A bird’s eye view of driving safety culture: Truck drivers’ perceptions of unsafe driving behaviors near their trucks

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Transportation accidents are a global health concern and a leading cause of death.

OBJECTIVE:

A pragmatic way to decrease these accidents is to examine the routine opportunities that lead to them. Opportunities for accidents were identified by qualitatively examining the tacit knowledge possessed by truck drivers who observe unsafe driving behaviors near their trucks.

METHODS:

Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 158 truck drivers from 30 states in the United States (US) and three Canadian provinces. During the interviews, truck drivers made 703 observations of unsafe actions they routinely observe car drivers doing near their trucks. The observations were coded and analyzed with the assistance of a qualitative data analysis software program.

RESULTS:

The findings revealed 20 unsafe driving behaviors that lead to elevated risk for car drivers. The most common unsafe action (observed by 89% of truckers) involved cars passing trucks and then cutting back into their lane too soon – the ‘front no zone’ safe space. Driving distractions comprised the second group of most commonly observed risky behaviors.

CONCLUSIONS:

The findings reveal that new drivers should receive truck driver awareness training as part of their licensing process and that public health campaigns be developed on the risks of driving near trucks.

Keywords

Traffic safety occupational risks distracted driving lone workers

1 Introduction

Transportation safety is a major public health concern. According to the World Health Organization, “road traffic injuries are the eighth leading cause of death globally, and the leading cause of death for young people aged 15–29” [1]. In both Canada and the United States, the motor vehicle death rate far exceeds both the national homicide and workplace accident death rates [2 –4]. A pragmatic way to decrease motor vehicle injury and fatality rates is to focus on decreasing the opportunities that lead to those outcomes. In the area of crime control policy, routine activities theory suggests that there are motivated offenders out there waiting for opportunities to offend and they’re more likely to do so when they observe a suitable target that lacks a capable guardian [5 –7]. According to this theory, prevention efforts should focus on how individuals can decrease opportunities for themselves to be victimized. In the area of transportation safety, a similar approach might prove useful as a way to decrease routine opportunities that elevate risk for motor vehicle injury and death. While trucks clearly pose a threat to nearby car drivers, research shows that error by automobile drivers play a significant role in accidents between cars and trucks [8, 9].

Drawing on a situational approach to accident prevention, drivers of cars and other passenger vehicles could actively aim to decrease their opportunities for truck collisions by modifying their routine risky driving behaviors. Motor vehicle collisions with large trucks account for 11% of all passenger vehicle deaths in the United States and fatal multiple-vehicle crashes involving large trucks represent close to 1 in 4 passenger vehicle deaths [10]. The importance of changing routines is most evident in the area of driver distraction. In 2011, 10% of all fatal motor vehicle crashes and 17% of vehicle injury crashes involved driver distraction. In total “3,331 people were killed involving distracted drivers and an estimated 387,000 were injured in motor vehicle crashes involving distracted driving” [11].

Research into distracted driving also highlights how this unsafe behavior increases opportunities for crashes when driving [12, 13]. Driving distracted near trucks would logically lead to even more opportunities for fatal crashes. However, decreasing opportunities for fatal crashes requires an increased awareness among car drivers of safety risks when driving near large trucks. The objective of this article is to expand public health awareness of safety risks so that passenger vehicle drivers can decrease their opportunities for a fatal crash when driving near trucks. Gaining knowledge of the unsafe actions of car drivers near trucks was accomplished by qualitatively tapping into the tacit knowledge possessed by truck drivers who spend many hours each day high above cars observing unsafe driving behaviors near their trucks. The ability to sit high above cars and observe distant traffic has recently become part of a new way of policing distracted driving in Canada, in particular in Toronto where police officers are increasingly riding public buses so that they can look down and observe the unsafe actions of car drivers.

2 Methodology

After obtaining institutional review board ethical approval, truck drivers were recruited at three United States truck stops (two in Massachusetts and one in Connecticut) and were interviewed using a face-to-face semi-structured interview guide. In total, 158 drivers were interviewed from 68 different trucking companies (128 drivers were corporate drivers and 30 were owner-operator truck drivers). The sample consisted of truck drivers living in 30 different states and three Canadian provinces. The largest proportions of drivers were from Pennsylvania (15.1%), New York (11.1%), Maine (7.1%), Massachusetts (6.3%), Canada (6.4%), and Texas (5.6%).

