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 24
24
engine control modules. Qualcomm and other companies incident involvement and that their eyes were off the road an
introduced satellite communications, which created the poten- average of 4.1 s/6 s of driving (FMCSA 2009).
tial for remotely accessing onboard computer data. Cellular-
based communication systems now have similar capabilities to On project surveys, respondents were asked to rate the
satellite systems (Strah 2009). Current systems are becoming safety benefits of using onboard computers and of using
complex and comprehensive fleet monitoring and manage- mobile communications. As with similar questions, respon-
ment tools. Telematic functionalities previously offered by dents were presented with a seven-point Likert scale ranging
third-party vendors are increasingly being offered by truck from -3 ("Reduces Fleet Safety") to +3 ("Improves Fleet
manufacturers at the time of purchase. Systems allow central, Safety"). The overall mean for safety-manager respondents
real-time viewing of a vehicle's map location, moving speed, with regard to onboard computers was +1.1. The mean rating
engine speed, battery and fuel status, and trip history. Vehicle for onboard communications was just +0.6, with 17 negative
component (e.g., brake, tire) condition monitoring is also ratings among 78 respondents.
available (to be discussed in the section Monitoring Vehicle
Condition). The system can be programmed to flag any trou- With regard to actual use of onboard computers, just over
ble indicator, whether it relates to vehicle functioning or driver half of respondents used them (41 of 74). Among those who
behavior. did, their mean safety effectiveness rating was 3.9 on a five-
point Likert scale. For mobile communications, 58 of 78
A report by Aarts (2008) for the Organisation for Economic respondents used them; users assigned a mean safety effec-
Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the International tiveness rating of 3.6. More detailed questioning would be
Transport Forum (ITF) describes various rapid, ongoing, needed to sort out respondent views on specific benefits from
efficiency-related changes in commercial vehicle technolo- these systems and on potential concerns about their use.
gies, logistics, and infrastructure. The report anticipates
expected effects of mobile communications systems and In the case studies, the comments of the Case Study C inter-
other vehicle telematics on road transport efficiency, fuel viewee were pertinent to the question of driver distraction
use, pollutants, infrastructure, and safety: from onboard devices. The official interviewed believed that
the key challenge was to communicate and provide infor-
The use of mobile communications tracking systems can enhance mation without causing distraction. The company does not
the security and efficiency of commercial vehicle operations by
use driver-accessible general-purpose computers in its cabs
providing information about asset locations and a direct means
of communication between carrier personnel and drivers. By because of the potential for distraction. It does use commu-
closely tracking vehicles and assets, opportunities for cargo and nications and navigational aids, but without providing visual
vehicle theft can be reduced. Additional benefits include poten- displays when vehicles are in motion. An electronic device
tial improvements in delivery service and asset utilization through converts any text sent to drivers to voice when the vehicle is
vehicle location and routing information. Human resource man-
agement and worker productivity can be enhanced by carriers moving so that drivers' eyes are not diverted from the road.
receiving more accurate status and arrival time information on
shipments. Increased visibility into this information can expedite
deliveries and help to ensure on-time performance to customers. TEAM DRIVING
The OECD/ITF report indicated that initial cost to carriers This section and the next three address topics that were not
was the principal barrier to greater market penetration of included in the original project work plan or in the safety man-
telematics, which it placed at about 35% of the European mar- ager surveys but have been added to the discussion because
ket. The FMCSA Technology Division (2010a) has published they were mentioned by carrier safety managers in project
a technology product guide to wireless communications and surveys (chapter three) or in interviews for the case studies
related technologies. The guide explains much of the technol- (chapter four). The four topics are team driving, EOBRs,
ogy and its applications in carrier management. The product fuel economy and safety, and vehicle condition monitoring.
guide lists 12 system vendors. Although each topic merits more detailed coverage, brief
discussions are provided here to round out the discussion of
Any discussion of in-vehicle technologies needs to consider safety-relevant carrier efficiencies.
the problem of driver distraction from such devices. Ergonomic
issues relating to the safe use of telematic systems by drivers are Team driving is an efficiency practice because a team-
beyond the scope of this report. Suffice it to note that driver dis- driven long-haul truck legally can be moving almost continu-
traction from cell phones, other in-vehicle devices, and from ously during an extended trip. One driver can rest during the
other sources has been recognized as a major cause of crashes. other driver's driving period so that no stoppages are required
The U.S.DOT has conducted two national summits on dis- by HOS rules per se. Of course, stops are still required for fuel,
tracted driving. Almost 1,600 U.S. companies have adopted food, personal hygiene, and breaks away from the vehicle.
distracted-driving policies, and a new federal law prohibits tex-
ting by commercial drivers. An FMCSA naturalistic driving FMCSA has estimated that 9% of truck VMT is driven by
study of distraction risk found that drivers interacting with a team drivers. This would mean that, at any given time, about
dispatching device while driving had an odds ratio of 9.9 for 17% of drivers are involved in team operations (FMCSA and
