In the world of commercial transportation, safety is paramount. To ensure the safety of drivers and other road users, regulations and monitoring programs are essential. One such program is the National Safety Code (NSC), which sets standards for commercial vehicles, drivers, and motor carriers in Canada. This code, though not law, is crucial in guiding provincial and territorial governments in drafting their safety regulations. In Alberta, the regulations are outlined in the Commercial Vehicle Certificate and Insurance Regulation, AR 314/2002 (Part 4.1).
NSC Standard 7 is the criteria for carrier and driver profiles. The Carrier Profile system is designed to provide an overview of a carrier's safety performance, encompassing records of infractions, collisions, on-road inspections, and facility audits. This system allows Alberta to monitor carriers' performance and take action against those posing safety risks across North America.
The Carrier Profile acts as a report card for carriers, offering transparency to stakeholders like shippers, insurance companies, and the public. By accessing this information, stakeholders can make informed decisions about engaging with specific carriers, promoting safety and accountability within the industry.
However, there is a critical issue with the reliability of the Carrier Profile data. Despite its intended purpose, there is a significant flaw in data sharing between jurisdictions. Alberta is not accurately capturing enforcement data from other provinces. This oversight means that Alberta trucking companies involved in incidents outside the province may not have their records updated promptly or accurately on their Carrier Profiles.
The implications of this data discrepancy are concerning. Carriers with incomplete or delayed information may not face the necessary interventions or audits, leading to inaccuracies in their risk factor scores. This discrepancy could potentially result in carriers maintaining a clean record, qualifying for insurance discounts, and evading enhanced monitoring or audits due to inaccurate risk assessment.
Moreover, the shortcomings extend to the auditing process itself. TPA (Third Party Auditors) do not have encryption keys and cannot audit unencrypted RODS. TPA (Third Party Auditors) lack proper training, support, and communication channels with Alberta Transportation, leading to flawed audits that further impact safety compliance determinations. This systemic issue raises questions about the effectiveness and integrity of the safety oversight program in Alberta.
Despite federal funding allocated to enhance road safety and data exchange initiatives, the existing gaps in the Carrier Profile system highlight a critical need for improvement. The discrepancy between intended safety measures and operational shortcomings underscores the urgency for corrective actions and increased accountability within the transportation safety framework.
Why is Alberta Transportation allowed to continue a program that is fundamentally flawed? Why are taxpayers paying salaries to a leadership group to run a flawed program? This is just another example of government inertia that is allowed to continue unabated while bureaucrats collect taxpayer salaries to do a terrible job. As taxpayers and stakeholders invested in road safety, it is essential to demand transparency, efficiency, and accuracy in safety monitoring programs. Accountability and rectification of existing flaws are imperative to uphold the standards of safety and compliance in the commercial transportation industry.
In conclusion, the revelations regarding the Alberta Transportation safety monitoring system shed light on the need for reform and transparency in data sharing and auditing processes. By addressing these issues, we can ensure that carriers are held accountable, road safety is prioritized, and the integrity of safety compliance programs is maintained for the well-being of all road users.
The Federal HOS was amended to mandate that drivers must use a certified Electronic Logging Device (ELD) to automatically record driving and working time instead of a paper logbook. The ELD section of the Federal Hours of Service (SOR/2005-313) (HOS) is 77 and the ELD mandate was fully enforced as of January 1, 2023. It is important to remember the HOS duty status limits (working time) and off duty time requirements did not change.
A driver is never exempt from the HOS duty status time limits but, the driver may be exempt from using a ELD to record time. The driver, if operating under an exemption, must record duty status time using an alternative time record such as a paper log. ELDs have the ability to accommodate exempt and non-exempt drivers, Technical Standard 3.1.3 but, the driver must be trained to use the exempt driver functionality.
It depends, each provider is different but, the costs a carrier should be aware of are: device cost, lease or buy, contract length, data charges, cloud storage and support. A ELD works exactly like a cellphone and just like cellphone contracts need to be reviewed carefully. All ELDs function the same the only difference is the user interface for the driver and carrier. Some ELD providers offer a Federal and Provincial application if you run 2 companies.
ELDs are important because it’s the law, if a driver has a serious incident without a functioning ELD the consequences can be grave for the carrier and the driver. Penalties for ELDs roadside and administrative in audit can get expensive. ELD penalties contribute to negative points on a carrier profile.
Certified ELD devices can be found on the Transport Canada website. Only certified ELDs can be used in Canada. The header page of a RODS contains the ELD Authentication Value, ELD Identifier and ELD Certification ID that confirm the authenticity. Motor carriers need to do required software updates to ensure the ELD remains compliant.
No, Raven teaches motor carriers and drivers how to use the ELD they currently have. We help carriers set up new ELDs to ensure compliance at the start. Raven can help motor carriers set up effective ELD monitoring policies to ensure compliance and limit liability in the event ELD data is needed as evidence.
