Mike Stanton
As we all know, a fleet’s safety rating is an evaluation of whether the fleet is complying with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) safety fitness standard. Fleets can receive one of three ratings from the Department of Transportation — satisfactory, conditional and unsatisfactory. A satisfactory rating is a reflection of a company’s reputation but can also impact insurance costs and the ability to get new business.
The ratings are given following a detailed audit by FMCSA inspectors. They evaluate a number of things including vehicle maintenance records, roadside inspection results, drug and alcohol tests for drivers and more. The purpose of the ratings is to ensure that fleets stay in compliance with federal safety regulations which are designed to reduce the risk of an accident.
Drivers play a key role in whether a carrier is deemed satisfactory and there are several reasons for that.
Drivers are your first line of defense in ensuring that the truck is in top operating condition. They are tasked with competing pre- and post-trip inspections that are used to assess the condition of the truck before it goes on the road and when it comes back to the yard. During these inspections, drivers touch every part of the truck and check off any items they find to be defective. When they find a problem, they then file a Driver Vehicle Inspection Report (DVIR) that details what the issues are. The DVIR is then turned into fleet management who is responsible for seeing that the problem gets corrected before the truck goes back on the road.
Drivers also are responsible for ensuring that cargo is properly loaded and secured even if they did not do the actual loading and they are required to check the security of the load during the pre- and post-trip inspections and periodically during transit.
There are also strict drug and alcohol rules that govern drivers and fleets. These are mandated by DOT to have a random driver drug and alcohol testing program.
All this means that the priority has to be placed on making sure drivers are well trained and have the support they need to shoulder this big responsibility. If fleet managers expect their drivers to have safety as a top priority, they better demonstrate their own commitment to safety. They can do this by making sure that issues raised on DVIRs are addressed immediately whether the fleet does its own maintenance or outsources it. Drivers need to know that their input is taken seriously when it comes to the conditions of the vehicles they operate.
In addition, fleet managers should periodically conduct training refresher courses on the proper way to complete a pre- or post-trip inspection as well as on proper cargo securement techniques. And there should be periodic reminders about safe driving practices including the fleet’s policy on distracted driving.
Drivers do more than ensure that loads get delivered on time. They are a key component of safe fleet operations. Make sure you are giving your drivers the tools and support they need to ensure you are a DOT Satisfactory Carrier. You can’t achieve that status with them.
SJ Munoz
With efforts to implement autonomous vehicles increasing, where does safety factor in?
Missy Cummings, director of the Autonomy and Robotics Center at George Mason University, joined Trucking with OOIDA to discuss the topic.
“If not designed correctly, automation or autonomy can lead to some catastrophic events,” Cummings said. “While I was a fighter pilot in the 1990s and working with some of the most advanced automation, there was a problem with mode confusion then.”
Cummings’ recent research took aim at claims by autonomous vehicle developer Waymo, which has said its vehicles are safer than human drivers.
“I wanted to take a fresh look at the data that was coming to light through NHTSA and the California Waymo program,” Cummings said. “When you look at that data, it’s actually quite clear that Waymo’s claims are not true. They are more on par with rideshare drivers, who are having accidents four-to-six times more often than your average driver. That’s pretty concerning. But it’s not a direct and fair comparison. Waymo uses remote operators, unlike the average driver. So it’s not really fair to compare. I wanted people to understand this. We should not start making these comparisons, because they are not the same.”
The data did reveal some conclusive evidence.
“On any given month, Waymo is experiencing almost two times more rear-end collisions than your average driver,” Cummings said. “It’s quite clear there is a problem in self-driving cars with the computer vision system. Even (with) their augmented sensors like LiDAR, they will see things that aren’t there. This causes aggressive hard-braking maneuvers, much harder than your average driver is making. It’s one thing for a Toyota Sentra to slam on its brakes going 65 mph, but completely different for a tractor-trailer to do it. If we can’t figure out how to address the phantom braking problem, self-driving trucking is DOA.”
Artificial intelligence is not reasoning or thinking like a human, Cummings added.
“This is why you see videos of driverless vehicles going the wrong way down the street,” she said. “They struggle to get out of the situation they’re in. Fortunately, these types of instances are happening at a much lower rate than things like phantom braking.”
The goal for Cummings in her research is to find the sources of the problems and a viable solution.
