LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — The trucking company that employed the driver high on meth who killed five cyclists in one of Nevada’s deadliest crashes failed a safety audit and was granted a second identification number under a new name, sparking possible changes to how the federal government tracks businesses on our roads.
On Dec. 10, 2020, while driving on U.S. 95 outside Searchlight, Jordan Barson, 48, collided with the group, killing five and injuring several others. Nevada State Police Highway Patrol troopers investigating the crash did not suspect Barson was impaired, but a blood test administered without a warrant would later find he had a level of methamphetamine in his system often seen in corpses.

The five cyclists killed were all from Las Vegas: Aksoy Ahmet, 48; Michael Murray, 57; Gerrard Nieva, 41; Erin Ray, 39; and Tom Trauger, 57.
Barson initially faced separate counts of DUI and reckless driving for each of the five bicyclists killed and other charges — 14 counts in all. The lead prosecutor on the case told the 8 News Now Investigators in 2021 that those charges ultimately led to a lesser deal due to the investigative failure.
Barson was working for Roadrunner Transport AZ, a courier service based in Kingman, Arizona. He drove from Arizona to Las Vegas for a pickup that morning and was on his way back to Arizona when the crash occurred. The cyclists were struck from behind as the truck crossed into the right lane.
The Nevada Department of Transportation allows cyclists to ride on rural sections of highway, including this section of U.S. 95. There is no law barring them from the right lane — even though body camera video would reveal the police investigating the crash did not know that.
Barson submitted to a voluntary blood draw at a hospital. Blood results showed he had 948 nanograms per milliliter of methamphetamine in his blood, documents said. The limit, 100 nanograms per milliliter, is the bar prosecutors must show to prove impairment.
The 8 News Now Investigators filed several public records requests after the crash. Documents obtained through those requests reveal Roadrunner Transport was not required to drug test Barson because the truck he was driving was not considered a commercial motor vehicle.
Documents reveal a company in Roadrunner Transport’s owner’s name failed a safety audit in 2019. That audit failure, plus previous violations with a driver other than Barson, led the company’s owner to close it and open a new one under a new name, fearing they would not get insurance, documents said.
Video the 8 News Now Investigators obtained from the crash shows troopers working to convince Barson to submit to a blood draw and others researching the trucking company.
In one video, one trooper searches for Roadrunner Transport’s U.S. Department of Transportation number — a unique seven-digit identifier from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which regulates companies doing business on our roads.
Federal law requires drivers with commercial licenses driving certain trucks to be randomly drug tested regularly. Barson had a commercial driver’s license — but even though he was piloting a vehicle that could and would kill a group of people — the truck itself was not heavy enough to require that commercial license or have regular testing.
Records show Barson was tested before he started working for Roadrunner Transport, but four other drivers started working at the company before Roadrunner Transport received their test results.
Other documents the 8 News Now Investigators obtained show Roadrunner Transport was a “successor company,” replacing one with a similar name – Roadrunner Hotshot. Federal investigators said, “the same owner owned both operations,” finding the new company “utilized the same drivers and equipment.”
Arizona business licensing records show Roadrunner Transport and Roadrunner Hotshot were both registered to the same person. The post-crash investigation found Roadrunner Hotshot — the first company — received “various violations” and in 2019, failed an initial safety audit.
“They were coming up for insurance renewal and were unaware if they would be approved,” an investigator wrote in one document. FMCSA then granted the owner a new DOT number under that new name – Roadrunner Transport.
“The carrier started they wanted to start off fresh,” an investigator wrote about the closing of Roadrunner Transport and the start of the new business.
“That should have raised flags, and it should have raised questions,” Las Vegas attorney Craig Drummond said. “To the extent that they are changing a number but continuing the same operation means that members of the public or perhaps other government agencies taking a take a look at this cooperation or this entity wouldn’t have access to the prior information because they wouldn’t have known that they had switched numbers.”
According to federal officials, a DOT number is assigned to “only one person and remain[s] assigned to that person forever,” adding a business owner will keep that “number when it changes its current form of business, and the new entity will continue to operate virtually the same.” The only change between Roadrunner Transport and Roadrunner Hotshot was a second person added as an owner of the new business.
