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 charles.horan@dot.gov Luke Loy Sr. Engineer Vehicle & Roadside Operations Division Luke.Loy@dot.gov 33