National Academies Press: OpenBook

Safety Management in Small Motor Carriers (2012)

Chapter: Chapter Two - Survey Methods and Results

« Previous: Chapter One - Introduction
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Survey Methods and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Safety Management in Small Motor Carriers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14637.
×
Page 6
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Survey Methods and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Safety Management in Small Motor Carriers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14637.
×
Page 7
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Survey Methods and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Safety Management in Small Motor Carriers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14637.
×
Page 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Survey Methods and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Safety Management in Small Motor Carriers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14637.
×
Page 9
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Survey Methods and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Safety Management in Small Motor Carriers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14637.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Survey Methods and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Safety Management in Small Motor Carriers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14637.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Survey Methods and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Safety Management in Small Motor Carriers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14637.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Survey Methods and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Safety Management in Small Motor Carriers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14637.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Survey Methods and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Safety Management in Small Motor Carriers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14637.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Survey Methods and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Safety Management in Small Motor Carriers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14637.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Survey Methods and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Safety Management in Small Motor Carriers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14637.
×
Page 16

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

The three principal information sources for this study were: (1) the project survey of small carrier owners/managers, (2) in-depth interviews with a subset of survey respondents, and (3) the research literature review. This chapter describes the survey approach, specific methods, and provides principal results. The carrier owner/manager survey asked respondents questions about safety problems they faced, what safety man- agement practices they used, and the effectiveness of these practices. Survey results relating to specific topics are also revisited in chapter four (Evidence Review). A general caveat regarding most of the survey responses is that they represent subjective responses to subjective ques- tions. A few questions were objective (e.g., questions asking safety managers whether or not they use a particular safety management practice), but most called for subjective judg- ments by respondents. Another caveat is that the respondent sample should be regarded as a convenience and “judgment” sample of interested, knowledgeable individuals, not as a rep- resentative sample of some larger population such as “all small carrier owners/managers.” In spite of these caveats, survey findings are revealing because of the comparative information they provide; for example, the perceived relative importance of various safety problems and perceived relative effectiveness of solutions. Critical to the success of the survey was the support of the following five CMV transport trade associations, two relating to trucking and three to motorcoach transport. These organi- zations solicited survey participation by their members through e-mail requests containing links to the online survey. • American Bus Association (ABA) • Bus Industry Safety Council (BISC) • National Association of Small Trucking Companies (NASTC) • Owner–Operators Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) • United Motorcoach Association (UMA). SURVEY METHOD Sampling Approach The conceptual population for the survey was North American motor carrier (truck and bus) small carrier owners/managers. This population is amorphous and largely inaccessible to sur- vey research. Defining and reaching this conceptual population 6 is problematic because there is no single definition or criterion for “small carrier” and because there is no central respondent list that could serve as a practical basis for probability-based sampling (TRB Committee on Truck and Bus Safety 2010). Therefore, a nonprobability-based convenience sample was used. It might also be characterized as a judgment sample, because the participating trade associations were judged by the project team as being excellent sources for small carrier input. The survey sample space (i.e., potential respondents con- tacted) consisted primarily of members of the participating trade associations. In comparison to the conceptual popu- lation, this sample space is itself biased toward organiza- tions and individuals with more experience, past success, and safety conscientiousness than the overall conceptual popula- tion. Those returning the survey (whose responses are pre- sented here) were the respondents. Just as the sample space was likely a biased slice of the population, the respondent sample was likely a biased slice of the sample space. In most surveys and almost certainly this one, those responding tended to be more committed and interested in the topic than those not responding. Moreover, they tended to be more edu- cated and verbal than nonrespondents (Walonick 2010). Both sources of bias almost certainly operated in the present survey. A larger study focusing on the survey per se could likely do a better job of capturing the conceptual population. Study resources did not permit a rigorous, probability-based sam- pling approach. The obtained sample, even if representing a skewed sample of knowledgeable and safety-conscious small carrier respondents, still provided valuable information. It accomplished the following objectives: • It tapped the views and practices of safety-active small carriers. • It provided information subjects’ relative opinions on various safety problems and solutions. • It provided contacts for follow-up interviews with carrier owners/managers regarding the practices of progressive companies. Questionnaire Design and Content Appendix A presents the project survey form, reformatted for inclusion in this report. The survey form consisted of the sec- tions listed here (with question numbers in parentheses): CHAPTER TWO SURVEY METHODS AND RESULTS

