Onboard Safety Technology Survey 

Synthesis 

Final Report 

December 2007
FOREWORD 

This report documents and synthesizes several major qualitative survey efforts relating to 

stakeholder use and perspectives of onboard safety technologies for commercial motor vehicles. 

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and the American Transportation 

Research Institute (ATRI) conducted this survey synthesis to identify and analyze gaps in 

existing survey research for onboard safety technologies. 

The synthesis includes an analysis of 19 survey, interview, and focus group instruments. This 

synthesis provides an understanding of the relationships and factors involved in the use, 

selection, and impact of onboard safety technologies. 

Throughout all the surveys, concerns arose about cost and the desire for information regarding 

demonstrated safety impacts of onboard safety systems. The survey synthesis findings indicated 

a need for increased information in reference to the financial implications of any safety 

technology including insurance costs and crash reduction savings, as well as cost of installation, 

maintenance, training, and upgrades to any safety system. 

The information in this document can be used by motor carriers to learn more about onboard 

safety systems. Also, researchers used the findings to develop future research opportunities and 

reduce research redundancy. 

NOTICE 

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in 

the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for 

its contents or use thereof. 

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

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

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

this document. 
Technical Report Documentation Page 

1. Report No. 

FMCSA-MCRR-07-028 

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

5. Report Date 

December 2007

4. Title and Subtitle 

Onboard Safety Technology Survey Synthesis Final Report 

6. Performing Organization Code 

7. Author(s) 

Amy Houser (FMCSA), Dan Murray and Virginia Dick (American 

Transportation Research Institute) 

8. Performing Organization Report No. 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 

American Transportation Research Institute 

2200 Mill Road 

Alexandria, VA 22314

11. Contract or Grant No. 

DTMC75-04-F-00102

13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

Final Report 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 

Department of Transportation 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

Office of Research and Analysis 

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE 

Washington, DC 20590

14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

FMCSA 

15. Supplementary Notes 

This program was administered through the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). The FMCSA 

Program Manager is Ms. Amy Houser. 

16. Abstract 

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) funded this project to collect, merge, and conduct an 

assessment of onboard safety system surveys and resulting data sets that may benefit commercial vehicle operations 

safety and future research efforts. Until recently, many of these efforts have been conducted independently of each 

other with limited coordination of data aggregation. This synthesis provides an understanding of the relationships and 

factors involved in the use, selection, and impact of onboard safety technologies. Also, it may reveal future research 

opportunities and reduce research redundancy. 

The synthesis includes an analysis of over 19 survey, interview, and focus group instruments. Throughout all the 

surveys, concerns arose about cost and the desire for information regarding demonstrated safety impacts of onboard 

safety systems. The survey synthesis findings indicated a need for increased information in reference to the financial 

implications of any safety technology including insurance costs and crash reduction savings, as well as cost of 

installation, maintenance, training, and upgrades to any safety system. 

17. Key Word 

Onboard safety system, in-vehicle safety system, 

Intelligent Vehicle Initiative, Collision Warning System, 

Adaptive Cruise Control, Roll Stability Advisor, Roll 

Stability Control, Lane Departure Warning System, 

commercial motor vehicle 

18. Distribution Statement 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 

Unclassified 

20. Security Classif. (of this page) 

Unclassified 

21. No. of 

Pages 

93 

22. Price 

N/A 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized. 
SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS 

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FRO

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

LENGTH LENGTH 

in inches 25.4 millimeters mm mm millimeters 0.039 inft feet 0.305 meters m m meters 3.28 feyd yards 0.914 meters m m meters 1.09 Ymi miles 1.61 kilometers km km kilometers 0.621 m

AREA AREA 

in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2 mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 sqft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2 m2 square meters 10.764 sqyd2 square yards 0.836 square meters m2 m2 square meters 1.195 sqac acres 0.405 hectares ha ha hectares 2.47 acmi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2 km2 square kilometers 0.386 sq

VOLUME VOLUME 

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

MASS MASS 

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

TEMPERATURE (exact) TEMPERATURE (exac

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

temperature or (F-32)/1.8 temperature temperature 

ILLUMINATION ILLUMINATION 

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

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS FORCE and PRESSURE or S

lbf pound-force 4.45 newtons N N newtons 0.225 psi pound-force per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa kPa kilopascals 0.145 

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

Page

LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................... iii

Executive Summary..................................................................................................................... iv

1.0 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................1

2.0 METHODOLOGY ...............................................................................................................2

Survey Instrument Selection and Identification......................................................................2 

Survey Instruments and Data Synthesis..................................................................................2 

Fleet Survey Instruments ........................................................................................................2 

Driver Survey Instruments......................................................................................................3 

Other Stakeholder Survey Instruments...................................................................................4 

3.0 SURVEY INSTRUMENTS..................................................................................................5

Fleet Survey Instruments ........................................................................................................5 

Driver Survey Instruments......................................................................................................6 

Other Stakeholder Survey Instruments...................................................................................7 

Motor Carrier Insurer Perspectives on Technology-Based Safety Systems...........................7 

4.0 SURVEY SYNTHESIS GAP ANALYSIS..........................................................................8

Methods...................................................................................................................................8 

Gap Analysis Results..............................................................................................................8 

5.0 PROJECT SUMMARY......................................................................................................10

6.0 FLEET SURVEY INSTRUMENT....................................................................................13

General Fleet Questions........................................................................................................13 

Technology and Safety Knowledge and Experiences...........................................................18 

Technology Usage Questions ...............................................................................................23 

Technology Purchasing Questions........................................................................................30 

Conclusion and Follow-Up Analyses...................................................................................38 

7.0 DRIVER SURVEY INSTRUMENT RESULTS..............................................................39

Survey 1 ................................................................................................................................39 

Survey 2 ................................................................................................................................47 

i 
Survey 3 ................................................................................................................................52 

Surveys 4 through 7 ..............................................................................................................57 

Survey 4: Initial contacts ......................................................................................................57 

Survey 5: Short surveys........................................................................................................63 

Survey 6: Long surveys ........................................................................................................65 

Survey 7: Debriefing Interview ............................................................................................75 

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................79 

8.0 OTHER STAKEHOLDER SURVEY INSTRUMENTS RESULTS .............................80

OEM and Vendor Interviews................................................................................................80 

Insurance Interviews.............................................................................................................82 

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................84 

ii 
LIST OF ACRONYMS 

ABS............................................................................Antilock Brake System 

ATA ...........................................................................American Trucking Associations, Inc. 

ATRI ..........................................................................American Transportation Research Institute 

CMV ..........................................................................Commercial Motor Vehicle 

CVO ...........................................................................Commercial vehicle operations 

CWS...........................................................................Collision Warning System 

FMCSA......................................................................Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

FOT............................................................................Field Operational Tests 

GPS ............................................................................Global Positioning System 

IVBSS ........................................................................Integrated Vehicle-Based Safety System 

IVI..............................................................................Intelligent Vehicle Initiative 

LTL ............................................................................Less-Than-Truckload 

LDWS ........................................................................Lane Departure Warning System 

OEM...........................................................................Original Equipment Manufacturer 

RA&C ........................................................................Rollover advisor and control 

ROI.............................................................................Return on Investment 

RPS ............................................................................Rollover prevention systems 

RSA............................................................................Roll stability advisor 

RA&C .......................................................................Roll stability advisor and control 

RSC............................................................................Roll stability control 

TL...............................................................................Truckload 

TMC...........................................................................Technology and Maintenance Council 

iii 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

There are a number of ongoing efforts and initiatives underway seeking to identify ways to 

reduce the number of crashes and fatalities on our nation’s highways. The Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) main objective is to reduce the number and severity of 

crashes involving large trucks. In recent years, FMCSA and the trucking industry have formed 

partnerships to test and evaluate onboard safety technologies, such as lane departure warning 

systems, forward collision warning systems, and stability control systems, all of which have the 

potential to significantly improve safety on the roadways. 

The research efforts evaluating these types of technologies have produced a large amount of 

qualitative and quantitative safety data that may benefit commercial vehicle operations (CVO) 

safety and future research efforts. Until recently, many of these efforts have been conducted 

independent of each other with limited data aggregation. Synthesis of this data can provide 

insightful findings and recommendations as well as the identification of gaps for future research 

activities. 

RESEARCH GOAL 

This survey synthesis was developed to unify and consolidate the documentation and analysis of 

existing surveys, interviews, and focus groups. It provides an understanding of the relationships 

and factors involved in the use, selection, and impact of onboard safety technologies. It may also 

reveal future research opportunities and reduce research redundancy. 

METHODOLOGY 

The first phase of the synthesis was to identify all existing surveys, interviews, and focus group 

initiatives that addressed safety technologies in the trucking industry. Extensive research 

resulted in 19 studies/instruments. The instruments included those focusing on: 

• Fleet managers, safety directors, and other carrier management 

• Drivers 

• Other stakeholders (i.e. insurance companies) 

Next, a master database of questions was created from all of the collected surveys and 

interviews. Any duplicate questions were consolidated. Discussions amongst the research team 

members identified duplicative and unique questions for data consolidation and analysis. A 

master database of all data from each of the instruments was then created and analyzed. In 

addition to basic descriptive statistics, a trend analysis was conducted with all of the qualitative 

data responses. 

iv 
v 

SYNTHESIS FINDINGS 

Throughout all the surveys, concerns arose about cost and the desire for information regarding 

demonstrated safety impacts of onboard safety systems. Findings indicated a need for increased 

information in reference to the financial implications of any safety technology including 

insurance costs and crash reduction savings, as well as cost of installation, maintenance, training, 

and upgrades to any safety system. 

Most carriers indicated familiarity with a number of safety technologies including roll stability 

control, lane departure warning, and collision warning systems. However, the most recognized 

and research-focused technologies (lane departure warning, collision warning, and roll stability 

control systems) were not among the most widely installed onboard technologies. Nevertheless, 

the findings showed that onboard safety systems were among the fastest growing safety 

technologies. 

Other key findings from the analysis include: 

• There is an increasing acceptance and implementation of onboard safety technologies. 

• Carriers want more documentation of safety impacts, reliability, and validity of the safety 

technologies. 

• There are concerns regarding data privacy and security related to how the data is handled 

and potential future uses of the resulting data. 

• Cost, return on investment (ROI), and ROI time periods are among the top priorities for 

companies when considering investing in safety technologies. 

• Acceptance from all levels, from driver through upper management, is necessary for 

successful implementation and use of safety technologies. 

Some of the key areas where additional research is needed include: 

• Quantitative data on ROIs would be beneficial to gain a broader understanding of carrier 

considerations. 

• More research on the training needs for drivers who will be using the technologies, 

maintenance staff who will be performing upkeep maintenance, and managers who will 

be analyzing the data would be beneficial. 

• More information from technology vendors would be beneficial to understand the 

development and production of onboard safety systems. 
1.0 BACKGROUND 

The safety of our nation’s highways is of paramount importance to transportation stakeholders at 

all levels. Increasingly, government agencies and highway users, particularly the United States 

Department of Transportation (USDOT) and the trucking industry, are seeking ways to improve 

highway safety. One avenue receiving considerable attention is the deployment of onboard 

safety technologies. 

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) main objective is to reduce the 

number and severity of crashes involving large trucks. FMCSA and the trucking industry have 

been working together to test and evaluate onboard safety technologies that can reduce crashes 

and increase safety, including lane departure warning systems (LDWS), forward collision 

warning systems (CWS), adaptive cruise control (ACC), and roll stability systems. Results from 

these research efforts may have broad applicability and benefit for commercial vehicle 

operations (CVO) safety and safety research efforts. 

Over the last several years, USDOT, the American Trucking Associations (ATA), and the 

American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) have undertaken a number of research 

initiatives to document and understand carrier use of onboard safety technologies. This research 

included surveys, interviews, and focus groups to gather input from carriers, drivers, 

manufacturers, vendors, and insurance companies, resulting in a large amount of qualitative and 

quantitative data. The majority of these research initiatives were conducted independently of 

each other with limited data aggregation and/or analysis across projects. By synthesizing the 

data and findings from these separate initiatives, results can provide a more in-depth 

understanding of specific issues and additional opportunities for the focus of future research 

activities. 

The purpose of this survey synthesis project was to merge and consolidate the documentation 

and results of existing surveys, interviews, and focus groups; in particular, those related to 

industry design, use, and perspectives of onboard safety technologies. By consolidating the data 

for examination and analysis, the relationships and factors involved in the selection, use, and 

effect of onboard safety technologies were identified. The project results included the 

development of a master survey database, master survey template, and a survey gap analysis. 

1 
2.0 METHODOLOGY 

In the effort to sort and select the survey instruments for the synthesis, inclusion requirements 

were established. The synthesis inclusion requirements involved using surveys conducted from 

the year 2000 and later relating to onboard safety technologies designed for data collection from 

large truck carriers, drivers, technology manufacturers/vendors, and/or industry insurers.1

 It 

should be noted that many of the surveys included questions about other in-vehicle technologies, 

which may not have major safety benefits; in addition to the onboard safety systems, which can 

reduce the number and severity of crashes. 

SURVEY INSTRUMENT SELECTION AND IDENTIFICATION 

First, current research studies related to large truck onboard safety technologies were identified, 

which addressed large truck onboard safety technology selection, use, perceptions, and 

acceptance. Seventeen studies were reviewed that focused on large truck onboard safety 

technologies and utilized multiple data collection methods and modes including interviews, focus 

groups, and surveys. The research tools (survey instruments and interview protocols) and raw 

data from the studies were used to create a master data set. 

SURVEY INSTRUMENTS AND DATA SYNTHESIS 

The research data was categorized by its target group in each study, which included: 

• Fleet managers, safety directors, and other carrier management 

• Commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers 

• Other stakeholders, such as manufacturers, vendors, and insurance representatives 

A database was created that included the questions and responses from each study. The initial 

process involved the development of the master question list which included every question from 

every instrument and notes regarding response formats (open or close-ended, and response 

options). The following section provides a discussion of the methodology for consolidating and 

analyzing ten fleet surveys, seven driver surveys, and two other stakeholder surveys. 

FLEET SURVEY INSTRUMENTS 

When the master database of questions was finalized for the fleet survey instruments, the 

questions were sorted by topic area into five primary categories: 

 

1 All USDOT information collections were covered by the OMB and Paperwork Reduction Act exemption for ITSrelated surveys, questionnaires, and interviews defined in Section 5305, Title V, Subtitle C, paragraph (i) (2) of 

SAFETEA-LU (2005) and Section 5204, Title V, Subtitle C, paragraph (j) (2) of the Transportation Equity Act for 

the 21st Century (TEA-21) which state that “Any survey, questionnaire, or interview that the Secretary considers 

necessary to carry out the evaluation of any test or program assessment activity under this subchapter shall not be 

subject to chapter 35 of title 44.” 

2 
General fleet information – industry segment, company size and productivity, commodities 

carried, and length of haul 

• Technology and safety knowledge and experience – knowledge of different technologies 

and safety experiences and concerns 

• Technology usage – technologies currently being used, benefits of installed technologies, 

and future plans for use of technologies 

• Technology purchasing – return on investment (ROI) calculations and factors related to 

purchasing and evaluation criteria 

• Research participation and follow-up – future research directions and possible 

participation in future research 

Next, the questions were analyzed and organized into three discrete categories: 

• Duplicate questions included any questions that were exactly the same and appeared on 

multiple survey instruments 

• Unique questions were questions that did not have any duplicates or similar questions on 

other survey instruments 

• Nuance questions were similar questions with slightly different wording on multiple 

survey instruments 

All of the duplicate questions were automatically consolidated. The nuance questions and 

responses were analyzed to determine if these questions could be consolidated with other 

questions or kept separate. A Master Survey Template was developed that contained 55 

questions and guided the development of the consolidated database of results for analysis. The 

questions were organized into a logical survey format and flow for the template, and question 

wording was kept in the original form from the original survey instruments. 

Next, respondent data was gathered from the original survey sources and entered into the master 

response database. For quantitative and close-ended responses, data quality review and 

reorganization were required to ensure that each case was coded properly in the master database. 

For consolidated questions, recoding responses from the original coding sequence was needed to 

match the consolidation of multiple groups from different survey instruments. For these 

quantitative survey questions, appropriate descriptive analyses were conducted using the 

statistical software package from SPSS Inc. Some bi-variate analyses were also conducted to 

analyze responses by the year of the survey. 

For the qualitative analysis, the responses to open-ended questions were analyzed by trend 

analysis using NVivo analysis software. Where possible, the responses were matched with the 

quantitative questions addressing similar issues so as to provide additional depth to the analyses 

of both sets of questions. 

DRIVER SURVEY INSTRUMENTS 

The same methodology described above was utilized with the driver surveys. First, the questions 

were segmented into topical areas. Next, questions were divided into duplicate, unique, and 

3 
nuance categorizations. Due to the limited number of driver surveys and unique nature of each 

study in this category, there were no duplicate or nuance questions. Once the data had been 

entered into the response database, SPSS and NVivo were used to analyze the closed and openended questions respectively. Due to the survey dissimilarities, a Master Survey Template was 

not constructed, and each survey instrument was analyzed independently. 

OTHER STAKEHOLDER SURVEY INSTRUMENTS 

The same methodology format was utilized in identifying and collecting survey instruments that 

were gathered for other stakeholders, such as manufacturers, vendors, and insurance companies. 

There were only two survey instruments in this category, which did not have duplicate or nuance 

questions. The data were analyzed to create a comprehensive summary of the responses from 

these stakeholders that correlated to the responses in the previous two categories. 

4 
3.0 SURVEY INSTRUMENTS 

This section provides information about each of the survey instruments that were selected and 

included in this report. In several cases, only those sections of certain survey instruments were 

included based on the limited number of questions relating to onboard safety technologies. 

