OUR SHARED RESPONSIBILITY
FOR COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY AND
OPERATIONS
RON HUGHES, PH.D.
NCSU INSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH
AND EDUCATION
July 9, 2007
OUR SHARED RESPONSIBILITY
FOR COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY AND
OPERATIONS
RON HUGHES, PH.D.
NCSU INSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH
AND EDUCATION
July 9, 2007
OUR SHARED RESPONSIBILITY
FOR COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY AND
OPERATIONS
RON HUGHES, PH.D.
NCSU INSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH
AND EDUCATION
July 9, 2007
We have a shared responsibility to
reduce truck-involved crashes
We’re talking about these kinds of vehicle configurations
Which may be further characterized by these types
of cargo body types
All having in common. . .
a GVWR of 10,001 lbs or above
And requiring a Commercial Drivers
License (CDL) to operate
CMV-Involved Crash Fatalities Per 100 Million
Truck Miles Traveled
NC
TMCSA Goal
5
Fatalities Per 100MTMT
4.5
4
North Carolina’s Performance
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
FMCSA 2008 Goal (1.65 fatalities/100MTMT)
1
FMCSA Strategic 2008 Goal (1.65 fatalities per 100MTMT)
0.5
0
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Calendar Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
CY2006
# Killed
#A
Injuries
#B
Injuries
#C
Injuries
Total Killed
and/or
Injured
151
241
1377
4076
5845
CMV-INVOLVED CRASHES BY INJURY SEVERITY
A
B
C
K
PDO
2005
230
1,330
2,797
196
11,954
2006
191
1,047
2,547
136
12,181
%
Change
-17%
-21%
-9%
-31%
2%
Data are from NCDOT Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System (TEAAS)
NORTH CAROLINA CONSISTENTLY IN ‘TOP TEN’
1994
314
319
268
182
175
155
190
180
123
190
1995
316
342
260
171
163
153
170
187
89
142
8
1996
391
340
260
192
155
134
169
181
143
140
1997
384
338
265
208
181
155
181
185
133
141
1998
401
319
297
189
213
165
162
174
145
128
1999
367
304
294
204
179
178
187
183
144
153
2000
412
331
279
189
164
152
164
166
145
147
2001
422
334
303
216
176
172
159
156
118
128
2002
391
313
320
169
152
142
157
182
137
123
North Carolina's 'Rank' Among the Top Ten States
in Terms of Fatal Truck-Involved Crashes
(1995-2005)
7
6
5
Rank
State
Texas
California
Florida
Georgia
North Carolina
Illinois
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Missouri
New York
BETTER
4
3
2
1
WORSE
0
1994
1996
1998
2000
Year
2002
2004
2006
2003
419
311
314
201
148
162
188
134
140
139
2004
396
359
322
214
174
139
165
160
132
121
2005
427
356
347
211
182
170
170
158
142
129
Is NC Really ‘That Bad’?
Top Ten States in Estimated Annual
Truck Miles Traveled (Rank Based on 2005)
Top Ten States in Number of
CMV-Involved Fatalities (Rank Based on 2004)
2001
2002
2003
2004
Texas
486
467
487
468
California
378
362
370
415
Florida
365
376
365
377
9819
Georgia
255
198
232
248
9192
9688
North Carolina
201
169
162
198
8583
8859
9141
Ohio
168
203
151
190
8724
8621
8822
8913
Pennsylvania
185
174
224
189
7454
7407
7380
7503
7753
Alabama
145
128
147
163
Indiana
7393
7391
7087
7239
7327
Illinois
200
156
194
158
New York
7030
6926
6789
6984
7221
Missouri
139
154
167
158
2001
2002
2005
20268
2003
21172
2004
2137
0
1960
California
20077
Texas
19450
19108
18775
20052
Florida
10197
10018
11836
9
1243
7
Georgia
8202
9667
9448
9551
Ohio
9556
9317
9209
Illinois
Pennsylvani
a
North
Carolina
8442
8287
8848
21706
13531
BOTTOM LINE: CMV-involved fatalities differ between states largely in terms of exposure
(truck miles traveled). ‘Risk’ x ‘Exposure’ = crash frequency. Is the ‘risk’ of fatal CMV crashes
higher in these states or the degree to which they are ‘exposed’ to similar risks?
