When did you last review and revise your company’s driver/vehicle safety policy? What is it’s “expiration date”?
Creating an effective, enforceable safety policy to govern how drivers drive, how vehicles get maintained, what to do in the case of a crash and so on is vitally important for a host of reasons:
1. Education: you need to communicate your expectations as a management team so that the drivers know what to do and how to do it.
2. Compliance: your standard provides a benchmark for enforcement of minimum acceptable performance.
3. Anticipates contingencies: well-crafted and communicated policies enable managers to deal with the vast majority of situations that may arise during a day, week or month without having to seek guidance from above while providing an escalation path for true exceptions.
One thing that the best policy can’t become is “timeless” — the world changes around us continually and as new technologies are introduced and case law is established our policies need to be reviewed to determine whether these changes warrant a revision to the policy.
Setting an artificial “expiration date” on driver/fleet safety policies would be one way to assure that the review is scheduled, budgeted and completed on a periodic basis. Assuming that policies will be reviewed and revised “on the fly” as changes occur may be fruitless as the demands of the moment may rob even the most dedicated manager of the time needed to complete the review/revisions in a timely fashion. By scheduling the review in advance, the manager can take a deliberate approach to the review.
Self-Audit Against an Industry Standard
One way to assure that any policy review is comprehensive would be to conduct a self-audit of the existing policy against a published industry standard or benchmark. The ANSI Z15.1 “sets forth practices for the safe operation of motor vehicles owned or operated by organizations” and was most recently revised in 2012. The standard covers seven key areas including “Definitions, Management, Leadership and administration, Operational environment, Driver considerations, Vehicle considerations, Incident reporting and analysis.“
While the standard may not cover all details of a specialty operation with unique exposures to loss, it does provide a baseline for comparison. For the vast majority of fleets, it will cover those critical areas that are found in most driver/fleet safety policies.
Fleets who discover gaps in their current policy can document why the gap exists and whether the gap should be filled or ignored (i.e. the fleet doesn’t engage in that type of operation or the scenario will not present itself in the context of the fleet’s current or anticipated operations, etc.)
Paul Farrell
CEO
SafetyFirst Systems
Parsippany, NJ
paulf@safetyfirst.com
Lord knows I heard this a million times from mom and dad when I was growing up. Being the mischievous child that I was, it was well justified. But one thing I can always remember wanting was a real reason. It wasn’t even that I ultimately disagreed with my parents that I shouldn’t be doing whatever it was they asked me not to, but I wanted to know why. “Because I said so” just didn’t seem to cut it for me.
Now, as a parent of a three year old and four year old boy, I catch myself saying this to them often. They are still very young, so when I say “because I said so”, if often works. And when it doesn’t, they just keep asking why because that’s what a three and four year old do I guess. I like to think that when they are a little older and I instruct them to do something and they question why, hopefully I will be able to give them substantive reasons (but probably not because it is a rite of passage after all to be able to say “because I said so”).
But in the world of trucking, trucking companies, and our drivers, we are all adults and “because I said so” just doesn’t fly. Sure, it’s still used often because that is the nature of the employment relationship at times, but we should strive to offer drivers something more, something substantive to back up the requests we make of them. We should particularly strive to offer drivers something substantive as to why CSA scores matter to the company and to the driver, and why drivers should always be seeking to improve their behaviors to avoid roadside violations. Sure, “because I said so” is a valid reason when the company is the one paying the drivers and experiencing the consequences of CSA violations, but offering something more can have a positive impact on company safety.
Next week I will discuss some of the issues with CSA scores and how to exclude their admission in lawsuits. But for the moment, CSA scores are out there, available, and the FMCSA ain’t budging! So what can we do to improve CSA scores in hopes that their admission is a non-event on the day of reckoning? We can train our drivers to know what is at stake.
So what should your drivers know:
• When CSA was originally implemented, it was feared that there would be a mass layoff of drivers due to the occurrence of roadside violations affecting CSA scores. However, a 2011 survey by ATRI revealed that the impact on driver hiring has been far greater than the impact on driver firing. Less than 5% of the surveyed carriers reported terminating drivers as a result of CSA scores. However, almost 75% of the surveyed carriers reported stricter hiring standards due to the increased scrutiny, such as the use of the Pre-Employment Screening Program. Drivers should be made aware that their performance could ultimately lead to their dismissal from a company, but more importantly, that it may drastically affect their ability to gain employment in the first place if their performance is poor.