FLEET SURVEY INSTRUMENTS 

Intelligent Vehicle Initiative (IVI) Incentives Interviews 

• Purpose: Guide the development of incentive-based policy options to enhance the 

deployment of onboard safety technologies 

• Interviews were conducted by ATRI in 2004 with 16 companies (4 motor carriers or 

industry representatives) or other stakeholder groups (3 technology vendors; 3 truck 

manufacturers; 3 motor carrier insurance representatives; and 3 Federal Agencies). 

Integrated Vehicle-Based Safety System (IVBSS) Initiatives Survey 

• Purpose: Determine trucking industry opinions on certain onboard safety technologies, 

with a particular focus on forward CWS, LDWS, side object detection, automatic 

collision notification, and vehicle stability control systems 

• Survey responses were gathered by ATRI in 2004 and 2005 from 15 carrier respondents. 

Return on Investment (ROI) Survey 

• Purpose: Understand how carriers identify value and ROI for onboard safety systems 

• Interviews were conducted by ATRI in 2004 and 2005 with 14 carrier respondents. 

Trucking In-Vehicle Technology Survey 

• Purpose: Understand the current and planned future use of in-vehicle technology by 

motor carriers 

• Survey responses were gathered by Gartner G2 and ATRI in 2002 from 88 carrier 

respondents. 

Motor Carrier Technology Study 

• Purpose: Understand member and non-member use of technologies and resources, and 

issues arising from the use of technologies 

• Survey responses were gathered from 239 carrier respondents by the ATA Economics & 

Statistics Group in 2000. 

Economic Analysis and Deployment Project Structured Interviews with Carriers 

• Purpose: Determine which technologies fleets have knowledge of and are using, their 

expectations for investment and ROI, and the requirements for use and integration 

• Interviews were conducted by ATRI and the Technology and Maintenance Council 

(TMC) in 2005 with 19 carrier respondents. 

5 
Trucking Industry Perspectives on Technology-Based Safety Systems 

• Purpose: Identify carrier views on ways to accelerate the deployment of new onboard 

safety systems, particularly CWS, ACC, roll advisor and control (RA&C), and LDWS 

• Interviews were conducted with 19 carriers in 2002 and 2003 by USDOT. 

FMCSA IVI Workshop on Onboard Safety Technology Deployment in Commercial Motor 

Vehicles 

• Purpose: Gain a wider range of understanding from stakeholders about the factors 

impacting the effectiveness of onboard safety systems, including driver and road 

characteristics, climate conditions, and carrier profiles 

• An expert panel discussion with 18 participants was conducted by FMCSA in 2003. 

Confidential Motor Carrier In-Vehicle Safety Systems Questionnaire 

• Purpose: Understand the motivation for using onboard safety systems, perceptions of 

risks involved with using or not using the equipment, and ROI requirements 

• Survey responses were gathered from 72 carrier respondents by FMCSA in 2004 and 

2005. 

Technical Requirements for Active Safety Systems Task Force/IVBSS Official Fleet Survey 

• Purpose: Identify and understand issues related to the integration of onboard safety 

systems on CMV fleets 

• Survey responses were gathered from 22 carrier respondents by the TMC in 2004 and 

2005. 

DRIVER SURVEY INSTRUMENTS 

IVI Driver and Independent Owner/Operators Perspectives on Technology-Based Safety 

Systems 

• Purpose: Determine driver familiarity with and opinions of onboard safety systems 

• Interviews were conducted with 20 drivers by USDOT in 2002. 

International Driver Satisfaction Survey 

• Purpose: Understand how the LDWS is used in commercial trucks and how drivers react 

to the system 

• Survey responses were gathered from 205 drivers by Iteris in 2004. 

In-Vehicle Safety Feedback: Driver Perspectives Suggest Technology has Promise for 

Improving Safe Driving Behaviors 

• Purpose: Understand the driver perceptions and attitudes toward in-vehicle technology 

and feedback from the technology 

• Focus groups were conducted with a total of 66 participants to develop the survey 

instrument; survey responses gathered from 198 drivers in 2003 by Liberty Mutual 

Research Institute for Safety. 

6 
Freightliner IVI Field Operational Test (FOT): Initial Stage Interview and Survey 

• Purpose: Gather baseline information from drivers about experiences with the RA&C 

technology being evaluated 

• Survey responses were gathered in early 2001 by USDOT from 23 drivers in the IVI 

FOT. 

Freightliner IVI FOT: Short-Form Driver Survey 

• Purpose: Gather information about drivers’ perceptions on user-friendliness of rollover 

safety technology 

• Survey responses were gathered in early 2001 by USDOT from 23 drivers in the IVI 

FOT. 

Freightliner IVI FOT: Long-Form Driver Survey 

• Purpose: Gather information about drivers’ perceptions of the rollover safety technology 

was on four different dimensions 

• Survey responses were gathered from 23 drivers in early 2001 by USDOT in the IVI 

FOT. 

Freightliner IVI FOT: Debriefing Driver Interview 

• Purpose: Gather final thoughts and information regarding driver acceptance and opinions 

of rollover safety technology 

• Interviews were conducted in early 2001 by USDOT with 15 drivers who participated in 

the IVI FOT from beginning to end. 

OTHER STAKEHOLDER SURVEY INSTRUMENTS 

Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) and Vendor Perspectives on Technology-Based 

Safety Systems 

• Purpose: Identify OEM and vendor perspectives on ways to accelerate deployment of 

onboard safety technologies 

• Interviews were conducted with 8 respondents in 2002 and 2003 by USDOT. 

MOTOR CARRIER INSURER PERSPECTIVES ON TECHNOLOGY-BASED SAFETY 

SYSTEMS 

• Purpose: Identify industry insurer perspectives on ways to accelerate deployment of 

onboard safety systems 

• Interviews were conducted with 5 respondents in 2002 and 2003 by USDOT. 

7 
4.0 SURVEY SYNTHESIS GAP ANALYSIS 

After the surveys were analyzed and examined, a gap analysis was conducted to determine where 

information was lacking. This type of analysis can provide beneficial information when 

examining the directions for future research and the informational needs of federal agencies, 

trucking industry representatives, carriers, insurers, and other key stakeholders. 

METHODS 

The synthesized data for each category of survey instruments was analyzed and examined in 

depth – both the survey instruments themselves, and the responses to individual questions. The 

first step was to document any areas that were perceived as missing or lacking from the survey 

instruments consolidated in this synthesis. After these initial gaps were identified, a literature 

review and environmental scan was conducted of a wide array of related topics to determine if 

there were any other research recommendations or arenas that had thus far not been examined by 

a focused research project. At the completion of the database analysis and comparative research 

scans, the research team mapped the data against the issues and ascertained data components 

missing from the existing research used for this study. 

GAP ANALYSIS RESULTS 

Only seven of the nineteen research instruments included in this synthesis contained any 

recognition and analysis of the driver interaction with the safety technologies. One of these 

survey instruments was disseminated, collected, and analyzed by a vendor. This survey method, 

often viewed as market research, calls into question the reliability and validity of findings. 

Several of the other instruments had relatively small sample sizes, which also caused concern 

about the generalization of the data. 

Several of these studies interviewed drivers about experiences with one particular type of safety 

technology (one focused on LDWS and four focused on RA&C). The studies that gathered 

information related to driver acceptance and experience across an array of technologies had a 

small sample size. Reviews of driver surveys from FOTs may provide additional information in 

this venue; one set of such surveys was included in this review. 

Few of the questions on any survey instrument delved into the issues related to driver training. 

While many of the carriers and the drivers themselves mentioned the importance of driver 

training in open-ended expert panel and interview questions, few of the questions on the surveys 

or protocols probed this issue directly. 

Another related issue was the lack of data on the training needs of companies implementing 

safety technologies. This was an issue that was volunteered in open-ended responses by many of 

the carriers when discussing factors related to evaluating technologies. However, none of the 

surveys directly asked about specific training features, training costs, or training needs. Issues 

such as driver training on the use of the technology, maintenance staff training on overall system 

upkeep and specific components, and training for the company safety managers related to 

8 
reasonable expectations are all very important to the acceptance and use of the technology. 

Similarly, none of the surveys identified existing training programs for carriers that use particular 

safety technologies, and the effectiveness of those programs. 

Also there was a lack of questions specifically targeting manufacturers and after-market vendors 

on issues involved in the development and production of safety technology systems. A few 

interview and focus groups addressed these issues, but there was an inadequate effort to access 

technology manufacturers. Extremely small sample sizes and a shortage of questions focused 

specifically on this population are also indicative of a gap in this area. 

Interviews and discussions with FMCSA stakeholders also indicated a need for more information 

about how carriers have implemented the technologies. This information should include not only 

the technologies that are being used and how the ROI is calculated, but also the minute details of 

the implementation, including training program design, problems encountered during installation 

and implementation, and technology purchase. While these issues were posed in open-ended 

responses, few of the questions directly related to this particular issue. 

A few survey instruments, with relatively small response rates (often due to the type of survey 

instrument, such as an interview), asked questions about whether or not safety benefits had been 

realized. As more carriers install onboard safety technologies, it would be worthwhile to gather 

more information from a wider array of respondents about whether safety benefits were realized, 

how those safety benefits were enumerated, and timetables for realizing the benefits. This type 

of information could benefit federal agencies, other carriers, insurers and other stakeholders that 

are weighing ROI decisions, including decisions about how to increase technology 

implementation and acceptance. This type of information could also help in explaining the 

expectancy parameters regarding how quickly a technology will produce benefits. 

More investigation into the acceptable cost of a particular safety system would also be beneficial. 

The surveys provided open-ended, qualitative responses, but very few questions were directly 

posed in a close-ended format to a large sample, which would be beneficial to determine what a 

viable cost would be for carriers. 

To date, few surveys focused on the factors leading to the evaluation and selection of safety 

technologies by carriers who are using at least one safety technology. Additional investigation in 

this area would be beneficial. A repetition of some survey questions, with a larger sample, 

would help to provide more direction and insight into what motivates carriers to begin examining 

technologies, irrespective of what factors are responsible for individual technology selection. 

9 
5.0 PROJECT SUMMARY 

The trucking industry is focusing more attention on the growing acceptance, knowledge and use 

of onboard safety technologies.2, , , 3 4 5 Technologies such as LDWS, CWS, and roll stability 

systems are receiving increased attention by government, industry, and the media.4,5 By 

understanding industry perspectives, knowledge, and use of these technologies, FMCSA and 

other safety stakeholders can better focus efforts and resources to facilitate accelerated 

deployment of these systems. 

Each of the studies included in this survey synthesis was conducted in conjunction with a 

particular initiative or hypothesis; therefore, not every study addressed the same issues, 

questions, or respondents. Nevertheless, the synthesis of data and findings can provide 

considerable insight into usage patterns, future research opportunities, and data gaps. 

Given the increasing focus on safety by government and industry, many of the surveyed carriers 

indicated a familiarity with major safety technologies. The onboard safety technologies, LDWS, 

CWS, and RSC, were not among the most widely installed technologies by interviewees. 

However, these technologies were among the fastest growing categories for future installation. 

Additional analysis may provide more insight into this trend. 

Key factors for most of the carriers in the investment decision-making process were the concern 

about cost, and the desire for information about the demonstrated safety impacts of the 

technologies. Cost management was also a key factor for carriers with regard to crash impacts. 

All of this information indicates the necessity for increased information regarding the financial 

implications of any safety technology, including insurance costs, crash reduction savings, and 

cost of installation, maintenance, training and upgrades to safety systems, along with any other 

incidental costs or savings. 

Carriers also want systems that are acceptable and responsive to drivers. There is a general 

indication from carriers that if the system is not easy to use and driver-friendly, then installation 

is not worthwhile, as driver dissatisfaction can also impact driver retention. While carriers 

indicated a general knowledge of many different technologies, most carriers also acknowledged 

a limited amount of experience with the onboard safety technologies. 

The lack of available research data from drivers and manufacturers for these surveys is 

important. These two groups are critical players in the design, distribution, and ultimate use of 

safety technologies. Understanding driver and manufacturer motivations and needs will lead to 

an increase in the marketplace acceptance of safety technologies. While carriers may purchase 

the technologies, without driver support and use, the technologies will likely not provide the 

maximum impact on highway safety. A broader range of information related to driver training 

 

2

 Staff. Freightliner showcases safety, technology. Fleet Owner. August 1, 2003. 3

 Staff. Safety economics tied to driver behavior. Fleet Owner. May 2004. 4

 Cullen, D. Eyes on the road: Boosting safety by helping drivers better see what’s outside the cab. Fleet Owner. 

February 2002. 

5

 Kilcarr, S. Rollover Protection. Fleet Owner February 2004. 

10 
and driving experiences with the technologies may be useful.6,7

 If manufacturers do not identify 

the key features that are important to carriers, the production and purchase of safety technologies 

will likely fall short of desired goals. 

This synthesis has resulted in a dataset which can be expanded and refined as more research is 

conducted in this area. By expanding this dataset, it is also possible to continue to track how 

safety technology investment trends change and adapt over time, and how stakeholders will need 

to adjust approaches and considerations as these trends change. 

In summary, the key findings from the Safety Technology Survey Synthesis are: 

• There is an increasing acceptance and implementation of onboard safety 

technologies. The surveys included in the analysis spanned a five-year time period (2000 

to 2005). By examining the data by year, it was possible to examine reported safety 

technology use over time. In the more recent surveys and interviews, more carriers 

reported knowledge of and implementation of a wider range of onboard safety 

technologies. 

• Carriers and drivers want more documentation of safety impacts, reliability, and 

validity of the safety technologies. Carriers and drivers both indicated concerns about 

the proven reliability and validity of safety technologies. Reports (from carriers currently 

using the systems) of false positives and problems with different warning technologies 

(such as the LDWS and CWS) caused concern among carriers. There is also interest in 

more objective (non-vendor sponsored) quantitative research regarding the safety 

impacts. 

• There are concerns regarding data privacy and security, related to how the data is 

handled, and potential future uses of the data. Drivers and carriers both indicated 

concerns about how the data would be handled and used, both internally and during any 

potential legal issues arising from collisions. Data privacy and security were concerns for 

both groups. 

• Cost, ROI, and ROI time periods are among the top priorities for companies when 

considering investing in safety technologies. Echoed by all three groups (fleet 

managers, drivers, and other stakeholders), the cost of a technology, ROI calculations, 

and the timetable for the ROI were all crucial components in the decision to purchase 

safety technologies. 

• Quantitative data on ROI timelines would be beneficial to gain a broader 

understanding of carrier considerations. Connected to the previous statement, it is 

also necessary to gain a better, sharper understanding of carrier ROI timelines. Some 

information has been collected; however, more quantitative data would allow for stronger 

analysis and a clearer picture. This information would also help determine if carriers 

have realistic expectations for ROI timelines.

 

6

 Roetting, M., Huang, Y.H., McDevitt, J. R., & Melton, D. Truck drivers’ attitudes and opinions towards feedback 

by in-vehicle technology. Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety. 2005. 7

 ITERIS. (2004). Iteris Lane Departure Warning System Receives Praise from Commercial Truck Drivers in U.S. 

and Europe. Available online at: http://www.iteris.com/news/090204.html

11 
• Additional data would be beneficial on the perceived acceptable cost for purchasing 

and installing the equipment. The surveys revealed little investigation of the perceived 

acceptable purchase and installation costs for carriers investing in safety technologies. 

More information in this area could be used to determine what carriers are currently 

spending and, among those who are not yet investing in the technologies, what an 

acceptable range would be. This information could be gathered in conjunction with an 

effort to gather similar data from technology vendors to determine the difference between 

the two. 

• Acceptance at all levels, from drivers through upper management, is necessary for 

successful implementation and use of safety technologies. Carriers and drivers both 

indicated that support from each level was crucial to the successful implementation of 

any system. Without upper management support, the systems would not be installed; 

without driver buy-in, the systems may go unused.

• More research would be beneficial on the training needs and supports in place for 

drivers who will be using the technologies, maintenance staff who will be 

performing upkeep maintenance, and managers who will be analyzing the data. The 

surveys revealed little research to-date about the training needs for each of these groups, 

and many of the respondents indicated, in open-ended responses to other questions, that 

this was a crucial component of implementation. Research would be beneficial regarding 

the training that is currently available, training costs, time requirements, and preferred 

training modes.

• More information from technology vendors would be beneficial to understanding 

the development and production of safety technology systems. In the surveys 

analyzed for this study, almost no data was collected from technology vendors on related 

issues. More information from this population about perceptions of the industry and 

industry demands and costs of development and production would be useful when 

determining realistic delivery and installation timelines. 

12 
6.0 FLEET SURVEY INSTRUMENT 

QUESTIONS AND RESULTS 

Fleet questions were categorized into five groups. The first section was general fleet 

characteristics, which included questions such as industry segment, fleet size, average length of 

haul, and commodities hauled. The second section was related to technology and safety 

knowledge and experiences and included questions about primary crash concerns, knowledge of 

current technologies, and perceptions of technology. The third group of questions focused on 

technology usage and included questions related to current and future technology installations, 

methods of installation, and expected safety benefits. The fourth group of questions addressed 

technology purchasing and focused on ROI calculations, factors associated with purchasing and 

evaluating technology, and other purchasing issues. The final category was future research 

participation, and included questions about willingness, as well as interest in participating in 

future FOTs and technology studies. 

GENERAL FLEET QUESTIONS 

This section includes questions related to fleet characteristics and descriptions including industry 

segment, fleet size, company size, and haul characteristics. 

Q1. HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE YOUR COMPANY? 

There were 6 surveys or interview protocols that asked about the industry segment. Not all of 

the categories shown below were asked in each survey. The responses showed substantial 

diversity among the fleets responding to the different surveys. Carriers were able to select 

multiple categories that applied to their own business. More than half of the carriers (54 percent) 

indicated truckload operations. 

