Fleet Safety Developing & Sustaining an Effective Program with ANSI/ASSE Z15.1

Program Development Peer-Reviewed

Fleet Safety Developing & Sustaining an Effective Program With ANSI/ASSE Z15.1

By Brian S. Hammer, Stephanie G. Pratt and Peggy Ross illions of U.S. workers are The risk of work-related motor vehi- at risk for a work-related mo- cle crashes cuts across all industries and Mtor vehicle crash. Fatality data occupations. Between 2003 and 2008, show that across all industries, motor workers employed by truck transpor- vehicle crashes are consistently the lead- tation companies had the highest risk ing cause of work-related fatalities. Of of work-related fatality due to vehicle 43,025 work-related fatalities reported by crashes while driving or riding in a mo- BLS between 2003 and 2010, 10,202 were tor vehicle on a public road- the result of single- or multiple-vehicle way (19.6 deaths per 100,000 IN BRIEF crashes of workers driving or riding in a workers), followed by logging vehicle on a public roadway, and 2,707 (11.7), wholesale distribution of •The risk of work-related were pedestrian workers struck by a mo- petroleum products (8.6), waste motor vehicle crashes cuts tor vehicle. During the same period, an management services (8.5) and across all industries and additional 2,487 workers died in crashes support activities for mining occupations. that occurred off a public roadway or on (7.9) (CDC, 2011). Heavy and •Between 2003 and 2008, industrial premises (BLS, 2013). tractor-trailer truck drivers ac- workers employed by truck An analysis of the costs of motor count for the highest propor- transportation companies vehicle crashes to U.S. employers us- tion of fatalities in any single had the highest risk of ing data from 1998 to 2000 found that occupation: 39% of the total for work-related fatality due on average each fatality cost a business 2003 to 2010 (BLS, 2013). to vehicle crashes while more than $500,000 in direct and liabil- driving or riding in a mo- ity costs, and that each nonfatal injury ANSI/ASSE Z15.1: tor vehicle on a public costs nearly $74,000 (National Highway History & Scope roadway. Traffic Safety Administration, 2003). The ANSI/ASSE Z15 Ac- •ANSI/ASSE Z15.1-2012 More recently, workers’ compensation credited Standards Committee provides comprehensive costs for motor vehicle crash-related in- (ASC) was organized in 2001 guidance on fleet safety juries requiring more than 6 days away to create a consensus standard program elements and can from work were estimated to be nearly with requirements for policies, be used as a tool for audit- $2 billion (Liberty Mutual Research In- procedures and management ing an existing program. stitute for Safety, 2012). processes that organizations

Brian S. Hammer, M.P.A., CDS, is a risk management consultant, Transportation Practice Specialty. Pratt is also a member of the fleet, with Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance in Des Moines, IA. He ANSI/ASSE Z15 ASC. is a professional member of ASSE’s Quad Cities Chapter and Admin- istrator of ASSE’s Transportation Practice Specialty. Hammer is also Peggy Ross, M.S., R.N., CSP, COHN-S/CM, CPE, is corporate a member of the ANSI/ASSE Z15 Accredited Standards Committee manager, environment, health and safety for Baxter Healthcare (ASC). Corp. in Deerfield, IL. Ross is a professional member of ASSE’s Northeastern Illinois Chapter and is a member of the Society’s Stephanie G. Pratt, Ph.D., M.A., is coordinator of NIOSH’s Center Transportation Practice Specialty and Women in Safety Engineering for Motor Vehicle Safety in Morgantown, WV. She is a member Common Interest Group. Ross is also a member of the ANSI/ASSE of ASSE’s Northern West Virginia Chapter and the Society’s Z15 ASC. ©iStockphoto.com/ T ony remblay

