December 2005

Foreword

In support of its goal to reduce large truck-related fatality rates, FMCSA plans to facilitate the deployment of Intelligent Vehicle Initiative (IVI) technologies that have shown a potential to improve the safety of commercial vehicle operations (CVO) and provide safety benefits to society as a whole.

The IVI is part of the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) program of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). FMCSA administers the program for commercial motor vehicles. Under the IVI program, three field operational tests (FOTs) of crash avoidance technologies are completed or underway: Volvo Test, Freightliner Test, and the Mack Test.

Following the successful completion of the FOTs, FMCSA will be committed to facilitating the deployment of safety technologies for commercial motor vehicles that will improve safety. Acceptance by motor carriers and drivers will be vital to successful deployment and reduction of commercial motor vehicle fatalities and injuries.

An important part of this overall project is to understand what motivates the key stakeholders when making decisions to manufacture, buy, or use on-board safety technologies. The results in this report address that part of the overall project.

Although the report can be helpful to the general public in understanding on-board safety systems, it is primarily targeted towards commercial motor carriers and their drivers.

This publication is considered a final report and does not supersede another publication.

Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof.

This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the object of this document.

Technical Report Documentation Page (Form 1700.7)

SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS

* SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380.

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 OBJECTIVE
3.0 APPROACH AND SURVEY STRUCTURE
4.0 FINDINGS
4.1 Summary of Factors
4.2 Stakeholder Findings
4.2.1 Motor Carriers' Perspective
            Reliability and Maintainability
           Demonstrated Effectiveness to Improve Safety
           Driver Acceptance
           Initial Cost
           Return on Investment for Purchaser
4.2.2 Drivers' Perspective
           Reliability and Maintainability
           Driver Acceptance
           In-cab Technology Interface Integration/Demonstrated
           Effectiveness to Improve Safety
           Liability
4.2.3 Independent Owner-Operators' Perspective
4.2.4 Vehicle Manufacturers' Perspective
           Market Demand
           Initial Cost
           Return on Investment for Purchaser
           Demonstrated Effectiveness to Improve Safety
           Liability
           Reliability and Maintainability
           In-cab Technology Interface Integration
4.2.5 Device Manufacturers' Perspective
           Market Demand
           Driver Acceptance
           Investment Required for Research and Development of New Technology
           Return on Investment for Purchaser
           Liability
4.2.6 Insurance Companies' Perspective
           Demonstrated Effectiveness to Improve Safety
           Market Image
4.3 Summary of Industry Perspective
5.0 FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATIONS RELATED TO FACTORS
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
ACRONYMS
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D

Introduction

In 2001, there were 4,431 fatal crashes involving large trucks (gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds) resulting in 5,082 fatalities or 2.4 fatalities per 100 million miles traveled, according to Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) statistics. Truck occupants accounted for 704 of those fatalities.

These statistics represent a decrease of nearly 4 percent in fatal crashes, 5.8 percent in fatalities, and 14.3 percent in fatalities per 100 million miles since 1997, the beginning of a recent trend of reduced fatal crashes and fatalities involving large trucks. Bill Graves, President and CEO of the American Trucking Associations (ATA), cited better training of truck drivers and better education of automobile drivers as helping with this trend.

A priority goal of FMCSA is to further reduce the large truck-related fatality rate to 1.65 per 100 million truck-miles by the year 2008. In support of this goal, FMCSA plans to facilitate the deployment of Intelligent Vehicle Initiative (IVI) technologies that have shown a potential to improve the safety of commercial vehicle operations (CVO) and provide safety benefits to society as a whole.

The IVI is part of the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) program of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). FMCSA administers the program for commercial motor vehicles. Under the IVI program, the following three field operational tests (FOTs) of crash avoidance technologies are completed or underway:

• Volvo Test: The objective is to test the operational effectiveness of the bundled advanced safety system of the Electronically Controlled Braking system (ECBS), Front end Collision Warning System (CWS), and Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC). The Doppler radar-based CWS warns truck drivers of imminent slower moving vehicles and other hazards on the road. This system tracks truck speed, adjusts the warning distance, and records vehicle data. The CWS with ACC (CWS/ACC) will be the technology that is focused on for deployment.

• Freightliner Test: The objective was to test the operational effectiveness of the Roll Stability Advisor (RSA) and Roll Stability Controller (RSC). The RSA is an on-board device that provides feedback about the truck's rollover threshold and the RSC provides an active response to hazardous conditions. The rollover prevention system tested is intended to improve driver performance and vehicle stability in turns, leading to a reduction in rollovers and other types of crashes such as single vehicle roadway departures. Together, the RSA and RSC components are referred to as the Roll Advisor and Controller (RA&C), which will be the primary technology discussed in this report.