“When the training models are developed, human annotators will typically cut off the tip so that the true shape does not get learned,” Cummings said. “The jury is still out on how much we can improve the training, or are we just going to have to use a different kind of sensor? It’s hard to make these technologies scale to operate at low and high speeds. I think Waymo has done a good job of showing how operations can be conducted, particularly at suburban speeds. I don’t want to take away from them. But it’s not clear that their solution is going to scale for highways.”
Cummings pointed to the situation with Aurora’s autonomous vehicle rollout as evidence.
“That (Aurora) failed rollout is exactly what I’m talking about,” Cummings said. I’d like to see this technology succeed. I run a robotics lab. I’m here to make the technology work. It’s not clear the theoretical underpinnings are going to work. If we can’t make sure these vehicles can detect object problems at highway speeds and act accordingly, self-driving trucking is never going to work. It’s also going to severely limit the self-driving car.”
Mark Schremmer
For the past five years, broker transparency has been a hot topic in the trucking industry. There have been protests, petitions and a proposed rule from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
But some may still be wondering why truckers have been so focused on the issue. In two recent email dispatches, the OOIDA Foundation breaks down why broker transparency matters and how the lack of it can negatively affect owner-operators and small-business trucking companies.
What is broker transparency?
Regulation 371.3 requires brokers to keep records of each transaction. Even more, each party to an individual transaction has the right to review the record.
However, many brokers get around the regulation by requiring carriers to waive that right. The Transportation Intermediaries Association called FMCSA’s proposal to strengthen existing broker transparency regulations “un-American.”
Why is it important?
According to analysis from the OOIDA Foundation, broker transparency is about much more than just seeing the quoted rate on a load.
“It’s about hidden charges, fines and claims brokers impose without proper documentation,” the OOIDA Foundation wrote. “Small carriers rarely take the time – or have the luxury – to scrutinize every clause of dense broker-carrier agreements.”
The lack of transparency becomes apparent when brokers submit claims for freight loss without evidence.
“Small carriers frequently enter contracts under economic pressure, unaware of provisions stacked against them,” the Foundation wrote. “By the time they realize the imbalance, it’s often too late to avoid serious financial harm.”
According to the OOIDA Foundation, truckers should:
- Read broker-carrier agreements thoroughly and refuse clauses that eliminate broker transparency.
- Support advocacy efforts pushing for stronger enforcement of existing transparency regulations.
- Demand clear documentation before accepting deductions or responsibility for “Over, Short and Damaged” claims.
These steps are important because there are often “hidden risks” contained in broker contracts, the Foundation said. For instance, some broker contracts may require carriers to waive rights granted under the Carmack Amendment – a federal law providing standard protections for cargo loss and damage.
“Cargo insurance policies may not cover liability that goes beyond federal standards, leaving carriers exposed to unexpected financial risks,” the Foundation wrote.
Another real-world scenario highlighted by the Foundation is when a carrier has a breakdown from an unexpected equipment issue. A broker could declare breach of contract, repower the load and bill the original carrier for costs. A lopsided contract could mean that the carrier goes unpaid for the miles driven, while also being placed on the hook for additional expenses.
What’s being done about it?
In response to a petition from the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, FMCSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in November 2024. The proposal generated 6,900 comments from the public, including thousands from truck drivers.
“Ignoring 371.3 regulations has directly led to an asymmetry of information between carriers, shippers and brokers,” OOIDA wrote in its comments. “An asymmetry of information not only creates an inequitable playing field between carriers and brokers but jeopardizes carriers’ ability to know if they are hauling fair-value loads.”
OOIDA Executive Vice President Lewie Pugh relayed the problem to a Senate committee in July.
“Unfortunately, brokers have a long history of deliberately and blatantly circumventing transparency requirements,” Pugh wrote in his submitted testimony. “In order to protect against fraud and scams, we tell our members that they should closely examine documentation and verify that all information is legitimate. If brokers are allowed to continue evading federal transparency regulations, it makes it difficult for carriers to determine who is adhering to the rules or who may be trying to scam them. In short, practices that undermine trust and transparency will make it harder to determine who is a bad actor.”
In late June, the U.S. Department of Transportation announced that it would “address unlawful brokering” as part of its Pro-Trucker initiative. It is unclear whether that effort will include moving forward with FMCSA’s broker transparency proposal. We should have a better idea when the DOT’s next regulatory agenda is released.
Andrew King, director of the OOIDA Foundation, said that fair broker practices are crucial to the wellness of the nation’s supply chain.
