Csa 2010

[zipy46]

This looks serious :eek1:

Welcome! CSA 2010, Comprehensive Safety Analysis (http://csa2010.fmcsa.dot.gov/)

[chris1]

So drivers with bad logging ect. habits are a good thing?

[Orangetxguy]

So drivers with bad logging ect. habits are a good thing?


Not so much.


Something the DOT needs to do...is teach thses new Inspectors they are generating out onto the roads, is when, where, and what type trucks, are safely inspected roadside....and which aren't.

[zipy46]

So drivers with bad logging ect. habits are a good thing?

No....

....companies that encourage drivers to run outside the law need to be stopped


I am for CSA 2010 and also EOBR

[chris1]

Not so much.


Something the DOT needs to do...is teach thses new Inspectors they are generating out onto the roads, is when, where, and what type trucks, are safely inspected roadside....and which aren't.
They do. It's called the ISS selection system.

[Kevin0915]

So drivers with bad logging ect. habits are a good thing?


I hope this isnt another one of those, "...hey this driver was doing a good job getting into an accident and ONLY being found with 3-5 log violations"

[chris1]

At this time there is no way to track a driver who has bad habits,unless they are ticketed. It is not requirement to answer on a pre-employment.

[GMAN]

No....

....companies that encourage drivers to run outside the law need to be stopped


I am for CSA 2010 and also EOBR


If you had to pay for the EOBR you would not like them so much. Besides, any small error on you part as the driver could result in a major fine or worse. Frankly, I don't think that there are that many companies who would encourage their drivers to run outside the law. The risks are too great for the carrier.

[Windwalker]

Looks to me like:

If you team up a horse and a mule, and the mule refuses to pull... Shoot the horse.

Why is it so convenient for everyone to forget that virtually all the studies show that it is the 4-wheelers that are causing the vast majority of accidents that trucks are involved in?
4-wheelers with drugs, alcohol, and sheer stupidity behind the wheel are bad enough.
Then add the majority of the public that is not informed as to what is safe to do around a truck, and what is not,
and you have a whole series of accidents looking for a place to happen.
Every Tom, Dick, and Harry, and all their cousins, absolutely, positively, MUST drive in front of a truck.
And, just 50 feet in front is just find and dandy.

They would be far more effective to inform the public that 1/8 of a mile in front of a truck is a suicide zone.
Simple rule of thumb. No matter what the terrain, or weather conditions, stay out from in front of a truck.
By turning their heads the other way from the major cause of accidents, they are being far less effective in prevention.
Of course, that would not bring in any revenue.
Just another way of coming down on CMVs and getting more money.
So, money, not human life, is the name of the game.

I'm glad I'm going to be retired before it goes into effect.
You guys have fun with it all.

[Orangetxguy]

They do. It's called the ISS selection system.


Well. Unfortunately, there are more than a few of these new DOT inspectors, employeed by city's and county's, whom do not understand certain types of dangers.

I personally do not care whether my truck and the trailer I am pulling is inspected by the DOT, as long as the inspection is done at the "scales". Once DOT officers start stopping me along the shoulder of the road, so they can fullfill their daily qouta, then I start having issues, especially when the tank is loaded with nasty stuff.

Last year, I was west bound through Tuscon and was pulled over by a city DOT inspector. I had a tank, loaded with haz-mat, and was stopped about 400 feet west of a TSMT truck that had explosive 1.1 placards, whom was also pulled over by a cith Inspector. Not wishing to fail the inspection and get issued a citation, I held my tongue. Had an AZ Inspector not arrived, and explained to both city Inspectors, what it was they both did wrong. I would have done so....after the inspection was complete.

I was handed my paperwork back by the state Inspector, and told to have a safe trip. The TSMT truck was passing by, as he handed me back all of my paperwork.


It is ok to have an Inspector pull trucks over on the shoulder for inspection. For the most part, when wayward cars end up under those trucks, as they do from time to time, it is preferable that those trucks not be laden with hazardous materials. It doesn't matter if those trucks are pulling a flatbed, van/refer, or tank. Hazardous Material laden trucks should only be pulled in for inspection, at "scales" or "rest areas", not on the shoulder of a highway.











