Mark Schremmer
About two decades ago, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration attempted to study the causes of large truck crashes.
It’s fair to say that the truck crash study was a disappointment.
As Land Line Managing Editor Jami Jones pointed out in a recent analysis, the study didn’t determine who was at fault or really why the crash happened. Instead, it focused on pre-collision events rather than consequences.
Jones recalled one peculiar example in the previous Large Truck Crash Causation Study.
“A truck turns across the path of an oncoming car at an intersection. The critical event is the truck’s turn across the path of the other vehicle. The truck had the turn arrow, observed the oncoming vehicle and assumed that the oncoming vehicle would stop, which proved to be incorrect. (Right-of-way, which is captured separately, does not necessarily determine the critical event, because the collision may still be avoidable.) The critical reason is ‘false assumption of other road user’s actions.’”
So, instead of focusing on the car that ran the red light, the example turned the spotlight on the truck driver for assuming that other vehicles would follow traffic laws. Seriously?
No doubt, we needed a redo.
The 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act included a provision that required a “Study of Commercial Motor Vehicle Crash Causation.” This past August, the FMCSA published a notice and request for comments about its plans to conduct another study.
“FMCSA intends to collect data over the course of two years with a target start date of early 2026,” the agency wrote in the notice. “Collection and receipt of data may continue beyond the 2-year study period based on state-specific agreements and the renewal of this information collection request. At the conclusion of the study, a final report and supporting database with aggregate, anonymized results will be published.”
OOIDA comments
On Oct. 27, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association filed formal comments in support of the new study looking at Class 7 and Class 8 trucks.
OOIDA President Todd Spencer wrote that the new study gives the agency an opportunity to drastically improve upon “the failed structures and methodologies” of the initial Large Truck Crash Causation Study.
Spencer added that the study has the potential to help identify key driver, vehicle, motor carrier and environmental factors that may contribute to fatal crashes involving heavy-duty trucks.
“Moving forward, we are hopeful the Crash Causal Factors Program will be completed in a meticulous manner and can guide effective safety improvement policies and programs,” Spencer wrote.
Overdrive Staff
- Watchers credited several factors — from inflation in equipment and medical costs to nuclear verdicts and pressure to settle suits — for an unprecedented rise in trucking insurance premiums.
- The FTC has concluded an investigation into truck OEMs’ Clean Truck Partnership with CARB; Nebraska’s AG dropped a suit challenging the partnership.
- Truck and trailer parts distributor TruckPro recently donated $115,000 to four charity organizations that it supports.
Numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show insurance premiums for the commercial vehicle sector are at all-time highs — likely no surprise to owner-operators and small fleets.
Overdrive’s sister dealer publication Truck, Parts, Service recently offered an update on how soaring insurance costs are affecting truckers’ equipment purchases. In reporting from TPS’s Beth Colvin, analyst Avery Vise of FTR Transportation Intelligence credited several factors, including inflation, for rising trucking insurance costs.
“If you think about even liability insurance, hospitalization costs have gone up, the cost of vehicles have gone up,” Vise said. “If you’re in an accident and you damage a car or total a car, the cost of that goes up. The lost income goes up. You have the nuclear verdict issue, which is kind of its own issue, but you also have the fact that the actual cost to replace things to compensate has gone up.”
Insurance underwriters are also anticipating further inflation as a result of any future tariffs on trucks and truck parts, particularly from Mexico and Canada, which has led to some insurance increases since January, Colvin reported.
“They are expecting the spare parts to go up a lot because of the embedded tariffs,” even if those tariffs aren’t active yet, and even if not every replacement part is exposed, said Thom Albrecht, CFO and chief revenue officer for Reliance Partners.
Beyond nuclear verdicts, litigation in general is also spiking insurance costs, as verdicts and case settlements below “nuclear” levels are still higher than they have been in the past.
