Tennessee Truck Injury Lawyer & Attorney : Morgan Adams : Trucking Accident, Truck DUI DWI, Semi-Truck Accidents

New Jersey has passed a law that makes it illegal, beginning March 1, 2008, to  talk on a hand-held cell phone while driving or to text message while driving. My truck driving friends tell me this is long overdue as they frequently see passenger car drivers oblivious to the danger they create when they are talking on the phone.

Washington was the first state to ban texting in a car back in 2007. Connecticut and New York also have bans on the use of cell phones, New York is apparently allowing the use of hands free devices.  The New York hands free approach was followed by California and D.C. Some states only limit the use of cell phones by school bus drivers, Arkansas and Arizona for example.

Expect the ban on cell phone use while driving to spread. Studies equate to driving while on a cell phone to driving while drunk. If you wouldn't drink and drive, don't call and drive. The studies started in 1997 and found someone talking on a cell phone is four (4) times as likely to cause accidents when engaged in cell phone conversation than when not engaged in cell phone conversation. The landmark epidemiological study is Redelmeier and Tibshirani (1997) “Association Between Cellular-Telephone Calls and Motor Vehicle Collisions.” New England Journal of Medicine, 336, 453. The study examined the telephone records of 699 auto drivers who had caused motor vehicle accidents and found that 24 percent were involved in cell phone conversations at the time of the accidents. The established four fold increased incidence of accidents in association with cell phone use is the same incidence associated with DUI drunk driving.

 

 

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Staff writer Ben Benton of the Chattanooga Times Free Press reported Thursday, April 12, 2008, on the statistics from the Tennessee Industry Road Block at Monteagle, Tennessee. The Roadblock was run by the Tennessee Highway Patrol's Commercial Vehicle Division. The results?

1. 2310 Trucks went through the inspection site in the time the roadblock was set up.
2. 41 trucks were inspected (my calculation shows that is 1.8 percent of the trucks)
3. 12 trucks were removed from the road (apparently for mechanical/equipment issues)
4. 3 drivers were removed from the road for violations (typically hours of service violations but the article didn't say)

Thus out of 41 trucks inspected 15 were on the road in violation of regulations ranging from being overweight (which means the truck can't stop as fast as a properly loaded truck and other problems associated with exceeding the design capacity of the truck) to an airline problem which could eliminate braking capacity for a tractor trailer (truck brakes are typically air brakes). This is a 36.5% failure rate of inspected trucks.

What does a 36.5% failure rate mean? The article states "more than 9 million trucks" pass through Tennessee. Given that number, and a 36.5% failure rate, that means 3,285,000 trucks IN TENNESSEE ALONE shouldn't be on the road. Perhaps what is worse a trucking company official, who was also present with Mr. Benton and quoted for the article, stated "Everything the Troopers do on inspections is what the driver should do every morning before he leaves." This means the companies either fail to train the drivers in how to do a proper FMCSR pretrip inspection or the company has fostered a safety attitude that allows the driver to believe he can get away with a poor inspection.

The implications for Tennessee, and the rest of the country, are serious. Trucking companies must crack down on safety issues within their fleets before more tragedies occur. It is far cheaper to conduct a proper inspection than it is to deal with litigation after a collision caused by a problem that should have been corrected before the truck left the terminal.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I just returned from a presentation by DriveCam www.drivecam.com that could really help trucking companies reduce claims AND eliminate risky drivers from their fleet. DriveCam works much like an event data recorder discussed in prior blogs. Essentially it is a camera mounted in the cab of the truck that will retain several seconds of video of both the driver and what is in front of the truck before and after an emergency event like hard braking, swerving, collision, etc... The information is automatically transmitted, wirelessly, to DriveCam headquarters for a safety analysis and then on to the trucking or bus company. Companies can then look at the data, EVEN IF THERE IS NOT A WRECK, to see what if any driver errors there were in creating the emergency situation. Was the driver following too close? Did a car swerve in front of them and cut them off? DriveCam allows company officials to review and to recognize safe drivers for preventing accidents and penalize dangerous drivers for causing accidents.

If DriveCam data exists it will immediately prove, or disprove, the cause of a collision. Juries will no longer have a he said, she said, situation in court. Trucking companies will either have a defense or will be able to admit liability, and accept responsibility,  for what happened without the burden and expense of a trial. It would appear that everyone would benefit.

I realize that some drivers may feel big brother has entered the cab. I would love to hear from drivers who were saved from punishment or a lawsuit because of DriveCam proof as well as from any driver who feels they were punished unfairly by the DriveCam system.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A March 7, 2008 collision in Chattanooga reminds me again of how important it is to hire a lawyer early in collisions involving tractor trailers. In this wreck, according to the Chattanooga Times Free Press article on page B3, "The driver of one of the semi (sic) lost control of his truck... The truck jackknifed and hit another 18-wheeler, and three cars were caught between the trucks..."

The speed of the semi can be determined by downloading the black box computer which records sudden braking events. This data can be deleted if not downloaded promptly by a proper expert.

Driver logs, which might show the driver fell asleep at the wheel after driving more hours than the law allows, may be destroyed after six months.

The roadway marks that will show driver actions, as well as the sequence of events, start to fade and you may have other marks from other vehicles placed on the roadway.

So what would cause a driver of an 18 wheeler to loose control and jackknife?

Wikipedia states: 

Jackknifing means the accidental folding of an articulated vehicle (i.e. one towing a trailer) such that it resembles the acute angle of a folding pocket knife. If a vehicle towing a trailer skids, the trailer can push it from behind until it spins round and faces backwards. This may be caused by equipment failure, improper braking, or adverse road conditions such as an icy road surface.

By far the most common skid is caused when the rear wheels lose traction through excessive braking or acceleration. Skids caused by acceleration can usually be stopped by the driver taking his foot off the accelerator. If the rear drive wheels lock due to excessive braking they will have less traction than freely rolling wheels. The rear wheels then move sideways in an attempt to "catch up" with the front wheels, allowing the trailer to push the towing vehicle sideways, causing the jackknife.

 

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Total revenue for truck transportation and warehousing reached $312 Billion in 2006 according to the US Census Bureau’s report December 4, 2007. In 2005 revenue was $293 Billion. This report did not include private trucking which, according to the American Trucking Association, if included, would place 2006 revenues at $645 Billion.

From time to time I am asked why I think the trucking industry should pay for greater safety features on trucks. The answer is because trucks are inherently dangerous, they kill people, and trucking companies can afford to make them safer.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The U.S. Court of Appeals, for the District of Columbia Circuit, on Wednesday, January 23rd, denied Public Citizen’s motion to vacate the interim regulations adopted by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), keeping in place the rule increasing the time drivers are allowed behind the wheel from 10 hours to 11. The 10% increase in driver's hours was previously struck down by this very court.

