Click for next page ( 28


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 27
28 operation without limiter. It is better to have a among six choices. The most frequent "number 1" response minimal fuel saving than none at all! I believe the was "reduce top speed," which also received the highest score bottom line on this issue is, do not expect any signifi- with all responses weighted and aggregated. "Increase fuel cant economic advantage. Speed limiters will assist in economy" received the most votes (66) regardless of rank, a reduction in severity of highway crashes. In itself, followed by "reduce crashes" (47), and "reduce top speed" the speed limiter will help to address the industry (49). The lowest score went to "reduce tire wear." Comments concern of public safety provided the limiter is from respondents indicated that fatigue management was not a "stand alone" carrier. This will address this noted 7 out of 11 times when "other" was marked. Perhaps fundamental industry responsibility. Speed lim- this should have been one of the original choices. Other rea- iters have a place in the current and future industry sons for using speed limiters included reducing overall main- market. tenance costs, maintaining a positive corporate image, and Speed limiter had a made marginal effect on speed- reducing insurance rates. ing and a great effect on cost control. Our owner operators do not have speed limiters and there is no The 18 respondents who do not use speed limiters noted difference in the number of accidents between com- "cartruck speed differentials" as the primary concern (61%), pany trucks and owner operators. with "inability to accelerate" when needed the second greatest I think they are great idea, but have to get all orga- concern (40%). When combined, "owneroperator refusal" nizations and transportation companies to go for it. and "avoid workplace conflict" represented 44% of the Do not agree with all trucks being governed at responses from the non-users. A few comments from respon- 105 kph. This will cause more problems on high- dents indicated their fleets did not have a problem with drivers ways because trucks will be unable to pass, which speeding; therefore, there was no need for speed limiters. will cause traffic jams. We have used speed limiters in our trucks for years and would not operate without them. Having said Speed Limit Setting that, we are not in favor of the proposed 105 kph Most respondents (90%) selected "safety" as the primary con- mandatory speed regulations. We feel that 105 kph does not allow a driver to pass in an efficient and sideration for determining the set speed on their speed limiters, safe manner. Those carriers who are operating in the followed by "fuel mileage" (69%) and "posted speed limit" way that you are trying to target will move their (56%). Respondents were evenly split in terms of setting a dif- base place of operations out of the province, making ferent cruise-control speed limit from the on-pedal (non- the law useless. Companies that want to operate in a cruise-control) speed limit. The majority (56%) of respondents responsible manner always will and those that do did not use this practice. The difference in set speed between not will always find a way around it. cruise-control and on-pedal (non-cruise-control) speed limiter was not noteworthy. The mean setting for cruise-control speed limit was 65.6 mph, whereas it was 67.2 mph for on-pedal SUMMARY OF RESULTS operations (a difference of only 1.6 mph). FROM THE WRITTEN SURVEY About 12% of respondents operated with variations in top The following section is a summary of results obtained from speed of the speed limiter based on driver performance. For 103 fleet safety manager respondents. Overall, respondents drivers considered inexperienced or risky, speed settings are were experienced fleet safety managers, averaging 15 years reduced. Comments from respondents included the following: experience in CMV safety. The fleets represented were fairly balanced across small through large fleets, but with few If a driver receives two speeding violations, the speed owneroperators. Operations concentrated on for-hire local limiter is reduced to 58 mph. and long haul, with emphasis on long haul operations. Five Any driver convicted of a speeding violation has speed responses were received from passenger carriers. reduced by 3 mph for 6 months. All students who come to us are set at 65 mph; veteran Use of Speed Limiters drivers are at 70 mph. If they are put on probation for any safety-related reason, they are set at 65 mph. Eighty-two percent of respondents use speed limiters in at least some of their vehicles (averaging 90%). Of the 82% of One fleet allowed drivers with 2 Million Safe Miles to respondents who indicated using speed limiters, 95% used increase their set speed on the speed limiter to 65 mph. But factory-installed speed limiters and have done so for an aver- one respondent commented, "Why would you take your age of 11.5 years. A few respondents (14%) required speed safest driver and then provide him/her with a higher rate of limiters when owneroperators were hired, but for most speed? The goal is safe cost to operate. [Higher speed] only (50%) the question was not relevant as they did not hire increases costs of operation that ultimately will reduce drivers' owneroperators. To assess respondents' motivation for using pay. It has to come from somewhere." Another respondent speed limiters, they were asked to rank in order three choices commented that the debate should move beyond "if" speed

