 |
  |
| The Office of Motor Carriers: An Analysis-Driven Organization |
|
|
| The Office of Motor Carriers: An Analysis-Driven Organization |
 |
"An International Highway Transportation Safety Week is a great opportunity for us to join our
State and local partners as well as the private sector to promote motor carrier safety." George L. Reagle, Associate Administrator Federal Highway Administration, Office of Motor Carriers |
International Highway Transportation Safety Week
will be held June 1-6 this year.
This issue of MCSAFE features an article on the goals of this year's
Safety Week activities as well as a look back at last year's Safety Week
accomplishments.
(Go to Article)
How effective are compliance reviews in preventing crashes,
and what are the cost savings of performing CRs? To address these questions, the Volpe Center
has developed the CR Impact Assessment Model.
(Go to Article)
How many crashes between large trucks and passenger vehicles
may be attributable to the No-Zone danger areas around trucks and buses? The Analysis
Division's
Richard Gruberg describes the results of his analysis of this issue.
(Go to Article)
International Highway Transportation Safety (IHTS) Week, sponsored jointly by FHWA and the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA), involves State agencies and other organizations interested in promoting truck and bus highway safety. It is a cooperative effort to commemorate the people, programs, and partnerships working to improve highway safety every day. Last year, more than 65 jurisdictions participated in IHTS Week—all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Canadian Provinces and Territories, and Mexico, along with Transport Canada, motor carriers, and motor coach operators. IHTS Week 1997 activities included: truck and bus roadside safety inspections; safe driving educational events at rest areas and malls; and safety articles, interviews, and public service announcements to the media.
IHTS Week promotes the message that highway safety is a shared responsibility. All drivers (truck, bus, passenger vehicle) and organizations (public and private) are responsible for ensuring safe highways. It's an opportunity to educate drivers about safe driving practices and inform the public about the many programs and innovative projects OMC and its partners are pursuing to improve truck and bus safety.
Many IHTS Week safety events relate to the No-Zone national public service highway safety campaign, which educates motorists about sharing the road safely with trucks and buses (for additional information see the article in this issue on estimating potential No-Zone crashes). The No-Zone effort promotes the shared responsibility of all drivers for safe driving. During Safety Week, State, industry, and Federal teams also provide passenger and commercial vehicle drivers with information about safety belts, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, driver fatigue, child restraints and pedestrian and bicycle safety.
Two years ago, OMC asked CVSA to help broaden the scope of RoadCheck (the precursor of IHTS week) by including other activities to reduce commercial motor vehicle-involved crashes—as well as activities to show appreciation for the people who work year-round to keep our highways safe. As good partners, CVSA members responded to this entreaty. During IHTS Week 1997, CVSA and the participating agencies conducted 60,000 vehicle and driver safety inspections and organized State and international participation in activities such as giving safe truck driver certificates of appreciation; presenting awards for zero violations during roadside inspections; distributing fatigue-related educational information to drivers; and educating the public about driving trucks safely and the importance of using safety belts.
IHTS Week provides OMC with an excellent opportunity to publicly acknowledge the importance of partnerships—and to form new partnerships and strengthen existing ones. As George Reagle has remarked on several occasions, "Partnerships are key as we work toward the goal of reducing CMV-involved crashes."
IHTS Week 1998 will echo last year's themes:
OMC encourages its partners to use IHTS Week to enlighten the American public about illions of crash-free miles commercial motor vehicles travel as they carry goods and people to fuel the American economy—and the more than 60 million miles logged by award-winning drivers from the National Private Truck Council and the American Trucking Associations. IHTS Week is a snapshot of all the activities OMC and its partners perform to promote motor carrier safety throughout the year.
The data below summarize inspection activities during IHTS Week 1997 (June 2-7). Each participating agency was given the opportunity to select the type of enforcement activity to highlight. The type of activity depended on the agency's assessment of its enforcement need(s). Agencies also chose their schedule of participation. Some conducted a 72-hour road check, others opted for weekend enforcement, and still others performed daily truck checks.