The average age of a driver in the sample was 47.9 years old (SD = 9.8) ranging from 23 to 68 years old. The drivers were predominately male (98%). The average number of years’ experience working as a professional driver was 16.3 years (SD = 11.8). The majority of drivers indicated they were long haul drivers (69%) who are on the road, away from home, longer than a week at a time. The remaining drivers were regional truck drivers (26.7%) who are on the road less than a week at a time, and local truck drivers (4.3%) who go home at the end of each work day. The average number of miles driven per week by a truck driver was 2508.7 miles (SD = 698.8) representing an average of 60.1 hours per week driving (SD = 14.2). In total, this sample of truckers drives roughly 400,000 miles each week (which totals over 20 million miles driven a year). This is a significant amount of driving experience and increases the validity of responses of truck driver observations of risky behavior by motor vehicle drivers near their trucks (for other studies that have qualitatively examined truck drivers see references 14–20).

Truck drivers also occupy an advantageous observational space to observe risky driving practices. They sit high above and have a longer-range view of traffic (a bird’s eye view). This provides the advantage of being able to observe distant traffic, as well as close-up risky behaviors that might be missed by local law enforcement. The following quotes illustrate the observational advantage that truck drivers have on the road.

Naturally, we can see down into the car. Not being perverted, we just sit so high up it’s easy to look down. I’ve seen people driving with their knees on the wheel while texting (43 years old, Virginia – 21 years as truck driver)

I see more texting now in cars. And not just from kids but grown-ups all the time. They normally have it down low but I can see it from above in the truck (38 years old, Missouri – 8 years as truck driver)

People reading, getting dressed while driving, putting on pantyhose’s, putting on makeup, you would be surprised what we see (47 years old, Alabama – 25 years as truck driver)

During the interviews, the truck drivers were asked to list three common unsafe actions they observe car drivers doing in close proximity to their trucks. This elicited 474 observations. After listing their top three observations they were then asked if they routinely observe anymore unsafe actions by motor vehicle drivers near their trucks. This follow-up question generated an additional 229 observations of risky driving behaviors. In total, 703 observations from truck drivers were provided on unsafe driving behaviors near trucks.

All responses were transcribed and entered into Atlas.ti, a qualitative data analysis software program. The author and a research assistant then created an introductory list of codes that were grounded in the experience of interviewing the truck drivers [21]. In order to increase inter-rater reliability [22] both researchers independently coded the first 100 observations of unsafe driving behaviors and then met to discuss initial differences in the coding, as well as any potential new codes. For example, many truckers commented on what they perceived to be particular motivations behind specific unsafe driving behaviors, so a new code was created called ‘motivation’. This verification process in qualitative data analysis is known as “check coding” [23]. The two reviewers then once again independently coded the next 200 observations, and, again met to discuss any differences in coding. Differences in coding were minor and a consensus was easily reached on the appropriate code for each particular observation. The two researchers then proceeded to independently code the remaining 403 observations, and then met once more to discuss the coded data.

3 Situated accounts of motivation for risky driving behavior

In addition to identifying unsafe driving behaviors, the interviews also provided a lens for analyzing the various vocabularies of motivation [24 –26] used by truckers when explaining why car drivers engage in risky driving behaviors near trucks. When coding the risky driving behaviors, it was observed that many truckers would also provide a motivational account for the specific unsafe behaviour they observed. In total, we coded 123 accounts of motivation for risk taking when driving near trucks. These accounts all clustered around three general categories for explaining risky driving behavior (see Table 1). Furthermore, the accounts of motivation given also corresponded with specific risky driving behaviors (see Table 2). Overall, the truck drivers stated that the unsafe driving behaviors they routinely observed were caused by 1) drivers purposely taking risks, 2) drivers not paying attention, and 3) drivers lacking knowledge of the risks.