www.asse.org MARCH 2014 ProfessionalSafety 47 can implement to control risks associated with mo- managed its nonregulated fleet and, more impor- tor vehicles (ANSI/ASSE, 2012). tantly, fleet risk. Managing fleet risk goes beyond First published in 2006, ANSI/ASSE Z15.1, Safe the vehicle itself and encompasses effective man- Practices for Motor Vehicle Operations, sets forth agement of drivers and driving behaviors. ANSI/ASSE practices for the safe operation of organizational The audit revealed strong management of fleet Z15.1-2012 vehicles, defined as licensed vehicles designed to operations, vehicle selection and acquisition, as provides be driven primarily on public roads. The standard well as opportunities to improve a risk-based ap- extends to use of this category of vehicles off pub- proach to managing fleet risk. The audit encom- a template lic roadways. It provides a template for developing passed interviews and an assessment of various for develop- policies, procedures and processes to better manage areas including: ing policies, the risks associated with vehicle use. The standard •current process for managing fleet; is applicable to organizations whose vehicles and •identification of key stakeholders; procedures drivers are covered by Federal Motor Carrier Safety •types and number of vehicles; and process- Regulations (FMCSRs; “regulated” fleets), as well as •vehicle selection and acquisition; es to better to organizations whose vehicles and drivers do not •vehicle use (e.g., carrying items, miles per year, operate under the FMCSRs (“nonregulated” fleets). type of driving); manage the For an organization seeking to formalize its ve- •inspections, repair and maintenance; risks asso- hicle operations safety program, Z15.1 provides •incident reporting and investigation; ciated with comprehensive guidance on program elements, •driver qualification; but leaves it up to the organization to design the •policies and procedures; vehicle use. specific detail based on its unique circumstanc- •performance evaluation (success metrics); es. For an organization with a mature program, a •training and communication. fleet manager can use the standard to audit the ex- In early 2009, the corporate SH&E manager and isting program or provide a risk-based approach to U.S. fleet manager formed a strong partnership. fleet management. They developed a strategy and tactical plans, as well The field of vehicle risk management has evolved as an action timeline, to close gaps identified dur- in recent years. The 2012 version of Z15.1 includes ing the fleet audit and to strengthen management more guidance in several areas (e.g., distracted of nonregulated fleet risk. Baxter’s fleet manager driving) than the 2006 version. Furthermore, the led the effort and the SH&E manager leveraged a standard provides suggestions for measuring per- transitional leadership/partnership style to provide formance over time. guidance, expertise and support. The fleet manager The standard contains seven major sections: also engaged key stakeholders to support develop- 1) scope, purpose, applications, exceptions and ment and deployment of a tailored approach. interpretations; The company referenced ANSI/ASSE Z15.1- 2) definitions; 2006 to develop a best-in-class approach to man- 3) management, leadership and administration; aging fleet risk. Because policies and procedures 4) operational environment; are the foundation of a nonregulated fleet pro- 5) driver; gram, the company strengthened its overall driver 6) vehicle; policy. In addition, Baxter developed and deployed 7) incident reporting and analysis. a nonregulated fleet safety program and specific Each section is divided into two columns. Text in guidelines to cover aspects such as authorized the left column contains requirements (what an or- driver requirements, safe vehicle use and expected ganization shall do in order to be in compliance with maintenance. The Z15.1 standard provided the the standard); the right column provides nonmanda- framework for the policy and guide, tailored to fit tory guidance and interpretation of the correspond- Baxter. Measurement systems were also enhanced, ing material in the left column. Several appendices leveraging concepts from the standard. provide valuable supporting information and tools to help an organization apply the standard. ANSI/ASSE Z15.1 & Commercial Fleets Unlike noncommercial fleets, commercial mo- ANSI/ASSE Z15.1-2012 & Nonregulated Fleets: tor vehicle fleets are regulated by Federal Motor One Company’s Experience Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) if they are ANSI/ASSE Z15.1 was intended to be applicable interstate carriers and to a lesser degree by similar to both regulated and nonregulated fleets. This ex- state agencies if they are intrastate carriers. When ample shares one company’s experience in imple- it first promulgated the standard in 2006, the Z15 menting the standard for its nonregulated fleet. ASC theorized that since commercial motor fleets Baxter Healthcare has approximately 1,000 U.S. were heavily regulated, FMCSA and its FMCSRs employees who drive regularly on business. Most of would ensure that commercial operators had the these employees are part of the sales force and are required safety structure in place (although parts of considered nonregulated fleet drivers. In December Z15 apply to commercial operations). 2008, the company’s corporate SH&E audit team However, injuries and fatalities involving com- engaged an external fleet-safety expert and facili- mercial motor vehicles continue to occur, and li- tated the first SH&E-focused audit for its U.S. non- ability remains. Despite general declines in the regulated fleet. number and rate of fatal crashes involving large The goal was to understand how the company trucks and buses in past decades, 573 occupants of 48 ProfessionalSafety MARCH 2014 www.asse.org these vehicles and 3,371 other road users died in large truck and bus crashes Figure 1 in 2010 (FMCSA, 2012). From 2009 to 2010, this represented a 9% increase in Original CSA Operational Model the number of large trucks and buses involved in fatal crashes, and a 9% increase in the rate of fatalities per 100 million miles driven (FMCSA, 2012).

