There is increasing interest in level crossing accidents in Australia. As a contribution to research on the subject, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau commissioned Covance Pty Ltd to undertake a literature survey, referencing material published overseas as well as in Australia. The literature survey presented here focuses on published material that explores measures that can be implemented to help prevent level crossing accidents or to improve safety at level crossings.
Vehicle road fatigue expert group's approach
Concern about the cost and impact of fatigue in the road transport industry and the effectiveness and relevance of traditional driving hours regulation has made this report of the fatigue expert group especially timely.
The Parliaments of both Australia and New Zealand consider fatigue in the road transport industry important enough to establish committees of inquiry into issues and possible solutions.
In February 2000 the National Road Transport Commission of Australia, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and the New Zealand Land Transport Safety Authority jointly sponsored the establishment of a fatigue expert group to develop options for the medium term development of prescriptive hours of driving and work in the road transport industry.
The fatigue expert group comprised leading Australian and New Zealand experts in sleep, shiftwork and road safety who collaborated with the participating agencies and industry representatives to construct a set of evidence-based design principles for regulatory options.
The framework proposed by the fatigue expert group needs to be supported by other mechanisms to promote fatigue management. These other mechanisms include education, information, training, road treatments, technological aids and financial incentives/sanctions through workers compensation, vehicle insurance and safety management regimes.
The management of driver fatigue is not a matter for operators and drivers alone and the fatigue expert group emphasised the requirements and practices of others in the transport supply chain. The chain of responsibility provisions in current road transport legislation is designed to highlight that on-road performance is closely related to the decisions made by customers, consignors and loaders.
There are significant incentives in the social and economic profile of the transport industry for scheduling, trip planning and consequent driver practices that increase fatigue related risks. Competitive pressures, payment systems, contracting arrangements and even the unintended consequences of the current driving hours regime combine to create an environment in which fatigue has become an accepted part of industry practice.
The expert group was conscious of the need to provide a flexible and practicable framework in which fatigue could be actively managed by all those who are part of the supply chain.
The model of fatigue used by the expert group was centred on three primary factors that contribute to, and explain driver fatigue:
The Parliaments of both Australia and New Zealand consider fatigue in the road transport industry important enough to establish committees of inquiry into issues and possible solutions.
In February 2000 the National Road Transport Commission of Australia, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and the New Zealand Land Transport Safety Authority jointly sponsored the establishment of a fatigue expert group to develop options for the medium term development of prescriptive hours of driving and work in the road transport industry.
The fatigue expert group comprised leading Australian and New Zealand experts in sleep, shiftwork and road safety who collaborated with the participating agencies and industry representatives to construct a set of evidence-based design principles for regulatory options.
The framework proposed by the fatigue expert group needs to be supported by other mechanisms to promote fatigue management. These other mechanisms include education, information, training, road treatments, technological aids and financial incentives/sanctions through workers compensation, vehicle insurance and safety management regimes.
The management of driver fatigue is not a matter for operators and drivers alone and the fatigue expert group emphasised the requirements and practices of others in the transport supply chain. The chain of responsibility provisions in current road transport legislation is designed to highlight that on-road performance is closely related to the decisions made by customers, consignors and loaders.
There are significant incentives in the social and economic profile of the transport industry for scheduling, trip planning and consequent driver practices that increase fatigue related risks. Competitive pressures, payment systems, contracting arrangements and even the unintended consequences of the current driving hours regime combine to create an environment in which fatigue has become an accepted part of industry practice.
The expert group was conscious of the need to provide a flexible and practicable framework in which fatigue could be actively managed by all those who are part of the supply chain.
The model of fatigue used by the expert group was centred on three primary factors that contribute to, and explain driver fatigue:
- the need to ensure that drivers have adequate pportunities to sleep;
- the need to take account of the circadian biological clock, which dictates that drivers cannot work or sleep equally well at all times of the day and night;
- the need to address the fatiguing aspects of work demands, including the duration of work and the availability of breaks during work, which offer the opportunity for temporary recuperation from the effects of fatigue.
Heavy Vehicle Conclusions and recommendations
There are at present no exposure limits for fatigue and vibration that are accepted by experts in the field. The limits for ?fatigue-decreased proficiency? in the current Australian Standard have been deleted from the new International Standard because they were not supported by research. There is anecdotal evidence that truck rides are often rough, uncomfortable and tiring. However, specific research on vibration and fatigue is limited and many authors have assumed a relationship without reference to supporting research. Some research shows a possible link between constant low frequency vibration and fatigue but more extensive research is required to establish meaningful exposure limits.
