Where did that stat come from?
The “whizzing match” between Governor Newsom and the Trump Administration (specifically Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy) over crashes involving California commercial drivers license (CDL) holders has exploded into a disgusting display of political gamesmanship.
After deadly crashes involving some California licensed CDL holders, U.S. DOT demanded California quit issuing non-domiciled CDL’s (which the state ignored) and begin enforcing English language understanding regulations at roadside inspections (which California until recently had refused to do).
In both instances California stands to potentially lose billions of dollars in federal aid for highways for lack of compliance and even have its CDL program decertified which would mean CDL holders in California could not leave the state. In response to U.S. DOT’s findings after an investigation into California licensing practices, the Governor’s office issued the quote in our article title to defend the state’s non-compliance with certain federal requirements. NOTE: On January 7th, U.S. DOT did withhold $160 million from California for non-compliance (read here).
Q: Where did they come up with those “facts” and is it true?
While the state may have some more up-to-date data than is publicly available, the latest data on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) website involving fatality rates by state for large trucks is from 2022. It does show California with a fatality rate of .14 per million Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) compared to a national fatality rate of .19 VMT. Which is actually 25% LOWER than the national average (we’ve included the graph from FMCSA), not 40%.
To achieve a fatality rate of 40% below the national average, California’s rate would need to be at a .11 VMT currently. It’s possible since the state has in the past been one of the best nationally in achieving a low truck involved fatality rate. However, without crying foul on the Governors Press Office, lets analyze this deeper. It is more complex than the Governor cares to admit nor for the media simply reporting statements without verifying them – as happens all the time these days.
Why is VMT so important?
California always records the second highest truck involved fatalities by state in the U.S., second to the state of Texas – which is a function of California’s large population and center of much economic activity and by extension large truck population.
In 2022 California had 436 truck involved fatalities compared with Texas having 810. The jurisdiction with the lowest number was, and always is the District of Columbia with 3 fatalities. Mostly, smaller northeastern states like Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Vermont record the lowest fatality VMT rates simply because the states are smaller and don’t have the same volume of truck traffic as larger states.
By using total vehicle miles traveled by trucks in each state you can come up with statistic that regardless of the year or the economy gives you a fair way to compare fatal truck crashes between jurisdictions and during different various economic cycles – and see which state is doing a decent job in highway safety. The key metric used is total vehicle miles traveled divided by number of fatalities.
Historical truck fatality comparisons for California
| YEAR |
FATALITIES |
MILLION VMT |
FATALITY RATE |
| 2011 |
296 |
320,784 |
.09 |
| 2012 |
277 |
326,272 |
.08 |
| 2013 |
269 |
329,534 |
.08 |
| 2014 |
324 |
332,857 |
.10 |
| 2015 |
313 |
335,739 |
.09 |
| 2016 |
341 |
340,115 |
.10 |
| 2017 |
383 |
343,862 |
.11 |
| 2018 |
399 |
348,796 |
.11 |
| 2019 |
429 |
340,836 |
.13 |
| 2020 |
427 |
299,812 |
.14 |
| 2021 |
447 |
310,823 |
.14 |
| 2022 |
436 |
315,244 |
.14 |
In attempting to make assessments comparing years, you must remember that in 2011 and 2012, we were still emerging from the “Great Recession” with lower economic activity thus historically lower VMT for trucks. 2020 and 2021 however show something changed; we were in the midst of the COVID lockdown with again lower VMT and economic activity but the number of truck involved fatalities continued to increase. In fact, the only 40 percent number we can validate is that is the percentage increase in truck involved fatal crashes inside California since 2011. The trend ever since emerging from the Great Recession has unfortunately been upward as illustrated in the graph above.
California’s ranking among the states has stayed relatively steady either in the 11th or 12th spot nationally even when tied with another state. In terms of comparing California to other large population states California has held steady in its ranking having one of the lower fatality rates based on VMT. As in California, across the country, truck involved fatality rates have increased.
Factors going into California’s CMV lower fatality rate
Congested urban centers: California metropolitan areas, specifically the LA Basin and Bay area are always at the top of having the most congested highways in the world. Congested highways also mean very low average speed which does translate into lower crash severity when they happen.
Statewide 55 MPH speed limit for trucks: While not liked by many truckers, the states speed limit for trucks does lower crash severity when one occurs. Of course, it does “likely” lead to an increase in rear-end crashes which are often deadly to car occupants and CHP is shy about releasing stats on how often this is associated with truck crashes in California. In comparison, Texas with over 800 truck involved fatal crashes has posted speed limits – which includes trucks at 80 and 85 mph.
