Trucks at Work Blog

“To put it plainly, distracted driving is a menace to society. This trend distresses me deeply, both on a personal level, and as the nation’s chief executive for transportation safety. And it seems to be getting worse every year.” – Ray LaHood, U.S. Transportation Secretary

Ray LaHood and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) are on the warpath against distracted driving – with the agency’s regulatory apparatus shifting into high gear over this all-of-a-sudden volatile issue.

Right after the DOT wrapped up its long-awaited two-day summit on the issue of distracted driving last week, President Obama signed an Executive Order directing federal employees forbidding several such distracted behaviors. Federal employees now cannot: engage in text messaging while driving government-owned vehicles; use electronic equipment supplied by the government while driving; or do either of the above while driving privately owned vehicles when on official government business.

The order also encourages federal contractors and others doing business with the government to adopt and enforce their own policies banning texting while driving on the job, noted LaHood.

LaHood stressed that DOT plans to create three separate rulemakings to address distracted driving across a number of transportation modes, including:

• Making permanent restrictions on the use of cell phones and other electronic devices in rail operations;

• Banning text messaging altogether, and restrict the use of cell phones by truck and interstate bus operators;

• Disqualifying school bus drivers convicted of texting while driving, from maintaining their commercial driver’s licenses.

“Every single time you take your eyes off the road or talk on the phone while you’re driving – even for just a few seconds – you put your life in danger,” LaHood said in his speech before the summit. “You also put others in danger, too. This kind of behavior is irresponsible – and the consequences are devastating.”

[Below you’ll find a video of LaHood describing the DOT’s concerns over distracted driving.]

Here’s the damage distracted driving causes, according to data compiled by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA. In 2008, 5,870 people lost their lives and an estimated 515,000 people were injured in police-reported crashes in which at least one form of driver distraction was noted, the agency said. Here’s some added detail on those numbers from NHTSA:

• Driver distraction was reported to have been involved in 16% of all fatal crashes in 2008 according to data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS).

• The age group with the greatest proportion of distracted drivers was the under-20 age group—16% of all under-20 drivers in fatal crashes were reported to have been distracted while driving.

• An estimated 21% of injury crashes were reported to have involved distracted driving, according to data from the General Estimates System (GES).

• Based on data from the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey (NMVCCS) – a nationally representa¬tive survey– in crashes where the critical reason for the crash was attributed to the driver, approximately 18% involved distraction.

• During the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study conducted by Virginia Tech Transportation Institute for NHTSA, driver involvement in secondary tasks contributed to over 22% of all crashes and near-crashes recorded during the study period.

“Across the board, federal researchers who have directly observed drivers of all ages found that more and more people are using a variety of hand-held devices while driving – not just cell phones, but also iPods, video games, Blackberrys, and so forth,” said LaHood. “They’re doing it every day of the week, in the rain, and with kids in the car.”

And he stressed that this problem isn’t limited to private citizens. “Incredibly, [transit] bus drivers, train operators, truck drivers, and even school bus drivers have allowed distractions to interfere with their work,” LaHood noted. “A year ago, a commuter train engineer in Chatsworth, California was so busy texting a friend that he failed to stop at a red signal. He caused one of the worst passenger rail accidents in years, killing 25 people and injuring 135 more.”

This July, LaHood pointed out, a 25 year-old tow truck driver in upstate New York texting and talking on a cell phone crashed through a fence, side-swiped a house, landed in a swimming pool, and injured his passenger.

“A generation ago, our society often turned a blind eye to people who would drink and drive, or not use a seatbelt, or maybe both,” he said. “Those problems taught us a valuable lesson: We need a combination of strong laws, tough enforcement, and ongoing public education, to make a difference.”

Whether you agree with LaHood’s take on how serious distracted driving is as a safety issue – and the DOT’s regulatory plan to quash such behavior – or not, one thing is certain: there’s going to be a tremendous amount of focus on distracted driving at federal level, trickling down in a fast rush to the state and local level, too. And that’s going to affect how truck drivers conduct themselves behind the wheel – especially when big dollar fines over “distractive behavior” start getting bandied about.

“This year, more than 200 distracted driving bills have been introduced in 46 state legislatures,” said LaHood. “So far, 21 states and the District of Columbia ban cell phones for novice drivers and six states and D.C. ban cell phone use by all drivers. [So] though this problem is still widespread, there is a growing willingness to take action.”

But LaHood also noted – and I think this is important – that regulations and aggressive law enforcement can’t do it all when it comes to curbing distractive driving behaviors. And guess what – the same goes for every negative behavior we’re attempting to eradicate from the driving public, such as reckless driving, speeding, drunk and drugged driving, etc.

