Info on MVR Screening for Drivers

[Skident]

USA-WS's MVR Screening program for Rated and Trained Drivers has now been in effect for about 2 yrs. The actual screening is done by a 3rd party vender known as SSCI. There website is www.ssci2000.com. Here are the qualification criteria that were approved for use by the USA-WS Risk Management Committee for the screening: A. Conviction of a major driving offense in the past three (3) years including, but not limited to: 1. DUI/DWI; 2. Possession of an open container; 3. Any drug-related motor vehicle incident; 4. Leaving the scene of an accident; 5. Assault (in any form) by use of a motor vehicle; 6. Reckless driving (willful or wanton disregard for safety of persons or property in any form). B. Driver's license is currently suspended, or has been suspended, within the past three (3) years.

RESULTS of MVR SCREENING (from inception in 2012 through Feb. 11, 2014):

1. Total Number of applicants Screened within all Sports Divisions of USA-WS 2012 through February 11, 2014 = 1,866

2. Number of applicants Disqualified = 24 (1.29%)

Please share your observations and comments.

 

[ntx]

Another case of the one percenters. LOL

[ForrestGump]

I'm curious what the total delta was between previous drivers and ones who didn't reapply. The AWSA lost me as a regular driver because I refuse to do this. I wonder how many others there were. I know of at least 6 that said to hell with it.

[liquid d]

can you imagine if a driver in a tourney has a serious accident, and they/lawyers/news/family/etc finally run his mvr and he has a couple dui's? or has a suspended license for many tickets? This just ain't a big deal.

[skiboat38]

It is the point of it.I finally gave in due to a small amount of Senior Drivers in my state. More rules and continuing to milk volunteers (all officials)out of more cash while a large number sits on the shore and waits to ski so they can leave.

[LeonL]

1.29% is a pretty small number, however the 24 who were disqualified surprise me. Do suppose they were unaware that they would fail to meet requirements? And spent their money on the check anyway? Heck, I would know up front if any of disqualifying factors applied to me! There would seem to another disqualifier in their resume, IQ.

[MattP]

@LeonL

Conviction of a major driving offense in the past three (3) years

Is a bit vague if you ask me.. Possibly where those drivers got tripped up.

[Skident]

I am surprised by "liquid d's" post in that what he describes is the EXACT scenario that led to this MVR screening. A show ski driver fatally injured a skier in practice and in the courtroom the prosecutors found that the driver had a DUI conviction. The jury gasped and the settlement increased about $500,000. USA-WS received a significant insurance black mark and coverage is now more expensive then ever. More screenings will be coming because towed water sports are a very risky.

[Dusty]

I am not sure just what backwater that fatality occurred at but with a fatality, in most jurisdictions, the police get involved, and are mandated to investigate the death. There would have been a mandatory BAC (blood alcohol content) test of the driver (and probably during autopsy of the skier) in most every state. Having a past DUI should have been a non sequitor and irrelevant if the due diligence by the chief driver, the local investigator(s), the medical examiner, and the defense team lawyers had been up to par.

 

I am on record as opposed to the MVR checks for various reasons. One for sure is that an open container violation is not necessarily a driving offense. The states vary in codifying it as illegal and how and where it's enforced.

 

AWSA has had a very commendable safety record. USAWS has thrown AWSA drivers in with drivers from every discipline, and somehow sold the benefits of "sanctioned practice" (whatever that is...)insurance and requirements into the mix, WITHOUT insuring the structure is in place and available to EVERY club needing to meet the new 'trained driver' requirements to remain insured.

 

Worse yet, as I recall, somehow there was little (or no) warning to the membership to be affected, by any USAWS official. Perhaps it was anticipated there would be some "angst" about it and it should be a done deal when the matter was shared with the membership? Sure saved defending the measure ahead of its implementation didn't it?

 

Now let me present an alternate to the path that was taken- How about USAWS agreeing to stop providing insurance to the discipline(s) with documented safety issues? But of course, as long as the lion's share of the active membership is 3-event, paying the bills, they couldn't very well do that. So 3-event got pulled down along with the others.

 

I really don't care if the 'failed' percentage is less than 2%. What still annoys me is USAWS still telling me that the lipstick they put on this pig is only for the benefit of the membership, and makes us all so much safer. The "resistance is futile" philosophy doesn't cut it for me.

And FYI- It ain't about the $12.50. The ONLY reason I will comply with it is that the group I ski with will need me to remain a rated (senior) driver, to use the lake we ski on.

