There are a growing number of manufacturers developing autonomous driving features. Some focus on enabling the vehicle to drive down the road with the driver relaxed or reading a book. Others have different goals or benefits.
One project being developed by ZF Friedrichshafen AG enables their “ZF Innovation Truck” to be piloted remotely through a touch-sensitive tablet device.
I could imagine a time where a tractor trailer driver has to back into a narrow space with obstacles on either side. Instead of using mirrors and spotters, he or she could hop out of the cab and use their tablet device from outside the rig. This would enable them to visually inspect clearances while maneuvering the rig into the precise spot needed.
Check out the video.
Additional details on this project can be found in the September 2014 issue of FleetOwner magazine (page 46 – Technology Column)
An interesting article titled “Insurance: You Can’t Avoid Risk” appears in the September 2014 issue of FleetOwner.
This article caught my attention at the second paragraph:
Crashes involving trucks and the resulting insurance claims can grab quite a chunk from the bottom line of any motor carrier [or any company operating a fleet of vehicles – SF]. According to data compiled several years ago by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), the cost of a crash involving one Class 8 tractor pulling a single 53-ft. trailer runs to $172,292. If just one person gets injured in such a crash, the average cost balloons to $334,892. And if a fatality occurs in such a crash, the average cost skyrockets to over $7.6 million.
The article also comments that insurance costs to cover premiums and out of pocket costs can be as much as 4% of the total cost of operation (TCO).
Fleets looking to reduce their costs can ask for discounts and creative payment plans, but in order to materially reduce insurance expense, the only long-term solution is to earnestly work to reduce their risk of loss through aggressive and tailored crash-avoidance strategies.
Naturally, we can’t control how the general public drives on any given day, but as transportation safety professionals, fleet management teams can work with their commercial drivers, insurers, and current safety vendors to increase results.
Ideas to consider:
- Smash through the most common barrier to results: complacency. Many fleet teams think they’ve done all that they can and sometimes it can be hard to re-evaluate and re-tool programs to get better results. “We’ve always done it this way” and “don’t fix what isn’t broken” are dangerous phrases if you’re sincere about enhancing risk results. It’s easy to assume that everything is working well and focus on trying “new stuff” just because it’s new and trendy, but sometimes it’s the underlying (un-sexy) tasks that are slipping through the cracks. Be honest in evaluating what’s working and what could work better.
- Increase vigilance and safety awareness – just as consciously scanning the road ahead for possible hazards and motorists who may cut off trucks is critical to safe driving, management teams also have a responsibility to forecast ways to increase safety in their operations and processes. Careful analysis of past crashes and understanding what might have contributed to them happening from a process and systems standpoint may uncover opportunities to improve your management strategy.
- Develop an even stronger communication strategy with drivers – not just talking at them or demanding more from them, but also learning to listen carefully to their feedback about what’s working and what’s failing to work as well as it could or should. Understanding what processes and systems keep drivers from excelling at their job and helping them with appropriate assistance could be an area to leverage.
- Integrate technology where it will help the most. Technology can be applied in most fleet operations to help deliver insights into ways to increase efficiency or improve safety factors. The trouble is that for most fleets technology can be disruptive as well. There’s a learning curve to adopting new systems and there must be vigilance in translating these data packets into meaningful management action. If the follow up isn’t helpful to drivers or other team members, then it may not be worth the effort. One example could be adopting an online education program to refresh drivers on basic safety issues. If the program is difficult to access, or the videos are tedious, too long, boring or poorly executed then drivers won’t pay attention or change habits. Investing in a system that is easy to use and has interesting, short programs may be a better course of action.
- Actively monitor / manage your CSA scores. While the CSA score isn’t the best indicator of operational excellence, your team shouldn’t ignore this score, either. The Bookend BASICS have been discussed elsewhere on this blog — Unsafe Driving and Crash Rate. When the bookends are firmly managed, the stuff in the middle tends to sort itself out, too.
- Don’t be shy in asking for help from your insurer. Most insurers offer loss control support in various ways — consultants, technical bulletins, and other resources are available but only if you ask for them. Agents can review your current policies to make sure you have appropriate coverage, and help you navigate the service offerings that come with your policy to be certain you’re getting the maximum benefit for the cost you’ve already agreed to pay.
