Posts Tagged ‘OOIDA’

« Older Entries

FMCSA Announces CSA Changes Effective December

Wednesday, August 29th, 2012

FMCSAAfter much debate, a four-month preview period, and comment submission process, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration announced on its site Friday the changes that will go into effect for the CSA’s Safety Measurement System this December.

Comment Period

Over 14,000 carriers and 1,700 law enforcement officials participated in the SMS preview, which was open to carriers on March 27th.   With an approaching deadline to comment on the changes originally scheduled for late June, the FMCSA extended its deadline to July 30th.

The FMCSA has been under pressure by the American Trucking Associations (ATA) to change the way crash accountability is recorded.  Last year, carriers complained about high CSA crash scores reflecting accidents in which their trucks were not at fault. In return, the FMCSA developed both a short-term and long-term goal for easing carrier complaints.  Under these goals, trucking companies would be able to appeal who’s accountable for an accident, with a long-term plan aiming to determine accountability before the accident is even registered and factored into the scoring process.

In short-term, crashes would continue to be documented into the CSA database, however, carriers would then be given the option of using a system developed by the FMCSA allowing them to challenge the accountability of an accident by submitting a police report through the CSA data correction system.  Although all accidents will still be recorded in the CSA system, those carriers at fault will be scored heavier then those held non-accountable for an accident.

But as the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance’s Steve Keppler explains, this method poses problems when the “reviewer makes a determination on accountability that is different than the officer,” who was actually on the scene, or when their determination differs from the insurance company’s investigation.

Last month, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association announced that it had filed a suit against the FMCSA stating that the agency has been releasing inaccurate driver records to employers that ultimately lead to negative consequences for drivers.  The group had presented three case examples in which drivers had their violations dismissed in court, however, these violations still remained in the system even after they submitted appeals through the agency’s DataQ, violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act and affecting future business opportunities.

The Changes

As of December 2012, the following changes will take place:

-“Changing the Cargo-Related BASIC to the HM Compliance BASIC to better identify HM-related safety and compliance problems” 1

In response to concerns over inconsistency in the hazmat category, the FMCSA has decided to make this category private only to carriers and law enforcement until these concerns are addressed. 2

-“Changing the name of the Fatigued Driving (Hours-of-Service (HOS)) BASIC to the HOS Compliance BASIC” 1

In doing so, violations will be reported more accurately.

-Paper and electronic logs used to record a driver’s hours-of-service will be weighed equally. 2

-“Strengthening the Vehicle Maintenance Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Category (BASIC) by incorporating cargo/load securement violations from today’s Cargo-Related BASIC” 1

Doing so provides two important benefits:  “It identifies motor carriers with a higher future crash risk for FMCSA interventions” and “removes the bias in the current Cargo-Related BASIC which has resulted in identifying a disproportionate large number of carriers that haul open trailers (e.g. flatbeds) for interventions.” 1


-SMS will include pre-trip inspection violations on intermodal equipment. 3

-“Aligning violations that are included in the SMS with Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance inspection levels by eliminating vehicle violations derived from driver-only inspections and driver violations from vehicle-only inspections.” 1
Roadside inspection violations will be reported, however, only specific inspection violations will be included in the SMS. 1

-“Removing 1 to 5 mph speeding violations to ensure citations are consistent with current speedometer regulations.” 2

In addition, “the severity weight for speeding violations that do not designate the mph range above the speed limit” will be lowered. 3
Responses

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, who had filed a suit against the FMCSA in July, responded to the changes stating, “We’ve known it’s been a work in progress, and today’s announcement shows that the agency is listening to what truckers have been saying and taking those things into consideration, however, impatience from truckers should not be unexpected when a program has real-life consequences on professionals that know of no other way to do business but safely,” and further emphasized that although it is “a step in the right direction,” it is still not far enough. 4

What do you think of the FMCSA’s changes to the SMS system?  Are they sufficient or do you agree with OOIDA that it is “still not far enough?”

1http://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/About/SMS_Changes.aspx

2http://www.truckinginfo.com/news/news-detail.asp?news_id=77837

3http://www.thetrucker.com/News/Stories/2012/8/24/CSAcargohazmatchangesfinalizedFatiguedDrivingrenamed.aspx

4http://www.landlinemag.com/Story.aspx?StoryID=24072

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Trucking Industry News | Comments Off

Loss of Business and Vicarious Liability Risk Top List of Concerns Over CSA Data

Friday, August 17th, 2012

CSAConcerns over inaccurate data in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s CSA program (which measures a carrier’s and driver’s safety performance in seven BASIC categories including unsafe driving, fatigued driving, driver fitness, controlled substances/alcohol, vehicle maintenance, cargo-related, and crash indicator) has several trucking companies lashing out over loss of business and shipper vicarious liability concerns.

Last month, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association announced that it had filed a suit against the FMCSA stating that the agency has been releasing inaccurate driver records to employers that ultimately lead to negative consequences for drivers.