“If you get two DUIs, a speeding ticket, whatever, you can’t just call the DMV and say, ‘I want a new number I want to register,’” 8 News Now Investigator David Charns said to Drummond.
“You’d have to take a lot of actions and get a lot of approvals,” Drummond said. “And you’d have to show you’re not doing it for a nefarious reason or an improper reason.”
Other than the documents from federal investigators stating the business owners wanted “to start off fresh,” there is no indication there was anything improper about the action of getting a new number — nor if the company’s owners knew it was not standard practice.
In 2022, after the 8 News Now Investigators aired a report about the methamphetamine in Barson’s system and the troopers’ investigation, the 8 News Now Investigators asked FMCSA about one business owner closing one company and starting a new one under a new number.
The department declined several interview requests but later provided a statement: “It was determined that the motor carrier failed to have an adequate drug and alcohol testing program, which is required and checked during the FMCSA new entrant safety audit within the mandated 12-month timeframe. It failed to conduct pre-employment drug tests on several subject drivers properly.”
The 8 News Now Investigators followed up with additional questions regarding the DOT numbers. A spokesperson again declined an interview request but agreed to answer written questions.
Question: I want to know how often that happen?
Answer: Entities required to obtain a USDOT number from FMCSA should obtain and hold only one USDOT number, to identify a single operation. There are instances where separate and distinct operations may be performed by a single corporate entity, or under a singular tax identification number. In those instances, it may be necessary for a corporation to hold more than one USDOT number for those distinct, active operations. FMCSA is aware, however, that some entities intentionally seek to obtain more than one USDOT number for a single operation often in an attempt to circumvent compliance with safety regulations.
FMCSA is actively working on a rulemaking and an improved IT system to ensure only safe companies are registered with FMCSA and that no single operation holds more than one USDOT number. FMCSA is already working on this effort migrating registration data into the technology structure for the new system. Within the migration process, FMCSA will identify entities who have been able to circumvent current processes to obtain more than one USDOT number. When those situations are identified, FMCSA will use existing enforcement tools to consolidate safety records and ensure companies are not using separate numbers or corporate identities to avoid compliance with federal safety regulation.
The 8 News Now Investigators then went to Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg for a clearer answer.
“DOT does a level of vetting to try to catch problem actors reincarnating under new numbers but sometimes that can be difficult to catch,” Buttigieg said, adding the agency was working on new systems to find similar incidents.
“Why do you think I had to come to you to get this answer?” Charns asked.
“What I can tell you is that we are constantly working to make sure that our system and our practices are up to date,” Buttigieg said.
Troopers working to find out more about Roadrunner Transport’s registration and DOT number found also be confused in the initial hours after the crash.
“We need to make sure who his carrier is because Roadrunner Hotshot LLC is an inactive DOT number,” one trooper said, referencing the old company’s name.
While Jordan Barson and Jordan Barson alone is at fault for the crash, documents indicate the government revoked Roadrunner Transport’s right to drive on our roads and the company closed in 2021.
“I think this case does highlight a need to fix a potential loophole,” Drummond said.
The families of the five victims and several survivors have filed civil lawsuits against Barson, the company and other entities involved in the crash. A trial was scheduled to begin next year.
8 News Now repeatedly attempted to get a comment from the attorneys for Roadrunner Transport — including several emails alerting them to the publication of this story — but never received a response.
In April 2021, Barson pleaded guilty to two counts of DUI resulting in death. A judge later sentenced him to 16-40 years in prison. Because the blood draw was voluntary and would have likely been suppressed had the case gone to trial, prosecutors agreed to a plea deal, Moskal said. Barson is serving two counts of DUI resulting in death. Five people died.
Content Disclaimer: Due to the constantly changing nature of government regulations, it is impossible to guarantee the total and absolute accuracy of the material contained herein or presented. NorthAmerican Transportation Association (NTA) cannot and does not assume any responsibility for omissions, errors, misprinting or ambiguity contained. NTA shall not be held liable in any degree for any loss, damage or injury caused by any such omission, error, misprinting or ambiguity present. It is made available with the understanding that NTA is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional service. If legal advice or other expert service is required, the services of such a professional should be sought.