7• Introduction, including brief statement of the study and survey purpose, and a confidentiality assurance. • (1–14) Safety problems faced. A series of 14 questions about the relative importance of specific safety prob- lems facing small companies. These employed a 5-point Likert rating scale for importance. • (15–16) CSA (Compliance, Safety, Accountability) compliance challenges. Two parts: – Selection of the two (out of seven) CSA Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories (BASICs) presenting the biggest safety challenges, and – Selection of the two BASIC categories presenting the smallest safety challenges. • (17–30) Safety management practices. A series of 14 questions on (1) safety management practices they use, and (2) their perceived safety effectiveness using a 5-point Likert scale. These 14 practices should be con- sidered as just a sample of possible small carrier safety practices. Many other worthy safety practices could not be included in the survey owing to survey length considerations. • (31–32) Important areas of safety management. Ten areas of safety management were listed; respondents – Selected up to three (of the nine) they considered most important; that is, having the greatest effect on safety outcomes. – Selected up to three they considered least important; that is, having the least effect on safety outcomes. • (33) Other comments regarding safety management in small motor carriers. Open response box. • (34–35) Carrier size. Two multiple choice items: – Owner/manager role in carriers of four “functional” size ranges (see Appendix A, Question 34). – Number of nonnondriver employees. • (36–37) Information about respondent experience: – Years of experience as company owner/manager. – Total years of experience in commercial truck/bus operations. • (38–39) Additional information about the company: – Number of power units (open response box). – Principal operation type (eight choices). • (40) A space to optionally provide an e-mail address to which to send the project report pdf. • (41) A space to optionally volunteer for a paid inter- view on innovative carrier practices for the project case studies. Survey Distribution and Administration The survey was administered using TRB’s online survey ser- vice. The project team constructed the questionnaire, tran- scribing the questions provided in Appendix A to the auto- mated format. This included a web link to access the survey and a link within the survey for accessing a copy (pdf) of the questionnaire that could be saved and/or printed by respon- dents. Researchers also prepared draft e-mail text for use by the participating trade associations in soliciting their mem- bers. The associations were asked to target carriers in the 3 to 75 power unit range, if possible; this range was considered inclusive of responding carriers who would meet the princi- pal criterion (defined here) for inclusion in reported results. Separate files were used for each trade association so its member statistical results could be seen separately and pro- vided to association officials for their use. In most cases, the initial request e-mail was followed a few weeks later by a second, follow-up request. Data Analysis and Interpretation Survey tabulations for respondents from each trade associa- tion (and the fifth “general” file) were provided automatically. These tabulations were entered onto an Excel spreadsheet and summed across the five sources. The following sections describe specific aspects of data analysis and interpretation. Principal Criterion for Inclusion of Data A specific criterion was applied to most survey questions to limit the reported results to the principal focus of the study; that is, those carriers large enough to have a “non-driver” manager but too small to have multiple managers. Because most such managers retain their Commercial Drivers Licenses (CDLs) and may occasionally drive, a “nonnon-driver” man- ager was defined as one who drives less than 50% of the time. Question 34 of the survey was the basis for this filtering. Unless noted otherwise for a particular question, all reported survey results in this report are for respondents who answered “c” on this question: (34) Which best describes you and your company? (a) Solo owner–operator (i.e., you are the only driver). (b) Driver (drives 50% or more of the time), but also oper- ates other vehicles and employs other drivers. (c) Company owner/manager. Drives less than 50% of the time. Performs most management and supervision tasks, including safety and compliance. (d) Owner/manager of company large enough to have mul- tiple managers, including a designated manager of safety and/or compliance. A total of 262 respondents (187 truck, 75 bus) completed the online survey, but only 112 of these (79 truck, 33 bus) answered “c” on this question. The statistics reported and discussed elsewhere in this report are based on the responses of these 112 companies. Nonreporting of Response Percentages In accordance with CTBSSP policy, the survey results in this chapter and cited elsewhere in this report do not include results percentages. Instead, raw numbers are cited (e.g., “42 of 51 respondents . . .”). This practice reduces the likelihood