Table 1
Accounts of motivation for risky driver behavior near trucks

Motivation of Driver Number of Comments Percentage of Truckers

1. Purposely Take Risks 48 27.2% (N = 44)

2. Not Paying Attention 43 26.6% (N = 42)

3. Lack Knowledge of Risks 31 19.6% (N = 31)

Motivation of Driver	Number of Comments	Percentage of Truckers
1. Purposely Take Risks	48	27.2% (N = 44)
2. Not Paying Attention	43	26.6% (N = 42)
3. Lack Knowledge of Risks	31	19.6% (N = 31)

Table 2

Top “20” most commonly observed driving risks by cars near trucks

Rank	Type of Risky Driving Behavior	Number of Observations	Attributing Motivation
1.	Driving in Trucker ‘Front No Zone’	141	Lack Knowledge
2.	Cutting off Truck	88	Lack Knowledge/Purposeful
3.	Cell Phone while Driving	80	Not Paying Attention
4.	Following Truck too Close	58	Lack Knowledge/Purposeful
5.	Improper Lane Changes	52	Purposely Take Risk
6.	Unsafe Highway Exiting (off-ramps)	43	Lack Knowledge/Purposeful
7.	Unsafe Highway Merging (on-ramps)	36	Lack Knowledge/Purposeful
8.	Texting while Driving	34	Not Paying Attention
9.	Driving in Trucker Blind Spots	34	Lack Knowledge
10.	Speeding	31	Purposely Take Risk
11.	Not using Turn Signals	23	Purposely Take Risk
12.	Reading while Driving	17	Not Paying Attention
13.	Using Computers while Driving	16	Not Paying Attention
14.	Passing Trucks on Right Side	13	Lack Knowledge
15.	Personal Grooming while Driving	11	Not Paying Attention
16.	Driving too Slow	7	Lack Knowledge
17.	Passenger Distractions while Driving	7	Not Paying Attention
18.	Eating and Drinking while Driving	4	Not Paying Attention
19.	Watching DVDs while Driving	4	Not Paying Attention
20.	Pulling out in Front of Truck when	4	Lack Knowledge
Entering Traffic

3.1 Purposely taking risks

A common theme among truck drivers was that individuals inside cars and other passenger vehicles were constantly trying to ‘beat the truck’.

They try to get in ahead of you. Always trying to beat the truck by passing you before you exit (48 years old, Idaho – 2 years as truck driver)

Impatience. Trying to beat the truck and get around you to get off the exit ramp (39 years old, Pennsylvania – 14 years a truck driver)

There is a lack of respect and common decency. They speed up to get past you (51 years old, Ohio – 30 years as truck driver)

3.2 Not paying attention

Another common theme among the truck drivers was their belief that many drivers do not pay attention because they are routinely driving while distracted.

They don’t pay attention. On the phone, reading, get distracted. Then they swerve into other lanes (53 years old, California – 20 years as truck driver)

Not focusing. Cell phone, tending to kids, too many distractions (43 years old, Missouri – 22 years as truck driver)

Talking on phone, not paying attention (62 years old, Arizona – 41 years as truck driver)

3.3 Lack knowledge of risks

The third attribution of motivation provided by truck drivers went beyond the individual level of blame and involved a sympathetic justification for risky driving behavior. Many truckers responded that “they simply don’t know” that their actions are unsafe (i.e., they lack knowledge of risks). According to these truck drivers there is a need for increased social policy on car safety training near trucks.

In driver training you don’t get truck license without car license. But people [in cars] not trained with trucks. (41 years old, Canada – 21 years a truck driver)

People do not realize what’s involved in trucking. They think the truck is as nimble as a car and can stop as quickly and move into another lane. In a Western New York high school, they invited a truck driver to come out to train new drivers . . . (52 year old, New York – 6 years as truck driver)

Total ignorance . . . I think at least one day of truck safety should be included in driver’s education courses (59 years old, New York – 17 years as truck driver)

Lack of experience, cars not trained to deal with trucks. In training they should tell them trucks can’t stop and can’t speed up, give them more room (43 years old, Connecticut – 22 years as truck driver)

These situated accounts of motivation suggest that different preventative approaches to decreasing specific unsafe driving behaviors may be required.

