Want better safety checks? Equipment manufacturers need to give drivers the right tools.

I’ve been directed by some higher power to write this column. It seems that way, anyhow. First, I get a cryptic e-mail message from Dennis Simcock of the Arnold Bros. Training Academy in Winnipeg. Next, a proposal to revise Ontario’s trip inspection requirements lands in my lap. And then, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance releases a report suggesting we’ve still got a long way to go in improving our record with respect to air-brake performance and adjustment.

As it turns out, these events are related. It’s a sign.

Simcock told me that, back in January, a driver he knows was pulled into the Rush Bay scale near Kenora, Ont., and was asked to complete a questionnaire about trip inspections. The inspector allegedly told the fellow that drivers may soon be required to demonstrate their knowledge of air-brake systems with some sort of test, done right there at the scale. Horrified, Simcock wanted to know what Ontario’s Ministry of Transportation (MTO) was up to.

It seems that inspector may have taken a few liberties during the conversation because MTO officials insist that kind of examination isn’t likely to happen any time soon. The survey, it turns out, was nothing more than a bit of research in the process of revising Ontario’s trip-inspection protocol.

The CVSA report on brake safety suggests that there’s still a lot to be done in reducing the out-of-service rate for brake defects. Which brings me back around to the brake test issue and Ontario’s proposed revisions to the trip-inspection requirements for drivers. But first, a bit of background.

Last year’s 72-hour safety blitz, International Roadcheck 2000, netted 36,585 trucks continent wide. Over 11,181 trucks were placed out of service with 20,648 critical defects between them, and 10,611 of those were brake-related. Digging a little deeper, we found that 4526 of the 10,611 were system-related, leaving 6085 out-of-service violations attributable to poor brake adjustment. Digging deeper still, it was revealed that 3820 of the adjustment violations were found on power units while only 2265 were found on trailers.

Based on my 20+ years dealing with brake adjustment, here’s what I see in those numbers. Power units recorded more violations because, with Mack being a notable exception, the brake chamber/slack adjuster assembly is nearly impossible to see unless you’re lying under the truck. The brake assembly on a trailer is more accessible, making inspection and adjustment considerably easier. If it’s not already obvious after examining the CVSA out-of-service numbers, drivers are just not willing to spend the first 15 minutes of their day lying on a muddy, oil-soaked parking lot marking and measuring their pushrods.

So, with Ontario considering a revision of the trip-inspection requirements, maybe it would be helpful to take another look at the air-brake endorsement as well. And the way that brake systems are built.

I think truck manufacturers should be required to equip their products with brake-application-force indicators (as opposed to brake-stroke indicators), similar to the indicators found on a torque wrench. Application force is much more useful in determining overall system performance than stroke measurement ever will be. These indicators should be easily visible to a driver while standing or kneeling beside the vehicle, not lying under it.

And, for the record, I think drivers should be able to conduct a brake-system diagnostic check during a roadside inspection, just to prove that they remain capable of doing so long after the test was written. The problem is, most of the air-brake manuals used in Canada today over-emphasize the nuts and bolts of the brake system, while touching only lightly on its operation and functionality.

I’ve never found much value in being able to visualize the relay valves opening and my reservoirs depleting while I’m making a hard stop. I was always more concerned that all the wheels were doing their equal share of braking and that I wasn’t going to go whirling off into the rhubarb because the right brakes were grabbing harder than the left. Driver training should emphasize how to diagnose problems and provide drivers with a better understanding of the limitations of the system with respect to terrain, weight, speed and road conditions. It doesn’t.

What we ultimately need to do is improve the reliability of the brake system. At the same time we need to improve the driver’s understanding of it. We don’t need to come up with more coercive ways of holding drivers accountable for mechanical failings that are beyond his ability to detect, let alone fix.

So what do the CVSA report, that driver’s account of his conversation at the scale, and the revised trip inspection proposal have in common? They all suggest drivers don’t have the right tools to do their job and they’re being asked to do more than should be expected of them. They aren’t being trained and held accountable in useful air-brake system diagnostics. They don’t have a reliable way of detecting brake performance problems, but they’re still held responsible for most of what might go wrong.

I can’t help feeling that if a driver had been at the table when all this responsibility was being handed out, we wouldn’t be stuck with such an unworkable arrangement as we have today. If change is in the wind, then let’s go all the way.