The legislative battle over hours-of-service (HOS) rules and unanswered questions about the coming electronic logging device (ELD) mandate probably have all your attention focused on how to satisfy driver work restrictions while continuing to run an efficient fleet operation. As vexing as all this uncertainty may be, I think it’s time both the industry and its regulators look beyond the current HOS mess to find a real solution to driver fatigue.
As with any complex issue, the heart of the matter is finding a solution that best balances legitimate but competing forces. Drivers and the fleets that employ them want to maximize earnings when their trucks are on the road by running as many miles as they can without jeopardizing public safety or driver health. Safety advocates want to eliminate driver fatigue—a natural consequence of working too many hours or sleeping too few—as completely as possible. How do we balance those imperatives without unduly damaging either truck efficiency or safety?
HOS, enforced by always-watching ELDs, is a very blunt instrument at best when it comes to achieving that balance. When hard and fast limits on driving were first devised over 60 years ago, a one-rule-fits-all approach was probably the only enforceable path to keep tired drivers off the road. Subsequent changes over the last 10 years have attempted to make it more effective by tightening rest requirements and requiring ELDs designed to eliminate logbook fiction.
The problem is all our modern research into fatigue tells us clearly that one rule does not fit all. In fact, such an inflexible scheme seems diametrically opposed to what we do know, which is that both the conditions that create fatigue and individual tolerance of those conditions vary widely. Requiring all drivers to follow the same rigid work/rest cycles leave some driving tired and others sitting when they are most alert. It can mean abandoning common sense in some situations and undermine an individual driver’s best attempts to remain alert and focused.
It’s time we look at throwing out the current HOS rules no matter how they play out in Congress this year. Instead, we should replace them with an approach based on results, not mandates.
After 60 years of HOS, this may sound radical, but I believe current science can allow fleets to create customized fatigue management strategies that best suit their particular operations and drivers.
While there are certainly some flaws in the CSA system, it does provide rapid access to fleet safety data. If a fleet’s fatigue management program is faulty or poorly executed, that should show up quickly.
“It’s time both the industry and its regulators look beyond the current HOS mess.”
For those worried about fleets cutting corners or pushing drivers beyond their limits, stiff and rapid enforcement could address those concerns by making it too costly to risk. And if a fleet doesn’t have the resources or will to institute a custom fatigue management program, let them revert to current HOS limits.
Sometimes real progress requires ignoring how things have always been done to escape the past. I think this is one such situation. And if a wholesale overthrow of HOS limits seems too risky, we should at least try limited demonstration projects that let a few carefully chosen fleets test the concept.
While some industry critics might disagree, fleets truly value safety. They also value the health and happiness of drivers, who after all are at the core of their business success. Fleets and their drivers want an effective way to deal with fatigue. I think it’s time we make an honest effort to help them do that.
