Commercial Vehicle Safety

Technology and Practice in Europe

International Technology Exchange Program

May 2000


The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and

accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official policy of

the Department of Transportation.

The metric units reported are those used in common practice by the persons interviewed. They

have not been converted to pure SI units because in some cases, the level of precision implied

would have been changed.

The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or

manufacturers’ names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the

document.

The publication of this document was sponsored by the U.S. Federal Highway Administration

under contract number DTFH61-99-C00005. awarded to American Trade Initiatives, Inc. Any

opinions, options, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed herein are those of the

authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Government, the authors’ parent

institutions, or American Trade Initiatives, Inc.

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


i

Commercial Vehicle Safety

Technology and Practice

in Europe

Kate Hartman

FHWA

(Chairperson)

Bob Pritchard

Cambridge Systematics

(Report Facilitator)

Ken Jennings

Virginia DOT

Jim Johnson

Operators and Independent Drivers Assoc.

Ron Knipling

FHWA

John MacGowan

FHWA

Larry Oliphant

Mike Onder

US DOT

Charles Sanft

Minnesota Department of Transportation

and

American Trade Initiatives, Inc.

&

Avalon Integrated Services, Inc.

for the

Federal Highway Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

Washington, D.C. 20590

May 2000
ii
iii

FHWA INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY

EXCHANGE PROGRAMS

The FHWA’s international programs focus on meeting the growing demands of its

partners at the Federal, State, and local levels for access to information on state-ofthe-art technology and the best practices used worldwide. While the FHWA is

considered a world leader in highway transportation, the domestic highway

community is very interested in the advanced technologies being developed by

other countries, as well as innovative organizational and financing techniques used

by the FHWA’s international counterparts.

INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY SCANNING PROGRAM

The International Technology Scanning Program accesses and evaluates foreign

technologies and innovations that could significantly benefit U.S. highway

transportation systems. Access to foreign innovations is strengthened by U.S.

participation in the technical committees of international highway organizations

and through bilateral technical exchange agreements with selected nations. The

program is undertaken cooperatives with the American Association of State

Highway Transportation Officials and its Select Committee on International

Activities, and the Transportation Research Board’s National Highway Research

Cooperative Program (Panel 20-36), the private sector, and academia.

Priority topic areas are jointly determined by the FHWA and its partners. Teams of

specialists in the specific areas of expertise being investigated are formed and sent

to countries where significant advances and innovations have been made in

technology, management practices, organizational structure, program delivery, and

financing. Teams usually include Federal and State highway officials, private sector

and industry association representatives, as well as members of the academic

community.

The FHWA has organized more than 35 of these reviews and disseminated results

nationwide. Topics have encompassed pavements, bridge construction and

maintenance, contracting, intermodal transport, organizational management,

winter road maintenance, safety, intelligent transportation systems, planning, and

policy. Findings are recommended for follow-up with further research and pilot or

demonstration projects to verify adaptability to the United States. Information

about the scan findings and results of pilot programs are then disseminated

nationally to State and local highway transportation officials and the private sector

for implementation.

This program has resulted in significant improvements and savings in road

program technologies and practices throughout the United States, particularly in

the areas of structures, pavements, safety, and winter road maintenance. Joint

research and technology-sharing projects have also been launched with

international counterparts, further conserving resources and advancing the stateof-the-art.

For a complete list of International Technology Scanning topics, and to order free

copies of the reports, please see the last page of this publication.

Website: www.international.fhwa.dot.gov

E-Mail: international@fhwa.dot.gov
iv

ACRONYMS

ACC automated cruise controls

AFT-IFTIM Association for the Development of Professional Training in

Transport — Institute of Training and Warehousing

Techniques (France)

ATA American Trucking Association

BASt Federal Highway Research Institute (Germany)

CBR Centraal Bureau Rijvaardigheidsbewizen

(The Netherlands)

CVS Commercial Vehicle Safety

EC European Commission

EU European Union

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FHWA/OMCHS Federal Highway Administration Office of Motor Carrier

and Highway Safety. December 1999 legislation separated

the two programs and established the Federal Motor

Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). Safety is a Core

Business Unit within the Federal Highway Administration.

GPS Global Positioning System

INRETS National Institute for Transport and Safety Research

(France)

ISA intelligent speed adaptation

LCVs longer combination vehicles

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

OEM original equipment manufacturer

TNO Organization for Applied Scientific Research

(The Netherlands)

TYA Vocational Training and Working Environment Council

(Sweden)

U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation
v

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................vii

CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION .................................................................................1

ENHANCED SAFETY GOALS .........................................................................................1

CVS PANEL METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................2

CVS PANEL AND SPONSORING AGENCY ...................................................................2

CHAPTER TWO – HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ..........................................4

FOCUS AREAS...................................................................................................................4

Education and Training...............................................................................................4

Testing and Licensing ..................................................................................................7

Hours of Service Regulations ......................................................................................8

Onboard Recorders and Data Privacy ........................................................................8

Motor Carrier Approach to Drivers ...........................................................................10

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................11

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY ..................................................................................12

CHAPTER THREE – VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS ...................................................14

FOCUS AREAS.................................................................................................................14

Safety Research Business Models .............................................................................14

Crash Investigation ...................................................................................................17

Vehicle and Safety Systems Design ..........................................................................19

Onboard Safety ..........................................................................................................22

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................23

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY ..................................................................................24

CHAPTER FOUR – SAFETY REGULATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT ...................26

FOCUS AREAS.................................................................................................................26

Rules and Regulations ...............................................................................................26

Enforcement Models...................................................................................................27

Information Systems ..................................................................................................31

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................32

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY ..................................................................................33

CHAPTER FIVE – CONCLUSIONS - ADVANCING THE DRIVER,

VEHICLE, AND REGULATIONS FOR ENHANCED SAFETY .................................35

UNDERSTANDING THE EUROPEAN APPROACH ....................................................35

Safety is the Absence of Failure ......................................................................................35

The Driver.........................................................................................................................35

Integration ........................................................................................................................36

DEPLOYMENT STRATEGY ...........................................................................................36

APPENDIX A – AMPLIFYING QUESTIONS ................................................................37

APPENDIX B – COMPOSITE AGENDA ........................................................................39

APPENDIX C – CVS PANEL BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION .............................41

APPENDIX D – CONTACTS/WEB ADDRESSES OF PARTICIPANTS AND

ORGANIZATIONS ...............................................................................................................44
vi

FIGURES

Figure 1. CVS Panel Conclusions: Advancing the Driver and Vehicle

for Enhanced Safety...................................................................................... ix

Figure 2. CVS Panel Research Methodology ............................................................... 3

Figure 3. Driver Education at Stora Holm, Gothenberg, Sweden ............................. 5

Figure 4. Driver Education Promotion from the Vocational Training

and Working Environment Council, Sweden .............................................. 7

Figure 5. Tachograph Disk ............................................................................................ 9

Figure 6. Crash Investigation Results from Volvo .................................................... 18

Figure 7. Integrated System from DaimlerChrysler ................................................ 21

Figure 8. The Dutch Enforcement Model .................................................................. 28
vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A presentation by Dr. Reinhard Ball of DaimlerChrysler that forecast future

freight transportation in Germany could easily have described the situation in

several U.S. States – 45 percent increase in truck ton-miles by 2010, rapidly

growing passenger traffic, and flat infrastructure investments. Europe and the

United States both experience increasing numbers of trucks registered, vehicle

miles traveled, and a high number of fatal crashes.

The United States and Europe share common commercial vehicle safety issues,

including a debate over access for longer combination vehicles; a shortage of

commercial vehicle drivers; the need to integrate emerging public and private

information technology systems; emerging technologies and developments in areas

of safety systems that necessitate new standards; the emergence of rules/

regulations from a centralized government with a decentralized enforcement

approach.

Europe and the United States are also approaching commercial vehicle safety

issues in similar ways that strive to strengthen the relationships between driver;

vehicle, rules, and regulations; and the supporting organizations and institutions.

To explore ways to improve commercial vehicle safety on America’s roadways, the

Federal Highway Administration’s International Technology Exchange Program

convened the Commercial Vehicle Safety (CVS) Panel. The Panel focused its

research on four European countries – Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, and

France. Panel members were Kate Hartman (Chairperson), Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA); Bob Pritchard (Report Facilitator), Cambridge

Systematics; Ken Jennings, Virginia Department of Transportation; Jim Johnston,

Owner/Operators and Independent Drivers Association; Ron Knipling, FHWA;

John MacGowan, FHWA; Larry Oliphant, Transportation Consultant; Mike Onder,

U.S. DOT; and Charles Sanft, Minnesota Department of Transportation.

Note: The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act, which was signed into law on

December 9, 1999, established a new Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

(FMCSA) within the U.S. Department of Transportation. Prior to that, the Federal

Highway Administration administered the Office of Motor Carrier and Highway

Safety Program. The mission of the FMCSA is to improve truck and bus safety on

our Nation’s highways through information technology, targeted enforcement,

research and technology, outreach, and partnerships.

The CVS Panel considered many emerging safety systems, technologies, and issues;

it also developed recommendations for enhancing commercial vehicle safety in the

United States. In preparation for the scan tour, panel members submitted

introductory queries to the host governments. In turn, each host nation arranged

visits and scheduled tours and discussions with regulatory and roadway operations

agencies, research organizations, equipment manufacturers, and freight

transportation firms. Sessions focused on the areas of human factors, equipment,

infrastructure, and organizational structures.

The CVS Panel and this report concentrate on investigating approaches to

enhancing safety of the commercial vehicle driver, the performance of the vehicle,
viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

and the accompanying rules and regulations. Uniting these three areas are the

organizations that make it work – the innovative relationships that are central to

understanding and new approaches and assimilating findings.

This report presents the panel’s findings and proposes recommendations to

support the strategies that advance human resource management, vehicle and

roadway safety design and standards, and innovative regulatory methods to

facilitate adoption of new technologies and approaches.

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Driver management in Europe begins with mandatory and extensive training in

the form of proactive education. Motor carriers are identifying and recruiting

drivers to make full use of driving time constrained by mandatory by hours-ofservice regulations. New flows of information in the vehicle and to the driver will

require new skills and challenge the abilities of drivers in the future. The

Europeans are addressing these with initiatives to educate drivers and create

business competency.

In the United States, areas for advancement include:

• Driver education, specifically by developing a well-rounded, standard

curriculum.

• Performance-based driver assessment, using performance data to better

understand the needs of drivers and carriers and to develop public policy.

VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS

Truck manufacturers have developed and are deploying many new vehicle safety

systems – from airbags to collision-avoidance systems. Their approach is built on

the needs of the vehicle operators and designed with extensive testing and crash

analysis. These safety systems are constrained by the needs to safely and

effectively deliver information to drivers and to demonstrate a positive return on

investment for company owners.

Areas for advancement in the United States include:

• Develop systems standards – notably, cab-crashworthiness, human-machine

interface, and other relevant standards.

• Use crash investigation for vehicle design.

• Focus on user acceptance of safety systems to ensure maximum use.

REGULATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT

Within the European Union (EU), the European Commission (EC) is charged with

creating safety regulations that apply throughout the member nations. Integrating

national rules and regulations has created an interesting context for new

regulatory development and for national regulatory enforcement efforts. There are

several noteworthy models of safety compliance approaches, such as the recent

Dutch innovation that combines roadside and in-company inspections.
ix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This central EC role has evolved from assimilating existing national regulations

(which continues as new nations join the EU) to creating new laws in many

complex and technical areas. The EC attempts to establish and ensure compliance

with its regulations without financial incentives for its member nations.

Many operators within the U.S. motor carrier industry have safety programs that

meet or exceed the level of regulatory requirements. A clear understanding of

these leading practices by regulatory agencies may allow for self-certification or an

annual in-company inspection process.

Areas for advancement in the United States include:

• Alternative and complementary inspection activities that focus on

understanding how to augment motor carrier safety programs to allow for

possible self-certification of motor carrier safety systems.

• Improved use of in-company inspections and third-party advisors to

improve motor carrier regulatory compliance and allow government

resources to be focused on high-risk carriers.

FIGURE 1

CVS Panel Conclusions:

Advancing the Driver and Vehicle for Enhanced Safety

Vehicle

Vehicle Safety

Systems

• Accident Investigation

• Vehicle and Safety

System Design

• Safety Research

Business Models

• On-Board Safety

Systems

Regulations &

Enforcement

Government

Structures

• Rules and Regulations

• Enforcement Model

• Information Systems

Driver

Human Resource

Management

• Education

• Testing and Licensing

• Hours of Service

Regulations

• On-Board Recorders

• Optimization – Motor

Carrier Approach to

Driver Management
x

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CONCLUSIONS – ADVANCING THE DRIVER AND VEHICLE FOR ENHANCED SAFETY

In many European countries, a comprehensive policy objective drove commercial

vehicle safety programs. In the United States, the renewed momentum of the U.S.

DOT can be enhanced with approaches to create an imperative to advance

commercial vehicle safety. These efforts are:

1) Establish a “Safety Forum” comprised of public and private interests to

discuss and seek resolution to today’s safety issues; and

2) Convene a national safety conference to focus on the issues raised by the

CVS Panel.

The United States has many noteworthy efforts to enhance commercial vehicle

safety that have created many safety initiatives, including programs, organizational

relationships, and emerging technology-based safety solutions. New initiatives to

enhance safety in the U.S. should begin with these current efforts and encompass

the examples from the European experience.