Enforcement: The California Highway Patrol has if not the most, it is at the top of states in enforcing commercial vehicle regulations especially its notorious reputation for inspecting trucks. California has always enforced aggressively on truck operators in the state, even before many other states began doing the same. All this despite U.S. DOT pulling roughly $40 million from California for enforcement activities because the state refused to enforce English sufficiency standards at roadside. This is changing.
“Lies, damned lies, and statistics”
That quote often used by Mark Twain describes the power of using statistics to bolster weak arguments. When the Governors office claims California CDL holders have a much better crash rate when compared to national average, there is an element of Mark Twain’s statement in what is being said.
The feds compile their safety statistics state-by-state from actual accident reports, so the data presented only tells the story of what happens within a single state, it doesn’t tell whether licensed drivers from any particular state represents a higher crash risk when operating outside of their home state.
Re-read the section previous to this one, California enforces aggressively on trucks. The other “factoid” important to know when looking at trucking crash data is that the vast majority of California’s commercial drivers only operate within the state – they don’t leave California – ever. This means they are always under the watchful eye of CHP and its aggressive enforcement practices. DMV data shows a massive number of commercial vehicles registered to operate within the state, only a small percentage operate outside the state.
DRIVER’S LICENSES ISSUED – 690,676 Commercial (Class A or B)
VEHICLES – CVRA trucks – 500,411 (applies to commercial operated vehicle over 10,000 pounds) SE plated vehicles are excluded.
Non-CVRA trucks – 5,507,246
CA based IRP trucks – 118,520
California has a relatively small number of trucks registered to operate outside the state through IRP (yes, you can make an occasional journey using trip permits if you have federal operating authority) so the crash statistics are greatly influenced by this and of course out-of-state trucks operating in California.
What is missing in all data is the crash rate of drivers operating outside their home state but involved in fatal crashes – this is the current focus of U.S. DOT even though data sets on this type of statistic are not publicly available. Maybe its higher than average, but maybe its not, we just don’t know, and it would be useful if U.S. DOT published that type of stat to show if certain states are really having a problem with driver licensing. This isn’t as difficult as it sounds since all accident reports do include the drivers license number from the state of issuance.
Conclusion
The “whizzing match” between Newsom and Trump serves no useful purpose if “highway safety” improvements are the goal. The statistical evidence does show California’s truck involved fatality rate has increased dramatically – over 40 percent in an eleven-year time span, it just keeps increasing as it is with other states. Clearly, something is wrong and while politicians produce “stats” often without context, there is a major problem and anecdotally many in trucking know it’s the caliber (or lack thereof) of drivers entering the industry, driver training and an ineffectual driver licensing system handing out CDL’s like candy to anyone.
Summary of Oral Argument in San Francisco: California v. USA; Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
/in General News, Governmental Affairs and CommunicationsHi Lee,
As you requested, this email summarizes oral argument last week.
The three judges on our panel were all liberals appointed by Obama or Biden, and they were predisposed against us.
Counsel for the auto manufacturers, auto dealers, and fuel suppliers received a total of 15 minutes, while we received five minutes to argue on behalf of truckers. We agreed with co-counsel that they would present a macro picture of why the applicants for intervention should be permitted to intervene, while we would provide the details of the impacts on the trucking industry.
When our turn came, we began by pointing out that the facts set forth in the Aboudi declaration, the provisions of the federal intervention rules, the applicable case law, and common sense dictated that we should be permitted to intervene because we have a protectable interest in ensuring that the Congressional Resolutions remain intact, that no other party could effectively represent us, and that we had the right to intervene.
About two minutes into our presentation, one of the judges asked whether there was specific case law supporting our position that the Federal Government could not represent us effectively in this case. We explained that our briefs on that issue covered the question, but a second judge insisted that we point out a specific case that was not in the briefing. We told the court that we were not aware of any such case, but that common sense dictated that because the Federal Defendants are averse to us in the D.C. Circuit, they cannot effectively represent us in connection with the same subject matter in the Ninth Circuit. Seeing that time was running out, we reserved the remainder of time for rebuttal.
During rebuttal, we told the panel that regardless of their views regarding the inherent conflict-of-interest faced by the Federal Defendants, the applicable rules of intervention were squarely in our favor and that the entire edifice of the ACT Rule was based on targeting emissions from trucks. Accordingly, we told the court that, because truck emissions per se were the target of the ACT Rule, truckers were actually more entitled to intervene in the case than any of the other intervention applicants. That’s where we landed, and I think it made an impression on the court.
As you know, it’s difficult to predict the outcome of any case, and this one is no exception. We’ll have to wait and see what happens.
