Trucking Advocate and Activist Allen Smith of TruthAboutTrucking.com : Articles Current News and Information for CDL Truck Drivers and Truck Driving Students…"Raising the Standards of the Trucking Industry"
For many, it is known as simply “The GW” and sooner or later most long haul truckers are going to have it in their sights. My best advise for new truck drivers who will be tackling the George Washington Bridge for the first time? Sit down . . . buckle up . . . and hold on . . .
The GW is one of the most heavily traveled bridges in the world, spanning the Hudson River between Washington Heights, Manhattan and Fort Lee, New Jersey offering 14 lanes for the traveling public. It has the greatest vehicular capacity of any bridge worldwide, and according to 2007 statistics, nearly 106,000,000 vehicles crosses its path every year, with approximately 9,549,000 being trucks. It is not so bad crossing in a 4-wheeler . . . but a big rig? This can be a different story.
The first time I made contact with the George Washington bridge, I had no reason to believe that it would be any different than any other structure. Besides the enormous amount of traffic, nobody ever told me about the deteriorating road conditions. I hit the GW running with no seat belt locked in and the next thing I knew I left the comfort of my seat, bouncing so high I hit my head hard on the top of the cab . . . most of the items in the bunk went flying and landed all over the place. From that day forward, before I met up with the GW . . . I had the seat belt fastened and ready to go.
Through the years I have often thought about the reconstructing of the GW crossing. With all the toll dollars and New York taxes, why does this remain as one of the roughest traveling areas in the country? Trucking across the George Washington bridge gives new meaning to the phrase, “Beat you to death.” Along with being such a well-known landmark, the bridge also boasts having some of the most state-of-the-art technology and advanced traffic management systems in the world.
GW Bridge Traffic Managment System
Transdyn has successfully delivered traffic management systems for some of the most important bridges and tunnels in the world including the Boston Central Artery/Tunnel and the Delaware Memorial Bridge. Multi-million dollar traffic systems, yet . . . truck drivers take a beating upon crossing. The high-tech system is very much needed, allowing for the increase of an “effective crisis prevention plan by identifying unauthorized stopped vehicles, monitoring critical structure areas, and responding rapidly to emergency situations with real-time decision support tools.”
So, the question came to me again the other day . . . “why do they not repair the travel portion of the road?” The more I thought about it, I considered that the question should be . . . “how do they repair the travel portion of the road?” To get around the 4,760 feet span, how and where do they detour the nearly 300,000 vehicles that crosses every single day?
Although it is one of the most famous bridges in the world, its geographical location could very well be its downfall when it comes to much needed road repair.
Often truck drivers can find themselves in trouble when it comes to the required DOT medical drug screen. A legal, prescribed drug from your family physician can lead to termination from the trucking company if you fail to follow the correct procedure. Many times in the trucking industry, problems that arise that can cause a driver to lose his or her job could have been avoided.
The DOT drug screen looks for the use of a Schedule 1 drugs : amphetamine, narcotic or any other habit forming drug that is not legally permitted. They also check for the usage of illegal narcotic drugs including marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, opiates and phencyclidine (PCP). Very often, drivers who have received a legal prescription from their doctor fail to understand that this information should be provided to the motor carrier, especially when facing a DOT physical or drug screening. Most importantly, the information must be provided to the medical examiner before the screening takes place.
As an example, often truck drivers can be given a legal prescription for Lortab which is a combination of a narcotic painkiller and cough reliever with a non-narcotic painkiller for the relief of moderate to moderately severe pain. Since it contains hydrocodone, the hydrocodone is a narcotic, which is one of the things they look for from a DOT drug test. Therefore, if the driver fails to tell the company or medical examiner about the Lortab, the drug test will come back as a flagged and failed screening.
Most truckers understand that this type of prescription, though legal, contains a narcotic. By telling the trucking company that they are on this drug or others like it, they face the possibility of their employer telling them to take the two or three weeks off until they are better . . . or however long their doctor has prescribed the medication. This simply is not worth the chance of losing your job. If you are called to take a random drug test . . . you will now find yourself in a tough situation.
I am hearing more from drivers who have found themselves in this position. Don’t take the chance. Random drug tests could become more random in the future. If you have to be on a prescribed narcotic . . . tell your company immediately. It’s better to follow company policy and be told to take the required time off, than it is to be terminated for not following the correct procedure.
Armed American Radio is one of the fastest growing Nationally Syndicated Radio Programs in America. Host, Mark Walters is a columnist with Concealed Carry Magazine and co-author of the highly acclaimed book, Lessons from Armed America. He is also a 26 year veteran of the trucking industry. His radio show isheard in all 50 states and 11 countries, and he has appeared on the Fox Business Channel.