According to the suit, the FMCSA is accused of releasing driver data to employers conducting pre-employment screening before the driver’s accusation even reaches the court, resulting in sometimes inaccurate data where the driver was not at fault. 1 The group had presented three case examples in which drivers had their violations dismissed in court, however, these violations still remained in the system even after they submitted appeals through the agency’s DataQ, violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act and affecting future business opportunities.

As one carrier noted, “Crashes where the driver was not at fault impact the motor carrier’s score the same as crashes where the driver was at fault.  As a result, a safe motor carrier could have a high crash indicator score as a result of the misfortune of being involved in non-preventable crashes.” 2

OOIDA is urging that the FMCSA “immediately suspend the program so that it no longer damages the reputations and livelihoods of good, safe motor carriers and good, safe drivers.” 2

However, groups including Road Safe America insist that the FMCSA “resist any challenges to remove, limit, or subjectively classify violation or crash data that would result in diminishing the program’s effectiveness,” since “the agency cannot rely on police accident reports to determine ‘non-preventability’ due to there not being a section in the standard police accident report to address or spur an investigation into the question of ‘preventability.’” 2

Carriers acknowledged that more and more shippers are basing their carrier selection on a company’s CSA scores.  If a carrier has a high rating or any alerts, shippers are refusing to conduct business with them, which carriers find out of their control and unfair due to inaccurate/faulty data in the system.

More and more shippers are choosing to vet out their carriers using the CSA system in fear of being wrapped up in a vicarious liability lawsuit, which can lead to multi-million dollar claims.

According to vicarious liability, “Where a shipper acts as principal, and a carrier or broker acts as agent of the shipper, liability for the conduct of the carrier or broker may be imputed to the shipper,” since the shipper had “the right to control the conduct” of the carrier or broker. 3

Up until 2004, the carrier, and only the carrier, was held responsible for “any and all property damage or bodily injury it caused” while freight was in its possession. 3 In 2004, however, this changed in a court case known as Schramm v. Foster, in which a shipper hired a 3pl to transport their freight.  The carrier that was hired to do so by the 3pl had gotten into an accident, seriously injuring two people.  Instead of strictly the carrier being held accountable for the accident, the 3pl was found liable as well since, according to the ruling, the 3pl was responsible for vetting out a driver via the FMCSA’s Safestat database.

As QualifiedCarriers.com informs, “a carrier’s liability insurance will exclude indemnity for independent claims against the shipper,” for example, negligent hiring, so you, the shipper, can be sued as well for your carrier’s actions.

In further detail, shippers are now liable in cases where “the plaintiff can show (1) the carrier caused injury to the plaintiff’s property or person through negligence, recklessness or intentional misconduct and (2) the shipper did not exercise reasonable care or perform proper due diligence when it screened, vetted, and selected the carrier to move the shipper’s freight.” 3

The FMCSA will be reviewing comments on the CSA system and is expected to finalize any changes this month. 2

Has your CSA score had an impact on your business?  As a shipper, do check a carrier’s CSA score prior to doing business?

Check out the TIA’s strategy to reduce 3PL liability at http://www.tianet.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=7912.

1http://www.ttnews.com/articles/basetemplate.aspx?storyid=29742&t=OOIDA-Sues-FMCSA-Over-Driver-Database

2http://www.ttnews.com/articles/basetemplate.aspx?storyid=29962&t=CSA-Doesnt-Accurately-Reflect-Safety-Fleets-Tell-FMCSA-in-New-Comments

3www.qualifiedcarriers.com/why-risk-management.aspx

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Trucking Industry News | Comments Off

Should Mexican Carrier be Granted Access into Program? FMCSA Wants Your Comments

Friday, August 10th, 2012

Last October, Transportes Olympic became the first Mexican carrier granted access into the U.S., ending Mexican tariffs placed on U.S. goods as part of the Mexico/U.S. Cross-border Agreement.

Since then, a total of four Mexican carriers have been granted this authority.  Now, Juarez, Colimia, Mexico’s GCC hopes to be next.

With GCC’s recent passage of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s Pre-Authorization Safety Audit, the FMCSA will now seek comments (the final step in granting the carrier U.S. operating authority).

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) has already expressed its concerns and disapproval of granting GCC access.

One issue, OOIDA President Jim Johnston explains in a letter addressed to the FMCSA’s Anne Ferro, lies in the fact that the GCC failed to properly disclose up to five affiliations on its application, a task in which carriers are required to “disclose affiliations or relationships with carriers registered with FMCSA in the past three years, noting that their affiliates were “not available.” 1

According to the rule, “Incomplete applications are to be rejected from the program, while any willful misstatements or omission of material facts are punishable by imprisonment,” OOIDA explained. 2

The FMCSA, on the other hand, reported that GCC’s affiliates were reviewed and found to be in good standing.

But this was not the only concern that OOIDA reasoned the company should be refused access.  According to the association, GCC’s CSA scores posed a risk to safety with a “Driver Fitness score which far exceeds the threshold for intervention at 87.9 percent.” 1

In looking at the companies CSA score (available at http://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/SMS/Data/carrier.aspx?enc=cNprkJWf/qe2Oh1vcIkU+Q= =), within the last year, GCC had numerous violations which included 53 violations of a Non-English speaking driver, along with violations for a driver not understanding English highway traffic signs/signals and not having a medical certificate.

