Could ELD Exemptions Increase Fatal Truck Crashes?

0:00 – 0:24

Jordan: A lot of people are asking about the Federation of Professional Truckers’ application to be exempt from Electronic Logging Devices, or ELDs. What does that mean, and what would it look like in practice?

0:24 – 0:50

Jordan: Today we’re discussing why this proposal has major implications for trucking safety. Joining me is my law partner, Diana Diskin, along with our special guest, Alex Kemp, a trucking attorney from Michigan who focuses on catastrophic truck accident cases.

We have a lot of ground to cover, so let’s jump right in.

0:50 – 2:50

Jordan: First things first. What is an Electronic Logging Device, or ELD?

Diana: An Electronic Logging Device, or ELD, connects directly to a commercial truck’s engine. It automatically records how long the vehicle is being driven and tracks a driver’s Hours-of-Service, which are the federal limits on how long a driver can operate before taking required rest breaks.

Before ELDs, drivers relied on paper logbooks, which were much easier to manipulate.

ELDs were introduced to create a more accurate and enforceable system for monitoring Hours-of-Service compliance.

Simply put, an ELD automatically records how long a truck driver is on the road to help ensure compliance with federal safety regulations.

2:50 – 3:42

Jordan: So why is there a proposal to move away from ELDs?

Alex: The Federation of Professional Truckers has petitioned the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) for an exemption that would allow participating motor carriers to return to paper logbooks instead of using Electronic Logging Devices.

Supporters argue that paper logs would reduce costs and administrative burdens, but the proposal raises significant concerns about safety, compliance, and accountability.

3:42 – 6:05

Jordan: Why should lawyers and the public care about this proposal?

Alex: Electronic Logging Devices don’t create the Hours-of-Service rules. They simply enforce rules that have existed for years by automatically recording driving time and preserving reliable data.

Without that electronic record, investigators would once again have to rely on paper logs that can be altered, recreated, or manipulated after a crash.

For truck accident investigations, ELDs provide a much clearer picture of what actually happened. They help uncover the truth by documenting driver activity, making it easier to determine whether Hours-of-Service violations contributed to a collision.

Returning to paper logs would make those investigations more difficult and could weaken one of the most important accountability tools currently available.

6:06 – 7:21

Jordan: Diana, you brought up federal regulations. Which ones do you think are most important?

Diana: I love the Hours-of-Service regulations because they help us reconstruct exactly what a driver was doing before a crash.

They let us build a timeline, hour by hour and minute by minute, to determine whether the driver complied with federal safety rules.

If the records show a driver in one city and then hundreds of miles away an hour later, that tells us something isn’t right. Those regulations help reveal whether the driver and motor carrier were actually following the law and accurately documenting their operations.

7:21 – 8:43

Jordan: We still see those issues today. They’re less common with Electronic Logging Devices, but they haven’t disappeared.

We still encounter broken ELDs, paper logbooks, and attempts to manipulate driving records. In one of our current cases, paper logs are still being used.

People continue trying to cheat the system. The difference today is that Electronic Logging Devices often leave evidence showing how the records were manipulated.

8:43 – 11:35

Jordan: Are you doing anything differently today when it comes to preserving evidence?

Diana: Absolutely. Our preservation letters have become much more detailed because the technology keeps changing.

We constantly update them to identify the latest telematics platforms and electronic systems. If we overlook something, a company may later argue they weren’t required to preserve that particular data.

Jordan: We’ve also started notifying third-party vendors directly.

Many Electronic Logging Devices are cloud-based through companies like Motive and Samsara. I once sent a preservation letter to a motor carrier only to discover the logs had disappeared because the vendor, not the carrier, actually maintained them.

The court ruled the carrier didn’t possess the records because they were held by the vendor.

Now we instruct carriers to notify their vendors immediately, and once we identify those vendors ourselves, we send preservation letters directly to them as well.

This data disappears quickly. Sometimes you only have about six months before it’s gone.

