Click for next page ( 52

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 51
51 For example, one provides maintenance and driving training CSA is a major paradigm shift in government safety sur- materials and a safety newsletter for employees. In dis- veillance because it monitors every driver individually in cussing plans for further growth, interviewees mentioned addition to monitoring carriers (Bearth 2010). In addition, far that they would like to be able to delegate driver training to more safety-related data are recorded. Under CSA, every another company employee instead of doing it themselves. inspection and moving violation (including official warn- ings) is recorded, whereas in the past it was only OOS viola- tions and moving violation convictions. CSA puts drivers DRIVER SUPERVISION with serious violations under probation and then suspends their licenses for a second serious violation during the pro- Once drivers are hired, oriented, and trained, they must be bationary period. Each of the seven CSA BASICs provides a supervised. This section deals with management and super- measure of driver safety. Carriers can monitor these metrics vision of drivers during their tenures with companies. Key along with their own performance evaluation metrics. A management functions include evaluating drivers, deter- caveat is that a high majority of small carriers have insuffi- mining and applying management actions (i.e., rewarding cient compliance data to be reliably ranked under the CSA and punishing driver behaviors), and working to retain SMS (GAO 2011). Nevertheless, a carrier's recorded data drivers. These three functions are addressed in the follow- relating to each of the metrics is accessible to the carrier for ing sections. monitoring. Driver Evaluation Beyond the tracking of driver violations and other out- comes, carriers can directly monitor their drivers' behav- Measuring and evaluating driver performance is a key ele- iors. Onboard safety monitoring (OBSM) is potentially a very ment of carrier safety management. Recall from Figure 4, for strong technique for driver evaluation, because it has all the example, that it is a major aspect of successful safety and features of effective performance measurement and feed- health management systems. Recall also the earlier discus- back to drivers (Hickman et al. 2007; Knipling 2009). Driving sion of survey results from CTBSSP Synthesis 21 (Knipling behaviors that may be monitored include top speeds (also et al. 2011) in which both carrier safety managers and other known as overspeeds), sharp vehicle decelerations (i.e., hard- experts in motor carrier safety were asked about the relative braking), lateral accelerations (indicative of speed on curves), importance of five different areas of safety management. The idling times, and fuel usage. If vehicles lack dedicated onboard five areas were (1) driver preparation (e.g., entry-level train- monitors, they can still be taken to a dealership for a readout ing), (2) driver selection and hiring, (3) communications of the engine ECM (as is done by case study Carrier H). (e.g., safety meetings), (4) driver evaluation, and (5) driver Crash avoidance systems such as Forward Collision Warning rewards and discipline. Both respondent groups rated the two can also be monitoring systems to detect at-risk behaviors assessment activities, driver selection and driver evaluation, such as tailgating. Advantages of OBSM over conventional as being more important than the other three functions, which driver safety measures include the following (from Knipling could be characterized as behavior change activities. Figure 2009): 10 illustrated these survey results. OBSM provides a 100% sample of driver behavior. Multiple aspects of driver performance can be monitored, It captures specific behaviors that cause crashes, inci- including driving skills and habits (through direct observa- dents, and violations. tion), vehicle care (e.g., pre- and post-trip inspections), road- Positive driving behaviors can be seen and rewarded. side inspection violations, moving violations, crashes (of Negative driving behaviors can be seen and corrected various categories), near-misses, cargo loss, other incidents, before a crash, incident, or violation occurs. vehicle care, and loading and unloading practices (ATAF Driving behavior-based benchmarks can be established 1999b; Knipling 2009). Measuring employee performance so drivers know where they stand in relation to carrier is important for at least two fundamental reasons. First, it expectations. informs management both with regard to the individual's Evaluations, feedback, and consequences (including both performance, but also with regard to potential company- rewards and punishments) can be frequent and timely. wide issues. Second, it permits feedback to employees. The Feedback Principle is one of the most universal psycho- Carriers monitor individual driver fuel economy to reduce logical principles (Holland 1975). Feedback, also known costs, but it can also be an effective form of safety monitor- as knowledge of results, consistently facilitates learning and ing. Drivers who excel in fuel economy are also "smooth performance improvement. Feedback is most effective when operators." They tend to glide through traffic, avoiding rapid it is immediate (or as prompt as possible), behavior-based, accelerating and decelerations. They drive defensively with objective, credible (i.e., regarded as valid), and constructive. good space management. An international initiative called "Constructive" means that it is presented in a way that sug- "Ecodriving" has trained thousands of heavy vehicle operators gests a path to improvement, rather than just as blame for on driving techniques to reduce fuel usage. One Ecodriving failure. training program reduced truck driver fuel consumption by