• Mack Test: The objective is to test the operational effectiveness of the Lane Departure Warning System (LDWS). This system uses vision processing to "read" the road ahead and note the position of the host vehicle in the lane. An indication of lane keeping accuracy is provided, and alarms will sound if the vehicle strays over the edge of the lane. This FOT focuses on single vehicle run-off road crashes. The LDWS will be the technology focused on for deployment.

Following the successful completion of the FOTs, FMCSA will be committed to facilitating the deployment of safety technologies for commercial motor vehicles that will improve safety. Acceptance by motor carriers and drivers will be vital to successful deployment and reduction of commercial motor vehicle fatalities and injuries.

An important part of this overall project is to understand what motivates the key stakeholders when making decisions to manufacture, buy, or use on-board safety technologies. The results in this report address that part of the overall project.

Objective

The objective of this task is to identify, list, and assess the decision-making factors that stakeholders, including motor vehicle carriers, drivers, and manufacturers, employ when deciding to make, purchase, or use on-board safety technologies. This information was obtained by surveying stakeholders including commercial motor vehicle carriers, drivers, truck original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), device manufacturers (vendors), insurers, and associations. As a result of these surveys and meetings, broad strategies were identified to accelerate the deployment of each on-board safety technology. Supporting information for this document was also obtained from the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) and an expert panel workshop held on August 7, 2003, sponsored by FMCSA.

The results of this task will be used in other tasks to determine actions FMCSA may take to

• create an operational environment that encourages stakeholders to make, purchase, or use,
• mitigate negative factors or obstacles to the use of,
• identify incentives and disincentives for the use of, and
• implement a technology deployment plan for

on-board safety technologies.

3.0 Approach and Survey Structure

After analyzing the alternatives for collecting information, structured interviews were conducted with stakeholders using a consistent one-on-one interview process. Battelle interviewers assured stakeholder participants of anonymity to foster an atmosphere conducive to frank discussions. Since the stakeholders were geographically dispersed, most of them were interviewed by telephone. The principal exception was the drivers, including the independent owner-operators, who were interviewed person-to-person at truckstops and driver-training sessions. An interview guide (Appendix A) was constructed to provide a structured approach to the discussions. The guide was designed to ensure that the interviewers asked the right questions to accomplish the objective of this study. A separate questionnaire was developed for the drivers and independent owner-operators, which is also included in Appendix A.

Table 1 summarizes the makeup of the interview survey. Telephone interviews were conducted with 19 motor carrier representatives (both private and for hire including one association with a carrier perspective), five insurance companies, two associations, one driver-training program, six OEM vehicle manufacturers, and three on-board safety technology vendors.

The motor carriers interviewed represented various types of transport (food, produce, hazmat, liquids, general freight, and refrigerated products), both public and private companies, and various sizes of operation. The carrier fleets ranged in size from five of the largest in the United States with over 10,000 power units each to smaller fleets with eight having fewer than 500 and four having less than 100 power units. Both corporate fleets and companies using independently owned trucks were included as were those having union and non-union organizations. It should be noted that there are over 600,000 registered carriers in the United States and although the survey sample was small by comparison (19), it is believed to represent a broad cross section of the population as a whole. In particular the survey sample included 10 hazmat-certified carriers and 8 that haul chemicals, liquids, and gases. Both of these are considered good target markets for on-board safety technologies.

Twenty drivers were interviewed, including six owner-operators. The length of commercial experience for the drivers interviewed ranged from three to 48 years with an average of 24 years. On the average, the drivers in the survey group have been with the same company for 9 years, although several were new to their companies and one had been with the same company for 46 years. All major types of trucks were included in the survey, with the exception of auto and livestock transporters, and notably included 15 hazmat-certified drivers and 13 who drive tankers, both considered attractive markets for on-board safety technologies. The survey sample also included drivers with longer routes (seven had routes of 400 miles or more) and shorter routes (five had routes of less than 100 miles). It was assumed a priori that independent owner-operators would be motivated somewhat differently from carrier-employed drivers due to their lack of financial backing from a large carrier.

Table 1. Stakeholder Interview Summary

Manufacturers of Class 7 (26,001 to 33,000 lbs GVWR) and Class 8 (33,001 lbs GVWR and over) trucks and vendors (component manufacturers) were interviewed. Multiple interviews were conducted with almost all of the participating truck manufacturers. These manufacturers represent the majority of the industry's manufacturers of Class 7 and Class 8 trucks.

In addition to the above interviews, an expert panel workshop was held on August 7, 2003 in Washington, DC, specifically to probe stakeholder opinions on deployment of the RA&C. The results of that workshop are included in this report as Appendix D and incorporated in the findings.

