Letters: Mandate Technology, A Modest Proposal
These letters appear in the Aug. 8 print edition of Transport Topics. Click here to subscribe today.
Mandate Technology That Boosts Collision Avoidance
We read with interest the Transport Topics’ June 20 editorial, “Collision Technology Proves its Worth,” and the subsequent comments by our respected peers, including FedEx, regarding the industry’s need to lead and not follow with respect to the adoption of the many proven technologies that enhance highway safety. We agree with our colleagues at FedEx that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration should sooner — rather than later — mandate collision avoidance technology for both commercial vehicles and passenger cars.
In 2014, the last full year of available data, 3,660 were killed in traffic accidents involving commercial trucks. In 2015, the number of traffic miles increased significantly and the number of overall fatalities increased as well. If we generally accept the findings of various reliable studies, we may reasonably estimate that trucking com- pany drivers caused about 1,060 of the 2014 deaths. Sixteen percent of those deaths, or 585 individuals killed in these truck-related crashes, were the drivers of the commercial vehicle.
Our industry cannot be satisfied with these results. We should demand more of our industry and every company — regardless of size or segment — that operates large commercial vehicles. The technologies exist to greatly reduce the risk of collisions between vehicles. Collision avoidance technology works — and it will only continue to improve. It’s a shame that we even need to petition the responsible agencies for regulating highway and commercial motor vehicle safety to compel vehicle owners to implement the technology.
Opponents of mandates might invoke any number of reasons why government should not intervene and compel the adoption of new technologies through regulation. Unfortunately, even when the business case for the proper investment in new technologies is clearly manifest, there are those operators who have consistently demonstrated that, absent a mandate, they will not make the responsible investments needed to better protect their own drivers and the motoring public. For this reason, and because the technology works, we join with other leaders in the industry to urge the immediate adoption of proven, sensible collision avoidance technologies.
In addition to mandating collision avoidance technologies, our industry needs to do more to advance safety. Our goal for fatalities caused by operators of commercial vehicles should be zero. Technology alone will not solve this problem. We need the commitment of everyone in the supply chain to eliminate inefficiencies that expose drivers to unnecessary risk. Much of this risk can be eliminated by respecting the constraints under which drivers operate and adapt loading and unloading scheduling and practices to make better use of the driver’s time and to discourage fatigued driving. As we improve the working conditions of drivers, integrate technology smartly and demand discipline and personal accountability from everyone in the supply chain, we will achieve significant improvements in highway safety.
Brett A. Sant
Senior Vice President
Safety and Risk Management
Knight Transportation Inc.
Phoenix
A Modest Proposal for ‘Beyond Compliance’
I note that many in the trucking industry are wary of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s proposed “Beyond Compliance” program (TTNews.com, 6-26). However, that program potentially could provide meaningful and tangible rewards to trucking companies that invest in enhanced safety.
Why not provide legal protection against the use of safety enhancements or their data against those trucking companies in lawsuits?
Legal protection against having their safety efforts turned against them would be a true incentive for companies to invest. Such a program would encourage companies to take action about which they are otherwise reluctant to do so for fear it would be used against them in a courtroom. It also would not pit members of our industry against each other, depending on their relative resources.
An eighth “atta boy” basic or “enhanced reputation” has as much benefit as a youth soccer participation trophy. Real incentives are needed to accelerate company deployments of enhanced safety technologies and procedures. We need to drastically alter the proposed paradigm from one of inconsequential listing to a real incentive for the betterment of drivers, companies and the motoring public.
As one who deals daily with defending lawsuits against trucking companies, I see too many plaintiffs’ attorneys who bolster, if not make, their case with the technologies and safety programs companies employ for the benefit of the motoring public. Those companies are left to suffer and wonder why they, the ones that invested for the sake of safety, are penalized in lawsuits while those companies that did not make the investment benefit from the absence of such evidence.
In today’s world of “hit a truck, get a check,” where our units are seen as “18-wheel ATM machines,” skewering trucking companies with their own safety procedures and enhancements has become the norm. From preventability determinations to ECM downloads, from collision avoidance systems to defensive driving programs, the safety programs in which companies invest with money they earn one mile at a time are scrutinized and skewed against them in depositions and, ultimately, in court.
Legal protection to promote a benefit to society is ingrained in our legal system. We promote free consultation by protecting conversations between doctors and patients, attorneys and clients and clergy and parishioner. When someone trips on a defective sidewalk, we promote its repair by making the fact of the repair inadmissible at a trial for the original injuries.
We have protections in trucking laws and regulations as well. Drug and alcohol results are confidential by regulation [40.323]. Certain accident reports are protected by statute [49 USC 504(f)].
Why not extend the same protections to promote safety technologies and procedures? Why not limit the discoverability (as exists with drug tests) or admissibility (as exists with remedial safety repairs) of trucking safety enhancements and programs?
Develop a procedure for approval of the technology and procedures that would be protected. Implement a monitoring program to ensure compliance. Then limit, if not prohibit, the use of these programs or technologies and the data they generate against the trucking companies that make the investments in them for the benefit of the motoring public.
This would achieve a real result — increased safety unfettered by fear of it being used against a company in court. Reduce accidents and injuries without increasing plaintiffs’ ammunition against our companies.
“Beyond Compliance” provides the potential for meaningful incentives for investment in safety. I modestly propose that this program achieve this by protecting companies from being penalized in litigation for having done so.
Douglas B. Marcello
Attorney at Law
Marcello & Kivisto
Carlisle, Pennsylvania
