2020 State Rankings Released for Safest Highway Laws

February 19, 2020 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety released its list of 2020’s best–and worst–road safety enforcement laws.

‘Advocates,’ a group of public health, consumer, safety, and insurance firms supporting programs aiming to further highway safety, published its 2020 Roadmap of State Highway Safety Laws on January 23rd. At the top of the list, for the fourth consecutive year, is Rhode Island.

The list analyzes the states doing the best job with highway safety efforts, ranking all 50 states and the District of Columbia on their enforcement of 16 different traffic safety laws. Theses laws, including those regarding motorcycle helmets, seatbelts, and distracted and impaired driving, are ones that Advocates finds essential to overall road safety.

President of Advocates, Cathy Chase, said bringing to light each state’s safety efforts is vital. According to Chase, around 100 people are killed daily in vehicle crashes across the country. Not only does every state need to make a priority of making massive improvements in order to decrease these tragedies, but roadway crashes also bring a large burden to the economy–$242 billion annually, actually.

“With the start of a new decade,” Chase said, “our clear vision is to eradicate the horrific death and injury toll occurring on our roadways.”

And the financial burden hits everyone: “This [toll] results in each person living in the U.S. essentially paying a “crash tax” of $784 every year,” Chase explained.

Advocates’ report calls on elected officials to take immediate action to improve road safety, and rates each state based on the number of priority traffic safety laws passed, in addition to their efforts in five categories: occupant protection, child passenger safety, teen driving, impaired driving, and distracted driving.

Each state is given a “grade” of either Green (Good), Yellow (Caution), or Red (Danger).

Rhode Island snagged the top score with its 13 of the recommended safety laws in place. It only lacks an all-rider motorcycle helmet law, unrestricted license age limit regulations, and nighttime unsupervised teen restrictions. Advocates pushes for unrestricted licenses, which allow drivers to operate a vehicle without guardian or instructor supervision, not to be given to drivers under 18.

Also given “green” ratings were Delaware, Maine, Oregon, Washington, California, Louisiana, and the District of Columbia, which have all seen notable advancement in their safety law enforcement.

The not-so-safe states given a “red” rating by Advocates were South Dakota, Wyoming, Arizona, Missouri, Montana, Florida, Ohio, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Virginia. South Dakota continues to be the state with the lowest score, with only two of the optimal laws in place.

“The 16 optimal laws are precisely the types of recommendations nurses endorse to help prevent crashes and fatalities from happening, or to reduce their severity,” said former president of the Emergency Nurses Association, Mary Jagim. “The goal of this rating is not to shame those states but rather to serve as a clarion call to action.”

Just because multiple states leave much to be desired in terms of road safety doesn’t mean many of them aren’t making progress, though. Last year, nine states and Washington, D.C. saw 12 different laws passed which met Advocates’ criteria. Arizona and Florida implemented texting bans (Arizona’s includes a primary enforcement ban, meaning police can immediately pull a person over if he or she is not complying); Arkansas and D.C. enacted graduated driver licensing cell phone bans; Louisiana, Maine, Washington, and D.C. put in place child safety seat laws for children until aged two (or longer) to be rear facing; Maine’s booster seat law was updated; New Mexico implemented a child endangerment law; and Kentucky and New Jersey instituted ignition interlock device laws for drunk driving offenders.

Still, every state has yet to enact all of Advocates’ 16 optimal laws, and 31 states are still in need of improvement (in addition to the 12 that are falling dangerously behind).

Advocate found that progress is needed strongly in the following areas:

-Seat belt laws protecting all seating positions, as nearly half of all crash fatalities last year involved a driver or passenger without a seatbelt–31 states lack recommended seat belt laws

-Age/size-appropriate child safety seats–43 states have yet to implement optimal rear-facing seats (until age 2 or longer)

-Graduated Driver Licensing laws–no state has all six of these provisions in place for teen/novice drivers

-All-driver texting ban–five states still need to enact this law

“The status quo is unacceptable,” said Chase. “As state legislatures around the country convene, now is the time for attention, activism, and action.”

2020 International Roadchecks Have Been Set for May Fifth Through the Seventh

February 18, 2020 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) an organization that includes both local and national government officials in North America, as well as industry representatives, will be conducting its International Roadcheck this year on May 5-7. The Roadcheck is an initiative meant to focus attention on the importance of commercial vehicle safety through a 72 hour marathon of roadside vehicle inspections throughout North America.

