U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Motor Carriers

CASE # 1. An Oregon-based carrier transporting wood chips from the coast to the Eugene area began to have an unusual number of accidents. An analysis by the Safety Specialist revealed that the majority of the accidents occurred within a three-mile area of the route being used. This two-lane road was narrow, winding, frequented by tourists in the summer, and plagued with fog, ice, and snow in the winter. Further investigation revealed that for the past eight months construction had been under way along the three-mile stretch--about the same time the accidents started happening. The highway department indicated that construction would continue for another six months.

COUNTERMEASURE: The Safety Specialist discussed the findings with management and recommended the carrier's vehicles be rerouted (A11-Planning Schedules, Loads and Routes) until the construction was complete. The carrier realized that it could not withstand the increase in accidents for that length of time and agreed with the recommendation. Although the new route was about 30 miles more each way than the original, the accidents stopped almost immediately.

CASE # 2. During a review of a Washington-based grocery company operating more than 100 tractor-trailers, primarily in urban areas, the Safety Specialist discovered an accident pattern--an inordinate number of right turn accidents. Some of the accidents caused damage to the extent that they were reportable to DOT. Most however caused less damage but still added to the carrier's cost of operation.

COUNTERMEASURE: The Safety Specialist discussed the findings with the carrier and recommended the installation of turn signals at a higher level on the trailers (B6-Turning Left and Right, C10-Vehicle Lighting and Conspicuity). The carrier agreed and also applied signs to the back of each trailer, on the right side, warning of wide turns. Accidents dropped dramatically over a very short period of time.

CASE # 3. An Oregon-based produce hauler, generally running from Portland to Los Angeles, was having a very high number of backing accidents. Considering the areas in which drivers were required to load and unload, the carrier had not found the number of accidents unusual. An analysis by the Safety Specialist revealed that the carrier utilized qualified but relatively inexperienced drivers, in sleeper teams. They were paid for load/unload time whether they actually had to do the work or not. Although most of the backing accidents involved damage less than $1,000, one dock worker had been crushed between a trailer and the dock, which emphasized the inherent danger.

COUNTERMEASURE: The Safety Specialist recommended that each driver attend a safety meeting and that a safety notice be distributed to all drivers requiring them to assist each other during backing maneuvers (A7-Fleet Safety Program and Supervision, A9-Driving Training Aids, B3-Start-Up/Back-Up). The carrier agreed with the suggestion and required every driver to attend a safety meeting (meetings were held for several Saturdays to allow attendance by all). Drivers were paid overtime and coffee and doughnuts were furnished. The meeting contained about four hours of training on proper procedures for backing. In addition, a safety notice was distributed in drivers' paychecks instructing them to assist each other during backing maneuvers. Backing accidents dropped quickly, and as a result of increased driver awareness, there was a reduction in other types of accidents as well.

CASE # 4. An Illinois-based produce hauler was experiencing a high number of driver injuries resulting in a large number of worker's compensation claims. A Safety Specialist's review of the accidents revealed that drivers were wrenching their necks inside their cabovers (vs. conventional) when passing over bumps in the road. The drivers were being thrown out of their seats and into the windshield or ceiling of their tractors. The cabovers were identified as being the primary source of these incidents. The driver's seat is located directly over the front wheels and provides no resistance or cushion to reduce the impact to the driver of bumps in the road.

COUNTERMEASURE: The Safety Specialist recommended that the carrier insert language into the employee manual requiring drivers to wear their seat belts (A8-Company Driver Manuals). The carrier agreed to the recommendation and, in addition, instructed guards at each terminal gate to check drivers before leaving to ensure that they were complying with the company's policy. This simple solution, which had been overlooked by everyone, turned out to be the key in reducing this type of injury to zero.

CASE # 5. During a review of a large Indiana-based household goods carrier operating more than 5,000 tractor-trailers, a Safety Specialist discovered that the carrier was having a high number of rear-end collisions. Some of the accidents caused damage to the extent that they were reportable to the DOT. Most caused less damage but still added to the carrier's cost of operation.

COUNTERMEASURE: The Safety Specialist recommended the installation of brake and turn signal lights at the top of the trailers (B6-Turning Left and Right, C10-Vehicle Lighting and Conspicuity). This reduced accidents almost immediately.

CASE # 6. An Indiana-based school bus contractor was experiencing a high number of accidents because of driver inattention. After examining all the carrier's accidents, the Safety Specialist determined that they all occurred during the month of June. The Safety Specialist came to the conclusion that no specific driver or vehicle was responsible for the accidents. It seemed that the drivers, in general, were becoming complacent because summer was near, and they were anticipating the end of the school year. Further analysis revealed that the Safety Director held two safety meetings a year with the drivers, one in September and another in February.

