aiming for is to build off of what it has already started

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3949
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby The Ice States » Mon Jan 13, 2025 1:47 pm

Hello! Here are some copyedits to the proposal:
Fort Chaffee wrote:[region-tag=][/region-tag]The General Assembly,

Understanding that GAR #83 has created regulations over the safety of commercial vehicles and infrastructure for such vehicles but has failed fails to address any concerns over any regulations over driver safety and work regulation.;

Understanding that commercial traffic makes up significant portions of all traffic in WA nations and that without regulations over the amount of time a driver can work that they are a risk to themselves as (Note that a space was inserted here) well as others on the road.; and

Knowing that every member nation is created differently and regulations will be adjusted accordingly to ensure all nations are treated equally and that commercial vehicle drivers are protected.;

Hereby enacts as follows:

  1. The ITSC (International Traffic Safety Committee) will now oversee working regulations for Commercial Vehicle Operators.

    1. This will include rules over working hour limits, mandatory breaks, and weight restrictions on loads to lower the likelihood of accidents and injuries,.
    2. Any corporation in a member nation found in breach of these regulations will incur a fine for both the operator and company,.
  2. The ITSC will create the rule sets rulesets for member nations to follow for working hours,

    1. These rule sets rulesets will vary from nation to nation depending on different factors such as speed limits and geography as these factors can affect the fatigue a commercial vehicle operator will endure,.
    2. These rule sets rulesets will be regulated to make sure that all member nations will be able to be economically equal based on these different factors despite size and geographic differences,.
  3. WA member nations must now include weight restrictions as well as height limits for bridges, roads and tunnels as well as dedicated truck routes,.

    1. Weight restrictions will be enforced strictly by the use of weight stations and weight tables to ensure that the Commercial vehicle is under the GVWR (Gross Value Weight Rating) for said vehicle. Fines will be issued to the operator and company for failure to meet these regulations,.
    2. Height limits will be enforced through signage under all bridges and tunnels dedicated for motor vehicles,.
    3. Member nations must enact the standardized signage to ensure that a commercial vehicle operator knows whether a certain roadway is safe to drive on,.
  4. All money collected through the fines will be split between the ITSC and the member nation that the incident occurred.


Substantively here are some comments:

  • It's generally discouraged to just specify a committee will regulate X (as in eg Sections I and II) because it is not clear what those regulations are. Could you expand (in the proposal) on what the regulations are to achieve?

  • In I(2) or III(1) these fines could be set to $0.01 as written. I don't see a need to specify penalties in general as it's implicit that member nations must enforce the resolution; if it fails to do so then the nation will itself incur fines or santions under the Administrative Compliance Act. I would recommend removing these clauses along with IV.

  • In III, what does it mean to "include weight restrictions"? Do they need to be implemented in all bridges / roads / tunnels, in all places that there are height limits, or something else? Without clarity on where specifically they should be implemented this clause does not really do much.
Last edited by The Ice States on Mon Jan 13, 2025 1:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Festering Snakepit Wiki
· General Assembly Guides · Resolution Stat Effects · Style Guide · WACampaign

Factbooks · WA Authorships · Nation map


"Petty tyrant", "antithetical to a better future for the WA". Posts in the WA forums are in a personal capacity, unless indicated otherwise.

User avatar
Haymarket Riot
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 416
Founded: Aug 29, 2023
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Haymarket Riot » Sun Jan 19, 2025 2:15 pm

Fort Chaffee wrote:The General Assembly,

Understanding that GAR #83 has created regulations over the safety of commercial vehicles and infrastructure for such vehiclesbut, yet saddened it fails to address any concerns over any regulations over legislate about driver safety and work regulation;

UnderstandingNoting that commercial traffic makes up significant portions of all traffic in WA nations and that without regulations over the amount of time a driver can work that they are a risk to themselves as well as others on the road;