Limitations of the FMCSRs The FMCSRs contain detailed requirements for specific concerns such as hours of service (HOS) (49 CFR Part 395), but say little about the basic policies and procedures that are the foundation of a workplace safety program. The only required written procedures/policies are related to drug and alcohol testing (49 CFR Part 382) and a written security plan for hazardous materials (49 CFR Part 172.800). The regulations contain no requirements for a written crash/incident review policy, discipline procedure, driver hiring/orientation, and training in vehicle operation and inspection. The regulations include some training requirements for drivers of longer combination vehicles, entry-level drivers and HazMat drivers, including retraining for HazMat drivers every 3 years (49 CFR Note. From “CSA—Compliance, Safety, Accountability: How Does CSA Work?” by Parts 380 and 397). However, there are no FMCSA. Retrieved from http://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/about/csa_how.aspx (superseded by cur- requirements for annual defensive driv- rent model). ing training, HOS training, truck inspection training, or annual drug and alcohol training (although some initial training is required). 6) HazMat compliance; In the past, FMCSA rarely interacted with com- 7) crash indicator. mercial fleets, with the exception of compliance re- These categories are assigned weights as to the views. This review is a full-blown audit that results probability of causing a crash. Since development in a rating of satisfactory, conditional or unsatis- of the original model, FMCSA has made several factory. Fines can result, and an unsatisfactory rat- changes: fatigue is now HOS; the cargo category is ing could cause the motor carrier to be shut down. now a dedicated hazardous materials category; and FMCSA also conducted safety reviews, typically af- load securement violations are now in the mainte- ter a significant event such as a fatality or too many nance BASIC. serious crashes in a short period of time. Generally, The middle phase of the model, intervention, however, few carriers interacted with the agency, makes ANSI/ASSE Z15.1 directly relevant to com- and the number of drivers and carriers was far mercial fleets. FMCSA envisioned a broader array greater than the number of compliance reviews of intervention tools that would be applied directly performed each year (FMCSA, 2013). or in a progressive fashion to motivate fleet operators to be more proactive in their safety efforts. The CSA Model These intervention tools include: In 2010, FMCSA introduced the Compliance, •Early contact Safety, Accountability (CSA) program (FMCSA, ■ warning letter; CSA). Its goal is to significantly reduce the num- ■ access to safety data and measurement; ber of large truck crashes and make this segment ■ targeted roadside inspection. of highway transportation safer (Figure 1). The first •Investigation phase of the CSA model is measurement. Violations ■ off site; are grouped into seven categories of similar viola- ■ on-site (focused); tions, referred to as BASICs (behavioral analysis and ■ on-site (comprehensive). safety improvement categories): •Follow-on 1) unsafe driving; ■ cooperative safety plan; 2) HOS compliance; ■ notice of violation; 3) driver fitness; ■ notice of claim; 4) controlled substances/alcohol; ■ operations out-of-service order (FMCSA, In- 5) vehicle maintenance; tervention). www.asse.org MARCH 2014 ProfessionalSafety 49 pany, the agency may agree to withhold Figure 2 a notice of violation if the company can Safety Management Cycle devise corrective action. FMCSA then ei- Six safety manage- ther agrees or disagrees that the proposed ment processes are actions represent a good-faith effort, and the backbone of the monitors progress. safety management This is where the gap in the federal cycle: 1) policies and regulations with regard to written poli- procedures; 2) roles cies and procedures is evident, and this and responsibilities; is where ANSI/ASSE Z15.1-2012 comes 3) qualification and into play. It is difficult to envision how hiring; 4) training and FMCSA can be assured that a carrier will communication; follow the cooperative safety plan in the 5) monitoring absence of the policies and procedures and tracking; needed for implementation and the doc- and 6) meaningful umented training to show commitment action. and improvement. The answer is simple. To participate, a carrier must submit a written cooperative safety plan to FMC- SA. Such a plan will need to be supported by a policies and procedures manual. Us- ing Z15.1 as a guide will facilitate devel- Note. From “CSA—Compliance, Safety, Accountability: What opment of this manual. Is the Safety Management Cycle?” by FMCSA. Retrieved from http://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/about/smc_overview.aspx. The Safety Management Cycle FMCSA offers the safety management cycle (Figure 2) as a guide to help motor carriers develop safety plan documents. The cycle FMCSA Safety Interventions Under CSA starts with the concept that policies and procedures Under CSA, FMCSA is seeking more interactions are needed to move forward. The agency has cre- with carriers that have problems as indicated by the ated a document for each of the seven BASICs to safety measurement system (SMS), but the agency help companies develop policies and procedures wants to use methods that are less intensive than for that category in accordance with the safety traditional compliance reviews. One early contact management cycle (FMCSA, What Is). intervention, warning letters (which are generated based on SMS scores), has drawn much attention Safety Management Processes from commercial fleet owners. For example, Nation- Six safety management processes are the back- wide’s regular customer service outreach includes a bone of the safety maangement cycle. ANSI/ASSE DOT compliance class that covers FMCSRs for mo- Z15.1-2012 matches well with these processes. tor carriers. Invitations were sent to a large number 1) Policies and procedures define the what of carriers, but only a small percentage attended, and how of a motor carrier’s operations. Poli- unless they had recently received a warning letter. cies establish the guidelines for how a motor car- Another intervention targets a company at the rier and its employees behave in a given situation. roadside, looking for specific violations as indicated Procedures explain how to accomplish policies. by the SMS. This may include off-site and on-site The other safety management processes focus on reviews. For example, if the scores indicate that a how to implement these policies and procedures. carrier has HOS problems, agency investigators may FMCSA is basing agreements on improvements visit a carrier’s main office, review HOS logs and on a sound, foundational policies-and-procedures take action based on the findings. In such a case, the manual, one that covers the areas it sees as having investigators will likely review only HOS records, a great impact on safety. Many companies do not not other safety-related documents such as main- have a well-thought-out written policies and pro- tenance records or driver qualification files. This cedures manual. ANSI/ASSE Z15.1-2012 provides approach allows agency personnel to have contact that foundation. with more carriers and to focus only on identified 2) Roles and responsibilities clearly define problem areas. The