Article citation information:
Kapusta, J., Kalašová, A. A
comparison of truck driver safety between the EU and the USA. Scientific Journal of Silesian University of
Technology. Series Transport. 2016, 93,
49-58.
ISSN: 0209-3324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20858/sjsutst.2016.93.6.
Ján
KAPUSTA[1], Alica KALAŠOVÁ[2]
A COMPARISON OF
TRUCK DRIVER SAFETY BETWEEN THE EU AND THE USA
Summary.
Road transportation is playing an important role in almost all freight
movements and contributes to the economy. It has the highest share in the modal
division of transported goods. This situation is not about to change in the
coming years. Therefore, it is necessary to change the current situation and
modify rules and regulations, which could lead to a decrease in the number of
accidents in either the EU or the USA. This paper identifies and compares
different safety measures, rules and regulations governing the safety of truck
transport in the EU and the USA. The number of accidents is a good safety
indicator. Finally, suggestions for improvements in terms of truck drivers’
safety in the EU and the USA are proposed.
Keywords: road truck transportation, accident
rates, rules and regulations, safety systems, suggestions for improvement
1. INTRODUCTION
Road transportation is playing a prominent role
in the continuous health and growth of Europe’s economy. Billions of tons of
goods are transported on all road networks by big and heavy trucks. Freight
forwarders and logistics companies, which specialize in freight transportation,
focus mostly on customer satisfaction and the quality of the services they
provide. People expect their goods to be delivered from door to door as quickly
as possible and always on time. This makes truck transportation the only
possible mode to meet the demand for such high levels of efficiency and
mobility. Trucking is an essential part of an international trade because it
plays, at least, a small part in almost all freight moves. This situation is
not about to change despite increasing investment in other modes of
transportation [1].
The situation in the USA is similar, since the
trucking industry is crucial to the modern US economy. The combination of local
and intercity trucking dominates expenditure for freight transportation
services in the USA and this dominance has grown over time. The trucking
industry had increased its revenue share to 84.3% of the total amount spent on
all modes of freight transportation in the USA [2].
2. ACCIDENTS IN ROAD FREIGHT
TRANSPORTATION
The relatively low level of fatalities
in rail, sea and air transport accidents, in either the EU or the USA stands in
sharp contrast to the number of road fatalities that occur every year. Major
progress has, however, been made in road safety, with a noticeable yearly
decrease in road fatalities throughout recent years. The main aspect of road
safety measures has been implemented in order to lower the number of deaths in
subsequent years. Numerous initiatives by the European Commission are underway,
for example, to raise awareness and make trucks technically safer. The number
of accidents is a good safety indicator [3].
Road traffic safety refers to
methods and measures for reducing the risk of a person using the road network
being killed or seriously injured. Road traffic crashes are one of the world’s
largest public health and injury prevention problems. The problem is all the
more acute because the victims are overwhelmingly healthy prior to their
crashes. According to the World Health Organization, about 1.24 million
people die each year as a result of road traffic crashes [4].
A road traffic accident, also known
as a traffic collision or a motor vehicle collision, takes place when a vehicle
collides with another vehicle, pedestrian, animal or other stationary
obstruction, such as a tree or utility pole. Such an accident may have many
different results. Few of them are injury, death, vehicle damage and property
damage. This chapter provides the comparison of road traffic accidents
involving fatalities and injuries. These comparisons will be made between the
EU and the USA, and Slovakia and Texas, so as to provide a good overview of the
truck accident situation in these four areas.
Road accidents are caused mainly by
humans when they neglect or refuse to follow laid down rules, signs and regulations
concerning the use of roads. Smeed’s law is an empirical rule relating traffic
fatalities to traffic congestion as measured by proxy according to motor
vehicle registrations and country population. Smeed interpreted his law as a
law of human nature. The number of deaths is determined mainly by psychological
factors, which are independent of material circumstances. People will drive
recklessly until the number of deaths reaches the maximum they can tolerate.
