Columbia Insurance Services Blog

Columbia Insurance Services Bloghttp://www.truckinsurancepro.net/blog/View Columbia Insurance Services's Website Blogen-uspostmaster@www.truckinsurancepro.netInsurance Website Builder - www.insurancewebsitebuilder.comurn:uuid:75ada84b-d52f-4cb9-9e3d-fe0f2559fa1aurn:uuid:a68c9587-ef3a-4799-8bb8-f1e23678760dNew Account ExecutiveTraci Graham, Cedar City Utah, joins Columbia Insurance Services. Traci has over 20 years experience in the transportation insurance industry and brings a professionalism to her clients that is second to none.  If you reside in UT, NV, AZ or CA...Fri, 03 Sep 2010 12:18:42 -0500Traci Graham, Cedar City Utah, joins Columbia Insurance Services. Traci has over 20 years experience in the transportation insurance industry and brings a professionalism to her clients that is second to none.  If you reside in UT, NV, AZ or CA please give Traci a call for a free, no obligation quote with several of our appointed companies. urn:uuid:49aa8856-0b19-45cf-9fb8-66622c973247Road Check 2010CVSA ROAD CHECK JUNE 8-10 Roadcheck is the largest targeted enforcement program on commercial vehicles in the world, with approximately 14 trucks or buses being inspected, on average, every minute from Canada to Mexico during a 72-hour period in ea...Wed, 02 Jun 2010 10:48:01 -0500CVSA ROAD CHECK JUNE 8-10 Roadcheck is the largest targeted enforcement program on commercial vehicles in the world, with approximately 14 trucks or buses being inspected, on average, every minute from Canada to Mexico during a 72-hour period in early June. Each year, approximately 10,000 CVSA-certified local, state, provincial and federal inspectors at 1,500 locations across North America perform the truck and bus inspections. CVSA sponsors Roadcheck with participation by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, Transport Canada, and the Secretariat of Communications and Transportation (Mexico). Roadcheck is one of a series of activities that occur year round whereby CVSA-certified inspectors conduct compliance, enforcement and educational initiatives targeted at various elements of motor carrier, vehicle, driver and cargo safety and security.   Since its inception in 1988, the roadside inspections conducted during Roadcheck have numbered over 1 Million, resulting in more than 220 lives saved and 4,045 injuries avoided. It has also provided for the distribution of countless pieces of educational literature and safety events to educate industry and the general public about the importance of safe commercial vehicle operations and the roadside inspection program.urn:uuid:b89bf985-df70-4f6e-9e0e-9e89cd43bf15Fuel Economy Standards5/21/2010  White House Will Announce Plans for Truck Fuel Economy Standards Today By Oliver B. Patton, Washington Editor The Obama Administration this morning will announce a plan to set national standards for fuel economy and greenhouse gas em...Fri, 21 May 2010 10:59:31 -0500<div>5/21/2010  White House Will Announce Plans for Truck Fuel Economy Standards Today</div> By Oliver B. Patton, Washington Editor The Obama Administration this morning will announce a plan to set national standards for fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions for heavy- and medium-duty trucks, according to sources familiar with the plan.<!stop> Details will come after the 10:30 a.m. White House announcement, but the Environmental Protection Agency is planning a proposal to set specific improvements in fuel efficiency and specific emissions reductions for 2014 through 2018, said Allen Schaeffer, executive director of the Diesel Technology Forum. Included in today's announcement will be a letter from truck engine manufacturers to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson in support of the EPA's proposal, objectives and schedule, Schaeffer said. Another source, who asked not to be identified because he has been involved in the negotiations, said that engine manufacturers have been working with EPA for a year and a half to craft a workable plan. They have been guided by the expectation the standards are coming in any event, and that it makes sense to participate, the source said. The outcome, he said, is that engine manufacturers will be able to live with the proposed rule. Crafting the Proposal Schaeffer said that the EPA proposal will recognize the diversity of the trucking industry - a significant complicating factor in setting national fuel efficiency and emission standards. He also said that many of the techniques EPA will rely on will be familiar to participants in the EPA SmartWay program, which promotes technologies such as aerodynamics, low rolling resistance tires and reduction of waste heat as ways to improve fuel economy. The EPA proposal will be guided in part by research recently published by the National Academy of Sciences. That study says considerable fuel efficiency gains are possible through a range of technologies and methods across a variety of truck vocations, and recommends that regulators employ a fuel economy measurement that takes freight into account, such as gallons per ton-mile. It was prepared by a 19-member committee that includes academics, members of public interest organizations and trucking industry experts, including Duke Drinkard, vice president of maintenance (retired) at Southeastern Freight Lines, David Merrion, executive vice president (retired) at Detroit Diesel, and Charles Salter, executive director of engine development (retired) at Mack Trucks/Volvo Powertrain. Schaeffer said this announcement highlights the progress that's been made in improving diesel engine technology, and