I have been asked by Mark to be a guest on the show which will air live on Sunday, August 8th, 2010 and is scheduled for the second hour of the show, from 9-10 PM EST. Discussion will be on truck drivers and their right to carry a firearm for protection. I urge everyone to tune in and call in to the show to share your views on this issue.
Professional truck drivers are expected to travel in and out of the highest crime areas in the country. We usually think of the most common places such as Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, and the inner boroughs of New York City. However, truck drivers today can face life threatening situations anywhere across the nation as crime continues to rise. States that one usually does not associate with a high crime level have now made the list of the top 15 most dangerous states for 2010. Arkansas, my birth state, comes in as number 10 on the list, while Oklahoma, my home state, ranked number 13. Crime is everywhere.
The recent prison escapees out of Arizona, hijacked a tractor-trailer rig with two truckers and as all three escapees were serving sentences for murder, these truck drivers were lucky to escape with their lives. Others have not been so lucky:
NY Truck Driver Shot, Killed In Cab
Truck Driver shot in Fort Worth
Truck Driver shot in neck, dies
Truck Driver shot in Dillon
Truck Driver shot and killed in Tampa . . . and on and on and on . . .
The issue of truck drivers being able to carry a firearm in the truck with them for protection is always a heated one. Many do not believe that this would be a good idea, and in fact, would lead to more criminal acts. Evidence, on the other hand, shows this is not the case. In case studies, both here in America and Europe, when more law abiding citizens were armed with protection, crime actually went down. The question is not whether or not truck drivers should be allowed to carry a gun in the commercial vehicle . . . the question is : are you willing to give up any of your Constitutional Rights under any circumstance?
Contrary to what you may have read on the internet, there is no Federal Law against truck drivers carrying a firearm with them in the commercial motor vehicle. In fact, Federal Law states that you can. According to Title 18 Section 926(a) of The Peaceable Journey Act, under Part 1, Chapter 44, it states:
“Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle:
Provided, that in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked
container other than the glove compartment or console.”
The problem with truck drivers not being able to carry a gun with them for protection has nothing to do with a Federal Law. Truckers are faced with two hurdles to overcome when faced with this issue: (1) Being legal and not violating any city, county or state law of any state that they will be passing through and (2) abiding by any company policy that their employer may have in place. The first point is clear in the opening sentences of the Peaceable Journey Act:
“Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof . . .”
A truck driver must know for certain that he or she will not violate any law of any city, county or state that they will be passing through on their journey, as it pertains to carrying a firearm within the CMV. Most often, this is not a problem since most states recognize a permit to carry . . . most do . . . not all:
Driver arrested at Texas D.O.T. weigh station when gun discovered in truck
Truck Driver arrested in New York when hand gun was discovered on routine inspection stop
Maryland Truck Driver arrested after firearm found in vehicle
Whether you have a licensed, permit to carry . . . laws in cities, counties and states matter. That is number one . . . number two, an employer has the right to establish any such company policy that employees are expected to adhere to. Most motor carriers have a policy of “no firearms” allowed in company vehicles. It is the same as the policies of many shippers and receivers, such as a Walmart Distribution Center, for example. They will usually have a sign on their property stating that no firearms are allowed on company property and that they reserve the right to search your vehicle. It is their property, their policy.
So how do you answer the question, “Can truck drivers carry guns?” From a law point of view, yes . . . but I would make certain that it is registered and that you have a state license to carry. On the other hand, “Can truck drivers carry guns?” . . . no . . . not if the motor carrier or employer has a policy forbidding it.
So the final answer to this question really comes down to you, the truck driver. Are you willing to carry a firearm for protection within the cab of the CMV at the risk of losing your job? Federal Law allows it . . . your 2nd Amendment Right allows it . . . but as a professional truck driver who’s motor carrier may have a policy against it . . . you must make the personal choice of whether or not to carry a gun in the truck with you or not . . . and risk losing your job for it . . . as well as running the risk of arrest by violating any city, county or state law as stated in The Peaceable Journey Act. This is what it really boils down to.
What are the pros and cons to this issue? Good idea or bad? I hope you will tune in to the showon Sunday, August 8th, 2010 at 9 PM EST and let host, Mark Walters hear your thoughts on this matter.
A recent article posted in the Newspaper.com stated that the Department of Transportation was promoting women to enter a career as a professional CDL driver: “US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood wants to put more women behind the wheels of big-rigs.”
However, after researching, we have found that the programs being funded are targeted for women at the college graduate level.
According toThe announcement, “U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood signed an agreement with the Women’s Transportation Seminar (WTS) International to encourage women to complete undergraduate and graduate degrees in science, technology, engineering and math – while pursuing careers in transportation.” This program does not appear to be targeted towards CDL professional truck drivers who are considered “unskilled” labor by the Department of Labor.