The governments retention of the 11 provision is a major blow for safety in this country given the increased use of trucks and the decline in the number of available drivers. According to the American Trucking Associations own studies the trucking industry was 20,000 drivers short in 2004 and it estimated the industry would be short 111,000 drivers by 2014. This means less qualified drivers will be driving longer hours. Please see my earlier posts on the HOS issue.

YOU SHOULD CALL OR WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN AND TELL THEM 11 HOURS IS TOO MANY TO BE BEHIND A WHEEL OF AN 80,000 pound tractor trailer.

A copy of the one page order allowing the FMCSA 11 hour rule to remain in place may be found at:

www.truckinjurylawyerblog.com/Order On HOS Rejection Petition to Enforce Jan 23, 2008.pdf

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Because my firm specializes in litigating collisions involving tractor trailers, frequently I get asked if I believe all truck drivers are dangerous. The answer is a resounding NO.

A fine example of the best in the trucking industry is the Small Trucking Association’s Team 2007. The members of Team 2007 are perfect examples of safe professional tractor trailer drivers. These ten (10) drivers have a combined 269 years of driving experience and with more than 30 MILLION accident free miles driven. My hat is off to the 2007 team consisting of:

1.       George Drewicke

2.       Donnie Sanders

3.       Harry Bolm

4.       Doyle Zorn

5.       Timothy Carroll

6.       Ken Bohman

7.       Jim Ryburn

8.       Richard Swonger

9.       Richard Maschino and

10.    Stan Scott

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Training remains the number one way to prevent truck rollovers according to government and industry officials. A 2007 report by Battelle Memorial Institute for the FMCSA found “75% [of rollovers] are attributed to driver error.” The primary cause was running off the road, caused by driver fatigue or inattentiveness.”

Trucking companies could reduce rollovers by the following: Lowering a trailer 3” would reduce rollovers approximately 12% annually. A wider trailer track, from 96” to 102”, would reduce rollover’s 17%. The study found the average cost of a rollover was $600,000 and that for every dollar spent on stability control devices the company would save $2.20. According to Steve Niswander, vice president of safety and policy regulatory relations for Groendyke Transport, driver training is still the most effective way to present crashes. (See Transportation Topics, December 10, 2007, p11)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

15 STEPS YOU CAN TAKE TO REDUCE YOUR

RISK OF A HOSPITAL INFECTION

The following article is reprinted in its entirity because the subject is so important. While many victims of trucking accidents don't have a choice as to when and how thier first surgeries occur, many require a subsequent, or many subsequent surgeries to attempt to repair the damgae that has been done to thier bodies. A dangerous situation can easily turn deadly with a hospital acquired infection like MRSA amongst others. PLEASE READ THIS IF YOU HAVE A LOVED ONE FACING SURGERY! For a link to the article see: www.hospitalinfection.org/protectyourself.shtml

Most of us will have to go into the hospital some day.  Here are specific steps you can follow to protect yourself from deadly hospital infections:

1. Ask that hospital staff clean their hands before treating you, and ask visitors to clean their hands too. This is the single most important way to protect yourself in the hospital. If you're worried about being too aggressive, just remember your life could be at stake. All caregivers should clean their hands before treating you. Alcohol-based hand cleaners are more effective at removing most bacteria than soap and water. Do not hesitate to say: "Excuse me, but there's an alcohol dispenser right there. Would you mind using that before you touch me, so I can see it?" Don't be falsely assured by gloves. If caregivers have pulled on gloves without cleaning their hands first, the gloves are already contaminated before they touch you. ¹

2. Before your doctor uses a stethoscope, ask that the diaphragm (the flat surface) be wiped with alcohol. Stethoscopes are often contaminated with Staphylococcus aureus and other dangerous bacteria, because caregivers seldom take the time to clean them in between patient use. ²

3. If you need a "central line" catheter, ask your doctor about the benefits of one that is antibiotic-impregnated or silver-chlorhexidine coated to reduce infections. ³

4. If you need surgery, choose a surgeon with a low infection rate. Surgeons know their rate of infection for various procedures. Don’t be afraid to ask for it.   

5. Beginning three to five days before surgery, shower or bathe daily with chlorhexidine soap. Various brands can be bought without a prescription. It will help remove any dangerous bacteria you may be carrying on your own skin. ⁴

6. Ask your surgeon to have you tested for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) at least one week before you come into the hospital. The test is simple, usually just a nasal swab. If you have it, extra precautions can be taken to protect you from infection. ⁶

7. Stop smoking well in advance of your surgery. Patients who smoke are three times as likely to develop a surgical site infection as nonsmokers, and have significantly slower recoveries and longer hospital stays.⁷

8. On the day of your operation, remind your doctor that you may need an antibiotic one hour before the first incision. For many types of surgery, a pre-surgical antibiotic is the standard of care, but it is often overlooked by busy hospital staff. ⁸

9. Ask your doctor about keeping you warm during surgery. Operating rooms are often kept cold, but for many types of surgery, patients who are kept warm resist infection better. ⁹ This can be done with special blankets, hats and booties, and warmed IV liquids.

10. Do not shave the surgical site. Razors can create small nicks in the skin, through which bacteria can enter. If hair must be removed before surgery, ask that clippers be used instead of a razor. ¹⁰ 

11. Avoid touching your hands to your mouth, and do not set food or utensils on furniture or bed sheets. Germs such as "C. Diff" can live for many days on surfaces and can cause infections if they get into your mouth.

12. Ask your doctor about monitoring your glucose (sugar) levels continuously during and after surgery, especially if you are having cardiac surgery. The stress of surgery often makes glucose levels spike erratically. When blood glucose levels are tightly controlled, heart patients resist infection better. Continue monitoring even when you are discharged from the hospital, because you are not fully healed yet. ¹²

13. Avoid a urinary tract catheter if possible. It is a common cause of infection. The tube allows urine to flow from your bladder out of your body.  Sometimes catheters are used when busy hospital staff don't have time to walk patients to the bathroom. ¹³ If you have a catheter, ask your caregiver to remove it as soon as possible.

14. If you must have an IV, make sure that it’s inserted and removed under clean conditions and changed every 3 to 4 days. Your skin should be cleaned at the site of insertion, and the person treating you should be wearing clean gloves. Alert hospital staff immediately if any redness appears.