When the number exceeds that limit, they drive more carefully [5]. This law
provides a good example of how people think while driving.
A study by Rumar (1985), using crash
reports from the UK and the USA as data, found that 57% of crashes were due
solely to driver factors, 27% were due to combined roadway and driver factors,
6% were due to combined vehicle and driver factors, 3% were due solely to
roadway factors, 3% were due to combined roadway, driver and vehicle factors,
2% were due solely to vehicle factors and 1% were due to combined roadway and
vehicle factors.
Human factors in vehicle collisions
include all factors related to drivers and other road users, which may
contribute to a collision. Examples of such factors include driver behaviour,
visual and auditory acuity, decision-making ability and reaction time. Driver
impairment describes factors preventing drivers from driving at their normal
level of skill. Common impairments are, for example, alcohol, physical
impairments (such as poor eyesight), age, fatigue (sleep deprivation), drug use
and distractions, such as conversations and operating a mobile phone while
driving. Road design is crucial for safe driving. Research has shown that
careful design and maintenance, with well-designed intersections, road
surfaces, visibility and traffic control devices can result in significant
reduction in accident rates. The last factor is vehicle design and maintenance.
A well-designed and well-maintained vehicle, with good brakes, tyres and
well-adjusted suspension would be more controllable in an emergency and,
therefore, be better equipped to avoid collisions. Seat belts and centre of
gravity are also very important parts of this category [6].
One approach to understand accident
severity is to investigate the relative frequency of accident severity. This
concept can be visualized as a pyramid, in which fatal accidents stand at the
top of such a pyramid. These accidents are relatively rare. At the base of the
pyramid are traffic conflicts, such as interactions between road users, which
do not result in an accident. The levels in-between consist of accidents
resulting in severe and slight injuries, as well as accidents that only result
in property damage [7].
In this section, some comparisons of
accidents involving trucks will be made based on two severity categories: fatal
accidents and accidents involving serious injuries. Fatal injuries include all
the victims who die within 30 days of an accident as a result of injuries
sustained.
The highest number of accidents
occurs in the US. Figure 1 shows the number of fatal accidents per 1,000
registered heavy trucks. The worst situation is by far in Texas, caused by a
high number of accidents and a low number of vehicles registered in the US
state. The best situation during this period was in the EU with as low as 0.013
fatal accidents per 1,000 registered vehicles. Rates have a downwards trend in
the EU, including Slovakia. On the other hand, accident rates in the USA,
including Texas, rose from 2009 to 2012.
Injuries are not always correctly
classified by severity in police accident reports. Definitions of injuries are
often not clear and there is no standardization, whether in the EU or the USA.
Long-term impacts of traffic injuries are poorly documented. There are reasons
to believe that the number of people living with lasting impairments as a
result of a traffic injury is likely to be increasing [8].
Since the number of fatal accidents
is almost seven times higher in the USA than in the EU, one can expect the
same ratio in relation to injury accidents. In reality, the difference in
injury accidents is not as big as in fatal ones. The main concern of EU
authorities is to reduce the number of all road accidents to a minimum
throughout the EU. After the implementation of new road safety policies,
the expected decrease in road fatalities and injuries is noticeable for 2011.
In the USA, the situation is much worse since the number increases each year by
a big margin.
Fig. 1. Fatal accidents per 1,000
registered heavy trucks [12, 13, 14, 15]
Figure 2 shows the numbers of injury
accidents per 1,000 registered heavy trucks. The lowest ratio from 2009 to
2012 was found for every year in the EU. Numbers relating to Texas and Slovakia
have a tendency to decrease over the years. On the other side, the situation
in the USA is getting worse. The worst situation overall is in Texas, where
there are not many heavy trucks registered since the registration taxes are
high, meaning that operators tend to register their trucks in different states
with lower fees.
