Truck driver fatigue

Published on: December 21, 2008

Hours of service rule for truckers challenged as threat to safety

As a trucking trial attorney, I see case after case of fatigued truck drivers, either near the end of their legal hours of service, or pushing beyond those hours, causing crashes due to impaired perception, reaction and judgment. For the past several years there has been a battle over extension of legal driving hours from 10 hours to 11 hours during a 14 hour shift.

A group of trucking safety and truck driver organizations have challenged the current administration’s effort to make the current hours of service rule permanent on President Bush’s last day in office.

The final rule, which is scheduled to take effect on Jan. 19, allows truckers to drive up to 11 hours out of 14 hours on duty in a single shift, while driving 88 hours or working 98 hours over eight consecutive days.

The organizations joining in filing a petition for reconsideration of the rule include Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Public Citizen, Truck Safety Coalition, and International Brotherhood of Teamsters. They previously won two court rulings against the rule, only to see the FMCSA reissue essentially the same rule.

The petition for reconsideration asks FMCSA to reconsider the regulation based on errors and misrepresentations of research findings showing that much longer working and driving hours will produce severely fatigued drivers who also can suffer serious health problems from excessively long working hours.

Jacqueline Gillan, vice president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, said “FMCSA simply disregarded scores of studies conducted over more than 30 years showing that this incredibly demanding working and driving schedule will lead to exhausted truck drivers who literally can fall asleep at the wheels of their rigs.”

John Lannen, executive director of the Truck Safety Coalition, stated “FMCSA has issued a regulation that just doesn’t care about the health and safety of truck drivers, much less anyone else sharing the road with them. The agency attempted to justify this bankrupt regulation by manipulating the enormous body of facts and science that clearly shows that truck drivers, like other workers, cannot perform safely day after day, week after week, under these incredible working schedules. This rule threatens the personal safety of everyone on America’s roads.”
Continue reading →

Published on: November 27, 2008

Obama transition team hears truck safety debate points

By Ken Shigley

While my perspective is that of a trial lawyer handling truck and bus accident injury cases in Atlanta, Georgia, it is necessary to keep up with developments nationally. Therefore, I am following how trucking safety issues are on the agenda for the new administration in Washington.

Last Monday, the transportation transition team met with representatives of major trucking industry interest groups including the American Trucking Association (ATA), the Truckload Carriers Association, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, National Private Truck Council, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), and the truck manufacturers.

According to a report by Jami Jones of Land Line Magazine, some of the issues on which conflicting opinions were presented included:

– Truck size. The American Truicking Association favors using longer and heavier trucks for “productivity improvements.” The OOIDA and others counter that this would take a toll on the nation’s highway and bridge infrastructure.

– Loading and unloading time. The OOIDA representative pointed out that many drivers spend 30 to 40 or more hours per week waiting at loading docks to get loaded or unloaded. Addressing the waiting time problems at loading docks would improve productivity, as well as enhancing safety by helping encourage compliance with hours of service and reducing driver fatigue.

– Speed limiters. The ATA argues for speed limiters on trucks for reasons of safety and energy conservation. The OOIDA contends that speed limiters would hurt the incomes of truck drivers who are paid by the mile, and would have negative safety effects by ability to change lanes and move with the flow of traffic.

– Pressure from brokers, shippers, receivers and motor carriers. The OOIDA representative pointed out the the FMCSA concentrates too much of its enforcement efforts on drivers, while ignore the relationship between highway safety and the coercive demands of freight brokers, shippers, receivers and motor carriers upon drivers. The OOIDA representative pointed out that pointed out that truckers are under immense pressure from motor carriers, shippers and receivers. And that pressure is far more pervasive than the threat of any inspection scheme by FMCSA. “Unless those economic issues are addressed, drivers who become disqualified from driving … for safety violations will simply be replaced by new drivers facing the same economic pressures,” he told the transition team.

That is consistent with horror stories about economic pressures to violate safety rules I have heard from numerous truck drivers over the years.

– Truck parking and idling. Hours of service regulations require truck drivers to take mandatory rest periods. However, there are often inadequate spaces available for trucks to park and local governments restrict truck parking. Representatives urged a national approach to availability of truck parking for rest.

– Other topics discussed included electronic on-board recorders, parking shortages, idling regulations, highway financing and driver training.
Continue reading →

Published on: July 19, 2008

Senate committee blasts Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration for failure to protect public on driving hours and drug testing

By Ken Shigley

As an Atlanta trial lawyer handling trucking accident cases throughout Georgia, and occasionally in neighboring states, I watch doings at the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) with considerable interest. The news about FMCSA coming out of Washington this week was pretty scathing.

The Senate Appropriations Committee’s Transportation, Housing and Urban Development report on the FMCSA blasted the agency for its failure to put the top priority on safety, expressing “immense frustration.” See reports by Barb Kampbell on TheTrucker.com and by Justin Carretta of Fleetowner.com.