Category Respondents # selecting option % 

Truckload 314 170 54% 

For-Hire 123 54 44% 

Less-than-Truckload 149 50 34% 

Regional 314 76 24% 

Other 385 83 22% 

Private 221 29 13% 

Tank 127 17 13% 

Owner-Operator 123 9 7% 

Specialized 51 3 6% 

Intermodal 73 3 4% 

Lease-Rental 145 3 2% 

13 
Q2. WHAT IS YOUR ANNUAL REVENUE? 

One survey asked carriers to indicate annual revenue for the previous year. This information 

contributes to an understanding of the company size. There were 64 responses to this question. 

The average annual revenue was $244 million, with a range of $10,000 to $4.5 billion. 

Q3. WHAT IS THE SIZE OF YOUR FLEET? 

Four of the surveys and interview protocols gathered information about fleet size, with the most 

common being over 200 power units (39 percent). Some of the surveys gathered open-ended 

responses to this question; in that case, the responses were coded to fit in the categories below. 

Category Respondents # selecting option % 

1 to 10 power units 203 20 10% 

11 to 50 power units 203 51 25% 

51 to 100 power units 203 23 11% 

101 to 199 power units 203 27 13% 

200 or more power units 203 79 39% 

Q4 – Q6. FLEET VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICS

One survey addressed several questions about fleet characteristics. Each of these questions was 

designed to determine general fleet features and to ascertain how often trailers and power units 

are replaced. On average, the responding fleets replaced a small percentage of their fleet each 

year (14 percent of power units, 7 percent of trailers). Two survey instruments asked 

respondents to indicate what percent of their trailers were tankers. On average, 5 percent of the 

responding fleets’ trailers were tankers. 

Category Respondents Mean % 

What percent of your fleet’s power units are replaced per year? 70 14.2% 

What percent of your fleet’s trailers are replaced per year? 69 7.4% 

What percent of your fleet’s trailers are tankers? 148 5.4% 

14 
Q7. WHICH BEST DESCRIBES YOUR COMPANY’S AVERAGE LENGTH OF HAUL? 

Four surveys and interviews gathered information about the average length of the haul. There 

was a broad representation among the carriers in terms of length of haul. Almost half (48 

percent) of the carriers generally had hauls of 500 miles or more. 

Category Respondents # selecting option % 

1 to 50 miles 108 13 12% 

51 to 100 miles 108 5 5% 

101 to 200 miles 108 11 10% 

201 to 499 miles 108 23 21% 

500 miles or more 108 52 48% 

Pick up & delivery 108 4 4% 

15 
Q8. WHAT PRIMARY COMMODITIES DOES YOUR COMPANY HAUL? 

Three of the surveys gathered information about primary commodities hauled; however, data at 

the individual level was only available for two of the surveys. Among those carriers, more than 

half hauled truckload-general freight (57 percent). Carriers were able to select more than one 

commodity, as appropriate. Because carriers were able to select multiple commodities, the 

percentages total more than 100 percent. 

Category Respondents # selecting option % 

General Freight Truckload (TL) 148 84 57% 

General Freight Less-than-truckload (LTL) 148 43 29% 

Building materials 72 14 19% 

Hazardous chemicals 72 13 18% 

Processed foods 72 13 18% 

Other 72 12 17% 

Heavy machinery 72 10 14% 

Refined petroleum products 72 10 14% 

Automotive parts or vehicles 148 16 11% 

Forest products 72 7 10% 

Farm fresh products 148 12 8% 

Household goods 72 6 8% 

Retail store – grocery delivery 72 6 8% 

Raw petroleum products 72 3 4% 

Bulk – Dump truck 148 5 3% 

Parcels 148 4 3% 

Mine ores 72 1 1% 

16 
Q9. TOTAL NUMBER OF REGULAR, FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES

One of the surveys asked respondents to indicate the total number of regular, full-time 

employees (drivers, office workers, mechanics/technicians, etc.) excluding independent 

contractors. There were 69 respondents, with an average of 1,461 employees. 

Q10. AVERAGE DRIVING EXPERIENCE OF DRIVERS (IN YEARS) 

While one of the surveys asked about the average years of driving experience, only a portion of 

the respondents provided a response to that question (61 of 72 carriers). The average number of 

years of driving experience was 8.6, although responses ranged from less than one year to 25 

years. 

17 
TECHNOLOGY AND SAFETY KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCES 

Q11. WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING DO YOU HAVE GENERAL KNOWLEDGE OF? 

Two surveys asked carriers about their general knowledge of specific safety technologies. A 

majority of the respondents had general knowledge of all three technologies listed (forward 

CWS, roll stability control [RSC], and LDWS). The most widely known technology was the 

CWS (84 percent). Because carriers were asked to indicate each technology that they had 

general knowledge of, the percentages total more than 100 percent. 

Category Respondents Mean % 

Forward CWS 38 84% 

RSC 38 66% 

LDWS 38 63% 

Q12. WHAT SPECIFIC CRASH SCENARIOS OR SAFETY ISSUES ARE YOUR BIGGEST CHALLENGES? 

Two surveys asked carriers to identify what type of crash scenario represented the biggest safety 

challenges. The following scenarios were identified by approximately half of the carriers. Road 

departure collisions were the most commonly selected scenario (51 percent). Because carriers 

were asked to indicate all crash scenarios that represented their biggest challenges, the 

percentages total more than 100 percent. 

Category Respondents Mean % 

Road departure collisions 35 51% 

Lane change/merge collisions 35 46% 

Rear-end collisions 35 43% 

18 
Q13. BASED ON YOUR FLEET’S EXPERIENCE, PLEASE INDICATE YOUR PERCEPTION OF YOUR 

FLEET’S OVERALL RISK OR EXPOSURE TO THE FOLLOWING CRASH TYPES. 

One survey asked carriers to identify their perception of their fleet’s overall risk to certain crash 

types. Carriers were asked to rate each crash type on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the least risk 

and 5 being the greatest risk. The table below displays the number of responses to each crash 

type, the average score for each, and the percent of respondents who ranked it in each category. 

Not every respondent ranked each crash type. The crash types with the highest perceived overall 

risk were “another vehicle striking a truck in motion” (Mean = 3.07), and “other,” which 

included lane changes/sideswipes, intersections, and backing crashes (Mean = 3.22). 

Category N Mean 1 2 3 4 5 

Other 9 3.22 11% 11% 22% 0% 44% 

Another vehicle striking truck in motion 70 3.07 17% 16% 26% 26% 16% 

Truck rear-ending another vehicle in motion 71 2.97 24% 20% 17% 14% 25% 

Truck striking a fixed object 72 2.99 14% 25% 25% 25% 13% 

Another vehicle striking truck while parked 72 2.50 33% 18% 22% 18% 8% 

Truck running off a road 69 2.41 30% 25% 28% 9% 9% 

Truck overturning on a curve 70 2.29 39% 23% 17% 14% 7% 

Truck jackknifing 71 2.25 34% 28% 23% 10% 6% 

Truck rear-ending a parked vehicle 71 1.75 55% 25% 14% 1% 4% 

Truck striking a pedestrian 70 1.66 61% 20% 13% 3% 3% 

Q12 & Q13. FOLLOW-UP ANALYSIS

In a follow-up analysis, the responses to these two questions above relating to crash-risk were 

consolidated into one set of responses. The response options from the first question (rear-end 

collisions, road departure collisions, and lane change/merge collisions) were used as the primary 

categories. When the responses were consolidated in this manner, they were found to be very 

similar to the initial analysis. Since carriers could select multiple categories, the percentages 

total more than 100 percent. 

Category Respondents Mean % 

Lane change/merge collisions 105 60% 

Rear-end collisions 106 53% 

Road departure collisions 106 50% 

Other 72 71% 

19 
Q14. RELATIVE TO OVERALL CRASH COSTS/IMPACTS, PLEASE INDICATE THE IMPORTANCE OF 

THE FOLLOWING CRASH IMPACT CATEGORIES TO YOUR COMPANY 

(1 = NOT SIGNIFICANT, 5 = VERY SIGNIFICANT). 

One survey asked carriers to rate how important crash impact categories were to their company 

relative to the overall crash costs and impacts. Carriers were asked to rate each impact from 

1 (not significant) to 5 (very significant). The table below indicates the number of respondents, 

the average score for each impact, and the percentage ranking of each impact in each category. 

The two crash impacts with the highest average ratings were the “impact on liability insurance 

rates” (Mean = 4.61) and “equipment and property damage” (Mean = 4.47). The two lowest 

average ratings were for “Crash-related administrative costs” (Mean = 3.43) and “shipping 

penalties” (Mean = 3.13). 

Category N Mean 1 2 3 4 5 

Impact on liability insurance rates 69 4.61 1% 1% 6% 17% 74% 

Equipment and property damage 68 4.47 0% 0% 7% 38% 54% 

Impact on Federal safety rating 68 4.37 4% 3% 10% 18% 63% 

Cost of replacing driver 67 4.36 0% 3% 12% 31% 54% 

Impact on worker’s compensation rates 68 4.31 1% 3% 21% 13% 62% 

Impact on medical insurance rates 68 4.28 3% 4% 15% 18% 60% 

Crash-related legal expenses 68 4.19 1% 1% 22% 28% 46% 

Loss of customer good will and/or business 68 4.16 7% 4% 9% 24% 56% 

Impact on public image 69 4.13 3% 4% 19% 25% 49% 

Cargo damage/loss 69 4.03 4% 12% 10% 25% 49% 

Impact on employee morale 68 4.01 4% 1% 24% 29% 41% 

Environmental clean-up 69 4.01 4% 4% 25% 20% 45% 

Liability from automated data collection via 

technology 67 3.76 3% 15% 22% 22% 37% 

Reimbursement of emergency response cost 69 3.75 4% 9% 29% 25% 32% 

Cost of towing/recovering damaged vehicle 69 3.64 7% 7% 30% 25% 30% 

Cost of management time spent on crash 

settlement 69 3.67 4% 10% 28% 30% 28% 

Cost of off-loading cargo and transport by 

relief vehicle 68 3.66 7% 6% 29% 28% 29% 

Crash-related fines 68 3.62 7% 19% 16% 19% 38% 

Cost of crash investigation 69 3.61 4% 6% 39% 26% 25% 

Crash-related administrative costs 69 3.43 7% 10% 35% 38% 20% 

Shipping penalties 67 3.13 13% 25% 18% 21% 22% 

20 
Q15. WHAT CONDITIONS/CHARACTERISTICS/FACTORS DO YOU THINK IMPACT THE 

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ROLL STABILITY ADVISOR AND CONTROL 

TO EITHER MITIGATE OR REDUCE CRASH SEVERITY?

One expert panel asked carriers what conditions or factors would impact the effectiveness of 

RA&C in mitigating or reducing crash severity. This group specifically focused on RA&C 

systems, which is why the question is not broader. Conditions that participants felt would impact 

the effectiveness of this type of system included: 

• Driver Experience – Participating carriers thought that this type of system could be a 

benefit to any driver, as long as they were provided with training prior to use. Factors 

such as risk-taking characteristics, personality, attitudes, and performance history could 

impact driver use and system effectiveness. 

• Type of road – It was thought that an RA&C would be more helpful in mountainous 

areas and on ramps, while it would be less of a factor on freeways. There was a mixed 

discussion about the degree of helpfulness of the system in urban and rural areas. In 

urban areas, participants indicated that it may increase safety when a driver had to make 

sudden moves to avoid other vehicles or pedestrians. On rural freeways, there was a 

discussion about environmental factors, such as soft shoulders, which the system may not 

be designed to compensate for. 

• Weather – Participants indicated that weather could overshadow other factors 

influencing the effectiveness of the RA&C, as drivers are more cautious in adverse 

conditions. Also, conditions such as snow, ice, rain, and wind cause the vehicle to move 

differently and reduce friction with the road. Fog was the weather condition in which 

participants felt that the system would be most helpful, because it may assist drivers in 

avoiding incidents during reduced visibility. 

• Type of vehicle – The overriding view was that the RA&C could be beneficial for any 

type of vehicle combination. Generally, it was expected that the system would benefit 

tractor-tank combinations the most, followed by tractor-trailers and straight trucks. 

21 
Q16 – Q18. REALISTIC PREVENTION OF CRASH TYPES

One survey asked carriers to indicate what percentage of different types of crashes could 

realistically be prevented. The objective of these questions was to determine whether carriers 

thought that particular safety technologies or practices could have a substantial impact on 

particular types of crashes. The responses were aggregated and an average of the percentage of 

crashes that could be prevented was calculated. Respondents indicated that, on average, about 

75 percent of crashes could be prevented. Responses for each category ranged from 0 to 100 

percent. 

Category Respondents Mean % 

Rollover crashes 65 79% 

Run-off-the-road crashes 64 73% 

Rear-ending other vehicle crashes 65 71% 

A follow-up question regarding the way that these crashes could be prevented had responses that 

covered a wide range of approaches and topics. Generally, across all crash types, respondents 

indicated that education was the key. 

Rollover crashes 

• Driver education and training 

• Driver screening and drug testing 

• Reducing speed and increasing alertness to surroundings 

• Proper load securement 

• Safe routing and trip planning 

Run-off-road crashes 

• Driver training 

• Driver alertness and awareness of surroundings 

• Fatigue recognition training and proper rest 

• Speed management 

Rear-ending other vehicle crashes 

• Driver training 

• Increase following distance 

• Driver alertness 

• Onboard warning systems 

• Speed management 

22 
TECHNOLOGY USAGE QUESTIONS 

Q19. FOR EACH IN-VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY, PLEASE INDICATE IF YOU ALREADY HAVE IT 

INSTALLED IN SOME OR ALL FLEET VEHICLES. 

Seven surveys and interviews asked carriers to identify which in-vehicle technologies they had 

already installed in all or some of their fleet vehicles. Not every survey/interview gathered 

information about each category. The most common in-vehicle technologies in use by the 

carriers were satellite or cellular-based communications between terminal and vehicle (37 

percent) and Global Positioning System (GPS) (25 percent). Satellite radio and mayday systems 

were not indicated by any carriers. Because carriers were able to select multiple technologies, the 

percentages total more than 100 percent. 

Category Respondents # selecting option % 

Satellite or cellular-based communications between terminal and 

vehicle 315 117 37% 

Automated in-vehicle route guidance via satellite navigation (GPS) 490 124 25% 

Ability to connect employee’s cellular phone to the vehicle so it 

can be used in a hands-free, voice activated manner while parked 490 90 18% 

Real-time vehicle position tracking 249 34 14% 

Stolen vehicle tracking 249 30 12% 

Ability to access client/order information from vehicle electronically 490 57 12% 

Remote diagnostic system that senses malfunction and notifies 

driver, company and/or repair station 325 37 11% 

Load stability sensors/Rollover stability 125 13 10% 

Forward CWS/Forward radar 518 52 10% 

In-vehicle internet access 249 15 6% 

ACC 108 6 6% 

Cameras/video imaging systems for heavy trucks 108 6 6% 

LDWS/Lane change aid 366 18 5% 

Side object detection 108 5 5% 

Drowsy driver warning 108 4 4% 

Night vision enhancement 108 2 2% 

Real-time, on demand traffic information 97 1 1% 

In-cabin hazardous location safety advisory 97 1 1% 

Automatic collision notification/mayday systems 97 0 0% 

Subscription to digital satellite radio for entertainment 97 0 0% 

23 
Q20. WHAT IN-VEHICLE SAFETY TECHNOLOGIES OR SYSTEMS ARE BEING USED BY THE 

TRUCKING INDUSTRY THAT YOU ARE AWARE OF? 

One of the surveys asked participants to indicate what onboard safety technologies or systems 

they were aware of being used in the trucking industry. Fourteen carriers responded to this 

question. The responses varied from none to several different technologies: 

• Fatigue 8 – a video on fatigue management (1 carrier) 

• Backup detectors/video cameras (5 carriers) 

• EATON VORAD CWS/forward radar (11 carriers) 

• LDWS/lane change system (4 carriers) 

• Blind-spot side object detection system (2 carriers) 

• Electronic onboard recorders (3 carriers) 

• Anti-rollover technology (2 carriers) 

• Perclos driver alertness system (2 carriers) 

• GPS (1 carrier) 

• ACC (1 carrier) 

• Highway notification systems (1 carrier) 

• Tire pressure chip to signal low tire pressure (1 carrier) 

Q20A. WHO IS USING THEM AND CAN YOU DESCRIBE HOW THEY ARE BEING USED? 

Most of the respondents indicated that the carriers who were using these systems were larger 

carriers or those currently involved in testing the systems. Several carriers indicated an interest 

in using the technologies, but they were concerned about the cost and proven effectiveness of the 

systems. 

Q21. IF YOU HAVE ALREADY INSTALLED THE SAFETY SYSTEMS,

HAVE THE BENEFITS BEEN REALIZED? 

One survey asked carriers if they had realized the benefits of the safety systems installed in their 

fleet. A majority of the respondents indicated that they had realized the benefits (75 percent). 

24 
Q22A. HOW ARE IN-VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS INSTALLED IN YOUR FLEET? 

Q22B. DO YOU SEE THIS AS BEING REPRESENTATIVE OF FUTURE INSTALLATIONS? 

Three surveys asked carriers how technologies are typically installed on their fleet. Most of the 

carriers (60 percent) indicated that the technologies were installed on new vehicles. One of the 

three surveys asked carriers if this was seen as representative of future installations; slightly 

more than three-quarters agreed (76 percent). Since carriers were able to indicate information 

about new vehicle and retro-fitted installations, the percentages for the latter question total more 

than 100 percent. 

Category Respondents 

# selecting option 

(or answered 

“Yes”) 

% 

If you have already installed a safety system, have the benefits been realized? 

4 3 75% 

How are technologies installed on your fleet? 

New vehicles 45 27 60% 

Retro-fitted 45 17 38% 

Have not installed any 45 9 20% 

Do you see this is being representative of future installations? 