Each of the three areas of this report – human resources, vehicle safety systems,

and regulations – identifies lead organizations and suggests implementation

strategies.
1

Chapter One

INTRODUCTION

ENHANCED SAFETY GOALS

An important goal of the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) is to

decrease the numbers and severity of crashes on roadways across our Nation. An

important component of this goal is identifying ways to improve the safe transit of

the millions of commercial vehicles that conduct the Nation’s daily commerce.

While commercial vehicle safety is improving, issues and challenges continue to

increase as the pressures to move more people and goods mount. The bottom line,

however, is that more than 40,000 individuals die each year on American roadways.

About 5,000 of those fatalities involve commercial motor vehicles.

Efforts to improve safety on the Nation’s roadways include the 1995 U.S. DOTsponsored Truck and Bus Safety Summit, which called for reducing the number and

severity of commercial vehicle crashes. Among the safety issues identified at the

Summit were driver fatigue, the need for crash-cause data, technology, and

uniformity in truck safety regulations.

Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater articulated an ambitious goal in 1999

when he established the goal to decrease truck-related fatalities by 50 percent in

the next 10 years. This new challenge is supported with increased penalties for

safety violations and proposed new funds for additional safety inspections.

As the United States explores ways to improve commercial vehicle safety, our

European counterparts are tackling the same problem. For example, safety

regulators in the Netherlands cite the disproportionate number of fatalities

involving heavy-duty vehicles (6.3 percent of vehicle kilometers – 3.8 percent

serious injuries, 4.6 percent of all injuries, and 14.6 percent of fatalities). The

Europeans, however, are addressing the problem with a clear understanding of the

relationships between driver, vehicle, rules and regulations, and the supporting

organizations and institutions. Mr. G.H. Doornick, from the Netherlands,

summarizes the Dutch approach:

“A sustainable safe road traffic system is one in which the road

infrastructure has been adapted to the limitations of human

capacity through proper road design, in which vehicles are

technically equipped to simplify driving and to give all possible

protection to vulnerable human beings, and where necessary,

deterred from undesirable or dangerous behavior. Man should be

the reference standard and road safety problems should be tackled

at its roots.”

This approach is borne out through innovative safety initiatives throughout the

countries of the European Union (EU). Examples include the Dutch government

Sustainable Safety initiative, the Swedish Vision Zero, and the current French

commitment to reduce traffic fatalities 50 percent by 2003.
2

CHAPTER 1

European truck manufacturers are playing a significant role in improving motor

carrier safety. Manufacturers have allocated resources to develop and test the

engineering skills that can mitigate many safety problems. DaimlerChrysler

pointed to the potential of drastically reducing crashes through active safety

systems. Volvo has identified innovative new passive safety systems to protect the

driver.

The CVS Panel research and findings build on Secretary Slater’s challenge and the

momentum generated at the Truck and Bus Safety Summit and the safety issues it

identified – driver fatigue, the need for crash-cause data, driver training,

technology, and uniformity in truck safety regulations. The panel focused on these

safety issues and used the European experience to generate numerous

recommendations for action.

CVS PANEL METHODOLOGY

The CVS Panel prepared for its September 1998 tour by posing a series of

questions, assessing answers, and preparing recommendations based on

commercial vehicle safety systems in Europe.

The questions addressed the three broad areas of human factors, equipment and

infrastructure, and institutional context/background. The panel forwarded these

questions to the governments of Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, and France. In

response, the lead government agencies arranged meetings that included public

and private sector specialists in commercial vehicle safety. Panel members visited

various offices and institutes and held in-depth discussions with representatives

from each country’s regulatory and roadway operations agencies, research

organizations, equipment manufacturers, and freight transportation firms.

CVS PANEL AND SPONSORING AGENCY

The CVS Panel members were:

Kate Hartman (Chairperson), Transportation Specialist

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

Bob Pritchard (Report Facilitator), Transportation Consultant

Senior Associate, Cambridge Systematics

Ken Jennings, Maintenance Division

Virginia Department of Transportation

Jim Johnston, President

Owner/Operators and Independent Drivers Association

Ron Knipling, Chief, Research Division

FHWA Office of Motor Carrier and Highway Safety

John MacGowan

FHWA

Larry Oliphant

Truck Manufacturing Expert and Transportation Consultant
3

CHAPTER 1

Mike Onder, US DOT

ITS Joint Program Office

Charles Sanft, Director, Freight Planning and Development

Minnesota Department of Transportation

The Federal Highway Administration sponsored this public/private exploration

through the International Technology Exchange Program. The American Trade

Initiatives Company provided logistical support and guidance.

Please note that the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act, which was signed into

law on December 9, 1999, established a new Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration (FMCSA) within the U.S. Department of Transportation. Prior to

that, the Federal Highway Administration administered the Office of Motor

Carriers and the Motor Carrier and Highway Safety Program. The mission of the

FMCSA is to improve truck and bus safety on our Nation’s highways through

information technology, targeted enforcement, research and technology, outreach,

and partnerships.

FIGURE 2

CVS Panel Research Methodology

Amplifying Questions Sent to the federal transportaSee Appendix A tion agency in each country

Visits and Discussions Generated a large volume of

See Appendix B notes and bibliography

Three Meetings of the CVS Panel Brought together the skill and

See Appendix C expertise of the assembled

group

Report Review and Production

The CVS Panel toured the four countries from September 12, 1998 to September

26, 1998. Three CVS Panel group meetings were held (September 12 in

Gothenburg, September 19 in the Hague, and September 26 in Paris) and

focused the findings, formulated recommendations, and developed a strategy

for implementation.
4

Chapter Two

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

On both sides of the Atlantic, effective, successful motor carrier operations and

freight flow rely on commercial vehicle drivers. In Europe, there is also a shortage

of trained drivers and truck driving has a somewhat tarnished image as an

occupational choice.

In general, Europeans take a holistic approach toward drivers that combines

mandatory, cooperative, and comprehensive education and training with focused

carrier selection and driver recruitment. The regulatory systems are prescriptive

and are built upon the social and industrial structures of the respective countries.

For example, there are hours-of-service restrictions, physical requirements,

mandatory use of onboard recorders (tachographs), and driver-pay requirements

(minimum salary and payment by the hour).

FOCUS AREAS

The CVS Panel’s focus in Human Resource Management encompasses:

• Education and Training.

• Testing and Licensing.

• Hours-of-Service Regulations.

• Onboard Recorders and Data Privacy.

• Optimization – Motor Carrier Approach to Driver Management.

Education and Training

The basic driver training model in Europe is vocational education. The process is

selective and advances overall business competence as well as driving skills. This

contrasts with U.S. training – which is neither standardized nor mandatory – that

focuses solely on developing driver skills.

In Europe, a public/private effort has established a standardized curriculum that

often uses advanced technologies such as simulators and password-protected

Internet access. Many government regulations are designed to protect drivers by

shielding them from unsafe work conditions. Promotional activities publicize truck

driver and related occupations.

Organizational Models

The CVS Panel visited two institutions that exemplify the European focus on using

new technologies and related research to educate commercial vehicle drivers – the

Association for the Development of Professional Training in Transport-Institute of

Training and Warehousing Techniques (AFT-IFTIM) in Menchy Saint-Eloi, France;

and Stora Holm in Gothenburg, Sweden.
5

CHAPTER 2

The French Model

The ATF-IFTIM trains 20 percent of France’s new commercial drivers each year.

The institute is funded 75/25 percent by the private/public sectors. It is developing

and deploying the new generation of driver training simulators and onboard

recorders and has well-established physical and psychological requirements for

student acceptance.

The institute offers an extensive curriculum that combines simulator, personal

computer, and behind-the-wheel training. It also requires a prescribed number of

classroom hours and closely monitors behind-the-wheel performance. Deploying

driver simulators defrays in-cab training costs and allows for training in all

weather. The institute uses an innovative onboard recording device (Pilote 2001)

with individualized smart cards to establish driver trainee baseline performance

and skills and to assess progress at prescribed intervals.

France funds these types of educational and training activities through a payroll

tax (0.5 percent) collected from all employees. In addition to vocational training,

drivers must participate in refresher programs every 5 years. France also has two

noteworthy regulatory structures designed to advance the interests of the drivers.

First, drivers are paid by the hour (payment based on distance traveled or value of

load is considered unsafe and not allowed), and second, truck movements are not

allowed on Sunday.

The Swedish Model

The Swedish approach concentrates on developing the overall competence of

professional drivers. The approach is based on the belief that greater breadth in

training will produce more effective, safer drivers. A list of attributes identified for

screening potential drivers for occupational aptitude includes technical skill,

punctuality, and safety consciousness.

FIGURE 3

Driver Education at Stora Holm, Gothenberg, Sweden
6

CHAPTER 2

The Vocational Training and Working Environment Council (TYA) is an

organization of private sector employer and employee groups that includes trade

associations and unions. Since 1975, this self-funded group has advanced drivertraining requirements and promoted vocational training centers across Sweden.

The Stora Holm in Gothenburg, Sweden, is an example of a municipal vocational

center that offers the standard vocational curriculum and training program.

Drivers take a 10-week course to qualify for a commercial vehicle license. Learning

involves a combination of computers, simulators, and behind-the-wheel-training. A

noteworthy advance is the use of computer-based training delivered via an

extranet. The extranet training includes narrative Q&A and illustrations that use

video stream inserts. All Stora Holm graduates are hired directly into the

transport industry.

Both the Swedish and French education and training organizations have

undertaken efforts to promote the commercial driver occupation and to improve its

public image. While educational efforts are designed to improve the skills and

business competence of commercial vehicle drivers, promotional activities describe

their professionalism and detail the role that drivers play in society. In addition to

expanding the pool of potential commercial drivers, promotional efforts are also

designed to increase the pool of candidates.

Driver Simulators

Throughout Europe, driver simulators are becoming an important enhancement for

cost-effective, safe driver training. They are cost-effective because they allow yearround training and cost less than behind-the-wheel training. Because simulators

cannot capture real-life terrain and vehicle dynamics, the optimal blend of

simulator/computer/behind-the-wheel training needs has not yet been determined.

New systems are being developed and deployed, and developments in virtual

reality and systems optimization promise more effective use of simulators.

Both Stora Holm and AFT-IFTIM use

emerging systems. Stora Holm is

developing its own system and Thomson

Training and Simulation is leading the

development of the French system. In

France, the government pays the greater

part, while in Sweden, the driver and/or

company pays for the development and

use of the simulators.

First-year deployment of the AFTIFTIM’s driver simulator yielded

impressive results. Reports indicate both

timesaving and training effectiveness. Most notable was enhanced maneuvering

training. AFT-IFTIM considers 1 hour on the simulator and 4 hours behind the

wheel to be more effective than 8 hours behind the wheel. The central issues for

the future are who benefits and who pays. The benefits are spread across several

groups, including the training institutions, the driver, the trucking company, and

the motoring public.

[The French Association for the

Development of Professional

Training...] considers 1 hour on the

simulator and 4 hours behind the

wheel to be more effective [training]

than 8 hours behind the wheel.
7

CHAPTER 2

Testing and Licensing

The European Commission (EC) codifies rules and regulations related to drivers.

Each driver’s home country issues a license that also allows for operation

throughout the European community. The EC standardizes the testing process and

each country deploys the testing procedure. Commercial licensing requires that

drivers successfully pass both

administrative (demonstrating

knowledge of traffic rules, safety

regulations, and vehicle mechanics) and

vehicle operations tests. Governmentcertified organizations conduct most

testing. In France, the AFT-IFTIM

conducts the tests in addition to

providing education.

The Dutch Model

The Dutch Centraal Bureau

Rijvaardigheidsbewizen (CBR) is also a

noteworthy organizational model. CBR is

a driver testing center and an

FIGURE 4

Driver Education Promotion from the Vocational Training and

Working Environment Council, Sweden

Well-educated professional drivers...

...for traffic safety and working environment

...for the environment, quality and service

...can take greater responsibility

...strengthen the company

The European Commission (EC)

codifies rules and regulations related

to drivers. Each driver’s home country

issues a license that also allows for

operation throughout the European

community. The EC standardizes the

testing process and each country

deploys the testing procedure.
8

CHAPTER 2

organization that certifies professional driver competence. Since 1927, this private

organization has maintained a meticulous admittance policy based on driving

aptitude and skill, which has advanced the skill level of the truck driver

population.

CBR sets and administers tests and provides value-added training and

certification services to employers. In addition to the professional certificates

required by the EC, CBR provides employers with extra, more rigorous

certification, such as the ability to couple and uncouple trailers and semitrailers

safely at a loading platform. CBR also provides advisors to motor carriers to help

improve safety performance. This proactive approach of intervention also is

practiced in other European countries.

Throughout Europe, selection for training and employment involves medical and

psychological testing. As indicated above, there is a focus on driving aptitude by

candidates. In France, there is also government-sponsored medical and/or

psychological test of current drivers who demonstrate poor performance; the

testing helps identify a program of treatment to improve performance.

Hours-of-Service Regulations

The most common commercial vehicle infraction in Europe, as in the United States,

is violating hours-of-service regulations. In 1985, the EC amended the hours-ofservice regulations originally set in 1969. That same year the EC also amended the

related 1969 requirement for a tachograph. Hours-of-service regulations apply to

drivers transporting freight in vehicles greater than 3.5 metric tons (4.6 tons) and

passenger transport with more than nine passengers.

