Life on the Road – Trucking News Blog

The American Trucking Association’s board of directors has voted to expand the ATA’s safety agenda as an effort to reduce highway fatalities, according to Transport Topics. Although ostensibly addressing all areas of highway safety, the ATA appears to have concentrated on “improved driver performance” far more than other indicators. A new focus will be on the improvement of the performance of non-commercial vehicle drivers as a factor in fatality reduction. This should be interesting as I certainly cant see government really listening to the ATA too much on improving over-all driver safety-but at least, they’re now making an attempt.

Some of the recommendations adopted include:

In the category of improving driver performance

• · Setting a policy on the use of non-integrated technologies while the vehicle is in motion; ( now, what do you suppose this means? Cell Phones? GPS? Laptop routing? CBs? None  of these would surprise me as carriers want complete control of their drivers and will use DOT regulations to get it if they can-drivers can have NO information except the information WE want them to have. . .)

• · Setting a policy supporting uniform commercial drivers license (CDL) testing standards; (I thought we HAD a national standard. . . .)

• · Support for a CDL graduated licensing study; (notice this is a ‘study’-that should take twenty years)

• · Support for additional parking facilities for trucks; (No DUH!!)

• · Support for a national maximum 65mph speed limit; (We knew THAT would be in there somewhere)

• · Strategies to increase the use of seat belts; (We’re already getting pretty intrusive on this one-with cameras on the left coast watching for violations. A friend of mine was threatened the other day in Washington state with an ‘improper use’ ticket because he had loosened his seat belt up enough so it didn’t cut into his neck-a problem we short-people have. Let’s just outlaw short truck drivers.)

• · Support for a national car-truck driver behavior improvement program; (Maybe they figure the best defense is a good offense? I’d like to see how they propose to do this.)

• · Support for increased use of red light cameras and automated speed enforcement; (Are they holding a bunch of safety technology stocks or what? Havent they seen the studies showing the cameras actually create MORE accidents due to people doing the quick-stop tango?)

• · Support for graduated licensing in all states for non-commercial teen drivers; (Again, I think they’re overstepping their bounds here.)

• · Support for more stringent laws to reduce drinking and driving; (Shall we just shoot all offenders on sight? I mean, how much more stringent can the laws get? Prison for every offense? I’m all for less drinking and drugging and driving, but we already have a ton of laws!)

In terms of safer vehicles, it calls for:

• · Support for targeted electronic speed governing of certain non-commercial vehicles; (I like that ‘certain’ in there-exactly who are they targeting here? These people have control issues).

• · Electronic speed governing of all large trucks made since 1992; (No surprise there-we knew they wanted it. And we know WHY they want it!)

• · Support for new large truck crashworthiness standards (Now, THIS might be a great idea! I b*tched to them recently that nobody seems to be looking at how many of these driver fatalities are caused by drivers being trapped in the fire that seems to break out immediately after impact with certain brands of trucks. Lets stop sacrificing drivers’ lives for higher payload and increased fuel mileage-we deserve some safety, too. . .and I don’t mean the short-sighted airbag idea!)

In the area of safer motor carriers

• · Support for a national employer notification system; (I’m surprised we’ve never gotten to this before now. I hope they limit this to real tickets and don’t include warnings, etc)·
  

• Creation of a national clearinghouse for positive drug and alcohol test results of CDL holders; (I have some questions here-I thought your employer was the only one notified. Why would you want this information available to all? Much as I abhor the idea of substance abuse mixed with CDL drivers, I sure hate to see a public record of dirty test results available to ALL carriers-seems to be a conflict of privacy laws and the regs that say drivers can complete rehabilitation and be re-employed. Then, too, there is plenty of evidence some of these tests aren’t valid, have been altered, etc. Once the info is on some major database, there will be no changing it).

• Support for a national registry of certified medical examiners; (. . .and who decides if the physician meets the requirements of the registry and should be included? It looks at present that it will be limited to those Occupational Health Clinics the large carriers use to do their DOT physicals-the ones that give them extra information on the drivers’ health. I don’t like this idea and I doubt if the medical profession does either. My own doctor is certified to do DOT FAA physicals-he ISNT on their list! These carriers are getting really close to crossing the line into the practice of medicine!)

• Policy supporting access to the national Driver Information Resource; (How do we ensure that only violation history is included here-and that it doesn’t become another, more official form of the DAC report? One thing that makes me nervous is the tentative heading within the draft regulation that says: “Target certain drivers during inspections and compliance reviews”. Gotta question this, then)

• Support for required safety training by new entrant motor carriers. (This should put every cartage company in Chicago out of business-maybe not a bad idea!)

I’d like to say I supported the ATA’s efforts to improve highway safety. Everybody involved wants to see safer highways. But, I have a problem with the control they seem to be so bent on getting. Looks like a mental health issue to me. I wonder if they’d leave us alone if we sent all of them a complementary subscription to Bondage Magazine?