Tim Henry
What you need to know
- CSA is a diagnostic tool, not just a scorecard: Treating Compliance, Safety, Accountability data strictly as a report card is a costly mistake. Fleets must look past the surface rankings to uncover hidden operational, process and communication gaps before they escalate.
- Small trends predict major liability: Serious financial and legal risks rarely start with dramatic spikes. Minor, repeated violations—like localized maintenance or lighting defects—can build a documented pattern of systemic neglect that plaintiff attorneys will weaponize in the event of a crash.
- Prioritize low-threshold BASIC categories: While fleets naturally focus on their highest scores, they must pay critical attention to categories with lower intervention thresholds, such as Unsafe Driving and hours-of-service compliance, where even minor increases trigger rapid regulatory scrutiny.
- Turn data into targeted action: Use localized enforcement insights and specific violation trends to move away from generic safety training. Instead, implement location-specific ELD alerts and high-impact, one-on-one driver coaching to mitigate risks before violations occur.
Most fleets know their safety scores.
They may not check them every week, but they generally know where they stand relative to intervention thresholds. They know whether a broker has asked about them during a bid process, and they certainly know when an insurance carrier references them during renewal discussions.
But knowing the number and understanding what it actually means are two very different things. For many carriers, the Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) Safety Measurement System has become little more than a report card. Fleets monitor the numbers, react when they rise too high and otherwise leave them alone.
For years, the industry conversation around CSA has focused heavily on percentiles, thresholds and rankings. But treating CSA strictly as a scorecard may be one of the most expensive mistakes a fleet can make. Misinterpreting CSA data can influence insurance premiums, trigger deeper audits, shape litigation arguments and affect how shippers evaluate carriers during procurement. The numbers themselves are only part of the story.
CSA does not just reflect safety performance. It reveals operational weaknesses that fleets might otherwise overlook. When violations cluster, repeat or trend upward within a particular Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories (BASIC) category, they often point to gaps in processes, oversight or communication.
An increase in Driver Fitness violations may signal weaknesses in medical certificate tracking or onboarding procedures. Repeated vehicle maintenance issues might indicate preventive maintenance processes are drifting out of sync with operational demands. Rising hours-of-service violations can sometimes reflect dispatch pressure or inconsistent log auditing.
CSA does not explicitly explain why these issues occur. But it does point to where fleets should start investigating.
Small trends can become big problems
The most expensive CSA issues rarely appear as dramatic spikes. More often, they emerge as gradual patterns that accumulate over time.
For example, say a small flatbed carrier serving regional construction projects experienced a slow increase in vehicle maintenance violations — brake adjustments, lighting defects and minor inspection findings. None of the violations individually appeared serious, and the fleet remained below intervention thresholds. But over time, those violations created a documented pattern.
How fleets should actually analyze CSA data
Fleets that treat CSA as an operational diagnostic tool can often identify issues early, before they become regulatory, legal or insurance problems.
Start by tracking your scores over time. Regularly reviewing CSA data helps fleets see whether performance is improving or trending in the wrong direction. Look closely for spikes tied to specific violations or patterns tied to certain drivers. For example, a sudden increase in lane-restriction violations might point to a particular route, driver group or operational pressure point.
Next, identify the BASIC categories that present the greatest risk. Naturally, fleets should focus on the categories with the highest scores. But they should also pay particular attention to BASICs with lower Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration intervention thresholds, such as Unsafe Driving and hours-of-service compliance. Even modest increases in these areas can attract enforcement attention.
Location analysis can also reveal important insights. Many fleets find that specific states are responsible for a disproportionate share of their violations. A deeper review may reveal that certain weigh stations, inspection locations or stretches of highway account for the majority of issues. Often, this reflects enforcement emphasis in that area—for example, a particular state focusing inspections on items like windshield wipers or lighting violations.
From there, fleets should drill down into the specific violations that are contributing to higher scores. Unsafe Driving violations, for instance, are often dominated by speeding citations. But a deeper analysis may reveal other contributors, such as seatbelt violations or following too closely. Understanding exactly what violations are driving scores allows fleets to target corrective actions more effectively.
Finally, compare performance against industry benchmarks. CSA scores are relative by design, so understanding how your fleet compares to similarly sized carriers can help put the numbers into context.
Turning CSA data into action
Once fleets understand what is driving their violations, the next step is turning that information into operational improvements.
