Click for next page ( 13

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 12
12 CHAPTER 4 FLEET MANAGER SURVEYS 4.1 SURVEY METHODOLOGY sample of survey respondents to consist primarily of safety conscious fleet managers. A survey was used to obtain data from 120 fleet managers As with most surveys, not all respondents answered all the on driver safety belt use and ways to increase use. The fleet questions. In this analysis, the response percentages reported manager survey form can be found in Appendix B. This sec- were based on the total that answered the question. tion describes the methodology behind the survey in greater detail, and the next section provides the principal results. A general consideration regarding most of the survey 4.1.2 Survey Design and Content responses is that they represent subjective responses to sub- The fleet manager survey form contained 36 questions and jective questions. A few questions were objective (e.g., ask- was divided into five parts: ing fleet managers whether or not they used a safety belt promotion practice), but most called for subjective judgments Part 1: General Questions. This first part contained or estimates by respondents. This group was highly qualified fill-in and multiple choice questions to ascertain use of to render such judgments, however, so the surveys could be safety belts as well as possible reasons for non-use. said to capture expert opinion, particularly in regard to fleet Part 2: Fleet Methods to Promote Use. This part listed management practices. different fleet methods to promote use. There were two- part questions. The first part asked fleet managers to 4.1.1 Survey Distribution and Analysis answer "yes" or "no" in relation to their own fleet meth- ods. The instructions then stated, "If `yes,' then rate your Survey forms were distributed in two principal ways. First, perception of the level of effectiveness in promoting belt they were distributed by mail, with each form accompanied by use by circling the appropriate number." The ratings for a cover letter and a stamped envelope addressed to project per- all questions were based on the same 5-point (0 to 4) scale. sonnel at the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI). Part 3: Government/Industry Programs to Promote Recipients were primarily respondents from previous Use. Respondents were asked to rate the effectiveness of CTBSSP synthesis studies for whom contact information each government/industry program listed using a 5-point was available. Second, many survey forms (with attached cover (0 to 4) scale. letter) were distributed through the safety councils or at safety Part 4: Comments. Fleet managers were asked for any meetings of trucking industry associations. This included the comments on CMV driver safety belt use and ways to National Private Truck Council, American Trucking Associ- promote it. Several lines of space were provided for ations, Missouri Trucking Association, Georgia Motor Truck- these comments. Some of the comments are cited in the ing Association, and Minnesota Trucking Association. In synthesis. addition, surveys were distributed to fleet manager attendees Part 5: Information about You and Your Fleet. This of fatigue management training sessions co-sponsored by the final part contained questions about years of experience ATA and state associations, including the Oregon Trucking and fleet size and operation type. Association, Washington Trucking Association, and Ohio Trucking Association. 4.2 PRINCIPAL SURVEY RESULTS The fleet manager respondent sample is best considered as a convenience sample. Study resources did not permit the 4.2.1 Part 1: General Questions design of a systematic subject sampling and survey distribu- tion process or the tracking of survey return rates for various The first several questions of this survey were written to respondent groups. Moreover, those who complete and return assess fleet managers' own use of safety belts and to have a survey of this nature are likely to be those most interested them estimate percentages of safety belt usage for their fleet in the topic of safety belts and most committed to the promo- and for all U.S. CMV drivers. The first question was a two- tion of their use. The research team considers the current part question asking fleet managers how often they wore

OCR for page 12