that survey results will be misinterpreted or incorrectly cited as representing larger respondent populations. Readers may generate their own percentages; however, they should not be stated as being representative of larger groups. Likert Scale Numeric Means Likert scales are rating scales, sometimes with numbered choices (e.g., ranges such as 0–4, 1–5, or 1–7). Likert scales usually have word descriptors for each choice, or “anchor” choices at the ends and perhaps the middle. Two different Likert scales were used in project surveys: • A 5-point scale on the importance of various safety prob- lems. Choices ranged from “not important” to “extremely important.” • A 5-point scale rating the effectiveness of carrier safety management practices. Choices ranged from “highly ineffective” to “highly effective.” Likert scale choices in the current survey were not num- bered on the form seen by respondents; however, choices were subsequently assigned numbers (0, 1, 2, 3, or 4) for analysis. Results are provided in the form of respondent counts for each choice along with the weighted arithmetic mean of all choices. TRB’s online survey service also provided these statistics automatically in survey reports. Caution on Interpretation of Results As emphasized earlier, the obtained survey sample should be considered a convenience or judgment sample that is not rep- resentative of any larger respondent population. Further, one should consider the nature of the questions when interpreting results. There were three general types of survey questions: (1) questions about respondent opinions, (2) questions about specific carrier practices, and (3) questions about respondents themselves and their companies. Opinion questions were sub- jective and called for subjective, judgmental responses, mostly in the form of Likert scale ratings or forced choices. These responses should not be misinterpreted as objective facts. Objective questions included those on specific carrier prac- tices used (yes/no) and those about carrier and respondent characteristics. The nonrepresentativeness caveat applies to all survey questions. Follow-Up Structured Interviews The last question of the survey form asked respondents if they would be interested in participating in a paid follow-up interview to discuss innovative fleet practices. The purpose of the interviews was to gather information and opinions for project case study write-ups (see chapter three). If respon- dents did volunteer, and their survey answers suggested they were actively engaged in safety management (e.g., had a rel- atively large number of “yes” responses under carrier prac- 8 tices and/or offered additional written comments), they could be contacted to schedule an interview. Altogether, 15 respon- dents were contacted by e-mail and/or by phone. The 15 ini- tial contacts resulted in ten interviews. These ten provided substantial information on innovative small carrier safety practices, which is contained in chapter three. SURVEY RESULTS Unless otherwise stated, all of the results are for all truck and bus respondents answering “c” on Question 34 regarding car- rier functional size. Results are disaggregated for truck and bus respondents for those questions relating to areas in which truck and bus operations are markedly different. Importance of Various Safety Management Problems Questions 1–14 asked about the relative importance of spe- cific safety problems facing small companies. These employed a 5-point Likert rating scale for importance. The specific instructions were as follows: Importance of Various Safety Management Problems Items 1–14 present various safety management problems you may face. Rate the importance of each problem. Extremely important items are those with the strongest relation to crash risk, and requiring your greatest attention. If you have no opin- ion, leave it blank and move on to the next question. The five Likert scale choices were as follows. The numer- ical values for each choice were not shown on the survey form, but were used subsequently to tabulate results. • Not Important [0] • Somewhat Important [1] • Important [2] • Very Important [3] • Extremely Important [4]. Table 1 provides the number of responses for each choice, the total number of responses (N), and the weighted arith- metic average or mean of responses (Avg.). Averages are rounded to the nearest tenth. Note that truck and bus respon- dents are disaggregated for Question 10 (“Delays associated with loading and unloading . . .”) and that the question was worded somewhat differently for the two groups. Note first that all ratings were heavily skewed toward higher importance ratings and that 14 problems received overall average ratings of greater than 2.0 on the 4-point scale. Thus, all the problems were considered to be “important or greater.” Relative ratings provide insights on those prob- lems considered most and least important within this group. The highest-rated safety problems included (6) recruiting and selecting good drivers, (2) at-risk driving behaviors, and (7) assessing driver on-road safety. Problems rated rela- tively unimportant compared with others on the list included