Start by raising awareness across the organization. Everyone who can influence CSA performance—from drivers to dispatchers to maintenance teams—should understand why the scores matter and how their actions affect them. Providing regular companywide updates on safety performance can reinforce accountability and encourage improvement.
Data can also help identify drivers who may benefit from additional coaching. One-on-one meetings with drivers who disproportionately impact CSA scores can provide an opportunity to review violations, discuss expectations and reinforce best practices.
Training should also be targeted. Rather than delivering generic safety instruction, fleets can use CSA insights to focus training on the specific behaviors contributing to elevated scores.
Technology can also play a role. Fleets can create location-specific alerts delivered through electronic logging devices (ELDs) and mobile devices that notify drivers when they enter areas known for specific enforcement patterns or violation risks. For example, fleets can send real-time reminders when drivers enter corridors where speeding citations are frequently enforced, helping drivers avoid violations before they occur.
Reading CSA the right way
CSA reports alone cannot explain why violations occur. They do not reveal whether patterns stem from scheduling pressure, equipment maintenance gaps, or inconsistent compliance oversight.
Fleets that learn to read CSA data diagnostically gain something far more valuable than a better score. They gain early visibility into risks that could eventually affect insurance costs, litigation exposure, and business relationships with shippers. In an industry where safety performance increasingly influences insurance underwriting and procurement decisions, that insight can become a competitive advantage.
Ransomware, phishing, and DDoS attacks are disrupting fleets, exposing vulnerabilities in digital freight operations and supply chains.
Jenna Hume
Key takeaways
- Cyberattacks on transportation are on the rise, putting fleet systems, data, and operations at increasing risk.
- Ransomware, phishing, and DDoS attacks can halt dispatch, delay freight, and drive costly downtime.
- MFA, system updates, training, and response plans help fleets reduce cyber risk and protect operations.
Eric Van Egeren, generated by Shutterstock/AI
As technology has advanced and permeated more and more of our personal and professional lives, cybersecurity has become an increasing concern. Cybercrimes have more than doubled since 2018, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). From 2018 to 2024, the FBI received 5 million cyberattack complaints, with reported losses totaling $56.7 billion. The recent rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has only further complicated cybercrime.
For the trucking industry, cybercrime is an ever-growing problem, especially as more and more technology finds its way into truck cabs. Closely connected to cargo theft, cybersecurity in trucking has its own quirks and challenges. But before we get to those, let’s discuss the basics of what cybersecurity is, inside and outside of the trucking industry.
Cybersecurity basics for fleets
Cyberattacks are “any kind of malicious activity that attempts to collect, disrupt, deny, degrade, or destroy information system resources or the information itself,” according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) Computer Security Resource Center.
Common types of cybercrime include phishing, ransomware, malware, data breaches, and more. The most common goal of digital criminals when targeting businesses is financial gain, though espionage and sabotage are other motivations.
Cybersecurity, therefore, is the “practice of protecting people, systems, and data from cyberattacks by using various technologies, processes, and policies,” according to IBM.
Some of the business sectors most affected by cybercrime are health care, manufacturing, financial services, small businesses, and transportation.
Why cybersecurity is critical for fleet operations and uptime
Trucking and the supply chain today are more digital than ever, with technologies such as telematics, electronic logging devices (ELDs), electronic bills of lading (eBOL), artificial intelligence (AI), autonomous vehicles (AVs), and more. Fleets can now operate more safely and efficiently with greater visibility thanks to this new technology.
But this advanced technology comes at a cost. In this new digital age, industries like trucking have become targets of digital criminals. The transportation sector saw an 186% increase in cyberattacks from June 2020 to June 2021, according to a 2021 study. Transportation ranked ninth among the top 10 most commonly targeted industries in 2025.
And when cybercrime occurs, it doesn’t just affect the industry; its effects trickle down the supply chain, eventually impacting the public and consumers. This is because cybersecurity incidents often cause unexpected downtime and delays, especially when telematics and routing technology are affected. In addition to impacting freight delivery, this results in lost revenue and tarnished reputations for trucking companies.
45582385 | Hotshotsworldwide | Dreamstime.com
Top cyber threats targeting fleets and supply chains
Like cargo theft, digital criminals are constantly adapting existing cybercrimes and creating new methods. Here are the details on the most common cybercrimes affecting trucking:
Ransomware
Ransomware is a type of malware that holds a victim’s data or devices hostage until a ransom is paid, according to IBM. Ransomware is one of the most common types of cybercrime, and it has evolved into subcategories such as double- and triple-extortion.
