Individual Differences and the "High-Risk" Commercial Driver (2004)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

CHAPTER 2 SURVEY METHOD AND RESULTS 2.1 METHOD A primary vehicle for obtaining information in this research project was surveys. Two parallel survey forms were employed: (a) one for current CMV fleet safety managers and (b) one for other experts in motor carrier safety. These are provided in Appendices C and D, respectively. This section describes the survey methodology in more detail, and Section 2.2 pro- vides principal results. A general concern regarding most of the survey responses is that they represent subjective responses to subjective ques- tions. A few questions were objective (e.g., questions asking safety managers whether or not they use a particular safety management practice), but most called for subjective judg- ments by respondents. Both groups were highly qualified to render such judgments, however, so the surveys are considered to capture expert opinion. 2.1.1 Survey Design and Content The safety manager and other expert survey forms con- tained 48 and 50 questions, respectively. These were divided into seven parts: • Part 1: How Important Is the Problem? This short sec- tion included both fill-in and multiple choice ques- tions on the basic phenomena of individual differences in driver safety. • Part 2: Driver Factors Associated with Risk. Questions on both forms listed personal driver traits and, using a 5-point scale (0–4), asked respondents to rate the association (correlation) of the factor with driver risk. • Part 3: Driver Hiring Practices and Tools. For the other experts, this section listed eight hiring practices and asked respondents to rate the effectiveness of each using the same 5-point scale. For the safety managers, the section was titled, “Which Driver Hiring Practices and Tools Do You Regularly Use?” and included two parts for each question. First, the respondent circled “yes” or “no.” Then, the instructions stated, “If ‘Yes,’ please rate effec- tiveness.” Consistent with these instructions, safety man- ager data for the 5-point scale were entered only if respondents circled “yes” to the first part of each question. 8 On one question (“Selection Tests”), safety managers responding “yes” were also asked to write in the selection test(s) they use. • Part 4: Driver Evaluation. This section consisted of four questions and had the same instructions as Part 3. For safety managers, it was titled, “How Do You Evaluate Drivers in Your Fleet?” • Part 5: Driver Management. This section contained 12 questions and had the same instructions as Parts 3 and 4. Even though the individual questions were parallel between the two respondent groups for Parts 3, 4, and 5, the instructions for answering most of the questions were different. Other experts were answering for com- mercial fleets and drivers in general, whereas safety man- agers were answering for their own practices (yes or no) and then rating effectiveness for their own fleets. Part 5 also contained three-choice questions relating to positive, reward-based safety management practices versus “disciplinary” approaches. These questions were identical on the two forms. • Part 6: Comments. Three lines of blank space were pro- vided on each form. Respondents were asked to com- ment on high-risk drivers and list any questions they had about the survey. This information on the completed forms was reviewed separately and reported selectively in this synthesis. • Part 7: Respondent Information. For other experts, the last section contained two questions relating to years of experience and types of positions held. For safety man- agers, the section contained questions on their personal years of experience and the size and operation type of their fleet. 2.1.2 Survey Distribution and Analysis The two forms of the survey were distributed primarily by U.S. mail. Potential carrier safety manager respondents were identified primarily from the North American Truck Fleet Directory published by Transport Topics Press in conjunction with the American Trucking Associations, Inc. A nationwide random sample of approximately 700 carriers was selected from the database accompanying the directory. In addition, 100% samples were selected from the directory for the geo-

