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 56
56 of the carriers in the study, regardless of size, instructed their likely to reflect ongoing behaviors, risk factors, and crash drivers on what to do in the event of a crash. Except for the causes. Lagging indicators such as crash rates are more likely very smallest carriers (19 trucks), more than 90% in all fleet to reflect the past. In addition, infrequent and catastrophic categories provided crash reporting forms. At the time of the outcomes such as crashes are more affected by chance. Com- study, very few mobile phones contained cameras. Instead, panies need to track and benchmark safety measures that are many drivers carried cameras in their vehicles to document current, diagnostic, and predictive of future outcomes. incidents. In the study, 38% of carriers with 1024 trucks provided drivers with cameras to document crashes, versus In a study of industrial safety in general, Glendon and Stan- 62% of large carriers (>100 trucks). Smaller carriers were ton (2000) suggest that company safety performance should be also much less likely to use trained specialists to investigate monitored frequently. Steps in developing better safety moni- crashes, or to have an in-house panel to review them. toring are shown in Figure 13. By regularly measuring and monitoring safety, companies can better understand their None of the survey questions specifically asked about crash sources of risk and appropriate responses to them. Regularly investigation procedures. The case study interviews suggest repeated measurements lead to continuous improvements. that many small carriers, especially those with good safety Glendon and Stanton stress the importance of external feed- practices, simply do not have enough crashes and incidents back; for example, benchmarking company practices against to feel the need to develop formal, in-depth investigation pro- those of other companies to determine how improvements cedures. Managers were very aware of the negative conse- might be made. quences of crashes for their drivers and their companies. In addition to the human consequences, crashes greatly affect a Carrier safety performance is ordinarily tracking using a company's financial viability (e.g., see Case Study D) and their rate or likelihood statistic; that is, an incident or outcome CSA status (e.g., see Case Study H). Negative consequences numerator divided by an exposure denominator (Knipling are usually greatest for preventable (i.e., at-fault) crashes, but 2009). Numerators include observed at-risk behaviors, crashes they may be significant for nonpreventable crashes as well. (defined by various criteria), crash costs, injuries, moving vio- lations, incidents (e.g., cargo loss), inspection violations, and complaints. Denominators include vehicle-miles traveled, CARRIER PERFORMANCE TRACKING AND BENCHMARKING carrier number of power units, number of drivers, number of inspections, driver hours, trips, and pickups and deliveries. It As noted earlier in this chapter, a company's safety climate is important that carriers consider the nature of their opera- is best measured by leading indicators of safety activity and tions and risks and carefully select a set of meaningful metrics, performance (Flin et al. 2000). Leading indicators are more those most likely to predict future safety outcomes. Metrics Establish need to measure/monitor safety Develop safety measures Regularly measure/monitor safety External comparisons (benchmark others' safety practices) Develop safety responses and practices Evaluate responses and practices FIGURE 13 Developing and sustaining a company safety monitoring system. Source: Glendon and Stanton (2000).