It’s about time CSA data gets real scrutiny

Nearly 17 years ago in 2006, I sat in a conference room in Washington, D.C., and then-administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration John Hill unveiled plans for CSA 2010.

CSA 2010 stood for Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010. The CSA name has changed, but the core premise of the program remains.

With the laudable goal of reducing truck-involved crashes, the “data-driven” program was going to predict motor carriers most likely to operate in unsafe manners. No one really pushed back on the overarching concept. It did, and still does, make some sense.

But, as with almost any pie-in-the-sky big idea, the devil is in the details. And to this day, those details are flawed and remain largely unaddressed.

In that conference room full of stakeholders, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association had a healthy presence of really sharp people. The wheels were already turning. “What data?” was the big question on our minds.

There weren’t a lot of specifics on the program at that event. That was to come. After all, FMCSA had four years to launch this silver-bullet program.

A couple of months later, several of us from OOIDA and Land Line were in attendance at a different event in Dallas where FMCSA was going to start diving into those details. After a cattle-call group session, there were breakout sessions focused on specifics of the program.

I was in one of those sessions, where I was able to ask what still is the million-dollar question: What happens if an inspection report is wrong?

The initial answer was that there would be no way to prove it.

Doubling down on the situation, many serious inspection violations have a corresponding ticket issued to the driver. So, say the driver goes to court and fights the ticket. It gets dismissed or reduced to a different charge.

FMCSA’s response to that scenario was jaw-dropping.

I can’t quote it directly – It was almost 17 years ago – but the answer from the agency’s rep likened to: It doesn’t matter what backroom deal some attorney makes with a judge. If the violation is on the inspection report and a ticket is written, the driver is guilty.

What in the actual … ???

The crowd in that breakout session was buzzing. No one could believe what we’d heard. The audacity. The arrogance. The utter stupidity.

One attorney in the room pointed out the complete lack of due process. Unswayed, the FMCSA talking head gave some bureaucratic answer that translated to, “We don’t care.”

So the stage was set.

Over the next few years, FMCSA finally wore down to the point of admitting mistakes could happen. To account for these, it created the Data Quality Challenge, or DataQs. This opened the door for drivers to request reviews of citations they believed unwarranted.

It was something, anyway. Until it wasn’t.

OOIDA started fielding calls from drivers who’d attempted a DataQs challenge with dismissed tickets, only to have no action taken by the agency. Frustrating didn’t even begin to explain the situation.

The initial DataQs process, in some states, would wind up with the appeal in the hands of the officer who’d initially issued the ticket and written the inspection report that included the violation. The officer would say “nope” to the appeal, and that was the end of it.

The system literally set up law enforcement on the roadside to act as judge, jury and executioner. There was no due process.

Eventually, FMCSA decided more than one person needed to be involved in the review. But the appeal still went back to the issuing agency. So, we’re to expect it to admit its officers screwed up? As expected, this didn’t work much better.

OOIDA filed lawsuits and got lawmakers on board to call out the stupidity of the system. FMCSA moved slowly. Very slowly. In the meantime, the system has remained flawed.

But here we are. DataQs is being questioned in a formal comment period.

Change can happen. We finally have some non-preventable crashes excluded from the CSA SMS (safety measurement system) math machine. But more work still is needed on that front, and pressure on the agency to do it will continue.

This comment period is the time for the airing of the grievances. Every last one of you screwed over by this system needs to unload. Tell FMCSA how the system is predatory and needs to be reformed. Stress that impartial individuals must review the challenges. Due process means something in this country, and this is the golden opportunity to force the agency to give you yours. LL