European regulations are as complicated as those in the United States. Europeans

regulations allow for 45 driving hours per week averaged over 2 weeks – a

maximum of 9 hours per day, except twice a week when 10 hours is permitted, if

followed by 11 consecutive hours of rest. Every 4.5 hours of work must include 45

minutes of break time in segments of at least 15 minutes. Drivers must be

compensated for all compulsory rest time, and there is an obligatory rest of 45

consecutive hours for every 6 days of work.

The EC recently debated the reducing the workweek to 35 hours. The outcome of

this debate will particularly affect companies with more than 20 drivers. In the

past, “other work time” was as high as 60 hours total. The recent debate included a

proposal to reduce the total hours from 60 to 48. The new ruling from the EC is

forthcoming.

Onboard Recorders and Data Privacy

The mechanical rotary tachograph is the primary tool for enforcing hours-ofservice regulations. As noted above, it has been required since 1985 and is intended

to protect the driver from abusive and unsafe working conditions. Tachograph

tracks five activities: driving time; other work time such as truck washing and

administrative work; availability time, for instance waiting for a truck to be

unloaded/loaded; rest time; and 15-minute break time pauses. This mechanical

device will be phased out in the coming years and replaced by an electronic device.
9

CHAPTER 2

The current tachograph has been criticized for its susceptibility to large-scale

fraud, enforcement difficulty, and costly company management. The emerging

electronic device will not eliminate all criticism, but it should decrease the level of

burden placed on motor carriers and drivers. A number of technology questions

remain, for example, how to accurately track driver hours and not just vehicle

operation. There is also a perceived need for a cost-effective onboard printer.

The vendors of these technologies suggest great promise for both regulatory

improvements (good reporting capability including exceeding-the-speed limiter

and other faults) and operational enhancements (more effective routing and

dispatching and greater information flow). Several vendors offer electronic

tachograph systems. Two vendors, Mannesmann VDO and Thomson, participated in

CVS Panel discussions. Mannesmann VDO has also acquired interesting experience

with its UDS (Accident Data Recorder), a black box system specially designed to

register and monitor crash data. Crash rates, as well as expenditures for repair

costs, could be reduced in several fleet trials, for example, with the Berlin police.

Another Mannesmann VDO subsidiary, Mannesmann Passo GmbH, provides for a

complete range of traffic telemetrics.

FIGURE 5

Tachograph Disk

(Source: Mannesmann VDO)

Road speed

Distance

Additional stylus for

fuel consumption

(with Fuel Consumption

Recorder EDM) or lifting,

mixing and cooling

equipment, etc.

Times

Working time

Driving time

Rest period

Other periods of work

Engine speed

(recorded on the back of the chart)
10

CHAPTER 2

To better understand the application of electronic onboard recorders, the Dutch

Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO) conducted an experiment of

black box technology (an onboard data recorder) for the Dutch Postal Service. The

black boxes effectively enhanced driver management (better scheduling and

increased driving time) and were considered a deterrent against driver violations

of driving rules and company policies.

In terms of deploying onboard recorders in the United States and in Europe, data

privacy is the most important issue for both companies and drivers. Throughout

Europe, protecting individual privacy is considered paramount and laws ensure

data privacy with the deployment of onboard recorders. Enforcement personnel

can use the recording device only to assess compliance with driving and rest hours.

Laws against self-incrimination prohibit

the data from being used otherwise.

A similar attitude affects the use of

tachograph results; the data only verify

compliance with driving time and rest

time regulations. This rule is an integral

component of the social regulations.

Privacy of data was also referenced in

other areas; for example, it is the policy of

the Dutch to destroy vehicle-specific

weigh-in-motion data after 30 days.

Motor Carrier Approach to Drivers

In both the United States and Europe,

commercial drivers are in short supply

and time driving is valuable to motor

carriers. Labor is the foremost variable in

the overall operational equation of the

firm. Labor is the single highest cost, and it is subject to the hours-of-service

constraints. Deploying tools such as mobile communications and computer-aided

routing and dispatching are enhancing the efficiency of the driver and unit.

To maximize driving time, trucking companies would ideally motivate drivers by

compensating them for the mile traveled rather than by the hour worked. Driver

payment by distance traveled is a common practice in the United States, is the

norm in Germany and the Netherlands, but is not allowed in Sweden and France.

Sweden’s concern is for safety, while France focuses on protecting the driver from

abuse. Even in the face of the rules in France (drivers are also paid a minimum 35-

hour-per-week salary), French firms offer a bonus as an incentive to their drivers to

maximize the number of hours driven.

As in the United States, conscientious motor carriers not only manage their

drivers, but they also manage the safety issues – conduct personnel audit

documents related to hours of service and provide driver support. Throughout

Europe, the safety director is responsible for driver training as well as auditing the

tachograph. In the United States, focus and costs stem from the driver’s hours-of-

...in the United States and Europe,

data privacy is the most important

issue for both companies

and drivers. Throughout Europe,

protecting individual privacy is

considered...[and]...Enforcement

personnel can use the [onboard]

recording device only to

assess compliance with driving

and rest hours.
11

CHAPTER 2

service logbook, which have generated temporary technology solutions like logscanners and software. The technology in Europe currently begins with the

tachograph and will include the electronic logbook in the future.

Throughout Europe, there is a public and private sector commitment to deploy

infrastructure systems to support telematics systems. Germany provides a

noteworthy example in its use of global positioning system (GPS) satellites

currently in place, new telecommunications capacities, and road operation.

Mannesmann has deployed a privately funded traffic detection system in the Bonn

area to support its in-vehicle information system; a fleet management solution has

been built upon the onboard computer and in-vehicle real-time information

platform.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The overall European approach is to enhance the value and effectiveness of

commercial motor vehicle drivers through rigorous training, education, and

performance-based testing and licensing. The traditional regulatory approach is to

protect the driver from abusive and unsafe situations and, therefore, to protect

their civil liberties.

This European environment yielded a number of key findings and generated

recommendations for United States consideration:

• Comprehensive, standardized

driver education curriculum. A

desirable educational program is

one endorsed by both public and

private stakeholder groups and

that advances the skills and

business competency of the

drivers. Possible approaches

include establishing minimum

training standards and mandatory

training curriculum.

• Performance-based driver assessment. The goal for training and on-theroad compliance assessment is to ensure maximum driver safety and

operational performance. Accordingly, focal points for assessment should be

performance-based data that measure driving performance (if necessary,

through technology) and outcomes (crashes and violations). These data

would improve understanding of driver selection by carriers and create

better public policy, such as determining minimum age of driver and hoursof-service rules.

• Adequate public and private organizations. Education, testing, and

licensing services need to be readily accessible and cost-effective if they are

to advance the safety of drivers and their value in the motor freight

businesses. The role of private sector advisors holds promise for advancing

driver and motor carrier coordination.

A desirable educational program is

one endorsed by both public and

private stakeholder groups and that

advances the skills and business

competency of the drivers.
12

CHAPTER 2

• Human resource management. In general, a more systematic and

scientific approach is needed to manage commercial motor vehicle driver

performance. Even in the strict regulatory environment of European

drivers, motor carriers provide driver incentives to maximize driving time.

It can be demonstrated that an understanding of the firms’ objectives can

improve profitability for motor carriers.

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

The essence of the deployment strategy is to equip the lead public and private

sector stakeholder groups with clear definitions of the benefits of enhanced driver

safety and performance. The lead U.S. public agency is the Federal Motor Carrier

Safety Administration (FMCSA). There are also many exemplary labor-related

safety efforts in the United States – these efforts need to be identified and

expanded.

The implementation strategy includes:

• Involve public and private stakeholder groups. The FMCSA should

highlight the European approach among other government agencies. For

example, the Departments of Labor and Education may be interested and

able to enhance existing efforts and provide a forum for developing a driver

education curriculum, training criteria, and standards. Examples of leading

private sector stakeholder groups include truck driver training schools and

institutes, insurance company research institutes, and labor unions. Each of

these organizations understands the benefits of safety to their respective

fields and they share a collective interest in enhanced driver productivity

and safety.

• Build upon successful safety programs. There are many noteworthy

motor carrier safety initiatives and institutions in the United States. For

example, the Safety Management Council of the American Trucking

Association (ATA) developed the Safety by Cooperative Partnership

Education (SCOPE) initiative to promote driver education and safety. The

ATA Foundation produced Making A Difference, a compendium of awardwinning safety programs. These initiatives highlight the concept of human

resource management and may be the vehicles to broaden its deployment.

There are also several exemplary training institutions in the United States.

The best practice efforts in the United States can benefit from examining

the human resource management approach and from the advances by the

lead stakeholder groups.

• Launch new research efforts to:

– Investigate human resource management selection, training media, and

driver-performance measures;

– Determine special resources for establishing driver-training criteria;
13

CHAPTER 2

– Ascertain possible incentives from insurance companies for efforts

favorable to the overall safety objectives and compile the benefits of the

leading efforts in the United States.

Equipped with new research findings and the CVS Panel report, lead groups can

advance their own self-interests as well as the public good by focusing on issues of

driver education and professional competence.
14

Chapter Three

VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS

The application of information technologies has revolutionized all industries

involved in commercial vehicle safety around the world, including truck

manufacturers, road operators, and the trucking companies. In Europe, the

mechanical rotary tachograph is evolving into an electronic data-capture device,

and manufacturers envision it as the platform for an integrated motor carrier

operations system of the future. The Europeans have long captured data to

enhance their safety systems, and they are developing new vehicle designs, human

interfaces, and dynamic new passive and active onboard safety systems.

FOCUS AREAS

The CVS Panel focused on four Vehicle Safety System areas:

• Safety Research Business Models.

• Crash Investigation.

• Vehicle and Safety System Design.

• Onboard Safety.

Safety Research Business Models

Research programs by truck manufacturers and a variety of affiliated and

independent research and testing institutes have a long history of enhancing

vehicle safety and delivering ever-improving vehicles to meet the demands of the

European marketplace. From cabcrashworthiness to dynamic stability,

every area of the vehicle, its operations,

and its support systems are continuously

reengineered and enhanced.

The heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers of

Europe are often partners with U.S. firms.

Volvo’s largest wholly owned subsidiary

is in the United States; DaimlerChrysler

owns Freightliner; Renault owns Mack

Trucks; and PACCAR owns DAF, the

Dutch truck manufacturer. Heavy-duty

vehicles are manufactured to meet and

optimize trucking companies’ goodsmovement objectives. Although very

different size and weight rules exist in

Europe and the United States, the most common vehicle configuration for both

nations is rapidly becoming the 5-axle tractor-semitrailer.

The essential areas of focus for truck manufacturers are cab-crashworthiness,

dynamic stability, and safety systems. Onboard safety systems are divided into

Research programs by truck

manufacturers and a variety of

affiliated and independent research

and testing institutes have a long

history of enhancing vehicle safety

and delivering ever-improving vehicles

to meet the demands of the

European marketplace.
15

CHAPTER 3

passive (reduce the consequences of crashes) and active systems (reduce the

number of crashes). Emerging onboard safety applications for trucks include seat

belt and under-ride protection; other new technologies include steer-by-wire and

electronic braking systems. The following sections detail four different European

business models from Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, and France.

Sweden

Sweden’s focus on safety design has resulted in the Swedish cab-crashworthiness

test. The test is one to ensure driver survivability. Three impacts – top, front, back –

are required and three results are necessary to pass:

1) Survival space is intact.

2) Doors remain closed.

3) Suspension remains intact.

Besides this legal demand, Volvo has an internal, complementary requirement: The

doors shall be openable after the test. New systems to increase the driver

survivability are being tested and introduced in new models. These systems

include soft cab surfaces, such as kneebars, and longitudinal reinforcements in the

doors to cope with Volvo’s own Barrier Crash Test requirements.

The Swedish system focus on active safety systems is designed to provide drivers

with information (collision avoidance and condition information) and adaptation

for intelligent speed. Per Adelsson, of Volvo, views the approach to technology as

measuring: “The right technology for the right time.” Additional new solutions

include vehicle multiplex systems, traveler information systems, and airbag

electronics. Volvo is advancing its focus from passive to active safety systems that

are closely tied to the ability of the driver to accept and use information.

Germany

DaimlerChrysler brings a holistic approach to safety and operational systems.

Although regulations primarily address failures in systems, DaimlerChrysler has

developed solutions that improve many areas. The company has focused on those

technical defects of components responsible for traffic crashes – brakes (60

percent), axles (10 percent), frames (5 to 10 percent), and steering and tires (less

than 5 percent) – while advancing an approach to automated control systems. For

example, to counter human problems such as the drowsy driver, the overall system

includes electronically controlled all-wheel steering systems, intelligent braking,

and lane-departure warning systems. DaimlerChrysler also concentrated on the

advantages of telematics and the links to commercial vehicle safety systems,

including the prospects of an “electronic chauffeur” or long-distance platooning/

automated driving system.

DaimlerChrysler is developing a number of products to address safety as well as

operational efficiency, including:

• Telligent Braking® system – reduces braking distance.

• Electronic stability program – uses intelligence to make control

interventions.
16

CHAPTER 3

• Meta-management – delivers information input into systems control.

These initiatives are part of DaimlerChrysler’s strategic approach. According to

Christian von Glasner, “If one wants to cross the borders of conventional systems in

order to improve the active safety of commercial vehicle, one has to use electronic

intelligence.”

Consistent with its strategic approach, DaimlerChrysler identified the current

problem with drowsy drivers. To underscore the extent of the problem, 68 percent

of all German commercial vehicle driver-caused fatal crashes result from

drowsiness (Fatal Crashes in Bavaria, 1991). DaimlerChrysler has developed and

tested a prototype lane-departure warning system to address drowsy driving.

