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"
An Alabama trucking company has been shut down after one of its drivers crashed into a van in March, killing 10 people in the van, many of whom had Lancaster County connections. Killed in the crash on a Kentucky highway were eight members of the John and Sadie Esh family, along with two family friends. The tractor-trailer truck driver was also killed.
The only survivors of the crash were two little boys, ages 3 and 5, who were grandsons of the Eshes.
Both John and Sadie Esh, who were Mennonite, were from large Amish families and had many relatives in Lancaster County.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ordered Hester Inc., of Fayette, Ala., to cease operations after failing to correct “critical” violations, including allowing drivers to operate trucks longer than allowed by law.
The order was issued in June, but was released to The Courier-Journal on Wednesday after the newspaper requested it through the Freedom of Information Act. Scott Hester, the owner of the company, declined to comment to the newspaper.
Truck driver Kenneth Laymon went across the median on I-65 near Munfordville on March 26, striking a van carrying the Esh family and their friends, who were traveling to a wedding in Iowa.
Trucking companies retaliation against truck drivers
According to Federal Law, employers are prohibited from firing, demoting, or in any other way discriminating against an employee. Supposedly, this law applies to trucking companies as well. Truck drivers who refuse to violate HOS rules or to operate the CMV in a way that would violate a Federal Commercial Motor Vehicle Regulation are protected from any kind of retaliation by the trucking company, under the STAA, 49 U.S.C. Section 31105, and are encouraged to report any such retaliation to the FMCSA or to OSHA.
The Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) is suppose to provide a simplified and effective remedy for truck drivers who are fired for insisting on following Federal Motor Carrier safety regulations as set forth by the FMCSA. If a trucking company takes action against a driver for any complaint where the driver is protected from retaliation, then he or she mayfile a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) that could result in reinstatement, back pay and benefits, attorney fees and costs, and other remedies.
Truck drivers and their OSHA rights
The OSH Act protects workers who report to their employer, OSHA or other government agencies about unsafe or unhealthful working conditions in the workplace or environmental problems. The STAA prevents trucking companies from invoking retaliatory measures against a driver who invokes his or her rights under OSHA. The FMCSA also encourages truck drivers to report safety violations by motor carriers.
Some examples of activities protected under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act are:
Making a complaint to the U. S. DOT about violations, or possible violations, of commercial vehicle safety regulations.
Making a complaint to your employer about violations, or possible violations, of commercial vehicle safety regulations.
Refusing to drive a commercial vehicle when impaired due to illness or fatigue.
Refusing to drive a vehicle that exceeds highway weight restrictions.
Refusing to violate hours-of-service regulations.
Refusing to drive a vehicle with defective lamps, leaky exhaust systems, inadequate brake pressure or adjustment.
Refusing to violate speed limits.
Refusing to drive in hazardous weather.
Refusing to falsify a log book.
Trucking companies are prohibited from retaliation or discrimination measures toward the truck driver who exercises their OSHA rights. Discrimination can include the following actions:
Firing or laying off
Assigning to undesirable shifts
Blacklisting
Demoting
Denying overtime or promotion
Disciplining
Denial of benefits
Failure to hire or rehire
Intimidation
Transferring
Reassigning work
Reducing pay or hours
Most STAA cases involve drivers refusing to drive when fatigued or the load is considered unsafe. Trucking companies who retaliate by reducing the miles the driver receives, is thus reducing the pay for the trucker, thus violating the STAA. You can submit your questions to OSHA if you feel that you have been retaliated or discriminated against by the trucking company.
Is OSHA working for truck drivers?
One study found that OSHA ruled in favor of the truck driver only 31% of the time. In most of these cases, however, the employee chose to act without an attorney experienced in employment law. The study also noted that many of the cases that OSHA dismissed were successful when appealed. The Workplace Fairness Organization provides a source to locate an attorney who specializes in employment law.