rationale is that more contact or what each employee should do to successfully im- increased potential for contact will prompt carriers plement the policies and procedures. An effective to pay more attention to SMS scores and to make policy manual discusses roles and responsibilities at improvements in order to avoid fines. each level of the employee/employer relationship. The cooperative safety plan is a follow-on in- ANSI/ASSE Z15.1-2012, Section 3.2.1.3, requires tervention under CSA. In some ways, it addresses that a system of accountability and responsibility a shortcoming of FMCSA’s approach: the lack of be established. It advises implementation of this a model that allows the agency to work more co- system through several of an organization’s units, operatively with carriers to reduce violations and including operations, human resources and safety. improve performance. After intervening at a com- 3) Qualification and hiring discusses recruit- 50 ProfessionalSafety MARCH 2014 www.asse.org ing and screening applicants to fulfill the roles and designers responsible for continuously modifying responsibilities for positions. ANSI/ASSE Z15.1- the road system as situations in which human error 2012, Section 3.2.1.3, covers driver recruitment, leads to crash-related injuries are identified (Johans- selection and assessment, and Section 5.1 covers son, 2009). Traditional road safety approaches aimed development of driver qualifications, job descrip- at preventing crashes, while the Vision Zero goal is tions, applications and background checks. A to eliminate death and serious injury. This model ac- carrier should have a defined policy that lists mini- cepts that road users will inevitably make errors, so mum qualifications or disqualifying events (which its aim is to engineer the road environment and the should be concrete provisions that do not fluctuate vehicle to be so forgiving of human error that deaths with the job market) and have systems in place to and serious injuries will be eliminated. conduct adequate background checks as required Although Vision Zero was formulated as a frame- by statute. A carrier should also consider other pro- work for managing the entire transport system, it cesses that are not required, such as preemploy- also applies to management of road safety within ment screening, bonding and criminal checks. companies and organizations. In the same way 4) Training and communication outlines a mo- that it sees the road environment as a system that tor carrier’s communication of its policies, proce- should be forgiving of human error, Vision Zero dures, roles and responsibilities so that everyone calls for a management system at the organization- understands the expectations and has the adequate al level that is responsible for modifying work con- skills and knowledge to perform their assigned ditions to reduce, if not eliminate, the potential for functions. ANSI/ASSE Z15.1-2012, Section 3.2.1.5, road traffic injury. A primary contribution of this covers orientation and training, and Section 5.3 cov- model is its support for shifting responsibility away ers driver training. Ideas from these sections should from the individual driver toward the company or be incorporated into a procedure that tracks how organization that employs the driver. orientation and training goals are achieved. Section Similar road safety initiatives have been adopted 3.2.1.7 highlights the need for communication. in other countries, most prominently in the Neth- 5) Monitoring and tracking concentrates on the erlands (Sustainable Safety strategy) and Australia need to have a system to monitor and track employ- (Safe System model) (Organization for Economic ee performance, enabling a company to be aware Cooperation and Development, 2008). In 2009, of employees’ safety performance and compliance the U.S. began to move in a similar direction with with its policies and procedures and how employees the launch of Toward Zero Deaths (http://safety execute their roles and responsibilities. Monitoring .fhwa.dot.gov/tzd), a strategy that conceptualized involves a motor carrier evaluating the operation’s any injury or death on the road as unacceptable. performance, while tracking entails assessing the data collected, leading to meaningful action. ANSI/ The ISO 39001 Standard ASSE Z15.1-2012, Section 3.2.1.11, requires a sys- Another outgrowth of the safe system approach tem of management audits to ensure that require- to road safety is ISO 39001:2012, Road Traffic ments within a policy/procedure are executed. Safety Management Systems—Requirements With 6) Meaningful action gives motor carriers the Guidance for Use. Because the Swedish Standards tools to correct or improve employee behavior, in- Institute is secretariat for ISO 39001, this global cluding training and positive reinforcement such as consensus standard was strongly influenced by rewards or bonuses, to improve a carrier’s overall Vision Zero. This standard was designed for use safety performance. Sections 7.2.3, 7.2.4 and 7.2.5 by any public or private organization seeking to address corrective action and incident review, improve its road safety performance, develop and which are meant to spur meaningful action. implement a road safety management system, and Merging ANSI/ASSE Z15.1 with federal guid- check its progress toward road safety targets. It is ance results in a thorough policies and procedures relevant for organizations that transport goods or manual. The “Recommended Outline” on p. 52 people, or whose employees or contractors inter- lists additional elements to include in the manual. act with the road system in any way in the course of doing business. Like ANSI/ASSE Z15.1, ISO A Systems Approach to Roadway Safety 39001’s requirements are placed within a frame- The thinking about how to best achieve road safe- work of roads, vehicles and users. ty improvements has gradually shifted over the past 2 decades. This shift is marked by a view of the road ANSI/ASSE Z15.1 as a Systems Approach as a system, and a shift in responsibility for road ANSI/ASSE Z15.1 is consistent with the safe sys- safety away from the individual road user to design- tem approach in several ways: ers of the infrastructure and vehicles (Organization •It assumes that the organization is responsible for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2008). for developing programs, policies and procedures to manage road risk associated with any motor ve- Vision Zero & the Safe System hicle operated on its behalf. The safe system approach to road safety manage- •It addresses management of risks related to the ment originated with the Vision Zero model devel- driver, vehicle and operating environment. oped in the Swedish Road Administration in the •It advocates continuous measurement and re- mid-1990s. Although road users are still expected view to document successes and to identify areas to follow the rules of the road, Vision Zero makes for improvement. www.asse.org MARCH 2014 ProfessionalSafety 51 The global initiatives and ANSI/ASSE Z15.1 communications structures that incorporate all share common features that are especially relevant stakeholders, including private- and public-sector to the management of vehicles by companies and groups that are key users of the road system. organizations: •They see road safety as a responsibility shared •They value comprehensive management and among all these stakeholders.