Weekday Peak-Period Congestion Has Grown in
Several Ways in the Past 20 Years in Our Largest Cities
Source:
Traffic Congestion and Reliability: Trends and Advanced
Strategies for Congestion Mitigation (FHWA Office of Operations)
Growth in Total Delay
In the past year, a poll cited traffic congestion as the
No. 1 problem in the greater Charlotte region, and a
study found that congestion in North Carolina will more
than double in the next 25 years. Traffic delays in
Charlotte will mirror those currently seen in Chicago . . .
(eTrucker.com, June 2007)
RATE IN CHARLOTTE
RATE IN COMPARABLE
US CITIES
Source: 2005 Annual Urban Mobility Report (FHWA and TTI)
Did you know?
• Commercial truck travel doubled over
the past two decades. Freight tonnage
estimated to double by 2020, with
major portion carried by truck at some
point in chain.
Source:
2006 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit:
Conditions and Performance (FHWA)
Did you know?
• Commercial truck travel doubled over
the past two decades. Freight tonnage
estimated to double by 2020, with
major portion carried by truck at some
point in chain.
• On 20 percent of the Interstate
Highway System, trucks account for
more than 30 percent of all vehicles.
Source:
2006 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit:
Conditions and Performance (FHWA)
Did you know?
• Commercial truck travel doubled over
the past two decades. Freight tonnage
estimated to double by 2020, with
major portion carried by truck at some
point in chain.
• On 20 percent of the Interstate
Highway System, trucks account for
more than 30 percent of all vehicles.
• The growth in truck travel has been
exceeding the growth in passenger
travel over time, suggesting that the
percentage of trucks in the traffic
stream is likely to grow substantially if
current trends continue.
Source:
2006 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit:
Conditions and Performance (FHWA)
Did you know?
• Because of their size and operating characteristics,
trucks have a greater effect than personal vehicles
on traffic flow and highway level of service. Trucks
take up more physical space on the roadway and
do not accelerate, brake, or maneuver as well as
passenger vehicles.
• Trucks contribute significantly to congestion in
urban centers.
Source:
2006 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit:
Conditions and Performance (FHWA)
Did you know?
• Trucks account for at least one-fifth of the delay for
all vehicles in the 50 worst urban bottlenecks in the
Nation (2004 FHWA report, Traffic Congestion and
Reliability: Linking Solutions to Problems)
MAJOR BOTTLENECKS
Charlotte
Source:
2006 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit:
Conditions and Performance (FHWA)
Did you know?
• On city streets in crowded
business districts . . .
pickup and delivery
vehicles cause nearly a
million hours of vehicle
delay each year to other
traffic
as they stop to serve
office buildings and retail
establishments
(Oak Ridge National Laboratory, in its 2004 study,
Temporary Losses of Highway Capacity and Impacts on
Performance: Phase 2)
Source:
2006 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit:
Conditions and Performance (FHWA)
With respect to truck safety . . .
Two On-Line Tools to
Track CMV Crashes in NC
http://www.hsrc.unc.edu/cmv/index.cfm
CY2006 CMV-Involved Crashes in Troop H
CMV-Involved Crashes, Troop H
SOME DETAILS FROM 2006
Truck Crash Website
Click
Here
The Map
Tool Bar
Data ‘Layers’
Zoom to
Zoom to
Zoom to
Zoom
Zoom to
By clicking on these boxes,
access detailed info on driver, vehicle,
safety, and accident ‘histories’ for carrier
Query Function
The Map
Ability to ‘Query’ the Data
(in this case for speed-involved crashes)
NC obviously has good crash data ‘tools’
at least in-house
So, what’s the problem?
• Data ‘accuracy’ and ‘timeliness’ (as defined by
FMCSA)
• Our ‘collective’ responsibility for DATA QUALITY
• Understanding the role of crash data accuracy and
timeliness in future CMV operations
FMCSA State Safety Data Quality (SSDQ) Quarterly Map
How are we doing in North Carolina?
