Blog

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.

ATRI Says DOT’s AV Regulation Needs Boosting

February 2, 2020 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Finger pressing a push button to start a self-driving car. Composite image between a hand photography and a 3D background.

Less than a week after the Department of Transportation released its updated autonomous vehicle technology guidelines–AV 4.0–the American Transportation Research Institute has published new research highlighting a need to implement an actual comprehensive policy for AV tech in the trucking industry.

The research is titled “Redefining the Role of Government Activities in Automated Trucking” and outlines the government’s lack of structure regarding the industry’s application of autonomous driving technologies, even with AV 4.0 in place.

DOT’s update aims to redefine regulations regarding all self-driving tech and to find legislative needs that will allow for an easy transition of more autonomous vehicles entering the roadways. AV 4.0 has three underlying focuses–prioritizing safety, promoting innovation, and ensuring consistent regulation.

Currently, the guidelines consist of a set of principles that would reach 38 different federal departments and agencies. DOT says it will specify steps that both state and local governments can take to further AV development.

DOT also says AV 4.0 will push for country-wide guidelines as opposed to “voluntary guidance.” However, how exactly that will take place has yet to be explained.

ATRI finds that with so many state and federal statutes being drafted in order to create substantial rules, country-wide autonomous truck regulation will be difficult.

Congress has not yet enacted a federal law governing AV tech development for trucks. As of now, 37 states in addition to the District of Columbia have issued either executive orders or new legislation regarding AV technology: eight states only authorize testing, 11 states and D.C. allow full deployment, and many other cities are planning to implement their own AV regulations.

“Our industry needs states to collaborate on seamless policies and regulations,” said ATA’s Automated Truck Subcommittee Chair, Jeff Reed. “We need more proactive federal guidance on [autonomous truck] development. Government activities at all levels must be dynamic enough to address the constantly evolving technology landscape.”

ATRI’s analysis pushes the Department of Transportation to create legislation clearly defining AV practices for states and municipalities. With at least 50 cities running or planning AV technology pilot tech–heavily focusing on passenger vehicle operations–the DOT has still been hands-off.

The agency also assesses that real-world implementation of AVs will be nearly impossible if rules call for constant control of vehicles by both drivers and onboard engineers. Additionally, DOT’s plans will create further difficulties when drivers begin applying for licenses with autonomous vehicle exemption because testing requirements will vary from state to state, although endorsement is established on a federal level.

“Right now, I don’t believe that we have a solution in place,” said Dan Murray, Senior Vice President of ATRI. “I don’t believe we have the blueprint we need in place, even with the latest U.S. DOT action.”

Because of this, ATRI’s analysis calls the guidelines an “incomplete patchwork” of state regulations, which could hurt the overall development of the technology throughout the trucking industry.

The research also explains that the tech could possibly only come to regular use at a regional level, as it would pigeonhole the potential for establishing autonomous driving into local operations “in locations with favorable regulatory frameworks.”

It also stresses that working with multiple regulations of the same technology would be difficult for many truckers.

According to Murray, the progression of self-driving innovations will become increasingly challenging for the trucking industry if its employees have to make various adjustments when traveling between different states.

“We don’t want the tail wagging the dog when it comes to any aspect of interstate commerce and trucking,” he said.

Autonomous technology viability is clearly almost impossible to sustain right now–a common standard is vital. Although states should ensure safety, federal officials are needed in order to help avoid policies that would delay testing or deployment of these technologies, which may be able to improve safety across the entire industry.

ATRI’s research shows that a standardized framework would allow public confidence to grow regarding self-driving vehicles. Law enforcement would more easily be able to perform inspections on these vehicles–and technicians would be able to perform regular maintenance on them–with technical standards in place.

“It has to come from [the national level],” said Murray. “Local jurisdictions, by definition, don’t have the big picture. We really need the U.S. DOT to come in full-bore and provide not just guidance, but possibly regulations, national policy, and maybe even tie funding to it.”

Fatigued and Distracted Truckers Continue to Cause Fatal Accidents

February 1, 2020 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

ROCKFORD, Ill. — On January 11th, a FedEx truck in northern Illinois struck a disabled vehicle and killed the woman inside.

According to Illinois State Police, the truck driver crashed into the disabled vehicle around 1:20 a.m. on I-90 in Rockford, and the woman driving the disabled car was pronounced dead at the scene.

The woman had her 4-year-old child in the car–the child had non-life threatening injuries and was taken immediately to a nearby hospital for treatment.

Unfortunately, incidents of this kind aren’t rare. In March of last year, a state trooper and a passenger in a disabled car were hurt when a tractor trailer collided with both the patrol car and the disabled vehicle on the side of the road in Kingston, New York.

New York State Police said the trooper was was helping the driver to change a tire and that the trooper had been sitting in his vehicle when the tractor trailer hit his cruiser and then the driver’s side of the disabled vehicle before continuing to drive northbound on I-87.

The tractor trailer managed to push the SUV into the passenger of the disabled Tahoe, which caused the driver to be pushed into the guard rail. Both the driver and trooper were transported to the nearest hospital for non-life threatening injuries.