“Maybe five to seven years ago, a broken leg and lost wages might have represented $80,000 to $100,000,” Albrecht said. “We see the same claim settle [today] for $300,000 to $400,000.”
As a result, owner-operators and fleets are holding onto equipment longer than they maybe traditionally would have.
As reported earlier this year, there are ways for owners to ensure they are making the best case for themselves when it comes time for their insurance renewal.
Land Line Media
Artificial intelligence is becoming more and more prevalent in everyday life; the trucking industry is no exception.
Autonomous vehicles are being deployed expeditiously, while states have utilized AI technology for truck parking systems, platooning and more.
Arkansas is the latest state to announce an AI-driven technology for trucking purposes.
State officials said a $2.7 million project will modernize trucking operations in one of the state’s most critical freight corridors.
ARDOT will partner with the Arkansas Highway Police and Quarterhill on a system that will feature weigh-in-motion sensors capturing truck weights at highway speeds and real-time detection of unsafe tires.
License plate recognition, DOT checks and Intelligent Roadside Operations Computer (IROC) will verify vehicle credentials instantly.
Message boards will alert drivers who need further inspection.
“Partnering with Quarterhill allows us to bring cutting-edge tools to two of Arkansas’ most important freight gateways,” Jeff Holmes, Chief of Arkansas Highway Police, said. “These upgrades will strengthen enforcement, improve roadway safety, and keep goods moving efficiently across our state and beyond. This initiative is a win for our economy, drivers, and communities.”
The system will be deployed at two key entry points, eastbound Interstate 40 in Lehi, Ark., and on southbound Interstate 55 in Marion, Ark.
These highways see some of the highest truck volumes in the nations, a news release said.
“This project demonstrates how technical innovation and collaboration can solve real-world challenges in freight management and strengthen Arkansas’ position as a national leader in freight movement,” Quarterhill CEO Chuck Myers said. “By working hand in hand with ARDOT and the Arkansas Highway Police, we are ensuring that Arkansas’ highways remain safe, efficient, and capable of supporting growth in interstate commerce for decades to come.”
Washington state DOT has also recently partnered with Quarterhill on a truck parking initiative.
That system is designed to help truck drivers quickly locate available parking at rest areas along Interstate 5.
“This project is a prime example of how public agencies and private partners can work together to improve highway safety,” said Matt Neeley, state traffic systems development engineer for WSDOT. “Reliable access to truck parking information not only supports safer freight movement but also strengthens the resilience of Washington’s transportation network for all road users.”
Taking responsibility for safety does not merely involve assigning a title; it involves fostering accountability, expertise, and a culture in which each employee takes responsibility for their own safety and the safety of others.
Jane Clark
Key takeaways
- Safety ownership varies by organization size, with larger companies often having dedicated safety managers and smaller ones relying on HR.
- HR involvement has benefits and challenges, as it can streamline safety initiatives while lacking the technical expertise for comprehensive oversight.
- A balanced approach that combines HR’s administrative role with a safety manager’s technical oversight can effectively promote safety as a core organizational value.
Safety is one of the most critical concerns in our industry, whether it’s protecting our drivers on the road, safeguarding our technicians in the shop, or ensuring the well-being of other motorists. It’s a multifaceted responsibility that demands consistent attention to safe driving habits, rigorous asset maintenance, and strict adherence to regulatory standards. Yet even with these measures in place, accidents can and do happen. When they do, the question arises: Who in the organization truly owns safety?
At a recent NationaLease meeting, Glenn Hebert, president of Cox & Smith Risk Management, emphasized that ownership of the safety function often depends on the size and structure of the organization. While larger companies may benefit from a dedicated safety manager, smaller organizations often delegate safety responsibilities to the human resources department because of their limited resources.
When HR owns safety
In smaller operations, HR often integrates safety into broader employee welfare initiatives. This approach can streamline communication and embed safety into the overall employee experience. HR’s involvement can foster a unified focus on well-being, which in turn boosts morale and reinforces a culture of care. It also offers a practical solution for resource-constrained companies, eliminating the need for a separate safety role.