WHAT ‘WE’ CAN FOCUS ON
WHAT ‘WE’ CAN FOCUS ON
CRASH ACCURACY
‘ACCURACY’ on crash reports involving a CMV
Who’s responsible?
Who submits these reports?
Note: In large metropolitan areas,
such as Charlotte-Mecklenburg,
Guilford, and Wake counties, CMVinvolved crashes are more often
reported by local law enforcement
agencies.
7 out of 10 CMV-involved crashes in
Troop H
are, on average, reported by agencies
other than NCSHP
(based upon NCDOT 2006 crash reports)
= generally non-SHP agencies
(more likely operating off-interstate)
= generally about equal
= generally SHP
General trends based upon Troop C stats
WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT
• Motor Carrier Enforcement (MCE) interventions
(inspections, fines, penalties, out-of-service actions,
etc.) are less likely to be applied in the larger
metropolitan (urban) areas of the state.
• Law enforcement agencies in these (larger,
metropolitan) areas may not be as familiar with the
details of CMV operations (licensing, registration,
GVWR, CDL, size and weight restrictions, driver and
vehicle inspection procedures, Hours of Service, etc.)
as MCE trained personnel.
So where can inaccurate crash data
be a problem?
Why are timely and accurate data important?
CRASH DATA
FROM STATES
CARRIER SAFETY STATUS (SafeStat) Reports
IMPORTANT MEANS FOR IDENTIFYING UNSAFE CARRIERS
Crash involvement = 2 x
Driver violations = 1.5 x
In the near future, all commercial vehicles will carry a
‘transponder’ that will be ‘read’ as
the vehicle approaches a scale facility
How the system would work
We can’t do everything
It is physically impossible to:
– weigh every truck
– stop and manually inspect every truck
– check the credentials of every driver
The ‘Solution’
• We need to rely on modern information
technology methods and procedures
• These methods and procedures will only be
as good as the data upon which they are
based
• You and I contribute to the SAFETY
component of that data every time we
complete a crash report
We have SHARED RESPONSIBILITIES
for
• Getting the crash report data CORRECT
•Absolutely essential for all interstate
carriers and all carriers of hazardous
materials
• Submitting the report in a TIMELY fashion
While it may be just another crash report
to you
It’s critical to the trucking industry and to those
responsible for its safe and efficient operation
Another Thing to Watch For
‘Over-size’ vehicles operating off the ‘truck
network’ without a permit
• What is an over-size vehicle?
• What is the ‘truck network’?
What is an over-size vehicle?
A combination vehicle (truck/tractor
and trailer) where the trailer is 53 ft
or longer.
A combination vehicle where the
truck/tractor is pulling twin trailers
(also called a ‘double’)
REMEMBER:
These vehicles are not illegal so long as they stay
on or within 3-miles of an STAA approved route
What is the ‘truck network’?
What are the dangers of over-sized
commercial vehicles ‘off the network’?
Lane encroachments cause travel delay and
congestion and can present serious safety problems
Off-Tracking
TRACK OF REAR WHEELS
TRAILER BLOCKS TRAFFIC
IN OPPOSITE DIRECTION FOR
EXTENDED TIME
Lane and edge line encroachments
In Engineering Terms
Infrastructure damage
In Practical Everyday Terms
CAUTION
It must be understood that not all points
shown
hereon
are
forcrashes
vehicles
in violation of
(Based
CMV
2001-2005)
the STAA route restrictions
Due to the absence and/or unreliability of
trailer length data on crash reports, the
points shown here represent all CMVs with
trailers of 48’ or longer (a subset of which
are increasingly likely to be trailers in
excess of the 53’ limit).
Charlotte
The important point is that
‘where there are crashes, there are CMV
operations’
(Based on CMV crashes 2001-2005)
Crashes on Linear Features (Roads)
look for geometric design and traffic factors
Charlotte
Crashes that ‘cluster’
more in an ‘area’
Look at attributes of area (congested)
and type of CMV operation (e.g, delivery)
DOWNTOWN
CHARLOTTE
Where are likely
‘off-network’
operations taking
place, in the
CharlotteMecklenburg
area, based on
crash data?
