Opinion: Practicing What You Preach
B>By Greg Fulton
I>President
olorado Motor Carriers Association
When I was a young child, my mother counseled me to "practice what you preach." Over the years I have tried to adhere to this philosophy in my personal and professional life.This same adage should apply to all levels of government when it comes to truck safety. Both the state and federal governments, to their credit, have “preached” truck safety over the years. They have instituted safety algorithms, such as SafeStat and the Inspection Selection System, as well as dramatically increased the number of truck safety inspections, implemented drug and alcohol testing and tightened commercial driver license requirements. Further, federal and state safety agencies have encouraged shippers to review a carrier’s safety record before hiring it, and they have facilitated this by posting carrier safety information on the Internet. The trucking industry, with its commitment to safety, has supported these measures. The results have been a continued reduction in the truck-involved fatal accident rate in the United States.
Unfortunately, at the same time that state and federal governments have implemented these truck safety programs, they, themselves, have inadvertently abetted the hiring and use of unsafe carriers through their contract procedures.
Do states deliberately hire carriers with questionable or poor safety records? No. Do they do anything to prevent the hiring of such carriers? No.
While many, if not most, major private shippers review the safety records of carriers and require that carriers have good safety records before awarding them contracts, very few federal and state agencies have such criteria in place. Some federal departments, such as Defense and Energy, do have safety criteria for certain programs. But for the most part the only criterion used by many agencies for awarding transportation or hauling contracts is cost. This “low bid” approach without regard to a safety record in many cases rewards those companies that may be spending the least on safety.
As an example, in today’s environment we could find situations in which a state enforcement agency, supported with federal funds, has conducted a safety compliance review and found serious violations leading to a poor safety rating and significant fines for a trucking company. Soon after, though, another state agency awards this same company a contract because safety is not a factor in the bidding process.
This sends a mixed message to the trucking industry and the overall highway safety community as to government’s true commitment to truck safety.
When the issue of adding safety criteria to state and federal bids comes up, some government personnel as well as contractors express concern that it will increase construction and operating costs for public projects or activities. In these difficult economic times, increasing costs for any reason may be justification for rejecting a change in the bidding process.
While I have heard these arguments, I think they ring hollow for several reasons. First, transport rates for private shippers that employ safety criteria as part of their carrier selection process do not appear to be different from those rates for public contracts or awards. Second, safety criteria need not be costly or difficult for the state or bidders to comply with. Third, companies with poor safety records have a propensity for accidents as well as equipment-related problems, which translate into lane or highway closures. Such closures are very expensive, not only to government agencies but also to the public at large. This “hidden” cost is never considered. But problems resulting from unsafe carriers clearly outweigh any cost savings the state may accrue from selecting them. Most important, we need to ask ourselves whether our tax dollars should be being used to contract with carriers that may pose a risk to the traveling public.
The time is now for federal and state governments to step up to the plate and practice what they preach. Bids should include a requirement that companies meet certain safety criteria in order to be eligible to compete for government contracts. As private shippers do, governments should utilize SafeStat and ISS ratings in assessing carrier safety. If governments truly hope to further reduce truck-related accidents and fatalities, it is important that they make the same commitment to safety in their contracting requirements that many private sector shippers and trucking companies already do. The governments need to set an example for safety in projects under their own control rather than merely “preaching” that others meet such standards.
Colorado Motor Carriers Association represents more than 400 companies directly involved or affiliated with trucking in Colorado. Also, CMCA is affiliated with American Trucking Associations.
