National Academies Press: OpenBook

Highway Worker Safety (2017)

Chapter: Chapter One - Introduction

« Previous: Summary
Page 4
Suggested Citation:"Chapter One - Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Highway Worker Safety. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24776.
×
Page 4
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"Chapter One - Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Highway Worker Safety. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24776.
×
Page 5
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"Chapter One - Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Highway Worker Safety. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24776.
×
Page 6
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Chapter One - Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Highway Worker Safety. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24776.
×
Page 7
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Chapter One - Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Highway Worker Safety. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24776.
×
Page 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Chapter One - Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Highway Worker Safety. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24776.
×
Page 9
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Chapter One - Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Highway Worker Safety. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24776.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Chapter One - Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Highway Worker Safety. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24776.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter One - Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Highway Worker Safety. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24776.
×
Page 12

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.

5 chapter one IntroductIon Safety on our nation’s roadways is of utmost importance. State departments of transportation (DOTs) place safety of motorists, workers, emergency personnel, and others present on roadways as the top priority. This priority is present and respected during all phases of a roadway’s life cycle, from initial planning and design through construction, operation, and maintenance. Although balancing safety with other transportation network performance criteria—such as access, mobility, sustain- ability, and economic feasibility—is important, ensuring safe roadways is the primary objective of all state DOTs. The hazards present while traveling on a highway and to which employees are exposed when working in highway work sites make zero injuries and fatalities difficult to attain. Whether the result of crashes during roadway use or incidents on construction and maintenance jobsites, injuries and fatalities continue to occur across the United States. Employees present at highway work sites are exposed to an abundance of safety hazards. The hazards may be from passing traffic or work condi- tions to which employees are exposed. The safety risk can be high if sufficient controls are not in place to mitigate the risk associated with the hazards. State DOTs take significant steps to implement safety controls to create safe work sites for their employees. To do so, state DOTs work to understand the nature of the hazards present, the associated level of risk, types of injuries likely to occur, and available controls to prevent injuries. This knowledge comes from analyzing and studying work sites and injury incidents along with experiential familiar- ity with working in the transportation industry. Data sources that provide information about injury incidents are primary sources and used periodically. These sources enable state DOTs to develop traffic control plans, safety training, worker safety programs, and other safety management resources. The data sources also enable data-driven decision making that leads to effective worker safety solutions. Examples of effective worker safety programs are present in state DOTs across the country. Each state has found success through its own experience and knowledge. State DOTs have developed data resources and archiving processes to enable accurate and efficient access to pertinent data for safety management. One way to improve a state DOT’s worker safety program is to learn from other state DOTs and implement practices that other state DOTs have found to be effective. The sharing of safety practices among state DOTs also enables building on current successes to enhance safety in all states. This synthesis report explores the policies and practices that state DOTs have in place for employee safety at highway work sites. It includes an in-depth investigation of the data sources used by state DOTs and how data are used for decision making related to safety programs. The report provides descriptions of policies and practices in place across the United States that state DOTs may learn from and adopt with the hope of preventing additional injuries and fatalities at roadway work sites. This chapter provides a general background of the synthesis topic and highlights the report’s areas of focus. The section also defines relevant terms used throughout the report. The methodology for the entire study and more detailed descriptions of the methods for the individual research tasks are included. The chapter concludes with a short description of the organization of the synthesis study that briefly discusses the outline of the various research tasks presented in the report.

