Factors in Decisions to Make, Purchase, and 

Use On-board Safety Technologies 

Task 5.3 Report 

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) 

1. Report No. 

 FMCSA-MCRT-06-003 

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 

4. Title and Subtitle: 

Factors in Decisions to Make, Purchase, and Use On-board Safety Technologies 

5. Report Date: December 2005

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s): 

David Ball, Scott Versluis, R.A. Hendrickson, Jerry Pittenger, Boni Frank, and Amy

Stewart, with Battelle, and Dan Murray, with ATRI. 

8. Performing Organization Report No 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address: 10. Work Unit No. 

Battelle 

505 King Avenue

Columbus, OH 43201-2693 11. Contract or Grant No. 

DTFH61-96-C-00077 

13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

Final Report, August 2001-July 2005

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address: 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

Office of Research and Analysis

400 Virginia Avenue, SW, Suite 600 

Washington, DC 20024 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

FMCSA 

15. Supplementary Notes: 

The Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative was Amy Houser, FMCSA Office of Research and Analysis. 

16. Abstract: 

In support of its goal to reduce large truck-related fatalities and crashes, 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. 

17. Key Words: 

Adaptive Cruise Control, Collision Warning System, Electronically Controlled Braking 

System, Crash Avoidance, Deployment, Field Operational Test, FOT, IVI, Intelligent 

Transportation Systems, Intelligent Vehicle Initiative, Lane Departure, On-board, Safety

Technologies, Roll Advisor and Controller 

18. Distribution Statement 

No restrictions 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 

 Unclassified 

20. Security Classif. (of this page) 

 Unclassified 

21. No. of Pages: 

90 

22. Price 
SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FRO

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol Symbol When You Know Multiply By 

LENGTH LENGTH

in inches 25.4 millimeters mm mm millimeters 0.039 incft feet 0.305 meters m m meters 3.28 feeyd yards 0.914 meters m m meters 1.09 Yami miles 1.61 kilometers km km kilometers 0.621 mi

AREA AREA

in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2 mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 squft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2 m2 square meters 10.764 squyd2 square yards 0.836 square meters m2 m2 square meters 1.195 squac acres 0.405 hectares ha ha hectares 2.47 acrmi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2 km2 square kilometers 0.386 squ

VOLUME VOLUME

fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters ml ml milliliters 0.034 flugal gallons 3.785 liters l l liters 0.264 gaft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 m3 cubic meters 35.71 cuyd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 m3 cubic meters 1.307 cu

MASS MASS

oz ounces 28.35 grams g g grams 0.035 oulb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg kg kilograms 2.202 poT short tons (2000 lbs) 0.907 megagrams Mg Mg megagrams 1.103 sho

TEMPERATURE (exact) TEMPERATURE (exac

°F Fahrenheit 5(F-32)/9 Celsius °C °C Celsius 1.8 C + 32 

temperature or (F-32)/1.8 temperature temperature 

ILLUMINATION ILLUMINATION

fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx lx lux 0.0929 fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2 cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS FORCE and PRESSURE or S

lbf pound-force 4.45 newtons N N newtons 0.225 psi pound-force 

per square inch

6.89 kilopascals kPa kPa kilopascals 0.145 

* 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 

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 

2.0 OBJECTIVE ..................................................................................................................................2 

3.0 APPROACH AND SURVEY STRUCTURE ..............................................................................3 

4.0 FINDINGS......................................................................................................................................5 

4.1 Summary of Factors............................................................................................................5 

4.2 Stakeholder Findings ..........................................................................................................7 

4.2.1 Motor Carriers’ Perspective...................................................................................7 

Reliability and Maintainability......................................................................14 

Demonstrated Effectiveness to Improve Safety ............................................14 

Driver Acceptance.........................................................................................15 

Initial Cost.....................................................................................................16 

Return on Investment for Purchaser..............................................................16 

4.2.2 Drivers’ Perspective.............................................................................................17 

Reliability and Maintainability......................................................................17 

Driver Acceptance.........................................................................................17 

In-cab Technology Interface Integration/Demonstrated 

Effectiveness to Improve Safety ................................................................19 

Liability .........................................................................................................19 

4.2.3 Independent Owner-Operators’ Perspective ........................................................20 

4.2.4 Vehicle Manufacturers’ Perspective ....................................................................20 

Market Demand.............................................................................................21 

Initial Cost.....................................................................................................22 

Return on Investment for Purchaser..............................................................22 

Demonstrated Effectiveness to Improve Safety ............................................22 

Liability .........................................................................................................22 

Reliability and Maintainability......................................................................23 

In-cab Technology Interface Integration.......................................................23 

4.2.5 Device Manufacturers’ Perspective .....................................................................23 

Market Demand.............................................................................................23 

Driver Acceptance.........................................................................................24 

Investment Required for Research and Development of New Technology ..24 

Return on Investment for Purchaser..............................................................24 

Liability .........................................................................................................24 

4.2.6 Insurance Companies’ Perspective ......................................................................24 

Demonstrated Effectiveness to Improve Safety ............................................25 

Market Image ................................................................................................26 

4.3 Summary of Industry Perspective.....................................................................................26 

5.0 FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATIONS RELATED TO FACTORS ...............................27 

6.0 CONCLUSIONS ..........................................................................................................................28 

ACRONYMS...........................................................................................................31

APPENDIX A..........................................................................................................32 

APPENDIX B..........................................................................................................43 

APPENDIX C..........................................................................................................64 

APPENDIX D..........................................................................................................72 

i 
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.1

 

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.2

Despite this recent downward trend, crashes involving large trucks result in significant financial 

burden. “Trucks are involved in less than one percent of all motor vehicle crashes in the United 

States . . . But the cost of even one accident can be enough to bankrupt a fleet,” Fleet Owner

recently reported.3

 In 2000, crashes involving large trucks are estimated to have cost a total of 

$19.56 billion: $9.6 billion for quality of life, $6.6 billion for lost productivity, $2.2 billion for 

property damage, $1.1 billion for medical, and $0.06 billion for emergency services.4

 

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. 

 1

“Large Truck Crash Facts,” FMCSA, January 2003 

(http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/CrashProfile/NationalCrashProfileMain.asp). 2

Transport Topics, July 2003. 3

“Cutting Crash Costs,” FleetOwner, Sean Kilcarr , February 1, 2003 

(http://fleetowner.com/ar/fleet_cutting_crash_costs/index.htm). 4

Presentation by Annette M. Sandberg, FMCSA Acting Administrator, 3rd National Intelligent Vehicle Meeting,

panel presentation, June 25, 2003. 

1
• 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.

1.0 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 

1) create an operational environment that encourages stakeholders to make, purchase, or use, 

2) mitigate negative factors or obstacles to the use of, 

3) identify incentives and disincentives for the use of, and 

4) implement a technology deployment plan for 

on-board safety technologies. 

2
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.5

 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 owneroperators would be motivated somewhat differently from carrier-employed drivers due to their 

lack of financial backing from a large carrier. 

 5

“Active Carriers by Fleet Size with Percentages – All Active Carriers,” Office of Motor Carriers Management 

Information System, Special Report LS50B901, March 4, 2002. 

3
Table 1. Stakeholder Interview Summary

Stakeholder 

Classification

Telephone 

Interviews

Personal 

Interviews

Comments 

Carriers 19

 5 of the top 10 carriers in the U.S. and Canada 

(including the top two)6

 8 were hazmat-certified 

 16 were for hire, 2 private, 1 NY State truck 

association 

OEM Vehicle

Manufacturers 

6

 Freightliner 

 Volvo 

 PACCAR 

 International 

 Oshkosh 

 Navistar 

Product Vendors 3 

 Meritor WABCO 

 Bendix 

 TRW 

Drivers 20  Includes several owner-operators 

Insurance 

Companies 5

 Liberty Mutual 

 Great Western Casualty

 Hailer, Fryer and Coon 

 St. Paul Companies 

 Marsh Inc. 

Totals 33 20

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 onboard 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 

 6

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

4
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.7 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. 

 7

“Active Carriers by Fleet Size with Percentages – All Active Carriers,” Office of Motor Carriers Management 

Information System, Special Report LS50B901, March 4, 2002. 

5
• 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 onboard 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

6
7

motor carrier) and the extent to which each factor is pervasive or important to a broad crosssection 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. 
• Return on Inves

• Driver Acceptance 

Figure 1. Factors that Influence Stakeholder Decision Making 

• Demonstrated 

Effectiveness to Safety 

(Affects all stakeholders)

• Market Demand • Investment Required for

Research and Development of New Technology 

• Market Image • Initial Cost 

Motor 

Carriers Drivers 

Insurers

Vehicle and 

 Device Manufacturers

• Reliability and 

Maintainability 

• Liability (Affects carriers, drivers

manufacturers) 

• In-cab Technology 

Interface Integration 

OwnerOperators

(*) Bold indicates factors judgeimportant to stakeholders linkesegment shown. 

8 
Table 2. Factors for Stakeholder Decision Making

Stakeholder Survey Group Comments

FACTOR Motor Carriers Vehicle Manufacturers

(OEMs) 

Device 

Manufacturers

Independent 

Owner-Operators Company Drive

Return on Investment for Purchaser 

Carriers’ profit margins are small. A positive ROI isessential with a 12- to 18-month payback.

Drivers recognize thatprofitability means job security. If improvemenoperations can be realizthrough the introduction on-board safetytechnologies, drivers sathey would be more likesupport its use.

Demonstrated Effectiveness to Improve Safety 

Carriers are concerned about safety and security of drivers, cargo, and equipment (vehicles).

All OEMs recognize that it is important (mandatory) toproduce safe vehiclesbecause safety influences sales.Safety and security can be differentiators resulting in people buying their tractors.Lack of safety can be an expensive liability in crash analysis and assignment ofresponsibility. 

Operators realize that they 

will benefit from improved safety and security in the trucks.

Independent owneroperators face enforcementaction and fines. Also,clients will not hire them ifthey have a poor safetyrecord. Anything that can help them avoid crashes is of interest. As withcompany drivers, they are concerned about privacy issues and do not want onboard safety technologies totake control of their vehicles.

Drivers realize that they be the people that directbenefit from improved saand security in the truckIn addition, drivers sometimes face penaltieand even job loss for crashes. Drivers suppoanything that can help thavoid crashes as long as control and privacy are nviolated.

9
Table 2. Factors for Stakeholder Decision Making (continued) 

Stakeholder Survey Group Comments

FACTOR Motor Carriers Vehicle Manufacturers

(OEMs) 

Device 

Manufacturers

Independent 

Owner-Operators Company Drive

Reliability and Maintainability 

On-board safetytechnologies must be easy to use, provide accurateresults, be consistently reliable, and be easy tomaintain. Anyinconsistencies or high maintenance requirements will discourage purchase by carriers.

Unreliable products can result in warranty claims translating to cost and increased liability. An OEM must produce a product witha long life (5 to 10 years).Therefore, most items will need some level ofmaintenance in the field.OEMs are sensitive to the complexity of systems and the ability to maintainsystems by their customers and associated repair centers. The skill level required to provide repair services can be a limiting obstacle for on-board safetytechnologies.

Independent owneroperators are aware of the concept of “false positives”.On-board safetytechnologies must provide accurate, consistent, and reliable information to the driver. They must be convinced that intervention to control the vehicle is safeand beneficial.Owner-operators areinterested only in equipmentthat is reliable. An excessive need for maintenance is a deterrentto on-board safetytechnology.

Drivers are aware of the concept of “false positiveOn-board safetytechnologies must providaccurate and reliable information to the driverDrivers recognize that asystem they rely on musaccurate and dependabit presents a potential saissue.Drivers must be convincthat any intervention tocontrol the vehicle is safand beneficial.

Liability If carriers installed on-board safety technologies and 

drivers did not use them,crash liabilities could be assessed to the carrier.At the expert panel onAugust 7, 2003, carriers felt that the monitoring aspectsof on-board safetytechnologies could bebeneficial if used for reward.

There is a concern thatfailure of on-board safetytechnologies to perform as expected could place liabilityon the OEM and other component manufacturers.

Vendors are aware ofliability issues. The perception of increased liability will have an impact on the decision tomanufacture it.

Owner-operators expressed concerns that the data collected by on-board safetytechnologies could be used against them in crash investigations. They do notlike the idea of being monitored while they drive.

Drivers expressed concethat the data collected bon-board safetytechnologies could be usagainst them in crash investigations. They do like the idea of being monitored while they driv

Market Demand If buyers are asking for onboard safety technologies,

the OEM is more likely to make it as either standard or optional equipment.

If buyers are asking for onboard safety technologies,vendors are more likely tooffer it to both OEMs and aftermarket suppliers. 

10
Table 2. Factors for Stakeholder Decision Making (continued) 

Stakeholder Survey Group Comments

FACTOR Motor Carriers Vehicle Manufacturers

(OEMs) 

Device 

Manufacturers

Independent 

Owner-Operators Company Drive

Initial Cost Although carriers may 

recognize the benefits of the technology and fully appreciate the cost-benefitanalysis, they may not have the available capital to purchase equipment.Some carriers surveyed mentioned a range of$1,000 to $1,500 as the maximum allowable initial cost for an individual onboard safety system, such as RA&C. 

OEMs must be able to supply equipment that is affordable to their clients.Several OEMs felt that aninitial cost of about $1,000 or less would be needed topenetrate the carrier market.This is consistent withcomments from some of the carriers.

