Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Safety Belt Usage (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.

22 CHAPTER 6 COMMERCIAL DRIVER FOCUS GROUPS 6.1 INTERVIEW METHODOLOGY Research team members held two focus groups with CMV drivers in Utah. The first was held at the American Truck- ing Association’s National Truck Driving Championships (NTDC), and driver competitors formed the focus group. Seven NTDC drivers offered insight into their use of safety belts, as well as perspectives on general driver population safety belt use. The second focus group took place at a pri- vate trucking company terminal (Company A) in Garfield, Utah. Four drivers, two mechanics, and one terminal manager made up the second focus group. The terminal was a HazMat tanker operation with a combination of long-haul and local deliveries. Research team members used the same structured interview guide from the CMV driver truck stop visits (see Appendix D); questions on trucking-related and driver demographics were omitted. Each question was posed to the entire group, and answers were given by any participant who wanted to add to the conversation. Notes were taken at the focus groups. The focus groups were conducted in three parts: • Part 1: General Questions. This section’s questions generally focused on the percentage of time the driver wore a safety belt when driving a truck, the basis for that choice, and what reasons were considered valid for not wearing a safety belt. • Part 2: Functionality. This section concentrated on safety belt comfort, usability, complaints, and the poten- tial for improvements. • Part 3: Carrier/Driver Interactions. In this final sec- tion, the focus group leaders and participants discussed company policy, penalties, rewards for desired behavior, and potential incentives. 6.2 PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW RESULTS 6.2.1 Part 1: General Questions Initial discussion of safety belt use focused first on general questions about use and reasons for particular usage behav- ior. During the NTDC focus group, drivers responded that they wore safety belts when driving a truck from 20% of the time to 99% of the time. Those who claimed “nearly always” stated that the 1% non-use occurred in places such as truck stops, when they were prone to removing their safety belts before they parked. One driver stated that he wore his safety belt 60 to 70% of the time, with frequency of use depending on what route he was driving on any given day. As an LTL driver, he might have to stop as frequently as every block, which reduced the chance of him wearing a safety belt. This was due to a desire not to make the effort of putting on a safety belt when it would have to be removed shortly and also due to forgetting to use the safety belt. When participants were further probed as to why they chose to wear safety belts, a staunch user of safety belts stated that he wanted to avoid tickets from law enforcement. A driver who wore his belt only 20% of the time reported that when he did wear his belt, it was when he noticed that those who were driving cars near him were operating their vehicles in an unsafe manner. Finally, an LTL driver who wore his belt 60 to 70% of the time again reinforced the idea that when delivering door-to-door, it was not convenient or habitual to constantly use a safety belt. He admitted that he continued this behavior even though company policy forbade it, and he had received a great deal of training on the subject. Of the valid or purposeful reasons not to wear a safety belt, discomfort was a top choice. One participant stated that the safety belt system locked on drivers and that was a good rea- son not to wear one. The group was then pressed further to dis- cuss safety belts that locked. It was revealed by one participant that many drivers did not know how to use the lock strap prop- erly and that most drivers did not know how to use the system that allowed for shoulder straps to be adjusted for greater com- fort (participants stated this system was widely available). While participants did not propose “forgetting to put on the safety belt” as a valid reason for not wearing it, they again admitted that forgetfulness could become habitual when mak- ing numerous deliveries in a short period of time. The group generally condemned the infringement of rights argument, stating it was flawed because, in part, drivers were using someone else’s vehicle. Finally, regarding being trapped by a safety belt in a vehicle crash, participants claimed that this was a concern and a possibility, but not a valid reason for not wear- ing a safety belt. One participant had never heard of a case where a driver had been trapped in a vehicle by a safety belt.

