Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 12


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 11
11 TABLE 4 Driver hiring practices and tools SAFETY OTHER MANAGERS EXPERTS % Who Mean Rank Mean Rank HIRING PRACTICE/TOOL Use (of 8) (of 8) Check MVR 100% 3.4 1 3.2 1 On-road driving test 88% 3.3 2 3.1 2 Test for alcohol/drugs 99% 3.3 3 2.8 4 Use third-party service 46% 3.1 4 2.3 8 Contact past employers 99% 3.0 5 3.0 3 Check criminal record 61% 3.0 6 2.7 5 Selection tests 26% 2.9 7 2.4 6 Check credit history & rating 21% 2.4 8 2.3 7 ness for both respondent groups. Other factors were also there was also relatively little variation in effectiveness rating ranked in the same order by safety managers and other across the 12 methods (see Table 6). experts (see Table 5). Respondents were asked to weigh the relative effective- ness of rewards and "discipline" for drivers in general and for problem drivers (see Table 7). Both groups tended to 2.2.5 Part 5: Driver Management favor rewards for drivers in general but "discipline" for problem drivers. Among both respondent groups, there were Part 5 presented 12 driver management practices. The fairly large percentages that chose "equal impact." instructions were the same as in Part 3 for the two respon- dent groups. Among safety managers, reprimands (verbal and written) and manager counseling were among the most- 2.2.6 Part 6: Comments used methods. Among the safety managers who used the meth- ods, "monetary penalties," "suspension from service," and A space was provided for written comments. About one-half "monetary rewards" received the highest effectiveness ratings. of the safety managers and other experts made such comments. There was little variation in the mean ratings given to the The comments focused on a variety of issues and expressed 12 safety management methods by safety manager users of many different views. A number are cited in various sections these methods. of this synthesis. The other expert respondents rated the effectiveness of the 12 methods somewhat differently from the safety managers. Monetary rewards were rated highest in effectiveness among 2.2.7 Part 7: Respondent Information the 12 methods, which was consistent with the safety manager relative ratings. Ratings of other methods tended to differ more Respondents were also asked to provide some general between the two groups, however. Among the other experts demographic information about themselves and, for safety TABLE 5 Driver evaluation practices SAFETY OTHER MANAGERS EXPERTS % Who Mean Rank Mean Rank EVALUATION PRACTICE Use (of 4) (of 4) Continuous tracking: crashes, etc. 99% 3.3 1 3.6 1 On-board electronic monitoring 31% 3.0 2 3.2 2 Periodic observations of driving 82% 3.0 3 3.0 3 "How's My Driving" placards 24% 2.7 4 1.9 4

OCR for page 11
12 TABLE 6 Driver management practices SAFETY OTHER MANAGERS EXPERTS % MANAGEMENT PRACTICE Who Mean Rank Mean Rank Use (of 12) (of 12) Monetary penalties 48% 3.1 1 2.6 8 Suspension from service 84% 3.0 2 2.7 7 Monetary rewards 38% 3.0 3 2.9 1 Written reprimand 94% 2.8 4 2.4 10 Counseling by manager 87% 2.8 5 2.5 9 Teach drivers to self-manage 31% 2.8 6 2.3 11 Remedial training 69% 2.7 7 2.8 2 Non-monetary rewards 60% 2.7 8 2.8 4 Senior driver ride-alongs 28% 2.7 9 2.8 3 Manager ride-alongs 45% 2.7 10 2.8 6 Verbal reprimand 97% 2.7 11 2.0 12 Counseling by senior driver 19% 2.6 12 2.8 4 TABLE 7 Which has stronger influence: rewards or discipline? SAFETY OTHER MANAGERS EXPERTS RESPONSE Drivers in Problem Drivers in Problem CHOICE General Drivers General Drivers Rewards 28% 12% 52% 12% Discipline 17% 52% 9% 46% Equal Impact 55% 36% 39% 42% TABLE 8 Safety managers' fleet operation types % SAFETY OPERATION TYPE MANAGERS For hire: long haul/truckload 39% For hire: long haul/less-than-truckload (LTL) 7% For hire: local/short haul (most trips < 100 miles) 12% Private industry: long haul 9% Private industry: local/short haul (< 100 miles) 19% Passenger carrier: long haul/motor coach 13% Passenger carrier: local/transit 4% "Other" (mostly variations of above types) 10% Note: Totals more than 100% because some fleets had more than one operation type. managers, their fleets. Key points are summarized in the average of 22.1 total years of experience in CMV operations following two subsections. (range: 1 to 50). Fleet size varied widely, ranging from 3 to 4,500 power units. The median fleet size was 50. Safety Managers Respondents were asked to characterize their fleet's primary operation by selecting one of seven major truck The 178 safety manager respondents had been safety man- and bus operation types or writing in an alternative. Results agers for an average of 12.8 years (range: 1 to 43) and had an are shown in Table 8. The percentages total more than

OCR for page 11
13 100% because some respondents cited two or more opera- indicate their professional experience areas relating to motor tion types. carrier safety. The breakdown is shown in Table 9. The per- centages shown total more than 100% because most respon- Other Experts dents gave multiple responses. The results show that the experience base of the other experts was both extensive and The years of motor carrier safety experience of the 67 other varied, with heavy representation of individuals with back- expert respondents ranged widely from 3 years to 43 years. The grounds in government, accident investigation/data analysis, mean was 17.7 years. These respondents were also asked to motor carrier safety research, and industry trade associations. TABLE 9 Other expert experience areas % OTHER EXPERIENCE AREAS EXPERTS Government enforcement 27% Other government (e.g., rulemaking) 49% Industry trade association 30% CMV driver 12% Carrier safety manager 12% Other carrier management position 9% Safety consultant or vendor to fleets 22% Accident investigation/data analysis 39% Motor carrier safety research 63% Journalist 3% Driver trainer 10% Insurance for motor carriers 9% Other (e.g., training developer, manufacturer) 7% Note: Totals more than 100% because many respondents had multiple experience areas.