Because costs are importantto vendors, they must be able to supply equipmentthat is affordable to their clients.

Independent owneroperators pay for theequipment put into their cabs. Cost is clearly a decision factor for procuring in-cab safety equipment.

Investment Required for Research and Development of New Technology 

Both development and production costs are important to OEMs. High development costs can discourage investments.Research investments can be risky because of the many unknowns inherentwith new developments. An investment in something new always has a chance offailure resulting in sunkcosts that can be substantial.

Research, development,and production costs can be prohibitive when designing and producing products withrapidly changing technologies.

Market Image Carriers compete for customers. Their image or 

reputation in the business is important to them. Running a state-of-the-art fleet that operates safely and efficiently is important tocarriers’ marketing programs. Crashes cause delays, additional costs, and damaged cargos.

OEMs recognize the importance of their image in the market place. Image is earned but also influenced by progressiveness tomaintain leadership in offering the best quality and features. OEMs know thatthe proper use of new technology is key tomaintaining a competitive edge.

If the clients that hire the 

independent owneroperators think that use ofon-board safetytechnologies is important, it may influence whom they hire. If the independentdriver thinks that on-board safety technologies can positively influence their client business, they will be more interested in making the investment.

11
Table 2. Factors for Stakeholder Decision Making (continued) 

Stakeholder Survey Group Comments

FACTOR Motor Carriers Vehicle Manufacturers

(OEMs) 

Device 

Manufacturers

Independent 

Owner-Operators Company Drive

Driver Acceptance Carriers are sensitive to drivers’ attitudes and 

opinions, and recognize the importance of providing good equipment andmaintaining a safe operating environment to retain a qualified driver team. 

Any on-board safety

technology must be easy touse. Owner-operators are not interested in using systems that are complex,hard to use, or require extensive training; the systems should be able tobe self-taught (training for an independent operator is usually uncompensated time). 

Any on-board safetytechnology must be easuse, consistent in how itworks for various vendoand vehicles, and notrequire extensive trainin

Generally the reaction frdrivers was positive in thinterviews. Drivers at thExpert Panel meeting hapositive reaction to RA&They stated that they wowelcome training and thchance to have this technology in their vehicAlso, the reaction fromdrivers in the FOT was positive relating to this system.

In-cab Technology Interface Integration 

Any new technologies mustbe compatible and interoperable with existing system designs. OEMs stated that a good technology could be omitted if it conflicts with existingsystems thought to be essential. For example, a device may not be compatible with the human interfaces currently in the cab.

The amount of equipment in 

a commercial vehicle cab continues to increase. The systems must integrate towhat is there and not interfere with driver primary responsibilities. 

The amount of equipmea commercial vehicle cacontinues to increase. Ion-board safety technolodistracts the driver in anway, the driver will often react by taking measuresabotage or turn the uniThe systems must integwith what is there and nointerfere with driver primresponsibilities. 

12
13 

Figure 2. Carrier Survey Results

5 

Number of respondents times rating of 1 t

0

Effectiveness of the system to improve safety Overall driver satisfaction. Reduced turnover

Reduced insurance premiums

Good corporate citizen

Cost to install and maintain

Reduced accident related costs

Federal requirement

Cost to train drivers

Accuracy and reliability of the system

Insurance company requirement

Driver acceptance of system

Tax 

Issue
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 positives8

, 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 

 8

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

14 
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 lanechange 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. 

15 
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 invehicle 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 onboard safety technology must be relayed to carriers. 

16 
17 

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.9

 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 carrieremployed drivers. 

Reliability and Maintainability 

One important factor that emerges from these questions is the lack of trust in the reliability of onboard 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 

 

9

Independent owner-operators own and drive their own tractors. A carrier-employed driver is employed by a 

specific carrier or company to drive company-owned vehicles. 
Disagree Agree

Survey Question

-15 -10 -5 5 10 15 

Skilled drivers don't need theseTrust the reliability of IVSSWould increase workloadSystems may interfere with drivingWould sometimes turn it offCould cause lower alertnessMy company wants them

Could be distracting

Would like to have on my truck

Won't change the way I drive

Every truck should have these

Would really like to have

Could become dependent on these

Would reduce stress

Only work in selective conditions

Save time, increase productivity

Would feel safer

Would encourage my company to adopt

Respond faster to emergencies

Number of respothe level of agremax) or disagree

Number of respothe level of agreemax) or disagree

Disagree Agree

Survey Question

Disagree Agree

Survey Question

-15 -10 -5 5 10 15 

Skilled drivers don't need theseTrust the reliability of IVSSWould increase workloadSystems may interfere with drivingWould sometimes turn it offCould cause lower alertnessMy company wants them

Could be distracting

Would like to have on my truck

Won't change the way I drive

Every truck should have these

Would really like to have

Could become dependent on these

Would reduce stress

Only work in selective conditions

Save time, increase productivity

Would feel safer

Would encourage my company to adopt

Respond faster to emergencies

Number of respothe level of agremax) or disagree

Number of respothe level of agreemax) or disagree

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

18 
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.10 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 onboard 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. 

 10“Active Carriers by Fleet Size with Percentages – All Active Carriers,” Office of Motor Carriers Management 

Information System, Special Report LS50B901, March 4, 2002. 

19 
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.

11 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 onboard 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.12 

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 

 11American Transportation Research Institute, “Regulatory and Legal Issues Potentially Impacting the Development 

and Deployment of On-board Safety Technology Systems,” Technical Memorandum to Battelle, April 2003. 12“Technical Memorandum: Issues Associated with the Utilization of On-board Safety Systems,” Submitted by the 

ATA Foundation, 2002. 

20 
dramatic slowing of sales of new trucks and an abundance of used trucks on the market.13 

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.14 

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 

 13The industry is also concerned about how government will use the data collected. ATA Foundation, “Technical

Memorandum: Issues Associated with the Utilization of On-board Safety Systems,” 2002. 14Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 121 requires ABS on truck tractors manufactured after March 1,

1997 and other air-braked vehicles after March 1, 1998

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/EP/HTABS.html. 

21 
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 

22 
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 onboard safety technologies, others would follow suit because it becomes a competitive advantage 

otherwise. 

23 
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 onboard 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. 

24 
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 selfinsuring; 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, the respondents were 

unsure to what extent driver satisfaction would result from this technology. Another respondent 

indicated he would like to see the technology used to modify drivers’ behavior in a positive 

way—for instance, providing feedback after “X” hours of use by monitor or from central 

dispatcher that says “Driver, you have been doing better than fleet average for “X” hours and 

therefore receive a reward (cents/mile extra or award).” Providing this feedback several times 

per day or on another schedule might modify driving behavior. This respondent indicated that 

the trucking industry does not always provide positive feedback and most of these on-board 

safety technologies provide information that could potentially be used for negative critiques. 

Demonstrated Effectiveness to Improve Safety 

The cost of insurance has gone up markedly in the last few years. In a recent survey of 1,000 

carriers conducted by ATA, it was found that insurance premiums were increasing rapidly due in 

part to the tragic events of September 11, 2001. ATA reported that carriers renewing umbrella 

policies, for instance, prior to September 11 were paying 74 percent more than previously, 

whereas those renewing after September 11 paid an average of 120 percent more. One of the 

insurance companies interviewed in this task stated that insurance costs have increased, not 

because of bad loss experience, but because of loss of investment income on their reserves due to 

the poor economy. According to the interviewee, companies previously wrote insurance at a loss 

to acquire capital and make up the loss on investment income. Due to lower returns on invested 

incomes in the recent economic climate, costs for re-insurance have increased 100 to 300 percent 

25 
in the last year or two, which makes it difficult for carriers. Also, there is a shifting of costs and 

exposures to motor carriers through higher deductibles and greater self-insurance. 

Insurance companies establish rates based on statistical data regarding cost of repairs, repair 

experience, injury and death settlements, collateral property damage, environmental cleanup, and 

the level of co-insurance/deductibles carriers assume. Insurance companies prefer data 

documenting the conditions that existed in a crash. Any collected data can be used to save 

money in litigation. However, they recognize that the data could present a “two-edged sword” if 

their client is at fault. The companies will not offer premium discounts to carriers for using new 

systems. They believe that a mechanism already exists for this discount: fewer crashes reduce 

expenses and reduce premiums. However, management attitude toward safety and loss

experience also matters to the insurers. Safety devices along with training and other activities 

are evidence of management’s concern for safety. 

Market Image 

Insurance companies are interested in maintaining a good image with the trucking industry. 

Trucking companies go to insurance companies they think are reputable but they also shop for 

low rates. The image or reputation that an insurance company establishes has a direct impact on 

the size of their customer base. If on-board safety technologies can reduce crashes, insurance 

companies will be better able to maintain fair and equitable insurance rates. 

4.3 Summary of Industry Perspective 

According to the ATA Foundation (predecessor organization to ATRI), there are a number of 

overarching issues affecting the utilization of on-board safety technology in the trucking industry 

today15: 

• Deregulation has resulted in a competitive environment, which combined with rising

insurance costs and unstable fuel costs, has eroded profit margins. As a result, 

technology investments must have a clear, direct, and positive benefit-cost ratio to be 

accepted. 

• Slowing sales of new trucks and an excess of used trucks are hurting business for OEMs. 

Consequently, new technology systems are not typically placed on new trucks as standard 

equipment because it raises vehicle price. Retrofitting vehicles with new technology is

often more expensive than new OEM systems. 

• There is a dearth of technology vendors in the safety field and often new technology 

systems lack full field testing. 

 15ATA Foundation, “Issues Associated with the Utilization of On-board Safety Systems,” Technical Memorandum

to Battelle, 2002. 

26 
• Insurance costs are rising rapidly for safe and unsafe carriers alike. Unproven safety 

technologies typically do not qualify for discounts, making investment in them less 

likely. 

• The industry is concerned about data privacy with on-board safety systems in that 

competitors might pirate data transmitted over wireless systems or data turned over to the 

government might be misused. 

• The trucking industry, as a whole, is an extremely low-margin sector of the economy. 

According to Department of Commerce statistics, the industry’s average operating 

margin was less than 5 percent in 2002. Furthermore, unstable fuel costs and 

skyrocketing insurance costs are dramatically affecting a company’s liquidity and 

confidence in speculative technology investment (those technologies which do not offer a 

clear or immediate ROI).16

• New technologies are often beneficial from a safety standpoint because they provide 

users with more information and data. As technology evolves, the types and quality of 

captured data also evolve. However, misuse of these data by third parties and/or 

overreaching use by government entities can have a chilling effect on the deployment of 

on-board safety technologies.17 

5.0 Federal and State Regulations Related to Factors18

Motor carriers and others serving the trucking industry must comply with Federal and state 

regulations developed to ensure a safe and efficient industry. Technological advances have 

historically preceded the development of standards, procedures, and regulations governing 

potential use or misuse of a technology. Traditionally, market forces have shaped regulations 

and standards with respect to functionality, new applications, costs, and business risks. In some

instances, regulations already exist in a field where a technological advance was not anticipated. 

For example, requirements for paper documents and original signatures prior to the advent of the 

internet and e-government business were standard practice. In these cases, statutes were 

amended to enable new efficiencies.

One area related to adoption of on-board safety technology that is impacted by Federal regulation 

is accounting and taxation, specifically accounting procedures and tax laws related to technology 

purchase and depreciation. According to ATRI, business entities consider capital depreciation 

processes and procedures from internal and external perspectives at the highest level. Internal 

depreciation schedules, which follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, are typically 

motivated by the need to maximize resources and present a more favorable picture of a 

company’s financial position. External depreciation in this instance refers to the interpretation of 

and compliance with tax codes, which can be complex in the context of Federal corporate 

 16American Transportation Research Institute, “Regulatory and Legal Issues Potentially Impacting the Development 

and Deployment of On-board Safety Technology Systems,” Technical Memorandum to Battelle, April 2003. 17ATRI, April 2003. 18ATRI, April 2003. 

27 
finance and tax accounting strategies. Further, state tax codes and issues are exponentially more 

diverse and complex, according to ATRI. Two components of tax regulation most germane to 

the issue of return on investment to stakeholders focus on capital depreciation and tax credits. 

The relevant Internal Revenue Service external depreciation schedule for computer-based 

equipment is 3 years. This connotes that the value of the investment (as a stand-alone or as 

portion of the overall value of a truck tractor) could be depreciated over 3 years for purchasers of 

on-board safety technologies, regardless of whether a technology is factory-installed or retrofit to 

the vehicle. 

The interview survey conducted for this project (Task 5.3) as well as a recent independent survey 

conducted by ATRI showed that the majority of motor carriers require a break-even on their 

technology investments within 2 years or less.19 Revisions to tax codes allowing shorter 

accounting depreciation lives, or even same year deductions for the full investment amount, can 

improve break-even performance for on-board safety technologies. Since it is unlikely that the 

current accounting depreciation life of a truck tractor would be significantly reduced, incentives 

for factory-installed technologies could be based on the value-added of the particular system to 

that of the tractor. 

For developers of new technologies, research and development (R&D) costs generally contain a 

large proportion of capital expenditures. These costs can be depreciated over the life of the 

capital assets, or election can be made by the company to expense (deduct the costs from

income) in the year they are incurred. This election is binding for the year it is made and for all 

later years. 

The evolving nature of on-board safety technology, having limited exposure in the marketplace, 

is indicative of the limited regulatory environment that relates to them according to ATRI. 