“I want to remind everyone that we cannot rely on legal action alone, because in reality, you can’t legislate behavior,” LaHood stressed. “There aren’t enough police on patrol to catch everyone who’s breaking the law [so] taking personal responsibility for our actions is the key to all of this … so keep your eyes on the road. It’s up to each of us to do that. This affects everybody who gets into a vehicle, day or night. We’re in this together, as a nation, and we’ve got to solve it together.”

That, at least, is a truth I think everyone can agree on as the debate – and action – on distracted driving continues to grow.

“Government policy such as fuel standards and greenhouse gas emission regulations, as well as support for the development of advanced technologies, plays a key role in supporting our product and technology pathway for a more fuel-efficient future.” –Sue Cischke, group vice president, sustainability, environment and safety engineering at Ford Motor Co.

Sue Cischke at Ford Motor Co., gave an interesting speech the other day – talking about how not just how government energy policy is going to affect vehicle development choices by automakers, but how energy pricing decisions need to be made to guide those choices as well.

“There’s a critical link between energy prices and purchase decisions as a driving force in the need to implement a comprehensive national energy policy,” Cischke said. “It is imperative that government also address the need for lower carbon fuels, consumer incentives and price signals to adopt the technologies that will deliver a more fuel-efficient, greener future. Price signals matter.”

In short you can mandate lower emissions and fuel efficiency improvements all you want, but without pricing incentives – and especially disincentives, such as increasing the cost of fuel – those policy goals will be almost impossible to achieve.

Now, it isn’t easy – and Cischke stressed that very point, especially when it came to reducing emissions.

“That is why we support a comprehensive, economy-wide, upstream national carbon cap and trade program that can slow, stop and reverse the growth of U.S. emissions while expanding the U.S. economy,” she said in her speech. “Ford recognizes the need for a comprehensive approach to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to address climate change concerns. While cap and trade for carbon emissions remains a complex challenge, we still need to employ an integrated approach that would include contributions from all of the key stakeholders.”

Yet one more viewpoint to chew on as the U.S. tries to figure out how to reduce emissions and energy use while keeping our economic might in top fighting trim.

“We can’t get there from here without reducing emissions from transportation.” –Colin Peppard, climate and infrastructure policy director, Environmental Defense Fund

So there’s a new 97-page study hitting the streets this week, compiled by one of the best transportation consulting firms in the business – Cambridge Systematics – on behalf of a VERY wide variety of groups, from federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, to the American Public Transportation Association, Environmental Defense Fund, Intelligent Transportation Society of America, and the Urban Land Institute, to name but a few.

This new study – entitled “Moving Cooler: Transportation Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions” – is going to become a critical policy linchpin in the months ahead, I think, as work on the highway bill looks more and more likely to be delayed until late 2010.

Regardless of whether you believe in the phenomenon dubbed “Global Warming” or not, trucking needs to pay very close attention to efforts designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or “GHGs” as they are called. That’s because reports like this one are not being spun out of some fringe group – no less than THREE federal agencies signed on to support this GHG transportation study, meaning the findings in this report are going to be incorporated into transportation policy strategy at the federal level. So again, whether you think the threat of GHGs is valid or not, you must deal with it – simply because GHG reduction is now becoming a core component of transportation policy.

“Moving Cooler provides an expanded array of options for policymakers to begin considering to ensure America can adapt to a rapidly changing world, especially given the impacts of decisions on future generations, when the climate crisis and the stability of U.S. energy supplies may present far more acute societal challenges,” said Michael Replogle, a member of the steering committee for the report on behalf of Environmental Defense Fund and an advisor to the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Replogle noted that transportation contributes roughly 28% of the total U.S. GHGs and transportation emissions have been growing faster than those of other sectors. Between 1990 and 2006, growth in U.S. transportation GHG emissions represented almost one-half (47%) of the increase in total U.S. GHGs. If the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) – which the U.S. House of Representatives passed last month – becomes law, he said, U.S. GHGs would need to be reduced 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% below 2005 levels by 2050.

That’s a tall order – and such a large GHG reduction effort is going to come with a very big price tag. Cambridge’s research determined that transportation GHG emissions are the result of the interaction of four factors: vehicle fuel efficiency, the carbon content of the fuel burned, the number of miles that vehicles travel, and the operational efficiency experienced during travel. It’s Moving Cooler report deals with the last two items – vehicle travel and operational efficiency – and suggests nine areas for the focus of GHG reduction strategies:

Pricing and taxes. Strategies raise the costs associated with the use of the transportation system, including the cost of vehicle miles of travel and fuel consumption. Both local and regional facility-level pricing strategies (e.g., congestion pricing) and economy-wide pricing strategies (e.g., carbon pricing) are considered.

Land use and smart growth. Strategies focus on creating more transportation-efficient land use patterns, and by doing so reduce the need to make motor vehicle trips and reduce the length of the motor vehicle trips that are made.

Non-motorized transport. Strategies encourage greater levels of walking and bicycling as alternatives to driving.

Public transportation improvements. Strategies expand public transportation by subsidizing fares, increasing service on existing routes, or building new infrastructure.