17 13 76% 

Q23. OVERALL, WHAT IMPACT HAS EACH FACTOR HAD ON PREVENTING IN-VEHICLE SAFETY 

SYSTEMS FROM BEING MORE WIDELY INSTALLED ON YOUR FLEET? 

One survey asked carriers to indicate what impact each factor from a pre-determined list had in 

preventing installation of onboard safety system on their fleet. Each carrier was asked to rate 

each impact on a scale from little impact (1) to significant impact (3). The table below shows the 

number of carriers responding to each impact, the average rating for each, and the percent of 

respondents who ranked it in each category. Cost (Mean = 2.56) and lack of data on crash 

reduction (Mean = 2.53) were the impacts that carriers ranked as the most significant. The least 

significant, on average, was a lack of clear ROI (Mean = 1.46). 

Category N Mean (X) Little Some Significant 

Cost 18 2.56 0% 44% 56% 

Lack of data on crash reduction 15 2.53 0% 47% 53% 

Lack of operator experience 16 2.44 0% 56% 44% 

Limited availability of technology 16 2.19 13% 56% 31% 

Lack of clear ROI 13 1.46 54% 46% 0% 

25 
Q24 – Q27. WHAT ARE YOUR PERCEPTIONS, LIKES, AND DISLIKES OF 

SAFETY TECHNOLOGY DEVICES? 

One of the interview protocols asked carriers to discuss general perceptions of safety technology 

and specific likes and dislikes about particular technologies. Generally, the overall perception 

responses were positive. Some respondents indicated concerns about driver acceptance and 

usefulness. One carrier mentioned that this type of technology was a necessity when hauling 

hazardous materials. While interested and generally supportive, some respondents indicated 

concern about the lack of evidence regarding effectiveness of the technologies. 

When specifically asked about rollover stability technologies, the responses were extremely 

diverse. While there was the perception that this type of technology provided some protection, 

there was concern about how well the system actually worked, the impact of a wide variety of 

variables, and the high cost. Some of the respondents had a generally favorable opinion, but 

were unable to identify specific factors or features that were mentioned as “likes” about the 

technology. The high cost was the most common concern. 

Responses regarding CWS and LDWS were more positive with fewer concerns. Again, a few 

carriers indicated concern about the high cost and one carrier indicated that the signal could be 

annoying to drivers. The carriers typically had the same concerns for both technologies. CWS 

were discussed being very useful in bad weather; however, there were also concerns about the 

annoyance level of the auditory alerts. The “likes” that were discussed relative to LDWS were 

more general comments related to fatigue crash avoidance. 

26 
Q28. FOR EACH TECHNOLOGY, PLEASE INDICATE IF YOU PLAN TO INSTALL IT IN ALL OR PART 

OF YOUR FLEET IN THE FUTURE. 

Three of the surveys asked carriers about future planned technology installations. Not every 

category was included in each survey, so the respondent numbers vary. The most commonly 

selected technologies were automatic collision notification/mayday systems (26 percent), remote 

diagnostic systems (23 percent), and rollover stability systems (23 percent). None of the 

respondents indicated a plan to install drowsy driver warning systems, night vision enhancement, 

or side object detection systems. Carriers were asked to indicate all of the technologies they plan 

to install; therefore, the percentages total more than 100 percent. 

Category Respondents # selecting option % 

Automatic collision notification/mayday systems 239 61 26% 

Remote diagnostic system that senses malfunction 

and notifies driver, company, and/or repair station 239 56 23% 

Load stability sensors/Rollover stability systems 225 52 23% 

LDWS/Lane change aid 239 51 21% 

Forward CWS/forward radar 239 49 21% 

Real-time vehicle position tracking 239 48 20% 

Ability to connect employee’s cellular phone to the 

vehicle so it can be used in a hands-free, voice 

activated manner while parked 

239 47 20% 

Stolen vehicle tracking 225 44 20% 

Ability to access client/order information from vehicle 

electronically 239 42 18% 

In-vehicle internet access 239 41 17% 

Satellite or cellular-based communications between 

terminal and vehicle 239 40 17% 

Real-time, on demand traffic information 225 38 17% 

Subscription to digital satellite radio for entertainment 239 36 15% 

In-cabin hazardous location safety advisory 87 4 5% 

Automated in-vehicle route guidance via satellite 

navigation (GPS) 239 7 3% 

ACC 87 3 3% 

Cameras/video imaging systems for heavy trucks 87 3 3% 

Night vision enhancement 87 0 0% 

Drowsy driver warning 87 0 0% 

Side object detection 87 0 0% 

27 
Q29. ARE THERE OTHER TECHNOLOGIES THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN AN 

INTEGRATED VEHICLE-BASED SAFETY SYSTEM (IVBSS) BESIDES 

THE THREE DRIVER ASSISTANCE SYSTEMS MENTIONED?

One survey asked carriers if there were specific technologies that they would like to have 

considered in an IVBSS beyond rollover stability, CWS, and LDWS. There were many different 

suggestions: 

• Smart cruise control 

• Trailer tracking/GPS 

• Low speed rollover protection; rollover protection for twin and triple trailers 

• Technology to address backing crashes 

• Black box recorders 

• Road surface temperature monitoring 

• Drowsy driver systems 

Q30 – Q31. WHAT ARE YOUR GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM?

ARE THERE ANY KEY FEATURES? 

When carriers were asked about general requirements and key features of an integrated system, 

there was a myriad of responses. While many carriers indicated that there were not any specific 

requirements that they would like to have in place, other carriers had very specific needs. One of 

the key features mentioned by several respondents was that the new system had to integrate with 

the existing technology, including the use of existing equipment rather than the addition of new 

equipment. Other key requirements were that the system must be and include: 

• Tamper-proof so that drivers cannot intervene with the system 

• Self-operating and require minimal driver interaction 

• Unobtrusive, driver-friendly and not distracting 

• Company support and training on the proper use of the equipment 

Q32. ON A SCALE OF 1 TO 5, HOW IMPORTANT IS IT TO YOU THAT AN 

IVBSS WOULD ADDRESS ALL THREE CRASH TYPES? 

One survey asked carriers the importance of an IVBSS addressing all three collision types – 

rollover, lane change, and rear-end. Carriers were asked to rank the importance on a scale from 

not very important (1) to very important (5). The average rating was 4.05, indicating that it is 

important for an integrated system to address all three crash types. 

28 
Q33. WHAT BENEFITS WOULD YOU WANT IN AN IVBSS? 

The same survey asked carriers what benefits they would like in an IVBSS. The benefit selected 

by almost all of the respondents was greater driver acceptance (91 percent). Easier driver use 

(77 percent) and reduction of more types of crashes (68 percent) were also selected by a majority 

of the carriers. Carriers were able to select multiple categories; therefore, the percentages total 

more than 100 percent. 

Category Respondents % Mean 

On a scale of 1 to 5, how important is it to you that an Integrated Vehicle-based Safety 

System (IVBSS) address all three crash types? 

22 4.05 

What benefits would you want in an IVBSS? 

Greater driver acceptance 22 91% 

Easier driver use 22 77% 

Reduces more types of crashes 22 68% 

Lower costs compared to buying individual systems 22 64% 

Lower maintenance costs 22 59% 

Other 22 0% 

Q34. IF YOU HAVE SAFETY SYSTEMS INSTALLED, WHAT WAS THE 

PRIMARY MOTIVATION FOR INSTALLATION? 

Two surveys asked carriers to indicate the primary motivation (from a pre-determined list) for 

installation of onboard safety technologies. Only carriers who had safety systems installed 

responded to this question. A majority (68 percent) installed the safety systems to reduce 

crashes. Lowering insurance rates was the second most commonly selected option (52 percent). 

Other responses included helping veteran drivers, avoiding construction and traffic congestion, 

and increasing driver retention. Carriers were able to select multiple motivations; therefore, the 

percentages total more than 100 percent. 

Category Respondents # selecting option) % 

Reduce crashes 25 17 68% 

Lower insurance rates 25 13 52% 

Assist new drivers 25 10 40% 

Lower maintenance costs 25 10 40% 

Other 25 8 32% 

29 
TECHNOLOGY PURCHASING QUESTIONS 

Q35 TO 40 – WHAT THINGS DO YOU THINK WOULD MOTIVATE GROUPS TO DEVELOP,

MANUFACTURE, PURCHASE AND USE AN IVI ONBOARD SAFETY SYSTEM? 

One expert panel discussion included questions about the motivations to develop and 

manufacture onboard safety systems, to purchase the technologies, and to use the technologies. 

Each section was followed by investigation of features that could accelerate the development, 

purchase and use of these technologies. Below is a brief description of the responses. 

Development and Manufacture of Onboard Safety Systems 

Motivations for the development and manufacture of the technologies included:

• Market opportunity and major customer requests – carriers indicated that FOTs could 

help accelerate this process by providing an opportunity for testing and increasing 

industry knowledge of the tested technologies. The increased exposure and publicity 

help to create demand for the product. 

• Competition – FOTs were suggested as a method to accelerate the competition by 

expanding tests to include more vehicle types and more fleets. 

• Regulation – vendors indicated that regulations motivate them to develop and market 

technology. 

• Creating a pull market and developing a competitive advantage – market demand was 

noted as a key factor and necessary prerequisite for deployment of the technology. 

• Safety – the need for safety included the establishment of a safety conscious image and 

the political correctness of the issue. Connected to these motivations to improve safety 

was the concept of a move to reduce liability or risk factors. 

Purchase of Onboard Safety Systems by Owner-Operators and Carriers 

Motivations for owner-operators and carriers to purchase the technologies included:

• Contractual requirements – this could be addressed with an independent evaluation of the 

technologies which validates the benefits or results of system use. 

• Recognition and focus on individual carrier needs – these may include a need to correct a 

problem, improve the bottom line, or reduce company risk. Methods to accelerate 

investment based on these motivations include providing real-life examples of success, 

word of mouth from other carriers, and focusing on near-term pay-offs. 

• Driver morale and training – suggestions for accelerating investment based on these 

motivations include publishing the results from field operational tests and lowering 

insurance premiums. 

• Insurance impact – if onboard safety technologies can reduce crashes, insurance 

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

• Industry image – some carriers believe that investing in safety is the “right thing to do.” 

30 
Use of Onboard Systems by Drivers 

Motivations for drivers to use the technologies included:

• Recognition or financial reward for safe driving – outreach programs designed to raise 

awareness of the existing technologies may accelerate the use of safety systems for 

drivers who are motivated by rewards for safe driving. Drivers also need to be confident 

that the data will be used to educate and improve behavior, rather than in a punitive 

manner. 

• Recognition of the value of the systems – this recognition can be accomplished through 

education, training, and awareness. One suggestion for accelerating use of the systems 

was to allow drivers to test the technology during trial runs. 

• Inclusion – drivers want to be included in the decision about which technologies to 

purchase and use. 

• Reliability and product durability over time – this is another area where the trial test runs 

may help accelerate technology acceptance and use by drivers. 

Another interview protocol that asked carriers about the information needed to encourage the 

purchase and use of safety systems by fleets and drivers yielded similar results. Generally, fleets 

are concerned with ROI and increased safety. Respondents indicated that drivers were primarily 

concerned with the distraction and nuisance factor of the equipment. 

Q41. HOW DO YOU GO ABOUT DETERMINING THE ROI FOR ONBOARD SAFETY SYSTEMS? 

Two surveys asked carriers how they determine the ROI for onboard safety technologies. The 

responses were diverse. All carriers indicated they do have a system in place to determine ROI. 

The level of sophistication and detail varied from an in-depth analysis to an informal evaluation. 

Carriers have a wide variety of ways to consider ROI, including savings related to labor, 

timetables costs, and all potential options and investments. Some carriers indicated that they did 

not have a set ROI equation due to the vast differences between technologies and systems and 

the benefits available from each. The challenges of enumerating the precise benefits and costs of 

some systems and the inherent risk in these decisions were recognized by the carriers. Carriers 

who had experienced problems with specific types of crashes mentioned the role that this played 

in the decisions to begin investigating safety technologies, as well as the selection of the 

technology. 

ROI assessments were conducted in various ways, including informal approaches involving 

discussions with vendors and drivers, to more formalized assessments involving the modeling of 

costs and savings over time, testing of products, in-house product reviews, and recommendations 

from colleagues. Almost all of the respondents indicated a need for documentation and data 

support of benefits and costs when conducting ROI analyses. Timetables were also a crucial 

component of the calculations in these analyses. Often, long-term returns were discounted due to 

more immediate company needs. Informal communications and testimonials were important to 

several carriers when conducting initial examinations of technologies. 

31 
Carriers also discussed an interest in improving operations and savings by increasing 

productivity and safety through technology. Practicality was important to many carriers in that 

systems must improve operations and be functional for regular driver use. Systems must also be 

integrated with existing technologies. This was very important to carriers when selecting new 

technologies. Systems that cannot be integrated with existing technologies often involve higher 

costs due to the tangential adaptations that must be made. 

Q42. WHAT WOULD INFLUENCE YOUR DECISION TO PURCHASE SUCH TECHNOLOGIES? 

Two interview protocols asked carriers to identify factors that would influence the decision to 

purchase. Carriers indicated that factors such as fleet safety issues, evidence of successful 

testing, and insurance reductions were the greatest influence on decisions to purchase 

technologies. 

Other factors included: 

• Determination of ROI 

• Need for increased safety 

• Reduction in the cost of the products 

• Government mandates 

• Tax rebates for use of the products 

• Need determined based upon the cost of crashes and driver injuries 

Q43. PLEASE INDICATE WHAT FACTORS ARE MOST IMPORTANT 

WHEN ASSESSING TECHNOLOGIES.

Two surveys asked carriers what factors are most important when assessing technologies. 

Carriers had a wide range of responses; however, they were most interested in demonstrated 

safety improvements. Specific factors included: 

• Demonstrated safety benefits and minimized risk factors 

• Time for ROI 

• Public and driver reactions 

• Field testing statistics 

• Overall cost and impact on internal resources 

• Results of pilot programs 

• Ease of use 

32 
Q44. HOW IMPORTANT ARE THE FOLLOWING FOR YOU TO KNOW IN ORDER TO 

DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO INSTALL AN IVBSS SYSTEM 

(1 = NOT VERY IMPORTANT; 5 = VERY IMPORTANT)? 

One survey asked carriers to indicate how important certain factors were in deciding whether or 

not to install an IVBSS. Carriers were asked to rate each feature on a scale from 1 (not 

important) to 5 (very important). Crash reduction (Mean = 4.64) and time for ROI (Mean = 

4.45) were the most important factors in deciding to install a system. The number of responses, 

the average response for each category, and the percent response by rank are shown in the table 

below. 

Category N Mean 1 2 3 4 5 

Crash reduction 22 4.64 0% 0% 5% 27% 68% 

Time for ROI 20 4.45 0% 0% 15% 25% 60% 

Crash problems targeted 21 4.33 0% 0% 10% 48% 43% 

Maintenance costs 21 4.33 0% 0% 10% 48% 43% 

Suitable for vehicles 22 4.27 5% 0% 14% 27% 55% 

Install costs 21 4.24 0% 0% 24% 29% 48% 

Standards for development 20 4.10 0% 0% 20% 50% 30% 

Driver acceptance 21 4.10 0% 10% 19% 24% 48% 

Experience on other vehicles 21 3.86 5% 5% 19% 43% 29% 

Experience on light vehicles 20 2.25 45% 20% 10% 15% 10% 

Experience on transit 20 2.20 50% 10% 15% 20% 5% 

33 
Q45. PLEASE INDICATE HOW YOU FEEL THE FOLLOWING FACTORS INFLUENCE 

YOUR COMPANY’S DECISION TO BUY AND USE IN-VEHICLE SAFETY TECHNOLOGIES 

(1 = NOT IMPORTANT; 5 = VERY IMPORTANT). 

Two surveys asked carriers to rank particular features from not important (1) to very important 

(5) regarding company decisions to buy and use onboard safety technologies. On average, the 

most important features were proving the accuracy and reliability of the system (Mean = 4.64), 

reduction of crash-related costs (Mean = 4.69), and proving the effectiveness of the system 

(Mean = 4.64). The following table displays the number of responses in each category, the 

average rank, and the percent of responses in each rank. 

Category N Mean 1 2 3 4 5 

Reduced crash-related costs 16 4.69 0% 0% 6% 19% 75% 

Proving accuracy and reliability of a system 86 4.64 0% 1% 8% 16% 74% 

Proving effectiveness of a system 85 4.64 0% 0% 9% 18% 73% 

Cost to install and maintain 88 4.42 0% 7% 10% 17% 66% 

Customer satisfaction 66 4.41 3% 3% 12% 14% 68% 

Reduced insurance premiums 16 4.25 0% 0% 19% 38% 44% 

Availability of vendor or OEM technical support 66 4.20 3% 6% 15% 20% 56% 

Protection of recorded vehicle data 67 3.97 3% 6% 25% 22% 43% 

Overall driver satisfaction/reduced turnover 19 3.95 0% % 26% 53% 21% 

Ability to monitor driver behavior via onboard 

data 67 3.93 1% 12% 15% 36% 36% 

Potential liability risk of improperly using system 66 3.86 3% 5% 32% 24% 36% 

Availability of system for OEMs in new 

equipment 66 3.83 5% 11% 23% 21% 41% 

Potential liability risk of using system 68 3.79 6% 6% 29% 21% 38% 

Insurance company endorsement or 

requirement 85 3.73 4% 11% 31% 20% 35% 

Driver acceptance of a system 86 3.70 3% 12% 26% 30% 29% 

Other 18 3.78 0% 17% 22% 28% 33% 

Cost to train drivers in use of a system 87 3.69 3% 13% 29% 22% 33% 

Availability of system for after-market installation 66 3.65 2% 12% 35% 23% 29% 

Potential liability risk of not using system 67 3.60 10% 4% 31% 22% 31% 

Overall business climate 66 3.59 3% 14% 23% 42% 18% 

34 
Q46. WHEN DECIDING WHETHER TO BUY IN-VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES, HOW IMPORTANT ARE 

THE FOLLOWING BENEFITS TO YOUR COMPANY?

