How safe are Mexican carrier operations?
With the debate heating up as the FMCSA prepares to open the border to Mexican carriers, let’s take a moment to examine the available data on Mexican trucking operations in the U.S.
Motor Carrier Census Data
| Motor Carrier Census Data | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Active Carriers with U.S. DOT Number | 13,086 | 13,923 | 13,904 | 13,957 | 14,224 |
| Power Units | 32,464 | 38,861 | 39,545 | 41,101 | 42,141 |
| Commercial Drivers | 24,820 | 31,380 | 32,102 | 33,067 | 34,075 |
| Carriers with OP-2 Authority | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 6,388 |
| Power Units | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 26,514 |
| Commercial Drivers | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 23,447 |
Roadside Inspection data shows a continuing improvement year to year with 2006 stats being lower than comparable data for American Carriers
Roadside Inspections
| Roadside Inspections - Mexican Domiciled Vehicles | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inspections | 99,518 | 129,684 | 136,987 | 165,689 | 183,865 |
| Driver Inspections | 99,261 | 129,519 | 136,540 | 165,554 | 183,415 |
| Driver OOS Rate | 6.5% | 3.1% | 1.7% | 1.2% | 1.3% |
| Vehicle Inspections | 89,494 | 116,129 | 126,519 | 152,425 | 171,411 |
| Vehicle OOS Rate | 26.1% | 24.2% | 22.7% | 22.6% | 21.1% |
| HM Inspections | 1,370 | 2,221 | 1,366 | 2,810 | 4,806 |
| HM OOS Rate | 5.5% | 3.0% | 3.2% | 3.8% | 3.8% |
| CVSA Decals Issued | 15,266 | 24,887 | 29,590 | 41,576 | 46,751 |
Compliance Reviews of Mexican carriers shows continued improvement also
Compliance Reviews
| Compliance Reviews | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Compliance Reviews | 25 | 283 | 241 | 108 | 110 |
| Satisfactory | 6 | 95 | 108 | 68 | 76 |
| Conditional | 6 | 115 | 95 | 27 | 25 |
| Unsatisfactory | 9 | 67 | 33 | 13 | 5 |
| Unrated | 4 | 6 | 5 | 0 | 4 |
Traffic Enforcement - Mexican domiciled vehicles
Looking at these numbers, the violations seem to increase in proportion to the numbers of vehicles interacting with law enforcement. One thing this proves though, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that Mexican truckers are not the drunk, drugged out junkies that groups like OOIDA and the Teamsters would have you all believing. The stats are irrefutable proof.
Traffic Enforcements - Mexican Domiciled Vehicles
| Traffic Enforcements - Mexican Domiciled Vehicles | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specified Violations | 649 | 1197 | 4702 | 8688 | 6933 |
| Serious Traffic Violations | 221 | 94 | 255 | 254 | 387 |
| Moving Violations | 216 | 91 | 254 | 253 | 385 |
| Drug and Alcohol Violations | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Other Traffic Violations | 428 | 1093 | 4447 | 8434 | 6546 |
| Unspecified Traffic Violations | 3514 | 3214 | 3014 | 4015 | 4675 |
Commercial Motor Vehicles Crashes - Mexican Domiciled Vehicles
This is perhaps the most telling chart of all and it refutes the assertions of the so-called “safety advocacy groups”. Granted one accident is one accident too many and the same applies when it is a fatality crash. Put statistic suggest that the “carnage on the highways” that people such as Rollye James and Duncan Hunter are so certain will occur, simply does not happen. Fact of the matter is, accident rates for Mexican carriers are much lower than their American counterparts. And yearly, as truck traffic increased and inspections increased, crash rates decreased. Each day, when I turn on the radio, there are reports of road closing accidents involving big trucks in the U.S. The rates for American carriers are much higher than their Mexican counterparts and while they have decreased, they are still much too high
Commercial Motor Vehicles Crashes - Mexican Domiciled Vehicles
| Number of Commercial Motor Vehicles involved in: | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crashes | 112 | 114 | 156 | 140 | 92 |
| Fatal Crashes | 2 | 0 | 6 | 5 | 2 |
| Non-Fatal Crashes | 110 | 114 | 150 | 135 | 90 |
| Injury Crashes | 48 | 49 | 53 | 54 | 28 |
| Tow-away Crashes | 62 | 65 | 97 | 81 | 62 |
| Number of: | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 |
| Fatalities | 2 | 0 | 7 | 7 | 2 |
| Injuries | 65 | 103 | 70 | 72 | 33 |
View this Post in: 
This post was read 108 times until now
Nothing related to this article
Categorized as General
Loading ...