COUNTERMEASURE: The Safety Specialist recommended to the carrier that it should begin holding safety meetings sometime in April and provide driver's with a one-page handout about staying alert (A7-Fleet Safety Program and Supervision). This simple solution turned out to be the key in reducing these accidents to zero. When the Safety Director was asked why he had never noticed this problem, he replied; "This was right there in front of me, but I just never had the time to sit down and look at it in this manner !"

CASE # 7. Motor carriers in California and Tennessee have recently experienced accidents involving drivers' inability to see other vehicles because of poor visibility (fog or dust storms).

COUNTERMEASURE: According to researchers here and in Europe, use of front and rear running lights during daylight hours would save lives and prevent injuries, since many crashes are caused by poor visibility. These running lights can be special additional lights, reduced-intensity headlights for daytime use, or high-intensity parking lights.

In Finland, researchers found that during a six-year period, the use of daytime running lights in winter reduced daytime crashes by 21%. In Sweden results were similar: crashes decreased by 11%. Finland, Sweden, and Denmark now require all drivers to use daytime running lights. In 1989, Canada passed legislation requiring that all new cars, trucks, vans, and buses be equipped with front lights that turn on whenever the engine is running. According to James White of the Canadian Department of Transportation, about 20% of all drivers voluntarily use running lights in the daytime. By this year, he said, enough new vehicles will be on the road to bring the total to two in five vehicles with lights on in the daytime.

Of course, all these countries are in the north, where it's dark much of the day in the winter. What about here in the United States ? Some States already require the use of headlights just after sunrise, before sunset, or whenever visibility is poor. New York recently passed a law requiring the use of low-beam headlights whenever it rains, snows, sleets, or hails. Any time you have your windshield wipers on in New York, you must switch on your headlights or risk being ticketed for an equipment violation (a $100 fine).

In one study, the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (a research organization supported in part by the insurance industry) equipped 2,000 trucks and vans with automatic daytime running lights for a year. Crashes decreased by 13% in bad weather and 7% at other times--less than the reduction shown in several European studies but enough to lend support to the use of daytime running lights.

CASE # 7. A government study completed in April 1990 showed that in light (Continued) levels equivalent to early morning or twilight, drivers were able to see vehicles with running lights sooner than those with no lights. The lights improved visibility and provided drivers going 55 miles per hour with about three extra seconds to brake or take other action to prevent a crash. Several car makers, including General Motors, Chrysler, Ford, and Volvo, voiced support for daytime running lights as a way to decrease highway deaths and injuries. General Motors has filed a petition with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for clearance to install daytime running lights.

Daytime running lights won't affect gas mileage by much: for every $10 you spend on gas, they would cost an extra nickel (0.5%, according to a study by the Canadian government). Some people may object that these daytime lights can be blinding to other drivers, especially when reflected in rearview mirrors and for older drivers. One government study indicated that glare in the rearview mirror during daytime could be a problem, although the age of the driver was not a significant factor. The right intensity for running lights under different conditions should be considered in recommending lamp design, the study concluded.

Meanwhile, it makes good safety sense to switch on low-beam headlights in adverse weather conditions, at daybreak and dusk, and on winter afternoons.

CASE # 8. A Missouri-based farm commodity and hazardous material transporter was experiencing a high number of accidents. After examining all the accidents, the safety specialist determined that they occurred during bad weather and that the majority of them were caused by drivers not paying attention to the road conditions, (i.e., driving too fast for conditions).

COUNTERMEASURE: The Safety Specialist recommended that the carrier implement a safe driver recognition/incentive program and a driver training program geared towards driving in adverse weather conditions and avoiding accident situations (A3-Safe Driving Recognition, A4-Driver Safety Infractions, A7-Fleet Safety Program and Supervision, B11-Driving in Adverse Conditions).

The carrier agreed with the recommendations and now has quarterly safety meetings with 95% driver participation. Any driver who attended the previous meeting and was accident-free during the quarter receives a $150 U.S. Savings Bond. The carrier also implemented a driver training program and classroom instruction on accident situations and driving in adverse weather conditions. After taking this proactive stance, the carrier's accident rate improved from .88 to .37 in the last 12 months.

CASE # 9. During a recent review, a Washington-based carrier operating more than 2,400 tractor-trailers west of the Mississippi River was found to have a high number of loss-of-control accidents during adverse driving conditions.

COUNTERMEASURE: The Safety Specialist recommended that the carrier require drivers to attend a safety meeting (A7-Fleet Safety Program and Supervision, A9-Driver Training Aids). In order to promote attendance, the carrier scheduled ten meetings on Saturdays in various locations and required all drivers to attend one. Drivers were paid to attend the meetings, and coffee and doughnuts were provided. The safety meeting consisted of approximately four hours of training on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, driving in adverse conditions, and other general safety information. Within a short period of time, the company records indicated a 60% reduction in accidents.

