Division of Research
& Innovation
Report CA07- 0582
December 2008
Applying Safety Improvements to Fleet
Vehicles
Final Report
Applying Safety Improvements to Fleet Vehicles
Final Report
Report No. CA07- 0582
December 2008
Prepared By:
California PATH Program
University of California, Berkeley
1357 S. 46th Street, Bldg. 452
Richmond, CA 94804
Prepared For:
California Department of Transportation
Division of Research and Innovation, MS- 83
1227 O Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
DISCLAIMER STATEMENT
This document is disseminated in the interest of information exchange. The contents of this report
reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented
herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the State of California
or the Federal Highway Administration. This publication does not constitute a standard,
specification or regulation. This report does not constitute an endorsement by the Department of
any product described herein.
Appendix 3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
TR0003 ( REV. 10/ 98)
1. REPORT NUMBER
CA07- 0582
2. GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION NUMBER
3. RECIPIENT’S CATALOG NUMBER
5. REPORT DATE
August 2007
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Applying Safety Improvements to Fleet Vehicles
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR( S)
Douglas L. Cooper, Mohammad ( Ashkan) Sharafsaleh, David R.
Ragland, Loida Begley, Yong Hee Kim, Eui Jae Jin
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
UCB- ITS- PWP- 2007- 3
10. WORK UNIT NUMBER
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
California PATH Program
University of California, Berkeley
1357 S. 46th Street, Bldg. 452
Richmond, CA 94804- 4648
11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER
Contract 65A0139, Task Order 06- 18
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final Report
June 27, 2005 – December 31, 2006
12. SPONSORING AGENCY AND ADDRESS
California Department of Transportation
Sacramento, CA 95819
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The safety of both employees and the motoring public is of paramount importance to Caltrans, resulting in a
continuing effort to improve the operating vehicle fleet. The potential safety changes that are the focus of this
project are those that involve safety equipment enhancement over and above the original specifications for the
vehicle or outside of the scope of the original equipment design or purpose, such as rear view backup video
cameras.
The motivation for this project was Division of Equipment ( DOE) managers' need for an objective strategy to
address safety equipment deployment issues. These include determining where equipment changes should be
made, whether statewide or only in specific locations, what types of vehicles will be involved, and how the
changes should be made, for example, immediately retrofitting certain vehicles or changing the specifications for
future vehicles. Neither question needs to be answered on an absolute basis; for example, it may be appropriate
to immediately retrofit particular vehicles in certain locations while changing the specifications for new vehicles to
be deployed in other locations. Additionally, the problem may have non- equipment solutions such as changes to
policies and procedures.
17. KEY WORDS
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
No restrictions. This document is available to the
public through the National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, VA 22161
19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION ( of this report)
Unclassified
20. NUMBER OF PAGES
48
21. PRICE
Reproduction of completed page authorized
CALIFORNIA PATH PROGRAM
INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION STUDIES
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
This work was performed as part of the California PATH Program of
the University of California, in cooperation with the State of California
Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency, Department of Trans-portation,
and the United States Department Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration.
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are
responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein.
The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of
the State of California. This report does not constitute a standard, spec-ification,
or regulation.
ISSN 1055- 1417
August 2007
Applying Safety Improvements to
Fleet Vehicles
California PATH Working Paper
UCB- ITS- PWP- 2007- 3
CALIFORNIA PARTNERS FOR ADVANCED TRANSIT AND HIGHWAYS
Douglas L. Cooper, Mohammad ( Ashkan) Sharafsaleh,
David R. Ragland, Loida Begley, Yong Hee Kim,
Eui Jae Jin
Final Report for contract 65A0139 Task Order 06- 18 UC Davis
PREPARED FOR:
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
PREPARED BY:
APPLYING SAFETY
IMPROVEMENTS TO
FLEET VEHICLES
Douglas L. Cooper ■ Mohammad ( Ashkan) Sharafsaleh ■ David R. Ragland ■ Loida Begley ■ Yong Hee Kim ■ Eui Jae JIn
University of California Traffic Safety Center ■ Institute of Transportation Studies
University of California ■ Berkeley, California 94730- 7360
Tel: 510/ 642- 0655 ■ Fax: 510/ 643- 9922
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Project Scope and Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
The Fleet Safety Evaluation Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Step 1: Problem Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Step 2: Problem Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Step 3: Solution Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Step 4: Solution Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Step 5: Pilot Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Step 6: Strategic Plan for Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Step 7: Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Step 8: Follow- Up Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Step 9: Modification of Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Conclusion and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Appendix A: Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Appendix B: Caltrans Motor Vehicle Accident Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Appendix C: Recommended Additions to Caltrans “ Data Input for Motor Vehicle Accidents” . . . . . . 31
Appendix D: Fleet Safety Data Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The safety of both employees and the motoring public is of paramount importance to Caltrans, resulting in a
continuing effort to improve the operating vehicle fleet. The potential safety changes that are the focus of this
project are those that involve safety equipment enhancement over and above the original specifications for the
vehicle or outside of the scope of the original equipment design or purpose, such as rear view backup video
cameras.
The motivation for this project was Division of Equipment ( DOE) managers' need for an objective strategy to
address safety equipment deployment issues. These include determining where equipment changes should
be made, whether statewide or only in specific locations, what types of vehicles will be involved, and how the
changes should be made, for example, immediately retrofitting certain vehicles or changing the specifications
for future vehicles.
Neither question needs to be answered on an absolute basis; for example, it may be appropriate to immediately
retrofit particular vehicles in certain locations while changing the specifications for new vehicles to be deployed
in other locations. Additionally, the problem may have non- equipment solutions such as changes to policies and
procedures.
Our goal is to devise a system to assist DOE personnel in determining the magnitude and setting of safety
problems as well as answering the key deployment questions. The method we will use is a nine- step process
termed the FLEET SAFETY EVALUATION TOOL ( FSET). The nine steps are:
STEP 1: PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
A safety problem can come to the attention of the DOE from a number of different sources both inside Caltrans,
such as equipment operators, and outside, such as vendors. Active surveillance of data in the Safety Information
Management System ( SIMS) resulting in monthly or quarterly reports is an excellent means of spotting emerging
problems and trends.
STEP 2: PROBLEM EVALUATION
Once a potential problem has been identified, it must be reviewed with an eye toward answering six questions:
1 What is the magnitude of the problem in terms of the number, distribution, and severity
of incidents?
2 Is there more than one means to solve the problem; is the problem amenable only to an
equipment solution or should it be solved with some combination of equipment, policy and
procedural changes?
3 Is the problem related to vehicle working environment? The safety issue in question may be
related to where the vehicle is being operated such as a mountainous area versus a desert area.
4 Is the problem statewide? In addition to the immediate environment issues, what is the
geographical distribution of the incidents?
5 Is this a recent problem or one that has been occurring for some time?
6 Are there legal issues associated with the potential solutions? Will a potential solution increase
Caltrans’ exposure to litigation?
1
A P P L Y I N G S A F E T Y I M P R O V E M E N T S T O F L E E T V E H I C L E S
2
STEP 3: SOLUTION IDENTIFICATION
Similar to the identification of the initial problem, solutions can come from both inside and outside sources.
