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 54
54
Automatic monitoring of vehicle condition was cited by Empirical data (e.g., those related to divided and undivided
several case study interviewees as a growing application with highways and traffic density) demonstrate that the cate-
both safety and efficiency benefits. Onboard monitoring of gory (d) does affect crash risk strongly. For the other expert
vehicle condition complements and extends the high-quality respondents, choice (d) was at the middle of the five factors
vehicle maintenance programs of many top fleets. Tire pres- with regard to its effects on crash risk.
sure monitoring exemplifies truck vehicle condition moni-
toring. In the LTCCS, 1.1% of at-fault truck crashes were Most of the specific driving situations and operational prac-
caused primarily by tire failure, which is usually the result tices presented to both respondent groups received positive
of underinflated tires. A 2003 study of truck tire inflation ratings for safety. "Maximizing travel on low-speed roads,"
by Kreeb et al. found that fleet maintenance of tires was presented as the opposite of "maximizing travel on Interstates
often poor, resulting in high rates of tire underinflation. and other freeways," received the highest negative ratings.
Improper inflation raised tire-related costs by $600 to $800 Day driving was favored over night driving by both respon-
annually per tractor-trailer combination. About 5% of fleets dent groups, but with disagreement by some respondents. The
currently use onboard tire pressure monitoring systems. A two contrasting items on truck size generated the widest vari-
recent fleet test of tire pressure monitoring systems found ation of responses and disagreement. Although using "fewer,
their use to be associated with slower tire wear and 1.8% larger trucks" received slightly higher mean ratings by both
better fuel economy. groups, there was no consensus. PM was the most widely prac-
ticed and rated carrier risk-avoidance practice.
What about the general relationship between efficiency
and safety? Do the various efficiency practices add to greater
safety? Do carrier practices that foster efficient operations REPORTED EFFECTIVE CARRIER PRACTICES
also foster safe operations? The project did not measure either
the efficiency or safety of any fleet, so it cannot provide defin- The project evidence and product review (chapter two), sur-
itive evidence. A survey question asked respondents about the veys (chapter three), and case studies (chapter four), as well
general relationship. Strong majorities of both categories of as past reviews, indicate the following as common and bene-
respondents believed that, "Highly efficient carriers tend also ficial carrier practices for consideration:
to be more safe than other carriers." Other studies suggest a
positive relationship between systematic, high-performance · Operational planning and pre-trip actions (i.e., many of
company management and worker safety. This is especially the strategies discussed herein) to reduce crash risk sys-
true if company efficiency and growth can be achieved with- tematically;
out putting excessive productivity and delivery pressure on · Pre-trip planning for individual trips, to include routes
drivers. Survey comments reinforced the notion of a positive
and schedules, including planned rest stops;
relationship, with the same caveat about avoidance of exces-
· PM schedules and records for each vehicle, aided by
sive stress on drivers.
maintenance management software;
· Aggressively reducing empty backhaul trips for finan-
By and large, the safety-manager and other-expert survey
cial benefits and to reduce unnecessary risk exposure;
responses paralleled the findings of the literature review on
· Reducing loading and unloading delays by working
various report topics. A top-level exception, however, was
with shippers and receivers and by changes in carrier
seen in the results of the opening survey questions on gen-
operations;
eral factors affecting crash risk. In Questions 1 and 2 (for
both safety managers and other experts), respondents were · Optimizing routing for individual vehicles and whole
asked to select from the following the two factors with the operations. Expedited travel through improved routing
greatest general effect on crash risk, and the one factor with generally translates into safety gains as well;
the least effect: · Providing truck-specific navigational aids to drivers;
· Assigning familiar routes to drivers when possible;
(a) Enduring driver traits; · Routing vehicles through divided, limited-access roads
(b) Temporary driver states; (e.g., Interstates) when feasible, even at the expense of
(c) Vehicle characteristics and mechanical conditions; extra miles;
(d) Roadway characteristics and traffic conditions; and · Avoiding highway work zones when feasible;
(e) Weather and roadway surface conditions. · Avoiding urban areas when feasible, in particular dur-
ing morning and evening peak hours;
For safety managers, the vehicle-related choice (c) received · Avoiding adverse weather and slippery road surfaces
the fewest "most" votes, whereas choice (d), "roadway char- when feasible;
acteristics and traffic conditions," received the greatest num- · Using onboard computers and mobile communications
ber of "least" votes. Thus, both (c) and (d) could be regarded for driver monitoring and to support operational effi-
as "losers." Ironically, perhaps, choice (d) has the greatest ciencies, but with measures to ensure that drivers are not
relevance to the current study, because many operational distracted while driving;
transport efficiencies related to roadway and routing choices. · Using speed limiters;
