Training of Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers (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 1 INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND Large trucks are overrepresented in fatal crashes. In 2000, large trucks accounted for 4% of the nation’s registered vehi- cles, 7% of traffic volume, and 13% of all fatal crashes (Federal Highway Administration, 2002). To reduce the incidence of preventable crashes, training programs are offered as a coun- termeasure to improve fleet safety by improving the skills and knowledge of commercial drivers. The FHWA has advised caution in selecting a driver train- ing program. There are many schools—some operated com- mercially, and some operated privately by large carriers—with differing objectives, facilities, and staff orientation. FHWA provides a list of discriminating factors in its Commercial Vehicle Preventable Accident Manual: A Guide to Counter- measures (Uzgiris et al., 1991): curriculum content, adequacy of facilities, compatibility of training vehicles with company fleet, staff qualifications and experience, certification, referrals, and hours of actual driving instruction and practice. There are three primary sources of trained drivers: private schools that charge tuition and receive some funding through government programs; public junior colleges and community colleges that offer transportation programs that include truck driver training; and the carriers themselves, who provide training either in place of, or to augment, what is provided by schools. Traditionally, formal training programs include three components—classroom instruction, skills training in a restricted (off-road) area, and on-the-road instruction. No federal standards for commercial driver training exist with the exception of the recently passed minimum require- ments (Federal Register, 2004) for training in four topics, estimated to require 10 hours of training for heavy truck and motorcoach drivers as discussed later in this report. However, a de facto curriculum standard for the training of new truck drivers is that published by PTDI. There also are no standards for the instructors who deliver training materials (outside of those published by PTDI for instructors who teach at PTDI- certified institutions), a significant omission considering the observations by those with lengthy industry experience that instructor knowledge and skill are at least as important to the instructional process and a student’s subsequent safety record as curriculum content. Once drivers have obtained a CDL, any additional training they receive will most likely be provided by their employers and is typically reactive rather than proactive. That is, aside from an orientation to company policies and procedures, only drivers identified as “high risk” will receive supplemental vehicular training over the minimum needed to qualify for the CDL. Most drivers do not drive for major carriers that con- duct this level of training, and those who do may not stay long enough to complete supplemental programs. Unfortunately, as the need for trained drivers has increased, recent trends show a decline in the number of formal pro- grams offering commercial driving instruction. Ultimately, this need must be addressed. But first it is essential to iden- tify and document best practices for commercial driver training to ensure that the most effective methods are applied, for the health of the industry and for the safety of the driving public. OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE The objectives of this research were to identify and doc- ument CMV driver training programs and practices, with a focus on large trucks and buses, resulting in a synthesis of practices that will be useful to truck and bus carriers as well as state departments of transportation (DOTs) and depart- ments of motor vehicles (DMVs). The scope of the study included a comprehensive literature review, complemented by a survey of selected truck and bus companies, industry associations, and public and private driving schools. The infor- mation sought in the literature review and survey permitted the research team to identify and examine (1) similarities and dif- ferences in training strategies among existing driver training programs, (2) similarities and differences in the curricula applied in selected training programs, and (3) the extent to which simulator- and computer-based technologies can be used to enhance the effectiveness of commercial driver train- ing programs. RESEARCH METHODS An exhaustive technical information search was conducted to pinpoint knowledge domains used in driver training pro- grams delivered by truck driving schools and the commer- cial vehicle industry. Journal articles, government research 4

5publications and study reports, and trade papers were iden- tified and acquired to meet this need from the following sources: electronic information and abstracting database services; state DOT library and information centers; and professional organizations devoted to driver training and education, highway safety, and commercial driver issues (e.g., the American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Association, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, and the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety). The electronic index and abstract databases on transportation and highway safety topics that were searched included TRIS online; SilverPlatter’s TRANSPORT CD-ROM (database includes bibliographic information from TRIS, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the European Conference of Ministers of Transport); other transportation and