Yet another "Swift" move.

Sorry Swift's crash percentage is actually at 9.2%. And yes 9% can still be improved on, but it is not out of line of industry standards by any means

 

Heck just look at the BASICs status of most companies. That little yellow triangle with the exclimation point in it does not mean good things....
And no company likes to be compared with Wal-Mart those guys make everyone look bad on paper. But Injun is right, they run way different than most of us.

 

So we are to assume that Swift is as good as Wal-Mart based on the sheer numbers?

Or is it safe to assume, that Wal-Mart wants the best....period.

Wal-Mart drives nights. Maybe not where you're from. But they do where I run.

Chaining up. I've done it more times than I can count. But it's a choice for most drivers. OR am I wrong here, and Swift makes their "inexperienced" drivers throw chains? Hardly a safe practice if you ask me.

We did....

Company A is Schneider
Company B is Werner

And percentage wise. Swift falls directly in the middle of their percentages when we break out the actual/real number of units.

Wal-Mart muddies nothing. It shows what CAN be done. If a company is truly concerned with safety and their image.

 

Percentage wise Swift falls in the middle of who's percentages? As far as actual/real number of units I am using the CSA's numbers. Who's numbers shall we use?

Wal-Mart is very good, but they are a specialty carrier they are not a trucking company, they do not have flat bed divisions and specialty loads. The only deliver to Wal-Marts. The rest of us deliver to everything imaginable.

You can't argue with the fact that they are a safe company and that is a good thing. I don't remember anyone coming on here saying that they were not.

 

We are using CSA numbers. Swift falls between Werner and Schneider.

Now if you really want to go there. I can turn this into a classroom. And explain rudimentary mathematics to you.

Then I can cut and paste it all from the FMCSA.

Or I can paste it, then explain it.

Which do you prefer???

 

All it shows is the difference an average ten years' experience on a local/regional fleet makes over an average 18 months' experience on an OTR fleet.

If Swift was interested in hiring only drivers with at least three years' experience with no tickets, incidents or accidents within the past three years, I suppose you're right. But Swift is a training company. There is absolutely no way any training company will have the record WalMart does. Overall, I would say Swift's looks pretty good. For a training company.

Nobody gets into this field with three years' experience. Even you had to start somewhere with zero miles and zero time.

 

I have a BA in business and my minor was accounting so please do not patronize me.

I did the math across the board for all of the larger companies and when you use statistics. You know taking out the highest and the lowest and finding an average from the remaining data set. Or do you need me to explain it to you? So turn this into a classroom if you think you can, But I am very well educated and will not be talked down to. Just show me your numbers and I will show you mine. Then we can still disagree because you do not like Swift. That is fine, but I will tell you that you are wrong. Swift is not the worst company by far. Even Watkins-Shepherd has some pretty high numbers

 

I always feel bad when I see this happen to someone. It never happened to me, but I could see how it could easily happen to anyone. All it takes is getting bad directions from some idiot at a customer.

 

Okay...using that logic.

Swift gets a big fail.

I've stated that company A & B were Schneider and Werner. Both "training" companies.

Werner flat out sucks. Schneider beats Swift.

If we're going to break it down even further. Miles per unit average....I can do that.

We can even dig deeper. And look at the "method" of training used by the 3 individual companies.

While CSA doesn't show the "quick" numbers on the opening page to a company. If you take the time, you can look at crash data.

CRST -- 1800 trucks

McElroy -- 569 trucks

CR England -- 1730 trucks

This is reflective of the number of wrecks at "training companies".

You can say they're all close, based on averages if you want.

But the bottom line is. Does someone want to decrease the odds, or increase the odds they'll be properly trained. And NOT involved in an accident. Proper training doesn't always lead to falling accident numbers. But it sure can reduce those "single vehicle" accidents.

While you see it as a simple 2-4% difference. It's actually a 20-40% difference. When we focus on the actual relevant numbers.

If I can increase my chances of LIVING by 1%. I don't care if it says "Gay & Lesbian Support Team" on the side of the truck.

 

What are the crashes per million miles for each of those companies?

As we know, every mile travelled equals greater exposure to potential incidents. Therefore, it is a more true scale than simply crashes/vehicles. If you want to do a real study of the issue, compare these numbers to pay rate and see if there is a correlation there. You can break it down further by comparing length of training and crash data.

Me? Couldn't care less. I know Swift isn't the worst. In order to be the best, the entire operating philosophy would have to change. I just don't see that happening.

Regardless of what you find, you will have something negative to say about Swift. Almost like a personal vendetta. That's quite okay, though. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.