Submit your claim details for a free, no obligation case review.
Get Started:
A federal rule establishing training requirements for truck and bus drivers is “grossly inadequate,” according to the Public Citizen consumer group.
The rule fails to require that entry-level drivers receive any training on how to operate a commercial motor vehicle, the group told a court. Filed Thursday on behalf of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, the groups asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to overturn a rule issued in May 2004 by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
Intended to set minimum training requirements for commercial vehicle operators, including trucks and buses, the rule only requires training in driver wellness, driver qualifications, hours of service and whistleblower protection. Instead of requiring drivers to have on-the-road training in areas such as backing, driving in severe weather, controlling skids and passing other vehicles, the “agency seems to have ignored all the data it collected showing the great need for minimum training standards for truck and bus drivers,” according to the attorney for Public Citizen working on the case.
In 1991, Congress directed the Secretary of Transportation to begin a formal process investigating the need for minimum training requirements in response to the high number of truck crashes resulting from inexperienced drivers. The agency was to issue a rule by December 1993 or else submit a report to Congress explaining why a rule was not necessary.
According to a study previously published by the Federal Highway Administration’s Office of Motor Carriers (now FMCSA), a model curriculum for tractor-trailer drivers requiring at least 320 hours of instruction was determined. In another study published in 1995, the highway administration called the model curriculum a starting point, finding commercial vehicle drivers were not being adequately trained. Finding just 8.1 percent of heavy truck carriers and 18.5 percent of bus operators provided entry-level drivers with adequate training, these statistics indicated minimum training requirements were necessary, according to safety experts.
Although the agency held a public hearing regarding the driving training in 1996 on the issue, nothing was done for seven years. By November 2002, Public Citizen, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways, Parents Against Tired Truckers and Teamsters for a Democratic Union filed a petition in court seeking an order directing the government to fulfill Congress’ mandate and issue a rule. The U.S. Department of Transportation agreed to issue a rule by May 31, 2004 as part of a settlement.
FMCSA produced the new rule on May 21, 2004, which, according to the consumer groups, appeared to exclude the information documenting inadequate driver training and the need for on-the-road training for entry-level commercial drivers. In the final rule, just 10 hours of training were required, with no hours required on the road.
Preliminary highway fatality data released for 2004 shows there has been an increase in truck crash deaths. More than 5,100 people died in truck crashes during 2004 alone, and the president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Judith Lee Stone, said the group is suing because the agency failed to implement new driver training rules requiring any on-the-road or behind-the-wheel training, which Stone referred to as the agency’s way of “playing Russian roulette with the safety of truck drivers and American families on our highways.”
The organizations are asking the court to declare FMCSA’s rule arbitrary and capricious, as well as to order the agency to rewrite it.
Copyright © 2001 - 2012 Online Lawyer Source
ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT—Thank you for your visit. The content published on this website was not written by medical professionals and should not, at any point, be mistaken for medical advice. Furthermore, the information on this site is intended for educational purposes only and should never interfere with a patient/site visitor and his or her healthcare provider. In addition, viewing the content on this website, requesting additional information, or transmitting information through a contact form should never be considered the formation of an attorney-client relationship. The material published on this site is general and may not apply to your specific circumstances. Every case comes with its own set of unique circumstances; past success discussed on this site does not guarantee future performance. Information found on this website should not be used as incentive to act without seeking counsel from a professional. For more information, please read our disclaimer.