Inspectors will be checking both vehicles and drivers. They will conduct driver interviews, review documents, and check their records and inspection reports. Inspectors will also be looking for signs that a driver may be ill or fatigued, and whether the driver displays any signs of drug or alcohol abuse.

The inspectors will also conduct vehicle inspections to make sure drivers are operating a properly maintained rig. CVSA inspectors will be placing decals on vehicles on which no critical violations are found during their Level I or Level V inspections. However, inspections that do reveal critical violations may be rendered out of service until any violations are corrected.

Some drivers or motor carriers may decide they want to sit out the inspections all together. If you stay off the road in early May there is less of a chance of having to go through an inspection. However, not driving to avoid getting checked is not only unsafe it is also a bad business move.

If you’re not driving, you’re not earning. The purpose of running any efficient transportation business is to make a profit. With plenty of time and a warning of upcoming inspection dates, drivers and motor carriers can prepare to make sure all their logs, records, licenses, certifications, and vehicles are in proper order. A vehicle that doesn’t pass and is put out of commission cannot produce an income. A vehicle that has violations but is hidden from inspectors creates a great safety risk to professional drivers and to the public who use the roads. When a crash happens, you can be certain that there will be law enforcement, government officials, and lawyers scrutinizing over records and conducting inspections to find violations. In these situations, the risk of being put completely out of business is a real consequence that motor carriers can face. Even if the majority of a given company’s fleet is violation free, the part that is not can result in a shutdown.

Chances are that everything we see around us from goods, food, to furniture got to where it is at least in part by a truck. Commercial motor carriers are operating in a business that holds definite risks to public safety and property damage when people do not follow safety rules. If motor carriers or drivers do not follow safety rules and a crash occurs, government inspectors can cause the whole operation to be shut down. Crashes can also lead to insurance rates skyrocketing, making it too expensive to keep the business running.

Public safety is not the only concern when it comes to operating a commercial trucking company. IF a driver gets hurt as the result of an unsafe truck the company that driver works for can incur costs for worker’s compensation and will be short a driver. Additionally, vehicles are expensive. It costs money to fix or replace a damaged truck. Taken as a whole, it will certainly be less expensive to properly maintain a fleet of vehicles and follow all the proper safety rules rather than to cut corners. It’s much less expensive to stay safe than to recoup after a crash. Of course, your life and health are priceless.

California Bus Drivers Exempt from Mandatory Rest and Meal Breaks

February 18, 2020 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

motion blur picture of a driving bus in the city at night

Bus drivers in California are now exempt from mandatory meal and rest breaks by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

In a notice printed in the Federal Register on January 21st, FMCSA granted the American Bus Association’s petition, which requested preemption of the state’s break rules regarding passenger-carrying drivers.

Currently, federal law allows preemption of state laws for commercial vehicles and their safety that are either in addition to or more stringent than national regulations–but only if they are incompatible with federal regulations and have no safety benefit, or if they would bring unnecessary burdens to interstate commerce.

The most recent preemption before this was granted in December of 2018, and was issued for drivers of property-carrying vehicles, as commanded by the Specialized Carriers and Rigging Association and the American Trucking Associations. This preemption has pending cases after being challenged by the California Labor Commissioner’s Office and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

The California Labor Code calls for a “duty-free” 30-minute meal break for employees working at least five hours a day, in addition to a second 30-minute meal break for those working at least 10 hours.

On January 10th, the American Bus Association petitioned to preempt these statutes as applied to drivers of passenger-carrying vehicles.

“FMCSA acknowledges that the state of California has a legitimate interest in promoting driver and public safety. However, just as the federal HOS and other provisions in the FMCSRs serve to promote that interest with respect to drivers of property-carrying CMVs, so do they serve to promote it for drivers of passenger-carrying CMVs,” said the notice.

Still, the FMCSA found that California’s meal and rest break rules give no further safety benefits beyond federal regulations, and that they also impede safety due to the current issue of CMVs parking in unsafe areas.

Additionally, the agency decided the California rules were particularly incompatible with federal hours-of-service regulations because they meant employers would have to give commercial motor vehicle drivers more breaks at less flexible times in a shift.