• According to Transport Topics, liability insurance is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain and afford due to CSA. For carriers that are doing “ok” on their loss history and one or less CSA alert, they are still seeing increases of 5% on premiums. However, for those not doing “ok” and with two or more CSA alerts, premium increases of 15-20% are incurred. And what this means for companies is it becomes increasingly harder to hire drivers with a loss history because of increased insurance premiums. Insurance underwriters look at how a company is managing risk and the results of the company, which ultimately means they are looking at CSA scores.
• Speaking of dismissal, a 2012 survey by Transport Capital Partners found that 63% of carriers changed how sub-performing driving is monitored in order to comply with CSA enforcement. Most carriers have driver handbooks, and most handbooks have procedures in place for dealing with driver performance issues. It is important for the company to follow their policies and enforce performance discipline strictly and consistently. And it is of greater importance that drivers know that policy will be strictly enforced. An unenforced policy is no policy at all.
• Companies may have on-staff CSA managers, or at least operational personnel, that drivers need to be made aware. Drivers should know that they have access to these individuals to discuss driver performance issues and CSA violations. Likewise, CSA managers and operational personnel should check in with drivers often about any questions or concerns that drivers may have about their current performance, and just life in general. A driver’s personal problems, such as trouble at home, financial problems, etc., are a company’s problem. Personal problems cause distraction, and distraction causes accidents and violations. Operational personnel should address driver issues with them, trying to help them, because these same drivers generate a company’s CSA scores.
• CSA ratings and knowledge about them is not just a company problem. It’s a driver issue as well. And training drivers on the “ins and outs” of CSA and how it effects the company is imperative for maintaining and improving company CSA scores. Currently, there is a lack of driver training by carries on the impact of CSA scores, although more and more training courses are becoming available. What is interesting though is that increased training is not translating into better knowledge by drivers. Training upon hiring is required; but on-going training is imperative to create a safety culture within a company. One of the best ways to act on this is to stay on top of hiring, training and monitoring of driver’s performance and have a structured program in place that involves the drivers and informs them of the importance of CSA and how it works. If everyone within the company understands the importance of CSA scores, from the top down to the bottom, safety will follow. When everyone within the company is on board, particularly those in safety and those in operations, you avoid the conflicting goals that drivers can’t process.
• In the age of CSA, shippers and brokers are looking more and more at CSA scores when selecting a carrier. Drivers should be aware that what happens with them on the road effects the business that comes in to the company. Negative effects steer business away. And when business steers away, company financials suffer and people, i.e. drivers, find themselves without a job. In today’s current trucking economy, profit margins are fine as frog hair, and CSA violations should not be your tipping point between profit and loss.
• Driver education on CSA scores becomes even more important when you consider the planned implementation of a Driver Fitness ratings system being pushed by FMCSA. While the program is a long way off, 9 years according to the FMCSA, it has been sent to Congress and seems to be gaining traction. If implemented, like the current CSA system, individual drivers would be rated and those at the highest risk for safety issues would be targeted for enforcement.
Whatever the method you choose based on your resources, the important point is to inform and train your drivers on CSA so they understand why it matters to you.
M. Garner Berry
Markow Walker, P.A.
599 Highland Colony Parkway, Suite 100
Ridgeland, MS 39157
(W) 601-853-1911
(C) 601-316-6510
(F) 601-853-8284
gberry@markowwalker.com
Do you build a high performing team through superior selection or excellent OTR training? Remember the old proverb: you can teach a squirrel to fly but you’re better off starting with an eagle?
There’s truth there, but there aren’t as many eagles flying around as there once were, so perhaps we should consider better training. That said, it’s still wise to invest in aeries.
Analogies aside, the challenge you face is how to how to build and maintain a motivated team of professional drivers, despite the headwinds of the dreaded driver shortage.
Dr. Peter Cappelli, Director of Wharton’s Center for Human Resources, authored a great fact-filled book, Why Good People Can’t Get Jobs. He finds that even in times of high unemployment, companies across dissimilar industries can’t seem to find capable employees. They insist applicants aren’t qualified; schools aren’t adequate; or the government isn’t letting in enough skilled immigrants. What we have is a woe-is-me mindset and driver-hungry carriers are convinced that driver recruitment is like hunting for polar bears in Arizona.
Training Gap
Capelli asserts the problem is a combination of inflated expectations and a training gap. He points out that everyone is looking for applicants who can hit the ground running. Here’s how companies think:
1. With high unemployment, we should be able to get what we want (no training required);
2. We can save money by cutting training or by delaying purchase of updated materials;
3. If we train new employees, they’ll just leave for greener pastures, taking our investment with them.
Further, some applicant-screening software programs have corrupted the hiring process by defining the wrong qualifications as must-haves. This and the ubiquitous stories of a driver shortage have heightened the impression that there aren’t enough people with the right stuff.