 

I think the membership deserves better from its officials than the cavalier contempt it demonstrated when this all started. It also deserves an apology and maybe perhaps USAWS could quit telling me what a great deal they arranged for me. I get quite enough of that from other politicians.

[A_B]

I guess I would want someone convicted of driving left of center to be added to the list.....

[liquid d]

Being in the insurance industry, I can tell you it was not usaws that wanted it. Insurance underwriters decided this was a good idea, and probably a way to get/keep rates in check. If they do nothing, they underwriters can't justify their paycheck...just like any other corporation. Insurance and lawyers rule how we do things to a large extent.

[ForrestGump]

The open container thing is ludicrous. How can you mandate no open container violations when only 39 of 50 states, by law, say that it's illegal? That was the first inconsistency that caught my eye two years ago.

[TylerR]

And in some states open container is just a civil fine... I had one in college about 8 years ago here in Alabama. I paid my $25 dollars and didn't even have to show up in court... I wasn't even driving, just sitting outside the fraternity house on the bed of my truck drinking a beer.

[PatM]

Wow I just found it was not that big of an issue to do a background check. Nothing to hide I guess. It took under 5 minutes. I also appreciate that someone who is not that conscientious is not pulling me through the course. If I ever end up with a DUI or what not and I can't drive for tournaments that is my own fault not USAWS.

[The_MS]

How about the guy that gets a DWI 1 day after clearing the MVR? Its a farce but if USAWS wants to do it, the membership should pay for it. I already dropped my coaching rating due to having to pay for a pervert check.

[Dusty]

@MS- same here on the coaching rating- That 'check' is definitely not $12.50 and the files that need to be checked are NCIC. They are chock full of ambiguities, mis-identification, false positives and issues due identity theft. My Department ensures its employees pass far more rigorous checks. I could provide any number of certified, affidavited documents showing a clear record, AND retaining my privacy. Does that matter to USAWS? Nope. Resistance is futile...

 

I am also intrigued by the draconian attitude that if someone gets late on child support payments due a court or clerical error, and a driver's license is suspended, there goes the driver rating for three years? Even if it was due a clerical error? That's a gift that just keeps on giving isn't it? It is not even a driving offense, but SURPRISE! They gotcha!

(If you think that stuff never happens you have never witnessed 'family' court in action.)

[The_MS]

@Dusty In my aviation career I have to pass 10 year back ground checks for the TSA, MVR for the company and DOT randoms. I know that USAWS has decisions to make but most of this stuff comes from the Play Along society that we have. No one will speak out for fear of being the bad guy so we all just play along and stay quite. Guys like @OB who are pilots also have to have the MVR check. The guy can fly a plane full of people around but cant drive a boat.

[Dusty]

@MS- I hear that. We have a minimum yearly process, plus if anything changes w/ regard to driver licensing- we are required to immediately advise the Dept. or face termination. Every two years we have to recertify to access records files concerning driver and criminal histories.

Q.- From a commercial airline pilot I had heard that even the 'third party's' license query was creating little red flags and hoops for the pilots to deal with? Whatever was being done was heightening scrutiny for them. Just another unintended consequence I guess...

[liquid d]

ok, we'll make an exception...but just for you guys.

[jcamp]

Call me crazy, but I don't want someone with criminal driving or sexual assault offenses driving or coaching my kids.

[The_MS]

@jcamp nobody does but that is not the point.

[Razorskier1]

I don't think the MVR pull makes me feel any safer as a skier. It doesn't seem to me that the problems that have occurred in other disciplines had anything to do with DWI offenses. Just plain safety mistakes (big in some cases). Pulling MVR isn't going to make an unsafe driver safe.

[ForrestGump]

It has NOTHING to do with improving safety and everything to do with mitigating exposure to risk. Two markedly different things.

[volsandskis]

This whole driver thing is just like a fraternity. They do put a safety "test", but to be honest, if you truly want to become a sanctioned driver, you have to go through "hell week" to get in the fraternity. You just have to know the right people, get arrogant skiers that have never seen you drive to even be able to practice to get rated. The whole system is flawed and one day, the AWSA will have a very difficult time time finding great tournament drivers.

[lpskier]

How does risk management relate to prohibiting a young, very good driver from getting a rating due to a license suspension for an unpaid parking ticket. It's true...

[LeonL]

@volandskis, wherever you're located, you've apparently got a lot of a-holes in residence, drivers and skiers. You depict a horror story that wôuld keep me completely out the sport.