Using optical lane tracking and an algorithm to detect drowsy behavior, a warning

signal produced corrective behavior among test drivers. Test participants reacted

favorably to the device and its promise of

enhanced safety.

The DaimlerChrysler model includes an

approach to telematics designed to

accommodate the needs of the driver and

create an integrated system that centers

on the driver. The model enhances

performance and safety by linking road

and vehicle operations systems and

information to the driver.

The Netherlands

The Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO) is a not-for-profit group of

13 institutes. The TNO Traffic and Transport group includes five institutes that

focus on infrastructure, road vehicles, applied physics, human factors, and physics

and electronics.

TNO investigated a number of high-profile rollover crashes. Crash analysis

generated recommendations and a call for a relevant regulation by the EC in

Brussels. Because of the rollover analysis, TNO developed a patented tilt

monitoring system/rollover warning device, which holds promise for commercial

application.

New projects include automated vehicle controls and external speed adaptation.

Building on the concept of automated cruise controls (ACC), the Dutch experiment

will expand lateral and longitudinal controls, lane tracking, and ACC to use speed

control, passing systems, and truck-only lanes. Plans to pilot test an external speed

control system include such roadside information data as maximum speed and

restrictions. A study is scheduled to explore truck-only lanes.

France

The French government plays a significant role in commercial vehicle research and

manufacture. It funds the French National Institute for Transport and Safety

Research (INRETS) and owns 49 percent of Renault. The French approach is more

decentralized than the other models, yet it is no less comprehensive. The Renault

The DaimlerChrysler model...

enhances performance and safety by

linking road and vehicle operations

systems and information to the driver.
17

CHAPTER 3

approach is straightforward. Safety is part of productivity and Renault optimizes

all areas of vehicle productivity. Further, vehicle safety is part of the overall

transportation system and costs are attributed accordingly. The current emphasis

is on the active safety research and the development of four systems – braking and

longitudinal controls, lateral control, vision enhancement, and drowsiness

prevention. An active crash research program influence vehicle systems design.

Crash Investigation

In the United States, the police investigate and report crashes to support

adjudication, not necessarily to determine and correct the cause. The litigious

environment in the United States has effectively excluded parties other than the

police from collecting crash data. In

Europe, however, vehicle manufacturers

and third-party organizations study

crashes to understand causes and take

appropriate corrective actions. These

analyses support enhanced safety system

and vehicle design, and they help frame

effective public policy.

The Volvo crash investigation team has

been active across Europe since 1969.

When possible, the team collects data at

crash sites. Analytical results, as well as

medical aspects, are key to developing

active and passive safety systems. For

example, the distribution of injuries by

body part (primarily head and chest)

shows the need for greater seat belt and

airbag (supplementary restraint system)

use. Secondary consideration has focused

on systems that prevent injury to legs

and knees, and corrective improvements

are becoming design enhancements. Volvo is also actively developing passenger

bunk restraints in truck sleeper compartments. The other two original equipment

manufacturers (OEMs) visited (DaimlerChrysler and Renault) also have active

crash investigation teams. Throughout Europe, government and third-party

organizations also collect and analyze crash information and participate in many

areas of manufacture, regulatory compliance, and public policy development.

INRETS, which is funded through the National Vehicle and Road Safety

Programme, is also under the control of two French ministries. INRETS created its

Transport Safety Epidemiology Laboratory in 1994 to carry out epidemiological

studies and in-depth crash investigations. The procedure for analyzing in-depth

crash information is emerging from an operational test in four geographic areas of

France and in conjunction with French vehicle manufacturers. The approach

includes creating a registry of road crash injuries and collecting in-depth data.

In the United States, the police

investigate and report crashes to

support adjudication, not necessarily

to determine and correct the cause...

In Europe, however, vehicle

manufacturers and third-party

organizations study crashes to

understand their cause and take

appropriate corrective actions. These

analyses support enhanced safety

system and vehicle design, and they

help frame effective public policy.
18

CHAPTER 3

The Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt) is funded in part by the German

government. BASt is a technical and scientific institute responsible to the Federal

Ministry of Transport, Building, and Housing. The Institute acts as scientific

advisor to the ministry on technical matters and transport policy. It also plays a

leading role in formulating specifications and standards. BASt’s International Road

Traffic Accident Database is a membership-funded effort that contains information

for 30 countries and four continents. In addition to government data, BASt includes

special data collected at crash scene investigations.

In conjunction with the National Office for Highway Systems of BASt, the

independent DEKRA Accident Research Division has created a database of

detailed crash information. DEKRA analysis begins with official traffic crash

statistics, but more data were needed to make precise statements. The detailed

database, including critical situation information, allowed for potential safety

improvements. DEKRA operates more than 80 branches that conduct annual safety

inspections and provide fleet management service. The DEKRA Accident Research

Division determines crash cause, plays a role in adjudication, and is sometimes

summoned to perform a court-ordered role.

BASt, as well as DEKRA and several other institutions in the accident

investigation sector, have been heavily involved in evaluating Mannesmann VDO’s

UDS. Claims from the German Traffic Court conference for introducing mandatory

Accident Data Recorder date back to the early ’70s. Field trials since then have

shown that crashes could be resolved much faster, without making vague

assumptions, thus providing for suitable justice. At the same time, preventive

effects could be realized, as drivers tend to drive more carefully with the black box

FIGURE 6

Crash Investigation Results from Volvo

Spine mas AIS 3

The Most Severe AIS

Injury Per Body Part

AIS 1 Minor

AIS 2 Moderate

AIS 3 Serious

AIS 4 Severe

AIS 5 Critical

AIS 6 Fatal
19

CHAPTER 3

onboard. Policy initiatives may ensue as German public authorities, as well as the

EC become increasingly aware of this information.

Vehicle and Safety Systems Design

Overall, the safety and operational systems of commercial vehicles are thoroughly

designed to optimize performance. According to DaimlerChrysler’s Hans-Harald

Eggelmann, “We at DaimlerChrysler can arrange for shorter stopping distances of

truck-trailer combinations; we can technically control vehicle dynamic behavior

under changing road or weather conditions; we can introduce means against

tailgating; we can assist and support the driver in his tasks to control the vehicle;

we can deliver ambient conditions for the driver to lessen fatigue . . . and as

engineers we might propose more. But do existing regulations allow us to

introduce into the market what we consider advantageous and safe?”

Mr. Eggelmann pointed out that safety describes conditions in the absence of

failure effects. Therefore, safety provisions are set by failure probabilities and the

consequent compensation to define object safe conditions – a theme echoed by the

Dutch risk-assessment models. This applies to establishing both regulations and

appropriate safety standards.

In the United States, the intent of Federal safety rules is to actively promote safety

– U.S. code requires instituting preventative standards in order to set motor

vehicle safety. The broad approach allows for a variety of systems and technologies

that are functionally acceptable. In Europe, however, there is a tradition of national

“vehicle type approval” that has extended to the European supranational bodies.

Accordingly, there is a tradition of specific standards related to cabcrashworthiness and brake and steering systems. In light of new electronic

systems, it is difficult to establish specific standards and determine how the

standard is realized.

Standards for Electronic Components

Emerging active safety systems use electronic systems to collect, process, and

manage information about the driver, vehicle, and roadway conditions and

performance. Although the underlying communications and computing systems are

advancing rapidly (functionality expanding and price declining), the lack of

standards for interfacing technology threatens the new systems deployment. An

essential tenet of active safety systems is the delivery of information to the driver.

The link to the driver is critical and is based on information flow and the humanmachine interface.

An answer to the standards issue is a standard that will be set through a

regulatory rulemaking process of the EC. The DRAFT Uniform Provisions

Concerning the Approval of Vehicles with Regard to the Safety Concept of Vehicular

Complex Systems Comprising Electronic Components has been circulated and a

rule is forthcoming.

In support of the effort, the European Statement of Principles – On Human

Machine Interface for In-Vehicle Information and Communications Systems was

submitted in 1998. A broad group of equipment and vehicle manufacturers support
20

CHAPTER 3

the principles, which address overall design (to neither create a hazard nor

distract the driver) as well as specific design elements. These include installation

(rules regarding placement, for example, in the line of sight), information

presentation (agreed-to symbols, timely information, easily assimilated),

interaction with displays and controls (hands-free, logical), system behavior (allow

for driving, but take control of the vehicle with failure), and information about the

system.

Test and Design Standards

On-the-road crash data are used for design as well as for extensive testing and

continuous reengineering. There have long been standards in Europe regarding

testing, design, and performance in order to manufacture the safest and most

efficient vehicles. Even with these standards, each manufacturer and country has

focused on slightly different measures. All are committed to designing safe and

efficient vehicles and to ensuring oversight of the design process.

Vehicle Design

The overall approach to design for safety is directed toward creating a more

responsive vehicle system and a more intelligent operator. All operating areas of

the vehicle are being designed to enhance performance with electronics – for

example, electronics applied to brakes, steering, and information flow.

Some of the new areas of active safety systems include:

• Obstacle-detection systems for collision avoidance.

• Drowsy-driver detection and prevention systems.

• Vision enhancement.

• Emergency vehicle control systems.

• Electronic controls for vehicle stability, braking, and steering.

• Load-tilt monitoring and rollover warning devices.

Road Design and Operation

The structure and condition of the roadways are vital to overall roadway safety,

and Europe has several noteworthy road design improvements. For example, one

new design affects roadway improvements and expansion near Rotterdam. The

intent is to reduce the diversity of

vehicles in traffic by limiting the number

of entrance and exit ramps (excluding

local commuter traffic and separating

vehicle types) in order to lessen the

interruptions to truck traffic flow. Truckonly lanes are being designed and tested

as part of the overall “transport in

balance” approach of the Dutch.

...the Dutch are [designing and testing]

truck-only lanes [with the intent to]

reduce diversity of vehicles in traffic.
21

CHAPTER 3

In terms of operations, the Swedes have promoted the use of longer combination

vehicles (LCVs) to reduce the number of trucks needed to move the growing

volume of freight. This approach is built on the belief that the safety benefit of

reducing the numbers of trucks exceeds the potential hazard of LCVs, while

increasing roadway safety.

External Safety/Risk Assessment

Assessing risks is part of road policy throughout Europe, particularly in the area of

transporting hazardous materials. Risk analysis is used less frequently in the

United States, and there is an apparent lack of consistent focus on routing

hazardous materials around the country.

Management based on risk assessment and an integrated approach is important in

framing political decisions. Comparing risks of hazardous materials transport can

only be made when all the safety factors (such as the nature and volume of the

transport flow, traffic safety and vulnerability of the surrounding area) are known.

Their mutual correlations can be assessed and modes can be compared.

Dutch policy is to decrease the probability of hazardous material incidents, conduct

risk management by transportation activities (risk analysis is rational approach),

and plan appropriate responses. The Dutch determine risk for transporting

FIGURE 7

Integrated System from DaimlerChrysler
22

CHAPTER 3

hazardous substances by the two concepts of individual risk and societal risk. They

compare the direct consequences for people near transport routes with the

potential of serious crash and release of hazardous materials. Germany also uses

computer-aided risk analysis of the dangerous goods transport.

Shift of Freight Flow to Rail

There is an aggressive effort throughout Europe to shift freight from truck to rail.

The Dutch government has made it policy to shift freight volume to rails and away

from road. The Germans demonstrated their commercial vehicle safety problem by

pointing out that the truck modal share grew from less than 50 percent in 1970 to

65 percent today. Other European countries also focus on modal shift as a strategy

for improving commercial vehicle safety.

Europe has traditionally used the fuel tax to fund social programs and as a means

to discourage highway use – regardless, motor freight still dominates. With the

failure of the price approach, a more direct approach is expected. It will be difficult,

however, to change logistics patterns and freight flows built on truck movements to

freight rail and other modes.

The efficiency of one small Dutch freight-forwarder, RSC, illustrates the promise of

increased rail freight. RSC moves freight from Rotterdam to Germany and points

in Eastern Europe. The firm combined innovative yard management with train

scheduling to meet the customer needs. Yard management uses of multiunits (four

or more oceangoing containers on chassis). The simple scheduling of trains for daily

overnight service met the customer demands for timely service.

It is believed that the shift to rail would decrease the number of trucks operating

on Europe’s roadways and reduce potential conflicts between passenger cars and

the trucks. These conflicts generally have more catastrophic results than conflicts

between passenger cars.

The speed of European trucks is physically limited, which means that trucks

operate at a different range speed than passenger cars. It is believed that a speed

differential between cars and trucks creates a safety hazard. Thus, fewer trucks on

the road also eliminate the speed differential and improve safety.

Onboard Safety

Basic passive safety systems (those that reduce the impact of a crash) center on the

driver. Seat belts and airbags are the most obvious. Although the seat belts are

required in heavy-duty trucks, only 10

percent of truck drivers use them, versus

90 percent use in passenger cars. Airbags

have been an available option for several

years, but few systems have been ordered.

The paradox is that the manufacturers

and governments aggressively focus on

driver safety, yet these basic systems are

seldom used.

The paradox is that [European]

manufacturers and governments

aggressively focus on driver safety,

yet these basic [seat belt and air bag]

systems are seldom used.
23

CHAPTER 3

Active onboard safety systems (those that help prevent crashes) will require new

information flow throughout the vehicle and delivering additional information to

the driver. There are both institutional and operational challenges to deploying

these systems. The institutional difficulties stem from the need to comply with EC

regulations and the emerging electronics standards. The operational challenge will

be the safe delivery of information to the driver – and the acceptance by the

company management.

