this has me confused. can we, or how do we as drivers get our so far compiled scores.
csa 2010 scores
- Thread starter Dynamite 1
- Start date
There is no score card per say but you can view your CSA points through the FMCSA Pre-Employment Screening Program. You can view them quickly by paying the $10. I belive there is a way to view them for free but it takes more work and time.
If you believe there are errors on your report, they can be challenged. Even if you are not in the process of changing carriers, it is in every driver's best interests to check one's record and make sure it is error free.
If you believe there are errors on your report, they can be challenged. Even if you are not in the process of changing carriers, it is in every driver's best interests to check one's record and make sure it is error free.
I just found this on Todd Dill's blog and thought you might be interested:
Company to offer CSA 2010 driver scorecards | Overdrive - Owner Operators Trucking Magazine
Company to offer CSA 2010 driver scorecards | Overdrive - Owner Operators Trucking Magazine
This is going to be a new service from Vigillio. They really have a good product for the carrier currently. I met the President of Vigillio at a conference a few weeks ago and discussed the need for their software to offer something we could run for all of the drivers and distribute. He says that it should be added to the system in early 2011.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
I got a really odd question;
How is it that the driver even needs to have a 'score card' when they already know what they got in an inspection?
The other odd question I just thought of is why is this a pre-employment issue, I thought this would be an issue that is tied to a specific carrier, only affecting their score and not transfered beyond that carrier. SO if the driver has 27 points with say England and goes to Schneider, it does not affect the carriers score when the move is made.
How is it that the driver even needs to have a 'score card' when they already know what they got in an inspection?
The other odd question I just thought of is why is this a pre-employment issue, I thought this would be an issue that is tied to a specific carrier, only affecting their score and not transfered beyond that carrier. SO if the driver has 27 points with say England and goes to Schneider, it does not affect the carriers score when the move is made.
i dont think drivers actually have a score, but you can put a numeric, by looking at the point system to anything on your record to make a score. the points you receive at a carrier dont go to the next carrier for the carriers score but you do keep your violations. the pre emp. screening system allows them to see 3 and 5 years back on your record. basically the same thing as a dac or dmv report. the carriers are using this now to screen new drivers to judge whether they are a csa 2010 point risk or not. plus using it as they always did for ins. purposes i would guess.
this is where all the talk of drivers being put out comes from. they figure if a driver has a few more points, reguardless of severity than another, carriers wont hire them. the best example of this is a new cdl holder with 6 mo. experience has no violations dating back 3/5 yrs. a 30 yr. vet driver has a few minor violations. the carrier hires the no point driver. all this stems from not understanding csa 2010. not saying this is happening all over, but i have heard about a few. i have even heard on the call in shows on xm, where drivers have been terminated because their carrier put points to their violations and decided they were to much of a risk.
dont get me wrong, there is always more to the story. not all carriers will act this way. some do value experience over a few minor violations. some carriers might be looking over their drivers and finding a few chronic violators that have fallen through the cracks. no matter what though , csa 2010, till it is understood by all involved in the transportation industry will and has caused problems. csa will also bring in a bunch of new nit pick items and each state will hone in on its favorite, as we have already seen. bad is bad, and csa will do away with these drivers. in the long run will make good better. its what happens in between that will take a toll.
i am all for safety and compliance. i just think some things are not that important and should not even be considered a violation and these are the ones that are getting drivers. a few are, extra lights above and beyond what dot requires. i know if its on the trk its suppose to work. but if the dot required ones do, gimme a break. burnt out license plate light, the officer has got his headlights plastered on you or its daylight. the most recent, mudflap height. they should not be a foot off the ground but what is an inch or two at the most. do i really deserve a warning or ticket. things like these need to be looked at when it comes to csa 2010.
this is where all the talk of drivers being put out comes from. they figure if a driver has a few more points, reguardless of severity than another, carriers wont hire them. the best example of this is a new cdl holder with 6 mo. experience has no violations dating back 3/5 yrs. a 30 yr. vet driver has a few minor violations. the carrier hires the no point driver. all this stems from not understanding csa 2010. not saying this is happening all over, but i have heard about a few. i have even heard on the call in shows on xm, where drivers have been terminated because their carrier put points to their violations and decided they were to much of a risk.
