National Academies Press: OpenBook

Distracted Driving Countermeasures for Commercial Vehicles (2012)

Chapter: Chapter Three - Survey Methods and Results

« Previous: Chapter Two - Literature Review
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Survey Methods and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Distracted Driving Countermeasures for Commercial Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14638.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Survey Methods and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Distracted Driving Countermeasures for Commercial Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14638.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Survey Methods and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Distracted Driving Countermeasures for Commercial Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14638.
×
Page 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Survey Methods and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Distracted Driving Countermeasures for Commercial Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14638.
×
Page 32
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Survey Methods and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Distracted Driving Countermeasures for Commercial Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14638.
×
Page 33

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.

BACKGROUND This chapter describes the screening survey approach and pro- vides principal results. The screening survey served to identify fleet managers willing to participate in the structured inter- view portion of the project. Because the sample size was small these results should not be used for unintended purposes. The survey asked fleet managers questions about distraction-related safety problems they faced, what counter- measures they used, and the effectiveness of these practices. The survey also investigated the views of these respon- dents regarding various warning modes for driver assis- tance systems. A general caveat regarding the survey responses is that they were primarily subjective responses to subjective questions. Another caveat is that, because this was a screening survey, the responses are not a representative sample of some larger pop- ulation such as “all carrier owners/managers.” In spite of these caveats, survey findings are revealing because of the compar- ative information they provide; for example, the perceived relative importance of various safety problems and perceived relative effectiveness of solutions. In addition to the extensive industry outreach conducted by team member ATRI, the support of the National Private Truck Council and the American Bus Association was critical to the success of the survey. These organizations solicited sur- vey participation by their members through e-mail requests containing links to the online survey. The original survey is provided as Appendix A. Survey results for Motor Carriers are provided in Appendix B, and results for Motor Coaches can be found in Appendix C. SURVEY ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY Description of Responding Carriers Motor Carriers There were 34 responses to the survey from motor carriers. Respondents typically had more than 20 years experience as a safety manager and they reported that the majority of their time is focused on safety. Large and small fleets were repre- sented: the number of power units ranged from 7 to 31,000, with a mean of 1,666. The fleet operation type was primarily 30 for-hire, with a substantial representation from private fleets. Both long- and short-haul operations were well-represented. As to operational mode, truckload and less-than-truckload operations were represented, with a substantial number of tanker operations, including hazmat. The responding fleets primarily use employee drivers, with a substantial number also using contract drivers in part of their operation. Twenty- one respondents volunteered to do follow-up interviews for the structured interview portion of the project. Motor Coaches There were 13 responses to the survey from motor coaches. Respondents typically had approximately 16 years experience as a safety manager and on average half of their time is focused on safety. Large and small fleets were represented: the number of power units ranged from 21 to 2,300, with a mean of 456. Both local and long-haul passenger transport were represented. Several respondents volunteered to do follow-up interviews for the structured interview portion of the project. However, efforts to arrange follow-up interviews were not successful. Role of Driver Distraction in the Overall Safety Picture Motor Carriers There was wide agreement that driver distraction from all sources is a significant safety issue for fleet operations. Only one respondent disagreed with this statement. As to a driver’s personal electronic devices causing distraction, again there was wide agreement, with two respondents disagreeing. The picture is mixed for identifying job-related devices with dis- traction. Several respondents believed that this is the case; however, a number were neutral and several disagreed. As to the latter, several respondents noted that their company devices do not allow interaction while the unit is moving. In the comments, driver distraction was considered a “number one concern”; however, several noted that distrac- tions have always been present in the truck cab; that is, “we cannot blame just the electronics.” Remarks were made to dis- courage anything that causes a driver to “take his eyes off the road or the driver’s mind away from his driving.” Another respondent noted that eating and drinking while driving has increased with the advent of the 14-hour limit. CHAPTER THREE SURVEY METHODS AND RESULTS