Double extortion is when cybercriminals threaten to leak a victim’s data online. Triple extortion involves threatening to use the stolen data to attack an organization’s customers or business partners.
Phishing
A phishing attack occurs when a cybercriminal sends an email that appears familiar but is an attempt to steal personal information, such as passwords, the National Motor Freight Traffic Association (NMFTA) states. These emails typically look like an email address for an individual or organization, with one letter, number, or punctuation mark that looks different.
DoS and DDoS attacks
Two similar cybercrime methods are Denial of Service (DoS) and Directed Denial of Service (DDoS). According to NMFTA, both types of attacks overload a system with requests and prevent access. The system shuts down when overloaded with too many requests.
When a system like this shuts down, the organization or individual cannot use it. In trucking, this could halt an entire fleet and its drivers, resulting in delays, lost revenue, spoiled products, and more, not to mention the stress this situation puts on drivers, dispatchers, managers, and others.
The difference between the two types of attacks is that DoS is system-to-system, whereas DDoS is multiple systems against one system, Fortinet states.
MITM attack
A man-in-the-middle (MITM) attack occurs when a hacker intercepts communication between two parties and modifies information.
NMFTA provides the following example of an MITM attack: “Imagine a company sends a client a message that requests they wire payment to the company’s bank account. A hacker could receive this message, replace the company’s bank account with their own, and then potentially walk away with tens of thousands of dollars.”
Brute-force attack
A brute-force attack is a type of data breach that tries every possible combination of letters, numbers, and symbols to guess the correct password eventually. This, in turn, allows a hacker to access an organization’s system.
How fleets can strengthen cybersecurity and reduce risk exposure
With so many cybercrime methods, there are also plenty of ways trucking companies can protect themselves. For every niche method of cybercrime out there, there’s a niche method of cybersecurity. But here are some broad ways fleets can protect themselves with cybersecurity.
Conduct regular audits
Conducting regular audits can help fleets identify weaknesses in their security systems before hackers find them, according to Keystone Technology Consultants. This can be done with a fleet’s IT professionals or outside cybersecurity consultants.
Use rigid authentication measures
Multifactor authentication (MFA) is another measure to protect fleet technology systems. According to Isaac Instruments, MFA requires individuals to provide more than one form of identification to log in to email or other company systems. MFA can include passwords, fingerprints, authenticator apps, email codes, etc.
Keep tech updated
When fleets fail to update their technology, they leave themselves vulnerable to new cyber threats. Promptly updating technology, and even enabling automatic updates, further protects fleet data. NMFTA found that one-third of data breaches are from vulnerabilities that technology updates would have prevented.
Train employees on cybersecurity
It may seem cliché, but proper cybersecurity awareness and training are a major way fleets can protect themselves. These training sessions shouldn’t just teach staff how to identify phishing and other scams; they should also focus on procedures for when cybercrimes do occur.
NMFTA recommends that every employee at a trucking company receive cybersecurity training, from not sending sensitive information by email to creating strong passwords.
Make cybercrime incident plans
As with cargo theft, fleets can’t just focus on prevention; they need plans in place for when cybercrimes occur. NMFTA suggests the following steps that fleets might implement as part of these plans:
- Notifying management
- Not negotiating with hackers
- Changing passwords
- Unplugging servers
- Uploading backups
Alex Lockie
This article was updated to remove mentions of PDF file formats, as they’re only used in Canada, and correct some of the discussion around which HOS violations can result in a driver being put out-of-service.
As ELD service providers cold-call trucking companies advertising ways to hide clear hours of service violations, a simple fix to the problem could be hidden in plain sight for roadside inspectors.
That’s according to Jill McBeth of Raven Transportation Safety Consulting, a company that helps motor carriers comply with HOS regs. McBeth has seen firsthand acts of ELD deception and lays the blame on non-compliant ELD service providers.
Drivers know that ELDs connect to the truck’s computer and automatically record events like driving time and stops. Drivers and fleets can edit ELD logs, like when a driver forgets to record lunch or a coffee break as off-duty time, with the driver required to approve any back-office edit, but lately a new type of ELD editing has emerged.