4 Risky driving behaviors near trucks

The 703 observations of unsafe car driving behaviors led to the identification of 20 different unsafe driving behaviors (see Table 2). The most commonly observed unsafe action is one that most car drivers do not even know is a risk – the ‘front no zone’ (see Fig. 1). One in every five comments involved truck drivers stating that cars are constantly passing them and then cutting back into their lane too soon (i.e., the ‘front no zone’ safe space). Driving distractions comprised the second group of most commonly observed risky behaviors. Cell phone use and texting while driving both finished in the top 10 most commonly observed risky behavior (3rd and 8th respectively).

Fig.1

The four truck no-zones to avoid when driving near trucks 1 .

4.1 Violations of safe space: Trucker no zones

The biggest unsafe driving practice is one that truck drivers believe results from a lack of awareness of the risks of driving too close to trucks. Truck drivers assume that the majority of car drivers do not know that when passing a truck, it is critical to leave a large ‘safe space’ before turning back into the lane. In other words, passenger vehicle drivers lack knowledge of the risks associated with driving in the front no-zone and how doing so increases the opportunity for a collision [27]. According to truckers, car drivers pull out in front of trucks too quickly after passing them. This behavior mimics the routine passing of cars.

Truckers taught leave enough space. Cars use it as an opportunity to get in (44 years old, Canada – 10 years as truck driver)

They pass me, drive in front of me, and then slow down! (64 years old, New York – 16 years as truck driver)

Cutting us truckers off! Pulling over in front of us and then slowing down, sometimes so close you cannot even see their break lights. People think we can stop quicker than we actually can. They jump in front of our safe spot. They think we’re giving them space and then they cut in front of us, but really it’s our break-safe-space (48 years old, Virginia – 15 years as truck driver)

According to the truckers, car drivers routinely cut off trucks because they assume a relatively equal ‘safe passing space’ for both trucks and cars.

They don’t give the truck enough room when they pass us. Rather they merge right away with not enough room in front of us (43 years old, California – 11 years as truck driver)

Cutting in too close to trucks, don’t leave enough space, must back off and create space. In Pennsylvania they have a billboard that reads “leave space for trucks” (23 years old, Massachusetts – 4 years as truck driver)

Braking capability in trucks is a major factor in collisions. When cars find themselves in the front no zone area of a truck they increase their opportunities for a fatal crash if there is a sudden stop in traffic.

They cut in front of you when traffic ahead is coming to a stop. They don’t know a truck cannot stop that quickly. They cut into your safe breaking zone (65 years old, Texas)

Cutting in front of you, not leaving enough distance. If something happens in front of them then truck may not have room to stop (38 years old, Missouri – 8 years as truck driver)

In the interview with the above 38-year-old truck driver from Missouri, a non-fatal crash incident was disclosed that highlights the lack of knowledge of the risks associated with truck no zones. The truck driver revealed that while he was driving, a car driver passed him and then quickly turned right in front of him (in his front no zone). The driver then quickly hit her car breaks as there was a sudden stop in traffic. His truck, he explains, could not stop as quickly as her car, so his truck ended hitting the back of her vehicle (no one was injured). When the police arrived, the truck driver explained to the police officer that she cut in front of his truck too soon and then slammed on her breaks. The police officer ignored the trucker’s account and simply issued him (not the car driver) a ticket for following her car too close. During the interviewer when the trucker was asked, ‘how did that make you feel?’ he simply shrugged his shoulders and said “he [the police officer] doesn’t know [about the front no zone]”.

Overall, ten of the top 20 most commonly observed risky driving behaviors (1-2, 4–7, 9–11, 14, 16, and 20) occurred as a direct consequence of cars encroaching into truck driver no zone spaces (Fig. 1). Truck drivers noted that when merging and exiting a highway (i.e., on/off ramps) many car drivers make illegal lane changes, stay in the truck’s blind spots, and often cut in front of the truck at the last minute and then slow down.

Cars speed up to get around you and then jam on their brakes and slow down right before an exit (63 years old, California)

They don’t get behind the truck to get off an exit. Instead they try to get in front of you (42 years old, New York – 3 years as truck driver)

They pull in front of you and hit the brakes coming off the entrance ramps. It happens a lot (57 years old, Maine – 31 years as truck driver)

In response to these risky car driving behaviors, truckers will try to accommodate by moving over to allow a car more space when merging. As one California trucker states “most trucks will try to keep to the middle lane to keep away from the merging lane”. However, not all truck drivers are willing or able to move over and in most cases this is because of another vehicle following too close or fear that a car is driving in their blind spots.