|
To offer help or suggestions for the
Phil Hanley, National Co-Chair
Janet Kumer, National Co-Chair
Larry Stern, National Co-Chair |
|
Table 1 Level 1 Truck Inspection Results: United States and Canada | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nation | Truck Inspections | Truck OOS | % Truck OOS | Driver OOS | % Driver OOS |
| United States | 29,830 | 9,080 | 30.4% | 1,773 | 5.9% |
| Canada | 7,366 | 2,094 | 28.4% | 107 | 1.5% |
|
Table 2 All United States Inspections (Truck and Bus) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inspection Type | Total Inspections | Vehicle OOS | % Vehicle OOS | Driver OOS | % Driver OOS |
| Level 1 | 29,896 | 9,103 | 30.4% | 1,777 | 5.9% |
| Level 2 | 16,910 | 2,935 | 17.4% | 1,406 | 8.3% |
| Level 3 | 11,467 | N/A | N/A | 1,256 | 11.0% |
| Level 4 | 1,531 | 125 | 8.2% | 45 | 2.9% |
| Level 5 | 285 | 26 | 9.1% | N/A | N/A |
| Totals | 60,089 | 12,189 | 20.3% | 4,484 | 7.5% |
| N/A = not available. | |||||
|
Table 3 Hazardous Materials Inspections | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inspection Type | Total Inspections | Vehicle OOS | % Vehicle OOS | Driver OOS | % Driver OOS |
| Level 1 | 2,296 | 591 | 25.7% | 106 | 4.6% |
| Level 2 | 1,089 | 154 | 14.1% | 53 | 4.9% |
| Level 3, 4, 5 | 466 | 6 | 1.3% | 15 | 3.2% |
| Totals | 3,851 | 751 | 19.5% | 174 | 4.5% |
|
Table 4 Most Frequently Cited Inspection Violations |
||
|---|---|---|
| Violation Number | Description | Violations |
| 396.3A1BA | Brakes Out of Adjustment | 9,537 |
| 393.9 | Inoperable Lamp | 6,132 |
| 395.8F1 | Driver Record of Duty Status Not Current | 5,722 |
| 392.2 | Local Laws (General) | 5,511 |
| 396.3A1 | Inspection, Repair and Maintenance of Parts and Accessories | 5,187 |
| 393.11 | No or Defective Lighting Devices/Reflectors/Projected Loads | 3,815 |
| 393.75C | Inadequate Tread Groove Pattern Depth | 3,765 |
| 392.2S | Local Laws (Speeding) | 3,679 |
| 396.3A | Inspection, Repair and Maintenance (General) | 3,658 |
| 393.95A | No or Discharged Fire Extinguisher | 3,231 |
| 393.19 | No or Defective Turn or Hazard Lamp as Required | 3,231 |
| 393.20 | No or Improper Mounting of Clearance Lamps | 3,224 |
| 396.17C | No Proof of Periodic Inspection on Vehicle | 3,029 |
|
Table 5 States, Provinces, and Territories: Level 1 Truck Out-of-Service Results |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| State/Province | Total Inspections | Truck OOS % | Driver OOS % |
| Alabama | 413 | 30% | 8% |
| Alaska | 39 | 51% | 13% |
| Arizona | 141 | 35% | 6% |
| Arkansas | 815 | 21% | 7% |
| California | 7,457 | 24% | 3% |
| Colorado | 818 | 28% | 4% |
| Connecticut | 351 | 53% | 16% |
| Delaware | 18 | 28% | 0% |
| DC | 8 | 0% | 0% |
| Florida | 364 | 29% | 7% |
| Georgia | 454 | 32% | 13% |
| Hawaii | 234 | 26% | 3% |
| Idaho | 279 | 22% | 6% |
| Illinois | 1,053 | 25% | 8% |
| Indiana | 847 | 33% | 6% |
| Iowa | 912 | 33% | 6% |
| Kansas | 147 | 44% | 5% |
| Kentucky | 646 | 19% | 5% |
| Louisiana | 358 | 36% | 12% |
| Maine | 418 | 31% | 6% |
| Maryland | 714 | 37% | 6% |
| Massachusetts | 366 | 34% | 4% |
| Michigan | 145 | 24% | 6% |
| Minnesota | 634 | 38% | 7% |
| Mississippi | 623 | 27% | 10% |
| Missouri | 1,788 | 38% | 7% |
| Montana | 323 | 30% | 2% |
| Nebraska | 309 | 26% | 6% |
| Nevada | 280 | 33% | 11% |
| New Hampshire | 55 | 35% | 5% |
| New Jersey | 527 | 33% | 9% |
| New Mexico | 64 | 31% | 5% |
| New York | 959 | 34% | 7% |
| North Carolina | 254 | 39% | 7% |
| North Dakota | 192 | 38% | 8% |
| Ohio | 738 | 42% | 9% |
| Oklahoma | 366 | 20% | 3% |
| Oregon | 117 | 31% | 3% |
| Pennsylvania | 109 | 26% | 10% |
| Rhode Island | 227 | 25% | 10% |
| South Carolina | 189 | 38% | 10% |
| South Dakota | 86 | 27% | 2% |
| Tennessee | 647 | 36% | 8% |
| Texas | 865 | 42% | 10% |
| Utah | 178 | 40% | 4% |
| Vermont | 250 | 36% | 13% |
| Virginia | 847 | 32% | 8% |