Additionally, the solution or solutions may be hardware, or changes to policies and procedures as well as some
combination of these.
STEP 4: SOLUTION EVALUATION
Once a set of potential solutions has been identified, they must be evaluated using vehicle crash data from SIMS,
and a benefit/ cost analysis. The output will be a benefit/ cost matrix of solutions linked to different vehicles and
locations.
STEP 5: PILOT TESTING
In this step, the reduced feasible solution set from Step 4 is evaluated in the field. The objective of the test is to
determine how effective a proposed solution is in addressing the identified problem. The findings from the pilot
test can be used to further reduce the set of candidate solutions that will be examined in more detail during
subsequent steps.
STEP 6: STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR DEPLOYMENT
The strategic deployment plan is developed to provide guidance for implementing the solution or solutions that
made it through the pilot testing stage and include recommendations regarding timing, location, and specific
vehicles.
STEP 7: DEPLOYMENT
In this step, the deployment plan from Step 6 is carried out and the solution( s) is( are) deployed.
STEP 8: FOLLOW- UP EVALUATION
The procedures in this step will be similar to those carried out during the pilot testing phase and might consist
of identification of performance measures, data collection, and finally some form of statistical analysis. The main
difference between this step and the the pilot test is that the pilot test customarily is on a small scale whereas
the full- fledged deployment evaluation is not.
STEP 9: MODIFICATION OF SOLUTION
In this final step, the results of follow- up evaluation may be used to modify the deployment of the solution or
solutions.
A P P L Y I N G S A F E T Y I M P R O V E M E N T S T O F L E E T V E H I C L E S 3
INTRODUCTION
Caltrans currently operates more than 13,800 vehicles over 16,542 centerline miles ( 2003) of state highway
involving a system divided into twelve districts with extensive variation in geography, weather, road type, and
population and traffic density. These vehicles range from Class 1 cars, through Class 8 trucks and their use varies
by type, district, time of year, and other factors. For the most part the Caltrans fleet is purchased, deployed, and
maintained by Caltrans Division of Equipment ( DOE), although some of the vehicles are rented and maintained
by third parties.
The safety of both employees and the motoring public is of paramount importance to Caltrans, resulting in
a continuing effort to improve the operating vehicle fleet. While fleet specifications are set by headquarters,
individual vehicles are maintained and frequently enhanced by local DOE shops. In establishing specifications,
the DOE is required to ensure that all vehicles meet state and national safety standards. Since changes made
locally have the potential to affect a vehicle’s ability to meet those standards, the DOE must maintain oversight of
all repairs and modification of fleet vehicles. Additionally, given the similarities between many equipment types
across districts, all DOE shops should be made aware of modifications made to vehicles at other DOE shops so
that they can apply lessons learned elsewhere. For these reasons, any changes that are considered safety related,
are, by Caltrans policy, to be evaluated by DOE.
This report will examine the current evaluation process and suggest a step- by- step approach based on data
analysis that can be used by DOE managers in making safety equipment changes to fleet vehicles.
PROJECT SCOPE AND MOTIVATION
This project focuses on safety equipment enhancement above and beyond the original purpose or specifications
for the vehicle. Two examples are rear view backup cameras and seat headrest modifications. Safety changes that
are not included are manufacturer recalls and those involving defective equipment or parts, such as defective
hand rails and steering- box bolts. These are the responsibility of the manufacturer and should be corrected as
soon as possible on all affected vehicles.
THE RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THIS STUDY ARE BASED
ON INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE FOLLOWING SOURCES:
INTERNAL INTERVIEWS These interviews were administered based on, but not limited to, a six- page
survey ( Appendix A) covering five major topics:
■ Background Information
■ Policies and Practices Regarding Vehicle Safety Improvement
■ Equipment Being Used
■ Vehicle Safety Instructions and Training
■ Current Trends and Emerging Issues
Interviews were conducted with the District Equipment Manager ( a district employee) and the Highway
Equipment Superintendent ( a DOE employee) in districts 3, 4, and 5 ( Figure 1).
A P P L Y I N G S A F E T Y I M P R O V E M E N T S T O F L E E T V E H I C L E S
EXTERNAL INTERVIEWS Based on the same questionnaire as the internal interviews, these involved
representatives of three private companies and two other state departments of transportation ( DOT) which,
like Caltrans, operate a wide variety of vehicle types in settings exposed to extensive work and public vehicular
traffic. The private companies were Granite Construction, Teichert Construction, and Pacific Gas & Electric. The
two state DOTs were Arizona and Colorado.
DATA ANALYSIS Crash and injury data were obtained from Caltrans’ Health and Safety Services’ Safety
Information Management System ( SIMS) and include information on crash date, location, vehicle type, crash
cause, and estimated cost. While the SIMS system contains a wealth of useful information, numerous areas lack
sufficient detail to allow accurate cause- and- effect analysis. Additionally, even when such categories are present
in the system, much information is missing or incomplete. For example, the category of crash costs includes only
preliminary estimates of vehicle repair expenses and is not updated with actual figures after the repairs take
place. Also, 38% of the listed crashes have an estimated cost of zero or the field has been left blank.
This project was motivated by DOE managers' need for an objective strategy to address safety equipment
deployment issues once it has been determined that there is a problem and that a feasible EQUIPMENT
solution exists. The two key deployment issues facing DOE managers are:
1 WHERE SHOULD THE EQUIPMENT CHANGE BE MADE?
■ Is the particular problem one that is encountered throughout the state or only in specific locations?
■ What types of vehicles are involved?
2 HOW SHOULD THE CHANGE BE MADE?
■ Immediately retrofit appropriate vehicles?
■ Change specifications for new vehicles?
4
DISTRICT SAFETY
OFFICER
DISTRICT SAFETY
COMMITTEE
IOUE
COMMITTEE
DISTRICT EQUIPMENT
MANAGER
HIGHWAY EQUIPMENT
SUPERINTENDENT
HIGHWAY MECHANIC
SUPERVISORS
HEADQUARTERS
DIV. OF EQUIPMENT
MECHANIC
LEAD WORKER
MECHANICS
AREA MAINTENANCE
SUPERINTENDENT
REGIONAL
MANAGER
SUPERVISOR
CREW
JOC
DISTRICTS 1- 12
Figure 1
CALTRANS’ ORGANIZATION AND INFORMATION FLOW
A P P L Y I N G S A F E T Y I M P R O V E M E N T S T O F L E E T V E H I C L E S Neither question needs to be answered on an absolute basis; for example, it may be appropriate to immediately
retrofit particular vehicles in certain locations while changing the specifications for new vehicles to be deployed
in other locations. Additionally, the problem may have non- equipment solutions such as changes to policies and
procedures.
Our goal is to devise a system to assist DOE personnel in establishing the magnitude and setting of a safety
problem as well as answering the key deployment questions. The method we will use is a nine- step process
termed the FLEET SAFETY EVALUATION TOOL, which will be examined below and demonstrated using data
from backing crashes.
THE FLEET SAFETY
EVALUATION TOOL
( FSET)
The FSET ( Figure 2) is a nine- step process that begins with the presentation of a problem and ends with the
successful implementation of a solution or solutions. Each of the steps will be presented with its input sources,
the action process, and the output.
