Csa 2010


Site Supporter
Problem with CVOR

The problem with the CVOR system is the data availability. Yes, I can get a CVOR record for a carrier, but I have to order it, pay for it and then download one at a time. It's a nightmare. Then if I want to look at it again next month, I have to go through the same crazy process.

With SAFERSYS and now CSA 2010 I can review a carriers safety record on demand. The information is easy to get and current. I would definately think twice about using a carrier who has an "alert" in one of his BASICS regardless of the price he's offering.

Recent court cases implicate both the shipper and the 3PL in lawsuits when a carrier gets in a collision. It has been established that the shipper and the 3PL have a duty of care to select a "safe" carrier.

Think about that the next time you hire a "runner".
Last edited by a moderator:


Site Supporter
Recent court cases implicate both the shipper and the 3PL in lawsuits when a carrier gets in a collision. It has been established that the shipper and the 3PL have a duty of care to select a "safe" carrier.

Think about that the next time you hire a "runner".


Well said Pablo!

My only concern with CSA2010 and the 7 BASICS is there MAY be a shortage of carriers without alerts. Will you then adjust your company to reflect the available carrier base? I think this will become an issue as we get in to this program.


Site Supporter
So far so good

So far so good.... I've been randomly checking my core carrier list, I've yet to see an alert. (confirms we've made good choices in the past!)

Over the next few days, I'll be doing a more comprehensive review.


Site Supporter
The only problem is that the carrier search link is disabled so you must input MC or DOT#'s which is a bit of a pain to have to look up each one individually.


Site Supporter
I went to a seminar about this and the head of FMSCA in Maine warned us about a few problems that you need to be aware of if you are a carrier. Warnings now count on your record and the problem I have with that is you cannot fight a warning so the DOT officers are wise to this and if your driver is being an a**h*le the just give him a warning. That is not were it ends if he is a real jerk then they stack which is write up the same infraction 3 different ways which triples the points against you. Low and behold we come back and find a driver that we had gotten rid of got this exact "warning" with three different violations and totals a lot of points. There is a way of fighting it but so far we cannot get through to anyone so by the time we have an answer it will be off our record. I guess what I'm saying is if you have a carrier you have been working with and they have a warning you may want them to explain it before taking action. Also make sure all your info is updated our miles where way to low and that makes a big difference. I just want to be clear we do not have a warning I'm just passing on my concerns for this system.
The problem with the system is too much weight is given to minor log infractions a driver would make. Then they decided an addition error, or clerical error should be lumped under "Driver Fatigue".

Most carriers have gone thru a recent session of new hires. New people do make mistakes. Unfortunately now a driver missing a shift time, a mileage, or a signature will haunt a carrier for 2 years.

A clerical error on a driver's part in no way reflects on a carrier's safety performance record.

All the training you can provide is still not going to prevent someone missing minor information, when they are under constant stress and pressure from dispatchers, load-brokers, law enforcement, etc.

To err is human--- but DOT doesn't forget.
Last edited by a moderator:

As a 3PL, I believe the bottom line on this issue is whether or not you risk contracting with a carrier with a less than perfect record. I try to give the benefit of the doubt and if I question a carrier and the warnings were for something fairly innocuous, and I decide to contract with them anyway, then I accept the risk of potentially becoming a co-defendant if the worst case scenario occurs. That's the crazy way of litigation, especially in the US where the lawyer's refrain is "Sue Everybody!". A good litigation lawyer would likely jump all over a 3PL who selected a carrier described above, regardless of the reasons for the warnings. And, in some US jurisdictions, you cannot recover any costs if successful. Then again, no risk - no reward. The only way to ultimately protect yourself is: don't do any business.
csa - shipper responsibility

I was wondering if anyone could help out with where I could find a comprehensive article on Shippers responsibility under the CSA?



Site Supporter
csa shipper responsibility

Fleet Mentor has a focus on shipper responsibility this week. It makes fo interesting reading especially on sealed truck loads, which can contribute to driver scroe if not loaded or secured correctly. Also they stress the need for improved wait times at shipper/receivers


Well-Known Member
I know that we have deactivated a lot of carriers based on this and it's still going on. Our compliance people have decided that if they pull up a SAFER and it indicates a 1 or 2 truck operation, it's getting DNU'd unless we can say for certain why it is.

As far as DOT stuff, I actually think it's a real flag if there is a 100% compliance or if the number of checks is too low. Every broker should be deciding for themselves what is an acceptable level of risk (ie OOS service rates, and checking for instances where something has happened, what exactly was it) and do business with the carrier or not based on these things.

As a 3PL it adds cost ... someone has to manage this stuff. Carriers will have to get their act together ... or they'll be stuck doing business with the 3PLs/brokers who don't care about the compliance, and chances are they won't care about paying on time etc either.


Members online
Guests online
Total visitors