| Washington | 763 | 27% | 3% |
| West Virginia | 393 | 31% | 14% |
| Wisconsin | 112 | 41% | 5% |
| Wyoming | 337 | 33% | 7% |
| Alberta | 194 | 26% | 6% |
| British Columbia | 1,052 | 29% | 1% |
| Manitoba | 333 | 21% | 4% |
| New Brunswick | 281 | 23% | 1% |
| Newfoundland | 172 | 24% | 2% |
| Northwest Territories | 74 | 9% | 3% |
| Nova Scotia | 383 | 14% | 0% |
| Ontario | 3,233 | 32% | 1% |
| Prince Edward Island | 26 | 12% | 4% |
| Quebec | 1,105 | 30% | 3% |
| Saskatchewan | 416 | 23% | 1% |
| Yukon | 97 | 39% | 7% |
CVSA:
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, an organization of States and Provinces in the
United States, Canada, and Mexico dedicated to improving the uniformity of commercial motor
vehicle safety enforcement
IHTS Week:
International Highway Transportation Week, June 1-6, 1998
CR:
compliance review
FMCSR:
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
MCSAP:
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program
GPRA:
The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
GES:
General Estimates System
VMT:
vehicle miles traveled
Perhaps the single greatest resource-consuming activity of the OMC is the on-site compliance review (CR). In addition to actually conducting CRs, OMC invests extensive effort in supporting the CR program. This entails OMC analyzing the requirements of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs), designing the CR to assess safety performance and compliance with the FMCSRs, training safety investigators, formulating prioritization methodologies and systems such as SafeStat to determine which carriers should receive CRs, and developing information systems to report and store the results of the CRs.
When performing CRs, OMC and State safety investigators spend many hours examining the safety records of individual motor carriers to assess their compliance and safety performance. The investigators also discuss their findings with the carriers' safety managers to improve understanding of their safety programs. After the reviews are completed, the results are used to assign safety ratings and are incorporated with other safety data in SafeStat to reassess carrier safety status. In instances where serious violations are discovered, enforcement cases are initiated and fines may be imposed. It is intended that through education, heightened safety regulation awareness, and enforcement effects of the CR, carriers will improve the safety of their commercial vehicle operations, and ultimately, reduce their crash rates.
But does this investment in CRs actually result in a reduction in commercial motor vehicle crashes? And if so, how effective are CRs in preventing crashes and what are the cost savings of performing CRs? These were the questions posed by Terry Shelton and Dale Sienicki of the Analysis Division to the research team of Don Wright and Dave Madsen of the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center in Cambridge, MA (Volpe Center) and Professor Tom Corsi at the University of Maryland. To address these questions, the Volpe Center research team has developed the CR Impact Assessment Model (see Figure 1).
How It Works
First, the CR Impact Assessment Model analyzes the percentage change in the combined crash rate of carriers from before to after the CR to determine if the CR program has an overall effect on reviewed carriers' crash rates. This is the difference between the crash rates observed at the first and second CR for carriers that had two CRs. The model then estimates the total number of avoided crashes attributed to the CR program by applying the observed percentage reduction in crash rate for those carriers over the vehicle miles traveled for all carriers receiving CRs. Next, the benefits are calculated by applying a cost per crash to the number of avoided crashes that were attributed to the CR program.