“The trucking industry relies heavily on small carriers and owner-operators,” King said. “Ending exploitative broker practices is not just fair – it’s essential for the health and sustainability of the entire supply chain. To do so, we first need to raise awareness of these unfair practices, while simultaneously warning carriers to read the fine print before signing any contract.”
(49CFR part 383.133 (c) (3)Skills tests:
(1) A State must develop, administer and score the skills tests based solely on the information and standards contained in the driver and examiner manuals referred to in § 383.131(a) and (b).
(2) A State must use the standardized scores and instructions for administering the tests contained in the examiner manual referred to in § 383.131(b).
(3) An applicant must complete the skills tests in a representative vehicle to ensure that the applicant possess the skills required under § 383.113. In determining whether the vehicle is a representative vehicle for the skills test and the group of CDL for which the applicant is applying, the vehicle’s gross vehicle weight rating or gross combination weight rating must be used, not the vehicle’s actual gross vehicle weight or gross combination weight.
(4) Skills tests must be conducted in on-street conditions or under a combination of on-street and off-street conditions.
(5) Interpreters are prohibited during the administration of skills tests. Applicants must be able to understand and respond to verbal commands and instructions in English by a skills test examiner. Neither the applicant nor the examiner may communicate in a language other than English during the skills test.
FYI – During my mock audits I find motor carriers accepting a driver’s CDL in lieu of a road test – BUT the driver was NOT road tested (By the State issuing the CDL or previous motor carrier.) in the CMV and associated equipment the motor carrier intends to assign the driver as required by 49CFR part 391.31 and 391.33. )
Enforcement of English proficiency
- Starting June 25, 2025, the FMCSA has begun enforcing new guidance regarding the English Language Proficiency (ELP) rule.
- Roadside inspections will include a two-step ELP assessment:
- Step 1: A conversational interview in English where the driver must respond to official inquiries without the use of interpreters or translation tools.
- Step 2: If the driver passes the interview, they will be assessed on their understanding of highway traffic signs.
- Failure to pass either step can result in a citation and immediate out-of-service status for the driver.
In summary, while the possibility of taking the written portion of a CDL exam in a language other than English may exist in some states, the federal regulations emphasize the importance of English proficiency for commercial drivers, particularly during roadside inspections and for understanding traffic signs and signals.
Based on FMCSA regulations, specifically
49 CFR § 391.11(b)(2), all Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) drivers operating in interstate commerce must be able to “read and speak the English language sufficiently to converse with the general public, to understand highway traffic signs and signals in the English language, to respond to official inquiries, and to make entries on reports and records.”
While the knowledge test portion of the CDL exam might be offered in languages other than English in some states (like Spanish in Texas), the driving skills test itself requires the applicant to be able to understand and respond to instructions in English from the examiner. In the case of hearing-impaired individuals who are granted an FMCSA exemption from the hearing standard, they must still demonstrate proficiency in reading and writing English to meet the requirements for obtaining a CDL
The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance each year holds a Brake Safety Week to bring attention to brake-related issues.
Brake Safety Week is August 24-30. Commercial vehicle enforcement will be focusing on the importance of brake safety. This year, the focus is drums and rotors.
Brake drum and rotor issues can affect the braking efficiency of a truck. On top of that, broken pieces of drums and rotors could become dislodged and pose a danger to other vehicles.
During the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance annual Brake Safety Week, law enforcement personnel in Canada, Mexico and the U.S. conduct commercial motor vehicle inspections, educate drivers and motor carriers about the importance of brake safety, and provide brake inspection and violation data.
CVSA-certified inspectors will conduct routine commercial motor vehicle inspections throughout the week, focusing on brake systems and components.
Commercial motor vehicles found to have brake-related out-of-service violations, or any other out-of-service violations, will be removed from roadways until those violations are corrected.
Some jurisdictions will use performance-based brake testers (PBBT) to assess the braking performance of vehicles and submit PBBT-specific data to the Alliance. CVSA will collect and analyze all data and report the results publicly later this year.
Get Ready for Brake Safety Week With These Heavy Duty Trucking Articles:
We’ve pulled together 10 of our best articles and other content about brake maintenance to help you prepare for Brake Safety Week.
- Brake Maintenance, Done Right
- Why do Brake Defects Put so Many Trucks Out of Service?
- How to Measure and Improve Your Truck Brake Maintenance Program
- How to Maximize Air Disc Brake Life
- Are Your Techs Installing Air Disc Brake Calipers Correctly?
