Fleet Management News & Business Info | Commercial Carrier Journal
Issue link: http://read.uberflip.com/i/85081
TECHNOLOGY: ACCIDENT PREVENTION Melletat, director of field operations. Bendix offers an active electronic stability system and the Bendix Wingman Advanced collision mitigation system. The company also offers alert-only systems: AutoVue for lane departures and Vorad for blind-spot detection and forward collision. Bendix acquired AutoVue from Iteris and Vorad from Eaton. While Bendix plans to continue offering both its active and alert safety systems separately, its product roadmap includes integration among systems that will prioritize alerts, says T.J. Thomas, director of marketing and customer solutions for the Bendix Controls Group. Suppose a truck is equipped with both lane departure and collision warning systems, and a driver has to swerve into another lane to avoid a rear-end collision; the driver would receive an alert from the collision warning system – the highest priority – but not from the lane-departure warning system. Six of the 80 tractors operated by James Burg Trucking have active electronic stability control safety systems that automatically engage vehicle brakes to prevent or at least mitigate the severity of imminent rollovers. Jim Burg, president of the Warren, Mich.-based flatbed hauler, says all new tractors and trailers added to the fleet will be equipped with this technology James Burg Trucking currently is testing a radar-based forward- collision avoidance and mitigation system. "The systems I am interested in are ones that intervene when the driver has blown his chance," Burg says. "With all of the distractions around in the cab, you need something to back them up and give them an extra second or two to react." One of Burg's deciding factors in purchasing new trucks is which manufacturers offer his preferred options for active safety systems. "As we buy new trucks, this technology will be employed," he says. Continued on page 61 TOP 10 LIST OF CRASH RISK A failure to use/improper signal conviction If a driver has: A past crash An improper passing violation An improper turn conviction An improper or erratic lane change conviction An improper lane/location conviction A failure to obey traffi c sign conviction A speeding more than 15 miles over speed limit conviction Any conviction 58 COMMERCIAL CARRIER JOURNAL | JANUARY 2012 80% 68% 68% 67% 65% According to ATRI data, a driver's failure to use a turn signal or improperly using it is the leading indicator of a possible future accident. A reckless/careless/inattentive/negligent driving conviction 64% Source: American Transportation Research Institute, 2011 Say what? STUDY LINKS DRIVER SATISFACTION WITH FREQUENCY OF INVALID WARNINGS Suppose you decided to equip your fleet with one or more safety systems to give drivers as much advance warning of unsafe driving conditions as possible. Would the warnings be too frequent or perhaps unnecessary to the point of aggravating the driver? The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute last year concluded a four-year Integrated Vehicle-Based Safety System program that involved researching, developing and the verifi cation testing of a fully integrated safety system with multiple crash warn- ing features – forward-collision warning, lane-departure warning and lane change/merge warning – in a platform for commercial trucks. In February 2009, Con-Way Freight partnered with UMTRI to conduct a fi eld test using 10 company trucks equipped with IVBSS for 10 months with 20 commercial truck drivers. The warning rates across all drivers were 3.3 per 100 miles for forward-collision warning, 13.0 per 100 miles for lane-departure warning and 2.0 per 100 miles for lane change/merge warning. The rates of invalid warnings were 1.8 per 100 miles for forward-collision warning, 0.2 per 100 miles for lane-departure warning and 3.0 per 100 miles for lane change/merge warning. Drivers rated the lane-departure warning subsystem the highest in terms of satisfaction and second-highest in terms of perceived usefulness. Drivers liked the lane change/merge warning subsystem the least, which can be explained by the high rate of invalid warnings. The increase in crash likelihood is: 96% 88% 88% 84%