safe driving

Fleets Look to Onboard Camera Systems for Lower Insurance Rates

July 22, 2020 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Trucking companies have been working to avoid protracted litigation, fight rising insurance costs, and coach their drivers with onboard cameras.

The reasoning behind this development is that having cameras installed on a truckers’ dashboards will potentially lower premiums, especially if a recording exonerates a driver after a dangerous event. Because of this, most insurance companies have expressed their support of these onboard cameras; however, it has long been in question whether or not these in-cab video capabilities will actually bring discounted insurance premiums.

Currently, trucking companies believe that once data and footage are analyzed and can show that fleets are effectively using this technology to train drivers and keep them accountable, the insurance breaks will come. Still, expensive settlements within trucking litigation have seen large increases, which, in turn, boost fleets’ overall insurance costs.

“These types of settlements are driving our trucking companies out of business, driving insurance rates to levels we’ve never seen in the last decade,” said Jim Angel, video intelligence solutions vice president of Trimble, a company providing Class 8 Fleets with in-cab camera systems.

Fleets can also gain liability protection with onboard video capabilities, though.

“More often than not, the truck driver is exonerated,” said SmartDrive operating officer Jason Palmer. SmartDrive offers fleets a variety of video-based safety programs. “It’s really there to protect the driver, and even if they are at fault, they’d want to know about it right away.”

Angel explained that because fatal car-truck crashes are typically caused by passenger car drivers (70-75% of the time, according to an American Trucking Associations 2013 report), companies can easily get lower insurance deductibles when they win most litigation battles. Therefore, with the help of onboard camera footage, trucking companies will no longer have to pay out as many false claims.

“If you take advantage of the odds of truck drivers only being at fault a small minority of the time, then having the right tools is absolutely key,” explained Angel.

Bob Fuller, AssuredPartners/Fleet Risk Management agency president agrees.

“Paying for claims and damages that are the fault of the truckers is not really the issue,” he said. “No one is trying to dodge legitimate liability, but we’re trying to isolate that legitimate liability as compared to frivolous litigations–claims that have no foundation–and the camera certainly helps us do that.”

Onboard camera system supplier, Lytx, has worked with insurance companies for over 10 years. Eliot Feldstein, Lytx corporate development senior vice president, said this collaboration is to the benefit of everyone involved.

“[Insurance companies] have realized early on that once they write a liability policy for a trucking company, it’s in their best economic interest to make sure the trucking companies have the lowest collisions and the best performance they can,” Feldstein said. “A safer fleet with a better track record gets better insurance pricing. They’re a better risk when they go out and look for insurance, and we are able to formalize that with a variety of insurance companies.”

Feldstein also said that insurers will often take on the load of subsidizing the cost of Lytx systems, because video evidence in a litigation can be crucial. Additionally, he asserted that fleets need to use telematics system data in effective ways in order to deliver better services and settle claims more quickly and easily.

Additionally, maintaining safe driving methods and behaviors is a priority for all sides. These camera systems give more opportunities for trucker coaching than ever, and insurance companies are focusing on this aspect.

“[The technology] makes drivers more conscientious of driving skills when they realize the potential for what they’re doing to be recorded. It can be a great training tool if it is implemented properly,” said Fuller. “The telematics will allow an intervention on an unsafe behavior much earlier, which translates into lower insurance costs and a more efficient operation.

Ensuring truckers are gaining valuable training from video data is particularly important to insurers, said Todd Reiser, vice president at Lockton Cos., a risk management firm.

“That camera footage and data being reviewed and utilized and being part of the training process on an ongoing basis is the most important thing insurance companies want to see,” he explained.

Causing fewer crashes and a decrease in unsafe driving behavior through data review and coaching is the main goal of insurers, said Brandon Krueger, senior director of IT and fleet services at KKW Trucking.

“You’re seeing these events you wouldn’t otherwise see that create coachable events–you’re coaching against risk behavior–that will theoretically result in [fewer] events per miles driven. It’s that claims experience the insurance company is looking for and what they’re basing their premiums on,” he explained.

Navistar Cuts 1,300 Jobs and Recalls More Than 12,000 Trucks

January 22, 2020 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Navistar is in hot water after it has reported a low 2019 net income and revenue as well as a need to recall 12,539 of its trucks for safety issues.

On December 17th, Navistar International Corp. of Lisle, Illinois announced it will reduce its global employment rate by at least 10% after low revenue numbers in its fiscal year fourth quarter. Corporate factors such as 2018 chargeouts have caused a decrease in demand for heavy-duty trucks in the industry.