A few key points are:

* “FMCSA has shown a pattern of undermining its safety mission by proposing weak regulations and failing to provide adequate oversight and enforcement of existing regulations.”

* Regarding the Hours of Service rule, “the rules that FMCSA has proposed fail to achieve maximum safety benefits, and in some instances may undermine safety … clear and consistent regulations are critical to the industry, so that they can manage operations in a compliant way; FMCSA has not provided that consistency.”

* In the area of drug testing, investigators from the Government Accountability Office found that 22 of 24 drug testing centers failed to follow sample collection protocols. In some instances, drivers fail drug tests at one location and are simply transferred to another area to continue driving.

* A 2001 National Transportation Safety Board recommendation to FMCSA that it take action to prevent medically unqualified drivers from operating commercial vehicles has not been satisfied.
Continue reading →

Published on: June 20, 2008

Truck driver fatigue and hours of service

By Ken Shigley

Trucking accident trials often revolve around Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and evidence of how they were violated. Some of the regulations often referred to in cases where tired truckers wreck include the following:

49 C.F.R. § 392.3, Driver Impairment.

No driver shall operate a commercial motor vehicle, and a motor carrier shall not require or permit a driver to operate a commercial motor vehicle, while the driver’s ability or alertness is so impaired, or so likely to become impaired, through fatigue, illness, or any other cause, as to make it unsafe for him/her to begin or continue to operate the commercial motor vehicle.

FMCSR, 49 C.F.R. § 390.11 Motor carrier to require observance of driver regulations.

Whenever … a duty is prescribed for a driver or a prohibition is imposed upon the driver, it shall be the duty of the motor carrier to require observance of such duty or prohibition. If the motor carrier is a driver, the driver shall likewise be bound.

FMCSR, 49 C.F.R. § 390.13, provides that

“No person shall aid, abet, encourage, or require a motor carrier or its employees to violate the rules of this chapter.”

It does not say “no motor carrier.” A company owner who makes irresponsible dispatching decisions may become an individual defendant.

FMCSR, 49 CFR 390.5 defines “person” as follows:

Person means any individual, partnership, association, corporation, business trust, or any other organized group of individuals.

FMCSR, 49 CFR § 395.3 Maximum driving time for property-carrying vehicles.

Subject to the exceptions and exemptions in § 395.1:

(a) No motor carrier shall permit or require any driver used by it to drive a property-carrying commercial motor vehicle, nor shall any such driver drive a property-carrying commercial motor vehicle:

(1) More than 11 cumulative hours following 10 consecutive hours off duty; or (2) For any period after the end of the 14th hour after coming on duty following 10 consecutive hours off duty, except when a property-carrying driver complies with the provisions of § 395.1(o) or § 395.1(e)(2).
(b) No motor carrier shall permit or require a driver of a property-carrying commercial motor vehicle to drive, nor shall any driver drive a property-carrying commercial motor vehicle, regardless of the number of motor carriers using the driver’s services, for any period after-
(1) Having been on duty 60 hours in any period of 7 consecutive days if the employing motor carrier does not operate commercial motor vehicles every day of the week; or (2) Having been on duty 70 hours in any period of 8 consecutive days if the employing motor carrier operates commercial motor vehicles every day of the week.

FMCSR, 49 CFR § 395.8 Driver’s record of duty status.

(a) Except for a private motor carrier of passengers (nonbusiness), every motor carrier shall require every driver used by the motor carrier to record his/her duty status for each 24 hour period using the methods prescribed [herein]….
* * * *
(e) Failure to complete the record of duty activities of this section or § 395.15, failure to preserve a record of such duty activities, or making of false reports in connection with such duty activities shall make the driver and/or the carrier liable to prosecution.

Continue reading →

Published on: June 20, 2008

Truck driver logs may be electronic … “in the year 2525, if man is still alive”

By Ken Shigley

As Georgia attorney working on trucking accident cases, I often seen why truck drivers’ paper logs are often called “comic books.” In one recent case, for example, a truck driver from Croatia who was trained by some unidentified Russian guy in North Carolina, worked for a trucking company owned by a Bulgarian in Florida, and said he studied the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations by having his 10-year-old daughter translate them from English to Croatian, admitted that he generally filled out his logs the next day. No wonder his logs looked perfect.

In light of such experiences, you can see why I was encouraged to see that National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has recommended that all motor carriers to use electronic onboard recorders (EOBRs). The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) current proposal calls for an EOBRs mandate only for “repeat violators” of hours-of-service rules. Earlier the NTSB expressed concern that the FMCSA proposal lacks the “resources or processes necessary to identify and discipline all carriers and drivers who are pattern violators.” According to the NTSB,”the only way in which EOBRs can effectively help stem hours-of-service violations, and thereby reduce accidents involving a commercial driver’s reduced alertness or fatigue, is for the FMCSA to mandate EOBR installation and use by all operators.”
Continue reading →