Opinion: Back to Basics in Safety Enforcement

Related Section Check out the NEW Speaking Out section, which includes Editorials, Opinion peices and letters from readers. (Note: To return to this story, click the "Back" button on your browser.)

As a recent government employee, I must shout the age-old cliche, “Things ain’t what they used to be.” In my 28 years of service with the Department of Transportation and my seven years in the Office of Motor Carriers, I watched the quality of safety investigation reduce itself to numbers and figures that offer no more information about the safety of a motor carrier than SAT scores offer about intelligence.

More important, today’s OMC investigators are either under-trained, inexperienced or plain unmotivated. Most are slaves to a laptop computer and a cookie-cutter program whose results determine whether a carrier’s trucks stay on the road or they are garaged with a fine and a substandard rating. The time is right for OMC to raise the bar, to demand at once a better investigatory process, to insist on a uniform remedial plan — one that doesn’t rely on blanket assumptions or hasty generalizations, but a plan that has been individualized to that particular company to correct its specific problems.

No doubt, the stakes are high when DOT investigators come knocking on your door, and you would expect OMC’s best and brightest to be in firm command of the situation. There was a day when these men and women were truly safety investigators — not auditors, bean counters, outreach specialists or chauffeurs. To watch them review huge volumes of company files, pinpoint violation patterns, take witness statements and prepare detailed case reports was analogous to watching an artist at work. In those days, the burden of proof rested with the investigator, and the cases were tried in U.S. District Courts. The investigators could withstand intense cross-examination because they were adept at performing in-depth accident investigations to determine causative factors and they knew every detail of their case. There were no cookbooks, laptops or attempts to deflect accountability.

If today’s investigator had to defend every element of his case under a strict criminal standard of proof and the watchful eye of a federal judge, he’d find himself in that proverbial airplane crash position. Yet, for some nonsensical reason, OMC has allowed this kind of paradox to emerge: Under-trained investigators, cookie-cutter checklists and inefficient appeal procedures determine the safety and the livelihood of America’s trucking companies. Perhaps it’s because of a lack of skilled investigators and a proliferation of problems. Perhaps it’s due to insufficient education before these investigators are placed in the field. Maybe it’s because of an over-reliance on the numbers or an inability to separate the true problems from legitimate aberrations in a company’s road performance. Whatever the case, it’s time to get back to basics.

For the full story, see the March 8 print edition of Transport Topics. Subscribe today.