Overdrive reporting revealed that the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, the multinational org charged with coming up with consistent, clear and uniform inspection protocols and the annually updated out-of-service criteria, has seen an uptick in suspiciously perfect ELD logs.
“What inspectors are finding with increased frequency are records of duty status (RODS) that are being completely altered with no indication they were edited at all,” said Jeremy Disbrow, CVSA’s Roadside Inspections Specialist. That’s contrary to what’s required of ELDs — if edits like those mentioned above are being made, the device by regulation is required to preserve those edits, and it’s a best practice for operators to annotate their records to explain edits to avoid roadside hassle.
But according to McBeth, the new type of masked alteration Disbrow noted inspectors are seeing does still leave behind indications of the edits, and if inspectors really cared to find them, they could.
Inspectors typically ask drivers to “send seven days of RODs” — that is, a seven-day logs history, she said. “And they have criteria in the technical standard for ELDs on how the devices must be able to transmit data.”
Overdrive spoke to a former inspector and CDL trainer who said most often these days, drivers transmit the HOS data via Bluetooth, a web service, or another method of digital transfer.
Those files will show any edits made to the log that the driver or carrier will then have to explain — if drivers are annotating their status changes or edits within the log, the transmitted record itself will help explain it. (For example: I forgot to switch into sleeper berth after parking.)
The new phenomenon of illegally edited ELDs doesn’t show any edits at all, but perfect adherence to the hours of service in the transmitted record.
Yet “every single device, if compliant, is programed to generate a CSV report that is identical” in structure with the same layout and headings as any other compliant device, said McBeth, referring to a “Comma Separated Values” file type that’s commonly used in spreadsheets like those produced in Microsoft Excel.
This sample of a CSV file from a non-compliant ELD shows that some of the driving time has been manually edited. It’s not easy to read, but to the trained eye, these type of edits jump out as needing further investigation, McBeth said.
The spreadsheets are required to conform to the technical standard outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations 395 subpart B section 4.8.2.1, which lays out in detail the columns, headings, and data that needs recording for an ELD to comply with the law.
Digging into the CSV file gets a little technical. McBeth shared with Overdrive sample CSV files from ELDs and pointed to a column that says if driving time was automatically recorded or not.
“You can look at this spreadsheet and in five seconds tell if that device is compliant or not compliant,” she said. Basically, the spreadsheet will show that driving time was manually edited, whereas the technical standard states an “ELD must not allow automatically recorded driving time to be shortened” unless under specific circumstances.
Hope Trans, the fleet behind the tragic Terrell, Texas, crash that killed five in June, had a long history of HOS violations, including stops with drivers that had no ELDs active. How could a company like that pass a DOT audit?
One former Hope Trans driver told local news outlet WFAA that “the company regularly altered shipping records to hide the true number of hours they had been driving.”
How exactly a non-compliant ELD company hides log edits isn’t exactly clear to McBeth, but she strongly suspects that “data manipulation is happening on a provider level. The provider that builds the app and sells it — they’re the ones doing the manipulation.”
Now, according to McBeth, inspectors are seeing suspiciously “perfect” driving logs at inspections.
“I’ve spoken to the other investigators in U.S. and Canada, and the reason [the ELD editing] gets flagged is that it’s way too perfect. There is no driver in the world that drives exactly 10 hours a day.”
This lines up with what Disbrow said previously:
“In many instances, the ELD entries that are shown to inspectors are inaccurate by hundreds or thousands of miles when compared to verified source documents, such as shipping papers, scale receipts, etc. When entire days or multiple days are completely falsified by manipulating the ELD data, inspectors have no way to identify when the driver was actually driving or resting, making it impossible to determine whether they have their required rest or available driving time.”
Of course, roadside inspectors mostly just check that the driver’s ELD shows compliance with the HOS. They do not, typically, check that the ELD complies with the technical standard. But McBeth said that with ELD providers themselves providing on-demand HOS cleanup, “roadside inspections are the key” to halting cheats among providers and fleets before the records can be falsified.
Dispatcher Hector Adrien Esquivel Rodriguez recorded a call with a company called Logbook Hub that advertises on Facebook that it can “FIX your logbook” for $30 a week. Rodriguez that featured the company telling him they only need drivers to call or text Logbook Hub, which works with several ELD providers to have driving time added to the books. The Logbook Hub representative described the company editing logs “24/7, no holidays” and manually manipulating driving time and distances. To see the video click on link below.
https://youtu.be/7aNqHwbcVrI
“If you had a section of the road where you drove 30 miles,” the service can edit the log “squeezing that driving time, we’ll make it for example 55,” the representative said.