According to Navistar, chargeouts are the trucks invoiced out to customers, while units in dealer inventory show the difference between retail deliveries and chargeouts themselves.

In its forecast for 2020 revenue, Navistar cut its estimates so much that they are now among the lowest of all manufacturers surveyed by Bloomberg. Shares proceeded to plummet 10%, the largest decline since October 2018

“We are taking actions to adjust our business to current market conditions, including reducing production rates and selling, general and administrative expenses while restructuring our global and export operations,” said Navistar president and CEO, Troy Clarke, in a release. “Building on the strong gains achieved over the last several years, Navistar has a clear road map in place for sustained growth that will set it apart from the industry.”

As of now, the majority of the 1,300 jobs being cut out completely are due to North American Production cuts. For the period beginning in November, Navistar’s net income dropped to $102 million ($1.02 per diluted share), after having been at $188 million ($1.89 per diluted share) the year before.

Revenue in this fourth quarter fell to $2.78 billion, down 16% from its $3.27 billion revenue in the same quarter of last year. To be sure, that quarter of 2018 was a particularly strong one, and the drop was caused in part by vehicle chargeouts following supplier production constraints in 2018’s third quarter, lower industry demand, and the sale of Navistar Defense’s in December 2018.

An 18% core chargeout decline for Navistar lead to a profit drop of $86 million from $197 million in 2018, as well.

2020 revenue is predicted to drop to between $9.25 billion and $9.75 billion, especially after a net income decline of 53.8%–from $340 million to $221 million.

Additionally, as its holding company’s new fiscal year began in November of this year, Navistar issued a recall for more than 12,500 of its International brand medium-duty work trucks due to a risk of unintended movement while the parking brake is applied.

The safety recall report from November 21st explained that the defect has the potential to cause serious injury and damage to property. While the parking brake is in use, automatic transmission is in the drive or reverse position, and the stationary power takeoff switch is on, the engine’s RPM accelerates rapidly and can override the parking brake’s function.

This defect comes from the trucks’ programming lacking PTO neutral interlock in their powertrain databases.

Currently, the recall applies to the 2019-20 International MV, 2018-20 International WorkStar, 2019-20 International HV, and 2018-19 International DuraStar. These four truck models are medium-duty work trucks used for deliveries, towing, and dumping.

Recalled trucks were built exclusively between February 2017 and September 2019–trucks without power takeoff are exempt from the recall.

The company first learned of the problems in these models over the summer of 2019. A field service representative was able to speed up the engine throttle with the steering wheel switches while the transmission was in gear, even when the parking brake was applied, on HV model trucks. In September, Navistar began its investigation.

The next month, Navistar determined a potential number of defective vehicle models, and finalized the suspect population on November 7th. The safety recall was put into place a week later on November 14th.

Customers will receive a recall notification by January 20th, and can have a recalibration performed for free.

As the notifications begin their delivery, Navistar must keep the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration up-to-date. According to the NHTSA Office of Defects Investigations’ letter to Navistar on December 10th, the company will need to submit copies of all bulletins, as well as all draft owner and agency notification letters.

Additionally, Navistar will update its parameters in the Cummins’ engine control module for feature codes enabling a neutral interlock for the PTO.

NTSB Issues Safety Recommendations After Fatal Uber Automated Vehicle Crash

December 11, 2019 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

The idea of self-driving vehicles has been in the works for many years, and has recently come into full fruition, with multiple manufacturing companies jumping on the futuristic trend.

However, federal regulators are now being pressured by the National Transportation Safety Board to put in place a new review process for automated test vehicles after an Uber automated test vehicle hit and killed a pedestrian.

Last year, the NTSB released its preliminary report regarding its investigation of the fatal crash, which occurred in Tempe, Arizona between a modified 2017 Volvo XC90–which was occupied by a single vehicle operator but was running on its computer-controlled self-driving system–and a pedestrian in March 2018.

While the vehicle operator wasn’t hurt, the 49-year-old female pedestrian suffered fatal injuries.

According to the report, the pedestrian was wearing dark-colored clothing, didn’t look toward the vehicle until the moment before the impact took place, and crossed the road in an area without direct lighting. The pedestrian was also pushing a bicycle that did not have side reflectors, although it did have a front and rear reflectors that were positioned perpendicular to the oncoming vehicle’s path. She also didn’t use the nearby crosswalk, but rather entered the road from a brick median. Additionally, the pedestrian’s post-accident toxicology test showed both methamphetamine and marijuana in her system.