The interview survey was qualitatively structured to represent a broad cross section of the various stakeholder groups. As such, it is not a statistical sample of any one stakeholder group or of the industry as a whole. The stakeholder groups interviewed are generally representative of those industry segments involved in making or influencing the decision to make, use, or buy on-board safety technologies. In some cases, the survey group is skewed towards respondents that are either already involved with on-board safety technology or were considered to be attractive future markets for it such as larger carriers and those having tanker fleets, especially those that are hazmat-certified. For instance:

• All three vendors interviewed are already working on various types of on-board safety technologies.
• Although most of the major truck OEMs selling in the United States were included in the interview survey (six in all), three of them are involved in the FOTs for on-board safety technologies (Freightliner, Mack, and Volvo).
• Most of the carriers included in this interview survey are large by industry standards, having more than 100 power units each while most (over 80 percent) of the registered carriers in the United States have fewer than 20 power units each. Also, over half of the carrier interview sample was hazmat-certified (10 carriers) and nearly half of the sample haul gases, liquids, and chemicals (8 carriers).
• Most of the drivers interviewed (15 out of 20) are hazmat-certified and drive tankers.

Appendix C provides information about the stakeholders who participated in the interview process.

4.0 Findings

The findings for this task are based on the limited sample of industry respondents interviewed (as described in Table 1 and Appendix C) combined with the results of an expert panel workshop held on August 7, 2003 (see Appendix D) and the assistance and review of ATRI throughout the project. A summary of the interview results is provided in Appendix B.

4.1 Summary of Factors

Listed below are the factors involved in making, using, and buying decisions for on-board safety technologies based on the findings of this task. These factors and their definitions were developed from the comments received in the interview survey, the August 7 expert panel workshop, and input from ATRI and others involved in the conduct of this study.

• Return on Investment for Purchaser (the carrier) is considered an important factor for sustained commercial success for on-board safety technologies. A positive ROI is a significant factor when carriers decide to purchase on-board safety technologies according to most of the carriers interviewed.

• Demonstrated Effectiveness to Improve Safety through the use of on-board safety systems essentially represents the benefits that offset the purchase and other costs to yield a positive ROI. This factor is important to all stakeholders surveyed.

• Reliability and Maintainability is also a significant factor (mentioned in a number of interviews) and is considered important to buyers (carriers) and manufacturers (OEMs and vendors).

• Liability is a potential concern to a number of stakeholders interviewed, especially when combined with the discoverable nature of the data stored by some on-board safety technologies. While the absence of liability concerns is not sufficient to drive deployment, the presence of other concerns in this area could impede deployment, therefore making it a significant factor as well. Liability concerns are an important factor to carriers, drivers, and manufacturers interviewed.

• Market Demand to some extent is a result of the above factors but also depends on awareness of the technology along with acceptance and belief in its value. Market demand is a factor that interviewed manufacturers considered when introducing a new product.

• Initial Cost is an important adjunct to ROI. Too high a purchase cost not only makes it difficult for the purchaser to believe there is a positive ROI but also may strain the ability of the purchaser to raise the needed capital for the purchase. The carriers interviewed indicated that affordability and payback influence the decision to purchase the new technology.

• Investment Required for Research and Development of New Technology ,such as on-board safety technologies for OEMs and vendors, is fundamental to their business plan. The combination of investment needed, expected sales volume, purchase cost, and cost of production make up the potential profitability for the vendor.

• Market Image is a factor, at least in initial deployment of on-board safety technologies. As the market matures, leveling the competitive playing field, this may become less significant as a decision factor.

• Driver Acceptance is considered important by a number of carriers. Drivers were receptive to on-board safety technologies, as long as the devices are proven effective in improving safety, are user friendly, and that the recorded data will not be used to violate their privacy.

• In-cab Technology Interface Integration is an important factor to a number of the stakeholders interviewed. This factor plays a key role in enabling the various stakeholders to realize the value of on-board safety technologies with minimum cost, distraction, and potential for errors.

Figure 1 shows what factors affect different stakeholder groups. The four factors shown in bold are deemed to be most important and are connected to the stakeholders. It should be mentioned that the ten factors listed are considered important based on the interviews, workshop, and other feedback received during the course of the project, including that from ATRI. The higher priority factors were selected based on their importance to the purchase decision maker (the motor carrier) and the extent to which each factor is pervasive or important to a broad cross-section of stakeholders. For example, ROI is a factor unique to carriers, but almost all carriers emphasized its importance in their deciding to adopt on-board safety technology. Proof of effectiveness is pervasive and was mentioned by all stakeholder groups and most stakeholders surveyed as important. Likewise, reliability and maintainability along with liability concerns were pervasive factors and were mentioned by many of the stakeholders surveyed in the interviews and the workshop.

Table 2 lists the factors and includes selected comments of the different stakeholders interviewed as extracted from the interview survey and expert panel. The following sections address these factors from the perspectives of the stakeholders interviewed, which include motor carriers, drivers, independent owner-operators, vehicle manufacturers, device manufacturers, and insurance companies.

4.2 Stakeholder Findings

The following sections summarize the responses from the stakeholders interviewed in this task. The Expert Panel Workshop, summarized in Appendix D, provides supporting information for these findings.

