Transcript Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) Size & Weight Violations

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
AASHTO/SCOHT
Subcommittee on Highway Transport
94th Annual Meeting
Presented by:
Chuck Horan, Director
Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
July 2013
Page 1
Overview
• Bridge Hits
• Heavy Truck Safety
• Work Zone Safety
2
Bridge Hits (PPPPP)
• Bridge hits are preventable
• GPS for CMV
• Design
• Use
• Visor Card
• Outreach and Education
Crash Trucks
3
CSA
CSA is an important initiative to
improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of FMCSA’s
enforcement and compliance
program to achieve the agency’s
mission to reduce commercial
motor vehicle (CMV) crashes,
fatalities, and injuries.
4
Previous System (SafeStat) vs. SMS
SafeStat: Safety Evaluation
Areas (SEAs)
CSMS: Behavior Analysis Safety
Improvement Categories (BASICs)
Controlled
Substance
/ Alcohol
Safety
Management
Vehicle
Driver
Accident
CargoRelated
•Out-of-Service Violations
•Certain Moving Violations
•Crash Reports
5
Driver
Fitness
Crash
Indicator
Vehicle
Maintenance
Unsafe
Driving
Fatigued
Driving
(HOS)
• All Safety-based Violations with
Risk-based Severity Weights
• Crash Reports
National Training Center
CSA BASIC and Weight Violations
(circa 2010)
• New CSA 2010 Safety Measurement System (SMS) began
including roadside inspection Size and Weight violations
(392.2W)
– SafeStat did NOT
• In CSA 2010 Operational Model Test
– Carriers with a pattern of S/W violations were being identified for
an investigation
– S/W one of the most frequently cited violations uploaded to
FMCSA (~440k/ 2 years)
S&W Background, Cont.
• Federal and State Work Group (FSWG) and Field Enforcement
expressed frustration
• SIs influence change and address safety issues through
Compliance Review (CR)
– CR is not designed to address something that is exclusively
state law
– No FMCSA federal equivalent regulations for S/W
• Lack authority to address and pursue S/W issues
• State Enforcement Issue
Recommended Option
Recommended Option: Short term
• Remove S/W violations from SMS Cargo Related BASIC assessment
Recommended Option: Long term
• Partner with FHWA
• Perform analytical study in cooperation with FHWA to
more formally establish the relationship of S/W and safety
American Standard Inspection Levels
Level 1 - Driver and Vehicle
Level 2 – Driver and Vehicle Walk Around
Level 3 – Driver & Credential Inspection
Weight citations with inspections
(2009)
No Roadside Inspection
Level 1 Inspections
Level 2,3 Inspections
FHWA Weight Citations
2009 CMV Inspections with Weight Violations
Level 3 –
96,261
Vehicle OOS
13,014
(45%)
Level 1 –
28,482
Level 2 – 93,053
Vehicle
Not – OOS
15,468
For comparison 2009 Truck OOS Rate 21.6%
2010 Louisiana Overweight Study
• 357 vehicle combinations inspected (Level 1)
• 684 weight violations (over axle/over gross/bridge)
• 569 brakes over adjustment limits
• 175 inspections with a Vehicle OOS
(49%)
• 156 tire weight rating OOS violations
Why so few overweight trucks inspected?
• Different State Agencies weigh trucks and
inspect trucks
• State Policies on performing Level 2,3
inspections on overweight trucks
• Inspector safety considerations?
LTCCS
Assessment of Relationship to Crashes
Factor
Percent of
Trucks Coded
19.42%
Relative
Risk Ratio
1.61
Danger
Index
31.27
10.41%
1.43
14.89
Overweight
4.93%
1.62
7.99
Tire deficiency
5.42%
1.37
7.43
3.98
1.85
7.36
Cargo load
securement
Brakes inoperative
2.96%
1.79
5.31
2.05%
1.57
3.22
Tire failure
0.74%
1.7
1.26
Transmission failure
0.89%
1.83
1.63
Brakes out-ofadjustment
Brake deficiency
Cargo shift
Heavy Vehicle Data Collection Effort
CVSA/FMCSA/FHWA
Purpose: To gather data to determine, impact heavier
weights have on a vehicle’s structural components, motor
carrier safety violations, and safety.
Duration: January 15th, 2012 – January 15th, 2014
Vehicle Selection: a heavy vehicle should be included:
1.) When it is weighed and found to be over the allowable:
(a) axle weight; and/or
(b) axle group weight; and/or
(c) gross vehicle weight for the roadway on which it is
operating.
OR
2.) When operating under a special permit for weight.
15
2012 Data (1 year)
4684 Inspections
27 States
Illinois – 1732 inspections
1025 Vehicle Inspections with Weight Citations
General Inspection Information
State
No.
Overweight
CMV
No. CMV
Inspections OOS
CMV OOS
Rate
State
No.