Secretary of the US Department of Transportation, Ray LaHood announced at a Women’s Small Business Day hosted by the Department of Transportation (DOT), that he would like to see more women in the transportation industry by expanding an existing intern program.
According to a recent press release , the program is one of several internships and fellowship programs offered through the U.S. Department of Transportation for both high school and college age girls. The expanded effort supports President Obama’s mission and the work of the White House Council on Women and Girls.
Although the idea of encouraging more women into the transportation industry is to be applauded, the thought of using transportation funds for this, rather than for the repair of roads and bridges or securing more safe truck parking ( such as Jason’s Law, HR 2156 and S970) must be questioned.
Recently we were told by a staffer in the Highways and Transit subcommittee that funding was low and that this is a main reason that Jason’s Law has been sitting in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. So where then, are these funds coming from which are being used to promote more women entering the trucking industry? I would think that we would be more interested in repairing the roads and protecting our “unskilled women” who are already in the industry driving big trucks.
This does lead up to another problem which should be mentioned:
There is and has been a strong recruitment movement going on via organizations, truck driving schools, trucking companies, government work force placement programs and grants and incentives, in order to encourage more women to enter the “unskilled” level of the trucking industry as a CDL driver.
This is a major concern of ours and others alike, as the CDL training going on within trucking companies has not been one to be admired. Often women are not told what to realistically expect when entering a CDL training program, including the fact that they will be living in a truck for 3 months with a total stranger, the trainer.
Many times the requirements for drivers to be trainers are no more than the “desire for them to be one.”
The fact that there are no strict guidelines set up by many of the companies has caused numerous problems for trainees, including the lack of a way for trainees to safely remove themselves from situations which could either cause emotional stress or even worse, bodily harm.
There has been a tremendous increase in women entering the field of truck driving, and yet the number of actual women drivers has not significantly increased, still sitting at five to six percent of total drivers. So where are all those increased “numbers of women” entering into trucking that have been recruited? Why isn’t the increased figure of women drivers entering matching the number of actual drivers? The main reason is . . . that they do not stay for very long, many not making it past the training process. This is a clear sign that something is wrong in the way that many trucking companies conduct their CDL training programs.
So I suggest this to everyone promoting the advancement and promotion of women entering the trucking industry:
Create a program to protect the women that you have already encouraged to enter the industry, before you try to promote more women to come in.
I challenge every organization, company, or government program to create a data base of driver statistics which includes all women they have successfully recruited into the industry as a CDL driver, and then maintain records to follow up with them in order to determine if they are still driving, and if not . . . WHY?
Would this not make more sense? I for one, would like to know why more and more women are entering the trucking industry, and yet their numbers are not going up?
I believe if you are reading this that you would like to know too.
Yesterday June 28, 2010 marked a day in history for the National call-in day to support Jason’s Law and the need for more safe and adequate truck parking. People from all over the country were calling their Senators and Representatives in Washington, DC, urging them to support HR 2156 and to co-sponsor the bill.
The designated day to call Washington was designed to move the bill HR 2156 out of committee and passed into law. This much needed bill would begin a targeted pilot program which would address the lack of safe long term truck parking facilities which continues to compromise highway safety within the United States. Lack of parking has been a major complaint for truckers for many years, and now with a sluggish economy, many more parking facilities are closing down, increasing the need for more government awareness and concern for the problem.
What many do not realize is that the lack of truck parking facilities poses an extreme danger to the general public as well as professional truck drivers. The problem with inadequate truck parking effects everyone driving the highways:
1 Drivers are allowed to drive just so many hours per day ( Hours of Service Regulations set by Federal Government) Knowing this, a driver must plan their trip accordingly in order to satisfy the law, not exceeding their driving limits. Note that this is strictly enforced and a driver who violates HOS receives a citation. With the new laws of CSA 2010, these violations can prove to be even more damaging, to both the driver and the carrier, as all violations will be recorded and maintained in a database for safety evaluations. If a driver can not find parking to rest, he/she not only risks receiving a violation, but more importantly risks the lives of those sharing the highways with them.
2 A truck drivers job is demanding, and the lack of rest can cause serious ramifications in regards to highway safety. If a driver plans his/her trip and there is no adequate parking available in either the rest area or truck stop, he/she is forced to move on, many times driving extremely fatigued.
How ironic, that in a year when the FMCSA is calling for the demand of improved highway safety by implementing CSA 2010, and the new call for Sleep Apnea testing to ensure that drivers are not driving tired due to insufficient quality sleep, a law which would improve highway safety by creating truck parking and ensuring truckers adequate rest, is not already placed as a priority within the scheme of “safety.”
The fact that truck drivers many times are forced to drive fatigued because of a lack of parking is ludicrous and not at all in alignment with the Federal government Campaign for highway safety. This poses a huge risk to the general public as a driver falling asleep at the wheel can prove to be fatal for the other vehicle.
