Motorcoach Industry Hours of Service and Fatigue Management Techniques (2005)

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 4 SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS Based on the literature review of fatigue issues facing motor- coach operators, it was apparent that a number of circumstances these drivers encountered are unique to their industry and profession. These factors include the following: • Time with passengers—drivers can spend days (or weeks) with a tour/charter group; the interaction between the two can lead to unrealistic demands by the passengers. • An extended workday—tour and charter groups’ itiner- aries typically include stops at tourist attractions, leading to longer days (though usually shorter hours of driving). • Multiple roles of the driver—sometimes, because of the amount of time spent with the passengers, drivers assume several different functions such as tour guide or even trip counselors. • Company representative—while hired only to drive, some drivers may become the onsite spokesperson for the company’s charter and route policies, pricing, etc. • Strict scheduling—extended trips with scheduled stops at different attractions can lead to unrealistic timetables when factoring in weather, traffic conditions, construc- tion, and other unforeseen delays. SURVEY PARTICIPANTS In order to determine the effect of the aforementioned fac- tors, two constituencies were identified as representative and knowledgeable of motorcoach operators’ activities. The first group consisted of motorcoach company representatives who were primarily operational and safety managers. These indi- viduals were seen as having direct experience with both day- to-day and extended motorcoach operations. Emails were sent out requesting participation in the survey. The second group was composed of research scientists and other trans- portation specialists who are active in TRB commercial vehi- cle and bus operations committees and subcommittees. These individuals were seen as having first-hand knowledge regard- ing the processes, technologies, and interventions that affect motorcoach drivers. SURVEY SCOPE To assess the effects of fatigue and its countermeasures, two surveys were developed, one for each of the surveyed groups. The first survey, sent to motorcoach company man- 16 agers and supervisors, was more comprehensive about the policies and procedures of motorcoach companies. This sur- vey, provided as Appendix A, addressed the following issues: • Company processes and strategies used to address and combat fatigue (e.g., company training, scheduling, flexibility, and driver schedules); • Perceived effects of passengers (e.g., requests for slower or faster driving, staying on schedules, and luggage han- dling); • Typical work/rest cycles and sleeping arrangements for extended charter/tour trips; and • Specific countermeasures drivers and companies may employ and foster to combat fatigue (e.g., using caf- feine, listening to the radio, and using advanced tech- nology devices). The second survey, provided as Appendix B, addressed the research scientist group. Questions in this survey focused on countermeasures and their effectiveness and on company training issues. SURVEY PROCESS The surveys were developed using a commercial, online survey development and processing system. Each survey respondent group member was contacted via email and informed of the survey’s intent and the URL where the sur- vey could be viewed and completed. The first respondent group consisted of members of the Motorcoach Industry Operators and were identified by and coordinated with the American Bus Association, based in Washington, DC. This organization sent an email to all mem- bers and advertised the survey in its weekly online newsletter. The potential respondents included all companies in the United States with fleets ranging from just a few motorcoaches to hundreds as well as companies whose buses are driven both regionally and nationally. The second respondent group was composed of members of TRB committees. Respondents were identified and con- tacted using a listserve maintained by TRB and represents researchers, academics, and government employees. Twenty- two respondents were in this group. Because the response rate of the survey of bus company managers was low, the research team merged the results of