“The FMCSA has determined that California’s (meal and rest break) rules…are more stringent than they agency’s hours of service regulations, …have no safety benefits that extend beyond those already provided by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, … are incompatible with the federal hours of service regulations, and that they cause an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce,” the notice said.

The preemption notice went into effect with the Federal Register publication.

“Effective the date of this decision,” it said, “California may no longer enforce the (meal and rest break) rules with respect to drivers of passenger-carrying CMVs subject to FMCSA’s HOS rules.”

This flexibility aligns perfectly with last autumn’s proposed safety regulation relaxation for truck drivers, which aimed to allow extended time on duty in addition to less-strict mandatory rest times.

That plan would allow drivers to divide their mandatory 10-hour break times into 5-5 or 6-4 hour splits, giving them total control over whether or not they rest during that time. It also would extend potential driving time by two hours for any driver working in “inclement weather” conditions and lengthen maximum on-duty periods from 12 to 14 hours.

Many against these regulations point to government data showing large truck-involved crashes hitting a 10-year high in 2017, with the National Transportation Safety Board focusing on fatigued driving in particular.

The board says this issue is even more serious than statistics may show, and has made fatigue-related accidents an important part of its “Most Wanted List” of safety improvements throughout 2019 and 2020.

“Drowsy driving does not leave telltale signs, and, as a result, it is widely believed to be underreported on police crash forms,” said the NTSB. “Fatigue is particularly dangerous because it may result in risky behavior, such as poor judgment and decision making, slowed reaction times, and loss of situational awareness and control.”

Another major issue among truck drivers: wellness and nutrition. According to a 2010 study by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, obesity rates among truckers have been at least twice as high than those of the general population for the nine years prior. This is often likely due to few opportunities to exercise or find health options for meals while on the road–which surely extends to bus drivers as well.

By giving CMV drivers the choice to forego meal and rest times while sitting for hours on end behind the wheel, not only is their own health at stake, but the repercussions from having even more fatigued drivers could mean many more dangerous road situations ahead.

California’s AB 5 Law Blocked from Affecting Truckers

February 17, 2020 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

A new California labor law is controversially combatting worker misclassification, and ensuring independent contractors are recognized as employees–but is being temporarily blocked in the trucking industry.

The law would put into place regulation allowing gig economy workers, who often work on a flexible basis, to now be given the same benefits as formal employees. It went into effect on January 1st and is currently seeing heavy pushback from the tech and trucking industries–in which many of these freelancers work–as well as from lawmakers promising to work to change the legislation.

The federal court issued a temporary injunction earlier this month that would prohibit the rules to apply to truck drivers–creating a major issue with federal law.

When Assembly Bill 5 was implemented, it also created a test for whether or not an individual working for a company is an employee or an independent contractor. Consequently, the law means ride-share drivers are treated as if they are exploited by their businesses.

If classified as an employee, the worker must become eligible for full California employment protection, and cannot opt out of the classification regardless of whether or not he or she would prefer to continue working independently.

On the other hand, AB 5 would allow more than a million independent contractors to have rights to health care, a minimum wage, and the ability to join a union. The focus is to disallow companies to circumvent basic labor protections for anyone working for them.

However, with a bar on enforcement for the trucking industry, the question of whether or not states can regulate interstate motor carriers is revisited. Trucking companies are saying the new three-part test is stricter than previous standards, and would block the common use of independent contractors to haul freight–a widely-used practice in the industry to find independent owner-operators to carry out interstate jobs.

“With AB 5, California runs off the road and into the preemption ditch of the FAAAA,” wrote Judge Roger T. Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in a Thursday ruling on a lawsuit filed by the California Trucking Association, along with truckers Ravinder Singh and Thomas Odom.

The judge blocked the state from enforcing the law on California motor carriers in a preliminary injunction “pending the entry of final judgment in this action.”

Judge Benitez wrote that there is “little question that the State of California has encroached on Congress’ territory by eliminating motor carriers’ choice to use independent contractor drivers, a choice at the very heart of interstate trucking.”

The court concluded that to allow enforcement on owner-operator truckers would bring about irreparable harm to the industry. According to the judge, unless companies change “their business operations to treat independent-contractor drivers as employees for all specified purposes under California laws and regulations,” they will risk potential criminal and civil penalties.