4.2.1 Motor Carriers' Perspective

Figure 2 illustrates how the motor carriers interviewed responded to a series of issues posed to them in the interviews. The motor carriers were asked to give a numerical ranking expressing their opinion on the priority each issue played in their purchase-decision process (1 for low and 5 for high). The numerical score for each issue represents the number of carriers times the priority placed by each on that issue.

The three most important issues for those motor carriers interviewed are accuracy and reliability of the system, cost to install and maintain the technology, and proven effectiveness of the technology to improve safety. Two high ranked issues relate to driver acceptance and satisfaction. The numerical ranking assigned by the carriers determined the level of importance.

"Active Carriers by Fleet Size with Percentages - All Active Carriers," Office of Motor Carriers Management Information System, Special Report LS50B901, March 4, 2002.

Taken from list of the top 100 for hire carriers published by Transport Topics, July 2003.

"Active Carriers by Fleet Size with Percentages - All Active Carriers," Office of Motor Carriers Management Information System, Special Report LS50B901, March 4, 2002.

Figure 1. Factors that Influence Stakeholder Decision Making

Table 2. Factors for Stakeholder Decision Making

Figure 2. Carrier Survey Results

The motor carrier industry faces ongoing public scrutiny and government certification requirements while struggling to maintain a positive image in the highly competitive and complex logistics environment. In the context of this section, "government certification requirements" include state fuel tax stickers, trip permits, hazmat certification (depending on the load), commercial driver licensure, vehicle inspection (CVSA stickers to avoid weigh station delays), State-Federal DOT inspections by the North American Vehicle Inspection Standard, registration, insurance, ton mileage tax plates (TMT plates), DOT registration, and pre-pass certification. As a result, they are motivated to invest in products that are proven, affordable, and provide a reasonable return on investment. Nevertheless, technology has been the impetus behind many changes for motor carriers. Bar coding, material-handling systems, mobile communications and tracking technologies, carrier-routing programs, and electronic commerce have enabled shippers/consignees and carriers to realize improved operating efficiencies through enhanced resource utilization. The motor carriers interviewed also recognize the potential of technology to improve safety.

Initial introduction of technology may offer market differentiation for the carrier, but, later in the lifecycle, it may become a competitive necessity. Today, using on-board safety technologies can improve a carrier's image by marking the company as progressive and concerned about the safety and security of their drivers and loads according to the interviews.

Reliability and Maintainability

The carriers interviewed view on-board safety technologies as complex electronic computer systems that must be integrated into their cabs. There is concern that the cost to ensure proper operation (i.e., maintenance and calibration) and repair will be high. Cost concerns include the down time of the tractors while repairs are done. These carriers also expressed concern about the added cost to ensure that personnel have the skills required to maintain on-board safety devices.

Several carriers mentioned that they are apprehensive about the possibility of the technology indicating false positives, which may lead to drivers learning to ignore the warning device. The technology must be easy to use, provide accurate results, and must be easy to maintain. Fear of inconsistent or unreliable data from improperly operating equipment may have negative effects. This apprehension causes concern about carrier liability if systems do not operate effectively. The interviewed carriers were concerned if they could be held liable in cases in which crashes occurred that should have been mitigated by the on-board safety device.

The carriers interviewed also were concerned about the systems' ability to operate in all driving conditions. An example cited was the effectiveness of LDW when roads are covered with snow or in construction zones. The vendor who makes the RA&C specifies that the system is less effective on wet, snowy, and icy roadways.

Demonstrated Effectiveness to Improve Safety

Carriers acknowledged that effectiveness is the key to acceptance. "Effectiveness of the system is the only reason to do it," one carrier said. "If the system works, tax breaks won't be the key issue." Although carriers indicated the need for proof of effectiveness in improving safety, a few respondents were skeptical of test data, especially manufacturer assertions and new technology claims. They indicated that test situations often do not accurately mirror actual operating conditions. Carriers expressed concern that should on-board safety technology be found effective in reducing large truck crashes, the USDOT might impose regulations requiring its use. Unanimously, they felt that the installation of on-board safety technologies should not be regulated, but should be a business decision made by the private sector.

The carriers voiced concerns about on-board safety technologies causing driver distraction that reduces rather than improves safety. Carriers also were concerned that drivers might become too dependent on the on-board safety technology. One carrier's safety director, interviewed as part of the interview survey, pointed out that the company "could not subscribe to technology that takes the driver out of driving." He cited cruise control as an example that led to increased crashes because drivers were not paying as much attention.

Several carriers discussed the Eaton VORAD collision-warning radar system, which is one of the more recognized on-board safety technologies in the industry. One carrier who installed the Eaton VORAD system on approximately 90 percent of its fleet acknowledged a dramatic reduction in both the severity and frequency of crashes. This carrier reported only two lane-change crashes in approximately 150 million vehicle-miles-traveled and significantly less severe rear-end crashes. Another carrier indicated that it was considering pilot testing the Eaton VORAD system. The respondent thought "that it would reinforce or modify driving behavior and they might use it in their training program." This same respondent also pointed out that the company had seen a "25 percent reduction in backing accidents since installing video cameras, but we also simultaneously instituted a driver-training program emphasizing this type of accident."