that survey with the results of a series of focus groups of the same constituency reported in 1999 (Arrowhead Space and Telecommunications, Inc., 1999). The results of the survey and the Arrowhead focus groups (described below) are re- markably similar and reflect the general practices and percep- tions of motorcoach industry management and supervisors. The focus group sessions were designed to determine the issues and operating situations that are unique within the motorcoach industry and which contribute to driver fatigue. The focus groups of particular interest to this synthesis were made up of owners, operation managers, safety directors, and drivers. A series of five focus group sessions were convened by Arrowhead Space and Telecommunications, Inc. An addi- tional focus group session was conducted by an operator for its drivers. One hundred and twenty-five people participated in the focus groups. A complete description of this process can be found in the Arrowhead (1999) report. RESULTS OF INDUSTRY SURVEY All of the survey respondents reported that their companies’ primary business is charters/tours. The average age of vehi- cles for these companies is 5 to 7 years with a range of 5 years to 11 years. The average vehicle fleet for the respondent’s companies is 48 vehicles with a range of 10 to 170 vehicles. Training and Education Respondents and participants all reported that they included fatigue and fatigue countermeasure information in their driver educational materials and as part of their regular training pro- grams. In terms of frequency, survey respondents reported that they sometimes distributed materials and always conducted training. The focus groups also recommended that anyone in a 17 motorcoach company who works with drivers (e.g., dispatch- ers and tour group planners) should be trained on driver fatigue issues. All groups also identified training as one of the most important activities in alerting drivers to the effects of and countermeasures to fatigue. Both the survey groups and the focus groups believe that motorcoach operators are aware of and understand current Federal HOS regulations. The survey group agreed that all motorcoach operators know these regulations. Scheduling The single most frequent method for addressing motor- coach operator fatigue is local scheduling. Somewhat contra- dictory, neither the survey nor focus group ranked local scheduling as significantly important. In companies with mul- tiple locations, centralized scheduling systems are sometimes used but are not viewed as particularly effective for address- ing fatigue issues. However, managers did say their compa- nies were often flexible in scheduling and that schedule flexibility is moderately important in dealing with motor- coach driver fatigue. The focus groups also identified sched- uling as a good way to control the fatigue of drivers. Figures 1 and 2 show the survey response distribution for the series of questions probing the topics discussed above. Passengers Although passengers on motorcoaches are seen as prob- lems, their effects on fatigue are not well known. Both the survey and focus group members identified passengers as creating stress, but neither group was very specific about what passengers do that is stressful. Instances of passengers specifically giving driving directions (e.g., drive faster) to motorcoach drivers were cited as rare or an event that occurs 1 2 3 4 5 Distribute Materials Conduct Training Use Centralized System Use Local System Use Two Drivers Use Flexibility A ct iv ity Never Always Figure 1. Industry representatives’ perception of how often their companies perform activities.

18 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Distribute Materials Conduct Training Use Centralized System Use Local System Use Two Drivers Use Flexibility A ct iv ity Not Important Very Important Figure 2. Importance rating for each activity for preventing fatigue. only sometimes. Passenger requests to ignore the HOS regu- lations were mentioned only slightly more frequently. All groups described the non-driving interactions with pas- sengers to be serious problems leading to fatigue. Loading and unloading luggage, passenger assistance, and ticket handing were all identified as both fatigue inducing and as limiting opportunities to rest. An indirect result of transporting passengers is the oppor- tunity for motorcoach operators to sleep in hotel or motel beds. The survey group reported that 100% of their drivers sleep in hotels (90% in the same hotel as where the passen- gers are lodged). The focus groups also identified this as the motorcoach operator’s major defense against fatigue. Figure 3 shows the survey response distribution for the series of questions probing passengers’ interactions with drivers. Significance of Fatigue There was general agreement among the managers and supervisors in both the survey and focus groups that fatigue affects motorcoach driving performance. One-half of the sur- vey group identified it as having a significant effect. Yet 75% of this same group reported zero crashes in their companies attributed to driver fatigue in the past 2 years. One-half did not even know of a near-miss where fatigue might have been a factor. The focus groups also reported very few fatigue- related crashes. Strategies for Combating Fatigue The survey asked how effective were several methods of fighting fatigue and also how often each of these methods 1 32 4 5 Insist Drive Faster Insist Drive Slower Insist Drive Longer Interfere with Driving Perform Non-driving Activities A ct io n Never Always Figure 3. Frequency of requests that passengers make of drivers.