Fig. 2. Number of injury accidents
per 1,000 registered heavy trucks [12, 14, 15, 16]
3. LEGISLATION OF ROAD FREIGHT
TRANSPORT IN THE EU AND THE USA
As can be seen in Table 1, 13 different aspects of rules and regulations
governing trucking in the EU and the USA are compared. Out of these 13 aspects,
only two of them (training and medical certification) are the same. The
remainder of the compared measures are mostly concerned with driving and rest
times, as well as the design of heavy trucks or highway infrastructure. Some of
the measures compared are similar, but mostly the differences are noticeable.
Every one of these issues potentially contributes to the different accident
occurrence in the compared areas.
The accident rate involving trucks is much lower in the EU in comparison
with the USA. Based on this fact, the assumption is that most of the rules in
place in the EU have a greater impact and are better at protecting the truck
drivers from getting involved in road accidents, thereby protecting all other
road users. Suggestions for improvements based on these findings are provided
in the next chapter of this paper.
It is shown in Table 1 that qualified training and medical certification
requirements are similar in both the EU and the USA. There may be slight differences
on how the tests are done.
Table 1.
Comparative analysis of rules and regulations
|
EU |
USA |
|
|
Qualified training |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Medical certificate |
Yes (two-year validity) |
Yes (two-year validity) |
|
Driver card |
Yes |
No |
|
Daily driving time |
Nine hours (10 twice a week) |
11 hours |
|
Mandatory breaks |
Yes (45 minutes) |
No |
|
Daily rest period |
11 hours (nine hours three times a week) |
10 hours |
|
Weekly driving time |
56 hours |
60 hours |
|
Hours of operation monitoring device |
Tachograph |
Logbook |
|
Cab design |
Cab over engine |
Conventional cab |
|
Drivetrain |
Up to 16 speeds |
Up to 18 speeds |
|
Speed limit |
Different for trucks |
Same for all users |
|
Left-lane use |
Prohibited for trucks |
Mostly allowed |
|
Driver feedback |
No |
Yes |
Speeding as a factor of truck accidents is more than twice as high in the
USA in comparison with the EU. This is an alarming fact, which needs closer
attention from the responsible authorities. There are several factors
contributing to this situation, which need to be changed. The main factor is
the wage structure. In the EU, it is strictly prohibited to pay drivers by
distance. The most common type of wage is an hourly rate. In the USA, paying
the drivers by the number of miles they drive is used in almost all
companies. This means that US drivers will try to drive as a long a distance as
they can every day to earn as much money as possible. Normally, the wage is
somewhere between 0.30 and 0.39 cents per mile. Each driver drives about 3,000
miles every week. The US agencies responsible for this should examine this
aspect and change to an hourly wage to discourage speeding and accidents.
Road
transportation of goods in the EU accounts for 46% in comparison with 30% in
the USA. Since there are other available modes, it would be a good idea to
distribute some of the goods transported by trucks to other modes, such as rail
or pipeline. Rail transportation in the EU is underused, as only 10% of goods
are transported by this mode. It should also play a larger part in
intermodal moves with road transportation.
The
EU has a considerably denser highway network per 1,000 km2 than the
USA. On the other hand, the US highway system used to be the largest
highway system in the world in terms of distance in one country, based on data
from 1996. Since then, there has been a stagnation (or only a small
increase) in building new highways, such that highways built in the past are
becoming more congested as a number of registered vehicles (not only trucks)
slowly rises every year.
Another
important factor involves driving time regulations. In the EU, the daily
driving time is nine hours (on two occasions per week, it is possible to
increase this to 10 hours). In the USA, the daily driving time is 11
hours. Compared to the normal working time for office workers, which is around
eight hours, US truck drivers work up to three more hours per day. The worst
aspect of this, however, is that there is no regulation concerning breaks for
US drivers, who can drive 11 hours continuously. In the EU, every driver is
allowed to drive at most 4.5 hours before taking a 45-minute break. This is an
important factor, which should be implemented by US regulation. This goes hand
in hand with mileage-based wages. Drivers in the USA should be forced to take a
break after a certain number of hours of driving. It is important to take some
rest in order to stay awake and be able to pay attention to the road
conditions.