15. If you are planning to have your baby by Cesarean section, follow the steps listed above as if you were having any other type of surgery. ¹⁴  

1] Studies show that, nearly three quarters of patients' rooms are contaminated with MRSA and 69% with VRE. In one study, 42% of gloves worn by hospital personnel who had no direct patient contact but who touched contaminated surfaces became contaminated. Boyce JM et al., "Environmental contamination due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: possible infection control implications," Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 18.9 (1997): 622-627. A Concensus Statement by a multidisciplinary group of experts asked by the American Medical Association to provide guidelines for infection control cautions that: "In some cases caregivers actually go from patient to patient without changing their gloves, apparently confusing self-protection" with patient protection. Goldmann DA et al., "Strategies to Prevent and Control the Emergence and Spread of Antimicrobial- Resistant Microorganism in Hospitals," JAMA 275.3 (1996): 234-240.

[2] Routine disinfection of stethoscopes between patients is recommended by the American Medical Association. Salgado CD, Farr BM, "MRSA and VRE: Preventing Patient-to-Patient Spread," Infections in Medicine 20 (2003):194-200; Marinella MA et al., "The stethoscope: a potential source of nosocomial infection?" Archives of Internal Medicine,157.7 (1997): 786-90; Zachary KC et al., "Contamination of gowns, gloves, and stethoscopes with vancomycin-resistant Enterococci," Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 22.9 (2001): 560-564; Noskin GA et al., "Recovery of vancomycin-resistant Enterococci on fingertips and environmental surfaces," Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 17.12 (1996): 770-772.

[3] The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality recommends use of antibiotic catheters as one of its eleven patient safety practices. Making Healthcare Safer: A Critical Analysis of Patient Safety Practices. AHRQ Publication 01-E058, 2001. Also see: Darouiche RO et al., "A comparison of two antimicrobial-impregnated central venous catheters," New England Journal of Medicine 340.1 (1999): 1-8; Raad I et al., "Central venous catheters coated with Minocycline and Rifampin for the prevention of catheter-related colonization and bloodstream infections," Annals of Internal Medicine 127.4 (1997): 267-274.

[4] The following four studies support this suggestion : (1) Vernon MO et al., "Chlorhexidine gluconate to cleanse patients in a medical intensive care unit," Archives of Internal Medicine 166 (2006): 306-312. (2) Hayek LJ et al., "Preoperative whole body disinfection - a controlled clinical study," Journal of Hospital Infection 11, Suppl. B (1988): 15-19 This study showed that two chlorhexidine showers reduced total infection rate by 30% and Staph aureus infections by 50%. (3) Byrne DJ et al., "Rationalizing whole body disinfection," Journal of Hospital Infection 15.2 (1990): 183-187. This study shows that a single shower does not maximize skin disinfection. The authors conclude that three showers should be recommended. (4) Daryl S. Paulson, "Efficacy Evaluation of a 4% Chlorhexidine Gluconate as a Full-Body Shower Wash," published by the Association for Practitioners in Infection Control (1993). This study found that showering for five days with chlorhexidine yielded maximum results for reducing bacteria on the skin, and keeping it low for 24 hours or more. "A 1 or 2 day presurgical application period is simply too short to establish the necessary levels of residual antimicrobial properties to be of value in reducing post-surgical infection rates."

[6] Worcester S, "Hospital system takes on MRSA," Internal Medicine News 38.19 (2005): 1-2.

[7] Kurz A et al., "Perioperative Normothermia to Reduce the Incidence of Surgical-Wound Infection and Shorten Hospitalization," New England Journal of Medicine 334.19 (1996): 1209-1215.

[8] The Institute for Healthcare Improvement guidelines for improving infection prevention state that: "Administration of prophylactic antibiotics beginning 0 to 1 hour prior to surgical incision decreases the risk of surgical infection. http://www.ini.org/IHI/Topics/PatientSafety/
SurgicalSiteInfections/ImprovementStories (accessed 10-14-02). See also: Burke JP, "Maximizing appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis for surgical patients: an update from LDS Hospital, Salt Lake City," Clinical Infectious Diseases 33, Suppl. 2 (2001): S78-83.

[9] Ibid., the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Guidelines for improving infection state that "surgical patients with core temperatures greater than 36 degrees C./ 98.6 degrees F are less likely to get an infection."

[10] Ibid., the Institute for Healthcare Improvement states that "clipping instead of shaving results in decreased infection rates," and recommends that patients be told "not to shave the surgical site for 72 hours prior to surgery."

[12] Pittsburgh Regional Healthcare Initiative, "PHRI Executive Summary," (June, 2005).

[13] Urinary tract infections are the most common hospital-acquired infections. Limiting the use and duration of urinary tract catheters reduces risk of infection. See: Puri J et al., "Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections in Neurology and Neurosurgical Units," Journal of Infection 44.3 (2002): 171-175; Stephan F et al., "Reduction of Urinary tract infection and antibiotic use after surgery: a controlled, prospective, before-after intervention study," Clinical Infectious Diseases 24 (2006): 1544-1551.

[14] Killian CA et al., "Risk Factors for Surgical-Site Infections Following Cesarean Section," Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 22.10 (2001): 613-7.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It is not surprising that the FMCSA was taken back to court as they proposed keeping the 11 hour rule which has been struck down by the courts. This topic has been discussed in my prior blogs extensively. The proposed rule is simply dangerous. The safety studies cited for safer highways fail to take into account introduction of technology that decreases collisions. The selective nature of the studies chosen, and willful turning of a blind eye on the part of officials who expect to be working for the trucking industry at some point, is something I thought I would only see in third world countries.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) said during a Dec. 19 hearing. “Despite two unanimous federal court decisions . . . the FMCSA is going forward as if the court said nothing at all.” Lautenberg said he believed “the administration’s proposed rule is a sham, and so do our courts. They’ve said so twice.” He added that since FMCSA has been “giving us reason to question their priorities and their commitment to safety, it is time for Congress to get involved.”

I agree. Please write your Representatives and let them know that this proposed rule is dangerous and they should actively oppose lengthening the hours truck drivers are on the road. Put it to them simply, ask "How is your driving after 11 straight hours on the road? Is it better or worse than when you started?" I think we all know the answer to those questions. Let us hope congress and the courts do as well because it is clear that the FMCSA won't admit the answer.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has issued an Interim Final Rule (IFR) putting into place the same 11 Hours of Service Regulation (HOS) that was struck down, only a few months ago, by the courts as being unsafe. The press announcement from the FMCSA on this issue can be found  at:   www.fmcsa.dot.gov/about/news/news-releases/2007/121107.htm

Predictably, the American Trucking Association (ATA) welcomed the IFR on the drivers’ Hours of Service. From a company owner's standpoint  the IFR makes since because anything that allows a driver to spend more time on the road puts more dollars in their pockets. From the publics standpoint, having tired truckers on the road only leads to tragedies. My firm has been honored to represent many of these families, whether victims or heirs, and tired truckers are dangerous.