One survey asked carriers how important ten different factors were when deciding whether or not 

to purchase in-vehicle technologies. Not surprisingly, based upon the responses discussed 

above, improving safety and performance was ranked at the top of the list, followed by a 

reduction in maintenance costs. The items, ranked from most to least important, are shown 

below: 

• Increase safety 

• Improve on-time performance 

• Reduce vehicle maintenance costs 

• Optimize fleet utilization 

• Reduce fuel consumption 

• Offer better comfort for drivers 

• Managing driver efficiency 

• Identify stolen vehicles quickly 

• Reduce vehicle emissions 

• Automate vehicle location tracking 

Q47. PLEASE INDICATE THE PROS AND CONS ASSOCIATED WITH YOUR 

PRIMARY FACTORS/ROI APPROACH. 

One survey asked carriers to identify the positives and negatives associated with company ROI 

formulas. 

Strengths 

• Method allows for balance and prioritization of technology spending with other capital 

requirements. Do not have to use resources from other areas to cover these expenses. 

• Voluntary incentives are more supportive of employee morale than mandates. 

• Training and employee acceptance strategies are important. 

Weaknesses/Negatives 

• Process of identifying and selecting technology to install is vague and challenging. 

• Long-term investment and projects receive less attention and financial support than quick 

fixes. 

• Evaluating second order impacts, such as the impact that a technology has on driver 

turnover, is difficult. 

• Often there is not enough quality data to form a complete evaluation. 

• More third-party evaluation data is needed rather than relying solely on vendor data. 

• A more detailed cost/benefit ratio is necessary. 

35 
Q48. GENERALLY, WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE PAYBACK TIME WHEN YOUR 

COMPANY CONSIDERS INVESTING IN IN-VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES? 

Three surveys asked carriers to indicate the maximum acceptable payback when examining invehicle technologies. A shorter time period was preferred over a longer time frame; however, 

there was a range of responses, from less than 12 months to more than 36 months. The most 

frequently selected category was a payback time of less than 12 months (39 percent). 

Category Respondents # selecting option % 

Less than 12 months 234 91 39% 

13 to 24 months 234 69 29% 

25 to 36 months 234 49 21% 

More than 36 months 234 20 9% 

Q49. WHAT IS A REASONABLE PER-UNIT PRICE LEVEL THAT WILL MAKE THESE SYSTEMS 

ATTRACTIVE TO YOUR ORGANIZATION? 

One survey asked carriers to indicate what reasonable per-unit price would make the safety 

systems attractive. Over half of the carriers (53 percent) indicated that the per-unit price would 

need to be less than $500. 

Category Respondents # selecting option % 

Less than $500 15 8 53% 

$500 to $1,000 15 3 20% 

$1,000 to $2,000 15 3 20% 

$2,000 to $3,000 15 0 0% 

$3,000 to $4,000 15 0 0% 

$4,000 to $5,000 15 0 0% 

More than $5,000 15 0 0% 

Based on time to recoup investment 15 1 7% 

36 
Q50. WHAT ARE THE MAJOR OBSTACLES, BARRIERS, OR CONCERNS TO INVESTING 

AND INCORPORATING NEW SAFETY TECHNOLOGIES/SYSTEMS 

INTO THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY? 

One survey asked carriers about the obstacles or barriers to investing in and incorporating new 

safety technologies into the trucking industry. Consistent with previous responses to similar 

questions, most carriers mentioned cost as one of the major obstacles for technology 

implementation. Costs consisted of purchasing, installation, and maintenance. Other concerns 

included: 

• Data ownership issues 

• Owner and driver acceptance 

• Questions of technology durability and reliability 

• Increased complexity of truck systems 

• Established standards of performance 

• Proof of ROI potential 

• Integration with existing systems (engine, transmission, antilock brake system (ABS), 

etc.) 

Q51. HOW CAN WE BEST EVALUATE THE USER ACCEPTANCE BY CARRIERS AND DRIVERS OF AN 

ONBOARD SAFETY TECHNOLOGY? 

Q52. HOW CAN WE GATHER DATA ON A LARGE POPULATION OF CARRIERS AND DRIVERS 

IN A COST EFFECTIVE WAY? 

These two questions were on the end of an expert panel meeting, and due to the expansive 

responses to the preliminary questions during that process, little time was spent on these topics. 

General recommendations included focusing outreach at all levels (companies, industry 

representatives, other stakeholder representatives, etc.) to provide information about FOTs and 

their findings. Recommendations also included outreach through a wide variety of sources, 

including FMCSA State Directors, American Trucking Associations (ATA), State trucking 

associations, the National Truck Driving Championship, magazines, and other media outlets. 

There was extensive discussion about the importance of conducting this type of evaluation, but 

little discussion about exactly how it could be done. One suggestion involved providing samples 

to carriers and drivers to evaluate technologies and provide feedback. 

37 
Q53. WOULD YOUR COMPANY CONSIDER BEING PART OF A LARGER INDUSTRY TEAM TO 

EVALUATE THE BENEFITS OF AN IN-VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEM? 

Q54. MAY WE CONTACT YOU AS A FOLLOW UP TO THIS QUESTIONNAIRE?

One survey asked carriers about their willingness to participate in a larger industry team 

evaluating the benefits of in-vehicle safety systems. Of the 20 respondents, 14 (70 percent) said 

they would be willing to participate. These carriers indicated having an average of 76 trucks per 

carrier to participate in the evaluation, ranging from 2 to 350 trucks. Some of the conditions that 

carriers mentioned as prerequisites for participation included help with installation, no cost 

involvement or at least assistance with the cost of equipment, minimal down time, and minimal 

additional labor on the part of the company staff. 

Q55. WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE FMCSA DO TO ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT AND 

DEPLOYMENT OF ADVANCED SAFETY TECHNOLOGIES? 

One survey asked carriers what FMCSA could do to encourage the development and deployment 

of these technologies. Participants had a number of suggestions: 

• Provide tax incentives for the expense of the equipment 

• Make the technology more affordable 

• Avoid mandates 

• Encourage public-private partnerships 

CONCLUSION AND FOLLOW-UP ANALYSES 

As shown by these surveys, there is a growing acceptance of onboard safety systems and other 

in-vehicle technologies; however, cost remains a concern. In recent surveys, more carriers 

indicated that there is wider use of a variety of technologies and a greater knowledge of safety 

technologies. As these systems and related benefits receive more industry and media attention, 

and become more widely used by a range of carriers, greater acceptance will likely be achieved. 

A substantial number of concerns involved the need to show the proven reliability and stability 

of these systems. These concerns have existed over the last five years, and they are still being 

discussed in the more recent surveys. This indicates that there is either not enough objective 

research produced and disseminated about these systems, or that the information distributed is 

not reaching the majority of carriers. 

Also, carriers had concerns about how the data recorded by some of these systems is handled, 

and the privacy and security of this information. These concerns were echoed by the driver 

surveys. 

38 
7.0 DRIVER SURVEY INSTRUMENT RESULTS 

Seven driver survey instruments were included in this synthesis. None of the studies had 

duplicative questions. One of the seven addressed general driver interactions with all safety 

technologies, one focused on LDWS, and the third was focused on reactions to feedback from 

the technologies. The other four surveys were focused on driver experiences with RA&C during 

an FOT. These survey results are summarized below.

SURVEY 1 

Q1. WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING SAFETY SYSTEMS HAVE YOU EVER USED? 

The survey asked 20 drivers which safety systems they had used. Nineteen drivers responded 

and indicated experiences on a range of safety technologies. The most frequently used system 

was ABS (89 percent) and none of the drivers indicated experience with LDWS, RSA, RSC, or 

ACC systems. Because drivers were asked to indicate all of the technologies ever used, the 

percentages total more than 100 percent. 

Category Respondents # selecting option % 

ABS 19 17 89% 

Pre-Pass 19 8 42% 

Electronic disc brakes 19 2 11% 

In-vehicle navigation 19 1 5% 

Forward CWS 19 1 5% 

Blind-spot side object 

detection system 19 1 5% 

Lane tracking/LDWS 19 0 0% 

RSA 19 0 0% 

RSC 19 9 0% 

ACC 19 0 0% 

39 
Q2. ARE YOU CURRENTLY USING THE FOLLOWING TECHNOLOGIES? 

Nineteen of the 20 participants responded when asked about technologies currently being used. 

ABS was again the most commonly cited system (79 percent), with even fewer systems currently 

in use by the drivers. Because drivers were asked to indicate all of the technologies ever used, 

the percentages total more than 100 percent. 

Category Respondents # selecting option % 

ABS 19 15 79% 

Pre-Pass 19 5 26% 

Electronic disc brakes 19 1 5% 

In-vehicle navigation 19 1 5% 

Forward CWS 19 0 0% 

Side-looking radar 19 0 0% 

Lane tracking/LDWS 19 0 0% 

RSA 19 0 0% 

RSC 19 9 0% 

ACC 19 0 0% 

Q3. HOW MANY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE DO YOU HAVE WITH EACH OF THE FOLLOWING?

Although the survey asked drivers to indicate how many years of experience each had with the 

technologies, there were very few responses. The few respondents who provided feedback to 

this question indicated 5 years of experience with ABS, 1 trip with electronic disc brakes, 6 

weeks with in-vehicle navigation, and three months each with the CWS and blind-spot side 

object detection system. 

40 
Q4. ARE YOU WILLING TO TRY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING SYSTEMS? 

When asked what systems they would be willing to try, respondents were receptive to most of 

the systems. The one exception was ABS brakes, since two drivers were not willing to try them. 

For each of the other categories, a majority of the drivers were willing to try each system. 

Drivers were asked to respond to each category separately; therefore, the percentages total more 

than 100 percent. 

Category Respondents # selecting option % 

Side-looking radar 19 19 100% 

Lane tracking/LDWS 19 18 95% 

RSA 19 18 95% 

Forward CWS 19 18 95% 

In-vehicle navigation 19 17 89% 

Electronic disc brakes 19 16 84% 

ACC 19 14 74% 

Pre-Pass 15 11 73% 

RSC 19 12 63% 

ABS 2 0 0% 

Q5. RANK THE USEFULNESS FROM 1ST TO 3RD. 

Drivers were asked to rank each technology in terms of usefulness. None of the drivers ranked 

ABS brakes. Most of the respondents ranked lane tracking, in-vehicle navigation, and blind-spot 

side object detection systems as the most useful systems. Electronic disc brakes, rollover 

control, and adaptive cruise control received the lowest rankings. 

Category Total Mean 

Score 

Rank 1st 

n 

Rank 1st 

% 

Rank 2nd 

n 

Rank 2nd 

% 

Rank 3rd 

n 

Rank 3rd 

% 

Side-looking radar 13 1.6 6 46% 6 46% 1 8% 

In-vehicle navigation 8 1.6 5 63% 1 13% 2 25% 

Lane tracking/LDWS 12 1.8 6 50% 2 17% 4 33% 

Forward CWS 3 2.0 1 33% 1 33% 1 33% 

Electronic disc brakes 6 2.0 2 33% 3 50% 0 0% 

Pre-Pass 7 2.1 2 29% 2 29% 3 43% 

ACC 6 2.3 1 17% 2 33% 3 50% 

RSA 10 2.4 2 20% 2 20% 6 60% 

RSC 4 3.0 0 0% 0 0% 4 100% 

41 
Q6. HAVE YOU EVER RECEIVED TRAINING IN THESE SYSTEMS? IF SO, PLEASE RANK THE 

TRAINING FROM 1 (VERY EFFECTIVE) TO 5 (INEFFECTIVE). 

When asked about training on the systems, only three respondents indicated receiving training on 

ABS systems, ACC, CWS, and blind-spot side object detection systems. Each of the 

respondents ranked the effectiveness of the training as either a 1 or 2, indicating it was very 

effective. 

Q7. RANK THE TOP THREE WAYS THAT YOU WANT TO HEAR ABOUT THE SYSTEM. 

Drivers were not interested in hearing about systems from the internet or email, onsite 

orientations or ride-along, or on simulators. Drivers indicated that the worst way to hear about a 

system would be through a government mandate or over the CB radio. The top ranked ways to 

hear about systems included hands-on experience, talking with other drivers, or formal classroom 

orientation training. 

Category Total Mean 

Score Worst Worst % 

Rank 

1st

Rank 

1st: % 

Rank 

2nd

Rank 

2nd: % 

Rank 

3rd

Rank 

3rd: % 

Trial and error/Hands on 8 1.9 1 13% 4 50% 2 25% 1 13% 

Message from company 

system 4 2.0 0 0% 1 25% 2 50% 1 25% 

Formal classroom 10 2.1 1 10% 4 40% 2 20% 3 30% 

Magazines 15 2.1 0 0% 4 27% 6 40% 5 33% 

Talk with other drivers 5 2.2 1 20% 2 40% 1 20% 1 20% 

CB 3 3.3 2 66% 0 0% 1 33% 0 0% 

Government mandate 8 4.0 8 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Read manuals 1 4.0 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

42 
Q8. HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO LEARN TO USE THE SYSTEM? 

Drivers indicated that the worst ways to learn to use a system would be through government 

mandates or over the CB radio. However, drivers ranked fewer methods as the worst way to 

learn how to use systems than when selecting the worst methods to hear about systems. The top 

ranked methods for learning how to use a system include: formal training, actual road experience 

training, and hands-on training. No drivers ranked talking with other drivers, message over the 

company system, or the internet as either the worst or one of the top three ways to receive 

training. 

Category Total Mean 

Score Worst Worst % 

Rank

1st

Rank 

1st: % 

Rank 

2nd

Rank 

2nd: % 

Rank 

3rd

Rank 

3rd: % 

Formal classroom 14 1.6 0 0% 9 64% 2 14% 3 21% 

Trial and error/Hands 

on 

15 1.8 0 0% 6 40% 6 40% 3 20% 

Actual road experience 12 2.0 0 0% 5 42% 2 17% 5 42% 

On-site orientation/ 

ride-along 1 2.0 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 

Read manuals 5 2.6 0 0% 0 0% 2 40% 3 60% 

Magazines 4 2.8 0 0% 0 0% 1 25% 3 75% 

Simulator 3 3.0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 100% 

Truck shows 1 3.0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 100% 

CB 1 4.0 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Government mandate 3 4.0 3 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

43 
Q9. HOW MUCH DO YOU AGREE WITH EACH STATEMENT ON A SCALE OF 1 TO 5 FROM 

STRONGLY AGREE TO STRONGLY DISAGREE? 

Drivers were asked to indicate how much they agree with a variety of statements related to the 

effectiveness and efficiency of the safety systems, perceptions of usefulness of the safety 

systems, and opinions about general driver reactions to these types of systems. All 19 drivers 

ranked each statement. In general, drivers agreed that there could be benefits to these systems. 

There was some concern about how reliable the systems were, but there were few concerns about 

safety systems causing distraction and decreased alertness. It is important to note that, on 

average, the drivers agreed that they would like to find ways to encourage their company to use 

these types of technologies. 

 Statement Mean 

Score 1: n 1: % 2: n 2: % 3: n 3: % 4: n 4: % 5: n 1: % 

1. These systems could help save 

time on my trips. 2.0 3 16% 15 79% 0 0% 0 0% 1 5% 

2. These systems could help me 

respond faster in emergency 

situations. 

1.9 5 26% 12 63% 0 0% 2 11% 0 0% 

3. These systems are more helpful 

under some conditions than 

others. 

2.1 2 11% 15 79% 0 0% 2 11% 0 0% 

4. I feel safer driving with these 

systems than without them. 2.0 4 21% 12 63% 2 11% 1 5% 0 0% 

5. These systems could increase 

my driving workload; that is, they 

could increase the amount of 

effort and concentration it takes 

to drive. 

3.4 0 0% 5 26% 2 11% 12 63% 0 0% 

6. A skilled driver really does not 

need systems like these. 3.7 1 5% 1 5% 1 5% 16 84% 0 0% 

7. These safety systems help 

reduce the stress and fatigue of 

truck driving. 

2.3 2 11% 13 68% 0 0% 4 21% 0 0% 

8. I find I have become dependent 

on these safety systems such 

that I feel less safe in a truck 

without them. 

2.4 5 26% 7 37% 2 11% 4 21% 1 5% 

9. Most of the drivers I know would 

rather have these systems than 

not have them in their trucks. 

2.8 0 0% 10 53% 3 16% 6 32% 0 0% 

10. I would sometimes keep some of 

these systems turned off in my 

truck while I am driving. 

3.1 1 5% 7 37% 0 0% 11 58% 0 0% 

44 
Mean Statement 1: n 1: % 2: n 2: % 3: n 3: % 4: n 4: % 5: n 1: % Score 

11. To really make a safety 

improvement, every truck on the 

road should have these kinds of 

systems. 

2.4 2 11% 12 63% 0 0% 5 26% 0 0% 

12. I find that some of these 

systems can be distracting while 

I am driving. 

2.8 2 11% 7 37% 2 11% 8 42% 0 0% 

13. I think these systems can 

actually cause me to be less 

alert in my driving. 

3.1 0 0% 10 53% 0 0% 6 32% 3 16% 

14. I trust the reliability of these 

safety systems. 3.7 0 0% 4 21% 3 16% 7 37% 5 26% 

15. These systems may interfere 

with my driving tasks. 3.3 0 0% 6 32% 1 5% 12 63% 0 0% 

16. Having these systems has not 

really changed the way I drive. 2.8 1 5% 10 53% 0 0% 8 42% 0 0% 

17. Overall I would really like to 

have these systems on my truck. 2.5 1 5% 13 68% 1 5% 3 16% 1 5% 

18. My company/customer feels it is 

important to install these kinds of 

safety systems in their fleet. 