OCR for page 51
52 27%, gear changes by 29%, and hard brake applications by five safety management areas in the CTBSSP Synthesis 21 41% (Symmons and Rose 2009). survey (Knipling et al. 2011). The I-95 Corridor Coalition "Best Practices" study (Stock A few case study interviewees had vehicles equipped with 2001) found that more than 90% of carriers of all sizes regu- OBSM and/or monitored driver fuel economy. Carrier H did larly monitored their drivers' citations. Most also closely mon- not have onboard computers but did get a quarterly download itored HOS and logbook violations, although percentages of data from its vehicle engines' ECMs. This allowed them were not as high for smaller carriers. Carrier size differences to review records for overspeeds and hard braking events. were seen in several types of driver behavioral evaluation as follows: Rewards and Discipline Observe drivers on the road Perhaps the most powerful and far-reaching principle in Small (1024 vehicle) carriers: 25% Large (>100 vehicle) carriers: 54%. behavioral science is the Law of Reinforcement and Punish- Use motorist call-in number to receive comments ment, also known as the Law of Effect (Holland 1975). It ("How's My Driving?"): states that behaviors that are rewarded will continue and Small carriers: 17% likely increase in frequency, whereas those that are punished Large carriers: 30%. will generally decrease in frequency. Although most people Use OBSM or vehicle tracking: do not think of this as a scientific principle, they practice it Small carriers: 16% every day in their interactions with their co-workers, their Large carriers: 45%. family members, and their pets. Both rewards and punish- ments have strong effects on future behaviors. Over the long Corsi and Barnard (2003) reported that most driver eval- term, rewarding desired behavior is a more reliable and uation criteria used by carriers are outcome-based as opposed effective approach than is punishing undesirable behavior to behavior-based. They include crashes, FMCSR viola- (Krause et al. 1999; Hickman et al. 2007). One can shape and tions, traffic violation convictions, and public complaints. sustain complex behaviors (e.g., following multiple safety The researchers noted a difference between large and small rules and procedures) with positive rewards, including non- carriers in their methods of evaluating drivers. Large and material rewards such as positive recognition. Punishments small carriers were roughly equivalent in their use of vari- can reduce unwanted behaviors, but they also provoke nega- ous driver safety metrics based on time (e.g., crashes and tive emotions such as aggression and escape. For commercial violations over the past year). However, large carriers were drivers, "escape" means turnover and churning. much more likely to use metrics based on mileage exposure. For example, 46% of large (>95 vehicle) carriers tracked Behavior Based Safety (BBS) is the application of behav- driver crashes over a specified number of miles, whereas ioral science to industrial safety. BBS engages workers in the only 17% of small (124 vehicle) carriers did so. Although improvement process, teaches them to identify and observe basing driver metrics on mileage exposure requires more critical safety behaviors, provides feedback to encourage recordkeeping and tabulations, it generally provides more improvement, and uses gathered data to target system factors valid assessments. for positive change (Krause et al. 1999; Hickman et al. 2007). BBS combines applied behavior analysis, behavior modifi- Question 7 asked the importance of "Assessing driver cation, quality management, organization development, and on-road safety (i.e., knowing how safe your drivers are)." risk management. It makes heavy use of rewards, usually in Respondents gave this safety problem an average rating of the form of positive recognition, to reinforce safety improve- 3.0 on the 04 scale, putting it near the top of the 14 items ments. Material rewards such as pay bonuses may be used, surveyed. Question 24 asked if carriers monitored individual but many BBS practitioners believe that awarding large pay driver fuel economy. As discussed earlier, driver fuel econ- bonuses for safety can become a source of discord within omy is a valid safety metric in addition to being an efficiency organizations, as those not receiving the awards may believe measure. Of 112 respondents, 80 