Monitoring
the activities of drivers also differs between the EU and the USA. In the EU,
tachographs have to be installed in every vehicle over 3.5 t performing freight
transportation. On the other hand, in the USA, devices for tracking the driver
are not mandatory. This means that drivers can still use logbooks, in which
they are supposed to record the times and activities they are doing. Drivers
can easily fail to comply with the right way of recording the data into
the logbooks. For example, Mesilla Valley Transportation Company in El Paso,
Texas, is one of the few US companies using a device similar to the tachographs
used in the EU. This device tracks all of the activities of the driver and
automatically sends it to the safety department of the company. These data
are stored for at least two months. This is done for every truck the company
owns. These devices are also used for communication between the driver and the
dispatcher. Another good thing about this device is the fact that there is a
limiter installed, which limits the truck to a maximum speed of 62 mph (100
km/h). This is a good example of how the driver should be tracked nowadays. The
responsible authority should make the use of these devices mandatory for all
the trucks registered in the USA.
One
of the important factors of road safety is to see and be seen on the road.
Based on this fact, the need for lighting equipment on trailers is in place. We
can divide them into basic and additional equipment. Tail lamps, stop lamps,
rear-turn signal lamps, rear- and front-side reflex reflectors are considered
as basic equipment. They are used to indicate a vehicle’s presence and length.
In the USA, they are used by drivers as a sign of slowing down while going up a
hill and decreasing speed, as well as when there is an unexpected situation
ahead such that other users need to be warned of potential danger. In the USA,
there are additional mandatory requirements for equipment. This includes rear
upper body marking, bumper bar marking, rear lower body marking and side
marking [9]. On the other hand, in the EU, only basic equipment is mandatory.
There is a possibility to put additional lights on the trailer, but it is up to
the individual company [10, 17].
3.1. New safety features
Evolving
technological advancements offer great potential in terms of improving the
safety of trucking operations and truck drivers. Safety and security systems
are being developed by truck-producing companies in order to protect truck
drivers, as well as other users of the network. Their impact is not
noticeable right now. In the years to come, most of them will become a part of
all new vehicles built in either the EU or the USA, such as:
-
Lane
departure warning systems, which monitor the position of a vehicle within a
lane and are set to warn the driver if the vehicle deviates or is about to
deviate outside the lane unexpectedly.
-
Collision
warning systems, which monitor the roadway ahead and are supposed to warn a driver
when potential danger, such as another vehicle or object, is detected in the
same lane.
-
Adaptive
cruise control systems are in-vehicle electronic systems, which can be
integrated with a collision warning system and automatically maintain a minimum
interval in relation to the vehicle in front in the same lane. If there is no
vehicle ahead, it works as a conventional cruise control so the speed is
set by the driver.
-
Rear
object detection systems, which detect moving and stationary objects located
within a specific area behind a commercial motor vehicle while it is backing
up. Currently used systems can be integrated with other sensors, such as side
object detection sensors to cover other blind spots around the vehicle. The European
Commission estimated that the blind spot problem causes about 500
fatalities a year on Europe’s roads. In response, a directive that
requires rear-view mirrors to be upgraded to reduce this blind spot was
implemented [11, 18].
-
Tyre
pressure monitoring systems, which automatically detect and relay tyre air
pressure information through sensors attached to the tyres, wheels or valve
stems. These might be integrated with tyre pressure equalizer or maintenance
systems, which monitor and automatically inflate tyres to a specific tyre
pressure. This can be a valuable aid for proper tyre maintenance, which will
enhance the safety of truck operations and drivers.
-
On-board
brake stroke monitoring systems can detect major brake problems in real time.
They use sensors located at each brake actuator to monitor pushrod travel and
determine if a brake on an air-braked vehicle is overstroking, not releasing or
inoperative and then display the existence and location of the problem to
drivers.
-
Vehicle
stability systems monitor lateral acceleration from on-board sensors to reduce
rollovers due to excessive speed in a curve and prevent loss-of-control crashes
due to the instability of a truck. They can be used as passive (warning of
potential instability) or active systems (intervene by reducing the throttle
and applying different brake pressure in order to correct instability) [2].
4. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING THE
CURRENT SITUATION
Suggestions
for the EU:
-
Make
it mandatory to use flashing lights while going slow (for example, while going
up a hill) in order to warn other road users of potential danger coming on
ahead at high speeds.
-
Use
conventional cab design, which is safer for truck drivers, because they are not
seated directly on top of the engine. Conventional cab design also has better
aerodynamics, resulting in fuel savings.
-
Provide
a feedback channel for other road users through the provision of the respective
company’s telephone number at the back of the trailer (the number of the
dispatcher or another company representative, not the driver).
-
Use
other modes of transport (rail transportation or pipelines), since almost half
of all goods transported are by truck transportation.
-
Promote
the use of intermodality.
Suggestions
for the USA:
-
Change
the type of wages (from mileage-based), which are in place right now, because
the current arrangement has a negative effect on the driving style of the
drivers.
-
Revise
driving time regulations. The current rule allows long driving times every day
(11 hours per day) with no mandatory break.
-
Make
it mandatory to use some kind of tracking device (for example, a tachograph)
since the use of logbooks is out of date and subjective.
-
Limit
the speed of trucks by the use of a speed limiter.
-
Restrict
trucks from using left lanes whenever possible and overtaking each other and
other road users.
-
Establish
a lower speed limit for trucks on highways compared to cars in order to
decrease the number of accidents caused by speeding factor.
-
Implement
zero alcohol tolerance for professional drivers, even though alcohol
involvement in truck accidents is present in only a small percentage of all
accidents.
-
Use
winter tyres for all of the trucks when the temperature drops to freezing point
anywhere along the route of the transportation.
-
Use
lights at all times, even though the difference in crash rates concerning this
factor is not big. This should apply to all users since the most important
feature on the road is to see and be seen by others.
5. CONCLUSION
Based
on the analysis of accident statistics from the EU and the USA, it was found
that the situation in the EU is better than in terms of accident rates
over a period of four years from 2009 to 2012. Even though the total number of
fatal accidents in the EU and the USA is very similar, there is a big
difference in the number of fatal and injury accidents involving large trucks.
Road accidents are caused mainly by drivers when they neglect or refuse to
follow laid-down rules, signs and regulations concerning the use of roads. It
was concluded that the regulations in place in the EU are much stricter and
thus provide a better background for the attempts to reduce the number of truck
accidents occurring on the roads each year.
As can be
seen in the previous chapters, there is a strong need to regulate the truck
industry more strictly in the USA. There are several factors mentioned in the
recommendations, which might be a good starting point in any attempt to reduce
the number of fatal truck accidents in the USA in the coming years. This paper
provides a better insight into the problem of truck safety by comparing
different attributes of road transportation in the EU and USA. Suggestions
should lead to improvements in crash rates as they ought to provide safer,
stricter and more controlled working environments involving truck
transportation. Furthermore, the comparison with other countries, such as
China or Australia, should provide a better understanding of this worldwide
problem, while the regulations that are in place in other countries might
provide some good ideas for possible enhancements. The decrease in
truck-related accidents is encouraging. There is still a need to enforce
innovative rules and regulations in truck transportation to minimize this
number.
References
1.
Directorate-General
for Energy and Transport. 2006. Road
Transport Policy: Open Roads Across Europe. Luxembourg: Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities. Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road/doc/road_transport_policy_en.pdf.
2.
Burks Stephen V.,
Belzer Michael, Kwan Quon, Pratt Stephanie, Shackelford Sandra. 2010. Transportation Research Circular E-C146:
Trucking 101. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Available at:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec146.pdf.
3.
Huggins D. Panorama of transport. Luxembourg:
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2009.
Available at:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-DA-09-001/EN/KS-DA-09-001-EN.PDF.
4.
World Health
Organization. 2004. World report on road
traffic injury prevention. Geneva: World Health Organization. Available at:
http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/road_traffic/world_report/statistical_annex.pdf.
