5611 Department U.S. of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration IMPA CT OF LOCAL/SHORT HA UL ON OPERATIONS DRIVER FATIGUE DEPARTMENT OF OCT 2 7 2000 NASSIF BRANCH LIBRARY REPORT NO. DOT-MC-00-203 This document is disseminated under the sponsorship ofthe Department ofTransportation in the interest ofinformation exchange. The United States government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The United States government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade and manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the object ofthis document. .ub /lo- ( f e-/ Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. GovernmentAccession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. DOT-MC-00-203 4. Titleand Subtitle 5. Report Date Impactof Local Short Haul Operations on Driver Fatigue 8-10-0 Final Report 6. Performing Organization Code 8. Performing Organization Report No. 7. Author(s) Hanowski, Wierwille, Garness, Dingus 9. Performing Organization Name andAddress 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Virginia Tech Transportation Institute Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 11. ContractorGrant No. Blacksburg, Virginia 15. 13.TypeofReportand Period Covered 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Federal MotorCarrier Safety Administration Final Report I 4160.0 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590 14. Sponsoring AgencyCode Supplementary Notes RobertJ. Carrroll was the FMCSA COTR forthis project. Abstract Though they comprise the largest segment ofthe trucking industry, research involving local/short haul (L/SH) operations has been scant. In fact, little is known aboutthe general safety issues in L/SH operations. As a precursorto the present research, Hanowski, Wierwille, Gellatly, Early, and Dingus (1998) conducted a series offocus groups in which L/SH drivers provided their perspective on safety issues, including fatigue, in their industry. As a follow-up to the Hanowski et al. work, the effort presented here consisted ofan on-road field study where L/SH trucks were instrumented with data collection equipment. Two L/SH trucking companies and 42 L/SH drivers participated in this research. To the author's knowledge, this is the first in-situ data collection effort ofits kind with L/SH drivers. The analyses focused on determining iffatigue is an issue in L/SH operations. Of primary interestwere critical incidents (near-crashes) where drivers werejudged to be atfault. The results ofthe analyses indicated thatfatigue was present immediately priorto driverinvolvement in at-fault critical incidents. Though it is difficultto determine whyfatigue was present, the results seem to indicate that much ofthefatigue thatthe drivers’ experienced was 17. broughtwith them to thejob, ratherthan being caused by thejob. The results ofthis research culminate in a setofguidelines to addressfatigue and othersafety issues in L/SH operations. KeyWords 18. Distribution Statement Fatigue, alertness, local short haul, instrumented vehicles 19. SecurityClassif. (ofthis report) 20. Security Classif. (ofthis page) 21. No. ofPages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 244 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction ofcompleted page authorized ThisformwaselectronicallyproducedbyEliteFederalForms,Inc. Final Report Impact of Local Short Haul Operations On Driver Fatigue Prepared for: Robert J. Carroll, Project Manager U.S. Department ofTransportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Office ofResearch and Technology SW 400 Seventh Street, Washington, DC 20590 Richard Hanowski J. Walter W. Wierwille Andrew W. Gellatly Nancy Early Thomas A. Dingus Center for Transportation Research Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 1700 Kraft Drive, Suite 2000 (0536) Blackburgs, Virginia 24061 September, 2000 ' ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was funded by the Federal Highway Administration, Office ofMotor Carriers (now the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration) under contract DTFH61-96-C- OO105. The Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) was Robert Carroll. Dr. Ron Knipling served as the COTR in the earlier phases and continued his involvement throughout the project. The authors thank Mr. Carroll and Dr. Knipling for their careful reviews and prompt attention in administrative matters. Our special thanks go to the beverage company and the snack food company, as well as the drivers ofthose companies, who participated in the field study. These organizations and their drivers were generous with their help. Thanks go also to the local/short haul drivers who participated in the focus groups of Phase I. These individuals were conscientious, candid, and professional. Thanks go to Dr. Andrew Gellatly who served as a moderator in some ofthe focus groups, and to Jim York who provided background information on the local/short haul industry. The authors would also wish to thank Andrew Petersen, Mark Young, Wayne Swanson, and Jared Bryson who built, installed, and serviced the instrumentation used in the data gathering vehicles. In addition, thanks go to Brian Daily who developed the data reduction and archival software for this project, and to Melissa Dugger who helped coordinate the data collection, reduction, and archiving processes. ABSTRACT The United States Department ofTransportation (1996) lists a multitude ofpast research efforts and future research endeavors aimed at trucking operations. Despite comprising a smaller part ofthe trucking industry, the majority ofthis research has been directed at long-haul operations. Massie, Blower, and Campbell (1997) indicate that trucks that operate less than 50 miles from the vehicle's home base comprise approximately 58 percent ofthe trucking industry. However, despite being the largest segment ofthe trucking industry, research involving local/short haul (L/SH) operations has been scant. In fact, very little is known about the general safety issues in L/SH operations. One ofthe few research efforts to investigate safety issues in L/SH operations was recently conducted by Hanowski, Wierwille, Gellatly, Early, and Dingus (1998). As a precursor to the present research, Hanowski et al. conducted a series offocus groups whereby L/SH drivers provided their perspective on safety