Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 39


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 38
38 (e.g., late night driving). Its website claims that drivers incidents, and violations was rated as one of the most effective with the worst scores are 3 to 16 times more at risk for safety management practices. crashes than those with the best scores. "Periodic observation of driving" was the second most Waypoint is a short sensory-motor test that requires sub- practiced driver evaluation method at 82%. Its effectiveness jects to connect numbered and alphabetized boxes pre- was rated about average compared with the other evaluation sented in random spatial patterns of increasing complexity. methods presented. Such observations can be in the truck ("ride The Waypoint website (waypointresearch.com) cites stud- alongs"), or can be from outside the truck (from a "shadow ies of five over-the-road trucking fleets involving more vehicle"). Both manager and senior driver ride-alongs were than 200 drivers. Claimed "hit rates" ranged from 43% included as items in Part 5 of the present survey. Less than to 75%, false alarm rates ranged from 6% to 12%, and 50% of respondents employ these methods, and they were projected crash reductions ranged from 23% to 54%. rated near the bottom of the 12 safety management methods presented. Nevertheless, ride-along observations can be a way (Note: The above list represents those commercial driver of providing one-on-one instruction and behavioral counsel- selection tests known to the authors at the time of synthesis ing to drivers. They should include explicit feedback on driving publication. The tests were not evaluated and no endorsement behaviors. FMCSA participants in the project focus group of any test is implied by this presentation.) noted the importance of feedback and the fact that immediate feedback directly to the driver is generally more effective than delayed feedback. Limitations of ride-alongs and other 5.3 DRIVER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION driving observations include the fact that they are time- consuming for managers and that they may not provide accu- Of course, once drivers are hired, their in-service safety rate appraisals of drivers' actual on-road behavior. performance must be continuously monitored and evaluated. Two other driver evaluation practices addressed in this Continuous tracking of driver crashes, incidents, and viola- research project survey were less frequently employed. These tions was practiced by virtually all (99%) the survey safety were "How's My Driving?" placards and on-board safety manager respondents, and they rated this as the most effec- monitoring (OBSM). The use of "How's my Driving?" safety tive of the four evaluation practices presented. Other experts placards was the lowest rated of the four evaluation methods also rated this as the most effective evaluation practice. Car- presented in the current survey and was also relatively infre- riers are required by the FMCSRs to annually check the quently practiced and poorly rated by Knipling, Hickman, and MVRs of their drivers, but many companies check them more Bergoffen (2003). The use of safety placards has some advan- frequently. Moreover, many managers feel that incidents tages and several disadvantages. It is a method for identify- (e.g., damage to cargo or loading areas) are important events ing risky driving behavior by drivers before these behaviors to track along with crashes, traffic violations, and inspection result in a crash. Corrective management actions (e.g., repri- violations. One safety manager respondent stated, "A num- mands, counseling, retraining) can follow a report from the ber of small incidents will eventually result in a major inci- public about a driver's unsafe driving. Third-party companies dent." Appendix F-5 and F-6 provide a sample driver safety providing placards and receiving 800-number calls from the record and performance coaching job aid, respectively, for public claim that their use results in fleet crash rate reduc- employee evaluation and feedback. tions. Disadvantages include the fact that it's a "hit or miss" The Truck Driver Risk Assessment Guide (American Truck- technique; that is, there is no guarantee that risky driving will ing Associations Foundation [ATAF] 1999a) recommends be reported. Callers may or may not describe the incident systematic monitoring of numerous indicators of driver activ- accurately, leading to possible disputes with drivers. Most of ity and performance, including (a) driving skills, (b) driving the phone calls from the public, and therefore the feedback habits (including health and wellness-related), (c) hours-on- received by drivers, will be negative, perhaps leading drivers duty, (d) miles driven, (e) MVR reviews, (f ) traffic violations, to resent the method and believe that they have been unlucky (g) crashes, (h) cargo loss, (i) vehicle inspection and mainte- rather than that they have misbehaved. nance, and ( j) non-driving activities such as loading/unloading OBSM would seem to be a technique with tremendous practices and connecting/disconnecting. A number of perfor- potential to assess commercial driver safety performance and mance evaluation-related job aids are provided in appendices identify unsafe drivers. Many safety-critical driving behaviors to the guide. A survey conducted as part of the I-95 Corridor (e.g., speed, acceleration, brake use, driving times associated Coalition Coordinated Safety Management study (Stock 2001) with hours-of-service compliance) can be continuously mon- found that "driver monitoring" was considered important itored electronically. Emerging technologies can measure for- by more than 90% of their carrier respondents. Knipling, ward headway (to detect tailgating), rollover risk on curves, Hickman, and Bergoffen (2003) also found that tracking both lane tracking, lateral encroachments toward adjacent vehicles individual driver's crashes/incidents/violations and overall (e.g., during lane changes), and even driver alertness and fleet safety statistics were practiced by about 90% of safety attention (Knipling, Hickman, and Bergoffen 2003). Such manager respondents. Continuous tracking of drivers' crashes, technologies may provide safety performance feedback,