Through consultation with financial, legal, and regulatory experts within the trucking industry, 

ATRI’s analysis revealed that current regulations do not create explicit impediments to the 

development and deployment of the technologies. 

6.0 Conclusions

The following conclusions and observations are drawn from the results of this task: 

• The primary decision maker or customer for the RA&C (or for on-board safety 

technology in general) is the motor carrier. 

• The primary factor driving the purchase decision is that the carrier must see that the 

RA&C will provide an acceptable payback or return on investment within 24 months; 

preferably 12 to 18 months or less. 

• Related to ROI but a separate factor is that the purchase cost of the RA&C should be no 

more than $2,000 and preferably less than $1,000. 

 19American Transportation Research Institute/Gartner G2, Trucking Technology Survey Results Summary, 2003.

28 
• All interviewed stakeholders expressed a strong need to see proof of effectiveness of the 

technology to improve safety. 

• All interviewed stakeholders also share a desire to have confidence in the reliability and 

maintainability of the technology. Part of this factor is also proof that the technology has 

no undesirable characteristics such as false positives. 

• Acceptance of the technology by the driver is also important. The in-cab interface must 

be user friendly, not unduly add to the complexity of the cab, not distract the driver nor 

cause the driver concern about losing control of his/her vehicle. 

• All of the above support the development of market demand which was cited by the 

OEMs and vendors as a key factor and necessary prerequisite for deployment of the 

technology. 

• The observation from both the interviews and the workshop is that there is low awareness 

in general of on-board safety technology, but especially low awareness of the RA&C. 

Fewer than half of the 19 carriers interviewed had any awareness at all of the RA&C and 

those that did describe their awareness as vague. Only one of the five insurers 

interviewed expressed awareness of the RA&C. None of the drivers interviewed had 

experience with the RA&C. 

• Although awareness of the technology is not listed as a formal decision factor, it is a 

precursor to creating market demand for the product. 

• The RA&C has completed a successful FOT. It also has demonstrated efficacy in 

preventing rollover under controlled testing conditions. Further, the cost of the RA&C 

was documented in the FOT to be less than $1,000 including the addition of traction 

control, an option needed for effective operation of the RA&C but having its own 

benefits beyond that. 

29 
Acronyms 

ABS Antilock Braking system

ATA American Trucking Associations 

ATRI American Transportation Research Institute (successor to the ATA Foundation)

AVI Automatic Vehicle Identification 

CDL Commercial Driver’s License 

CRADA Cooperative Research and Development Agreement 

CVO Commercial Vehicle Operations 

CVSA Commercial Vehicle Safety Administration 

CWS/ACC Collision Warning System with Adaptive Cruise Control 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

ECBS Electronically Controlled Braking System

EDI Electronic Data Interchange 

FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

FMVSS Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 

FOT Field Operational Test 

GPS Global Positioning System 

GVWR Gross Vehicle Weight Rating 

ITS Intelligent Transportation System

IVI Intelligent Vehicle Initiative 

LDWS Lane-Departure Warning System

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer 

OOIDA Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association 

RA&C Roll Advisor and Controller 

ROI Return on Investment 

RSA Roll Stability Advisor 

RSC Roll Stability Controller 

TREAD Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (Act) 

TSA Transportation Security Administration 

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

WIM Weigh-in-Motion 

30 
Appendix A: 

Interview Guides for Manufacturers, Vendors, Drivers, 

and Insurance Companies

31
Trucking Industry Perspectives on 

TECHNOLOGY-BASED SAFETY SYSTEMS

INTRODUCTION: BATTELLE IS WORKING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO IDENTIFY 

WAYS TO ACCELERATE DEPLOYMENT OF SEVERAL NEW INTELLIGENT VEHICLE SAFETY TECHNOLOGIES. 

CAN YOU PARTICIPATE IN A BRIEF DISCUSSION [10 TO 15 MINUTES] OR SUGGEST A MORE CONVENIENT 

TIME? OTHER PERSON(S)?

THE ON-BOARD SAFETY SYSTEMS WE ARE FOCUSING ON ARE 

 COLLISION WARNING SYSTEM (CWS) 

 ADAPTIVE CRUISE CONTROL (ACC) 

 ROLL ADVISOR AND CONTROL (RA&C) 

 LANE DEPARTURE WARNING (LDW). 



WE WILL PROVIDE BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS OF THESE SYSTEMS TO YOU, AND ASK FOR YOUR ASSESSMENT OF 

THEM. BUT FIRST, WE WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS INDUSTRY ATTITUDES TOWARDS INTELLIGENT SAFETY 

TECHNOLOGIES IN GENERAL.

QUESTIONS:

1. A. WHAT IN-VEHICLE SAFETY TECHNOLOGIES OR SYSTEMS ARE BEING USED BY THE TRUCKING 

INDUSTRY THAT YOU ARE AWARE OF: 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

B. WHO IS USING THEM AND CAN YOU DESCRIBE HOW THEY ARE USED? 

C. WHAT DOES THE REST OF THE INDUSTRY THINK ABOUT THESE SAFETY SYSTEMS? 

2. PLEASE INDICATE HOW MUCH IMPACT THE FOLLOWING FACTORS HAVE IN A TRUCKING COMPANY’S 

DECISION TO BUY AND USE IN-VEHICLE SAFETY TECHNOLOGIES (EITHER RETROFIT OR AS ORIGINAL 

TRUCK EQUIPMENT): (1=NOT IMPORTANT; 5=VERY IMPORTANT):

 1 2 3 4 5 

COST TO INSTALL AND MAINTAIN      

COST TO TRAIN DRIVERS IN USE     

OVERALL DRIVER SATISFACTION/REDUCED TURNOVER     

DRIVER ACCEPTANCE OF A SYSTEM     

ACCURACY AND RELIABILITY OF A SYSTEM     

32 
EFFECTIVENESS OF A SYSTEM IN IMPROVING 

SAFETY     

 INSURANCE COMPANY REQUIREMENT     

 REDUCED INSURANCE PREMIUMS     

 REDUCED ACCIDENT-RELATED COSTS     

 OTHER, PLEASE SPECIFY:_______________     

 OTHER, PLEASE SPECIFY:_______________     

3. PLEASE RANK IN ORDER OF IMPORTANCE, WHO YOU BELIEVE IS MOST RESPONSIBLE FOR 

INTRODUCING NEW TRUCKING SAFETY TECHNOLOGIES INTO THE MARKETPLACE

(1=MOST IMPORTANT; 7=LEAST IMPORTANT):

_____ TRUCK TRACTOR MANUFACTURERS

_____ TRUCK TRAILER MANUFACTURERS

_____ COMPONENT MANUFACTURERS

_____ TRUCKING COMPANIES

_____ TRUCK DRIVERS

_____ INSURANCE COMPANIES

_____ GOVERNMENT

FOR THOSE GROUPS RANKED # 1,2,3, WHICH COMPANIES ARE THE LEADERS? WHO WITHIN THE 

COMPANIES (BY TITLE OR NAME) ARE THE DECISION MAKERS? 

4. WHAT ARE THE MAJOR OBSTACLES, BARRIERS, OR CONCERNS TO INVESTING AND INCORPORATING 

NEW SAFETY TECHNOLOGIES/SYSTEMS INTO THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY? 

 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

5. WHAT ROLE COULD THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY PLAY IN BRINGING NEW SAFETY TECHNOLOGIES/ 

SYSTEMS TO THE MARKET? 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

33
6. WHAT ROLE COULD MANUFACTURERS PLAY IN BRINGING NEW SAFETY TECHNOLOGIES/SYSTEMS TO

THE MARKET? 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

7. WHAT ROLE COULD GOVERNMENT PLAY IN BRINGING NEW SAFETY TECHNOLOGIES/SYSTEMS TO THE

MARKET?

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

8. LET’S TAKE A FEW MINUTES TO DISCUSS THE SPECIFIC SAFETY TECHNOLOGIES WE ARE FOCUSED ON 

(PROVIDE DESCRIPTIONS). BASED ON THESE DESCRIPTIONS, WOULD THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY BE 

INTERESTED IN ADOPTING THE SYSTEMS, WHY/WHY NOT, AND AT WHAT MAXIMUM RANGE OF INITIAL 

PER-VEHICLE COST: 

 

SAFETY SYSTEM 1: CWS

 TRUCKING INDUSTRY WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THE SYSTEM? YES  No 

 WHY/WHY NOT? _________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

 IF YES, WHAT INITIAL MAXIMUM PRICE RANGE PER VEHICLE: 

 LESS THAN $500  $501 TO $1,000  $1,001 TO $1,500 

 $1,501 TO $2,500  GREATER THAN $2,500 

 

34
SAFETY SYSTEM 2: ACC 

 TRUCKING INDUSTRY WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THE SYSTEM? YES  No 

 WHY/WHY NOT? _________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

 IF YES, WHAT INITIAL MAXIMUM PRICE RANGE PER VEHICLE: 

 LESS THAN $500  $501 TO $1,000  $1,001 TO $1,500 

 $1,501 TO $2,500  GREATER THAN $2,500 

 

SAFETY SYSTEM 3: RA&C 

TRUCKING INDUSTRY WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THE SYSTEM? YES  No 

 WHY/WHY NOT? _________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

 IF YES, WHAT INITIAL MAXIMUM PRICE RANGE PER VEHICLE: 

 LESS THAN $500  $501 TO $1,000  $1,001 TO $1,500 

 $1,501 TO $2,500  GREATER THAN $2,500 

 SAFETY SYSTEM 4: LDW 

 TRUCKING INDUSTRY WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THE SYSTEM? YES  No 

 WHY/WHY NOT? _________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

 IF YES, WHAT INITIAL MAXIMUM PRICE RANGE PER VEHICLE: 

 LESS THAN $500  $501 TO $1,000  $1,001 TO $1,500 

 $1,501 TO $2,500  GREATER THAN $2,500 

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND INTEREST. IF WE HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS, MAY WE CALL YOU 

AGAIN? WHO ELSE AT YOUR COMPANY SHOULD WE SPEAK WITH? WHO ELSE IN THE INDUSTRY SHOULD 

WE SPEAK WITH? 

35
Survey of Drivers – October 2002 

Date _________________________ 

Location ___________________________________________

Ground Rules

(1) All interviews are confidential. 

(2) Battelle’s role as independent evaluator. 

(3) Purpose to discuss experiences with safety technologies. 

(4) Looking for objective feedback, both pros and cons. 

Introduction

 (1) First name/handle (optional)_____________________________________________________________

 (2) Inter/intra state travel (dedicated?) ________________________________________________________

(3) Owner-Op, How many trucks in your fleet? Ave. trip length (mi.)? (Team?) _______________________

(4) How many years driving experience?______________________________________________________

(5) How long have you been driving for this company? __________________________________________

(6) What do you haul/trailer type? Auto, Bx, Blk, Dmp, F, HM, LB, Lvstk, R, T_______________________

36
Experience with Truck Safety Technologies

Which of the following safety systems have you ever used? Which are you currently using on your truck? Of

those you currently use, how long have you been using them? If not a user, would you be willing to try? 

Which are (would be) most useful to you (rank top 3)? [Add any other safety systems the respondent reports

using.]

Safety System 

Type 

Ever Used? 

Y / N 

Currently

Using?

Y / N 

Years/Months 

of Experience? 

Willing to Try?

Y / N 

Usefulness? 

Rank 1st, 2nd, 3rd

a. ABS 

b. Electronic disc brakes 

– like ABS-advanced 

braking system (ECBS) 

c. In-Vehicle Navigation 

(GPS) 

d. Lane Tracking/Lane 

Departure Warning 

e. Pre-Pass 

f. Rollover advisory

system 

g. Rollover control system 

h. Smart-Cruise-Fixed 

Following Distanceadaptive cruise control 

i. [VORAD] forward-radar

following distancenoise/visual alerts 

j. Warning of blind spots 

– side-looking radar 

37
Training in the Use of Truck Safety Systems (where applicable)

Have you ever received training in the use of any of these safety systems? How effective was that training?

Rank the training you received on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 = Very effective/useful and 5 = ineffective/not 

useful. 

[Skip those never used from Q III, and include other systems from Q III.]

Safety System Type

Ever Received 

Training? 

Y / N 

Effectiveness of 

Training? 

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5

a. ABS 

b. Electronic disc brakes – like ABS-advanced braking system (ECBS) 

c. In-Vehicle Navigation (GPS) 

d. Lane Tracking/Lane Departure Warning 

e. Pre-Pass 

f. Rollover advisory system 

g. Rollover control system 

h. Smart-Cruise-Fixed Following Distance-adaptive cruise control 

i. [VORAD] forward-radar following distance-noise/visual alerts 

j. Warning of blind spots – side-looking radar 

k. 

l. 

38
Learning/Training Preference

A. How do you personally like to hear about new safety technology? What is the best way? 2nd? 3rd? What’s 

worst?

B. How do you personally like to learn to use these technologies? What is the best way? 2nd? 3rd? What’s 

worst?

Learning/Training Method 

Rank Top Three

(how you want to

hear about it) 

1 – 2 – 3 – W 

Rank Top Three

(ways to learn to 

use it) 

1 – 2 – 3 – W 

Comments/what system? 

a. Actual Road experience training?

b. CB? 

c. Formal classroom/company orientation 

training?

d. Government mandate?

e. Internet/e-mail/Web – computer

f. Magazines (i.e., Heavy-Duty Trucking, 

OTR, Owner-Operator)

g. Message over company

communication system?

h. On-site orientations or ride-alongs?

i. Read manuals?

j. Simulator or test track trials?

k. Talk with other drivers?

l. Trial and error/Hands on?

m. Truck shows? 

n. Other? 