5.
Dyson Freeman. 2006.
Part II: a failure of intelligence. MIT
Technology Review. Available at:
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/406948/part-ii-a-failure-of-intelligence/.
6.
Lum Harry, Jerry
A. Reagan. 2011. Interactive Highway
Safety Design Model: Accident Predictive Module. Office of Corporate
Research, Technology, and Innovation Management. Available at: http:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/95winter/p95wi14.cfm.
7.
Volvo Trucks. European Accident Research and Safety Report.
2013. Gothenburg: Volvo Trucks. Available at:
http://www.volvotrucks.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/VTC/Corporate/Values/ART%20Report%202013_150dpi.pdf.
8.
Maśniak Dorota.
2008. Social and economic costs of road
accidents in Europe. Poland, Gdansk:
Gdanska Wyższa Szkoła Administracji. Available at:
http://www.law.muni.cz/sborniky/dp08/files/pdf/financ/masniak.pdf.
9.
NHTSA. 2012. Traffic Safety Facts: 2010 Data.
Washington, DC: National Center for Statistics and Analysis. Available at:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811630.pdf.
10.
MDPT SR. 2009. Vyhlaska c. 464/2009 Z.z. MDPT SR: Ktorou sa
Ustanovuju Podrobnosti o Prevadzke Vozidiel v Premavke na Pozemnych Komunikaciach.
Ministerstvo Dopravy, Post a Telekomunikacii Slovenskej Republiky. [In Slovak: Decree no. 464/2009 Z.z. Ministry of
Transport: Setting Out the Details of the Operation of Vehicles in Road Traffic.
Ministry of Transport, Post and Telecommunications of the Slovak Republic.]
Available at:
http://auto.sme.sk/c/5113796/uplne-znenie-vyhlasky-v-ktorej-je-upravena-prevadzka-vozidiel.html.
11.
European
Commission. Open Roads Across Europe.
2006. Brussels: European Commission, Energy and Transport DG. Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road/doc/road_transport_policy_en.pdf.
12.
The State of
Texas. 2013. The Texas Automotive
Manufacturing Industry. Austin, TX: Office of the Governor, Economic
Development and Tourism. Available at: http://governor.state.tx.us/files/ecodev/Texas-Automotive-Industry-Report.pdf.
13.
European
Commission. Fatalities at 30 Days in EU
Countries: 2011. Brussels: European Commission. 2013. Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/statistics/2011_transport_mode.pdf.
14.
NHTSA. Traffic Safety Facts: 2012 Data. 2014.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration. Available at:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811868.pdf.
15.
MV SR. 2014. Celkovy Pocet Evidovanych Vozidiel v SR.
Ministerstvo Vnutra Slovenskej Republiky. [In Slovakia: Total Number of Registered Vehicles in Slovakia. Ministry of
Interior of the Slovak Republic.] Available at:
http://www.minv.sk/?celkovy-pocet-evidovanych-vozidiel-v-sr.
16.
European
Commission. 2012. EU Transport in
Figures: Statistical Pocketbook 2012. Luxembourg: Publications Office of
the European Union. Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/facts-fundings/statistics/doc/2012/pocketbook2012.pdf.
17.
Figlus
Tomasz, Andrzej Wilk, A. Gawron. 2014. “Analiza stanu bezpieczeństwa ruchu
drogowego dla obszaru miasta”. [In Polish: “Analysis
of road safety for the city area”]. Logistyka
3: 1698-1706.
18.
Figlus
Tomasz, Emil Sobieszczański, Wespazjan Materla. 2010. „Safe Province v.2.1
& 2.2 – nowe możliwości analiz”. [In Polish:
“Safe Province v. 2.1 & 2.2: new possibility of analysis”]. Scientific Journal of Silesian University of
Technology. Series Transport 68: 29-36. ISSN: 0209-3324.
Received 03.06.2016; accepted in revised form 22.09.2016
Scientific Journal of Silesian University of
Technology. Series Transport is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 International License