Transcript CSA 2010 Briefing - Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance

Comprehensive Safety Analysis
CSA 2010
January 28, 2009
1
Briefing Contents






What and why CSA 2010?
A new operational model
Potential benefits
Operational model test
Timeline
Impact on motor carriers and drivers
2
2
What is CSA 2010?

High priority FMCSA safety initiative –

To increase efficiency & effectiveness –
compliance/enforcement

Ultimate Goal: Achieve greater reduction in
large truck and bus fatalities
3
3
7
6
5
4
Roadside Insp
Program (1984)
CR/Safety
Rating (1986)
PRISM SafeStat
On-line (1999)
? – what’s in the
future: CSA 2010
3
2
1
0
19
75
19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
19
95
19
97
19
99
20
01
20
03
20
05
Fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle
Miles Traveled
Why CSA 2010?
Sources: Vehicle M iles of Travel and Registered Vehicles: Federal Highway Administration. Fatal Crashes, Vehicles Involved, and
Fatalities: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS).
4
4
Why CSA 2010?

Current Operational Model Limitations
–
Limited investigative toolbox
–
Safety fitness ratings of today are tied to the
on-site compliance review with very little
roadside performance consideration
–
Result: We assess only a small fraction of
industry
–
Focus is on carriers
5
5
CSA 2010 - A New Operational Model

Three major elements --–
–
–
Measurement
Interventions
Safety Fitness Determination
6
6
Measurement System Concept
Measure performance of an entity in each Behavior
Analysis & Safety Improvement Categories
(BASICs)

Methodology designed to weight on-road safety
data based on its relationship to crash risk

Focuses on safety behaviors that lead to crashes
7
7
SafeStat vs. Safety Measurement System (SMS)
Today’s Model SafeStat
CSA 2010’s SMS
Organized in 4 broad categories --Safety Evaluation Areas
Organized by Behavior Analysis Safety
Improvement Categories (7 BASICs)
Identifies carriers for a compliance
review (CR)
Identifies safety performance problems
to determine intervention level and
safety fitness
Uses only out-of-service (OOS) and
moving violations from inspections
Emphasizes on-road safety
performance, using all safety-based
inspection violations
No impact on safety rating
Used to propose adverse safety fitness
determination based on carriers’ own
data
No risk based violation weightings
Risk based violation weightings
Assesses carriers only
Two distinct safety measurement
systems – carriers and drivers
8
8
BASIC Data
Safety Event Data Sorted by BASIC
–
–
–
–
–
–
Unsafe Driving (Parts 392 & 397)
Fatigued Driving (HOS) (Parts 392 & 395)
Driver Fitness (Parts 383 & 391)
Controlled Substances /Alcohol (Part 392)
Vehicle Maintenance (Parts 393 & 396)
Improper Loading/Cargo Securement
(Parts 392, 393, 397 & HM)
–
Crash Indicator
9
9
Example
Carriers Under the Radar with Existing SafeStat
System:
10
11
11
Carrier A
1111
Carrier A
111 A St.
111 A St.
111-111-1111
12
12
Carrier A: Safety Measurement Results
13
13
Carrier A: Driver Fitness Violations
14
14
Carrier A: Inspections w/ Driver Fitness Violations
Driver 1
Driver 2
Driver 3
Driver 4
Driver 5
Driver 6
Driver 7
Driver 8
15
15
Individual Driver Example
16
17
17
Driver 1
Driver 2
Driver 3
Driver 4
Driver 5
Driver 6
Driver 7
Driver 8
Driver 9
Driver 10
Driver 11
Driver 12
18
18
Driver 2
Driver 2
123456
Carrier A
Carrier B
Carrier C
Carrier D
19
19
Driver 2: Unsafe Driving Measure and Violations
Driver 2
123456
20
20
Driver 2: Inspections w/ Unsafe Driving Violations
Carrier A
Carrier B
Carrier B
Carrier C
Carrier C
Carrier C
Carrier D
Carrier D
21
21
Interventions
Today’s Model
CSA 2010 Interventions
Limited to compliance review (CR);
complete review needed to rate carrier
Broad array of progressive interventions
CR is resource intense
More interventions; many less resource
intense (e.g. off-site)
CR assesses broad compliance through
rigid set of acute/critical regulations
Interventions target unsafe behavior
Generally, audit approach
Investigative approach; root cause and
educational element
Warning
letter
Targeted Roadside Inspection
Off-Site Investigation
On-Site Investigation – Focused
Cooperative Safety Plan
Notice of Violation
On-Site Investigation - Comprehensive
Notice of Claim
22
22
Safety Fitness Determination (SFD)




