Increased insurance premiums have driven trucking companies to increase deductibles and amounts of retention.
Couple that with low margins. That makes safety and risk impactful on profits.
ATRI’s Operational Costs of Trucking for 2024 found that the total cost of risk, premium plus “out of pocket” is $0.135/mile; $5.43/hour. The impact is demonstrated by being seen from the perspective of the average profit margins.
Average non-LTL revenue? $3.707/mile. And operating margin? $0.111/mile and $4.471/hour. Less than the total cost of risk.
Want to increase profit? Increase safety and decrease risk.
Investment opportunity in our premium truck parking fund, addressing one of the most pressing needs in the U.S. supply chain. With only one parking space for every 11 trucks, demand for secure parking is at an all-time high.
Our single fund offers land and business operations:
✔ 33.9% expected IRR with 2 Year MInimum Exit on Land
✔ 16.6% expected IRR with 5 Year MInimum Exit on Truck Parking Operations
✔ Recurring revenue from long-term contracts
✔ Minimum investment: $500K
If this aligns with your portfolio, Contact Us
Tyson Fisher
In 2020, Rep. Mike Bost, R-Ill., introduced a new bill that would devote funding for the creation of more truck parking. Five years later, he’s not giving up.
On Thursday, Feb. 27, Bost – along with Reps. Angie Craig, D-Minn., Pete Stauber, R-Minn., and Salud Carbajal, D-Calif. – reintroduced the Truck Parking Safety Improvement Act. If signed into law, the bill, HR1659, would dedicate $755 million to expanding parking capacity.
“I grew up in a family trucking business,” Bost said. “I know firsthand how difficult, and oftentimes dangerous, it can be when America’s truckers are forced to push that extra mile in search of a safe place to park. By expanding access to parking options for truckers, we are making our roads safer for all commuters and ensuring that goods and supplies are shipped to market in the most efficient way possible. This is a matter of public safety for everyone, and I’m committed to do all I can to drive this legislation over the finish line.”
Right out of the gate, the Truck Parking Safety Improvement Act has 26 co-sponsors. That includes a bipartisan, 50/50 split of 13 Democrats and 13 Republicans, ranging from Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., representing urban Kansas City to Rep. Jeff Hurd, R-Colo., who represents mostly rural Western Colorado.
Bost first introduced the bill in March 2020.
The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association worked closely with Bost to develop meaningful truck parking legislation that would garner support throughout the industry. OOIDA President Todd Spencer thanked Bost and Craig for continuing their efforts to address the nationwide parking crisis.
“Lack of safe truck parking has been a top concern of truckers for decades, and as a former truck driver, I can tell you firsthand that when truckers don’t have a safe place to park, we are put in a no-win situation,” Spencer said. “We must either continue to drive while fatigued or out of legal driving time or park in an undesignated and unsafe location like the side of the road or abandoned lot. It forces truck drivers to make a choice between safety and following federal hours-of-service rules. The current situation isn’t safe for the truck driver, and it’s not safe for others on the road.”
This will be Congress’ fourth chance to address truck parking by dedicating money that is already available to projects that increase capacity. The bill was first introduced in March 2020 in the 116th Congress. Although it died in committee with 14 bipartisan co-sponsors, the bill has gained more traction each year it was reintroduced.
In the 117th Congress, the truck parking bill picked up 39 co-sponsors and cleared the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. However, it never made it to a vote by the full House.
The last version of the bill attracted 53 co-sponsors – 27 Democrats and 26 Republicans – and had a similar fate. It passed the committee with a 60-4 vote but never reached the full House.
The four committee votes against the parking bill were Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky.; Scott Perry, R-Pa.; Chuck Edwards, R-N.C.; and Eric Burlison, R-Mo.
The Senate version, spearheaded by Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., appeared in the last two Congresses. Although it picked up only two co-sponsors in 2022, more than a dozen signed on last year.
The Truck Parking Safety Improvement Act has enjoyed broad support from the trucking industry. Last year, more than a dozen trucking industry stakeholders led by OOIDA urged the House to move forward with the bill.