monitored driver fuel econ- that they have been treated unfairly. BBS has an unmatched omy. As a safety management practice, it received a mean record of success in preventing occupational accidents and effectiveness rating of 2.8 on the 04 scale. injuries in industrial settings such as factors and utilities. Guastello (1993) reviewed 53 occupational safety and health Question 31 presented ten areas of carrier safety manage- studies and found that applying BBS reduced injury rates by ment and asked respondents to select up to three that were the an average of 60% across the studies. most important. Choice (c) was, "Driver evaluation (i.e., vio- lation and incident tracking, ride-alongs, covert observations Unfortunately, commercial vehicle transport is not an ideal of driving, onboard computer monitoring)." This choice setting for applying conventional BBS methods such as direct received the fifth most votes of the ten items. As noted pre- behavioral observation and group-based feedback. The work viously, driver evaluation was rated the most important of of commercial drivers is largely solitary and geographically

OCR for page 51
53 removed from their home work station. OBSM, described belts). Punishments are to be timely and certain, but they do earlier, is the most effective means of providing the neces- not have to be severe to be effective (Hickman et al. 2007; sary observations of safety behaviors upon which to base Knipling 2009). BBS emphasizes that consequences be in improvement efforts. Another (and complementary) approach response to specific behaviors, not personality traits or atti- is behavioral self-management (Geller and Clarke 1999). tudes. In other words, "punish the sin but not the sinner." Drivers may be taught to consider their own at-risk driving behaviors, their antecedents (situations leading to them), and In a management textbook covering all types of busi- their consequences. Drivers are encouraged to objectively nesses, Nelson and Economy (2005) suggested the following observe and measure their own behavior, set goals for improve- sequence of disciplinary steps for employees performing ment, self-monitor their progress, and reward themselves for poorly or misbehaving: (1) verbal counseling, (2) written successes. Successful behavioral self-management can be counseling (i.e., document incident and any consequences), reinforced by positive recognition by the carrier and by tan- (3) giving negative performance evaluations (e.g., in an gible rewards. Figure 11 shows a behavioral flowchart model annual evaluation), and (4) termination. In CMV operations, of behavioral monitoring (see the earlier evaluation discus- a possible intermediate disciplinary step between (3) and sion) and behavior change interventions (e.g., feedback and (4) is temporary suspension. positive reinforcement) reduce risk, which in turn reduces crashes, violations, and their consequences. In the FMCSA/UM Survey of Safest Motor Carriers, Corsi and Barnard (2003) reported that 77% of its respond- The most obvious reward for working is pay, and most ing carriers had safety reward programs for individual CMV drivers are paid by the mile. Incentive pay by produc- drivers. Small carriers were less likely to have a rewards tivity is well-established in trucking and in many other pro- program than were medium and large carriers, however. The fessions; however, an inherent concern is that it may foster respective percentages were 48% for small carriers (124 at-risk behaviors such as working excessive hours and speed- vehicles), 90% for medium carriers (2594 vehicles), and ing. Recognitions and rewards for driving safety are a way 91% for large carriers (>95 vehicles). Types of rewards to counterbalance productivity incentives and establish an included verbal praise, public recognition, letters from man- expectation and social norm of safety within a company. agement, safety decorations, cash, and merchandise. Ordi- narily, rewards were time-based (e.g., one year of crash-free Structuring a system for recognition and rewards for safe driving) rather than mileage-based. This was especially true driving behaviors has proven effectiveness in CMV transport. for small carriers. Nevertheless, nearly all carriers must also issue reprimands and penalties for driver offenses, and they are rated effec- In the I-95 Corridor Coalition "Best Practices" study, Stock tive by managers in surveys (e.g., Corsi and Barnard 2003; (2001) found that 49% of responding small (1024 vehicle) Knipling et al. 2003). Punishment is effective for reducing or carriers offered their drivers incentive or bonus programs for eliminating specific behaviors. It is important that penalties safety performance, whereas 82% of large (>100 vehicle) be applied uniformly for specific, announced behaviors (e.g., fleets did so. Larger carriers were also somewhat more likely following too closely) or "non-behaviors" (nonuse of safety to reward drivers for making safety suggestions, and to FIGURE 11 Behavioral model for reducing crashes, violations, and associated consequences through monitoring and behavior change. Source: Knipling and Hyten (2010).