One of the major flaws with the FMCSA and the ATA's position (that the 11 hour HOS regulation is safer than the 10 hour HOS) is that they fail to take into account the other safety equipment that is becoming prevalent in the trucking industry. Please see my prior posts for examples.

Is it any surprise that the FMCSA officials leave government service to join ATA companies and ATA companies provide officials to the FMCSA and the government? Clearly the fox is guarding the hen house in the FMCSA.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This holiday season drive safe and defensively. According the the US government there were 38,588 fatal collision in the US last year. Friday, Saturday and Sunday were the days most likely to be fatal with Saturday leading the pack. There was 1.29 deaths for every 100 million vehicle miles driven.

The federal government breaks the statistics down by state, month, day, and time. If you have interest go to www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Crashes/CrashesTime.aspx and you can see and sort the numbers.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A Washington State jury awarded $15.5M last week in a case where U-HAUL failed to properly instruct one of its rental drivers in how to properly load one of its rental trucks. The load was improperly secured causing a large piece of furniture to fly out and strike a woman driving a car behind the truck. The furniture went through her windshield causing catastrophic injuries.  

The woman was blinded in the auto accident and continues to undergo surgical procedures to reconstruct her face, as well as suffering brain injuries.

U-Haul International, Inc was found to be 67% at-fault  and the renter of the U-Haul trailer was found to be 33% to blame.  The jury found that the lack of instruction and clear warning to customers on how to properly secure materials they were transporting made U-Haul more at fault for the accident then the driver's failure to ensure the stability of the furniture he was transporting. 

Federal law requires truck operators to secure their loads but these laws are not always enforced.
The "failure to secure the load" cases are far less obvious than a rear end tractor trailer case. It is the truck driver's responsibility and the loader's responsibility to secure the load as prescribed by the U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

Our lawyers have handled a number of these cases and are familiar with the trucking and loading experts around the country who specialize in making sure vehicles are safely loaded. If we can help in any way, or if you have questions about this type of wreck, please fee free to call or email.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I have multiple posts on the use of illegal, Over-The-Counter, and legal drug use by drivers and with any luck something will be done about this clear danger. In the past I have been told "we have testing for that" even though it was well known the testing was ineffective. The facts which were apparent to anyone who has experience in tractor trailer litigation was brought to Congress' attention recently. The Government Accountability Office told Congress that the Department of Transportation’s drug and alcohol testing program for truck drivers is unreliable and riddled with problems.

“Our testing clearly shows that the drug user could easily beat the DOT drug test, even if the collection sites followed all of the DOT protocols,” said Gregory Kutz, managing director of forensic audits for the Government Accountability Office. “The test can be beat using counterfeit documents, synthetic urine or adulterants.”

Another GAO official, Katherine Siggerud, told the House Transportation Committee’s highways subcommittee on Nov. 1, “There appears to be a significant lack of compliance [with drug and alcohol rules] among motor carriers, particularly small carriers and self-employed drivers.”

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), chairman of the highways subcommittee, called the Nov. 1 testimony “absolutely devastating,” saying the investigations showed that “in the United States, we have no meaningful program of drug testing for commercial truck drivers. None.”

Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.), chairman of the full Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, agreed, saying, “To find that [our drug-testing program] falls so grossly short, as you put it, is shocking.”

GAO looked at the way test protocols were handled and, Kutz said, “with respect to protocols, 22 of the 24 sites that we visited failed at least two of the 16 DOT protocols we tested for.”

Siggerud’s report said, “Products designed to ‘beat’ the test are marketed brazenly on the Internet,” making samples unreliable, even when a carrier has a testing program in place.

She said another problem was that job-hopping after a positive drug test “appears to be quite common.”

Oberstar criticized the practice of marketing and selling masking agents or synthetic samples.

“There’s no other beneficial use for those products — they ought to be banned,” he said. “I hope the outcome of this hearing is legislation to do exactly that.”

Oberstar said the current system of relying on drivers to self-report positive drug tests to employers, and past employers to provide information to prospective ones was not good enough because it allowed drivers to “jump from job to job to job and leave their drug history behind.”

Rick Craig, director of regulatory affairs for the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, said the driver group was “unconvinced of the need for a national clearing-house for positive drug and alcohol test results,” citing privacy and other concerns.

  

See: DOT Drug tests Faulty, GAO Tells House Panel, by Sean McNally in Transportation Topics Nov 12, 2007, Page 1 and 43.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

18 Tractor Trailers were involved in a 100 car pileup in a California fog on November 4, 2007, and the tragedy is the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations require drivers to use "extreme caution" if they have poor visibility. This was an avoidable collision for the truck driver's, and the Innocent's hurt by their recklessness,  if the tractor trailer drivers had only followed the law.

Specifically 49 C.F.R. § 392.14  states a driver must exercise "extreme caution" when hazardous conditions, such as those caused by snow, ice, sleet, fog, mist, rain, dust or smoke, adversely affect visibility or traction. Had the driver's exercised "extreme caution" there is no doubt in my mind that there would have not been 18 tractor trailers involved in this collision and the photographs I am pasting below would not have included a tractor trailer.

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

AT THE SCENE OF THE ACCIDENT:

1. The first thing is to make sure everyone is safe, call 911, and to get out of the roadway. You shouldn't move your car, unless the damage and injuries are minor, until the police arrive.
2. Take photographs if possible. Consider the trucks tires, skid marks, the damaged area of the vehicles,
3. Get a copy of any identifying information (names and numbers) on the cab and the trailer. Generally the DOT numbers on the cab and the trailer are different.
4. Get a copy of the license plate.
5. Obtain Driver information (name, state and license number of the driver, and any insurance information.
6. Obtain any witness information (Name, work and home address and phone numbers as well as any cell phone and an emergency contact. Witness' are critical to your case and finding them after a wreck can be very difficult. Don't trust the police to write it down.)
7. Get a copy of the police report number and the names of the police officers at the scene.
8. Measure any skid marks at the scene.
9. DO NOT GIVE A STATEMENT UNTIL YOU CAN GIVE A FULL AND COMPLETE STATEMENT WITH YOUR LAWYER. Insurance company employees have learned to ask questions that help the company and leave out significant facts which would help your case. The tape recorded statement will then be used to show you "made up" this information at a later date. DO give the police the facts of the collision but avoid any speculation.
10. Insurance Companies will have investigators on the scene ASAP. They are trained to be friendly in order to elicit information from victims. They create a false sense of security that "everything Will be taken care of" while they methodically work to eliminate any chance you have of a full recovery for your injuries. They are hired to protect the trucking and insurance companies legal and monetary interests, not yours!