3.1 0 0% 8 42% 4 21% 5 26% 2 11% 

19. I would like to encourage my 

company to outfit trucks with 

more systems like these. 

2.0 6 32% 8 42% 4 21% 1 5% 0 0% 

Q10. DO YOU HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS FOR MAKING FURTHER SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS? 

Drivers indicated that there were several things that could be done to increase safety. One of the 

most common recommendations was related to educating automobile drivers about the 

experience of driving a truck and an understanding of the issues truckers must address. Other 

recommendations included: 

• Automatic transmissions in all trucks 

• More comprehensive training programs 

• Better CDL license screening 

• Reduction of bugs in safety systems before distribution 

45 
Q11. ARE THERE ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGIES YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ON YOUR TRUCK 

THAT YOU CURRENTLY DO NOT? 

Drivers indicated an interest in several technologies that were specifically mentioned previously, 

as well as GPS, blind-spot detection systems, CWS, route guidance, lane tracking, and rollover 

prevention systems (RPS). 

Q12. HOW WOULD YOU LIKE A NEW SAFETY TECHNOLOGY TO BE INTRODUCED? 

Drivers indicated that before a new safety technology is introduced, it should receive upper 

management support within the corporation, go through trial runs, and be demonstrated at truck 

shows, as well as publicized, so that drivers and management are familiar with the equipment 

before it is distributed. 

46 
SURVEY 2 

The second survey gathered driver responses from 205 drivers at six different fleets utilizing 

LDWS. This survey was conducted by a vendor related to the particular product. 

Q1. ABOUT HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN DRIVING WITH THE LANE GUIDANCE SYSTEM? 

Most of the drivers had been using the system for about six months. 

Category Total 

Respondents 

# of 

Respondents % 

Less than 1 month 194 29 15% 

1 to 6 months 194 100 52% 

More than 6 months 194 65 34% 

Q2. DO YOU NORMALLY DRIVE WITH THE SYSTEM ENABLED (ON) OR DISABLED (OFF)? 

The majority (80 percent) of the drivers normally keep the system enabled when driving. 

Category Total 

Respondents 

# of 

Respondents % 

Enabled 205 163 80% 

Disabled 205 42 20% 

Q3. IN WHAT TYPES OF SITUATIONS WOULD YOU TEND TO TURN THE SYSTEM OFF? 

Drivers were asked an open-ended question about when they typically turned the system off. 

There were a wide range of responses, with the most common being construction zones (28 

percent), heavy traffic/cities (16 percent), or narrow or curvy roads (13 percent). Another 23 

percent indicated never turning the system off. Other responses included: 

• Daytime

• Most of the time

• Foggy conditions

• Training a new driver

• Bad weather

• Heavily faded or no lanes

• Small towns

• Co-driver is trying to sleep 

47 
Q4. DO YOU FEEL THAT THE LANE DEPARTURE WARNINGS THAT YOU GET FROM THE LANE 

GUIDANCE SYSTEM COME AT ABOUT THE RIGHT TIME? 

Drivers indicated that the warnings were valid most of the time (75 percent), and only 3 percent 

indicated that rarely receiving good warnings. 

Category Total 

Respondents 

# of 

Respondents % 

Good warnings most of the time 193 144 75% 

Good warnings some of the time 193 43 22% 

Good warnings rarely 193 6 3% 

Q5. HOW MANY “FALSE ALARMS” DO YOU GET FROM THE LANE GUIDANCE SYSTEM?

The drivers provided diverse responses as to how often false alarms from the system were 

received. Most of the drivers indicated that it was once a week or more. 

Category Total 

Respondents 

# of 

Respondents % 

More than once a day 188 42 22% 

About once a day 188 28 15% 

Few times a week 188 50 27% 

Once a week 188 13 7% 

Less than once a week 188 55 29% 

Q5A. IS THE SYSTEM VALUABLE EVEN WITH THE FALSE ALARMS? 

Almost all (92 percent) of the respondents indicated that the system was valuable even with the 

false alarms. 

48 
Q6. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE TYPES OF CONDITIONS IN WHICH FALSE ALARMS OCCUR. 

The drivers were asked an open-ended question regarding when false alarms typically occur. 

There was a wide range of responses. The most common response was road construction (38 

percent), followed by curvy/narrow roads (17 percent) and weather conditions (such as fog) (14 

percent). Nine percent of respondents indicated no experience with false alarms. Other 

responses included: 

• Two lanes merging into one 

• Pot holes 

• Trailer off tracking 

• Exit ramps 

• Urban areas 

• Overhead bridge 

Q7. HAS THE SYSTEM HELPED YOU TO BE A BETTER/SAFER DRIVER? IF SO, HOW? 

A majority (70 percent) of the drivers indicated that the system had helped them become a better 

driver. The system had been helpful with a variety of situations and issues, including weather 

(15 percent), increased alertness (57 percent), and driver awareness of location on the road (28 

percent). 

Q8. WHAT DO YOU LIKE ABOUT THE LANE GUIDANCE SYSTEM? 

When drivers were asked an open-ended question about what they liked about the lane guidance 

system, the responses were consistent with the issues that the system had helped them improve 

on. The general responses were categorized into six general topics for analysis. The most 

common response was that the system helps keep the driver more alert. 

Category Total 

Respondents 

# of 

Respondents % 

Increases alertness 139 64 46% 

Helps driver keep the truck straight 139 35 25% 

Weather-related assistance 139 24 17% 

Nothing 139 8 6% 

Everything 139 6 4% 

You can turn it off 139 2 1% 

49 
Q9. WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL DEGREE OF SATISFACTION WITH THE LANE GUIDANCE SYSTEM? 

Drivers were asked to indicate satisfaction with the system on a scale from very satisfied to very 

dissatisfied. Most of the drivers were somewhat (28 percent) or very satisfied (40 percent). 

Category Total 

Respondents 

# of 

Respondents % 

Very satisfied 194 77 40% 

Somewhat satisfied 194 55 28% 

Neutral 194 50 26% 

Somewhat dissatisfied 194 1 1% 

Very dissatisfied 194 11 6% 

Q10. WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO CHANGE ABOUT THE LANE GUIDANCE SYSTEM? 

When asked an open-ended question about changes to the LDWS, there was a wide range of 

responses. Most of the drivers indicated that they would not change anything about the system 

(57 drivers, 53 percent). Other suggestions included: 

• A different type of auditory alert or different volume (both louder and softer were 

recommended) 

• Reduction in the brightness of the indicator lights 

• Faster response times 

• Reduction of false alarms 

• Better functionality in weather such as heavy fog and snow 

Q11. DO YOU BELIEVE THE SYSTEM CAN PREVENT CRASHES? 

Almost all of the drivers (96 percent) believed that the system can help prevent crashes. 

Q12. DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? 

When asked if there were any additional comments or incidents that the driver would like to 

share, drivers provided a great deal of feedback. Almost all of the respondents indicated that it 

worked well and it improved safety, as well as several respondents described circumstances 

where it prevented a crash. 

50 
Q13. HAS THE SYSTEM EVER CAUSED YOU TO REALIZE THAT YOU WERE GETTING TIRED AND 

CAUSED YOU TO STOP AND REST? 

Only 27 drivers responded to this particular question. Of those drivers, 59 percent indicated that 

the system had not caused them to realize they were getting tired and to stop and rest, while 41 

percent indicated that it had. 

51 
SURVEY 3 

This survey and focus group effort was conducted by the Liberty Mutual Research Institute for 

Safety. The focus group included a total of 66 participants in 9 different focus group sessions. 

The focus group data was used to develop the survey instrument. The survey was conducted and 

responses were obtained from 198 long-haul truck drivers. Several attempts were made to obtain 

the original survey instruments and data from this research; however, it was only possible to 

obtain the summary reports and articles that were written based on the findings. A summary of 

the information is presented below. 

Q1. WOULD TRUCK DRIVERS LIKE TO RECEIVE MORE FEEDBACK ABOUT THEIR DRIVING 

PERFORMANCE? 

Drivers were fairly evenly spread across the continuum from agree to disagree in response to this 

question. Most of the drivers indicated that they generally received positive feedback and it was 

more helpful than negative feedback. 

Statement 

Strongly or 

somewhat 

disagree 

Neither agree 

nor disagree 

Strongly or 

somewhat agree 

I receive enough feedback about how I drive. 24% 34% 42% 

I would like to receive more feedback about 

how I drive. 20% 36% 45% 

When I receive feedback about how I drive, it 

is mostly positive feedback. 15% 31% 55% 

When I receive feedback about how I drive it 

is mostly negative feedback. 48% 19% 33% 

Positive feedback about how I drive is more 

helpful to me than negative feedback. 12% 29% 59% 

52 
Q2. WHAT ARE THE PERCEIVED BENEFITS OF RECEIVING FEEDBACK ON SAFE DRIVING 

PERFORMANCE BY TECHNOLOGY? 

Drivers generally agreed that feedback from safety technologies could be used in defending 

driver behavior in the event of a driving incident. The drivers also indicated a belief that the 

technology could create a safer driving environment. However, drivers disagreed that feedback 

from in-vehicle technology reduces the stress of truck driving. 

Statement 

Strongly or 

somewhat 

disagree 

Neither agree 

nor disagree 

Strongly or 

somewhat agree 

Data from technology will likely be used to 

defend me if I am involved in an incident. 28% 16% 56% 

In-vehicle technology giving feedback about 

how I drive will make me a safer driver. 32% 22% 46% 

In-vehicle technology giving feedback about 

how I drive will reduce the stress of driving a 

truck. 

46% 22% 32% 

Q3. WHAT ARE THE PERCEIVED DRAWBACKS AND CONCERNS OF RECEIVING FEEDBACK ON 

SAFE DRIVING PERFORMANCE BY TECHNOLOGY? 

Again, the responses were very diverse when drivers were asked about concerns related to safety 

technologies. Drivers were very concerned about data privacy and data accessibility. Drivers 

were not concerned about the potential labor pool impacts from the technologies. 

Statement 

Strongly or 

somewhat 

disagree 

Neither 

agree nor 

disagree 

Strongly or 

somewhat agree 

I want technology to create a record of how I drive. 35% 30% 35% 

I am concerned that the data collected by invehicle technology will get into the wrong hands. 18% 16% 65% 

I am concerned that the technology will be too 

complex for me to use. 47% 33% 19% 

Too many people will be able to drive trucks 

because these technologies will make the job too 

easy. 

62% 15% 23% 

Drivers who depend too much on technology will 

lose the skills they need to be a safe driver. 36% 12% 52% 

Receiving feedback from technology may be a 

distraction. 28% 24% 49% 

I am concerned that technology may not be very 

reliable. 25% 33% 42% 

53 
Q4. WHAT IS THE PREFERRED FORM OF FEEDBACK ON SAFE DRIVING PERFORMANCE BY 

TECHNOLOGY? 

Drivers were asked about a wide variety of display and feedback forms. There was a variety in 

the responses regarding the most preferred method, indicating that a range of options is the best 

method of meeting all driver needs and preferences. Over half of the drivers indicated that they 

would like to receive feedback when requested, rather than automatically, and immediately after 

an event. Drivers indicated that they do not want to receive the feedback from a computerized 

voice. 

“I would like to receive feedback from technology about how I drive...” 

Statement 

Strongly or 

somewhat 

disagree 

Neither agree 

nor disagree 

Strongly or 

somewhat agree 

...by a display on the dashboard. 34% 19% 47% 

...by a computer printout at the end of a shift. 43% 20% 37% 

...by a computerized voice. 57% 24% 20% 

...when I request it rather than technology 

delivering feedback automatically. 16% 34% 51% 

...at regularly scheduled intervals. 22% 35% 43% 

...immediately after the event. 21% 23% 57% 

...once a day. 34% 31% 34% 

...once a week. 25% 31% 44% 

...once a month. 26% 28% 47% 

...once every three months. 32% 30% 38% 

...once a year. 35% 28% 37% 

54 
Q5. FROM WHOM WOULD TRUCK DRIVERS LIKE TO RECEIVE FEEDBACK ON SAFE DRIVING 

PERFORMANCE? 

When drivers were asked to indicate who they would like to receive feedback from, the 

respondents were split across the continuum relative to receiving feedback from technology 

rather than a person. When specifying a particular person, most drivers indicated a preference 

for feedback from the safety director, direct supervisor, a senior manager at the company, or their 

team driving partner. 

Statement 

Strongly or 

somewhat 

disagree 

Neither agree 

nor disagree 

Strongly or 

somewhat agree 

Receiving feedback about how I drive from 

technology is as helpful as feedback from a 

real person. 

37% 26% 37% 

“I would like to receive feedback about how I drive from ...” 

Statement 

Strongly or 

somewhat 

disagree 

Neither agree 

nor disagree 

Strongly or 

somewhat agree 

...the safety director of my company. 17% 15% 68% 

...my direct supervisor, dispatcher, or driver 

manager. 

21% 18% 61% 

...a senior manager in my company. 21% 23% 57% 

...a team driving partner. 23% 24% 54% 

...other truck drivers. 28% 22% 50% 

...a customer. 30% 25% 44% 

...a 1-800 “How’s my driving” service. 46% 25% 29% 

...“four-wheelers.” 59% 19% 22% 

55 
Q6. WHAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT SAFE DRIVING BEHAVIORS? 

Drivers were asked to indicate what driving behaviors were considered the most important safe 

driving behaviors. Responses are listed below from the behaviors selected the most to the least. 

• Looking well ahead of my vehicle to adjust to what is happening in front of me (74 

percent) 

• Expecting other drivers to make driving mistakes and being ready to avoid them – expect 

the unexpected (55 percent) 

• Using turn signals to give other drivers plenty of warning when changing lanes or making 

turns (49 percent) 

• Adjusting my mirrors to prevent blind spots (29 percent) 

• Not driving drowsy (28 percent) 

• Not driving faster than the posted speed limit (17 percent) 

• Wearing my seat and shoulder belt (16 percent) 

• Keeping at least two seconds following distance between my rig and vehicles in front (13 

percent) 

• Not driving distracted (9 percent) 

• Being courteous to other drivers (9 percent) 

56 
SURVEYS 4 THROUGH 7 

These surveys were part of the same FOT for RA&C. For that reason, the results of the 

instruments are presented together to allow for greater interpretation and understanding of the 

results. Fifteen drivers completed each instrument. The other eight drivers left the employment 

of the company where the FOT was being conducted during the study time period. The drivers 

left employment for a variety of reasons and were not replaced in the study. The drivers who 

participated were 35 years old or older and most of the drivers had at least 22 years of truck 

driving experience and 8 years of experience driving a tanker. 

SURVEY 4: INITIAL CONTACTS 

The 4th survey addressed driver decision-making characteristics. This is the only driver survey 

to address this particular perspective. Generally, the results indicated that participants invested a 

substantial thought and examination into their decision-making, and did not have many risktaking characteristics. 

Q1. WHAT AFFECTS YOU WHEN MAKING DECISIONS?

Drivers indicated that they frequently consult others, rely on gut feelings and stick to decisions 

once made, remain calm when making quick decisions, feel in control of things, take the safe 

option, plan well ahead, and weigh the pros and cons when making decisions. They indicated 

that they rarely made decisions without considering all the ramifications. Most of the 

participants enjoyed making decisions. All of these factors may influence how the drivers may 

interact with the technology as they make decisions in various driving situations. 

Question Never Infrequently

Somewhat 

infrequently

Somewhat 

Frequently Frequently Always

1. Do you enjoy making decisions? 0% 0% 0% 13% 39% 48% 

2. Do you rely on your “gut feeling” when 

making decisions? 4% 4% 22% 30% 30% 9% 

3. Do you like to consult with others? 0% 0% 0% 9% 65% 26% 

4. Do you stick by your decisions come 

what may? 0% 9% 4% 17% 44% 26% 

5. When you find one option that will just 

about do, do you leave it at that? 17% 35% 9% 22% 17% 0% 

6. Do you remain calm when you have to 

make decisions very quickly? 0% 0% 9% 22% 39% 30% 

7. Do you feel in control of things? 0% 4% 9% 13% 35% 39% 

8. How often are your decisions governed 

by your ideals regardless of practical 

difficulties? 

4% 17% 13% 35% 30% 0% 

57 
Question In- Somewhat Somewhat Never Frequently Always frequently infrequently Frequently 

9. Do you make decisions without 

considering all of the implications? 

39% 35% 22% 0% 4% 0% 

10. Do you change your mind about things? 0% 17% 44% 22% 17% 0% 

11. Do you take the safe option if there is 

one? 

0% 0% 0% 0% 26% 74% 

12. Do you prefer to avoid making decisions 

if you can? 22% 30% 17% 22% 4% 4% 

13. Do you plan well ahead? 0% 0% 0% 9% 44% 48% 

14. When making decisions, do you find 

yourself favoring first one option, then 

another? 

9% 30% 13% 9% 30% 9% 

15. Do you carry on looking for something 

better even if you have found a course 

of action that is just about OK? 

4% 4% 4% 22% 35% 30% 

16. Do you find it difficult to think clearly 

when you have to decide something in a 

hurry? 

9% 22% 9% 26% 30% 4% 

17. Do you make up your own mind about 

things regardless of what others think? 4% 0% 13% 9% 52% 22% 

18. Do you avoid taking advice over 

decisions? 26% 30% 26% 4% 4% 9% 

19. Do you work out all the pros and cons 

before making a decision? 0% 0% 9% 13% 52% 26% 

20. In your decision-making, how often are 

practicalities more important than 

principles? 

