Northeast Freight Time one clock, four readings

The Crash-Rate Finding

Two figures from a 2018 audit by the Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General do more work in this field than anything else, and they are used more confidently than the audit itself warrants. For another workplace-measurement reference, 7-minute rule for payroll.

Worth reading properly, because used correctly they are strong and used carelessly they are easy to dismiss. For complementary transport data and research, see Inbound Logistics.

Reviewed August 9, 2026. Primary source: US DOT Office of Inspector General. Not a vendor and not an industry body.

The two numbers

Detention reduces driver income by an estimated $1.1 to $1.3 billion per year.

A 15-minute increase in average dwell time is associated with a 6.2% increase in expected crash rate.

The second is the one that changes conversations, because it moves detention out of the commercial column and into the safety column — where the regulator has jurisdiction and where a facility's interest in arguing about invoices becomes less relevant.

What the crash figure is

An association observed across fleet-level data. Not a demonstrated causal chain for an individual driver on an individual day.

The distinction matters because it determines what you can say. Facilities with longer average dwell are associated with higher expected crash rates is supported. Your dock caused that crash is not, and claiming it invites a rebuttal that discredits the rest of the argument.

The mechanism is plausible and separately unmeasured. Detention consumes hours-of-service, which pushes driving into later hours, worse conditions and more schedule pressure. That chain is reasonable, it is what most people assume the number demonstrates, and the figure itself is an association rather than a test of it.

Say it as an association with a plausible mechanism. That is both accurate and sufficient.

What the income figure is

An estimate of aggregate loss, not a per-driver or per-hour rate.

It does not mean any particular driver is owed a share of it, and it does not establish a fair detention rate. What it establishes is scale: detention is a billion-dollar transfer from drivers, which is the argument for treating it as a policy matter rather than a series of private disputes.

How to use them

In a facility conversation: the safety framing. A federal audit associating dwell with crash risk is a different kind of statement from a carrier complaining about waiting, and it lands differently with people who have safety responsibilities.

In a rate negotiation: the income figure supports the principle that detention is a real cost borne by someone. It does not support any particular number, and the hourly rates come from industry reporting rather than from the audit.

In writing: cite the source and the year. A 2018 federal audit is a strong citation and it is eight years old, which someone will point out if you do not.

What it does not settle

Whether detention is getting better or worse. The audit is a snapshot.

Which facilities. Aggregate findings say nothing about a specific dock, which is why your own measurement beats any published figure.

And what the right free time is. Nothing in the audit endorses two hours, or any other allowance. That convention has no evidentiary basis at all.

Reading it alongside the FMCSA work

The two federal sources fit together.

FMCSA describes the measurement problem: no standard definition, little public data, and a 2023 study asking whether existing systems can measure detention at all.

OIG describes the consequences: a billion-dollar income transfer and an association with crash risk.

Put together: a quantity nobody has defined, which nobody measures well, is associated with a safety outcome and moves a billion dollars a year. That is an unusual combination, and it is the honest summary of where this subject stands.

The short version