ONCE YOU LEAVE THE SCENE OF THE ACCIDENT:

1. CALL AN EXPERIENCED TRUCKING LAWYER ASAP!
2. Go to the Doctor and get examined.
3. Get a copy of the police report.
4. Get photo's of your car and the truck if at all possible and you have not already done so. Generally it is better if you are not in the photographs and you can get someone else to take the photo's.
5. Understand that due to adrenaline and shock it may take several hours or days before the full impact of a collision is felt by you. If you need to see a doctor GO! Many people have been hurt by waiting, "hoping it gets better" or that they can "tough it out."
6. Obtain a copy of your auto insurance and your health insurance policies.
7. Use your health insurance to pay the bills and use any MedPay benefits you may have through your Auto policy to repay any deductibles or co-pays you might have paid out-of-pocket with your medical providers.

 

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) adopted more stringent standards for cargo securement last year. These standards help ensure the safety of truck drivers, and everyone else on the highways because if a load shifts the tractor trailer can roll over. Additionally, the load can simply fall off the truck with improper cargo securement so strengthening the rules requiring greater cargo securement makes everyone safer.

Unfortunately on September 28, 2007 the FMCSA weakened the rules in regards to hay bales. Instead of straps every 10' the new regulation requires one strap for a 32' trailer and two if the trailer is between 32' and 48'.

Having moved my fair share of hay bales into the second floor of barns, I can tell you there is nothing funny about a 40-50 pound hay bale bouncing towards you on the highway. I think this is a bad decision and someone will die as a result.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 Last Thursday, Sept. 6, at 9 PM the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) announced it was beginning the pilot program to allow trucks from Mexico to travel throughout the United States. This decision was made even though the U.S. DOT Inspector General’s report identified serious safety deficiencies that still exist.

In late July, the House of Representatives passed the annual spending bill for the DOT, HR 3074. A provision was included that prohibits the DOT from spending any funds to conduct a pilot program allowing trucks from Mexico to travel beyond the border zones into the United States. Senator Dorgan has agreed to offer an identical amendment to the Senate version of the DOT appropriations bill (S.1798). There could be a vote on this amendment as early as 5:00 PM today. Please act now.

You need to contact your Senators and urge them to support the Dorgan amendment to the DOT appropriations bill. The amendment will prohibit the DOT from spending any funds to conduct a pilot program allowing trucks from Mexico to travel beyond the border zones throughout the United States. This is the only way you can stop the program from going forward. If you don’t know who your Senators are or if you need contact information, visit www.senate.gov . There is a place you can enter your zip code to locate your Senators and contact information.

TALKING POINTS:
Safety Problems Still Exist – Border Pilot Program Should Be Stopped
U.S. DOT Letter to Congress Misrepresents DOT Inspector General (OIG) Report
and DOT Compliance with Section 6901 of Pub. L. 110-28 (2007)

FICTION: The DOT letter asserts that legal requirements enacted by Congress have been completed.
FACT: DOT has NOT met all legal requirements for pilot programs.
?Safety organizations have shown repeatedly that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), the DOT agency responsible for motor carrier safety, has evaded compliance with several key pilot program requirements of 49 U.S.C. § 31315(c) mandated by Section 6901.
?FMCSA continues to ignore and evade federal law mandating compliance with additional legal requirements governing the conduct of pilot programs such as adopting a scientific plan for collecting project data and performing scientifically credible safety analysis.

FICTION: The DOT letter asserts that the states are ready for the pilot program.
FACT: The OIG’s Report documents that many states are NOT ready.
? Five States (NE, NV, MT, RI, UT) and perhaps more (MD did not respond to OIG) are not ready to enforce safety rules for the pilot program.
? Six states (FL, GA, LA, NM, WA and DC) cannot enforce cabotage rules concerning point-to-point deliveries.
? Half the States do not have procedures in place to oversee and enforce requirements in several areas of safety and security.
? Data deficiencies on Mexican truck driver convictions and violations are still not resolved.
? FMCSA has only “promised” to correct bus border crossing problems.
? FMCSA has not adequately ensured that the States understand project guidance, and more training is needed.

FICTION: The DOT letter states that FMCSA is ready for the pilot program.
FACT: The OIG Report states that FMCSA is NOT ready in many key areas.
? FMCSA inspectors do not have critically important safety information on vehicle accident reports, driver violations maintained by Mexican authorities, and whether the pilot program applicant actually has U.S. long-haul insurance.
? FMCSA has admitted that key databases about Mexican motor carriers, vehicles and drivers are still under development.
?There is still no adequate method to ensure that Mexican drivers comply with U.S. drug and alcohol testing laws and regulations for specimen collection, only a plan to “cooperate” with Mexican authorities.

FICTION: The DOT letter claims to address all of the OIG Report concerns.
FACT: The OIG Report states that major issues of OIG concern were NOT resolved.
? FMCSA has no means of demonstrating the safety impact of the pilot project.
? FMCSA has not demonstrated that the project participants are a representative sample of Mexican motor carriers.

FICTION: The DOT letter states that FMCSA will check “every truck, every time.”
FACT: DOT is NOT ready to keep this promise.
?The OIG Report states that “FMCSA has not developed and implemented complete, coordinated plans for checking trucks and drivers participating in the demonstration project as they cross the border.”

FICTION: Site-specific plans for each border crossing have now been issued.
FACT: These plans were not prepared until after the OIG Report was completed so the OIG did NOT review or audit the site-specific border crossing plans.
?The “Plans” were just created in the last few weeks. One “plan” with Custom and Border Protection officials was forged a few days ago on September 4, 2007.
?The “Plans” lack essential details and are often only a single page.
?The “Plans” are often the result of one-time meetings with state and Custom and Border Protection officials.

FICTION: FMCSA claims that Mexican motor carriers and drivers are not being granted any exemptions from U.S. regulations.
FACT: In fact, safety organizations have demonstrated repeatedly that substantial differences continue to exist between U.S. and Mexican laws and regulations on commercial driver physical fitness and medical qualifications, commercial driver licensure, drug and alcohol testing, hours of service, truck certification of vehicle safety compliance, and enforcement of driver motor carrier laws and regulations.
?For example, FMCSA will not require Mexican truck drivers in the pilot program to take entry-level driver training that is required for all new commercial truck and bus drivers in the U.S. Thus, Mexican drivers are exempt.
?Mexican drivers in the pilot program are also exempt from complying with U.S. physical fitness qualifications. Even though FMCSA admits that Mexican physical fitness regulations are very different from U.S. requirements, FMCSA simply states that it regards the requirements of the two countries as equivalent.