13 safety belts both at work (work vehicle type not specified) TABLE 2 Possible reasons for not using safety belts and in their private vehicle. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of % of fleet managers said they always wore safety belts at work Managers while 80% said that they always wore their safety belt in their POSSIBLE REASONS Citing Reason private vehicle (see Table 1). As noted previously, this per- Too much trouble and effort 21% centage should not be interpreted as representing all U.S. fleet Just forget 25% managers, but rather managers who are generally more safety Habit 23% Belt does not fit well 18% conscious than the average. Uncomfortable for other reasons 25% Fleet manager respondents averaged 63% in their estima- Restricts movement in vehicle 23% tion of what percentage of all U.S. CMV drivers wore safety Infringement on personal freedom 11% belts, versus 80% in their estimation of the percentage of Worried about being trapped in vehicle 26% safety belt usage among their own fleet's drivers. In other They don't believe belts increase safety 14% Just don't like them 23% words, they generally considered their fleet drivers to have Part-time users; e.g., only in bad weather 15% higher safety belt usage rates than CMV drivers in general. Frequently getting in and out of cab 24% Indeed, only five of the respondents (4.2%) thought that their N/A. All of our drivers always wear safety belts 10% drivers had a lower usage rate than all CMV drivers. Twenty Note: Totals more than 100% because respondents could select multiple of the respondents (16.6%) thought that the usage rates for (up to 3) reasons. their drivers and all drivers were the same. The other 95 re- spondents (79.2%) thought that their drivers had higher usage rates than CMV drivers in general. Additionally, 81.0% tion based on the limited information managers may have on of the respondents knew that federal regulations required which of their drivers wear or do not wear safety belts, and how CMV drivers to wear safety belts while on the job. much this behavior correlates with other safety behaviors. Respondents were also given a list of 12 possible reasons for not wearing safety belts and asked to select up to three 4.2.2 Part 2: Fleet Methods to Promote Use choices for reasons that drivers in their fleet do not wear safety belts. Respondents could also select the choice that this ques- Fleet manager respondents were given a list of 19 possible tion was not applicable to their fleets. Table 2 provides these fleet methods to promote safety belt use. They were asked to results. Slightly more than one-quarter of the respondents rated circle "yes" or "no" for each method to indicate whether or not "worried about being trapped in vehicle" as a reason their fleet the method was used in their fleet. If they circled "yes," they drivers did not wear safety belts. Several other reasons were were asked to rate that method for its effectiveness using a commonly cited also. The percentages totaled more than 100% 5-point scale. The scale went from "0" (highly ineffective) because respondents could select up to three reasons. to "4" (highly effective). Table 3 shows the fleet methods, The final question in Part 1 had respondents consider the percentage who use, mean effectiveness rating (to the near- drivers in their fleet who did not wear safety belts regularly. est tenth), and effectiveness rank. The methods are listed in They were asked whether these drivers, compared with other order of their rated effectiveness. When there were ties in the drivers, tended to engage more often in unsafe driving prac- mean effectiveness ratings, rankings were determined by tices and violations of company regulations and rules. The looking at additional decimal places. For simplicity, these fleet managers could respond "yes," "no," or "not sure." are not shown. Among those who answered the question, the percentages The average respondent answered "yes" to 8 of the 19 meth- were as follows: ods, indicating that these fleet managers and their fleets typi- Yes: 20.2% cally employed multiple methods to promote safety belt use. No: 38.4% The most commonly used methods included the following: Not sure: 41.4% Discuss during safety meetings (87%) The high percentage of "not sure" answers to the above Policy included in driver handbook (79%) question perhaps proves the difficulty of answering the ques- Written company policy requiring use (78%) Driver use of safety belt included in accident investiga- tion process (75%) TABLE 1 Fleet manager personal safety belt usage Observe driver belt use in vehicles (e.g., when drivers are at terminal [73%]) PERSONAL SAFETY BELT USAGE At Work Private Vehicle Never 1% 0% Seven of the methods listed were used by 50% or more of Rarely 4% 3% About half the time 4% 3% these fleet managers, another indication that the typical fleet Usually 13% 14% manager survey respondent used multiple approaches to Always 78% 80% encouraging safety belt use among their fleet drivers.