39
Driver Attitudes Regarding The Use of Truck Safety Systems in General

I’m going to read a number of statements about these safety systems, and I would like you to tell me how much you agree 

or disagree with the statement. Again, the scale goes from 1 to 5 where 1 = Strongly Agree and 5 = Strongly Disagree. 

[Give respondent answer card with response categories.]

Statement Which 

system(s)?

Strongly Agree = 1 

Agree = 2 

Neutral = 3 

Disagree = 4 

Strongly Disagree = 5 

a. (I think some of) these systems (could) help me save time on my trips. 

b. (I think some of) these systems (could) help me respond faster in emergency situations. 

c. (I think some of) these systems (could be) are more helpful under some conditions than others. 

Which conditions? (i.e., fog, night, rain, snow, ___________________) 

d. I (would) feel safer driving with these systems than without them. 

e. (I think) these systems (could) increase my driving workload; that is, they increase the amount 

of effort and concentration it takes to drive. How? _________________________________

 _________________________________________________________________________

 _________________________________________________________________________

f. A skilled driver really does not need systems like these. 

g. These safety systems help reduce the stress and fatigue of truck driving. 

h. I find I have (could) become dependent on these safety systems such that I (might) feel less 

safe in a truck without them. 

i. Most of the drivers I know would rather have these systems than not have them in their trucks. 

j. I (would) sometimes keep some of these systems turned off in my truck while I am driving. 

Which? _____________ Why?____________________________ When?_______________ 

k. To really make a safety improvement, every truck on the road should have these kinds of 

systems. 

l. I (think I would) find that some of these systems can (could) be distracting while I am driving. 

How? ______________________________________________________________________ 

m. (I think) these systems can (could) actually cause me to be LESS alert in my driving.

n. I trust the reliability of these safety systems. What specific concerns?____________________

Describe why ________________________________________________________________ 

o. These systems (may) interfere with my driving tasks. How?____________________________

___________________________________________________________________________ 

p. Having these systems has not really changed (probably won’t change) the way I drive. 

q. Overall, I (would) really like (to have) having these safety systems on my truck. 

r. My company/customers feel(s) it is important to install these kinds of safety systems in their 

(our) fleet. 

s. I would like to encourage (the decision makers) my company to outfit trucks with (more) safety

systems like these. 

40
Wrap Up

Do you have any suggestions for making further safety improvements? (vehicles, drivers, infrastructure) 

 _______________________________________________________________________________________

 _______________________________________________________________________________________

 _______________________________________________________________________________________

 _______________________________________________________________________________________

Are there any other technologies you would like to have on your truck that you do not currently have?

 _______________________________________________________________________________________

 _______________________________________________________________________________________

 _______________________________________________________________________________________

 _______________________________________________________________________________________

How would you like new safety technology to be introduced?

 _______________________________________________________________________________________

 _______________________________________________________________________________________

 _______________________________________________________________________________________

Past three years: Crash? Violations? N/A? (optional) ___________________________________

Any other comments you would like to make?

 _______________________________________________________________________________________

 _______________________________________________________________________________________

 _______________________________________________________________________________________

 _______________________________________________________________________________________

That concludes our interview. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and time with me.

41
Appendix B: 

Detailed Interview Results

42 
Appendix B summarizes the interview results for manufacturers, buyers and users of on-board 

safety technology. Before interviewing each stakeholder group, questionnaires were developed 

to structure the interviews and obtain consistent information from the interviewees. It was found 

that the structured interviews worked well with the carriers, drivers, and insurance companies, 

but did not work well with the OEMs. The OEM interviews followed a more informal 

discussion session, but good information was obtained. The carriers, drivers, and driver-owners 

were willing to follow the questionnaire process. 

The following summarizes the results obtained from the interview process. Section B-1 presents 

the information provided by the OEMs and vendors, Section B-2 summarizes the motor vehicle 

carrier responses, Section B-3 summarizes the drivers and independent owner-operators, and 

Section B-4 summarizes the insurance company responses. Each section begins with an 

explanation of the interview process and/or any interview questionnaire used in the interviews. 

43 
B-1. Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) and Vendors 

Original Equipment Manufacturers are the builders of the tractors and trailers. Vendors include 

those companies that manufacture equipment for tractors and trailers and supply the OEMs or 

after-market suppliers. Originally a formal questionnaire was developed to structure the 

interviews. The questionnaire was abandoned early in the interview process because OEMs and 

vendors struggled following the established agenda. The following information was obtained 

from the interviews: 

Interview #1 (OEM)

Technology Familiarity 

• Familiar with collision warning systems (CWS) and automated cruise control (ACC), 

such as the Eaton VORAD system. 

• Familiar with rollover stability control but to a lesser extent than CWS and ACC. 

• There are not a lot of requests for on-board safety technology, and those that are 

available (i.e., CWS and ACC) are not ordered. 

• Historically, on-board safety technologies get purchased about 10 percent to 20 percent 

in new orders. 

Cost/Financial Benefit 

• The vendor makes what customers will buy. 

• Equipment must add to the bottom line and there must be a payoff. 

• Even $1,000 to $2,000 is important to customers in a $120,000 purchase. Prices just 

went up because of added costs to engines to meet new emission controls. 

• If a financial benefit can be shown for on-board safety technology, the acceptance rate is 

high. 

• Financial benefits are hard to measure because the equipment has not had extensive use. 

The historical real-world data is not there. 

• Cost and financial benefits are more important than the effectiveness of a system in 

improving safety. 

Technical Assurance 

• Carriers need confidence in the products before they will purchase them. 

• Truckers exhibit skepticism in technology. They must be convinced of benefits before 

they will use on-board safety technology. History has proven that if the trucker does not 

believe in the on-board safety technology, they often will disable/sabotage it if possible. 

• The on-board safety technology cannot take the truck out of service for maintenance very 

often. Reliability and maintainability is required. 

• The system must function under all conditions (i.e., weather, terrain, speed, congestion 

levels, etc.) 

Driver Acceptance 

• Drivers do not like to give up control. If the on-board safety technology takes control 

from the driver, he or she tend to disable it if they can. 

• Drivers’ opinions are becoming more important in on-board safety technologypurchasing decisions. 

44 
• If the on-board safety technology takes the trucks out of service more than trucks without 

the systems, drivers discourage buying those truck brands. 

Additional comments 

• There has not been a willingness by the insurance companies to reduce rates due to onboard safety technology use. 

• There has not been a willingness by the public sector to provide tax incentives to 

stimulate on-board safety technology sales. 

• The Government often uses incentives to force marginal use of on-board safety 

technology and any incentives are temporary. When the incentive goes away, the carriers 

are left with added expenses. 

• It is often difficult to get the various stakeholders in the transportation industry to work 

together. 

• Government needs to take an active role in rational reasoning. 

Interview #2 (OEM)

• Willingness to pay for on-board safety technology is a function of how it will provide a 

positive return to the carriers. 

• On-board safety technologies should be targeted. For example, small carriers that work 

within city limits will not be interested in CWS/ACC, whereas long line haul carriers 

may be more interested in these technologies. 

• On-board safety technology is currently a pull market for OEMs. They produce what the 

customer asks for. 

• The buyers (i.e., carriers and independent owner-drivers) need to see on-board safety 

technologies saving money by reducing accidents or reducing insurance premiums before 

they are willing to buy. 

Interview #3 (OEM)

• On-board safety technology will only be accepted when the customer can see a return on 

investment and that needs to be very clear. Return on investment is probably the most 

important information to encourage the use of on-board safety technologies. 

• Returns most likely will come from reductions in insurance rates, workman’s 

compensation, or accident rates. 

• Fleet size makes a difference. Large fleets may not see the benefit needed because of the 

high cost to equip their fleet. On the other hand, small fleets might be able to afford it 

and only one accident might make a difference. 

• On-board safety technology equipment should be targeted to different operational 

environments. For example, military convoys might benefit from rear-end collision 

avoidance. 

• It typically takes over 4 years to move an on-board safety technology from being 

provided as an option to being offered as standard equipment. 

• On-board safety technology is promoted through operating/sales/safety aspects. 

45 
Interview #4 (Vendor)

• Vendors are driven by what their customers will buy. 

• The major issues in the purchase of on-board safety technologies are price and return on

investment (ROI). 

• On-board safety technology equipment is not selling. 

• On-board safety technologies must be affordable. A current on-board safety technology 

made by this vendor is priced at $4,000 per unit and is too expensive and will probably 

only receive limited acceptance. All these systems need to get below $1,000 per unit to 

receive substantial interest. 

• If an on-board safety technology can show positive benefit, government mandating can 

be effective. 

• On-board safety technologies requiring infrastructure changes will be slow to be adopted. 

This could be a very costly proposition. 

• Drivers are very leery of how on-board safety technology data will be used. Both drivers 

and carriers are concerned about liabilities and use of the data for litigation. Drivers are 

concerned their driver performance will be evaluated using the data. 

• This vendor felt that on-board safety technology should be mandated to insure use. Most 

vendors, carriers, and drivers disagree. 

Interview #5 (Vendor) (very reluctant to be interviewed) 

• Must reduce costs and increase visible cost savings. 

Interview #6 (Vendor)

• Upfront costs to purchase are important but fleet managers also consider long-term

paybacks. 

• All must do a better job identifying benefits to encourage on-board safety technology use. 

• Public awareness of benefits will provide public relations encouragement. Often, 

awareness of technology benefits is a problem. 

• Sometimes a few aggressive companies will try on-board safety technology (i.e., FOTs). 

If they are successful, others will follow suit because it becomes a competitive advantage 

otherwise. 

• 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 price. 

• Insurance companies can encourage use through rate reductions for technology that can 

statistically be shown to avoid accidents. 

• One of the problems is how/where to incorporate an on-board safety technology in a cab 

and getting drivers to accept another high technology gadget. 

Interview #7 (OEM)

• In the United States, every truck is custom designed for a customer. Therefore, it is much 

harder to develop and sell cost-effective new products and to introduce new technology. 

The European market buys what the OEMs make for them and the more standard 

equipment has allowed the OEMs to introduce new technology faster than in the United 

States. 

46 
• The biggest difficulty in the marketplace is to show a short term payback to the carriers. 

Customers must see a benefit and a way to reduce overall costs. 

• Fleet costs can be high. A carrier ordering 100 trucks and buying a $1,000 on-board 

safety technology system results in $100,000 of additional cost. 

• In some cases, the payback is not materializing because the insurance companies do not 

want to reduce rates without 3 to 5 years of data. 

• Products must be user friendly. 

• Early bad experiences with devices can create bad public relations. This can damage 

sales for a long time. It is then a hurdle for new technology to overcome in order to be 

accepted. 

• Tax incentives might be a way to encourage on-board safety technology acceptance. 

(DOE seems to be having some success with tax incentives for hybrid vehicles). 

• Some carriers and truckers do not want recording devices tracking them. Both fear that 

the data will be used to penalize them. 

• Customer expectations are that the various safety systems will each cost about the same 

amount of dollars. 

Interview #8 (OEM)

• Technology must be commercially viable (affordable) and feasible. If it is so expensive 

that it eliminates profitability, it is not feasible. 

• Don’t use profitability as a driver but show at the very least no commercial penalty and 

hopefully some commercial/population benefit. 

• The technology must be reliable. There is a need to show that the technology works and 

that false positives won’t occur. 

• It is important to get the customer involved and understand what they want and need in 

terms of on-board safety technology. 

• The on-board safety technology must be validated. It must be shown to work in the realworld under real operating conditions. 

• Larger carriers will embrace on-board safety technology sooner because of the larger 

capital availability. Smaller carriers will be slower to incorporate new technology. 

• Cost is an issue. A few thousand dollars added to a new vehicle must be justifiable. 

Deals are made on a few hundred dollars per unit. These systems will sell in the $1,000 

to $2,000 range. 

• OEMs should continue to partner with USDOT to pursue new technology. 

47 
The following summarizes provides a statistical summary for common items mentioned by the 

OEM/vendors in the interviews performed: 

Decision Criteria Number of Responses 

1. OEMs/vendors make what the market will buy. 5

2. On-board safety technology cost is the most important criteria. 7

3. Payback must be shown in 12 to 18 months. Equipment must add to the bottom

line. 

3 

4. There is price sensitivity to the purchase price of on-board safety technology. 

Customers seem to be willing to pay up to about $2,000. 5 

5. Buyers need confidence that the on-board safety technology products work

before they will readily buy them. 6 

6. It is important to include buyers early in the design and testing of the on-board

safety technology systems. 

2 

7. On-board safety technology must have low maintenance requirements. 2 

8. Drivers are reluctant to give up control of the vehicle. 1 

9. Drivers are becoming more important in the on-board safety technology

purchasing decisions. 

1 

10. Carriers and drivers are very sensitive to how any collected data will be used. 3

11. Without being mandated, on-board safety technology gets purchased about 10%

to 20% of the time. 1 

12. Insurance companies have not reduced rates for trucks with on-board safety

technology. Insurance companies want 3 to 5 years of experience to evaluate 

crash reductions. 

3 

13. Tax incentives might encourage use of on-board safety technology. 2 

14. Large fleets will readily invest in on-board safety technology than smaller fleets 

or independent owner-drivers.