9% 17% 13% 35% 22% 4% 

21. Is your decision making a deliberate 

logical process? 4% 0% 0% 22% 44% 30% 

58 
Q2 – Q3. WHAT ARE YOUR EXPECTATIONS RELATED TO ONBOARD TECHNOLOGIES?

Drivers were also asked some preliminary questions about expectations related to the RSA and 

other technologies. Some of these questions are similar, but not completely compatible with 

questions from other surveys about other technologies. The majority of the participants (79 

percent) indicated an expectation that the RSA would somewhat reduce the chances of a rollover. 

This indicates that, while drivers saw a value in the RSA, they did not expect it to make a 

dramatic difference in rollover occurrence. Drivers were also asked questions to determine how 

well they understood this particular technology and the messages it provided. 

Q2. I EXPECT THE ROLLOVER ADVISORY SYSTEM TO _____ MY CHANCES OF A ROLLOVER. 

Greatly Reduce Somewhat Reduce Make no difference 

21% 79% 0% 

Q3. A ROLLOVER ADVISORY SYSTEM MESSAGE SAYING THAT A CURVE YOU ARE TAKING 

REQUIRES A SPEED SLOWER BY 3 MPH MEANS THAT... 

You should slow down immediately when the 

message appears 

Next time you take this turn or one like it, you 

should go slower by 3 mph 

21% 79% 

59 
Q4 – Q6. WHAT IS YOUR TECHNOLOGY EXPERIENCE?

Unlike the other surveys discussed in this section, this particular survey asked drivers about their 

technology experience both at home and in their truck. Most of the drivers indicated that they 

did have a computer at home (71 percent) and that they used it occasionally (50 percent) or 

frequently (30 percent). However, over half (57 percent) also indicated that they know less 

about computers than most of the people they work with. This is an important distinction 

regarding how comfortable the drivers may be with technology in general. The drivers who 

participated in this particular FOT had a generally high interaction level with technology such as 

computers. 

Q4. DO YOU HAVE A HOME COMPUTER? 

Yes No 

71% 29% 

Q5. HOW OFTEN DO YOU USE IT YOURSELF? 

Frequently Occasionally Rarely Never 

30% 50% 10% 10% 

Q6. WHAT IS YOUR LEVEL OF EXPERTISE ON THE COMPUTER? 

I know more about computers than most 

people I work with. 

I know less about computers than most 

people I work with. 

43% 57% 

60 
Q7. HAVE YOU USED ANY OTHER “HIGH TECH” TRUCK CONTROL OR INFORMATION SYSTEMS 

WHEN WORKING WITH OTHER EMPLOYERS IN THE PAST FEW YEARS? 

Most drivers (93 percent) indicated that they had used other “high tech” truck control or 

information systems. A small number of drivers used trucks with the CADEC Mobile Logistics 

Management System that interfaces with multiple communication systems with GPS, electronic 

DOT logs, automated state fuel tax reporting, electronic tachograph capability, and route 

management. Most of these drivers had used trucks with the EATON VORAD CWS installed. 

Half of the drivers (50 percent) indicated that these systems could useful when driving. Previous 

experience with in-vehicle technology may impact how receptive drivers are to other new 

technologies. 

Yes No 

93% 7% 

Q7A. IF YES, PLEASE NAME THEM. 

CADEC and EATON 

VORAD 

CADEC only EATON VORAD only 

15% 8% 77%

Q7B. IN GENERAL, DID YOU SEE THESE SYSTEMS AS ... 

Useful to you in driving 

your truck 

Creates a problem for you 

when driving your truck 

Not useful to you in driving 

your truck but not a 

problem either 

50% 29% 21%

61 
Q8. HOW USEFUL AND USER-FRIENDLY DO YOU ANTICIPATE THE 

“ROLLOVER ADVISOR AND CONTROL” TO BE? 

Drivers were asked in this preliminary survey how useful and user-friendly they anticipated the 

RA&C would be. These questions were posed to the drivers prior to any experiences with this 

particular technology. Most of the drivers indicated that they were not sure how beneficial this 

safety system would be to an experienced driver. Almost half of the participants (43 percent) 

neither agreed nor disagreed that “high tech systems like these really do not help the experienced 

driver”. A majority of the participants indicated that there was a good understanding about how 

to use the RSA (71 percent). This is consistent with the responses to the statements about 

comfort with the RSA and RSC on the truck. A majority of drivers were comfortable with the 

RSA (79 percent) and the RSC (64 percent) on the truck. 

Strongly 

agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree 

High tech systems like these really do not 

help the experienced driver. 7% 21% 43% 21% 7% 

I have a good understanding about how to 

use the RSA. 7% 71% 21% 0% 0% 

I am comfortable having the RSA on my 

truck. 0% 79% 14% 7% 0% 

I am comfortable having the RSC on my 

truck. 7% 64% 14% 14% 0% 

Q9. HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT HAVING THESE NEW TECHNOLOGIES INSTALLED? 

Drivers were also asked a series of questions about their perceptions of risk and vigilance prior to 

the installation of the RA&C. The participants indicated that they may be better off with these 

types of technologies; however, the responses were more diverse when drivers were asked about 

whether the technologies would reduce the chance of rolling the truck (36 percent agreed; 36 

percent disagreed) and whether the drivers expected to drive differently with the technology (36 

percent agreed; 36 percent disagreed). 

Question Strongly 

agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree 

I would be better off driving without these 

types of high tech advice and control 

systems. 

8% 8% 39% 39% 15% 

I don’t need the RSA to keep from rolling 

my truck. 0% 36% 21% 36% 0% 

I don’t expect to drive any differently as a 

result of having the RSA in my truck than I 

would drive without it. 

0% 36% 21% 36% 0% 

62 
SURVEY 5: SHORT SURVEYS 

These surveys were given to the drivers at two points during the study. The first short survey 

was given after 1 month of RSA use, and the second after 2 months. Generally, responses were 

similar between the two measurement periods. 

Q1. THE RSA IS GIVING ME USEFUL FEEDBACK ABOUT MY DRIVING IN CURVES AND CORNERS. 

There was a slight difference in the responses regarding the usefulness of feedback from the 

RSA regarding driving in curves and corners. 

Survey Strongly 

agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

System did 

not activate 

1 11% 32% 11% 21% 5% 21% 

2 0% 40% 7% 0% 20% 33% 

Q2. THE RSC OPERATES SAFELY WHEN IT SLOWS MY TRUCK. 

Drivers were also asked to indicate how safely the RSC operates when it is slowing the truck. 

While there was a great deal of diversity in these responses, most of the participants agreed that 

the RSC did operate safely when slowing the truck. It is important to note that more drivers 

experienced RSC systems that were not activated during the second measurement period. 

Survey Strongly 

agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

System did 

not activate 

1 0% 26% 16% 11% 0% 47% 

2 0% 13% 20% 0% 0% 67% 

63 
Q3. I AM LEARNING THINGS ABOUT MY DRIVING HABITS FROM THE RSA I HAD NOT KNOWN. 

In the short surveys, drivers were asked to indicate whether anything was learned about driving 

habits from the RSA. In both survey distributions, over forty percent of the drivers agreed or 

strongly agreed that they had learned things about their driving habits from the RSA. Also, 

approximately a quarter of the participants in both survey distributions experienced systems that 

were not activated. 

Survey Strongly 

agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

System did 

not activate 

1 5% 37% 21% 11% 5% 21% 

2 13% 20% 27% 0% 13% 27% 

64 
SURVEY 6: LONG SURVEYS 

The long form surveys investigated the drivers’ experiences and the user-friendliness of the 

RA&C technology in a more in-depth and thorough manner. The long surveys were given at 

three different times (3, 4 and 5 months after technology activation). 

Q1. HOW DO YOU EXPECT THE RSA TO AFFECT YOUR CHANCES OF HAVING A ROLLOVER? 

In the more extensive survey, most drivers indicated that the RA&C would have little or no 

impact on the chances of a rollover event. It is important to note, however, that approximately a 

third of the drivers at each survey point indicated the RSA could somewhat or greatly reduce the 

chances of a rollover. The respondents provided very diverse responses to this question. 

Survey Greatly 

reduce 

Somewhat 

reduce 

Reduce 

– a little 

No 

difference 

1 15% 23% 23% 39% 

2 25% 17% 0% 58% 

3 22% 11% 33% 33% 

Q2. IN GENERAL, DO YOU SEE THESE SYSTEMS AS: 

When asked whether the systems were useful in driving or created a problem when driving, 

almost all of the drivers indicated the system was useful in driving in the third survey 

distribution. In the first two interview periods, most of the participants indicated that the system 

was neither useful nor a problem. 

Survey Useful in 

driving 

Creates a problem 

when driving 

Neither useful 

nor a problem 

1 27% 9% 64% 

2 36% 9% 55% 

3 67% 0% 33% 

65 
Q3 – Q12. ARE THE ADVISORY MESSAGES FROM THE RSA USER-FRIENDLY? 

At each of the survey points, drivers were asked a series of questions concerning how userfriendly the RSA was and the experiences with particular features of the technology. Most of the 

respondents indicated that the system was easy to understand, there were occasional false 

positives, they had a good understanding about how to use the technology, and there were no 

difficulties in learning how to use the systems. 

Q3. THE ADVISORY MESSAGES FROM THE RSA ARE EASY TO UNDERSTAND. 

Survey Strongly 

agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

System did 

not activate 

1 13% 60% 13% 0% 0% 13% 

2 13% 67% 7% 7% 0% 7% 

3 13% 47% 20% 7% 0% 13% 

Q4. WHEN AN ADVISORY MESSAGE APPEARS, IT IS EASY TO DETERMINE 

WHICH MANEUVER CAUSED IT. 

Survey Strongly 

agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

System did 

not activate 

1 20% 47% 13% 0% 0% 20% 

2 13% 53% 20% 7% 0% 7% 

3 7% 53% 27% 0% 0% 13% 

Q5. WHEN I GET AN ADVISORY MESSAGE, IT IS CLEAR WHAT I COULD HAVE DONE 

DIFFERENTLY TO AVOID GETTING A MESSAGE. 

Survey Strongly 

agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

System did 

not activate 

1 13% 33% 20% 7% 0% 27% 

2 7% 60% 13% 13% 0% 7% 

3 7% 53% 27% 0% 0% 13% 

66 
Q6. ROLL ADVISORIES ARE SOMETIMES DISPLAYED WHEN THERE IS NO REAL ROLLOVER RISK. 

Survey Strongly 

agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

System did 

not activate 

1 60% 0% 13% 0% 7% 20% 

2 47% 13% 13% 13% 0% 13% 

3 33% 20% 20% 7% 0% 20% 

Q7. I HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO SAFELY READ THE ROLL ADVISORIES. 

Survey Strongly 

agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

System did 

not activate 

1 20% 27% 20% 7% 7% 20% 

2 20% 13% 20% 27% 7% 13% 

3 7% 53% 20% 7% 0% 13% 

Q8. THE MESSAGES FROM THE RSA ARE EASY TO READ. 

Survey Strongly 

agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

System did 

not activate 

1 7% 60% 13% 0% 0% 20% 

2 20% 40% 13% 13% 0% 13% 

3 13% 47% 20% 13% 0% 7% 

Q9. I HAVE A GOOD UNDERSTANDING ABOUT HOW TO USE THE RSA. 

Survey Strongly 

agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

System did 

not activate 

1 29% 64% 0% 0% 0% 7% 

2 27% 60% 0% 7% 0% 7% 

3 13% 60% 27% 0% 0% 0% 

67 
Q10. I HAVEN’T HAD ANY DIFFICULTY LEARNING HOW TO USE THESE SYSTEMS. 

Survey Strongly 

agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

System did 

not activate 

1 29% 36% 21% 0% 0% 14% 

2 27% 47% 13% 7% 0% 7% 

3 15% 46% 39% 0% 0% 0% 

Q11. HIGH TECH SYSTEMS LIKE THESE REALLY DO NOT HELP THE EXPERIENCED DRIVER. 

Survey Strongly 

agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

System did 

not activate 

1 0% 33% 27% 20% 13% 7% 

2 20% 13% 33% 27% 0% 7% 

3 20% 7% 47% 20% 7% 0% 

Q12. THE INFORMATION I GET FROM THE RSA ABOUT ROLLOVER DANGER IS HELPFUL. 

Survey Strongly 

agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

System did 

not activate 

1 13% 13% 33% 13% 0% 27% 

2 13% 40% 33% 7% 0% 7% 

3 13% 20% 47% 0% 7% 13% 

Q13. CAN THE RSC SLOW YOUR TRUCK SAFELY? 

As in the short survey, drivers were asked whether the RSC can safely slow the truck. In the 

long survey, most of the drivers indicated that the system had not activated. Among those 

drivers who indicated that the system had activated, most neither agreed nor disagreed with how 

safely the RSC can slow the truck. The other responses were split. 

Survey Strongly 

agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

System did 

not activate 

1 0% 0% 36% 7% 7% 50% 

2 7% 7% 29% 0% 7% 50% 

3 0% 7% 36% 7% 7% 43% 

68 
Q14 – Q19. DO THE SAFETY SYSTEMS INCREASE THE STRESS AND FATIGUE OF DRIVING? 

Another component of the long survey included questions regarding workload and stress. These 

questions were designed to gather information about whether the technologies reduced or 

increased driver workload and stress. The participants were relatively neutral about whether the 

advisory messages about hard braking were useful and whether the messages and alarms 

interfered with driving. The drivers were more neutral about the usefulness and interference in 

the second and third surveys. Across all questions, drivers demonstrated a very diverse range of 

experiences and opinions about the technology, and the distraction and usefulness of each 

component. Generally, drivers disagreed with the idea that the messages interfered with driving 

due to distraction. Drivers were neutral about whether the systems interfered with driving 

responsibilities. Overall, drivers did not think that the safety systems increased the stress and 

fatigue of driving. 

Q14. ADVISORY MESSAGES ABOUT HARD BRAKING ARE HELPFUL TO ME. 

Survey Strongly 

agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

System did 

not activate 

1 7% 13% 27% 13% 7% 33% 

2 0% 20% 33% 27% 0% 20% 

3 7% 20% 33% 13% 7% 20% 

Q15. THE ADVISORY MESSAGES AND ALARMS DO NOT INTERFERE WITH MY DRIVING. 

Survey Strongly 

agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

System did 

not activate 

1 33% 20% 7% 20% 7% 13% 

2 13% 0% 53% 13% 7% 13% 

3 13% 27% 27% 13% 13% 7% 

Q16. THE RSA MESSAGES INTERFERE WITH MY ABILITY TO DRIVE SAFELY 

BECAUSE THEY DISTRACT ME. 

Survey Strongly 

agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

System did 

not activate 

1 7% 13% 27% 20% 20% 13% 

2 13% 0% 33% 27% 13% 13% 

3 7% 7% 47% 20% 20% 0% 

69 
Q17. I WOULD BE BETTER OFF DRIVING WITHOUT THESE TYPES OF 

HIGH TECH ADVICE AND CONTROL SYSTEMS. 

Survey Strongly 

agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

System did 

not activate 

1 0% 7% 67% 13% 7% 7% 

2 0% 13% 53% 13% 13% 7% 

3 13% 0% 67% 13% 7% 0% 

Q18. THESE SYSTEMS SOMETIMES INTERFERE WITH MY DRIVING RESPONSIBILITIES. 

Survey Strongly 

agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

System did 

not activate 

1 7% 7% 57% 0% 14% 14% 

2 7% 13% 47% 20% 7% 7% 

3 7% 7% 57% 7% 21% 0% 

Q19. I FIND THAT HAVING THIS SAFETY SYSTEM IN MY TRUCK 

REDUCES THE STRESS AND FATIGUE OF DRIVING. 

Survey Strongly 

agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

System did 

not activate 

1 14% 7% 21% 29% 21% 7% 

2 13% 0% 27% 27% 27% 7% 

3 0% 14% 50% 14% 21% 0% 

70 
Q20 – Q24. IN WHAT WAYS, IF ANY, HAS THE RA&C CHANGED YOUR DRIVING? 

At each of the long survey distributions, drivers were asked a series of questions about risk and 

vigilance impacts of the RA&C. Most of the responses were neutral about the impact of the 

system. However, the drivers agreed with the statements regarding driving more safely with 

regard to hard breaking. Over the course of the three data collection periods, participants agreed 

to a lesser extent that the systems impacted driving practices. The drivers generally disagreed 

that the system reduced the number of crashes or near-crash situations. 

Q20. SINCE THE NEW SAFETY SYSTEM WAS ACTIVATED, I DRIVE MY VEHICLE MORE SAFELY 

WITH REGARD TO ROLLOVER RISK. 

Survey Strongly 

agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

System did 

not activate 

1 13% 13% 40% 27% 0% 7% 

2 7% 20% 53% 7% 13% 0% 

3 7% 27% 47% 7% 7% 7% 

Q21. SINCE THE NEW SAFETY SYSTEM WAS ACTIVATED, I DRIVE MY VEHICLE MORE SAFELY 

WITH REGARD TO HARD BRAKING. 

Survey Strongly 

agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

System did 

not activate 

1 13% 27% 27% 7% 13% 13% 

2 7% 33% 27% 7% 13% 13% 

3 7% 33% 47% 13% 0% 0% 

Q22. WITH THE RSA, I DON’T DRIVE ANY DIFFERENTLY THAN I WOULD DRIVE WITHOUT IT. 

Survey Strongly 

agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

System did 

not activate 

1 40% 27% 20% 7% 0% 7% 

2 33% 47% 20% 0% 0% 0% 

3 20% 20% 53% 0% 0% 7% 

71 
Q23. I DON’T NEED THE RSA TO KEEP FROM ROLLING MY TRUCK. 

Survey Strongly 

agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

System did 

not activate 

1 13% 13% 60% 0% 7% 7% 

2 7% 33% 53% 0% 0% 7% 

3 20% 0% 73% 0% 7% 0% 

Q24. HAVING THIS SYSTEM IN MY TRUCK HAS REDUCED THE NUMBER OF CRASHES OR NEARCRASH SITUATIONS COMPARED TO WHAT I WOULD HAVE HAD WITHOUT IT. 