31 Some respondents commented that more awareness and driver training should be set as goals within carriers’ safety programs, with one noting that training and policy measures to address distracted driving practices have significantly reduced their distractive driving exposure. Although it is important to keep the driver’s mind stimu- lated, one respondent commented “there needs to be an under- standing that there is a line that can be crossed. You don’t want a cab with nothing at all going on, but you need to eliminate dis- tractions that remove the driver’s concentration from his driv- ing duties. Removing CB radios, other radios, and sources of entertainment would tend to lull the driver into boredom and sleep. This opinion comes from my experience as a driver.” Company culture and driver relations come into play as well. One respondent noted that “technology has created the issue and truly needs to assist in solving this problem. Cell phones are of particular interest for safe driving. Monitoring drivers for these distractions is certainly possible; however, it becomes an issue with big brother watching over a driver. As a private fleet with low turnover, the company culture will suffer if the right balance between monitoring, safety, and trust is not achieved.” Motor Coaches Although the means for motor coach responses were very sim- ilar to those for motor carriers, there was slightly more diver- sity in the responses. Again, there was wide agreement that driver distraction from all sources is a significant safety issue for fleet operations, with only one respondent disagreeing with this statement. As to a driver’s personal electronic devices causing distraction, nine agreed with this statement and two disagreed. Eight respondents agreed that job-related devices contribute to distraction, with three disagreeing. In the comments, several mentioned the unique aspects of passenger transportation, specifically the role of passenger interactions in distraction. One noted that his tour drivers “by definition . . . are distracted drivers” and dispatch commu- nication and operation of on-board systems such as audio entertainment just adds to the issue. One believed that motor- coach operators needed to refrain from all device distractions and “concentrate totally on their job of transporting passen- gers in a total safe environment.” He called for enforcement to be increased against both drivers and companies, as well as for an educational process to ensure that all motor coach operators are aware of the distraction problem. Distracted Driving Behaviors Motor Carriers More than 30 of the respondents identified the following as distracted driving behaviors: • Eating, drinking, and smoking; • Reading a map or directions; • Talking on a hand-held mobile phone; • Texting and dialing a hand-held mobile phone; and • Searching or reaching for objects in the cab. There were 25 respondents who believed that talking on a hands-free phone was distracting, as well as partaking in grooming and hygiene tasks. Just fewer than 20 reported that attending to passengers and adjusting in-vehicle con- trols (entertainment and climate control) were distracting. Reading billboards was cited by 14 respondents, and one noted that writing down state line crossings was an addi- tional distraction. Motor Coaches Ten or more respondents identified the following as distracted driving behaviors: • Passenger interactions; • Eating, drinking, and smoking; • Grooming and hygiene; • Reading a map or directions; • Talking on a hand-held mobile phone; • Texting and dialing a hand-held mobile phone; and • Searching or reaching for objects in the cab. There were eight respondents who believed that talking on a hands-free phone was distracting. Reading billboards was cited as distracting by six respondents, about half of the group. Devices Contributing to Distracted Driving Motor Carriers More than 30 respondents believed that driver’s personal elec- tronic devices contributed to distracted driving. The next most prevalent were job-related devices contributing to distracted driving, with responses ranging from 20 to 25, specifically onboard entertainment and GPS navigation systems. Eight respondents said aftermarket active safety systems were a distraction concern, about the same number as those who indicated weigh-in-motion. One respondent noted that although “. . . anything taking your eyes off the road is technically a distraction, every safety professional has seen consequences for something as simple as changing the radio station. But we obviously don’t want everything regulated. There’s no way to enforce look- ing at a billboard.” To reduce some in-cab distractions, a respondent noted that “we have programmed our satellite communication sys- tems to ‘blank out’ their screens when tractors are in motion.

