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.

4CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND Operator fatigue is a critical issue that applies to all modes of commercial transportation. Fatigue can induce sleepiness and drowsiness, decrease alertness, degrade the ability of workers to operate vehicles safely, and thereby increase the risk of crashes, injuries, or even fatalities. In 2003, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) published a major reference document on commercial transportation oper- ator fatigue management (McCallum et al., 2003). Although this all-purpose guidance document was intended to address operator fatigue in all transportation modes, commercial over- the-road bus and motorcoach operators were not specifically mentioned. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB, 1990) determined that the incidence of operator fatigue is underesti- mated in virtually every transportation mode, because it is so hard to quantify and measure. Many accident investigations do not obtain the information necessary to address the contri- bution of fatigue: namely, the condition of the operators, the extent to which they have been deprived of sleep, and their state of alertness. Therefore, it is likely, most transportation accident and crash records do not adequately account for fatigue-related factors that might have played a significant part of the investigative report. Available analyses of crash reports and accident and inci- dent data suggest that operator fatigue may contribute to between 20% and 40% of commercial transportation accidents. A 1996 U.S. Coast Guard study (McCallum, Raby, and Roth- blum, 1996) reports the results of analyzing 297 commercial marine casualty investigations, using procedures specially developed to identify the contribution of fatigue to the acci- dents. Analysis of these reports indicated that fatigue was a contributing factor in 16% of vessel casualties and in 33% of the personnel injuries investigated. Managing the fatigue of commercial transportation opera- tors requires an understanding of the practical implications of fatigue research, coupled with the application of appro- priate fatigue management practices. Fatigue research has been conducted to address a wide range of issues and oper- ational settings. A number of operator fatigue management training workshops, guidelines, and handbooks have been developed to aid in the development of individual fatigue management programs. Fatigue management program elements and fatigue research findings can be extracted from earlier efforts that have general applicability across a range of commercial transportation modes (McCallum et al., 2003, p. 1-1). Hours of Service Regulations The original hours of service (HOS) regulations prescribed for commercial drivers were promulgated in 1939. Since then, as the FMCSA discusses on its Internet web site: “Our roads are better designed, constructed, and maintained in a nation- wide network to provide greater mobility, accessibility, and safety for all highway users. Vehicles have been dramatically improved in terms of design, construction, safety, comfort, efficiency, emissions, technology, and ergonomics. These fac- tors, combined with years of driver fatigue and sleep disorder research, have led to a revision of the hours-of-service regula- tions for drivers, the most important component of trucks oper- ating on the highway” (FMCSA, 2004; www.fmcsa.dot.gov). Recently revised FMCSA truck driver HOS regulations (placed into effect on 4 January 2004) only apply to property carriers and drivers. Currently, these truck driver HOS regu- lations are under judicial and administrative review. Com- mercial passenger carriers and drivers will continue operating under the previously existing rules while fatigue issues spe- cific to the passenger carrier industry (bus and motorcoach drivers) are assessed. As of this writing, then, all bus and motorcoach operators may not drive • More than 10 hours, following 8 hours off-duty, • After 15 hours on-duty, following 8 hours off-duty, and • After 60/70 hours on-duty in 7/8 consecutive days. Over-the-Road Bus Operators Buses of all kinds (e.g., over-the-road, transit, and school) make up about 6% of the vehicles over 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR); and they account for less than 1% of all vehicles involved in fatal accidents. Over-the- road buses represented 11% of all bus accidents from 1995 through 1999 (Putcha, Blower, and Campbell, 2002). By far, the buses most involved in recordable accidents are school buses. Transit buses also represent a large percentage of bus crashes. The low percentage of fatal accidents for

