AASHTO/SCOHT Subcommittee on Highway Transport 94 th Annual Meeting
33
Page 1 AASHTO/SCOHT Subcommittee on Highway Transport 94 th Annual Meeting al Motor Carrier Safety Administration Presented by: Chuck Horan, Director Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration July 2013
description
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. AASHTO/SCOHT Subcommittee on Highway Transport 94 th Annual Meeting. Presented by: Chuck Horan, Director Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration July 2013. Overview. Bridge Hits - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of AASHTO/SCOHT Subcommittee on Highway Transport 94 th Annual Meeting
Page 1
AASHTO/SCOHTSubcommittee on Highway Transport
94th Annual Meeting
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Presented by:
Chuck Horan, Director
Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety StandardsFederal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
July 2013
• Bridge Hits• Heavy Truck Safety• Work Zone Safety
2
Overview
• Bridge hits are preventable • GPS for CMV
• Design• Use
• Visor Card• Outreach and Education
3
Bridge Hits (PPPPP)
Crash Trucks
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
CSA
Safety Man-agement
Vehicle
Driver Accident
Driver Fitness
Vehicle Maintenance
Controlled Substance / Alcohol
Cargo- Related
Crash Indicator
Fatigued Driving (HOS)Unsafe
Driving
SafeStat: Safety Evaluation Areas (SEAs)
CSMS: Behavior Analysis Safety Improvement Categories (BASICs)
•Out-of-Service Violations•Certain Moving Violations•Crash Reports
• All Safety-based Violations with Risk-based Severity Weights
• Crash Reports
National Training Center 5
Previous System (SafeStat) vs. SMS
• 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)
CSA BASIC and Weight Violations(circa 2010)
• 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
S&W Background, Cont.
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
Recommended Option
Level 1 - Driver and VehicleLevel 2 – Driver and Vehicle Walk AroundLevel 3 – Driver & Credential Inspection
American Standard Inspection Levels
FHWA Weight Citations
No Roadside InspectionLevel 1 InspectionsLevel 2,3 Inspections
Weight citations with inspections(2009)
Level 2 – 93,053
Level 3 – 96,261
Vehicle OOS13,014(45%)
VehicleNot – OOS
15,468
For comparison 2009 Truck OOS Rate 21.6%
2009 CMV Inspections with Weight Violations
• 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
2010 Louisiana Overweight Study
• Different State Agencies weigh trucks and inspect trucks
• State Policies on performing Level 2,3 inspections on overweight trucks
• Inspector safety considerations?
Why so few overweight trucks inspected?
Assessment of Relationship to Crashes
Factor Percent ofTrucks Coded
RelativeRisk Ratio
DangerIndex
Brakes out-of-adjustment
19.42% 1.61 31.27
Brake deficiency 10.41% 1.43 14.89
Overweight 4.93% 1.62 7.99Tire deficiency 5.42% 1.37 7.43Cargo shift 3.98 1.85 7.36Cargo load securement
2.96% 1.79 5.31
Brakes inoperative 2.05% 1.57 3.22Tire failure 0.74% 1.7 1.26Transmission failure 0.89% 1.83 1.63
LTCCS
15
Heavy Vehicle Data Collection EffortCVSA/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.