dont get me wrong, there is always more to the story. not all carriers will act this way. some do value experience over a few minor violations. some carriers might be looking over their drivers and finding a few chronic violators that have fallen through the cracks. no matter what though , csa 2010, till it is understood by all involved in the transportation industry will and has caused problems. csa will also bring in a bunch of new nit pick items and each state will hone in on its favorite, as we have already seen. bad is bad, and csa will do away with these drivers. in the long run will make good better. its what happens in between that will take a toll.
i am all for safety and compliance. i just think some things are not that important and should not even be considered a violation and these are the ones that are getting drivers. a few are, extra lights above and beyond what dot requires. i know if its on the trk its suppose to work. but if the dot required ones do, gimme a break. burnt out license plate light, the officer has got his headlights plastered on you or its daylight. the most recent, mudflap height. they should not be a foot off the ground but what is an inch or two at the most. do i really deserve a warning or ticket. things like these need to be looked at when it comes to csa 2010.
I still Know very little about how the reporting sytem will work but isn't that the point of csa....to reduce or eliminate risk?
If the carrier will accept the driver with the high csa score, then it should definitely reflect on that carrier. Isn't that the whole point of the system??? to weed out the high risk operators?
Please tell me why a carrier should accept a high risk driver without any consequences?
If there are no consequences for the carrier, how will that stop bad drivers from bouncing around from carrier to carrier?
Since CSA will also give insurance companies a more defineable risk factor when it comes to the premiums they charge the carriers, I believe they will be the ones dictating to the carrier what the maximum CSA score allowable will be for the driver or o/o to be insurable.
Last edited:
This is the part I don't get? 
From that blog:
"Just as with DAC reports and with the PSP, drivers will have an opportunity to contest erroneous information. The résumé and attendant scoring will be limited to data reported by participating carriers, Bryan says".
Why is it limited to reporting carriers??? I thought the info came from the FMCSA???
From that blog:
"Just as with DAC reports and with the PSP, drivers will have an opportunity to contest erroneous information. The résumé and attendant scoring will be limited to data reported by participating carriers, Bryan says".
Why is it limited to reporting carriers??? I thought the info came from the FMCSA???
maybe said next carrier will hold the driver to a higher standard and correct his ways. no, the scores shouldnt and wont follow carrier to carrier. what will weed them out is what i stated before the new pre emp screening process. also as you stated, ins. co. will play a part in this also. i see this as a money maker for them also.
driver violations will always be with you till they fall off. but all in all a carrier shouldnt be penalized, other than ins. cost for deciding to give a driver a chance to redeem himself. granted he should not have been in that situation to start with, but people can change their ways. not all but some.
driver violations will always be with you till they fall off. but all in all a carrier shouldnt be penalized, other than ins. cost for deciding to give a driver a chance to redeem himself. granted he should not have been in that situation to start with, but people can change their ways. not all but some.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
I think the system was designed to become a reactive mitigation system - meaning that when a driver reaches a level of points, there is an intervention to improve that driver's safety.
The problem with using it as a pre-employment or insurance system is that people will see points and not explanations. RIGHT now warnings are part of the system and warnings are just warnings, not violations. So that skews the meaning of what a warning is and puts it right in the same category as a violation - which it is not.
I pointed out a while ago that the carrier itself can abuse the system just through log audits, but say a driver gets inspected and they have one bulb out of a two bulb marker light, then there is a point assigned to that 'violation' even though the light is functioning. OR the one I had the last week as I waited in line to park my truck. The Wayne County Sheriff randomly inspects garbage haulers on the road I take, they stop all truck traffic and I missed my opportunity to get passed them. The officer told me that he could not see my rear box lights, mind you it was a very sunny day and the sun was directly so he was ready to pull me in for a weigh and inspection. I moved the truck so the sun wasn't right on lights and he saw the lights working.
DannyD
Veteran Expediter
Slo-Ride
Veteran Expediter
With the exception that there are reasons for these regs that allot of ppl don't understand or think about, no matter how chicken sheet they seem.
