FORMULA 1 LESSONS FOR TRUCKING RISK

WHY IT MATTERS:? As in Formula 1 racing, there is no single element that is the answer to reducing risk.? It is addressing multiple elements to improve performance and limit exposure.

?

THE BACKGROUND:? Covid brought me back to Formula 1 with Netflix’s “Drive to Survive.”? A fan in the “Golden Years” of Jim Clarke, Graham Hill,…I drifted away in the Seventies to NASCAR.?

?

Mine was the NASCAR of one-name drivers (“Richard”, “David”, “Cale”, “Buddy”, “Dale”…) and when the car that won on Sunday was sold on Monday.? It has now morphed to a corporate enterprise with one car (“of tomorrow”) and a myriad of rules and scoring.? This Boomer missed the one rule NASCAR—first across the line wins.

?

“Drive to Survive” reinvigorated my interest in Formula 1.? My wife, with no interest in motor sports, is now an avid Hamilton fan with Red Bull the “Evil Empire” and Christian Horner “Darth Vader”.

?

Beyond racing, these multi-million dollar enterprises.? Their business practices and technology applications are inciteful for application to our industry.

?

WHAT IS THE LESSON:

?

There are 10 teams in F1.? Lately nine are chasing the Red Bull team.? See personal thoughts about Red Bull above.

?

In the interviews with the heads of the pursuing teams, there is a common thread—“We are not going to do it with one change.? We must improve across multiple elements.”

?

That lesson is applicable to risk reduction in our industry.? We must improve in multiple areas.? Otherwise, like the weak spot in a balloon, the pressure will find the vulnerable area and explode.

?

WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS:

?

If you have heard me present or read my newsletter or seen my video, you know that this year I am emphasizing “Death by Dogma.”? If you haven’t seen or read or watched my stuff, what have you been doing that’s so important?? Nevermind.

?

The elements in that topic are ones that you must strengthen across the board to protect against vulnerabilities.? These include the following:

?

-Manuals:? Too many companies believe that verbiage in manuals will defend them in Court.? To the contrary, sanctimonious safety language unsupported by actual practice and culture is like writing a check you can’t cash.? It will come back and bite you in Court.?

?

Moreover, the purpose is conveying expectations to drivers in a manner by which they will comply.? Consider how you can do so that will be best absorbed.

?

Spoiler alert—lengthy prose is not the answer in today’s text and YouTube society.? Short videos?? Bullet points?? Graphic novel style?

?

One company has reduced their “manual” to six principles.? Akin to the Smith System.? If their drivers comply with those six behaviors, they have met the company expectations.

?

Policy Enforcement:? You need drivers.? I understand.? But do the loads pay enough to cover the exposure created by the noncompliant drivers?

?

If you have qualifications for new hires, do your existing drivers meet the standard?? If not, how are you going to explain that in Court?

?

“The Call”:? Do you have a designated person to take the call when there is an accident?? Are they trained?? Have a checklist?? And have you impressed upon them the crucial nature of their role?

?

A mistake or error in recording the information can haunt you throughout the litigation.? The billboard attorneys will hold it aloft as the “word”, “before any safety officials or attorneys were involved”.?

?

An extreme example of unpreparedness?? Check out this humorous, but inciteful example from Berlitz https://youtu.be/0MUsVcYhERY?si=9Q1Q0reuqgHdF3pv

?

Driver Statements:? Don’t.? Don’t take them.? Limited information, maybe.? But in the most serious of accidents, refer them to your attorney.

?

Short version:? you are creating discoverable evidence to hand plaintiffs on a platter, it can conflict with other statements (such as their police report version), can conflict with other evidence (ECM, video,…), is of little to no evidentiary value, and in the worst of cases deprives you driver of their 5th Amendment privileges.? Please Don’t.

?

Non-DOT D & A testing:? Don’t.? Do you see a theme here?

?

Again, you have a trained observer on the scene to evaluate indications of influence—the police officer.? If there is indication for probable cause, their duty is to test.

?

In today’s world, any unnecessary testing is an unnecessary risk.? See my Substack post at https://open.substack.com/pub/dougmarcello/p/non-dot-post-accident-d-and-a-dont?r=8gg1s&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

?

BOTTOM LINE:? Risk avoidance is not a one-shot program.? It means improving multiple areas, a sampling of which are above.? Take the lesson from the world’s greatest racers.