Alternative Truck and Bus Inspection Strategies (2006)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

12 CHAPTER 5 CHARACTERISTICS OF TRUCK AND BUS INSPECTION STRATEGIES This section describes the current and emerging technolo- gies used in commercial vehicle inspections, as well as the findings of the survey and interviews that were conducted by the study team to develop a better understanding of the char- acteristics of truck and bus inspection strategies. CURRENT TECHNOLOGIES USED IN COMMERCIAL VEHICLE INSPECTIONS A variety of technologies are used routinely to identify, screen, and inspect commercial vehicle at the roadside. In some cases, these technologies have been mainstreamed into other programs (e.g., CVISN, Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program), which has increased the number of jurisdictions using this technology. The most commonly used technologies include the following: • Electronic screening, which combines vehicle identifi- cation, vehicle screening, and WIM technologies; • Virtual weigh stations (VWS); • ASPEN roadside inspection software; and • Infrared brake detectors. Each of these technologies is described below. Electronic Screening Systems Electronic screening systems are designed to target a juris- diction’s enforcement efforts at motor carriers, vehicles, and commercial drivers that are most likely to be in violation of federal, state and local regulations/laws. To achieve this goal, electronic screening systems combine a variety of technolo- gies, as illustrated in Figure 2. Figure 2 illustrates the implementation of the following steps: 1. Commercial vehicles that have been enrolled in an electronic screening program are identified using a windshield-mounted transponder. The transponder stores an identifier that is unique to each vehicle. The commercial vehicle is identified approximately one- quarter of a mile in advance of an inspection station. 2. As the commercial vehicle approaches the inspection facility, it also may be weighed via in-road scales. This WIM technology determines a vehicle’s gross weight, as well as individual axle weights. In some deployments, vehicles are weighed at mainline speeds. In other deploy- ments, this weighing is done at slower speeds on the ramp to the inspection facility. 3. Once the commercial vehicle is identified, the electronic screening system screens the vehicle and the carrier the vehicle is assigned to based on a state’s unique screen- ing algorithm. A variety of data are used to determine whether a vehicle should be pulled into an inspection station. These data include a carrier/vehicle’s registra- tion and fuel tax status, data gathered from the WIM, as well as data concerning the carrier/vehicle’s past safety performance. Jurisdictions use numerous algorithms to determine a carrier’s past performance, including Inspection Selection System (ISS), Inspection Selec- tion System-2 (ISS-2), SAFESTAT, as well as state/ e-screening system’s proprietary algorithms. All of these algorithms analyze a carrier/vehicle’s past inspection record, compliance review history, and safety history in order to calculate a numeric value that summarized the carrier’s relative safety performance. For instance, any vehicle that is assigned an ISS-2 score greater than 75 is recommended for inspection. 4. Based on the data analyzed in step 3, the driver of the commercial vehicle is informed about whether the vehi- cle can bypass the inspection site or if it must pull into the site for further inspection. Vehicles that are allowed to bypass the site will be shown a green light on their in-cab transponder. Vehicles that must pull into the site are shown a red light on their transponder. Electronic screening systems currently are deployed in 36 states. Virtual Weigh Stations Virtual weigh stations use technology to remotely monitor commercial vehicles and enforce commercial vehicle laws and regulations. The technologies used at each VWS vary depending on the focus of the enforcement activity (e.g., if they are screening trucks for weight violations, credential violations, etc.). The range of technologies employed at a VWS may include the following:

• Closed circuit television (CCTV), • OCR, • License plate readers, • Weigh-in-motion (WIM), • Overheight detectors, • Overwidth detectors, • Cargo seal readers, and • High-speed cameras. VWS allow states to monitor commercial vehicles on routes that typically would not have enforcement resources dedicated to them, which expands the states’ enforcement presence. In most states, an enforcement officer is dispatched to inspect a vehicle that has been identified as problematic. Most juris- dictions currently do not utilize photo enforcement in support of VWS. ASPEN Roadside Inspection Software In order to standardize the data collected during roadside inspections, as well as the format in which the data is collected—FMCSA developed the ASPEN Roadside Inspec- tion Software. ASPEN allows roadside inspection data to be collected electronically and includes data validation—which improves data accuracy and limits data entry errors. ASPEN also prints the inspection report and contains communica- tion protocols that allow the roadside inspection data to be uploaded to FMCSA databases electronically. ASPEN (or an equivalent) currently is used by 48 states. Infrared Brake Testers The Infrared Inspection System (IRISystem) is a mini- van equipped with an infrared camera on the roof and a display screen inside the vehicle. As a commercial motor vehicle decelerates to enter a roadside inspection