sets the stage for even more gains. "Diesels can get even more efficient," he said. "The companies are confident and they support the program because it will give them uniformity and certainty." American Trucking Associations President and CEO Bill Graves said the association has been supporting development of fuel economy standards and is looking forward to today's announcement. "Reducing fuel consumption and CO2 production is good for the trucking industry and great for the environment," he said. Another ATA representative, chairman Tommy Hodges, put it this way: "As chairman of the ATA Sustainability Committee that in 2008 offered truck fuel economy standards and five other recommendations to reduce fuel consumption by 86 billion gallons and carbon emissions by 900 million tons over a 10-year period, I am excited to see the administration moving forward." urn:uuid:a2d918d5-30de-4a20-b3c1-e75a68f387b0FMCSA Response to ATA Concers    Federal Motor Carrier   Safety Administration                               &nbs...Fri, 21 May 2010 10:55:34 -0500    Federal Motor Carrier   Safety Administration                                                                                         Refer to: MC-AA         Mr. David J. Osiecki Senior Vice President for Policy   and Regulatory Affairs American Trucking Associations, Inc. 950 N. Glebe Road, Suite 210 Arlington, VA 22203-4181   Dear Mr. Osiecki:   Thank you for your February 26 letter following our meeting to discuss the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) Comprehensive Safety Analysis (CSA) 2010 Program. Your letter reiterates concerns that you, your members, and State affiliates have expressed with the CSA 2010 Carrier Safety Measurement System (CSMS) methodology and offers recommended approaches to address those concerns.  The FMCSA appreciates that the American Trucking Associations, Inc., (ATA) continues to fully support the safety and efficiency objectives of the CSA 2010 program and that ATA has offered recommended solutions to address its concerns.   The first concern you identified is that recordable crash data reported to FMCSA by our State partners, and linked to motor carrier records, do not identify whether the motor carrier was accountable for the crash.  More specifically, you expressed concern that the CSA 2010 CSMS methodology uses the recordable crash data to identify motor carriers for intervention without an accountability determination. As a recommended solution to this concern, you suggested that FMCSA employ a contract staff that would review State-reported crash reports to make accountability determinations before the crashes are considered in the CSA 2010 CSMS methodology.   The FMCSA recognizes this concern and is considering several short-term and longer term approaches to address it.  As FMCSA works to address the issue, the Agency will exclude the crash assessment of the CSA 2010 CSMS from any public Web sites that may be viewed by shippers or insurers.  Furthermore, FMCSA will continue to consider accountability of crashes before issuing any formal and final adverse safety fitness ratings that follow compliance reviews.  Longer term, FMCSA is evaluating the feasibility of an approach similar to your recommendation, whereby staff would assess State-reported crashes for accountability before they are considered by the CSA 2010 CSMS methodology.  In fact, FMCSA has already begun some preliminary analysis of this approach.    The initial results of our feasibility study are promising and indicate that the use of police accident reports (PARs) is a viable option for determining large truck and bus crash accountability.  Work to date has been done in conjunction with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center.  We are now gathering information on various options for implementing such an approach, including the costs and challenges.  For example, one challenge involves gathering the PARs from all of the different State agencies involved, although we are encouraged by the increasing use of electronic storage of such records by the States.   An alternative approach, for example, could be to require motor carriers to submit PARs to FMCSA for those accidents in which the carriers seek an accountability determination.  Accidents for which a motor carrier would not contest accountability by submitting a PAR would be deemed accountable to the carrier under this approach.   The FMCSA data analysis has historically shown that motor carriers involved in a disproportionately high number of crashes are more likely than other motor carriers to be involved in future crashes.  Simply, FMCSA analysis indicates that past crashes are a good predictor of future crashes, irrespective of accountability.  Therefore, until a viable long-term solution can be instituted to determine accountability of State-reported crashes, FMCSA will continue to use all crashes in the CSA 2010 CSMS to identify motor carriers for intervention.  The FMCSA believes this approach, coupled with not displaying CSMS crash assessments on public Web sites at this time, and considering crash accountability before issuing adverse safety fitness ratings, is the most prudent position at this time.  It balances the valid concerns of the ATA with FMCSA’s mission to protect the motoring public using the best performance data currently available.   The second concern you identified is that the CSA 2010 CSMS currently uses a motor carrier’s number of power units rather than vehicle miles travelled (VMT) as a measure of exposure.  