3 Truckers many times are forced to pull over on the side of a road to rest, many times on an exit or entrance ramp, causing extreme highway safety risks for themselves and the general public.
4 Finally, drivers are forced many times to park in unsafe surroundings in order to get their much needed rest. This was the case for Jason Rivenburg, who parked in an abandoned gas station which resulted in his violent death. Jason was an open target for predators as he parked in an isolated area and was shot and killed before he could make his early morning delivery.
Yesterday’s calling campaign to Washington was a success as supporters from the trucking industry stood together and joined forces to get HR 21 56 passed.
The next stage of this campaign needs to be the spreading of awareness to the general public who are unaware of the extreme safety risks they are subjected to on our nations highways. Although the trucking industry represents millions of truckers and transportation employees, it is the general public of the highways that must be aware of the dangers and to also be in align to support the passing of this bill. They must realize that a tired driver unable to stop for rest could be driving along side of them on the highway.
We personally, once again, made numerous call to the representatives in our state of Florida explaining the dire need for Jason’s Law. We also called all 4 offices in the committees which the bill appeared to be “stuck” in, namely the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Highways and Transit Subcommittee.
The most helpful person among all of our phone calls was Todd Kohr from the office of Jim Oberstar, who is the Chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Although the answers to our questions that we asked were not encouraging, the honesty and transparency was appreciated.
According to Todd Kohr, professional staff member for the Highways and Transit subcommittee, he stated that the reason the bill is not moving is because there are similarities to what Jason’s Law is attempting to achieve in another broader bill, the Surface Transportation Authorization Act.
Now, here is the problem:
When the need for truck parking is attached to another bill, Surface Transportation Authorization Act, and many other transportation needs are also attached, the allocated funds would be dependent upon the other proposals within the bill. This has been the problem for many years now when we look at the track record for providing funds for long term truck parking. Truck ParkingFunding gets lost on the shuffle of “other interests”
Todd Kohr also mentioned another Pilot Program, The Truck Parking Facilities Pilot Program which is under SAFETEA LU (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act) which was awarded 25 million over 6 years for truck parking ( THROUGH 2009).
USDOT recently released 6 million dollars to 5 states from this Pilot Program funding: Tennessee, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Oregon.
As we mentioned to Mr Kohr, The Truck Parking Facilities Pilot Program, is a mere drop in the bucket in comparison to the bill, Jason’s Law, which will also be a Pilot Program for meeting the additional long term truck parking needs, but will be 120 million dollars over a 6 year period. Oddly enough, the 120 million dollars for Jason’s Law has been criticized by many, stating that 20 million dollars per year is not enough to cure the deficit of truck parking facilities. If so, then The Truck Parking Facilities Pilot Program, only awarding 6.25 million dollars per year, surely will not even come close to meeting the needs for this huge truck parking problem . The other broad bill for transportation, Surface Transportation Authorization Act, which on paper includes addressing truck parking, doesn’t even define ( nor could Mr Kohr tell us in dollars) a predetermined amount of funds which would be allocated for the severe shortage of truck parking.
Our suggestion to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Highways and Transit Subcommittee, is to seriously reconsider the safety needs of the general public and the professional truck driver by passing Jason’s Law as it’s own bill, thus securing allocated funding for the drastically needed truck parking facilities which are causing havoc among drivers along with compromising the lives of those sharing the highways with 80,000 lb trucks.
It is only when Jason’s Law, HR 2156 is passed into law, that the truck parking problems will be adequately addressed and targeted funding will be used for this purpose and this purpose only. It’s obvious now, after more than 10 years of addressing the shortage of truck parking, that attaching it to a “broader bill” just does not work.
Hope Rivenburg, the widow of slain trucker Jason Rivenburg, along with Congressman Paul Tonko, AskTheTrucker, and everyone who has worked so diligently to get HR 2156 passed into law, has designated June 28th 2010, the official day for Jason’s Law – Bill HR 2156.
Jason’s Law, otherwise known as Bill H.R. 2156, was introduced on April 28th, 2009 and has been referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The Bill, named after truck driver, Jason Rivenburg of Fultonham, NY, who was found shot to death in his truck, would implement a pilot program to establish safe truck parking facilities.
What this day of recognition means is that on, June 28th, 2010, we are calling for EVERYONE to call their Representatives and Senators, telling them that it is imperative for them to support HR 2156 in order that truck drivers can have the promise of safe and adequate parking. We need to flood the phone lines and “Get Er Done”
This is a Bill that has the Support of everyone. With all the many differences that exist among one another within the trucking industry, we are all in unanimous agreement that H.R. 2156 must be passed and become law.