5
STEP 9 MODIFICATION OF SOLUTION
STEP 8 FOLLOW- UP EVALUATION
STEP 7 DEPLOYMENT
STEP 6 STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR DEPLOYMENT
STEP 5 PILOT TESTING
STEP 4 SOLUTION EVALUATION
STEP 3 SOLUTION IDENTIFICATION
STEP 2 PROBLEM EVALUATION
STEP 1 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
PATH # 1 ENTER TOOL IDENTIFYING PROBLEM( S)
PATH # 2 ENTER TOOL IDENTIFYING SOLUTION( S)
ENTRY
POINTS STEP TASKS DESCRIPTION
Use results of follow- up to modify deployment
Follow- up assessment of performance indicators
Implement delployment strategy
Plan for timing, location and vehicles
Pilot testing at selected locations to determine feasibility
Performance indicator matrix to create reduced solution set
Identify solution set based on evaluation of the problem set( s)
Evaluate magnitude/ cost distribution
Active surveillance to produce problem set
Figure 2
FLEET SAFETY ENHANCEMENT TOOL
A P P L Y I N G S A F E T Y I M P R O V E M E N T S T O F L E E T V E H I C L E S
STEP 1
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION:
ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE TO PRODUCE PROBLEM SET
INPUT
■ Employees
■ HR/ Safety
■ Management
■ Vendors
PROCESS
■ Tailgate Meetings
■ Local Requests
■ Quarterly Data Report
■ Merit Award
OUTPUT
■ Problem Set
Safety problems can come to the attention of the DOE from different sources.
For EMPLOYEES, these are often initiated at the work crew level where they are brought up in a “ tailgate”
meeting. These meetings, between a work crew and their immediate supervisor, take place every ten working
days and are designed to promote workplace safety as well as to provide a venue for raising concerns or making
requests. In addition, employees can make suggestions through a formal process called a Merit Award, which
carries with it the potential for financial compensation if an idea is implemented, though this process is not
widely used.
When requests originate with the END USER, it must be determined whether the request actually involves a
safety item or merely falls into the comfort/ convenience/ personal preference category. Generally, the district
equipment manager will be the first to make this assessment. If it is found not to be a safety issue, it will be sent
back to the originating program where a decision can be made whether or not to make the change, paid for out
of the program's own funds. If safety- related, it will be passed up the line in the form of a “ local request” ( LR) to
the Office of Engineering & Production Services, where the final conclusion will be made. At any step along the
way a “ non- safety” determination can be appealed by the originating party.
A suggestion or request can also originate from within the HUMAN RESOURCES/ SAFETY DEPARTMENT or
from managers anywhere within Caltrans. Concern regarding a particular problem or idea may result from the
review of quarterly SIMS accident and injury reports, pertinent research reports, trade journals, or information
from equipment managers’ associations such as the Western States Highway Equipment Managers ( WSHEM)
association.
Regardless of the source, once a safety- related problem has been brought to the attention of the DOE’s Office
of Engineering and Production, it must be evaluated to determine what, if any, action should be taken.
6
A P P L Y I N G S A F E T Y I M P R O V E M E N T S T O F L E E T V E H I C L E S
STEP 2
PROBLEM EVALUATION:
EVALUATE MAGNITUDE/ COST/ DISTRIBUTION
INPUT
■ HR/ Safety
■ Management
■ Vehicle Accident Database
■ Legal Department
PROCESS
■ Analysis of Vehicle Accident Database
■ Management Knowledge
OUTPUT
■ Reduced Problem Set With Problem Characteristics
THE REVIEW PROCESS INVOLVES ANSWERING THE FOLLOWING SIX QUESTIONS:
QUESTION 1
WHAT IS THE MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM?
The first step is to determine if and to what degree a problem exists. SIMS data must be reviewed to find out:
■ How many incidents there are of this type
■ How are the incidents are distributed:
■ by vehicle type
■ by geographical location ( broken down by district at a minimum)
■ How many deaths and injuries are involved
■ The cost of injuries and property damage
A query tool is being developed to allow users to obtain this type of information by entering desired sesearch
parameters such as district or vehicle type.
An example of the type of information available to decision- makers from the SIMS database is shown in Figure
3 which lists total number of crashes by equipment type, for the period 1992- 2004.
A P P L Y I N G S A F E T Y I M P R O V E M E N T S T O F L E E T V E H I C L E S
7
QUESTION 2
IS THERE MORE THAN ONE METHOD TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM?
Although the problem is under consideration by the DOE, it may very well be that the solution lies, at least in
part, in changes not associated with equipment modification. These could include alterations to current policies
and procedures. Changes to policy would cover such areas as:
■ Training
■ Better Enforcement of Current Rules and Procedures
■ Consequences for Not Following Rules
Procedures often vary by vehicle type and operation. For backing problems, these could include:
■ Avoiding Backing Situations
■ Requiring Spotters
■ Requiring Use of Cones
In most cases the solution will turn out to be a combination of equipment modification and changes to policies
and procedures.
8
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
SUV
TRASH COMPACTOR
SPRAYER
TRACTOR, WHEEL
STATION WAGON
UTILITY BODY, PERS. HOIST
LOADER
VAN, 1- TON
GRADER
PERSONNEL HOIST
WRECKER
SWEEPER
DUMP BODY, 1- 10 CY
CONE BODY, 1- TON
VAN, MISC.
UTILITY BODY
SEDAN
DUMP BODY, 3- 4 CY
CARGO BODY
PICKUP
0.4 %
0.5 %
0.6 %
1.0 %
1.0 %
1.1 %
1.3 %
1.3 %
1.6 %
1.6 %
1.9 %
2.5 %
3.0 %
3.0 %
4.1 %
8.5 %
9.1 %
11.8%
14.6 %
23.6 %
CRASHES
VEHICLE TYPE
Figure 3
CRASHES BY VEHICLE TYPE 1992- 2004
SOURCE: Caltrans SIMS Database
A P P L Y I N G S A F E T Y I M P R O V E M E N T S T O F L E E T V E H I C L E S QUESTION 3
IS THE PROBLEM RELATED TO VEHICLE WORKING ENVIRONMENT?
The safety issue in question may be related to where the vehicle is operated. For example, the same piece of
equipment may be safe in a rural area but not when operated in a more confined urban environment. Other
operating environment factors that could affect the safety record of a vehicle include:
■ Mountain versus Desert
■ Wet versus Dry
■ Heat versus Cold
QUESTION 4
IS THE PROBLEM STATEWIDE?
In addition to the immediate environment issues, how are the incidents distributed geographically? Is the
problem more prevalent in one district than another? If so, how does this district differ from the others?
In Figure 4, for example, the average annual crash rate for cargo- body vehicles in District 4 is almost three times
that of District 6. While it may be that vehicle usage ( in miles or hours, neither of which is currently available in the
SIMS database) may be substantially higher in District 4, other factors such as operating procedures and working
environment may also be responsible. Further investigation would be warranted before any action was taken.