There is sufficient evidence that vibration exposure to drivers could be a health hazard particularly with regard to back problems. The relatively high vibration exposure levels combined with long exposure durations and prolonged sitting are likely to contribute to back pain and other health effects.
The current International Standard (ISO 2631 (1997) on whole-body vibration provides useable guidelines for vibration exposures and predicted health effects.
Recommendations for further research
1. An extensive experimental study on a possible relationship between vibration and fatigue could be considered, although it is likely that such research would be costly to conduct. Such a study is necessary to establish whether the effects of vibration would be noticeable among all other contributors to fatigue and each factor known to contribute to fatigue would need to be controlled for (eg time awake, time on task, rest and sleep, circadian factors).
2. There are limited published data on vibration exposure to drivers under Australian conditions. Available data indicates that exposures are likely to be high putting drivers at risk to health. A field survey of vibration levels experienced by heavy vehicle drivers under Australian conditions is recommended. Such data would be necessary to establish standards for trucks sold in Australia. A survey of this type need not be expensive because sufficient data could be obtained from a relatively small representative sample of drivers.
The survey would need to:
o provide information on typical vibration levels experienced by drivers under a range of operating conditions
o consider the practicality and relevance of exposure limits or guidelines for health, fatigue and comfort
o collect information on factors influencing vibration levels and ways to reduce vibration exposures to drivers
o develop simple and efficient vibration monitoring and reporting methods
Information collected from the survey could also form the basis of an information booklet for the trucking industry.
There is sufficient evidence that vibration exposure to drivers could be a health hazard particularly with regard to back problems. The relatively high vibration exposure levels combined with long exposure durations and prolonged sitting are likely to contribute to back pain and other health effects.
The current International Standard (ISO 2631 (1997) on whole-body vibration provides useable guidelines for vibration exposures and predicted health effects.
Recommendations for further research
1. An extensive experimental study on a possible relationship between vibration and fatigue could be considered, although it is likely that such research would be costly to conduct. Such a study is necessary to establish whether the effects of vibration would be noticeable among all other contributors to fatigue and each factor known to contribute to fatigue would need to be controlled for (eg time awake, time on task, rest and sleep, circadian factors).
2. There are limited published data on vibration exposure to drivers under Australian conditions. Available data indicates that exposures are likely to be high putting drivers at risk to health. A field survey of vibration levels experienced by heavy vehicle drivers under Australian conditions is recommended. Such data would be necessary to establish standards for trucks sold in Australia. A survey of this type need not be expensive because sufficient data could be obtained from a relatively small representative sample of drivers.
The survey would need to:
o provide information on typical vibration levels experienced by drivers under a range of operating conditions
o consider the practicality and relevance of exposure limits or guidelines for health, fatigue and comfort
o collect information on factors influencing vibration levels and ways to reduce vibration exposures to drivers
o develop simple and efficient vibration monitoring and reporting methods
Information collected from the survey could also form the basis of an information booklet for the trucking industry.
Fatal Light Truck Crashes in Australia
Light trucks tend to be driven by couriers, tradespeople, farmers, etc. to deliver goods locally, to transport tools and materials and a range of other short distance activities. Data used in this monograph was extracted from the ATSB fatality crash database (1992-1997) and is the latest available data.
Key findings
Key findings
- At least one light truck was involved in 6 per cent of all fatal road crashes in 1996 and 1997.
- There was a 48 per cent reduction in the number of fatal light truck crashes between 1992 and 1997. By comparison, the reduction in fatal crashes for all vehicle types was six per cent.
- Fatal light truck crashes comprised multiple vehicle crashes (54 per cent), single vehicle crashes (26 per cent), and pedestrian crashes (20 per cent).
- The most common light truck crashes were head-on collisions.
- The incidence of light truck crashes was higher in rural areas than in urban areas.
- Fatigue and alcohol were the most common contributing factors in light truck crashes where the cause of the crash was attributed to the light truck driver.
- Fifteen per cent of light truck drivers had a blood alcohol concentration greater than 0.05g/100ml at the time of the crash. Compared with 3 per cent of heavy truck drivers and 24 per cent of passenger vehicle drivers.
Society Attitudes to Road Safety Main Trends and Comparisons
The Australian community continues to identify speed as the single most likely cause of road crashes. When asked to nominate the main factor that leads to road crashes, 37% say speed, almost three times the number that say driver fatigue (13%) or drink driving (12%). When asked to name three crash factors, over half the community include speed (59%) and drink driving (52%) in their list, and one in three include driver fatigue (33%).
This survey reveals a growing awareness of the dangers of speeding and increasing evidence of a shift in attitudes across a range of speed-related behaviours. The community appears to be moving towards a more responsible attitude to speed, and there is a decline in the level of extreme attitudes to speed, across a range of areas.
