In a move that has surprised some and outraged others, the FMCSA has decided that it will not move forward with its plans to implement a crash weighting system within carriers’ CSA scores. According to the agency, knowing whether or not a crash was the fault of a carrier or driver will not help determine how safe that carrier is.
Under the current CSA system, all truck crashes are counted equally whether or not the carrier was found to be at fault. This means that the FMCSA thinks that a driver who did not cause an accident is just as likely to get into another accident as a driver who did. And they’re sticking by that statement.
According to the report they published, “modifying the Crash Indicator by changing the crash weights based on a motor carrier’s role in a crash does not appear to improve its ability to predict future crash rates.”
But that may not be the only reason they’re electing not to move forward with crash weighting. They also expressed concern over the cost of the program and – perhaps correctly – with the accuracy of Police Accident Reports (PARs) and their ability to properly determine who is at fault.
Even though there are already PARs for 91% of all crashes involving CMVs, the FMCSA makes a few points that call the accuracy of PARs into question including that “because CMV crashes are complex, police officers may not be able to document the crash event sufficiently. Thus, when using crash data, analysts should examine carefully the driver statements and the facts that officers collect at the crash scene to identify discrepancies. “
The response to the announcement that they would be abandoning crash weighting in CSA scores was swift and intense.
“It is not lost on the trucking industry that the word ‘Accountability’ is in the title of CSA, yet FMCSA continues to ignore crash accountability,” said Dave Osiecki, Executive Vice President of the ATA.
“If the agency is providing information to the public that is to be used to make safety decisions or conclusions, that information should be relevant, accurate and as complete as humanly possible,” said a spokesperson for OOIDA.
The FMCSA has offered numerous reasons why it doesn’t want to weight crashes based on fault, but there’s still one overwhelmingly straightforward reason why they should: drivers and carriers who don’t cause crashes are less likely to be involved in one than those that do.
“We want to be fairly judged and not be penalized by crashes our professional drivers could not reasonably avoid,” said ATA Chairman Duane Long to Fleetowner magazine. “It’s not only a fairness issue; it’s a good government oversight approach. We continue to trust FMCSA might eventually arrive at this conclusion.”
Next Story: Trucker Sues Company Over Injuries, Faulty Brakes
Source: gobytrucknews, trucknews, fleetowner, fmcsa, fmcsa
Jeremy says
So the FMCSAdoesn’t think LE can adequately determine fault in an accident? Sounds like they’re also undermining the very same group who is responsible for determining driver operating safety… so next time a driver gets a speeding ticket or OOS citation, tell the officer, “hey! FMCSA doesn’t even think you can determine fault in an accident so how can your credibility stand up here?”
Gordon says
I guess based on this, the FMCSA sees the driver who barely escaped an overpass falling on top of him was no less at fault than the guy who drove under a low bridge and got stuck.
Just another example of why the guy at the top is critical and needs to have something more than looks and the ability to Speak smoothly. A guy at the top like we have, puts people in charge that has about as much intelligence as he has or less.
The best “boss” is the guy who hires people smarter than himself and wants them to question his decisions, not the one who believes he’s smarter than every one and those who question are cast out and belittled or labeled a racist.
Taylor says
If they don’t think LE is capable to determine blsme on an accident, then why have a crash weighting at all?
If you can see my point here, since when did a rape or murder. victim become guilty of rape or murder? Abolish csa now! They should have worried about the cost of this mess before implementing it. Now, watch the lawsuits abound from this foolishness!