Ride-sharing, car-sharing, and other commuting strategies. Strategies expand services and provide incentives to travelers to choose transportation options other than driving alone.

Regulatory strategies. Strategies implement regulations that moderate vehicle travel or reduce speeds to achieve higher fuel efficiency.

Operational and intelligent transportation system (ITS) strategies. Strategies improve the operation of the transportation system to make better use of the existing capacity; strategies also encourage more efficient driving.

Capacity expansion and bottleneck relief. Strategies expand highway capacity to reduce congestion and to improve the efficiency of travel.

Multimodal freight sector strategies. Strategies promote more efficient freight movement within and across modes.

“An integrated, multi-strategy approach — combining travel activity, local and regional pricing, operational, and efficiency strategies — can contribute to significant GHG reductions,” Cambridge noted in its report. “Such reductions would, however, involve considerable — and in some cases major — changes to current transportation systems and operations, travel behavior, land use patterns, and public policy and regulations.”

The strategies that contribute the most to GHG reductions, the group found, are local and regional pricing and regulatory strategies that increase the costs of single occupancy vehicle travel, regulatory strategies that reduce and enforce speed limits, educational strategies to encourage eco-driving behavior that achieves better fuel efficiency, land use and smart growth strategies that reduce travel distances, and multimodal strategies that expand travel options.

“The costs of implementing many of the Moving Cooler strategies are substantial,” Cambridge stressed. “Yet for five of the six strategy ‘bundles’ examined, the estimated average annual savings in direct vehicle costs (i.e., ownership, maintenance and repair, and fuel) exceed estimated implementation costs by up to $72 billion for an aggressive level of deployment and up to $112 billion for a maximum level of deployment during a 40-year time frame.”

Relevant to energy independence, reduced fuel consumption realized nationally through these strategies translates to an average annual savings of 85 million to 470 million barrels of oil at an aggressive level of deployment, and to a savings of as much as 110 million to 660 million barrels a year at a maximum level of deployment, the firm calculated.

“It is important to note that this comparison of implementation costs to vehicle cost savings is not a full assessment of costs and benefits, because the Moving Cooler analysis did not address other important benefits and costs, such as changes in mobility, travel time, safety, user fees, environmental quality, economic development, and public health,” Cambridge added.

The group noted that raising fuel taxes could boost GHG reductions well beyond those that could be achieved by the strategy “bundles” considered in the report. “For example, an additional fee (in current dollars) starting at the equivalent of $0.60 per gallon in 2015 and increasing to $1.25 per gallon in 2050 (Aggressive Deployment) could result in an additional 17% reduction in GHG emissions in 2050,” the report concluded. “A much higher fee similar to current European fuel taxes, starting at $2.40 a gallon in 2015 and increasing to $5.00 a gallon in 2050 (Maximum Effort Deployment) could result in an additional 28% reduction in GHG emissions in 2050.”

Thus you can see why GHG reduction efforts are important to truckers large and small – as a core component of transportation policy, such efforts could lead to increased fuel taxes, more tolls, and other fees.

“Moving Cooler shows that vehicle efficiency is not the only way to reduce emissions from transportation,” said Andy Darrell, VP at Environmental Defense Fund. “Around the country, states and cities are experimenting with ideas like road-use pricing and transit tailored to the communities they serve. By supporting transportation innovations like those outlined in Moving Cooler, the federal government could achieve an outcome that’s good for the planet and good for business: fewer greenhouse emissions and less congestion.”

Going unsaid here is that they’ll also affect your wallet pretty significantly and over a long time span. So it behooves truckers to read this report and see if there are a mix of strategies that can still lead to lower GHGs without adding significant costs to their operations.

“How far would Moses have gone if he had taken a poll in Egypt?” –Harry S. Truman, 33rd president of the United States

I bring the great President Harry Truman into this post over polling results about heavier trucks for a reason – simply put, you cannot fully trust polls. Like President Truman said, polls can often muddy the waters significantly and even throw you off the correct path in life if you put too much faith in them.

The recent poll conducted by the Coalition for Transportation Productivity (CTP) offers a prime example. Obviously, for a coalition of more than 100 shippers and allied associations dedicated to increasing the federal weight limit for commercial trucks on interstate highways, poll numbers that show heavy favoritism of their position on this issue are going to get hawked about quite a bit.

It’s also true that, upon reading how the questions within this poll were structured, the poll itself might have skewed a good portion of people’s responses. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that Americans would favor increasing the weight limit by a margin of 51% to 39% IF … and there is that all-important “if,” which is the middle word in “life” … IF higher weight limits contribute to safer roads, greater fuel economy and more productive highway transportation. I mean … DUH!!! … who WOULDN’T be in favor of heavier trucks if those are the payoffs?

