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
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.
DataQs, the online system for correcting CSA scoring, has the reputation of being cumbersome and unpredictable, but there’s a way for safety managers to get what they need from it.
Call it the ABCs of DataQs.
• Act quickly and consistently to fix incorrect information.
• Be specific and factual when you present your case for the fix.
• Contact the DataQs liaison in the states and establish a relationship.
A trio of experts laid out these fundamentals in a recent DataQs webinar hosted by the Truckload Carriers Association. On hand were Ron Cordova, a retired New Mexico Motor Transportation Police officer; Allan Hicks, vice president of safety, compliance and human resources for B.R. Williams Trucking, and Steve Bryan, CEO of Vigillo, the CSA service provider.
Act Quickly
Cordova and Hicks made the case for quick, consistent action to correct mistakes in CSA data.
Cordova counseled safety managers to move on a mistake within a week – “So it’s fresh on the mind of the inspector and he can move quickly.”
Hicks, providing the carrier perspective, said he reviews his company’s data every day. He goes to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s Compass Portal, which with a single password and ID gives him access to a variety of federal truck safety databases, including DataQs.
A quick survey of the carriers attending the webinar indicated that close to 60% check their roadside inspection reports every day, and more than 30% do it at least once a week.
“It’s important that you get the process started as soon as possible,” Hicks said. If there are questions, he starts with the driver, and does not hesitate to call in his CSA service provider.
Be Specific and Factual
It is equally important that the request for a correction be factual and succinct.
“Homework is key,” said Cordova. Be sure to look up the applicable federal regulation, he said.
“Get the information from the regulations into the DataQs request to help the reviewer understand what the regulation says and what you are challenging.”
And don’t be distracted by unrelated information. “Do not attempt to provide a long dissertation concerning a violation.”
For example, if you are challenging a finding that the driver’s log is not current, explain exactly why the log was written the way it was, and why it is correct. It might help to have the driver photograph the log with his phone and email the photo so it can be part of the DataQs submission.
And think of the process in a strategic way. When state officials see that a particular officer is repeatedly being challenged on the same issue, it gives them a data trail that can guide improvements.
“You help us, we help you,” Cordova said.
It helps, for example, to understand how an inspector works. Suppose a driver is cited for having a cut in a brake service line, and for inoperative pushrods in the brakes.
It is normal for the inspector to flag the pushrods because they were not working, but clearly the cut line is the source of the problem.
“It’s worth a (DataQs) challenge,” Cordova said, “because if the line were not cut the brakes would be operative.”
Hicks said there’s an additional benefit from frequently checking your data through the Compass Portal: it gets your drivers’ attention when they realize you are keeping close tabs.
The flip side is that this can help with driver retention, he said. Fixing a CSA error through DataQs tells the driver that the company is paying attention on his behalf.
“It gives him a reason to stay,” he said. Plus, it gives the company feedback to improve training.
One frequent DataQs complaint is that it’s difficult to get the CSA record corrected after a court has dismissed a citation.
The problem arises, Cordova said, because of the disconnect between two different types of legal proceedings. The court action is criminal, while CSA and DataQs are administrative.
It’s a tough situation for the carrier because many jurisdictions are reluctant to overturn a violation that a court has dismissed. It’s best to take the same approach you take in a regular DataQs correction: be quick, specific, concise and factual.
Contact State Officials
Steve Bryan of Vigillo added the third fundamental: that while CSA is a federal program it is administered to some extent by 50 separate entities. Most people don’t look at DataQs as a state-specific system, but that’s what it is, Bryan said.
Vigillo’s data shows that the companies that are most successful in their DataQs challenges are the ones that know how each state handles the citations.
California, Kansas and Florida, for instance, are among those that often respond positively to DataQs challenges, while New Mexico, Missouri and Michigan are less responsive.
At the same time, some states have a tendency to make the same kind of mistake, such as assigning the inspection to the wrong carrier. Oddly, the same state may be better at assigning a crash to the right carrier.
In Bryan’s experience, the solution is to contact the state and get to know the people. From his customers he hears stories of two companies having completely opposite experiences in the same state.
“Getting a personal relationship developed with state people is key,” he said.
The best way to do that? Reach out to the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, the enforcement-industry group that sets enforcement policy for North America, he said.
Cordova suggested joining CVSA as an associate member, but said in any event the group’s web site lists key state contacts.
Hicks added that he’s had success going directly to the source. His company was getting an unusual number of citations at a particular roadside inspection station, so he went there, met the personnel to learn how they were working, and got the situation turned around.
At the same time, it’s important not to waste energy where there’s little chance of success, Bryan said. If you fail to get a correction it makes sense to appeal if you have new information, but don’t pursue it just because it’s wrong.
“At the end of the day, the better strategy may be to look for other CSA points you can reduce,” he said.