Organizations in Support of H.R. 2156- “Jason’s Law”
OOIDA Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association
Teamsters The International Brotherhood of Teamsters
It’s time to for us all to be determined and not depend on the next guy. Here is an article written by Todd Dills of OverDrive Magazine which explains why we must not be passive, but instead, the absolute vital importance of why we must all be proactive in this cause. We must all create a frame of mind within ourselves that says,
” If I make this call today, Jasons Law Will be passed”
Hope Rivenburg has made numerous trips to Washington in support of HR 2156, attempting to gather support and co-sponsors for the bill.
She does this for 2 reasons:
So that her husbands death will not be in vain
So that no other truck driver or their family will have to endure similar pain and loss
The upcoming safety initiative for the trucking industry, CSA 2010 is beginning to show signs of becoming a big money maker for the States. According to a report received from a driver, a Georgia state officer was reported as saying that the State of Georgia is currently in the process of hiring and training 200 – 300 law enforcement officers that will perform DOT inspections on truck drivers when trucks are pulled over for any type of violation within the CSA 2010 safety analysis.
Due to the recession, many municipalities experienced cutting back on police officers and other law enforcement personnel due to city, county and state budgets. Thanks to the new safety plan for the trucking industry, it appears states are beginning to see a huge windfall of income. If this is true, Georgia and other states that will surely follow, must be looking at CSA 2010 as their means of a new plan for profit.
If the state of Georgia can come up with enough money to hire, train and pay for 200 – 300 more officers, then they must be looking at CSA 2010 on paying the bill. Of course, who will really be paying the bill are the truck drivers and the motor carriers.
Can you see the abuse of a new trucking safety plan taking place? You can come up with new safety initiatives and programs every day to help stop unsafe behavior, but you can never stop political greed.
In that article we discussed how Truck Driver Fatigue was being used almost synonymously with the condition called sleep apnea. We showed how the data of the study was not truly representative of the results that were being spread around the various media sites.
We also discussed in that article and a follow up article what the real major reasons for truck driver fatigue were caused by.
On May 19th we had a Blog Talk Radio Show, “Truck Driver Fatigue and the Sleep Apnea Deception,” discussing these finding and results, and discussed the many reasons and major causes of truck driver fatigue…and it was not sleep apnea as so many would have you believe. We did however on the show demonstrate that sleep apnea is a real and serious condition which should be treated, just not the major cause of driver fatigue which seems to be the latest and greatest “ alarm for a new mandate driver screening.”
During the show that evening, less than halfway through the show, a caller called in, defending the statistics and study conducted by the FMCSA. The call was from Bob Stanton, a speaker from the recent Sleep Apnea and Trucking Conference 2010 which was held just a few days prior to our Blog Talk Radio Show. Mr Stanton said that there were newer studies performed by the FMCSA, including ones still in process, that indeed did correlate with the FMCSA’s figure of 30% of truck drivers have sleep apnea. He also stated that the study and data we used was a different study. Basically, the call was to rattle or intimidate us, not to mention an attempt to discredit our research and information. Fortunately, we had done extensive research and felt confident to discuss the topic, and rightly so.
After the show I wrote Mr Stanton and requested that he email me links to the information regarding the new studies on sleep apnea which would support the 30% of drivers have sleep apnea figure which is being so loosely stated as concrete fact.
I did receive an email back. The first paragraph was an apology for the way he spoke on the radio show, commending our research on the topic. He went on to state that it’s not the % that matters, but rather the correlation between untreated sleep apnea and the increased risk of crashes by CMV drivers. Well, if it’s not the % that matters, why is everyone who is supporting mandatory screening using % to have law passed….give me a break!!
"To me the real issue is not what % of drivers
may have sleep apnea.
The real issue is ... Is there a clear coorelation beteween
untreated sleep apnea and an increased risk of crash in
CMV operators in studies done in the US."
Mr Stanton also sent me a few attachments and an article ,which included a bibliography which may support further findings and possibly add to our research. He also sent the pdf which was utilized to support the “30% of drivers have sleep apnea rage”, FMCSA driver 28% more likely to have OSA.pdf( Again, notice who’s making a big deal over the %?)
After carefully reviewing everything, I could not find data which correlated CMV crashes and drivers with sleep apnea.
Also, the PDF of the new study FMCSA driver 28% more likely to have OSA.pdf, which was suppose to support that high % driver with sleep apnea figure, was actually based on the original pool of 1391 drivers study within a 50 mile radius, and did not equal the exaggerated 28% figure of both the FMCSA and ATA ( according to my math anyway) but rather indicated the following: 9.8% drivers had mild sleep apnea ( not 17.6%), 3.2% had moderate sleep apnea ( not 5.8%). and 2.7% had severe sleep apnea ( not4.7%)
So rather than 28% having sleep apnea as suggested ,the number is reduced to 15.7%, with the majority of those figures displaying mild sleep apnea.
You may wonder why these %’s are so different?