9(13) lack of training materials for drivers, (14) lack of training materials for managers, and (5) driver personal/family/financial problems. Figure 1 shows the same statistics graphically and in descending order of mean importance rating. CSA (Compliance, Safety, Accountability) Compliance Challenges Questions 15 and 16 presented the seven CSA Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories (BASICs). Respondents were asked to select the two areas representing the biggest and smallest safety challenges, respectively. The specific questions were as follows: 15. In the CSA, there are seven Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories (BASICs). Which two BASIC areas are the biggest compliance challenges for your company. In other words, the areas where compliance is most difficult? If you are not sure, leave the answer blank. Likert Rating or Statistic: Safety Problem: 0 1 2 3 4 N Avg. (1) Lack of basic driving skills among your drivers 11 10 14 20 54 109 2.88 (2) At-risk driving behaviors (e.g., speeding, tailgating) 3 9 16 28 56 112 3.12 (3) Driver fatigue/drowsiness 8 12 10 29 50 109 2.93 (4) Driver health, wellness, and nutrition problems 5 16 35 38 18 112 2.43 (5) Driver personal, family, and financial problems 7 19 38 33 12 109 2.22 (6) Recruiting and selecting good drivers 0 4 15 34 58 111 3.32 (7) Assessing driver on-road safety (i.e., knowing how safe your drivers are) 2 5 20 46 39 112 3.03 (8) Correctly rewarding good driver behaviors and disciplining bad behaviors 1 7 24 50 29 111 2.89 (9) Driver turnover resulting in an unstable workforce 6 12 23 36 31 108 2.69 (10) Delays associated with loading and unloading cargo [truck respondents only] 4 4 17 28 26 79 2.86 (10) Delays associated with loading and unloading passengers and cargo [bus respondents only] 8 10 5 7 3 33 1.61 (11) Non-driving injuries and other accidents (e.g., slips and falls, cargo-related) 5 24 27 33 20 109 2.36 (12) Not enough management time to adequately address all safety problems and issues 7 19 29 32 22 109 2.39 (13) Lack of training materials (or easy access to them) for drivers 14 23 25 27 20 109 2.15 (14) Lack of training materials (or easy access to them) for yourself as a manager 14 17 25 36 16 108 2.21 Grand mean: 2.65 TABLE 1 LIKERT SCALE RATINGS FOR IMPORTANCE OF VARIOUS SAFETY MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 (13) No training materials for drivers (14) No training materials for managers (5) Personal, family, & financial problems (11) Non-driving injuries (12) Not enough management time (4) Health, wellness, & nutrition (9) Driver turnover (10) Loading/unloading delays (1) Lack of basic driving skills (8) Rewarding and disciplining (3) Driver fatigue/drowsiness (7) Assessing driver on-road safety (2) At-risk driving behaviors (6) Recruiting/selecting good drivers Mean Importance Rating on 0-4 Likert Scale FIGURE 1 Mean importance ratings for 14 safety problems.

16. Which two BASIC areas are the smallest compliance challenges for your company. In other words, the areas where compliance is easiest? Table 2 presents the results for Question 15 disaggregated by truck and bus (passenger carrier) operations. Results for this question are disaggregated principally because choice “f” (cargo securement) does not typically apply to bus oper- ations. Also, roadside inspection practices are different for trucks and buses. Buses are typically inspected at their ter- minal locations (e.g., destinations) rather than inspected en route. For both trucks and buses, the top three items were (b) Fatigued Driving [HOS (hours of service)], (a) Unsafe Driving, and (e) Vehicle Maintenance. For trucks, those judged least challenging were (d) Alcohol/Drugs, (c) Driver Fit- ness, and (g) Crash History. For buses, they were (d) Alcohol/ Drugs, (f) Cargo Securement, and (g) Crash History. Figure 2 is a histogram of the Question 15 “biggest” responses, normalized based on the total number of responses. 10 Table 3 presents Question 16 (smallest CSA compliance challenges) responses, again disaggregated by vehicle type (trucks versus buses). As expected, these results mirror those shown earlier. For trucks and buses combined, the correla- tion between “biggest” to “smallest” responses across the seven items was −0.85. Use and Effectiveness of Operational Practices Questions 17–30 presented 14 carrier practices and first asked respondents to state whether or not they regularly used the practice (yes or no). Respondents answering “yes” on a question were then presented with a question asking them to rate the effectiveness of the practice on a 5-point Likert scale. The initial instructions were as follows: Which Operational Practices Do You Regularly Use? For each of the operational practices below, please indicate yes or no whether your company uses the practice. If yes, rate its overall effectiveness using the scale provided. Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories (BASICs) Compliance Challenges Trucks Buses a) Unsafe Driving—speeding, reckless driving, im proper lane change, inattention 29 13 b) Fatigued Driving—HOS, logbook violations 40 14 c) Driver Fitness—m issing CDLs, me dical qualifications 7 5 d) Alcohol, Drugs—im pairment by alcohol, drugs, or me dications 3 1 e) Vehicle Maintenance—failure to ma ke repairs; adjust brakes, etc. 25 6 f) Cargo Securement—shifting, spilled, dropped cargo, size-wieght violations, unsafe hazm at handling 12 1 g) Crash History—frequency, severity of DOT-defined crashes 8 1 Total Responses: 124 41 TABLE 2 BIGGEST CSA COMPLIANCE CHALLENGES 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 Most Challenging CSA BASICs Trucks Buses FIGURE 2 Proportion of respondent votes for biggest CSA BASIC compliance challenges for truck and bus respondents.

