1 Violation to Crash Risk Relationship Dave Madsen, Volpe Center Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC) for Compliance, Safety, Accountability.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Safety Data Analysis Tools Workshop Michael S. Griffith, Director FMCSA Office of Research and Analysis TRB Transportation Safety Planning Working Group.
Advertisements

Nebraska Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) Commercial Motor Vehicle Crashes in Nebraska, Dan Christensen Ming Qu Prabhakar Dhungana.
Gary Nichols Director of International Sales US Xpress, Inc. September 16, 2010.
Reduce Crashes, Injuries, And Fatalities Involving Large Trucks and Buses August 2013 Washington State Transit Association Presented By: Jeff James Federal.
Potential SMS Improvements for MCSAC CSA Subcommittee April 2014.
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Industry Briefing, August 2010 FMC-CSA Comprehensive Safety Analysis.
Carrier Oversight National Transportation Safety Board Truck and Bus Safety: A Decade of Progress May 10-11, 2011.
October Agenda  CSA Overview  Commercial Enforcement Program  Upcoming HOS Changes  MAP-21 Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 2.
Comprehensive Safety Analysis (CSA) 2010.
 No new CSA driver regulations  No new CSA vehicle regulations  NO new CSA recordkeeping regulations  Not a system to “throw” 250,000 drivers off.
SAFETY AND ACCIDENT AVOIDANCE
OPERATING SAFELY AND IN COMPLIANCE James Daulerio CDS CDT Senior Risk Consultant.
1 AASHTO/SCOHT Subcommittee on Highway Transport Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Presented by: Jack Van Steenburg Chief Safety Officer Federal.
Page 1 AASHTO/SCOHT Subcommittee on Highway Transport 94 th Annual Meeting Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Presented by: Chuck Horan, Director.
CSA and Roadside Inspections Trooper John Sova Motor Carrier Operations Division North Dakota Highway Patrol.
1 USDOT Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Program Overview USDOT Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Program Overview.
1 Compliance Last update: 1/2013 CSA Compliance, Safety, Accountability  Safety Measurement System (SMS) focusing on unsafe behaviors to reduce CMV.
Texas Division NTEPS Presentation September 24, 2009.
Transportation Safety Assessments Commodor E. Hall, CDS ISRI Transportation Safety Manager
American Moving and Storage Association Conference October 9,
Driver Briefing | December 2012 FMC-CSA CSA: A Way to Measure and Address Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Driver Briefing December 2012.
National Safety Code in April 22, What is NSC? The National Safety Code (NSC) is a set of safety standards for motor carriers, drivers and vehicles.
1 FSWG Compliance Safety Accountability 1 FMCSA Duluth Superior Transportation Association March 21, 2012 Dan Drexler.
■ This Training Module is designed to educate Management on FMCSA Compliance Review (CR).
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Industry Briefing, October 2009 Comprehensive Safety Analysis (CSA) 2010.
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration CMV Driver Briefing, December 2010 FMC-CSA CSA  Compliance, Safety,
FMCSA Programs and Initiatives Update
1 Comprehensive Safety Analysis CSA 2010 January 28, 2009.
Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010 Update Arkansas Trucking Association Safety Management Council Don Holman, Tyson Foods, Inc. Corporate Director of Transportation.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration & DOT Safety Regulations Updates.
CSA 2010 Comprehensive Safety Analysis Scheduled Implementation Dates July 2010 through December 2010.
 Why Change?  What is CSA?  Field Test & National Rollout  Summary.
Indiana Motor Transport Association September 8, 2009 Indianapolis, IN Comprehensive Safety Analysis (CSA) 2010.
CVEO 3 Larry Pasco Spokane Washington State Patrol Commercial Vehicle Division District Supervisor 1.
Compliance, Safety, Accountability Update to MCSAC October 28, 2014.
Loraine, Texas June 9, Investigative Team James LeBerte - Motor Carrier Operations Mark Bagnard - Highway Factors Robert Accetta - Scene Documentation.
Transportation & Logistics Anthony P. Gallo, CFA(410) office, (410) mobile Michael R. Busche(704)
Overview of the Evaluation of CSA 2010 Operational Model Test Daniel Blower December 5, 2012.
Jeff Davis, C.D.S. Fleet Safety Services, LLC. Anonymous Polling Question #1 1 Does your Company currently have any “deficient” or “monitored” CSA BASIC’s?
Guide to Credentials Administration: Appendix B PRISM and CVISN B - 1 Appendix B PRISM and CVISN - Explaining the Relationship.
Click to edit Master title style 1. 2 FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is part of the.
June 2009 | U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Comprehensive Safety Analysis (CSA) 2010 Overview and Oversize/Overweight.
FMCSA Tools To Improve State Data Quality Presented By: Shaun Dagle.
CSA Driver Training. Who is subject?  Carriers and their drivers are subject if the carrier:  has a U.S. DOT Number; and  operates commercial motor.
Transportation leadership you can trust. presented to presented by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Federal CVO Initiatives Overview Plus… Approaches to Enabling.
CSA 2010 Update:. FMCSA’s Challenge: Industry Volume Significantly more carriers than federal/state investigators –FMCSA regulates ~725,000 interstate.
Intro to SMS | March FMC-CSA CSA: Introduction to the Safety Measurement System Version 3.0 March 2013.
What It Means for Great Dane Customers Comprehensive Safety Analysis (CSA) 2010.
Training & Trends Jay Wommack Peter Charboneau. Current Economic Environment Impact on Transportation/ Trucking Impact on Transportation/ School Bus Do.
CSA 2010 DRIVER INFORMATION 11/27/ WHAT IS CSA 2010? CSA 2010 is a government initiative to make roads safer by contacting motor carriers sooner.
CSA 2010 Overview Presented by Brandon Putz Loss Control & Safety Representative.
Company: Viewing Company Information CSA Phase II Release x, Month Year vx.x FMCSA Portal.
FMCSA Update TTA Middle Tennessee ELD and SFD Update
SBA Roundtable| February 14, Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) Small Business Administration February 2012.
Commercial Truck Collision with Stopped Vehicles on Interstate 88, Naperville, Illinois January 27,
CSA 2010: The Driver Impact. The Impact. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is in the process of implementing a revised safety inspection.
COMPLIANCE SAFETY ACCOUNTABILTY FMCSA ANALYSIS & INFORMATION ONLINE.
The FMCSA Program Effectiveness Study How Effective Are Compliance Reviews?
Office of Research and Information Technology CVSA and FMCSA SSDQ Performance Measures: Crash Timeliness Inspection Timeliness April , 2013 CVSA.
FMCSA Data for Safety Stakeholders| December FMCSA Data for Safety Stakeholders.
CSA 2010 A New Way To Measure and Address Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety.
Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) and Drivers Winter 2016.
Virginia Ready Mixed Concrete Association Spring Convention
Who We Are: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) Commercial Carrier Journal Forum Scottsdale, Arizona December 2012.
“We are not a trucking company”
IANA M&R Committee Meeting
CSA 2010 Operational Model Test Introduction to the Safety Measurement System Version 2.0 September
CSA 2010 The New Approach.
Comprehensive Safety Analysis (CSA) 2010 Supplemental Slides to discuss Data Preview with Motor Carriers U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Motor.
Presentation transcript:

