Sporadic Inspections Of Mexican Trucks example essay topic

In 1993, the United States, Canada, and Mexico reached agreement on a treaty between their countries. This treaty was the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. The purpose of NAFTA was to allow free and unfettered access to each member country's markets, and to reduce prices for consumer goods. Additionally, it was supposed to speed shipment of freight across North America, and reduce bureaucratic paperwork in border crossing. Unfortunately, the people who designed the treaty didn't completely consider the economic and political condition of one of the member countries, namely Mexico. The lack of government regulation in the Mexican trucking industry was overlooked.

In the rush to open the borders and increase commerce, this crucial aspect of the treaty was just ignored. Although there are proponents of the trucking provisions of NAFTA, Mexican trucks should not be allowed north of the border, because the lack of safety standards for Mexican drivers and trucks poses a risk to motorists in this country. The advocates for the trucking provisions of the treaty accuse their opponents of being racially motivated in their denial of free access to Mexican trucks. This is just a diversion to keep people from discussing the safety issues posed by NAFTA. They cite the fact that Canadian trucks are allowed to cross the border, without the political battle now being fought by the Mexicans. Unfortunately for their argument, it isn't based on facts.

To emphasize this point, according to Public Citizen, a public safety group, "In 1982, the United States closed the Canadian border to commercial traffic for two years until Canada agreed to certain reciprocal measures to govern commercial traffic between the two nations (E)". In other words, until safety standards and inspections were brought up to U.S. standards, the Canadians couldn't bring their trucks across the border. In what way is this current refusal to Mexico any different? According to Joan Claybrook, President of Public Citizen, "Under the current system in the U.S., 5000 people are killed and 101,000 injured every year in crashes involving large trucks. Large truck crashes also cause disasters on the highway, including hazardous materials spills and costly traffic delays (B)". With over 3 million trucks on U.S. highways today, how many more disasters will there be with unsafe Mexican trucks added to the mix.

Another difference between Mexico and Canada is information passed to the U.S. about their trucking industries. Joan Claybrook notes that "Canadian domestic safety standards are very similar to those in the U.S. and unlike Mexico, Canada maintains up-to-date databases on Canadian trucking companies and drivers that are accessible to U.S. authorities (B)". Being concerned about safety doesn't make anyone racist, it just shows they are being prudent. The Mexican government's lack of enforced regulations on it's trucking industry is also troubling to many in this country. In fact, there are some cases in which Mexico has no regulations at all. One such case is in the area of Hours of Service regulations.

In an article he wrote, Howard Chua-Eoan observes that in the U.S., truck drivers are only allowed to drive 10 hours before they have to take an eight-hour break. In Canada, Drivers are allowed to drive thirteen hours before a ten-hour break (A). According to Daphne Ize r, founder of Parents Against Tired Truckers, that is not the case in Mexico. In fact, she says "Mexico has no Hours of Service - NONE! Commercial drivers are permitted to drive endless hours in Mexico.

When they enter our country they may drive another ten hours. This a recipe for disaster (D)". Until Mexico comes into line with it's NAFTA partners on Hours of Service, they will continue to run into opposition from safety groups. Another difference between Mexico, the U.S., and Canada, is the lack of drug and alcohol testing in Mexico for their drivers. The U.S. Department of Transportation requires that U.S. and Canadian drivers are tested at random intervals for drugs and alcohol, to be allowed to drive in the U.S. Mexican drivers, as Kenneth Sheets notes, are "not tested for drugs or alcohol (F) ", and there is no plan to implement testing.

It is amazing that in Mexico, where bus drivers are tested for alcohol daily, commercial truck drivers are not required to drug test even semi-annually. The image of the truck driver, barreling down the highway, hopped up on speed to stay awake, will be personified by these drivers if the border is just opened to free access. The lack of any real information gathering about drivers in Mexico is also highly disturbing. The U.S., for example, keeps a database of driver information that includes drivers license suspensions, alcohol and drug related driving convictions, accidents, felonies, and Hours of Service compliance. That means any time a driver in the U.S. goes through a highway inspection station, all of that information is available to the inspector, even as he checks the weight of the truck.

If there is a problem with a driver detected in the database, the inspector can direct the truck to a truck holding area, and clear it up with the driver. The Canadians have a similar system, and the information from the two databases is freely exchanged. However, Mexico is not even close on getting a useful database to share information online. As noted by Joan Claybrook before a Senate hearing, "members of the Land Transportation Standards Subcommittee, a group assembled under NAFTA to achieve comparable Safety standards among the treaty's countries, admitted that this database is not yet populated with any meaningful data, such as inspection and crash data (B)".