Although the injunction is only at a preliminary stage, it is not likely the state will prevail if the case does ever end up in trial. Additionally, the judge’s finding that the plaintiffs would most likely see victory will put enormous pressure on California to find a different angle on this issue.

The order could also affect similar potential proposals in other states, and deter the groups currently working to see these regulations take place elsewhere.

Shawn Yadon, California Trucking Association chief executive officer, said this ruling is “a significant win for California’s more than 70,000 independent owner-operators.”

Many companies with ride-share and delivery drivers, such as Uber and Postmates, say AB 5’s exemptions deem the law “irrational” and a violation of equal protection.

Although the bill’s main sponsor says its goal is to protect the “more than a million Californians” who “have been misclassified by employers looking to cut costs at the expense of workers,” how can anyone know which workers are truly misclassified when we don’t know exactly what they want? Many workers will continue to prefer an independent contractor’s flexibility.

Although the statute is legal, that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily a good idea. As of now, it may be the case that some gig workers do experience exploitation for the companies they work for–but is the solution to take the freedom to choose away from everyone else?

FMCSA Prioritizes Reducing Fatal Crashes in 2020; Asks for Public Comment

February 16, 2020 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

2020 is the year the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is calling for a major turn around regarding trucking fatalities that have occurred over the last four years.

Administrator Jim Mullen is urging the agency to find ways to solve this issue as soon as possible. On January 14th, the FMCSA issued a public comment request on the best way to go about studying key factors in large-truck crashes.

The Large Truck Crash Causal Factors Study will replace the agency’s current 15-year-old crash causation study, which it has been using to make policy decisions.

“When I assumed this role as acting administrator three months ago,” said Mullen at the Transportation Research Board’s January meeting, “the members of this panel asked me what are my top priorities. That to me was a no-brainer. The top priority for me at this agency is to reverse that four-year trend increasing fatalities involved with large trucks and buses.”

The agency’s information request will look toward bringing about new ways to take into account data sources, samples, ranges of crash types, and cost efficiency. It also notes that the new study needs to address onboard electronic systems and how they gather data about lane departure, speeding, and braking.

The study will also work to bring through new information that will help the industry discover which activities will bring large reductions in crash rates involving commercial motor vehicles.

“In the more than 15 years since the original study, many changes in technology, vehicle safety, driver behavior and roadway design have occurred that affect how a driver performs,” said the pre-publication announcement. “Since the study ended in 2003, fatal crashes involving large trucks decreased until 2009, when they hit their lowest point in recent years (2,893 fatal crashes). Since 2009, fatal crashes involving large trucks have steadily increased to 4,415 fatal crashes in 2018, a 52.6% increase when compared to 2009. Over the last three years (2016-2018), fatal crashes involving large trucks increased 5.7%.”

FMCSA will be accepting public comments on the request for 60 days after the January 15th publication.

In a “commercial motor vehicle safety landscape” briefing at the meeting, FMCSA’s chief safety officer, Jack Van Steenburg explained that the biggest driver-related factors in fatal truck crashes were distraction, speeding, and failure to yield right-of way.

“The first goal is to stop that upward trend,” Van Steenburg said. “For the next several months, we at FMCSA are going to go out and talk with people. We’re going to listen to people. We want to tell them what we’re doing, ask how we can do it better, what we can do differently, and how we can do it differently to prevent these crashes from occurring.”

Van Steenburg also assured that agency leaders would be in talks with state officials, especially those in states that have seen a decline in these crashes.

“We always show you the top 10 states that have had crashes,” he explained. “But in Pennsylvania, we saw a 22% decrease in fatalities; Georgia, 16%; California, an 8% reduction.”

Another method of bettering the study will be integrating crash datasets with additional information sources in order to begin “completing the picture of crashes,” according to Bill Bannister, the chief of FMCSA’s Analysis Division.

“This will allow us to drill down into the types of circumstances surrounding crashes, the differences among the types of crashes, and whether it’s the vehicles involved or the roadway that’s involved. This sort of information might provide predictors of crashes.”