- Leverage your existing safety vendor relationships. Many fleets already work with safety support vendors on issue ranging from log auditing to DQF maintenance.
- Are you using the most current service offering from each vendor?
- Are there new benefits or features that you could be using?
- Does your vendor offer a support network, webinars, or other meetings that could introduce new ideas or help you network with peers in order to increase safety results?
- Join, and participate in, a vehicle safety networking group. Hearing about other peer’s experiences can help you save time, get to decisions more quickly and leverage other professionals learning lessons (why make the same mistake, or why not benefit if they’ve already proven something works well?) Of course, this commitment works best when you’re an active participant – sharing with the group your own experiences. It won’t work as well if you join and then lurk in the shadows quietly.
Managing insurance costs is important. You want to have the right coverage for when things go wrong unexpectedly, but you also want to do whatever is practical to avoid claims or keep their costs as low as possible.
There are many safety articles at this blog site to give you more ideas on ways to prevent crashes.
Let us know what you do that works well at your fleet!
The September issue of Automotive Fleet provided some interesting insights in the general rise in post-crash costs affecting corporate and light duty fleets. In short, crash management costs have risen by 6.2 percent from 2012 to 2013.
The details are what makes the article interesting. Changes in car design to incorporate more exotic (and expensive) materials (i.e. aluminum, magnesium and carbon fibers) which reduce weight to increase fuel economy are costly to repair or replace. The number of parts (sub-assemblies, wiring harnesses, etc.) have also increased making repairs more cumbersome for mechanics, and parts availability has added delays in getting vehicles back on the road.
Putting added stress on already overworked repair teams are the floods of car and light duty truck recalls. Pressed to prioritize, parts makers will push the first available components to “new-vehicle production”, the second batch to support recalls and then, finally, to support the replacement part market.
Technology — from hybrid drive trains to safety features like side impact airbags — also complicate and delay repair projects which drives up costs. Changes in vehicle manufacturing also have an affect on costs — hot stamping of critical components (transforming low-tensile strength steel into high-strength steel) means that the entire assembly must be replaced instead of cutting away the damaged portion and welding in a piece of steel (the structural strength would be compromised). This can affect pillars, body panels and structural components.
On the flip side, there are ways to contain costs.
The very best way is to never have the crash in the first place! Fleets with robust safety programs generally have fewer crashes than fleets with “token” safety processes. How much of a difference did safety make over the past three years?
- In 2011. the average fleet had 27% of it’s drivers involved in a crash, but safety-centric fleets had only 25% of their drivers become involved in a crash.
- A two percentage point difference isn’t much, but in 2012 the gap had widened to 11 points (28% of drivers without safety programs versus 17% of drivers in robust safety programs had crashes.)
- In 2013, the gap was at 12 percentage points (25% versus 13%).
Key tactics to increase safety results?
- Tighten hiring standards as much as possible. Drivers with extensive histories of tickets and crashes are likely to continue in that mode. A risk scoring model may help you to identify drivers with chronic patterns of poor driving.
- Monitor performance of drivers for complaints, near miss activity, GPS data, newly received tickets, how’s my driving hotline issues, etc.
- Drivers who haven’t been through driver education in a while, those who’ve recently had tickets, crashes or complaints should all receive a periodic training module to help break up any complacency around driving safely. Short, tailored programs on specific topics that have been matched to the issues of each driver is a good strategy. Sitting through long-winded, tedious presentations that run more than 12 minutes is likely to put your drivers to sleep.
- Periodic reminders to all drivers to remain vigilant and to refresh basic understanding of the potential consequences of crashes (personal well being, etc.) can help bolster your communication plan.
Roughly 90% of all vehicle crashes are the direct result of choices, attitudes, and habits of drivers while behind the wheel. They may choose to drive impaired, or they may choose to speed, text while driving or make other fundamentally risky decisions.
Historically, society has tried to adjust for these choices in several ways:
- Improving the design of vehicles to make them better protect occupants in the event of a crash, and to help drivers have more control of the vehicle in various circumstances so that they might avoid some crashes
- Instituting standards for road design and signs to make it less complicated to drive
- Improving post-crash medical response to help people survive crashes
- Providing education to drivers to help them understand the possible consequences of their driving so that they might exercise greater caution in handling their vehicles
This post deals with the evolution of driver safety “training” or education efforts. Early driver education programs included personal communications (word of mouth) between drivers and later became written documents and even short motion pictures. The documents continue to this day as state government driver manuals for both new motorists (driving for first time) or for drivers who are applying to become commercial drivers (i.e. CDL manuals).