Carrier interviews revealed a true interest by interviewed stakeholders in safety that extended beyond a pure monetary benefit. However, they also revealed a reluctance to accept claimed safety benefits without concrete evidence of effectiveness. The required investment needed for deployment can be substantial, and investments are highly scrutinized by carriers due to the competitive environment in which they operate and the low profit margins of the industry.

Driver Acceptance

Ensuring driver acceptance is an important decision-making factor for motor carriers when purchasing on-board safety technologies. Carriers recognize that good drivers like to work for companies that are concerned about their safety and are willing to invest in technology that helps them perform their job better. Carriers understand that they can attract and retain good drivers by showing a sincere commitment to safety and security in their operations. One carrier suggested that on-board safety technology would be more effective if it were used for positive as well as negative feedback from drivers.

False positives are cases where the on-board safety device indicates a warning when none should occur.

Initial Cost

Many of the respondents hesitated to identify an acceptable maximum initial cost. Those who did respond indicate $1,000 to $1,500 per technology (e.g., the RA&C) to be a reasonable cost range. Motor carriers also cited ceilings on debt ratios that dictate how much can be purchased independent of availability and benefits. One interviewed company representative stated that "We have 1,100 trucks and at $1,000 per truck that is $1.1 million. We need to know that we will be saving $1 million or more. Show me a financial offset to justify the input of costs up front."

Return on Investment for Purchaser

Motor carriers are concerned about the potential return on investment for on-board safety technologies. They want quantifiable data on costs and benefits. One interviewed carrier presented the following scenario: To install an $800 item into a fleet of 3,000 vehicles, costing $2.4 million, requires break-even payback in six to eight months; there must be ongoing payback. Other carriers stated that they looked for payback in the 12- to 18-month timeframe. None indicated a payback greater than 24 months as being acceptable.

The interviewed motor carriers also mentioned that some on-board safety technologies require interfaces to the transportation infrastructure. For example, some LDW systems look for a pattern of line striping on the highway to determine lane position. Likewise, some in-cab signing may require roadside-to-vehicle communications to pass safety information to the drivers. Therefore, additional investment will be required to maintain the infrastructure of on-board safety technologies.

Every carrier interviewed stated that cost savings is a priority, but they also expressed a concern for the safety of their drivers. This illustrates that indirect benefits, such as avoiding loss of life or impairment, are also important to carriers. With that in mind, carriers expressed interest in technology that addresses security and safety of the driver, cargo, and equipment.

Motor carriers also mentioned the cost and benefit of competing ways to improve safety such as safety awareness and training. Historically, these techniques have offered the motor carrier benefits that are more tangible, familiar, and historically effective. Creating safety awareness and offering driver training always will be part of the operational activities of carriers, but it could be complemented with on-board safety technologies for increased benefits. One of the interviewed carriers indicated "accident costs are low, which makes it hard to justify spending for technology when we don't have problems. It's hard to get management to spend extra money for new systems when we are doing well without it." While carriers are somewhat aware of in-vehicle safety technologies, interview data show that most (77 percent) are not using them. As a result, a reduction in number or severity of crashes due to technology intervention may not be recognized or easy for carriers to quantify. Thus, information on the costs and benefits of on-board safety technology must be relayed to carriers.

4.2.2 Drivers' Perspective

Twenty drivers were interviewed from a set of questions focusing on drivers' experiences and opinions about on-board safety technologies. The drivers were asked to comment on their familiarity with safety systems and any training they might have received. Of the 20 drivers interviewed, 14 drivers did not use on-board safety technology, and only a few were really aware of on-board safety technologies. Many of these drivers had difficulty answering survey questions, since they had limited knowledge and experience using the systems. Yet, the majority of these drivers expressed a willingness to try the systems. Also, the drivers at the Expert Panel meeting expressed a positive attitude toward gaining additional knowledge and using on-board safety technologies.

The majority of the drivers were familiar with ABS technology, but most had little to no familiarity with ECBS, GPS, LDW, RA&C, CWS/ACC, or side-looking radar. The interviews were conducted informally at roadside truckstops and at driver-training sessions. The drivers were given a series of statements about truck safety systems and asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with the statements.

Figure 3 shows the response of drivers to those questions on a scale of -2 to +2, with -2 being strong disagreement and +2 being strong agreement. The numerical score in Figure 3 is the number of drivers times their respective level of agreement or disagreement.

The interview sample included several independent owner-operators as well as carrier-employed drivers. Although the independent owner-operators and carrier-employed drivers had much in common, the independent owner-operators expressed decision-making criteria that differ from carrier-employed drivers. These differences are motivated primarily by the availability of investment dollars and capital funds. Therefore, the analysis of independent owner-operators is presented separately in the next section. This section addresses the responses of carrier-employed drivers.