todd says
sounds about right coming from the incompetent association it is coming from..so, just as the insurance companies do in an effort to keep from paying out for their insured drivers idiotic mistakes, they will see me, as in a recent wreck, where a fresh out of driving school *driver haha* runs into the median while speeding {according to drivers he had passed while swerving all across both lanes},texting, {according to his phone i found due to its blinking/bellsound/text notices while laying on the ground}, over corrects and rolls his truck across both lanes, at 930 pm on a moonless night, in a curve, gets out, sits on the emergency lanr..along comes me, at the posted speed limit of 70 mph, seeing the bottom of his truck and trailer, {both of which were painted flat black}, about 100 or so ft in front of me in the curve, nowhere to go as his front bumper was in the side ditch and his back in the oncoming lane, i slow as much as possible, and center the trailer at around 25-30 mph….yet, i’m at as much fault as him ? complete BS..hail homeland security of aspca could do a better job than the fmsca
Chris S says
You keep bringing this story up, let me say this again LOUD AND Clear, you claim you had no notice of this situation until you came around the curve and saw this accident with a driver sitting on the side of the road. But let me point out AGAIN, how in the same breath can you describe his actions for the last 10 miles ie swerving, texting, no lane control etc. If you saw al this then YOU had more then enuff notice to avoid your own situation. STOP trying to act so high and mighty. 99 % of accidents are NOT accidents. They are INSTANCES caused by or a response to a situation. An accident is a bridge falling on you as you drive under it. You have posted this story a dozen times previously. This is the first time you claim outside information after the fact. You are nothing more than inattentive driver who can not take responsibility for your own incorrect actions. Stop posting your attempt to garner your poor pitiful me self righteous misleading comments until you your self can ascertain your own incorrect actions.
Kajidono says
He said quite clearly “{according to drivers he had passed while swerving all across both lanes}.” Until you can learn to read, you are part of the problem.
Chris S says
actually kg todd has posted this story six other times and not once prior to this circumstance this post has he ever stated that he was told by others every single post is stated the facts as he said that so I. What he says and if you would have read my post I stated that his post this was the first one that ever had the fax given to him aside from that he is always stated those facts so not part of the problem you being an experienced driver probably yourself don’t seem to understand that I can read but you cant
Chris S says
also please note and his previous posts he said there was only a four wheeler and the tractor trailer that rolled when he came upon the accident and had his own accident so tell me who gave him the facts after the accident when no one else was there in accordance to his own previous posts
Chris S says
and just one more post from me and then I’ll leave this alone, if he came upon this situation on a blind curve at maximum speed limit of 70 miles per hour then he is still at fault if a driver takes a blind curve at speed limit allowed where is the control in a situation that he would come upon please read a post and take into consideration all of the facts before you criticize someone who does not buy the story if you are a qualified and skilled driver you’d realize that he created his own situation by taking the blind curve and not being able to see far enough ahead at maximum speed
David K says
Chris S, what’s the point of building, maintaining and regulating such infrastructure as Highways and Freeways where it is conventionally and commonly expected that the users should have the possibility to travel at high speeds (posted speed limits) free of unexpected obstacles and traps?
By your own logic, might just well these modern infrastructures should be reverted back to the travel conditions of the unmarked and none regulated dirt roadways of the late 19th and early 20th centuries where all traffic should move at about 25-30 miles per hour around every curve, corner and hilltop where visibility is reduced, right?
I think that we live in an age when blame it’s assigned not by facts and logic, but by the politics and interests of the day.
John says
Should be easy enough to determine fault in accidents. I thought the whole ideal of this scoring was to accurately determine the safety of a company? Now it seems its all rolled into one category of fault anyway? Sounds like more government BS doesn’t it?
David K says
John, as commercial drivers we’re classified by the labor laws as “unskilled labor”, thus not qualifying under none of the protections of the labor laws. At the same time, we have become the target of the regulatory agencies which are regulating us to the point where the enforcement agencies can pick and choose through the mountain of regulations on the books and apply arbitrary interpretations to any regulations at any time for any reason and in any circumstance in order to penalize you, regardless if you have any fault or none at all in a given situation.
It is gotten to the point that if you’re climbing behind the steering wheel of a commercial truck due to the need to earn a living, you’re exposing yourself the unconscionable and unreasonable threats and dangers to your well being, living under constant threat of loosing something valuable to you and even loosing everything with no way to protect yourself and your interests. As a commercial driver you are held responsible for everything, including the things outside of your control. You are expected to predict and know the future without fail and are held responsible for things that hasn’t happened yet, including the “what if”, “could’ve, should’ve, would’ve” things. Your past is always scrutinized, your present is under indictment and your future is threatened always.
You’ve got about three choices:
1: Take your chances and let things fall where they may, understanding that it’s just a matter of time till you have to deal with whatever may come your way, including things outside of your control.
2: Worry yourself sick, give yourself an ulcer, drive yourself insane and hope to die quickly before you become a vegetable in the hands of others.