6 Problem Statement Summary and ScoPe Every year in the United States, highway workers who are employees of state DOTs are killed and injured while working at highway work sites. These worker injuries and fatalities are sad consequences of the high risks associated with working at active construction and maintenance work sites and on roadways near active traffic ways. One objective of state DOTs is to maintain effective safety programs and policies that minimize the safety risk to workers and the public at highway work sites. Health and safety data are often available to state DOTs to aid in the devel- opment of effective work site safety management techniques. However, these data may not be integrated with other institutional data available to state DOTs. Establishing this integration could benefit state DOT safety programs by making full use of available data and helping state safety officers detect injury and fatality trends in their state. In addition, the data can facilitate the evalua- tion of safety interventions to determine their effectiveness in reducing highway worker injury and fatalities. Each state DOT is a unique agency. Although they perform the functions of owning, designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining elements of their state’s transportation infrastructure, they all are structured differently and as a result have different responsibilities to their employees and the citizens of their state. To cover the full breadth of issues faced by the diverse set of state DOTs, this synthesis focuses on state DOT employees working at work sites on any roadway. In most cases, these roadways are the primary highways of the state; in others, they include local and county roads. This variety of functionally classed roadway environments produces various levels of risk for state DOT employees in work sites on roadways. This synthesis study encompasses a narrow but rapidly growing area of safety practice among state DOTs. The use of data and data integration to inform and evaluate state DOT highway worker safety programs is an emerging area of research. State DOTs are at various stages of leveraging avail- able data to reduce the risk to their workers at work sites. The volume of information, particularly that available in current literature and in the details of state programs based on data-driven policies, is limited owing to the relative novelty of this area of research and practice. FHWA has made the use of data for decision making a policy priority. One demonstration of this policy is the requirement that projects for the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) be selected through data-driven deci- sion making. The HSIP is a program element of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, which was signed into law in 2015 (FHWA 2016c). The purpose of this synthesis study is to examine state DOT health and safety policies and deter- mine how the policies are implemented to help protect highway workers performing their duties in work sites. Although the study focuses on safety policies, it explores the current health and safety practices in state DOTs and describes the practices predominantly in terms of nationwide trends. Based on the findings of existing practice, the study identifies gaps in knowledge and high value areas for future research. background Ensuring safe work practices in highway work sites and understanding how safety programs are developed, monitored, and assessed are important issues for state DOTs. Protecting their employees is a challenging but vital role for safety officials in state DOTs. The following sections provide relevant background to the current state of national practice regarding state DOT policies and practice for ensuring safety in work sites. Prevalence of Injuries and Fatalities The scope of injuries and fatalities that occur in work sites can be considered in seeking a better understanding of the need for practices that promote highway work site safety. One of the unique characteristics of work sites is the proximity of public vehicles passing, albeit in a controlled manner, through the construction and maintenance site.

7 A primary incident of concern that occurs in highway work sites is crashes involving public auto- mobiles; some such crashes result in injuries and fatalities to the occupants of the involved vehicle(s). In 2013, an estimated 67,523 crashes occurred in work zones throughout the United States. Of these crashes, 0.4% resulted in a fatality. Almost 73% of the crashes involved property damage only. Crashes in work zones represented 1.2% of the total number of crashes that occurred in the United States in 2013 (FHWA 2016b). Roadway workers sometimes are involved in the crashes, injuries, and fatalities associated with public automobiles, but roadway workers also are the victims of work site incidents that do not involve public vehicles (e.g., falls, cave-ins, and contact with overhead electrical lines). Road con- struction and maintenance site fatalities, which represent between 1.5% and 3.0% of nationwide workplace fatalities, have seen a decrease since 2005 (FHWA 2016b). In 2010, the annual number of fatalities (106) for any incident in a roadway work zone was 36% lower than the number of road construction and maintenance worker fatalities in 2005 (165). In addition to the fatalities that occur in work zones, more than 20,000 workers are injured in work zones each year (FHWA 2016b). This figure includes all workers (contractors, etc.) who are injured, not just employees of state DOTs. common Work Site Safety Issues Because most work sites across the nation are similar in structure and function, there are common work site conditions and worker behaviors that are intrinsic to the hazards and risks associated with highway work sites. Some hazards occur as a result of public automobiles in the work zone, whereas others are the result of the work operations being undertaken and the project being built. FHWA identifies three primary categories of worker fatalities in roadway construction and main- tenance. These categories, which include statistics relating to all fatalities in road construction and maintenance (not just state DOT employees), are as follows (FHWA 2016b): • Run overs/Back overs—The most common cause (43% in 2010) of worker fatalities is workers being run over or backed over by vehicles. These vehicles can include construction vehicles or public automobiles. • Vehicle collisions—This cause, which includes mobile equipment and can involve construction/ maintenance and nonconstruction/maintenance vehicles and equipment, accounted for 19% of roadway construction and maintenance worker fatalities in 2010. • Caught in between or struck by object—The cause of 8% of roadway construction and mainte- nance worker fatalities in 2010, these incidents were primarily caused by equipment and objects native to the construction or maintenance site. In addition to fatalities, many workers are injured in work sites. According to Lincoln and Fosbroke (2010), between 2003 and 2008, each year more than 20,000 workers performing road construction and maintenance jobs were injured. The cause of the injuries, listed by percentage, is provided here (Lincoln and Fosbroke 2010): • Contact with objects or equipment (35%); • Slips, trips, or falls (20%); • Overexertion (15%); • Transportation incidents (12%); and • Exposure to harmful substances or environments (5%). The prevalence of the causes on this list indicate that, although incidents with public vehicles are an added risk to workers at highway work sites, the hazards intrinsic to the work operations, site conditions, and worker behavior at a construction or maintenance site result in most of the worker injuries. In a significant number of these incidents, particularly the fatalities, the workers are on foot at the time of the incident and do not have a vehicle or piece of equipment to offer protection from hazards.

