Does Fault trump Preventability? FMCSA eyes GPS mandate

There is a push to get FMCSA to consider fault as part of the CSA Crash Indicator. Unfortunately CSA treats all crashes the same, even if the law enforcement crash report contains clear evidence that fault lay with the other driver. Those crash reports have become the focus of the debate on this issue. Motor carriers would like FMCSA to use that information so that the BASIC score represents responsibility not simply invovlement. While that debate is not likely to be settled soon, there’s another consideration: Preventability.

This is a concept that motor carrier safety professionals have used for years. The basic underlying question is: “could the truck driver have taken some reasonable action to prevent the accident?” That’s quite a different question than “who was at fault?”

Consider the following actual accident scenario:

Question: Who was at fault? You might reasonably argue that the driver of the car was at fault for stopping in a lane of travel on the interstate without any visible cause.

Preventability: Could the truck driver have taken some reasonable action to avoid this crash? When you look at the scenario in that light the answer is different. The trucker gave up following distance when he closed on the car while trying to pass. In addition, he diverted his attention away from the slow moving vehicle. As a result, he failed to notice that the car had stopped and had insufficient time and space in which to react.

If “fault” becomes an official post crash designation, what will that do to a motor carrier’s efforts to talk to drivers about “preventability”? It’s the preventability discussion that drills down to the basic underlying causes of the accident and points the way to prevention. If we get stuck in a pattern of stopping at fault, will we lose the ability to drive down accident statistics?

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has begun a campaign aimed at truckers’ use of GPS devices. While following GPS directions, truck drivers have taken routes not intended for trucks and have also struck bridges. We previously reported on a case where a trucker caused significant damage to a bridge and wound up with a jail sentence. The main issue is that low cost consumer GPS models will simply select the shortest route. The higher cost units intended for truckers allow the driver to enter in vehicle information such as size and weight. Based on those parameters the GPS device selects the routing.

FMCSA has begun distributing a visor card GPS Selection Guide for CMVs which is available at this link. Also, the Agency will work with commercial driver training school associations to encourage them to include electronic navigation system selection information in their training programs. Finally, FMCSA will consider electronic navigation system selection as it prepares to move forward with the entry-level driver training rule.

FMCSA offers the following tips for the use of GPS navigation systems:

• Select an electronic navigation system intended for use by truck and bus drivers.
• Before drivers begin their trip, they should type in all relevant information about their vehicles so the system can provide the appropriate route.
• Follow the route recommended by the navigation system, but ALWAYS obey traffic signs and advisories (such as low bridge overpasses, axle weight limits, detour signs, variable message signs, etc.).
• Do not engage in distracted driving! Avoid typing or entering addresses or information into the navigation system while driving.
• If your navigation system does not provide automatic updates of the maps, be sure to obtain updates to ensure you are following the most current route planning information.

If you have not done so, this may be a good time to develop a corporate policy for the use of GPS devices. In fact, the best reaction might be to widen the scope and develop a policy on what resources will be made available to your drivers to aid in route planning. Of particular importance are directions to individual customers. Many times the tried an true method of phoning the customer can save a lot of problems.

In 2011 a truck was approaching a railroad crossing in Nevada and the warning lights were flashing. The driver didn’t start braking early enough to come to a stop and struck the side of an Amtrak train. The driver and several people on the train were killed in the crash and resulting fire. The NTSB cited two contributory causes:

• Driver inattention — he didn’t start braking early enough
• Improperly adjusted brakes which lengthened the truck’s stopping distance

During its investigation the NTSB determined that the motor carrier’s mechanics routinely manually adjusted brakes. Doing so can cause internal wear on the self adjusting mechanism which may cause the slack adjuster to fail. Also, manually adjusting the brakes doesn’t solve the underlying problem. If the system is functioning as designed the brakes will remain in proper adjustment. If they’re out of adjustment the proper procedure is to diagnose the problem and make a repair rather than simply adjust them. Most likely the adjustment will not hold and the brakes won’t generate maximum stopping power when needed.