Truckers News Staff
FinditParts
Safety is a primary concern for many truckers when visiting truck stops. In fact, 80% of truckers in a recent survey said they would pay extra for services at truck stops where they felt safe.
The survey conducted by FinditParts also found that the younger the trucker, for the most part, the less safe they felt at truck stops. However, the majority of truckers do feel safe at truck stops, according to the survey’a results.
The online survey found:
- 59% of Gen Z (drivers born between 1997 and 2012) feel safe at truck stops
- 78% of Millennials (drivers born between 1981 and 1996) feel safe at truck stops
- 86% of Gen X (drivers born between 1965 and 1980) feel safe at truck stops
- 84% of Boomers (drivers born between 1946 and 1964) feel safe at truck stops
Truckers are also willing to pay extra for services at truck stops they consider safe and clean. Fully eight in 10 respondents said they would pay at least 5% more for services at a truck stop where they felt safe. Two in five would pay up to 25% or more.
The survey also found that women drivers are twice as likely as men to feel unsafe sleeping at a truck stop. Over a quarter of women said they’d feel “somewhat unsafe” sleeping overnight at a truck stop, and another 24% said they’d feel “very unsafe.” Women are 12% more likely to pay for a hotel than stay at a sketchy truck stop than men, according to the survey’s findings.
Tyson Fisher
Although workplace fatalities among truck drivers are trending downward, the job of a trucker remains one of the most dangerous in the United States.
That’s according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ latest Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries report, which breaks down the number of workplace fatalities for 2023. As in previous years, truck drivers and other transportation workers rank among the highest in fatalities of all private sector employees.
Workplace fatalities claimed the lives of 823 heavy and tractor-trailer truck drivers in 2023. That was down significantly, by 12%, compared to the previous year. It also marked the fewest workplace deaths among truckers since 2016, when 786 truck drivers died on the job. The vast majority of those deaths were transportation incidents. Only 7% of fatalities were the result of contact incidents, with 6% caused by exposure to harmful substances/environments.
When drilling down to specific occupations, more truck drivers died while working than did workers in any other job. In a distant second, there were 318 workplace fatalities among construction laborers.
Zooming out, driver/sales workers and truck drivers accounted for the most workplace fatalities by civilian occupations, with nearly 1,000 deaths, followed by grounds maintenance workers (226) and miscellaneous agricultural workers (146). Per 100,000 full-time equivalent workers, the truck driver fatality rate of 26.8 ranked seventh. Leading occupations in fatality rates are logging workers (98.9), fishing and hunting workers (86.9) and roofers (51.8).
More broadly, workers in transportation and material-moving occupations represented the occupational group with the most workplace fatalities, with nearly 1,500 deaths. Fatalities in that group dropped nearly 8% from 2022, largely the result of the 12% decrease among truck drivers.
Transportation and material-moving workers also experienced the second-highest fatality rate per 100,000 workers at 13.6. Farming, fishing and forestry occupations’ workplace fatality rate of 24.4 was the highest.
By sector, transportation and warehousing had the second-most total workplace fatalities at 930 deaths, down 12% from 2022. The construction sector’s 1,075 fatalities were the most in the private sector.
Across all sectors and occupations, transportation incidents were the most common type of fatal event, accounting for more than a third of all workplace fatalities. Those incidents made up 72% of fatalities within the transportation and warehousing sector. Among those, two-thirds were roadway collisions, and nearly half occurred on an interstate, freeway or expressway.
In 2023, a worker died every 99 minutes from a work-related injury. Overall, workplace fatalities in the private sector went down 4% in 2023 to nearly 5,300 deaths.
Mark Schremmer
The U.S. Department of Commerce is hitting the accelerator on a rulemaking to address security risks involving connected vehicles.
Less than two months after the comment period ended for a proposal to prohibit transactions involving connected vehicle technology by China or other “foreign adversaries,” the Department of Commerce has already drafted a final rule.