1 Violation to Crash Risk Relationship Dave Madsen, Volpe Center Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC) for Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) December 2012 U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center The National Transportation Systems Center Advancing transportation innovation for the public good

2 Topics  Pre-CSA Driver-Based Study  Driver Regression Model  Major component in assigning severity weights in SMS  CSMS Effectiveness Test  Carrier based crash-risk model

3 Pre-CSA Driver Study (2006) Goal: To find out if the roadside data robust enough to support a BASIC (Behavior Analysis Safety Improvement Category) structure. New Data Set: Individual CMV Drivers Safety profiles based on inspections and crashes  “MCMIS for Drivers”  Precursor for Pre-employment Screening Program (PSP) and Driver Information Resource (DIR)

4 Pre-CSA Driver Study Approach Compared CMV drivers’ BASIC violation rates from inspections for different levels of crash involvement.  Population: Drivers with substantial inspection history (7+ inspections excluding post-crash inspections)  Crash involvement – Place each driver into 1 of 3 pools

5 Pre-CSA Driver Study Approach (cont.) BASIC violation rate  Mapped each driver’s violations to BASICs and derived a rate  Calculated average violation rate by BASIC for drivers in each crash pool

6 Pre-CSA Driver Study Results

7 Pre-CSA Driver Study Conclusions Demonstrated association between poor driver safety performance in each BASIC and increase in crash involvement even using simple (non-weighted) violation rates. Strongest associations occur in BASICs directly related to driver behavior behind the wheel, rather than vehicle or cargo-related BASICs.  Confirms Large Truck Crash Causation Study results.

8 Topics  Pre-CSA Driver-Based Study: Confirms association between BASICs and crash risk  Driver Regression Model  Major component in assigning severity weights in SMS  CSMS Effectiveness Test  Carrier based crash-risk model

9 Driver Regression Model (2007) Goal: To provide a better means of identifying safety problems by weighting violations within a BASIC based on crash risk. Model results were the basis of the SMS violation severity weights.

