Safety Management System; What Hath the FMCSA Wrought?

ATeam · Jan 24, 2011

On its SMS Information Center web page, the FMCSA explains what SMS is, saying:

"The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's (FMCSA) Safety Measurement System (SMS) is an automated system that quantifies the on-road safety performance of motor carriers so that FMCSA can identify unsafe carriers, prioritize them for intervention, and monitor if a motor carrier's compliance problem is improving."

The FMCSA then goes on to explain what SMS is not, saying:

"The SMS data system is not a Safety Fitness Determination (SFD), is not a Safety Rating pursuant to 49 CFR Part 385, and does not represent FMCSA's final determination about the safety of the carrier. Use of the SMS data system for purposes other than those identified above may produce unintended results and inaccurate conclusions."

I am an owner-operator by trade and also write occasional articles for trucking magazines. Working now on a piece about the SMS information that FMCSA recently released for public viewing, I have compiled and reviewed the published numbers of 20 expedited freight carriers. The information is interesting to say the least but leaves me thinking that taking SMS public as the FMCSA has done will produce a flood of "unintended results and inaccurate conclusions."

For example, I see one carrier that has no alert status in any BASIC but its Fatigued Driving (HOS) percentile ranking is 51.8. A competing carrier's score in the same BASIC is 15.8 (lower is better). Yet when I divide carrier crash numbers by the number of power units in their fleets, I find that seven percent of the competing carrier's trucks are involved in crashes (though the same truck may have been involved in more than one crash), compared to the other carrier's 4.1 percent.

One may conclude (incorrectly) from this comparison that the more compliant a carrier is in hours of service, the more likely its trucks are to crash. Never mind that the crash numbers say nothing about the fact that approximately 70 percent of car/truck crashes leave the car at fault. That does not seem important to the FMCSA to communicate. The public is only being treated to the raw crash numbers. At-fault implications are not addressed, leaving people to fill in the blanks any way they wish.

The "worst" carrier in my group of 20 selected carriers had alerts in three of the five published BASICs and a 43.4 percentile ranking in the Controlled Substances and Alcohol BASIC. Might we conclude that this carrier provides a complimentary bottle of whiskey to its drivers at orientation? Or might the number be wrong?

All other carriers except one in this group had no violations or inconclusive results in this BASIC. The exception's percentile ranking was just 5.4. Is it true that the carrier in question hires and tolerates drinkers and drug users far more than others, or is it true that the number published by the FMCSA is inaccurate? And if it is inaccurate, how would we know?

Notwithstanding the fact that numerous credible people have criticized the FMCSA's methodology, a raw number from an official government source is hard to argue with and easy to spin. I fear that making SMS data public as the agency has done will muddy the waters and support unintended results and incorrect conclusions more than anyone imagined possible before the data was published.

There is little doubt that this public SMS information will change the safety conversations carriers, drivers, interested citizens and the general public have. It remains to be seen if it will be a change for the better or worse.

(Yes, I said several weeks ago that I was taking a break from the Open Forum until February 1. An earlier return was compelled by the article I am now working on. I am interested to hear driver views on this topic.)

To view your carrier's SMS data, enter the carrier's DOT number in the search box on this page.

davekc · Jan 24, 2011

The very reasons you mentioned is why there are legal challenges to this system. Without a doubt this could be used as a sales tool against many carriers.
My personal opinion is this was done to increase the regulations.
Kind of a false sense of need.

layoutshooter · Jan 24, 2011

Government agencies increase regulations in order to justify their pay. They have to at least appear to be doing something of value.

Dynamite 1 · Jan 24, 2011

i just did a rough survey of 7 expedite carriers small, med, large and 5 outta the 7 had an alert showing. most for unsafe driving. one big carrier seemed to have a problem with speeding. smaller ones logs med, ones a little of both.

BigRed32771 · Jan 24, 2011

Maybe this should be the focus of your article: How the SMS potentially distorts reality. What are those inaccurate conclusions and unintended consequences?

ATeam · Jan 24, 2011

A reader contacted me privately to point out the difference between "percent" and "percentile rank." While I knew the difference when I made the original post, my choice of words did not clearly communicate it. The original post has been edited to more clearly communicate percentile rankings when they are mentioned.

Lawrence · Jan 24, 2011

one word. shocking.

idtrans · Jan 24, 2011

Nice stuff LOL many whom want to act like they smell like roses actually smell like poopy now hehehe

skyraider · Jan 25, 2011

Now tell me again,,what am I suppose to do with all this info,,file 13 or what,,,,It must mean something,,,really.

jelliott · Jan 25, 2011

Well the FMCSA is going into mediation hearings on Thursday in Washington over the release of this information and the legal challenge brought in part by TEANA.