Overweight
CMV
No. CMV
Inspections OOS
CMV OOS
Rate
AK
10
3
30.00%
MT
19
8
42.11%
AL
16
6
37.50%
NC
436
174
39.91%
AR
233
122
52.36%
NE
330
148
44.85%
CA
403
138
34.24%
NJ
21
12
57.14%
CO
16
9
56.25%
NM
100
5
5.00%
CT
2
1
50.00%
OK
15
5
33.33%
FL
16
5
31.25%
OR
242
84
34.71%
ID
48
22
45.83%
SC
102
50
49.02%
IL
1732
453
26.15%
TN
282
113
40.07%
KS
8
6
75.00%
UT
4
4
100.00%
KY
102
27
26.47%
VA
184
50
27.17%
MD
78
29
37.18%
WA
231
123
53.25%
ME
14
5
35.71%
WY
36
15
41.67%
MS
4
1
25.00%
TOTAL
4684
1618
34.54%
Vehicle Maintenance Basic OOS Rate
Above 80
CMVs
665
OOS
369
OOS
Rate
55.49%
Below 80
CMVs
2425
OOS
614
No Rank
OOS
Rate
25.32%
CMVs
1594
OOS
635
OOS
Rate
39.84%
Crash Basic OOS Rate
Above 60
CMVs
517
OOS
152
OOS
Rate
29.40%
Below 60
CMVs
1306
OOS
312
No Rank
OOS
Rate
23.89%
CMVs
2861
OOS
1154
OOS
Rate
40.34%
Combination CMV Distribution
Combination
CMV
6 month Data
# CMVs
OOS Rate
Yes
1229
45.40%
No
246
41.87%
Yes
3473
38.27%
No
1211
23.86%
12 month Data
Permitted CMV Distribution
Permitted CMV
# CMVs
OOS Rate
6 month Data
Yes
258
32.56%
No
1127
47.41%
Yes
394
35.79%
No
4290
34.43%
12 month Data
OOS Violation Frequency (Top 12)
Number of
CMVs with
OOS Violation
Violation
BRAKES OUT OF SERVICE: THE NUMBER OF
DEFECTIVE BRAKES IS EQUAL TO OR GREATER
THAN 20%
591
Inoperative/defective brakes
113
Inoperative Turn Signal
104
Brake tubing and hose adequacy
101
Inspection, repair and maintenance of parts &
accessories
110
INSUFFICIENT BRAKE LININGS
63
Axle positioning parts defective / missing
84
Stop lamp violations
71
Weight carried exceeds tire load limit
50
INADEQUATE BRAKES FOR SAFE STOPPING
(Brake components)
65
Tire-flat and/or audible air leak
64
Flat tire or fabric exposed
63
OOS Violations (All CMVs)
Violation Type
Brakes, All Others
Brakes, Adjustment
Tires
Suspension
Wheels
All Others
Total (4684 CMVs)
No. CMVs
OOS Rate All CMVs
591
12.62%
399
8.52%
157
3.35%
25
0.53%
17
0.36%
429
9.16%
1618
34.54%
Distribution of Weight Violations
Weight Violation
No. of Violations CMVs with Violation CMVs OOS OOS Rate
392.2-SLLEWA1
506
434
188
43.32%
392.2-SLLEWA2
318
278
116
41.73%
392.2-SLLEWA3
75
60
32
53.33%
392.2-SLLEWG1
101
95
45
47.37%
392.2-SLLEWG2
78
68
42
61.76%
392.2-SLLEWG3
392.2W
87
147
69
129
38
50
55.07%
38.76%
What does it mean?
All Inspections in Data
Collection Effort
# CMV OOS
4684
Inspections with No 392W
Violations
3659
Inspections with 392W
Violations
1618
CMV OOS Rate
34.54%
1165
CMV OOS Rate
31.84%
453
CMV OOS Rate
44.20%
# CMV OOS
# CMV OOS
1025
Heavy and Overweight Stopping
Distance Testing
2012
5 axle tractor semitrailer
Max Weight 5 Axles
Florida, Wyoming, & Michigan –
up to 122,000 on 5 axles.
NY & NJ –
Allowed
Allowed up to 126,000 on 5 axles.
Massachusetts & Connecticut
up to 128,000 on 5 axles.
– Allowed
Mississippi – Allows more weight depending
on axle spacing's & routes.
Wisconsin
axles.
– Allowed up to 142,000 on 5
Legend
92,000
102,000
112,000
96,000
104,000
116,000+
98,000
106,000
100,000
108,000
Heavy Overweight Brake Testing
• Impact on brake performance with increasing
load
• Impact on brake performance with brake
degradation on tractor and trailer (20%)
FY 2012 Testing
•
•
•
•
Reduced Stopping Distance Tractor
New brakes/drums/tires
Performed complete - FMVSS 121 burnish
20 mph, 60 mph stopping distance tests
1. Best Effectiveness
2. 20% brakes out trailer
3. 20% brakes out tractor.
Average Corrected Stopping Distances for 60-mph Panic Stops
340
320
300
Stopping Distance (ft)
280
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
Auto
60k
80k Bal
80k Unbal
91k
97k
Loading Condition
Fully Functioning
Disabled Drive
Disabled Trailer
106k
116k
Future Plans…
Testing
• 2013 6 axle combination vehicle testing
• 2013 heavy straight truck testing
• Continue heavy vehicle inspection data
gathering
30
Work Zone Safety
• Fatal Crashes
Figure 1: Fatal Crashes Involving Large Trucks and Work Zones, 2005-2011
•
Declined 2005-2010
• 233-117
300
200
100
•
•
31
Increased 2011
• 144
27% of work zone
crashes involve Large
Trucks
0
2005
2006
2007
Source: NHTSA FARS data, 2005-2011
2008
2009
2010
2011
Work Zone Safety
• Fatal Crashes
• More common than
all large fatal
crashes
Table 1: The Five States with the most Large Truck Fatal
Work Zone Crashes, 2007-2011
State
Texas
Florida
Illinois
Pennsylvania
Georgia
Number
111
52
48
45
45
Source: NHTSA FARS data, 2007-2011 (www.nhtsa.gov/FARS)
32
FMCSA Contact
Chuck Horan
Office Director - Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards
[email protected]
Luke Loy
Sr. Engineer Vehicle & Roadside Operations
Division
[email protected]
33