It appears that the current use of onboard information technology is not as

widespread in Europe as in the United States. In Europe, many optimization

systems are being tested and the basic communications networks are emerging;

these markets and systems are well established in the United States. The

deployment of onboard information systems (such as onboard computers,

coordinated fleet optimization, and communications systems) is a necessary

precursor to more sophisticated safety devices. In order to adopt new systems,

drivers need experience with onboard electronics and companies need

demonstrated financial benefits. Both drivers and companies must participate if

the full potential of the next generation of active safety systems is to be realized. In

Europe, the required use of an electronic tachograph in the coming years may

increase use of onboard systems.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

European truck manufacturers are closely tied with manufacturers in the United

States, however, the traditional working relationships and organizational

structures around them are very different. The overall approach to vehicle and

roadway safety design stems from research and crash investigation. Standards

have been set to help advance systems and public/private working relationships

advance truck design and manufacturer.

Based on the key findings, the CVS Panel recommends the following for U.S.

consideration:

• Third-party organizations. European third-party organizations play an

exemplary role in testing, design,

safety management, and new

research. The business models

provide examples of public and

private organizations that share a

common safety focus. Creating a

greater safety focus for third-party

organizations in the United States

is desirable. In some cases, crash

investigation research and incompany safety audits may require

an effort to create new third-party entities to advance the efforts.

• Crash data. A large volume of crash information in the United States is

collected primarily for litigation purposes. This type of information could

European third-party organizations

play an exemplary role in testing,

design, safety management,

and new research.
24

CHAPTER 3

also be used to establish crash causes, which could correct and improve

systems operation and vehicle design.

• Vehicle design standards. The United States has standards for

manufacturing trucks and their systems. The Society of Automotive

Engineers, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),

and others help advance those standards. Europe, however, focuses on

testing and licensing standards. Considering standards in the development

of passive safety systems (cab-crashworthiness) and active safety systems

(electronic interface) holds promise to facilitate new initiatives in the

United States. Additional focus should be on making the driver and roadway

safer. Current fatigue research in the United States can help frame

innovative approaches to drivers and their management. Approaches to

enhance driver information management and continuing driver education

can help also advance driver and roadway safety. Delivering information and

providing support to the driver will depend on the driver’s ability to accept

and use information.

• Roadway design and truck access. Increased congestion means that more

passenger cars and trucks must share the road. Risk assessment is a useful

procedure for understanding the effect of future roadway design and

regulations. Using truck-only lanes in selected locations holds promise for

reducing the potential conflict between cars and trucks, particularly during

peak travel periods. Innovative new safety systems can be designed, but

three nonengineering factors will affect the deployment in onboard

applications – government regulations, market acceptance, and product

standards. The Europeans continue to struggle with these issues.

European regulations require devices to capture driver data and control speed.

This has affected the approach of new safety systems. For other systems, the

question is market acceptance. The low airbag and seat belt use demonstrates the

lack of acceptance within the market. For the United States, market acceptance of

emerging solutions is important. Product standards are also necessary to create a

robust market for technology solutions.

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

In Europe, safety is firmly ingrained in the approaches to research, design, and

manufacture of trucks. This is also evident in the United States. Accordingly, the

lead organizations should be the truck manufacturers and the FMCSA. The

groundwork should be set for involving additional third-party organizations.

• Build upon the efforts of truck manufacturers and encourage thirdparty organizations. With the original equipment manufacturers as a focal

point, identify other stakeholder organizations for participation. The thirdparty stakeholders include:

– Research organizations – university centers, private institutes,

insurance company research institutes, and trade association affiliated

research groups.
25

CHAPTER 3

– Other manufacturers: aftermarket parts, peripherals, and electronics.

– Government regulatory agencies and research organizations – State and

Federal.

The third-party model in Europe is based on traditional working

relationships; in the United States, other relationships are in place as well.

The strategy is to encourage these organizations to play larger roles and

support performance-based and risk-based analysis during the design phase

of commercial vehicle safety.

• Advance crash investigation and data use. To advance the use of crash

data to enhance safety, the message of how it is useful must be delivered to

organizations that can make a difference – organizations that collect the

data. The involvement of roadside enforcement officers is important, and a

possible lead organization is the International Association of Chiefs of

Police. Underlying support may also come from organizations like the

National Safety Council (D16 Committee), American Association of State

Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and the Governors’

Offices of Highway Safety. Crash investigation procedures for State agencies

would also be helpful in capturing valuable data. An organization such as the

National Governors Association could create standard crash definitions and

classifications. The lead Federal Agencies (NHTSA and the FHWA) should

collaborate to address crash causes and promulgate crash investigation

methodology. Possible funding should be identified.

• Encourage use of seat belts and airbags. The simplest, most readily

passive safety devices (seat belts and airbags) are not used in Europe. While

passenger car seat belt use is about 90 percent, truck use is only about 10

percent. Airbags, although not fully perfected, are a rarely selected truck

option. This paradox should be addressed through promotional activities

and public and professional education programs. The leading safety

organizations in the United States should maintain a clear focus on market

acceptance of emerging safety systems. It is clear that motor carriers will

embrace systems that provide clear benefits, but the safety benefits must be

clearly identified. As regulatory changes are made, market behavior should

be considered to ensure the highest level of participation and success.
26

Chapter Four

SAFETY REGULATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT

The overall approach of European enforcement is built upon strong rules and

deterrence versus strict enforcement. There is a general belief that high

compliance exists. Several devices required for the vehicle restrict or monitor

performance (for example, tachograph, and speed limiter). Regulations are

prescriptive (for example, drivers pay is restricted to per/hour wages in several

countries). The burden of regulatory compliance in Europe is shifted to the

responsible party, and sometimes shifted to the shipper.

FOCUS AREAS

The CVS Panel focused on three Safety Regulations and Enforcement areas:

• Rules and Regulations.

• Enforcement Model.

• Information Systems.

Rules and Regulations

The European Union (EU) is the confederation of European countries that is

moving toward greater economic and organizational integration. The EC was

formed as the regulatory body of record and is the arbitrator of final dispute among

its member countries. Harmonizing national rules and regulations was a difficult

task, and it has resulted in a complicated and complex bureaucratic structure.

The EC promulgates regulations, yet the EC faces continuing challenges as the

approaches of once-independent countries merge into a cooperative confederation

approach. Each country is obligated to enforce both its own and the EC commercial

vehicle safety regulations. As a result, individual country approaches are unique,

yet the appropriate European Union and international conventions provide

oversight.

Speed

The French and others have identified speed as the foremost safety problem. The

problem is so significant that commercial vehicle speed is limited by an enginegovernor technology. The 1995 EC Road Traffic Act required a speed limiter that

prevents a truck greater than 3,500 kg (7,700 lbs) from exceeding 85 km/h (54 mi/h).

Intelligent speed adaptation (ISA) is an accompanying initiative for reducing speed

of passenger cars. The Dutch believe that lowering speeds would reduce hospital

admissions by 15 percent and deaths by 21 percent, in addition to providing some

positive environmental improvements. ISA technology is evolving; yet the

functional requirements are for a variable adjustable speed limiter, signal

transmission systems, and vehicle-to-roadside communications.
27

CHAPTER 4

The Swedes have several ISA tests under way. One test involves focusing a beacon

that notifies the driver that the vehicle is exceeding the speed limit. At the

opposite end of the spectrum is a totally automatic test. Early results of the

automated system that prevents speeding indicate that drivers perceived it as “a

safety measure and not an unpleasant control or source of irritation.”

Size and Weight

The EC sets size and weight rules. As in the United States, a recent issue is the use

of longer combination vehicles. When Sweden and Finland were admitted into the

EU, several vehicles were initially banned from operation. They were, however,

eventually grandfathered for operation in these Scandinavian countries. Recent

discussions have focused on allowing these larger vehicles to operate throughout

more of Europe.

In 1997, the EC promulgated a modular concept rule for vehicle length in the EU.

Operators are allowed to couple their standard vehicles (7.8 m/26 ft straight truck,

13.6 m/45 ft semitrailer, and fifth-wheel dolly) in a number of ways to extend the

maximum length. This directive allows larger vehicles previously not permitted

under earlier EC directive to operate in Sweden and Finland, which restricted

maximum length to 16.5 m (54 ft) (semitrailer combination) and 18.75 m (62 ft) (2-

unit road-train).

Analysis conducted prior to advancing the modular concept hypothesized the

elimination of every third truck trip and deployment of smart logistic solutions.

Results showed there was no need for more space in crossing and at roundabouts,

and there was a positive effect on traffic safety. The concept is now limited in

practice to the two Scandinavian countries – new rules would be needed to allow

the concept to expand to other parts of Europe.

TNO, under contract to the Dutch Ministry of Transport, assessed the influence of

LCVs. The report focused on traffic process and traffic safety. Analysis considered

visibility, vehicle stability, overtaking maneuvers, traffic flow, and crash behavior.

The 1996 study found that LCVs should not operate in areas of dense traffic and

only certain configurations with specific rules (loading, spacing of brake

mechanisms) would be acceptable in The Netherlands.

A number of credible European third-party research institutes and government

agencies will debate the issue at the EC level and decide the future of longer

combination vehicles and the modular concept.

Enforcement Models

Each European country maintains a commercial vehicle safety enforcement

program to ensure compliance with the EU and national rules and regulations. All

four countries visited by the CVS Panel presented their programs and each

represents a model for consideration.

The Dutch Model

The Dutch enforcement model stems from the belief that prevention is better than

the cure. Rising traffic volume has led to the belief that roadside enforcement has
28

CHAPTER 4

become less viable. Since 1995, the Dutch have developed an innovative approach

that combines a warning system and a focused in-company inspection process. The

approach stems from a clear

understanding of the motor freight

industry and concentrates on high-risk

carriers.

The Dutch model assigns transport

operators into three categories:

• Large, well-managed companies that

comply with laws as much as possible.

• Medium-sized firms that attempt to

comply with laws.

• Firms with inconsistent safety

compliance.

Two noteworthy examples of high-risk

groups are low-wage foreign carriers that operate unsafely and re-start firms that

purposely use bankruptcy to avoid creditor and tax obligations. The industry, as

well as the regulatory agencies, has agreed to reduce the effect of the high-risk

group. Regulatory agencies include:

FIGURE 8

The Dutch Enforcement Model

The Dutch Model – The State Traffic Inspectorate

Enforcement Market Organization – Safety and

Competitiveness of Goods

Carriage

Road Carriage Goods

(Roadside Inspection)

Goods Carriage

(In-company Inspection)

Transportation Information Center –

Central Contact Point via Phone,

fax, or internet

...the Dutch have developed an

innovative approach that combines

a warning system and a focused incompany inspection process...

The roadside inspection activity

directly affects the in-company

inspection process.
29

CHAPTER 4

• The State Traffic Inspectorate – checks compliance and disseminates

information.

• The Market Organization Division – develops policy and regulations and

operates the Transportation Information Center.

• The Enforcement Division – conducts roadside and in-company safety

compliance checks.

The roadside inspection activity directly affects the in-company inspection process.

The Dutch have conducted a warning system since 1992. A breach of driving or

resting hours violation did not generate an official report, rather a written notice

was sent to the operator. This process establishes a danger zone where steps could

be taken to improve compliance. A serious violation produces immediate

repressive action. Recurring violations trigger an extensive in-company

investigation. The in-company inspections focus on the areas identified in the

warning system.

Since 1995, a new roadside checking method has involved two large-scale random

checks in April and October. Information compiled creates a two-part approach –

market segment investigations and repeat investigations. Compliance improved for

several years, but has tapered off. Agricultural haulers (flowers, vegetables, and

fruit) and sea-containers are industry market segments identified with higher than

average violation rates. These segments have undergone periodic market segment

investigations in an effort to improve compliance.

The French Model

The French roadside enforcement approach is decentralized into the 22 regions

and is conducted by 400 inspectors. The inspectors have three broad, powerful

sanctions:

1) Revoke authority.

2) Immobilize vehicles.

3) Decide responsibility – driver, company, or shipper.

The enforcement philosophy is built upon three tenets:

• Ensure fair competition.

• Advance safety on the roads.

• Ensure acceptable work conditions for drivers.

Cooperative efforts between government and industry have shown recent

improvements in regulations, and sanctions have encouraged safer motor carrier

practices. In 1996, the French Prime Minister moved to enhance the enforcement

effort by requiring commercial vehicle safety plans. Additional agency coordination

and several new efforts tied with punitive measures were introduced, including

authority to search for the gross offenders of driver rest rules, conducting more incompany inspections, and publicity of sanctions against carriers.
30

CHAPTER 4

The German Model

The German government regulatory ministry for transport is divided into three

agencies for taxation and control, statistics and market assessment, and

administration. Roadside enforcement activities are notably traditional – 230

controllers operate nationwide with 2-way radios, portable scales, and sure eye

selection system. The primary causes for truck difficulties are rest-period

violations (58 percent), credentials (20 percent), and weight violations (10 percent).

Germany’s enforcement practices for drivers’ hours-of-rest violation are punitive.

There is a demerit system, and if hours of service are exceeded, the driver is

assumed to be fatigued and is subject to the relevant criminal code. There is also an

insurance incentive for training programs, but it is not tied to a specific carrier’s

performance. Germany is also experimenting with black boxes that capture vehicle

performance data for regulatory and post-crash review.

Germany out-sources annual vehicle inspection activities. DEKRA provides

inspection activities and offers other services to 45,000 fleets with 500,000 vehicles.