FICTION: The DOT letter claims that the OIG Report says that it is necessary to start the pilot program.
FACT: The OIG Report does NOT declare that the pilot program should be started.
?The OIG Report is neutral on this point and only states that “if the Secretary elects to initiate the project following her report to Congress, we will be required under Section 6901 to monitor and review the demonstration project and submit an interim and final report to the Secretary and the Congress.”

For more information, contact the Truck Safety Coalition who provided the above information, at 703-294-6404.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A car was on I-75, north of Atlanta, when it was hit by the Tractor Trailer in the rear. The Tractor Trailer then flipped over and ran off the road as shown below.  

Killed in the wreck were Evodia Perez, 51, one of four occupants in an Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera, and the car driver, also 51, whose name was not released pending authorities notifying her relatives.  The collision happened at 5:45 AM.

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

EOBR's (Electric On Board Recorder's) have been the subject of earlier posts and on the whole are a step forward for safety. EOBR's can be very beneficial in ensuring tired truckers are not allowed on the roads in violation of the law. Unfortunately there are ways to "fix" the EOBR's to allow violations of the FMCSR Hours of Service (HOS) regulations. Knowing how to prove an EOBR was "fixed" in order to allow a driver to stay on the road longer than the HOS regulations allows is an important reason to hire an experienced tractor trailer attorney.

This story appears in the Aug. 20th print edition of Transportation Topics:

HILTON HEAD, S.C. — Four months after the public comment period for the proposed electronic onboard recorder rule closed, a Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration official said those comments were still being reviewed and no final rule was imminent.

At the same time, a trucking official suggested the uncertainty regarding hours-of-service rules for drivers could delay any final EOBR rule.

“No final decision has been made about the outcome of the rulemaking,” Debbie Freund, senior transportation specialist for FMCSA, said here Aug. 14 during a presentation at the 2007 PeopleNet user conference.

“The [notice of proposed rulemaking] is a proposal based on the best information available at the time it was developed,” Freund said.

Announced in January, the rule would mandate EOBRs for the worst violators of its hours-of-service rules and provide incentives in the form of relaxed record keeping requirements for carriers who adopt them voluntarily (1-15, p. 1).

The public comment period closed April 18.

When the rule was published, officials estimated it would take four years between the time a final rule was published and full implementation.

But Dave Potts, director of safety and operations for American Trucking Associations, said here that last month’s decision by a federal appeals-peals court to overturn the HOS rule (7-30, p. 1) could push that potential timetable back.

He said any change, through a new FMCSA rule or other methods, in on-duty time, driving hours, the 34-hour restart or sleeper-berth time could result in the need for new EOBR performance specifications, updates to vendors’ EOBR software programs and additional time to train drivers, management and law enforcement.

Freund declined to discuss the hours-of-service case, other than to say the “agency was still reviewing the court’s decision,” or the case’s potential effect on the EOBR proposal.

She did say, however, that in response to the comments on the EOBR proposal, the agency may conduct additional technology assessments to ensure that data obtained from EOBRs not integrally synchronized with the engine or vehicle are accurate.

She added that other EOBR subjects drawing the agency’s attention, based on comments it received, included data security and integrity, interoperability and manufacturer self-certification.

Still, Freund said the agency believes its proposed rule provides the greatest safety benefit because the small number of carriers required to use EOBRs have a much higher crash rate than all other carriers.

Increasing the level of compliance with HOS rules would decrease the incidence of fatigue-related crashes, she said.

Potts, meanwhile, reiterated that ATA generally supports FMCSA’s proposed EOBR rule but said the federation believes more definitive performance specifications were needed and a pilot program should be undertaken to obtain and analyze “real-world data” before any final rule is implemented.

He also said a larger number of the worst HOS violators — 10% or more — should be required to use EOBRs.

Gerry Krolikowski, chairman of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance’s driver-traffic enforcement committee, gave a similar assessment of the proposed EOBR rule.

He said that, while the law enforcement community is in favor of electronic onboard recorders, CVSA wants to be sure the devices are tamper-resistant and standardized for easy accessibility.

Krolikowski is a lieutenant with the Nebraska State Patrol.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Transportation Topics Online reported the following today:

The Transportation Department needs tighter controls on Mexican truck and bus drivers with driving convictions and greater ability to inspect vehicles at the border, DOT’s inspector general’s office said Tuesday, Bloomberg reported.

The IG’s office released its assessment of the U.S. readiness to open its border to Mexican trucks, just as DOT prepares to begin a one-year pilot program to give some Mexican trucking companies and drivers open access to U.S. roads, Bloomberg reported.

The improvements “are needed more urgently than ever because Mexican motor carriers may be granted long-haul authority in the near future,”' Rebecca Anne Batts, acting assistant inspector general for surface and maritime programs, said in the report, Bloomberg reported.

On Friday, DOT said it planned to start the pilot program, involving as many as 100 Mexican trucking companies, as soon as Mexico is ready to reciprocate on access to roads.

The House voted overwhelmingly in July to put restrictions on the program, which was announced in February by Transportation Secretary Mary Peters.

The full report may be downloaded bl clicking the following link: www.truckinjurylawyerblog.com/http___www.oig.dot.gov_StreamFile_file=_data_pdfdocs_NAFTA_Annual_8-20-07_FINAL_508_compliant.pdf

See other articles at:

1. www.ooida.com/at_issue/NAFTA/NAFTAcrossborder.html
2. www.wnd.com/news/article.asp

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The day after I posted my blog on the Minnesota bridge collapse on I-35, Chattanooga Times Free Press ran an article on page A8, col 2, that shows the wear and tear on the bridges and highways by the increased truck tonnage. The article was actually written a few days prior to my post and makes it clear that "in just a decade, from 1995 to 2005, the weight load on urban highways increased by half." Bridge loads are increasing at the same time that weather and fatigue weakens the bridges and reduces resistance. Since 1980 the number of tractor trailer miles has more than doubled and risen to 145 billion miles a year. See the full article at: www.newsvine.com/_news/2007/08/10/890168-heavier-trucks-take-toll-on-aging-roads

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Electronic On Board Recorders (EOBR's) have been touted as the best way to eliminate chronic Hours of Service (HOS) violations which lead to fatigue, a major cause of trucking collisions. For example on Aug 9, 2007 the Chattanooga Times reported that in an Atlanta collision which killed 4, the driver state "he had fallen asleep at the wheel."  Anything that would eliminate these tragedies should be applauded, but EOBR's are not a panacea.