8 theories of Incident causation Theories of incident causation have been developed to explain why injury incidents occur in workplaces, on roadways, at home, and elsewhere. Initial insights into workplace injuries were presented by William Heinrich based on a study of industrial incidents. Heinrich developed an injury “pyramid” that depicted the relative number of injuries based on severity (Heinrich 1959). Based on his analysis of injury inci- dents, Heinrich found that of every 330 incidents, 300 were no-injury incidents, 29 were incidents with minor injuries, and one incident had a major injury (fatality) involved. Heinrich additionally presented a two-factor model of incidents, stating that incidents are the result of two primary factors: unsafe condi- tions and unsafe actions. Secondary factors include management error, design error, unintended action, and intended action; tertiary factors include violation, acts of God, slip, lapse, and mistake. Overall, Heinrich’s analysis of injury incidents found that 88% were caused by unsafe acts of persons, 10% resulted from unsafe mechanical or physical conditions, and 2% were unpreventable (Heinrich 1959). Heinrich proposed that the predominant causes of no-injury incidents (near misses) are, in average cases, identical to the predominant causes of major injuries and incidentally also of those of minor injuries. Over the years, researchers have questioned Heinrich’s findings and injury pyramid, claiming that the proposed relationship between injury severities does not accurately reflect the causes of incidents. In concert with Heinrich’s claim that most injuries that occur result from unsafe behavior, different theories of incident causation have been developed to address the behavior of workers. Prominent theories of incident causation focusing on worker behavior are described here: • Accident proneness—This theory describes the likelihood that individuals will participate in a risky behavior based on their personal factors and personality traits (Vernon 1918; Kerr 1950). It suggests that some people, because of their personal nature, are more likely to sustain injuries than are others. • Goals-Freedom-Alertness theory—This theory suggests that when a worker has well-defined and attainable goals and the freedom to work to achieve those goals, the worker is subsequently more alert and focused on achieving the goal, which leads to fewer incidents (Kerr 1950). • Adjustment stress theory—This theory hypothesizes that workers are subject to stresses on and off the job that are both internal and external. These stresses affect workers’ behavior and there- fore potential for being injured based on the relative amount of stress of a particular life event (Kerr 1957). • Distractions theory—This theory suggests that safety is situational with respect to the focus of the worker’s attention (Hinze 2006): workers who focus on productivity and not on the surround- ing safety hazards are distracted, which can lead to incidents. In addition, a worker’s mental state can be distracting and therefore represents a hazard that can lead to an incident. Kerr estimated that the adjustment stress theory explained 55% of incidents, whereas the goals- freedom-alertness and accident proneness theories explained 35% and 10%, respectively (Kerr 1957). These worker behavior-related theories can help reveal some causes of incidents that occur at highway work sites. Human error models have been developed that take into consideration the human factors that affect worker performance. Wiegmann and Shappell (2001) prepared a human factors analysis and classification system (HFACS) to organize the factors that affect worker behavior. The HFACS cat- egories are organizational influences, unsafe supervision, preconditions of unsafe acts, and unsafe acts. Categories of human error precursors also have been developed that contain indicators of when errors leading to injury incidents are likely (Hogan 2010). Examples of error precursors are time pressures, distractions/interruptions, unfamiliarity with task, and stress. All incidents are the result of at least one of the following root causes, not listed in any particular order (Gambatese et al. 2016): • Mistake/error: An unintentional miscalculation, blunder, or oversight in action or decision making. • Absent-mindedness/forgetfulness: Unintentional preoccupied wandering of the mind from the present such that one is unaware of one’s immediate surroundings. Lost in thought such that one does not realize current actions, surrounding conditions, and immediate hazards.