All that being said, though, it is important get a glimpse of the American’s public thinking on this issue of heavier trucks. Obviously, they clearly favor it if [there’s that word again, always making things more complex!] there big benefits to be gained. It’s the standard, and appropriate, American response: if change is going to bring us more benefits with lower costs, let’s go for it.

Here are some of the other factoids released by the CTP from its poll:

• Americans are more likely to support increasing weight limits when they learn that additional axles would make the tractor-trailers safer and better for road surfaces.

• A strong majority (66%) would be more likely to support legislative action to allow trucks to carry more weight on interstates if those trucks add an extra axle.

• Americans are also more likely to support a weight limit increase due to positive environmental implications.

• Some 63% of those surveyed would be more likely to support an increase in weight that trucks can carry on interstates if it would reduce carbon emissions and fuel consumption.

The survey itself canvassed 1,000 American adults by leading pollster Wilson Research Strategies (WRS) June 16–22 this year via live operator telephone calls and has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 3.1%. WRS noted its poll sample was stratified to be demographically and geographically representative of the national adult population.

None of these responses should come as a big surprise to anyone. And these results are going to become part of the debate by CTP and other heavier truck advocates as they try to get the Safe and Efficient Transportation Act of 2009 (H.R. 1799), sponsored by Reps. Michael Michaud (D-ME) and Jean Schmidt (R-OH), passed in House of Representatives.

Again, this particular bill would allow for heavier – but not larger – trucks on interstates by giving each state the option to increase its interstate vehicle weight limit to 97,000 pounds for trucks equipped with a sixth axle for safety, stresses CTP Co-Chair John Runyan, (at right) who is also the senior manager of federal government relations for International Paper.

Without changing truck size, the additional axle maintains current braking capacity and weight-per-tire-distribution and minimizes pavement wear, he says, while a user fee imposed by the bill would help fund vital bridge repair should there be any damage incurred from the increase weight limits.

“Americans solidly back the same truck weight reform proposed by H.R. 1799 – providing strong support for Congress to responsibly raise the federal vehicle weight limit,” Runyan notes in a press release. “With truck traffic already increasing 11 times faster than road capacity and freight expected to double by 2025, H.R. 1799 would make sure America’s shipping needs are met in a way that improves highway safety and reduces our carbon footprint.”

Yet those firmly opposed to raising weight limits won’t be furling their sails anytime soon. They continue to back House bill H.R. 1618, entitled the Safe Highways and Infrastructure Preservation Act or simply the “SHIPA” bill – introduced March 19 by Rep. James McGovern (D-MA) with Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) as the lead minority cosponsor.

SHIPA seeks to freeze current truck size and weight limits for all states to those rules on the books as of June 1, 2008 – limiting truck trailer size to 53-ft long and weight limits to 80,000 lbs., unless a state allowed longer and heavier trucks to operate on its roads as of that date. Also under the McGovern bill, any group of two or more consecutive axles would stay consistent with the weights enacted under the Federal Aid Highway Amendments of 1974.

[And I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see a poll come out in favor of THEIR position, either, in the near future.]

One thing is for certain – the debate over increasing weight limits for heavier trucks isn’t going away anytime soon. So stay tuned for more developments when Congress comes back from its summer break.

“Safety is a commitment … but it is much more than that. It is a moral issue and an important character trait.” – Steve Keppler, director of policy and programs, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance.

It’s not every day that you see parallels drawn between safety in the trucking industry and the personal work ethics of baseball players – and not just any players, mind you, but one of the greatest of all time: Cal Ripken Jr.

It may seem a stretch to make this comparison, but Steve Keppler, director of policy and programs for the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) did just that in a recent speech before the Arizona Trucking Association this year – and whether you agree with his particular brand of analysis or not, it still makes for interesting reading, I think.

“Companies and individuals that exhibit this ‘safety commitment’ trait are almost without exception leaders, both in the industry and in their communities. Oh, and by the way, many are profitable as well,” he explained.

“Why is this the case? Because safety is NOT a cost; it is an investment,” he stressed. “It is also about doing things the RIGHT way. “

And that, to Keppler’s way of thinking, is where Cal Ripken Jr. comes into the picture.

“Even if you are not a baseball fan, unless you live under a rock you probably have heard of Cal Ripken Jr.,” he said. “Most people recognize him as the holder of the consecutive games played streak, an impressive 2,632 games. This is an unbelievable record that probably will never be broken.”

More important, however, are the methods and processes Ripken used to achieve that huge milestone in baseball history – an approach summed up by the term the “Ripken Way.”

“The ‘Ripken Way’ is a mindset – an approach, if you will – that if done properly will provide results,” said Keppler. Boiled down to their essence, the important components of the “Ripken Way” are as follows:

• Master the fundamentals

• Perfect practice makes perfect

• Use your head; and

• Hard work pays off

“I will not describe each of them since they are pretty straightforward and self-explanatory. They are also not complicated or scientific,” said Keppler. “Yet, how many people in today’s world want to over-analyze or over-complicate things?”