They [cars] sit next to you on side of the truck and then when someone comes on the freeway I don’t have space to move over (Alabama – 3 years as truck driver)

They [cars] get too close to our back and we can’t see them in the mirror (58 years old, Washington)

The cars act like ‘ticks’. It’s a psychological thing. They get right behind the truck and get up real close and just stay there. It makes no sense (54 years old, Ohio – 10 years as truck driver)

4.2 Distracted driving

When driving distracted, especially near trucks, car drivers increase their opportunity for fatal collision. In this study, driving distractions accounted for eight of the 20 most observed unsafe driving behaviors (see Fig. 2). These observations fitted within three different clusters of driver distractions: 1) technology use distractions, 2) personal distractions, and 3) passenger distractions.

Fig.2

Observed driver distractions.

4.3 Technology use distractions

Technology use distractions accounted for 74% of the truck driver observations of distracted driving. Examples included: cell phone use, texting, computer use, watching DVDs, listening to loud music, and using the GPS while driving.

Cell phones by driver. We see them sway back and forth or speed up/slow down (28 years old, Pennsylvania – 15 years as truck driver)

I’ve seen people using the computer and cell phone at same time. Bluetooth in their ear and their computer open (51 years old, Oklahoma – 13 years as truck driver)

People doing paper work, working on computers, trying to multitask (54 years old, Pennsylvania – 34 years as truck driver)

4.4 Personal distractions

The second type of driver distraction involved personal distractions (8% of the observations). Examples here included reading while driving, eating and drinking, and various personal grooming distractions, such as putting on make-up, getting dressed, and men shaving.

Makeup, men shaving, eating, drinking (49 years old, Canada – 19 years as truck driver)

Putting on makeup, pantyhose. I like that part through. Makes my day! (41 years old, Tennessee – 5 years as truck driver)

4.5 Passenger distractions

The third cluster of driving distractions involved passenger distractions (5% of the observations). Examples involved arguments with passengers, tending to small children, and sexual activity.

Drivers talking to other people in car. I have seen husbands and wives arguing (no age given, Georgia – 1 year as truck driver)

You sometimes see kids distracting the driver (49 years old, Texas – 11 years as truck driver)

5 Limitations

Although 128 truck drivers from 68 different trucking companies and 30 owner-operator truck drivers were interviewed, this article makes no claim that this sample is a representative sample of corporate or owner-operator truck drivers. In addition, the study did not involve direct observation of unsafe driving behaviors of car drivers near trucks. Rather, truck drivers were asked during face-to-face interviews to recall from memory unsafe driving behaviors near their trucks. It’s possible that additional data on unsafe driving behaviors near trucks might emerge if other methodologies are used as found in the case of different methodological approaches to the study of near miss accidents [28].

6 Conclusion

Driving in truck no-zones and driving while distracted represent serious public health concerns in transportation safety. While driver distraction is increasingly becoming a mainstream public health concern, the most commonly observed unsafe action observed by truck drivers in this study is one that many car drivers do not even know is a risk – driving in the truck ‘no zone’. Overall, the findings reveal that increased societal recognition on the dangers of driving near trucks is needed, in particular, awareness of the increased opportunity for risk in truck no-zones.

New drivers would benefit from receiving truck driver awareness training as part of their licensing process and current car drivers should be targeted through public health campaigns and social marketing tools. Trucking companies would also benefit by providing safety training on the common risks identified in this study regarding the hazards of nearby car drivers. During the interviews, truckers also suggested that physical factors such as the implementation of additional safety mirror equipment would improve truck driver visibility and lead to a further reduction in opportunities for collisions. In 2007, mirror-related truck crashes account for 20% of all truck collisions [29].

In addition, the three motivational accounts provided by truck drivers suggest that different approaches to deterring specific unsafe driving behaviors might also be needed. For those risky behaviors that appear to be based on ‘purposeful risk taking’ a greater measure of enforcement might be required. For those offences stemming from people ‘not paying attention’, similar levels of enforcement combined with public health campaigns and workplace safety training may prove beneficial in decreasing unsafe driving behavior. And, finally, greater public health awareness and education may serve to decrease unsafe driving behaviors stemming from a ‘lack of knowledge’, such as the dangers of truck’s no-zones.