This is the kind of log manipulation McBeth said the CSV files will show if inspectors look beyond basic HOS compliance for drivers and into the compliance of the device itself.
(The ELD cheating articles in ODDS & ENDS were not intended for readers to launch false ELD entries. I believe the ODDS & ENDS readers are the “choir” and not the “problem” motor carriers. BUT your driver may be involved in an accident with another trucking company that is a problematic motor carrier. I believe you must be aware the other truck driver and or motor carrier could be involved with ELD fraud. The articles and research are attempting to make you aware and knowledgeable of the numerous techniques used for false ELD entries. This knowledge will benefit you and your attorneys to determine if the other motor carrier’s logs presented to you during discovery are accurate.
The goal of the electronic logging device (ELD) mandate was to make driving time nearly impossible to hide. The mandate worked, in part, but the commercial pressure to keep trucks moving beyond legal driving limits did not disappear when paper logs did. Carriers and drivers adapted, exploiting gaps in the ELD system and in the regulatory framework’s enforcement capacity. ELD fraud takes several forms, ranging from opportunistic misuse of legitimate features to deliberate, carrier-directed criminal schemes.
In 2025, falsification of records of duty status was the second most-cited driver violation in CVSA inspection data, with 58,382 violations recorded. CVSA has updated its North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria to distinguish between traditional “false log” violations and false-log violations resulting from ELD tampering. For false-log violations that result from ELD tampering, new out-of-service criteria prescribe a specific violation. Drivers will also be placed out-of-service for 10 hours if records have been so thoroughly altered that inspectors cannot determine the last rest period.
What AI does is to alter the ELD output file which is a computer file created or saved by a program, device, or process to store the results, data, or logs. This file includes a header segment and variable-length segments for driver activity, vehicle use, and events. The file segments and data content are:
- Header Segment: Contains non-varying administrative info like driver name, username, license details, motor carrier name, USDOT number, and active vehicle/co-driver identifiers.
- Driver Records: Tracks individual driver identification, authenticated users, and specific duty status changes (off-duty, sleeper berth, driving, on-duty).
- Vehicle & Engine Data: Records commercial motor vehicle (CMV) details, power unit number, VIN, accumulated vehicle miles, and engine hours.
- Event Activity Logs: Captures date, time, and geographic location stamps for all recorded events and changes in driving or power status.
- System & Diagnostic Files: Lists ELD login/logout sessions, malfunction indicators, data diagnostic event records, and any activity assigned to an unidentified driver.
This is why MCSAP officers when checking for false ELD entries will (or should) immediately take photographs of the ELD screen and supporting documents before the driver has an opportunity to place a call to the illegal entity (using AI) to alter the ELD entries making them appear legal.)
Ryan Witkowski
Truckers, give yourselves a pat on the back. Over 94% of all drivers inspected during this year’s International Roadcheck did not have any out-of-service violations.
Conducted annually by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, International Roadcheck is a 72-hour high-visibility, high-volume commercial motor vehicle inspection and enforcement initiative. This year’s event took place May 12-14.
On Tuesday, Aug. 25, CVSA released the results from the 2026 International Roadcheck. Over the three-day event, inspectors conducted 54,575 inspections of commercial motor vehicles and drivers across North America. From those inspections, 81% of vehicles and 94.2% of drivers did not have out-of-service violations.
Conversely, 10,350 trucks (19%) and 3,184 drivers (5.8%) were placed out of service due to one or more violations. According to CVSA, a commercial motor vehicle or driver is placed out of service “when an inspector finds a violation that is serious enough to make continued operation unsafe.” If that’s the case, the vehicle or driver must remain off the road until the violation has been addressed or brought into compliance.
Each year, the agency highlights certain aspects of roadside inspections during International Roadcheck. For this year’s event, inspectors were focusing on ELD tampering, falsification or manipulation during driver inspections and cargo securement during vehicle inspections.
