Opinion: A Need for Cargo Theft Data

B>By Susan Chandler

I>Executive Director

afety & Loss Prevention Management Council

Which should come first — cargo theft legislation, which would entice people to quantify the cargo theft problem, or cargo theft statistics, which would justify the legislation? That’s the quandary now facing trucking.

Our industry’s dilemma is that until there is a national, uniform classification for cargo theft, there won’t be consistent treatment of cargo theft at the state level, nor will there be a way to track the frequency, location, trends and monetary degree of cargo theft.

In large part, this is because many states lump cargo theft into an existing general crime classification, such as theft, with no reference to cargo. These crimes are reported, filed and prosecuted as theft — not cargo theft.

A uniform crime-code classification for cargo theft would provide the mechanism to identify, track and quantify this problem. However, without the classification, it becomes almost impossible to assess cargo theft’s economic impact and, without that judgment, almost impossible to “sell” the need for cargo theft legislation as a top priority to lawmakers — until recently.

Terrorism has given cargo theft renewed relevance. People are asking if we can stop vehicles from being used as weapons of mass destruction — and if stolen cargo is funding terrorism.

The perceived vulnerability of transportation is inspiring many to seek immediate solutions to the cargo-theft problem. However, these “quick fix” solutions are not always in the best interests of the transportation industry or the economy as a whole.

The kingpin lock requirement in Florida and the tracking device mandate in California are two proposals that come immediately to mind. Putting aside the fact that the federal government doesn’t support mandating locks — and studies on the effectiveness, reliability and cost of tracking systems haven’t been completed — the proposals don’t make sense operationally or financially. Kingpin locks can’t be used on all trucks and not all trucking operations benefit from locks or tracking.

Moreover, the cost of such measures appears to far exceed their deterrence and recovery value. Using just one motor carrier with 1,700 trucks as an example, installing aftermarket tracking devices means spending $1.6 million up front and then about $50,400 a month for air time. When a motor carrier’s profit margin is often only 3% to 4% of revenue, that level of expenditure can put companies out of business.

Such proposals can have unintended consequences as well. In prosecuting a cargo thief, for instance, legal responsibility could shift from the crook to the carrier if the driver failed to have the mandated equipment on his truck at the time of the theft. Or, if a truck is towed after a driver fails to lock or engage the tracking system, the cargo becomes more vulnerable as it sits in an impound lot. Seals could be broken and perishable goods could spoil without prompt notification.

Under the Florida proposal, the state would have days to report a towing to the carrier. Carriers, shippers and customers all are affected.

Even if a carrier has the best security plan in place and has trained all its drivers, it will still be held accountable for its drivers’ failure to comply. The carrier’s load is delayed — and potentially jeopardized; the carrier’s truck is out of service; the carrier is fined and responsible for the towing and other costs; the carrier’s insurance rates go up; etc.

All of that could happen because a lock or tracking device was not on the truck — a lock or device that any professional thief can disable in a matter of minutes. And the pros are the ones who are going to steal the most costly cargo most frequently.

We are confident that when the California and Florida legislatures perform the cost-benefit analyses, they will reject the proposals. But we must remain vigilant. Proponents of such lock and equipment mandates are actively seeking support in other states.

Recently, we learned of law enforcement agencies in Georgia and Texas that are pursuing grants to research cargo theft. We’ll want to make sure the research can be validated and takes into account the realities of supply chain management. Time happens to be on our side, as Georgia’s Legislature has just recessed for the year — after passing positive cargo theft legislation. Texas is also out of session until 2005.

However, state legislatures are not the only ones considering cargo theft proposals. Both houses of Congress are seeking input on two cargo-theft bills that seek to address some of the shortfalls in data that could help people grasp the true extent and nature of the crime. Trucking advocates will need to remain engaged in that discussion to ensure lawmakers thoroughly understand how our industry operates — and what really works.

A council of ATA, SLPMC deals with cargo claims, safety and security issues in trucking. ATA is a national trade association for the trucking industry, with headquarters in Alexandria, Va., and owns Transport Topics Publishing Group.

This story appeared in the April 19 edition of Transport Topics. Subscribe today.