These numbers aren’t right. All you have to do is look at them, even the Canadan drivers aren’t this safe. Where are the real numbers.
View this Comment in:
What’s wrong with the numbers other than they blow the assertions of the opposition out of the water. All the numbers are available here, http://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/International/border.asp
If you want to do a side by side comparative analysis, the information is here for you. http://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/International/border.asp?redirect=GenStats.asp
Actually, according to the statistic available, since you mentioned Canadian drivers, Mexican carriers received twice as many Roadside Inspections as did Canadian companies, and while equipment OOS rates were 1.5 times higher than the Canadian OOS rate (21.1% v 13.6%), the Driver OOS rate for Mexican drivers was 7 times less. (1.3% v 7.2%) Remember now that Mexican carrier has 3 times the inspections.
And by the way, we are looking at the data from 2006, the latest year available. 2007 data should be available in November.
Continuing to compare Mexican carriers to Canadian carriers in regards to traffic violations. Canada had 44 drug or alcohol violations compared to only 2 for Mexican drivers.
Remember Mexico had double the number of inspections. When we look at moving violations, Canadian drivers had 300% more serious moving violations than Mexican drivers. Specified Violations, Canadian drivers received three times as many as Mexican drivers and Unspecified violations, Canadians received 2.5 times more than their Mexican counterparts.
Crash data shows Canada once again ahead of Mexico with 1,862 accidents to Mexicos 92. Two fatals involved Mexican trucks and 62 fatals for the Canadians.
And so it goes. See for yourself and do the math. The numbers suggest that Mexican trucks have shown themselves to be safer than their American or Canadian counterparts. But these are the numbers the opposition doesn’t want publicized. It also trashes the contention of the Teamsters that sufficient data on Mexican operations does not exist.
The site I retrieved this data from has comprehensive stats, broken down in about any manner you would care to have it. The numbers are taken from CVSA inspection reports, FMCSA compliance audits and other databases. And these numbers do not lie.
American, Mexican and Canadian carriers all have similar problems. Driver retention, safety issues etc. But one thing I have learned first hand about the Mexican companies, and not just trucking companies, is, that the companies that have a desire to succeed and stay in business are extremely anal about the rules. Mexican HOS rules, Haz Mat rules, safety rules, they try their best to follow them to the letter.
View this Comment in:
Nice try on the bot crypt. what shows on your site nowhere near what the actual code is. The problem with the Mexican numbers is they are only for data compiled by Mexico’s Federal Govt, for Mexico’s Federal roadways. Based on my experience living near Mexico and having been hit by Mexican Nationals, cash is always offered first as a way of avoiding reporting the accident. Afterall, auto accidents are criminilized in Mexico. Would you want to report one? This site would be more credible if not filled with anti-US commentary.
View this Comment in:
No sir, You are incorrect. These numbers are from FMCSA Safersys.org and FMCSA A&I statistics.
These are numbers compiled from statistics gathered on U.S. highways from inspections, traffic violations etc.
I have been trying to get Mexico’s highway information and I will post that as soon as I find it again. It does exist as I have read it in passing in the past.
If you could explain your comment about the “crypt bot”, I would appreciate it. I am not running any “bots” of any type on this site or from my servers, at least with my knowledge.
Thanks!
View this Comment in: