One would assume that determining the cause of truck crashes wouldn’t be that hard. In the age of the internet and fast-paced data transmission, it would be easy to naively think there’s a database out there.
That would be wrong.
At best, we have a handful of studies conducted by stakeholders that determined truckers are not at fault in 75 to 80 percent of crashes. That stat is often misquoted, with people saying passenger vehicles cause the 75 to 80 percent.
Truck crashes are not just caused by collisions with passenger vehicles. You have weather events (or “acts of God,” as insurance companies like to call them), poorly designed infrastructure, animal strikes – you get the picture.
So that complicates things from the drop.
Then you have state, county and local law enforcement all handling crash investigations. Each department may have different protocols and forms for documenting crashes. Factor in the Internet of Things, and codes for each type of crash could vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Finally, let’s add in the obvious hurdle for any data entry, the human factor. When humans are involved, mistakes will happen. People can be in a hurry and not pay attention. They might be new on the job. It could be as simple as hitting the wrong code on a drop-down menu. Again, mistakes happen.
Not the first time FMCSA has done a crash study
Perhaps one of the most-hyped studies into truck crash causation came out (checks calendar) 19 years ago. That hype lasted until industry researchers and journalists read the Large Truck Crash Causation Study.
There was one big problem: The study did determine the causes of crashes. In fact, in the first pages of the study, the authors ponder the definition of “cause.”
When all was said and done, the study was conducted in a way that relies on a statistical definition of “causation,” which defines “cause” in terms of relative risk.
The study, rather than reporting who was at fault and why, is actually a collision-avoidance or crash-prevention study focused on pre-collision events rather than their consequences.
One example used in that study was a head-scratcher, to say the least.
“A truck turns across the path of an oncoming car at an intersection. The critical event is the truck’s turn across the path of the other vehicle. The truck had the turn arrow, observed the oncoming vehicle and assumed that the oncoming vehicle would stop, which proved to be incorrect. (Right-of-way, which is captured separately, does not necessarily determine the critical event, because the collision may still be avoidable.) The critical reason is ‘false assumption of other road user’s actions.’”
Huh? The car ran the red light, so it is the cause of the crash. Why is the trucker being hit with statistical labels of “critical event” and “critical reason?”
To say that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration took some serious lumps over that study is putting it mildly. Over the years, it has released additional studies attempting to answer the age-old question “What causes truck crashes?” But it hasn’t quite hit the mark.
And, to the agency’s credit, the proposed upcoming study is certainly set up to address some of the shortcomings faced by the 2006 and subsequent studies.
On the right track
In the Federal Register notice outlining some of the nuts and bolts of the upcoming study, there are some encouraging details.
For starters, there will be a central collection system for the four types of truck crash data sought. One of those things FMCSA will be collecting is a Heavy-Duty Truck Study Initial Incident Form – one consistent form for all the data. That’s a huge step in the right direction.
The agency is also proposing to collect agency crash reports, as well as detailed post-crash investigation and reconstruction data. These are all things that will help researchers put together a clearer picture of what truckers face on the road daily in terms of crash risk.
Another big positive is the amount of industry input the agency sought in developing the study, including from the OOIDA Foundation. This hasn’t always been the case with FMCSA – accepting outside help and input – but it is more common now and a very welcome change.
At this point, it’s understood that the new study will not pivot back to statistical definitions of cause and all of that jazz. We’ll have to wait and see what the researchers come up with.
That’s one drawback: the wait. Nothing happens fast in government. We all know that. The two-year study is set to kick off in 2026. Then we’ll have to wait on the analysis and final study.
So, here’s to sending good vibes to the researchers that everything will go smoothly and we may finally get some answers – sooner rather than later.
Click here to learn more about the proposed study and to file comments on the proposal. LL
Credit: Source link