I am on this particular speel....because thursday morning I was pulled over on the I-610 loop in Houston, with a tank loaded with 45K of 95% solution Formic Acid, by a Houston city Inspector.

That (shoulder of 610 loop) is not the place to be inspecting any truck, let alone a hazmat laden truck. Before he got to far into how important a man he was (my first words to him were "What is wrong Officer? Do you see a leak? Was I driving in an unsafe manner?"), I had dialed 911, and was speaking with Texas Department of Public Safety, explaining the situation to them..and the local commander at the DPS office, was quickly speaking to Mr. Houston DOT. I was stopped on that shoulder, about 4 minutes.



CSA is a good idea. Increased and tougher inspections, good idea. However. Train those Inspectors to recognize the dangers involved with the cargos they are delaying. Some things are worse than others.

[chris1]

Sorry,i didn't know that was the type of inspections you were refering to.

[GMAN]

I don't think that it is ever safe to stop a truck to inspect it on the side of the road. If they want to inspect trucks they need to have a safe place to pull a safe distance from the roadway. There have been a number of incidents in recent years where state troopers have been killed by cars veering off the road and hitting them. I don't see the need for any cities to have people out inspecting trucks along a road, especially a major interstate. It is nothing but a money grab by cities and states who can't manage their money.

[zipy46]

The 'Black box' is a figure of speech

All it amounts to is an update via satellite to the Qualcomm already inside the truck.

[GMAN]

The 'Black box' is a figure of speech

All it amounts to is an update via satellite to the Qualcomm already inside the truck.


It is a little more involved for those of us who don't have qualcomm. It is also likely to be quite expensive. If you want to have a black box in your own truck or the larger carriers want to have them, then that is fine. I just don't see that the entire industry needs to have them mandated by the ATA or a handful of people or organizations. They are unnecessary and will only increase our cost of doing business which is the last thing any of us need.

[Justruckin]

I read up on these new rules coming down on our industry after receiving an email stating that 175,000 driving jobs at a minimum would be lost within the first year of the CSA 2010 implemetation. I don't know how true this will be, but tagging drivers and equipment for everything under the sun seems to me that it could lead to some heavy losses in employment. Just one angry DOT cop could pretty much ruin a guy if I read the new rules correctly.

The point section is something you guys need to read as far as it applies to drivers. To me, it looked pretty heavy handed and could realy screw up ones SAFER score to the point of putting a small outfit out of business. A bad SAFER score is something that you can yell and scream at a driver about till the cows come home, as that is the side of the industry that they no nothing, if little about. It is factored into your insurance rates and many brokers and shippers check this score to determine if you will haul the freight.

Any comments, or are my reading comprehension skills out of whack?

[zipy46]

Part of an article I have been reading on the CSA 2010 :

Under article 444,the wording has been changed.It now says:

Carriers and CEO's now have a LEGAL and MORAL obligation to prevent violations.

All persons coming into contact with the driver or having an influence over the driver

are held accountable.



For too long these companies have managed to pull off the perfect crime....keeping the drivers out there doing their dirty and illegal work.

Hopefully those days are coming to an end.

[GMAN]

There is little that a carrier or owner can do to insure that a truck or driver won't be put out of service. The carrier or owner cannot make repairs unless the driver does his job and a proper pre trip. The driver must also inform the owner or carrier so that repairs can be made. It should be up to the driver to determine if his load is legal and that everything is in proper working order. For instance, if a driver picks up a loaded trailer then it is up to him to determine if the load is legal by finding the first CAT scale and weighing his load. It is up to the driver to determine whether he has enough hours to make a delivery in a timely manner. I understand that there are some carriers who may encourage drivers to push the limit, but it is ultimately up to the driver to determine whether he can legally run a load or not. There has been some discussion about having a driver's record follow him rather than the carrier. The thought is to get the bad drivers out of the business. If a driver constantly has out of service or other violations then he isn't safely doing his job. The feds want to get these drivers out of trucking.