As for the test vehicle, the report said Uber had equipped it with an in-development self-driving system that was comprised of forward- and side-facing cameras, radars, navigation sensors, Light Detection and Ranging, and a data storage unit. It was also factory-equipped with Volvo Cars’ driver assistance functions, such as collision avoidance with automatic emergency braking, driver alertness detection, and road sign information. These functions are only disabled when the test vehicle is in computer control mode.

The data from the self-driving system showed that the car’s vehicle operator intervened by grabbing the steering wheel less than a second before the impact, which occurred at 39 mph. The operator also began braking less than a second after the impact.

At 1.3 seconds before the impact, the self-driving system did determine emergency braking was needed, but these maneuvers are not enabled when the vehicle is being computer-controlled. The vehicle operator is expected to take action at the point, as to reduce the possibility for erratic vehicle movement. The system also does not alert the operator of the need for emergency braking.

During this month’s board meeting, which was held in order to determine the probable cause of the crash, the NTSB said an Uber division’s “inadequate safety culture” is what allowed the fatal collision to take place.

The NTSB found that the immediate cause of the collision was the Uber ATG operator’s failure to monitor the road and the automated driving system closely enough–which it says was due to the her being distracted during the trip by her cell phone.

The NTSB also says Uber ATG held inadequate safety and risk assessment procedures, had a lack of adequate mechanisms for addressing vehicle operators’ automation complacency, and gave an overall lack of oversight of its vehicle operators in general.

Here are the investigation’s findings:

-The automated driving system was able to detect the pedestrian a full 5.6 seconds before impact. The system did continue to track the pedestrian up until the crash, but was never able to accurately determine what the object crossing the road was, or what its path would most likely be.

-If the vehicle operator had been paying close attention, she would likely have had enough time to effectively react to the pedestrian and either mitigate the impact or avoid the crash completely.

-Uber ATG managers rarely actively monitored the behavior of their vehicle operators, although they had the opportunity to do so. This oversight was made worse by Uber’s decision not to include a second operator in the vehicle during this testing.

-Uber ATG added a safety management system, among other updates, to address the present deficiencies.

The NTSB made six total recommendations to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, Uber ATG, and the state of Arizona–including that NHTSA requires developmental automated driving system test operators to submit safety self-assessment plans before they can begin operating on public roads. NHTSA will have to review these plans thoroughly to make sure all necessary safety precautions and standards are met.

Amazon Threatening the Trucking Industry Once Again

November 14, 2019 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Over the years, Amazon has slowly but surely built an entire fleet of delivery and transportation vehicles to maintain its foothold on the behemoth of a business it has created. According to Business Insider, Amazon reportedly has an incredible number of vans used for the “last mile” of delivery, bringing product from the company’s warehouses to our doorsteps, with over 100,000 vans nationwide. As one could clearly understand, one company maintaining as much volume and control over the delivery of its own product certainly effects the ability for drivers to gain valuable work from a multitude of manufacturers and retailers. However, up until this point, there has been one key aspect of Amazon’s business that has allowed for drivers and the trucking industry to breath easy; the company has long welcomed third parties for shipping its product that goes beyond that “last mile.” Unfortunately, the trucking industry now may be facing a harsh reality, one that sees Amazon bringing all of its delivery resources in-house and creating a fleet that handles the entire delivery process for its business.

As we recently wrote, the trucking industry is already facing a steep drop-off of its own workforce due to retirement and an overall lack of incentives to take on the grueling job. Additionally, the industry has found it much more difficult to keep large fleets of trucks on the roads for trucking companies as retailers and manufacturers continue to consolidate and tighten their grip on shipping costs. That’s why the most recent sightings and word of Amazon’s branded Class 8 tractors are certainly cause for concern. Just last year Business Insider wrote an article on how Amazon was playing a significant role in the driver shortage. At the time of that piece being written, the online publication noted that “Amazon only operates 300 semi-trucks – FedEx, by contrast, operates more than 20,000 semi-trucks.” Additionally, in 2017 it had then been reported that the company was also reportedly attempting to bring 30,000 drivers into its company for solely its “last mile” services. Fast forward two years and we are not only seeing the driver shortage as be far more of an issue, but the trucking industry as a whole has been negatively affected. Most importantly, this is all prior to Amazon actually using the thousands of semi-trucks it has now purchased in 2019.