issues, including fatigue, in their industry. As a follow-on to the Hanowski et al. work, the effort presented here consisted ofan on-road field study where L/SH trucks were instrumented with data collection equipment. To the authors' knowledge, this was the first in-situ data collection effort ofits kind with L/SH drivers. Data gathered from the drivers, as they worked their normal routes, were analyzed. For this research effort, the analysis focused on determining iffatigue is an issue in L/SH operations. There are six basic outputs stemming from this research: (1) a description ofthe L/SH drivers who participated in the study and oftheir workday, (2) a description and categorization of "critical incidents," (3) a determination iffatigue is an issue in L/SH trucking using a five-factor analytical model, (4) an analysis focusing on critical incidents occurring while making lane changes and backing maneuvers, (5) the validation ofthe fatigue factors cited in Hanowski et al. (1998) using a proposed fatigue model, and (6) pragmatic guidelines to address fatigue and other safety issues in L/SH operations. Based on the results ofthe statistical analyses that were conducted on a number ofdata sets collected during the field study, five guidelines are proposed. The first guideline pertains to driver education with regard to on-the-job drowsiness/inattention. Results from the data analysis li indicated that driver fatigue and inattention were over-represented to a statistically significant degree during an interval immediately preceding driver-at-fault critical incidents. The second guideline is directed at driver education with regard to sleep hygiene. The recommendation was made because the data from this study suggest that drivers who showed signs offatigue, and were involved in a driver-at-fault critical incident, had less sleep and poorer quality sleep than drivers who did not show outward signs offatigue. The third guideline is directed at improved driver training, particularly for novice L/SH truck drivers. This guideline was developed based on the numerous statistically significant findings showing that young age and inexperience were important factors in drivers being involved in critical incidents where they werejudged to be at fault. The fourth guideline addresses the idea ofdriver screening whereby L/SH companies could identify unsafe drivers prior to hire. The results from the data collected here indicated that the majority ofcritical incidents were caused by very few drivers. The fifth, and last, guideline pertains to the public monitoring ofL/SH driver performance. Similar to the practice instituted by many long-haul trucking companies, it is recommended that L/SH companies solicit feedback on L/SH driver performance from the general motoring public by using "how's my driving" stickers on the back oftrucks. Though neither ofthe L/SH companies that participated in the field study used such stickers, drivers in the Phase I focus groups suggested that signs on the back oftrailers are an effective way to communicate and interact with the motoring public. Generally speaking, the results ofthis study found that drivers demonstrated characteristics offatigue on thejob. Because this was a field study, it is difficult to determine with certainty why fatigue was present. However, based on the results ofmultiple analyses that were conducted, it seems apparent that much ofthe fatigue that the drivers' experienced was brought with them to thejob, rather than being caused by thejob. That is, poor sleep quantity/quality were prominent for drivers who demonstrated signs offatigue on thejob. Therefore, it is suggested that the off-duty behavior ofthe drivers was the primary contributing factor in the level offatigue that was demonstrated during the workday. In addition, it is suggested that because ofthe sleep habits ofthose L/SH drivers who typically demonstrated fatigue on thejob, these same drivers/workers would likely show fatigue on thejob regardless of their profession. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT OVERVIEW The U.S. Department ofCommerce’s (1994) TruckInventory and Use Survey (TIUS) provides definitions for the trucking industry based on "range ofoperation." Range ofoperation refers to the type oftrip (e.g., distance traveled) in which the vehicle typically operates. TIUS does not provide a definition for local/short-haul operations per se; however, definitions are A provided for local operations and short-range operations. local range ofoperation is defined as an operation that makes trips less than 50 miles from the vehicle’s home base. Short-range, or short-haul, involve trips between 50 and 100 miles from the home base. Based on these two definitions, local/short-haul (L/SH) operations can be defined as those that primarily engage in trips of 100 miles or less from the home base. To provide some perspective on this definition, long-haul operations, or those that likely come to mind when one thinks of"trucking," make trips that are over 500 miles or more from the home base. The United States Department ofTransportation (1996) lists a multitude ofpast research efforts and future research endeavors aimed at trucking operations. Despite comprising a smaller part ofthe trucking industry, the majority ofthis research has been directed at long-haul operations. Massie, Blower, and Campbell (1997) indicate that trucks that operate less than 50 miles from the vehicle's home base comprise approximately 58% ofthe trucking industry. However, despite being the largest segment ofthe trucking industry, research involving L/SH operations has been scant. In fact, very little is known about the general safety issues in L/SH operations. The research that has been aimed at long-haul operations has focused on hours-of-service (HOS) regulations and driver fatigue. One reason for this focus is the work routine oflong-haul drivers. That is, the primary task for long-haul drivers is operating the vehicle. As such, their workday consists mainly ofsitting behind the wheel and driving. On the other hand, the workday tends to be more varied for L/SH drivers. For example, in addition to driving, a L/SH driver may receive the day’s driving schedule, load and unload the vehicle, get in and out ofthe vehicle numerous times, lift and carry packages, engage in customer relations, and perform other IV