Csa 2010

[zipy46]

This looks serious

Welcome! CSA 2010, Comprehensive Safety Analysis

[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

"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

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

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.