To obtain crash rate information, the research team used data collected from the CRs. As part of the routine CR procedure, investigators obtain the number of recordable crashes in which the carrier was involved over the previous 12 months and the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) over the previous 12 months. Therefore, crash rate data (expressed as number of recordable crashes per million VMT) for all carriers that have received a CR are available for the 12-month period prior to the review. Because the CR Impact Assessment Model requires not only crash rates prior to the CR but also crash rates after the CR, the research team needed to identify carriers with two CRs at least 12 months apart. The earlier (or initial) CR provided the pre-CR crash rate data and the subsequent (or followup) CR provided the post-CR crash rate data (covering a non-overlapping 12-month period after the initial CR).
The Findings
To employ the model, the research team conducted the empirical analysis of carriers with two or more CRs from April 1993 to June 1997 that were conducted from 1 to 2 years apart. 1,738 carriers met these criteria. These carriers had an overall crash rate of 0.750 crashes per million VMT based on the initial CR and a crash rate of 0.661 based on the followup CR—representing a 12% reduction in the crash rate. Therefore, the research team concluded that CRs do have a positive effect on carriers by lowering their crash rates.
But how does this crash rate reduction translate into total crash avoidance and what are the cost savings? To answer these questions, the CR Impact Assessment Model applied the reduction in crash rates from the aforementioned analysis to all of the carriers that had received CRs in a given year (in this case, 1996). The model estimates the crash reduction effects of CRs for the immediate three years following the CR, reducing the effects over time. A 12% reduction in crash rate over the first year after the CR (based on the analysis discussed above), an 8% reduction in the second year, and a 4% reduction in the third year were applied to VMT of all carriers with CRs in 1996. Other adjustments were made to forecast annual VMT for each of the three years following the CR to account for carrier growth and attrition.
Preliminary estimates from the Impact Assessment Model are 4,317 crashes avoided for the 8,111 carriers that received CRs in 1996. Of the 4,317 crashes avoided, 2,040 were attributed to the first year of the three-year post CR period, and 1,476 and 801 crashes avoided were attributed to the second and third years, respectively. The average weighted crash cost (weighted to reflect the proportionate economic losses of fatal, injury, and towaway crashes) was calculated to be $135,000.1 Applying this average cost to the 4,317 crashes avoided results in a benefit of approximately $580 million. In addition to the incalculable benefits of avoiding pain and suffering and the loss of life, this represents an average of over $71,000 cost savings per review.
1Crash costs used in this analysis are based primarily on work developed by the National Public Services Research Institute. For more information on the derivation of the "average weighted crash cost," please contact the editor.
The results of the CR Impact Assessment Model are still considered preliminary. Additional work validating the model assumptions is continuing. Some of the issues here involve collecting empirical evidence on the rate at which the impact of a CR diminishes over time; determining the effect of carrier size on the CR's safety impact; assessing the impact of multiple CRs on the CR's safety impact; and controlling for the influence of other concurrent safety events (i.e., roadside inspections, enforcement cases, etc.) on a carrier's crash rate.
OMC is convening an expert panel to review the model, which may result in modifications to future versions of the model. Questions and/or comments regarding the CR Impact Assessment Model may be directed to Dale Sienicki (Dale.Sienicki@fhwa.dot.gov).
Other OMC Program Performance Measurement
The Impact Assessment Model development is part of a larger effort by OMC to address the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA). GPRA directs government agencies to develop results-oriented performance measures for their major functions and operations. In addition to answering the questions about the effectiveness and benefits resulting from the CR program, the Analysis Division has tasked the Volpe research team with developing performance measures for the roadside inspection program and State motor carrier traffic enforcement carried out under the MCSAP. A recent MCSAFE article described the Safe-Miles Model (version 1.0), which estimated the roadside inspection program benefits, while work is underway to analyze the benefits resulting from commercial vehicle traffic enforcement.
Recently, Richard Gruberg of OMC's Analysis Division performed a brief study to estimate how many crashes between large trucks and passenger vehicles may be attributable to the passenger vehicle traveling in the No-Zone. The "No-Zone" represents the danger areas around trucks and buses where crashes are more likely to occur. Some No-Zones are actual blind spots or areas around trucks and buses where your car "disappears" from the view of the drivers. These danger areas consist of the Side No-Zone, Rear No-Zone, and Front No-Zone areas. It has been speculated that a substantial number of crashes between large trucks and passenger vehicles result from cases where the passenger vehicle is either traveling in a No-Zone blind spot or encroaching into a No-Zone buffer zone.