Additionally, the carrier had a Vehicle Maintenance score of 66.3%, which included 66 different types of vehicle maintenance violations including:

-79 violations of “No/defective lighting devices/reflective devices/projected.” 3

-31 violations of “Axle positioning parts defective/missing.” 3

-71 violations of “Torsion bar cracked and/or broken.” 3

-94 violations of “Failing to secure brake hose/tubing against mechanical damage.” 3

-19 violations of “Tire — tread and/or sidewall separation.” 3

-16 violations of “Tire — flat and/or audible air leak.” 3

FMCSA rebutted OOIDA’s safety concerns, explaining that “the drivers proposed by the carrier for participation in the pilot program were tested for English language proficiency during the PASA and were found to be proficient,” while two of these drivers were required to obtain “additional training to improve their English language proficiency.” 1

gcc

GCC’s safety scores available at fmcsa.dot.gov.

GCC’s safety scores available at fmcsa.dot.gov.

Do you think that Mexican carriers should be allowed to operate in the United States?  Should GCC be granted access into the program?  List your comments below.

Learn how you can check a carrier’s safety scores in 7 easy steps by clicking the video below.

csa

1http://www.thetrucker.com/News/Stories/2012/8/8/FMCSAseekscommentsonGCCOOIDAprotestscarrierscrossborderapplication.aspx

2http://www.landlinemag.com/Story.aspx?StoryID=23987

3http://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/SMS/Data/carrier.aspx?enc=cNprkJWf/qe2Oh1vcIkU+Q= =

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Trucking Industry News | Comments Off

Hearing Ignites Support/Concerns Over Stability Control Systems

Friday, July 27th, 2012

Last May, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would require electronic stability control (ESC) systems on heavy-duty trucks (GVW greater than 26,000 lbs) with a manufacturing year of 2016 (when the requirement would go into affect) and onward.

Although stability control systems are not a requirement as of yet, over the years more and more truck manufacturers and carriers, such as Road Scholar Transport, utilize the systems to prevent rollovers due to unpreventable icy and wet weather conditions and to increase safety on the road, and with stricter regulations, are being utilized to help improve a company’s CSA scores

At a hearing conducted by the NHTSA last Tuesday, attendees both expressed their support as well as concerns towards ESC systems.

Bendix, who has been commercially manufacturing ESC systems since 2005, supports the proposal.  “It is the one stability technology that, in our expert opinion, delivers the performance needed to help commercial vehicle drivers mitigate both rollover and loss-of-control situations,” Bendix’s Fred Andersky states.1

In fact, according to the NHTSA, stability control systems “would help prevent 40-56 percent of untripped rollovers and 14 percent of loss-of-control crashes.” 2

There are two types of available stability control systems: Roll Stability Control (RSC) and Electronic Stability Control (ESC).  Whereas the two systems contain sensors that will reduce the throttle and apply the brakes when necessary to prevent a rollover situation, RSC only detects roll instability while ESC detects both roll and yaw instability.

Bendix directed their support towards the ESC system over the RSC due to “Extensive research and development – along with over seven years of solid customer experience.”1 In addition, ESC’s provide an additional two sensors over RSC’s (which lead to sooner detection), provides greater braking power, and, according to NHTSA, has a 6-7% greater effectiveness overall.1

But with all regulations comes concerns.

The Owner-Operators Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) explained that the cost of installing the devices could prevent companies from adding newer trucks, costing around $1160 per truck and the industry nearly $1 billion within 5 years.2

In addition, attendees at Tuesday’s hearing stressed concern over the certification process noting that the proposal would “put trucks through high-speed maneuvers that can only be done at one facility in the country” and can damage the truck.3

And although Bendix encourages ESC systems over RSC, the American Trucking Associations explains that although ESC has proven its effectiveness over RSC, there needs to be flexibility since “one size does not fit all.”3

The comment period will end on August 21.

For a better understanding of how ESC systems work, check out the video below.

Bendix

Should stability control systems be required on heavy-duty trucks?  If so, do you prefer the Roll Stability Control (RSC) or Electronic Stability Control (ESC)?  List your comments below.

1http://www.thetrucker.com/News/Stories/2012/7/24/BendixsupportsESCasbeststabilitycontrolsystem.aspx

2http://www.landlinemag.com/Story.aspx?StoryID=23928

3http://www.truckinginfo.com/news/news-detail.asp?news_id=77599

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Services, Trucking Industry News | Comments Off

OOIDA Files Suit Against FMCSA Over Inaccurate Driver Records

Friday, July 20th, 2012

OOIDAEarlier this week, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association announced that it had filed a suit against the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration last Friday stating that the agency has been releasing inaccurate driver records to employers that ultimately lead to negative consequences for drivers.