Further, the letter pointed out your position that motor carriers that employ greater asset utilization are at a disadvantage because of their increased exposure to adverse safety events.  The letter essentially stated that FMCSA may be missing higher risk carriers by using power units as the measure of exposure in the CSA 2010 CSMS. Moreover, you offered recommended solutions such as making the mileage field of the MCS-150 form a mandatory field for updates and suggested that FMCSA consider using an “average annual miles per truck” estimate for those motor carriers in which FMCSA currently does not have up-to-date VMT data.   The areas of the CSA 2010 CSMS that currently use power units as the measure of exposure are the Crash and Unsafe Driving Behavior Analysis Safety Improvement Categories (BASICs).  FMCSA acknowledges that the use of power units as the sole measure of exposure can potentially create a disadvantage for segments of the motor carrier industry that employ greater asset utilization, for example, through cross-country team operations.  FMCSA also believes, however, that the use of VMT as the sole measure of exposure can create a similar disadvantage for segments of the motor carrier industry that operate limited mileage due to the nature of their operations.  Regardless, FMCSA agrees that VMT is another valuable and widely recognized measure of exposure that could potentially improve the effectiveness of the CSMS.  As suggested by ATA, FMCSA will make the vehicle mileage field of the MCS-150 a mandatory field for updates.   As part of the recently released CSA 2010 Data Review Web site, FMCSA is encouraging motor carriers to provide their annualized VMT data.  The FMCSA is optimistic that ATA will support these efforts by strongly encouraging its members and others to regularly update their VMT data and through other collaborative ideas that will ensure that VMT is regularly and accurately reported by the motor carrier industry.  These efforts will support ongoing FMCSA analysis aimed at implementing the most effective and equitable measure of exposure possible prior to national deployment of the Safety Measurement System in November 2010.   The third significant concern conveyed in your letter is that the CSA 2010 CSMS uses all recorded moving violations from roadside inspections without considering whether a citation or “ticket” was issued.  Your letter characterized these recorded moving violations from roadside inspections as “warnings.”  You stated ATA’s belief that it is common practice by enforcement officials in States that must have probable cause to conduct an inspection to stop a truck for what you referred to as a “trifling” speeding offense and then record a speeding violation with no citation or “ticket” as justification for the inspection.  You also objected to the lack of a due process procedure for drivers to challenge warnings.  Your letter further stated that ATA believes there is no research linking warnings for moving violations, as they are currently recorded, and future truck crashes.  The ATA essentially recommended that moving violations without issued citations be removed from consideration in the CSA 2010 CSMS.   The FMCSA has conducted effectiveness testing on the Unsafe Driving BASIC (Behavior Analysis Safety Improvement Category) of the CSA 2010 CSMS as it is currently calculated using all recorded moving violations without regard to whether a citation was issued.  Put in simple terms, the analysis demonstrates there is a strong relationship between high scores in the Unsafe Driving BASIC, as derived by including all recorded moving violations, and future crashes.  From a legal standpoint, the Agency’s use of warnings as one factor in selection of an intervention does not constitute deprivation of a property interest for which a due process procedure is required.  The FMCSA has, however, as part of its attempt at further effectiveness analysis, reviewed the existing inspection data to determine if it is feasible to exclude recorded moving violations from consideration by the CSA 2010 CSMS when a citation is not issued.  At this time, it is not feasible.  A free-form text field exists whereby an enforcement officer can enter whether a citation was issued.  However, the completeness and accuracy of this field is not sufficient to employ in the CSMS at this time.   To address this issue, FMCSA is considering the addition of a simple Yes/No field to indicate whether a citation was issued in conjunction with the recorded speeding violation.  Furthermore, based upon concerns expressed by ATA and motor carriers participating in our CSA 2010 Operational Model Test, FMCSA is implementing modifications to the roadside inspection software used by its field staff and our State partners that will require roadside officers to designate the severity of speeding offenses recorded on roadside inspections. For example, the enforcement officer will have to designate whether the recorded speeding violation was 1-5 MPH over the speed limit, 6-10 MPH over, etc.  Moving forward, this will allow FMCSA to assign less weight to the less severe speeding violations in the CSA 2010 CSMS.       Thank you again for bringing these concerns to my attention.  The FMCSA will continue to improve the CSA 2010 CSMS as we obtain comments and learn from the ongoing Operational Model Test, and as we move toward national deployment later this year.                                                                           