9
0.0
0.5
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 32
DISTRICT #
ABERAGE ANNUAL CRASHES PER VEHICLE
Figure 4
AVERAGE ANNUAL NUMBER OF CARGO- BODY
VEHICLE CRASHES BY DISTRICT 1999- 2004
SOURCE: Caltrans SIMS Database
A P P L Y I N G S A F E T Y I M P R O V E M E N T S T O F L E E T V E H I C L E S
QUESTION 5
IS THIS A NEWLY OBSERVED PROBLEM OR
ONE THAT HAS BEEN OCCURRING FOR SOME TIME?
The time frame of the safety issue is important because it may point to changes instituted at the time of the
increase in incidents or the introduction of a new or modified piece of equipment. In Figure 5 the number of
pickup- truck crashes is shown. There is a steady rise, peaking in 2001 and then declining rapidly through 2004.
While pickup crashes continue to be the most prevalent type of crash ( tenth when considering crashes per
vehicle of that type) it would be beneficial to learn why the number of crashes declined by half between 2001
and 2004.
QUESTION 6
ARE THERE LEGAL ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS?
There is a widely- held belief among public agency decision- makers that implementation of safety- related
measures can, unless universally applied, expose the agency to liability lawsuits. Whether it is the upgrading of
warning devices at rail- highway intersections, the installation of a guardrail along a highway, or adding safety
equipment to fleet vehicles, this is often cited as a reason not to act.
There is no doubt that we live in a litigious environment and that lawsuits, regardless of merit, are a costly fact of
life. Public plaintiffs can— and do— argue that the addition of a safety device is a tacit admission of the existence
of a dangerous condition and that installing such a device in one location and not in another constitutes
negligence on the part of the agency. But this can be successfully countered by showing that there is a valid
reason that the device was not universally applied ( lack of sufficient resources being a strong one) and that the
locations or vehicles where it was applied were chosen as a result of a careful, conscious, deliberate process.
10
0
100
200
300
400
500
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
YEAR
PICKUP CRASHES
Figure 5
NUMBER OF PICKUP CRASHES BY YEAR 1992- 2004
SOURCE: Caltrans SIMS Database
A P P L Y I N G S A F E T Y I M P R O V E M E N T S T O F L E E T V E H I C L E S The key argument here is that doing something is better than doing nothing. For example, it could just as easily
be argued that the agency had the opportunity and resources to install the device in, say, half of the target
locations or vehicles, with a potential 50 percent reduction in crashes, injuries, and deaths, but instead opted to
do nothing.
While the above logic holds true for everyone, the case for at least partial installation is even stronger with regard
to Caltrans’ employees. If a worker were to be injured in a location or by a vehicle in which the device was not
installed, the state would not be subject to liability in any event because of workers compensation, which is the
exclusive remedy for an injured employee against his employer. There is a seminal case in which a CHP officer
hit an icy patch of road and was seriously injured and sued Caltrans for dangerous conditions. The court held,
however, that he was limited to workers compensation. So, as far as Caltrans is concerned, as to any claims made
against it by its own people, it is insulated by workers compensation law.
STEP 3
SOLUTION IDENTIFICATION:
IDENTIFY SOLUTION SET BASED ON
EVALUATION OF THE PROBLEM SET( S)
INPUT
■ Employees
■ HR/ Safety
■ Management
■ Vendors
■ Network
PROCESS
■ Review Existing Policies & Procedures
■ Check Federal and Other State Resources
■ Consult Network
■ Review Literature
OUTPUT
■ Potential Solutions
While some issues have a strictly “ hardware” solution, for example, more efficient windshield wipers, others may
involve a combination of operational as well as equipment changes. Caltrans’ backing crashes, for example, have
been determined to be 93% ( SIMS) preventable by Caltrans’ drivers. The drivers could have avoided these crashes
by being more vigilant and by following current policy more closely. While stressing existing procedures such as
avoiding backing situations, using a spotter where possible, and performing a walk- around check prior to backing
up will go a long way in reducing such crashes, the addition of backing technology, including radar or video, has
been shown to make a material difference within those companies that have adopted it, including two of those
included in our external interviews: PG& E and Teichert Construction. This suggests a multi- solution approach.
11
A P P L Y I N G S A F E T Y I M P R O V E M E N T S T O F L E E T V E H I C L E S
The first step would be to examine existing policies, procedures, and training. Reducing exposure to dangerous
conditions may simply require changing how the job is carried out. Current initial and refresher training
policies should be examined for both rigor and relevance. Finally, if current procedures and policies appear
to be adequate, enforcement may need to be increased. This introduces a point that was repeatedly brought
up during interviews with Caltrans managers: the lack of meaningful consequences for policy violations and
preventable crashes. It is of vital importance that a progressive discipline policy be established, communicated,
and uniformly applied. Using backing incidents as an example, if a spotter was available but not used, the
consequences should be greater than if a preventable crash occurs with no spotter available. If the potential
spotter was a passenger in the vehicle, then he/ she would also be held accountable. If safety expectations and
consequences for non- compliance are made clear and applied in the same manner in all districts, there should
be no grounds for complaint by employees who have been disciplined.
The next step would be to look to other government agencies or private companies that perform similar work
in similar environments. There are a number of federal government agencies that could also be used as sources
of data and research. Local universities could also be tapped on an as needed basis to review current literature
regarding the problem.
There is a substantial amount of existing information which cannot be not found in published reports or on
government websites. The key to accessing this information is networking. At the present time Caltrans is a
member of the WESTERN STATES HIGHWAY EQUIPMENT MANAGERS ( WSHEM) association which was
established in 1967 to promote and encourage information and technology transfer through member states and
related agencies. It is an informal organization that holds a conference once a year in one of the member states
and is a networking group that discusses and disseminates information from general topics such as basic policy
issues, politics, staffing, and business practices to specific items such as the best truck to perform a specific task.
WSHEM has no website, newsletter, or other official communication.
A potential model for a more formal organization is the NORTH AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
TRANSPORTATION SAFETY AND HEALTH OFFICIALS which was created as a vehicle to disseminate safety
and health best practices among member state DOTs. If a state DOT is having a specific problem, other member
DOTs can be queried about whether they have experienced similar problems or have recommendations for
solutions. Their website ( http:// www. naatsho. org/) can be used for posting questions, new and interesting
technologies, best practices, and innovative ideas. Sponsoring such an organization could be advantageous to
the Caltrans DOE.
Additional solution sources are employees, via tailgate meetings, district safety meetings, and the joint
operations committee, and vendors. Commercially available equipment solutions can be found in trade journals
and by visiting vendor exhibitions at conferences.