Reliability and Maintainability

One important factor that emerges from these questions is the lack of trust in the reliability of on-board safety technology to improve safety. Drivers strongly disagreed that the technology would be inherently reliable and accurate. Self-diagnostics that detect on-board safety technology operational problems and immediately inform the driver is a desirable feature for any equipment. Also, the drivers indicated that a procedure should be developed to allow them to formally report suspected system problems.

Driver Acceptance

On other questions, the driver responses indicate that they are receptive to on-board safety technology. No other major concerns were cited based on this series of questions. All expressed

Figure 3. Driver Attitudes Regarding the Use of On-board Safety Systems in General on Commercial Vehicles

a willingness to use on-board safety technology if their carrier decided to adopt it. Many company drivers have strong opinions about the technologies, but they recognize that they are captive to their carrier companies and drive trucks that the carrier owns.

Carrier-employed drivers recognize that their willingness to use on-board safety technologies is important to the carriers. The cost of a single crash can be significant to a carrier. More than 80 percent of carriers have fewer than 20 tractors, and a single crash can put a small carrier out of business. On the other hand, a reduction in crash rate contributes to the success and growth of a carrier. Drivers want the organizations for which they work to succeed because they understand that their employment longevity and quality of work life depend on it.

The drivers interviewed indicated that on-board safety technologies must be easily understood and not require extensive training for proper use. Time taken for training is time that the trucks are not operating and making money for the carrier and the driver. However, the drivers would like to be paid for driver training; they resent sitting in training sessions on their own time.

The drivers uniformly rejected any government mandates imposed on the industry. They want to use an on-board safety technology only if it helps them do their job.

In-cab Technology Interface Integration /Demonstrated Effectiveness to Improve Safety

Drivers expressed interest in their personal safety and security. The interviews revealed willingness and even a desire to obtain access to systems that would improve safety and security. Drivers look for systems that are easy to use and not distracting. Drivers did not feel that the technology would distract them unless it was noisy or visually disruptive (e.g., bright flashing warning lights). They were skeptical of annoying alerts, and voiced concerns about being unable to lower a sound volume that might disturb a sleeping co-driver. Nearly one-third of the drivers liked the SmartCruise CWS/ACC concept because it would make driving safer, ensuring safe following distances without the driver having to adjust cruise control in response to surrounding traffic or having to guess the speed of the leading vehicle. In addition, any indication that on-board safety devices might take control of the vehicle (i.e., automated braking) was met with resistance. Interviews with drivers showed that they want to retain full control of their vehicles, an attitude that was expressed by one of the interviewed carriers as evident in the introduction of other on-board technology (e.g., cruise control).

Liability

Most drivers were aware that some on-board safety technologies collect and retain data that could be used to evaluate driver performance. Some were concerned that on-board safety technology would allow invasion of personal privacy and have an impact on performance reviews. The drivers were concerned about how the technology might be used to punish them. While drivers did not wish to conceal their driving behavior, they did not want it recorded and used against them.

According to ATRI, the courts have generally held to date that truck drivers, by virtue of their use of the public highways, have a lesser expectation of privacy. However, as technology evolves, and more and more data are collected, a driver's expectation of privacy may be more widely recognized, raising constitutional questions. Therefore, proper regulation of the use and dissemination of data collected by on-board technologies becomes ever more important to ensure a level of privacy that is acceptable to the drivers.

4.2.3 Independent Owner-Operators' Perspective

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) describes its typical member as an over-the-road truck driver in his/her mid- to late 40s with nearly 20 years of experience. The interviewed independent owner-operators indicated general familiarity with the concept of on-board safety technology, but they were not aware of specific projects or performance details. Many had heard of Eaton VORAD, but advanced on-board safety technology, such as RA&C, was not familiar to them. The independent owner-operators shared the company drivers' concerns about the potential use of the technology for other than safety warnings. They voiced concern that on-board safety devices-an unfamiliar technology to them-would be a sort of "big brother" observer capable of recording information about their driving decisions and behaviors. They did not welcome this prospect, particularly if the information became public.

4.2.4 Vehicle Manufacturers' Perspective

The vehicle original equipment manufacturer (OEM) designs and builds the tractors. The OEMs decide the standard equipment or options that are available in the cab, including any on-board safety technology. One OEM interviewed mentioned that it typically takes a new technology over 4 years to go from being an option to becoming standard equipment.

Often the OEM purchases the equipment from a supplier (vendor) and integrates it into the tractor. Occasionally, the OEM designs and manufactures the in-cab equipment. The RA&C is an example of an OEM designing one element (the roll stability advisor) and the vendor adding another, the roll stability controller.

The OEMs are aware of many of the on-board safety technologies, such as the Eaton VORAD system (CWS/ACC). They were less familiar with the RA&C, with the exception of Freightliner, which is working closely with Meritor WABCO on the RA&C FOT.