“Accessing safe and secure truck parking is an integral part of daily life for professional drivers, many of whom travel the nation’s interstates for weeks at a time,” the coalition told House leadership. “Members of Congress from every corner of the country and across the political spectrum have supported HR2367 because they understand their constituents are affected by truck drivers’ ability to meet necessary rest requirements and operate as safely as possible.”
Riky Von Honaker
As a follow up to last month’s article by Michael Nischan on FMCSA’s approved SMS changes, I am providing an assessment of the impact I believe these changes will have. These changes have the potential to significantly impact your scores, both positively and negatively.
I have categorized these changes into three groups: positive, neutral, and negative, based on my assessment. My opinions will primarily focus on the potential impact of these changes on lawsuits, broker interactions, and insurance premiums.
It’s crucial to remember that the CSA/SMS system’s primary objective is to identify carriers that require increased oversight, not to serve as the sole determinant of a carrier’s safety fitness by the FMCSA. Regardless of my opinion on each change, everyone in the industry should have a basic understanding of how this new system will function.
Positive Changes
- Violation grouping – As an example, during a roadside inspection you receive two violations “393.9T and 393.9TS” on your trailer. Because the turn signal is out on the trailer that violation would be marked “Out of Service.” Under the current scoring system both violations would be scored. However, under the new scoring system, as both violations are in the same group, “Lighting – Driver Observed”, only one violation would be scored. In this case the turn signal, as it is the more severe. I feel this will normalize some of the variances between inspections.
- Transferring all “Operating While Out of Service” violations to the “Unsafe Driving” Basic. This makes sense, as it is more of an Unsafe Driving issue rather than a Vehicle Maintenance, Hours of Service, or Driver Fitness violation when drivers continue to operate the vehicle after being placed out of service by an officer or operating while ill, fatigued or impaired.
- Splitting the Vehicle Maintenance Basic. Vehicle Maintenance violations will now be categorized by whether the FMCSA determined the driver should have observed the violation. There will be a new Basic labelled “Vehicle Maintenance: Driver Observed”. Currently there are 219 violations, of the 1,077 available, that would not qualify as driver observed, and those would remain in the Vehicle Maintenance Basic. While I think this is positive, I am curious as to how the determination is made. There are many violations not included in the driver observed category, that – as a former driver – I feel a driver should notice during a typical pre-trip inspection.
Negative Changes
- All violations having the same point value. The proposed system assigns 1 point to all violations, except for CDL Disqualifying violations or violations resulting in an out-of-service order, which are assigned 2 points.I strongly disagree with this approach. The current point values reflect the severity of the violation. For instance, a false log violation or driving beyond permitted hours of service should carry a higher weight than minor infractions like failing to update the trailer number or sign the log.
Under the new system, these violations would be treated equally if they didn’t lead to an out-of-service order. This is particularly problematic given recent CVSA OOS criteria changes. False logs and hour-of-service violations may no longer result in an out-of-service order under certain conditions, even when they pose significant safety risks.
- Proportionate Percentiles. Safety Event Groups have always been an issue when a carrier is near the top or bottom of that group. For example, if you have a measure of .50 for Hours of Service with 100 driver inspections, your Basic would be at 50% — well under the 65% threshold. However, if you have the same measure with 101 driver inspections, your Basic would jump to 74%. This would also increase your ISS score from 46 optional to 86 inspect. The new system states it would correct this issue by using “benchmark medians.” If it normalizes the jumps, I am behind this 100%.
- Removal From Percentage Calculation. Carriers that have not had a violation in the last 12 months would not be used in the calculation of percentiles.
There are some other changes that would only affect certain carriers. The current maximum average miles per vehicle to allow for a utilization factor is 200,000 miles per vehicle, which would increase to 250,000 miles per vehicle.
Angel Coker Jones
Driver- and road-facing cameras, speed limiters, collision mitigation systems, lane departure warning systems, lane-keeping/lane centering systems, telematics and ELDs. These technologies are all measures many fleets have implemented to increase safety, but a large portion of the truck driver population would disagree that these are beneficial in reducing safety risks.
In fact, in CCJ’s 2024 What Drivers Want survey, more drivers said these systems reduce rather than improve driver safety.