over-the-road buses reflects to a large extent the proportion of miles driven by the various bus types. A recent study (Crum, Morrow, and Daecher, 2002) used a Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) Driver Fatigue Model to analyze the influence of carrier scheduling practices on motor- coach driver fatigue. However, the study identifies some clear differences between commercial truck operators and com- mercial motorcoach operators: • Motorcoach seats do not provide comfortable areas for sleeping. Unlike many tractor trailer trucks, buses rarely have sleeper berth areas for drivers. On the other hand, many motorcoach operators have the opportunity to sleep in hotel rooms while transporting tour groups. • Motorcoach drivers are in constant contact with their passengers. There are only marginal physical separations between the driver and his or her passengers’ activities. • Whereas commercial truck drivers can often drive the same hours every day or night, motorcoach drivers are tied to various tour or commercial schedules. Inverted duty/sleep cycles (i.e., driving during the day followed by a 24-hour break and then driving at night) can occur “because of group itineraries; also, itineraries may be spontaneously altered, disrupting the driver’s planned schedule” (Crum, Morrow, and Daecher, 2002, p. 327). • Drivers have the additional responsibility of helping with luggage, taking tickets, and generally looking after their passengers. • Passengers provide an incentive for drivers to be pro- fessional and diligent, but may also provide an addi- tional source of fatiguing stress. • Within the tour bus operator population, peak-season demands may reduce opportunities for extended rest periods. Although over-the-road bus operators and transit bus oper- ators drive similar vehicles, the operations of the two groups differ. Nonetheless, research sponsored by the TCRP into bus operator fatigue (Gertler et al., 2002) reports on fatigue counter- measures that are also relevant to this report. Bus and Motorcoach Operator Fatigue Issues One of the first research studies to address bus driver fatigue was the October 1978 report prepared for the National High- way Traffic Safety Administration, Effects of Hours of Service, Regularity of Schedules, and Cargo Loading on Truck and Bus Driver Fatigue (Mackie and Miller, 1978). The most signifi- cant finding of this report was that bus and truck drivers oper- ating on irregular schedules suffer greater subjective fatigue and physiological stress than drivers operating on a regular schedule. Partly in response to NTSB urgings to address issues of transportation operator fatigue, three national meetings were convened in 1995 to address various issues related to 5 commercial vehicle operator fatigue and alertness. The first National Truck and Bus Safety Summit sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration was held March 12–15, 1995, in Kansas City, Missouri. More than 200 experts from all modes of the motor carrier community met to share their views and identify top truck and bus safety issues. Most of the discussion over this 3-day Safety Summit addressed issues concerning commercial trucking, but the commercial driver issues of concern were almost identical for bus and motorcoach drivers. In identifying the top Truck and Bus Safety Issues facing the nation, the Summit Participants listed as priority number one, a concern about CMV driver fatigue (Reagle, 1995). In preparation for the Summit, focus group sessions were conducted to obtain information about highway safety issues relating to commercial motor carriers (i.e., trucks and buses). Eighteen focus groups were conducted at the request of what was then the Federal Highway Administration Office of Motor Carriers (OMC). The focus groups were held in three regions of the country: the Southeast, the Midwest, and the Northwest. The participants were representatives of three populations that have an interest in commercial vehicle safety: commer- cial drivers (a total of 60 truck and bus drivers), police offi- cers who deal in part with traffic enforcement, and the general public or non-commercial drivers (adults who drive passen- ger cars, light trucks, etc.). The outcomes of group opinions about commercial buses were summarized as follows: Very few people express any concern about buses in relation to safety. Some note that intercity buses often speed on the highway, but the drivers are generally regarded as competent and careful. Most comments about city bus drivers are un- related to safety. Special concerns are expressed about school bus drivers, who are seen as more likely than others to receive insufficient training and monitoring (Reagle, 1995, p. D-3). Also in 1995, a bus conference sponsored by OMC was held in Tyson’s Corner, Virginia. This conference brought together leaders throughout the interstate bus industry to define and prioritize issues of importance to the industry’s future vitality and safety. Hours of service/fatigue was rated as one of the highest priority issues by the industry. In Novem- ber 1995, a symposium on managing human fatigue in trans- portation was held in Tyson’s Corner, Virginia. Irregular duty/ sleep patterns and inverted duty/sleep patterns were identi- fied as major contributors to driver fatigue and therefore to commercial motor vehicle accidents. The three 1995 national meetings led to the next major study on bus operator fatigue, sponsored by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) in 1999 (Arrow- head Space & Telecommunications, Inc., 1999). The Arrow- head study included a series of focus groups and phone surveys held with managers, supervisors, and drivers from over-the-road bus companies and organizations. In their bibliographical review, the authors of that report found no

research beyond Mackie and Miller (1978) specifically addressing bus drivers. A similar study in Great Britain (ROSPA, 2001) also reported a lack of reported research on motorcoach operators and fatigue effects. Putcha, Blower, and Campbell (2002) examined the records of the FARS (Federal Accident Reporting System, a census file with data on fatal accidents on U.S. public roads) looking for data on fatal accident in which bus drivers were involved during the period 1995–1999. . . . the FARS file identifies the contribution of driver-related factors in an accident. Drowsy, asleep or fatigued is coded as a contributing factor for five bus drivers out of a total of 1,483 buses involved in fatal accidents over the five year period, 1995–1999, for an average of one per year. There is only one case in five years involving a school bus in a fatal accident where the driver condition was coded as drowsy, fatigued, or asleep, and no transit bus drivers were coded as fatigued. The remaining four fatigued bus drivers were split evenly between over-the-road and “other” buses. Overall, 0.3 percent of bus drivers that are involved in fatal accidents are coded as drowsy, fatigued or asleep (Putcha, Blower, and Campbell et al., 2002, p. 269). Many of the findings from these activities served as the basis for the survey questions developed for the current Syn- thesis study as well as the focus of the current literature review. These findings are reviewed in detail in the Results section of this synthesis. OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE The primary objective of this Synthesis was to identify and document the unique features of the extended workday that typifies motorcoach operations. As a second objective, the researchers reported on industry approaches to increasing the probability that the industry’s customers understand both 6 HOS regulations and driver rest and fatigue issues. The research team also identified any techniques that motorcoach managers, front-line employees, and drivers use to reduce fatigue-related incidences resulting from the irregular on- duty conditions facing the bus operator. A final objective was to identify any current or on-the-horizon technologies that may be appropriate for motorcoach operations to offset the effects of the extended workday and fatigue-inducing envi- ronment. The scope of the study included a literature review com- plemented by a survey of selected motorcoach companies, industry associations, insurers of motorcoach companies, state driver licensing agencies, private driving schools, and other organizations. The information sought in the literature review and survey permitted the research team to identify and examine: (1) HOS issues in the motorcoach industry, partic- ularly the effects of and countermeasures to the extended workday; (2) similarities and differences in the approach of the trucking and motorcoach industries in complying with HOS regulations; and (3) current or on-the-horizon fatigue management technologies that could assist motorcoach oper- ators in combating driver fatigue. The approach of the literature review has been to survey the large body of fatigue research and then, based on the results of the surveys and other source documents, apply that research to motorcoach operations and operators. At the end of this synthesis report is a list of the references specifically identified in the report text. However, the authors reviewed many more articles, books, book chapters, technical reports, and presentations than are cited. Many of these lacked the specific kinds of information about either fatigue or motor- coach operations necessary to meet directly the objectives of this Synthesis. These documents provide general information about human fatigue and sleep research, and a rich history of fatigue-related history. Appendix C to this Synthesis contains a bibliographical listing of all these documents.