As explained in Appendix B, the interviews with the OEMs did not follow the formal interview guidelines as did those with carriers and drivers. As a result, OEM interview results are more qualitative and do not support quantitative analysis. In general, the OEMs are motivated to build what their customers will buy. They currently are undergoing severe economic stress due to a dramatic slowing of sales of new trucks and an abundance of used trucks on the market. Consequently, OEMs are reducing staff and deep-discounting truck prices. Therefore, only equipment that is cost effective and in demand by customers is offered.

Market Demand

OEMs also said they were driven by the competitive market to maintain the "cutting-edge" in their products. Thus, they are motivated to offer on-board safety technology to maintain the image they seek in the marketplace. OEMs said they were constantly looking for market differentiators that encourage the truck buyers to select their products. Nevertheless, these systems are often offered as options rather than as standard equipment. Another interviewed OEM described the market as a "pull-market" (i.e., if the customer wants something, the manufacturers will respond). OEMs see the carrier as the chief driving force in the Class 7 and 8 truck market in that every truck is usually custom designed despite manufacturers' efforts at standardization.

One OEM interviewed stated that larger carriers would be more likely to adopt on-board safety technology because of their greater capital availability. However, another OEM thought that larger carriers might not see the benefit of adopting on-board safety technology because of the high cost of equipping a large fleet, whereas small carriers could afford to equip their fleet and even one accident might impact them substantially.

Several OEMs described purchase behavior in European and Australian markets as OEM driven. The European OEMs determine the options to put in the cab and the carriers accept it as a package. They said that developing and selling new cost-effective products and introducing new technologies are more difficult in the United States than in Europe.

However, as one interviewed manufacturer indicated, if the technology can show a financial benefit, the market demand rate increases. They cited the example of electronic ignition, which yielded six percent greater fuel economy than mechanical ignition. Mechanical ignition disappeared rapidly after this became evident.

In the absence of clear benefits-cost data, cost-containment drives acceptance unless "add-on" safety features are mandated. One manufacturer prepares cabs with the VORAD system, but few have been requested. Another manufacturer cited a safety feature in its cab, a special seat for rollover protection, which has not sold well.

ABS is another example of a technology introduced into the vehicles. The manufacturer that cited this example standardized its vehicles with ABS before the technology was mandated. Although they could show better braking, it was still not well accepted-only about 15 to 20 percent of the vehicles were purchased before the mandate. Moreover, as this manufacturer pointed out, it was easier to demonstrate benefits of ABS than other safety technologies because truck operators can easily relate to braking issues.

Initial Cost

The most important factor expressed by OEMs is that new technology must not reduce profitability and must be affordable by the customer. Every OEM interviewed is concerned with the initial cost of their products.

Return on Investment for Purchaser

OEMs and their customers (carriers and independent owner-operators) operate in a very competitive, financially conservative business. OEMs recognize that their customers are reluctant to buy unless there is a payback. One OEM sees the industry as highly diverse and indicated that willingness for his customer to pay for on-board safety technology is a function of how soon it will provide a return. However, according to the survey of OEMs, their customers, again, need to see savings in terms of a reduction in crashes and insurance premiums.

Demonstrated Effectiveness to Improve Safety

Each OEM interviewed said that safety and security are primary priorities. Lack of safety can be an expensive liability in crash analysis. The OEMs realize that unsafe products jeopardize future business and can lead to liability issues. An excellent safety record and use of associated safety devices are product differentiators. The OEMs feel that buyers (carriers) value safety performance and equipment in their purchasing decisions.

Manufacturers also are concerned about driver attitudes toward on-board safety technology. They are not certain that drivers are willing to give up control of the vehicle or that they will be comfortable with on-board safety technology. Drivers ultimately are the end users of the devices.

Buyers of trucks recognize the importance of drivers in achieving safety benefits. Therefore, drivers are providing input to the purchasing department on purchasing decisions. Also, one OEM interviewed indicated that if the driver believes the on-board safety technology is not functioning properly or is distracting, they will find a way to turn the systems off. However, one interviewed carrier stated that drivers that attempt to disable an on-board safety technology would be terminated. Drivers interviewed stated that they would like to have the option to disable the system.

Liability

The OEMs consistently expressed concerns about the liabilities posed by on-board safety technology . Although they want to offer the technology if it is proven to improve safety, they want assurance about the level of liability they face if one of their vehicles using an on-board safety technology is involved in a crash. The liability concern seems to focus on on-board safety technology that fails to perform correctly, independent of cause. OEMs need to understand the technology, its applications, effectiveness, and the level of risk they are assuming, if the technology is to become more than an option.