12
A P P L Y I N G S A F E T Y I M P R O V E M E N T S T O F L E E T V E H I C L E S STEP 4
SOLUTION EVALUATION:
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR MATRIX TO CREATE REDUCED SOLUTION SET
INPUT
■ Potential Solution Set From Step 3
■ Vehicle Crash Data
■ Solution Effectiveness Database
■ Capital & Maintenance Expenses
PROCESS
■ Benefit/ Cost Analysis
■ Performance Indicator ( PI) Analysis
OUTPUT
■ PI Matrix
The primary means of evaluating various countermeasures and deciding if and where they should be applied is
the BENEFIT/ COST ANALYSIS ( B/ C RATIO). This will be performed utilizing the following three steps:
1 CALCULATE THE POTENTIAL ANNUAL BENEFIT FOR A SAFETY IMPROVEMENT:
Benefit = ( AvgFreq x Eff) x AvgIncCost
where:
AvgFreq = average annual number of incidents
Eff = effectiveness of the upgrade
AvgIncCost = average cost of this type of incident
2 CALCULATE THE TOTAL ANNUAL COST FOR A SAFETY IMPROVEMENT:
AvgCost = ( InitCost/ ExpLife) + AvgMaint
TotCost = AvgCost x NumInstall
where:
AvgCost = average expected annual cost per installation
InitCost = initial cost to purchase & install one unit
ExpLife = expected life of unit in years
AvgMaint = average annual maintenance cost
TotCost = total annual cost for all units installed
NumInstall = number of units installed
13
A P P L Y I N G S A F E T Y I M P R O V E M E N T S T O F L E E T V E H I C L E S
3 CALCULATE BENEFIT/ COST RATIO:
B/ C = Benefit/ TotCost
where:
B/ C = benefit/ cost ratio
Benefit = potential annual benefit
TotCost = total annual cost for all units installed
By performing this analysis for each combination of equipment, vehicle, and location we will have a matrix of
B/ C ratios that will help to decide both:
1 WHERE EQUIPMENT CHANGES SHOULD BE MADE
■ Should implementation be statewide or local?
■ What types of vehicles are candidates for change?
2 HOW EQUIPMENT CHANGES SHOULD BE MADE
■ Immediately retrofit appropriate vehicles?
■ Changes to specifications for new vehicles?
Neither of these two questions needs to be answered on an absolute basis as incidents and their potential
solutions differ widely.
There are a number of deficiencies in the SIMS database that make this analysis difficult. Cost estimates in the
database, for example, are only initial estimates. Once repairs are completed the original estimates are not
updated. Also, the estimate covers only repairs to the Caltrans vehicle involved. Other property damage is not
included. Finally, only 52% of the vehicle incidents in the database have cost estimates.
Another vital piece of missing information involves personal injuries resulting from the incident. While it may
be possible to link injury claims by Caltrans workers in other parts of the database to the incident, there is no
information available about other injured parties. At a minimum, the current motor vehicle accident form, PM-S-
0270, ( Appendix B) should be amended to include a section regarding the degree of injury to any person
involved in the incident.
Table 1 is an example of a benefit/ cost matrix resulting from analysis of backing crashes. It shows, on a district-by-
district basis, what potential benefits could be achieved by installing rear view backup video cameras in four
types of vehicles. This analysis was severely impeded by the limits of the SIMS data listed above and is therefore
based solely on the initial estimates of property damage to the Caltrans’ vehicle. The following assumptions
were made:
14
A P P L Y I N G S A F E T Y I M P R O V E M E N T S T O F L E E T V E H I C L E S 1 Statewide backing crash vehicle damage estimate per crash ( from SIMS):
■ Cargo body: $ 2897
■ Dump body: $ 1810
■ Pickup: $ 837
■ Utility body: $ 873
2 Cost to purchase and install video system: $ 600
3 Expected life of video system: 5 years
4 Expected annual maintenance of video system: $ 25
Using these cost and limited benefits assumptions, it would appear that a backup video system would only make
sense for cargo body vehicles in districts 9, 12, and 32. This example is for illustrative purposes only. Current
estimates of costs to repair Caltrans vehicles are inaccurate and payments to third parties are not included.
Adding these elements to the benefit side of the equation would greatly enhance the B/ C ratio.
15
Table 1
BENEFIT/ COST RATIOS FOR INSTALLATION OF BACKING VIDEO CAMERAS
DISTRICT CARGO BODY DUMP BODY PICKUP UTILITY BODY
1 0.36 0.26 0.54 0.11
2 0.21 0.27 0.13 0.07
3 0.40 0.18 0.05 0.09
4 0.75 0.53 0.12 0.179
5 0.39 0.21 0.15 0.21
6 0.61 0.25 0.06 0.17
7 0.72 0.25 0.12 0.11
8 0.70 0.32 0.09 0.14
9 2.03 0.32 0.27 0.00
10 0.23 0.20 0.31 0.15
11 0.32 0.36 0.14 0.16
12 1.22 0.47 0.13 0.18
32 1.07 0.44 0.09 0.05
A P P L Y I N G S A F E T Y I M P R O V E M E N T S T O F L E E T V E H I C L E S
STEP 5
PILOT TESTING
PILOT TESTING AT SELECTED LOCATIONS TO DETERMINE FEASIBILITY
INPUT
■ Reduced Solution Set From Solution Evaluation ( Step 4)
■ Non- Caltrans’ DOT Test Findings
PROCESS
■ Conduct Initial Field Test
■ Assess System Performance
OUTPUT
■ Pilot Test Findings, Lessons Learned, Recommendations
In Step 5, field tests of a proposed solution or solutions are conducted to determine their potential effectiveness
in addressing the particular problem. The findings from the PILOT TEST, and the subsequent system performance
assessment, can be used to further reduce the set of candidate solutions that will be examined in more detail
during later steps: Deployment ( Step 7); Follow- Up Evaluation ( Step 8); and Modification of Solutions ( Step 9).
The output from Step 4 provides a reduced solution set that may consist of one or more equipment or non-equipment
solutions. This reduced solution set provides input for the pilot test. Another source of input for the
test is results of tests conducted in other states by other Departments of Transportation.
Initial field or pilot tests are customarily small in scale and duration due to concerns regarding use of potentially
limited resources, including labor, to evaluate the performance of potentially many different solutions, some of
which may be eliminated or modified based on the findings of the pilot test.
First the test LOCATION for each element of the reduced solution set must be determined. If, based on prior
data collection and analysis, the problem is found to be limited to a single Caltrans district or part of one
district, the initial field test will occur in this same district. If the problem is more widespread, however, and/ or is
distributed throughout multiple districts or perhaps statewide, then budgetary constraints and data availability
will play a major role in determining where to conduct the field test.
Next to be considered is the DURATION of the test. Although budgetary concerns may limit the duration, the
trial must be of sufficient length to capture adequate specific performance data in order to generate statistically
significant comparisons with data collected prior to the implementation of the potential solution. Using a before-and-
after methodological approach, the frequency of the problem being studied, as well as the location and
number of vehicles involved must be taken into account when determining the duration of the test. The specifics
of particular cases may render field testing difficult or impossible. For example, if the problem occurs an average
of several times per week in a single Caltrans district with a relatively small number of vehicles, then a pilot test
can be readily implemented. However, if the problem occurs much less frequently, involves thousands of vehicles
and/ or is spread throughout the state, conducting a properly designed pilot test would be substantially more
difficult and may not be possible at all.
The test should be designed so that the before- solution period and the after- solution period are similar to each
other in as many characteristics as possible so that changes in performance measures may be attributed to the
application of the particular solution.