2012 Data (1 year)
4684 Inspections27 States
Illinois – 1732 inspections1025 Vehicle Inspections with Weight Citations
General Inspection Information
State
No. Overweight CMV Inspections
No. CMV OOS
CMV OOS Rate State
No. Overweight CMV Inspections
No. CMV 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 RateAbove 80 Below 80 No Rank
CMVs OOSOOS Rate CMVs OOS
OOS Rate CMVs OOS
OOS Rate
665 369 55.49% 2425 614 25.32% 1594 635 39.84%
Crash Basic OOS RateAbove 60 Below 60 No Rank
CMVs OOSOOS Rate CMVs OOS
OOS Rate CMVs OOS
OOS Rate
517 152 29.40% 1306 312 23.89% 2861 1154 40.34%
Combination CMV Distribution
Combination CMV
# CMVs OOS Rate
6 month Data
Yes 1229 45.40%
No 246 41.87%
12 month Data
Yes 3473 38.27%
No 1211 23.86%
Permitted CMV Distribution
Permitted CMV # CMVs OOS Rate
6 month Data
Yes 258 32.56%
No 1127 47.41%
12 month Data
Yes 394 35.79%
No 4290 34.43%
OOS Violation Frequency (Top 12)
OOS Violation
Number of CMVs with Violation
BRAKES OUT OF SERVICE: THE NUMBER OF DEFECTIVE BRAKES IS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 20% 591Inoperative/defective brakes 113Inoperative Turn Signal 104Brake tubing and hose adequacy 101Inspection, repair and maintenance of parts & accessories 110INSUFFICIENT BRAKE LININGS 63Axle positioning parts defective / missing 84Stop lamp violations 71Weight carried exceeds tire load limit 50INADEQUATE BRAKES FOR SAFE STOPPING (Brake components) 65Tire-flat and/or audible air leak 64Flat tire or fabric exposed 63
OOS Violations (All CMVs)
Violation Type No. CMVs OOS Rate All CMVsBrakes, All Others 591 12.62%Brakes, Adjustment 399 8.52%Tires 157 3.35%Suspension 25 0.53%Wheels 17 0.36%All Others 429 9.16%Total (4684 CMVs) 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 87 69 38 55.07%392.2W 147 129 50 38.76%
What does it mean?
Inspections with No 392W Violations # CMV OOS CMV OOS Rate
3659 1165 31.84%
All Inspections in Data Collection Effort # CMV OOS CMV OOS Rate
4684 1618 34.54%
Inspections with 392W Violations # CMV OOS CMV OOS Rate
1025 453 44.20%
Heavy and Overweight Stopping Distance Testing
2012
5 axle tractor semitrailer
Legend
92,000
96,000
98,000
100,000
102,000
104,000
106,000
108,000
112,000
116,000+
Max Weight 5 Axles
Florida, Wyoming, & Michigan – Allowed up to 122,000 on 5 axles.
NY & NJ – Allowed up to 126,000 on 5 axles.
Massachusetts & Connecticut – Allowedup to 128,000 on 5 axles.
Mississippi – Allows more weight dependingon axle spacing's & routes.
Wisconsin – Allowed up to 142,000 on 5axles.
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 Effectiveness2. 20% brakes out trailer3. 20% brakes out tractor.
Auto 60k 80k Bal 80k Unbal 91k 97k 106k 116k140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
Average Corrected Stopping Distances for 60-mph Panic Stops
Fully Functioning Disabled Drive Disabled Trailer
Loading Condition
Stop
ping
Dist
ance
(ft)
Testing• 2013 6 axle combination vehicle testing• 2013 heavy straight truck testing• Continue heavy vehicle inspection data
gathering
30
Future Plans…
• Fatal Crashes
• Declined 2005-2010• 233-117
• Increased 2011• 144
• 27% of work zone crashes involve Large Trucks
31
Work Zone Safety
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110
100
200
300
Figure 1: Fatal Crashes Involving Large Trucks and Work Zones, 2005-2011
Source: NHTSA FARS data, 2005-2011(www.nhtsa.gov/FARS)
• Fatal Crashes• More common than
all large fatal crashes
32
Work Zone Safety
Table 1: The Five States with the most Large Truck Fatal Work Zone Crashes, 2007-2011
State Number Texas 111Florida 52Illinois 48Pennsylvania 45Georgia 45
Source: NHTSA FARS data, 2007-2011 (www.nhtsa.gov/FARS)
Chuck HoranOffice Director - Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards [email protected]
Luke LoySr. Engineer Vehicle & Roadside Operations [email protected]
33
FMCSA Contact