11 The five Likert scale choices were as follows. The numer- ical values for each choice were not shown on the survey form, but were used to tabulate results. • Highly Ineffective [0] • Ineffective [1] • Not Sure/Neutral [2] • Effective [3] • Highly Effective [4] Table 4 provides the number of respondents reporting using each practice. Table 5 shows the effectiveness ratings given by users of the practice. The effectiveness responses were fewer because nonusers were not presented with the rat- ing questions. Statistics provided include the number for each Likert scale choice, the total number of responses (N), and the weighted arithmetic average or mean of responses (Avg.). Averages are rounded to the nearest tenth. Responses shown for Question 27 (relating to detention charges for loading and unloading delays) are limited to truck respondents. Respondents used an average of 8 of the 14 practices listed. The most frequently used were (26) PM (preventive maintenance) schedules, (28) reimbursing tolls, (29) track- ing overall company safety statistics, and (17) conducting road and range driving tests with driver applicants. By far the least frequent practice was (25) purchasing advanced vehicle safety systems. This was followed by (23) use of electronic onboard recorders (EOBRs), and (18) use of driver applicant questionnaire on attitudes, personality, or driving behaviors. All 14 of the practices received generally high ratings among users. Safety management practices used by a majority Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories (BASICs) Compliance Challenges Trucks Buses a) Unsafe Driving—speeding, reckless driving, improper lane change, inattention 15 4 b) Fatigued Driving—HOS, logbook violations 12 6 c) Driver Fitness—m issing CDLs, me dical qualifications 23 12 d) Alcohol, Drugs—i mp airment by alcohol, drugs, or me dications 45 11 e) Vehicle Maintenance—failure to ma ke repairs; adjust brakes, etc. 21 6 f) Cargo Securement—shifting, spilled, dropped cargo, size-wieght violations, unsafe hazm at handling 24 11 g) Crash History—frequency, severity of DOT-defined crashes 20 12 Total Responses: 160 62 TABLE 3 SMALLEST CSA COMPLIANCE CHALLENGES Rating or Statistic: Safety Management Practice: Yes No N (17) Conduct road and range driving tests with all driver applicants 92 18 110 (18) Have driver applicants complete questionnaire on attitudes, personality, or driving behaviors 20 92 112 (19) Conduct regularly scheduled safety me etings with drivers 91 20 111 (20) Give drivers bonuses or other rewards for safe driving 52 59 111 (21) Use online web-based training programs for drivers, other employees, or yourself 35 76 111 (22) Use training me dia in-house (e.g., DVDs, PowerPoint presentations) 65 45 110 (23) Use electronic onboard recorders (EOBRs) 16 94 110 (24) Monitor individual driver fuel econom y 80 32 112 (25) Purchase advanced vehicle safety systems (forward collision warning, lane departure warning, electronic stability control, onboard com puters to m onitor driving, etc.) 4 107 111 (26) Maintain preventive ma intenance schedule and record for each vehicle 109 3 112 (27) Charge extra fees to custom ers for excessive loading/unloading delays [truck respondents only] 62 17 79 (28) Reim burse toll charges to drivers and/or provide îEZ Pass” transponders 98 13 111 (29) Track overall com pany safety statistics (e.g., crash and violation rates, financial losses from crashes) 97 13 110 (30) Participate in formal or informal meetings with your peers; e.g., truck or bus association m eetings or other gatherings 73 36 109 TABLE 4 RESPONDENT USE OF SAFETY MANAGEMENT PRACTICE