For the Company A group, the response was that they wore the belt 100% of the time working for Company A, but did not necessarily use the belt 100% of the time before moving to the company. (Some of these drivers had previous experience with other companies before working for Company A. Com- pany A has a very strong policy.) Now that it was a habit and these drivers knew more about the hazards of not wearing a safety belt (through training), they would still wear it if there were no longer a policy. One participant stated having children/ grandchildren helped: “They ask ‘why’ if you are not wearing it (your safety belt).” Consensus was that older drivers wore safety belts because as they got older, they had a greater appre- ciation for life. Several participants witnessed cases where lives could have been saved if drivers were wearing safety belts. When answering the same question related to non- commercial vehicles, the consensus was most, but not all of the time. Reasons included old habits and car safety belts not being as comfortable as truck safety belts. Company A employee answers to “why you choose or don’t choose to wear a safety belt” included the following: • Company policy • Termination of employment for non-compliance • Protection from bad drivers • Possibility of being maimed and permanently disabled more of an incentive than death The only reason for not wearing a safety belt seemed to be forgetting. The Company A drivers indicated that they did not feel that wearing safety belts infringed on their personal freedom but that they had heard that from other drivers. They also recognized the “being trapped” argument as an old myth. 6.2.2 Part 2: Functionality When initially asked about the discomfort of safety belts being a deterrent for use, there was an initial consensus among the NTDC focus group that comfort was not a major issue, although the locking belt problem had surfaced earlier. One participant stated that safety belts could be adjusted for comfort, while another claimed that changing the belt to be any more comfortable than it already was might compromise safety. However, some specific instances of discomfort were dis- covered through further discussion. They again maintained that discomfort was present when the safety belt locked up, especially while backing up the truck or when the brakes were applied. It was also said that cars did not have the same belt locking problems that trucks had. Furthermore, the harness strap was found to cause discom- fort when drivers reached upward or downward to give money at toll booths. Toll booths seemed to be a place where a safety belt might be taken off to decrease pain when paying the toll 23 and might stay off well after the toll had been cleared. While some drivers maintained that they had no complaints about safety belts overall, when asked what their biggest complaint was, participants often listed several items. One driver made it clear that while he liked the safety belt tight on his body, he did not like it when it rubbed his skin. When the topic of pads to alleviate the rubbing was mentioned, drivers stated that the pads had problems, including that they did not stay in place. It was also suggested that padding was costly, and that compa- nies should provide padding to their drivers on an annual basis. Drivers agreed almost unanimously that nothing could make the current standard safety belt, the three-point system with lap and shoulder belts, any easier to use. But when the idea of a reminder buzzer was proposed, the group was split. Some felt that the buzzer would help them remember to wear a safety belt, as it was intended to do; but, others felt that the buzzer would be bothersome and/or anger them and that there would be a way for a driver to override the buzzer system. One participant claimed that if a short-route driver had a buzzer, deliveries would take forever, indicating that if short- route drivers had to wear a safety belt, deliveries would be less efficient or timely. Safety belt use among short-route drivers was thus implied to be infrequent during deliveries. The Company A drivers/employees expressed similar opin- ions. For the most part, they found truck safety belts more comfortable than those in their private vehicles. They liked the “big handle clip” for adjusting tension but did not care for the “small wedge.” (“It doesn’t always hold and you end up hav- ing to readjust.”) Neck-chafing was also their biggest com- plaint. They all agreed that buzzers and lights would be a good addition, making truck systems similar to cars. 6.2.3 Part 3: Carrier/Driver Interactions All NTDC focus group drivers stated that their companies had safety belt use policies in place. This difference from the results of the driver interviews can possibly be attributed to the types of drivers and companies that participate in the American Trucking Associations’ NTDC. They are deemed to be the best in the industry in safety. The consequences for violating company policy varied and included warnings, write-ups, and suspensions. It was indicated that much of the policy enforcement engaged in by companies occurred on company land. It was concluded that some drivers therefore removed their safety belt once they were out of sight of com- pany enforcement. There were few responses regarding rewards from compa- nies for safety belt use. One participant mentioned that if they were viewed wearing their safety belts, their names would appear in a special section of the company newsletter. Another mentioned that there was a jacket giveaway at one point in his career. A final participant mentioned that law enforcement personnel had been known to pull over truck drivers who were wearing their safety belts and congratulate

them. Several drivers felt this recognition should be more widespread. There were several answers to the question of incentives to use safety belts among CMV drivers, but most efforts or poten- tial efforts discussed were, in fact, instances of negative re- inforcement. One participant remarked that maintaining a clean record, and thus retaining reasonable insurance rates, was incentive enough. This would indicate a push toward greater government enforcement of safety belt laws or a push toward greater use of primary laws (those where a driver could be pulled over just because he or she was not wearing his safety belt). It also indicated that insurance companies should increase the penalties for those who did not wear their safety belts and were penalized for it. There was also an indication that higher fines would encourage behavior modification. Regarding educational incentives, showing the results of crashes where a driver was not wearing his safety belt, either 24 through shocking videos, general reenactments, or statistics, were all mentioned as ways to change behavior; these, how- ever, are not true incentives to changing behavior. They equate to an education of the negative results of undesired behavior. Company A also has a strong policy; a driver can be fired for a first offense if observed on the road not wearing a safety belt. Wearing a safety belt was a condition of employment. Company A provided numerous educational courses and sta- tistics about previous driver fatalities where safety belts would have made a difference. These drivers agreed that training helped them break their old habits of not wearing or forgetting to wear a safety belt. Driver recognition included a ring that required 3 consecutive years without any accidents/ injuries/safety violations to earn. Not wearing a safety belt was one of those violations. Two diamonds were added for each additional 3 years. A full ring contained 8 diamonds.