Based on Dr. Cappelli’s reasoning, I would argue that there are enough CDL drivers with the right qualities (when you get serious about competing for them), but you need to define what’s needed versus what’s wanted. He tells the story of a temp who’s doing a great job. The employer can’t seem to fill the job she’s covering. Someone asks, “Why not hire her?” The answer: “She’s not qualified.” Huh?
Sure, driver applicants have to meet the minimums: CDL, 21, medically qualified, etc. And they should have key traits like responsibility, dependability, compliance and risk aversion, which are vital to safety, productivity and good customer service. In short, you should hire drivers for the characteristics that cannot be taught. Know-how and skills can be taught.
When did we start to believe that drivers would be finished from day one; that they’d assimilate our values without having a structured process to help them? When did we convert driver training to an exercise in CYA/check-the-box, instead of truly giving them the knowledge and skills needed to safely and efficiently perform the job?
Assess For Personal Qualities
The right model is to first find drivers who have the minimums (table stakes), but also assess for the personal qualities that make them safe dependable drivers. Then, provide effective, up-to-date training programs to take it from there.
Many may believe that they’re already doing this, so let me be more specific.
• If you require applicants to be 23 years old, why not 22? Then provide exceptional training.
• If you require two years of experience, why not one? Excellent training can supplement.
• If you require unique experience, like tankers, why not consider dry van drivers and then teach them tanker-specific skills and knowledge?
Dr. Cappelli cites Con-way as a sparkling example of taking initiative to solve the driver conundrum through training. In 18 months they graduated 440 new drivers and held onto 98 percent of them!
Hire for the things you can’t change: minimum qualifications and characteristics that resist change such as values and personality. Then provide meaningful professional safe driver training. Not a sheep dip. Not CYA, but something that leads to real learning and new behaviors.
You can’t expect old, feeble training materials that didn’t cut it ten years ago to magically begin to work today. Times change and training should change with the times. Half the battle is keeping drivers engaged and interested. If your training can’t bridge the gap, it’s time to look for better training materials.
Aeries are nests where baby eagles are nurtured until they’re self-sufficient and can fly on their own. The best aeries produce the best eagles. Nurture your drivers with better training.
Mark G. Gardner
Chief Executive Officer
Avatar Management Services, Inc
Macedonia, OH
www.avatarfleet.com/wp
There’s no question that fleets need to review driver abstracts (or Motor Vehicle Reports – MVRs) on their drivers to identify any trend or pattern in past moving violations. The American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) has connected the links between receiving a violation and increased risk of subsequent collision in two studies – Predicting Truck Crash Involvement 2011 Update (their original study was released in October of 2005).
As recently reported at a fleet safety conference, two similar fleets had chosen to use the same standard for MVR review — exclude violations greater than 36 months old and allow for a combination of three violations and one preventable crash before suspending driving privileges. One of these fleets tightened their standard to two violations and one crash during the most recent 24 months and saw a five point reduction in collisions (from 22% of their fleet vehicles involved in a crash per year to 17% of their vehicles involved in a crash) and $2 million in savings.
Since not all violations represent the same level of risk taking, targeting specific types of violations would be expected to further enhance the results. The ATRI study showed that the occurrence of JUST one of the following moving violations dramatically increased the likelihood of becoming involved in a crash by the following amount:
• Failure to use or improper turn signal: 96%
• Improper passing: 88%
• Improper turn: 84%
• Improper or erratic lane change: 80%
In comparison, speeding more than 15 mph over the speed limit — which most safety mangers would likely target as a clear indicator of a risky driver — increased the overall crash risk by only 67%.
Analysis of data revealed that driving behaviors (measured as violations, convictions and historical crashes linked to specific drivers) are linked to specifically measurable increased risk of becoming involved in a crash. Perhaps more notable is the conclusion that:
“By becoming aware of problem behaviors, carriers and enforcement agencies are able to address those issues prior to them leading to serious consequences. The converse is also true, however, as lower priority behaviors, if ignored, may begin to play an increasing role in crash involvement.”
In simpler terms, if you take the time to look for behavioral issues and do something about them, you can directly influence your crash rates. Similarly, if you ignore behaviors deemed to be “low priority” such as failing to use turn signals, these habits can develop into an increasing role in crash involvement.
Paul Farrell
CEO
SafetyFirst Systems
Parsippany, NJ
paulf@safetyfirst.com
by Avery Vise in Down the Road
On New Year’s Eve, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration announced that it had shut down two affiliated South Carolina trucking operations and the owner-driver of one of them as “imminent hazards to public safety.” The agency’s actions certainly seem appropriate. The owner-driver of one company was involved in a fatal crash on Nov. 27 while driving without a commercial driver’s license. And it appears that the other company, for which this driver was operating at the time, employed three drivers that weren’t qualified. And it only had four drivers total.