Amazon’s past decision to lure trucking industry drivers to its company has clearly had an impact on the industry as a whole. Unfortunately, the driver shortage is likely the least of trucking companies’ concerns at the moment. For example, in its article from 2018, Business Insider noted that the move by Amazon led some trucking companies to “primarily target the ‘spot market,’ which is for shipping agreements made only a few days before goods are shipped.” The reason for the trucking fleets to move to the spot market was primarily because this area in the market was far more lucrative than signing a third-party contract that could result in the manufacturer spending far more than is necessary over a longer period of time. At this time, the industry is suffering due to “spot market” rates crashing, not necessarily due to a driver shortage. Overall, while there have only been a few sightings of Amazon’s new tractors, the reality is that one of the world’s largest retailers is about to take the next step to maintain complete control over all of its business.

It cannot go without being said that the ramifications of Amazon bringing its delivery in-house will hinder much more than just the trucking industry. Large decisions such as these have ripple effects that will ultimately affect us all. Earlier in 2019 we wrote about how the trucking industry is losing many drivers, thus forcing older drivers to continue past retirement and potentially hiring drivers who may not actually be all that qualified or properly trained for the job. Such instances then potentially lead to older, overworked, and improperly trained drivers that are asked to drive thousands of miles across the country. Clearly there are circumstances that lead to traffic collisions and fatalities on the road, but decisions such as this, although rightfully made, certainly don’t make them any less likely to occur.

Automated Trucking Startup Offers More Questions Than Answers With New Announcement

November 13, 2019 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Ike Robotics, Inc. has been using a unique approach to developing and preparing its self-driving commercial trucks for market; however, there are growing concerns that such testing may be far too little to prove truly “safe.” Many have heard the horror stories of self-driving vehicles being tested on the road and the severe risks associated with such tests. The reality is that the companies releasing self-driving functions in their vehicles are doing so at a slow pace as they already know the roads are not quite ready to handle fully autonomous vehicles. For instance, what happens when a vehicle quickly cuts off another driver, or happens to try and dodge a pothole causing them to swerve slightly over the lane? While it is clear that self-driving vehicles have the ability to learn from simulations and situations that occur on the road while the vehicles are driving, there seems to be an issue as to whether testing such vehicles on public roadways is the proper thing to do. These are the exact factors these companies are having to consider to ensure that another Tesla mishap or uber autonomous car incident does not occur. Instead, we have seen auto manufacturers releasing impressive high-tech safety functions for their vehicles, including commercial trucks. Recently, Volvo announced it would be implementing a new driver assistance system that has the ability to automatically press a vehicle’s brakes at a much higher speed under circumstances that would have typically led to a collision. And that’s where the news of Ike’s safety tests for its state-of-the-art trucks comes into play.

Ike recently produced a 90-page safety report it provided to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) which outlined that its process for testing was done solely on “simulation and private-track testing,” wrote Automotive News, a newspaper covering the trends of the industry. In addition, the publication reported that Ike’s safety report was the “16^th the federal agency has received from industry players and perhaps the first from a company that has yet to test its technology on public roads.” What this shows is that the self-driving technology we continue to hear about in the news from the likes of Tesla and other manufacturers is quickly becoming widespread even though there are already a growing number of concerns surrounding its use. Although Ike’s belief and decision to not test vehicles on the road is understandable and will likely prevent more collisions from occurring in the testing phase, how much “safer” is it to actually withhold testing on roads? It appears that at this time, unfortunately no one really knows, with Volvo’s own executive claiming in July that “measuring progress by miles was ‘a myth,’” stated Automotive News. Although an automobile manufacturing giant such as Volvo certainly has a track record of success in the industry, the reality is that many of the companies involved in actually testing these vehicles happen to be startups similar to Ike. The key word there is “startup.” Unfortunately, while Ike may believe that it is safer for its company to test on a track and under a variety of simulations, it could also be the fact that the company and other startups in this industry do not have the proper amount of funding to actually place a fleet of trucks on the roads for testing. The technology alone for these trucks costs millions of dollars, so for a startup banking on huge success and having to prove themselves to continue gaining the proper funding, this may be something the industry needs to keep a close eye on.