According to the suit, the FMCSA is accused of releasing driver data to employers conducting pre-employment screening before the driver’s accusation even reaches the court, resulting in sometimes inaccurate data where the driver was not at fault. 1

In addition, OOIDA presented three case examples in which drivers had their violations dismissed in court, however, these violations still remain in the system even after they submitted appeals through the agency’s DataQ.  The FMCSA’s refusal to remove these violations from the system “fails to comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, with the Privacy Act, and with mandates governing agency action contained in the previous highway bill, SAFETEA-LU,” OOIDA stated. 1

As a result of inaccurate information being released, drivers are being turned down for jobs.

“By refusing to accept the determination by a court, the FMCSA has in essence made state law enforcement agencies the final judge and jury on all citations.  This can ultimately threaten business opportunities and income,” Jim Johnston, President of OOIDA remarked. 1

And it’s not just the driver that is affected but the trucking company as well.  The group mentioned the impact that the FMCSA’s CSA program has had especially on small carriers remarking, “This is a terrible message to send to a small-business owner, that the survival of their business is beholden to a computer system that is clearly out of touch with reality.” 2

In its suit, OOIDA asks that the U.S District Court for the District of Columbia mandate the FMCSA to remove any data in which a court ruling was not yet determined, those that were found not guilty in court, those that are “not serious driver-related violations,” as well as “enjoin the agency from distributing information without any reference to a dispute and a summary of the dispute, and enjoin the agency from distributing false, inaccurate, incomplete or misleading inspection reports.” 3

Want to view your data and don’t know how?

Carriers can view their safety scores through the following steps:

-1.  Go to the FMCSA website-www.fmcsa.dot.gov

-2.  Click on Safety & Security

-3.  Click on Company Safety Record

-4.  Click on Safety Fitness Electronic Records System

-5.  Click on Company Snapshot

-6.  Enter Carrier’s DOT, MC number, or Name

-7.  Click on SMS Results

Drivers can access their data by the following two ways:

-1.  Requesting the information via the pre-employment screening program site at http://www.psp.fmcsa.dot.gov/Pages/default.aspx

Or

-2.  Requesting the information via the Freedom of Information Act site at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/foia/index.htm

Have a complaint to file but don’t know how?  Easy, just go to DataQ’s site at https://dataqs.fmcsa.dot.gov/login.asp.  You are then given the option to either sign in or register.  Once logged in, a driver is able to file an appeal.

If you are a driver who was effected by this false information and can prove you exceptional driving record, contact Road Scholar Transport today. We are always looking for talented, dedicated, and customer-obsessed drives to join our team.  Visit http://www.roadscholar.com/employment.php today.

Do you agree with OOIDA in that the FMCSA should not post driver data until it undergoes a court ruling?  Do you know of any circumstances where this has happened to a driver in the past?  List your comments below.

1http://www.ttnews.com/articles/basetemplate.aspx?storyid=29742&t=OOIDA-Sues-FMCSA-Over-Driver-Database

2http://m.landlinemag.com/Story.aspx?StoryID=23877

3http://www.thetrucker.com/News/Stories/2012/7/17/OOIDAsuesFMCSAoverallegeddriverdatabaseinaccuracies.aspx

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Trucking Industry News | Comments Off

FMCSA to Revisit Rule Defining Tank Vehicles

Thursday, April 26th, 2012

What should be defined as a tanker vehicle has groups and organizations stirring debate.

A petition led by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) in 2008 prompted the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to redefine tank vehicles in May of 2011.

Whereas tank vehicles previously “did not apply to commonplace fluid bins,” and which drivers did not need a tank endorsement for, the revision surpassed the CVSA’s request, including vehicles that “haul any containers of liquid or gas with a rated capacity of 119 gallons or more as part of an aggregate of 1,000 gallons that aren’t permanently attached to the vehicle.” 1 This includes “dry van trailers hauling empty or filled cylinders and intermediate bulk containers (IBCs) designed for the carriage of liquids and gases.” 2

Considered “too broad” of a definition and forcing more drivers to have tank endorsements on their CDLs, groups such as the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) and American Trucking Associations (ATA), have pointed out the additional expense drivers and carriers will be facing under the revised definition.

As the ATA stated, “Obtaining this endorsement is burdensome, requiring additional training, time off work and substantial costs and fees.” 3

Understanding these concerns, the FMCSA decided on March 30th to reconsider the definition and who is required to hold a tank endorsement on their CDL.  The problem, however, lies with the states who have already adopted the definition.

Although the ruling was set to go into effect on July 8th, states were given until July 2014 to establish the ruling, which poses as a problem.  As the OOIDA’s Joe Rajkovacz states, “If it can be assumed that we’re going to get a relaxed definition, then drivers should not be exposed to being cited for this in the various states that have already adopted the wider definition.” 1

The FMCSA acknowledged that it will be seeking comments on the definition but did not announce a date as of yet.