9 • Lack of caring/indifference: Showing little or no care or concern for personal protection or the safety of others, or giving other goals and values (e.g., profit, status, and personal opinion and feelings) higher priority than personal protection or the safety of others. • Ignorance: Lack of knowledge, experience, or information about the conditions and actions at hand. • Poor risk management: Insufficient or careless assessment of the safety risk associated with identified hazards and faulty or inferior decision making and control of the calculated risk. • High-risk tolerance: A high permissible level of risk based on which the need for safety controls is determined. • Other: Act of God. The root causes can be independent, in that only one root cause is necessary for an incident to occur, but multiple root causes also can contribute to a single incident. The human behavior root causes listed can occur at any level within a project or an organization and lead to an incident at the work site. For example, a worker may make a mistake while operating a piece of equipment. In addi- tion, a project manager can prioritize project schedule over safety and push workers to work unsafely. In another example, the root causes could be the result of inattentive motorists driving through the work site and motorists with high-risk tolerance. Subsequent incident theories and models look beyond worker behavior to work operation, project, organization, and industry impacts. The chain of events (domino) theory, first proposed by Heinrich, states that incidents are the result of a series or chain of connected events. One event leads to another, which eventually results in an incident. If any event in the chain had not occurred, the incident may have been averted. Similar to the chain of events theory is the Swiss cheese model of incident causa- tion (Reason 1990), which depicts controls as slices of Swiss cheese. A hazard results in a loss when the holes in the cheese (i.e., the defects in the safety controls) line up. The constraint-response model (Suraji et al. 2001) starts with the Swiss cheese model and extends the scope to include management and organizational aspects. The model proposes two types of inci- dent causation factors. Distal factors exist at the project management level and include project con- ception, design, and management constraints. Proximal factors occur at the site management and injured person levels and include such issues as inappropriate planning, site conditions, and work operations. Taking an approach that expands the influence on workers, the construction accident causa- tion model proposes a hierarchy of influences in construction incidents (Haslam et al. 2005). The influences nearest the worker are termed immediate incident circumstances (e.g., worker factors and site factors). Shaping factors are at the project level and include site constraints, work sched- uling, and supervision. Lastly, originating influences exist beyond the project and include such factors as safety culture, risk management, client requirements, economic climate, and worker education. There is growing recognition that incidents are caused by competing priorities and demands on workers and human performance. Based on a worker behavior model developed by Rasmussen et al. (1994), Mitropoulos et al. (2005) proposed hazard and loss of control zones that model proper task performance. For example, when management pushes for greater productivity, workers can be pushed from a safe zone into a hazard zone. If the push for productivity increases abnormally, the workers are further pressed into a loss of control zone, which eventually results in an incident. common Practices Implemented to Improve Safety Overall, state DOTs have significant autonomy to maintain safety on their roadway networks, including within work sites. Therefore, the practices implemented to improve safety can vary widely from state to state. This autonomy has both benefits and drawbacks. The ability for a state DOT to prepare its safety plan to meet the unique challenges of the work sites under its purview allows the plans to be tailored to state-specific demographic and geographic constraints. However, this

10 internal focus at the individual state level discourages interstate collaboration and data sharing among state DOTs. There are limitations to state DOT autonomy for highway work site safety. Nationwide policies and standards exist that are intended to limit risks to motorists and workers in highway work sites. These federally mandated policies are the most common national practices implemented to improve safety and are documented in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) (FHWA 2009). Part 6 of the MUTCD, “Temporary Traffic Control,” outlines the proper setup and operation of all temporary traffic control systems on roadways, including work sites. These standards, adopted by all state DOTs, provide practical policies and guidance that minimize worker and driver risk in work zones (FHWA 2009). In addition, states may produce their own supplements to the MUTCD to address unique traffic control situations present in their individual state. These supplements must be equal to, or more stringent than, the federal minimum standards presented in the MUTCD (FHWA 2009). For states to receive federal transportation funding, the state DOTs are required to prepare a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). These plans encompass all aspects of highway safety, not just work sites. However, work sites are a common element of the plans. States have the ability to develop the plans with the needs of their specific state in mind, but general guidance ensures similarities across state DOTs. The practice of producing and regularly updating the SHSP at the state level contributes to keeping safety (including work site safety) a priority for state DOTs (FHWA 2016a). In 1970, Congress passed the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act). Part of this act established the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). It is the responsibility of OSHA to ensure that employers provide “a safe and healthful workplace” and “assure safe and health- ful workplaces by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, outreach, education and assistance” (OSHA 2016a). The regulations established by OSHA, which include standards for all forms of construction and maintenance projects, apply to some state DOTs. Twenty-one states main- tain an OSHA state plan. These state agencies carry the same regulative authority as the federal OSHA but only in the state in question. In addition, federal OSHA regulations allow states to adopt plans that cover local and state government workers only, which would include state DOT employees. Five additional states have this form of OSHA state plan. OSHA reviews and approves both forms of state plans (OSHA 2016b). Therefore, many of the minimum safety practices and standards states use are based on OSHA regulations. These practices demonstrate the diversity of state DOTs. The potential for individuality—based on factors such as a state having a supplement to the MUTCD or operating a state plan OSHA program—creates an environment in which each state DOT is inherently unique. The state agencies also vary widely in their purview over the roadways of their state. For example, some states con- struct and maintain only the primary routes, whereas others are responsible for the construction and maintenance of all of roads in the state. Some state DOTs have a more supervisory role in managing contractors conducting work on the roads; others use their workforce directly to construct and main- tain roadway infrastructure. The risks workers are exposed to in each state depend on the structure of the DOT in that state; as a result, the DOTs’ practices for implementing safety programs also differ. Beyond these practices, state DOTs can implement safety practices and policies that protect high- way workers. These practices, in combination with the federal guidelines for safe work sites and risk reduction, can help to protect state employees who are performing their duties on public roadways. termInology Several terms used throughout the report require definitions specific to the context of this syn- thesis study. • Incident: Any disruption in the normal flow of work involving a highway worker employed by a state DOT in a construction or maintenance site that involves an injury, fatality, property loss, damaged equipment, work stoppage, or near miss (Hinze 2006).

