Updated Crash Data for 2013 Released
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which is yet another department within the DOT family, finally released some preliminary data on how many people were killed and injured on the highways in 2013. According to their data, slightly more people were killed in truck accidents in 2013, than in 2012. However, less people were killed overall.
The numbers just released are:
Truck crash fatalities
2012 3,921
2013 3,964
Overall crash fatalities
2012 33,561
2013 32,719
The best I can figure, from the Internet, your past 5 years stats are:
Truck crash fatalities
2009 3,380
2010 3,686
2011 3,781
2012 3,921
2013 3,964
Overall crash fatalities
2009 33,883
2010 32,999
2011 32,479
2012 33,561
2013 32,719
I think this recent 2013 data release fits my theory, which is: overall deaths are going down, truck deaths are going up, and therefore, Obama’s FMCSA stinks. For the past 18 months, I have been thumping my tub, pointing out that for all the FMCSA’s bluster about safety, compliance, tough on crime, etc., safety has NOT improved.
I am highly offended at the way this version of the FMCSA has freely, willfully, and happily trampled on the rights of the regulated industry. Nevertheless, if they were achieving huge reductions in deaths, I would have to examine whether or not the loss of rights and freedom might be worth it. Well, they are not achieving huge death reductions. They are not achieving minimal death reductions. Deaths are going up.
My theory as to why this is happening is that FMCSA’s War on Trucks is driving qualified, safe drivers out of the industry. These drivers are being replaced with new, compliant drivers, who can’t drive a lick. Perhaps that’s an oversimplification, but it’s more or less the point.
In two years, this lousy FMCSA will be heading into the sunset. The results of the 2016 elections will determine whether we will get a new direction at FMCSA, or will continue with the same failing policies. I am informally developing a Manifesto for FMCSA, which I plan on distributing to all the major candidates. I expect most candidates will dismiss my Manifesto out of hand, as it is being developed from a libertarian and/or conservative viewpoint.
I haven’t gotten too far with my Manifesto, but the first Directive in the Manifesto is:
1) Fire half of the FMCSA staff.
While that may seem flippant, and unserious, I am completely serious. Firstly, the government is $18 trillion in debt. Failure to achieve serious reductions in government spending will rapidly lead to sky-high tax rates… much higher than now… and a disappearance of the safety net government programs we all love, like Social Security and Medicare. Secondly, with the implementation of the EOBRs (or are we calling them ELDs now?), the agency will need many less inspectors to conduct their audits. Enforcing the hours of service rules takes up probably half of an auditor’s time. They can cover the same amount of ground which they do now, with half the people. Oh, I’m sure they plan on using all that extra time to invent more rules, enforce the current rules more strictly, and in general, beat the industry harder, longer, and faster. In my FMCSA, we will use the efficiency gains generated by the ELDs to cut FMCSA staff.
Like I said, this is only the first Directive. There will be many more. I expect my Manifesto will almost certainly not be taken seriously by anyone, save Rand Paul or Ted Cruz. Probably not even them. Too bad Ron Paul retired. He was the greatest President we never had. I will issue more Directives over the next two years as the spirit moves me.
More On the 70 Hour Rule Change
Here is a link to an article in Transport Topics, which is the American Trucking Association’s newspaper. Apparently, they are advising their members to begin using the new rules immediately upon the President’s signature, which will happen either today or tomorrow.
As they say in the article, there may be some “minor disruptions” at scalehouses initially, but if that happens, you should contact the head of whatever State Police, or Highway Patrol which has detained your truck. As of this moment, there is still radio silence from FMCSA on this issue. They have not acknowledged that they lost, nor have they indicated when their rulemaking acknowledging the rule change will be issued. As I detailed in my previous post, the head of CVSA, Steve Keppler, indicated that the State Polices and Highway Patrols will continue to use the suspended rules until FMCSA issues a rulemaking. My personal opinion is they will not. They will stop enforcing the 1am – 5am, and 168 provisions immediately. This is my opinion, I could be wrong. As we speak, internal directives are being issued to all enforcement personnel. I highly doubt you will have widespread enforcement of the suspended rules once Obama suspends them today or tomorrow. As ATA says, there may be “minor disruptions”.
70 hour Rule Change
Here’s what I know about the possible changes to the 70 hour rules. A suspension of the 1am – 5am provision, and the 168 hour provision was in the $1.1 trillion omnibus law, which has now passed both the House and the Senate. It now sits on the President’s desk. He will sign it. I do not know when he will sign it, but it has to be by Wednesday December 17, or the government runs out of money.
The 1am – 5am and 168 hour provisions are suspended until either September 30, 2015 or the completion of a study done by FMCSA on the effectiveness of these provisions, whichever comes later. I am not 100% sure about this part, I have heard this reported differently in different places. Nevertheless, for now, it seems to make sense it will be 9/30/15, or whenever the study is done, whichever is later. It almost certainly will be when the study is done, as it is very doubtful FMCSA could complete this study in 9 months.
When does this become effective? When can you start using the old rules again? Well, I guess it depends on who you ask. Here is a link to an Overdrive article, with extensive quotes from Steve Keppler, of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA). CVSA is basically an organization which represents all the roadside DOT cops. Keppler states that until the FMCSA publishes a rulemaking acknowledging and enacting the law which will become law as soon as Obama signs it, they will continue to enforce the 1am – 5am, and the 168 hour provisions.
Keppler points out the most states are enforcing state laws anyway, which will not be immediately changed by Obama’s signature on this law.
So, when can you go back to using the old rules, ie, a 70 hour reset anytime you get a 34 hour break? I think you would be totally justified in using the old rules upon Obama’s signature. At that point, it is the law, and the enforcement agencies are in a precarious legal position if they insist on enforcing something which has been explicitly suspended by the Congress and the President.
That being said, as Keppler has signaled, you may very well run into a cop at a scale who will insist on putting you Out of Service, and writing you a big ticket because your 34 hour reset was too close to a previous reset, even though that’s not the law anymore. This of course, falls under the principle that law enforcement, which includes FMCSA, can do anything. They can do whatever they want, interpret the law any way they want, almost entirely, and wholly without consequences.
Therefore, the safe answer is, you can start using the old rules once FMCSA puts out a rulemaking acknowledging the law change, and acknowledging that the 1am-5am and the 168 are in fact, suspended. Of course, this may take months, especially since FMCSA does not want to do this. If you want to be aggressive, you can start using the old rules as soon as Obama signs the bill into law. One final thought on this. Way back in the day, when I worked for FMCSA, if something like this happened, the leadership would put out an internal memo to all agency personnel very quickly, telling everyone not to keep enforcing whatever rule had just been changed. It is very possible that will happen again. However, considering who is running that place, you cannot assume that will be the case.