Cheers,
Ted
Ted Hadzi-Antich
Senior Attorney
(Admitted in CA, NY, MD, TN, D.C.)
Center for the American Future
Texas Public Policy Foundation
901 Congress Avenue
Austin, Texas 78701
Assembly Bill to Override CARB ACF Requirements on Private Contractors and Truckers Fails Before July Recess
/in CARB Consultant, General News, Regulations & CARBSean Edgar, Environmental Policy and Media Advisor
On July 1, as the California Legislature prepared for recess, a last-ditch effort to exempt privately-owned contractor fleets from the Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) regulation failed. Assembly Bill 1436 (Avila Farias) failed to pass from the Senate Environmental Quality Committee on a 3-3 vote[1]. By virtue of this result, it appears unlikely that the California Legislature will intervene to put any guardrails around CARB’s plan to finalize the State and Local Government (SLG) amendments that first identified the contracting requirement language on April 2, 2026 and strengthened on July 1, 2026. The final Regulation is expected to become an official state regulation effective on or about September 1, 2026. Any privately owned fleet that contracts with public agencies should be prepared for a bumpy ride over the next nine months until the SLG reporting deadline and should brace for discussions with the contracting authorities on ZEV purchase that contractors will be required to make.
What we know about the ACF SLG implementation at this time is:
WSTA continues to challenge the ACF SLG Regulation and that effort and an appeal for support can be found on the WSTA website.[3] Should you have any questions on that or the other aspects of this article, please contact Sean@Cleanfleets.net or (916) 718-7050.
[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1436
[2] https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/ACF-2025-Amendments-Guidance
[3] https://westrk.org/wsta-fights-carbs-acf-regulation/
WSTA Legal and Regulatory Update
/in Front Page News, Government Affairs & Communications, Legal, Regulations & CARBWSTA Comments to CARB on Proposed Amendments to Advanced Clean Fleets and Low Carbon Fuel Standard Regulations
/in Blogs, Regulations & CARBCARB is attempting to mandate private fleets that “contracted with a municipality via franchise agreement or long-term contract” comply with zero-emissions vehicle requirements.
INDUSTRY ALERT: CARB Pursues a “Green Contracting” Mandate to Force ZEV Purchases by All Private Fleets That Contract with Public Agencies
/in CARB Consultant, General News, Regulations & CARBCaltrans Trucking Incident Summary Report (2024-2025)
/in Governmental Affairs and CommunicationsClick the folder icon at the bottom to download the report PDF.
Governor Newsom Press Office: “The Facts are Plain and Simple — California Commercial Driver’s License Holders Had a Fatal Crash Rate Nearly 40% LOWER than the National Average”
/in Blogs, Government Affairs & CommunicationsWhere did that stat come from?
The “whizzing match” between Governor Newsom and the Trump Administration (specifically Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy) over crashes involving California commercial drivers license (CDL) holders has exploded into a disgusting display of political gamesmanship.
After deadly crashes involving some California licensed CDL holders, U.S. DOT demanded California quit issuing non-domiciled CDL’s (which the state ignored) and begin enforcing English language understanding regulations at roadside inspections (which California until recently had refused to do).
In both instances California stands to potentially lose billions of dollars in federal aid for highways for lack of compliance and even have its CDL program decertified which would mean CDL holders in California could not leave the state. In response to U.S. DOT’s findings after an investigation into California licensing practices, the Governor’s office issued the quote in our article title to defend the state’s non-compliance with certain federal requirements. NOTE: On January 7th, U.S. DOT did withhold $160 million from California for non-compliance (read here).
Q: Where did they come up with those “facts” and is it true?
While the state may have some more up-to-date data than is publicly available, the latest data on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) website involving fatality rates by state for large trucks is from 2022. It does show California with a fatality rate of .14 per million Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) compared to a national fatality rate of .19 VMT. Which is actually 25% LOWER than the national average (we’ve included the graph from FMCSA), not 40%.
To achieve a fatality rate of 40% below the national average, California’s rate would need to be at a .11 VMT currently. It’s possible since the state has in the past been one of the best nationally in achieving a low truck involved fatality rate. However, without crying foul on the Governors Press Office, lets analyze this deeper. It is more complex than the Governor cares to admit nor for the media simply reporting statements without verifying them – as happens all the time these days.
Why is VMT so important?
California always records the second highest truck involved fatalities by state in the U.S., second to the state of Texas – which is a function of California’s large population and center of much economic activity and by extension large truck population.
In 2022 California had 436 truck involved fatalities compared with Texas having 810. The jurisdiction with the lowest number was, and always is the District of Columbia with 3 fatalities. Mostly, smaller northeastern states like Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Vermont record the lowest fatality VMT rates simply because the states are smaller and don’t have the same volume of truck traffic as larger states.