We have also employed a text-to-voice system to read aloud directions to customer facilities, preventing drivers from having to read directions from paper while driving.” Others believed that phone conversations can hold a driver’s attention and distract from driving, that audio devices are more distracting than visual devices, and that adjusting controls or reading billboards are things that are done by choice when the time is right. As one individual noted, “The behavior is difficult to change, thus it takes a strong commit- ment from management. We need to lead by example. I would appreciate a system that would disable all personal device electronics while the vehicle is in motion [so as to] take away the temptation on the front end to effect behavior change.” Motor Coaches Ten or more respondents believed that a driver’s personal electronic devices and on-board entertainment systems con- tribute to distracted driving. The next most prevalent sources were job-related devices and GPS navigation systems. Four respondents reported that aftermarket active safety systems were a distraction concern. One comment noted that commercial drivers do “an out- standing job given all of the distractions required” in addition to maintaining safe driving. Another mentioned that there have been “way too many” motor coach accidents that could have been avoided if proper rules and laws had been fol- lowed. This respondent also noted that driver fatigue remains an important safety issue. Effective Distracted Driving Countermeasures Motor Carriers The group responded as to distracted driving countermeasures they see as effective, in terms of measures external to the company, internal to the company, and internal to the vehicle. External to the company, insurance penalties only received seven responses, whereas there was a strong affirmative response (20–25) to cell phone prohibition laws and education campaigns (on the risks of driving with cell phones and dis- tracted driving in general). Approximately half of the respon- dents believed that increased fines for driving while using cell phones would be effective. Internal to the company, the strongest response was in sup- porting a strong safety culture and clear employee policies and consequences for violations. Approximately 25 respon- dents noted that good recruiting and post-incident coaching are effective countermeasures. Emphasizing the importance of company culture, one noted that 32 Safety culture as a whole is key, and both policies and training/ coaching practices play a part. If drivers see how serious you are regarding on-road distraction, then they will be just as seri- ous. If it’s never mentioned, and they’re still pushed from an operational standpoint to answer their phone or use their job- related electronic device no matter where they are (driving or not), then they may consider the distraction ‘supported’ by the carrier. Reinforcing this point was this comment: ‘Com- placency is our greatest enemy. We have to keep drivers focused on the task at hand. Whether they are driving, loading or unloading we have to train them to stay focused on what they are doing.’ Nevertheless, respondents noted their frustration with en- forcement of policies, in that “policies do work sometimes, but to have a policy for everything that can happen is ridicu- lous. How do you enforce them? You are not in the cab with them. You can say that you are going to terminate them, but it is usually after something has happened.” Another view emphasized the value of awarding drivers who demonstrate and develop a safe employment record, and the importance of communicating driver safety deficiencies immediately with the driver. Internal to the vehicle, the highest response (25 responses) was to implement lock-out functions on company devices when the vehicle is being driven. Responses ranging in the low 20s advocated: • Banning the use of personal communications, • Taking care in placing aftermarket devices within the cab, • Using active safety systems, • Conducting ride-along observations, and • Implementing automatic video monitoring (the “most effective tool” for one carrier). About half of the responses supported the effectiveness of dispatcher messages sent with different levels of urgency, so that the driver can defer reading nonurgent messages until safely parked. As one noted, “We need to ensure that the dispatch/operations department provides the driver the highest quality data available to minimize any distractions from that end of the operation.” Fourteen believed that monitoring systems that provide retrospective feedback on the driver’s distraction statistics were useful. As to cell phone use, 10 each said they sup- ported a company policy only banning cell phone use while driving, and a company policy only allowing hands-free or voice-operated communication devices while driving. Com- bined, this indicates that 20 advocate prohibiting use of a hand-held cell phone. The difficulty of enforcement of such policies was again mentioned, as was the desire for a device to deactivate personal communication devices or at least report their use while the vehicle is in motion. One noted that, when possible, one-on-one contact is still the best trainer. Finally, nine respondents believed that physiological moni- toring would be effective.