facility, 13 an IRISystem operator scans the wheels with the camera. A thermal image of the wheels, showing their relative tempera- ture, is displayed on the screen inside the van. As the applica- tion of brakes creates heat, the wheels with functional (warm) brakes appear bright white in the infrared image, while the wheels with inoperative (cold) brakes appear dark. A color image enables the operator to easily identify a vehicle with functional or inoperative brakes (Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Evaluation of Infrared Brake Screening Tech- nology, July 2002, Publication No. FMCSA-MCRT-02-100). EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES USED IN COMMERCIAL VEHICLE INSPECTIONS In addition to the existing technologies used in commercial vehicle inspections, numerous emerging technologies also are being studied for use in commercial vehicle enforcement. These technologies include • Wireless truck and bus inspections, • Five and nine-tenths gigahertz (5.9 GHz), • Inspection Selection System-Driver, • Electronic citations, and • Geo-fencing. Wireless Truck and Bus Inspections Technologies currently are being tested that will allow enforcement personnel to interrogate a commercial vehicle’s on-board diagnostic systems, in order to identify vehicle- related concerns. For instance, a commercial vehicle’s on- board diagnostic system could identify a brake malfunction. Information about this malfunction and the vehicle could be passed onto roadside enforcement personnel for purposes of targeting the vehicle for further inspection. Roadside person- nel at fixed inspection sites or in mobile units could use this 1 2,34 Parking OOS Parking HAZMAT Parking Figure 2. Typical electronic screening deployment: 1. Truck identified by transponder; 2. Truck weighed; 3. Inspection determination made; 4. Driver signalled to drive on or stop.

information in order to target their efforts. The first test of this kind was conducted by Volvo North America, the Univer- sity of Tennessee, and the National Transportation Research Center in December 2004. FMCSA currently is conducting research in this area, as well. Five and Nine-Tenths Gigahertz (5.9 GHz) The Federal Communications Commission has allocated a new communication spectrum (5.9 GHz) to roadside-vehicle uses. This frequency may become the underlying technol- ogy for a variety of new commercial vehicle services, includ- ing improved electronic screening, cargo/freight tracking, and wireless inspections. To date, commercial vehicle stake- holders have not be actively involved in the planning for the use of this frequency but this community will be involved in future discussions—once the issues related to the use of this technology by passenger vehicles are addressed. ISS-Driver (ISS-D) FMCSA currently is developing a new screening algorithm that will integrate commercial driver data into existing screen- ing algorithms. Known as the Inspection Selection System– Driver (ISS-D), this algorithm incorporates data regarding a carrier’s historical driver safety management performance into its ISS score. Initial evaluation data has indicated that enforcement agencies that use this new measure are twice as likely to place a commercial driver out-of-service than when they do not use the algorithm. Electronic Citations Researchers at the University of Alabama recently devel- oped software that can be used by the Alabama law enforce- ment community to automate citation issuance and to upload the citation information to a central data repository. The soft- ware allows Alabama officers to use their computers to quickly and accurately fill out citation forms and then print out the tickets. In the near future, the capability to automatically upload the citation data to a central citation data repository will be implemented. In addition, troopers will also be able to swipe a driver’s license with a magnetic code or bar stripe and have instant access on their computers to that motorist’s driver and vehi- cle data, any violations, and the driver’s picture. This data will be available from a database called the Law Enforcement Tactical System. With such a system, it will soon be feasible for an officer who just pulled over a motorist to know that this motorist, for example, was also pulled over 2 hours ago in a different part of the state. The repeated violation would then likely warrant a more severe punishment than a standalone violation (policeone.com website, “E-citations going statewide 14 in Alabama,” February 17, 2005, http://www.policeone.com/ police-products/traffic-enforcement/articles/99313/). Geo-Fencing Satellite tracking systems currently are being tested to determine their effectiveness in monitoring the location of hazardous material shipments and notifying motor carrier and enforcement personnel if a shipment diverts from its approved route. This technology is being tested as part of the recent increased focus on commercial vehicle security. In a similar use of technology, transponders and cargo seals also are being used to ensure that commercial vehicles remain on predeter- mined routes. Tests of this transponder-based technology are being conducted in the State of Washington, as well as in the corridor between Laredo, Texas and Detroit, Michigan. VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION Nearly 60% of the survey respondents indicated that the highest priority for their commercial vehicle inspection pro- gram is identifying problem drivers. This was followed by 28% indicating that identifying problem carriers was the