CASE # 10. A Utah-based carrier, which conducts the majority of its business west of the Mississippi River, was experiencing a high number of accidents. After discussion with some drivers and management officials, an analysis by the Safety Specialist revealed that a high number of accidents occurred during the same time period within a three-to-five-mile section of a particular Interstate heading west. Apparently, drivers were being blinded as they came over the crest of a very large hill at sunset.

COUNTERMEASURE: The Safety Specialist discussed the situation with management and recommended that the carrier change the time drivers were dispatched. The carrier agreed with the recommendation and immediately began to dispatch drivers an hour earlier or an hour later to make sure they were not driving over the hill at sunset, thus eliminating this type of accident.

CASE # 11. An urban-based carrier operating more than 30 delivery trucks was experiencing a high number of accidents.

An analysis by the Safety Specialist revealed that a majority of accidents occurred in a two-to-three-block area downtown every Thursday between nine and ten in the morning. The analysis also revealed that drivers were paid every Thursday morning and that a number of banks were located in the problem area. Apparently, after being paid in the morning, drivers would stop at the banks while on duty and cash their paychecks.

Driving in this highly congested area during rush hour placed both driver and vehicle in extremely adverse conditions. Cashing the checks during the morning rush hour traffic was placing both the driver and vehicle in the worst possible place at the busiest time of the day leading to the high number of accidents.

COUNTERMEASURE: After further discussion with management officials, the Safety Specialist recommended that the carrier change the time its drivers were paid. The carrier agreed with the recommendation and began paying the drivers at the end of the day. The change meant that drivers would cash their paychecks after work, thus eliminating this type of accident.

CASE # 12. An Illinois-based carrier operating more than 200 tractor-trailers was experiencing a high number of accidents. An analysis by the carrier's Safety Director revealed that the majority of the accidents were falling into three main categories. There were too many right turn accidents, backing accidents, and right lane change accidents.

COUNTERMEASURE: After further discussion with management officials, the carrier developed a program that was based on the three most common types of accidents. Each accident type was associated with a color: red, blue, and yellow. The number one accident situation (right turns) was denoted by a red dot. The number two accident situation (backing) was denoted by a blue dot. The number three accident situation (right lane change) was denoted by a yellow dot.

Posters of these accident types were placed everywhere the drivers went, (i.e., in the drivers' lunch/break room, in the safety office, and throughout the rest of the terminal). The drivers were taught to associate these colors with the different types of accidents and to think about ways to prevent these types of accidents from occurring. The carrier also placed colored dots on all of the truck mirrors to remind the drivers of these accidents and to try to make them think about how to avoid these accidents. So every time driver's looked in their rearview mirrors, they were reminded to think about preventing these accidents and about the appropriate measures to take when making, for example, a right turn.

The carrier placed a red sticker halfway back on the trailer to aid the drivers when they were making right turns. If the driver couldn't see the colored dot, then he or she had not pulled out far enough to execute the turn. After the program was implemented, the number of accidents declined considerably. After a few months, the carrier became lax in seeing that the dots were used, and the accidents started to increase again. The Safety Director stated that the carrier now makes sure that when a unit comes through its shop the safety dots are checked and replaced where needed. He said other carriers could easily copy the program to meet their own companies' most frequent accident situations.

CASE # 13. "Don't be late. Stick to your schedule. Deliver the goods on time." Time pressures like these have always been a fact of life for professional drivers. But with companies worrying more and more about customer service, just-in-time deliveries, and the like, you may feel you spend your days racing the clock. You're tempted to run at higher speeds, lean on the brake pedal later and more heavily, and accelerate faster after slowing down.

Do these tactics really get you to your destination faster ? Maybe, but are they worth the increases in fuel costs and brake wear they cause ? Is the time gain worth the added risk ?

COUNTERMEASURE: The answer to these questions is "NO," and it's backed up by hard research. Several years ago, a tire company and instrument maker sponsored an experiment using two identical cars fitted with instruments that measured every driving detail during a 1,000-mile trip. They measured how often and how hard the brakes were applied, how many cars were passed, and total driving time.

One driver was instructed to drive aggressively--overtake frequently, take curves at the maximum speed permitted by the car and driver's ability, etc. The second driver made the trip in relaxed style--avoiding risk, observing the speed limit, and moving as traffic permitted.

The result ? The fast driver took 20 hours and 12 minutes to conclude the trip. He braked 1,339 times, including 4 emergency stops. He overtook 2,004 other cars and was overtaken by only 13.

The slower driver braked 652 times with no emergency stops. He overtook 645 other cars and was overtaken by 142. Driving time was 20 hours and 43 minutes.

Apply these statistics to your vehicle, and it's easy to see that the minimal time saving in the study (31 minutes) certainly does not justify the added wear and tear (more than twice the brake applications) and risk (four emergency stops) of driving to beat the clock.