Nine out of ten licence holders recognise that increasing speed greatly increases crash severity, agreeing that An accident at 70 km/h will be a lot more severe than an accident at 60km/h (90%). Two out of three (67%) are aware of the link between speed and crash involvement, agreeing that A 10 km/h increase in driving speed significantly increases the risk of being involved in a crash.
There is a growing trend in acceptance of initiatives to protect the community from the dangers of speed. Support for a 50 km/h limit in residential areas continues to increase (73%) and close to half (49%) of the community support zero speed tolerance (i.e. strict enforcement of the 60km/h speed limit) in urban streets.
It is also widely accepted (88%) that speed limits are generally set at reasonable levels. However, one in three (33%) still consider it reasonable to speed, agreeing with the statement that it is okay to speed if you are driving safely.
Despite this widespread recognition of the risks associated with speeding, the community is less willing to accept the need for speed enforcement, in comparison with its support for drink driving enforcement. Support for random breath testing is almost universal (consistently 96%), while close to six in ten (58%) agree with the statement that fines for speeding are mainly intended to raise revenue.
This reluctance to endorse speed enforcement may be linked to driver behaviour, with more people admitting to speeding than drink driving. This is most evident when comparing the extremes of speed and drink driving behaviour. The number who say they mostly or always drive at 10 km/h or more over the speed limit (11%) is an order of magnitude larger than the number who agree that If I am driving I do not restrict what I drink (1%).
The community exhibits a growing recognition of the contribution of driver fatigue to road crashes, with 13% identifying fatigue as the main cause of crashes and one in three (33%) including fatigue in their list of the three main causes of road crashes. Awareness of fatigue as a crash factor is highest (39%) among those aged 25 to 39 years.
A new series of questions introduced in 2001 suggests that our awareness of fatigue as a crash factor is in many cases based on actual experience, with one in seven (14%) of those asked recalling having fallen asleep at the wheel while driving. Among these, a similar proportion (16%) had an accident as a result. Males (20%) are more than twice as likely as females (8%) to have ever fallen asleep at the wheel while driving. Approximately half of all people who have fallen asleep at the wheel (54%) recall doing so just once, mostly on a country trip lasting over two hours.
This survey reveals a growing awareness of the dangers of speeding and increasing evidence of a shift in attitudes across a range of speed-related behaviours. The community appears to be moving towards a more responsible attitude to speed, and there is a decline in the level of extreme attitudes to speed, across a range of areas.
Nine out of ten licence holders recognise that increasing speed greatly increases crash severity, agreeing that An accident at 70 km/h will be a lot more severe than an accident at 60km/h (90%). Two out of three (67%) are aware of the link between speed and crash involvement, agreeing that A 10 km/h increase in driving speed significantly increases the risk of being involved in a crash.
There is a growing trend in acceptance of initiatives to protect the community from the dangers of speed. Support for a 50 km/h limit in residential areas continues to increase (73%) and close to half (49%) of the community support zero speed tolerance (i.e. strict enforcement of the 60km/h speed limit) in urban streets.
It is also widely accepted (88%) that speed limits are generally set at reasonable levels. However, one in three (33%) still consider it reasonable to speed, agreeing with the statement that it is okay to speed if you are driving safely.
Despite this widespread recognition of the risks associated with speeding, the community is less willing to accept the need for speed enforcement, in comparison with its support for drink driving enforcement. Support for random breath testing is almost universal (consistently 96%), while close to six in ten (58%) agree with the statement that fines for speeding are mainly intended to raise revenue.
This reluctance to endorse speed enforcement may be linked to driver behaviour, with more people admitting to speeding than drink driving. This is most evident when comparing the extremes of speed and drink driving behaviour. The number who say they mostly or always drive at 10 km/h or more over the speed limit (11%) is an order of magnitude larger than the number who agree that If I am driving I do not restrict what I drink (1%).
The community exhibits a growing recognition of the contribution of driver fatigue to road crashes, with 13% identifying fatigue as the main cause of crashes and one in three (33%) including fatigue in their list of the three main causes of road crashes. Awareness of fatigue as a crash factor is highest (39%) among those aged 25 to 39 years.
A new series of questions introduced in 2001 suggests that our awareness of fatigue as a crash factor is in many cases based on actual experience, with one in seven (14%) of those asked recalling having fallen asleep at the wheel while driving. Among these, a similar proportion (16%) had an accident as a result. Males (20%) are more than twice as likely as females (8%) to have ever fallen asleep at the wheel while driving. Approximately half of all people who have fallen asleep at the wheel (54%) recall doing so just once, mostly on a country trip lasting over two hours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)