However, this model is not without its drawbacks. HR professionals may lack the technical expertise required for comprehensive safety oversight, which can result in compliance gaps or missed opportunities for proactive risk mitigation. Additionally, with HR juggling multiple responsibilities, from recruitment to benefits administration, safety may be unintentionally deprioritized.
When a safety manager owns safety
In contrast, larger organizations often appoint a dedicated safety manager to oversee safety protocols across departments. This role brings specialized knowledge, ensuring that safety regulations are met and that best practices are consistently applied. A safety manager can also cultivate a proactive safety culture, identifying risks before they escalate and implementing targeted training programs.
While this model enhances safety outcomes, it does come with increased costs. Moreover, if responsibilities are not clearly delineated, overlaps with HR or operations can lead to confusion and inefficiencies. Still, for high-risk industries, the investment in a dedicated safety professional is often justified by the reduction in incidents and liabilities.
Striking the right balance
Ultimately, the decision of who owns safety should be guided by the organization’s size, risk exposure, and operational complexity. In some cases, a hybrid model may be the most effective, where HR handles the administrative aspects of safety, while a safety manager oversees technical compliance and execution. Regardless of the structure, what matters most is that safety is not treated as an afterthought but rather as a core organizational value.
Taking responsibility for safety does not merely involve assigning a title; it involves fostering accountability, expertise, and a culture in which each employee takes responsibility for their own safety and the safety of others. Whether through HR, a safety manager, or a collaborative approach, the true owner of safety is the organization itself.
Washington, D.C. – The American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) today released new research on causes and solutions for the current gaps in diesel technician training, recruitment, and retention. Qualified techs are indispensable to a safe and efficient trucking industry, yet 65.5 percent of shops were understaffed in 2025 with an average of 19.3 percent of positions unfilled. The research synthesized findings from techs, shops, and training programs.
Most techs (61.8%) enter the career without any formal training, requiring an average of 357 training hours and $8,211 in trainee wages to prepare them. Even with formal training, more than 30 percent of training program graduates were unqualified in 20 core skill areas, according to diesel shops. In 7 of these core skill areas, each additional hour of training improved tech qualification by more than 16 percent, and as such additional training hours in these areas can improve outcomes. In 6 core skill areas, however, each additional hour of training improved tech qualification by less than 8 percent, highlighting the need for critical curricula upgrades.
The most common barrier reported by techs at the start of their career was the high cost of acquiring their own tools (29.0%), followed by a lack of prior tech knowledge (28.0%), insufficient pay (16.1%), and poor shop mentorship (10.8%). Though pay and schedules were the two aspects of employment that most attracted techs to the trucking industry, techs also ranked the pursuit of more interesting work (ranked 3rd) and greater variety of work (ranked 5th) as vitally important.
Forty-four percent of trucking techs were considering other tech jobs, with automotive and agriculture the most common alternative industries. Dissatisfaction with pay, interactions with management, and variety of work were the aspects of employment that had the most statistically significant association with techs choosing to look for a new job versus staying at their current job. The research also evaluated techs’ perspectives on other industries to identify how trucking’s comparative strengths and weaknesses match up to techs’ varying priorities.
“With a lack of qualified techs and stiff competition from other industries, tech employment in the trucking industry is not keeping up with demand, especially when it comes to retaining entry-level technicians just entering the workforce,” said Robert Braswell, Executive Director of ATA’s Technology & Maintenance Council. “ATRI’s report helps trucking shops identify not only where they and their training program partners can improve but also how to better leverage our industry’s existing strengths.”
The full report is available on ATRI’s website here.
Scopelitis
There has been recent news about increased enforcement related to ELDs, highlighting fraudulent activities that are being uncovered in the field by enforcement. Additionally, an increasing number of false logs are being cited roadside, and for the first time since STC can remember, driver Out-Of-Service (OOS) rates are eclipsing the seven percent mark thus far in 2025. What is leading to this increase in violations and fraud, and what is being done about it?