The department’s Bureau of Industry and Security submitted a final rule to be reviewed by the White House Office of Management and Budget on Dec. 17, 2024. The quick turnaround appears to be an attempt to get a final rule published before a new administration takes control later this month. The gap between a proposal and final rule often can be a year or more.
However, the White House still needs to approve the final rule before it can be published in the Federal Register and take effect. As of the morning of Thursday, Jan. 2, that had not happened.
The expedited rulemaking process also could be attributed to the importance of the issue. The agency said the proposal, which was unveiled in September 2024, is aimed at addressing “undue or unacceptable” risks to national security.
“Today’s vehicles contain a myriad of connected components that provide greater convenience for consumers and increase road safety for both drivers and pedestrians,” the agency wrote. “However, the incorporation of progressively more complex hardware and software systems that facilitate these features has also increased the attack surfaces through which malign actors may exploit vulnerabilities to gain access to a vehicle.”
The proposal would prohibit transactions involving Vehicle Connectivity System hardware and covered software designed, developed, manufactured or supplied by persons owned by, controlled by or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of the People’s Republic of China, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region or the Russian Federation.
The agency proposed regulations that would:
- Prohibit Vehicle Connectivity System hardware importers from knowingly importing into the United States certain hardware for connected vehicles
- Prohibit connected vehicle manufacturers from knowingly importing into the United States completed connected vehicles incorporating certain software
- Prohibit connected vehicle manufacturers from knowingly selling within the United States completed connected vehicles that incorporate covered software
- Prohibit connected vehicle manufacturers who are owned by, controlled by or subject to the jurisdiction of China or Russia from knowingly selling in the United States completed vehicles that incorporate covered hardware or software
The proposal received about 100 comments.
The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, which is supportive of the rulemaking, used its comments to ask for more oversight of autonomous vehicles.
“OOIDA has raised safety and cybersecurity concerns regarding the development of autonomous vehicles as the technology has been deployed in recent years,” the Association wrote in formal comments. “We believe this Department of Commerce proposal can help implement necessary federal oversight for autonomous vehicle safety and protect private personal and vehicle information.”
OOIDA also called out the lack of transparency regarding autonomous vehicles and the link between some of these companies and foreign countries. For instance, a former TuSimple executive was accused of failing to disclose his relationship with a Chinese autonomous hydrogen-powered truck company.
It is unknown how much time it will take for the connected vehicle final rule to clear the White House. Additionally, it is unknown if the agency’s submitted final rule has changed since the initial proposal.
“This rule marks a critical step forward in protecting America’s technology supply chains from foreign threats and ensures that connected vehicle technologies are secure from the potential exploitation of entities linked to the PRC and Russia,” said Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security Alan F. Estevez. “The Department of Commerce will continue to take a proactive approach to address this national security risk before Chinese and Russian suppliers proliferate within the U.S. automotive ecosystem. Our goal is always to safeguard our national security.”
“Our regulatory focus remains steadfast on enhancing the security of our nation’s critical technologies,” said Elizabeth Cannon, Executive Director of OICTS. “Without this proposed rule, we would be leaving an open door for foreign adversaries looking to compromise one of our most important assets, our cars. BIS is committed to safeguarding our technology supply chains from foreign adversary manipulation.”
Today’s proposed rule would prohibit the import and sale of vehicles with certain VCS or ADS hardware or software with a nexus to the PRC or Russia. The VCS is the set of systems that allow the vehicle to communicate externally, including telematics control units, Bluetooth, cellular, satellite, and Wi-Fi modules. The ADS includes the components that collectively allow a highly autonomous vehicle to operate without a driver behind the wheel.
The rule would also prohibit manufacturers with a nexus to the PRC or Russia from selling connected vehicles that incorporate VCS hardware or software or ADS software in the United States, even if the vehicle was made in the United States.
