Click for next page ( 6

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 5
5 itoring, and accident review. Trucking company statistics were Past CTBSSP Synthesis Reports disaggregated by number of carrier power units (19, 1024, 2550, 51100, and >100). Bus company statistics were pro- This report extensively cites past CTBSSP reports, especially vided separately, but not disaggregated by company size. The those addressing core carrier safety management functions. current study definition of small carriers spans several of None of these past reports focused primarily on small carrier Stock's smaller carrier size categories. To avoid the presenta- issues; however, many of them addressed issues of impor- tion of an excessive number of statistics, Stock's statistics for tance to small carriers. More information on the CTBSSP, just one category (typically 10 to 24 trucks) are typically cited including free downloads of all past reports can be found at: in this report. Exceptions are made when there are large dif- ferences across Stock's smaller categories. Stock also ana- TruckandBusSafetySynthesisProgram.aspx. lyzed roadside inspection data from the U.S.DOT MCMIS and compared driver and vehicle violation rates by carrier size. DISCLAIMERS Best Highway Safety Practices: A Survey of the Survey Five disclaimers are necessary regarding the study method- of the Safest Motor Carriers About Safety Management ology and the information presented in this report: Practices. Under the sponsorship of the FMCSA, the Univer- sity of Maryland (UM) Supply Chain Management Center 1. Several commercial products and services are mentioned surveyed "best safety performers" to identify and define their in the course of the interviews and evidence review. No safety management programs and policies (Corsi and Barnard product or service was formally evaluated for this report. 2003). The study identified best safety performers through a Company and brand names provided are illustrative of two-step process, which included review of SafeStat perfor- available products and services. Neither TRB nor this mance data and recommendations from FMCSA state safety report endorses any company, product, or service. directors. A survey completed by 148 safe trucking compa- 2. There are regulatory and government policy issues and nies formed the basis for their report. Survey areas included activities underway regarding various topics in this general company information, driver hiring practices, driver report, especially those relating to motor carrier enforce- training practices, encouraging and reinforcing safe driving ment. This report did not systematically address these behavior, managing and monitoring driver abilities, and man- issues and makes no policy recommendations. 3. Project survey data are based on convenience samples aging vehicle maintenance. Many of the questions asked for of responding motor carrier managers. Survey data respondent opinions of the importance of various practices, represent the opinions and practices of the respondent rather than simply asking if the practice was done. Statistics samples, not of larger populations such as "all carrier for three carrier size categories were presented: 124, 2594, managers." As explained in chapter two, survey sam- and >95 power units. Statistics were also disaggregated by ples in projects of this nature contain inherent biases cargo commodity types. No bus companies were included in toward respondents who are more active and interested the study. in the topic at hand. 4. Statements reported in the project case studies are those Key caveats regarding both the I-95 Corridor and UM of the interviewees. The opinions expressed in the case reports are similar to those for the current report. Most notably, study summaries do not necessarily reflect those of the the respondent samples in each should not be construed as report authors or TRB. representative samples of the motor carrier industry. Rather, 5. Chapter five suggests 27 safety management practices they represented "best performers" who were willing to take believed by the authors to be generally effective based the time to complete project surveys and share information on all project information sources. Not all of these on their practices. Further, in the UM study there was a con- methods would be useful or applicable to every motor certed effort to limit the survey to best safety performers carrier. They are presented as ideas for consideration, based on compliance data. not as industry standards.