I'm going to use the mud flap as an example. I know a inch or 2 doesn't seem like a big deal but it may make the difference in a case where the mud flap gets backed over and bent or damages the brackets for hanging to low, and now ya have a situation where that bracket and mud flap can become a flying missile. To low and it hits the road surface and the flap and weight can become airborne,,or it may make make the difference where a truck rolls when a mechanic is working near it and pins him between ground the mudflap and tires. To High and every rock ya run over has no chance of being stopped. I know it properly sounds far fetched but this is what brings all the requirements into play.
1 burned out light bulb could make the difference of someone seeing the back of another vehicle in dense fog,,Etc Etc.. There are reasons,just like the reason we need brakes,,no matter how small the item is.
A driver getting a ticket once in awhile for the minor violations I think will never hurt em,,its the guy that repeats and fails to fix..
if you back over an object and damage a mudflap or bracket or weight to the point it could be a hazard, then it becomes unsafe equipment and should be caught upon the next pti or sooner and fixed. i have seen flaps on top of tires going down the road [usually dump trucks] just being eaten away by tires. that is simple laziness on the driver part. i drove dumps and this will happen upon dumping and backing. you pull them down before you leave. as far as dragging on the ground, seen that also. should also know that is not ok. what is the peave is when. mudflap is 8" i believe is what is proper and you get nailed because its a couple of inches either way from there.
as for the lights being out and being seen. dot requires a certain # of marker lights on the rear of a vehicle, the entire vehicle to be correct. it also states placement of said lights. that is what they have decided is appropriate for other drivers to see the vehicle. i dont want to be penalized for trying to do better. dont get me wrong, you shouldnt have a butt load of EXTRA lights out. but, if its a non required light and i am on a trip in the night and it burns out and i go threw a scale or get seen by a dot officer i shouldnt have to worry about getting a warning or ticket. its kinda like helping someone who is in a life threatening situation out only to recieve papers you are being sued for doing so. another example, we have all seen the trucks with enough lights on them to be seen a 1/2 mile down the road. should he be warned or ticketed for one non dot light being out. thats the problem all over. people trying to do better being penalized for doing so.
your statement about one light being out being the difference of being seen or not. i personally would rather come upon a truck with more than required lights than just what dot requires. i never thought dot required enough on the rear. that is the one place we all need to see. so if the required lights are working and all but one of the six extra are too, dont hassle the guy.
as i previously stated and as anyone who has seen my truck can confirm. we are all about safety and everything working and being up to snuff with the rules. its just this nit picking stuff that the dot does [in the name of safety] that gets me when we see them doing unsafe things as well and not following proper procedure. its even getting worse now with all the states in a budget bind, and this being used for revenue.
the dot in all the states have never been on the same page. we have all had to know the little quirks that some states have. with csa 2010 coming in it has proposed new quirks that we have to be aware of also. things that have never been looked at are being looked at. some for safety reasons and some for a simple chance at revenue. some of you have already experienced good examples of this. some even had to use the rule book to keep from being ticketed. we shouldnt have to show dot, they should know. some stuff is questionable and some is down rite stupid. [example] i know someone, on EO, had a tire or inflation issue they had to prove. get this. LA. scale, i pull in as directed. they stop me on the scale and hold me there. im trying to reason why, all is good 500# in the box. sit a while longer. all up 5 min. then scale person comes out ask me to open door. proceeds to look at tire and inflation sticker on door then looks at tire. comes back and tells me i have wrong tires on truck. i say, huuuh. scale person says yes, door sticker says you should have 275/80r/22.5 and you have 11r/22.5. at this point i wanted to bust a nut laughing but did not. anyway we spoke a few minutes and problem resolved. but scale person really did think that if the tires on the sticker were not on the truck it was a violation. what prompted this was making sure the tires on the truck would carry 12000# which they do [mich. xza 3] and scale person made it a point to tell me the weight rating was ok but the size was wrong. its the things like this that get to me.
i have gone on long enough, this is just one persons opinion. agree or disagree is your choice. but if we all do our best we should all be ok. at some point some may get bit but i dont think it will amount to much as long as it not habitual. of course no matter how good we are, sometimes we just wont be good enough.
