How to mount an effective DataQs challenge

Previously in this package: Two states, CVSA lead way in countering DataQs appeals bias

Clark Freight Lines, with 180 trucks, used to routinely file lots of DataQs RDRs (Requests for Data Review) but met with little success, said Vice President Danny Schnautz. He gave the example of a violation for an air leak that wasn’t in fact a safety violation.

“What we found out was it made the police department really mad,” he said, particularly when the challenge was filed with little in the way of hard evidence. “Now we don’t dispute it unless we have real proof.”

Depending on what the violation is, and how attentive to the allegation any individual operator was during the inspection, such well-backed cases might be few and far between. Even photographic proof, sometimes, doesn’t do the trick if it’s less than conclusive, Schnautz said.

He and others bring plenty of advice to the table about pursuing RDRs.

Navigating the system itself can be one challenge, but the most common hurdle is gathering enough evidence to make a persuasive case.

As Schnautz suggests, setting up a successful DataQ begins at the scene of the crash or routine roadside or weigh station inspection. “I’ve worked with thousands of DataQs,” said Chris Turner, CVSA’s director of crash and data programs and a former Kansas Highway Patrol officer. “The best thing you can do as a carrier is to make sure your DataQ is legitimate.” Before ever filing, have the evidence on hand to communicate “not just where you feel something is wrong. Make sure you have an underlying set of facts that this is wrong.”