Simple. It appears that when the calculation were made, the total # of drivers was not included in the calculations when deriving the %’s, but rather just the drivers which had been screened through the questionnaire. This is apparent by reading the part that says,” based on the results of several tests” Remember, only the drivers that were screened to possibly have sleep apnea were tested in the study ( not the entire 1391 drivers), therefore the % concluded are not a true representation of the entire pool of random drivers. ( You really can make numbers say anything you want!)
These kinds of calculations were explained in detail on our Blog Talk Radio Show and also in the first article
FMCSA Finding from ” A study of Prevalence of Sleep Apnea Among Commercial Truck Drivers”
“A major goal of the study was to determine the prevalence of sleep apnea in
commercial truck drivers, based on the results of several tests conducted on
a random sample of commercial driver’s license (CDL) holders living within
a 50-mile radius of the University of Pennsylvania.
The results of the study revealed that 17.6 percent of CDL holders had
mild sleep apnea, 5.8 percent had moderate sleep apnea,
and 4.7 percent had severe sleep apnea.”
I believe by modifying the questionnaire which was given to the 1391 drivers who responded for the study, a higher number of positively screened applicants through the questionnaire were tested this time ( 406 screened positive the first time and 778 the second. ) This appears to be the major modification in repeating the study , not an entire new random pool of drivers which the caller suggested : ( unless by a huge coincidence, the same exact number of 1391 drivers responded to the study? I doubt that seriously)
I will say this, I do agree that it would be important to see a correlation between sleep apnea and truck crashes. So far I have not seen data to support this. If anyone has a study to prove otherwise, please reply to this post with the link to the study.
Finally, let’s not lose sight of the purpose of these posts. We are NOT saying that sleep apnea isn’t a serious condition that one should not be treated for. We are saying that truck driver fatigue is a serious problem that can not be solely blamed just on sleep apnea. As long as we’re all on the same page with safety and truck driver fatigue, let’s investigate everything involved in driver fatigue that can be attributed and possibly cause danger to all of our safety.
Driver lifestyle, sleep patterns, hours of continuous driving, lack of quality sleep, interruptions of sleep from qualcomm, shippers and receivers not keeping appointment time, drivers forced to drive when tired or out of hours ( gotta get that hot load delivered), and the nature of the profession all play major roles. If a mandate is to be made to screen drivers for sleep apnea, then each driver should also be required to fill out a truck driver fatigue questionnaire asking :
Have you ever been forced to drive by your company when you were either out of hours or too tired? If so, how often, which company?
Have you been forced to stay awake and missed your sleep because your appointment time was late by shipper or receiver? If so, how often, which company?
Were you ever woken from sleep by the qualcomm to ask a question that could have waited? If so, how often? Which company?
Are you satisfied with the way the present HOS are set up?
Perhaps a study and investigation to the above questions should be conducted in order to correlate fatal crashes by CMV drivers as a result of sleep deprivation caused by trucking companies, shippers, receivers and HOS rules that are not in the best interest for the lifestyle or circumstances that exist for the professional truck driver. These causes of truck driver fatigue are equally as serious as sleep apnea. They all force drivers to drive with inadequate or lack of quality sleep and should all be addressed in equal proportion to one another.
Driver Fatigue is no stranger to the trucking industry. The FMCSA has performed studies in the past in order to better understand what causes driver fatigue and how to reduce it by correcting the major contributing sources.
Back in 1996, a 7 year study, The Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Fatigue and Alertness Study (DFAS), was published by the FMCSA evaluating driver fatigue. At the time, Hours of Service was under review and many contributors to driver fatigue were considered. The cost of this study was 4.45 million dollars. This is the Introductions written by the FMSCA concerning this study.
“The Driver Fatigue and Alertness Study (DFAS) was the largest and most comprehensive over-the-road study ever conducted on driver fatigue and alertness in North America. It provides extensive information on the alertness, driving performance, and physiological and subjective states of commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers as they perform real-life, revenue-generating trips. This Executive Summary overviews the objectives, methods, principal findings, and safety implications of this landmark 7-year study.”
During this comprehensive study this is what was concluded in regards to the concerns of Sleep Apnea:
“Although this study was not designed to determine a population prevalence, analysis of subject sleep revealed that two of the 80 drivers (2.5%) had clinically-diagnosable apnea, a sleep disorder characterized by breathing cessations. The driving performance of these two individuals was not statistically different from that of other comparable drivers in the study.”
The Study concludes with:
ASSESSMENT OF RESULTS FOR FATIGUE MANAGEMENT:
“There is no quick fix and no single solution to the fatigue problem. Sleep is the principal countermeasure to fatigue…. Partnerships among government, industry, drivers, safety groups, the scientific community, and shippers are needed for effective solutions to the commercial motor vehicle driver fatigue problem.”