National Transportation Safety Board project manager Ryan Smith, also outlined the challenges in finding useful data regarding marijuana-using drivers. According to Smith, researchers warn against understanding drug impairment by using the federal Fatality Analysis Reporting System. He says that although those using marijuana could fail a drug test, there is data showing they may not actually be impaired to drive safely.

There is a lot of data out there that is not properly being discussed,” said Smith. “The concern is that people are using data improperly and coming up with these conclusions that are not in journals but are in news reports. Some of the findings are being twisted and can actually be doing more harm.”

Additionally, Joe DeLorenzo, administrator for FMCSA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance, said the agency is currently working on updating its Compliance, Safety, Accountability Program’s safety measurement system. It will use a complex method called “Item Response Theory” to further analyze data. However, he says the system is still not understood by many in the industry.

An evaluation of the IRT model is not expected until later this year.

Lawsuit Against Amazon Points to New Challenges for Trucking Industry

February 11, 2020 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

A recent lawsuit filed against Amazon and AAA Freight is shedding light on what many throughout the industry have had growing concerns about; prioritizing shipping speed and cost savings for driver safety. In January of 2020, Timothy Weakley, a truck driver based out of Tennessee, claimed in a lawsuit against Amazon and AAA Freight, a trucking company who contracted with Amazon, that both companies were forcing the driver to work shifts that far exceeded the time allotted to drivers by federal law. Ultimately, these extended shifts resulted in Weakley falling asleep at the wheel. Additionally, Weakley claimed that both companies were working to falsify his driver logs in an effort to hide the drive time violations.

While the lawsuit is still in its infancy, and there appears to be many unanswered questions at this point, there is already one key takeaway from Weakley’s lawsuit that will likely have many asking questions about Amazon’s oversight and adherence to federal law. For instance, Weakley’s suit stated that Amazon was well aware of his drive time violations because of its “sophisticated freight tracking application” which was said to have tracked Weakley’s movement in the truck to the “millisecond 24/7.” If proven true, this could certainly result in a greater chance for Amazon being held liable for allowing Weakley to drive what he alleges was “20-30 hours or more with only an hour or two of rest.”

Without having an inside look into what the contract between both Amazon and AAA Freight looked like, we will have to wait and see how this lawsuit is handled in the future; however, one point remains clear; there is no doubt that as shipping speeds continue to enhance and volume rises, the trucking industry is being forced to adhere to increasingly high standards. Amazon is a billion-dollar company with a founder who just so happens to be the richest person in the world. The idea that a company with such power and influence could be asking its contractors to violate the federal law to meet its shipping standards, is not so far-fetched. On the other hand, even if some in the industry believe that Amazon has done nothing wrong and this lawsuit falls squarely on the shoulders of the contractor who actually employed Mr. Weakley, it’s not hard to imagine that a contractor wouldn’t be willing to push their employees to the limit to adhere to what we can only imagine is a lucrative shipping contract with Amazon. At a time when the trucking industry has once again been deemed to be struggling, would a trucking company really be willing to do something that could result in a deterioration of its relationship with one of the most powerful companies in the world?

Aside from focusing on whether Amazon could actually be held liable in this lawsuit, we must also remember that if the allegations that Mr. Weakley brought forth are proven true, this presents a major setback to any argument that federal drive time regulations are too strict and should become more flexible. Based on the proposed hours of service changes, truck drivers would be given more flexibility in dividing the required time they must spend in the sleeper berth of their trucks. We have written countless times about the effects of such a change, and this lawsuit only goes to show that such a change would likely result in further incidents where trucking companies are pushing their drivers to the limit.

More importantly, lawsuits such as this one must become a warning sign for drivers on the road. The reality is that while Amazon may be great for offering the best shipping speeds and price that money can buy, they have a well-documented history of failing to provide adequate safety standards for their employees, including truck drivers. If the allegations that Mr. Weakley brought forth are true, this means that the truck driver next to you could possibly have been driving for more than 20 hours on the road. Imagine working for more than 20 hours in one day. Now imagine your work involving being responsible for a truck that weighs over 40,000 pounds and having to drive it safely. That is serious cause for concern. So, while many may see this lawsuit and may immediately jump to the conclusion that the independent contractor, AAA Freight, is clearly responsible for the employee’s truck crash, just try and think a bit more about what it means to have one of the most powerful companies in the world writing a check for your business.