By using total vehicle miles traveled by trucks in each state you can come up with statistic that regardless of the year or the economy gives you a fair way to compare fatal truck crashes between jurisdictions and during different various economic cycles – and see which state is doing a decent job in highway safety. The key metric used is total vehicle miles traveled divided by number of fatalities.
Historical truck fatality comparisons for California
In attempting to make assessments comparing years, you must remember that in 2011 and 2012, we were still emerging from the “Great Recession” with lower economic activity thus historically lower VMT for trucks. 2020 and 2021 however show something changed; we were in the midst of the COVID lockdown with again lower VMT and economic activity but the number of truck involved fatalities continued to increase. In fact, the only 40 percent number we can validate is that is the percentage increase in truck involved fatal crashes inside California since 2011. The trend ever since emerging from the Great Recession has unfortunately been upward as illustrated in the graph above.
California’s ranking among the states has stayed relatively steady either in the 11th or 12th spot nationally even when tied with another state. In terms of comparing California to other large population states California has held steady in its ranking having one of the lower fatality rates based on VMT. As in California, across the country, truck involved fatality rates have increased.
Factors going into California’s CMV lower fatality rate
Congested urban centers: California metropolitan areas, specifically the LA Basin and Bay area are always at the top of having the most congested highways in the world. Congested highways also mean very low average speed which does translate into lower crash severity when they happen.
Statewide 55 MPH speed limit for trucks: While not liked by many truckers, the states speed limit for trucks does lower crash severity when one occurs. Of course, it does “likely” lead to an increase in rear-end crashes which are often deadly to car occupants and CHP is shy about releasing stats on how often this is associated with truck crashes in California. In comparison, Texas with over 800 truck involved fatal crashes has posted speed limits – which includes trucks at 80 and 85 mph.
Enforcement: The California Highway Patrol has if not the most, it is at the top of states in enforcing commercial vehicle regulations especially its notorious reputation for inspecting trucks. California has always enforced aggressively on truck operators in the state, even before many other states began doing the same. All this despite U.S. DOT pulling roughly $40 million from California for enforcement activities because the state refused to enforce English sufficiency standards at roadside. This is changing.
“Lies, damned lies, and statistics”
That quote often used by Mark Twain describes the power of using statistics to bolster weak arguments. When the Governors office claims California CDL holders have a much better crash rate when compared to national average, there is an element of Mark Twain’s statement in what is being said.
The feds compile their safety statistics state-by-state from actual accident reports, so the data presented only tells the story of what happens within a single state, it doesn’t tell whether licensed drivers from any particular state represents a higher crash risk when operating outside of their home state.
Re-read the section previous to this one, California enforces aggressively on trucks. The other “factoid” important to know when looking at trucking crash data is that the vast majority of California’s commercial drivers only operate within the state – they don’t leave California – ever. This means they are always under the watchful eye of CHP and its aggressive enforcement practices. DMV data shows a massive number of commercial vehicles registered to operate within the state, only a small percentage operate outside the state.
DRIVER’S LICENSES ISSUED – 690,676 Commercial (Class A or B)
VEHICLES – CVRA trucks – 500,411 (applies to commercial operated vehicle over 10,000 pounds) SE plated vehicles are excluded.
Non-CVRA trucks – 5,507,246
CA based IRP trucks – 118,520
California has a relatively small number of trucks registered to operate outside the state through IRP (yes, you can make an occasional journey using trip permits if you have federal operating authority) so the crash statistics are greatly influenced by this and of course out-of-state trucks operating in California.
What is missing in all data is the crash rate of drivers operating outside their home state but involved in fatal crashes – this is the current focus of U.S. DOT even though data sets on this type of statistic are not publicly available. Maybe its higher than average, but maybe its not, we just don’t know, and it would be useful if U.S. DOT published that type of stat to show if certain states are really having a problem with driver licensing. This isn’t as difficult as it sounds since all accident reports do include the drivers license number from the state of issuance.
Conclusion
The “whizzing match” between Newsom and Trump serves no useful purpose if “highway safety” improvements are the goal. The statistical evidence does show California’s truck involved fatality rate has increased dramatically – over 40 percent in an eleven-year time span, it just keeps increasing as it is with other states. Clearly, something is wrong and while politicians produce “stats” often without context, there is a major problem and anecdotally many in trucking know it’s the caliber (or lack thereof) of drivers entering the industry, driver training and an ineffectual driver licensing system handing out CDL’s like candy to anyone.
