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 6
6 CHAPTER 2 PRINCIPAL FINDINGS FROM THE LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 OVERVIEW their safety belts, while 71% of truck drivers wore theirs. This same study determined passenger use at 67% among truck pas- This chapter presents the principal findings of a review of sengers and 79% among car passengers. It should be noted that traffic safety literature on motivational factors relating to most commercial vehicles, especially those that are truckload CMV driver safety belt use. The review included literature and not making local deliveries, have only one occupant. from the United States and other countries. Materials were Knoblauch et al. (2003) used a similar method to deter- obtained through a series of online searches of the Trans- mine the rate of safety belt use among CMV drivers. They portation Research Information System (TRIS) and other conducted a study of Class 7 and 8 trucks at 12 sites for 2-day internet resources. In addition, this section includes several periods using visual observations of shoulder harnesses as an documents obtained directly from FMCSA that, in some indicator of safety belt use. Site selection was first determined cases, have not been publicly distributed. through a `probability proportional to size' method, which led Sections in this chapter include research on safety belt use to the selection of 12 states. Step two determined county groups by CMV drivers, motivational factors for safety belt usage with more than 300 highway miles within each state, and the among CMV drivers and the general driving population, third step determined observation locations within those behavior-based safety (BBS) research, safety belt comfort counties. The population size observed, 3,909 trucks, resulted and usability, driver demographics, and the effects of legis- in a reported final safety belt usage rate of 48%. Those vehi- lation on driver behavior. cles hauling trailers with HazMat placards were operated by persons wearing safety belts 67% of the time, drawing a pos- sible correlation between the additional training required to 2.2 GENERAL RESEARCH ON SAFETY BELT USE BY CMV DRIVERS be a HazMat vehicle operator and the attention to safety by the operator. This section highlights three U.S. projects that analyzed In a recent TRB submittal, Kim and Tremblay (2004) dis- usage based on field observations, one synthesis of an Aus- cussed observational research of safety belt use and the tralian study, and one 5-year study based on data from France. dilemma posed by vehicles that had only lap belts. The authors noted that it was legal for commercial vehicles manufac- tured before a certain year to have only a lap belt. In the Kim 2.2.1 U.S. Studies on Safety Belt Usage and Tremblay study, and in studies where safety belt use was observed, it was assumed that if a harness was not seen across Chapter 3 of this synthesis is based on data collected the driver, then that driver was not wearing a safety belt. It through structured interviews of truck drivers at truck stops. was then assumed that if a harness was not visible (whether on This method relies heavily on the reliability of driver self- or off the driver), then the vehicle must have had only a lap reporting. belt. Of those drivers who were assumed to have only a lap Direct interaction with CMV drivers is not the only method belt, it was assumed they were wearing their safety belts at the to measure their behavior. In three U.S. studies, the research same rates as those who had a visible harness. However, there team found researchers based their findings on observed might have been differences the research did not address, such behavior rather than on direct collection of data through driver as perceived safety benefit from the use of a lap belt, increased interaction. CMV driver safety belt use was based on whether comfort due to the lack of a shoulder harness, and driver the shoulder harness was visible to the observer (i.e., if it was demographics for those who operate older vehicles. visible, the driver was wearing the safety belt). A study of Alaskan safety belt use (Hanna 2003) compared rates of safety belt use among automobile drivers and their pas- 2.2.2 Australian Study sengers with truck drivers and their passengers. In this study, observers measured shoulder harness use on highway and sur- In a study that looked at reasons for driver behavior and face street locations and found that 83% of car drivers wore safety belt effectiveness, Preece (2002) synthesized the results