The prohibitions on software would take effect for Model Year 2027 and the prohibitions on hardware would take effect for Model Year 2030, or January 1, 2029 for units without a model year.
The proposed rule is implemented under BIS’s ICTS authorities, as provided for under Executive Order 13873, “Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain.” EO 13873 allows the Department of Commerce to issue regulations that establish criteria by which particular technologies may be included in EO 13873’s prohibitions when transactions involving those technologies (1) pose an undue or unacceptable risk of sabotage to or subversion of ICTS in the United States; (2) pose an undue risk of catastrophic effects on the security or resiliency of U.S. critical infrastructure or the digital economy of the United States; or (3) otherwise pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of U.S. persons.
This NPRM incorporates public feedback submitted in response to an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on connected vehicles published by BIS on March 1, 2024. BIS is seeking additional public comment on today’s proposed rule from all interested parties.
Additional Information:
The text of the proposed rule is available here. BIS invites public comments, which are due 30 days after publication. Stakeholders are encouraged to submit their feedback by the deadline to ensure that the final provisions reflect broad industry and public input. You may submit comments for the rule by identified docket number BIS-2024-0005 or RIN 0694-AJ56. All comments must be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal (https://www.regulations.gov) or emailed directly to connectedvehicles@bis.doc.gov with “RIN 0694-AJ56” included in the subject line.
Mark Murrell
The human toll of a collision should never be underestimated – even if there are no physical injuries, the mental stress can be enormous. However, during that experience, drivers still have responsibilities and need to follow some best practices when it comes to accident scene reporting. One of the ways you can help is by making sure they’re clear on what they need to do after you’ve established that they are safe.
Some of those driver responsibilities include stopping and securing the cargo and reporting the incident to the authorities. However, one of the things that sometimes gets missed is how much a driver should document for the company’s own files (and the insurer’s) so that the event can be understood by everyone who gets involved later. With that in mind, here is a documentation cheat sheet you can use when developing a response plan for your drivers to follow.
Note: This covers a small (but extremely important) requirement when a crash occurs, but it shouldn’t take priority over other obligations the safety manager or crash response team has – including finding out if the driver is okay, notifying loved ones, and so on. Consult with your executive team or legal counsel for a fuller view of these responsibilities.
Reinforce with your drivers that they should record:
Basic information
This may seem too basic to be needed, but remember that the event will be pieced together later on by people who were not there, so having your driver get even the most basic information down can be crucial:
- Driver information should include their name, address, phone number, date of birth and license number, expiration date, and state or province of issue.
- Carrier information should include their DOT or CVOR number, insurance policy details, company name, address, and phone number.
- Vehicle info includes the year, make and model, color, unit numbers for the tractor and the trailer, and plate numbers.
- And don’t forget to include the time and location of the event!
Incident details
A standard accident report will ask for information like the make, model, and color of the other vehicles involved, as well as personal information about the other drivers and any passengers. It will also help if your driver can write down, while the memory is still fresh, an account of vehicle movements during the incident, including direction, points of impact, traffic signals, and vehicle movements such as making a turn, backing up, skidding or weaving, and more. Note: it will also be important to detail your driver’s own status, including on-duty status and driving hours, distance traveled on the current trip, speed at the time of the incident, and any warning signals they gave or witnessed, such as brakes, indicator lights, horn, etc.
External factors
People looking at the incident much later on (especially insurers) will be keen to know about the road conditions at the time of the incident. Be sure your drivers take note of its physical condition, like how wet or slippery it is, the presence of debris or other obstacles, its grade, curve, and whether the road has potholes or cracks. They should also take note of the traffic conditions – were people trying to merge, was there a railway crossing, was traffic heavy or light, and what was the posted speed limit? Make sure they describe the weather conditions, including how sunny or dark it was, whether there was fog, sleet, or other precipitation, and, in case of darkness, what the road lighting was like.
Legal and other players
While the police may be busy collecting information themselves, it’s important for the driver to take down details about the authorities involved—including badge numbers, who contacted them, the agency the police belong to, whether anyone was charged, and what the charge was (as well as arrests, if any). There will also likely be towing and cleanup vehicles present – make sure to keep detailed notes on these! Unscrupulous towing companies will sometimes exaggerate the number of vehicles present or the time spent, so making clear notes about this can help later on if there is a dispute about exaggerated fees.
Photograph…everything?
The point of all of this is that more information is better when it comes to figuring out what happened. But even if everything else is written down in great detail, there may be some critical scene information that’s not on this list. Encourage your drivers to take photos of the scene (respectfully, of course). Even just a panoramic shot of everything can sometimes reveal details that might have otherwise been missed or forgotten.
Again, this is not to suggest that worrying about documenting the scene of a crash should take precedence over looking out for your driver’s well-being. But navigating a crash incident is a bit of a long game—you’ll be dealing with stakeholders sometimes for years after the fact, so if you can help your drivers remember everything they need to do once they are safe, you’ll be able to deploy resources more effectively when you’ve got the information you need.
Mark Schremmer
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is moving forward on changes to its Crash Preventability Determination Program.
The agency proposed changes to the program in April 2023. A notice that is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on Wednesday, Dec. 4 finalizes the proposed changes, responds to comments and outlines steps for implementation.
FMCSA’s crash preventability program currently reviews 16 specific collision types and modifies information in the agency’s Safety Measurement System to distinguish not-preventable collisions from preventable ones. From May 1, 2020, to Dec. 30, 2022, more than 39,000 requests for data review were submitted to FMCSA. About 72.5% of the submitted requests were eligible, meaning they were one of the 16 crash types. About 96% of the eligible collisions were found to have been not preventable.
The agency plans to add four crash types to the program “to expand the (program) to review even more crashes each year for preventability.” The additional crash types are expected to double the size of the program.
The four new crash types in the proposal:
- A commercial motor vehicle was struck on the side by a motorist operating in the same direction.
- A commercial motor vehicle was struck because another motorist was entering the roadway from a private driveway or parking lot.
- A commercial motor vehicle was struck because another motorist lost vehicle control. FMCSA reviewed many police accident reports that included this information, but these accidents were ineligible for the program under the current crash types.
- Any other type of crash involving a commercial motor vehicle, where a video demonstrates the sequence of events of the crash.
The Crash Preventability Determination Program process will remain initiated by a request from the motor carrier, driver or authorized representatives. The burden is on the submitter “to provide compelling evidence” that the crash is eligible and not preventable. Drivers or carriers are encouraged to submit videos, photos or court documents to support the request.
A full list of proposed crash types can be found here.
The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association supports the expansion of the crash preventability program.
In comments filed in June 2023, OOIDA said the changes would help carriers by adding crash types that can be deemed not preventable.
“For far too long, these nonpreventable crashes have unnecessarily discredited safety ratings for drivers and motor carriers,” the Association wrote in comments signed by President Todd Spencer. “We concur with FMCSA’s decision to further expand the Crash Preventability Determination Program by modifying currently eligible types of crashes.”
Although OOIDA supports the additional crash types, it also said that the “burden should now fall on the agency, rather than the submitter, to overturn qualifying crashes.” OOIDA added that transferring the burden would help keep safe, experienced motor carriers in business and that the stats prove motor carriers shouldn’t have to wait months for nonpreventable crashes to be removed from their record.
In the latest notice, FMCSA said that the burden will remain on the motor carrier or driver.
“The crash data fields that are submitted to FMCSA in the Motor Carrier Management Information System are a subset of the information that is available on the police accident report,” the agency wrote in the notice. “FMCSA does not have direct access to police accident reports or other supporting documentation about a crash.”
FMCSA did not announce when it will begin accepting submissions under the new crash types. The agency plans to publish that information on its website.