But is OSHA, the STAA and the FMCSA working for truck drivers? Many truckers report that when contacting OSHA or the FMCSA on such matters, their complaints went unnoticed. Furthermore, drivers state that they might as well had been “talking to a fence post” due to no action taken by OSHA or the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
The Act also is suppose to provide compensation for the truck driver who’s claim is successful in various forms as:
reinstatement
back pay
front pay
compensatory damages for such items as emotional distress and loss of reputation,
interest on damages
attorney fees and costs
Other remedies, known as “equitable remedies” include:
purging of adverse information from personnel records, and
posting of information about the case at the employer’s work sites.
Trucking companies beat OSHA and FMCSA at their own game
When it comes to enforcing the STAA and FMCSA protection in place for truck drivers and their employee rights, trucking companies have proven to be much smarter than these two agencies. By creating the “Starving Out” process of truck drivers and placing the blame on economic issues and the lack of freight, it can often lead to the trucker unable to prove that they were actually retaliated against. Even though both OSHA and FMCSA have acknowledged that this process of starving out drivers is in place within the trucking industry, there have been no parts created in the FMCSA regulations to hold motor carriers responsible.
Will CSA 2010 prevent truck driver retaliation?
Although CSA 2010 is expected to hold motor carriers more responsible for safety issues, the standard mileage for professional truck drivers have been set at 2500 miles per week. If a driver uses their right under OSHA and the FMCSA, trucking companies will still be able to retaliate against the driver by utilizing the starving out process. Federal regulations should include a sub-part stating that a motor carrier must supply the truck driver with the weekly miles that were promised at the time of hire.
Trucking companies will always tell the driver that the average miles per week that they can expect is 2500 miles. A Federal Law should be enacted to hold the company accountable for this claim. This could play an effective part in stopping the “starving out” process which is most often used as a retaliation tool against truck drivers.
If OSHA and the FMCSA is truly for the employee rights of the trucker, a regulation such as this should be in place.
Hope Rivenburg and Congressman Paul Tonko in Washington DC
Hope Rivenburg notified us a few days ago that the official day designated to call your Senators and Congress Representatives for the support of more Safe Truck Parking would be set for June 28th, 2010.
We’ve discovered that the bill, Jason’s Law, has been stalled in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee where James Oberstar of Minnesota resides as the Chair and John Mica of Florida is the ranking Republican. There is absolutely no apparent reason that this bill should not pass, especially since 2010 is “the year of safety”, which has been displayed by the enforcement of CSA 2010, an all out campaign by the FMCSA to improve highway safety by implementing stricter rules and regulation on both drivers and carriers. Presently, there are over 40 co-sponsors for the bill.
It only stands to reason, that Jason’s Law would go hand in hand with all the new safety mandates since it would be a major positive step to improve the safety of the general public and professional truck driver. Jason’s Law, H.R.2156, would implement more safe truck parking which would serve two- fold:
Create more parking for tired drivers to stop and rest, thus eliminating the danger to both themselves and the general public for the need to keep driving until they can find available parking.
Would reduce the need for drivers to seek and use secluded parking spots for them to park and rest. These secluded parking spots are open invitations for criminal acts of violence, which was proven by the senseless murder of Jason Rivenburg, of whom this bill is named.
First ask for the staffer in charge of transportation.
Then ask them to please ask their boss to co-sponsor H.R. 2156 known as Jason’s Law.
Explain that you live in their state and are very concerned about the risk of highway safety caused by the inadequate number of available parking facilities for professional truck drivers.
Also, explain that the drivers of these massive trucks are forced to drive tired until they can find accessible parking, causing a major safety risk to themselves and the general public. You can then go on to explain that the bill was named after a truck driver who could not find safe parking, and parked in an abandoned gas station where he was shot and killed for a measly $7.00
James Oberstar, the chair of the transportation and infrastructure committee, has a FaceBook Page. We also ask that you please state your plea on his page today. Only when we let this committee know that we are dissatisfied with the stalling of this bill, both through social media postings and flooding the phone lines on June 28th, will we be able to ensure that this bill will be passed.
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.
Truck driver fatigue is always being taunted as a major problem. The NTSB, the FMCSA and the American Trucking Association are all behind the implementation of a new bill that will require truck drivers to undergo testing for a medical condition known as sleep apnea.
Media reports are stating that about 30% of all truck drivers have sleep apnea. Furthermore, it has been reported that the condition affects between 6% to 12% of the adult male population.