The service extends beyond the required annual inspection and uses data-capture

technology to provide maintenance and safety management services, as requested

and purchased by the trucking companies. DEKRA also provides financial services

and access to its information network and repair facilities.

Uniformity in European Regulations

There is a concern about the differing levels of enforcement between the countries

of Europe. France, The Netherlands, Germany, and Sweden each indicated a

problem with allegedly unsafe operators from other countries (primarily from the

less-developed countries in eastern and southern Europe.)

The EC’s eighteenth report, The Implementation of the Social Regulation Relating

to Road Transport (December 1997), details the regulatory compliance performance

for hours-of-service by member countries. There are clearly different approaches by

each country, and the EC highlights both successes and failures. The report

identifies and discusses charges of discrimination against non-national companies

and recommends ways to remedy the situation.

Size and Weight

The Dutch have developed an innovative weigh-in-motion and video system (WIMVID+) at a test site on the highway between Antwerp and Rotterdam. The system

collects data about weight violations and is used to establish strategies for

targeting vehicles and reducing overweight violations. The system identifies the

magnitude of violations and vehicle types. It identified the most likely gross

violators to be 5-axle tractor semitrailer configurations with a 2-axle tractor. To

address this group, a 10 percent tolerance was permitted and dramatically

increased penalties were put in place for gross violators. The result was favorable.

The optical character recognition system proved to be somewhat reliable, but

additional functionality is desired.

The most notable part of the WIM-VID+ system was the centralized information

flow. The roadside results were monitored by a command center with links to
31

CHAPTER 4

company-specific information and foreign databases. The results of the WIM-VID+

system focused in-company inspection resources, thereby creating a dialogue about

regulations, accurate vehicle loading, and change management. The purpose was to

improve the safety and weight compliance of the carriers, not to maximize fines or

revenue from the system.

Enforcing weight limit requirements is a

priority safety objective for the French.

Weighing heavy vehicles is believed to

enhance safety, maintain competition

(within the industry and between the

modes), and preserve infrastructure. In

response to increasing traffic (and the

growing number of overloaded vehicles),

the French have developed a strategy of

deploying both low-speed and high-speed

weigh-in-motion technology to augment

the overtaxed static scale system.

The emerging approach in size and

weight enforcement is based on automated data collection and inspection selection

system. Action by the enforcement agency occurs either at the road-side or incompany. The Germans and French use an approach that combines strict rules with

high compliance. Roadside enforcement is based on a keen eye approach. When

trucks are stopped, checks address only logs, size, and weight. An annual

mandatory inspection process considers proper operations of onboard safety

systems (such as brakes).

Information Systems

Europeans have not felt the need to use roadside information for screening or

credential checks. Accordingly, the need for source data is limited. A centralized

system could serve several purposes, including data collection and management for

focused enforcement and a method to catch individuals who use repeated

bankruptcy to circumvent regulations and business obligations. In general, there

appears to be a focus in Europe on complying with the law and less emphasis on

litigation, as in the United States. Therefore, there is less need to capture and

maintain information.

A number of functions may benefit from information system development,

including the following noteworthy areas:

• Europe-wide commercial driver license information database. Such a

database is planned for deployment in 2000; however, it is expected to be

less robust than the Commercial Drivers License Information System in the

United States.

• Inspection results. Europeans believe that unsafe foreign carriers and

varied enforcement levels among EU countries hurt industry’s

competitiveness. Centralized inspection results may allow analysis of these

issues.

The emerging approach in size and

weight enforcement is based on

automated data collection and

inspection selection system. Action by

the enforcement agency occurs either

at the roadside or in-company.
32

CHAPTER 4

• Decentralized annual safety certification. An information source could

facilitate the annual process and create a data source for random roadside

checking.

The deployment of technology-based road management (telematics) is well under

way in Europe. There is a desire for intermodal connection and other real-time

travel information, but the market for these information systems is still quite

limited, and few data sources desired have near-term solutions.

As in the United States, there are several well-established, value-added, and

proprietary vehicle information networks. For example, the German DEKRA uses

its own communications network to link its facilities and provide services to fleets.

The core services are annual safety certification.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Dutch quote, “prevention is better than the cure,” captures the essence of the

European approach. To support that conclusion, the Europeans have many models

of regulations and enforcement systems

directed at changing and improving the

safety performance of motor carriers. The

most noteworthy are the public/private

third-party safety consultations. There

are examples in the United States of

independent certification efforts and

effective safety management in firms and

in third-party organizations. An

expansion of these efforts holds promise

for the United States. Based on the

European environment, a number of key

findings generated recommendations for

consideration in the United States:

• Alternative inspection activities. An expanded focus on in-company

inspections holds promise to decrease the costs of expensive roadside

operations in the United States. Possible alternative models include

roadside data to focus in-company inspections, third-party inspectors, and

self-certification.

The Dutch model is particularly applicable to the United States because the

emerging use of roadside technology, supported by innovative new rules and

procedures for in-company selection, is a slight variation on the emerging United

States model.

The focus in the United States on in-company inspections with annual inspections

by third-party organizations is also noteworthy. There are a number of effective

safety management programs within the motor carrier industry and the firms

themselves. The annual ATA Safety Management Council’s President’s Award

acknowledges the safety performance and management systems within the leading

firms.

...the Europeans have many models

of regulations and enforcement

systems directed at changing and

improving the safety performance of

motor carriers. The most noteworthy

are the public/private third-party

safety consultations.
33

CHAPTER 4

In the United States, several third-party safety management firms provide services

to motor carriers. These usually focus on carriers at the verge of closure because of

poor safety practices. Expanding these types of best practices for safety consulting

could also be used for good carriers and act as third-party inspectors for internal

compliance reviews.

Unlike in Europe, where the laws hold greater sway, penalties can be established

that support a self-certification safety compliance process. Many motor carriers in

the United States maintain effective safety management programs. A combination

of these programs and enhanced penalties could be the foundation for a selfcertification initiative.

Roadside enforcement personnel in Europe are not equipped to access information

electronically (carrier ratings, inspection selection system, and driver licenses) –

and the agencies do not perceive this as a problem. The exception is the prototype

Dutch WIM-VID+ program; it is used to target follow-up in-company inspections

and consultation.

• Consider other European regulations. European focus areas include

speed, size and weight, and modal shift. Speed is directly constrained with a

limiter; size and weight is being

considered as a method to reduce

congestion; and, the Europeans are

actively trying to shift freight from

truck to rail. Each of these

approaches to commercial vehicle

safety should be further

considered for use in the United

States. There appears to be logic in

the modular approach for United

States longer combination vehicle

rulemaking. The industry has long

gained increases in productivity

when safety-neutral outcomes can

be documented.

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

Many organizations in the United States share the same safety goals, which could

be the basis for a new effort to improve safety. The FMCSA is the lead organization

for advancing new regulations and enforcement activities models. Given the

decentralized nature of the industry and the regulatory enforcement, several

industry groups (including the ATA, National Private Truck Council, and OwnerOperators and Independent Drivers Association) and State enforcement or agency

groups (for example, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance and AASHTO) should

focus on the benefits of alternative models for ensuring safe motor carrier

operations. Creating separate bodies within existing professional organizations

(such as the Society of Automotive Engineers and ITS America) may also be useful

in attracting attention and creating momentum. Changes in the regulations and

enforcement models would be best served when proceeded by an all-encompassing

European focus areas include speed,

size and weight, and modal shift.

Speed is directly constrained with a

limiter; size and weight is being

considered as a method to reduce

congestion; and, the Europeans are

actively trying to shift freight from truck

to rail.
34

CHAPTER 4

policy imperative. As to the specifics, the CVS Panel suggests scheduling a number

of different meetings to advance changes in regulations and organizational

approaches and to build momentum.

Demonstrating the potential benefits to motor carriers will only go so far, but

creating a significant incentive program will encourage the carriers to continue

their efforts to improve safety and reduce the number and severity of crashes, thus

allowing the government to focus on high-risk carriers. The goal is to create a more

compliant motor carrier industry in the United States.

Research efforts in the following four areas could help frame new directions and

systems for improving safety:

• Annual safety and truck terminal inspection versus roadside safety

inspections.

• Penalty responsiveness.

• Self-certification for safety compliance.

• Third-party roles.

The experience of the current hours-of-service rulemaking process is noteworthy. A

large body of assembled research results has given rise to a meaningful public

debate and policy development.
35

Chapter Five

CONCLUSIONS – ADVANCING THE DRIVER,

VEHICLE, AND REGULATIONS

FOR ENHANCED SAFETY

In Europe, the approach to commercial vehicle safety encompasses three common

themes:

• Safety is the absence of failure.

• The driver is the weakest, yet most valuable link in the human-machine

interface.

• Integrated systems that maintain clear organizational distinctions and

separate identities.

These tenets are the foundation of the European system; they support the rules

and regulations of the EU and each country to frame motor carrier operations on

Europe’s roads. Considered together, these tenets drive the findings and

recommendation of this effort.

UNDERSTANDING THE EUROPEAN APPROACH

Safety is the Absence of Failure

As DaimlerChrysler’s Hans-Harald Eggelmann clearly stated, this definition of

safety resonated through the organizations and institutions that the CVS Panel

visited. Quite simply, the philosophy to advancing safety is to eliminate failure.

This approach is clearly demonstrated by using crash analysis (or failures) to

design vehicles and performance-based selection of drivers for training as well as

employment. The strict rules and regulations regarding safety define the

organizational approach to eliminating failure.

The Driver

Rules and regulations, such as hours of service, and well-designed vehicles (as

defined by cab-crashworthiness) have traditionally protected the commercial

vehicle driver. The paramount concerns of organizational systems have been the

safety and civil liberties of the driver (as well as the other users of the roadways).

EC countries, however, face new difficulties given the need to enhance the function

of the driver with new information systems and the pressure to enhance driver

productivity to meet the needs of business. The Europeans are responding to these

demands by developing clear standards that define the man-machine interface,

even as they deploy new technologies. While intended to protect the driver,

technologies such as the new electronic tachograph can help, but they do not cure

all difficulties.
36

CHAPTER 5

Integration

The EC is the body responsible for new commercial vehicle safety laws. The

individual nation’s institutions have come together to create a broader community

with the EC coordinating rules and regulations.

This synthesis continues as the country entities enforce EU regulations and new

issues of coordination arise. The central role of the EC will be further defined by

differing levels of enforcement and the concern about regulations and enforcement

of less-safe carriers from the less-industrialized members of the EC and Eastern

Europe. But enforcement is contingent on the actions of the member countries.

Important issues for the future are speed, size and weight, uniformity of

enforcement, and creating information sources.

DEPLOYMENT STRATEGY

Based on its findings, the CVS Panel formed recommendations and identified

implementation strategies. Panel members believe that these can be the foundation

for activities to improve safety by reducing crashes and the number of fatalities.

The principal safety efforts of the European countries – Vision Zero in Sweden and

Sustainable Safety in the Netherlands – framed their commercial vehicle safety

efforts and drew them together.

Transportation Secretary Slater launched a similar imperative in the United

States in June 1999, and this is the catalyst to advance any subsequent efforts. The

lead public agencies and private sector organizations should come together to

maintain the momentum and launch additional efforts to address specific

commercial vehicle issues.

The European Transport Safety Council is a noteworthy safety organization

comprised of safety advocates in EC countries, with additional support from the

Dutch and Swedish road administrations. Its charge is to advance road safety

management through education and promotion. A national safety conference could

be held at an appropriate time to help advance safety in the United States.

There are many exemplary programs in both the United States and Europe. The

key is to identify the lead organizations in the United States and persuade them to

champion the next steps in advancing commercial vehicle safety. The lead

organizations should include the Federal Agencies charged with commercial

vehicle safety, the truck manufacturers, driver trade associations, motor carriers

and training institutions, and insurance companies. The best practices should

emphasize the strengths of existing efforts in the United States and be reinforced

by the European findings.
37

Appendix A

AMPLIFYING QUESTIONS

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

• What is the public perception of truck safety, truck drivers, truck size and

weight, and the motor freight industry?

• What is the institutional relationship between industry and regulatory

agencies?

• What is the level of technological sophistication of the motor carriers,

regulatory enforcement agencies, and roadway operators?

• What institutions are driving regulatory change and technology

advancement? And why?

HUMAN FACTORS

• How is truck driver performance measured? What are the criteria,

calculation of rating, enforcement, etc.?

• What are the regulations related to driver’s fitness-for-duty – fatigue, drugs,

alcohol, etc.? What are the methods to measure and track? What are

enforcement methods and punitive approaches? What are alternative

compliance activities?

• Are there Share-the-Road programs (motorist and truck driver education,

outreach)? Are there other programs?

• How are drivers trained? What comprises training programs?

• What training technologies are deployed or being tested? What are desired?

• Are in-vehicle collision avoidance or driver-alert technologies being

deployed or developed?

• Are roadside alertness devices (rumble strips, raised lane markers, etc.)

used?

• Are alertness/fatigue-measuring devices being tested or deployed?

EQUIPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE OPERATIONS

• How is vehicle safety measured? What are the industry operational/

maintenance activities, regulatory requirements, and enforcement

activities?

• Is there uniformity in vehicle safety requirements?

• Are there inspection standards? What is the standard-setting organization?

• What are the roadside devices used for screening vehicles, inspection, datacapture, and communication?

• What are the in-vehicle devices used for monitoring safety-load or brake

alignment sensors, etc.?
38

APPENDIX A

• How prevalent are remote sensing activities like real-time performance

monitoring by dispatcher?