All U.S. states have a “Move Over” Law in place which requires all vehicles to safely move over into further-away lanes for all police, firefighters, first responders, tow-truck drivers, and other personnel as the work at accident scenes.

Because all commercial truck drivers are trained with these laws in mind and are taught how to drive without distraction, it seems avoidable accidents such as these should occur much less regularly. However, there are a multitude of reasons why they don’t.

The biggest one? Fatigue.

When the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration announced its plans to relax safety rules for truck drivers–including implementing extended duty time and more flexible mandatory break time–many people were worried about what the longer hours could mean for distracted driving and driver fatigue among truckers.

Linda Wilburn, for instance, was waiting for her 19-year-old son Orbie to stop by her house just 10 miles from his new rental when he was fatally hit from behind by a big rig speeding down I-40 east from Weatherford, Oklahoma.

The 41-year-old Kentucky truck driver also died at the scene. According to Linda Wilburn, he had been driving at least 1,300 miles “without a rest break at all” from Bakersfield, California.

Because of this, the Wilburn family has been rallying against the new proposed flexibility, which would allow drivers to split up mandatory 10-hour rest breaks into 5-5 or 6-4 hour splits, with control over whether or not they actually rest. It would also extend driving time by two hours for truckers working in any inclement weather conditions and would lengthen the maximum on-duty period to 14 hours.

Still, the National Transportation Safety Board says it is working hard to focus on fatigued driving issues, and has named the reduction of fatigue-related accidents on its ‘Most Wanted List’ of 2019-2020 safety improvements.

“Drowsy driving does not leave telltale signs,” the list says. “It is widely believed to be underreported on police crash forms.”

Harry Adler, the Truck Safety Coalition’s executive director, knows this is a major road safety problem.

“These (proposals) are opportunities for drivers to be pushed to their limits further, to drive without resting,” he explained, “It’s more opportunity for a driver to operate while fatigued, which is really detrimental.”

Because fatigue while driving can lead to slower responses and distracted actions, some in-cab driver monitoring systems are working to deter it. Bison Transport has been testing in-cab monitors through Seeing Machines Limited technology, meaning it will install its automated monitoring systems into one of Canada’s largest fleets.

During a testing period, the company found a reduction of 67% in fatigued driving incidents, of 40% in distracted driving incidents, and of 97% in cell phone use. The driver monitor can assess a driver’s visual attention, drowsiness, and probability for risk with its vision algorithms by tracking eye movement and notifying drivers with audio and vibration alerts.

Although methods like these may be helpful, it appears the biggest boost we could give truck driver safety would be to ensure truckers are regularly getting enough rest and are able to stay alert throughout their entire journeys. When that is the priority, it is safe to assume all drivers on any road will be much safer.

DOT Updates Driverless Car Guidelines

January 31, 2020 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

More self-driving cars and trucks will be taking to American highways throughout 2020 and beyond–and it looks like the U.S. Department of Transportation is working to ensure this momentum continues.

Elaine Chao, U.S. Secretary of Transportation announced the guidelines of U.S. DOT’s newly released AV 4.0, an updated policy regarding autonomous vehicle technology, on January 8th at CES 2020 in Las Vegas.

The guidelines are titled “Ensuring American Leadership in Automated Vehicle Technologies,” and Chao explained that AV tech can include everything from automated brakes to lane-departure warning systems to adaptive cruise control.

The department’s goal is to continue development of these innovations while still focusing on safety. AV 4.0 has three underlying principles–prioritizing safety, promoting innovation, and ensuring consistent regulation.

“Safety is always Number One at the U.S. Department of Transportation,” Chao said. However, a Department of Transportation commitment is “remaining technology-neutral” as well as “protecting American innovation and creativity.”

AV 4.0 will consist of a set of regulations and principles throughout 38 different federal departments, agencies, and offices around the country. It will aim to specify particular steps which state and local government agencies and technology experts can take to further the development and implementation of driverless vehicles.

“The federal government is all in for safer, better, and more inclusive transportation aided by automated driving systems,” according to Chao.

This is one of the first big pushes for country-wide guidelines, as annual guidelines since 2016 have been called for regulation along the lines of “voluntary guidance.” Although the federal government does set the safety standards for AVs, states control their own licensing. For example, the Department of Motor Vehicles in California has its had its own regulations regarding insurance as well as how safety officials should be informed of driverless vehicles deployed in the area.

Now, Automated Vehicles 4.0 will be the first system of federal oversight.

Its guidelines also align with the Trump administration’s support of AV tech and possibilities for collaboration–like research resources and federal AV sector investments.

“We quickly realized that the autonomous vehicle question is not one that is housed solely at the Department of Transportation,” said Michael Kratsios, U.S. Chief Technology Officer. “You have a federal government which has come together and said, ‘We want the U.S. to lead in this domain.’”

Although AV technology has been progressing more slowly than expected, the innovation is still moving forward. Google’s driverless car offshoot, Waymo, currently operates in Phoenix as a commercial robotaxi service and also offers driverless rides on Silicon Valley public roads (to employees and guests only).