From this perspective, he stressed, safety becomes less about rules sand subsets of rules than a mindset; a particular philosophy that drives a company’s actions.

“It is NOT just about regulatory compliance. It is something you have to practice every day. It is about going above and beyond the typical … as the ‘typical’ will not allow you to separate yourself from the crowd,” Keppler noted. “Investing in the safety mindset pays dividends in many ways. Some of these dividends are tangible, and some are not. However, they ALL help to improve performance and results.”

OK, so – as the old Wendy’s advertisements used to crow – “Where’s the beef?”

Keppler pointed to detailed safety statistics compiled by his group every year – data that goes into what CVSA calls “SAFER” runs on the group’s above-average motor carrier members to see how they stack up against more “typical” motor carriers.

CVSA’s last SAFER covered the time period from 2004-2006. For 178 CVSA member motor carriers, the following were the results:

• Vehicle OOS [out of service] rate: 8.4%, vs. the national average of 23.4%

• Driver OOS rate: 1.4% vs. the national average of 6.6%

• 74.7% had Satisfactory Safety Ratings vs. the national average of 57.9%

• 4.5% had Conditional Safety Ratings vs. the national average of 30.1%

• 0% had Unsatisfactory Safety Ratings vs. the national average of 9.2%

Finally, CVSA’s member fleets recorded a 1.15 per 100 million miles fatal involvement crash rate, versus the national average of 2.15.

“Clearly, these data show that the safety mindset DOES pay dividends AND helps separate you from the ‘typical’ carrier,” Keppler (pictured at right) said.

“So, as you go to work each and every day I would ask that you think about the ‘Ripken Way’ and think about that safety mindset,” he noted. “Are you doing everything that you can do to separate yourself from the typical? Does that safety culture permeate every aspect of your organization? Does the senior management at your company understand that safety is not a cost, it is an investment? Are you fully able to articulate the value that safety brings to the company’s bottom line? Are you able to put a value on the intangibles?”

The good news, he said, is that all of that can be done and that it is worthwhile – as CVSA’s SAFER statistics bear out. It’s something to keep in mind as the focus on trucking safety continues to tighten every day.

“The Roadcheck campaign highlights the important work that commercial vehicle inspectors perform everyday to keep our roads safe and save lives. The number and the severity of crashes each year involving large trucks and buses is declining. We must not lessen our resolve to work together to make our highways and roads safer for every traveler.” –Rose McMurray, acting deputy administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

It’s an annual ritual every June or thereabouts: a 72-hour hour roadside inspection “blitz” conducted by thousands of safety inspectors across America on commercial trucks and buses of all makes and models.

Initially, it might seem foolhardy to broadcast to the highway community at large that such a widespread blitz is taking shape – including the very dates when it’s to occur, as in this case, where inspectors will be out in full force June 2 through 4, 2009. But the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA), which helps sponsors this yearly event, doesn’t see it that way at all – and for some very good reasons.

“Effective enforcement comes in multiple facets – typically a mixture between overt as well as covert operations,” Steve Keppler, CVSA’s director of policy and programs, told me. “With ‘Roadcheck,’ there’s a certain group of fleets and drivers that’s going to see this coming up and say to themselves, ‘I better make sure my equipment is ready – that all my Ps and Qs are in order.’ If they are doing that, then we’ve already succeeded with this program, because the intent is to get the trucking community to tighten their focus on vehicle and driver safety.”

In that context, then, ‘Roadcheck’ is an educational outreach effort mixed in with safety enforcement; an attempt to reemphasize to fleets and drivers what is critical when it comes to safe operation on the highway. Yes, tickets are written, with trucks and drivers put out of service. But if these efforts result in greater safety consciousness by members of the trucking community – especially in terms of “getting ready” for such a nationwide blitz – then it’s been more than successful, Keppler said.

Last year, 9,148 CVSA and FMCSA certified inspectors at 1,683 locations across North America performed 67,931 truck and bus inspections, with 52,345 of them North American Standard Level I inspections – the most comprehensive type of roadside inspection. Keppler told me both the total number of inspections and Level I inspections were records for this annual Roadcheck event and – more importantly – there were significant reductions in out of service rates for most vehicle and driver types. That means the safety message is getting through, he emphasized.

This year, roadside inspectors will be focusing on several different fronts:

• The NAS Level I Inspection which examines all of the following: driver’s license, medical examiner’s certificate and waiver, alcohol and drugs (if applicable), driver’s record of duty status (as required), hours of service, seat belt, vehicle inspection report, as well as the brake system, coupling devices, exhaust system, frame, fuel system, turn signals, brake lamps, tail lamps, head lamps, lamps on projecting loads, safe loading, steering mechanism, suspension, tires, van and open-top trailer bodies, wheels and rims, windshield wipers, emergency exits on buses and HM requirements, as applicable;

• Safety Belt enforcement;

• Motorcoach and bus safety compliance;

• Unified Carrier Registration (UCR) compliance: In 2005 SAFETEA-LU codified UCR into federal law. It replaced the Single State Registration System (SSRS) and all motor carriers – for-hire, private and exempt – as well as brokers, freight forwarders, and leasing companies operating in interstate or international commerce, are subject to the new UCR.