When it comes to vehicle inspections, the top violation was with brake systems, with 3,379 violations recorded for an out-of-service rate of 24.3%. Other violations making up the top five include:
- Tires: 2,914 violations, 20.9% OOS rate
- 20% Defective Brakes: 2,072 violations, 14.9% OOS rate
- Cargo Securement: 1,724 violations, 12.4% OOS rate
- Lights: 1,659 violations, 11.9% OOS rate
As far as drivers go, inspectors identified 3,806 total driver out-of-service violations in the U.S. and 163 in Canada, for a combined total of 3,969 driver out-of-service violations during International Roadcheck.
The number one violation for drivers was having no medical card, with 1,072 drivers being sidelined for that. Other issues rounding out the top five included:
- Hours of service: 929 violations
- No CDL: 620 violations
- English proficiency: 361 violations
- False record of duty status: 266 violations
The agency said that CVSA decals – which are given to CMVs without any critical vehicle inspection violations – were applied to 11,880 power units and 5,751 trailers during International Roadcheck. In total, 17,680 decals were distributed throughout North America during the 72-hour event.
One overwhelmingly positive result came in terms of seat belt usage. During the event, just 1.25% of all drivers inspected were not wearing a seat belt, resulting in a total of 667 seat belt violations being issued during this year’s International Roadcheck.
According to CVSA, roughly 13 vehicles per minute were inspected throughout North America during the event.
Texas Truck Repair
Introduction
The trucking industry has undergone a technological revolution with the introduction of electronic logging devices (ELDs). Designed to ensure compliance with hours-of-service (HOS) rules, these devices track driving hours and prevent driver fatigue. However, with strict regulations come loopholes, and some trucking companies and commercial drivers find ways to manipulate their ELD software.
ELD tampering is more than just breaking the rules—it’s a dangerous game that puts lives at risk. Let’s uncover the dark truth behind ELD manipulation, how it happens, and why it’s a growing concern.
Why Does ELD Manipulation Occur?
The pressure to meet delivery deadlines, avoid fines, and maximize profits often drives trucking companies and commercial drivers to manipulate their ELD systems. Some common reasons include:
Increased Driving Hours – The stricter the HOS rules, the harder it becomes for truck companies to move freight efficiently. Some drivers feel compelled to exceed limits to meet unrealistic schedules.
Financial Incentives – Long haul trucking means longer hours, and more hours equal more money. Certain companies turn a blind eye to falsified logs to keep deliveries on track.
Company Pressure – Some employers push drivers to complete runs faster, even if it means tampering with the ELD rider software to extend driving hours.
Avoiding Penalties – HOS violations can lead to hefty fines from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), leading some to manipulate logs rather than face penalties.
How is ELD Manipulation Executed?
Manipulating an electronic logging device isn’t as simple as flipping a switch. It often involves calculated techniques, including:
Plugging into Truck Engines – Some drivers use external devices to alter log data. These plug-in tools override the ELD software, making it appear as if a truck isn’t moving when it actually is.
Ghost Drivers – Some companies assign logs to non-existent drivers, making it seem like two drivers are sharing the load when in reality, one driver is overworked.
Editing Log Entries – Certain ELD vendors offer back-end access, allowing ELD Rider representatives or fleet managers to tweak logs after the fact.
Switching to Personal Conveyance – Drivers misuse the “personal conveyance” status, making trips appear non-work-related to bypass HOS rules.
The Ripple Effect: Impacts of ELD Manipulation
Falsifying ELD data isn’t just about squeezing in extra miles—it has serious consequences.
Increased Fatigue & Accidents – Overworked drivers experience exhaustion, leading to slower reaction times and higher accident risks.
Liability for Trucking Companies – If caught, companies face penalties from the FMCSA, loss of licenses, and legal troubles.
Unfair Competition – Law-abiding trucking companies suffer when dishonest carriers cut corners and take on more loads illegally.
Faulty Truck Servicing – Trucks that exceed legal driving limits miss maintenance schedules, leading to dangerous breakdowns on highways.
What Can Be Done?
Stronger Enforcement – The Federal Motor Carrier authorities must step up audits and enforce stricter penalties.
More Accountability from ELD Vendors – Companies offering ELD Rider software must tighten security measures to prevent unauthorized tampering.
Better Education for Drivers – Many drivers don’t fully understand the risks of ELD failure or how to properly use an electronic logging device. Training is key. Random Inspections at Truck Shops – Regular checks at truck servicing locations can help catch manipulated systems before they hit the road.
Manipulating an electronic logging device may seem like a shortcut, but the risks far outweigh the benefits. Safety should always come first in the trucking industry, and that starts with enforcing compliance, supporting honest drivers, and holding lawbreakers accountable.