2 

15. On-board safety technology should be targeted to different carrier applications. 

Urban carriers might need different on-board safety technology than rural

carriers.

2 

16. It typically takes more than 4 years to move from on-board safety technology

being offered as an option to standard equipment. 1 

17. Government mandating can be effective to getting carriers to use on-board

safety technology. 1 

18. Human factors and ease of use is important in customer decisions to buy onboard safety technology. 2 

48 
B-2. Motor Vehicle Carriers

Interviews with motor vehicle carriers used the questionnaire presented in Appendix A. 

Nineteen carriers were interviewed. The information obtained in the interviews is summarized 

below: 

Question 1A. What in-vehicle safety technologies are you using? 

Carrier Answer 

1 None 

2 None 

3 None; only intelligence in cab is the driver. 

4 None 

5 Using extra mirrors on cabs and computer controlled engine speed that is checked regularly. 

(person was not aware of IVI technologies)

6 None 

7 None 

8 None 

9 Using the Eaton VORAD collision avoidance system on about 420 of 450 company trucks. 

10 Not applicable 

11 None 

12 Not applicable 

13 Eaton VORAD was used and then removed. 

14 None 

15 Testing Eaton VORAD collision warning systems without ACC on 4 units. Started test 6

months ago. 

16 Currently using 2 systems; on-board data processors/recorders for accident reconstruction, 

speed, and idle control. Also using rear-facing video cameras to reduce backing accidents. 

17 None 

18 None (“Don’t think so.”) 

19 Tested Eaton VORAD collision warning system for six months about one year ago. 

Discontinued use of the system because no appreciable difference was detected. Other than 

the Qualcom Omnitracs satellite communications and tracking system, the company does not 

use any on-board technologies in trucks. 

From the interview results, it is clear that only a few of the carriers were really aware of onboard safety technologies. Most of the people interviewed were either sales and marketing 

people or people from engineering. It is felt (Battelle opinion) that on-board safety technology 

concepts should have been familiar with these stakeholders if the systems were marketed. 

49 
Question 1B. What [other] in-vehicle technologies or systems are you aware of? Who do you 

know that is using them? 

Carrier Answer 

1 None 

2 Fatigue 8 – a video on fatigue management. Freightliner uses through speakers of truck. Had a 

company presentation on backup detectors. Also mentioned the VORAD following and lane 

change system. 

3 None 

4 Aware of crash avoidance systems such as VORAD; backup systems using TV monitors;

signal system that the truck is closing on the vehicle in front; a radar signal system for blind

spots; Knew that US Xpress was using some safety systems; also aware of electronic boxes to

track driving service such as electronic logging. 

5 None 

6 Aware that some companies were using technologies in the cab to help back the truck. Assume

they were referring to video cameras. 

7 None 

8 None 

9 US Xpress is testing anti-rollover technology but not familiar with it. (note this could have

been the Praxair rollover advisory system) 

10 Driver alertness system such as PERCLOS (a camera in the vehicle to estimate alertness). Eye 

tracking to determine fatigue was discussed at the TRB meeting. Don’t test systems but was 

interested in a lot of different safety technologies. Was fairly aware of rest of trucking

industry’s interest in ISS. Reviewing videos from Human Factors and Ergonomics Association 

(Forensic Professional Group) in California related to ISS. Not as familiar with rollover 

warning systems and felt that was of less interest except to tank carriers. 

11 Aware of VORAD and Altra technologies which are sensors for blind spot and/or backing. 

Didn’t know of anyone using them. 

12 Aware of larger carriers using on-board recorders but not seeing much in safety systems. In 

October 2001 had a seminar on Eaton VORAD and liked the system. However was not

planning to incorporate the system because of cost. 

13 Devices to check eyes and lane changing warning systems. 

14 Read all about many of them in the transport magazines. Remembered systems to 

monitor/alert on following intervals and lane changes. 

15 Not familiar with systems we were testing except for the Eaton VORAD collision warning 

system. 

16 Aware of the Eaton VORAD system and considering a pilot test with 100 in-city vehicles. 

Person thought it would reinforce or modify driving behavior and therefore would like to see it

in their driver training system. Company had seen 25% decrease in backing accidents since 

installing video cameras. However he did say that they simultaneously instituted a drivertraining program emphasizing backing types of incidents. So not sure which cause-effect

relationship was valid. 

17 Aware of GPS and collision warning. 

18 Aware of VORAD, a black box to keep log of hours, pre-pass transponders for scales, 

automated cruise control, and highway notification systems. 

19 Aware of VORAD system, collision avoidance systems, and a system with chips in tires 

(Michelin told them about the ability to put chips in tires that can signal on the dash when the 

tire pressure is too low.) 

It appears that many carriers are not aware of many of the technologies that are available nor are 

they aware of others using safety systems. Of any system available, the Eaton-VORAD 

equipment is the most familiar. This is not surprising due to the number of installed units in the 

field and their aggressive promotional program. 

50 
Question 1C. Which of the 3 systems described are you familiar with? 

 Where: CWS/ACC = Collision Warning System/Adaptive Cruise Control 

 RA&C = Roll Advisor and Controller 

LDW = Lane Departure Warning 

Note that some of the following answers conflict with the answers given by some participants in 

question 1B. The reason is unknown. It can easily be concluded that there is some knowledge of 

existing on-board safety technology systems but it is very “vague and fuzzy” in most carriers 

minds as to what is available or being developed. 

Carrier Answer 

1 CWS/ACC + LDW 

2 CWS/ACC + RA&C + LDW (especially CWS/ACC) 

3 CWS/ACC + RA&C + LDW (have not seen any of them in operation)

4 CWS/ACC + RA&C 

5 CWS/ACC + RA&C + LDW (at least some familiarity) 

6 CWS/ACC + RA&C + LDW 

7 CWS/ACC + RA&C + LDW (but just a little about all of them) 

8 CWS/ACC + LDW + RA&C (in that order) 

9 CWS/ACC 

10 None 

11 CWS/ACC + RA&C + LDW 

12 CWS/ACC 

13 CWS/ACC 

14 None 

15 CWS/ACC 

16 CWS/ACC 

17 CWS/ACC 

18 Not recorded 

19 Not recorded 

51 
2. Summary of impact of factors on a trucking company’s decision to buy and use in-vehicle 

safety technologies (either original or retrofit equipment).

Relative Scale: 1 = not important (NI) to 5 = very important (VI) 

 Note: NV(#)=No Vote (number) 

Factor 1 (NI) 2 3 4 5 (VI)

Cost to install and 

maintain

X XX XXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXX 

Cost to train drivers X XXXX XXXXX XX XXXXXXX

Overall driver 

satisfaction/reduced 

turnover 

XXXXX XXXXXXXX

XX

XXXXX

Driver acceptance of a 

system

X XXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXX

Accuracy and 

reliability of the system

X XXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXX 

XX

Effectiveness of a 

system to improve

safety 

NV(1) XX XXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXX 

Insurance company 

requirement 

NV(1) XX XXXXXX XX XXXXXXXX

Reduced insurance 

premiums

NV(3) XXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX

Reduced accidentrelated costs 

NV(3) X XXX XXXXXXXX

XXXX

Tax incentives NV(1) XXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXXX

Other (please specify) X (Good

Corporate 

Citizen) 

X (Federal 

Requirement) 

52 
Other comments captured when receiving answers to Question 2 follow: 

Carrier Comment 

1 Safety technologies wouldn’t affect turnover in our company because we don’t have a turnover 

problem. But for companies where turnover is a problem, safety technologies would help. Driver

acceptance is important because they can kill you if you don’t get them to work with you. 

2 Skeptical about intelligent systems because human factor is #1 issue. Truck owners think machine 

can’t do safety monitoring. It’s not reliable because driving safety is too complex for a lane tracking 

device. Industry wide is very cost prohibitive to use safety systems. Intelligent systems will not

affect turnover of driver. 

3 Driver acceptance is not an issue; put it in and they’ll use it. Biggest problem is cost; need to 

convince upper management; must be reasonably priced. 

4 Ins. co. requirement is not important unless they are offering a discount. Tax incentive is probably

the most important. 

5 Must be real reliable. Need to see data of how it performs from carriers or industry and reduction in

accident levels, then would consider 

6 If made it a Federal requirement, we will do it (see other above) 

7 Tax incentives will never happen so ranked it very low. 

8 Systems have to be cost-effective to yield benefit in accident reduction and costs, user friendly and 

allow driver acceptance by easy education process. Multiple vehicle collisions are where the costs 

and damages are and according to the Government, 78% of those accidents are the non-truck driver’s 

(i.e., car’s) fault. Besides indictors only preclude certain events such as single vehicle events and 

those are minor. 

9 Anything mechanical can fail especially if brand new. 

10 No comments

11 No comments

12 No comments

13 No comments

14 Don’t want computer riding me. Still rely on myself. It’s a machine and they break.

15 Reliability concerns. Don’t want technology to interfere with driving.

16 Don’t do well with reading. Don’t have eye-brain coordination. 

17 Wants ability to turn off at times - VORAD (i.e., Chicago or construction zones). Worried data 

would be used by enforcement/police/cops. 

18 Going down the road, someone cuts me off and systems could distract. 

19 This technology could be expensive. It might be a distraction until adjusted. Could adapt to become

second nature.

53 
54 

B-3. Drivers and Independent Owner-Operators 

Twenty drivers were surveyed to better understand their familiarity and opinions concerning IVI 

on-board safety systems. The interviews were performed on a one-on-one basis. A random 

sample of drivers was accessed at an interstate truckstop. A second interview process was done 

at a tank carrier company in Northern Ohio. The interviews took approximately 20 minutes and 

followed a structured interview format organized by an interview survey form (see Appendix A). 

The interviews attempted to gather information concerning: 

• Driver profile 

• Experience with IVI technology 

• Training received on IVI systems in use 

• Learning/training preference 

• Attitudes regarding the use of IVI safety systems 

• Open comments soliciting any suggestions to advance safety. 

The results of the driver interviews are summarized in the following tables. 
55 

Experience with Truck Safety Technologies 

Safety System Type Ever Used? Y / N Currently Using? Y / N Years/Months of Experience? Willing to Try? Y / N U

Ra

a) ABS 

17 Yes 2 No 

15 Yes 4 No 

Avg. 5 Years Of the drivers not 

using ABS, most said No. 

Inc

b) Electronic disc brakes – like ABSadvanced braking system (ECBS) 

2 Yes 17 No 

1 Yes 19 No 

One trip 14 Yes 

4 No 1 Maybe 

1st 

2nd 

3rd 

Don

c) In-Vehicle Navigation (GPS) 

1 Yes 18 No 

1 Yes 18 No 

1 Yes – 6 weeks 17 Yes 

2 No 

1st 

2nd 

3rd 

d) Lane Tracking/Lane Departure 

Warning 

0 Yes 19 No 

0 Yes 19 No 

--- 18 Yes

1 No 

1st 

2nd 

3rd 

e) Pre-Pass 

8 Yes 11 No 

5 Yes 14 No 

Avg. 1.75 11 Yes 

4 No 4 No Answer 

1st 

2nd 

3rd 

12 

f) Rollover advisory system 

0 Yes 19 No 

0 Yes 19 No 

--- 18 Yes

1 No 

1st 

2nd 

3rd 

g) Rollover control system 

0 Yes 19 No 

0 Yes 19 No 

--- 12 Yes

7 No 

1st 

2nd 

3rd 

15 

h) Smart-Cruise-Fixed Following 

Distance-adaptive cruise control 

0 Yes 19 No 

0 Yes 19 No 

--- 14 Yes

5 No 

1st 

2nd 

3rd 

13 

i) [VORAD] forward-radar following 

distance-noise/visual alerts 

1 Yes 19 No 

0 Yes 19 No 

1 Yes – 3 Months 18 Yes 

1 No 

1st 

2nd 

3rd 

16 

j) Warning of blind spots – sidelooking radar 

1 Yes 18 No 

0 Yes 19 No 

1 Yes – 3 Months 19 Yes 

0 No 

1st 

2nd 

3rd 

6 N
From the preceding table, drivers had experience using ABS systems and the Pre-Pass. 

However, drivers had little experience or knowledge of other IVI safety systems. The interviews 

did indicate they were, for the most part, willing to try new systems. When asked usefulness, 

most had difficulty answering since they had no experience or knowledge of the systems. 

Training the Use of Truck Safety Systems (where applicable) 

Safety System Type

Ever Received 

Training? 

Y / N 

Effectiveness of 

Training? 

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5

m. ABS 1 Yes 2

n. Electronic disc brakes – like ABS-advanced braking system (ECBS) 

o. In-Vehicle Navigation (GPS) 

p. Lane Tracking/Lane Departure Warning 

q. Pre-Pass 

r. Rollover advisory system 

s. Rollover control system 

t. Smart-Cruise-Fixed Following Distance-adaptive cruise control 1 Yes 1 – told us to try it 

u. [VORAD] forward-radar following distance-noise/visual alerts 1 Yes 1 

v. Warning of blind spots – side-looking radar 1 Yes 1 

Very little training as shown in the table above was given for any of the systems that drivers had 

been given the opportunity to use. Even when training was provided, the drivers felt it was poor. 