The ATA and ARA (Agricultural Retailers Association, who is also affected by the tank endorsement since pesticides are transported via IBC containers) suggested the following definition to the FMCSA:

“Tank vehicle means any commercial motor vehicle that is designed to transport any liquid or gaseous materials within a tank having an individual rated capacity of more than 1,000 gallons that is either permanently or temporarily attached to the vehicle or the chassis; or tanks having an individual rated capacity of more than 119 gallons and an aggregate rated capacity of 1,000 gallons or more that are permanently attached to the vehicle or the chassis. A commercial motor vehicle transporting portable tanks that are manifested as either empty or as residue on a bill of lading or transporting an empty storage container tank, not designed for transportation, with a rated capacity of 1,000 gallons or more that is temporarily attached to a flatbed trailer are not considered to be tank vehicles.” 2

How would you define tank vehicles?  Post your responses at http://gsfn.us/t/2tatk.

Are you looking to get your tanker endorsement or are being required to do so?  Take the practice tanker endorsement CDL practice test below (provided by http://www.truckingtruth.com/cdl-test/cdl-test-tanker-endorsement-A.html):

NOTE:  Click on image to view all 15 questions and answers.

click to view

1 http://www.landlinemag.com/Story.aspx?StoryID=23492

2 http://www.croplife.com/article/26733/dot-issues-final-regulations-on-tank-vehicle-definition

3 http://www.truckinginfo.com/news/news-detail.asp?news_id=76184

4 http://www.etrucker.com/ovd/feds-revisit-tanker-definition

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in LTL Freight Quotes, LTL freight, Services, Trucking Industry News | Comments Off

FMCSA Schedules Listening Session over EOBR Driver Harassment after Court Denies OOIDA’s Request

Friday, April 6th, 2012

eobr

The battle continues over whether required electronic on-board recorders (EOBRs) are a gateway for driver harassment or a much needed step towards a safer industry.

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) has become one of the forerunners in the fight against EOBR requirements based on the notion that constant surveillance violates a driver’s right to privacy and can lead to greater safety issues for those drivers pushing to meet their quota, sometimes driving tired.

The Seventh Circuit Court ordered last August that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)’s April 2010 rule that would mandate EOBRs on all trucks used by certain non-compliant carriers with an effective date of June 2012, to be vacated until harassment concerns were addressed.

Although the court granted OOIDA’s request, the association was not that lucky when the court denied their January 19th motion that claimed the FMCSA violated the Seventh Circuit’s decision by failing to address/issue a ruling that would prevent drivers from being harassed, requesting that the FMCSA be ordered to “‘cease and desist from authorizing, sanctioning or in any way encouraging’ using the EOBR to increase hours of service compliance until the agency issues a rule ensuring the devices will not be used to harass drivers.” 1

The FMCSA decided to pose the topic of EOBR driver harassment at the Mid-America Trucking Show, holding a hearing session and explaining that additional sessions will be held. 1

One of these sessions is scheduled for Thursday, April 26th from 1:30 to 5:30 pm PT in Bellevue, WA and will gather perspectives/comments used in creating their Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding the “factors, issues and data it should consider as it addresses the distinction between productivity and harassment: what will prevent harassment from occurring; what types of harassment already exist; how frequently and to what extent harassment happens; and how an electronic device such as an EOBR, capable of contemporaneous transmission of information to a motor carrier, will guard against – or fail to guard against – harassment.” 2

For those who cannot attend the session in person but would still like to listen in/participate, a webcast will be available at 10:00 a.m. ET at http://www.tvworldwide.com/events/dot/120323/.  Attendees are asked to register in advance by going to http://www.tvworldwide.com/events/dot/120323/.

Not very informed about EOBRs?  No problem.  We’ve gathered what groups consider to be the pros and cons of electronic on-board recorders giving you the ability to talk knowledgably about these devices to your drivers/customers.

eobr

click to enlarge

Do you believe that EOBRs are more beneficial or costly?  Post your comments at http://gsfn.us/t/2rbcz.

1 http://www.truckersnews.com/court-denies-ooida%E2%80%99s-eobr-request/?pg=1

2 http://www.truckersnews.com/fmcsa-schedules-session-to-discuss-eobrs-harassment/?pg=1

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Services, Trucking Industry News | Comments Off

TCA Approves Speed Limiter Policy

Friday, March 9th, 2012

TCA

Did you know:  An 80,000 pound tractor trailer traveling at 30 mph has a stopping distance of 100 feet?  Doubling this speed, it would take the same truck traveling at 60 mph 426 feet to come to a complete stop.  With only a 5 mph increase (now traveling at 65 mph) the distance required to stop increases almost another 100 feet to 525.

As you can clearly see, the faster a tractor trailer travels, the greater the number of feet it takes for the truck to come to a stop.  Now consider a truck that is exceeding the speed limit by 5, 10, even 15 mph on the interstate when it suddenly has to come to a stop due to sudden traffic, a construction zone, or a recent accident.  With the additional stopping distance required on speeding trucks, do you think the driver will stop in time?

Earlier this week, the Truckload Carriers Association (TCA) approved a policy stemming from a 2006 petition that would support a limitation on the maximum speed of an 80,000 pound tractor trailer.

According to the policy, commercial trucks would acquire a speed limiter that would restrict them to a maximum speed of 65 mph.

