Cross-Border Safety Analysis
How Mexican, Canadian, and US-Domiciled Carriers Compare
Published: February 2026 • 475,150 scored carriers
Key Findings
Domicile matters — but not the way you'd expect. Using FRED peer-relative scoring on 475,150 for-hire property carriers, we find stark differences between Mexican, Canadian, and US-domiciled carriers across all four safety components.
The surprise: Mexican carriers' poor scores are driven almost entirely by equipment violations (9.4× peer average). Their crash and behavioral violation rates are actually below the US average. Meanwhile, Canadian carriers outperform US carriers on every single metric.
Overall Score Comparison
| Metric | Canadian | US Domestic | Mexican |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scored Carriers | 7,546 | 464,546 | 3,058 |
| Avg Peer Index | 0.69 | 1.06 | 2.15 |
| Avg Combined Score | 64.7 | 49.4 | 28.7 |
| Crash RR | 0.69 | 1.01 | 0.55 |
| Behavioral RR | 0.66 | 1.00 | 0.47 |
| Equipment RR | 0.74 | 1.27 | 9.44 |
| Severe RR | 0.67 | 1.15 | 3.65 |
RR = Relative Risk vs. fleet-size-band peer average (1.0 = average). All rates EB-adjusted.
Component Breakdown
FRED Component Relative Risk by Domicile
EB-adjusted rates vs. fleet-size-band peer mean • Note: Equipment RR axis capped at 10
Mexican carriers' equipment violation rate is 12.7× higher than Canadian carriers and 7.4× higher than US carriers. This single component drives most of the overall score gap. Their crash and behavioral rates are paradoxically below the US average.
Safety Grade Distribution
Percentage of Carriers in Each Safety Grade
Scored carriers only • Grades assigned from FRED Peer Index cutoffs
Peer Index Distribution
Percentile distribution of FRED Peer Index (1.0 = peer average)
| Domicile | P25 | Median | P75 | P90 | P95 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canadian | 0.351 | 0.510 | 0.757 | 1.284 | 1.852 |
| US Domestic | 0.501 | 0.623 | 1.147 | 2.276 | 3.395 |
| Mexican | 0.729 | 1.393 | 2.753 | 4.750 | 6.318 |
The median Mexican carrier (PI 1.39) would rank at roughly the 75th percentile of US carriers. The median Canadian carrier (PI 0.51) is better than ~60% of US carriers. At the P95 level, Mexican carriers reach 6.3× peer average — nearly double the US P95 of 3.4×.
Score by Fleet Size
Average Peer Index within each fleet-size band (carrier counts in parentheses)
| Fleet Band | Canadian | US Domestic | Mexican |
|---|---|---|---|
| Small (1–5 PU) | 0.74 (4,348) | 1.09 (393,101) | 2.12 (2,403) |
| Medium (6–20 PU) | 0.63 (2,124) | 0.89 (52,725) | 2.06 (551) |
| Large (21–100 PU) | 0.61 (942) | 0.92 (15,788) | 2.80 (96) |
| XLarge (100+ PU) | 0.58 (132) | 1.02 (2,932) | 8.58 (8) |
The domicile gap is consistent across all fleet-size bands — it is not explained by fleet size composition. Canadian carriers outperform US peers even within the same band. Mexican carriers score worse in every band, with the gap widening dramatically for the 8 XLarge Mexican fleets (PI 8.58 — though the small sample size warrants caution).
The Equipment–Crash Paradox
One of the most striking findings is the disconnect between equipment violations and crash outcomes for Mexican carriers:
| Metric | Canadian | US | Mexican |
|---|---|---|---|
| EB Crash Rate (per 100k mi) | 0.036 | 0.046 | 0.033 |
| Driver OOS Rate (%) | 3.6% | 10.8% | 7.5% |
| Vehicle OOS Rate (%) | 18.9% | 30.0% | 34.9% |
| Equipment RR | 0.74 | 1.27 | 9.44 |
| Avg Fleet Size (PU) | 13.5 | 7.7 | 5.6 |
Mexican carriers have the lowest EB crash rate (0.033 per 100k miles) despite having the highest vehicle OOS rate (34.9%). Several factors may contribute:
- Small fleet / low mileage: Avg 5.6 power units and 101k annual miles — EB shrinkage pulls crash rates toward the peer mean, masking sparse data
- Inspection selection bias: Mexican carriers may be inspected more frequently at border crossings, inflating violation counts relative to miles driven
- Equipment standards gap: Vehicles may fail US inspection standards more often without necessarily causing crashes at the same rate
- Reporting differences: Crash reporting completeness may vary for carriers operating primarily in Mexico
Why Canadian Carriers Score Higher
Canadian-domiciled carriers consistently outperform their US peers across every safety component. The advantage is not a statistical artifact:
Average fleet size of 13.5 PU (vs. 7.7 for US) with 1.2M avg annual miles. Larger carriers tend to have more formalized safety programs, dedicated compliance staff, and better maintenance regimes.
Driver OOS rate of 3.6% (vs. 10.8% US) and vehicle OOS of 18.9% (vs. 30.0% US) suggest systematically better driver compliance and vehicle maintenance standards.
The Canadian advantage holds within every fleet-size band, ruling out fleet-size composition as the sole explanation. Even small Canadian carriers (1–5 PU) average a PI of 0.74, compared to 1.09 for US carriers of the same size.
Caveats & Methodology Notes
Sample sizes vary dramatically. The US population (464k) dwarfs Mexican (3k) and Canadian (7.5k) samples. Small sub-groups (e.g., 8 XLarge Mexican carriers) should be interpreted with caution.
EB priors are fitted fleet-wide, not per domicile. Mexican and Canadian carriers are compared against the same fleet-size-band priors as US carriers. This is deliberate — the score measures risk relative to the overall for-hire population — but means domicile-specific factors (inspection frequency, reporting norms) flow through to scores.
Border inspection intensity. Mexican carriers operating cross-border routes may face higher inspection rates at ports of entry, inflating violation counts per mile relative to carriers inspected at random roadside locations.
Mileage reporting. Mexican carriers report lower average mileage (101k) on MCS-150 filings. If actual US-side mileage is understated, exposure normalization would compress rates, potentially underestimating crash rates and overestimating equipment violation rates per mile.
This study is observational. Differences reflect the FMCSA data as recorded. Causal interpretation (e.g., "Mexican trucks are less safe") requires additional evidence beyond what this scoring data provides.