Movies, videos, CDs, DVDs, and online presentations represent the conversion of those written documents (content) into a captivating medium that can better illustrate common scenarios encountered on the highway. Sometimes it is much easier to show someone a concept than to try and describe it in words.
Early education efforts focused on two underlying models: Intellectual Awareness (discussing the details of an issue) and soliciting an Emotional Response to trigger a change in habits:
- Intellectual Awareness – an assessment of issue, how it occurs, what contributes to it happening and suggestion of practical responses to either avoid that issue or cope with the consequences of the issue.
- An example is describing how speeding robs a driver of time to react, reduces distance to brake and increases the energy involved in a crash; therefore, slow down to buy time to react, stop and reduce the consequences of the collision that may occur.
- Pros/Cons – this is a great way to help establish a foundation of important knowledge and understanding of the risks of driving, but it depends on holding the attention of the audience and whether they understand all of the details being presented. It can become dull for those people who are not passionate about safety issues – possibly causing them to miss the message.
- Emotional Response – many people, especially over the age of 21, become set in their habits and mindset unless an emotional event triggers self-reflection and ignites a willingness to change in response to a tragic or shocking circumstance.
- An example would be the dramatic reenactment of a crash on screen. This may trigger a strong emotional response from the graphic depiction of the actors being hurt or killed in the scenario. A presentation of a brief learning lesson helps redirect the learner to want to change their habits in response.
- Pros/Cons – not everyone responds the same way to emotional stimuli. Not everyone will identify with the “victims” in the same way. Some may reject the scenario as unlikely to happen to them for some reason. Others may be frightened of the consequences but fail to grasp the message on how to avoid that scenario.
Within the past twenty years, new models have emerged to engage drivers. These models seek to obtain a personal commitment from the audience, or to influence the audience into a new perspective on a common issue especially where there is a general misconception of the immediate threat presented by the target behavior or habit such as texting while driving (Social Norming).
- Personal Commitment Solicitation is an effort to make the audience see “what’s in it for them” or how issue could affect them unless they commit to self-monitor (or adjust) their own behaviors to avoid issue consequences)
- An example would be the presentation of a series of reminders about how crashes happen from attitude, choices and habits with a strong, emotional discussion of the potential consequences and a final, direct appeal to the audience asking that (based on the presentation) make a personal commitment to change habits (typically two or three specific commitments).
- Pros/Cons – this sort of presentation isn’t designed to set a foundation of “how to drive”, but does highlight the consequences of poor choices and asks for a commitment. There’s no way to assure that a commitment will be made, but this goes a step further than merely presenting an educational session and stopping the presentation.
- Social Norming – many people, especially younger people (teens, young adults) hold inflated perceptions of reality (i.e. “crashes happen to other people – not me”, “texting while driving isn’t such a big deal since I do it all the time and have never crashed”, etc.) The approach of social norming is to counter misperceptions and help the audience adjust their perception of the true situation (people die from texting while driving, etc.).
- An example would be to demonstrate how absurd it would be to translate our attitudes while driving into other social situations in order to elicit a response from the audience that their habits must change.
- Pros/Cons – while entertaining, it may not convince some audience members that they ought to change habits.
Raising safety awareness, convincing drivers of the need to “want to” change and reminding them of the risks they take while behind the wheel are good efforts to reduce the risk of crashes. Driver education is only one part of the program, but it can be an effective part when different methods are used for different audiences (young or old, seasoned or novice, etc.)
All vehicles have areas (or “zones” or “spots”) around the vehicle where it is difficult to see other cars or trucks even with the help of various mirrors. Most commonly, the area immediately behind the driver’s door on the left side (or the passenger door on the right side) present “hiding spots” where other vehicles may lurk out of sight.
At highway speeds, merging or changing lanes can become a disaster if your movement connects with another vehicle that was in your “blind area”.
To help minimize blind areas, some folks install additional mirrors, cameras or even specialized sensors to detect and alert to the presence of vehicles in these blind areas.