16
A P P L Y I N G S A F E T Y I M P R O V E M E N T S T O F L E E T V E H I C L E S ASSESS SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
The objective of assessing system performance is to determine how effective a proposed solution is in
addressing the problem it was selected to solve. To conduct this evaluation, a set of performance measures
needs to be identified along with a determination of the availability of the appropriate data associated with
these performance measures.
Typical performance measures include changes in the number of injuries and/ or fatalities, changes in the severity
of injuries, and user ( vehicle driver) satisfaction. User satisfaction may be determined by means of surveys.
Ideally, each potential solution should be tested separately in order to accurately identify the result of each
during the system performance assessment. However, the extent of resource limitations may require pilot testing
of multiple solutions in a single testing environment.
Output from the system performance evaluation will include lessons learned and recommendations. The findings
will include a comparative analysis of each of the candidate solutions in the reduced solution set, with comparisons
between potential equipment solutions and comparisons between possible non- equipment solutions. Based on
the findings of the pilot test, we may be able to eliminate one or more of the prospective solutions.
STEP 6
STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR DEPLOYMENT
PLAN FOR TIMING, LOCATION, AND VEHICLES
INPUT
■ Pilot Test Findings, Lessons Learned, Recommendations
PROCESS
■ Prepare Deployment Plan
OUTPUT
■ Planning Document for Deployment of Solution or Solutions
This section describes considerations involved in the development of a plan to guide the implementation
of a solution or solutions to the identified problem. The output from the pilot test ( Step 5) might include a
recommendation to remove one or more elements from the reduced set of solutions ( output from Step 4). We
refer to this possibly modified set of solutions as the STEP 5 SET OF SOLUTIONS. As was the case in Step 4,
the Step 5 set of solutions may be comprised of one or more equipment or non- equipment solutions and this
set provides the input for step 6.
17
A P P L Y I N G S A F E T Y I M P R O V E M E N T S T O F L E E T V E H I C L E S
A STRATEGIC DEPLOYMENT PLAN is developed to offer guidance in implementing a solution or solutions
to designated Caltrans fleet vehicle problems. The contents of a strategic deployment plan should cover the
following related and inter- dependent topics:
■ Implementers and Management
■ Type
■ Approach
■ Location
■ Timing
■ Impacts
■ Vehicles
■ Operational Scenarios
■ Funding Issues
IMPLEMENTERS AND MANAGEMENT Caltrans staff at both the district and headquarters levels will
have roles and responsibilities in the deployment of the solution or solutions. Specific roles depend on where
the solution is implemented, whether in a single district or in multiple districts, which in turn depends on where
the problem was identified. The management of the deployment process, whether at the district level with a
close- to- the- problem view or at headquarters with a broader perspective view, needs to include communication
paths and means of coordination.
TYPE The solution to the identified problem will be equipment- related and/ or non- equipment related. The
equipment- related solution may involve the use of particular technologies, such as radar systems, for which a
specific commercial product must be selected from possibly many alternatives. For non- equipment solutions,
the focus is on policy or procedural changes likely due to driver- related problem causes. Such solutions may
include enhanced driver training, additional staff to support the driver, and more stringent enforcement of driver
regulations.
APPROACH The particular way a solution is executed depends on whether it is equipment- or non-equipment-
related. If the solution is equipment- related, the primary questions is whether to implement the
solution by retrofitting existing equipment, or by changing equipment requirement specifications to address
the problem by acquiring new equipment. To help determine which of these two alternative strategies to select,
implementers should consider the equipment turnover rate. If turnover is fast then it appears reasonable to
change specifications for new equipment; if the rate is slow, then the retrofit route should be selected. However,
implementers need to determine precise meanings of turnover speed.
LOCATION The solution may be implemented only where the problem was identified, which may be a single
Caltrans district or part of a district, or it may be implemented on a statewide basis independent of where the
problem occurred. If the problem is more widespread and distributed throughout multiple districts or statewide,
then budgetary constraints and data availability will play a major role in determining where to deploy the
solution; either in a single area or in multiple locations.
IMPACTS The deployment of the solution may have implications, legal, for example, other than addressing
the identified problem. It is important to consider other consequences that may occur as a result of implementing
the solution.
18
A P P L Y I N G S A F E T Y I M P R O V E M E N T S T O F L E E T V E H I C L E S VEHICLES During the problem identification step ( Step 1), the types of fleet vehicles affected by the problem
are determined. Therefore, it appears reasonable to focus only on these vehicle types when implementing the
solution. However, in cases wherein the problem and associated solution are equipment- related, there may be
other vehicle types not associated with the particular problem, but which have the same equipment and could
be vulnerable to the same problem in the future. Implementers must consider these alternatives carefully.
OPERATIONAL SCENARIOS Associated with each identified problem is the operational context
in which the problem occurred. As part of the deployment of each solution to the problem, changes to the
operational context should be considered. In particular, if deployment includes vehicle types not associated
with the problem, should deployment also reflect operational scenarios for these other vehicle types or remain
focused on vehicles directly affected by the problem?
FUNDING ISSUES There are numerous decisions involved in the course of implementing the solution to
the problem. Each choice has a financial component that needs to be considered an integral part of the decision-making
process. For example, trade- offs between budgetary constraints and the severity of injuries associated
with a particular problem should be closely examined.
TIMING The scheduling for the start of deployment depends on the other issues being considered, including
location, vehicle types, operational scenarios, funding issues, and potential consequences of deployment.
The output of this step is a planning document for the deployment of each solution to the designated problem
as it was identified in Step 1.
STEP 7
DEPLOYMENT
IMPLEMENT DEPLOYMENT STRATEGY
INPUT
■ Deployment Planning Document
PROCESS
■ Follow Guidelines in Deployment Planning Document
OUTPUT
■ Deployed Solution or Solutions
The output from Step 6, the deployment planning document, provides the input for Step 7. The guidelines in
the deployment planning document are to be followed and the solution deployed.
19
A P P L Y I N G S A F E T Y I M P R O V E M E N T S T O F L E E T V E H I C L E S
STEP 8
FOLLOW- UP EVALUATION
FOLLOW- UP ASSESSMENT OF PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
INPUT
■ Pilot Test Findings
■ Planning Document for Deployment of Solution or Solutions
■ Deployed Solution
PROCESS
■ Use Before- and- After Methodology
■ Identify Performance Measures
■ Collect Data
■ Analyze Data
OUTPUT
■ Evaluation’s Findings, Lessons Learned, Recommendations
Input for the follow- up evaluation consists of output from Steps 5, 6, and 7.
The follow- up evaluation procedures are similar to those described in Step 5: 1 use of before- and- after
methodology, 2 identification of performance measures, 3 collection of data, and 4 data analysis. The main
difference between the pilot test and the follow- up evaluation is that the pilot test customarily is on a small scale
whereas the post- deployment evaluation is on a larger scale.
Output from the follow- up evaluation will include the study’s findings, lessons learned, and recommendations.
The findings consist of a comparative analysis of each of the deployed solutions to the designated problem.
Recommendations comprise changes to the set of deployed solutions, such as elimination of one or more of the
solutions from further consideration.