11 • Accident: An unplanned event that may or may not be associated with property damage, an injury, or a fatality (Hinze 2006). This term is not used in this report unless it appears in a quotation from a source or the literature reviewed specifically uses the word in its terminology. The word “inci- dent” is used throughout this report to ensure clarity of meaning. • Crash: A specific type of incident involving a public vehicle. This term is not used in this report unless the literature reviewed or data analyzed specifically used this term for the incident that occurred. • Work site: Any location where construction or maintenance work is being done on state DOT right-of-way. • Work zone: A particular type of work site, generally in place for extended periods with estab- lished traffic control. The term appears in this report when the literature reviewed or the data analyzed specifically used the term. Otherwise, the more general term of “work site,” which includes a broader range of maintenance activities, is used. • Near miss (near hit): An incident involving a highway worker employed by a state DOT in a construction or maintenance work site that did not result in an injury or fatality to the worker. • Highway worker: An employee of a state DOT who is active in construction or maintenance work sites on state DOT right-of-way. Many of these workers are on foot within the work site. For the purpose of this synthesis, the definition does not include employees of consultants and contractors working on state-owned projects. Although this definition focuses on state DOT employees, local agency employees who are active in construction or maintenance work sites may experience work conditions similar to those of state employees, so the presented concepts and ideas related to highway workers in this report may be of value to local agencies. • Industry/Construction industry/Maintenance industry: When the term “industry” appears in the report, unless otherwise stated, it is in reference to the broader construction and maintenance industry. It is not limited to construction or maintenance in highway work sites. • Survey: The full process of developing, distributing, collecting, and analyzing data from tar- geted participants at state DOTs. • Questionnaire: This term, which is commonly used in conjunction with the survey (e.g., survey questionnaire), refers to the data collection instrument containing the questions that were elec- tronically distributed to the state DOTs to collect data regarding state DOT health and safety policies and practices. • Participant: Any state DOT safety representative who was provided access to the survey questionnaire. • Respondent: A participant in the survey process who completed the questionnaire regarding his or her state DOT’s health and safety policies and practices. The definitions of these terms, which are used in various chapters in this report, are necessary to convey the authors’ intentions accurately and limit misinterpretation. Study aPProach Four primary tasks were conducted for this synthesis report: literature review, survey, injury data analysis, and follow-up interviews. The four tasks were conducted in an order that ensured tasks that would benefit from information gathered in previous tasks would be executed in the proper order. As the most time intensive task, the survey was one of the initial tasks undertaken. This task is also central to meeting the objective of a synthesis study. A survey questionnaire was created and after several revisions placed in an online format to collect responses easily. The survey questionnaire was distributed to a list of state DOT safety officers and employees. The list was provided by the North American Association of Transportation Safety and Health Officials (NAATSHO) through the NCHRP Review Panel established for the synthesis study. The goal was to achieve an 80% response rate from state DOTs (40 of 50). After several weeks, the goal was met, and 41 state DOT responses were recorded. Chapter three contains a detailed description of the methodology involved in the development and distribution of the survey questionnaire. After the survey data were collected, they were analyzed, and relevant visualizations were generated. While the questionnaire was actively being distributed to state DOTs, the process of reviewing existing literature related to highway worker safety was continued. Two primary categories of literature