56 
Learning / Training Preference (Rank 1-2-3. W refers to Worse Way)

Learning/Training Method 

Rank Top Three

(how you want to

hear about it) 

1 – 2 – 3 – W 

Rank Top Three

(ways to learn to 

use it) 

1 – 2 – 3 – W 

Comments/what 

system? 

o. Actual road experience training? --- 1 – 5 2 – 2 

3 – 5 W – 0 

p. CB? 1 – 0 2 – 1 

3 – 0 W – 2 

1 – 0 2 – 0 

3 – 0 W – 1 

q. Formal classroom/company orientation training? 1 – 4 2 – 2 

3 – 3 W – 1 

1 – 9 2 – 2 

3 – 3 W – 0 With lunch 

r. Government mandate? 1 – 0 2 – 0 

3 – 0 W – 8 

1 – 0 2 – 0 

3 – 0 W – 3 

s. Internet/e-mail/Web – computer 1 – 0 2 – 0 

3 – 0 W – 0 

1 – 0 2 – 0 

3 – 0 W – 0 

t. Magazines (i.e., Heavy-Duty Trucking, OTR, OwnerOperator) 

1 – 4 2 – 6 

3 – 5 W – 0 

1 – 0 2 – 1 

3 – 3 W – 0 

Overdrive, Landline, 

Road King, Fleet

Maintenance, free

u. Message over company communication system? 1 – 1 2 – 2 

3 – 1 W – 0 

1 – 0 2 – 0 

3 – 0 W – 0 

v. On-site orientations or ride-alongs? 1 – 0 2 – 0 

3 – 0 W – 0 

1 – 0 2 – 1 

3 – 0 W – 0 

w. Read manuals? 1 – 0 2 – 0 

3 – 0 W – 1 

1 – 0 2 – 2 

3 – 3 W – 0 

x. Simulator or test track trials? 1 – 0 2 – 0 

3 – 0 W – 0 

1 – 0 2 – 0 

3 – 3 W – 0 

y. Talk with other drivers? 1 – 2 2 – 1 

3 – 1 W – 2 

1 – 0 2 – 0 

3 – 0 W – 0 

z. Hands on? 1 – 4 2 – 2 

3 – 1 W – 1 

1 – 6 2 – 6 

3 – 3 W – 0 

aa. Truck shows? 1 – 0 2 – 1 

3 – 0 W – 0 

1 – 0 2 – 0 

3 – 1 W – 0 

bb. Other? (truckstops, demos, signs/billboards, wife(?), 

instructor, truck dealer, terminal demo) 

1 – 4 2 – 3 

3 – 5 W – 6 

1 – 0 2 – 6 

3 – 2 W – 8 

In ranking how drivers want to hear about new technologies, they chose magazines, truckstops, 

demos and billboards as the best ways. It is interesting to note the Government mandate was 

rated the worse. This confirms how drivers feel about Government mandating. 

Concerning how drivers want to learn to use technologies, they prefer classroom training 

followed by actual road experience and hands on. 

57 
Driver Attitudes Regarding the Use of Truck Safety Systems in General 

Statement Which 

system(s)?

Strongly Agree = 1 

Agree = 2 

Neutral = 3 

Disagree = 4 

Strongly Disagree = 5 

a. (I think some of) these systems (could) help me save time on my trips. 1 – 3 2 – 15 3 – 0 

4 – 0 5 – 1 

b. (I think some of) these systems (could) help me respond faster in emergency

situations. 

1 – 5 2 – 12 3 – 0 

4 – 2 5 – 0 

c. (I think some of) these systems (could be) are more helpful under some conditions 

than others. Which conditions? (i.e., fog, night, rain, snow, ___________________)

1 – 2 2 – 15 3 – 0 

4 – 2 5 – 0 

d. I (would) feel safer driving with these systems than without them. 1 – 4 2 – 12 3 – 2 

4 – 1 5 – 0 

e. (I think) these systems (could) increase my driving workload; that is, they increase 

the amount of effort and concentration it takes to drive. How? __________________

 _________________________________________________________________________

 _________________________________________________________________________

1 – 0 2 – 5 3 – 2 

4 – 12 5 – 1 

f. A skilled driver really does not need systems like these. 1 – 1 2 – 1 3 – 1 

4 – 16 5 – 0 

g. These safety systems help reduce the stress and fatigue of truck driving. 1 – 2 2 – 13 3 – 0 

4 – 4 5 – 0 

h. I find I have (could) become dependent on these safety systems such that I (might) 

feel less safe in a truck without them. 

1 – 5 2 – 7 3 – 2 

4 – 4 5 – 1 

i. Most of the drivers I know would rather have these systems than not have them in 

their trucks. 

1 – 0 2 – 10 3 – 3 

4 – 6 5 – 0 

j. I (would) sometimes keep some of these systems turned off in my truck while I am 

driving. Which? _____________ Why?____________________________ 

When?_______________ 

1 – 1 2 – 7 3 – 0 

4 – 11 5 – 0 

k. To really make a safety improvement, every truck on the road should have these 

kinds of systems. 

1 – 2 2 – 12 3 – 0 

4 – 5 5 – 0 

l. I (think I would) find that some of these systems can (could) be distracting while I am

driving. How?

___________________________________________________________________ 

1 – 2 2 – 7 3 – 2 

4 – 8 5 – 0 

m. (I think) these systems can (could) actually cause me to be LESS alert in my driving. 1 – 0 2 – 10 3 – 0 

4 – 6 5 – 3 

n. I trust the reliability of these safety systems. What specific 

concerns?____________________ 

Describe why

________________________________________________________________ 

1 – 0 2 – 4 3 – 3 

4 – 7 5 – 5 

o. These systems (may) interfere with my driving tasks. 

How?____________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________ 

1 – 0 2 – 6 3 – 1 

4 – 12 5 – 0 

p. Having these systems has not really changed (probably won’t change) the way I 

drive. 

1 – 1 2 – 10 3 – 0 

4 – 8 5 – 0 

q. Overall, I (would) really like (to have) having these safety systems on my truck. 1 – 1 2 – 13 3 – 1 

4 – 3 5 – 1 

r. My company/customers feel(s) it is important to install these kinds of safety systems 

in their (our) fleet. 

1 – 0 2 – 8 3 – 4 

4 – 5 5 – 2 

s. I would like to encourage (the decision makers) my company to outfit trucks with 

(more) safety systems like these. 

1 – 6 2 – 8 3 – 4 

4 – 1 5 – 0 

58 
From the inputs received in this table and general responses documented: 

A. Most drivers were positive about the use of on-board safety technologies. They 

expressed a desire to have the technologies but many said that they would probably turn 

them off as times. They thought they would not increase workload and all drivers, both 

experienced and inexperienced, could benefit from use of the technologies. 

Open comments from drivers about ways to advance safety

• Suggestions for making further safety improvements: 

o Driving licensing for cars should include understanding trucks 

o Allow automobile drivers the experience of riding in a truck 

o Include automatic transmissions in all trucks 

o Have longer more comprehensive truck driving training programs 

o Things to avoid sleep impairment. Fresh air circulation 

o Better license screening 

o Smith System training for every driver including cars 

o Get more of the “wanna-be” truckers off the road 

o Better screening of drivers before they are hired

o Raise age limit for drivers 

o Work the bugs out of any equipment before you introduce them into the market 

place 

• Other technologies that he/she would like on their truck that they do not currently 

have: 

o GPS 

o Blindspot sensors 

o VORAD collision warning system

o Route guidance 

o Lane tracking 

o Rollover prevention systems 

[Note the truckers had difficulty with this question because they are not cognizant of what is 

available] 

• Ways to introduce new safety technology: 

o First must gain upper management support 

o Provide it for trial runs. Give drives the chance to use it. 

o Demonstrate at truck shows 

o Have equipment available for show and demonstrations at truckstops 

o Publicize in magazines to gain familiarity 

• Crashes/Violations in past 3 years: 

o Ranged from 2 to 8 million miles

o A few speeding tickets but only 4 among the 19 drivers

59 
• Other Comments: 

o “this is a good thing” 

o Concerned about expense 

o Need to communicate for emergencies 

o Could help drivers (new drivers especially) reduce stress 

o Could really help with rollovers in triple trailers 

o Cautious. Don’t really trust electronics 

o It’s all good technology and all companies should have them. Depends on 

dollars. 

60 
B-4. Insurance Companies

The interview process for insurance companies differed from other stakeholders. The insurance 

companies are not manufacturers, buyers, or users of the IVI technology. However, their 

opinions are of interest because one of the larger benefits from the use of the technology and 

subsequent reduction in crashes is the desirable reduction in insurance costs. Insurance for 

carriers and independent owner-operators represents significant costs. 

Five insurance companies were interviewed. The following summarizes the information 

obtained: 

Question 1. What in-vehicle safety technologies or systems are you aware of? 

A Collision warning with adaptive cruise control, lane departure warning systems, and auto 

logger for the driver. 

B None. 

C Collision warning with adaptive cruise control, vaguely aware of lane departure warning 

systems, and WorldCom GPS. 

D Collision warning with adaptive cruise control, lane departure warning systems, and 

automatic loggers 

E Most aware of collision warning with adaptive cruise control. Also, discussed human 

factors issues and eye tracking to detect fatigue and alertness. 

Question 2. The three technologies from the field operational tests were mentioned and the 

insurance companies were asked if they were familiar with the technologies. 

A Collision Warning with Adaptive Cruise Control- Yes 

Lane Departure Warning System- Yes 

Rollover Advisor and Controller- No 

B Collision Warning with Adaptive Cruise Control- No 

Lane Departure Warning System- No 

Rollover Advisor and Controller- No 

C Collision Warning with Adaptive Cruise Control- Yes 

Lane Departure Warning System- Yes – have heard of it 

Rollover Advisor and Controller- No 

61 
D Collision Warning with Adaptive Cruise Control- Yes 

Lane Departure Warning System- Yes – have heard of it 

Rollover Advisor and Controller- No 

E Collision Warning with Adaptive Cruise Control- Yes 

Lane Departure Warning System- Yes 

Rollover Advisor and Controller- Yes 

Question 3. What factors impact the decisions of carriers to buy and use on-board safety 

technologies (either retrofit or as original truck equipment): (1 = not important; 5 = very 

important) 

1 2 3 4 5

Cost to install and maintain A B, C, D, E 

Cost to train drivers in use D A

Overall driver 

satisfaction/reduced 

turnover 

E A

Driver acceptance of a 

system

A, E

Accuracy and reliability of a 

system

C, D A, E

Effectiveness of a system in 

improving safety

A B, C, D

Insurance company 

requirement 

D, E B A 

Reduced insurance 

premiums

E A C, D

Reduced accident-related 

costs 

A B, C, D

Tax incentives A B, C

62 
Appendix C: 

Interview Participants

63 
Carriers 

Bob Evans Farms Inc. 

3776 South High Street 

Columbus, OH 43207 

(614) 491-2225 

Power Units: 26 

Drivers: 37 

Private, Interstate, Handle General Freight, Meat, Refrigerated Food 

No Hazmat Status 

Dutch Maid Logistics Inc. 

 4118 State Route 103 S 

Willard, OH 44890-9623 

(419) 935-0136 

P O Box 365 

Willard, OH 44890-0365 

Power Units: 47 

Drivers: 53 

Authorized For Hire, Interstate, Handle Fresh Produce, Refrigerated Food, Paint-Related 

No Hazmat Status 

Jet Express Inc. 

4518 Webster St 

Montgomery, OH 45414-4940 

(937) 274-7033 

Power Units: 288 

Drivers: 315 

Authorized For Hire; Interstate, Handle General Freight, Automotive Parts 

No Hazmat Status 

The New Bakery Co of Ohio Inc. 

750 Airport Road 

Zanesville, OH 43701-9694 

(740) 454-6876 

Power Units: 44 

Drivers: 105 

Private, Interstate, Handle Commodities, Dry Bulk, Refrigerated Food 

64 
R & L Transfer Inc. 

600 Gillam Rd 

Wilmington, OH 45177 

(937) 382-1494 

P O Box 271 

Wilmington, OH 45177 

Power Units: 2,263 

Drivers: 1,234 

Authorized For Hire, Interstate, Handle General Freight, Household Goods, Chemicals, 

Commodities Dry Bulk 

Hazmat 

Arctic Express Inc. 

4277 Lyman Drive 

Hilliard, OH 43026 

(614) 876-4008 

P O Box 129 

Hilliard, OH 43026 

Power Units: 491 

Drivers: 484 

Authorized For Hire, Interstate, Handle General Freight, Fresh Produce, Chemicals, Refrigerated

Food 

Hazmat 

Wooster Motor Ways Inc. 

3501 West Old Lincoln Way 

Wooster, OH 44691 

(330) 264-7690 

P O Box 19 

Wooster, OH 44691-0019 

Power Units: 180 

Drivers: 155 

Authorized For Hire, Interstate, Handle General Freight, Metal (Sheets, Coils, Rolls), Building 

Materials, Liquids, Gases, Chemicals, Commodities, Dry Bulk, Paper Products 

Hazmat 

The Best Transfer Company 

5550 Este Ave 

Cincinnati, OH 45232 

(513) 242-3456 

Power Units: 541 

Drivers: 501 

Authorized For Hire, Interstate, Handle General Freight, Metal (Sheets, Coils, Rolls), 

Drive/Towaway, Lumber (Logs, Poles, Beams), Machinery, Large Objects, Construction 

No Hazmat Status 

65
Mc Tank Transport Inc. 

10134 Mosteller Lane 

West Chester, OH 45069 

(513) 771-8667 

Power Units: 58 

Drivers: 55 

Authorized For Hire, Interstate, Liquids, Gases, Chemicals 

Hazmat 

Yellow Transportation Inc. 

