The unsatisfying reality of safety ratings

Every Wednesday becomes “Black Wednesday” around noon. That’s when the Commission des Transports du Quebec (CTQ), which regulates motor carriers in the province, announces which companies it yanked off the road because of their poor safety record.

Two years ago, when Quebec implemented Bill 430, its sweeping truck safety rating program, some wondered how effective the province would be at targeting and punishing shoddy operators — the 5% or so of carriers whose performance is so abysmal that they present a threat to public safety on the highways. The notices pumping out of my fax machine week after week indicate that the system works pretty well.

Carriers across the country have always faced some form of government scrutiny when it comes to safety. Never, however, have the results been so readily available to the general public. Ontario, Manitoba, British Columbia, Quebec, and the U.S. federal government now post information about carrier safety records online.

It’s an interesting exercise to see how companies score. Like other provincial transport departments, the CTQ (www.ctq.gouv.qc.ca) posts on its web site safety ratings for carriers operating in the province.

The worst offenders, the “unsatisfactory” carriers, face removal from the road for five years. For those who were saying anybody can get into the trucking industry, now it’s pretty clear it’s also quite easy to be kicked out of it if you’re fooling around a bit too much. This is the “shape up or shape out” approach responsible carriers have been waiting for.

Regardless, we’re used to seeing bad guys punished. What I’d like to see is recognition for those who scored well. And not just some token gesture — there should be real financial incentives attached for carriers who follow the rules and spend major dough to comply and stay sharp.

A carrier should be able to parlay a top-notch safety record into increased business. In most places, a satisfactory or exceptional record hasn’t been enough to attract additional business from shippers, and it certainly hasn’t prompted lower rates from insurance companies, who say only fewer claims can reduce premiums.

That leaves government to provide incentives. And why not? Because I’m a good and compliant carrier, I save the government money: my trucks aren’t overloaded, so I don’t ruin the roads; my trucks don’t speed, minimizing fuel emissions and the need for enforcement to keep a watchful eye on me.

So reduce my licensing fees. Discount my permits. Let me put a sticker on my window saying I can cross the scales faster. And, in the case of provinces offering state-run vehicle insurance, cut my premiums.

We’re about to find out how far Quebec is willing to go. The Société de l’assurance automobile du Quebec (SAAQ) is preparing a program called Partenaires Émérites, modelled on the Alberta’s Partners in Compliance. The launch is expected in 2003. Qualified carriers might be allowed privileges like accelerated service at scales and fewer inspections in their shops. Anything about financial rewards? “We submitted that idea to our analysts, but we don’t know yet if that will be feasible,” said Lucille Bordeleau, who is responsible for the premier carriers program at la SAAQ.

Let’s cross our fingers. Punishing truck operators for irresponsible behavior is the responsibility of government. But if government want to be progressive, it will take steps to encourage good behavior — and reward carriers for it in a meaningful way.