education databases from DIALOG (e.g., Compendex, ERIC, and NTIS); and the internet (using various search engines, such as Yahoo, Google, and Lycos). Search terms included commercial motor vehicles, CMV, bus, truck, train- ing, driver education, skills programs, driving performance, commercial driver license requirements, and operator needs and deficiencies. Based on the project team’s review of abstracts for all candidates, 28 technical documents were prioritized for review and synthesis. A key element in the project was to gain the perspective of experts regarding what works (and what does not work) in training entry-level CMV drivers to perform safely under a full range of operating conditions. To this end, lists of potential survey contacts were drafted, reviewed by project consultants with close ties to the trucking industry,1 and augmented to reflect the consultants’ input. A preliminary list of truck driving schools consequently was narrowed to focus on vocational/technical school and community col- lege programs that have received PTDI certification, high- lighting those that have been recognized as an “Editor’s Pick” by the All American Truck Driving School Guide. A total of 24 schools were thus selected to receive surveys in this research. Similarly, a list of 42 truck and bus companies that received a safety-related reward or recognition in 2002—such as a National Industrial Safety Contest winner or National Truck Safety Contest winner—or that were iden- tified by project consultants as having exemplary training practices were selected as candidate information sources. Finally, 23 organizations were identified as potentially use- ful survey respondents in this project, including government safety organizations, professional and trade associations, and insurers of commercial carriers. Bus, as well as truck, and Canadian, as well as U.S., interests were represented in the final list of survey recipients. A 12-question survey was developed based on the infor- mation gleaned from the literature review, then revised in accordance with suggestions by the project consultants.1 The resulting survey form, presented in Appendix A, was mailed to the 24 schools, 42 truck and bus companies, and 23 organiza- tions described above. A period of 1 month was allowed for survey recipients to complete and return their responses. When a smaller-than- anticipated level of response was obtained, the project was extended to accommodate the supplemental efforts described below: • Telephone contacts were made with every survey recip- ient 1 month after the survey mailing date. The recipi- ents were provided with additional background on the purpose of the research and on its sponsor (TRB); the importance of industry input to advancing safety through better training of CMV drivers was emphasized; and the recipients were asked to complete and return the sur- veys within a 2-week timeframe. Individuals who indi- cated that no survey had been received during the prior mailing were provided with a faxed copy following the telephone conversation. • A project consultant made in-person requests for survey responses to participants at the National Private Truck Council conference approximately 2 months following the survey mailing date. • Follow-up telephone contacts were conducted 3 months after the survey mailing date. During these contacts, many survey recipients indicated that the survey content did not apply to them. Another subset of respondents refused to participate, indicating that their companies do not participate in surveys as a rule or stating that no one in the company could spend the time required to complete the survey. Surveys were returned by five schools, three trucking companies, and one bus company. Interestingly, over one- quarter of the truck and bus companies that were contacted but did not complete the survey advised that they neither hire entry-level drivers nor provide finishing training; instead these companies require new hires to have a minimum of 2 years (or 100,000 hours) of verifiable experience and a clean record. Information obtained from the survey respondents was used to (1) augment the results of the literature review in characterizing current training practices, and (2) support inferences about the effectiveness of specific, enhanced train- ing practices and approaches for entry-level CMV drivers. In the chapters that follow, a review of the literature describ- ing what is currently considered adequate training for entry- level CMV drivers is presented, along with methods used to deliver training programs and their effectiveness. The input received from driving school instructors and truck and bus 1Mr. John Brock, Milestone Group, Arlington, VA; Mr. Robert Inderbitzen, CTP, REI Safety Services, LLC, Southbury, CT, Director of Safety and Compliance, National Pri- vate Truck Council; Mr. John McFann, J. McFann Consulting, Fort Wayne, IN.

6this project was disappointing, many comments about train- ing needs for entry-level CMV drivers were generated by schools, associations, and carriers in response to the NPRM by the FMCSA, posted in the Federal Register on August 4, 2003, and earlier in an ANPRM posted on June 21, 1993. The industry perspectives provided by these comments are incorporated into the following chapter. company trainers that describes their current teaching methods and their ratings of the effectiveness of various training techniques is presented next. Because respondents were assured that their individual responses would remain anonymous, schools and compa- nies that participated in the data collection activity are not identified in the summary. While the survey return rate in