10990 Roe Ave 

Overland Park KS 66211 

(913) 344-3000 

P O Box 7270 

Overland Park, KS 66207 

Power Units: 8,392 

Drivers: 13,123 

Authorized For Hire, Interstate, Interstate Hazmat, Handle General Freight, Intermodal 

Continental, Chemicals 

Hazmat 

Roadway Express Inc. 

1077 Gorge Blvd 

Akron, OH 44310 

(330) 384-1717 

P O Box 471 

Akron, OH 44309-0471 

Power Units: 9,737 

Drivers: 13,146 

Authorized For Hire, Interstate, Interstate, Handle General Freight, Household Goods, Metal 

(Sheets, Coils, Rolls), Building Materials, Machinery, Large Objects, Liquids/Gases, Intermodal 

Continental, Oilfield Equipment, Chemicals, Beverages, Paper Products 

Hazmat 

USF Holland Inc. 

750 E 40th St 

Holland, MI 49423 

(616) 395-5000 

Power Units: 4,405 

Drivers: 8,000 

Authorized For Hire, Interstate, Interstate Hazmat, Handle General Freight, Liquids/Gases, 

Chemicals 

Hazmat 

66
CRST Van Expedited Inc. 

3930 16th Avenue, S W

Cedar Rapids, IA 52404 

(319) 396-4400 

Mailing Address: P O Box 68 

Cedar Rapids, IA 52406 

Power Units: 1,321 

Drivers: 2,388 

Authorized For Hire, Interstate, Handle General Freight, Household Goods, Metal (Sheets, Coils, 

Rolls), Building Materials, Liquids/Gases, U.S. Mail, Chemicals, Commodities, Dry Bulk, 

Beverages, Paper Products, Agriculture/Farm Supplies 

Hazmat 

Swift Transportation Co Inc. 

Physical Address: 2200 South 75th Avenue 

Phoenix, AZ 85043 

(602) 269-9700 

P O Box 29243 

Phoenix, AZ 85038-9243 

Power Units: 10,550 

Drivers: 11,324 

Authorized For Hire, Interstate, Handle General Freight, Metal (Sheets, Coils, Rolls), Motor 

Vehicles, Lumber (Logs, Poles, Beams), Building Materials, Machinery, Large Objects, Fresh 

Produce, Liquids, Gases, Intermodal Continental, Grain, Feed Hay, Meat, Chemicals, 

Commodities, Dry Bulk, Refrigerated Food, Beverages, Paper Products, Construction

Hazmat 

Watkins Motor Lines Inc. 

1144 West Griffin Rd 

Lakeland, FL 33804-2444 

(941) 872-3841 

Mailing Address: P O Box 95002 

Lakeland, FL 33804-5002 

Power Units: 3,245 

Drivers: 4,889 

Authorized For Hire, Interstate, Handle General Freight 

No Hazmat Status 

67
The Kroger Co. 

1014 Vine Street 

Cincinnati, OH 45202 

(513) 782-3763 

Power Units: 273 

Drivers: 293 

Authorized For Hire, Private (Property), Interstate, Handle Fresh Produce, Refrigerated Food, 

Beverages, Supermarket Food 

No Hazmat Status 

FedEx Ground Package System Inc. 

1000 FedEx Dr 

Coraopolis, PA 15108 

(412) 269-1000 

P O Box 108 

Pittsburgh, PA 15230-0108 

Power Units: 11,948 

Drivers: 12,081 

Authorized For Hire, Interstate, Interstate Hazmat, Handle General Freight, Small Packages 

Hazmat 

United Parcel Service Inc. 

643 West 43rd St 

New York, NY 10036 

(404) 828-6338 

55 Glen lake Parkway Northeast 

Atlanta, GA 30328 

Power Units: 44,852 

Drivers: 45,384 

Authorized For Hire, Interstate, Handle General Freight 

No Hazmat Status 

Insurance Companies and Brokers 

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company 

71 Frank land Road 

Hopkinton, MA 01748 

Great West Casualty Co. 

1100 West 29th Street 

South Sioux City, NE 68776 

Hailer, Fryer and Coon 

231 Salina Meadows Parkway 

P O Box 4743 

Syracuse, NY 13221-474 

68
St. Paul Companies 

Minneapolis, MN 

Marsh Inc. 

59 Park Place 

Appleton, WI

69
Other 

American Trucking Associations 

2200 Mill Road 

Alexandria, VA 22314-4677 

(703) 838-1700 

Smith System Driver Improvement Institute, Inc. 

2201 Brookhollow Plaza Drive, Suite 200 

Arlington, TX 76006 

(817) 652-6969 

(817) 652-1942 

New York State Motor Truck Association 

828 Washington Avenue 

Albany, NY 12203-1622 

(518) 458-9696 

Fax: (518) 458-2525 

Manufacturers 

Navistar International (OEM) 

4201 Winfield Road, P O Box 1488 

Warrenville, IL 60555 

(630) 753-5000 

Fax: (630) 753-2303 

Oshkosh Truck Corporation (OEM) 

 2307 Oregon Street 

Oshkosh, WI 54902 

(920) 235-9151 

Fax: (920) 233-9314 

PACCAR Tech Center (It Supports Peterbilt and Kenworth) (OEM) 

Bldg., 777 106th Avenue, NE 

Bellevue, WA 98004 

(425) 468-7400 

(425) 468-8216 

Freightliner/Sterling (OEM) 

4747 N. Channel Avenue 

Portland, OR 97217 

(503) 745-8000 

(503) 745-8921 

70
International Truck and Engine (OEM) 

3033 Wayne Trace 

Fort Wayne, IN 46806-3968 

P O Box 535 

Fort Wayne, IN 46801-0535 

(260) 461-1930 

 

Volvo Truck, North America (OEM) 

7900 National Service Road 

Greensboro, NC 27402-5115 

Meritor WABCO Vehicle Control Systems (Vendor) 

3331 W Big Beaver Road 

Troy, MI 48084-2804 

Bendix (Vendor) 

901 Cleveland Street 

Elyria, OH 44035-4153 

(440) 329-9000 

TRW (Vendor) 

1900 Richmond Road 

Cleveland, OH 44124-2760 

(216) 291-7000 

Fax: (216) 291-7629 

71
Appendix D: 

Workshop Summary

72 
FMCSA IVI Workshop on On-board Safety Technology

Deployment in Commercial Motor Vehicles 

Battelle 

901 D St., SW, Suite 900 

Conference Rooms A/B 

Washington, DC 

August 7, 2003 

Summary of Workshop and Discussion 

The workshop began with Mr. John Allen (Battelle) welcoming everyone to the facility and 

introducing Ms. Amy Houser (FMCSA). Ms. Houser presented a brief overview of the project 

history and objectives (slides 1-8 of attachment) and turned the workshop over to Mr. Jerry 

Pittenger (Battelle), who functioned as facilitator for the discussion. A list of all workshop 

participants is attached. 

The goal of the workshop was to acquire expert input from motor vehicle stakeholders 

(manufacturers, carriers, drivers, law enforcement, insurance companies, academia, and selected 

professional societies) on their views and perceptions of the improved Meritor WABCO rollover 

advisor and controller (RA&C) with extended controller functionality. Input included where the 

roll technology can be effective, what extent benefits might be realized, and what might be done 

to gain stakeholder acceptance from their individual points of view. 

History/Background: Ms. Amy Houser and Mr. Jerry Pittenger

The FMCSA initiated the evaluation and deployment of on-board safety technology for 

commercial vehicles as part of its Intelligent Vehicle Initiative (IVI) under the USDOT 

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) program. Under the IVI program, three field 

operational tests (FOTs) of crash avoidance technologies were initiated and are at various stages 

of completion: Collision Warning System and Adaptive Cruise Control (Volvo FOT), the 

Rollover Advisor and Controller (Freightliner FOT), and the Lane Departure Warning Device 

(Mack FOT). Both the Volvo and Mack FOTs are scheduled for completion in 2005. The 

Freightliner FOT is complete. 

Since the only FOT completed is the Freightliner RA&C, the purpose of this workshop was to 

obtain input, feedback, and information from stakeholders that will assist in developing a 

deployment strategy for that technology. The Freightliner FOT was completed in 2002; 

however, during the data collection phase of the FOT, the vendor, Meritor WABCO, made 

significant improvements to the safety system. The improvements centered on a better algorithm

to estimate the weight and center of gravity of the load and the application of the foundation 

brakes when a serious rollover condition is detected. 

73 
The RA&C Technology and Freightliner FOT Evaluation Results: Mr. Alan Korn and 

Mr. Doug Pape

Mr. Alan Korn (Meritor WABCO) presented an overview of the RA&C technology that was the 

focus of the Freightliner FOT (a copy was provided in the workshop notebook and is attached). 

It was noted that the RA&C was evaluated for the tractor and tank trailer combination only. He 

discussed the addition of an improved controller into the system and presented detailed 

schematics of the operation of the system—the components, the input required to trigger the 

controller, and a video of the track test showing the rollover event without the improved RA&C. 

The video presentation provided convincing evidence of the benefit this technology could have 

on reducing rollover for combination vehicles. A question was asked on the use of the RA&C if 

the ABS failed. The response was that it won’t work under those conditions. It was also noted 

by Mr. Korn that the RA&C system is effective only on roadways that allow for a dry pavement 

coefficient of friction. The system is less effective in rain, snow, and ice where lateral 

movement does not cause a lateral roll moment. Under these conditions, the vehicle tends to 

slide rather than roll. It was also noted that the improved RA&C had not been tested beyond the 

test track. 

Mr. Doug Pape (Battelle) provided an overview of the Freightliner FOT and presented the results 

of the benefit-cost analysis (BCA) for reducing truck crashes and fatalities. Mr. Pape noted that 

Freightliner did not use the improved RA&C during any part of the FOT. He then explained the 

procedure used to develop a simulation model to evaluate the effectiveness of the improved 

RA&C. A comparison between the FOT version and the Meritor WABCO improved version 

was made. 

It should be noted that the presentation and discussion time needed by Mr. Pape and Mr. Korn 

exceeded the allocation by nearly 45 minutes. It became evident quickly that several people on 

the expert panel were not aware of the Freightliner FOT or the RA&C. This was both surprising 

and eye-opening to the project team. It highlighted the fact that there may be a need for better 

outreach and awareness programs for the FOTs, as well as IVI safety technologies. 

Workshop Discussion: Mr. Jerry Pittenger – Facilitator

The remainder of the workshop focused on answering six questions (attached) that were 

carefully selected prior to the workshop. It was noted that the expert panel was there to provide 

input only if questions were raised that required their responses. 

The expert panel was given a set of worksheets to document/communicate their inputs to each 

question. This provided Battelle a way to analyze answers to the questions by stakeholder. For 

example, the premise is that the answer given by one stakeholder (i.e., driver) might be different 

than the answer given by another stakeholder (i.e., carrier). 

74
The following summarizes the expert panel discussion for each question addressed20: 

Question 1. a.) What conditions/characteristics/factors do you think impact the 

effectiveness of the RA&C to either mitigate or reduce crash severity? 

b.) How effective is the RA&C in reducing the likelihood of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd 

order impacts for the conditions/characteristics factors identified?21

Driver Profile

The group was split as to the impact of driver experience on the effectiveness of the RA&C.22 

All were positive that the system would help both the experienced and the inexperienced driver. 

However, some thought the system would be more effective to reduce crashes for the 

inexperienced driver. The drivers present were positive about the usefulness of the RA&C and 

the idea of improving their safety and reducing crashes regardless of the driver skill level. The 

expert panel thought that a combination tractor-trailer that is not a tanker would also benefit. For 

example, a box trailer is loaded at a terminal and the worker loading the trailer is not concerned 

with balancing the load. This can result in an unstable load that could shift during transport or 

would affect the driver handling of the combination. 

The discussion of driver experience as a factor in the effectiveness of the RA&C identified other 

important points and issues. One issue that was raised was the use of the data that would be 

produced by the system – number of warnings a driver received during a trip. From the 

perspective of the drivers, the data should be used to commend or reward good driving and to 

determine which drivers might require additional training or monitoring – a feedback 

mechanism. One comment was that this might give drivers a false sense of security and 

encourage them to test the limits. Another commenter responded that this was not an issue based 

on his experience with drivers. 

The second factor under driver profile discussed was driver familiarity with the technology. In 

this regard, it was noted that insurance industry research is pending publication that indicates 

drivers are receptive to the use of technology, provided they are given training in its use in 

advance. A point was made that the RA&C alone would not be effective, as drivers might have 

difficulty trusting the accuracy of the messages. A suggestion was made that FMCSA should 

include the RA&C algorithms in simulator training that currently is being developed. 

Other driver characteristics that might influence the effectiveness of the RA&C include: 

personality, propensity to take risks, attitude, performance history, physical condition (fatigue, 

medication), and number of distractions in the cab. A consensus was the number of distractions, 

with the addition of on-board technologies, would need to be kept to a minimum.

 20In the workshop, the expert panel had many questions about the RA&C. These discussions reduced the time that 

could be spent on the six questions. Only questions 1, 5, and 6 were covered in detail. 21Part b. of question 1 was abandoned. It was creating confusion and the stakeholders clearly did not understand the

definitions given for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd orders of effectiveness. 22The RA&C during the question-answer part of the workshop referred only to the improved RA&C. 

75
[The worksheet mark-up by participants indicates 9 of 14 felt driver experience could be a factor 

and 11 of 14 felt driver familiarity with the technology could be a factor.]