graphic areas around Blacksburg, Virginia (location of Vir- ginia Tech and VTTI), Northern Virginia (location of the VTTI principal investigator), and Iowa City, Iowa (location of the University of Iowa). Letters to the large national sample and these geographic samples were addressed to “Fleet Safety Director” at the selected carriers. Other survey recipients were respondents from CTBSSP Synthesis 1 for whom contact infor- mation was available. Most of these individuals were active in industry trade association safety councils. Finally, to ensure an adequate subsample of motor coach fleet safety managers, sur- vey forms were distributed directly to attendees at a Safety Counsel meeting of the American Bus Association. All survey forms were accompanied by a cover letter and a stamped enve- lope addressed to research project personnel at VTTI in North- ern Virginia (primarily), VTTI in Blacksburg, or the University of Iowa. Altogether, approximately 1,000 safety manager sur- vey forms were distributed. Respondents in the three geo- graphic areas were also invited to a research project briefing, held at each location after the study’s completion. Even though most of the carrier safety manager survey distribution sample was randomly generated from a national directory, the safety manager respondent sample is perhaps considered as a convenience sample. Research project re- sources did not permit the design of a systematic subject sam- pling and survey distribution process or the tracking of survey return rates for various respondent groups. Moreover, those who complete and return a survey of this nature are likely to be those most interested in the topic and committed to sup- porting efforts relating to it. Also, because there was a spe- cial effort to obtain passenger carrier fleet respondents, their percentages in the respondent sample (13% long haul/motor coach; 4% local/transit) were high compared with the overall commercial motor transport industry. The other expert survey form was distributed primarily to professional associates of the principal investigator. Many had been respondents to CTBSSP Synthesis 1. Many were individ- uals active in TRB truck and bus safety activities, in particular the Committee on Truck and Bus Safety Research (ANB70). In addition to the mail distribution of approximately 125 surveys, about 30 were distributed directly during the 2004 TRB Annual Meeting, and a few were completed by FMCSA employees during a research project focus group held on the topic. Obviously, this group is highly involved in motor carrier 9 safety and has extensive knowledge and experience relating to the topic, although most did not and had not worked for a motor carrier. More information on their backgrounds is provided in Section 2.2.7. All survey responses were confidential and there is no attri- bution of responses by individual, company name, or other organizational affiliation in this synthesis. Statistics are cited in the synthesis for the two major respondent groups: fleet safety managers and other experts. 2.2 PRINCIPAL SURVEY RESULTS 2.2.1 Part 1: How Important Is the Problem? The first few questions of the survey were intended to assess respondents’ views on the importance of the high-risk driver phenomenon. These were the most conceptual survey questions. Respondents were asked to attribute percentages of crash risk to “behavior/skill” and to “uncontrollable fac- tors (i.e., luck).” Implicit in this question is the idea that the concept of high-risk drivers assumes that there are significant behavior/skill differences among drivers. Both respondent groups averaged around 70% (69% for safety managers and 72% for other experts) in their attribution of crash risk to behavior/skill, although the safety manager attribution was more variable. Respondents were asked a hypothetical question designed to elicit an assessment of the degree to which high-risk drivers are a problem for fleets (see Table 1). The majority of both respondent groups believed that the worst 10% of drivers were associated with 50% or more of fleet crash risk. Respondents were also asked to assess how consistent and enduring individual differences in crash risk are (see Table 2). About two-thirds of both respondent groups believed that there is a “strong tendency” for individual differences in crash risk to be consistent and enduring year-to-year. 2.2.2 Part 2: Driver Factors Associated with Risk Respondents were asked to rate 16 personal factors with regard to their strength of association with crash risk. The 5-point scale went from “0” (no association) to “4” (strong RESPONSE CHOICE SAFETY MANAGERS OTHER EXPERTS Worst 10% 10% of problems 6% 0% Worst 10% 20% of problems 6% 6% Worst 10% 30% of problems 14% 19% Worst 10% 40% of problems 15% 21% Worst 10% → → 50+% of problems 59% 54% → → → TABLE 1 Disproportion of risk

10 RESPONSE CHOICE SAFETY MANAGERS OTHER EXPERTS Risk can change dramatically 10% 0% Moderate consistency 25% 35% Risk stays about the same 65% 65% TABLE 2 Consistency of individual differences SAFETY MANAGERS OTHER EXPERTS DRIVER RISK FACTOR Mean Rank (of 16) Mean Rank (of 16) Aggressive/angry 3.4 1 3.4 3 Impatient/impulsive 3.4 2 3.5 1 Inattentive 3.4 3 3.4 2 Inexperienced (new CMV driver) 3.2 4 3.2 4 Unhappy w/ job/company 2.6 5 2.4 7 Young Driver (e.g., less than 25) 2.5 6 3.1 5 Sleep apnea/other sleep disorder 2.4 7 2.9 6 Unhappy marriage/family prob. 2.2 8 2.2 8 Debt or other financial problems 2.0 9 2.1 9 Heart or other medical condition 1.9 10 2.1 10 Dishonest 1.8 11 1.8 14 Older driver (e.g., 60 or older) 1.7 12 1.9 12 New to company 1.6 13 2.0 11 Obese/overweight 1.4 14 1.7 15 Introverted/unsociable 1.3 15 1.1 16 Did not attend truck driving school 1.2 16 1.8 13 TABLE 3 Driver factors associated with risk association). Respondents in both groups rated personality traits such as aggressiveness, impulsivity, and inattentiveness as having the highest associations with risk. The lowest rated associations were for “did not attend formal truck driving school,” introversion, and obesity. The factors, mean ratings (to the nearest tenth), and rankings are presented in order of safety manager ranking in Table 3. When there were ties in the mean ratings, rankings were determined by looking at additional decimal places. However, for simplicity, these decimal places are not shown in the tables. Across the 16 items, there was strong agreement between the safety man- agers and the other experts in their mean ratings. 2.2.3 Part 3: Driver Hiring Practices and Tools Part 3 presented eight hiring practices and tools and asked safety managers to first indicate whether they used the prac- tice, and then, if “yes,” to rate its effectiveness (again using a 5-point scale). For other experts, there was no “yes-no” ques- tion regarding use; instead, they just rated the effectiveness of the practice. Thus, the safety manager ratings here are based on actual use of the practice/tool, whereas the other expert ratings were not. Among the most frequently used and high- est rated practices were checking the applicant motor vehicle record (MVR), contacting past employers, testing for alcohol and drugs (required by federal regulation for interstate carri- ers), and on-road driving tests. Table 4 lists the practices in the order safety managers ranked them. 2.2.4 Part 4: Driver Evaluation Part 4 presented four driver evaluation practices. The instructions were the same as in Part 3 for the two respon- dent groups. “Continuous tracking of driver crashes, inci- dents, and violations” was almost universally used by safety manager respondents and had the highest-rated effective-

