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.
S U M M A R Y This synthesis documents current information on various Behavior-Based Safety (BBS) strategies to increase safety-related and decrease at-risk driving behaviors of commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. This report includes an extensive literature review and case study information about innovative and successful BBS practices in work settings. A survey of motor carrier safety managers provides information on current behavioral safety management practices in commercial motor vehicle transport, including manager assessments of effectiveness. The study also provides recommendations for future research on BBS in CMV operations. Although most CMV drivers are conscientious and generally employ safe driving practices, drivers may at times drive in ways that put themselves and others at risk for a vehicle crash and serious injuries. Some CMV drivers may habitually engage in such behaviors. A previous survey of motor carrier safety managers regarding major safety management problems found âat-risk driving behaviorsâ (e.g., speeding, tailgating) to be the single most important safety-management problem. Studies indicate that driving behaviors are a significant contributing factor of large- truck crashes, and interventions aimed at increasing safe driving behaviors and reducing at-risk driving behaviors are likely to prevent many vehicle crashes. BBS provides robust positive results when applied in organizations seeking to reduce employee injuries due to at-risk behaviors. However, almost all prior BBS research has been applied in work settings where employees can systematically observe the safe versus at-risk behaviors of their co-workers. Truck and bus drivers work alone in relative isolation and thus may require alternative BBS processes. Fleet safety managersâ management practices and opinions of their effectiveness were assessed through a survey questionnaire on the topic. The research literature on the topic was reviewed, with emphasis on behavioral interventions to increase safe driving behaviors and, secondarily, safe behaviors in non-driving situations such as loading and unloading. CMV fleet safety managers are the principal audience for this synthesis. In addition, the study should be useful to government, industry, and academic personnel involved in formulating and conducting studies to gain new knowledge (i.e., research) and to create new tools (i.e., development) relating to this safety topic. Surveys were distributed primarily through an email list of attendees at transportation confer- ences and respondents from two previous CTBSSP studies conducted on carrier safety-management methods and high-risk CMV drivers. To obtain a sample of motor coach respondents, some surveys were distributed to members of the American Bus Association Safety Council. The overall return rate of the safety manager survey was about 17%. The resulting sample consisted of 65 managers from a variety of CMV operations who, because of their voluntary participation, may be considered more safety-conscious than the overall safety manager population. Before survey distribution, two focus groups were held with fleet safety managers. During these two focus groups, participants were asked to discuss their experiences with at-risk driving behaviors, behavioral observation techniques, safety-management techniques, and barriers to Impact of Behavior-Based Safety Techniques on Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers 1
2implementing safety-management techniques (with emphasis on BBS techniques). The responses from the focus groups informed the design, questions, and terminology used in the final survey distributed to fleet safety managers. The survey sent to safety managers had five parts. Respondents were first asked to rate their perceptions of the relationship between overall safety (e.g., injuries, illnesses, violations, and crashes) and at-risk driving and non-driving behaviors. Second, safety managers were asked to indicate current use of observation techniques (such as ride-alongs) or technologies (on-board safety monitoring [OBSM] devices) to track driving and non-driving behaviors. Third, safety managers were asked if they currently use specific BBS techniques and, if they responded âyes,â they were asked to rate the effectiveness of the techniques. During the focus groups, the project team discovered that few of the focus group participants implemented a comprehensive BBS program. Fourth, safety managers were asked to indicate barriers or problems in implementing BBS techniques in their organization. Finally, safety managers were asked to provide comments regarding BBS or other aspects of the survey and to complete demographic information. The following list summarizes the results from the safety manager survey: ⢠Driving vs. non-driving behaviors: Respondents generally rated the association between driving behaviors and crash and injury risk as much greater than the association between non-driving behaviors and injury and illness risk. ⢠Ride-alongs: Fifty-nine percent of respondents indicated they currently perform ride-alongs to observe safety-critical behaviors. ⢠Covert observation: Thirty-seven percent of respondents indicated they currently use covert observation techniques to observe safety-critical behaviors. ⢠Comments from the public: Fifty-nine percent of respondents indicated they receive and use comments from the public to observe safety-critical behaviors. ⢠Observation in general: Overall, 83% of respondents reported using some type of observa- tion technique to observe the safety-critical behaviors of their drivers. ⢠Intervention effectiveness: The highest-rated BBS technique was training and education pro- grams directed at specific driving behaviors, while the lowest-rated was driver self-management/ self-observation. ⢠Peer observation and feedback: Sixty-three percent of respondents indicated the use of peer observation and feedback, most commonly performed monthly. Ninety-six percent of respon- dents reported giving drivers feedback via one-on-one meetings. Most respondents (54%) give a combination of group and individual feedback. ⢠Self-management/self-observation: Thirty-two percent of respondents encourage their drivers to use safety self-management and self-observation. Feedback to drivers is typically provided via one-on-one meetings or a combination of group and individual feedback. ⢠Training on specific driving behaviors: All respondents use training and education sessions on specific driving behaviors, most often in quarterly sessions. ⢠Training on specific non-driving behaviors: Seventy-two percent of respondents indicated using training and education sessions on specific non-driving behaviors. ⢠Incentives/rewards: Eighty percent of respondents reported using incentives/rewards with their drivers. Typical rewards include safety awards (e.g., certificate, trophy), public recogni- tion, and cash. Most of these respondents indicated using some type of outcome measure (i.e., crash-free miles) to reward drivers, while few respondents indicated using process-based data (i.e., speed or brake). ⢠Disincentives/penalties: Eighty-eight percent of respondents reported using disincentives/ penalties with their drivers. Most (88%) use a memo/letter in the driverâs file. Most of these respondents indicated using crash data (93%) to punish drivers, while few respondents indicated using brake data (14%).
3⢠Content of new driver training: Most survey respondents (95%) focus on training new driv- ers how to conduct pre- and post-trip inspections of their vehicles (76%), while few focus on proper diet, exercise, or load securement (all 2%). ⢠Content of refresher training: Most survey respondents (94%) focus on refresher training/ coaching experienced drivers to drive attentively (71%), while few focus on diet, drugs, or load securement (all 2%). ⢠Barriers to use of BBS: The highest-rated barrier to the use of BBS was non-acceptance/lack of cooperation by drivers. The lowest-rated barrier/problem was driver union (or other association) opposed to it. The survey results from fleet safety managers did not always echo the results found in previously published studies. While BBS techniques have been successful in other industrial settings, few scientific studies have used these techniques with CMV drivers. Despite the widespread use and success of BBS in other industrial settings, systematic BBS programs have not been widely embraced by safety professionals in CMV operations. This synthesis shows that respondents indicated widespread use of specific BBS techniques but little use of more comprehensive BBS programs. This lack of comprehensive BBS programs may be due to the solitary nature of driving, the difficulty of capturing and documenting key safety-critical behaviors, and/or a general lack of fleet safety manager knowledge about BBS and its potential benefits. Clearly, a significant need is to develop a set of accepted practices and guidelines for implementing and using BBS tech- niques in CMV operations. Future research should address (1) how to get fleet safety managers to implement comprehensive BBS programs, (2) the efficacy and applicability of BBS programs in CMV operations, (3) a comparison of the effectiveness of process- and outcome-based incentive programs in CMV operations, (4) how OBSM devices and BBS can be integrated and used effectively in CMV operations, and (5) the need for more rigorous testing on the effectiveness of safety placards.