In an article by Misty Bell of eTrucker , Mary Gunnels, director of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Medical Programs made the statement “We know that fatigue is a problem,” she said, “and we know that sleep apnea is a major contributor to fatigue.”
Do we really know that sleep apnea is the major contributor? Where is the data?
In that same article, Martin R. Walker, chief, FMCSA Research Division, pointed to the prevalence of sleep apnea in commercial truck drivers, noting that a study published in 2002 found that almost a third of CMV drivers have mild to severe obstructive sleep apnea. This study, along with a later study, found that older age and higher body mass index are two factors commonly linked with sleep apnea.
30% of drivers have mild to severe sleep apnea? How could that be? The 7 year study performed by the FMCSA didn’t come close to those figures?
I decided to look at the research, and this is what I came up with:
It appears that these figures and statements made during the Sleep Apnea & Trucking Conference of May 12, 2010 were possibly based on this study. At least this is the only study I could find actual data on.
The study was conducted by the University of Pennsylvania Sleep Apnea Study. The research was conducted during 1996 to1998. Sleep apnea is a condition in which a narrowing or closure of the upper airway during sleep causes repeated sleep disturbances, and possible complete awakenings, leading to poor sleep quality and excessive daytime sleepiness. This study was completed to assess the risks of commercial motor vehicle (CMV) crashes due to the presence of sleep apnea among truck drivers.
Basically, this study involved 1391 drivers. The drivers were asked a series of questions, including their height and weight, sleep patterns, medical history, snoring, etc. This was used as a screening process to determine which drivers were most likely to have sleep apnea. Out of the 1391 drivers, 406 were selected as a result of their questionnaire, to proceed with the overnight laboratory study in order to determine how many of them were accurately predicted to have sleep apnea.
The results were as follows:
64% or 260 of the 406 flagged for most likely to have sleep apnea had no sleep apnea.
21.2% or 86 of the 406 flagged for most likely to have sleep apnea had mild sleep apnea. 7.9% or32of the 406 flagged for most likely to have sleep apnea had moderated sleep apnea.
6.9% or 28 of the 406 flagged for most likely to have sleep apnea had severe sleep apnea.
Now, the above percentages and figures are for the 406 flagged drivers. When you perform the calculations based on the group study of ALL 1391 Drivers, here are the results ( the calculation required to accurately represent and determine % of ALL drivers):
2.0% or 28 of total 1391 drivers had severe sleep apnea ( matches the 1st study by FMCSA- DFAS) 2.3% or 32 of total 1391 drivers had moderate sleep apnea 6.2% or 86 of total 1391 drivers had mild sleep apnea.
This would mean that only 4.3% of drivers have moderate to severe sleep apnea. If you include mild sleep apnea, the % jumps to 10.5%
The following statement in the report however is the most revealing of all:
“The results of the study showed that the prevalence rates of sleep apnea among commercial truckdrivers are similar to sleep apnea rates found in other general populations.” The study also revealed that the prevalence of sleep apnea depends on the relationship between two major factors – age and degree of obesity as measured by body mass index (BMI) – with the prevalence of sleep apnea increasing with increasing age and BMI. Another meaningful study finding showed that the prevalence of sleep apnea depends on the average duration of sleep over consecutive nights at home. Short sleep duration, six hours or less per night, results in an increase in the prevalence of sleep apnea.”
Here’s that last statement again which has not been mentioned by the authorities and experts as a major source of sleep apnea,” Short sleep duration, six hours or less per night, results in an increase in the prevalence of sleep apnea.”
When you consider that the average OTR truck driver gets 5.2 hours sleep/night, then you have to wonder if it is the trucking industry lifestyle, behavior, and rules which are major causes for driver fatigue and also for creating/inducing “driver sleep apnea.”
The original hypothesis tested was the following: “A driver diagnosed with sleep apnea is more likely to be involved in a motor vehicle crash than a driver with no history or symptoms of sleep apnea, after controlling for differences in the other predictor variables included in the model.“
Finally, the study concluded to say, “No association was found between sleep apnea presence or severity and multiple crashes. This suggests that the commercial drivers in this study who were diagnosed with sleep apnea were not at increased risk for having more than one crash over the 14 year period prior to and following diagnosis…. Furthermore, there was no evidence from the data used in this study to suggest that crash risk is impacted before and after drivers are diagnosed with sleep apnea.”
There are many reasons for Driver Fatigue, and despite what many would like you to believe, lack of available sleep is the major cause. Sleep Apnea appears to represent a much smaller percentage than what is being stated. The data strongly suggests this.
Although sleep apnea is a real condition, it represents a much smaller percent of the driver population than the FMCSA and the ATA are suggesting. To screen a driver by height and weight (BMI), and neck size ( 17 or greater) is not only discriminatory, but is ludicrous. To force drivers to pay for the testing based on such information is simply wrong and unjust. A serious look at other reasons for driver fatigue should be investigated.