KnowingDeclaring that every member nation is created differently and regulations will be adjusted accordingly to ensure all nations are treated equally and that commercial vehicle drivers are protected; and

Knowing that each member nation is technologically different andEnsuring that each member nation will havehas different [Strike]rulesets implemented to ensure all commercial traffic is regulated;commercial air traffic regulations to accommodate technological diversity;

These regulations will here by be implemented to increase the safety of all traffic by implementing tougher regulations on commercial traffic. CAppreciating that commercial traffic is a major part of every member nation and due to the increased nature of difficulty in operating a commercial vehicle, there will now be further regulation to ensure that safety of the goods and operators are increased as well as the civilians that maneuver around them Hhereby enacts as follows;

  1. The ITSC (International Traffic Safety Committee) will now oversee working regulations for Commercial Vehicle Operators.

    1. This will include rules over working hour limits, mandatory breaks, and weight restrictions on loads to lower the likelihood of accidents and injuries;
    2. This will be enforced through logging devices provided to all commercial vehicles with training on usage provided by the WA;
  2. The ITSC will create the rulesets for member nations to follow for working hours;

    1. These rulesets will vary from nation to nation depending on different factors such as but not limited to speed limits and geography as these factors can affect the fatigue a commercial vehicle operator will endure;
    2. These rulesets will be regulated to make sure that all member nations will be able to be economically equal pay operators equally per time workedbased on these different factors despite size and geographic differences;
    3. These rulesets will have the working hour limits included in them and will be available in the logging devices provided to member nations;
  3. WA member nations mustnow include weight restrictions as well as height limits for bridges, roads and tunnels as well as dedicated truck routes;

    1. Weight restrictions will be enforced strictly by the use of weight stations and weight tables to ensure that the Commercial vehicle is under the GVWR (Gross Value Weight Rating) for said vehicle;
    2. Weight restrictions will be enforced through signage on bridges, this will be determined by the maximum safe weight a bridge is capable of holding;
    3. Height limits will be enforced through signage under all bridges and tunnels dedicated for motor vehicles;
    4. Member nations must enact the standardized signage as described in (III.1-3)to ensure that a commercial vehicle operator knows whether a certain roadway is safe to drive on;


More generally I have to say, not personally necessarily a fan of CDLs being something my nation has to license to the GA. Also concerned about this potentially legislating on more than just land vehicles based on the lack of definition of commercial vehicle.
The Butch Antifascists of Haymarket Riot
Proud Wife of Emiline
Mayor of Ridgefield||Diplomatic Officer of the Augustin Alliance||Minister of World Assembly Affairs for The North Pacific||General Assembly Secretariat as of 10/13/24
IC: President Jolene Josephine Jefferson of Haymarket Riot
Formerly: Lieutenant in the Black Hawks, Delegate of Pacifica, Prime Director of Anteria
An Author of: SC 228 | SC 523 | SC 524 | GA 742 | GA 748 | GA 762 | GA 765
"Love is wise, hatred is foolish" - Bertrand Russell

User avatar
Fort Chaffee
Secretary
 
Posts: 32
Founded: Aug 12, 2024
Father Knows Best State

Postby Fort Chaffee » Sun Jan 19, 2025 2:42 pm

Haymarket Riot wrote:
Fort Chaffee wrote:The General Assembly,

Understanding that GAR #83 has created regulations over the safety of commercial vehicles and infrastructure for such vehiclesbut, yet saddened it fails to address any concerns over any regulations over legislate about driver safety and work regulation;

UnderstandingNoting that commercial traffic makes up significant portions of all traffic in WA nations and that without regulations over the amount of time a driver can work that they are a risk to themselves as well as others on the road;

KnowingDeclaring that every member nation is created differently and regulations will be adjusted accordingly to ensure all nations are treated equally and that commercial vehicle drivers are protected; and

Knowing that each member nation is technologically different andEnsuring that each member nation will havehas different [Strike]rulesets implemented to ensure all commercial traffic is regulated;commercial air traffic regulations to accommodate technological diversity;

These regulations will here by be implemented to increase the safety of all traffic by implementing tougher regulations on commercial traffic. CAppreciating that commercial traffic is a major part of every member nation and due to the increased nature of difficulty in operating a commercial vehicle, there will now be further regulation to ensure that safety of the goods and operators are increased as well as the civilians that maneuver around them Hhereby enacts as follows;

  1. The ITSC (International Traffic Safety Committee) will now oversee working regulations for Commercial Vehicle Operators.