One good sign that startups like Ike may actually be close to bringing safe commercial trucks to the road is the fact that prominent manufacturers of vehicle safety equipment are entering agreements to be suppliers for their trucks. As of October 30, 2019, Ike announced it had selected Ouster, a leading manufacturer of high-resolution lidar sensors used in autonomous vehicles, to be its primary supplier for its fleet of autonomous trucks it plans to roll out. The press release went on to state, “Ouster and Ike share a commitment to commercializing safe, impactful technology by focusing on practically-minded product development.” The hope is that the more autonomous vehicles become a regularity on the road, clearly beginning with non-commercial vehicles, the easier it will be for more companies to continue become the suppliers of these up-and-coming automotive manufacturers. The issue that we clearly see at this time; however, is the reality that these startups are unlike anything we have ever seen. Sure, we often hear about new tech startups in Silicon Valley, but does function potentially place millions of individuals at a physical safety risk like an autonomous vehicle would? This is not to say that autonomous vehicles, especially trucks are not a possibility, but the reality is that there are millions of miles of roads in the United States and each one is going to offer a different scenario for these autonomous trucks to respond to. All in all, safety and ensuring that this next step in technology doesn’t hinder other drivers on the road should be our absolute worry in this stage of the evolution of the trucking industry.

Chicago Uses Largest Number of Controversial Red-Light Cameras

November 8, 2019 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

CHICAGO – The city of Chicago is leading the game in generating revenue from red-light cameras. Currently, we have implemented more red-light cameras–and brought in more money from them–than any other major city in America.

No other urban area can even compare to Chicago’s 309 red-light cameras. When the traffic resource was at its peak, there were nearly 400.

Only four of the 10 biggest U.S. cities presently operate these cameras–New York City, Philadelphia and Phoenix are the others. However, they fall far behind the Second City. NYC has 164 of the traffic control devices; Philadelphia has 30, and Phoenix just 12.

For reference, the town of Gurnee, Illinois has 15.

Because Chicago is so camera-happy, the city’s revenue has increased exponentially, amassing $719.7 million since 2008 from red-light cameras alone–twice the revenue in half the time of New York’s $286.7 million since 1994.

While the cameras may be an enormous source of city funds, they are frustratingly costly for drivers, and have been proven to create opportunity for government corruption and distrust.

Multiple government groups across Illinois have been found to continue contracting with Redflex Traffic Systems Inc., the red-light camera manufacturer with a history of corruption and scandal.

The company had been fostering a long-term bribery scandal throughout Chicago, with allegations surfacing back in 2012. The city cut off its Redflex connections; however, between 2015 and 2016, both the company and the city were given prison sentences in one of the most prominent bribery schemes in the history of Chicago.

John Bills, who used to work for the city’s department of transportation, received 20 counts of felony in the scheme for having acquired hundreds of thousands of dollars from Redflex in order to keep the company’s devices installed throughout the city–leading to its current leading position in red-light camera usage.

A Redflex official also alleged that the company offered bribes to “dozens of municipalities” across 13 other states. The CEO of Redflex was sentenced to 20 months in prison.

Regardless, the suburban Illinois areas of Gurnee, Carol Stream, Olympia Fields, North Chicago and Bellwood continued their contracts with Redflex. Gurnee extended its agreement in 2012, and again in 2015.

Now, it appears history repeats itself. State Senator Martin Sandoval (D-Chicago) recently became subject to an office raid during the hunt for information regarding his agreement with SafeSpeed LLC, another red-light camera vendor.

A 2018 Case Western Reserve University study found that red-light cameras have no apparent safety benefit. Researchers in the study analyzed traffic accident data from Houston–which utilized these cameras between 2006 and 2010–and discovered that rear-end crashes actually increased. Although T-bone collisions did decrease during that time, they found that the cameras most likely increased the number of overall accidents.

The Chicago Tribune also found in 2014 that rear-end collisions increased by 22 percent in Houston during that time, and that the number of crashes at a red-light camera intersection did indeed go up once the camera was put in place.

Many of the cameras installed in Chicago are located in intersections which already had a low number of accidents.

Although Chicago (and the rest of Illinois) has appeared to maintain a mind of its own in regards to red-light camera use, bipartisan support in the Statehouse is pushing for an overall ban. State Representatives David McSween (R-Barrington Hills) and Jonathan Carroll (D-Buffalo Grove) introduced a bill in January aiming to ban red-light cameras across the entire state. In early October, Rita Mayfield (D-Waukegan) and Sam Yingling (D-Grayslake) signed onto House Bill 323 as co-sponsors. A second bill to ban these cameras was also introduced just three days later.

In addition, the Tribune has reported that in analysis of over 4 million tickets issued between 2007 and 2014, many individual cases showed evidence of deviations in Chicago’s cameras caused by “faulty equipment, human tinkering or both.”

This clear misuse of traffic control equipment has given Chicago locals a strong reason to lose faith in their local government and to suspect corruption.

If these cameras are proven to bring more accidents to previously-low-risk intersections and place unnecessary financial burden on drivers–and they do–it is sensible for these bills to be passed easily and quickly.