Mixed Reviews For Driver Training Proposal
Oliver B.Patton
Washington Editor
Truck drivers with less than two years of experience could be required to take additional training, under a rule proposed by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
This "entry level" training would supplement the training drivers already have to take in order to pass their commercial driver's license exam. It would cover basic information about driver qualification requirements, such as vision and hearing standards, as well as the hours of service rules, driver wellness and "whistleblower" protections.
The safety agency wants employers to make sure that new drivers complete the training before they go to work. But the requirement would extend to more experienced drivers as well — the agency defines "entry level" drivers as those who have been on the job for up to two years.
Drivers who fall into this category would have to take the training, unless they qualify for a "grandfather" exemption that trucking companies could give to drivers who have one year of experience and a good driving record.
The agency estimates that it would take between 10 and 11 hours to train drivers in the four areas. Besides information about driver qualification standards, the training might cover issues such as fatigue management, the dangers of high blood pressure and cholesterol, the importance of diet and exercise and a driver's rights if pressured to violate the hours of service rules.
The proposal has drawn mixed reaction. Some trucking interests support it, while others argue strongly against it.
American Trucking Assns. and the National Private Truck Council, for example, generally support the proposal. The trucking associations would like drivers to be tested on the information in the CDL exam. ATA suggested that definition of "entry level" be cut back from two years of experience to one year. That would eliminate the need for the grandfather exemption for drivers with more than a year of experience, saving time and money without harming safety, ATA said.
The Teamsters union and the safety enforcement community, represented by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, also generally support the proposal.
Truckload carriers, on the other hand, take issue with the proposal. Because of their relatively high driver turnover rates, these companies tend to hire more entry-level drivers than other segments of the business.
The Truckload Carriers Assn., an affiliate of ATA, argues that safety would be better served by letting a volunteer standards-setting group, the Professional Truck Driver Institute, take the lead on driver training requirements. PTDI, which is administered by the association, sets standards for — and certifies — driver training schools. The rule is not necessary because the institute could quickly and easily expand its curriculum to include the information that the agency is proposing, TCA said.
The agency endorses the PTDI model curriculum as a measurement of training adequacy, but one major truckload carrier, C.R. England of Salt Lake City, contests that assessment. England is not convinced that a PTDI certification makes for good driver training.
In a review of the records of more than 10,000 drivers, the company said it found that 1.93% of graduates of PTDI schools were involved in recordable accidents, compared to 1.73% of drivers of non-PTDI schools. Of graduates of the company's own school — which is not PTDI certified — 1.10% were involved in recordable accidents.
"If the goal of this action is indeed to reduce the number of crashes caused by entry-level drivers of heavy trucks, it would appear that our own CR England curriculum is almost twice as effective as the PTDI curriculum," England said it in its comments. "Consequently, we do not see this mandated additional training as justified nor an improvement."
England recommends that the agency simply make the information part of the CDL requirement. But, the company said, if the agency goes ahead with the proposal it should apply only to carriers that exceed the industry average accident rate.
One driver training school, the Fox Valley Technical College, Appleton, Wis., takes no comfort from the idea of including this information in the CDL exam. "To assert that a driver who has passed the CDL written and skills test has received adequate training is a dangerous assumption," the school said in its comments to the agency.
"There are many training programs and CDL mills that train drivers with one purpose — passing the CDL test. Many of these organizations use vehicles that meet the definition of a Class A CMV but require far less knowledge and skill to operate."
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety echoes this view, arguing that just because a driver has passed the CDL exam does not mean that he or she is adequately trained.
In fact, Advocates views the proposal as an out-and-out failure: "It is evident from this proposed rule that the agency refuses to regulate in the public interest, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that entry-level driving training is inadequate."
Advocates was one of a group that filed suit a year ago to force FMCSA to publish this and several other proposals — including the new hours of service rules.
This rule has been stuck in bureaucratic neutral since 1993, when the initial proposal was published. It was originally ordered up by Congress in 1991.
A final decision on the proposal is due by next May, but it may come sooner. To read the proposal and comments, go to http://dms.dot.gov and search for Docket No. 2199.
Washington Report continued...
