Last Response to CRASH ...
Dated: Friday, July 21, 2000 (4 days later)
As of August 1st, 2000 there has not been a reply. I'm not expecting there will be one, either. If there's one thing I strongly dislike, it's being ignored -- especially when I feel I have a valid issue. The only reason I am putting this entire correspondence on the web is because this group couldn't be bothered to respond.
I’ve spent quite a bit of time looking through, around and over your site, as well as reading your Mission Statement.
First I believe our goals and ideals to be one in the same. Reducing truck crashes, injuries and fatalities can only be good. The way we ”approach” this mission is where we seem to differ.
Upon looking over your Fatality Charts, I can’t help but notice there are quite a few numbers that do not appear there, such as the fact that only *8.5% of vehicles involved in fatal crashes in 1997 were large trucks. (*Source: ATA, Standard Trucking & Transportation Statistics, Feb/Mar 99)
There’s a failure to point out that there were 42,000 (approx) people that died on the roads in 1997. Of the 42,000 fatalities, there were 5,398 fatalities that somehow involved a large truck. What that comes down to is that 87% of the annual fatal accident total did not even involve a truck in any way! Of the remaining 13%, -- where a truck was involved – 68% began, or were caused by, the passenger vehicle. Why aren’t these things being pointed out? These numbers sure make the truck driver look far more professional and skilled than the numbers I found at CRASH.
I’d also like to point out a study done by the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute. They found in their study of 5500 fatal crashes involving trucks, that car drivers were the responsible party 70% of the time. It found 16% of the truck drivers responsible. (To tell you the truth, I don’t know where they lost the other 14%)
I’m sorry you believe me to be misinformed. I could possibly be in the area of the railroad. Since Day 1 I have been told by drivers that the railroad funded your group. I don’t know – I don’t really care – but if I’m wrong on that note, I stand corrected. As far as my funding (you asked, “Where does your funding come from?”) I am my own funding. No one donates, sponsors, helps or otherwise with anything I do on the Web/Internet. I am motivated by caring about this industry and especially and more than any other reason, because I care about the people in it. Particularly, I care about the new driver. My site should make that very obvious.... I'm tired of this industry taking in good people and giving them the ride of their life. (Had you read my Mission Statement, you would know this. You did, after all, suggest that I carefully read yours.)
I agree with you that industry places productivity concerns ahead of safety issues. They most certainly do. I commend you very much for developing the video you mentioned for driver’s education settings. Education is key and absolutely detrimental to reducing accidents, fatalities and injuries on the road today. As a former classroom teacher at a driving school in Des Moines, IA, I was often very surprised that people who came in for class didn't know -- did not have any idea whatsoever -- about things such as the effects of gravity on a large vehicle. They didn't understand why trucks did what they did -- swung left before going right sometimes for example. A great number of these people were middle aged men and women who had been driving for many years, yet they didn't know why it was a bad idea to get in front of a truck on a downhill or cut in front of a truck to make an exit ramp. They had NO CLUE about the truck's characteristics at all. The best advice I think I possibly ever gave any class was that most car drivers are ignorant -- but in the TRUE sense of the word -- they truly don't understand that some things they do present problems to a heavy-truck driver. That's why I wrote "Dear John & Jane Q Public"... because I strongly feel that the majority of motorists flirt with suicide far more often than they realize, yet they have no idea.
A few things I noted on your site….
“1998: 5,374 people died in crashes involving large trucks
The deaths increased but didn’t the miles traveled increase as well?
And:
“I know the dangers that large trucks present on our highways.”
I think this is poor…. Really poor …. If it isn’t anti-truck, what is???
Driving down the road is just NOT THAT TIRESOME!!!!! The trucks of today are 100 times the trucks of the 1930’s. They’re smooth and comfortable. Driving can get monotonous, of course, but drivers LIKE TO DRIVE! That’s why we’re DRIVERS!
Big name companies, especially meat houses and grocery store warehouses are especially bad about doing this to us. Every single day in America a driver spends countless hours waiting to load, unload or doing this work himself. Until someone steps up to these big companies, nothing will change. They can pass new Hours of Service, but without desperately needed reform in shipper/receiver practices, nothing will improve. Drivers will continue to cheat because these companies run the show. The carriers are too afraid to lose the business so they stand to the side and allow it.
Of course you know this… You’ve surely read articles like this one: “A recent study for the Truckload Carriers Association, Inc. of Alexandria, VA, whose members pay by the mile, shows that drivers of dry van trailers -- the most common freight trailer -- spend an average 33.5 hours a week loading, unloading or waiting. Another study showed that drivers of refrigerated trailers -- the people who bring our food to market -- spend an astounding 43 such hours per week, as much as some people spend on the job at all.
“Carriers claimed to be appalled at the revelation. (This is pure garbage.) They pledged to cajole shippers and receivers to reduce those delays. (But they’ll do NOTHING if it would risk losing an account.) And cajole they do, but nothing changes, and for a very simple reason: Mileage pay provides no economic incentive for change. On the contrary, a mileage-pay driver on a loading dock is a source of virtually free labor…”
I know you’re aware of this problem because there are several very good letters in your “Highway Safety Advocates Speak Out” section and these are the issues they address. Listen to the drivers.
What people should really and truly fear at this point in time is chasing the good, professional and dedicated drivers right out of the industry. If the new HOS goes through and drivers are forced to spend “weekends” on the road – in effect, take a healthy paycut and spend longer periods of time away from home, these drivers will most likely chose to leave the industry. You’d better ask who is going to replace them…. Now that is a scary, troublesome thought. There are already companies bringing people up from South America to drive because they can’t find drivers right here in the good ‘ole USA. Maybe these drivers speak your language … a little bit. Hopefully they understand the road sign that announces an emergency traffic situation ahead…and maybe not. Maybe they’ll slow down for it… maybe not. The new HOS will have a devastating impact on the transportation industry and not for the better. I believe you’re looking at it as an evil thing because it allows more continuous driving… but that is the least of the worries with the new HOS.
“An organization that is devoted to truck safety. They are working to make trucking operations in the U.S. as safe as possible because too often the industry places productivity ahead of safety issues. Their goal is to always make sure that safety is the top priority of legislators, regulatory bodies and trucking interests.”
(Note: I have since changed the wording of the link. When CRASH would not respond, nor live up to what they said they would do, I felt it necessary to explain them exactly as they are.)
If that is acceptable to you and you want to publish the “Dear John & Jane Q. Public” letter, that’s great. If you do not care to do so, that is of course, your choice. (Gee, kids, I guess they decided NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
This war CAN be won if we’re all fighting on the same field and wearing the same color of uniform.
Sincerely,
Rachelle
Webmaster
One Visitor's Comments:
Simply put........
(The CRASH letters are) Garbage. Scippa and Claybrook lied for years about where their funding came from.....they said it did not come from the railroads, but they got that one jammed in them hard when a staff member submitted an FOI to the IRS for CRASH's tax returns which included their donor list......they were in fact supported historically by the railroads, rail equipment manufacturers, and trial lawyers.... the smallest amount came from their "grassroots members".
They claim they get no money from the railroads.......I wonder where the paper trail would lead if someone really followed it. CRASH is not a safety organization.....they are hired flunkies who have told the same lies for so long they now believe them.
I give them "ZERO" credibility. Everyone should read their submissions to the DOT Docket regarding the HOS Proposal......and count the contradictions and mistakes in even the simple math......
They didn't answer you because they haven't got the guts.