[cdswans]

So drivers with bad logging ect. habits are a good thing?

No. They're an endangered species thing . .

Trucking firms flip on digital logbooks - JSOnline (http://www.jsonline.com/business/64651302.html)

"Reiser said the industry consensus seems to be that the wheels are moving toward electronic logging, although it may be some time before there's a government mandate."

"Phoenix-based Swift Transportation Corp., another of the country's largest trucking firms, will move to electronic logging on several thousand of its rigs, according to an executive with Qualcomm Inc., which will provide the equipment."

As a company Driver, if my employer elects to sign on, I reckon I'm signing on. From a safety standpoint, I don't have any problem with this or any new enforcement technology/activity. Unfortunately, neither this nor CSA 2010 are going to do anything to address the issue of the untold numbers of just plain rotten commercial drivers.

[Justruckin]

There is little that a carrier or owner can do to insure that a truck or driver won't be put out of service. The carrier or owner cannot make repairs unless the driver does his job and a proper pre trip. The driver must also inform the owner or carrier so that repairs can be made. It should be up to the driver to determine if his load is legal and that everything is in proper working order. For instance, if a driver picks up a loaded trailer then it is up to him to determine if the load is legal by finding the first CAT scale and weighing his load. It is up to the driver to determine whether he has enough hours to make a delivery in a timely manner. I understand that there are some carriers who may encourage drivers to push the limit, but it is ultimately up to the driver to determine whether he can legally run a load or not. There has been some discussion about having a driver's record follow him rather than the carrier. The thought is to get the bad drivers out of the business. If a driver constantly has out of service or other violations then he isn't safely doing his job. The feds want to get these drivers out of trucking.

Have you looked at the scoring that is being proposed in regards to the driver? These are some pretty heavy handed new rules coming down. I always tried my best to run legal, but it is not always possible to do in every situation, this is just a reality of the business. We are not machines, no matter what we know or how good we are at our jobs. And that is how I interpreted the new regs for drivers, we are machines and we will comply. And if we don't, we will be punished to the full extent of the law with SAFER as the weapon.

And yes, get the bad drivers off the road, I have no issues with that line of thinking. But again, I go back to these new rules and how they score a driver. As I said earlier, one DOT cop with an attitude could literally ruin a driver and or company in under an hour if he wanted to. The new scoring system is rather complicated and runs on multipliers along with allowing a DOT officer to make assumptions with no proof. Like MN and their little roadside fatigue survey, do you have a cell phone... This is apart of the new CSA regulations and it is coming to your neighborhood soon.

I would not take this stuff lightly and you guys really need to read up on it. It is already being tested in several states, and so far, it has been a nightmare for more than one trucking company. And it looks like it could honestly take many of the smaller outfits right out of business with the fines alone. Just do some searching, there is allot of info out there.

Here is a good place to start CSA2010 (http://www.csa2010.com/blog/)

And here, check the left sidebar for all of the scoring, shocking to say the least. http://www.csa2010.com/

[Justruckin]

Unfortunately, neither this nor CSA 2010 are going to do anything to address the issue of the untold numbers of just plain rotten commercial drivers.

You need to do a bit of studying in regards to CSA 2010. This is very complicated and convoluted set of new regs coming down.

Start reading here, CSA2010 (http://www.csa2010.com/blog/)

And here, check the left side bar, as this is the best site I have found on this subject. http://www.csa2010.com/

And I think that 175,000 drivers losing their jobs may be a bit conservative. This is some scary stuff, especially for the little guy.

[Orangetxguy]

You need to do a bit of studying in regards to CSA 2010. This is very complicated and convoluted set of new regs coming down.

Start reading here, CSA2010 (http://www.csa2010.com/blog/)

And here, check the left side bar, as this is the best site I have found on this subject. CSA 2010 FMCSA New Carrier Rating System Measured by 7 Behavior Analysis & Safety Improvement Categories (http://www.csa2010.com/)

And I think that 175,000 drivers losing their jobs may be a bit conservative. This is some scary stuff, especially for the little guy.