Using data from the 1996 General Estimates System (GES), the study focused on two-vehicle crashes occurring between a large truck and a passenger vehicle (i.e., light truck or passenger car), where the passenger vehicle was situated in the No-Zone immediately prior to the crash. The analysis was limited to two-vehicle crashes because many of the data elements required for the analysis are only recorded in the GES for these types of crashes. It should be pointed out, however, that two-vehicle crashes represent 92% of the total number of crashes involving a large truck and passenger vehicle.
Crashes were identified where (1) the truck rear-ended the passenger vehicle (front No-Zone); (2) the passenger vehicle rear-ended the truck (rear No-Zone); (3) the truck encroached into a passenger vehicle's lane that was traveling in the same direction (side No-Zone); and (4) cases where the truck encroached into a passenger vehicle's lane while the truck was turning right at an intersection and the passenger vehicle was also turning right or traveling through the intersection (also, side No-Zone). Obviously, all such crashes are not necessarily attributable to passenger vehicles "hanging out" in the No-Zone. Hence, the estimates from this analysis only represent the number of crashes that have the potential to be No-Zone-related.
The estimated number of potential No-Zone-related crashes for 1996 is given in the table below by type of crash. This table indicates that the front No-Zone area has the highest number of estimated crashes (13% of all two-vehicle crashes between passenger vehicles and large trucks), followed by the side No-Zones (8% + 4% = 12%) and the rear No-Zone (10%). Although the precise causes of these crashes are unknown, it is reasonable to assume that crashes involving the side No-Zones are more likely to have been caused by blind spots than those crashes occurring in the front and rear No-Zone areas.
| Estimated Potential No-Zone Crashes by No-Zone Area (1996) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Type of Crash | Estimated Total No-Zone-Related Crashes |
Percent of All Large Truck/Passenger Vehicle Crashes |
|
Truck Encroaching—Nonintersection (Right and Left No-Zones) |
21,500 | 8% |
| Truck Encroaching—Intersection | 10,500 | 4% |
| Front No-Zone | 32,500 | 13% |
| Rear No-Zone | 25,000 | 10% |
| Total Potential No-Zone | 89,500 | 35% |
| Total Large Truck/Passenger Vehicle Crashes | 258,000 | 100% |
| Data Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, General Estimates System (1996). | ||
Considering all No-Zone locations, the study estimates that potentially 89,500 crashes, or 35% of all two-vehicle crashes between a large truck and a passenger vehicle, occur within these areas. Although the GES is a statistical sample based on over 50,000 Police Accident Reports, it should be noted that these estimates have some degree of sampling error. A 95% statistical confidence interval around the estimate for total potential No-Zone crashes ranges from 73,500 to 105,500 crashes. Thus, if the GES survey were to be replicated for the time period in question, the estimate would be expected to fall within this range in 95 out of 100 samples.
The 89,500 potential No-Zone-related crashes for this time period translate to an estimated 30,500 personal injuries (this latter estimate was derived by evaluating the injury severity field in the GES person level file for those crashes already identified as potentially No-Zone-related). A 95% statistical confidence interval around this latter estimate ranges from 23,500 to 37,500 injuries.
Questions and/or comments regarding this analysis can be directed to Richard Gruberg, 202-366-2959 ((Richard.Gruberg@fhwa.dot.gov).
 |
Information on large truck and motorcoach crashes and the nature and effectiveness of the Office of Motor Carriers’ safety programs is available from: |
The
Office of Motor Carrier Information Analysis,
Analysis Division (HIA-20)
400 Seventh Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20590
HIA-20 has designated three "Data Analysis Coordinators" to assist field staff with data analysis inquiries; in their absence, inquiries may be directed to any other member of the HIA-20 staff at (202) 366-1861. Faxes may be sent to (202) 366-8842.
| Regions
4, 7, & 9 should contact Ralph Craft, (202) 366-0324. |
 |
 |
Regions
5, 8, & 10 should contact Dale Sienicki, (202) 366-9039. |
| Regions
1, 3, & 6 should contact Chuck Rombro (202) 366-5615. |
 |
 |
To obtain assistance in the application and interpretation of statistics, please call Richard Gruberg, (202) 366-2959. |
|
DON’T FORGET TO LOOK FOR THE NEXT ISSUE OF MCSAFE! |
Home |
Feedback |
Site Map |
What's New |
Site Guide
Privacy Policy | Accessibility |
DOT User