For larger tractor trailers, the size, shape and location of blind areas presents special concerns to truck drivers. While they must do their part to scan around their truck, other motorists have a responsibility to cooperate by understanding that their car may be virtually undetectable within the blind area and do their best to keep out of that zone. Passing large trucks promptly instead of dwelling alongside is one example of a productive, courteous step to avoiding crashes.
The Utah Department of Transportation (as one example) has invested in public education materials to help all motorists and commercial drivers reduce crashes by working together. A colleague shared an example of their video on blind zones around large trucks (called “NO ZONES” in the video — as in these are not the zones to hang about in).
Take a look:
Another video in their series is closely related to this topic — since we’re hoping motorists (and other commercial drivers) won’t hang out in the “no-zone”, we also want the to complete their pass or merge safely. One danger of passing a big truck is cutting them off (cutting directly in front of them). This robs the big truck of stopping distance in case of a need to stop suddenly and increases the risk that you’d be hit from behind in such an instance.
Take a look:
These are short, easy to understand modules. More topics can be found at http://www.udot.utah.gov/trucksmart/index.php
Remember, traffic safety is every driver’s responsibility!
The most recent NHTSA study on crashes in the USA analyzed data from 2010. The results were published in May 2014. From that study:
In 2010, there were 32,999 people killed, 3.9 million were injured, and 24 million vehicles were damaged in motor vehicle crashes in the United States. The economic costs of these crashes totaled $277 billion. Included in these losses are lost productivity, medical costs, legal and court costs, emergency service costs (EMS), insurance administration costs, congestion costs, property damage, and workplace losses.
Key findings included:
- Alcohol-involved crashes resulted in 13,323 fatalities, 430,000 nonfatal injuries, and $59.4 billion in economic costs in 2010, accounting for 21 percent of all crash costs.
- Speed-related crashes (where at least one driver was exceeding the posted limit OR driving too fast for conditions) were connected to 10,536 fatalities (another third of the total for the year). This represents 32 percent of all fatalities; 20 percent of all nonfatal injuries, and 16 percent of all property-damage-only crashes.
- Seat belt non-use represents an enormous lost opportunity for injury prevention. In 2010 alone, over 3,350 people were killed and 54,300 were seriously injured unnecessarily because they failed to wear their seat belts
- Crashes in which at least one driver was identified as being distracted resulted in 3,267 fatalities…
As a nation of drivers, we continue to struggle with key behavior related issues like drinking and driving, speeding, failure to use seat belts and distracted driving. Our response to these issues over the years has been to target education and enforcement campaigns to try and convince drivers to change their habits voluntarily.
“Social norming” to get behavior change tends to be a very slow process and seems to have hit a plateau — we’ve made great gains in select areas since the 1970s — reducing impaired driving deaths from 50% of the annual total to 30%; increasing seat belt usage to an all-time high of roughly 84% (national average — some states are individually higher).
Unfortunately, we’ve slipped backwards on speeding with the removal of the national speed limit of 55 MPH previously established between 1974 and 1995. Further, the widespread use of electronic devices has contributed to a new group of crashes caused by driver inattention.
Over the past decade, much legislative and media attention has been devoted to “Distracted Driving” but not nearly as much to other (pardon the pun) ‘drivers’ (factors) of fatal crashes.
Consider society’s view of speeding in contrast to distracted driving. Most motorists look at speeding as a “non-issue” and not a “big deal” from a safety standpoint (AAFTS traffic safety culture surveys have documented a “prevailing attitude of “Do as I say, not as I do” on the part of American motorists”).
Recently a columnist participated in a “press drive” — a marketing opportunity hosted by a car manufacturer to let journalists test drive new or special edition models out on public roads. While each journalist was admonished to obey all traffic laws, this particular journalist was amazed at the power and acceleration of the test car and wound up getting clocked by police radar at 93 MPH in a 55 MPH zone. (To see his whole article about his speeding incident and subsequent three days in jail, click HERE)
Consider his reaction to the incident:
When I was pulled over during a press drive earlier this summer, I had been living in Washington D.C. for about a year and a half. In that time, I had been warned repeatedly — by ex-Virginia resident Matt Hardigree, by many of our readers, and by a host of other people — that you don’t ever speed in Virginia. But I had no clue just how serious the consequences would be. Maybe “serious” isn’t the right word. After everything that happened, “ridiculous” seems a little more accurate.[emphasis added]
I should probably explain why going into Virginia to have fun in a car is a bad idea in the first place. See, they’re crazy about speeding there. Really, really crazy. Speed limits are set absurdly low, 45 mph on some highways. [Virginia presumably follows the same federally recommended standards, or a derivative of those engineering practices when setting limits on roads based on design, traffic volume, etc.] Radar detectors are illegal, and cops have devices to detect them. And if you get caught going over 80 mph at all, that’s automatically a reckless driving charge.