So why are those sites you posted, (one a "blog" about CSA2010, and the other a commercial corporation wanting to teach "you" their version of the meaning behind CSA2010), better than the FMCSA link??


What is CSA 2010? (http://csa2010.fmcsa.dot.gov/about/default.aspx)

[Justruckin]

So why are those sites you posted, (one a "blog" about CSA2010, and the other a commercial corporation wanting to teach "you" their version of the meaning behind CSA2010), better than the FMCSA link??


What is CSA 2010? (http://csa2010.fmcsa.dot.gov/about/default.aspx)

I chose that particular site, the corp one, because it actually had interviews with carriers going through the interventions in the test states. And it gave a pretty good run down in the blog area as to one major change, the x3 multiplier. As far as what they are selling, I could really care less. I was more interested in the numbers and interviews. You can go to the FMCSA site and see the same numbers, but you will not get the layman breakdown like on the linked site.

And I am not trying to sell any software, in fact, I really did not see any reference other than a banner ad and one line in the blog regarding whatever they are pushing.

And go over those numbers regarding what a driver can expect, even warnings count against a driver with the full force as if an actual ticket had been issued. Also look at the fatigued driver info, talk about hogwash. Look at how enforcement works, how you will be tagged, etc. I just wish that they would have been more in depth with the fines that the carriers will be facing, one outfit was already in for "thousands of dollars" in fines. A carrier that had an excellent safety rating under the old system. I don't like the sound of any of this, it is just to punitive for both carriers and drivers. I know how easy it was to get a negative on your SAFER under the old system, this new system looks like a jobs and business killer all in the name of safety with no recourse.

[Justruckin]

Here is another blog that spells it out... And yes, it looks like he has a newsletter or something...

RMR CONSULTANTS (http://thevirtualtrucker.blogspot.com/)

[zipy46]

My whole question is will CSA 2010 cause dispatchers to back off the games they play.

I have been with 4 companies over the years ..from large to very small and dispatchers are all the same and behave the same,

Simply stated they are ....Lying,coercing,manipulating,sacks of bleep....:pissedoff:

Will this give them cause to be good little boys and girls :rofl:

[Justruckin]

My whole question is will CSA 2010 cause dispatchers to back off the games they play.

I have been with 4 companies over the years ..from large to very small and dispatchers are all the same and behave the same,

Simply stated they are ....Lying,coercing,manipulating,sacks of bleep....:pissedoff:

Will this give them cause to be good little boys and girls :rofl:

I was doing some searching and could not find the regulation change that went right to your question, but the answer is yes. No more fun and games, as everyone in the office from the CEO to the janitor are now on the hook. And I wish I could find that recent change, because as a previous company owner, the wording scared me to death. It pretty much stated that as the owner of said company you will will have to know of problems before they happen and that there will be moral obligation or some such nonsense. It put the owner of a company in a very precarious position as it was worded. I took it that one would have to be a mind reader and carry a crystal ball around at all times in regards to EVERY aspect of ones company, right down to what kind of shorts your drivers wear, briefs or boxers.

Yes, I would say you are protected in that regard, but in the long run, I think many will find that they are actually much more vulnerable for abuse from the feds. And remember, DAC will be handling your driver records. So are you really safer now or when the new rules kick in? It will be interesting to see.

[Justruckin]

One thing I do see happening here, is that sure, many drivers may lose their jobs. But, what will be the effects on the drivers that get by this first hurdle of implementation? The one thing that I do see, is that mileage will suffer. These new rules are so stringent and the fines are so costly, that I see drivers actually running fewer miles to give a driver more than enough time to make their pick ups and deliveries.

Say you have a 500 mile run, and presently you have 1.5 days to complete the pu and delivery. Under the new rules, I can see this same run being stretched to two days and possibly three depending on shipper and consignees hours of operations. And possibly longer waits to get the next load because of the new driver fatigue rules. Say it now takes two days to make the above 500 mile delivery, but instead of heading down the road for that next load, the company may put that load off until the following day, to make sure you are well rested. So now a day and a half load is now actually a three day load, see what I mean? There are already companies out there running like this, Schneider being one of them.