OCR for page 51
54 encourage drivers to participate in safety championships load sector (Knipling 2009; ATRI 2011). ATA conducts a (that often are organized by state trucking associations). quarterly survey of driver turnover rates in large truckload car- riers, smaller truckload carriers, and LTL carriers. Turnover In a study of carrier safety in relation to economic health, rates decreased during the "great recession" of 20082009, Rodriguez et al. (2004) found that small carriers with high but the most recent statistics from the first quarter of CY 2011 liquidity tended to have better safety performance. Liquidity find rates rising again (Watson 2011). The annual driver was defined as the ratio of net carrier operating income to turnover rate for larger truckload fleets (those with $30+ mil- outstanding debt. The effect was not strong, but it suggested lion in sales) rose to 69%, whereas that for smaller truckload to the authors that financially healthy firms were better able fleets was at 50%. Consistent with past findings, the driver to properly reward and equip their drivers. Consistent with turnover rate at LTL fleets was much lower at 8%. Among this finding, the study also found that small firms that devoted truckload carriers, the smaller companies' advantage appears a higher share of their revenues to labor expenses tended to to reflect the more personal relationships found between man- have better safety outcomes. According to the authors, "these agement and drivers. Quoted in Transport Topics (Watson results suggest that it is important for public policy to encour- 2011), Richard Mikes, a former official with Ruan Leasing, age small firms to rely on higher driver compensation in place stated that smaller fleets "seem to relate better to their drivers. of the kind of driver monitoring, training, and supervision The driver is definitely viewed on a personal basis." He added that larger firms can provide." that smaller fleets tend to run shorter trips, which gives drivers more time at home. Question 8 asked the importance of "Correctly reward- ing good driver behaviors and disciplining bad behaviors." Driver retention promotes safety in multiple ways, as Respondents gave this safety problem an average rating of listed in the textbox. Many of the same personal traits asso- 2.9 on the 04 Likert scale, making it the fifth highest of item ciated with driver safety are also associated with longevity as averages. Question 20 asked if carriers gave drivers bonuses an employee (Knipling et al. 2011). These include emotional or other rewards for safe driving. Approximately half of the stability, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (Zimmerman respondents, 52 of 111, did so. As a safety management prac- 2008). In addition, longevity with a company changes drivers tice, it received a mean effectiveness rating of 2.8 on the 04 in ways that promote safety. Route familiarity is beneficial to scale. Question 31 presented ten areas of carrier safety man- safety (Knipling 2009). Retained drivers also become more agement and asked respondents to select up to three that proficient with company safety procedures and acceptance of were most important. Choice (d) was "Driver performance safety policies. Low driver turnover means less management consequences; that is, rewards and discipline." Surprisingly, time spent on activities such as recruiting, hiring, and new perhaps, this choice received the eighth most votes of the employee orientation. This frees more time for supervision of ten items. drivers and operations. Further, there is a "positive feedback loop" between driver retention and safety (Knipling 2009). The following are some survey comments relating to the Improved safety makes a company more desirable for current general topic of driver supervision: and prospective drivers, which further supports retention. If you hire correctly, train effectively (not only at hire With some exceptions, driver turnover rate varies directly but throughout employment), use onboard monitor- with company size, giving small carriers a safety advantage ing, and set your trucks at 65, you will do fine in all in this aspect of safety and operations. A 1999 survey of 422 departments. . . . Safety does pay. trucking firms (Min and Emam 2003) found that most small Driver training and CDL requirements for motorcoach carriers (defined as those with 149 trucks) had low turnover 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 Retention Improves Safety person on payroll and make it their business to person- ally check out every driver every day! Big companies Company employment more desirable. are a big problem when they look only for income and Retained drivers generally safer and more stable. not their relationship with those who provided it. Fewer "bad apples." Fewer entry-level drivers. Drivers more familiar with routes. Retention Drivers more familiar with company policies and pro- cedures. There is a current and continuing shortage of qualified com- Less management time spent on hiring and training. mercial drivers in the United States, in spite of the high More management time for current drivers and opera- unemployment rate. Commercial driver turnover, owing in tions. large part to driver "churning" among different companies, Source: Knipling (2009). continues to be an industry problem, especially in the truck-