OCR for page 27
29 limiters will be mandated and center around selection of the remainder "neutral." No respondents reported that on- the optimum governed speed. He also noted that governed time delivery was undermined "often" or "very often." speeds on heavy trucks "would essentially enforce posted Driver Response: 64% of responses regarding driver speed limits on Interstates themselves, allowing enforcement response toward speed limiters were "neutral," whereas resources to be shifted to roadways with lower posted speed 23% indicated drivers were "positive" and 9% were limits that tend to have higher instances of crashes. The net "negative" or "very negative." effect of governed maximum speed and a redeployment of Driver Hiring/Retention: 77% of responses regarding enforcement to higher crash risk locations would be lower the impact of speed limiters on driver hiring and reten- serious crashes." tion were neutral, whereas adverse and positive impacts were roughly equal at 6% and 7%, respectively. Effect on Safety: 96% of respondents indicated speed Tampering with Speed Limiters limiters did not negatively affect safety, with 3.6% (three respondents) reporting that speed limiters had a Tampering was cited by some respondents as a concern with negative effect on safety. Specific comments from speed limiters; however, only 22% of respondents reported respondents indicated that these negative influences such tampering. The typical fleet response was immediate were increased exposure to being rear-ended and men- termination, although some provided a warning on the first tal stress on drivers as traffic flowed around them. offense. Effect on Productivity: 96% of respondents indicated speed limiters did not negatively affect productivity, Do Speed Limiters Cause Speeding? with 3.6% (three respondents) reporting speed limiters had a negative effect on productivity. One specific com- Anecdotal reports have indicated that speed limiters result in ment indicated the negative effects on productivity drivers driving faster in speed zones below the speed limiter were overshadowed by the positive effect on safety and set speed to "make up time." Survey results supported this fuel economy: "Our fleet could cover more miles in a view, with 88% of survey respondents reporting this was shorter time if our trucks were not governed or gov- most likely occurring. As one respondent noted, "Regardless erned at a higher speed; however, we do not feel the of speed limiters, the vehicle operator will often speed trade-off of slight improvements in productivity offset through lower speed areas if he or she believes they can get the lower accident risk and cost improvements in fuel, away with it. The excuse of `making up lost time' has long maintenance, good will, etc." been tried and lost. Chronic speeders will take the opportu- nity to speed in any speed controlled area they believe they The final question in the survey asked respondents about can get away with." the "bottom line" use of speed limiters (i.e., have they improved fleet operations?). Sixty-four percent reported that, overall, speed limiters have improved fleet operations, whereas 24% Overall Assessment of Positives and Negatives of respondents chose a neutral stance. Only one respondent of Speed Limiter Use did not believe fleet operations were improved. In terms of positive and negative attributes of using speed limiters, the results are as follows: Therefore, examining the results from the series of ques- tions on safety and other benefits of speed limiters, this group Reducing Crashes: 56% of respondents indicated speed of respondents overwhelmingly (but not unanimously) limiters were either "successful" or "very successful" reported noteworthy benefits with relatively few drawbacks. for this purpose. Only 2.4% (two respondents) reported Clearly, respondents considered speed limiters an important they were "unsuccessful." part of their overall fleet management operations. Although Reducing Speeding Violations: 64% of respondents the majority of respondents perceived the systems as reduc- reported speed limiters were either "successful" or ing crashes, no respondents indicated any quantitative data "very successful" for this purpose. Only 4.8% (four that would support their perceptions (if it did exist, it was not respondents) reported they were "unsuccessful." shared with the Study Team). However, as one respondent in Reducing Tire Wear: 44% of respondents indicated the passenger transport sector reported, ". . . you just cannot speed limiters were either "successful" or "very success- afford to have even one `loose cannon' amongst your driver ful" for this purpose. More than half (53%) reported they force that may jeopardize the safety of his/her passengers by were either "neutral" or marked "cannot determine." driving excessively fast." Increasing Fuel Economy: 76% of respondents indicated speed limiters were either "successful" or "very success- It appears that cost control issues, such as fuel economy, ful" for this purpose. Only 2.4% (two respondents) were a predominate motivator, as reported by survey respon- reported they were "unsuccessful." dents. However, one comment on the safety effects of speed Reducing On-Time Delivery: 84% of respondents indi- limiters was interesting: "Speed limiters have [had] a marginal cated either "seldom" or "very seldom" for this issue, with effect on speeding and a great effect on cost control. Our