CVSA sponsors Roadcheck each year with the FMCSA, the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, Transport Canada, and the Secretariat of Communications and Transportation in Mexico.

Even more important, Keppler noted, are the instances where industry and inspectors are working together to better define safety parameters when it comes to equipment. During a recent visit to Arizona, Keppler said he found that several fleets are sending senior technicians out to the inspection areas to learn hands-on from the inspectors exactly what constitutes a passing or failing grade on equipment inspections.

“That’s an example of a fleet building a ‘safety culture’ as a call it – not just focusing on meeting the regulations, but trying to gain a deeper understanding of what they are for and why inspectors considering them important,” he told me. “Our number one goal with all these Roadcheck events is, of course, to enforce and improve highway safety, but as a secondary goal, we’re trying to foster more such ‘joint activity’ to help move the safety needle in the direction we need it to go with industry support.”

“The … reduction in hazardous materials-qualified drivers is not the result of individuals failing the background check – less than 1% fail – but rather is a result of the onerous process associated with obtaining this credential and the fact that drivers often must obtain multiple credentials that entail expensive, duplicative federal background checks.” –Robert Petrancosta, vice president-safety for LTL carrier Con-way Freight

The issue of regulatory simplification is not new – it’s been around since … well, since regulations were invented. What I feel is interesting about the ongoing debate concerning hazardous materials transportation regulations are their economic impacts, especially upon truck drivers, fostered by the complexity and redundancy of the current rules.

It’s important to note here that safety and security of the current rules are NOT being questioned – in fact, they seem to be doing their job quite well.

Robert Petrancosta, vice president-safety for LTL carrier Con-way Freight, stressed that point in his testimony about hazmat rules last week before Congress. Each day, he said, there are approximately one million shipments of hazardous materials in the U.S. – with 94% of them moved by truck – and the rate of serious incidents involving the transportation of hazardous materials by motor carriers is just 0.0001%, with the percentage of incidents involving injuries is 0.00002% or two one-hundred thousandths of one percent. That’s a pretty good record if you ask me.

Furthermore, the trucking community believes the agency in charge of setting and enforcing the rules is doing a great job. “We support the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA) leadership in regulating hazardous materials transportation. [They’ve] implemented an enterprise approach to hazardous materials regulation and communicates on a regular basis with key stakeholders, including safety advocates, emergency responders, carriers and shippers,” Petrancosta said.

He noted that the agency also embraces a risk-based, data driven approach to balance the need to ensure the safe and secure transportation of hazardous materials so they move efficiently in commerce. “PHMSA also has earned the respect of the international community and a PHMSA staff member currently serves as the chairman of the United Nations Subcommittee on the Transportation of Dangerous Goods,” added Petrancosta. “Congress should ensure that PHMSA maintains its status as the lead regulatory agency for hazardous materials transportation both at home and abroad.”

Con-way and Petrancosta are no strangers to hazmat, by the way. Out of the 56,000 shipments its 8,500 trucks and 17,000 employees handle every day, some 2,000 contain hazmat cargo. Petrancosta himself is past chairman of the American Trucking Assn.’s (ATA) hazardous materials policy committee, so he lives and breathes this stuff (figuratively, I stress) every day.

Yet there’s room for improvement – especially in terms of simplification. Truckers are finding they must submit – and pay for out of their own wallets – multiple background checks. Federal and state hazmat rules can conflict with each other, causing delays in obtaining permits. Jurisdiction over hazmat rules – jumbled between PHMSA (an agency within the Department of Transportation ) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) – also complicates things needlessly.

The big issue, though, is redundancy. Many states – even municipalities and local governments – are putting in place background checks and credential requirements for drivers that haul hazmat goods – requirements that needlessly duplicate what’s being done at the federal level, thus not improving safety or security all that much.

“Duplicative background checks and redundant credentials have caused a dramatic reduction in the number of qualified drivers that are available to transport hazardous materials,” Petrancosta told Congress.

“Prior to the initiation of the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) background check program, there were more than 2.7 million drivers that had obtained hazardous materials endorsements (HME) to their commercial drivers licenses (CDL),” he said. “We estimate that the number of HME holders will fall to 1.6 million – some 41% – by the spring of 2010.”

Why this happening is pretty easy to explain – and it’s not about failing the background checks (less than 1% of drivers fail them, Petrancosta stressed). No, it’s all about the skyrocketing costs for these multiple checks.