It is appalling to consider opening the borders to these trucks based on information from an empty database. The fact is, no one knows what the safety records of the Mexican drivers are, and there is no tracking system to even find out. Even in the twenty-mile zone that is in place along the border to allow for transferring freight, there have already been some major accidents. Also, there have been some major environmental disasters that have been narrowly avoided. One such accident occurred in November of 1995 at the Laredo, Texas border crossing. According to Howard Chua-Eoan, "Acrylic acid, a toxic chemical, had leaked from a tanker waiting in line for U.S. Customs inspection, and the liquid was vaporizing as it gathered in a noxious pool (A)".

Luckily, there was a hazardous materials response team, on-site at the time on a training exercise, that was able to keep the "highly flammable acid from catching fire (A)". They narrowly avoided an explosion. In the last few months of 1995, "Several Mexican trucks traveling just inside the U.S. border have exploded or leaked toxins that threatened Texas' water supplies (A)". Having potential environmental disasters just a rolled over truck away, should give any American pause. Right now these dangers, as bad as they are, are confined to the border zone.

Yet there are those in Congress, and even in the White House, who want to open the borders freely. The consequence of that would be disastrous. Even NAFTA proponents, like Texas Attorney General Dan Morales, are worried that unless the Federal Government takes action, there will be danger of a spill occurring in a metropolitan area (A). He concludes by saying, "This deadly cargo, carried under such conditions, is nothing short of a time bomb (A)". More than 1,250 of the 5,000 Mexican trucks that cross into Texas daily carry cargo such as explosives, jet fuel, and pesticide.

They also carry hazardous materials such as corrosives and chemicals. In fact, in late 1995 a sixteen-year-old driver, with no insurance and no shipping papers, was involved in a sulfuric acid spill in Laredo (A). With this kind of hazardous freight volume in Texas alone, it is a miracle that we haven't had a major environmental disaster. Coupled with the hazard from the freight is the danger the trucks themselves pose. In the U.S., the Department of Transportation has very stringent rules for truck safety and inspections.

There are a number of safety violations that can get a truck put out-of-service, meaning that until it is repaired, the truck can't be moved under it's own power. Likewise, Canada has a similar program to monitor safety. However, Mexico has much less stringent rules about truck safety than it's NAFTA partners. For instance, according to Joan Claybrook in her Senate testimony, "They merely require a fine and warning letter for a number of violations that would cause a truck to be placed out of service in the U.S. (B)". According to Jackie Gillan, Vice President of Advocates For Highway And Auto Safety, "When sporadic inspections of Mexican trucks entering U.S. border zone areas occur they show nearly one third to one half of trucks from Mexico are put out of service for serious safety violations (C)". In comparison, the out-of-service rate for U.S. based trucks averages 23 percent nationwide, and the rate for Canadian trucks is even lower.

Some of the violations on Mexican trucks include dangerous tires, exposed wiring, excessively worn brakes, incorrectly secured loads, and being loaded overweight. In fact, while the U.S. and Canada require front brakes on a truck, Mexico doesn't, and has no plans to add that requirement (A). These are the trucks that Mexican truck lines want to send into our country, to drive on our highways. The problem of monitoring these violations presents several problems. The first is in the Mexican government itself. Since the passage of NAFTA, there have been some moves to begin to regulate their trucking industry more closely.

Regrettably, there has been little substance to these reforms. According to Joan Claybrook, "The new Mexican commercial carrier inspection standards are far weaker than those of the U.S. Among other flaws, the new laws require roadside inspections to be done within an unreasonably short time period. For hazardous materials carriers, inspections must be completed within a mere 20 minutes (B)". Another problem is the time period they go into effect. Compliance is voluntary until the summer of 2002, and then phased in throughout 2003 (B).

Also, unlike American carriers, they are resisting on-site inspection of trucking facilities. Such inspections would include checks of truck registration, driver records, maintenance records, insurance, and operating permits, and alcohol and drug testing compliance (B). The problem from our side involves money. There is a chronic shortage of federal agents on the borders to specifically look at truck safety. The Customs Service, and the INS, are more worried about illegal drugs, smuggling and illegal immigrants than about whether a truck has bald tires or worn out brakes. Unfortunately, the motorists these unsafe trucks crash into are the ones who pay the price for the lack of inspections.

NAFTA proponents in Congress keep saying it would cost too much money to provide more agents and inspection facilities to inspect these trucks. They would also have us believe that the border would be endlessly backed up if these trucks were inspected more. The problem with that argument is, why can't the Mexicans meet the U.S. standards, and then apply to operate in the U.S.? Instead of giving them a proposed eighteen-month window in which to comply while operating here, we should keep the border zones until full compliance is met. The only way to be sure no one is tragically hurt or killed by one of these unsafe trucks, is to ensure they don't drive here until they are at least as safe as our trucks.