Sure, it’s good that FMCSA took these carriers off the road, but a closer look at the situation reveals something troubling. If you look up the companies involved – CER Trucking (USDOT No. 196777) and Edward Risher Trucking (USDOT No. 685781) – in FMCSA’s Safety Measurement System, you will find that one company has no “golden triangles” while the other has just one for the Controlled Substances and Alcohol BASIC.
Based on the SMS data alone, these carriers don’t look that bad. Consider that a carrier could easily cross the intervention threshold based solely on one inspection that indicated possession – not necessarily even use – of drugs or alcohol. What the SMS profiles of CER Trucking and Edward Risher Trucking really highlight, however, is how blind the SMS and FMCSA’s Compliance, Safety, Accountability program are to very small trucking operations.
Aside from the alert on controlled substances and alcohol, there was insufficient data in the SMS to give CER Trucking a score in the other four public BASICs; it had undergone only five total inspections in the past 24 months. Edward Risher Trucking was a blank slate with no inspections at all.
A snapshot of CER Trucking’s SMS page indicating the current operating status of the carrier.
The lack of data is hardly surprising considering that between them CER Trucking and Edward Risher Trucking operated just three trucks. Perhaps as individual operations, carriers of this scope aren’t a high priority. As a group, however, they are a huge player in trucking and highway safety. In the latest census uploaded on the SMS website, 772,045 motor carriers had just one or two trucks – about 74% of all carriers in the database. So FMCSA needs an effective way to oversee these small operations, and CSA just doesn’t get the job done.
In theory, FMCSA could identify weak and downright bad small operations if it had more inspection data, but the trend is in the wrong direction. The total number of inspections fell about 6% from 2009 to 2012. Although roadside inspections were about flat, traffic enforcement inspections plummeted by about 34%.
To a lesser extent, the record and fate of CER Trucking highlight another issue: FMCSA’s failure to act proactively. The inspection that led to CER’s golden triangle in controlled substances and alcohol stemmed from a Feb. 12, 2013, report in which a driver was using or was in possession of drugs. That violation showed up almost immediately in FMCSA’s database, and the carrier has been above the intervention threshold since the February 2013 data run. And based on an inspection conducted in late September – also reflected immediately in the federal database – it was clear that at least one of CER Trucking’s drivers was operating with a suspended CDL.
A snapshot of Edward Risher Trucking’s SMS page indicating the current operating status of the carrier.
The CER Trucking situation arguably underscores the National Transportation Safety Board’s recent criticism of FMCSA’s safety oversight. “While FMCSA deserves recognition for putting bad operators out of business, they need to crack down before crashes occur, not just after high-visibility events,” said NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman in calling for audits.
Perhaps it’s unfair to cite CER Trucking as an example of FMCSA’s failure to be proactive. Certainly you would not expect FMCSA to prioritize a two-truck operation for scrutiny. But if that’s the case, then FMCSA should not get much credit for shutting down CER Trucking either.
Ultimately, FMCSA and its state partners can improve safety only by devoting more resources to safety oversight, and that costs money they don’t have. It’s not even clear that they are spending the money they do have wisely. Putting aside legitimate gripes over SMS methodology, this sad reality seriously undermines CSA’s integrity, especially considering that CSA data is public and not just an internal enforcement tool.
Perhaps one day technology and automation – universal electronic logs and wireless roadside inspections, for example – will substitute for “boots on the ground.” For now, however, we must accept that motor carrier safety oversight is inherently flawed because it can’t target the very operations that need it most.
FMCSA PROPOSES MANDATORY ELECTRONIC LOGGING DEVICES.
April 2014, TruckingInfo.com – Feature
By Oliver Patton
After 28 years of proposals, studies, drafts, revisions, legal battles and technological innovations – not to mention an Act of Congress – federal regulators are close to requiring most interstate commercial drivers to keep track of their work hours with an electronic device.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s proposed electronic log mandate, published last month, addresses a broad range of issues but still must go through a comment period and faces possible legal challenges before it becomes final.
At the core of the 256-page proposal is the requirement that interstate drivers who fill out paper logs must eventually switch to electronic logs.
It also covers technical standards for the electronic logging devices, as they are now termed (or ELDs) and the supporting documents regulators need to confirm compliance. And it sets requirements to ensure that electronic logs are not used to harass drivers.