“Drivers that transport hazardous materials must submit to a fingerprint-based background check to obtain HME to their CDL. This credential costs approximately $100, requires multiple visits to the licensing agency to complete the process and involves a delay of several weeks before the credential is issued,” Petrancosta explained. “Many of these drivers also access port facilities and therefore must obtain a Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) – these drivers receive a discount if they have already been through an HME check, but still must pay an additional $105.25 for the second credential.”

He estimates just obtaining federal credentials for Con-way’s drivers alone to be approximately $250,000.

However, here’s the kicker: “We recently learned that the city of Doraville, GA, has imposed a security background check for individuals that access the Doraville petroleum loading facilities,” he said. “Under this program, Doraville collects fingerprints, transmits the prints to the federal government, receives a criminal history report, and then issues a Doraville credential at a cost of $100. The background check performed is identical to the check performed by TSA under the HME and TWIC programs. Unfortunately, Doraville has refused to recognize the HME or the TWIC as an acceptable credential.”

Petrancosta said the ability of states and municipalities to subject hazmat drivers to redundant criminal history background checks could easily become an unbearable financial burden to hazmat drivers that operate in hundreds of cities throughout the country, if such redundancy is not addressed in the federal regulations.

A similar issue exists at the state level when it comes to hazmat permits. Petrancosta said individual states maintain more than 40 separate hazardous materials permitting programs, triggered based upon the type of hazardous material being transported through the state. “Some states have more than one permit, depending upon the types of hazardous materials being transported,” he noted.

“Compliance with these separate programs is an enormous administrative burden for trucking companies that operate in multiple states, as it is extremely difficult to identify and monitor changes to these different permitting programs,” Petrancosta added. “For some smaller trucking companies, it is difficult to predict which states they may travel through and whether they will transport particular types of hazardous materials through that state in a given year.”

A solution to this problem would be the “Uniform Program,” currently administered by seven states (IL, MI, MN, NV, OH, OK, and WV), which is a “base state” permitting program that ensures participating states will continue to receive the revenue they have come to rely upon under their individual permitting programs. It would also reduce state expenses, as the inspection and administrative functions would be shared by all participating states, while reducing the administrative burden on the regulated industry.

These are good ideas – ones that do NOT lessen hazmat shipment safety or security, but rather lessen the administrative and cost burdens associated with these regulations. That’s smart and simple regulation – and we definitely need more of that.

“The administration now has an opportunity to name someone committed to both the safety and fuel economy programs that they run.” –Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign, as told to the Detroit News on the withdrawal of Chuck Hurley’s nomination to lead NHTSA

It’s a shame that the nomination of Chuck Hurley to be the next chief administrator for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration came and went so fast.

Late yesterday, word got out that Hurley withdrew his name from consideration due to growing opposition from environmental groups over his interactions with the automotive industry. The Detroit News reported that much of the flak Hurley got came in part for his work at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) in the early 1990s, when he sided with automakers over the safety impacts of downsizing vehicles to increase fuel efficiency.

For starters, it’s surprising to see the opposition to Hurley’s nomination revolves around actions he took almost two decades ago – actions, I might add, that were about improving vehicle SAFETY of all things. His concern at the time – and it’s rightly placed – seems to have centered on the potential safety risks of smaller cars. That’s a good discussion to have, mind you.

He also seemed to be a good fit for NHTSA, based on his record. As I noted in an earlier post on Hurley’s nomination, he’s a former naval intelligence officer that went on to hold senior leadership positions with the National Safety Council (NSC) and IIHS over the last thirty years – working extensively with law enforcement on air bag and seat belt issues, teen driving, and child passenger safety – before going on to become CEO of Mothers Against Drunk Driving in 2005.

Yet from what I’ve seen of his record, he’s a guy that tends to stick to the facts, not the politics. While he supported the auto industry’s arguments against raising automobile fuel economy standards back in the 1990 – again, contending that such a move would result in smaller and more dangerous cars – he also suggested that automakers were exaggerating the safety benefits of antilock brakes back then as well, according to the Wall Street Journal. In a 1994 IIHS study comparing accident and insurance loss data for cars equipped with antilock brake systems to the same models with standard brakes, it found that claim frequency and the average insurance payments were roughly the same.

That doesn’t matter now, unfortunately, as Hurley withdrew his name from consideration before even getting a hearing in the Senate. Now we’ll just have to see who steps into the batter’s box next to take a swing for the top spot at NHTSA.

“It is about encouraging investment in safety through the purchase and installation of technologies on trucks and buses that have been tested and proven to work.” –Stephen F. Campbell, executive director, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance

It’s quite ironic that I’m again writing about yet another Congressional legislative attempt to provide tax credits to trucking fleets for investing in safety systems.

Despite the ongoing ballyhoo over improving truck safety, reducing truck-car crashes and fatalities, despite all the rhetoric and diatribes, it’s proved impossible to actually get legislation passed that would directly address the truck safety issue head on.