• Are operational information services (real-time traffic, rest-stop location

and space availability, etc.) provided to motor carriers? What are they?

• Are there any incentives or disincentives for vehicle safety? For example,

value-based property tax may encourage use of older vehicles.

• How is truck performance or crash data used for planning?

INSTITUTIONS

• What is the structure of the motor carrier industry – role of motor freight,

industry segmentation, economic regulation, and operational objective/

performance measurement?

• How are the industry associations or organizing bodies assembled –

voluntary trade associations, rate bureaus, etc.?

• What is the structure of the enforcement community – organizational

connection, operational philosophy and overall approach? How are they

funded?

• What are other regulatory agencies?

• What is the role of union in all institutions – shippers, drivers and

governments?

• How does information flow? Computer and communications and nontechnological flows-between institutions (agency to agency, industry to

agency, etc.)

• What other institutions are involved – universities, other modes, etc.?
39

Appendix B

COMPOSITE AGENDA

Stora Holm–Monday 9/14/98–Host: Margareta Morck, SNRC

Introduction–Anders Linquist

Education program–Tommy Emanuelsson

Simulator/interactive training

Traffic safety–Per Dahl

Commercial vehicle traffic–Margareta Morck

Road Infomatics and Traffic Management–Torbjorn Bidding/Chris Patten

Driving license procedures–Leif Hogstrom

Safety from a truck company–Bengt Gustavsson

Volvo–Tuesday 9/15/98–Host: Lars-Goran Lowenadler, Volvo

Vehicle dynamics–John Aurell

Crash research–Lennart Svenson, et al

Collision safety–Anna Mattsdotter

Crash analysis–Mario Ligoic

Driver Environment–Staffan Wendoborg

Look at the new FM Truck

Vehicle electronics–Per Adelssonn

Driver Information Systems–Bo Lind

Regulations–Bengt Thompsson, et al

Daimler Benz–Wednesday 9/16/98–Host: Dr. Breitschwerdt, DaimlerChrysler

New developments in European regulations–Eggelman

Active and passive safety research and development–Wolf and Dr. Pflug

Potential of telematics–Dr. Ball

Route guidance, safety, and information technology–Schussler

Automatic “chauffeur driven” operations–Schultze

Lane departure warning system–Mrs. Mehring

Demonstrations on the test track

BASt-Technical–Thursday 9/17/98–Host: Dr. med Bernd Friedel

Mannesmann-Schmidt-Cotta

DEKRA–Niewohner (crash investigation) and Kuhlmann (crashes)

Mannesmann autocomm–Scafer (ATIS and fleet management)

BAG-Maiworm (roadside enforcement)

BASt-Human Factors–Friday 9/18/98–Host: Prof. Dr. Gunter Kroj

IRTAD–Berns (international data) and Elsner (national data)

Traffic medicine–JOO (medical requirements)

Safety concepts–Hundhausen (driver training and licensing)

ASF-Korn (simulator)

Ministry of Transport, The Hague and Delft–Monday 9/21/98–Host: Dr. Attema

Sustainable Safety–Elsenaar

Structure of Industry–Kastelijn

Transport Safety Policies–Doornink

External Safety Policy–v/d Brand

Introduction to TNO and Roll-over–Hoogvelt

Passive Safety–de Coo

Predicting and Preventing drowsiness crashes–Gobel

Automated vehicle guidance–van Arem
40

APPENDIX B

Ministry of Transport, The Hague and Rotterdam–Tuesday 9/22/98–

Host: Dr. Attema

RVI (Government Traffic Inspection)–Aarsen, et al

Demonstration of WIMVID

Transport in Balance–Uitenbogaart

Waalhaven Terminal–Hoenders

Ministry of Public Works, Paris–Wednesday 9/23/98–Host: Jean Guillot

Crash Data–Philippe Groleau

Training of Drivers–Mrs. Daillet-Demets

Organization of control–Jeanne-Marie Sabattier

Social regulation–the tachograph-Mrs. Giraud

THOMSON–Rene Jaouen

Driver training–Jean-Claude Claverie

INRETS–MM. Medevielle and Hamelin

BSA International (Chilly Mazarin) and Renault (Guyancourt)–Wednesday 9/24/98–

Hosts: Mr. Vogt (French DOT) and Bernard Farve (Renault)

Haulage Company–BSA International

Crashology–Patrick Botto

Passive Safety–Bernard Favre

Driver–Patrick Botto

Active Safety–Bernard Favre

AFT-IFTIM, Minchy-Saint-Elosi–Friday 9/25/98–Host: Jacques Hervo

Jean-Pierre Liano, Director of Development and External Affairs, AFT-IFTIM
41

Appendix C

CVS PANEL BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

Katherine Hartman, CVS Panel Chairperson, is a transportation specialist with

the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (U.S. DOT’s) Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration (FMCSA) in Washington, DC. Assigned to FMCSA’s Office of

Technology Evaluation and Deployment – Technology Division, Ms. Hartman is

currently the Platform Technical Director for Commercial Vehicles on the U.S.

DOT’s Intelligent Vehicle Initiative (IVI). The IVI is a Department-wide initiative –

together with the motor vehicle and trucking industry, State and local DOTs, and

other stakeholders – to accelerate the development, introduction, and

commercialization of driver assistance products to reduce motor vehicle crashes.

Ms. Hartman is a graduate of the University of Virginia and holds an M.B.A. from

the University of South Dakota.

Bob Pritchard, CVS Panel’s Report Facilitator, is a senior associate at Cambridge

Systematics (CS) in Cambridge, MA. Mr. Pritchard is a specialist in applying

information technologies in motor carrier operations and is developing CS’s

commercial vehicle operations practice. Mr. Pritchard joined CS in 1998. Prior to

that, and since 1989, he served as executive director of the American Trucking

Association’s (ATA’s) Northeast Transportation Institute (NTI). At ATA, Mr.

Pritchard’s efforts focused on intelligent transportation systems in commercial

vehicle operations (ITS/CVO), strategic planning and institutional analysis for ITS/

CVO deployment, and the costs and benefits of newly emerging technologies. In

June 1997, Mr. Pritchard launched FleetForward, an operational test of the

delivery of real-time travel information in motor carrier routing and dispatching.

He is a member of the Transportation Research Board’s Urban Goods Movement

Committee and is chairman of ITS America CVO Outreach Committee. An

economist, Mr. Pritchard holds master’s and bachelor’s degrees from Boston

College.

Ken Jennings directs the Truck Size and Weight Program for the Virginia

Department of Transportation (VDOT) where he is responsible the statewide

program of truck weighing operations. In addition, Mr. Jennings represents VDOT

on many projects, task forces, and organizations concerned with commercial vehicle

operations (CVO) and intermodal freight issues. These include the Virginia

Trucking Advisory Committee, deputy project manager of Virginia’s Commercial

Vehicle Information Systems and Networks (CVISN) Prototype Project, ITS

America (CVO Outreach, ITS Electronic Payment Services Task Force, and the

CVO Architecture and Standards Subcommittee), the CVO Working Group of the

I-95 Corridor Coalition, chairman of the Southeastern States Inter-Regional CVO

Institutional Issues Work Group Steering Committee, Great Lakes States Regional

Mainstreaming, and various other ITS/CVO-related initiatives. Before joining

VDOT, Mr. Jennings spent more than 16 years in the private sector where he was

involved in several multidisciplinary areas of the scale industry. He developed

particular expertise in weighing technology, process design, and information

transfer.
42

APPENDIX C

Jim Johnston is President of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers

Association (OOIDA). He has served in this capacity for the past 23 years following

2 years as executive vice president of OOIDA. Under Mr. Johnston’s leadership,

OOIDA has evolved into the largest owner-operator association in the trucking

industry. Mr. Johnston has served on numerous research panels of the National

Academy of Science Transportation Research Board, the Congressional Office of

Technology Assessment, U.S. General Accounting Office, and others dealing with

various aspects of trucking operations such as commercial vehicle safety and truck

size and weight issues. Mr. Johnston currently serves on the National Motor

Carrier Advisory Committee to the U.S. Department of Transportation. He is a

member of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance Senior Strategic Advisory

Committee and the ITS America Commercial Vehicle Operations Policy

Subcommittee, for which he chairs the committee’s Data Privacy and Control Task

Force. An outspoken advocate for the rights and well-being of professional

truckers, Mr. Johnston is concerned with all areas of commercial vehicle safety.

Ron Knipling is Chief of the Research Division of the FMCSA’s Office of

Technology Evaluation and Deployment. In this capacity, he manages and

coordinates FMCSA’s diverse Research and Technology (R&T) program, including

research on human factors, technology applications, information analysis, and

regulatory reform. FMCSA’s human factors program focuses on the problem of

commercial driver drowsiness/fatigue and includes nearly 20 different R&T and

outreach projects relating to this issue. Many of these R&T projects relate directly

to current FMCSA rulemaking relating to commercial motor vehicle driver hoursof-service. Dr. Knipling, who earned a doctorate in physiological psychology from

the University of Maryland, most recently served for 6 years as an engineering

research psychologist with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

(NHTSA). At NHTSA, he managed research projects relating to in-vehicle drowsy

driver detection, statistical analysis of the drowsy driver crashes, crash problem

size analysis, crash causation analysis, and Intelligent Transportation System crash

avoidance systems. Dr. Knipling’s career includes more than 20 years’ experience

in behavioral, human factors, and traffic safety research. He is the author of

numerous publications and technical reports.

C. John MacGowan currently serves as the Acting Director for the FMCSA’s

Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations. Mr. MacGowan was previously

the chief of the Intelligent Systems and Technology Division of the Office of Safety

and Traffic Operations R&D of the FHWA. Since 1970, he has held a number of

positions in the highway transportation field. Following 10 years in research,

where he pioneered computerized traffic signal control systems, Mr. MacGowan

spent 5 years in NHTSA, where he served first as the cognizant official for the

Fatal Accident Reporting System, and then as the Chief of the Information

Management Division where he was responsible for all fatal and special

investigation crash data. In 1985, he returned to the FHWA’s Office of Motor

Carriers as the Chief of the Motor Carrier Information Division where he oversaw

innovative work in managing safety information files. He also was responsible for

implementing of many truck size and weight regulations. Following this, he spent 1

year as a White House Fellow with a major insurance company and served an

additional year as the special assistant for university affairs to the Federal
43

APPENDIX C

Highway Administrator. Mr. MacGowan holds a bachelor’s degree in civil

engineering and a master’s in Transportation Engineering.

Larry Oliphant is an independent transportation consultant. He is the current

president of the Western Highway Institute and serves on the board of directors of

the National Private Truck Council, the Professional Fleet Management Institute,

and the Truckload Carriers Association. He is also a consultant to the Truck

Renting and Leasing Association. In his consulting work and above directorships,

Mr. Oliphant is involved and in all areas of vehicle safety as well as current and

future regulatory, policy, and legislative issues. Mr. Oliphant’s 37-year career has

included positions as vice president, Parts, for International Harvester Corp; vice

president for sales and marketing, Volvo White Truck Corp.; and president, Volvo

GM Trucks of Canada. Mr. Oliphant holds a bachelor’s degree from Northwestern

University.

Mike Onder is a program manager for Intelligent Transportation Systems in the

FHWA. Mr. Onder is currently responsible for the ITS program for commercial

vehicle operations, intermodal freight, and highway-rail crossings. He is leading

the effort to develop a construct for using ITS technology in the intermodal freight

arena. Prior to joining the staff of the ITS Office, he served as research director for

the Florida Division of Motor Vehicles. He also served as the assistant staff

director for transportation with the Florida Legislature’s transportation

committee, and as deputy executive director for the American Association of Motor

Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) in Washington, DC. With the AAMVA, he helped

to pioneer the International Registration Plan in the United States and Canada – a

system to prorate motor carrier registration fees based upon travel distance within

a registering jurisdiction. In private industry, Mr. Onder served as a consultant and

sales manager for Amtech Systems Corporation, a manufacturer of radio frequency

identification systems. Mr. Onder is a graduate of Florida State University with a

bachelor’s degree in Political Science and Economics and a master’s degree in

Business and Public Administration.