In my business I often represent severely injured truckers that have been hung out to dry by their own trucking company. One of my clients recently told me that when he drove a truck with an EOBR, the company gave him the company code which places the EOBR into a "test" mode. While in the test mode the EOBR is offline and doesn't record his hours. He could therefore drive longer hours, in violation of the HOS regulations.

Without the use of an experienced trucking lawyer critical issues like this are likely to be overlooked. A case involving a tractor trailer is not just a big car wreck case and requires significant expertise to handle properly. Make sure any lawyer you hire has that experience.

 

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

The Interstate 35W Bridge that collapsed in Minnesota was built in 1967. Since then there has been significant increases in the size, weight and numbers of trucks on our interstate highway system. There is no question that the additional numbers, and the increasing weight, of tractor trailers on our highways causes additional wear and tear on our roads and bridges. What impact did this have on the Minnesota bridge collapse?

The last change to national policy on truck size and weights was promulgated through the 1982 Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA). Since the 1982 STAA, 14 states adopted some type of incremental expansion (state-by-state) which promoted the use of longer combinations vehicles (LCV) though special access highway systems before it was halted by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). 

Truck size and weight regulation standards can be divided into three types: prescriptive standards, like those currently applied in the U.S.; parametric standards, which include parameters known to be related to performance; and pure performance-based standards. Most size and weight regulation in the U.S. are not based on pure performance tests or on performance-related parameters. They are based on historical compromises between trucking and shipping interests and state and federal highway agencies. These are prescriptive standards, and they are relatively simple to enforce.

Assuming one pass of the 8-tonne axle is equal to 10 passes of light vehicles, as
used in current chipseal design and performance modelling, then one pass of a 12-
tonne axle is equal to 23 passes.

The American Society of Civil Engineers stated it this way in a 2006 report:

Trends continue toward larger trucks and smaller passenger vehicles along with increasing truck volumes. Operational and safety issues and highway pavement and geometric design aspects, of mixing large trucks and smaller passenger vehicles will continue to be a subject of importance to highway administrators and designers...

Increases in truck sizes and weights impact negatively on the structural life and geometric adequacy of the present road network. All highway users will experience reduced service levels, delays, increased vehicle wear and operation costs, and reduced safety. These negative impacts must be balanced against productivity gains and reduced commodity costs.

see: www.asce.org/pressroom/news/policy_details.cfm

Given the above, what is the remedy? Is it enough that we have cheap goods, whatever the cost in lives? I believe Congress will be debating these issues shortly. What should we tell our representatives? Your thoughts greatly appreciated. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Lane Departure Warning (LDW) Systems

Trucking companies that are concerned about safety, of their drivers and the public, have ways to assist truck drivers in preventing some of the most common and tragic of collisions, those caused by lane departure. When a tractor trailer leaves its given lane of travel, other motorists on the road frequently pay the price. Frequently, lane change collisions are caused by drowsiness, fatigue and distraction. Trucking companies are aware of how these collisions occur and their frequency (see below link to FHWA fact sheet). They are also aware that technology exists, and is in use, which would significantly reduce this type of collision if they only chose to use it. Trucking companies can empower their drivers to stay safe by using a lane departure warning system or they can gamble with the lives of the drivers and the public. 

Computers and technology now can monitor the position of a vehicle within a roadway lane and warn a driver if it is unsafe to change lanes or merge into a line of traffic. These systems use imaging technology or radar to warn drivers when they are leaving their lane and can also assist drivers who are intentionally changing lanes by detecting vehicles in the driver's blind spot.

One such imaging system is manufactured by Iteris, which states the following on their website about lane change collisions and their product:

Latest Statistics: Highway Fatalities
42,643	Total Fatalities in 2003
23,324	Lane Departure Fatalities in 2003
59%	Lane Departure Fatalities in 2003 (Percent of total fatalities as a direct result of unintended lane departure accidents.)

Source: safety.fhwa.dot.gov/facts/road_factsheet.htm

What is LDW?
LDW uses a technology called Machine Vision to track a vehicles position relative to the lane markings. Using image recognition software, the system can detect when a vehicle drifts towards an unintended lane change. When this occurs, the unit automatically emits a distinctive rumble strip sound from the left or right speaker (depending on which way the vehicle is drifting), alerting the driver to make a correction.

LDW works effectively both day and night and in most weather conditions where lane markings are visible. LDW is capable of detecting both solid and dashed lines even if the lines are heavily faded.

"Virtual" rumble strips
U.S. Government accident statistics, collected for over 20 years, show that highway rumble strips, where installed, have proven to effectively reduce run-off-road accidents by 30 - 70%. LDW warns drivers before they hit the rumble strip.

LDW provides all the functionality of highway rumble strips, electronically, everywhere there are lane markings. LDW works on the shoulder, centerline and between lanes.

Lane Departure Warning Features & Benefits
	Promotes use of turn signals when changing lanes
	Conditions drivers to have a keen sense of "lane position awareness"
	Emits no warning for planned lane departures (with turn signals on)
	Zero maintenance with functioning wipers and clean windshield
	Disabled below 37 mph (design for highway travel)
	Designed for 10-12 year life
	OEM available through Freightliner, Mercedes, and MAN
	Can be installed on most power units
	Many truck drivers report that it is an effective aid in rain, sleet, fog and general low visibility conditions.
	False warnings are near zero
	Can warn drivers of impending fatigue before it becomes a problem

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

While a majority of tanker truck rollovers are caused by driver error, if trucking companies increased training and used current safety technology the number would be reduced according to a recent report by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. The trucking companies appear to be withholding the very tools necessary to protect drivers and the public from these types of wrecks.

The report also noted "drowsiness and inattention together contribute to one in five cargo tank rollovers." Fatigue is a topic covered in my earlier posts at length and continues to be an issue of public safety.