STEP 9
MODIFICATION OF SOLUTION
USE RESULTS OF FOLLOW- UP TO MODIFY DEPLOYMENT
INPUT
■ Evaluation’s Findings, Lessons Learned, Recommendations
PROCESS
■ Implement Recommendations From Follow- Up Evaluation
OUTPUT
■ Modification of Deployment Strategy
20
A P P L Y I N G S A F E T Y I M P R O V E M E N T S T O F L E E T V E H I C L E S The output from the follow- up evaluation consists of its findings, lessons learned, and recommendations, and
serves as input for Step 9. The changes to the set of solutions indicated in the recommendations from the
follow- up evaluation are implemented. Such modifications can range from no change all the way to eliminating
all solutions from further consideration and starting the entire process over again. More typically, changes will
fall between these two extremes, for example, a further reduction in the set of solutions that are deployed. The
output of Step 9 is the final set of solutions to the designated problem.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSION
■ Caltrans' fleet has a significant and costly collision history
■ The DOE has a comprehensive system for addressing fleet safety
■ Caltrans has determined that modifications to vehicles and procedures could further increease safety
■ This report describes the FLEET SAFETY EVALUATION TOOL ( FSET), a nine- step approach to
identify and evaluate vehicle safety enhancements
RECOMMENDATIONS
■ Expand SIMS data system resource potential by incorporating additional information categories
into current data forms
■ Include third- party collision costs
■ Develop a computer- based implementation of the FLEET SAFETY EVALUATION TOOL
21
A P P L Y I N G S A F E T Y I M P R O V E M E N T S T O F L E E T V E H I C L E S
APPENDIX A:
SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS TO FLEET VEHICLES
SURVEY
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
1. Which State DOT or Company/ Organization are you associated with?
❏ California
❏ Oregon
❏ Washington
❏ Arizona
❏ Nevada
❏ Idaho
❏ Montana
❏ Colorado
❏ Utah
❏ Wyoming
❏ New Mexico
❏ Non- DOT Company/ Organization
Please indicate the name of your company or organization:
______________________________________________________________________________
2. How long have you been directly involved with safety within your organization?
_____ Years _____ Months
3. What is your job title and description?
______________________________________________________________________________
4. What is your role in determining the need for and design of vehicle safety improvements?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
22
A P P L Y I N G S A F E T Y I M P R O V E M E N T S T O F L E E T V E H I C L E S 5. If you feel you can reasonably estimate the following, please answer:
What is the size of your vehicle fleet? ______________________
What is the distribution of your fleet?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
How often are vehicles inspected? ___________________
Policies and practices regarding vehicle safety improvement:
6. Does you organization have a formal procedure for identifying vehicular safety problems?
_____ Yes _____ No
IF “ Yes”, please outline that procedure:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
7. Does you organization provide a means for employees to report safety problems?
_____ Yes _____ No
Can this be done anonymously if the employee desires? _____ Yes _____ No
8. Does you organization provide a means for employees to make safety related suggestions?
_____ Yes _____ No
23
A P P L Y I N G S A F E T Y I M P R O V E M E N T S T O F L E E T V E H I C L E S
9. How does your organization identify safety problems?
____ Regular review of crash reports
____ Regular review of maintenance records
____ Regular driver interviews
____ Other. Please list:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
10. What is the procedure once a problem is identified?
( Please include information on solution identification, selection, and implementation)
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
11. How effective do you think these polices are in identifying safety problems?
On the 1 to 10 scale below, please circle the number that you feel is most appropriate
Very successful Somewhat successful Not successful
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
24
A P P L Y I N G S A F E T Y I M P R O V E M E N T S T O F L E E T V E H I C L E S 12. How effective do you think these polices are once a safety problems is identified?
On the 1 to 10 scale below, please circle the number that you feel is most appropriate
Very successful Somewhat successful Not successful
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
13. To what extent would you say your organization’s vehicular safety policies are being followed?
On the 1 to 10 scale below, please circle the number that you feel is most appropriate
Very successful Somewhat successful Not successful
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
14. Does your organization have some means to determine if safety policies
and procedures are being followed?
_____ Yes _____ No
IF “ Yes”, please outline:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
15. Does your organization routinely collect safety related data?
_____ Yes _____ No
IF “ Yes”, what types of data are collected and do you find this data useful?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
25
A P P L Y I N G S A F E T Y I M P R O V E M E N T S T O F L E E T V E H I C L E S
16. What safety related data that is not currently collected do you think should be collected?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
EQUIPMENT BEING USED:
17. Have you made any changes to your equipment to improve safety?
_____ Yes _____ No
If “ Yes,” please list them and indicate if they have been effective:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
18. Are there any safety improvements would you like to have made but were unable to?
_____ Yes _____ No
If “ Yes,” please list them and indicate why they were not implemented:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
26
A P P L Y I N G S A F E T Y I M P R O V E M E N T S T O F L E E T V E H I C L E S VEHICLE SAFETY INSTRUCTIONS AND TRAINING:
19. What kind of vehicle safety instruction and/ or training do you provide
and to whom is it provided? Please describe.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
20. How effective is the training?
On the 1 to 10 scale below, please circle the number that you feel is most appropriate
Very successful Somewhat successful Not successful
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
21. What is the most effective part of the training? Least effective?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
27
A P P L Y I N G S A F E T Y I M P R O V E M E N T S T O F L E E T V E H I C L E S
CURRENT TRENDS AND EMERGING ISSUES:
22. Please describe any issues currently being addressed in your
organization regarding improving vehicle safety:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
23. How were these issues identified?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
24. Please describe the procedure used for prioritizing vehicle safety
improvements within your organization:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
28
A P P L Y I N G S A F E T Y I M P R O V E M E N T S T O F L E E T V E H I C L E S 25. How successful do you feel the vehicle safety improvements that have already
been implemented in your agency have been?
On the 1 to 10 scale below, please circle the number that you feel is most appropriate
Very successful Somewhat successful Not successful
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
26. How do you quantify the success or effectiveness of safety improvements?
( For example: does the crash rate go down; is the benefit/ cost ratio greater than one?)
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
We appreciate the time and effort you put into participating in this survey.
29
A P P L Y I N G S A F E T Y I M P R O V E M E N T S T O F L E E T V E H I C L E S
APPENDIX B:
CALTRANS MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT FORM
30
A P P L Y I N G S A F E T Y I M P R O V E M E N T S T O F L E E T V E H I C L E S APPENDIX C:
RECOMMENDED ADDITIONS TO CALTRANS’
“ DATA INPUT FOR MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS”
The information collected on vehicular accidents for the SIMS database should be amended to include the
following additions as a minimum:
INJURIES
1. DRIVER
2. PASSENGER
3. OTHER VEHICLE DRIVER
4. OTHER VEHICLE PASSENGER
5. PEDESTRIAN
These would be listed using either the KABCO injury scale or the MAIS system.