Charles Sanft is currently assigned to the Office of Investment Management,

Minnesota Department of Transportation. This assignment includes, among other

duties, managing Minnesota’s involvement in the Interstate 35 Trade Corridor

Study. Mr. Sanft has nearly 30 years of transportation experience in the public

sector ranging from travel modeling to freight policy analysis, planning, and

program management and project development. From 1982 to 1989, he was director

of Rail Planning and Program Development, in charge of State and Federal rail

programs and projects. From 1989 through 1993, he directed Truck & Economic

Studies for the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Since 1993, he has been

involved in developing freight transportation functions and organization for the

Department as the Freight Policy Director and as Director of Freight Planning and

Development. Mr. Sanft is a member of the AASHTO Subcommittee on Highway

Transport and chairs that Subcommittee’s Truck Size and Weight Task Force. He

holds a bachelor’s degree in Geography from the University of Minnesota.
44

Appendix D

CONTACTS/WEB ADDRESSES OF

PARTICIPANTS AND ORGANIZATIONS

EUROPEAN CONTACTS: COMMERCIAL

VEHICLE SAFETY SCANNING REVIEW

Sweden

Margareta Mörck

Public Transport and Commercial

Traffic Division

Swedish National Road

Administration

S-781 87 Borlänge

+46 243 756 04

+46 243 756 30 fax

margareta.moerck@vv.se

Torbjörn Biding

ARENA Project Manager

Swedish National Road

Administration

S-405 33 Göteborg

+46 31 63 50 00

+46 31 15 56 24 fax

torbjorn.biding@vv.se

Tommy Emanuelsson

Utbildningscentrum Stora Holm

417 46 Göteborg

+46 31 705 68 01

+46 31-705 68 23 fax

ushtoe@storaholm.educ.goteborg.se

Bengt Gustafsson

Kurt Jonssons Åkeri, AB

S. Hildedalsgatan 13

SE-402 76 Göteborg

+46 31 51 35 30

+46 31 23 95 95 fax

Ragner Fast, Vise President

Volvo Truck Corporation

Dept. 23050, VLH8

SE-405 08 Göteborg

+46 31 66 47 47

+46 31 66 20 10 fax

vtc.ragnart@memp.volvo.se

Lars-Goran Löwenadler

Volvo Truck Corporation

SE-405 08 Göteborg

+46 31 765 15 21

+46 31 66 66 20 fax

W.S. (Skip)Yaekel

Volvo Trucks, North America

7900 National Service Road

Greensboro, NC 27409

336/ 393-2825

336/ 393-3000 fax

vtna.yaekel@memo.volvo.com

Germany

Reinhard Ball

Transport Policy and Strategy

Daimler-Benz AG

HPC F 607

D-70546 Stuttgart

+49-711-17-2 02 65

+49-711-17-5 31 84 fax

Hans Christian Pflug

Commerical Vehicles Division

Mercedes-Benz AG

D 209

D-70322 Stuttgart

+49 -711-17-5 52 14

+49-711-17-5 36 95 fax

Hans-Harald Eggelmann

VP Industrial Relations

Daimler-Benz AG

HPC B 303

D- 70546 Stuttgart

+49-711-17-2 26 74

+49-711-17-5 21 91 fax

Gerhardt Hauschultz

Daimler-Benz AG

D-70322 Stuttgart, Germany
45

APPENDIX D

Bill Gause

Freightliner Corp.

P.O. Box 3849

Portland, OR 97206-3849

503/ 735-7413

503/ 735-6800 fax

Andreas Kuhlman

Dekra Automobil AG

Rungestraße 9-10

D-25437 Neumünster

+49 43 21 90 75 0

+49 43 21 542 34 fax

Claus Korn

Simulation Systems Division

STN Atlas Elektronik, GmbH

Sebaldsbrücker Heerstr., 235

D-28305 Bremen

+49 421 4 57 28 51

+49 421 4 57 38 14 fax

ckorn@stn-atlas.de

Bernd Klott

ASF GmbH

Senator-Harmssen Straße, 3

D-28197 Bremen, Germany

+49 421 520 18 24

+49 421 520 17 50 fax

asfgmbh@t-online.de

Ralf-Roland Schmidt-Cotta

Mannesmann VDO, AG

D-78006 VS-Villingen

+49 7721 67 33 32

+49 7721 67 22 75 fax

Hubert Schäfer

Mannesmann Autocom GmbH

Niederkasseler Lohweg, 20

D-40547 Düsseldorf, Germany

+49 02 11 53 68 4 15

+49 02 11 53 68 5 04 fax

passofleet@mac.de

Gunter Zimmerman

International Cooperation

BASt

Brüderstraße, 35

D-5060 Bergisch-Gladbach

+49 220 44 32 61

+49 220 44 39 73 fax

Günter Kroj

BASt

Brüderstraße, 53

D-5060 Bergisch-Gladbach

+49 22 04 43 0

+49 22 04 43 8 33 fax

Bernd Friedel

Automotive Engineering Division

BASt

Brüderstraße, 53

D-5060 Bergisch-Gladbach

Robert Maiworm

Bundesamt für Güterverkehr

Werderstraße, 34

D-50672 Köln

+49 221 5776-120

+49 221 5776-104 fax

Netherlands

Th. W.H.J. Aarsen, Director

Freight Transport Directorate

Box 2501 HS, The Hague

+31 70 30 52 800

+31 70 30 52 777 fax

Peter M.W. Elsenaar, Director

Traffic Safety and Vehicle

Directorate

Ministry of Transport, Public Works

and Water Management

Box 20901

2500 EX, The Hague

+31 70 351 67 69

+31 70 351 64 17 fax

peter.elsenaar@dgp.minvenw.nl

G.H.Doornink

Safety Management Division

Ministry of Transport, Public Works

and Water Management

Box 20904

2500 EX, The Hague

+31 70 351 15 25

+31 70 351 15 98 fax

gert.doornink@dgg.minvenw.nl
46

APPENDIX D

Jack M. Van Nieuwenhoven

Policy Advisor, Safety Management

Division

Ministry of Transport, Public Works

and Water Management

Box 20904

2500 EX, The Hague

+31 70 351 15 34

+31 70 351 15 98 fax

jack.vnieuwenhoven@dgg.minvenw.nl

M.G. Koopmans

Senior Policy Advisor, Traffic

Management Division

Ministry of Transport, Public Works

and Water Management

Box 20904

2500 EX, The Hague

+31 70 351 15 62

+31 70 351 15 48 fax

G.A.M. Schipper

Senior Policy Advisor, Traffic

Management Division

Ministry of Transport, Public Works

and Water Management

Box10700

2501 HS, The Hague

+31 70 30 52 716

+31 70 30 52 777 fax

gschipper@rvi.minvenw.nl

Hanno (J.E.) Uitenboogaart

Coordinator, Transport in Balance

Box 20904

2500 EX, The Hague

+31 70 351 14 35

+31 70 351 14 78 fax

Gerard J.M Meekel

RDW, Vehicle Technology and

Information Centre

Box 777

2700 AT, Zoetermeer

+31 79 34 58 334

+31 79 34 58 041 fax

G.R.M. Jansen

Managing Director

TNO Traffic and Transport

Box 6033

2600 JA, Delft

+31 15 269 68 70

+31 15 269 77 82 fax

g.jansen@inro.tno.nl

P.J.A. de Coo

Senior Engineer, Crash Safety

Research

TNO Road Vehicles Research

Institute

Box 6033

2600 JA, Delft

+31 15 269 63 50

+31 15 262 43 21 fax

Coo@wt.tno.nl

R.B.J. (Boudewijn) Hoogvelt

Vehicle Dynamics Department

TNO Road-Vehicles Research

Institute

Box 6033

26oo JA , Delft

+31 15 269 64 11

+31 15 269 73 14 fax

Hoogvelt@wt.tno.nl

France

Catherine Marque

International Affairs

Sécurité Routière

Arche de la Défense

92055 La Défense Cedex, Paris

+33 1 40 81 80 73

+33 1 40 81 81 71 fax

Elisabeth Pillet

International Affairs Bureau

Ministry of Public Works,

Transportation and Housing

Arche de la Défense

92055 La Défense Cedex, Paris

+33 1 40 81 87 35

+33 1 40 81 17 22 fax

pillet@dtt.equipement.gouv.fr
47

APPENDIX D

Phillipe Groleau

National Observatory for Road

Safety

Sécurité Routière

Arche de la Défense

92055 La Défense Cedex, Paris

+33 1 40 81 80 28

+33 1 40 81 80 99 fax

Jean Guillot

Deputy Director for Surface

Transportation

Sécurité Routière

Arche de la Défense

92055 La Défense Cedex, Paris

Jean-Pierre Médevielle

Adjoint Director General

INRETS

Centre de Lyon-Bron

25 ave. François Mitterand, Case 24

F-69675 Bron Cedex

+33 4 72 14 23 40

+33 4 72 37 84 24 fax

jean-pierre.medevielle@inrets.fr

René Jaouen

Project Manager, Civil Application

Department

Thomson-CSF

10, ave de la Ière D.F.L.

29283 Brest Cedex

+33 2 98 31 23 08

+33 2 98 31 27 36

rene.y.j.jaouen@rcm.thomson.fr

Alain Flipo

Thomson Training & Simulation

48073 Saint Honore

+33 1 34 90 35 08

+33 1 34 90 35 43 fax

Rémy Boinot, President

BSA International

30-32, route de Longjumeau

91385 Chilly-Mazarin Cedex

+33 1 69 10 17 10

+33 1 69 34 32 59 fax

Guy Gallo

Export Manager

BSA International

30-32, route de Longjumeau

91385 Chilly- Mazarin Cedex

+33 1 69 10 17 10

+33 1 69 34 32 59 fax

bsagallo@francemultimedia.fr

Bernard Favre

Head of Advanced Engineering

Renault V.I.

1, ave. Henri Germain

69802 Saint-Priest Cedex

+33 4 72 96 45 84

+33 4 72 96 61 89 fax

bernard.favre@renaultvi.com

Andras Kemeny

Research Group Manager

Renault

1 ave du Golf, F-78200 Guyancourt

Cedex

+33 1 34 35 19 05

+33 1 34 95 27 30 fax

andras.kemeny@renault.fr

Jean-Marc Kelada

Research Engineer, Driving

Simulators

Renault

1 ave du Golf, F-78200 Guyancourt

Cedex

+33 1 34 95 19 67

+33 1 34 95 27 30 fax

jm.kelada@renault.fr

P. Botto

European Center for Security and

Risk Analysis Studies

Hôpital Nord -- Accidentologie

SEFAL 2

Place Victor Pauchet

80054 Amiens Cedex 1

+33 3 22 66 83 54

+33 3 22 66 86 24 fax

Jean-Pierre Liano

Director of Development

AFT-IFTIM

60290 Monchy-Saint Eloi

+33 1 42 12 51 78

+33 1 44 66 37 90 fax

liano@aft-iftim.asso.fr
48

APPENDIX D

Jacques Hervo

Manager

AFT-IFTIM

60290 Monchy-Saint Eloi

+33 1 44 66 37 49

+33 1 44 66 37 90 fax

Dominic Chaumet

Technology Education (Pilote 2001)

AFT-IFTIM

60290 Monchy-Saint Eloi

+33 1 44 66 37 16

+33 1 44 66 37 45 fax

chaumet@aft-iftim.asso.fr

Francois Serrier

Technology Education

AFT-IFTIM

60290 Monchy-Saint Eloi

+33 1 44 66 38 97

+33 1 44 74 06 69 fax

serrier@aft-iftim.asso.fr

Jacques-Claude Rennesson

Intelligent Transportation Systems

Unit

AFT-IFTIM

60290 Monchy-Saint Eloi

+33 1 44 66 37 92

+33 1 44 66 37 60 fax

rennesso@aft-iftim.asso.fr

ORGANIZATION WEB SITES

France

AFT-IFTIM

www.aft-iftim.asso.fr

French National Institute for Transport

and Safety Research (INRETS)

www.inrets.fr

Thompson

www.thomson-europe.com

Thompson Training and Simulation

www.tts.thomson-csf.com

Germany

BASt’s International Road Traffic Crash

Database

www.bast.de/irtad

Mannesman VDO

www.passo.de

Sweden

Stora Holm Training Center

http://

transport.storaholm.educ.goteborg.se

The Netherlands

Applied Scientific Research (TNO)

www.tno.nl

United States

American Trucking Associations

www.trucking.org

Cambridge Systematics

www.camsys.com

Federal Highway Administration

www.fhwa.dot.gov

FHWA Office of International Programs

www.international.fhwa.dot.gov

Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration

www.fmcsa.dot.gov

Minnesota Department of

Transportation

http://www.dot.state.mn.us

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

www.nhtsa.dot.gov

Owner-Operator Independent Drivers

Association

www.ooida.com

Virginia Department of Transportation

www.vdot.state.va.us
FHWA INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY EXCHANGE REPORTS

Infrastructure

Geotechnical Engineering Practices in Canada and Europe 

Geotechnology—Soil Nailing 

International Contract Administration Techniques for Quality EnhancementCATQEST 

Pavements

European Asphalt Technology 

European Concrete Technology 

South African Pavement Technology

Highway Information Management

Highway/Commercial Vehicle Interaction

Bridges

European Bridge Structures

Asian Bridge Structures

Bridge Maintenance Coatings

European Practices for Bridge Scour and Stream Instability Countermeasures

Advanced Composites in Bridges in Europe and Japan 

Planning and Environment

European Intermodal Programs: Planning, Policy and Technology 

National Travel Surveys 

Safety

Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety in England, Germany and the Netherlands 

Speed Management and Enforcement Technology: Europe & Australia 

Safety Management Practices in Japan, Australia, and New Zealand 

Road Safety Audits – Final Report 

Road Safety Audits – Case Studies 

Innovative Traffic Control Technology & Practice in Europe 

Commercial Vehicle Safety Technology & Practice in Europe 

Operations

Advanced Transportation Technology 

European Traffic Monitoring

Traffic Management and Traveler Information Systems

European Winter Service Technology

Snowbreak Forest Book – Highway Snowstorm Countermeasure Manual

(Translated from Japanese)

Policy & Information

Emerging Models for Delivering Transportation Programs and Services

Acquiring Highway Transportation Information from Abroad – Handbook 

Acquiring Highway Transportation Information from Abroad – Final Report 

International Guide to Highway Transportation Information 

 Also available on the internet

 Only on the internet at www.international.fhwa.dot.gov
Office of International Programs

Federal Highway Administration

400 Seventh Street, SW

Washington,DC 20590

tel: 202-366-9636

fax: 202-366-9626

http://international.fhwa.dot.gov/

email: international@fhwa.dot.gov

Publication NO. FHWA-PL-2000-010

HPIP/5-00(7M)EW