    1. This will include rules over working hour limits, mandatory breaks, and weight restrictions on loads to lower the likelihood of accidents and injuries;
    2. This will be enforced through logging devices provided to all commercial vehicles with training on usage provided by the WA;
  2. The ITSC will create the rulesets for member nations to follow for working hours;

    1. These rulesets will vary from nation to nation depending on different factors such as but not limited to speed limits and geography as these factors can affect the fatigue a commercial vehicle operator will endure;
    2. These rulesets will be regulated to make sure that all member nations will be able to be economically equal pay operators equally per time workedbased on these different factors despite size and geographic differences;
    3. These rulesets will have the working hour limits included in them and will be available in the logging devices provided to member nations;
  3. WA member nations mustnow include weight restrictions as well as height limits for bridges, roads and tunnels as well as dedicated truck routes;

    1. Weight restrictions will be enforced strictly by the use of weight stations and weight tables to ensure that the Commercial vehicle is under the GVWR (Gross Value Weight Rating) for said vehicle;
    2. Weight restrictions will be enforced through signage on bridges, this will be determined by the maximum safe weight a bridge is capable of holding;
    3. Height limits will be enforced through signage under all bridges and tunnels dedicated for motor vehicles;
    4. Member nations must enact the standardized signage as described in (III.1-3)to ensure that a commercial vehicle operator knows whether a certain roadway is safe to drive on;


More generally I have to say, not personally necessarily a fan of CDLs being something my nation has to license to the GA. Also concerned about this potentially legislating on more than just land vehicles based on the lack of definition of commercial vehicle.


From GAR 83, the ITSC is already mandating that commercial drivers are trained to ITSC standards which I believe dictates that drivers must already have a special license to drive said commercial vehicle, and with the definition of a commercial vehicle, I can add some definitions to narrow down what I am legislating over

User avatar
Fort Chaffee
Secretary
 
Posts: 32
Founded: Aug 12, 2024
Father Knows Best State

Postby Fort Chaffee » Sat Jan 25, 2025 7:41 pm

/bump

User avatar
Fort Chaffee
Secretary
 
Posts: 32
Founded: Aug 12, 2024
Father Knows Best State

Postby Fort Chaffee » Tue Feb 04, 2025 10:32 pm

Final /bump

User avatar
Simone Republic
Minister
 
Posts: 2611
Founded: Jul 09, 2019
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Simone Republic » Thu Feb 06, 2025 3:47 am

Haymarket Riot wrote:More generally I have to say, not personally necessarily a fan of CDLs being something my nation has to license to the GA. Also concerned about this potentially legislating on more than just land vehicles based on the lack of definition of commercial vehicle.


You mean like amphibious vehicles, hovercraft, personal helicopters and stuff? Yeah. They all weigh more than 5 (metric) tonnes. You can also get personal vehicles that weigh more than 5 tonnes by the way, an armored Rolls-Royce Phantom VIII easily weighs more than 6 tonnes (2.6 tonnes before armour plating). [fn1]

You also get commercial vehicles like the Toyota Hi-Ace that weigh less than 5 tonnes. Or the Toyota Hi-Lux.

[fn1] I looked it up on Microsoft Bing.
(It).

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Barfleur, Bhang Bhang Duc, Cessarea, Click Ests Vimgalevytopia, Torkeland

Advertisement

Remove ads