Reliability and Maintainability

Manufacturers recognize that carriers need confidence in the product. The manufacturers interviewed understand that their customers - carriers and independent operators - do not want on-board systems that have the potential to malfunction and therefore take a unit out of service. An OEM's image is damaged by the release of any equipment that is unreliable and requires significant maintenance. The OEMs seemed more inclined to introduce on-board safety technology if they could feel confident that it is reliable and will require low maintenance.

In-cab Technology Interface Integration

The manufacturers also are concerned about the interoperability of the systems. The on-board safety technologies that are included in the tractor cab must integrate with existing equipment from both the technology and human interface perspectives, particularly if a device is retrofitted into a current design. Integrating new equipment is easier and more cost-effective if interface standards are in place.

4.2.5 Device Manufacturers' Perspective

Device manufacturers, or vendors, are suppliers to the OEMs and the aftermarket for certain products. An example of a successful vendor-supplied on-board safety technology product for large trucks is the Eaton VORAD system. Three vendors were interviewed; one declined to comment in detail as the results in Appendix B show. Therefore, the discussion that follows is more qualitative in nature.

Market Demand

Vendors are focused on issues similar to those of OEMs, although their primary customers may differ. Determining which technology is developed is driven by market demand. Several vendors interviewed are working on on-board safety technology because they believe that their market is interested in purchasing the systems. However, vendors generally indicated that technology is not readily accepted because of the newness and lack of data to prove a positive benefit-cost. Carriers that have higher value cargo or high risks such as petroleum carriers, hazardous cargo carriers, and rescue vehicles, might be more likely to consider on-board safety technologies because of the higher potential benefit.

One interviewed manufacturer stated that when 200,000 to 250,000 units are on the road, prices will come down significantly and sales will often increase. Even 100,000 units can sometimes influence prices. Also, this manufacturer stated that if a few companies successfully use on-board safety technologies, others would follow suit because it becomes a competitive advantage otherwise.

Driver Acceptance

Vendors also recognize that users need to become accustomed to on-board safety technology benefits and be given the opportunity to provide input into the design and use of new systems. Most vendors use this approach with all their new product introductions and the same approach applies to safety technology. If customers provide input, they are more likely to accept technology because it should have the features they are looking for. Customers also will feel as if they have some ownership of the product design and will more readily accept/want the technology. The vendors agree that education is essential to encouraging acceptance, which could create market demand.

Investment Required for Research and Development of New Technology

Vendors have limited capital to invest for new products and may not have the capital necessary to bring a product such as an on-board safety technology to market even though benefit-cost analysis may indicate a positive outcome. Risks and uncertainties in the research and development needed for a new product also influence the decision to pursue the technology.

Return on Investment for Purchaser

One vendor working on the RA&C is facing some significant costs associated with a different product (not the RA&C) that may require a price of $4,000. The vendor believes the system would need to be priced below $1,000 before their customers will be interested. According to the vendors, the biggest factor in the marketplace is to show a short-term payback to the carriers.

The manufacturers indicated that deals are made and broken on a few hundred dollars per unit. The systems may sell if they can be made available in the $1,000 to $2,000 range and at good benefits-cost ratio. The vendor's customer must recognize and accept that purchasing an on-board safety technology for inclusion on their trucks will result in a demand by their customers, the carriers.

Liability

Vendors are also concerned about liability claims based on collected data. One pointed out that the drivers and managers should be looking at the possibility of the data supporting them rather than punishing them. One of the vendors elected to focus on passive systems because of the liability issues associated with active systems, such as the RA&C that performs automated braking of the truck.

4.2.6 Insurance Companies' Perspective

The five insurance company representatives interviewed had limited awareness of on-board safety technologies. They were most familiar with the collision warning system with adaptive cruise control.

Insurance providers voiced an interest in on-board safety technology and favor its use. While some in the industry feel they have no duty to promote safety devices, they felt they could recommend them. None of the insurers saw government mandates and regulations as an effective means of accelerating deployment of the technologies. They seem to agree that it would be better for government to provide an opportunity to understand technology better and let carriers make their own decisions.

Many truck companies are "gypsy shoppers," changing insurance companies every year or two, looking for the best deal. To the insurer, the important factor is the amount of loss experienced over the last 5 years. In other words, there is no long-lasting relationship between the insurance company and the carrier, which limits the impact of any one insurance company on the possible use of safety equipment.

One insurer indicated that a few years ago, a shortage of drivers led to many inexperienced people being hired. Not surprisingly, these drivers had more crashes than those with more experience. The economic downturn of the last 2 years resulted in fewer drivers being hired, so companies can now be somewhat more selective of applicants. As the respondent pointed out, this may be reducing the number and severity of crashes, along with better-maintained vehicles. Another insurance company respondent indicated that the number of crashes is down but the severity is up. He attributed this to increased traffic density and increased miles driven. However, this perspective could be influenced by the greater degree to which carriers are self-insuring; the insurance companies may be seeing only the worst cases.

Several insurance company representatives suggested that the technology would be accepted more readily if it were used "as a carrot as well as a club." Nevertheless, th