- 4 Questions About Brake Violations
- 9 Tips for Spec’ing, Maintaining & Inspecting Truck Brakes
- How to Get More Out of Commercial Driver Vehicle Inspections
- Don’t Fear the Blitz: How Truckers Can Own CVSA’s International Roadcheck
- Watch below: Are Your Brakes Ready for CVSA’s Brake Safety Week?
https://youtu.be/4jaCbeN_3b8
Trucking, Automotive Industries Saw $1.4 Billion in Jury Awards Last Year
Noel Fletcher
The trucking industry remained a top legal target last year as multimillion-dollar verdicts against U.S. companies expanded into “thermonuclear” territory of at least $100 million, a new report said.
The “Corporate Verdicts Go Thermonuclear” study from Marathon Strategies found that the trucking and automotive industries faced a combined 15 multimillion-dollar verdicts last year totaling jury awards of more than $1.4 billion.
“In 2024, 135 lawsuits against a corporate defendant resulted in a nuclear verdict — those that surpass $10 million — the largest number of such cases Marathon has identified in a single year since 2009, and a 52% increase over 2023,” said the company, a New York City-based public relations firm whose specialties include crisis and issues management. “The total sum of these verdicts reached an eye-popping $31.3 billion, a 116% increase over 2023.”
Also skyrocketing were so-called thermonuclear verdicts that last year jumped 81% to a new high of 49 compared with 27 in 2023. Two of them came from the trucking sector.
In one, $450 million in punitive damages was levied against trailer manufacturer Wabash in connection with a 2019 fatal accident in which a motor vehicle struck the back of a nearly stopped 2004 Wabash trailer. This year, a St. Louis court lowered the amount to $108 million.
In another case, a $160 million verdict was rendered in 2024 by an Alabama state jury against Daimler Truck North America in a product liability case involving a driver who became quadriplegic after a 2022 rollover accident. In the wake of the verdict, Daimler said, “We stand by the safety of our products and our safety testing (including cab crush) meets and exceeds all industry standards in place in the U.S. and worldwide. We have strong grounds for appeal and intend to pursue this action.”
The study noted that nuclear and thermonuclear verdicts were handed down in 34 states nationwide last year, compared with 27 in 2023. Most of the verdicts were ordered in state courts, with $20 billion in awards across 85 cases. In federal courts, nuclear verdicts worth $11 billion were awarded in 50 cases.
The five states with the highest monetary tallies in 2024 were Nevada ($8.4 billion), California ($6.9 billion), Pennsylvania ($3.4 billion), Texas ($3 billion) and New York ($2.1 billion).
The study from Marathon Strategies found that the trucking and automotive industries faced a combined 15 multimillion-dollar verdicts last year totaling jury awards of more than $1.4 billion. (Marathon Strategies)
Of interest to trucking is the effect comprehensive tort reform legislation that advanced in Florida has had on the legal system there. Spearheaded in 2023 by the Florida Trucking Association and state lawmakers, this legislation has resulted in Florida dropping to No. 10 in the nation for nuclear verdicts. It had been No. 2 from 2009 to 2022.
Anticipating a change, trial attorneys filed 280,122 new civil cases a few days before Gov. Ron DeSantis enacted a law in March 2023. In enacting the legislation, DeSantis and other lawmakers who backed the bill slammed frivolous lawsuits, predatory practices and billboard attorneys.
The report linked visible advertising campaigns from trial attorneys as a contributor to the rise in nuclear verdicts.
“With the growth of attorney advertising — which now eclipses $2.4 billion each year — aggressive parties plaster American televisions with ads that seek plaintiffs for mass tort litigation and amplify denigrating claims,” the report stated.
Marathon cited pharmaceuticals, technology hardware, storage/peripherals, hotels, restaurants/leisure and oil/gas as other sectors that drew lawsuit attention last year. “Overall, 55 industries were the subject of a nuclear verdict in 2024, compared to 48 the year before,” the report said.
“Marathon’s research has found that these sectors are among the top targets of nuclear verdicts, mainly in wrongful death and negligence cases,” the study concluded. “While many factors have influenced this growth, Marathon’s research identified corporate mistrust; social pessimism; erosion of tort reform; and public desensitization to large numbers as among the most important. Surveys of corporate counsels indicate that reaching pretrial settlements has become more difficult due to increasing legal costs, regulatory changes and high settlement demands.”