ness for both respondent groups. Other factors were also ranked in the same order by safety managers and other experts (see Table 5). 2.2.5 Part 5: Driver Management Part 5 presented 12 driver management practices. The 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- used methods. Among the safety managers who used the meth- ods, “monetary penalties,” “suspension from service,” and “monetary rewards” received the highest effectiveness ratings. There was little variation in the mean ratings given to the 12 safety management methods by safety manager users of these methods. 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 the 12 methods, which was consistent with the safety manager relative ratings. Ratings of other methods tended to differ more between the two groups, however. Among the other experts 11 there was also relatively little variation in effectiveness rating across the 12 methods (see Table 6). 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 favor rewards for drivers in general but “discipline” for problem drivers. Among both respondent groups, there were fairly large percentages that chose “equal impact.” 2.2.6 Part 6: Comments A space was provided for written comments. About one-half of the safety managers and other experts made such comments. The comments focused on a variety of issues and expressed many different views. A number are cited in various sections of this synthesis. 2.2.7 Part 7: Respondent Information Respondents were also asked to provide some general demographic information about themselves and, for safety SAFETY MANAGERS OTHER EXPERTS HIRING PRACTICE/TOOL % Who Use Mean Rank (of 8) Mean Rank (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 TABLE 4 Driver hiring practices and tools SAFETY MANAGERS OTHER EXPERTS EVALUATION PRACTICE % Who Use Mean Rank (of 4) Mean Rank (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 TABLE 5 Driver evaluation practices

12 SAFETY MANAGERS OTHER EXPERTS MANAGEMENT PRACTICE % Who Use Mean Rank (of 12) Mean Rank (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 6 Driver management practices SAFETY MANAGERS OTHER EXPERTS RESPONSE CHOICE Drivers in General Problem Drivers Drivers in General Problem Drivers Rewards 28% 12% 52% 12% Discipline 17% 52% 9% 46% Equal Impact 55% 36% 39% 42% TABLE 7 Which has stronger influence: rewards or discipline? OPERATION TYPE % SAFETY 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. TABLE 8 Safety managers’ fleet operation types managers, their fleets. Key points are summarized in the following two subsections. Safety Managers The 178 safety manager respondents had been safety man- agers for an average of 12.8 years (range: 1 to 43) and had an average of 22.1 total years of experience in CMV operations (range: 1 to 50). Fleet size varied widely, ranging from 3 to 4,500 power units. The median fleet size was 50. Respondents were asked to characterize their fleet’s primary operation by selecting one of seven major truck and bus operation types or writing in an alternative. Results are shown in Table 8. The percentages total more than

100% because some respondents cited two or more opera- tion types. Other Experts The years of motor carrier safety experience of the 67 other expert respondents ranged widely from 3 years to 43 years. The mean was 17.7 years. These respondents were also asked to 13 indicate their professional experience areas relating to motor carrier safety. The breakdown is shown in Table 9. The per- centages shown total more than 100% because most respon- dents gave multiple responses. The results show that the experience base of the other experts was both extensive and varied, with heavy representation of individuals with back- grounds in government, accident investigation/data analysis, motor carrier safety research, and industry trade associations. EXPERIENCE AREAS % OTHER 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. TABLE 9 Other expert experience areas