3: Quit the driving career, distance yourself from the trucking industry as far as you can, keep your sanity and develop some other skill or skills that would allow you to earn a living.
Ahmad says
Extreme safety!!! I think America needs to work toward profit margin for owner operators and lease operators. Speaking of lease operators they may not even make more than the company drivers.
LindaPV says
Insurance companies 1. Drivers 0.
Brian White says
This story about the FMCSA and the conclusions they come to is a perfect example of why EACH AND EVERY AGENCY should have to be re-authorized every three years. In the case of the FMCSA, look at the agency’s record. Look at the regulations that are foisted upon the operators of commercial mv’s. On a related note, look at the LACK of training required for someone to get a run-of-the-mill drivers license. Very little to no training for them as to how they should operate when in the vicinity of an 80,000+ pound vehicle.
The bureaucrats at most agencies like the FMCSA are interested in only one thing: looking productive in order for their position to continue to be funded. More regulations. More rules. Every bit of it intended to ensure the government doesn’t eliminate their position.
Most of these bureaucrats could disappear tomorrow and hardly anyone would notice. That is, until someone notices the slow-down in new rules and regulations.
Trucking used to be fun.
It stopped being fun about 10 years ago.
doghouse says
TRUST THE FMCSA, LMAO ,LMAO , thats like george bush saying trust me iran has weapons of mass destruction , lmao
Matt says
Sounds to me like FMCSA is a VERY sore looser. This is retaliation for the whole 34 hr restart thing.
Ron says
“This means that the FMCSA thinks that a driver who did not cause an accident is just as likely to get into another accident as a driver who did. And they’re sticking by that statement.” I sent a copy of my accident,and the Ohio Highway Police accident report, which covered up for the Ohio state employee,driving an Ohio state owned vehicle,killing HIS passenger. The Police are suppose to uphold the law,instead they bend it,twist it,and sell it. The sad part…any,and all government employees help them get away with it. FMCSA included. You can’t expect honesty from lawyers,judges,and anyone in the legal system,and government system. Can you ? Try and see how much it will COST YOU to defend yourself in court,and you’ll get the idea about “EQUAL JUSTICE” under the law. Courts are a “FOR PROFIT” business.
Fishmonger says
We had this happen at the company I drive for. One of our drivers was involved in an accident in Memphis. According to his testimony, LE and other eyewitnesses, our truck did everything possible to avoid the collision with a 4 wheeler. No matter. The accident was weighed against us. When my boss contacted the FMCSA they said “they couldn’t do anything about it and that’s just the way it is.” Thankfully, I’m about to retirement age and I’ll leave this lunacy behind soon.
tony says
So if I’ve been stopped at a red light for a good 20 seconds and someone drives into the back of my trailer…..?
tsavory says
You and your company is penalized(on csa) just as if you ran into the back of someone stopped 20 seconds.
Terry says
All of this has so little to do with safety that it’s laughable. I computed the figures a few months, and it you accept the fact that the CDL driver is at fault only 30 to 35% of the time in accidents, then you can figure that the number of deaths caused by trucks are in the single digit range of highway deaths. I don’t recall the exact numbers I came up with but they were tiny compared to other things they could do to make the roads safer. I think the purpose of all of this is for the FMCSA to justify it’s own existence, by being an agency that brings in more money that it spends, through fines, fees, and penalties. It’s easier for legislatures to throw a fee at a trucking company than it is to tell voters that they are going to raise taxes. The costs the companies incur are passed on, and tax payers pay it through higher prices without ever knowing it. What ever the reason the FMCSA does what it does, it is about to kill the owner operator, and small family fleets like mine. Whether you have a couple of trucks or thirty, you need someone to keep up with the paper work the regulations cause, and paying someone to do paperwork is easier if you have two dozen trucks paying their salary than if you have two. Also if you have one truck involved in an accident with a fleet of 100 as opposed to owning two trucks it really skews safety scores. This entire agency is a train wreck that is costing the industry billions and billions of dollars, and basically accomplishes nothing other than a pile of paper that no one understands. Like every bureaucracy it will continue to create paper work and rules that will make itself more important to congress so everyone keeps their jobs, but it should be scrapped as a failure.