In our Dispatches section this month, there’s a half-page item that lists five statistics about collision rates and commercial trucks that might come in handy next time you want to quickly snuff out half-truths and misinformation about the industry’s safety record.

During a flight home from a trade show in Dallas last month, I was chatting with a guy next to me who works for an auto-parts supplier, and he asked a question not so easily dismissed: How can the trucking industry claim to be pro-safety when it’s fought against anti-lock braking systems and ignored collision-warning devices, data recorders, and other safety-related technologies?

Good question. I can think of two good answers.

First, truck buyers’ “wait-and-prove-it” mentality about safety-related technology is justified by a legacy of failure dating back 25 years to the first attempts at ABS. Fortunately, anti-lock brakes and other safety systems have improved. The real issue now is that with few exceptions (see Three’s A Charm, page 48) they’re not tightly integrated. Adaptive cruise control, collision-warning devices, traction control, tire-pressure management, lane-tracking, anti-lock brakes, electronic engine controls-there isn’t a single box on board that can manage and interpret all the data generated by several on-board sources (or from several different makers).

A friend of mine used to fly combat helicopters. Their on-board computer processes data gathered from throughout the aircraft and continually checks it against 33 pre-programmed disaster scenarios. Instead of overwhelming the pilot with data, the computer feeds him items one or a few at a time in priority order, the highest being an incoming missile. There’s even an audible countdown to impact. Nice.

That’s an example of how safety-related technology is used for the benefit of the vehicle’s operator, because ultimately, that’s where the decisions are made. And finding ways to make these systems more compatible is a major issue truck and component manufacturers must resolve before truck buyers can feel confident about paying for this stuff. Because right now, most truck buyers can’t justify the cost. On paper, it’s easy to see why.

Say you’re buying 200 tractors and weighing a $4000 safety option for each. Now, during the course of one year-or over three or four, for that matter-how many collisions would that technology help to prevent? A couple? So you write off those vehicles, let’s say at $75,000 each. Now you’re $150,000 out of pocket instead of $800,000.

Against that backdrop, safety and productivity need to be laced together by a long thread of financial incentives-additional flexibility on hours of service or wider use of LCV technology, for instance.

I could sense the frustration of the man next to me. “What if people die in those two collisions?” he asked. “How can you rationalize that cost?”

Now we’re into real sensitive territory, where even good reasons are never good enough. Let’s face it, as a truck buyer, you make choices, just like a car buyer who decides he wants one air bag instead of two. You weigh the costs, you weigh the benefits, you weigh the potential that the technology you adopt is going to help you operate more safely or be more competitive. And then you can justify the decision you make-maybe not to the satisfaction of a stranger on a plane, but at least you can rest easy that it comes from the values that guide your organization. Because it’s a decision you’re going to have to live with.

——-

Something Positive to Say

A fatal accident-especially one as notorious as the 80-vehicle pileup on Hwy. 401 near Windsor, Ont., on Sept. 3-can be devastating to a trucking company’s rank-and-file. Here’s how Challenger Motor Freight president Dan Einwechter coped with the situation. It was complicated by a photo published in newspapers across Canada that showed a charred and twisted Challenger truck at the head of the crash:

“After you’re told, you’re of two minds. First, you want to find out what happened, to get the people you want on the scene gathering details and co-operating with the investigation. On the other hand, you know the phone is going to be ringing off the hook at the office and you want your employees to to feel confident and secure about what to say, because customers and reporters will be asking what happened.

“I told my staff how tragic the accident was, how thankful I was that our driver was OK, and I urged them to let cooler heads prevail until after an assessment and investigation was done. I also wanted them to know that I was extremely proud of our operator for what he did: he took evasive action when he saw the fog ahead of him. He moved to a safe place, but unfortunately he was hit from behind.

“I wanted the staff to understand that our guy did things right. I think that made them feel better when the time came to explain the crash to someone else, be it a customer or a young son or daughter.”