Sincerely,                                                                                 Anne S. Ferrourn:uuid:b3aad5b2-9cc3-4731-8d22-b6c4dc7bb748CSA 2010 Violation SeverityInterpretation of the Severity Weights The violation severity weights in the tables that follow have been converted into a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 represents the lowest crash risk and 10 represents the highest crash risk relative to the other vio...Fri, 02 Apr 2010 16:55:45 -0500Interpretation of the Severity Weights The violation severity weights in the tables that follow have been converted into a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 represents the lowest crash risk and 10 represents the highest crash risk relative to the other violations in the BASIC. Because the weights reflect the relative importance of each violation within each particular BASIC, they cannot be compared meaningfully across the various BASICs. In other words, a ‘5’ in one BASIC is not equivalent to a ‘5’ in another BASIC, but it does represent the midpoint between a crash risk of 1 and 10 within the same BASIC. The Violation Group Column in each table identifies the group to which each violation has been assigned. Derivation of the Severity Weights The severity weights for each violation were derived through the following six-step process: 1. BASIC Mapping – All roadside safety-related violations were mapped to an appropriate BASIC so the severity weight analysis could be conduced on each individual BASIC. 2. Violation Grouping – All violation cites in each BASIC were placed into groups of like violations based on the judgment of enforcement subject matter experts. These groups, listed in the "Violation Group" column in each table, make it possible to incorporate otherwise rarely cited violations into the robust statistical analysis used to derive the severity weights. The violation grouping also ensured that similar types of violations received the same severity weight. 3. Crash Occurrence Analysis – Statistical analysis was performed to quantify the extent of the relationship between violation rates in each violation group within a BASIC and crash involvement. A driver approach was used in this analysis due to strong demonstrable relationships between driver crashes and violations documented in prior research at the Volpe Center, conducted in support of FMCSA’s Compliance Review Work Group, the predecessor to the CSA 2010 Initiative. The earlier research provided the basis for developing a Driver Information Resource (DIR) that uses individual crash and inspection reports from all states in order to construct multi-year driver safety histories on individual drivers. Multivariate negative binomial regression models were used to quantify the strength of relationships between driver violations rates in individual violation groups and crash involvement. 4. Crash Consequences Analysis – This analysis incorporates crash consequences attributable to the violation groups based on findings from the Violation Severity Assessment Study (VSAS).4 The VSAS quantifies the crash risk associated with individual FMCSR and HMR violations in terms of comparable dollar values representing the increased social cost attributable to the presence of a violation. Together, the regression analysis (Step 3) and VSAS findings make it possible to address total crash risk in terms of both crash occurrence and crash consequence. 5. Subject Matter Expert Review – Enforcement subject matter experts reviewed the results derived purely from the statistical approaches described in Steps 3 and 4. Modifications were made to the severity weights based on input from the subject matter experts. This approach helps compensate for the limitations of the statistical analysis such as lack of statistical significance of rarely cited violations. 6. CSMS Effectiveness Test – Various severity weighting schemes developed in Steps 1 through 5 were applied to the CSMS to provide an empirical evaluation of the weighting schemes. The empirical evaluation, or “CSMS Effectiveness Test,” was modeled after the SafeStat Effectiveness Test.5 The CSMS effectiveness study was accomplished by: (1) performing a simulated CSMS run that calculates carrier percentile ranks for each BASIC using historical data; (2) observing each carrier’s crash involvement over the immediate 18 months after the simulated CSMS timeframe, and (3) observing the relationship between the percentile ranks in each BASIC and the subsequent post-CSMS carrier crash rates. The CSMS Effectiveness Test provides an environment to evaluate various severity weight schemes in terms of their impact in identifying high-risk carriers. It also provides a means of testing other weight schemes, such as the OOS weight, to help optimize the effectiveness of the CSMS. This six-step process made it possible to develop a conceptual framework for the CSMS in the form of violation groupings and associated severity weights, based on both empirical analysis and valuable accumulated knowledge from field experts. The data-driven component of the process, in particular, differentiates the CSMS from SafeStat and addresses some of the recent criticisms of the SafeStat algorithm. urn:uuid:ed71f867-f316-47fd-8808-bc8f31dafb23New Agent/ProducerKim Bell, of Redmond Oregon has come aboard CIS. She has many years experience as an entrepreneur and comes from an insurance background. Kim will be working with Craig for the next several months developing her skills to become a trucking industr...Fri, 26 Mar 2010 20:14:17 -0500Kim Bell, of Redmond Oregon has come aboard CIS. She has many years experience as an entrepreneur and comes from an insurance background. Kim will be working with Craig for the next several months developing her skills to become a trucking industry expert. Please give her a warm welcome.