Click for next page ( 31

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 30
31 Carrier Collection of Safety Data Relevant limit is less than the speed limiter setting. Although the to Speed Governor Use OOIDA results indicated that this is done to make up for lost time, survey respondents in the current synthesis indi- All but one respondent indicated that they had not attempted cated that this was likely a matter of overall driver attitudes to collect and analyze data to determine the effectiveness of or habits. speed limiters in improving safety within their operations. The respondent who reported objective evidence of safety The OOIDA results showed a higher average setting for improvements noted that the carrier had experienced issues the speed limiter (69 mph) compared with the results from with truck rollovers; however, these incidents were reduced this synthesis (67 mph for non-cruise control and 65 mph for because speed limiters and stability control systems were cruise control). installed on their trucks. As has been found in previous studies, most carriers did not collect objective data related to speed lim- iter implementation within fleet operations. The lack of before The OOIDA respondents indicated that 9% of companies and after data severely limits the ability of the Study Team to required owneroperators to speed limit their trucks, with draw objective conclusions regarding the overall safety effec- 41% saying this is not a requirement. This tracks somewhat tiveness of speed limiters. with the results from the current synthesis, with 14% affir- mative answers and 36% negative. COMPARISON WITH AMERICAN The number of responses to the ATRI survey was twice TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE that received in the current synthesis. The ATRI survey indi- AND OWNEROPERATORS INDEPENDENT cated the overall installation rates of speed limiters were 63% DRIVERS ASSOCIATION SURVEY RESULTS for motor carriers, whereas the results from this synthesis The OOIDA Foundation (2007) survey was much larger than survey were much higher. The difference may be the result of the one conducted for the current synthesis. However, there the broader coverage of the overall industry that was accom- was some overlap in content that allows meaningful compar- plished with the ATRI survey. isons. Although the OOIDA results noted a strong driver pref- erence to drive without speed limiters, the responses in the cur- Both surveys illustrate that safety is the primary motiva- rent synthesis indicated that drivers will tolerate them--most tion for either adopting or avoiding speed limiters. As with fleet safety managers viewed driver response to speed limiters the OOIDA study, those carriers choosing not to utilize speed as a neutral factor in driver hiring and retention. Respondents in limiters cited concerns with the cartruck speed differential the OOIDA survey indicated their primary concern with speed created. limiters was the lack of passing speed followed by increased traffic congestion. Respondents in the current synthesis who The survey in this synthesis reported a 22% rate of driver reported not using speed limiters had similar concerns. tampering with speed limiter settings, which is roughly con- sistent with the 27% rate reported by ATRI. Both surveys Both surveys were consistent in finding a high incidence found that, in most cases, the consequence for tampering was of drivers exceeding the speed limit in areas where the speed immediate termination.