Today’s Model
SFD tied to compliance
review
Satisfactory, Conditional, or
Unsatisfactory
SFD effective until next CR
SFD based on acute/critical
violations




CSA 2010
SFD tied to performance
data; not necessarily CR
Continue Operation,
Marginal, or Unfit
SFD assigned to all carriers
with sufficient data; updated
regularly
SFD based on violations of all
safety regulations
23
23
CSA 2010 Operational Model
24
24
Uniformity of Roadside
Inspection and Violation Data
25
25
Uniformity of Roadside Inspection and Violation Data
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance goals
–
Ensure uniform and reciprocal application of North
American Standard Inspection Procedures and North
American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria.
–
Promote the collection and use of accurate real time
data to drive commercial motor vehicle enforcement
programs.
26
26
All inspections must be uploaded and uniform

Clean inspections are just as valuable as
inspections with multiple violations
–
–
Documents carrier improvement
Impacts resource usage and carrier SFD
27
27
Performance based data

Data-driven traffic safety programs are the future
and will be the standard of effectiveness that other
programs are measured against

Effective, accurate and uniform data is critical for
effective crash reduction strategies that will result
in saving lives on our highways
28
28
CSA 2010 Operational Model Test

Purpose --- Why test?
–
Validate new operational model
–
Validate intervention process
–
Determine efficiency and safety effectiveness
29
29
CSA 2010 Operational Model Test

30 months – Jan-2008 to Jun - 2010
–
–
–

4 States: CO, GA, MO, and NJ
–
–
–

Phase I – Startup Jan-08
Phase II – Fully Operational Oct-08
UMTRI evaluation
28 safety investigators state and federal
Carriers domiciled in 4 states randomly split into two
groups: ~ 34,000 each
Test group and control group
No regulatory relief in test group (enforcement/ratings)
30
30
Status & Target Dates




Team deployed May 2005
Completed developmental work by December 2007
Currently in test & validation phase
Deploy carriers by 2010. Drivers in reauthorization.
CSA Team Initiated
DOT Reauthorization
Today
*
2005
Concept
2006
Development
2007
2008
2009
2010
Test & Validate
Deploy
Add States
31
31
Carrier Feedback
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Surprised they have received FMCSA attention
Appreciation that problem is brought to their attention
before it’s “too late”
Interest in knowing how they are being evaluated and
appreciation for the data available
Taking immediate action to rectify problem
Appreciation for off-sites (carriers that have had a CR)
Those with no prior contact with FMCSA are cautious
2,374 warning letters sent out through December

1,109 (47 percent) logged into CSI to examine their data
32
32
What Does This Mean for Carriers and Drivers?


All safety violations at roadside considered
Safety fitness updated every 30 days
–




All carriers with sufficient data
Broader array of less time-consuming interventions
Poor safety performance = greater likelihood of
being contacted
Increased emphasis on CMV drivers
Crash accountability will be determined
33
33
CSA 2010 Potential Benefits

Maximize effectiveness of resources

Correct unsafe behavior early

Assess larger segment of industry

Achieve Goal: Greater reduction in large truck and
bus related fatalities
34
34
More Information

For more information – or to submit questions or
comments, please visit our Web site:
www.fmcsa.dot.gov/csa2010
35
35