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 74
74 Hazardous Materials Transportation Incident Data for Root Cause Analysis references to tables that summarize the results of driver and carrier interviews. Interview tables contain data on driver condition (aggressive driving, attention, condition, license status, fatigue, health, perception, and sleep). Interview tables also are provided for cargo shift, fire, jackknife, rollover, and trip. Most of the database tables are related using two parameters, the case number and the vehicle number. Driver information is collected for all 2,284 vehicles, but it was possible to collect infor- mation on driver health for only 1,839 vehicles, about 80% of all vehicles involved in the acci- dents. Other significant data are contained in the ENVIRONMENT and FACTOR_ASSESSMENT Tables, conveying information on the GENERAL_VEHICLE, VEHICLE, and TRUCK_UNIT Tables that provide additional details. As might be expected, although there are driver interview data for most of the 2,284 vehicles, the cargo shift data are not listed for all vehicles because cargo shift is not applicable to passenger vehicles. In total, cargo shift data are provided for 1,071 vehicles. Although very close to the num- ber of accidents investigated, 1,070, there are multiple trucks involved in many of these accidents, so the data are actually provided for about 90% of the heavy trucks involved in the 1,070 accidents. The database contains descriptions for 1,207 heavy trucks and 29 bobtails (power units without a semitrailer). The PAR_VIOLATION and BRAKES Tables list defects found at the accident scene. The latter comes from a Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) Level 1 inspection of the vehi- cles following the crash. The CDCRUSH Table lists the type and extent of vehicle damage, some coming from accident reconstruction analyses. Although not many vehicles were carrying haz- ardous material, there are two tables, HAZMAT and HAZMAT_INSP, that provide information specific to the packaging and hazardous material involved in the accident. The LTCCS included 57 vehicles carrying hazardous material with 77 material types, and provided detailed event descriptions for 30 of the vehicles. 4.5.2 Purpose and Function The purpose of the LTCCS was to determine the causes of, and contributing factors to, crashes involving commercial motor vehicles. The study was mandated by the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999, P.L. 106-159. 4.5.3 Data Collection A nationally representative sample of large-truck fatal and injury crashes was investigated dur- ing 2001 to 2003 at 24 sites in 17 states. Each crash involved at least one large truck and resulted in at least one injury or fatality. Data were collected on up to 1,000 parameters in each crash. The total sample, after non-qualifying accidents were eliminated, involved 967 crashes, which included 1,127 large trucks, 959 non-truck motor vehicles, 251 fatalities, and 1,408 injuries. The data for each accident were collected from a wide variety of sources. These included the General Vehicle Form, the police accident report, medical reports, scene photographs, and post- accident inspections, including the CVSA Level 1 inspection of the truck involved in the accident. In addition, interviews were conducted with the drivers, witnesses, vehicle occupants, and carrier personnel. Local weather station data was used to describe weather conditions and the driver's log was used to determine hours of service. AASHTO documents provided the criteria used to deter- mine the values that should be assigned to parameters such as the driver's line of sight at the time of the accident. Time-stamped toll and fuel receipts were also collected. Relevant data were also obtained from federally maintained databases. These databases included the MCMIS Registration File, and the Safety and Fitness Electronic Records (SAFER) system and Safety Status (SAFESTAT) Management System databases. Although the data collection involved using trained investigators