Recommended Outline for Policy & Procedure Manuals

I) Safety Policy/Statement vi) Training on your a) Adherence to the regula- A) Safety mission statement that is equipment and con- tion conveyed on a constant basis figurations b) Log retention and sub- d) Drugs and alcohol mission II) Responsibility & Accountabilities i) Decision on allowing c) Procedure on how hours A) Policy setting forth who is re- return to work of service are audited sponsible for what. Very important. ii) Retention and stor- 1) Assignment of safety func- age of records VI) Incident & Crash Review tions iii) Procedure for im- A) Evidence retention 2) Assignment of auditing re- mediate removal B) Black box retention policies quirements B) Employee retraining C) Files and photos 3) Chain of command on safety 1) Postcrash D) Purpose of incident and crash issues 2) Postincident reviews: C) Recurrent training 1) Preventability determination? III) Driver Recruitment 1) HazMat 2) Development of procedures/ A) Assessment 2) OSHA safety training training to prevent future 1) Job description, with safety D) Specialized training crashes? expectations 1) Tanker 2) Road test 2) Load securement VII) Rewards & Recognition 3) Written test (not required) 3) Longer combination vehicles A) Does the company have a system 4) Background check to reward and recognize driver a) Work history documen- V) Organizational Procedures & Rules achievements? tation A) General discipline procedure that b) Drug and alcohol checks can be applied to safety and opera- VIII) Vehicle Specification & Selection c) Criminal history, if tional violations A) A policy that details the de- required B) General safety policies velopment of specifications for B) Selection guidelines 1) Required by regulations vehicles and trailers to be used in 1) Experience required a) Drug and alcohol testing the operation. This policy should 2) Medical examination procedures/policies (if you help determine which equipment is 3) Motor vehicle record (MVR): employ drivers with a com- proper for the safe operation rather what is acceptable mercial driver’s license than external factors such as cost, 4) Preemployment safety b) Security plan (if you haul availability or driver wants. screening program report/road- hazardous materials) side history 2) Company directed IX) Inspection & Maintenance 5) If owner/operator, a review of a) Passengers A) Does the company have a policy DOT number b) Personal use describing the system to: 3) Compliance with all traffic 1) Maintain records IV) Orientation & Training and motor carrier regulations 2) Maintain system of preven- A) New employee training and and laws (general in nature) tive inspections orientation C) Crash countermeasures/driving 3) Roadside inspections re- 1) New driver checklist practices ported 2) Driver qualification files 1) Distracted driving 4) Driver vehicle inspection a) Biennial review of file 2) Weather/dispatch policy report b) Annual MVR checks a) General B) If company uses owner/operators c) Review of driver qualifi- b) Procedures to hold (O/O), policy to review O/O equip- cations dispatchers accountable for ment prior to allowing use? Policy i) Hazmat dispatching drivers on runs on repairs of O/O equipment? ii) Entry level that cannot be made legally iii) Longer combination 3) Speed policy X) Management Program Audits vehicles 4) Following distance policy A) Is there a procedure specifying iv) Tanker driver 5) Right lane/lane change policy audit functions that management trainer 6) Safety belts does to ensure that requirements v) New driver ride- 7) Hours of service are being met at all levels? Are they alongs reported back to top management?