highest priority and 24% indicating that identifying problem vehicles was the highest priority. Only 8% of the respondents indicated that identifying problem cargo was their highest pri- ority. (Note: Some respondents indicate multiple “number 1” priorities, which is why the totals do not equal 100%.) When asked what factors are considered when selecting a vehicle for an inspection, 73.9% of the respondents indicated that they would look for an obvious vehicle defect. This implies some level of visual inspection once the vehicle has been stopped. However, the majority (64%) of respondents indi- cated that they use electronic means by which to screen vehi- cles. The implication of these values is that many jurisdictions rely on electronic screening tools for selecting vehicles in advance of a fixed site. Once vehicles have been pulled into a facility officers often rely on a visual inspection to determine what action to take next. Once it is determined if there is a visible defect with the vehicle, enforcement agencies consider the safety history of the carrier/vehicle/driver (34.8%), whether they have a CVSA decal (26.1%), whether there is a traffic violation (21.7%), previous inspection results (13%), probable cause (8.7%), weight of the vehicle (8.7%) and status of operating creden- tials (4.3%) as the reasons that factor into the decision as to whether or not an inspection should be performed. When industry representatives were asked to indicate what the number one priority should be for commercial vehicle inspection programs most indicated that targeting problem drivers should receive highest priority. Most of these repre- sentatives believe that drivers are the most likely to be respon- sible for an accident as opposed to the carrier they are operating

for or the cargo they are hauling. One interviewee noted that a driver with a 50% out-of-service rate was involved in a recent bus crash that resulted in 23 deaths. Interviewees noted that less than half of the states (24) inspect motor coaches. Given that passengers are the “cargo” on buses and are therefore at risk during a crash, many inter- viewees believe that more attention needs be paid to motor coaches. Technologies That Are Employed WIM devices (94.1%) are the most frequently used screen- ing tools. Automatic vehicle identification (AVI) readers and overdimensional detectors are being used by 41.2% of the respondents, while 23.5% of the jurisdictions are using remote monitoring devices such as video surveillance cam- eras. A relatively small percentage (11.8%) or respondents use either automatic vehicle classification (AVC) or radio- logical, biological, or chemical sensing technologies. None of the respondents indicated that they use license plate read- ers. Of the individuals who indicated that they use electronic screening technologies, 62.5% are using third-party (e.g., Pre- Pass) versus 50% that reported using an in-house developed systems, with several agencies using a mix of the two. The use of a specific technology appears to be very much tied to the maturity of the technology. It is important to note that the technology that is in use today is not geared toward identifying problem drivers—which 60% of the respondents indicated is the priority for their program. In short, the screen- ing tools that are being used in the field are geared toward identifying problem vehicles or carriers as opposed to prob- lem drivers. Although there may be many reasons for this, there is a clear sense that there is a disconnect between enforce- ment priorities and the tools that are available. Since commercial vehicle enforcement agencies are being asked to do more with less there is a greater reliance on the use of technology. This reliance has then brought with it the very common theme of a need for increased data qual- ity. Improving the quality of information made available to inspectors was only second (66.7%) behind reducing crashes (87.5%) as the top priority for a respondent’s inspection pro- gram. The robustness of the data made available to field per- sonnel is one that is critical to increasing the effectiveness of automated screening and should be thought of in terms of a national scope. Bad data used in conjunction with high-tech screening methods could result in either false negatives, thus allowing problematic drivers, carriers and vehicles to con- tinue on, or false positives which would tend to frustrate indi- viduals with good records who could possibly be pulled over for an inspection that is not necessary. In addition to the accu- racy issues, jurisdictions are also concerned about access to the data and resulting security concerns. Data security issues very much parallel data accuracy issues in that the ability of someone to falsify electronic data has of course a direct effect 15 on the accuracy of the information. Means must be investi- gated that would provide the mechanisms by which data could not be tampered with, or at least provide roadside per- sonnel the ability to determine if the original data has been intercepted and different data inserted. The majority (58.3%) of jurisdictions currently are using an automated safety algorithm to support screening activities. Of those jurisdictions using an automated safety algorithm the overwhelming majority (71.4%) are using either ISS or ISS2. A significant number (42.9%) are using SafeStat, while 35.7% are using a locally developed algorithm. None of the respondents indicated that they are using PRISM target files. Also, 32% of the respondents currently have a Commercial Vehicle