When asked which technologies have the greatest impact on reducing driver safety, 67% said speed limiters, while 54% said driver-facing cameras, and 46% said ELDs. When asked which technologies have the greatest impact on improving driver safety, 61% said forward-facing cameras, while 31% said collision mitigation and lane departure warning systems.
Most drivers have an aversion to any technology in the cab at all with many comments from drivers sharing similar sentiments: “Technology has ruined the industry for drivers;” “Just let me drive the truck, don’t need all of that crap;” “All of this stuff listed is a distraction.”
“We are supposed to be professionals and all the intrusive apparatus that is listed takes the mental aptitude away from the driver,” said Jack Mancini, a driver at Latigo Trucking out of South Carolina.
This attitude can often lead to drivers attempting to disable technology.
“When drivers hate the intervention, they tend to ignore it, or they tend to tamper with the system, both of which are bad,” said Stefan Heck, founder and CEO of AI-powered safety platform Nauto.
It’s all about buy-in, said Dudy Markus, vice president of aftermarket at Cipia, a provider of computer vision AI for driver and cabin sensing, including ADAS and driver fatigue and distraction detection.
He said the key to adoption lies in addressing both practical and psychological barriers, ensuring that safety systems not only perform effectively but also resonate with the priorities of their users.
That was the case with forward-facing cameras.
As previously noted, a large portion of drivers (61%) consider forward-facing cameras to have the greatest impact on improving driver safety, though some noted in comments that it doesn’t actually improve safety so much as it exonerates drivers in the event of a lawsuit. This while 69% of respondents said driver-facing cameras are invasive, and 4% said there should be an option for drivers to disable them in certain situations.
Mark Murrell, president of Carriers Edge, a provider of online driver training for the trucking industry, previously told the CCJ that fleets once experienced the same criticism of road-facing cameras as they are now with inward-facing cameras, but now it has driver buy-in because perception has shifted.
“Drivers didn’t want anybody watching the road or watching what was happening, but then, all of a sudden, we started seeing all of these dashcam videos showing up on YouTube, and it became a way for drivers to share the crazy stuff they were dealing with on a day-to-day basis,” Murrell said. “Then we started seeing more and more stories about how the camera footage had exonerated drivers in crashes, and it was becoming kind of a safeguard and all of a sudden the driver perspective changed completely.”
It’s the same for all technology, Markus said.
He said for safety systems to gain traction, the perceived value must go beyond life-saving benefits. Though, in theory, that should be enough, he said in practice, adoption increases when these systems align with broader incentives.
For fleets, that looks like cost savings, efficiency improvements, regulatory compliance and risk mitigation. For drivers, that looks like bonus checks because of these results.
Markus said once drivers see the benefits and develop confidence in the system, they’re much less likely to attempt to disable it.
Fleets may experience drivers tampering with technology like cameras, from tossing an article of clothing over the lens to “accidentally” breaking the instrument. When it comes to other technology that drivers don’t perceive as an invasion of privacy, they may attempt to deactivate it simply because it can be annoying.
“Poor solutions with high false positives lead to alert fatigue, which is one of the primary reasons drivers attempt to override safety systems,” Markus said. “Systems must demonstrate their value in enhancing driver safety by providing accurate, timely feedback.”
In instances of unreliable technology, Markus said disabling it might benefit safety by reducing driver distraction, but disabling a quality system that prevents unsafe behaviors like unbuckled seatbelts or texting while driving can have life-threatening consequences.
“Loud alerts for objects on the passenger side can scare drivers into jerking the wheel. And following distance buzzers dramatically increase anxiety,” Terrence Hyden, a driver out of Orlando, said in response to the What Drivers Want survey.
Markus said if the initial system configuration properly accounts for varying driving situations, individual driver adjustments are typically minimal, and fleets get more buy-in from drivers.
He said a comprehensive safety system goes well beyond a simple dashboard camera.
“It should be automotive-grade and adaptive per fleet-specific needs, combining ADAS with DMS (driver distraction detection) to provide both real-time alerts and driver analytics that support ongoing skill improvement,” Markus said. “When all these elements are in place, instances of drivers disabling safety technology become negligible.”
