Liability of carriers sms scores for brokers

I don't think there is a good answer to your question. The feds have muddied this up in a terrible, terrible way. On one hand they have CSA scores that purport to show how "safe" a carrier operates. On the other hand any carrier who has operating authority is technically considered safe enough to operate or they wouldn't have authority. The vicarious liability suit that was won against CH Robinson muddied up things as well. This will all play out in the courts over the coming years (and years!) and in the end lawyers will be the only big winners. I guess what I'm saying is there are no hard and fast rules at the moment. Like a lot of things, you just have to go by your best intinct. My .02.

 

i'd go with the OOS number. cuz if you think about it. OOS is what delays the freight.

but like state said. it's really a POS program. and i'm guessing worthless. cuz we have a high score. but we still get brokers calling us all the time to haul there freight.

course, we're also a very small fleet. so one OOS would give us a high score. we've also had a ton of clean inspections. and i haven't seen our score go down one bit yet.

 

You can start by learning to read the scores, and use some deductive reasoning. 48stater made an excellent point for you to start with. If they were bad enough, they wouldn't have an authority...so after that, you need to consider what your priorities in your decision needs to entail. Are you worried about them crashing and you being sued? Then you need to look at their score regards their crash, towaway and injury/fatality numbers...considering also their Fatigued Driving, Unsafe Driving, Driver Fitness, Controlled Substances/Alcohol and Vehicle Maintenance scores.

If you see a high crash, tow away and injury fatality score, and the other "Basics" are high with violations, you can probably deduce that the company doesn't have a "safety-focused" organization...and you would probably want to avoid them.

Remember, CSA scores were meant to help deduce "crash-prone" companies. If you view it in that light, then when you see a company with low crash/towaway/injury & fatality scores, who have low scores in the other basics...then you can probably feel a little more confident in choosing them. Now this doesn't mean they are squeaky clean.....the number of vehicles and inspections OOS% becomes kind of a "frequency indicator" of how long and how often this carrier has been in business, the number of vehicles that are getting inspected, and their OOS%.

If they were brand new companies, they would have no stats...and then you're pretty much on your own, but your rates with them may also reflect that lack of confidence versus one that is regularly inspected and passes consistently.

Realize also, that the better rated carrier may not have rates you want to pay. He has a fleet to maintain and drivers to pay that know how to do their job and keep the equipment in shape, know how to drive safely, etc. This company's costs may require higher premiums for their service and record....and then you are now subject to your own judgement of what you're willing to pay for the kind of service you want.

Hope this helps a little.

 

By the way, here's a link to a story in The Trucker that tells about verification of the CSA system.

 

Regardless how you feel the effectiveness of the CSA system is, if you are in the decision process of what carrier you will use you need to make sure you have a policy regarding CSA, show that you are checking and monitoring CSA and it best be auditable. When an accident happens everyone in the decision process is now brought into the lawsuit. And business as usual or "CSA doesn't work so we ignore it" will have costly consequences.

Looks like it is doing better than those with a stake in shooting it down would like everyone to believe. It seems most of the suits now are about tweaking and not eliminating. I am surprised to see that fatigued driving is actually working as a crash predictor. When most of the violations are clerical errors this category seemed to me that it was not going to be effective. But in another report that is saying the same as this a psychologist made a good point that I had not thought about.

These clerical errors (my term) indicate a general attitude of the driver and ultimately the fleet. If a driver who routinely is sloppy with paperwork and doesn't worry about missing a couple things on a log is more than likely to do the same thing in his driving. And a carrier that allows the "minor" issues on logs to slip by is going to retain more drivers with this attitude.

It is going to be interesting to see as they are making tweaks to make the system fairer how it will all play out.

 

And people wonder why I don't go independent. I have an entire department in our corporate office who is paid to do this for me daily. Totally worth the percentage we pay for it. Saves time and major headaches! I wish you luck, not sure if I know the answer or a solution to your question. I can truly say I wouldn't want to be in your spot.