New Research Quantifies Impact of Non-Preventable Crashes on CSA Scores

Since the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s Compliance, Safety and Accountability (CSA) program has been in effect over the last five years, its methodology for how it rates fleets on their overall safety has consistently been scrutinized.

As an example, earlier this year, the American Trucking Associations (ATA) asked FMCSA to make what it calls “common sense” changes to its safety measurement system.by taking out data involving crashes that trucking companies and drivers did not cause - such as getting rear-ended when the truck was motionless, calling it “illogical, and a poor use of scarce enforcement resources, to label carriers as unsafe based on crashes they did not cause,” ATA said in comments filed with the agency.

Currently, FMCSA insists uses all crashes against carriers, even ones the trucker was not at fault.

This methodology skewers the data against truckers, ATA says, which has been a common complaint about CSA from motor carriers.

In recently issued CSA research, entitled “Assessing the Impact of Non-Preventable Crashes on CSA Scores” the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) took the ATA’s sentiment a step further, by taking a deep dive into the impact that non-preventable crashes would have on motor carrier CSA Crash Indicator BASIC measures.

The seven BASICs are driving, fatigued driving, driver fitness, alcohol and drugs, vehicle maintenance, cargo security (now HM Compliance) and crash history.

By researching carrier crash records that were synced up to the FMCSA’s Motor Carrier Management Information System database, ATRI identified what it called a “small and non-controversial subset of non-preventable crashes, caused by: animal collision; other vehicle hits legally parked truck; other vehicle ran a stop light/sign and hit a truck; the driver of the other vehicle was DUI; and truck-assisted suicide.

And when taking out these types of crashes and recalculating the Crash Indicator BASIC measure, ATRI found that based on an analysis more than a dozen carriers, the Crash Indicator BASIC fell by almost 15 percent when the non-preventable subset was taken out.

Scott Mugno, a member of ATRI’s Research Advisory Committee and Vice President of Safety and Maintenance for FedEx Ground, called the inclusion of the Crash Indicator BASIC egregious, adding that the ATRI analysis, which uses a “a very conservative definition of non-preventable crashes, demonstrates just how skewed FMCSA’s BASIC calculations can be.”

Jeff Tucker, CEO & Founder at QualifiedCarriers.com & CEO Tucker Company Worldwide Inc., was far more blunt in his assessment of ATRI’s findings, explaining that it is not at all surprising, as CSA continues to be a program that is a public relations abomination for FMCSA, which is entirely their own doing.

“FMCSA, from the beginning, has displayed petulant behavior around CSA, includIng boasting its usefulness in carrier selection (false), dismissing data, input, feedback, and areas for improvement,” he explained. “That they seem to completely disregard carrier feedback on these non-controversial accidents, among other issues, is widely understood. What is absurd and borderline repugnant, is how they disregard law enforcement, the GAO, the IG for DOT, and their hand picked CSA Subcommittee of the MCSAC when ways are identified to improve the program. It’s like nobody is in charge. Nobody is being held accountable.”

Tucker went on to say that shippers-or buyers of carrier services-need, want, and crave, quality safety data. But he said that BASIC scores are useless for that purpose.

“With flawed BASICS, and data blind leadership at FMCSA, how will we ever get to a reliable SFD safety fitness determination)? The sad truth is, we won’t,” he said.

“It’s going to take very different, and strong leadership at FMCSA and from the Secretary of Transportation to earn back the public’s trust.”

Related: What Is Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA)?