I have long been intrigued by that question. I’m not convinced that the inability to speak or read one of our official languages necessarily renders a driver “unsafe.”

Safe is a catch-all kind of word, but in this context, I think it means the driver is competent at driving a truck in a manner that doesn’t jeopardize other road users.

Thanks to dashcams, we see plenty of evidence every day of genuinely incompetent drivers, regardless of their linguistic skills.

Safety-sensitive situations are where effective communication matters, such as at an accident scene or when loading specialized cargo on a flatbed. And then there’s the transport of dangerous goods. The inability to communicate (read, write, speak and comprehend) can have grave consequences.

“The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.” — George Bernard Shaw

Adding a language proficiency requirement to the National Safety Code standards for driver qualifications (NSC 6) and entry-level training (NCS 16) would create barriers to entry, but an argument can be made it’s in the public interest to ensure commercial drivers can fulfill all the requirements of the job.

The international language of commercial aviation is English. It’s obviously critical that pilots and air traffic controllers can communicate accurately. Even in countries where English is not the native language, almost all air traffic communication is carried out in English.  

This is done to prevent accidents arising from misunderstood messages. Aviation regulators established English as the universal language decades ago. They saw the need for a standard to prevent accidents and planned for it. In trucking, it often seems we just hope they never happen.

I’m not aware of any instance where an inability to communicate led to calamity, but I’m quite sure there have been accidents resulting from misunderstood instructions.

The United States has had an English language proficiency (ELP) rule (49CFR §391.11(b)) on the books for decades, but it wasn’t vigorously enforced until June 2025. I think the Trump administration brought the rule back into force for more nefarious reasons, but the logic behind it still stands. Truck driving is a safety-sensitive occupation, and clear communication remains imperative.

It came as a shock to the industry. Speaking at Truck World’s VIP Breakfast in April, FTR chairman Eric Starks said more than 60,000 drivers have been found noncompliant with English language requirements, with 16,000 being placed out of service (those found noncompliant near the U.S./Mexico border are turned back to Mexico and not placed out of service).

Still, that was 16,000 trips to an inspection station somewhere in the country to pick up a marooned truck. And maybe, but probably not, bus tickets for 16,000 unemployable drivers. 

(Starks said only 68 Canadian drivers have been placed out of service for English language proficiency inadequacies, with most drivers being parked coming from Mexico).

It’s difficult to say how reflective those counts are of the number of non-English speaking drivers. Some states enforce the rule more enthusiastically than others. FTR reports Texas logged 582 ELP violations leading to an out-of-service, while California and Minnesota, combined, recorded only four OOS violations between June and October.

Would ELP fly in Canada?

Given the way Canadian lawmakers tend to tiptoe around human rights issues, trying to impose language requirements here would be a hard sell. However, there’s precedence supporting the suspension of certain rights in safety-critical environments.

One case involved a female forest firefighter in British Columbia. In the late 90s, the province had introduced an aerobic fitness standard to the employment requirements that she could not meet, despite having successfully performed the job for years.

The Supreme Court of Canada found the standard discriminatory and created what is now known as the Meiorin Test for determining whether a discriminatory standard can nevertheless be justified as a bona fide occupational requirement.

The Court held that an employer (or regulator) can justify a standard if it can show:

• That it adopted the standard for a purpose or goal rationally connected to the performance of the job;
• That it adopted the standard in an honest and good faith belief that it was necessary to the fulfillment of that legitimate work-related purpose; and
• That the standard is reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of that legitimate work-related purpose.

It this case, responsibility for enforcement of the standard fell to the employer. If we’re talking about a language proficiency standard, it would necessarily be applied as a qualification to hold a commercial driver license — like vision or medical requirement.

So, can an argument be made that English proficiency in a truck safety context meets the three criteria above?  

Is there a discernable threat?

In the mundane, day-to-day transactions involving drivers, probably not. But one needn’t stretch the imagination too far to see where problems could arise.

Specific shipping or loading instructions for example. Transportation of Dangerous Goods (TDG) is another. TDG paperwork can be complex, and drivers are required to have specific training. If there are issues with understanding the driver’s responsibilities under TDG rules, things could go off the rails quickly.

In other instances, such as understanding contracts or complicated transactions, a lack of language proficiency could be very detrimental to the driver. However, those are not really safety related. Just practical.

Where things can get dicey is at roadside, in a dynamic situation like a crash scene where responders are asking questions and requiring specific actions.

I’ve had experience with Uber drivers using translation apps on their phones to communicate with me.

It was a bit surprising the first time a driver thrust a smartphone up to my face. It worked, basically, but it was tedious and fraught with the possibility of error. Translated messages can become badly garbled. I wouldn’t want to have to trust one in an emergency, especially in a trucking context with our often-unique vernacular.

Does the driving test prove proficiency?

Currently, Ontario offers its Class A written knowledge test in 20 languages; British Columbia, 12. Most other provinces offer the knowledge test only in English or French.

The driving test in Ontario is conducted only in English or French. B.C. does not state specific language requirements but does note that translators are inadmissible.  

Canada medical requirements are covered by NSC 6, Driver Fitness. If a driver holds a valid CDL, he or she has already passed the medical requirements.

Could similar logic be applied to language proficiency? If a driver was able to communicate with an examiner well enough to pass the driving test, can his or her English language skills be considered sufficient?

Some might be inclined to agree with that, but if my recent interview with an MTO DriveTest examiner is any barometer of English language proficiency, the answer is no.

The examiner told me the language skills of many newcomers to this country are fair to poor at best. And they are communicating about a familiar topic. It would be difficult to expect such a driver to comprehend complex questions or instructions in English, or to provide intelligible responses.

It’s one thing when the guy at the Timmies drive-thru screws up your order because he can barely speak English. But I’ll bet few of you would feel comfortable on a plane behind a pilot with similar linguistic proficiency.   

It’s time to address ELP   

Canadian regulators have yet to address this question. I mean, the house is already burning down with other needed changes that should have been addressed long ago. I don’t expect any action on this question anytime soon.

That said, Canadian fleets still have to be concerned about their drivers being put out-of-service in the Lower 48.

The threat is very real there. A citation is one thing, but out-of-service means just that. That driver is no longer allowed to drive a commercial vehicle. The cost and inconvenience of getting a new driver to the truck and getting sidelined driver home are considerable. Not to mention the loss of customer faith, downtime, etc.

Many states have made it clear they are not prepared to tolerate drivers who cannot understand English well enough to carry on a conversation. Or read basic English.  

Fleets can get out in front of this by helping their newcomer drivers learn English. There are tons of English as a Second Language podcasts and audio programs designed for people struggling with English. There are community resources as well.

I have to hand it to these drivers; they are barely able to communicate, yet they forge on. They are braver than I am.

I have ventured out in public in Japan and Sweden, on my own. It’s intimidating. But I never put anyone else at risk. Driving a big truck with poor English language skills is another matter.   

There’s more at stake here than the cost of a bus ticket home.