52 ProfessionalSafety MARCH 2014 www.asse.org •They value continuous data collection and feed- organizational units and guards against the dan- back, including cost and economic analysis to ensure ger of entrusting the program to a single individual that investments in road safety are effective and pro- whose departure could threaten the program’s fu- vide a favorable return on investment (Organization ture (Murray, Ison & Gallemore, 2009). for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2008). The Haddon matrix helps a company identify Organiza- program gaps by asking these questions: “Which tions can Develop & Implement a Motor of these risks are we addressing?” and “Where are use the Vehicle Safety Program With Z15.1 policies and procedures needed?” For identifying ANSI/ASSE Z15.1 assumes that management and implementing interventions, the matrix helps standard’s commitment and leadership are the foundation of a firm to ask, What interventions can we put in basic struc- any organization’s road safety management pro- place to reduce or eliminate these risks? Table 1 ture to iden- gram. It uses a central framework of drivers, vehi- (p. 54) shows how the matrix might be used to as- cles and operating environment to organize policy sess program gaps or to check for compliance with tify gaps in areas, and it mandates a process of continuous re- ANSI/ASSE Z15.1 elements. an existing view and improvement based on in-depth review Several prominent policy documents have cited program, to and response to individual incidents combined with the Haddon matrix as a valuable tool for identify- analysis of aggregated data. Organizations can use ing problems and prioritizing interventions. Chief ensure that the standard’s basic structure at several points dur- among these is the influential World Report on Road policies and ing program development and implementation: to Traffic Injury Prevention (Peden, Scurfield, Sleet, procedures identify gaps in an existing program, to ensure that et al., 2004). In addition, the plan of action devel- policies and procedures are adequately addressing oped for the UN Decade of Action for Road Safety are ade- the gaps identified, and to develop key performance 2010-2020 is based on five pillars: 1) road safety quate and to indicators (KPIs) that will be used to set program management; 2) safer vehicles; 3) safer roads and develop key goals and track progress. mobility; 4) safer road users; and 5) postcrash response (World Health Organization and UN Road performance Identifying Program Gaps Safety Collaboration, 2010). These pillars mirror indicators. & Implementing Interventions both the Haddon matrix and sections 3 through 6 The Haddon matrix is a tool that can be used of ANSI/ASSE Z15.1. Finally, fleet and safety man- in conjunction with ANSI/ASSE Z15.1 to identify agers, fleet service providers and researchers have program gaps. It was developed by American epi- reported successfully using the matrix to assess pro- demiologist William Haddon Jr., a prominent ad- gram gaps (Darby, Murray & Raeside, 2009; Murray, vocate for crash prevention and injury control and et al., 2009; Wallington, Murray, Darby, et al., 2012). the first administrator of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Haddon conceptualized in- Develop Metrics & Track Progress With Z15.1 jury prevention as a problem of reducing or elimi- The main portion of ANSI/ASSE Z15.1 requires nating the exchange of harmful mechanical energy an organization to follow a process of reporting, re- (Haddon, 1968). The simplest version of the matrix viewing, analyzing and taking corrective action in is a 3 x 3 table (Figure 3, p. 54). The rows denote response to individual motor vehicle incidents and phases, or points in time when a hazard is present collisions. It also prompts an organization to take or an intervention can be put in place. The columns a broader view by collecting data needed to track denote factors, or sources of risk or points of inter- road safety performance over time. vention to control the risk (Haddon, 1972). Early in its deliberations, the Z15 ASC deter- Use of this matrix is not limited to road safety for mined that the standard should not mandate that the general population. The matrix can be expand- all organizations use the same outcome measures ed to fit the needs of any organization that oper- or the same reporting intervals. Thus, the standard ates motor vehicles, and this expansion can aid in contains appendixes with more specific but non- implementing ANSI/ASSE Z15.1. Haddon (1968) mandatory guidance in these areas to allow an or- showed how the human data cell could be sepa- ganization to determine what is most appropriate. rated into road user types such as drivers, pedes- In the 2012 version: trians and motorcyclists, allowing a more refined •Appendix F recommends specific points to be assessment of risks and interventions. included in instructions for the driver’s on-scene For organizational users, research and policy response in the event of a collision. documents have recommended the addition of col- •Appendix G recommends factors to consider umns to cover factors related to management and during incident/collision reviews. The list of fac- journeys (e.g., European Transport Safety Council). tors is organized according to those related to the Addition of information on management reinforces driver, the vehicle and the environment. ANSI/ASSE Z15.1, which covers the importance of •Appendix H provides several basic measures leadership, management commitment and a strong that may be used to track motor vehicle incidents. administrative structure before discussing policies for the driver, vehicle and operating environment. Rate Calculation Examples Published case studies of successful fleet safety pro- For the rates suggested by ANSI/ASSE Z15.1 grams underscore the importance of having a steer- -2012, the numerator is generally either the num- ing committee charged with implementation and ber of incidents or the number of incidents result- oversight. Doing so promotes broad buy-in across ing in injury. The denominator is the exposure unit www.asse.org MARCH 2014 ProfessionalSafety 53 of interest. Key denominator data for tracking fleet involved in an incident over some predetermined safety performance are the number of vehicles and period. It can help an organization assess the number of vehicle miles traveled. Depending on percentage of the fleet that may be out of service its operating environment, a carrier may elect to at any given time, and can also inform decisions report rates based on units of service such as the about vehicle replacement. number of deliveries or loads. Selected rates in- Incident rate based on number of vehicles oper- cluded in Appendix H are discussed here. ated: An incident rate based on the number of vehi- Number of incidents x 100 cles is essentially the percentage of the vehicle fleet Number of vehicles Rates based on vehicle miles traveled Figure 3 are important measures because they are based on exposure to road traffic hazards. Haddon Matrix They may also be adapted to compare The Haddon matrix can Human Vehicle/equipment Environment the rate of incidents for different types or be used in conjunction Pre-‐crash models of vehicles in the fleet, or under

with ANSI/ASSE Z15.1 Crash different operating conditions. Post-‐crash to identify program gaps. The rows denote

points in time when a hazard is present or an Table 1 intervention can be put in place. The columns Haddon Matrix Adaptation Example denote sources of risk or points of interven- Original elements of Haddon Matrix Additional elements for occupational road safety tion to control the risk. Human Vehicle Environment Management Journey Pre-‐crash Formal criteria : for Formal criteria for: Formal policy on: Interest, involvement and Risk assessment covering: •Driver qualification •Vehicle selection and •Use of occupant commitment to road safety from •Need to travel for specific and selection (3.2.1.3, specification (3.2.1.8, restraints (4.1) senior management (3.1) purposes 5.1.1, 5.1.2) 6.1) •Impaired driving (4.2) •Modal choice •Motor vehicle record •Vehicle modifications •Distracted driving Allocation of adequate staffing •Journey planning and route checks (5.1.3) (6.2) (4.3, Appendix ) E and resources to manage and selection •Driver orientation and •Regular servicing and •Aggressive driving support the program (3.1) •Inclement weather training (3.2.1.5, 5.3) maintenance (3.2.1.9, (4.4) •Journey scheduling 6.6) Written safety program defining •Shifts/working time Driver management •Pre-‐trip vehicle System to monitor organizational requirements (3.2) •Means of communicating program (5.2) checks (6.5) regulatory compliance information about weather •Vehicle replacement (3.2.1.10, 3.2.1.11) Accountability and responsibility emergencies, road (6.7) throughout the organization construction (4.5, 4,6) (3.2.1.2) Policy for business and Travel policy to cover decision personal use of Auditing process (3.2.1.11) processes for: organizational vehicles •Fatigue management (4.7.1, 4.7.2, Appendix Procedures to document driver •Changes in travel plans due A, B qualification and training (5.4) to inclement weather or emergency (4.5, 4.6) Policy for business use Procedures to report, record and of personal vehicles investigate incidents, and to (4.7.3, Appendix C) track safety performance over time (7.3; Appendix F, G, H)

