More on proposed SMS changes: FMCSA Nixes IRT in Proposed Changes in Identifying Unsafe Motor Carriers
FMCSA Wants to Broaden Crash Preventability Determination Program
Proposed changes would bring the number of types of crashes eligible for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's Crash Preventability Determination Program from 16 to 21.

The FMCSA wants to broaden what types of crashes it will consider in its Crash Preventability Determination Program.
Photo: Canva
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is proposing to again broaden the definition of crashes that it includes in its Crash Preventability Determination Program.
That program was developed to address industry concerns about all crashes being used in the FMCSA’s Safety Measurement System (SMS), even those that were clearly not preventable. One of the major complaints about the SMS system when the Compliance, Safety, Accountability program rolled out in 2010 was that all crashes counted against a motor carrier's scores. Why, people asked, should carriers be penalized for a crash caused by someone else running a red light, traveling the wrong direction, committing suicide by leaping from an overpass into the path of an oncoming truck, or nunerous other scenarios?
The Crash Preventability Determination Programprogram has been in operation since May 2020. Currently it reviews 16 specific crash types and modifies information in the SMS to distinguish not-preventable crashes. The existing program was an expansion of the agency’s previous demonstration program that reviewed eight crash types.
In a notice and request for comments published in the Federal Register, FMCSA proposes modifying existing crash types to broaden eligibility, removing the distinction between direct and indirect strikes, and differentiating some types for improved reporting and use of the data to identify ways to reduce crashes involving non-motorists.
In addition, FMCSA proposes that four new crash types be included in the program.
These proposed changes are expected to double the size of the current program and provide more data allowing the agency to analyze the effects of a carrier’s not-preventable crashes on its overall safety.
According to FMCSA data, between May 1, 2020, and December 30, 2022, the industry has submitted nearly 40,000 preventability determination requests through the agency’s DataQs system. Approximately 72.5% of those requests were “eligible,” meaning they fit within the 16 crash types identified by the agency. Of the eligible crashes submitted, 96% were deemed non-preventable on the part of the commercial driver.
More Crash Types
FMCSA wants to test the following four additional crash types:
CMV was struck on the side by a motorist operating in the same direction. Currently, the crash type is limited to side strikes at the very rear of the vehicle (e.g., 5:00 and 7:00 points of impact).
CMV was struck because another motorist was entering the roadway from a private driveway or parking lot.
CMV was struck because another motorist lost control of their vehicle. FMCSA reviewed many police accident reports that included this information but were ineligible for the program under the current crash types.
Any other type of crash involving a CMV where a video demonstrates the
sequence of events of the crash. FMCSA believes that the submission of videos could allow it to review crashes that are not in the 21 other types
If the FMCSA makes these proposed changes, the full list of the eligible crash types for the CPDP would be:
CMV was struck in the rear by a motorist
CMV was struck on the side at the rear by a motorist
CMV was struck while legally stopped at a traffic control device or parked, including while the vehicle was unattended
CMV was struck because another motorist was driving in the wrong direction
CMV was struck because another motorist was making a U-turn or illegal turn
CMV was struck because another motorist did not stop or slow in traffic.
CMV was struck because another motorist failed to stop at a traffic control device
CMV was struck because another individual was under the influence (or related violation, such as operating while intoxicated), according to the legal standard of the jurisdiction where the crash occurred
CMV was struck because another motorist experienced a medical issue which contributed to the crash
CMV was struck because another motorist fell asleep
CMV was struck because another motorist was distracted (e.g., cellphone, GPS, passengers, other)
CMV was struck by cargo or equipment from another vehicle, or debris (e.g., fallen rock, fallen trees, unidentifiable items in the road);
CMV crash was a result of an infrastructure failure
CMV struck an animal
CMV struck an individual committing or attempting to commit suicide
CMV was struck on the side by a motorist operating in the same direction as CMV
CMV was struck because another motorist was entering the roadway from a private driveway or parking lot
CMV was struck because another motorist lost control of the vehicle
CMV was involved in a crash with a non-motorist
CMV was involved in a crash type that seldom occurs and does not meet another eligible crash type (e.g., being struck by an airplane or skydiver or being struck by a deceased driver in another vehicle)
Any other type of crash where a CMV was involved and a video demonstrates the sequence of events of the crash.
To review the full proposal and submit comments, use the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
More Safety & Compliance

Brake Safety Week to Focus on Drums and Rotors
Commercial vehicle inspectors will be focusing on brakes during CVSA's Brake Safety Week, August 23-29.
Read More →
Trump Administration Looks to Put More Veterans Behind the Wheel
The Freedom Haulers program pulls together existing and expanded programs at several federal agencies to recruit veterans to drive commercial heavy-duty trucks and cut the red tape for them to get a CDL, training, and employment.
Read More →
$604 Million Verdict Tests Broker Liability After Supreme Court Ruling
C.H. Robinson plans to appeal after a Texas jury found it bore the largest share of responsibility for a fatal 2021 crash, in a case that follows the Supreme Court's Montgomery decision allowing negligent hiring claims against freight brokers.
Read More →
How Fraley & Schilling Improved Logbook Compliance by Over 50%
Fraley & Schilling needed a way to close a compliance workflow gap in its ELD system without adding more work from driver training, reminders, and back-office follow-ups. It found the answer in a custom driver app.
Read More →
Farewell, CDL: Why I'm Giving Up My Commercial Driver's License
After more than 20 years as a CDL holder, HDT Executive Editor Jack Roberts is letting his commercial license expire. Not because he wants to — but because trucking's nuclear verdict crisis has made the risks of public-road test drives too great for editors, manufacturers, and everyone involved.
Read More →
Enhance Fleet Performance with High-Efficiency Auxiliary Power Units
Drive sustainable cost savings while increasing driver comfort during short- and long-haul logistics operations.
Read More →
Wabash Trailers Recalled for Improperly Installed Underride Guards
More than 900 Wabash dry van trailers may not comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard for rear impact guards.
Read More →
Why K&B Trucking Is Embracing AI and Driver Safety Technology
Crunching data and embracing artificial intelligence are key in K&B Trucking's safety efforts, says the company's safety director.
Read More →
The Hidden Problem Behind FMCSA's ELD Revocations
NMFTA researchers say dozens of registered ELDs may be built on the same software platforms, allowing compliance and security concerns to persist even after individual devices are removed from the market.
Read More →
ATRI Wants Motor Carriers for Driver-Facing Camera Study
In this new study, the American Transportation Research Institute will explore how driver-facing cameras can impact safety and operational metrics in trucking fleets.
Read More →