As truckersnews.com states, the “National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) expects to issue an Aug. 12 notice for proposed rulemaking to mandate speed limiting devices for heavy trucks.” 1

The policy plays off of a petition filed in 2006 by Roads Safe America and nine carriers that would mandate all trucks modeled 1990 to present and having a gross vehicle weight of over 26,000 lbs. to limit their maximum speed to 68 mph. 1 The American Trucking Associations filed a similar petition thereafter.

The NHTSA requested comments regarding the petitions in 2007, receiving nearly 3,850 with the majority being in support of the speed limitation.

The TCA is stepping up to promote safety and to give the trucking industry a better image.  According to TCA President Chris Burruss, “I think this is the type of policy that presents the opportunity for our industry to increase our visibility in a positive way. It says that not only do we preach safety, but that we are going to walk the walk.” 2

In addition, Burruss is challenging “other groups that say they are committed to safety to step up as well, such as calling on AAA to support a similar mandate for personal vehicles.” 3

Speed limiters come with many benefits, one of them being cost-efficiency.  By limiting a driver’s speed, and therefore reducing the number of “cowboys” (those drivers constantly running fast) on the road, carriers can cut back on fuel and tire costs.

And of course, safety is a large reason why implementation is being sought for speed limiters.

Take, for example, a few months ago when a tractor trailer overturned in Springfield Pike, PA, skidding nearly 50 feet before causing some serious damage.

According to state police, the driver (identified as 44-year-old Rodney Crow of Kentucky) was speeding when he failed to make the curve, losing control and crashing into a telephone pole, three parked cars, two homes, and another telephone pole. 4

The accident came as no surprise as neighbors indicated trucks traveling at high speeds all the time down the hill, with one driver being killed in the same spot five years ago and both houses being struck in the past.

Fortunately, those families living in the houses that Crow hit were not injured.

But let’s look at a case where a driver’s speed did lead to some heavy consequences.

Last June, John Davis Trucking Company driver Lawrence Valli plowed through the railroad crossings in Nevada, striking two of ten Amtrak railcars headed for California, causing it to catch fire and resulting in six fatalities.  Under further investigation, it was discovered that Valli had an additional two speeding violations, one of which resulting in him hitting a stopped car on Interstate 80 five years back that which resulted in three injuries.

Speed limiters may reduce a driver’s “need for speed,” and in return, reduce the stopping distance, but Road Scholar Transport takes it a step further.

Imagine going 65 mph, which would be the maximum speed if mandated, when the vehicle in front of you decides to suddenly stop or drastically slow down.  You cringe at the shortened distance between you and the forward vehicle, and although you quickly react, brace yourself at the high risk of an accident.

But Road Scholar’s equipped with the Bendix Wingman ACB System on our trucks.

Simply put, ACB will cause our truck to maintain a set distance of 8/10ths of a mile marker behind a forward vehicle.

When cruise control is off, the ACB will deliver a beeping alert, which gets faster and louder when closing in on a vehicle, as well as a visual warning on the dashboard showing how far the vehicle is from our truck.

When cruise control is on, the ACB will automatically reduce the throttle, use the engine retarder, or apply the brakes (delivering 1/3 the vehicle’s power but the driver can apply the rest if needed) in order to maintain a set distance from the vehicle ahead, and thus, make sure that our vehicle remains a comfortable distance in case of sudden stops.

Although some trucking companies already have speed limiters as well as other safety technology on their trucks, Burruss notes that not all groups will support the policy, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) being one of them.

OOIDA argued that “high speed crashes represents a small percentage of all truck accidents,” and therefore, speed limiters were unnecessary; however, the TCA acknowledged that “the mandate would result in a speed differential between trucks and cars that would result in more crashes.” 1

On top of that, groups are arguing over the cost of implementing tamper-resistant speed limiters.  According to truckersnews.com, it would cost around “$35 million to $50 million to develop tamper-resistant devices and a one-time cost of $150 million to $200 million to develop tamper-proof ones…excluding additional costs for maximum speed, tire size and drive axle and transmission gear ratio information.”

Do you feel that the cost to implement these devices is too high or is it worth it?

Here are some top anti-collision technology devices that carriers should implement on trucks to help enforce safety on the road:

-speed limiters

-anti-lock braking systems (Such as the Bendix Wingman ACB System mentioned above)

-electronic and roll stability control systems (Stability control systems, which became available in 2002, are becoming more and more by truck manufacturers and carriers to prevent rollovers and increase safety on the road.  Bendix and WABCO are two main contenders manufacturing this technology.  Stability control systems are expected to save over a hundred of the 700 fatalities per year).