were used. The highest rated management method to coun- tering fatigue was scheduling a full block of rest. This was also the most highly reported technique actually being used. Not surprisingly, the focus groups also strongly supported uninterrupted sleep as a key feature of any fatigue manage- ment program. The method that was judged second most effective was pro- viding regular schedules to the motorcoach operators. Yet when asked how often such regular schedules were provided, the answers split between “sometimes” and “often.” “Always” was not selected by any of the respondents. Although the focus groups were not asked specific questions about scheduling, the need for regular scheduling was identified as another key to combating driver fatigue. Managers expressed skepticism about caffeine as an effec- tive fatigue fighter, but also reported that caffeine is either often or always used by the motorcoach operators to overcome fatigue. Managers expressed some interest in technological interventions, but this interest was tinged with skepticism. There were no reported instances of a company actually using any of these new technologies. Table 1 shows the distribution of responses across the motorcoach manager and supervisor survey for the countermeasure questions. RESULTS OF RESEARCH SCIENTIST SURVEY The members of the research community who responded to the synthesis survey averaged 13 years’ conducting trans- portation research and more than 8 years’ conducting fatigue research. Slightly over 70 research scientists were contacted for the survey and 22 responded. The entire survey is in Appendix B. Training and Education Respondents expressed their views of the approaches motor- coach companies take to managing the fatigue of the motor- coach operators. They identified the distribution of safety literature and safety training as two common company activ- 19 ities. They reported fewer instances of safety training than the company managers reported. However, all groups identified safety training as the single most important intervention to manage driver fatigue. Scheduling The responses about scheduling also matched those of motorcoach company managers and supervisors. Both central- ized and local scheduling were seen as often being used; local scheduling was seen as a more important contributor to fatigue management. Flexible scheduling was seen as an important tool but not used as often as it could be. Figures 4 and 5 show the survey response distribution for the series of questions probing the topics discussed above. The research community responses to the survey indicate a strong belief that fatigue has a significant effect on motor- coach operator performance. However, even among this group, more than one-half expressed a belief that there were no crashes of motorcoaches in the last 2 years caused by fatigue. They did, however, attribute from 25% to 75% of near misses and other incidents to fatigue. Although the opin- ion on the degree of effect of fatigue on motorcoach operator performance varied from minimal to significant, no respon- dent believed it had no effect at all. Strategies for Combating Fatigue The survey of the research group also asked how effective were several methods of fighting fatigue and also how often each of these methods was used. The highest rated method to countering fatigue was scheduling a full block of rest, although this group ranked regular scheduling as equally important. These two methods were also the most highly reported tech- niques actually being used. For this group, these two methods were much more effective than caffeine. The research group was more skeptical than the industry professionals of the effectiveness of caffeine, sleeping aids, or listening to the radio to manage fatigue. They did state a EFFECTIVENESS 1=Not at all, 5=Very FREQUENCY 1=Never, 5=Always Caffeine 2.5 4.3 Sleeping aids 1.5 1.8 Full block of rest 4.8 3.8 Regular schedule 4.4 3.6 Talking with others 2.8 3.0 Listening to the radio 2.5 3.0 Using 2 drivers 3.5 2.7 Technologies 2.6 1.0 TABLE 1 Motorcoach company managers and supervisors perceived effectiveness and frequency of use mean responses for fatigue countermeasures (N
8)

20 1 2 3 4 5 Distribute Materials Conduct Training Use Centralized System Use Local System Use Two Drivers Use Flexibility A ct iv ity Never Always 1 2 3 4 5 Distribute Materials Conduct Training Use Centralized System Use Local System Use Two Drivers Use Flexibility A ct iv ity Not Important Very Important Figure 4. Researchers’ perception of how often motorcoach companies perform activities. Figure 5. Importance rating for each activity for preventing fatigue. belief that in-vehicle technologies showed promise of becom- ing somewhat effective in combating the driving performance decrements stemming from fatigue. The research scientists also judged that companies were re- lying on caffeine and listening to the radio. They are aware that, currently, companies are not using technological inter- ventions to counter motorcoach operator fatigue. Table 2 shows the distribution of responses across the research scientist survey for the countermeasure questions. The results of the two surveys plus the earlier focus groups reveal consistent points of view about motorcoach operators and fatigue. Fatigue does not appear to be a major contributor to crashes (a supposition supported by traffic crash data) but is seen as a problem to be addressed, nonetheless. The best current approaches to managing driver fatigue do not require major investments but do require management commitment: opportunities for good sleep, regular schedules that provide adequate rest periods, and access to caffeinated beverages. The skepticism about new fatigue management technolo- gies by motorcoach company managers is not shared by the research community. As much as anything this skepticism reflects the stage of development of those technologies. The lack of skepticism may also reflect a better understanding of driver fatigue on the part of the research group.

21 Caffeine 2.3 3.5 Sleeping aids 2.0 2.1 Full block of rest 4.4 3.5 Regular schedule 4.8 3.5 Talking with others 2.8 2.5 Listening to the radio 2.0 2.8 Using 2 drivers 3.3 2.2 Technologies 3.0 1.3 Effectiveness 1 = not at all, 5 = very Frequency 1 = never, 5 = always TABLE 2 Transportation and fatigue research scientists perceived effectiveness and frequency of use mean responses for fatigue countermeasures (N
22)