Information Window (CVIEW) system. (It must be noted that 40% of the respondents indicated that they intend to implement CVIEW in the future.) Given the nature of ISS and SafeStat, it is not surprising that a combined 88% of the respondents indicated that their cur- rent tools are most effective at identifying high-risk carriers and vehicles. Respondents indicated that these tools are least effective at identifying high-risk drivers and cargo. The response from the commercial vehicle industry con- cerning screening algorithms is identical to that of enforce- ment agencies. Industry has stated that although ISS is a good tool, it should be expanded to include driver data. The vast majority (83.3%) of the respondents indicated that their inspection selection tools have not changed over the past few years. Despite this, 54% of the respondents indicated that the tools they employ are not meeting the needs of the enforcement community. Several respondents commented that they are not changing the tools they are using today because they do not view the other tools that are available as being any more effective. Of the respondents that had recently changed their screening tools, 55% indicated that the new tools they are using are not effective. INSPECTIONS Who Performs Them? On the whole inspections are being performed by personnel who are fully sworn police officers. 67% of the respondents said that their inspectors have the ability to stop any vehicle. 67% also said that their inspectors are fully sworn police offi- cers and carry firearms. Only 17% indicated that their inspec- tors are civilians with limited enforcement authority. Nearly 35% of the respondents indicated that probable cause is required in order to stop a commercial vehicle. When industry representatives were asked about who should be conducting inspections, several indicated that all inspec- tors should receive mechanical training and implied that many of the inspectors in the field currently do not possess these skills. One individual indicated that he believed inspec- tors in New York and Michigan are well trained.

Where Are They Performed? Almost two-thirds of the respondents said that commercial vehicle inspections are performed at fixed weigh stations. Approximately 30% are performed by mobile enforcement teams, while the remaining 4% are conducted at temporary facilities set up along the roadside. Although almost twice as many jurisdictions are performing inspections at fixed sites as opposed to relying on mobile units, 28.6% of the respondents indicated that their communications infrastructure should be targeted for improvement. Assuming that fixed weigh stations currently have an adequate communications infrastructure in place, this suggests that there is an increasing desire to improve the capabilities of mobile units. How Are They Performed? The overwhelming majority (92%) of agencies said that their inspectors have a laptop computer with ASPEN soft- ware or other inspection software installed, while only 4% of the respondents indicated that they are using personal digital assistant (PDA) technology in conjunction with ASPEN or other inspection software. Despite the widespread deploy- ment of inspection software, respondents indicated that nearly 30% of inspections are conducted and recorded manually. Just over 20% of the respondents indicated that inspectors have access to vehicle diagnostic tools (e.g., brake testing equipment). Almost two-thirds (63%) of the respondents indicated that today’s inspection software tools are meeting their needs. Of the 37% that indicated that these tools do not meet their needs, 60% reported that they are not user friendly, are not effective for the purposes of identifying noncompliance issues, or do not improve the accuracy (i.e., data quality) of the inspection results. 16 Impact on Motor Carrier/ Motorcoach Productivity Nearly 55% of the respondents indicated that the inspection selection tools and inspection tools they are using today have “some” negative impact on motor carrier productivity. Almost 15% of the respondents believe that these tools have a “sig- nificant” impact on motor carrier productivity, while slightly over 30% indicated they are unable to assess what impact the tools they are using have on motor carrier productivity. ENFORCEMENT Nearly 55% of the respondents indicated that the primary strategy behind their commercial vehicle safety program is getting problem drivers, vehicles, or carriers off the road through the issuance of out-of-service orders. One-quarter of the respondents indicated that their enforcement program was focused on educating the commercial vehicle community, while 21% of the respondents indicated that their enforce- ment strategy focuses on issuing citations. The spread in the responses to this question suggests that jurisdictions have fundamentally different approaches and strategies in place for their enforcement programs. Not surprisingly, 92% of the respondents believe that the strategies they employ are effective at deterring carriers from operating a commercial vehicle illegally. Only 8% of the respondents think there strategies are not effective at deter- ring carriers from operating vehicles illegally. It is interest- ing to compare the response to this question to the response to the question about the effectiveness of the inspection tools that are available where nearly 60% of the respondents indi- cated that the tools that are available do not meet their needs yet 92% of the respondents believe there strategies are an effective deterrent.