[sunperch]

@LeonL we have seen the fraternity mentality hard to break into here, too. Sad but true.

[Dusty]

I can see where some might view the 'initiation' process daunting. I believe it was probably more so before speed control came along. Driving consistently well was far more difficult to achieve.

But- I have noted that most every skier, and certainly the best skiers will perform better if they are comfortable with and have confidence in the driver's ability. Many can tell if the boat is not where it belongs, and if the wheel is 'nervous' or lacks smoothnes and rhythm. It is not a skill that every driver has, and it takes time to acquire. Even a momentary lapse, can destroy a great set, or even injure a skier.

So 'paying the dues' so to speak still makes sense in a lot of ways. Gaining the trust of tournament skiers as a known quantity is important. The word does get around.

[liquid d]

getting a suspended license is not a major violation. You fix the problem, and no problem. Being pulled over for a ticket and the cops run your license , find out it's suspended, and give you a ticket for "driving with a suspended license" is a major.

[Dusty]

@liquid d- True- but the screening criteria clearly show that a suspended license in the last 3 years is a disqualification. The suspensions in my state can occur for several reasons that are NOT traffic- beside child support issues, a minor can receive a suspended license for drug or firearms (hunting law) violations; and gas drive-offs, and other some other issues can also get you suspended.

But... 'resistance is futile, we will conform'. Because we will be safer...?

[ToddL]

Slightly different topic, but... Add to all this, the trained driver requirement which is now mandated to all sanctioned practices and clinics. Now realize that some of those drivers previously never pulled tournaments. Then, realize that in some areas clinics are very infrequent. Finally realize that these trained drivers have to pull 10 sanctioned, recorded hours to keep their rating for a second year. Then, every 2 years they have to renew their rating. Yep. Clubs everywhere are going to lose drivers due to all that and then the clubs stops renewing their club memberships.

[Dusty]

Mr. Bob has said the clubs will come back after they realize the "New Deal" is better, and safer and happier; and the organization can sustain itself while losing entire groups of skiers- hmmm, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" too... (Tournament organizers around here seem a little unsure just what 'sanctioned' practices are too.) Used to be, you applied for a sanction with the tournament application, and received a packet including a "sanction" number. And when the tournament was over, and results were submitted, there was no more 'sanction'. If you aren't holding even a "fun" or grassroots tournament, how is there a "sanction" where USAWS insurance covers anything? Is this a new smoke and mirrors, blue sky campaign? Anyone seen any actual coverage payment(s) or is it just peace of mind we get, along with the warm fuzzy feeling?

Oh, and Mr. Bob says my "angst" about the whole MVR deal is misplaced too- and since they run the only game in town I reckon it is... for now...

I need more sleep, I think.

[ForrestGump]

FWIW..... The AMA doesn't provide insurance to their member tracks for motocross events. Events where someone goes to the hospital every race. I know of some tracks which don't even carry any type of general liability on their own. And the AMA doesn't provide any co-insurance to the members. Just something to think about.

[ToddL]

Just sharing info... A club that is a member of USAWS can sanction its practices. I'm talking about a local club being a member of USAWS. Those clubs with a club USAWS membership can log into USAWS and create a practice sanction. All drivers at the practice sanction must be rated (Trained rating or higher). The above sanction is separate from any tournament or clinic event sanctions. Currently, there is no sanction fee for a club practice event.

[Dusty]

@ToddL I can see the method, I guess, but let's say we ski one day a week together, say every Friday... [ Perhaps I misunderstood that 'blanket' yearly coverage is not allowed? ] We need to get USAWS involved, to bless us as a holding a 'sanctioned' practice? Each and every week? For which we get some kind of official insurance coverage? I think it's a good thing I sometimes ski with a doctor, AND have lots of insurance.

 

What are the "official" practices called that used to occur before tournaments? Since they mostly occurred prior the actual start time of the tournament sanction listing, and would be outside the tournament sanction, even though possibly listed in the Regional Guide- USAWS has to know of and approve those too? [ Run-on sentence, my bad :-) ]

 

Seems like a lot of oversight and meddling for the debatable benefit of some kind of last ditch, partial coverage. One lake owner of my acquaintance of mine now requires personal medical insurance for guest skiers, and documentation of the carrier's name right on the waiver form. Seems reasonable to me- making the lake's liability at most secondary, and USAWS coverage in the position it is apparently useful for...