See: www.ttnews.com/articles/basetemplate.aspx

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

According to JJ Keller, hours of service violations and brake problems were the top violations found during the  2007 Roadcheck. Between vehicle problems, and driver problems, approximately 49% of the inspections showed either the vehicle or the driver should not be on the road. JJ Keller reported:

A total of 62,370 inspections were conducted during the 72-hour Roadcheck 2007 event from June 5–7, 2007. The following out-of-service (O-O-S) statistics emerged for drivers and vehicles:

Driver O-O-S Violations
Violation	Number	Percentage
HOS	3,027	65.9%
False Logs	522	11.4%
Suspended	177	3.9%
Driver Qualification	166	3.6%
Endorsement	120	2.6%
Expired License	78	1.7%
Drugs/Alcohol	71	1.5%
Age	15	0.3%
Revoked License	12	0.3%
Withdrawn License	11	0.2%
Cancelled License	9	0.2%
Other	607	13.2%
TOTAL	4,815

Vehicle O-O-S Violations
Violation	Number	Percentage
Brake Adjustment	6,954	27.7%
Brake System	6,566	26.2%
Lights	3,521	14.0%
Loading (securement)	2,610	10.4%
Tires and wheels	2,286	9.1%
Suspension	1,159	4.6%
Steering	533	2.1%
Frame	345	1.4%
Hazardous materials	261	1.0%
Coupling device	178	0.7%
Fuel system	166	0.7%
Exhaust	48	0.2%
Other	924	3.7%
TOTAL	25,551

The number of U.S. state inspections totaled 53,451 (85.70%); Canadian inspections totaled 7,274 (11.66%); U.S. FMCSA inspections totaled 1,506 (2.41%); and Mexican inspections totaled 139 (0.22%).

See: www.jjkeller.com/news/newsinfo/T_news2194.htm

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

An amendment was recently offered by Reps. Defazio (D-OR), Boyda (D-KS), Hunter (R-CA) and Miller (R-CA), and included unanimously in HR 3074, the fiscal year 2008 DOT appropriations bill, to prohibit the use of any funds to establish or implement the proposed Mexican-domiciled truck pilot program.

While the amendment is not yet law, I have high hopes that the current, poorly executed legislation will be killed, and killed quickly.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A reporter for the Chattanooga Times Free Press stated that, according to the American Trucking Association, 1/4 of its drivers have problems with sleep apnea. See the front page of  the July 19, 2007, Chattanooga Times Free Press, "Truckers get physical."

Sleep apnea  is a sleep disorder characterized by pauses in breathing during sleep. People with sleep apnea are often sleepy during the day. They find that they are still tired even after a nap. When you stop breathing, your body wakes up. It happens so quickly, you aren’t even aware of it. This disrupts your sleep process. Individuals with sleep apnea can stop breathing hundreds of times in one night. This makes them feel very tired the next day. Generally sleep apnea is most prevalent in overweight middle aged men who snore and have neck sizes greater than 17".

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations forbid drivers with sleep apnea from driving until the sleep apnea is treated. FMCSR 392.3  specifically states a trucking company shall not allow a sleepy driver to drive.  For a copy of the regulation see:   www.truckinjurylawyerblog.com/49cfr392.3.pdf

The National Sleep Foundation states:

Sleepiness and driving is a dangerous combination. Most people are aware of the dangers of drinking and driving but don’t realize that drowsy driving can be just as fatal. Like alcohol, sleepiness slows reaction time, decreases awareness, impairs judgment and increases your risk of crashing.

It's nearly impossible to determine with certainty the cause of a fatal crash where drowsy driving is suspected. However, there are a number of clues at a crash scene that tell investigators that the person fell asleep at the wheel. For example, drowsy driving accidents usually involve only one vehicle where the driver is alone and the injuries tend to be serious or fatal. Also, skid marks or evidence of other evasive maneuvers are usually absent from the drowsy driving crash scene.

Unlike alcohol-related crashes, no blood, breath, or other objective test for sleepiness behind the wheel currently exists that investigators could give to a driver at the scene of a crash. This makes police training in identifying drowsiness as a crash factor very difficult.

Definitions of drowsy driving or driver fatigue rely on how the concept of "fatigue" is defined. Fatigue is a general term commonly used to describe the experience of being "sleepy," "tired," "drowsy," or "exhausted." While all of these terms have different meanings in research and clinical settings, they tend to be used interchangeably in the traffic safety and transportation fields.

There are many underlying causes of sleepiness, fatigue and drowsy driving. Including sleep loss from restriction or too little sleep, interruption or fragmented sleep; chronic sleep debt; circadian factors associated with driving patterns or work schedules; undiagnosed or untreated sleep disorders; time spent on a task; the use of sedating medications; and the consumption of alcohol when already tired. These factors have cumulative effects and a combination of any of these can greatly increase one's risk for a fatigue-related crash.

Sleepiness or Fatigue Causes the Following:

Impaired reaction time, judgment and vision
Problems with information processing and short-term memory
Decreased performance, vigilance and motivation
Increased moodiness and aggressive behaviors
In addition to the dangers of driving under the influence of fatigue, several states are considering legislation that would allow police to charge drowsy drivers with criminal negligence if they injure or kill someone while driving if they have not had adequate sleep. See: www.sleepfoundation.org/site/c.huIXKjM0IxF/b.2485279/k.A2A4/Drowsy_Driving.htm

Unfortunately truckers who report they have sleep apnea can't drive until it is treated, and the whole time they are under treatment they are not getting paid. Further, if the sleep apnea can't be cured, the drivers will be forbidden from driving. The sad result for the American public is that most trucking companies turn a blind eye to the problem, well known in the trucking industry, to avoid losing drivers for any length of time, placing profits over people. A simple solution would be to find work for the driver, that does not involve driving a tractor trailer, until the illness is treated.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

President Bush, Dec. 4, 2006, signed into law a provision that will in time grant Mexican trucking companies access to roadways throughout the U.S

According to the U.S. Customs Service, 2,383,471 trucks crossed the border from Mexico to the U.S. in 2000 and, as of September 2001, 1,681,526 trucks had entered the U.S. from Mexico.
According to a study published in February 2001 by Public Citizen, about 1 percent (35,000) of every one million Mexican trucks that cross the border undergo safety and licensing inspections. Of that 1 percent, more than one-third, about 12,250, are turned away because of safety deficiencies.
In all, the Transportation Department (DOT) estimates that opening the border will increase traffic from Mexican trucks to about 7 million from its current level, according to the study. At the time the report was published, there were 101 state commercial truck inspectors and 60 federal inspectors at the border. The DOT estimates covering every one of the 7 million Mexican trucks would require about 32,000 inspectors.

A letter from the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, admittedly an interested party,  states it this way:

Dear President Bush:

On behalf of hundreds of thousands of American small business truckers, the Owner?Operator Independent Drivers Association (“OOIDA”) asks you to maintain the current border restrictions on Mexican trucks until there is a system in place to ensure that Mexican trucks comply with U.S. laws related to safety, immigration, and customs.

Our initial concern is with the safety of trucks and motor carriers from Mexico. Our members own the trucks they drive and spend most of their time working on our nation’s highways. They believe that the Mexican trucks that already use our highways are in terrible physical shape and fall well short of compliance with our safety regulations. Indeed, this fact has been backed up by research by the Inspector General of the