Survey Strongly 

agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

System did 

not activate 

1 7% 0% 36% 36% 14% 7% 

2 7% 7% 29% 36% 21% 7% 

3 0% 7% 21% 50% 21% 0% 

Q25. ARE YOU LEARNING NEW THINGS ABOUT YOUR DRIVING HABITS FROM THE RA&C? 

As a follow-up to the questions asked during the short surveys, drivers were asked to indicate 

whether the RA&C provided feedback about driving habits that the driver did not currently 

know. Most of the participants were neutral about whether they had learned anything from the 

systems. This was consistent with the short survey responses. 

Survey Strongly 

agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

System did 

not activate 

1 7% 14% 36% 21% 7% 14% 

2 20% 20% 40% 7% 7% 7% 

3 14% 14% 50% 7% 14% 0% 

Q26 – 30. DOES THE RA&C PROVIDE YOU WITH ACCURATE, USEFUL ADVISORY MESSAGES? 

The participants were asked during each long survey distribution to provide information on the 

product quality and maturity. Most of the participants indicated that the system provides useful 

advice, and information not normally available. There is some concern with the percentage of 

respondents who agreed or strongly agreed that some of the maneuvers should have produced 

advisory messages but did not. Also, more participants agreed or strongly agreed that some 

advisory messages occurred during perceived safe maneuvers. As with many of the previous 

questions, there was a great deal of diversity among the responses. 

72 
Q26. THE RSA PROVIDES ME WITH INFORMATION ABOUT MY VEHICLE THAT I WOULD NOT 

NORMALLY HAVE. 

Survey Strongly 

agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

System did 

not activate 

1 27% 27% 27% 7% 0% 13% 

2 33% 20% 20% 20% 0% 7% 

3 13% 27% 33% 13% 0% 13% 

Q27. THE ADVISORY MESSAGES FROM THE RSA PROVIDE USEFUL ADVICE. 

Survey Strongly 

agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

System did 

not activate 

1 7% 33% 27% 7% 7% 20% 

2 20% 33% 20% 13% 0% 13% 

3 13% 33% 33% 7% 0% 13% 

Q28. I THINK SOME OF MY MANEUVERS SHOULD HAVE PRODUCED ADVISORY MESSAGES, BUT 

NONE WERE DISPLAYED AFTER THE MANEUVER. 

Survey Strongly 

agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

System did 

not activate 

1 13% 27% 7% 27% 13% 13% 

2 20% 20% 13% 20% 13% 13% 

3 27% 20% 20% 13% 0% 20% 

Q29. I AM SURPRISED BY SOME ADVISORY MESSAGES THAT OCCUR DURING 

WHAT I THINK IS A SAFE MANEUVER. 

Survey Strongly 

agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

System did 

not activate 

1 27% 33% 7% 7% 0% 27% 

2 36% 36% 0% 7% 7% 14% 

3 33% 20% 20% 7% 0% 20% 

73 
Q30. THE SPEED REDUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS ARE ACCURATE. 

Survey Strongly 

agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

System did 

not activate 

1 7% 27% 13% 20% 7% 27% 

2 20% 13% 40% 7% 7% 13% 

3 13% 13% 53% 7% 7% 7% 

Q31. THE RSC HAS COME ON AND SLOWED ME AT TIMES I DO NOT THINK 

IT SHOULD HAVE COME ON. 

Survey Strongly 

agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

System did 

not activate 

1 13% 0% 13% 7% 0% 67% 

2 7% 13% 13% 13% 0% 53% 

3 0% 27% 27% 7% 0% 40% 

Q32. THE RSC CAN SLOW MY TRUCK SAFELY. 

Survey Strongly 

agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

System did 

not activate 

1 0% 0% 36% 7% 7% 50% 

2 7% 7% 29% 0% 7% 50% 

3 0% 7% 36% 7% 7% 43% 

Q33. THESE SYSTEMS OFTEN FAIL TO GIVE ME AN ALERT WHEN I THINK THEY SHOULD. 

Survey Strongly 

agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

System did 

not activate 

1 7% 21% 36% 7% 14% 14% 

2 0% 47% 13% 27% 7% 7% 

3 0% 21% 43% 7% 21% 7% 

74 
SURVEY 7: DEBRIEFING INTERVIEW 

Drivers were asked about a wide variety of issues in the debriefing interview. 

Q1 – Q5. HOW DID THE RA&C WORK FOR YOU? 

Almost all of the drivers (93 percent) indicated that they had seen an RSA message. None of the 

participating drivers indicated seeing an RSC event. All of the participating drivers indicated 

that they were able to distinguish between safety-related messages and other messages. Almost 

all of the participants (93 percent) indicated that it was possible to hear warning sounds when the 

messages came on, and that the sound was not distracting (85 percent). 

Question Yes No 

Q1. While you were driving, do you recall seeing any RSA messages? 93% 7% 

Q2. While you were driving do you recall any RSC events? 0% 100% 

Q3. Could you distinguish the safety-related messages from other 

informational messages on the message center? 100% 0% 

Q4. Did you hear the warning sound when the messages came on? 93% 7% 

Q5. Did you find the sound distracting? 15% 85% 

Q6. HOW MANY RSAS DID YOU HEAR AND HOW EFFECTIVE WAS THE MESSAGE CENTER? 

Most of the respondents indicated hearing between 1 and 6 advisories. Over half of the 

participants rated the effectiveness of the message center as very good (57 percent) or good (36 

percent). 

Q7. ARE YOU BETTER OFF WITHOUT THESE TYPES OF TECHNOLOGIES? 

Less than a third of the participants agreed (13 percent) or strongly agreed (13 percent) that they 

were better off without these types of technologies. A majority (87 percent) of the drivers 

indicated that they could describe nothing that was undesirable about the RSA. 

75 
Q8. WHAT IS THE DEGREE OF BENEFIT OR HARM THAT THE RSA MIGHT PROVIDE FOR EACH 

POTENTIAL USER? 

A majority of the participating drivers indicated that the RSA would be of great (60 percent) or 

some (33 percent) benefit to inexperienced drivers. There was more diversity among the 

perceived benefit to the responding driver, but still over half indicated that the technology would 

have some benefit (57 percent). Almost three-quarters (73 percent) indicated that the technology 

provided at least some benefit to experienced drivers. 

User Great 

Benefit

Some 

Benefit

No 

Benefit Harmful

You 7% 57% 36% 0% 

Experienced 7% 73% 20% 0% 

Inexperienced 60% 33% 0% 7% 

Q9. WHAT IMPACT DID THE RSA AND RSC HAVE ON YOUR LEVEL OF FATIGUE AND STRESS? 

As in the previous surveys, drivers were asked about the impacts on fatigue and stress. In the 

debriefing interview, almost all of the participants indicated that the RSA and RSC had no 

impact on their level of fatigue and stress. Seven percent of the respondents indicated that the 

system actually reduced their fatigue; none of the participants indicated that the systems 

increased fatigue. 

76 
Q10 – 14. DID YOUR WORKLOAD CHANGE AT ALL AFTER THE INSERTION OF THE RA&C

TECHNOLOGY? 

In the debriefing interview, participants were also asked a series of questions about their overall 

workload. A tested instrument, the Overall Workload Scale8, was used in this assessment. In 

the table below, numbers ranging from 20 to 100 are indicative of a range from a very low 

workload to a high workload. (Blank cells represent unanswered questions.) In almost all c

the workload stayed the same or decreased after the installation of the RA&C technology. Only 

nine drivers participated in this part of the data collection due to scheduling confli

ases, 

cts. 

Q10. What was 

your workload 

going around a 

curve on a twolane road? 

Q11. What was 

your workload 

taking an offramp? 

Q12. What 

was your 

workload 

making a fast 

lane change? 

Q13. What was 

your workload 

taking an on 

ramp and 

merging? 

Q14. What was 

your workload in 

the worst 

conditions your 

ordinarily face? 

Driver 1 1 75 80 90 60 95 

Driver 1 2 70 80 90 60 95 

Driver 2 1 25 50 50 50 80 

Driver 2 2 25 40 50 50 80 

Driver 3 1 90 90 100 

Driver 3 2 90 90 100 

Driver 4 1 70 70 30 90 

Driver 4 2 40 30 30 50 

Driver 5 1 80 20 90 90 95 

Driver 5 2 80 20 90 90 95 

Driver 6 1 75 100 75 100 

Driver 6 2 75 100 75 100 

Driver 7 1 50 70 95 70 100 

Driver 7 2 50 50 95 70 100 

Driver 8 1 30 50 70 50 70 

Driver 8 2 30 50 70 50 70 

Driver 9 1 30 40 100 60 100 

Driver 9 2 30 42 100 60 100 

1 – Before Activation; 2 – Past 5 months 

 

8

 Vidulich, M. A., & Tsang, P.S. (1987). Absolute magnitude estimation and relative judgment approaches to 

subjective workload assessment. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 31st Annual Meeting (pp. 1057 -

1061). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society. 

77 
Q15 – Q17. WHAT WAS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE RA&C? 

When participants were asked to provide information about the effectiveness of the RA&C, most 

of the participants indicated that they received some incorrect messages (64 percent). All of the 

drivers indicated that the training received was adequate and that driving occurred the same way 

on an RA&C equipped truck as in any other truck. 

Question Yes No 

Q15. Did you ever get some messages you 

thought were wrong? 64% 36% 

Q16. Do you drive differently in an RA&C 

equipped truck than you do in other 

trucks? 

0% 100% 

Q17. After 5 months of use, do you think the 

training you received was adequate? 100% 0% 

Q16. HOW WOULD YOUR RATE THESE SIX SAFETY TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS?

In the debriefing interview, drivers were asked to rank a series of safety technology systems. 

Drivers were asked to rank the options from 1 to 6 with regard to which options should be 

installed on fleets. The technologies are shown below with the average rank for each. 

Technology Rating Range

Forward CWS 2.63 1 to 6 

LDWS 2.81 1 to 6 

RSA 3.06 1 to 5 

Interior upgrade 3.31 1 to 6 

RSC 3.94 2 to 6 

Hard braking event detector 3.94 2 to 6 

 

78 
CONCLUSION 

According to the driver surveys, drivers were generally positive about onboard safety systems. 

The surveys represented a limited number of respondents who were surveyed or interviewed on a 

limited number of topics. The surveys for this study indicated that, while drivers were generally 

positive about the technologies, there was diversity among their acceptance of the systems, 

preferences regarding implementation and actual technology use, and impacts on driving 

practices. Additional research and reviews of existing driver surveys can provide further insight 

into what key components impact the driver reactions to these types of safety technologies. 

The current survey findings indicated that there is a period of adjustment for drivers in 

acclimating to a new technology in the truck. Generally, drivers perceived some technologies 

(such as CWS and LDWS) as more useful than other technologies (RSA). In addition, often 

these technologies were perceived as more beneficial for inexperienced drivers than experienced 

drivers. 

There are a myriad of factors that impact how drivers will react to technologies in the cab, 

including decision-making processes and behaviors, attitudes and experiences with technology in 

general, and previous experience with new technologies in trucks. All of these factors may 

change as these technologies become more prevalent and technology in general becomes a larger 

part of day-to-day life for drivers. 

The findings from the various driver surveys were relatively consistent with the findings from 

the fleet surveys and interviews. Driver acceptance of the systems is critical to the actual use and 

success of any in-vehicle technology. Only by gathering information about driver experiences, 

preferences, and challenges will it be possible to alter, if necessary, the distribution and 

implementation of the systems. 

The existing research provides insight into driver acceptance of onboard safety systems; 

however, there are still many areas related to driver acceptance and use that can be explored. 

These areas include more in-depth exploration of training experiences, examination of usage 

patterns and practices, and analysis of a wider range of technologies rather than focusing on one 

or two in particular. Furthermore, anecdotal industry information indicates that the “right” safety 

technologies could also be promoted as driver retention and fleet management tools. 

79 
8.0 OTHER STAKEHOLDER SURVEY INSTRUMENTS 

RESULTS 

As part of the larger report, Factors in Decisions to Make, Purchase, and Use Onboard Safety 

Technologies, FMCSA conducted interviews with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) 

and vendors, as well as insurance companies. A synopsis of the findings is provided below. 

OEM AND VENDOR INTERVIEWS 

The interviews followed a semi-structured format, with the respondents guiding the exact topics 

and issues that were covered. Most of the interviews echoed information from the fleet 

interviews and surveys that ROI was key to the purchase and implementation of onboard safety 

technology. 

Familiarity with the systems and appropriate marketing is important. 

Among the OEMs, there was some familiarity with a few of the major safety technologies that 

have been discussed earlier in this report, including CWS and ACC. There was less familiarity 

with RSC. The OEMs estimated that approximately 10 to 20 percent of new vehicle orders 

would include safety technologies as options. Several respondents discussed the importance of 

targeting the safety technologies appropriately to fleets; particular industry segments would 

benefit from specific features and not from others. 

The bottom line and ROI are crucial. 

According to these interviews, OEMs were motivated to incorporate what customers will 

purchase; therefore, the bottom line is critical. Consistent with the fleet findings, when a 

financial benefit can be shown, the acceptance rate increases. However, due to the newness of 

the technology, the respondents felt that there was not enough real-world data and information 

about its financial benefits. Carriers and owner-operators were willing to purchase trucks with 

the safety technologies if there was evidence of reduced costs through crash or insurance 

premium reductions. Several of the respondents indicated that the safety technologies were 

currently not affordable for most carriers. 

Working toward providing data regarding technology validity and reliability is important. 

The surveys showed that there is skepticism among carriers and drivers about the technologies. 

The respondent felt that as both groups become more confident in the reliability and value of the 

systems, there will be greater acceptance. They indicated that systems must require little 

maintenance and upkeep beyond the traditional maintenance schedules, and function under all 

conditions to receive support and become more widely used. A few respondents indicated that 

public awareness may help facilitate the recognition and awareness of the benefits of safety 

technologies. 

80 
Driver opinion and acceptance is crucial. 

Consistent with both the fleet and driver surveys, driver opinions of this type of equipment are 

receiving more and more attention. According to the respondents, driver dissatisfaction will 

often lead to the driver disabling or sabotaging the system. When technologies are user-friendly, 

it is often easier to gain driver acceptance and use. 

The respondents felt that drivers are also concerned about how the data will be used if these 

systems record information. 

Support from insurance industry and government is important. 

OEMs indicated that there had not been support insurance rate reductions or other incentives 

when safety technologies are used. 

81 
INSURANCE INTERVIEWS 

The insurance interviews followed a more structured outline. Five respondents were interviewed 

on a number of topics, including system benefits, familiarity with technologies, and factors 

impacting decisions to purchase and use technologies. 

Q1. WHAT IN-VEHICLE SAFETY TECHNOLOGIES OR SYSTEMS ARE YOU AWARE OF? 

Only one respondent indicated not being aware of any safety technology system. The other 

respondents indicated an awareness of a range of systems, including the following: 

• CWS with ACC (4 respondents) 

• LDWS (3 respondents) 

• GPS (1 respondent) 

• Fatigue technologies to track eye movement (1 respondent). 

Q2. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH CWS WITH ACC, LDWS, OR RA&C? 

Respondents were asked to indicate familiarity with each of the three technologies from the field 

operational tests. Again, one respondent indicated he was unfamiliar with all three. Four of the 

respondents indicated familiarity with CWS and LDWS. Only one respondent indicated 

familiarity with the RA&C. 

82 
Q3. WHAT FACTORS IMPACT THE DECISIONS OF CARRIERS TO BUY AND USE ONBOARD SAFETY 

TECHNOLOGIES (EITHER RETROFIT OR AS ORIGINAL TRUCK EQUIPMENT)? 

Respondents were asked to rank on a scale of 1 to 5 from not important to very important a range 

of factors related to purchasing and implementation decisions. Consistent with the fleet surveys 

and interviews, cost to install and maintain was considered very important by all but one of the 

respondents. Three respondents thought that the effectiveness of the system for improving safety 

and reducing crash-related costs was very important. 

Category 1 2 3 4 5 

Cost to install and maintain 0% 0% 20% 0% 80% 

Cost to train drivers in use 20% 20% 0% 0% 0% 

Overall driver satisfaction/ reduced turnover 0% 20% 20% 0% 0% 

Driver acceptance of a system 0% 0% 0% 0% 40% 

Accuracy and reliability of a system 0% 0% 0% 40% 40% 

Effectiveness of a system in improving safety 0% 0% 0% 20% 60% 

Insurance company requirement 40% 20% 0% 20% 0% 

Reduced insurance premiums 20% 0% 0% 20% 40% 

Reduced crash-related costs 0% 0% 0% 20% 60% 

Tax incentives 0% 20% 0% 40% 0% 

83 
84 

CONCLUSION 

The interviews for this section provided insight into the perspectives of other industry 

stakeholders, as well as information about how these stakeholders view drivers and carriers and 

the efforts to increase safety technology implementation and acceptance. The responses 

confirmed the findings of the fleet and driver interviews and surveys that ROI, driver acceptance, 

and data about safety and reliability impacts are crucial to carrier acceptance and implementation 

of these systems. Also, similar to the previous findings, CWS, ACC, and LDWS were more 

widely recognized by both groups than RSC. 

A larger sample of survey responses could provide more insight into what could be done to 

facilitate wider implementation of safety technology systems and increase the recognition by 

insurance companies of the achieved safety benefits. This type of information could inform and 

guide other research studies related directly to the safety benefits of the different technologies. 

Additional survey research should also gather information about how vendors and OEMs 

currently share information with customers about safety technologies. Understanding these 

different means of information sharing would be very useful to increase the implementation and 

acceptance of these types of systems.