Truth About Trucking “LIVE” talk radio discussed the real truth behind truck driver fatigue and the sleep apnea deception on Wednesday, May 19th, 2010.
We had the reports . . . we had the data . . . we had the numbers.
When one study did not provide the data that they were looking for, then they conducted more studies until the data met their agenda.
Sleep apnea is a serious medical condition that needs to be treated and the truck driver population needs to be made aware, but the real problem of truck driver fatigue lies with the lifestyle of the professional trucker and how the motor carriers contribute to this problem. (See our previous post: Motor Carriers Responsible for Truck Driver Fatigue).
Continually pushing the issue of sleep apnea as the major cause of driver fatigue is taking the focus off of the real problem : pushing drivers to their limit, disturbing drivers while they are trying to sleep, forced dispatch and so-forth. Sleep apnea needs to be taken seriously and those who have it should take steps in its treatment. But saying that 30% of truck drivers have this condition is just not the case, when independent studies have shown a regular percentile of around four percent.
Furthermore, if the studies conducted do not present the figures that you were hoping for, performing more studies until you reach the wanted figures only minimize the findings.
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.
When it comes to truck drivers not operating while tired, the responsibility is a two-way street. The driver must have the full authority to be able to call the shots when it is time for him or her to shut down due to fatigue. The motor carrier must adhere to the professional drivers’ request, without any repercussion from retaliation measures, such as dispatch forcing them to sit for three days or giving them low mileage and poor paying loads. When a truck driver is involved in an accident, particularly one that results in fatalities, it is major headline news bringing the spotlight on the driver and the cause often being fatigue. The spotlight needs to be more on the trucking company and questions asked as to why the driver was operating under such conditions.
It’s time we stop dancing around the facts of why these terrible incidents occur. Nearly every trucker I know will explain to dispatch that they are too tired to pull a load that they have just been given. We all know that many dispatchers will whine and plead with the driver that the “load has to get there” and they are the only driver available at that time and place. If the driver continues his or her stance on being too tired, dispatch will very often turn to the retaliation mode and shut the driver down by making them sit for days incurring no income, provide them with poor paying loads or at worse, find a way to dismiss the driver from their employment.
Professional truck drivers will often find themselves in a position where they must determine whether or not to make the forced run or risk losing the job and their means of support for their families. This scenario has been going on within the long-haul trucking industry since I can remember, and yet, with all the talk about driver and public safety from the FMCSA, the ATA and every other authoritative figure, no enforcement regulation has ever been designed or even addressed in regards to the responsibility of the motor carrier for bringing an end to this forced dispatching and retaliation against drivers who are only doing what they should do legally . . . if truck drivers feel they are too tired to run a load, they should have the right to say “No” and be allowed to rest without the fear of retaliation. I have known many drivers who went ahead and took the load, ended up in an accident due to fatigue, and when they made contact with dispatch again, the dispatcher responded with, “Well, you shouldn’t have taken the load if you were too tired.”
Motor carriers can get away with this, simply because nothing is ever recorded or written down as to what conversation between driver and dispatcher went down. Even with discussion between driver and dispatcher on such equipment as Qualcomm, etc., seldom does the driver have full access to the records. The fault, in OTR truck driving, will always come back on the driver. The dispatcher, load coordinator, dispatch supervisor or any company authority figure will never have the character or moral ethics to admit that the wrong-doing came from them . . . it is always the fault of the driver. Many times, they would rather risk endangering the life of the truck driver and the general public, all for the sake of getting the load picked up and delivered on time.
The FMCSA and the ATA need to step up and address this problem that many trucking companies have in regards to forcing a driver to continue running, even when the driver has expressed, within his or her legal rights, that they are too tired to drive and they need to get sleep and rest. It’s all about safety, right? Yesterday, the FMCSA extended the hours of service rule for truck drivers working on the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Although situations such as this is a good way for drivers to make some much needed extra income, who would be held responsible if one of the drivers’ fell asleep at the wheel? The FMCSA? The ATA? The trucking company? No, I can guarantee you that it would be the truck driver.