33 One comment noted frustration with the interaction of external versus internal factors; that is, Much of the countermeasures that anyone initiates is nullified by the government reports that state to the effect that there is no proof that there has been an increase in the number of accidents because of cell phone usage or texting while driving. I strongly believe that there is very little investigative data gathered (at the crash scene) about the cell phone, texting, Qualcomm, etc., usage in the 10 seconds before the crash. The crash data must be properly gathered in order to make a statement like that. Motor Coaches The group responded as to distracted driving countermeasures they see as effective, in terms of measures external to the company, internal to the company, and internal to the vehicle. External to the company, broad education campaigns on the risks of distracted driving were most frequently reported, with 10 responses. Cell phone driving prohibitions, increased fines for violations, and better education as to the risks of driving while phoning each received 9 responses. The concept of incor- porating insurance penalties only received 5 responses. Internal to the company, the strongest response was in sup- porting a strong safety culture and recruiting drivers with a demonstrated safety record (12 and 13 responses, respectively). Having clear employee policies and consequences for viola- tions received 11 responses. The use of post-incident coaching tools and targeted training received 10 responses each. Internal to the vehicle, the highest number of responses (12) was for the use of automatic video monitoring, with 11 respon- dents noting the importance of carefully placing aftermarket devices in the driver area. Ten responses supported banning the use of all personal communications devices, which some- what contradicts the nine responses supporting company pol- icy allowing only hands-free communications devices. About half responded that cell phone use in particular should be pro- hibited. Monitoring systems providing retrospective driver feedback, as well as ride-along observations, each received 9 responses. Use of active safety systems and physiological monitoring each received 8 responses. Functional lock-outs for company devices only received 7 responses of support, somewhat less than that indicated by motor carriers. Assessment of Human–Machine Interface Techniques Motor Carriers Opinions were provided as to the relative effectiveness of audible, visual, and haptic means of communicating informa- tion to the driver by means of devices not integrated into the vehicle, as well as graded warnings (warnings that progress from less urgent to more urgent if the driver does not respond). Audible alerts were clearly seen as effective (with a mean of 3.8 on a 5-point scale, with 5 indicating “highly effective”); one response saw audibles as ineffective. Support for visual alerts was somewhat less (with a mean of 3.5), with responses split about evenly between “effective” and “neutral.” There was one response for “ineffective.” Opinions on haptic alerts were mixed. Although the mean was 3.4, only slightly fewer supported this than visual; three respondents saw this mode as “highly effective” and three others saw it as “ineffective.” Graded warnings received the strongest support with a mean of 3.9; 24 responses were “highly effective,” and there were no negative opinions expressed for this mode. Several respondents were concerned about false alarms and desensitization from too many alarms. One noted that, “overall, if drivers are provided accurate feedback they will then adjust their habits. Provided with feedback that is only marginally correct they will only become frustrated and more distracted. I also believe that an integrated all-in-one system would be better than the one-off systems that exist today (such as one system for speeding, one for lane departure, one for following distance, etc.).” Another reinforced this point, saying that “what makes any alert ineffective is the occur- rence of false alerts. If a driver sees regular false alerts, the technology becomes meaningless. Also, if too many warning signals are present, a driver can easily get confused which warning signal belongs to which hazard.” Motor Coaches For motor coach professionals, audible alerts were also seen as effective (a mean of 3.9 on a 5-point scale, with 5 indicating “highly effective”). Support for visual alerts was somewhat less (with a mean of 3.5), with several “effective” responses and one response for “ineffective.” Opinions on haptic alerts were largely positive; although several responded as “neutral,” there were enough supporters such that the mean was 3.6. Graded warnings received strong support with a mean of 3.8. Overall, the motor coach response on this topic was very sim- ilar to that of motor carriers. Discussion For both industry sectors, there was wide agreement that driver distraction from all sources is a significant safety issue. In terms of behaviors, although passenger interactions were the top source of distraction for motor coaches, both sectors view personal activities (eating, grooming, etc.) as major distraction sources, as well as reaching for objects and map reading. Talking, texting, and dialing on a hand-held phone were clearly seen as distracting by both groups. In terms of distracting devices, personal electronic devices received the strongest response. Job-related devices and GPS navigation systems received many responses as well. Approximately one-quarter of each group believed that aftermarket active safety systems were a distraction source.

34 There was more divergence on distracted driving counter- measures. The motor carrier industry respondents strongly supported laws prohibiting cell phone use while driving, whereas broad education campaigns on the risks of distracted driving represented the top priority for motor coach respon- dents, closely followed by support for cell phone prohibitions while driving. Insurance penalties were not strongly sup- ported by either group. Internal to the company, both groups believed that hav- ing a strong safety culture was the most important counter- measure. Careful hiring, plus clear employee policies and consequences for violations were also seen as very important. Post-incident coaching was also strongly supported by both groups. Internal to the vehicle, for motor carriers the strongest response was to implement lock-out functions on company devices when the vehicle is being driven, reflecting the high degree of interaction with dispatching in many freight oper- ations. For motor coaches the strongest response was for the use of automatic video monitoring, which was supported by more than half of the motor carrier responses. From both groups, there was strong support for banning the use of all personal communications devices, using active safety sys- tems, and carefully placing aftermarket devices in the driver area. There was strong opposition to the use of hand-held cell phones by drivers, and opinions were mixed as to allowing the use of hands-free cell phones. As to the relative effectiveness of audible, visual, and hap- tic means of communicating information to the driver by means of devices not integrated into the vehicle, there was strong alignment between both groups. All three modes were seen as effective, with audible alerts viewed as most effective. The use of graded warnings was strongly supported.

Next: Chapter Four - Structured Interviews »
Distracted Driving Countermeasures for Commercial Vehicles 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 24: Distracted Driving Countermeasures for Commercial Vehicles examines driving distractions, as well as any protective (safety-enhancing) effects of particular devices. Distracted driving for commercial drivers is defined as attending to tasks not directly related to operating the vehicle.

  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!