It’s probably just a matter of time before onboard driver assist systems become a regular feature of fleet vehicles. The data gathered so far proves that at least some of the dozen or so technologies can prevent accidents by a significant number. Currently offered by car makers and independent manufacturers for between $1,000 and $2,000, the technology is also likely to more affordable as it becomes more popular.
Beyond the question of its affordability, there’s the prospect that driver assist technology may be required by federal law. In September 2015, the National Traffic Safety Board recommended again that forward collision avoidance systems become standard equipment on all new passenger and commercial vehicles. It estimated that the equipment has the potential to prevent or reduce the severity of 80% of all rear-end collisions, the most common kind of accident. Meanwhile, ten auto manufacturers announced in the same month they are planning eventually to offer the systems as standard equipment in all the car, truck and SUV models they sell.
There’s a risk, however, that interest in these systems may cause fleets to ignore another kind of accident prevention technology, one already proven to reduce fleet accident rates by as much as 35%, prevent accidents that driver assist systems can’t, and provide a unique source of extra protection against accident liability. It’s online technology that has been adapted to support fleet driver safety and risk management applications that have been available for more than a decade. Rather than thinking of these as an alternative to onboard systems, however, CEI believes they are complementary and should be deployed as foundational tool in conjunction with the best onboard systems for the best-in-class fleet safety programs of the near-term future.
Driver assist systems
As 2015 came to a close, the consensus seemed to be that forward crash avoidance systems with automated braking were the most effective at preventing accidents and making those that still occur less severe. It’s a good system, therefore, to illustrate the strengths and limitations of driver assist technology.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) is one of the world leaders in evaluating onboard crash prevention systems. Front crash prevent systems, IIHS explains on its website,
“[use] various types of sensors, such as cameras, radar or laser to detect when the vehicle is getting too close to one in front of it. Most systems issue a warning and precharge the brakes to maximize the effect if the driver responds by braking. Many systems automatically brake the vehicle if the driver doesn’t respond. In some cases, automatic braking is activated without a warning.”
As of December 2015, IIHS posted on its website that “[f]ront crash prevention is reducing crashes, analyses of insurance claims show.” More specifically, the website posts data on the front crash systems with automatic braking offered by several makers and a handful of their models equipped with front crash systems. Sedans and SUVs equipped with Volvo’s City Safety system, which features automated braking, generated 15 to 16% fewer liability property damage and injury claims from 2010 through 2012 compared to similar vehicles without comparable technology. It also found 14% fewer liability property damage claims for similarly equipped Mercedes Benz and Acura models.
IIHS also commented on data from its study of Honda Accords and Honda Crosstours whose front crash systems didn’t feature automated braking but were also equipped with lane departure warning. It found they experienced a 10% reduction in property damage claims.
Where the gaps are
The IIHS statistics reveal one limitation of forward crash prevention systems: the vast majority of accidents still occur. Another is that some systems aren’t designed to work at highway speeds. For example, Volvo’s City Safety system, according to the manufacture, delivers its benefits at a maximum speed of 30 km/h (18.6 mph), while Subaru warns that its Eyesight pre-collision braking doesn’t work when the speed difference from a vehicle ahead is less than 50 km/h (31.1 mph) or approaching a pedestrian at less than 25 km/h (21.8 mph)
Additional concerns over the effectiveness of forward crash prevention systems have been voiced by safety experts. These include how well they work on slippery surfaces; the fact that many systems can be disabled by drivers, and that they aren’t as effective when a driver is impaired by drugs, alcohol and fatigue, distracted or is intent on driving aggressively.
The most obvious shortcoming of driver assist systems, however, is that they are designed to react to errors that drivers make or allow to happen. Even when they work, they aren’t designed to helping drivers to change their behavior or help fleets identify high-risk drivers and avoid liability exposure based on negligent entrustment, allowing dangerous drivers to be on the road.
Benefits of online systems
They key benefit of online fleet driver safety and risk management application is that they are designed to change behavior so drivers don’t make the mistakes that cause accidents in the first place. This means that every kind of accident in all situations can be prevented or remediated, and not just the kinds a specific onboard system is designed for optimal performance.
At the core of these systems are digital files that store a record of negative driving events collected in near-real time and convert that record into a comparative risk score. Events typically include traffic violation convictions from collected Motor Vehicle Reports, accidents and fleet safety policy violations and can also include traffic camera citations and complaints from public driver reporting systems (like “1-800-How’s My Driving”). Whenever a driver ascends to a higher risk level, the systems immediately notify the driver and all pre-determined management personnel of the change, and assigns online or remedial online or behind-the-wheel training. Depending on the seriousness of the event, the systems enable management to deliver other sanctions, from restricted to driving privileges all the way to termination.
The impact of this kind of driver monitoring and timely response is that fleet drivers soon learn that they no longer fly under the safety radar, and that it’s impossible to escape consequences for bad driving behavior. As a result, drivers — all of whom have long been aware of how to drive safely – correct their behavior.
This method of employee behavior change is known in management circles as “the Hawthorne Effect.” It was first observed in the late 1920’s by Edward Deming, a pioneer in industrial psychology. Deming was asked by Western Electric to run an experiment in its Hawthorn, IL manufacturing plan to determine the best lighting systems to enhance worker productivity. What he found was that every different lighting system generated the same improvement. He concluded that when employees know that management is serious about achieving a result and that their performance is conspicuously and carefully measured, employees tend to achieve the result.
CEI has documented that its own system, DriverCare Risk Manager, has prevented thousands of fleet accidents, saving lives and millions of dollars in both the direct and “hidden” costs of fleet accidents, including lost productivity, insurance premiums and administrative overhead. In some cases, CEI has helped achieve sustained reductions in fleet accident rates of as much as 35%.
But there’s another benefit online accident prevention systems convey, although it’s difficult to quantify: reduced liability and legal expenses. Unlike onboard crash prevention systems, applications like DriverCare identify at-risk drivers, often before their next accident. It also intervenes with them, and retains a record of every intervention, information that can be critical in avoiding culpability for negligent entrustment.
Build a best-in-class fleet safety program
CEI welcomes the advent of onboard technology that can help prevent accidents and save lives. Fleets should not expect that technology alone to create an optimal safety program. In our opinion, online and onboard systems are mutually compatible and both necessary for a fleet to embrace safety best practices.
To learn more about how CEI can help your fleet save lives and improve its safety performance, please call 1-800-277-0378
The post Why Onboard Crash Prevention Technology Isn’t Enough appeared first on Fleet Management Weekly.
from Fleet Management Weekly http://ift.tt/1R0EaDI
Sourced by Quik DMV - CADMV fleet registration services. Renew your registration online in only 10 minutes. No DMV visits, no lines, no phone mazes, and no appointments needed. Visit Quik, Click, Pay & Print your registration from home or any local print shop.
0 comments:
Post a Comment