Cover Image

Not for Sale

View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 41

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 40
40 "no evidence that post-license driver education is effective" turnover rate annually. The implementation of a driver incen- (Ker et al. 2004). In motor carrier fleets, its effectiveness tive program reduced the turnover rate to about 20% annu- depends on how systematically it is conducted and on follow- ally, at an average cost of about $2,000 in incentive rewards up monitoring of a driver's safety performance. One respon- per driver. For each retained driver, the company saved about dent noted that, "Proactive programs and one-on-one dialog $8,000 in recruiting, training, and management costs. Another have the best chance of improving poor performance." company gave bonuses to drivers for improvements in fuel economy (which is also associated with improved safety). Over an entire year, the program resulted in fuel savings of approxi- 5.4.2 Rewards and Punishment mately $15,000 per vehicle, while fuel efficiency bonuses aver- aged about $6,000 per driver. Thus, the fleet saved $2.50 for Several survey questions addressed management practices every dollar spent on the program. relating to behavioral consequences--positive or negative. In the I-95 Corridor Coalition "Best Practices" study (Stock Several questions asked respondents to rate reward-based prac- 2001), 25% of small fleets (1 to 9 vehicles) had financial tices and punishment-based practices. Other questions asked reward programs for safe driver performance, but more than respondents to weigh the effects of rewards and "discipline." 80% for larger fleets (51+ vehicles) had them. Most safety Both groups of respondents rated monetary rewards as among managers surveyed rated such programs as effective. In the most effective of management techniques, and non-mone- SafeReturns (ATAF 1999b), 41% of all fleets surveyed, and tary rewards were also rated relatively high by other experts. 66% of "award winning" fleets, provided cash bonuses to More than 90% of safety managers employ reprimands--both drivers for safe driving. Of the carrier safety managers sur- verbal and written--as a form of punishment, but their effec- veyed by Knipling, Hickman, and Bergoffen (2003), 73% used tiveness was rated by both groups as relatively low. Eighty- incentive programs for driver safety outcome measures (e.g., four percent of safety managers employ suspension from crash-free miles), but these programs were rated as only mod- service as a punishment and, not surprisingly, they rate it as one erately effective compared with other fleet safety management of the most effective interventions. One respondent expressed practices. In the current survey, only 38% of safety managers frustration with any efforts to discipline problem drivers, com- used "monetary rewards," but it was rated third-highest in effec- menting that, "Most high-risk drivers have little sense of tiveness of the 12 methods presented. Other experts rated these responsibility and respond little to disciplinary action." programs as the most effective method of the 12. The results of questions on the relative merits of rewards and As noted, the use of disciplinary actions in response to discipline (presented in Table 7) are reproduced in Table 11. commercial driver crashes, violations, and incidents is wide- For drivers in general, both respondent groups rated rewards as spread. Many behavioral scientists discourage the use of neg- more effective than discipline, although many respondents in ative consequences as a principal method to reduce at-risk each group rated the two approaches as having equal impact. safety-related work behaviors (Daniels and Rosen 1988, For problem drivers, responses shifted toward discipline as the Geller 2001, Krause 1997, McSween 1995). Punishment more effective intervention, although here again a number of can significantly reduce unwanted behaviors if the punish- respondents rated the two approaches as having equal impact. ment is severe, certain, and immediate. However, there are Financial rewards as incentives for safety are widely em- several undesirable side effects and limitations associa- ployed in North American CMV fleets. Barton and Tardif ted with its use, such as escape, aggression, apathy, and (1998) reported that 70% of trucking firms surveyed had an "counter-control" (Daniels and Rosen 1988, Geller 2001, incentive/reward program. Their pilot evaluation of incentive McSween 1995). programs found that they resulted in significant crash and incident reductions and, in particular, substantial reduc- Escape. People tend to avoid situations and people asso- tions in driver turnover rates. In one example (reported in ciated with negative consequences. Reliance on punishment Barton and Tardif 2002), a less-than-truckload (LTL) fleet may lead people to avoid reporting injuries or near-misses. with 80 power units was experiencing a nearly 100% driver Further, those that do have an injury, near-miss, or crash are TABLE 11 Which has stronger influence: rewards or discipline? SAFETY OTHER MANAGERS EXPERTS RESPONSE CHOICE Drivers in Problem Drivers in Problem General Drivers General Drivers Rewards 28% 15% 52% 12% Discipline 12% 45% 9% 46% Equal Impact 60% 40% 39% 42%