11:35 – 13:21

Diana: I recently spoke with another attorney handling a trucking case whose defense counsel claimed they didn’t have the driver’s Hours-of-Service records.

I explained the six-month maintenance requirement and encouraged him to investigate further through depositions and third-party discovery to determine whether those records still existed or whether someone was simply claiming they were unavailable.

Jordan: And Hours-of-Service logs are only part of the picture.

GPS records, telematics platforms, AI-generated driver monitoring reports, and other electronic data may have much shorter retention periods, or no retention requirements at all.

Some AI-generated reports could disappear the very next day.

That’s why lawyers need to identify every technology platform involved, determine each vendor’s retention policy, and move quickly to preserve that evidence.

The technology has changed dramatically over the last few years, and our preservation strategies have to evolve with it.

13:21 – 15:26

Diana: Jordan, you’ve handled truck accident cases in both Michigan and California. What differences do you see between California and the rest of the country?

Jordan: California is unique because it hasn’t fully adopted the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for intrastate commerce the way many other states have.

In most states, those regulations apply broadly to commercial trucking. In California, however, whether the federal rules apply often depends on whether the truck was engaged in interstate commerce.

That creates additional complexity, particularly when dealing with smaller motor carriers or so-called “chameleon carriers” that operate primarily within California but still present significant safety concerns.

California’s transportation network is also more layered than many people realize. Freight is frequently moved through brokers, subcontractors, and multiple transportation companies before it ever reaches its destination.

Understanding who was responsible for each part of that process is often one of the biggest challenges in a trucking case.

15:26 – 19:05

Jordan: Who are all the players involved in a modern trucking case?

Diana: At a minimum, you’re usually looking at the shipper, the motor carrier, and the receiver.

Jordan: But today’s transportation industry is much more complex than that.

A single shipment may involve freight brokers, freight forwarders, subcontractors, third-party logistics companies, visibility software providers, driver-screening services, Electronic Logging Device vendors, AI-based fleet monitoring platforms, and numerous other participants.

Every one of those entities may possess important evidence or play a role in how the load was transported.

Understanding the entire transportation chain is critical because each participant has responsibilities that can affect both safety and liability.

Jordan: So who’s usually trying to avoid liability?

Diana: Everyone wants to minimize liability, but freight brokers are often at the center of those disputes.

They frequently argue that they’re not motor carriers, that federal regulations don’t apply to them, and that they exercised no control over the transportation of the load.

Those arguments are often raised to avoid claims involving negligent selection, negligent hiring, or operational control.

19:05 – 20:58

Jordan: One of the biggest issues we see is the question of control.

A broker may argue it had no control over the driver while simultaneously dictating pickup times, delivery schedules, tracking requirements, communication protocols, and other operational details.

They may not technically employ the driver, but they often control whether that driver continues receiving freight.

That’s an important issue because actual control frequently matters more than labels used in a contract.

Diana: So how do you determine who was really controlling the transportation?

Jordan: We start with the contracts.

One side may claim it exercised no control, but the written agreement often tells a different story.

The contracts, communications, and operational requirements can reveal who actually directed the transportation and who was responsible for making sure it was performed safely.

20:58 – 21:32

Jordan: Technology has transformed truck accident litigation, but it only helps if the evidence is preserved before it’s lost.

The sooner attorneys identify Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs), telematics platforms, cloud providers, and other data sources, the better their chances of preserving the records needed to understand what really happened.

Alex: Every piece of electronic evidence helps us move closer to the truth. That’s ultimately what litigation is about.

21:32 – 22:06

Jordan: As attorneys, we also have an opportunity to advocate for safer roads beyond the courtroom.

The FMCSA’s public comment process gives lawyers, safety professionals, and members of the public a chance to weigh in on proposals that could affect commercial trucking safety for years to come.

Whether you’re handling truck accident cases or simply sharing the road with commercial vehicles every day, these issues matter because they directly affect public safety.

Thank you for joining us for this episode of Brake for Justice: Navigating Truck Accident Cases. We’ll see you next time.