Reporting of major incidents and overall road safety performance to all levels of management (3.2.1.6) Crash Instructions for drivers Emergency Policies for managing Policies for interactions with law in the event of a crash equipment/kit for use in crash scene (Appendix enforcement and third parties at (7.1.1, Appendix F, A) the event of a crash F) the scene (Appendix A) (6.3) Post-‐crash Driver reporting of Review of vehicle-‐ Review of factors and Process to report and record Review of factors and incident/crash to related factors and circumstances related incidents (7.1, 7.1.1) circumstances related to organization (7.1.2, circumstances (7.2, to operating journey management (7.2, Appendix A , F) Appendix G) environment (7.2, Process to review incidents and Appendix G) Appendix G) identify causal and contributing Corrective action Corrective action factors (7.2, 7.2.1, Appendix F, G) Corrective action related to directed at driver, if related to vehicle Corrective action journey management policies, appropriate, to improve policies, if appropriate related to policies for Incident review report (7.2.3) if appropriate (7.2.5) skills and behaviors (7.2.5) the operating (7.2.4, 7.2.5) environment, if Corrective action communicated appropriate (7.2.5) throughout organization, if appropriate (7.2.5)

54 ProfessionalSafety MARCH 2014 www.asse.org Incident rate based on vehicle mileage: Number of incidents x 1,000,000 Figure 4 Vehicle miles traveled Example KPI Supporting Data The calculation of the rate of injury incidence is another good example of the flexibility afforded by ANSI/ASSE Z15.1. The numerator may be ad- Sample KPI: “ % of preventable” incidents in which justed in several ways. At the outset, it is important the organization’s driver was distracted to establish an organization-wide definition of an injury. Z15.1 defines an injury as “physical harm or Relevant data elements: damage to a person resulting in the marring of ap- •Total number of incidents (based on the organization’s pearance, personal discomfort and/or bodily harm, impairment or death.” By design, this definition predetermined criteria for defining an . incident) does not dictate specific criteria; instead, an orga- •Number of distracted driving incidents (based on nization may choose its own threshold. Common incident review procedures and including external thresholds for classifying a case as an injury are sources of information such as police reports and cell the requirement for any kind of medical treatment, restricted work activity, or 4 or more hours of lost phone records, if applicable). work time. •Number of “ preventable” incidents (based on incident Once a clear definition of an injury is established, review procedures). if the goal is to supplement data on lost productiv- ity or workers’ compensation costs, the numerator might appropriately be the number of injury inci- “Process” measures to support this KPI: dents for workers in the organization only. If the •Does the organization have a cell phone policy or a goal is to assess the number of incidents with po- more general distracted driving policy? tential liability, the numerator might be the num- •What percentage of the organization’s drivers has ber of incidents involving injury to a third party. If the goal is to assess overall exposure for the organi- signed an acknowledgment of this policy? zation, the two numbers might be combined. •How well do supervisors reinforce the i mportance of Injury incident rate: the policy? Number of incidents with injury x 1,000,000 •Are other organizational practices and policies Vehicle miles traveled consistent with workers abiding by this policy? For example, do scheduling practices allow time for Developing & Using Key Performance Indicators Basic rates listed in Appendix H of the standard organizational business to be completed without are useful for summarizing an organization’s road incentivizing use of electronic vices de or eating meals safety performance and tracking progress over time. while driving? The standard can also help an organization set tar- •Are there results from employee surveys on safety gets and track progress toward specific program goals and objectives. Again, elements of the stan- climate or safety attitudes that suggest how dard, organized within the Haddon matrix, help an communication strategies can be adjusted to increase organization select the most appropriate KPIs and compliance? ensure that data are being collected to calculate these indicators. When considering data collection related to management of a motor vehicle safety program, an em- management system where adjustments are need- When considering ployer must not lose sight of which data elements ed to continue progress toward the desired out- data collection relat- are essential and which are merely good to know. come (Poister, 2004). A process indicator relevant ed to management of Data collection should be linked to specific report- to ANSI/ASSE Z15.1 might be the percentage of a motor vehicle safety ing requirements: those needed to calculate basic workers completing behind-the-wheel training program, an employer rates described above and those that contribute to within 6 months of hire. must not lose sight calculation of KPIs. (There are many other reporting The Haddon matrix example (Figure 3) can be a of which data ele- requirements related to financial, human resources starting point for developing process and outcome ments are essential and regulatory compliance, but these are outside KPIs for specific program areas. Figure 4 shows how and which are merely the scope of this article.) Data elements are general- an organization might determine what is needed to good to know. ly a combination of process and outcome measures. support a KPI related to distracted driving crashes. Outcomes are important because they are the end Some process-related measures are quantitative, points a program wants to achieve (e.g., a set level while others will be based on more qualitative as- in reduction in crashes per million miles). The rates sessments and knowledge of the organization. It is highlighted in the appendix are outcome measures. important to note the distinction between a KPI and Processes are also important because they rep- a target value for that indicator. A KPI is the mea- resent milestones along the way to achieving sure, but the organization should also determine the outcomes, and they can pinpoint places in the value it wants to achieve for that KPI.

