Are we about to do more harm than good with the proposed changes to US trucking’s hours of service rules?
Anyone shipping to or from the US – and that would be most of you – needs to pay close attention to the firestorm of debate raging right now over the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s new proposed hours of service rules for trucking.
The proposal seems to have support from no quarter. Over the years I’ve learned that when opposing sides on an issue are critical of proposed legislation, it’s a good indication that legislators have struck a conciliatory and workable solution. But from the stakeholder comments I’ve read to this point and the commentary of experts on this thorniest of subjects (how exactly can you mandate someone to sleep anyway?), it seems the negative reaction on both sides may only lead to legal battles and the uncertainty that stems from a regulatory quagmire.
Most of the trucking industry concerns I’ve identified to this point centre on revisions that would:
- Add one hour of off-duty time within the 14-hour workday;
- Limit consecutive driving hours to 7;
- Reduce the maximum allowable daily driving time to 10 hours from the current 11;
- Require drivers to have two periods of rest between midnight and 6 a.m. during a 34-hour restart
The American Trucking Associations (ATA) claims the proposed changes will be enormously expensive for trucking and the North American economy. So do some prominent shippers. Wayne Johnson, who is in charge of carrier relations for Owens Corning and chairs the National Industrial Transportation League’s highway policy committee, buys into the trucking industry’s concerns about lost productivity and says that will, in turn, squeeze shippers. He told the media this would result in more trucks having to be used to get freight moved.
The (ATA) pointed out the FMCSA itself estimated, just two years ago, costs of over $2.2 billion if the daily drive time was reduced by one hour and the restart provision was significantly changed. The ATA contends that the FMCSA’s own research previously found that the eleventh hour of driving time does not increase driver weekly hours; is used for flexibility purposes; does not increase driver-fatigue risks; and that eliminating it would promote more aggressive driving (to meet time constraints).
With respect to the 34-hour restart, the ATA says the FMCSA is needlessly departing from past acknowledgement that requiring drivers used to sleeping during the day to now sleep between midnight and 6 a.m. for two consecutive days would actually be less safe. It would disrupt drivers’ circadian cycle and force them to drive more during the day, adding to congestion and again increasing crashes.
What makes this issue a political hot potato is that the opposing side is also keen on changing these provisions. Public Citizen, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, and the Truck Safety Coalition want the 11th hour of allowable daily driving gone and don’t think the proposed changes to the 34-hour-restart provision go far enough. They want drivers to take 48 consecutive hours off before they can resume their schedule. They believe the proposed rule “does not eliminate any of the anti-safety provisions that allow truck drivers to drive and work long hours, get less rest and drive while fatigued.”
Here’s my take on all this: Both safety and efficiency must be taken into consideration but, within reason, safety must trump efficiency. But when it does it must be based on solid science. All stakeholders must avoid the temptation to view truck driving through the eyes of people who work normal hours. It may make perfect sense to someone used to working 9 to 5 that truck drivers should sleep at least two nights in a row between midnight and 6 a.m. before resuming their work schedule. But do we know what that actually does to people used to sleeping during the day or accustomed to sleeping at shifting times? Unless there is solid science that shows such a move would be beneficial, why consider it?
Is the FMCSA looking to “change something that isn’t broken,” as Johnson from Owens Corning charges? After all, since the current hours-of-service rules were brought in back in 2004, the trucking industry in the US has reduced its crash-related fatalities by 33% while both fatality and injury crash rates reached historic low, even during all the freight growth years.
Is new legislation certain to improve this safety record? If yes, then it’s only right to proceed. It not, why are we wasting our time?