of carrier respondents and receiving high favorable ratings included (26) maintaining PM schedules, (17) conducting road and range tests for driver applicants, and (30) participat- ing in peer meetings. Ironically, perhaps, the three least-used practices all received high average effectiveness ratings from those who used them. These were (25) purchasing advanced vehicle safety systems, (23) use of EOBRs, and (18) use of driver applicant questionnaires on attitudes, personality, or driving behaviors. Across the 14 practices, there was a nega- tive correlation of −0.31 between the percent of respondents using a practice and the average effectiveness value assigned to that practice by users. Important Areas of Safety Management Questions 31 and 32 listed ten general areas of safety man- agement. In Question 31, respondents were asked to select up to three items they considered most important; that is, having the greatest effect on carrier safety outcomes (i.e., crashes, incidents, and violations). In Question 32, they 12 were asked to select up to three items they considered least important; that is, having the least effect on carrier safety outcomes. Table 6 provides the results for Question 31, disaggre- gated by trucks versus buses. For both trucks and buses, the two areas judged most important were (a) driver selection and hiring, and (i) vehicle PM. Other areas judged as rela- tively more important included (b) driver training and com- munications, (e) scheduling and dispatching, and (c) driver evaluation. Note the very low priority places on (h) vehicle safety equipment. A small caveat regarding these results is that all subjects were presented with these items in the same order; therefore, any possible order effects could not be con- trolled. Figure 3 shows the same findings graphically, with the truck and bus responses both expressed as proportions to permit direct comparisons. Table 7 provides the results for Question 32, disaggre- gated by trucks versus buses. As one would expect, the Rating or Statistic: Safety Management Practice: 0 1 2 3 4 N Avg. (17) Conduct road and range driving tests with all driver applicants 3 1 13 48 26 91 3.02 (18) Have driver applicants co mp lete questionnaire on attitudes, personality, or driving behaviors 1 0 3 11 5 20 2.95 (19) Conduct regularly scheduled safety me etings with drivers 1 1 27 46 15 90 2.81 (20) Give drivers bonuses or other rewards for safe driving 1 3 11 28 8 51 2.76 (21) Use online web-based training programs for drivers, other em ployees, or yourself 1 2 15 15 2 35 2.43 (22) Use training me dia in-house (e.g., DVDs, PowerPoint presentations) 2 1 22 35 5 65 2.62 (23) Use electronic onboard recorders (EOBRs) 0 0 3 4 9 16 3.38 (24) Monitor individual driver fuel econom y 3 0 22 44 11 80 2.75 (25) Purchase advanced vehicle safety system s (forward collision warning, lane departure warning, electronic stability control, onboard com puters to m onitor driving, etc.) 0 0 0 2 2 4 3.50 (26) Maintain preventive maintenance schedule and record for each vehicle 3 1 10 54 41 109 3.18 (27) Charge extra fees to custom ers for excessive loading/unloading delays [truck respondents only] 2 10 19 20 11 62 2.45 (28) Reim burse toll charges to drivers and/or provide EZ Pass transponders 2 5 23 43 24 97 2.85 (29) Track overall com pany safety statistics (e.g., crash and violation rates, financial losses fro m crashes) 1 3 28 55 10 97 2.72 (30) Participate in formal or informal meetings with your peers; e.g., truck or bus association m eetings or other gatherings 1 3 13 41 13 71 2.87 Grand Mean (unweighted): 2.89 TABLE 5 USER LIKERT SCALE RATINGS OF EFFECTIVENESS OF SAFETY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

13 Areas of Safety Management Trucks Buses (a) Driver selection and hiring 62 27 (b) Driver training, orientation, and communications (e.g., safety meetings) 29 16 (c) Driver evaluation (i.e., violation and incident tracking, ride-alongs, covert observations of driving, onboard computer monitoring) 23 9 (d) Driver performance consequences; i.e., rewards and discipline 11 2 (e) Driver scheduling and dispatching practices 23 16 (f) Trip planning, routing, and navigation 12 7 (g) Loading, cargo securement, unloading, and dock/yard practices 10 0 (h) Vehicle safety equipment (e.g., technologies such as collision avoidance systems) 1 1 (i) Vehicle preventive maintenance 55 21 (j) Monitoring carrier CSA scores and other safety performance measures 11 3 Total Responses: 237 102 TABLE 6 MOST IMPORTANT SAFETY MANAGEMENT AREAS 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 Most Important Safety Areas Trucks Buses FIGURE 3 Proportion of “most important” votes for ten areas of safety management for truck and bus respondents. Areas of Safety Management Trucks Buses (a) Driver selection and hiring 3 0 (b) Driver training, orientation, and communications (e.g., safety meetings) 8 2 (c) Driver evaluation (i.e., violation and incident tracking, ride-alongs, covert observations of driving, onboard computer monitoring) 3 2 (d) Driver performance consequences; i.e., rewards and discipline 18 9 (e) Driver scheduling and dispatching practices 16 3 (f) Trip planning, routing, and navigation 41 7 (g) Loading, cargo securement, unloading, and dock/yard practices 33 24 (h) Vehicle safety equipment (e.g., technologies such as collision avoidance systems) 32 14 (i) Vehicle preventive maintenance 2 1 (j) Monitoring carrier CSA scores and other safety performance measures 34 17 Total Responses: 190 79 TABLE 7 LEAST IMPORTANT SAFETY MANAGEMENT AREAS