I think most carriers support safe transportation, but by setting thresholds based on policy versus science, this program does not achieve that goal. I personally know of one carrier that has 3 alerts with two being over the 85% level, yet this carrier had a full audit months ago and received a satisfactory rating. The job of the FMCSA is to determine if a carrier is "fit" to operate. It is not the job of the FMCSA to arbitrarily rate a carrier for public consumption. Especially when they have to place warnings all over the data to protect themselves.

Fatalities were at the lowest level in history when they decided to "change" the system. The FMCSA readily admits they are continuing to fix and tweak the methodology behind the system. Until that process is complete and validated all they have done is open up drivers, carriers, shippers, and brokers to the threat of vicarious liability by trial lawyers.

greg334 · Jan 25, 2011

Sky,
I don't see it either.

To me, an owner leased to a carrier it may affect my access to very little of the massive amount of freight but I am not seeing the attack on my ability to produce revenue and think it is the carrier's problem.

Hightech_Hobo · Jan 27, 2011

Reminds me of when I was a young man and consulting with the family business controller... He said something to me that day that has stuck with me ever since...

"figures never lie, Reid.....But Liar's figure..."

One can never take "statisitcs" at face value....!!

MYGIA · Jan 27, 2011

I think Phil has brought to light some concerns about this new program. I also feel John Elliott is correct in his assessment that all it had done is begin the process of opening the proverbial Pandora’s Box for greedy lawyers. We all know that Federal bureaucracy does little to solve problems – only causes new ones or exacerbates the current one. It is a sad commentary on our government. Their appetite for more and more power, more and more control and an ever increasing desire to over regulate is and will continue to have a detrimental impact on us all.

greg334 · Jan 27, 2011

I'm trying to figure out where this is going to affect us.

I don't see it. I don't see the panic or the issue that we need to push this up on the top of the ever growing pile of issues we face or even include it.

I see it will have an effect on the company and its internal policies, but where will that hinder us from either turning revenue as an independent contractor or as a driver is yet to be seen?

As for the possible tool to be used to capture competitor's sales, that too is a bit of a stretch for many of us at this point. The customer doesn't usually care about the safety of the freight as much as they do the cost of moving it. Outside of the high value/heavy haul/specialized handling freight, most of it will not be hindered by this issue as much as it is the possibility of the issue of a change in HOS.

MYGIA · Jan 27, 2011

greg334 said:
I'm trying to figure out where this is going to affect us.

I don't see it. I don't see the panic or the issue that we need to push this up on the top of the ever growing pile of issues we face or even include it.

I see it will have an effect on the company and its internal policies, but where will that hinder us from either turning revenue as an independent contractor or as a driver is yet to be seen?

As for the possible tool to be used to capture competitor's sales, that too is a bit of a stretch for many of us at this point. The customer doesn't usually care about the safety of the freight as much as they do the cost of moving it. Outside of the high value/heavy haul/specialized handling freight, most of it will not be hindered by this issue as much as it is the possibility of the issue of a change in HOS.

Misuse and misinterpretation of data can affect us in many ways. It serves first and foremost to fuel the misguided whose motto is: “Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up”.

Internal policies, within organizations with whom we have associations, established defensively (CYA) or in reaction to pressures and/or new and ever increasing regulations ultimately funnel down to have an impact, either directly or indirectly, on the O/O or driver.

I don’t see any panic. I see research and analysis being done to identify a potential problem, and that information then shared with us so that we might have a conversation which might lead to a proactive effort to help insure that the use of SMS information promotes positive not negative change.

ATeam · Jan 29, 2011

I asked, what hath the FMCSA wrought? We did not have to wait long to find out. Click this link to see how a TV news reporter quickly accessed a carriers SMS data, printed the pages for camera effect and reported numbers that are technically correct but woefully fail to tell the whole story.

Note that "fatigued driving" violations can be cited for driving tired but more often than not, I believe, they have to do with log book violations. Failure to log your last change of duty status is classed as a fatigued driving violation. You might get up from a full night's sleep, mistakenly draw your line from off duty to sleeper (line 2) instead of to driving (line 3) and get cited for a fatigued driving violation. You are wide awake but in a news report's hands, the violation will be construed to imply that you are tired.

If other news reporters pick up on the practice of rambling off SMS stats out of context and with no explanation, it won't be long before the general public believes that all trucks are run by outlaw carriers and unsafe drivers.

usaf6186 · Jan 29, 2011

I think it is ripe for abuse by the insurance companies. They will use any excuse to Jack up rates. If you are late paying a credit card, up goes your rate. If your house gets foreclosed, up goes your rate.Talk about kicking somebody when they are down. This will just be another tool for them to squeeze more blood from the turnip. Jerry Lee