CR England "beware"

The bigger a company is, the more trucks they have, the more drivers they have, the more miles they run, the more accidents they will have. It's a statistical fact.

To determine if one particular company is more accident prone, they compare the number of accidents to the number of vehicle miles traveled.

How else would you do it?

Think of it this way. Let's say some guy owns 2 trucks. One of his trucks has an accident. So that means that 50% of his fleet crashed that year. Ok, well we know that it's a little ridiculous to look at it as "50% of the fleet had an accident" when he only owns two trucks. It's not the same as if half of Schneider's trucks crash every year. With the sheer number of Schneider trucks on the road, if half of them crashed in any given year it would be a major "WTF???" issue.

 

First off, virgin tires can fail just as easily as caps. Secondly, where did you get all that from me sayin' the reason for the latest rollover was due to a blown steer?

Doesn't matter. Trucks tied to different fleets don't receive different safety messages. They may be worded a little differently depending on who's writin' it but all in all, the info is the same.

Of course I am. It's not that hard to do.

 

I agree. The problem arises when a company reaches a certain point and can multiply some miles to hide behind numbers.

In addition accidents considered not at fault were never tracked leaving the issue of could an experienced driver avoided it question unanswered.


Fed-EX counts all those little six wheelers in the cities. That's how they one the ATA's Presidents award.

While seven roll over may look ok when compared with what the 4 million miles covered by their trucks last week, it is inexcusable that a company can foster an environment causing 7 major accidents in a week. Now with CSA comparing them to others of their size (FED-EX, Landstar, Swift, Knight, Great Wide) to show their record of turning inexperienced drivers loose.


Maybe just maybe we will get some real reform in training standards if companies like them get exposed.

 

Yeah I know there are a miriad of welfare programs that will pay for training if the student applies for financial aid. While I have issues with those programs they are not to my knowledge the source of the example given. People claim that in addition to the tuition people pay they get an additional sum.

 

Right on... dealt with that stuff with another company that I've posted about on here... and I'm not shy about what I've said about CRE, even posted numbers and settlements...

 

I second that recommendation....Great thought...

 

CRE had 7 rollovers and 2 rear-ends this week. HOW THE HELL did they just pass a CSA Audit by the FMCSA?????? As a current PH1 Trainer, my advice to everyone is get away from CRE as soon as possible. I am on the verge of loosing my status as a trainer b/c I told the head of training what I thought about our training pgm to which they responded "That's my opinion". I seriously hope the DOT shuts them down before another driver looses his life for these ########.

 

So no proof. See I've checked every possible resource that could come from to my knowledge. Granted I do not know of every possible source for this funding but I can tell you OOIDA looked into such claims and found squat. I had my ex congressman's transportation aid trying to find anything, again nothing.

Looking at CRE published profit statements showed bupkiss about such amounts and only listed payments in the amount of tuition reimbursed by grants and such.


I really am interested in anybody with proof of these payments. What program they are filed for under, and which branch. Of government (state labor, federal labor, education.......) or any pertinent verifiable program making such payments.


If the payments are made there has to be a record at England and one in the Federal Budget(or State). Until this is identified(if it exists) it can be adressed.