I've seen that too. The trick is that the leasing company and the trucking company are owned by the same guy.

 

You think safety is only driver related? :shock:

 

Your first statement was that Safety and driver Turn-over were related. Your assumption was that if a company had low turn-over, then the company should be safer.

My counter-point was that drivers leave safe companies all the time for stupid impulsive reasons.

Safe companies are those who have newer equipment. They get work done on warranty.

Unsafe companies are typically smaller outfits who have older equipment and they wait until the truck can't roll before they fix anything. Even then they may put the driver out by not being willing to pay for it.

Safer companies should have lower turn-over, but usually they have the same turn-over rate in the first year. For drivers after 1 year, the turn-over rate is much lower. The first year turn-over at CFI for example is the same as anywhere else, 120%. For those who stay with the company the first year from then on, the turn-over rate is 17%. CFI is a safe company.

I don't think safety is only driver related. I have driven for unsafe companies. I believe safety starts with the driver.

 

Nowhere in any of my posts do you see me saying that safety is the ONLY reason for driver turnover.

Not necessarily. Most of the larger carriers lease their new trucks, and neglect to do any of the preventive maintainance on them (or they skim on it). ALL of the major carriers turn their equipment over every few years. That doesn't make them safe companies. A 2 month old truck can get an OOS violation just as easily as a 20 year old truck. It all depends upon who is caring for the truck.

If you actually believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I'll sell you. Check the SafeStat records for some of the largest carriers, and then come back claiming that "typically", small companies are unsafe.

Many carriers don't have that high of a turnover rate..........EVER. And most of those carriers with low turnover rates are ANAL about the maintainance of their trucks.

The safestat results say differently. Current DRSEA for CFI is 54.46. FMCSA considers anything above 75 to be deficient. CFI is pushing it.

If you check further, you'll see that CFI has 289 State reported crashes in the last 30 months, 115 of those causing injury, and 11 of them causing fatalities.

Looking at their driver data, you'll see that in the 8238 driver inspections in the last 30 months, 362 of them resulted in an OOS order. That isn't too terrible. However, out of 2745 drivers, there have been 1134 moving violations. That is pretty bad.

Now let's look at their vehicle inspections - in the last 30 months, there have been 5104 vehicle inspections, and 535 of those inspections resulted in an OOS order. That means just over 1 out of 10 CFI trucks that gets pulled in for a vehicle inspection get put out of service. Seems pretty darn high.

In fact, looking at their past SafeStat numbers, CFI is currently the worst its ever been.

 

Now I understand why you chose your Avatar photo.

 

Typical response from someone who can't think of a logical rebuttal to anything I posted. :roll:

 

Yes it was . I've never worked for CFI but I don't know how you can rave about a company that.... a.offers one whole day home for every 7 out , that is pathetic b.does a ton of northeast c.doesn't pay all that well .

 

Notice his "driver-recruiter" signature line - that will give you all the answers you seek. :wink:

 

He probably doesn't even drive , just a recruiter trying his hand at typical phony used car salesman tactics .

 

Don't you just hate when someone bitch slaps you with the facts, and you have to retort back with this weak response. :lol:
OH SNAP.