The 2022 report from the National Truck Accident Research Centre has identified three major causes of truck crashes. We take a deep dive into the most common causes of incidents to identify areas where attention could be focussed to mitigate your risk.
Australia has experienced a dramatic increase in major truck crashes caused by driver error over the past five-years according the report with crashes doubling to more than 40% in 2021 compared to 20% in 2015. This increase is a contrast to the long-term reduction in incidents caused by fatigue and inappropriate speed which have received most of the attention with road safety campaigns.
Top 5 tips to reduce driver error
- Minimise driver distractions
- Limit using a mobile phone while driving
- Educate drivers to leave more distance between other vehicles
- Invest in new trucks with anti-collision sensors
- Encourage drivers to drive defensively
Inattention/distraction
Inattention and distraction crashes are the result of the driver becoming disengaged from the driving task as the result of either a specific non-driving related stimulus (distraction) or due to a loss of task focus (inattention).
NTI Risk Engineer Adam Gibson, NTARC report author since 2019, attributes the sharp rise in incidents to increased interaction with mobile phones. While Gibson concedes that this is generally less of a contributing factor for truck drivers, he does believe that distraction from “peak in-cab displays”, that is the increasing number of digital devices from telematics systems and in-cab cameras (including retro-fitted devices), are contributing to the numbers.
Seeing-eye cameras, vibrating seats, multi-function displays, applauding or criticising economical driving behaviour, third- party telematics devices for Intelligent Access Programs (IAP), mobile phones, podcasts the list goes on. Perhaps drivers are suffering from a degree of sensory digital overload?
Inadequate Following Distance
Where the driver of the vehicle has not maintained sufficient following distance to traffic in front and due to the lack of manoeuvring time/space an incident has occurred when something has disrupted traffic, such as vehicles ahead unexpectedly slowing.
More than two in three non-fatal truck-at-fault car and truck crashes – representing 10 per cent of NTI’s large losses – are ‘ran into rear’ crashes caused by inadequate following distance.
And in non-fatal car and truck crashes the truck driver was at fault in 65.3 per cent of incidents in 2021, a level that has remained consistent over the past two decades.
Whilst this statistic seems quite high and not at all flattering for truck drivers, I applaud Gibson’s response in noting that the biggest contributing factor to this statistic is other road users (cars).
The author notes that the number one approach to managing this risk is to leave a greater following distance. While this concept is simple, achieving it, is often not. “Adequate following” distance is just two impatient cars away from, “Inadequate Following Distance”.
“In order to achieve this, it’s important to engage honestly and openly with drivers; they need to understand what driving behaviours are valued and how they are critical to the success and sustainability of your transport business.
“This also needs to be reflected in your approach to scheduling. Understand that where your drivers have to negotiate heavy traffic, you may need to allow additional time,” offers Gibson.
Of all the latest emerging technologies, I believe that Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) can play the biggest role in mitigating “ran into rear” incidents.
Inappropriate Vehicle Positioning
Where the driver of the vehicle has active control of the vehicle and causes the vehicle to interact with a hazard which is either known to the driver or readily apparent.
Inappropriate vehicle positioning captures incidents where the driver, despite being aware of its existence, puts the vehicle somewhere that results in a serious incident.
Increasing from just under 6% in 2017 to just north of 10% in 2021, these figures could be impacted by poor driver training or drivers being unfamiliar with particular individual equipment.
Colliding with low bridges, hitting power poles or awnings with trailers are included in this category.
These events could be limited by appropriate driver training to include drivers being familiar with the equipment they are tasked to operate. I have had some small incidents over the years and at that time, almost exclusively, I was operating equipment I was unfamiliar with when my regular vehicle was being serviced.
Managers and allocators can also play their part in reducing driver error incidents by limiting (where possible) interactions with drivers during their shift. If possible allocate work loads for the full shift, or where this is not possible, break the work down into portions of the day with instructions to call the allocator when certain tasks are completed. This will ensure that phone calls are made when the vehicle is stopped in a safe place and the driver is free to talk.
In my opinion, even hands-free phone calls while driving can have an impact on the level of concentration applied to the driving task, particularly in high demand situations.
There is clearly work to be done to meet the challenges of curbing driver error crashes and I will follow with interest to see if the statistics keep following this upward trajectory in an ever increasing digital age.
