Fraud Throughout Driving Schools

[R7ehr]

When I got my CDL about 26 years ago, the State DMV administered the test. I had to pass a written, and pre-trip, and driving tests. But none of this was done by 3rd party private companies. It was all the State.
Maybe go back to that and just get rid of the whole business side of it. It didn’t cost me thousands of dollars either.

[barnhart]

When I got my CDL about 26 years ago, the State DMV administered the test. I had to pass a written, and pre-trip, and driving tests. But none of this was done by 3rd party private companies. It was all the State.
Maybe go back to that and just get rid of the whole business side of it. It didn’t cost me thousands of dollars either.

For all the ill feelings they attract, I think most DMV's do pretty good job. Privatizing something doesn't always improve it...

[temporal1]

When I got my CDL about 26 years ago, the State DMV administered the test. I had to pass a written, and pre-trip, and driving tests. But none of this was done by 3rd party private companies. It was all the State.
Maybe go back to that and just get rid of the whole business side of it. It didn’t cost me thousands of dollars either.

It’s amazing how frequently “just go back to basics” and “just do your job” are superior answers to problems.
The human preference for ditches is astounding.

[JohnH]

When I got my CDL about 26 years ago, the State DMV administered the test. I had to pass a written, and pre-trip, and driving tests. But none of this was done by 3rd party private companies. It was all the State.
Maybe go back to that and just get rid of the whole business side of it. It didn’t cost me thousands of dollars either.

Indeed. I think allowing a driving school to administer their own CDL test is a pretty clear conflict of interest.

It's painfully obvious who was behind these regulatory changes, considering how much they benefit CDL schools but seemingly don't benefit anyone else.

[ken_sylvania]

When I got my CDL about 26 years ago, the State DMV administered the test. I had to pass a written, and pre-trip, and driving tests. But none of this was done by 3rd party private companies. It was all the State.
Maybe go back to that and just get rid of the whole business side of it. It didn’t cost me thousands of dollars either.

Indeed. I think allowing a driving school to administer their own CDL test is a pretty clear conflict of interest.

It's painfully obvious who was behind these regulatory changes, considering how much they benefit CDL schools but seemingly don't benefit anyone else.

There's a proposal in the works to make it even "better." Public comment is being solicited on a proposal to allow the trainer who trained an individual to also administer the skills test!

[ken_sylvania]

When I got my CDL about 26 years ago, the State DMV administered the test. I had to pass a written, and pre-trip, and driving tests. But none of this was done by 3rd party private companies. It was all the State.
Maybe go back to that and just get rid of the whole business side of it. It didn’t cost me thousands of dollars either.

It's been an open secret in our area for at least twenty years that it's easier to pass the skills test at the local votec school than at the DMV. I always assumed it was because you paid a lump sum fee for up to three tries at taking the skills test, so as long as you were at least borderline they had an incentive to pass you rather than provide a truck and examiner for another one or two tries.

Of course, the state has had its own problems as well, but overall it seems more manageable than having a bunch of companies self-certifying....

[Bootstrap]

This is, of course, "regulation", something the government has done more and more of recently. When regulation doesn't work, the answer of some people is "let's have more regulation".

I have a better idea: when someone holding a CDL obviously has committed fraud to obtain it - like being unable to speak English - the truck should immediately be impounded and taken out of service. The laws already exist to do this.

How are you defining fraud? I don't think the drivers are self-certifying that they passed the exams, that was someone else.

Legally, most places define it along the lines that North Carolina also uses:

286 N.C. 130, 138 (1974)

(1) False representation or concealment of a material fact, (2) reasonably calculated to deceive, (3) made with intent to deceive, (4) which does in fact deceive, (5) resulting in damage to the injured party.

If the drivers do not speak English well enough to read a road sign, odds are pretty good they don't understand all the laws and legal paperwork, so it would be hard to prove that they intentionally misrepresented themselves. And odds are pretty good that the people offering the CDLs are earning money by promising that they do qualify and can get these licenses. And if they are driving with CDL licenses, I'm guessing the State issued the license.

Of course, that all depends on the facts. And I simply don't know who is intentionally lying to whom about what. But we shouldn't vaguely throw terms like "the laws' and "fraud" around without carefully defining them and relating them to the facts at hand.

[ken_sylvania]

This is, of course, "regulation", something the government has done more and more of recently. When regulation doesn't work, the answer of some people is "let's have more regulation".

I have a better idea: when someone holding a CDL obviously has committed fraud to obtain it - like being unable to speak English - the truck should immediately be impounded and taken out of service. The laws already exist to do this.

How are you defining fraud? I don't think the drivers are self-certifying that they passed the exams, that was someone else.

Legally, most places define it along the lines that North Carolina also uses:

286 N.C. 130, 138 (1974)

(1) False representation or concealment of a material fact, (2) reasonably calculated to deceive, (3) made with intent to deceive, (4) which does in fact deceive, (5) resulting in damage to the injured party.

If the drivers do not speak English well enough to read a road sign, odds are pretty good they don't understand all the laws and legal paperwork, so it would be hard to prove that they intentionally misrepresented themselves. And odds are pretty good that the people offering the CDLs are earning money by promising that they do qualify and can get these licenses. And if they are driving with CDL licenses, I'm guessing the State issued the license.

Maybe some accountability for everyone involved would be in order. News has a way of getting around. Some time ago, it was popular for some folks from this area to travel to another state to a "school" that would "train" and "test" quickly so a person could get their CDL in two days. People could go get their CDL there, come back and not even be able to shift without grinding gears, let alone be competent to drive a big rig on the road. I guarantee that if a couple graduates from that school would have gotten their licenses pulled and lost their trucks the fever to go get the quick license would have abated immediately.
That being said, JohnH's proposal seems to be geared toward creating some accountability for the companies that hire drivers who clearly do not meet the legal criteria to be driving a commercial motor vehicle. And these companies certainly have the ability to understand the law - they are simply putting their effort into evading the law rather than complying with it.

Of course, that all depends on the facts. And I simply don't know who is intentionally lying to whom about what. But we shouldn't vaguely throw terms like "the laws' and "fraud" around without carefully defining them and relating them to the facts at hand.

Ditto for terms like "unlicensed driving schools" and implications that unlicensed driving schools are illegal.

[JohnH]

If the drivers do not speak English well enough to read a road sign, odds are pretty good they don't understand all the laws and legal paperwork, so it would be hard to prove that they intentionally misrepresented themselves.

Not understanding English is not an excuse to break the law.

With that said, both drivers and operators should be held accountable;

- drivers should experience consequences for breaking the law.
- operators should have their trucks taken out of service (and not allowed to just quickly transfer them to another operator) if they are caught using unlicensed or fraudulently licenced drivers.
- the end customer should have accountability for hiring fly by night brokers who engage in such practices, particularly when it turns out the driver, operator, and end customer all have the same last name, seemingly live at the same house / run the business out of the same house, and so forth.

Immigration status isn’t relevant, other than that it’s illegally to drive commercially and illegal to hire someone to drive without relevant work authorisation, but that’s a different topic.

[Bootstrap]

If the drivers do not speak English well enough to read a road sign, odds are pretty good they don't understand all the laws and legal paperwork, so it would be hard to prove that they intentionally misrepresented themselves.

Not understanding English is not an excuse to break the law.

What law is this driver breaking? Certainly the traffic violation, anything beyond that?