Will this raise rates or driver pay? I don't know, but something will have to be done, as I see drivers sitting as much as actually driving and making less money under this new set of regs. Time will tell, and I think we can all say that this will be a nightmare for drivers and carriers for at least the first year of implementation.

[chris1]

Reminds me of the concern over the new HOS. Going to take twice as long to do anything,need more trucks ect. Didn't pan out that way.
Learn to work with the new regulations,not get in an uproar over it.

[zipy46]

Looks like we will have to wait and see...

Safestat apparently wasn't working out...I'd be surprised if the Gov't actually did

something right for a change. :moon:

(PS:From experience:If dispatchers planned at 50 mph...99% of things would fall into place with much less hassle)

[GMAN]

Whatever happens we will learn to deal with it. We have made it through a number of HOS changes and these will be no different. We either deal with it or get out of the business. One of these days perhaps they will actually have those who are directly affected to provide input rather than these inexperienced bureaucrats.

[Justruckin]

Reminds me of the concern over the new HOS. Going to take twice as long to do anything,need more trucks ect. Didn't pan out that way.
Learn to work with the new regulations,not get in an uproar over it.

The new HOS weren't that big a deal, at least to me. And they were nothing like this two ton gorilla that is set to pounce upon us. Just looking at the scoring and that 3x multiplier, that is a real nightmare waiting to happen. And it does not take much to find your way into the system in regards to getting flagged at a scale house. Just simply leaving off the commodity or shipper number in your log book gets you 6 to possibly 12 points if not more depending on the DOT inspector.

Look at the truck inspection safety section, it reads like "how much money will we make off of this guy today?". And once you are in the system, every scale house in the nation will have a shot at you. Are you up for that? Is your equipment and log book ready to go? There is so much potential for abuse here that it makes my head spin.

[Justruckin]

Whatever happens we will learn to deal with it. We have made it through a number of HOS changes and these will be no different. We either deal with it or get out of the business. One of these days perhaps they will actually have those who are directly affected to provide input rather than these inexperienced bureaucrats.

I can't argue with that, but what will be the damage until all is sorted out? If, say 175,000 drivers lose their CDL or are black listed for one to three years, what recourse will they have? What if a few major carriers fall and throw a few more thousand drivers out through no fault of their own? I don't see how any of this helps anyone. Not all carriers and drivers are bad, we work with what we have in front of us like you said. But this? Gman, I don't know, like I said, there is so much room for abuse here. Maybe they will go gung-ho and swamp their system and back log it for ten years. Or maybe we will have that nation wide strike so many have called for over the past two years. Remember the 70's?

[GMAN]

I remember the 70's very well. There was much more camaraderie in this industry. And this country was essentially shut down by the trucking industry during that time. After rates were deregulated things began to change. I think that in one respect this could be good for the industry as a whole. That is getting rid of some of the marginal drivers. With fewer drivers in the pool there would be less capacity which should help rates come up to a more acceptable level. I agree that there is much room for abuse, as there was with the new hos rules. It seemed that even those charged with enforcing these rules had different interpretation of those rules. A number of states have already begun to put more dot officers on the roads and are doing more roadside inspections. This could well be another cash cow for the states. I don't see that it will help many of us. Whether we like it or not, if implemented we will need to learn how to deal with it. If it results in a high level of carriers having their safe stat scores put at a high level then they may need to re-evaluate how they do their calculations or be ammunition to implement the little black boxes. It is all about control and money.

[Fredog]

My whole question is will CSA 2010 cause dispatchers to back off the games they play.

I have been with 4 companies over the years ..from large to very small and dispatchers are all the same and behave the same,

Simply stated they are ....Lying,coercing,manipulating,sacks of bleep....:pissedoff:

Will this give them cause to be good little boys and girls :rofl:

No, they will just have to lie even more