Additionally, Florida tech companies Beep and Voyage are testing driverless shuttles in retirement communities, and Ford is currently experimenting with a robotaxi service in Miami. In Arizona and Florida, Waymo, TuSimple, and Starsky Robotics are operating automated driving trucks on public highways.

Chao believes AV 4.0 is an inevitable step in traffic safety’s future. She explained that driverless vehicles will be able to improve overall road safety while also reducing traffic congestion and giving more options of mobility for those currently facing transportation setbacks.

“Transportation today is synonymous with innovation,” she said, “and transportation is going to be as instrumental in America’s future as it has been since our nation’s founding. We are preparing for the transportation of the nation’s future.”

However, there are reasons for AV development delays–multiple driverless vehicle-related accidents, such as the incident involving a pedestrian on a highway who was hit and killed by an automated Uber car in 2018. Still, AV manufacturers say they are working to be as responsible and efficient as possible.

These guidelines will focus solely on the development of driverless cars, not on vehicles with some automated capabilities that still require a human driver’s presence and attention, such as ‘Level 2’ automation which includes driver-assist options, like Tesla’s Autopilot and Cadillac’s SuperCruise.

PAVE, a driverless vehicle industry and consumer coalition, was formed in 2019 in order to educate both policymakers and the public on this technology as well as to address any safety concerns.

“Realizing the vast potential of AVs will require collaboration and information sharing, among all institutions involved, said Chao.

U-Haul Refuses to Hire Nicotine Users

January 30, 2020 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Starting February 1st, U-Haul will no longer bring any nicotine users onboard.

In a recent announcement, the moving and truck rental company said it will now refuse to hire nicotine users in the 21 states which legally allow that decision–citing the desire for a “healthier workforce” as the reason.

This nicotine-free policy is possible in states without protections for the rights of smokers. However, it won’t apply to employees hired prior to February.

In a news release, company chief of staff Jessica Lopez said U-Haul will be working toward fostering an overall new “culture of wellness.”

The states in which the new policy will take affect include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.

Prospective applicants in these states, which allow companies to choose not to hire job seekers using nicotine, should expect to find information on the anti-nicotine policy on their applications and to be questioned about their use of nicotine, U-Haul said. In states where testing is allowed, applicants may also have to undergo nicotine screening to be hirable.

U-Haul said it is striving to encourage wellness among its employees, and is working on a new fitness center in one of its Arizona locations, as well as multiple wellness and fitness programs.

The company currently employs over 30,000 people throughout North America and will work toward helping its current nicotine-using workers with cessation assistance.

“In our continued efforts to enhance our wellness program and decrease health care costs, we have become more aware of the medical side effects of using nicotine and tobacco products,” said Lopez.

These products include vaping tools and e-cigarettes, in addition to traditional cigarettes, according to the policy. U-Haul company officials have also explained their inspiration from hospitals and other health-conscious businesses which are implementing nicotine-free hiring methods.

Alaska Airlines has had a no-nicotine policy in place since 1985 in order to help keep health care costs and health consequences lower.

U-Haul’s decision to follow suit comes soon after President Trump signed legislation raising the minimum age of those purchasing any tobacco or vaping products from 18 to 21.

However, while public health experts may be pushing for smoke-free lifestyles, they are torn on whether or not companies and employees will benefit from the new policy.

Michael Siegel, professor of community health services at the Boston University School of Public Health, said that U-Haul’s policy is misguided in terms of its approach to furthering wellness, as those who are addicted to nicotine may have trouble quitting and opt for nicotine-infused gum, patches, or lozenges. Nicotine replacement treatment is able to appear in nicotine-screening urine tests.

“Essentially, what that means is if you quit smoking and start using nicotine patches or nicotine gum or electronic cigarettes, you are not eligible to work for that company if you’re using nicotine replacement products,” he explained.

According to a survey by the Food and Drug Administration, around 7 percent of smokers can successfully quit smoking for at least six months to a year; however, the Mayo Clinic found that over 30 percent of smokers can quit fully with the help of a nicotine-replacement product.

“There are a lot of vices out there, and [these workers] have just chosen this one thing,” said Siegel. “[Banning it] is just kind of inappropriate.”

Lynn Kozlowski, University of Buffalo School of Public Health and Health Professions professor, wants U-Haul to note that some nicotine-infused products are more harmful than others–like cigarettes and cigars as opposed to smokeless tobacco.

Products like smokeless tobacco and nicotine products for vaping are less likely to contaminate public workplaces or affect work performance. Banning all nicotine products together causes U-Haul to look as if its policy is based on morals rather than health, Kozlowski argued.

“I bet if U-Haul were to look at [its] corporate office, [it has] a coffeepot going most of the time and people addicted to caffeine,” he said.

This begs the question, where does a trucking company–or any employer–draw the line between raising reasonable health standards and being intrusive?

According to Kevin Schroth, associate professor at the Rutgers School of Public Health, the company’s new rule could be deemed unfair to those who have fallen victim to the tobacco industry’s strong advertising techniques–which are aimed heavily at young people.

As of now, said Kozlowski, U-Haul’s policy announcement does not have nearly enough clarity for full scrutiny.