www.asse.org MARCH 2014 ProfessionalSafety 55 Conclusion FMCSA. CSA: Intervention. Retrieved from http:// ANSI/ASSE Z15.1-2012, Safe Prac- csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/about/interventions.aspx tices for Motor Vehicle Operations, FMCSA. What is the safety management cycle? Re- provides minimum requirements for trieved from http://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/about/smc_over workplace motor vehicle safety pro- view.aspx Haddon, W. (1968). The changing approach to the grams. Although the standard was epidemiology, prevention and amelioration of trauma: More initially conceived to fill a gap by pro- The transition to approaches etiologically rather than on Z15.1 viding guidance for non-DOT-regu- descriptively based. American Journal of Public Health, 58, lated fleets, Z15 is in fact applicable to 1431-1438. ASSE’s technical brief on the any size fleet and any type of organi- Haddon, W. (1972). A logical framework for catego- Z15.1-2012 standard contains zation that operates motor vehicles. It rizing highway safety phenomena and activity. Journal of information on each section complements the FMCSRs as well as Trauma, 12(3), 193-207. of the standard and includes FMCSA’s CSA initiative by providing International Organization for Standardiza- links to other resources. a critical framework for developing a tion. (2012). Road traffic safety management systems: Download it at www.asse safety management system and poli- Requirements with guidance for use (ISO 39001:2012). .org/publications/standards/ Geneva, Switzerland: Author. cies and procedures, a framework not Johansson, R. (2009). Vision Zero: Implementing a z15/docs/Z15_1_Tech_ found in the FMCSRs. Brief_4_2012.pdf. policy for traffic safety. Safety Science, 47(6), 825-831. Because it specifies policies and pro- Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety. cedures related to the driver, vehicle (2012). 2012 Liberty Mutual workplace safety index. Re- and operating environment, all within trieved from www.libertymutualgroup.com/omapps/ the context of a safety management ContentServer?pagename=LMGroup/Views/ system, Z15 is also consistent with LMG&ft=2&fid=1138356633468 other well-established injury preven- Murray, W., Ison, S., Gallemore, P., et al. (2009). tion models, including those that fol- Effective occupational road safety programs: A case study of Wolseley. Transportation Research Record, 2096, low a systems approach. Combined 55-64. with the Haddon matrix, Z15 can be a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. starting point for a comprehensive risk assessment (2003). The economic burden of traffic crashes on em- for any type of vehicle fleet, leading to develop- ployers: Costs by state and industry and by alcohol and ment of appropriate interventions. PS restraint use. Retrieved from www.nhtsa.gov/people/ injury/airbags/economicburden/pages/whatddotc References cost.html Organization for Economic Cooperation and ANSI/ASSE. (2006). Safe practices for motor vehicle Development. (2008). Towards zero: Ambitious road operations (ANSI/ASSE Z15.1-2006). Des Plaines, IL: safety targets and the safes ystem approach. Paris, France: Author. Author. ANSI/ASSE. (2012). Safe practices for motor vehicle Peden, M., Scurfield, R., Sleet, D., et al. (2004). operations (ANSI/ASSE Z15.1-2012). Des Plaines, IL: World report on road traffic injury prevention. Geneva, Author. Switzerland: World Health Organization. BLS. (2011). Census of fatal occupational injuries, Poister, T.H. (2004). Performance monitoring. In J.S. 2003-10. Retrieved from http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/ Wholey, H.P. Hatry & K.E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook dsrv?fi of practical program evaluation (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CDC. (2011). Occupational highway transportation CA: Jossey-Bass. deaths: U.S., 2003-2008. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Wallington, D., Murray, W., Darby, P., et al. Report, 60(16), 497-502. (2012). Work-related road safety: Case study of British Darby, P., Murray, W. & Raeside, R. (2009). Apply- telecommunications (Paper No. 12-1196). Unpublished ing online fleet driver assessment to help identify, target paper presented at the 91st Annual Meeting of the and reduce occupational road safety risks. Safety Science, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 47(3), 436-442. World Health Organization and U.N. Road Safety European Transport Safety Council. (2010). Fit Collaboration. (2010). Global plan for the decade of action for road safety: From risk assessment to training (PRAISE for road safety 2011-2020. Geneva, Switzerland: Authors. Thematic Report 2). Retrieved from www.etsc.eu/docu ments/PRAISE%20Report%202.pdf Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Disclaimer (FMCSA). (2012). Large truck and bus crash facts 2010 The findings and conclusions in this report (FMCSA-RRA-12-023). Washington, DC: Author. are those of the authors and do not necessar- FMCSA. (2012). Motor carrier safety progress report. ily represent the views of NIOSH. Mention of Retrieved from www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/ any company or product does not constitute art-safety-progress-report.htm endorsement by NIOSH. In addition, citations FMCSA. CSA—Compliance, safety, accountability: How does CSA work? Retrieved from http://csa.fmcsa to websites external to NIOSH do not consti- .dot.gov/about/csa_how.aspx tute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring FMCSA. CSA: What is the safety management organizations or their programs or products. cycle? Retrieved from http://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/about/ Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for smc_overview.aspx the content on these websites. All web ad- FMCSA. CSA: Safety measurement system. Re- dresses referenced in the document were trieved from http://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/about/basics accessible as of the publication date. .aspx

56 ProfessionalSafety MARCH 2014 www.asse.org www.asse.org MARCH 2014 ProfessionalSafety 57