KABCO
K - Fatal
A - Incapacitating injury
B - Non- incapacitating injury
C - Possible injury
0 - No injury
MAIS: Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale = severity of worst injury
MAIS 0 : no injury
MAIS 1: minor injury: abrasion, laceration, broken finger
MAIS 2: moderate: simple broken bone, loss of consciousness
MAIS 3: serious: complicated fracture, concussion
MAIS 4: severe: massive organ injury, heart laceration
MAIS 5: critical: spinal cord syndrome, crushed limb
MAIS 6 : unsurvivable: crushed skull, chest
31
A P P L Y I N G S A F E T Y I M P R O V E M E N T S T O F L E E T V E H I C L E S
APPENDIX D:
FLEET SAFETY DATA REPORT
The first step of the Fleet Safety Evaluation Tool is problem identification. As discussed earlier, this may originate
from within the human resources/ safety department or from managers anywhere within Caltrans as a result of
reviewing quarterly SIMS accident and injury reports
The data may be examined starting with general information and then working toward the more specific. While
the following information does not exhaust all of the potential ways to look at the data, it does give a sense of
what is available. Figure 1 shows the number of motor vehicle crashes from 1992 through 2004. Information on the
number of vehicles during these years is not available so there is no way of knowing whether the changes in the
number of incidents are due to changes in accident rates or merely reflect differences in the number of vehicles or
miles driven. Data on vehicle numbers and usage have been requested and will be available for future reports.
FIGURE 1: CRASH FREQUENCY BY YEAR
Next, motor vehicle incidents are examined on a district- by- district basis. Figure 2 shows the number of crashes
in each district for 1992 through 2004. The data for the graph are not normalized for variations in numbers of
vehicles or vehicle usage by each district.
Figure 3 normalizes the data by dividing the number of crashes in each district by the number of total vehicles
within that district. This still may not give a complete picture since the number of hours or miles each vehicle is
driven may vary widely between districts.
Data in Figure 4 reveals the rather surprising fact that a number of drivers involved in crashes were not wearing
seatbelts, since this is a violation of Caltrans’ policy as well as state law.
One of the items recorded in accident reports is preventability. The crash investigator has the option of deeming
the crash non- preventable or assigning responsibility to the driver, another involved party, or another Caltran’s
employee. The results are shown in Figure 5. With over 50% of crashes deemed preventable by Caltrans drivers,
remedial action, whether through policy, procedure, or equipment changes could prove of great benefit.
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
32
A P P L Y I N G S A F E T Y I M P R O V E M E N T S T O F L E E T V E H I C L E S FIGURE 2: CRASH FREQUENCY BY DISTRICT
FIGURE 3: CRASH FREQUENCY PER VEHICLE BY DISTRICT
FIGURE 4: PERCENTAGE OF CRASH- INVOLVED DRIVERS NOT WEARING SEATBELT
33
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 32 Hdqtrs
District
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 32 Hdqtrs
District
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
A P P L Y I N G S A F E T Y I M P R O V E M E N T S T O F L E E T V E H I C L E S
FIGURE 5: CRASH FREQUENCY BY PREVENTABILITY
FIGURE 6: CRASH FREQUENCY BY BASIC CAUSE
The next category of interest is the basic cause assigned to the crash. The results are shown in Figure 6.
Unfortunately, lack of detail makes such categories as “ Improper Backing” and “ Failure to Observe Conditions”
difficult to interpret.
Moving toward a more specific view of the data, Figure 7 breaks down five years of crash data, 2002- 2006, by the
type of vehicle involved. Even though the data is not normalized by the number of vehicles of each type in the
Caltrans’ inventory, it does give focus for potential remedial action.
Figure 8 offers more information as it shows the number of crashes per vehicle. However, the usefulness of the
data is limited by the absence of specifics such as the severity of the crashes or the magnitude of the problem.
For this reason, the information here must be viewed in conjunction with Figure 7 for a more complete picture.
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
By Driver
By Other Caltrans
Employee
By Private Party
Non Preventable
Crashes
53.9%
3.2%
26.4%
15.9%
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
Avoiding
Auto or
Object
Blocked
Vision
Defective
Equipment
Disregard
Of Signs,
Signals Etc
Excessive
Speed
Failure to
Observe
Conditions
Following
Too Close
Improper
Backing
Improper
Operation
of Vehicle
Improperly
Parked
In Wrong
Lane
Lost Load Others Poor
Judgement
Basic Cause
34
A P P L Y I N G S A F E T Y I M P R O V E M E N T S T O F L E E T V E H I C L E S FIGURE 7: TOTAL CRASHES BY VEHICLE TYPE
FIGURE 8: CRASHES PER VEHICLE BY VEHICLE TYPE
Quarterly data can be very useful for giving early indications of emerging trends, Figure 9 shows quarterly totals
in crashes and crash- related costs for a two year period. Care must be taken not to confuse seasonal variation
with changes in trends.
35
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Sprayer
Trash Compactor
Tractor, Wheel
Personnel Hoist
Station Wagon
Loader
Grader
Wrecker
Cone Body
SUV
Sweeper
Van, Misc.
Sedan
Utility Body
Dump Body
Cargo Body
Pickup
Total Crashes 2002- 2006
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
Loader
Sprayer
Tractor, Wheel
Personnel Hoist
Grader
Station Wagon
SUV
Trash Compactor
Pickup
Van, Misc.
Cone Body
Utility Body
Sweeper
Dump Body
Cargo Body
Sedan
Wrecker
2002- 2006 Crashes per Vehicle
A P P L Y I N G S A F E T Y I M P R O V E M E N T S T O F L E E T V E H I C L E S
FIGURE 9: QUARTERLY TOTAL CRASHES AND CRASH COSTS
Quarterly data can also be useful when compared to a moving average. In Figure 10, quarterly crashes
preventable by the driver, viewed as both total numbers and as a percentage of all crashes, are compared to
their five- year averages.
FIGURE 10: QUARTERLY CRASHES PREVENTABLE BY DRIVER
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
1/ 03 2/ 03 3/ 03 4/ 03 1/ 04 2/ 04 3/ 04 4/ 04
Quarter
$ 0
$ 100,000
$ 200,000
$ 300,000
$ 400,000
$ 500,000
$ 600,000
1/ 03 2/ 03 3/ 03 4/ 03 1/ 04 2/ 04 3/ 04 4/ 04
Quarter
TOTAL NUMBER OF CRASHES TOTAL COST OF CRASHES
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1/ 03 2/ 03 3/ 03 4/ 03 1/ 04 2/ 04 3/ 04 4/ 04
Quarter
48.0%
50.0%
52.0%
54.0%
56.0%
58.0%
60.0%
62.0%
1/ 03 2/ 03 3/ 03 4/ 03 1/ 04 2/ 04 3/ 04 4/ 04
Quarter
5- Year average = 244
5- Year average = 56.5%
NUMBER OF PREVENTABLE CRASHES PERCENTAGE OF ALL PREVENTABEL CRASHES
36
A P P L Y I N G S A F E T Y I M P R O V E M E N T S T O F L E E T V E H I C L E S The final figure shows quarterly crashes by district. Since it is not normalized it should only be used to compare
quarters within a district and not between districts. Seasonal variation should also be taken into account.
FIGURE 11: QUARTERLY CRASHES BY DISTRICT
37
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
District
4/ 04
3/ 04
2/ 04
1/ 04
4/ 03
3/ 03
2/ 03
1/ 03
A P P L Y I N G S A F E T Y I M P R O V E M E N T S T O F L E E T V E H I C L E S