-side view assist (Helps omit a driver’s blind spot)lane departure

-lane departure warning system (Alerts when a driver is beginning to swerve into the other lane)

Do you support mandatory speed limiters?  Why or why?  Have you or anyone you know been affected by a truck driver traveling at excessive speeds?  List your comments below.

click for quote

1http://www.truckersnews.com/feds-set-date-for-stability-control-proposed-rule/

2http://www.thetrucker.com/News/Stories/2012/3/6/TCAboardapproves65mphspeedlimiterspartoftakingoffensiveBurrusssays.aspx

3http://www.truckinginfo.com/news/news-detail.asp?news_id=76295

4http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/dailycourier/s_771926.html

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Services, Trucking Industry News | Comments Off

FMCSA Announces EOBR 2, Questions of Driver Harassment Remain

Wednesday, February 15th, 2012

eobr

In April 2010, a proposal requiring the mandatory use of electronic onboard recorders (EOBRs) for all carriers cited with serious log violations (those who violated hours of service rules at least 10% of the time) was passed with an effective date of June 2012.

Shortly after that, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) proposed that all “interstate carriers that currently use records of duty status (RODS) logbooks to document drivers’ HOS” to install EOBRs as well 1.  Short-haul carriers who utilize timecards, on the other hand, would not be obligated to do so.

That rule would affect half a million carriers and hold a maximum $11,000 fine if violated.

But groups such as the Owner-Operator Independent Driver Association (OOIDA) have been petitioning the ruling for a while, believing that constant surveillance violates a driver’s right to privacy and can lead to greater safety issues for those drivers pushing to meet their quota, sometimes driving tired.

Their arguments paid off and last August, the Seventh Circuit Court had ordered that the rule be vacated until harassment concerns are addressed.

The FMCSA, however, took a new approach to the EOBR ruling yesterday when it removed their initial EOBR mandate that was restricted by the court, instead publishing in the Federal Register a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking they call EOBR 2.

EOBR 2, according to the agency, “would require on-board recorders in virtually all trucks engaged in interstate commerce” 2.

In order to deal with lingering questions over driver harassment, the FMCSA is planning on holding a “series of public listening sessions to hear from drivers” while conducting driver, carriers and vendor surveys, LandLine Magazine notes.  Meeting times can be found on the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee’s website at http://mcsac.fmcsa.dot.gov/meeting.htm#.

Many drivers, however, are already coming forward with their opinions.  As two of them expressed on thetruckersreport.com, “All I hear is company drivers saying how much they like them [EOBRs], they don’t have to PAY for them, I bet it would change their mind if it came out of their pocket” and “Tell me it’s not true. I thought OOIDA was going to protect us from harassment.”

Do you think that if drivers did not have to pay for EOBRs, they would show more acceptance towards the device or do you feel that driver harassment would still dominate driver concerns?

Fleet management systems incorporating EOBR devices are especially looked to be a concern in regards to harassing drivers.  As OOIDA’s Todd Spencer explains, “Minimum requirements for electronic logs do not harass drivers but the fleet management system that could be incorporated into the device could open the door to harassment” 3.

He continued by explaining “On-board recorders can’t measure when a driver is tired, when a driver ever needs to stop or when a driver needs a break, but certainly a fleet-management program can let a motor carrier know their driver stopped,” giving them a “harassment” tool to pressure drivers into working, perhaps when tired 4.

In order to prevent harassment from occurring, the FMCSA is being encouraged to put forth civil penalties for harassment as well as “seek out current regulations that appropriately address any driver complaint that is made” 3.

But while there has been great concern and opposition over the mandatory usage of EOBRs, there are some benefits.  As safety advocacy group Road Safe America notes, the installation of the device would promote safer drivers/fewer accidents by cutting back on the number of tired drivers pushed to go beyond their hours of service by their employer.

So was the case this month when a Pennsylvania trucking company was charged with violating hours-of-service on several occasions.

D.A. Landis Trucking, located in Lancaster, PA, was found to have their drivers maintain two hours-of-service logs, one of which they exposed to the U.S. Department of Transportation and FMCSA and the other in which they kept in a filing cabinet (along with trip sheets) that they hid from the agencies, allowing them to travel longer distances without being fined 5.  The company now “faces up to 5 years probation and a $5.5 million fine” while the owner faces “5 years in prison and a $250,000 fine” 5.

With cases such as these, the FMCSA is pushing forward towards the mandatory use of EOBRs for monitoring a driver’s hours-of service-compliance.

Like one individual notes, “Mandated EOBR’s (for all CMV’s) are coming, like it or not. I expect within 2 years it will be a mandatory part of the truck build process for new trucks by 2016. Trucks will be no different than commercial aircraft with their black boxes. I wouldn’t put is past them to try and implement CVR’s (cockpit voice recorders) either at some point in the future” 6.

We want to hear your thoughts regarding the FMCSA’s EOBR 2. Do you think that mandatory EOBRs are coming?  Do you feel that the device would be more intrusive or beneficial? Are you concerned if EOBR and related device costs are passed on the shipper?   List your comments below.

click for quote

1 http://www.etrucker.com/apps/news/article.asp?id=86197

2 http://www.landlinemag.com/Story.aspx?StoryID=22355

3 http://www.truckersnews.com/fmcsa-to-move-on-recorders-hours/

4 http://www.truckflix.com/news_article.php?newsid=7732

5 http://www.truckflix.com/news_article.php?newsid=7725

6 http://www.thetruckersreport.com/truckingindustryforum/truckers-news/168196-ferro-fmcsa-2012-will-mandate-eobrs.html

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Trucking Industry News | Comments Off

What You Need to Know about the FMCSA’s New Cell Phone Law for Truckers

Wednesday, February 8th, 2012

cell phoneIt was a typical day on the road.  John had just finished delivering his last shipment for the day and was headed back to the terminal.  Wondering what his wife wanted him to pick up for dinner that night, he grabbed his phone and dialed her number.  After a lengthy back and forth discussion over chicken or beef, they made their decision and John assured his wife he would be home within the next hour or so.  But what started as an 60 minutes turned out to be much longer.