The agency will take comments on the proposal until about mid-May. After it reviews the comments and publishes a final rule, perhaps later this year, carriers will have two years to comply. Carriers that already have recording devices that meet current specifications would have an additional two years to bring their devices into compliance with the new specifications.
It remains to be seen how the various constituents will react.
While larger trucking companies generally support ELDs, they may have concerns about some of the technical details, the supporting documents requirements or the agency’s approach to grandfathering devices already in use.
Owner-operators have long opposed ELDs and may not be satisfied by the agency’s approach to harassment prevention.
The rule will apply to drivers who have to prepare paper logs. Drivers who don’t have to prepare logs may use the electronic devices but won’t have to. Drivers who use timecards will not have to use the devices. And drivers who use logs intermittently can stick with paper logs unless they use them more than eight days in 30 days.
Device details
The technical specifications spell out how ELDs should work.
The basic requirement is that the device record specific information – date, time, location, engine hours, mileage and driver, vehicle and carrier identification – and make it available to inspectors.
The driver must be identified by his full license number and the state where his license is issued.
The device has to be synchronized with the engine to record on/off status, the truck’s motion, mileage and engine hours.
The device will have to automatically record a driver’s change of duty and hourly status while the truck is moving. It also must track engine on/off, and the beginning and end of personal use or yard moves.
The agency is proposing that the devices use automatic positioning services: either the satellite-based Global Positioning System, land-based systems, or both.
Many carriers now have onboard information systems that warn the driver when he’s approaching his hourly limits, but the agency is not requiring that capability in its proposal.
The devices won’t have to print out the log, but may have that feature as an option. They will have to produce a graph grid of a driver’s daily duty status, either on a digital display unit or on a printout. This is the first time the agency has proposed using a printer, and it’s looking for comments on the costs and benefits of that approach.
The primary communications methods will be wireless web services, Bluetooth 2.1 or email. The backup will be wired USB 2.0 or scannable Quick Response code.
FMCSA is working with its state enforcement partners on a software system, eRODS, that will be the platform for transmitting and viewing the log data.
These requirements will be of particular interest to the enforcement community, which has expressed concern about how roadside inspectors will get access to the logs.
To guard against tampering, the device must not allow changes in original information about the driver’s records or in the source data streams that provide the information. It also must be able to check the integrity of the information.
Also, the device must be able to monitor and record compliance for malfunctions and inconsistencies.
The agency is proposing that the devices be certified by the manufacturer, and that certified devices be registered on the FMCSA website to make it easier for carriers to shop.
Harassment and more
The agency projects net annual benefits of about $454 million, based on an average annual cost of about $495 per truck for the device and services. It based its calculations on Omnitracs’ MCP50 system, describing it as an appropriate example of the current state-of-the-art device, although it looked at other products as well.
Among the benefits are reduced paperwork costs for carriers – no more paper logs – as well as 1,425 fewer truck crashes and 20 fewer fatalities a year due to fatigue prevention, the agency said.
The supporting documents portion of the proposal eliminates the requirement that carriers keep paper that verifies driving time, since the electronic log takes care of that. It retains the requirement that carriers keep a variety of documents, ranging from bills of lading, dispatch records, expense receipts or payroll records.
The agency would prohibit carriers from using ELD information to harass drivers, and is proposing procedural and technical provisions to protect drivers from harassment.
For instance, the device must have a mute or low-volume capability so the carrier can’t interrupt a driver when he’s in the sleeper berth. And the driver would have to approve any changes the carrier makes in his data.
The agency plans to propose another rule to protect drivers from coercion by carriers, shippers, receivers or transportation intermediaries. This proposal, which is awaiting clearance at the White House Office of Management and Budget, will include ways for drivers to report coercion as well as penalties for violators.
Many trucking companies support electronic logging, and early reaction from the American Trucking Associations was generally positive.
“ATA supports FMCSA’s efforts to mandate these devices in commercial vehicles as a way to improve safety and compliance in the trucking industry and to level the playing field with thousands for fleets that have already voluntarily moved to this technology,” said President and CEO Bill Graves in a statement.
ATA Executive Vice President Dave Osiecki said he’s particularly pleased that the agency is proposing to allow paper printouts of logs, but not requiring their use.
The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, which has long opposed ELDs, is taking a more cautious stance.
“The agency must address the serious safety issue of how (ELDs) are used to harass and coerce truck drivers into continuing to drive regardless of driving conditions,” said spokesperson Norita Taylor in a statement.
The group also is worried about some of the technical details and whether or not ELDs will improve safety, Taylor said.
“This is the first stage in the regulatory process for the agency’s latest attempt to craft a rule on this topic, and OOIDA and small business truckers will certainly be weighing in and providing comments,” she said.