Road Characteristics

Road characteristics discussed included mountainous terrain, ramps, freeways-urban vs. 

freeways-rural, and non-freeways-urban vs. non-freeways-rural. 

The question was asked if the RA&C recalculates the mass in the equation for the effect of 

mountainous terrain resulting in steep grades (uphill and downhill). The response was that it is

constantly recalculating mass, but not under that scenario. 

The effectiveness of the RA&C in mitigating or reducing rollovers on mountainous roads and 

ramps was positive to the majority of participants. Whether or not the road was a freeway or 

non-freeway in urban or rural areas appeared to be less of a factor. One comment was made that 

curves occur on any highway system and the potential is there for rollover whether rural or 

urban. Another comment was that shoulders in rural areas are less forgiving, narrow, and soft 

and could result in rollover that could not be prevented by the RA&C. Some believe the type of 

road does not matter as the driver behavior would change to adapt. In urban areas, the driver 

might need to make sudden moves to avoid hitting a vehicle that may have cut across his path – a 

real-life example was cited by one of the drivers present that did not result in a rollover but 

highlights the potential. 

[The worksheet mark-up by participants indicates: (1) 13 of 15 felt the system could be effective 

on mountainous roads, (2) 15 of 15 felt the system could be effective on ramps, (3) 12 of 15 felt 

the system could be effective on urban freeways, (4) 10 of 14 felt the system could be effective 

on rural freeways, (5) 9 of 14 felt the system could be effective on urban non-freeways, and (6) 

13 of 14 felt the system could be effective on rural non-freeways.] 

 

Climate Control

Climatic conditions discussed included snow and ice, rain, fog, and wind. 

In general, the consensus of the group was that weather-related factors overshadow the 

effectiveness issue, as drivers tend to be more cautious under adverse climatic conditions. Also, 

snow, ice, and rain reduce the coefficient of friction (as noted by Mr. Korn earlier in the 

morning) and the vehicle will slide rather than roll under these conditions. Therefore, the group 

felt the system would be less effective in snow, rain, and ice. Likewise, the group felt that the 

system would not be very effective in windy conditions. The effect of wind on how trucks are 

driven and the impact on trailer sway is independent of the RA&C. 

However, the group did feel the system could be very effective in fog. This makes intuitive 

sense since drivers may enter curves and ramps too fast since they can not see far ahead of them. 

[The worksheet mark-up by participants indicates that: (1) 10 out of 13 felt the system would 

not be as effective in snow and ice; (2) 9 out of 13 felt the system would not be as effective in 

76
rain; (3) 9 out of 13 felt the system would not be as effective in windy conditions. However, 13 

of 13 felt the system would be effective in fog.] 

Carrier Profile

The carrier profiles discussed included interstate vs. intrastate, long haul vs. short haul, and large 

vs. small. 

After some discussion on the operational differences between the carrier types, the type 

commodities, exposure to ramps, and potential for rollover, the consensus of the group was that 

carrier profile was not a factor – all carrier types can benefit from the RA&C. 

[The worksheet mark-up by participants indicates that, on all factors, only 3 out of 80 felt that 

the RA&C would not be effective in regard to carrier profile classifications.] 

Type of Truck

The types of trucks discussed included tractor-tank trailer, tractor-trailer, and straight truck. 

Potential problems with load shifts in tractor-trailers were mentioned that might affect the 

stability of these vehicles and their propensity for rollovers. 

There was a clear consensus of opinion that the RA&C would benefit the tractor-tank trailer 

combination most (13 out of 13 votes), followed closely by the tractor-trailer (11 definitely and 2 

maybe votes). The opinion on the straight truck seemed to be less definitive but still positive that

the RA&C would be effective (4 definitely, 6 maybe, and 3 no votes). 

Question 5. What things do you think motivate: 

a.) OEMs/vendors to develop and manufacture IVI on-board technology? 

b.) Carriers and independent owner-operators to buy IVI on-board 

technology? 

c.) Drivers to use IVI on-board technology? 

Question 6. a.) Considering the motivating factors identified in Question 5, what ideas do 

you have that might accelerate: 

• Manufacture by OEMs and vendors? 

• Purchase by carriers and independent owner-operators? 

• Use by drivers? 

 b.) What risks might be encountered in any effort to accelerate the 

introduction and acceptance of on-board safety technologies? 

c.) How can we best evaluate the user acceptance by carriers and drivers of an 

on-board safety technology? 

d.) How can we gather data on a large population of carriers and drivers in a 

cost-effective manner? 

77
In the interest of time, Questions 5 and 6 were discussed after Question 1. A summary of the 

discussions by the expert panel follows: 

Vendors (tiered suppliers) are motivated to develop and market technology for one or more of 

the following reasons: 

• market opportunity, 

• major customer request, 

• competition, 

• first to market (pull market), 

• regulation, and 

• sometimes a push market (if they know they have a good idea). 

OEMs are motivated to manufacture a vehicle with technology by one or more of the following 

reasons: 

• customer demand and willingness to pay a price that allows for profit, 

• competitive advantage, 

• desire for safety (need safety for image), 

• build customer base, 

• politically correct thing to do, 

• payback for adding technology, and 

• reduce liability or risk factors. 

Carriers are motivated to purchase the technology for one or more of the following reasons: 

• contractual requirements, 

• need (to correct a problem area based on experience), 

• improve bottom line, 

• reduce risk,

• positive cost/benefit ratio, 

• driver morale, 

• aid in driver training, behavior modification (reduction of accidents), 

• absolve the driver from blame with data from system, 

• insurance impact (ROI, insurance benefit probably will not be seen for years until proof

of value with crash data), controlled tests of equipment are needed, results of FOT to 

improve safety need to be made known to insurance companies, 

• fleet replacement (add to new equipment as replace old, no retrofit), and

• industry image. 

Drivers are motivated to use the technology for one or more of the following reasons: 

• safe driving results in reward (recognition or dollars), 

• recognize the value or benefits through education, training, and awareness (suggested the 

video presented by Alan be used to show the benefits), 

• know how the data will be used (to educate or change behavior), not as a measurement of 

punishment, 

• proven reliability and product durability, and 

• participate in the decision to buy. 

78
Basically, it was the consensus of the group that deployment of the on-board safety technology 

can be accelerated for all stakeholders. The following ideas were discussed: 

• For OEMs and vendors to manufacture, providing financial incentives through more FOT 

program support, more exposure and publicity to create the demand, and expand the 

FOTs to more vehicle fleet types and vehicles can accelerate manufacturing of safety 

systems such as the RA&C. 

• For carriers to purchase, independent evaluation of the technology that validates the 

positive benefit/results, provide real-life examples of successes, word of mouth 

recommendations from other carriers, near-term pay-offs, tax incentives (investment tax 

credits for IVI), accelerate depreciation, lower insurance premiums, publish the results of 

the FOT, expand the system to include twin-trailer benefit can accelerate purchasing of 

systems such as the RA&C. 

• For drivers to accept and use, outreach programs are needed to increase awareness of the 

technologies to the drivers. The example used by the group was videos clips (such as 

what Mr. Korn provided for the RA&C). The drivers also recommended finding ways to 

allow drivers to use the technology for a period of time. Meritor WABCO said they were 

willing to provide samples to carriers free of charge for trial runs. 

Concluding Statements/Summary:

The results of the discussion of motivation and deployment were summed up in a few major 

points (“golden nuggets”) by Mr. Pittenger. 

• All interviewed stakeholders are supportive of IVI and welcome safety benefits. 

• OEMs and vendors will build the systems if there are customers that are willing to pay a 

price that will result in a reasonable profit margin. 

• Carriers and independent owner-operators will buy the systems if there is a good ROI and 

the initial costs are affordable. 

• Drivers will use the systems if they are easy to use and they perceive that the safety 

systems help them do their job. 

• There was a consensus of opinion from the group that both carriers and drivers are not 

aware of the availability and benefit of the RA&C to their operations. 

• There is a need for outreach at all levels to publicize the results of the IVI FOTs by 

FMCSA to their State Directors, through various organizations (CVSA, ATA, 

International Truck Driver Championship), published articles, video clips, and 

presentations at conferences beyond the ITS/IVI community. It is important to let the 

media know about “success stories.” 

• It is important to spread the word about early adopters of technology that can show and 

prove the effectiveness of the technology. 

• Potential opportunities for other carriers to get the technology in the truck or to pilot test 

the technology beyond the FOT may help accelerate the adoption of new technology. 

• Legislative relief to carriers for purchase should be considered, such as tax breaks and/or 

insurance reductions. Interviewed stakeholders are clearly looking for ways to reduce 

costs. 

79
STAKEHOLDERS ATTENDING

Vendors/Truck/Equipment Manufacturers

Rich Kempf, Manager, Technical Legislation, Navistar International 

Scott Smith, Executive Engineer, Freightliner 

Mark Kachmarsky, Highway Vehicle Architect, Volvo 

Alan Korn, Chief Engineer, Meritor WABCO 

Motor Carriers

Jim Kennedy, Director of Maintenance, McKenzie Tank Lines 

Thomas C. Di Salvi, Director, Loss Prevention, Schneider Trucking 

Mike Connelly, Chief Safety Officer, Bowman Trucking 

Keith Herzig, Owner-Operator, Herzig Trucking 

 

Commercial Vehicle Drivers

Ed Jung, Collington Services 

Wayne Sheranko, Chaney Enterprises 

Keith Herzig, Owner-Operator, Herzig Trucking 

 

Academia

Dr. Ron Knipling, Senior Research Scientist, Virginia Tech Transportation Institute 

Dr. John Sullivan, Primary Researcher, University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute 

Insurance 

David Melton, Director of Transportation, Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety 

Law Enforcement

Ray Cotton, Major (retired), Maryland State Police, Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Division 

Professional Organizations

Dan Murray, Director of Research, American Transportation Research Institute 

Steve Keppler, Director of Policy & Programs, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance

Private Sector

Dr. Robert McElroy, President, Forensic Accident Investigators, Inc. 

GOVERNMENT OBSERVERS

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)

Doug McKelvey, Technology Division Director 

Amy Houser, General Engineer 

Tim Johnson, Transportation Specialist 

Debbie Freund, Senior Transportation Specialist 

80
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

August Burgett, Chief of Advanced Technology Research Divison 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

Kate Hartman, Freight Coordinator, ITS Joint Program Office 

Contractors 

Dawn Hardesty, Senior Systems Engineer, Mitretek 

Gianluigi Caldiera, Senior Strategy Analyst, Mitretek 

Battelle 

Jerry Pittenger, Project Manager 

Doug Pape, Senior Researcher 

Dr. Mary Field, Principal Research Scientist 

John Allen, FMCSA Relationship Manager 

81
Six Workshop Questions Addressed 

1. a.) What conditions/characteristics/factors do you think impact the effectiveness of the 

RA&C to either mitigate or reduce crash severity? 

b.) How effective is the RA&C in reducing the likelihood of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd order impacts 

for the conditions/characteristics/factors identified?23 (Good, Fair, Poor) 

a. Driver profile 

i. Driving experience overall 

ii. Acclamation with advanced technologies 

Acclimation 

b. Road characteristics 

i. Mountainous 

ii. Ramps 

iii. Freeways – urban 

iv. Freeways – rural 

v. Non-freeways – urban 

vi. Non-freeways – rural 

c. Climatic conditions 

i. Snow or ice 

ii. Rain 

iii. Fog 

iv. Windy 

d. Carrier profile 

i. Interstate or intrastate 

ii. Long haul or short haul 

iii. Large carrier or small carrier

e. Type of Truck 

i. Tanker 

ii. Tractor/Trailer 

iii. Straight Truck 

2. What secondary benefits do you envision in the adoption of a rollover advisor and 

controller (RA&C) (e.g., reduction of crashes of other types)? 

3. Do you think that the FOT has shown the potential for crash reductions for this on-board 

IVI technology? (Yes, Limited, No) 

 23 Orders of effectiveness where: 

 1st

 – Technology lowers, by some percentage, the likelihood of a crash. 

 2nd – Technology lowers, by some percentage, the probability that a fatality or injury occurs if a 

 crash occurs. 

 3rd – Technology lowers, by some percentage, the expected severity of injuries if a crash occurs. 

82
a. Why?

b. How do we get the message across to the carriers? 

4. When/if carriers recognize the benefit of this on-board IVI technology, what is the 

likelihood they will buy it, and what price range do you think they might be willing to

pay? (Will not buy; <$500; <$1,000; <$2,000; <$3,000; <$5,000; >$5,000) 

5. What things do you think motivates: 

a. OEMs/vendors to develop and manufacture IVI on-board technology?

b. Carriers and independent owner-operators to buy IVI on-board technology?

c. Drivers to use IVI on-board technology?

6. a. Consider the motivating factors identified in Question 5, what ideas do you have that 

might accelerate: 

3⁄4 Manufacture by OEMs and vendors, 

3⁄4 Purchase by carriers and independent owner-operators, and 

3⁄4 Use by drivers. 

 

b. What risks might be encountered in any effort to accelerate the introduction and 

acceptance of on-board safety technologies? 

c. How can we best evaluate the user acceptance by carriers and drivers of an on-board 

safety technology? 

d. How can we gather data on a large population of carriers and drivers in a costeffective way?

83
For more information on the Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Administration and 

the Office of Research and Analysis, 

Check our website at www.fmcsa.dot.gov

Report No. FMCSA-MCRR-06-003