At a recent CVSA Workshop, its Driver Committee had a spirited discussion on the topic of ELD fraud and tampering. As a part of the discussion, Oregon enforcement personnel made a presentation of some of the fraudulent ELD activities they have uncovered in their investigative work. The committee discussion that ensued noted that in some cases, drivers, carriers, and third-party service providers are fabricating Hours of Service (HOS) records to show an ELD file with no HOS violations, and in many cases, even falsifying electronic supporting documents to match the ELD file. In some cases, entire days are being manipulated, making it impossible for inspectors to determine when actual driving or rest periods occurred.
These discussions have resulted in CVSA taking two actions:
- Developing an inspection bulletin for roadside inspectors that explains the difference between a typical false entry in a record of duty status, such as a driver claiming off-duty time while fueling their vehicle, and an ELD file that has been manipulated; and
- Adding a section to the North American Out of Service Criteria related to ELD tampering that will go into effect in April 2026.
In addition, the NTSB recently brought this issue to light with the release of a report from a 2022 fatal crash in Williamsburg, Virginia. The NTSB determined that the truck driver’s crash was due to fatigue from excess driving time and lack of sleep opportunity. They found the motor carrier had created fictitious driver accounts (often referred to as ghost drivers) for its’ ELDs that allowed drivers to exceed federal hours-of-service regulations. STC covered the details in this case in a recent TrueNorth Truck Thought podcast with Shawn Currie from the NTSB.
For its part, FMCSA has ramped up its efforts to combat and support ELD enforcement. They continue to revoke ELD providers’ certifications and have several ongoing investigations into ELD providers that are not complying with the rules. The FMCSA ELD registry currently has 1,025 devices registered.
The hours-of-service regulations are central to safety and are directly related to a motor carrier’s bottom line. They are under constant scrutiny as a result. So, when the economic environment is difficult for trucking, as it has been for the last two years or so, it stands to reason that some motor carriers may elect to circumvent HOS rules to enable them to move more freight. Additionally, when freight rates skyrocketed during the COVID-19 freight rebound, there was a surge in new motor carriers entering the business, attracted by the higher rates, with most being small or one-truck operators. However, since that surge, rates have fallen significantly, making things more difficult for many motor carriers. Unfortunately, as rates fall, the pressure to find creative ways to run more miles or deliver more freight increases.
These circumstances, along with enforcement becoming smarter and more resourceful at detection, are leading to an uptick in HOS violations, falsification, and fraud. This increase in enforcement activity is leading to more FMCSA certification revocations of non-compliant ELDs. In fact, to date, FMCSA has revoked the certifications of 59 ELDs. As many of our friends are aware, STC dedicates a significant amount of time to collaborating with motor carriers and ELD providers on Hours of Service and ELD regulatory compliance. We have direct knowledge and experience with what is happening both with industry and enforcement. This uptick in fraudulent activity and this experience tell us to remind ELD customers:“buyer beware.”
What remains to be seen is how the government will choose to address these issues. In Canada, they are revising their ELD Technical Standards based on their experiences with ELDs to date. In its recently published Unified Agenda, the FMCSA has an NPRM on ELD Revisions scheduled to be released in May 2026. STC is aware that the Canadian authorities and FMCSA are discussing this, and the question remains whether the US will follow the Canadian lead and establish an ELD Certification Program and harmonized standards, or if it will take a different route. FMCSA also recently announced it will be launching two pilot programs that will explore potential modifications to the HOS rules to include examining the impacts of adjusting the sleeper berth splits or pauses to the 14-hour clock. So, we have a bit of a conflict brewing here, with the Agency trying to balance the industry’s need for flexibility while also cracking down on problem actors. Hopefully, the end result will be a win for safety.
