Connecticut Attorney General's Office, Press Relea

ratwell71

Veteran Expediter
Attorney General Proposes Mandatory Annual Commercial Truck Safety Inspections, Web Site "Hall Of Shame" For Repeat Violators

February 3, 2006

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal today called for a legislative measure to require annual safety inspections for all commercial trucks and create a web site listing all violations, including a "Hall of Shame" highlighting the worst repeat violators.

Blumenthal said that the measures are needed after a string of serious truck accidents last year in Connecticut that killed five and injured numerous others. All three trucking firms had serious safety and maintenance violations.

"The carnage caused by unsafe commercial trucks must end," Blumenthal said. "Connecticut must crack down on trucking companies that put unsafe trucks on the road, threatening public safety.

"Mandatory annual safety inspections will sideline dangerous trucks before they kill or injure, reducing the likelihood of deadly accidents like those last year. The vast majority of Connecticut commercial trucking firms are responsible and safe, and I would expect them to welcome tough measures to force industry renegades and repeat violators off the road.

"Anyone hiring a trucking company should have available -- readily and rapidly -- information on a website about every safety record and violation of every truck. A website with accurate current data about every truck will help stop accidents and save lives. It will encourage inspection and repairs -- and deter use of unsafe trucks. Consumers can avoid using truckers who repeatedly flout the law. Whether the consumer is a town, a business, or a homeowner, truck safety information will mean more responsible choices. A 'Hall of Shame' would bestow a dubious distinction to the most deserving. Shame and embarrassment, combined with monetary incentives, are important tools, but the key is making the information costless and convenient."

In 2005, an unsafe American Crushing & Recycling truck without insurance killed four motorists and injured others in a fiery crash on Avon Mountain; a Rock, LLC, truck with inoperative brakes and an overweight load killed a person in Wallingford and an accident involving a Winter Ridge truck, one of the top 25 trucking firms cited for vehicle safety violations, injured two.

Note:
Notice the mention of unsafe "trucks", but nothing mentioned about the manufacturing companies placing these trucks out on the market. Politicians have their hands in the "Big Corporation's" cookie jar. Big corporations should not be allowed to fund law makers!!!! Our government is being run by money not people.

Yes there are unsafe trucks out on the road, but not all of them are because of the owner's lack of pretrip or post-trip inspections. Read about the recall of Virginia school buses because of faulty brakes. That is a manufacturer issue not a school bus driver issue. He or she had no control over brakes being placed on the bus at the manufacturing plant. The govenor needs to place blame on the corporation that places unsafe vehicles in the market place. It is not always a "driver" issue.

About two weeks ago I was running without lights. Thank God for several vigilant truck drivers that told me by flashing their lights off and on. I turned the CB on to see what it was that they wanted and was told that I had been driving down the highway without lights. I pulled over and checked to see if I could use my brights. I could, so I headed to the nearest truck stop. I bought two headlights and some fuses thinking that was the quick fix. Nope. I investigated all possibilities, but found the problem to be a faulty hood design. Yes, the hood and under-carriage vibration cut the wire for my lights into. The ground and bright light wires were barely intact. I used a splicer connector to put it back together. Why am I telling you this story? Because I could have had an accident and it would have been pinned on me even though this is clearly an engineering design problem beyond my control.

Wake up truck drivers, these new stringent laws include you. You could be blamed for poor workmanship issues even though these are clearly manufacturing issues.

My lights worked when I did my pretrip, but as you can see I had no control over the hood snapping my wires into. This is clearly a safety issue.
 

bryan

Veteran Expediter
RE: Connecticut Attorney General's Office, Press R

HI
Why do they always single out the commercial vehicles?Wouldn't it be safer if they created laws for all vehicles?How many accident involving fatalities and injuries happened on Conneticut highways total last year?I bet alot more than 5.I wish they looked at the % of accidents involving commercial vehicles divided by the number of miles traveled compared to accidents involving non commercial vehicles divided by miles traveled.

The chance of being involved in an accident has to increase with the number of miles we drive.If the average driver drives 12000 miles a year then it would take him/her 10 years to equal what most of us drive per year.With the amount of traffic and the amount of miles we drive I'd have to say were either real lucky or really good just to keep the points off our license. So here hoping everybody stays sunny side up and between the lines.
 

highway star

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
RE: Connecticut Attorney General's Office, Press R

If I'm not mistaken, and someone PLEASE jump in and correct me if I'm wrong, are'nt trucks allready required to have an annual inspection?
 

Peace2All

Expert Expediter
RE: Connecticut Attorney General's Office, Press R

Each state's requirements are different, but what should be commented on is the fact that we have "LAWYERS" making statements without the facts. He is a lawyer not a commercial truck driver. Lawmakers and lawyers should consult with an expert in the field before making statements. Maybe he should have consulted w/ OOIDA first.

Another issue that should be addressed is the road conditions. Bad highways cause accidents too. Highways should be safe to drive on. Potholes, ruts, uneveness, etc. all do damage to our vehicles.

Just like a disease! If you treat the symptom instead of the cause then all efforts are in vain. The problem will remain unsolved.
 

highway star

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
RE: Connecticut Attorney General's Office, Press R

The annual inspection is a federal requirement. For a state to have one in addition to that would just be redundant.
 

ratwell71

Veteran Expediter
RE: Connecticut Attorney General's Office, Press R

No argument here with the redundancy issue. Lord knows there are plenty of redundant laws.

No need for different state laws then. We can all run under one law under federal guidelines. That would be the cure for the redundancies. Let there be one speed limit for the whole country. Federal law is supreme to the state's law. Each state is allowed to create its own laws to a certain degree.

The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution explains that federal law always trumps state law which means federal always wins if there is a conflict between the two. If there is no conflict then the state law will be used but if there is any question or conflict of the two reading as the same, then the federal rule would win.

Under the Supremacy Clause, everyone must follow federal law in the face of conflicting state law. It has long been established that "a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute" and that a conflict will be found either where compliance with both federal and state law is impossible or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Edgar v. Mite Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 631 (1982). Similarly, we have held that "otherwise valid state laws or court orders cannot stand in the way of a federal court's remedial scheme if the action is essential to enforce the scheme."

Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1089 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1069 (1987). This is critical because "a federal district court's exercise of discretion to enjoin state political bodies raises serious questions regarding the legitimacy of its authority." If Congress expressly provides for exclusive federal dominion or if it expressly provides for concurrent federal-state jurisdiction, the task of the Court is simplified, though, of course, there may still be doubtful areas in which interpretation will be necessary.

Where Congress is silent, however, the Court must itself decide whether the effect of the federal legislation is to oust state jurisdiction.

State's do make their own laws, and you are right by saying that the federal government mandates yearly inspections. You are incorrect in stating that each state does not have its own laws and requirements. Does this cause redundancies? Most of the time.
 
Top