CHP Begins Enforcing English Language Requirements During Inspections
/in General News, Governmental Affairs and CommunicationsDespite all the heated rhetoric and lawsuit filed by California over U.S. DOT cutting $40 million in Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) funding from the state for not enforcing minimal English standards for commercial drivers at roadside, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) has begun to actually enforce the decades old regulation (§ 391.11 (b)(2) General qualifications of drivers).
391.11 (b)(2) simply states, “Can read and speak the English language sufficiently to converse with the general public, to understand highway traffic signs and signals in the English language, to respond to official inquiries, and to make entries on reports and records.”
WSTA has confirmed with the CHP that “effective December 23, 2025, the CHP amended its Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria regulations to incorporate the revisions adopted by the CVSA on June 25, 2025 (that responded to the April 2025 Trump Executive Order directing the FMCSA to strengthen the English Language Proficiency requirements for commercial motor vehicle operators). This change is incorporated into Title 13, CCR, Division 2, Chapter 6.5, Amended Article 7.5, Section 1239 (read it here).
Background
CHP had never really enforced the English requirement at roadside. It was only sporadically noted on inspections reports and only cited the federal code, not a state code for the violation. There was no action taken against the driver if found in violation. U.S. DOT actually noted that in 30,000+ commercial inspections, only one violation was noted. Meanwhile states aggressively enforcing the rule have hundreds or thousands of violations and following the requirements take the driver out-of-service.
This all came to a head in August of 2025 after a California licensed truck driver, Harjinder Singh made an illegal U-turn on the Florida Turnpike resulting in three deaths. Officials in Florida claimed Singh didn’t understand English and should not have been licensed. U.S. DOT then sent California a notice that it had not adopted compatible laws with federal regulations as is required to receive MCSAP funding.
The Newsom Administration instead of attempting to calm the waters decided to go down a path of obstructionism – even though the state was in the wrong…likely for political reasons.
In October, after attempting to get California to adopt and enforce the regulation – like most states, and California’s (read Newsom Administration) continued foot dragging and obstructionism, the feds issued a Notice of Final Determination of Nonconformity as part of a process to revoke $40 million in safety grants. At the same time, the feds announced they would withhold over $40 million in grant funding.
In December, California decided to sue U.S. DOT in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California over the withholding of the $40 million. WSTA’s experience with that court is that it’s adverse to controversial lawsuits (we sued CARB in that court and filed the first legal challenge to the A-B-C test there too).
In California’s lawsuit challenging the withholding they had the “chutzpah” to legally argue the state already complied with the regulation during the driver’s licensing phase through DMV. That legal rationale was likely not going to go very far, even in the very liberal Ninth Circuit.
It is not even close to compatible to compare evaluations by poorly trained DMV personnel during the licensing phase to excellently trained and highly specialized commercial law enforcement officers at roadside interacting with truck drivers or at CHP truck scales. Additionally, California’s argument ignores the upwards of one million commercial drivers entering the state each year from other states (where there has been similar licensing issues) and foreign jurisdictions.
California is not the only state on US DOT’s radar for not properly enforcing federal regulations, for which billions are transferred from federal coffers to states to enforce the federal requirements. It is fair to say that California made itself a prime target because of Governor Newsom’s incessant desire to thwart any and everything coming from the Trump Administration, no matter if the feds were correct. Bringing the hammer down on California is clearly intended to get other non-conforming states to get their houses in order.
With CHP’s adoption, we expect to see more violations noted on inspection reports as well as those same drivers placed out-of-service. Supposedly, for California based drivers adversely affected, there will be (eventually) a notification pipeline to CA DMV to facilitate a driver seeking “re-assessment,” but that process is not up and running yet.
Processing Fee for All Credit Card Transactions as of December 1st
/in Association News, Front Page NewsIn order to keep membership fees, trucking supply costs, and enrollment fees as low as possible, WSTA and AADT is now charging a 3% processing fee on all credit card transactions as of December 1st, 2025. We encourage our members and clients to use alternative payment methods to avoid additional costs.
We also accept checks from WSTA members and money orders, as well as cash for in-person transactions.
Please contact us at cs@westrk.org with any questions.
Thank you,
Your WSTA and AADT Staff
CA Governor Newsom Vetoes SB 703
/in General News, Governmental Affairs and CommunicationsIn the October 14th, 2025 WSTA newsletter we linked to an article that stated Gov. Newsom signed into law a bill sponsored by labor that would require the Ports of LA and LB to collect specific information from trucking companies and independent contractors about their businesses. In fact, on the day that article was published, Gov. Newsom did the opposite and vetoed the bill (see below). Here is the source used corrected article: California governor vetoes truck drivers bill