10 Driver Regression Model Approach 1. BASIC Mapping  All safety-related roadside violations mapped to appropriate BASIC. 2. Violation Grouping  Grouped ‘like’ violations together in each BASIC o Allows rarely cited violations to be used in statistical analysis. o Ensures similar violations receive same severity weight.

11 Driver Regression Model Approach 3.Driver Regression Model  Using the same driver violation / crash data used in the Pre-CSA Driver-Based Study (250K Drivers) o Statistical regression (Negative Binomial) was conducted on violation groups in each BASIC. o Regression measures relationship between violation rates in each violation group (e.g., tires, brakes) and crash involvement.

12 Driver Regression Model Results Of the 34 violations groups tested where crash relationship might be expected, 27 (79%) showed positive statistically significant relationships between high violation rates and increased crash occurrence at a driver level. Example: Unsafe Driving BASIC Violation Group Regression Coefficients Statistically Significant (p < 0.01) Reckless Driving1.94Yes Dangerous Driving1.17Yes Speeding related1.11Yes Other Driver Violations1.11Yes HM related1.00No

13 Driver Regression Model Conclusion Given that many of the violation groups had statistically significant relationships with crash involvement, Negative Binomial coefficients were used to generate initial violation severity weights from 1 to 10. Further modifications were made to account for violations related to crash consequence (e.g., HM)

14 Topics  Pre-CSA Driver-Based Study: Confirms association between BASICs and crash risk  Driver Regression Model: Defines initial severity weights for violation groups  CSMS Effectiveness Test  Carrier based crash-risk model

15 CSMS Effectiveness Test (2007 to Present) Goal: To provide means of assessing CSMS’ ability to identify carriers with safety problems that lead to high crash risk. CSMS Effectiveness Test measures ability to target carriers with a high future crash rate using historical data.

16 CSMS Effectiveness Test Timeline

17 CSMS Effectiveness – HOS Compliance BASIC -Strong relationship between HOS Compliance BASIC and future crash risk -UMTRI CSA Evaluation and Recent ATRI paper shows similar findings

18 CSMS Effectiveness – Vehicle Maintenance BASIC -Strong relationship between Vehicle Maintenance BASIC and future crash risk -UMTRI CSA Evaluation and Recent ATRI paper shows similar findings

19 CSMS Effectiveness – Driver Fitness -Negative relationship between Driver Fitness BASIC and future crash risk -UMTRI CSA Evaluation and Recent ATRI paper shows similar findings

20 CSMS Effectiveness – Driver Fitness Why does this negative relationship exist? One significant area is lack of specificity in certain violations. 1) Most common violation in Driver Fitness: missing medical card.  The driver may have misplaced the card: Not safety-related.  The driver may have an expired medical card: Potentially safety-related.  The driver may be medically unqualified: Strongly safety-related. 2) “Operating while suspended“ violations do not specify reason. Recent ASPEN improvements provide for more precise severity weights for suspensions.  The inability to distinguish between these cases significantly clouds the relationship with future crashes.

21 CSMS Effectiveness – Results  Strongest relationships with future crash risk exist for Unsafe Driving, Hours- of-Service, and Vehicle Maintenance BASICs and Crash Indicator  Other BASICs show a weaker relationship to crash risk  FMCSA optimizes resources and oversight responsibilities through more stringent Intervention Thresholds for BASICs with strongest associations to crash risk Crash rates of Carriers above and below BASIC thresholds BASIC Above Threshold : Crashes per 100 PU Below Threshold: Crashes per 100 PU Increase in Crash Rate Unsafe Driving % Hours of Service Compliance % Driver Fitness % Controlled Substance / Alcohol % Vehicle Maintenance % HM Compliance % Crash % 1+ BASIC (any BASIC) %

22 Summary  Pre-CSA Driver-Based Study: Confirms association between BASICs and crash risk  Driver Regression Model: Defines initial severity weights for violation groups  CSMS Effectiveness Test: Identifies BASICs with strongest relationships to future crash risk at a carrier level

23 Summary: Crash Coverage Carrier Category Approximate Number of Carriers Percentage of Uploaded Crashes Carriers Listed as Active750K100% Carriers with Recent Activity “Pulse” in last 3 years 525K100% Carriers with Insufficient Data325K8% Carriers with Sufficient Data to Be Assessed in at Least 1 BASIC 200K92% Carriers with Sufficient Negative Information to Have a Percentile Assigned 92K83% Carriers with At Least 1 BASIC above FMCSA Intervention Threshold 50K45%  The CSMS is intended to prioritize FMCSA resources on the carriers that represent a risk to the public.  The CSMS succeeds in this mission. Carriers with percentiles are those involved in the majority of crashes.