Issue link: https://read.dmtmag.com/i/708027
long as it's useful to you and devel- oping a written policy that specifies your practice, whether that's to help with training a driver or due dili- gence relative to your own driving. "If you don't make a policy, some- body will be able to 'Monday morn- ing quarterback' you to suggest you should be keeping something for such and such a time," Moseley says. Such thinking also pertains to loca- tion and other data gathered by cell phones, GPS devices, in-cab video cameras and telematics systems with in-cab messaging. With electronic logging systems, as with paper logs, you're required to keep a prior six months' worth of records on hand for an auditor. If you employ drivers, when data shows the driver doing good things such as making an emergency re- sponse or increasing fuel efficiency, document those in the employee file. "That's going to look a lot bet- ter when there's been an accident," Moseley says. "Paper the file with good stuff when you see it happen- ing." Also document whatever action is taken as a response to data that sug- gests a need for a corrective response. "In driver log audits after an acci- dent, I often see violation after viola- tion, but I don't always see a docu- mentation of somebody talking to the driver about his logs," Moseley says, "Some will say it happened, but it's not recorded. We have to record not only the data but also our reaction to that, which may be more important than anything." The future: 'Failure to equip' litigation? In the increasingly data- and technol- ogy-heavy world, where the plaintiff's bar goes in accident litigation, Moseley envisions, could eventually encompass not only data from systems in place but the failure to use available safety technologies. He notes that the major- ity of carrier entities, being the smallest carriers, "don't have e-logs, and most don't have telematics." What if, he asks, "you didn't use" some available safety technology, such as an active braking assist technology, that could have assisted in mitigating the severity of or preventing an acci- dent. "The Monday morning quarter- backing that goes on after an accident" in litigation could present problems. "It somebody says it's the industry standard to have this equipment and you don't have it," liability arguments can be made. The industry is not to that point with many of such technologies, though proliferation of cameras, ELDs and other techs is proceeding at a very fast pace. "The plaintiff's bar hasn't been able to really push very far forward on this one," he says. "FMCSA regula- tions are the minimum standards, they say, and you should be doing more than the minimum, but this is some- where they haven't gotten to much success." Yet. "What you'll see," for instance, he adds, is in the case of a "driver you know is falsifying logs and you haven't put that driver on e-logs – that's where you'll see plaintiffs' suc- cess. Or say your engine comes factory- equipped to record certain parameters but you've turned some of them off." • 18 www.bigrigowner.com A U G U S T 2 0 1 6 Looking At You looking at you 0816.indd 2 7/8/16 9:21 AM