as for the lights being out and being seen. dot requires a certain # of marker lights on the rear of a vehicle, the entire vehicle to be correct. it also states placement of said lights. that is what they have decided is appropriate for other drivers to see the vehicle. i dont want to be penalized for trying to do better. dont get me wrong, you shouldnt have a butt load of EXTRA lights out. but, if its a non required light and i am on a trip in the night and it burns out and i go threw a scale or get seen by a dot officer i shouldnt have to worry about getting a warning or ticket. its kinda like helping someone who is in a life threatening situation out only to recieve papers you are being sued for doing so. another example, we have all seen the trucks with enough lights on them to be seen a 1/2 mile down the road. should he be warned or ticketed for one non dot light being out. thats the problem all over. people trying to do better being penalized for doing so.
your statement about one light being out being the difference of being seen or not. i personally would rather come upon a truck with more than required lights than just what dot requires. i never thought dot required enough on the rear. that is the one place we all need to see. so if the required lights are working and all but one of the six extra are too, dont hassle the guy.
as i previously stated and as anyone who has seen my truck can confirm. we are all about safety and everything working and being up to snuff with the rules. its just this nit picking stuff that the dot does [in the name of safety] that gets me when we see them doing unsafe things as well and not following proper procedure. its even getting worse now with all the states in a budget bind, and this being used for revenue.
the dot in all the states have never been on the same page. we have all had to know the little quirks that some states have. with csa 2010 coming in it has proposed new quirks that we have to be aware of also. things that have never been looked at are being looked at. some for safety reasons and some for a simple chance at revenue. some of you have already experienced good examples of this. some even had to use the rule book to keep from being ticketed. we shouldnt have to show dot, they should know. some stuff is questionable and some is down rite stupid. [example] i know someone, on EO, had a tire or inflation issue they had to prove. get this. LA. scale, i pull in as directed. they stop me on the scale and hold me there. im trying to reason why, all is good 500# in the box. sit a while longer. all up 5 min. then scale person comes out ask me to open door. proceeds to look at tire and inflation sticker on door then looks at tire. comes back and tells me i have wrong tires on truck. i say, huuuh. scale person says yes, door sticker says you should have 275/80r/22.5 and you have 11r/22.5. at this point i wanted to bust a nut laughing but did not. anyway we spoke a few minutes and problem resolved. but scale person really did think that if the tires on the sticker were not on the truck it was a violation. what prompted this was making sure the tires on the truck would carry 12000# which they do [mich. xza 3] and scale person made it a point to tell me the weight rating was ok but the size was wrong. its the things like this that get to me.
i have gone on long enough, this is just one persons opinion. agree or disagree is your choice. but if we all do our best we should all be ok. at some point some may get bit but i dont think it will amount to much as long as it not habitual. of course no matter how good we are, sometimes we just wont be good enough.
I believe the new CSA 2010 point system for scoring violations will improve the quality of enforcement over time. Because it is no longer a good idea to accept a ticket for a minor violation and move on (actually, it never was a good idea), many more tickets will be fought after they are written and argued about before they are written.
Officers that used to be a bit too free handed with their pen or creative in their interpretations may be surprised to see drivers pushing back in ways they did not do before CSA 2010.
For example, having 94 extra chicken lights on our truck, the likelihood is higher for our truck than it is for many others that an officer might spot one that is defective. They all work almost all of the time but more lights mean more chances for a defect to develop and be cited before I get the chance to repair the defect.
Many DOT officers and truck drivers believe the myth that if a light is on a truck, it must work, but TeamCaffee is right. Auxiliary do not have to work.
I did not know this before CSA 2010 prompted me to pay closer attention to protect myself under the new scoring system, and until I read a message from our safety department (presumably Terry O'Connell), I believed the myth myself.
Knowing the rule does not change the fact that many scale cops continue to believe the myth. But if it happened that an auxiliary light failed and an officer wanted to cite me for it, I would argue the point on the spot and show him in the rule book that auxiliary lights do not have to work.
I would be able to show him or her quickly because after reading the safety message, I made a note inside the front cover of the rule book we carry in the truck that points me quickly to the rule.
That does not mean the officer would not write the citation. It does mean that drivers like me will educate such officers over time and fight any such citations written.
It costs states money to defend citations. Officers will develop patterns under CSA 2010 too. Those who cost the state money and time in defending bogus tickets will eventually hear about it from their higher ups, I believe.
It has always been a good idea to fight every ticket to protect your CDL. CSA 2010 gives drivers a strong new incentive to do so, and many will who may not have done so before. I believe this driver push-back will sharpen and improve the knowledge and practices of the officers who cite the violations.
Officers that used to be a bit too free handed with their pen or creative in their interpretations may be surprised to see drivers pushing back in ways they did not do before CSA 2010.
For example, having 94 extra chicken lights on our truck, the likelihood is higher for our truck than it is for many others that an officer might spot one that is defective. They all work almost all of the time but more lights mean more chances for a defect to develop and be cited before I get the chance to repair the defect.
Many DOT officers and truck drivers believe the myth that if a light is on a truck, it must work, but TeamCaffee is right. Auxiliary do not have to work.
I did not know this before CSA 2010 prompted me to pay closer attention to protect myself under the new scoring system, and until I read a message from our safety department (presumably Terry O'Connell), I believed the myth myself.
Knowing the rule does not change the fact that many scale cops continue to believe the myth. But if it happened that an auxiliary light failed and an officer wanted to cite me for it, I would argue the point on the spot and show him in the rule book that auxiliary lights do not have to work.
I would be able to show him or her quickly because after reading the safety message, I made a note inside the front cover of the rule book we carry in the truck that points me quickly to the rule.
That does not mean the officer would not write the citation. It does mean that drivers like me will educate such officers over time and fight any such citations written.
It costs states money to defend citations. Officers will develop patterns under CSA 2010 too. Those who cost the state money and time in defending bogus tickets will eventually hear about it from their higher ups, I believe.
It has always been a good idea to fight every ticket to protect your CDL. CSA 2010 gives drivers a strong new incentive to do so, and many will who may not have done so before. I believe this driver push-back will sharpen and improve the knowledge and practices of the officers who cite the violations.
Last edited:
by auxiliary, do you mean additional above and beyond dot required. not sure of the exact regulation #, but there is a statement to the effect that if it is on or added to the truck it is suppose to work. something to the effect of all equipment on the vehicle should be in working order. that was where i thought a statement was placed to cover their butts. cause one states requirements and then is backed up by all in working order. i could be confused with something else. dont have my book handy to look it up and its to cold to go get it. or at least i have convinced myself it is.
nightcreacher
Veteran Expediter
If there is a light on your truck,it has to work,that includes the extra chicken lights.In most states it's a 35 dollar fine for every light that doesn't burn
greg334
Veteran Expediter
The one question nooo one seems to want to answer at the state or federal level is this;
What constitutes a lamp, is it the bulb or the unit?
The FMCSA definition for lamp is as follows
Lamp. A device used to produce artificial light.
Here is the example for the question:
You have a lamp unit, red or amber and it has two bulbs in it, if does one of the bulbs does not function mean the unit is not functioning?
Under the definition, the unit is producing an artificial light.
What constitutes a lamp, is it the bulb or the unit?
The FMCSA definition for lamp is as follows
Lamp. A device used to produce artificial light.
Here is the example for the question:
You have a lamp unit, red or amber and it has two bulbs in it, if does one of the bulbs does not function mean the unit is not functioning?
Under the definition, the unit is producing an artificial light.
bluejaybee
Veteran Expediter
This is what I have been told and believe and know folks who were in fact given violations for in several states including Tennessee where I live. Now if we cannot come to the same conclusions by reading the book, why should DOT officers be any different? It is unreal of the ones who post here what the law states, just to see the next post claim different. Scary stuff!
I was told that if it is not a DOT required lamp and the DOT Officer puts an inoperable lamp on the report, you should ask him to state that the lamp in question was not a required lamp or to identify the inoperable lamp.
This is challengeable on your CSA 2010 score.
This is challengeable on your CSA 2010 score.