numbers of “most important” and “least important” votes for each area of safety management were generally inversely related. For trucks and buses combined, the correlation be- tween Question 31 and Question 32 responses across the ten items was −0.81. Written Comments Question 33 asked respondents if they had, “Other com- ments regarding safety management in small carriers.” The comments received are provided here and are presented in four general categories: driver management, vehicles and cargo, enforcement and compliance, and general manage- ment. Some comments have been edited for clarity and context. Driver Management • It is all about having/hiring the right people who have the right attitude. Then monitoring their progress helps keep them on track. • We only hire experienced competent drivers. They know their job. • The most important safety feature in a truck is the driver. That is why we are very selective in our recruiting and try to be at the top of the pay scale to attract the highest quality driver. • Know who you are hiring, and do not make excep- tions to hiring good drivers. It will harm you down the road. • Our biggest company problem is finding drivers. • If you hire correctly, train effectively (not only at hire, but throughout employment), use onboard monitoring, and set your trucks at 65, you will do fine in all depart- ments. This is provided you know what to charge to stay in business. Safety does pay. • Driver training and CDL requirements for motorcoach drivers are very low in the United States compared with other developed countries (Europe). • Do not get so big that the owner does not know every person on payroll, and make it their business to person- ally check out every driver every day! Big companies are a big problem when they look only for income and not their relationship with those who provided it. • We do not over-schedule drivers and they are all owner– operators. Vehicles and Cargo • Vehicle safety equipment is more often than not too costly for small carriers to obtain in today’s economy. • The continual adding of expensive [equipment and] cost to new motorcoaches is pricing a new coach at an 14 impossible level for many small companies. Thus, older vehicles will be used much longer. • We would love to try EOBRs but do not have the bud- get. Funding these safety advances will be critical to smaller operators. • Pre- and post-trip inspections [are very important]. • Most owner–operators and small fleet operators do a good job of maintenance and safety but are lacking in the back-up aspects such as paperwork. I know owner operators that do their own maintenance work but do not keep very good records. Enforcement and Compliance • The problem I see is for small carriers trying to keep up with all the changes and regulations that are taking place. • DOT makes judgment calls and cites violations about a loose strap or fuel cap (with no spillage). I have heard of DOT writing a driver up for having a Gatorade Bot- tle sitting on the floor board of his truck! • It is as if the new system [CSA] is geared toward killing the small guys. The big guys are winning and small guys are fighting a losing battle, but we are fighting . . . • [Bus respondent] The biggest threat to safety is rogue operators. Companies such as ours, who are checked reg- ularly by inspectors, are not the highest safety threat. It is the rogue operators who do their very best to avoid inspectors [who] are the ones inspectors need to be looking for. We see their shoddy equipment and illegal operations on a regular basis. Why cannot enforcement officials see it? • DOT and DOD [Department of Defense] need to stop allowing people and companies to operate unless they are American citizens, speak English well, and have been inspected and pass all inspections before they ever roll a tire on my highways. DOT and other federals create most of all the problems we have. • We haul big bales of recycled cardboard. We get viola- tions for having a small piece of cardboard falling or blowing off the truck but we have never lost a load or had a bale fall off the trailer. General Management • We are a newly established carrier that follows safety practices in our company very closely. • Many small operators do not have the financial re- sources to have a separate safety department/individual. So safety ends up with someone else who is already “wearing another hat(s).” As a result, small operators have to make decisions as to how their limited resources

