Driver training rule: excuses, excuses

By Jim Johnston
OOIDA President

In a recent phone conference with some FMCSA folks regarding driver training, I was particularly struck by the fact that they continue to stick like glue to the same old excuses.
What I heard over and over was “we have no data” and “what’s the cost?”
It’s those excuses that could lead to the industry getting a watered-down version of what could be a workable entry-level driver-training rule.
When the people at the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration wrote the rule back in ’04, they ignored the agency’s own data. That data showed that 69 percent of drivers were not being adequately trained in how to actually operate a commercial motor vehicle.
That same data included a cost-benefit analysis that showed increased training behind the wheel would save more money than it would cost in the long run.
Even Congress saw the common sense in this one. It was a mandate from Congress – handed down in 1991 – that gave the feds 24 months to come up with a training rule.
Thirteen years later, the FMCSA published its driver-training rule. The rule required a total of 10 hours of classroom training on four topics: driver qualifications; hours of service; driver wellness; and whistleblower protection.
We didn’t think that rule was acceptable, and in December of 2005, OOIDA convinced a Washington, DC, Court of Appeals to send FMCSA back to the drawing board to develop a new rule.
We’re still waiting, and for what? Another short-sighted regulation?
Big business runs DC – and big business is the master of excuses. Big business in the trucking industry is opposed to mandatory driver training because, they say, it would be too expensive.
The cost argument is totally flawed because the carriers aren’t the ones who pay for the training anyway. The industry doesn’t pay for training now – the drivers do, the feds do, the public does.