The reintroduction of the Commercial Motor Vehicle Advanced Safety Technology Tax Act of 2009 (H.R. 2024) amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a credit against income tax to help accelerate the adoption of advanced safety systems not just for commercial vehicles, but for school and transit buses.

The systems covered in this bill – reintroduced by Representatives Mike Thompson (D-CA) and Geoff Davis (R-KY), backed by the 10 original sponsors of this legislation last year – include brake stroke monitoring systems, vehicle stability systems, lane departure warning systems, plus collision warning systems.

The legislation encompasses both the original equipment (OE) and aftermarket installation of these safety systems and also:

• Creates a tax credit for fleet owners valued at 50 percent of the retail cost of the system with a maximum of $1,500 per technology;

• Allows fleets to purchase multiple technologies, but limit the total amount of credit permissible to $3,500 per vehicle; and,

• Allows the overall tax credit for each truck owner or trucking company of up to $350,000 per year for all covered technology purchases.

“It is about encouraging investment in safety through the purchase and installation of technologies on trucks and buses that have been tested and proven to work,” says Stephen F. Campbell, executive director of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA), which has actively supported this tax credit effort. “It will reduce the deaths occurring from the most prevalent truck and bus crash types on our highways, which have been hovering around 5,000 per year for the last decade.”

This effort is really a no brainer – and its received support from both the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in the past, with NTSB Chairman Mark Rosenker specifically pointing out in testimony before Congress last eyar that the quickest way to promote widespread use of motor vehicle safety technologies was through this tax incentive approach.

Will it work this time? That’s the big unanswerable, isn’t it? But it would be a shame to see such an effort fall by the wayside again – an effort that could dramatically change the safety picture for commercial vehicles and buses alike on our highways in a very short amount of time.

“Chuck has a deep passion to save lives, prevent injuries and stop the human suffering associated with traffic crashes.” –Janet Froetscher, president & CEO of the National Safety Council, on the nomination of Charles “Chuck” Hurley to head up the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

There are a lot of different opinions out there concerning the selection of Charles “Chuck” Hurley by President Obama to head up the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

The CEO of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) since 2005 and a longtime board member of that organization, Hurley also previously held senior leadership positions with the National Safety Council (NSC) and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety over the last thirty years – working extensively with law enforcement on air bag and seat belt issues, teen driving, and child passenger safety.

It also seems very clear that Hurley (pictured at right) – much like Ray LaHood, U.S. Transportation Secretary – received this particular nomination due to past work with then-Senator Obama at the state level. In Hurley’s case, he worked with Obama in 2003 to strengthen Illinois’ seat belt, teen driving, child passenger safety, and racial profiling laws.

A former naval intelligence officer, Hurley is getting a lot of praise from many groups closely tied to highway safety issues – including the NSC and the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA).

“President Obama and Transportation Secretary LaHood have made a terrific choice in selecting Chuck Hurley to lead NHTSA,” said Janet Froetscher, the NSC’s president & CEO.

“During his 20 years with the NSC, Chuck was involved in many significant national highway safety initiatives, including increasing seat belt use, improving child passenger safety and Graduated Driver Licensing for teens and reducing impaired driving,” she added. “He is a major force in highway safety and we are excited that such a passionate, research-based leader will be heading our nation’s highway safety agency.”

Vernon F. Betkey, Jr., GSHA’s chairman, heaped similar amounts of praise on Hurley’s shoulders. “Chuck is a passionate safety advocate whose career has been dedicated to reducing motor vehicle deaths and injuries on the highways,” Betkey said. “By nominating Chuck, President Obama has demonstrated his administration’s strong commitment to rid our nation of the tragic 40,000 deaths each year on our roadways. I urge the Senate to quickly confirm Chuck’s nomination.”

Yet it’s not all peaches and cream – and the opposition to Hurley’s nomination comes from some surprising quarters.

According to a report in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Hurley’s nomination is already encountering some opposition from environmental groups. In the early 1990s, Hurley – then an official with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety – supported the auto industry’s arguments against raising automobile fuel economy standards, contending that such a move would result in smaller and more dangerous cars.

“It would be awkward to have an administrator of NHTSA who’s spent much of his career attacking fuel economy standards that NHTSA administers,” Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign – a Washington-based group that advocates higher fuel-economy standards — told the WSJ.

But at other times, Hurley has disagreed with automakers and, by extension, safety system advocates as well.

In 1994, for example, he promoted a study conducted by the insurance institute that suggested automakers were exaggerating the safety benefits of antilock brakes, the WSJ reported, adding that the study compared accident and insurance loss data for cars equipped with antilock brake systems to the same models with standard brakes and found that claim frequency and the average insurance payments were roughly the same.

One thing is for certain in all of this: How these various stands will impact trucking during Hurley’s tenure at NHTSA – should he be confirmed, of course – is going to be very interesting, to say the very least.