Reckless driving is not a traffic citation, it’s a criminal charge, and a Class One misdemeanor at that. That means it’s the highest level of misdemeanor you can be charged with in Virginia, right below a felony. The maximum penalty for a reckless driving conviction is a $2,500 fine, a six month driver’s license suspension, and up to a year in jail.
See what I mean when I told you it’s serious? They hand it out like it’s Halloween candy, too. You drive 20 mph over the limit, it’s reckless driving. They even charge you with it for failing to properly signal, or when you’re found to be at fault in a car wreck. I’ve heard of some cases where people get 30 days in jail if they speed over 100 mph.
Other Class One misdemeanors in Virginia include animal cruelty, sexual battery, and aiming a firearm at someone. This is how the state regards people who drive over 80 mph.
I do think Virginia’s speed laws are absurdly harsh, especially as a native of Texas where 80 mph is an almost universally accepted highway speed by most drivers and where a toll road just outside of Austin lets you go 85 mph. There, this probably would have been a really expensive speeding ticket; maybe even one I could get dismissed with defensive driving.[emphasis added] I covered the courts for a long time when I was a newspaper reporter in Austin, and I was floored to learn Virginia actually sends people to jail just for speeding.
But that doesn’t excuse what I did. I came into Virginia and broke their laws; I drove way too fast. This is my fault and no one else’s. (Well, maybe the ZL1’s.) This wasn’t one of those moments where I got nailed going 5 mph over in some ridiculously low section of a county designed only for revenue collection; how could I justify going 93 in a 55 when I went to court, I wondered?
So, the driver hired an attorney to broker a plea deal with the court.
The best plea deal I got was a fine of about $400 with court costs, a 10-day suspension of my license in Virginia, and three days in jail. The judge has an option of giving one day in jail for every mile an hour over 90 mph, and he would exercise it here.
So I took the plea, but I was pretty despondent over the outcome for weeks. The fees and license suspension weren’t a big deal, but I was alternately livid and depressed that I’d be going to jail, even for a short stay. I didn’t hurt anyone, or kill anyone, or sell drugs, or drive drunk, or beat my wife, or steal; I was going to jail because I drove too fast in a car.
The best news of all this was that I wasn’t fired. Matt said the last thing you’ll ever get fired for at Jalopnik is speeding. It’s just an occupational hazard for us. And when I emailed Gawker’s editorial director Joel Johnson to apologize, he replied saying, “I don’t give a f**k,” and added that he found the matter “hilarious.”
Would this story have been different if the citation were for texting while driving instead of speeding? Would the editorial director have had the nerve to consider the situation “hilarious”?
From the recent NTHSA study:
The fact that a vehicle was exceeding the speed limit does not necessarily mean that this was the cause of the crash, but the probability of avoiding the crash would likely be greater had the driver or drivers been traveling at slower speeds. A speed-related crash is defined as any crash in which the police indicate that one or more drivers involved was exceeding the posted speed limit, driving too fast for conditions, driving at a speed greater than reasonable or prudent, exceeding a special speed limit or zone, or racing.
As long as we consider speeding to be our right, speed limits to be merely suggestions, and tickets as only a way for states to make revenue over a non-issue, we will continue to have a plateau in our traffic safety results. Things can not improve (i.e. people will not stop dying) until this nation breaks it’s obsession with speeding as an acceptable practice for motorists.
What do you think? IS speeding a non-issue? Or is it a deathly serious issue?
If your friends think getting a speeding ticket or spending three days in jail for speeding is “hilarious” then consider some of these Public Service Ads from countries that are more progressive in their safety attitude than the USA….
Australian PSA on how reducing speed (even by only 5 KPH) can save lives
Rushing = letting emotions control our better judgement when driving (Australian PSA)
Speeding – is it a ‘mistake’? New Zealand PSA
Irish PSA on speeding “you can’t control the consequences of speeding”