15 are allocated to maintenance, driver training, safety programs, etc. • We utilize an outside consulting firm for our safety management. This has proven very cost-effective, allow- ing us to keep a higher level of safety focus than man- agement time would normally allow. • Safety is an attitude, more than anything else. If the drivers know that I want them personally safe, as well as the public, they know I am concerned all around. We have a saying that everyone hears at least once per month, “We hurt no one, and we don’t hurt ourselves.” If you focus on one or the other, the other should take care of itself. Everything in management is aimed at achieving our stated goal. • In many companies, the owner wears many hats. Safety is only one and deciding where to expend your time and resources is a struggle every small company has. Information About Respondents and Their Fleets Safety managers were also asked six questions (Questions 34–39) about their company, their job, and their profes- sional experience. As discussed earlier in this chapter, Data Analysis and Interpretation, Question 34 was the critical question used to identify respondents meeting the criterion for inclusion in the survey tabulations. This question asked respondents to select one of four choices that best described their job and the “functional” size of their company. Table 8 provides a breakdown of responses. This study focuses on those respondents answering “c.” These are carriers large enough to have a nondriver manager (i.e., one driving less than 50% of the time) but too small to have multiple man- agers. Thus, unless otherwise stated, response statistics for all other survey questions in this report are limited to those respondents. Question 35 asked respondents how many nondriver employees they had (not including themselves). Table 9 pre- sents the response breakdowns for respondents of interest (i.e., those answering “c” in Question 34). Question 36 asked their years of experience as a carrier owner/manager, and Question 37 asked their total years of experience in commercial truck/bus operations. Table 10 provides summary statistics of their answers. Altogether, the 111 respondents claimed 1,972 years expe- rience as owners/managers and 2,747 years total experience in CMV transport. As a group, they are highly experienced. (34) Which best describes yo u and your co mp any ? No. Respondents (a) Solo owner–operator (i.e., you are the only driver) 30 (b) Driver (drives 50% or mo re of the tim e), but also operates other vehicles and em ploys other drivers 47 (c) Co mp any owner/ ma nager. Drives less than 50% of the ti me . Perfor ms mo st ma nagement and supervision tasks, including safety and co mp liance 112 (d) Owner/manager of company large enough to have multiple managers, including a designated manager of safety and/or compliance 73 Total: 262 TABLE 8 RESPONDENT COMPANY “FUNCTIONAL” SIZE How many nondriver employees? 0 1 2 3 4 or More Total N Number of respondents: 22 29 17 11 32 111 TABLE 9 CARRIER NUMBER OF NONDRIVER EMPLOYEES (EXCLUDING OWNER/MANAGER) Statistic: Question: Range Median Mean SD (36) Number of years experience as carrier owner/manager 1 to 50 16 17.8 11.6 (37) Total years experience in commercial truck/bus operations 2 to 56 25 24.8 10.4 SD = Standard Deviation. TABLE 10 SUMMARY STATISTICS ON PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE OF SM RESPONDENTS

Question 38 asked respondents to state the number of power units (i.e., tractors, trucks, or buses) currently in their fleets. Table 11 provides summary statistics of their answers for these respondents. Question 39 asked respondents to select the truck or bus operation type that best characterized their fleet. The number of responses in each category is listed in Table 12. Less-than- 16 truckload (LTL) was not provided as an option because these carriers are rarely small and were not targeted in the survey solicitations. Specific survey findings are noted in chapter four, Evi- dence Review, as part of the discussion of various safety management topics. Chapter five, Conclusions (specifically, Study Survey Finding), recaps major survey findings. Operation Type No. Respondents (a) Truck for hire: long haul/truckload, national 34 (b) Truck for hire: long haul/truckload, regional 28 (c) Truck for hire: local/short haul (most trips < 100 miles) 8 (d) Truck private industry: long haul, national or regional 3 (e) Truck private industry: local/short haul (< 100 miles) 4 (f) Passenger carrier: scheduled service 0 (g) Passenger carrier: charter 30 (h) “Other” 2 Total (N): 109 TABLE 12 SM RESPONDENTS’ FLEET OPERATION TYPES Statistic: Question: Range Median Mean SD Number of carrier power units for respondents meeting study criterion (i.e., Question 34 = “c”). 1 to 50 7 10.1 10.4 SD = Standard Deviation. TABLE 11 RESPONDENT FLEET SIZE

Next: Chapter Three - Case Studies »
Safety Management in Small Motor Carriers Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program (CTBSSP) Synthesis 22: Safety Management in Small Motor Carriers explores small motor carriers' strengths and weaknesses in safety management, and identifies potentially effective safety practices.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!