12 were considered and included in the review as appropriate background information for under- standing current highway worker safety practice. The two categories were chosen to reflect the duality of safety challenges that are present in highway work sites. Highway work sites are unique in that they maintain all of the hazards of traditional construction and maintenance operation sites but are also associated with the added risk of roadway vehicles traveling through the work site. The two categories are: • Research concerning primarily the safety issues related to the presence of public vehicles within highway work sites. These issues are those that are unique to highway construction and main- tenance sites, such as the behavior of vehicles in a work site and the prevalence of incidents involving highway workers and public automobiles. • The safety-related hazards, issues, and research for the construction and maintenance industry as a whole. The sources reviewed for this category applied to all work within work sites, which includes highway work sites. The focus of this category of research was safety issues that occur within the construction and maintenance areas of work sites, regardless of the presence of pub- lic vehicles. In addition, this category included documents that describe standard worker safety programs in the construction and maintenance industry and ways in which organizations can enhance the safety of their employees. While the literature review was conducted, an analysis of publicly available data sets relating to highway worker safety also was being done. The data sets explored were determined in the scoping phase of the synthesis study. The seven data sets were: • Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), • Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), • National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), • National Council of Compensation Insurance (NCCI), • Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), • Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2), and • State DOT data. The researchers determined that no easily accessible, publicly available data could be obtained from the NCCI database. Therefore, the data set was not included as a data source in the injury data analysis. The other six data sources were analyzed. The primary objective of the task was to gain an understanding of the types of data that are available in each of the sources. The researchers per- formed example analyses on the data sets to demonstrate the range and limitations of the each of the individual data sets. After the survey responses were collected, they were searched for evidence of noteworthy safety program elements. The goal for determining these noteworthy elements was to follow up with the state DOTs about the programs and develop case examples that explored in detail the aspects of each of the safety programs. This exploration focused on the existing use of data in state DOT safety programs. One of the survey questions asked the respondents if they would be willing to participate in a short follow-up interview. Among the respondents who indicated they would participate in an interview, several state agencies were identified that showed the potential for providing a useful case example. The personnel in these states were contacted, and a short phone interview was scheduled. A protocol for the interviews was developed; the interview included questions that sought to deter- mine the characteristics and history of the safety program and how data were used in the program implementation. After the interviews were completed, the recorded interviews were transcribed to facilitate accu- rate documentation of the case examples. Information and documents provided by the interviewees during and after the interviews were included in the case example write-ups to describe more fully the safety program elements. The following section describes how the various tasks were organized into the synthesis report.

13 rePort organIzatIon Based on the four primary tasks identified in the study approach, the report is organized into four sections that coincide with each of these tasks. The four main sections of the report are as follows: • Chapter two—Issues in Highway Worker Safety. This chapter is based on the literature review and provides a brief overview of issues and research related to highway worker safety. • Chapter three—Agency Practices and Perspectives on Highway Worker Safety. This chapter is based on the survey results and describes basic characteristics of the current practice of health and safety programs in state DOTs. The chapter focuses on elements of the health and safety programs that relate to state employees who are at highway work sites. • Chapter four—Injury Data Analysis. Several publicly available databases of information relating to highway and worker incidents are available for reference. This chapter explores the general contents of these databases and their potential applications and limitations. • Chapter five—State Department of Transportation Case Examples. To highlight specific practices identified in the previous chapters, this chapter provides detailed findings on safety programs that have been implemented in six state DOTs. The data were collected from follow-up interviews. The cases studies analyze how data are used in the development and implementation of the specific safety program elements. Chapter six presents a summary of the key findings of the synthesis study. Appendices containing documents such as the survey questionnaire and the interview protocol guide are included at the end of the report.

Next: Chapter Two - Issues in Highway Worker Safety »
Highway Worker Safety Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 509: Highway Worker Safety identifies how state departments of transportation (DOTs) implement policies using highway worker safety and health data to reduce injuries and manage risk. The report is a synthesis of current proactive safety practices that will be useful when developing or updating policies, programs, or tools to minimize injuries, fatalities, and risk. The study also identifies gaps in knowledge and future research needs.

  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!