The above image is from Houston, Texas where a driver fell asleep at the wheel, careening off the overpass. Why was the driver so tired that he or she fell asleep? Are there not regulations for truck drivers requiring them to be given the opportunity for rest? Of course there are, but these Federal Regulations mean nothing when the driver is faced with forced, retaliation measures from the motor carriers.
It appears to me that safety is the key, only when it mostly benefits the trucking companies and those trucking Associations and Organizations who have the power and political contacts to bring an end to this pushing of drivers who are at the collapsing edge of fatigue.
In a meeting yesterday, May 12th, 2010, the FMCSA began discussions on the concerns of fatigue on truck drivers. Citing that fatigue is a major problem among truckers, it was also noted that the medical condition, sleep apnea, is a major contributor to fatigue. The FMCSA and the National Sleep Foundation have initiated an awareness campaign called “Get on the Road to Better Health: Recognizing the Dangers of Sleep Apnea.”
While the final plans for sleep apnea testing for truck drivers play out, present discussion is pointing to the possibilities of having drivers tested for the condition, who have a body mass index of 30 or higher. The FMCSA is wanting testing done when a driver’s BMI is at least 30, while the Sleep Apnea Medical Expert Panel is recommending testing at the 33 level. Although a date for the new requirements have not been announced, it is noted that there are still much needed discussion on how to handle various aspects of the proposed initiative. One aspect being who exactly will be responsible for paying for the testing : the trucking company or the truck driver? Don Osterberg, Senior V. P. of safety for Schneider National points out that the total cost for sleep apnea testing will run around $3500,with about $2,000 for the sleep study and $1,500 for the equipment.
As per our previous post from July 14th, 2009 on the future of sleep apnea testing for truckers, talks are in the works again for truckers to face another regulation in relationship to trucking safety. As a concerned driver, you can check your BMI to see where you would stand in this issue.
Although the roll-out date is still in question, R. Clay Porter, a partner at Dennis, Corry, Porter & Smith, LLP, pointed out that while sleep apnea has not yet become a major player in the realm of truck litigation, he also said that it is “going to be part of this legal landscape sooner rather than later.”
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.
The FMCSA safety initiative, CSA 2010, has certainly gotten the industry talking. The problem that I see now is that there is still too much misinformation being bounced around about the new safety program. The main reason for the wrong info is due to the fact that the program keeps changing. Nobody really knows what the final results will be when the CSA 2010 is fully implemented . . . it really comes down to a “wait and see” attitude.
Another problem with all of this, is that there is contradictory information, even on the government sites. I hear over and over that truck drivers will not be accessed scores through the CSA 2010 . . . I say that they will, just as the motor carriers will receive a score. At least, for the way it is written now . . . again, that could change, but I do not believe it will. Truck drivers, along with their motor carrier will be scored on their performances. The following shows what a Motor Carrier’s Rating Score will look like with the new safety program, with this card being named: Carrier Safety Measurement:
Motor Carrier Safety Score
This score card clearly shows a 98.6% score towards unsafe driving, along with other basic scores, against the motor carrier. This card can be found on page 35 of the SMS Methodology. As noted, the performance of the truck driver will be in direct correlation with the motor carrier’s score. As pointed out to me by Rickey Gooch of PrePaid Legal:
“Carriers will be judged by the FMCSA point system which is 80% driven by driver citations and inspections. If a driver decides not to fight a ticket, he or she is in fact, damaging the motor carrier he or she is working for.”
The only thing I would change in this statement is, “Carriers will be “scored” . . . “ just as truck drivers will be on a scoring system as well, with the below card being named: Driver Safety Measurement:
Truck Driver Safety Scores
The above driver score card shows how a driver can receive a score of 99.9% for unsafe driving, thus resulting in an intervention. Of course, we all know that more than likely, a driver of this caliber would be terminated by the company. This score card can be seen on page 36 of the same SMS Methodology.
Perhaps I’m missing something here? From what I see . . . there will be a CSA 2010 scoring system for both Motor Carrier and driver. The FMCSA may be twisting the terminology around by saying that carriers and drivers will be placed in a peer percentile to make it appear that a single score card will not be enacted . . . but I’m just not seeing it that way.
: alabama, FMCSA, hours of violations, lancaster, online, shut down, trucking company