(2001-2005)
74
77
485
Value
B
C
O
Total
Value
B
C
O
Total
Freq Percent
1 5.3
4 21.1
14 73.7
19 100.0
TRACTOR/SEMI-TRAILER
UNKNOWN HEAVY TRUCK
ANGLE
MOVABLE OBJECT
OVERTURN/ROLLOVER
PARKED MOTOR VEHICLE
RAN OFF ROAD - RIGHT
REAR END, SLOW OR STOP
RIGHT TURN, SAME ROADWAY
SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION
FULL ACCESS CONTROL
NO ACCESS CONTROL
PARTIAL ACCESS CONTROL
15
4
6
1
1
1
1
5
2
2
4
12
3
78.9
21.1
31.6
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
26.3
10.5
10.5
21.1
63.2
15.8
HUMAN CONTROL
NO CONTROL PRESENT
STOP AND GO SIGNAL
STOP SIGN
1
8
4
5
5.6
44.4
22.2
27.8
TWO-WAY, DIVIDED, POSITIVE MEDIAN BARRIE
TWO-WAY, DIVIDED, UNPROTECTED MEDIAN
TWO-WAY, NOT DIVIDED
2
9
8
10.5
47.4
42.0
Freq Percent
3 10.0
6 20.0
21 70.0
30 100.0
TRACTOR-TRAILER
UNKNOWN HEAVY TRUCK
ANGLE
BACKING UP
CR_TYP_TXT
FIXED OBJECT
LEFT TURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS
LEFT TURN, SAME ROADWAY
MOVABLE OBJECT
OTHER COLLISION WITH VEHICLE
PARKED MOTOR VEHICLE
REAR END, SLOW OR STOP
REAR END, TURN
RIGHT TURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS
RIGHT TURN, SAME ROADWAY
14
16
46.7
53.3
3
3
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
9.7
9.7
3.2
9.7
3.2
6.5
3.2
3.2
3.2
19.4
3.2
3.2
3.2
SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION
6
19.4
FULL ACCESS CONTROL
NO ACCESS CONTROL
6
18
20.0
60.0
PARTIAL ACCESS CONTROL
5
16.7
FLASHING SIGNAL WITHOUT STOP SIGN
NO CONTROL PRESENT
STOP AND GO SIGNAL
STOP SIGN
1
12
8
7
3.4
41.4
27.6
24.1
6
9
14
19.4
29.0
45.2
TWO-WAY, DIVIDED, POSITIVE MEDIAN BARRIE
TWO-WAY, DIVIDED, UNPROTECTED MEDIAN
TWO-WAY, NOT DIVIDED
Trucks and
Physical
Condition
of the Roadway
Truck traffic is a major source of physical wear for the
Nation's highways
The FHWA's 1997 Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study
found that trucks were responsible for 40 percent of
FHWA program costs, while accounting for less than 10
percent of total vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
We also know there
are overweight trucks
operating in the
Troop H area
CONSTRUCTION RAW MATERIALS
WOOD PRODUCTS
Bottom Line
• Local agencies have a shared responsibility for the timely and
accurate completion of crash reports
• CMV operations in urban areas may be more of a congestion
problem than a ‘safety’ (personal injury) problem
• CMVs with ‘twin trailers’ (doubles) and trailers 53ft or greater in
length are restricted to STAA routes
• The operational problems of over-length vehicles are
independent of whether or not they are overweight
• Overweight trucks damage the infrastructure
• Pay attention to GVWR and trailer length data elements on
crash report
• Know your counterparts in the Patrol or in local agencies . . . .
cooperation is essential
REMEMBER!!!
• Commercial motor vehicles are essential to the
economy . . . and to supporting the personal needs
of each of us.
• Law enforcement plays a key role in ensuring the
safe and efficient operation of commercial motor
vehicles.
• More can be accomplished by working ‘with the
Industry’ than by taking a purely punitive
approach.
WORK TOGETHER
TO
MAKE IT WORK