OCR for page 12
14 TABLE 3 Fleet methods to promote safety belt use % Mean FLEET METHODS TO PROMOTE SAFETY BELT USE Who Effectiveness Rank Use Rating (of 18) Rewards/recognition for observed use 17% 2.9 1 Observe driver belt use in vehicles (e.g., when drivers are at office/terminal) 73% 2.9 2 Punishment/reprimands for non-use 45% 2.9 3 Discuss during safety meetings 87% 2.8 4 Consistent emphasis of belt use for all employees, including supervision 62% 2.7 5 Written company policy requiring use 78% 2.7 6 Testimonials by experienced drivers who avoided injury by using belts 30% 2.7 7 Post signs in vehicles 22% 2.7 8 Driver use of safety belt included as part of accident investigation process 75% 2.6 9 Media training aides (e.g., videos, slides) 44% 2.5 10 Policy included in driver handbook 79% 2.5 11 Post signs in office/terminal and/or driver room 62% 2.4 12 Post statistics on fleet use 8% 2.4 13 Ask candidates during selection interviews or questionnaires 36% 2.4 14 Printed handouts 44% 2.4 15 Change all safety belts to safety orange or other bright color 3% 2.3 16 Coffee mugs, key rings, etc., with safety belt messages 10% 2.3 17 Encourage employees to report drivers for not wearing safety belts 12% 1.9 18 Other method or practice 15% NA NA In terms of effectiveness ratings, most of the methods listed a 5-point scale). The method that received the highest effec- were given moderately high ratings by respondents. The three tiveness rating from respondents was showing crash testing top-rated methods were rewards/recognition for observed with test dummies with and without safety belts. Table 4 lists use, observing driver belt use in vehicles, and punishments/ possible programs to promote use, in descending order of fleet reprimands for non-use. manager ratings and rankings. Again, the last selection in this The nineteenth method was "other method or practice" section was "other suggested methods" to allow for anecdotal which allowed for anecdotal responses but not quantitative responses. Suggestions included the following: effectiveness ratings. Other methods suggested included the following: Using highway billboards to help promote use "Heavier enforcement of ticketing for non-use" Paying safety bonuses Start a national "saved by the belt" program Termination of employment for non-use Mandating safety orange or bright colored belts in "After an accident, discuss benefit of use with all drivers" vehicles Review roadside inspection when driver is cited Implement "no tolerance" policy Involve the families of drivers "Publishing more statistics . . . drivers like proof" 4.2.3 Part 3: Government/Industry Programs 4.2.4 Part 4: Comments to Promote Safety Belt Use A space was provided for respondent-written comments. Part 3 presented respondents with eight types of government Almost one-quarter of the fleet managers made such comments. and industry programs to promote safety belt use. Respondents The comments focused on a variety of issues and expressed a were asked to rate each program for their effectiveness (using number of different view points. Some of the comments fell TABLE 4 Government/industry programs to promote safety belt use Mean PROGRAMS TO PROMOTE SAFETY BELT USE Effectiveness Rank Rating (of 7) Showing crashes with test dummies, with and without safety belts 2.9 1 Testimonials by celebrities on TV, radio, or publications 2.8 2 Providing instructional materials to fleets 2.7 3 TV public service announcements 2.5 4 Radio public service announcements 2.4 5 Magazine/newspaper ads 2.3 6 Government websites promoting safety belt use 1.8 7

OCR for page 12
15 TABLE 5 Fleet managers' operation types % FLEET OPERATION TYPE MANAGERS For hire: long haul/truckload 39% For hire: bulk carrier 8% For hire: long haul-less-than-truckload (LTL) 8% For hire: local/short haul (< 100 miles) 10% Private carrier: long haul or regional/truckload 15% Private carrier: bulk carrier 2% Private carrier: long haul or regional LTL 13% Private carrier: local/short haul (< 100 miles) 3% Passenger carrier: long haul/motor coach 4% Passenger carrier: local/transit 1% Other (mostly variations of the above) 8% Note: Totals more than 100% because some fleets had more than one operation type. into the category of the previous survey sections, that is, fleet 4.2.5 Part 5: Respondents methods to promote use or government/industry programs to promote use, and were added where appropriate. Some of the Respondents were also asked to provide some general other comments included the following: demographic information about themselves and their fleets. The 120 fleet manager respondents had been managers for "Always set the example . . ." an average of 11.7 years (range: 1 to 42) and had an average of "Link it to family safety and ask them to set an example" 22.0 total years of experience in the field of CMV operations Continuous driver education on the issue (range: 1 to 50). Fleet size varied widely, ranging from four to "Drivers of large vehicles don't think they need belts thousands of power units. The median fleet size was 85 units. due to the large size of the vehicle" Respondents were asked to characterize their fleet's pri- "Keep beating the drum, I wish law enforcement mary operation by selecting one of ten major truck and bus wouldn't ignore it and fines were harsher" operation types or writing in an alternative. Results are shown "Deliver a positive, care taking approach" in Table 5. The for-hire long-haul truckload operations type "Teach usage at an early age, increase fines for non-use, was the most frequent industry segment. The percentages and increase points" totaled somewhat more than 100% (111%) because some Use photo ticketing respondents cited two or more operation types.