On the other side of that coin, if you do believe you may have sleep apnea, then you should by all means be tested and start the treatment.
The FMCSA needs to create laws, ensuring that drivers are not sleep deprived rather that associate driver fatigue on the hype of sleep apnea. It appears this is just a way to take the attention off of the real and valid reasons that drivers are fatigued, thus relieving the responsibility from carriers, shippers, and receivers who are all a part of depriving drivers from the rest they need. It’s also a way to deviate attention from the present HOS rules which need to be modified in order to aid in better and more rest for drivers.
Creating a sleep apnea testing program will be a BIG money maker for many as well as one more excuse to eliminate “undesirable” drivers from the industry.
While doing my daily Google news searches I came across an interesting article and video regarding CSA 2010. The video was made during a Driving for Profit Seminar directed to carriers, telling them about the importance of CSA 2010 and what they will need to focus on if they do not want to receive an unfit SFD ( Safety Fitness Determination Rating)
What surprised me, was that the speaker emphasized that the carriers main focus should be on the driver, not so they can work together in order to avoid violations, but rather to “get them under control”. He went on to tell them that it will be the driver who will ultimately determine the carriers SFD.
Not once does it mention the accountability of the carriers to be compliant. Rather than me explaining the video, watch it for yourself and see what you think he’s saying and what tactics he’s employing. Again, Drivers will not be rated
I made a comment, but as of yet I have not seen it posted. This is the comment I left on their blog
COMMENT-Allen Smith
I have listened to this video and there are aspects I’d like to address. First I’d like to say that Drivers will NOT BE RATED ( stated in the video), only Carriers. SFD ( Safety Fitness Determination) clearly defines this. It is true that drivers will have scores within the BASIC areas that can be observed, but even those will be limited to who can observe them.
For example, at the weigh stations : the inspector can ONLY see the carriers BASIC safety scores, but not the drivers. The driver data is based on the last 3 and 5 years of road side inspections and crash data. And only that can be seen for them.
The only DRIVER data available to roadside inspectors and future employers ( through a PSP form submitted with permission of the applicant driver) is the 3 and 5 year look back of roadside inspections and DOT recordable accidents.
What this means is that if your company has a high score based on poor past performance, then you have ( and the driver) a greater chance for a roadside inspection.
1) A Safety Fitness Determination (SFD) Rating is only for carriers; The present rating is satisfactory, conditional, and unsatisfactory. The future safety rating will be Continue Operation, Marginal, and Unfit. Again, no such rating for drivers, which means the FMSCA does not “pull a drivers CDL” or “Shut a driver down” as with carriers. The driver can be called in for a government intervention if HIS/HER scores are too high in the BASIC areas which are mostly evident as the Drivers Responsibility. However, even these intervention are most likely going to occur because the Carrier was flagged first.
Next, I would like to say that the statement in this video proclaiming that a carrier’s safety rating is developed by the drivers roadside inspections is misleading. Yes, it is the driver who will be pulled over for an inspection, but violations will not be accounted for by HIS/HER performance only. It is the violations that the company is responsible for ALSO within the 7 BASIC categories
Example: Speeding , reckless driving, improper lane change etc…Is the drivers responsibility. However, there are portions of the scoring violation system that clearly shows aspects of CSA 2010 scoring that THE DRIVER will NOT be held accountable for. Note: The Carrier on the other hand will be responsible for ALL violations, theirs and the driver.
In conclusion I would say it that the carriers need to: Keep their equipment in top condition and to make the appropriate repairs when needed. Also, if they do not want to have an Hours of Service violation which is categorized under “Fatigued Driving” then they should notify dispatch that forcing a driver to run illegally in order to make a pick up or delivery will no longer be acceptable. Another note to carriers: When a driver says he does not want to operate the vehicle or trailer because there are mechanical defects, this can no longer be taken lightly. In the past a driver could even be threatened about their job if he/she refused to use equipment that he/she felt would result in a violation if pulled over by DOT. Now the carrier needs to be aware that this behavior is not acceptable. Over weight loads will also be detected and noted and when the drivers advises that the load is overweight, the carrier can no longer dismiss this and force them to run with it anyway.
To say that “the driver is responsible for the development of the carriers score” is actually not creating a true picture of what CSA 2010 is all about. It is actually making carriers accountable for issues in the past that they were not. Carriers will need to LISTEN to the drivers and drivers will need to tell the carriers when things aren’t right and there is a chance for a violation during a roadside inspection. In turn drivers will also need to pay attention to the aspects of CSA 2010 that they are to be held responsible and accountable for.
: george washington bridge, road repair, the gw, transdyn, truck drivers, trucking
