Crash accountability and the CSA. An introspective by Steve Bryan.

1. As long as CSA has been around, lets call it 5 years if we go back to
the initial rollout in some pilot states, the issue of Crash
Accountability has existed. ATA and many carriers consider it to be the
biggest flaw in CSA as it is currently designed. We all know the
problem, a crash in CSA-land causes 1, 2, or 3 points to be assigned to
the carrier involved, regardless of fault, driver behavior, state of
drunkenness of the other driver, suicidal tendencies, weather, road
conditions…etc. Does not matter, a crash is a crash and you get the
points.
The FMCSA is wrapping up a “study”, due out in July, that may or may
not result in a process to determine preventability and perhaps the
removal of CSA points when a crash is deemed non-preventable.
Personally, I’m not optimistic that a suitable solution will be found. But I
have a solution and its simple and Guaranteed to Work!
Step 1: Remove the Crash BASIC from CSA
Step 2: There is no step two, problem solved.
Lets look at what CSA was originally intended to do. It was designed to
identify BEHAVIORS of drivers that lead to an increased likelihood of
crashes in the future. The key is BEHAVIORS. We can argue about the
severity and appropriateness of violations, and we can argue about
the methodology, these are the inputs into CSA. Crash is not an input,
it is the outcome we are trying to avoid. It should never have been
included in the CSA Methodology.
Does this crash make
my butt look fat?
Crash
Accountability
and CSA
By Steven Bryan, CEO
Vigillo

2. 2
“It’s just not
necessary, or
appropriate to
include crashes as
an input into the CSA
methodology.”
Think of it this way, let’s design a diet program whose goal is to
reduce obesity. Obesity is the parallel to crash, it is the undesirable
outcome we are going to try and avoid by changing the behaviors
that lead to it.
So we’re going to create categories of kinds of behaviors that lead to
obesity, we’ll call these BAFICs (Behavioral Analysis Fat Improvement
Categories) There are six of them as follows: Diet, Exercise, Stress,
Lifestyle, Drug & Alcohol, Residence. All of these categories can be
scientifically proven to have a direct influence on the likelihood that a
person will be obese, and all of these are controllable by the
individual and we’ll issue violations as a part of our diet program to
incentivize people to avoid these risky behaviors. So far so good,
sounds just like CSA, with one exception. We are NOT going to look at
a person, declare them fat, and issue points for it. Being fat is not a
behavior to control or penalize. It is the undesirable outcome we wish
to avoid by changing behaviors that matter.
But surely we can’t ignore crashes?! No, of course not. Crashes
should still be closely scrutinized, both by the carrier and the
FMCSA. It’s just not necessary, or appropriate to include crashes as
an input into the CSA methodology. A crash is not a behavior that
can be changed, it is the output, the result, of a pattern of risky
behaviors that tend to lead to crashes.
Going out in public and pointing at fat people and shouting, “hey
fatty, you should lose weight” will not result in weight loss. Eliminate
the Crash BASIC, treat it like the ISS score, it can inform law
enforcement to give more or less scrutiny to carriers, but get it out of
the CSA methodology.
Problem solved, now lets focus on the nonsensical construction of the
Driver Fitness, Controlled Substance and HAZMAT BASICs to get
focused on changing the risky driver behavior that matters. It will
actually reduce crashes.
For more information about how you
can manage your CSA scores, contact
LaunchIt at info@LaunchItPR.com.