The road ahead must be one of responsibility, not deception.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
- What is ELD manipulation and why is it dangerous?
ELD manipulation refers to tampering with electronic logging devices to falsify driving hours or hide violations. It’s dangerous because it enables driver fatigue, increases the risk of accidents, and undermines road safety.
- How do truck drivers or companies manipulate ELD data?
Common tactics include using external devices to override log data, assigning logs to “ghost drivers,” editing log entries through back-end access, or misusing the “personal conveyance” status to disguise work-related driving.
- What are the legal consequences of ELD tampering?
Tampering with ELDs is a federal offense. Trucking companies and drivers caught manipulating logs can face hefty fines, loss of operating authority, damaged reputations, and even criminal charges under FMCSA regulations.
- How can authorities detect ELD fraud during inspections?
Enforcement officers may check for inconsistencies in mileage, review GPS data, compare driver logs with supporting documents, and use telematics tools to uncover manipulation. Surprise audits and roadside inspections are key detection methods.
- What steps can trucking companies take to prevent ELD manipulation?
Companies can implement stricter internal audits, provide regular training on HOS compliance, choose secure and FMCSA-approved ELD vendors, and enforce zero-tolerance policies for tampering or non-compliance.
Log falsification remains the number one hours-of-service-related violation. Many people mistakenly believed that falsification would be a thing of the past once electronic logging devices (ELDs) were in widespread use. However, while ELDs made falsification harder and easier to spot (by officers and companies alike), it did not stop the practice.
Here are the common methods drivers use to falsify, followed by how you can catch it, and what you should do about it:
- Logging out when a limit is reached and then continuing to drive.
- How you can catch it: This becomes evident when you assign the unassigned driving time to the driver.
- What you should do about it: This type of falsification is why it is critical that you run an unassigned driving report each day and quickly deal with any unassigned driving time (see 395.32)!
- Driving without logging in to make a break long enough.
- How you can catch it: This is also evident when the unassigned driving time is assigned to the driver.
- What you should do about it: This is another reason quickly dealing with unassigned driving time is so important!
- Using one of the special driving categories (personal conveyance or yard move) to hide on-duty and driving time or to keep driving time from being recorded as driving.
- How you can catch it: Run a report that shows the use of these driving categories and make sure the use was legitimate.
- What you should do about it: If personal conveyance was used, you need to verify the driver was not moving down the assigned route line, did no work for the company, and did not end up in a better location as far as the company was concerned. If yard move was used, you need to verify the driver was in a yard (a privately owned area not open to public travel) during the movement (see 395.28 and Interpretation Question 26 to 395.8).
- Editing to create more hours.
- How you can catch it: This can be seen by running an edit report and looking for drivers who were short on hours and who edited a bunch of on-duty time to make it off-duty time.
- What you should do about it: Verify that the edits matching the falsification profile (on-duty to off-duty time) are legitimate edits (done to correct an error or omission). A common reason for such an edit is the driver forgetting to log out at the end of the day. This will be obvious. However, if the edit was done at a loading, unloading, fueling, or inspection location, the edit should be suspect (see 395.30).
- The appearance of ghost driver accounts.
- How you can catch it: These are driver accounts that do not have an actual driver assigned to them. These accounts are prohibited in the regulations (395.22) and are a common place for drivers to hide driving time.
- What you should do about it: To see if you have any ghost drivers, compare your driver roster to the driver list in your ELD system. If you discover a ghost driver, find out who created it and who has been using it.
- Minimizing on-duty time.
- How you can catch it: When looking at summary reports, be on the lookout for drivers who have the same amount of on-duty time each day (called cookie cutter logging) or have little or no on-duty time.
- What you should do about it: Look for specific patterns. When a driver is doing cookie cutter logging, the driver will always log the exact same amount of time for on-duty activities (for example, always five minutes for a pretrip or fueling and always fifteen minutes for loading or unloading, etc.) and the on-duty time will be surrounded by off-duty time. Also be on the lookout for drivers who have fewer on-duty hours than a typical driver at your company.
By watching for these and other common methods drivers use to falsify their logs — and taking quick action when falsification is found — you will go a long way toward reducing this common violation and improving highway safety in 2024 and beyond.
Key to remember: ELDs did not make falsification impossible. However, they did make it easier to see if you know what you are looking for and where to look.