For when John hung up from his wife, he put his phone down on his seat like he always did.  While rounding a sharp turn, his cell phone slid off the seat and landed onto the floor.  Reaching down to pick it up, John had no choice but to take his eyes of the road for a few seconds.  Those few seconds resulted in his truck swerving into the next lane, causing a three vehicle collision.

This incident, unfortunately, happens all the time which is why it is important to know the risks of cell phone usage while driving.  As John dialed his wife’s number, he did not realize that at that moment, his risk of having an accident increased by six times.  As he talked to her, his concentration level decreased by 37% and ranked in at the same level as those having a blood alcohol level of 0.08.  And although John managed to duck two bullets, he was not able to avoid the third fact…reaching for his phone would increase his risk of a crash by three times (Stats provided by distraction.gov).

But the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is hoping to prevent these risks from occurring through the establishment of new phone usage rules.

In 2010, the FMCSA prohibited texting for commercial drivers.  Not soon later, in early 2011, the rule was extended to include intrastate HAZMAT drivers.  But prohibiting just texting was found to be not enough.

Effective as of January 3rd, interstate truck drivers, as well as all HAZMAT drivers, are prohibited to use hand-held cell phones while operating their truck.

Strict penalties have been put into place to enforce the new ruling.  According to www.fmcsa.dot.gov, any driver caught in violation could face a maximum fine of $2,750 with carriers who allow their drivers to operate a vehicle while using a hand-held phone facing a fine of $11,000.  Those drivers issued “two or more serious traffic violations” will have their CDL suspended.

Although drivers are banned from utilizing hand-held phones while driving, the rule permits hands-free devices and single button functions.

According to Transport Topics, a driver is allowed “to reach for a phone, ‘provided the device is within the driver’s reach while he or she is in the normal seated position, with the seat belt fastened.’”  The site also explains that a driver cannot make a call while temporarily stopped on the road, but can pull over to do so.

Although carriers are prohibited to allow their driver to use a cell phone while operating their vehicle, facing a hefty fine if their driver is caught in violation, they are not required to have a written policy or training program (http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/about/other/faq/cellphone-ban-faqs.aspx).  As the FMCSA simply puts it, “The carrier is responsible for its drivers’ conduct.”

And many groups/individuals are not happy about it.  The American Trucking Association (ATA) is seeking changes in employer liability, notes the group’s Abigail Potter.  According to the ATA, “In an industry that has seen several of its unionized carriers fail in the past decade, this outright promotion of union interests is a threat to the hundreds of thousands of carriers that remain vital to the country’s economic recovery,” states an article on cvta.org.

But they are not alone.  As the National Federation of Independent Businesses’ Karen Harned argues, “Just when we thought we had seen it all from the NLRB, it has reached a new low in its zeal to punish small-business owners,” (http://www.cvta.org/member-news/associate-member-news.html?start=20).

And others agree with her, noting that the rule would force shipments to be delayed and affect business since drivers would have to take additional time away to pull over every time they need to utilize the phone.

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) explained that although handheld cell phones are a distraction, so are hundreds of other devices, including electronics used by drivers each day, such as the CB radio, nsc.org states.

Another big argument addresses the fact that although the FMCSA is cutting back on hand-held distractions for truck drivers, that does not account for all of the noncommercial drivers who are using these same distractions.

So far, only 9 states ban hand-held cell phone usage and 35 states prohibit texting while driving, according to the Governors Highway Safety Administration’s website.

But will prohibiting hand-held phones really make a difference?  Let’s look at it this way, last year over 3,000 accidents that resulted in fatalities occurred due to a distracted driver (http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/feb12/advocacy4.asp).

Take the Arkansas 16-year-old who passed away last August from a distracted driver.

The girl was walking back to her car after an accident she was involved in with a pick-up truck within a construction zone.  A tractor trailer driver, who was talking on his cellular device, had dropped his phone, and as he reached down to pick it up, hit the teenager, resulting in the fatality.

Not only is the driver but the carrier being recently charged for wrongful death by the teenager’s family, even though the driver violated the carrier’s phone policy.

Do you oppose or support the new law?  Should hands-free devices be prohibited as well? Do you think that carriers should face an $11,000 fine or do you believe that number is too harsh?

Finally, where do you believe the law should stop or start?  What about in dash navigation and entertainment systems you need to touch and take your eyes off the road?  Are they okay?  List your comments below.

click for quote

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Trucking Industry News | Comments Off

« Older Entries