CSA 2010 why it needs ending

Let's add warnings are considered as bad as citations.. and there isn't a distiction between them, if an inspection is done.

 

In fact. Warnings are now worse than Citations where as you can not dispute them, or if you do, it goes to a Kangaroo court and never gets addressed!

 

Ahhhhhhh welcome to the New World of Trucking... This is the prime reason im getting out after 40 yrs... to much goverment regs with little thought for drivers... imagine if they had CSA for 4 wheelers wow would we be able to get thru traffic so much better...Never happen...lol

 

I did the input thing when all of this was open for public comments, but overall, I am not really all that concerned. If it all drives me out of business, so be it. By the time they weed me out, most of the carriers and drivers will have already been gone. Before it gets to that, there will be changes.

 

CSA is just a tool that is being misused, instead of tossing it out it would probably make more sense to learn how to use it correctly.

 

Except in your example you fail to mention the 30 point cap on any inspection.

All the due process is crap because all a bad SMS can legally accomplish is getting an audit.Yes other can compare you to your competition. If the system was half as flawed as the tin foil crowd would have you believe everyone would have these violations thereby negating bad scores within your peer group. The simple fact is poor inspection results will make one stand out.

 

First, let me say I am not a proponent of the CSA program, and frankly I don't have anything to do with it. My job is to do vehicle inspections. Somebody down the line after me takes my inspections and assigns point values to violations, crunches numbers, assigns carrier ratings, etc. CSA did not change anything about the way I do inspections.

I do understand, however, the sentiment of many on this forum about the impact of CSA on drivers and carriers. I hear you, but since I have nothing to do with CSA I do not know the answers.

I do have some questions for you Rev, maybe you can help me.

If you Data-Q challenge a violation on one of my inspections I will review my inspection and verify the information. I am not perfect, not by a longshot, and I make mistakes. If I entered a violation on an inspection in error, I will gladly remove it. Only "valid" violations will remain on an inspection report. Is that not addressing the validity of information?

What do "due process" and "guilt" have to do with a vehicle inspection report? The vehicle is examined and required equipment either functions or it does not. A required lamp either works, or it does not. A brake is either within adjustment tolerance, or it is not. Defects are noted on the report.
If you are issued a citation for something, then we are talking about things like "due process" and "guilt" or innocence.

What reasoning is there to be cited for a turn signal that does not work? It either works, or it does not. I am simply reporting whether or not the required signal lamp was operative at the time of inspection. No intent is implied. No acts of God to be considered. It is called an "Inspection Report", says so right at the top. I am simply reporting, not assigning blame or intent.

I don't know about anywhere else, but if I falsify inspections, or violations on inspections, I will be out of a job PDQ.

I make this deal with you Rev. Any violation I put on an inspection report on your vehicle will be one I can show you and have you agree with me on whether it functions properly or not. We can stand at the back of the trailer and both of us look at the turn signal to see if it works or not. You can measure the pushrod with your ruler, check tire pressure with your tire gauge, look at a wheel and count the missing lugs together, etc. In short, I promise not to be a "marauder"!