Conflict of interest

None to report.

Footnotes

Picture adapted from ‘Share the Road Campaign Research Study Final Report’, US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 1999.

References

World Health Organization. Global Status Report on Road Safety 2013: Supporting a Decade of Action, Geneva, Switzerland, 2013.

Transport Canada. Canadian Motor Vehicle Traffic Collision Statistics, 2013.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. Uniform Crime Reports, 2009.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Workplace Death Rates, 2005.

Clarke

. Crime and Public Transport, In Tonry

(Ed.), Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, University of Chicago Press, 2000, pp. 169–233.

Felson

. Crime and Everyday Life: Insight and Implications for Society, Thousands Oaks: Pine Forge Press, 1994.

Cohen

, Felson

. Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review. 1979;44(4):588–608.

US Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 2009.

Elslande

, Fournier

J-Y

, Jaffard

. In-depth analysis of road crashes involving powered two-wheelers vehicles: Typical human functional failures and conditions of their production. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation. 2012;41(no. supplement 1), :5871–3.

10.

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety/Highway Loss Data Institute, 2010.

11.

US Department of Transportation. Distracted Driving 2011. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2013.

12.

Caird

, Johnstone

, Willness

, Asbridge

, Steel

. A meta-analysis of the effects of texting on driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2014;71:311–8.

13.

Klauer

, Dingus

, Neale

, Sudweeks

, Ramsey

. Distracted driving and risk of road crashes among novice and experienced drivers. New England Journal of Medicine. 2014;370:54–9.

14.

Gray

, Lindsay

. Workplace Violence: Examining Interpersonal and Impersonal Violence among Truck Drivers. Law & Policy, 2019;39(1):5–26.

15.

Boeijinga

, Hoeken

, Sanders

. Health promotion in the trucking setting: Understanding dutch truck drivers’ road to healthy lifestyle changes. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation. 2016;55(2):385–97.

16.

Gray

, Silbey

. Governing inside the organization: Interpreting regulation and compliance. American Journal of Sociology. 2014;120(1):96–145.

17.

Gray

, Silbey

. The Other Side of the Compliance Relationship. In C. Parker & V. Nielson (Eds), Explaining Compliance: Understanding and Explaining Organizational Responses to Regulation, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2011.

18.

Biggs

, Dingsdag

, Stenson

. Fatigue factors affecting metropolitan bus drivers: A qualitative investigation. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation. 2009;32(1):5–10.

19.

Stasko

, Neale

. Health care risks and access within the community of michigan over-the-road-truckers. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation. 2007;29(3):205–11.

20.

Fournier

P-S

, Montreauil

, Brun

J-P

. Fatigue management by truck drivers in real life situations: Some suggestions to improve training. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation. 2006;29(3):213–24.

21.

Glaser

, Strauss

. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Chicago, Aldine, 1967.

22.

Meadows

, Morse

. Constructing Evidence within the Qualitative Project. In J. Morse, J. Swanson, & A. Kuzel (Eds), The Nature of Qualitative Evidence, Sage Publications, 2001.

23.

Miles

, Huberman

. Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd Edition. Sage Publications, 1994, P. 64.

24.

Campbell

. On the concept of motive in sociology. Sociology. 1996;30(1):101–14.

25.

Scott

, Lyman

. Accounts. American Sociological Review. 1968;33(1):46–62.

26.

Mills

. Situated actions and vocabularies of motive. American Sociological Review. 1940;5(6):904–13.

27.

US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, 1999.

28.

Gray

. The sociology of near misses: A methodological framework for studying events that ‘Almost Happened’. Canadian Journal of Sociology. 2018;43(2):171–90.

29.

University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute. Truck Mirrors, Fields of View, and Serious Truck Crashes. Report No. UMTRI-2007-25, 2007.

A bird’s eye view of driving safety culture: Truck drivers’ perceptions of unsafe driving behaviors near their trucks

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

OBJECTIVE:

METHODS:

RESULTS:

CONCLUSIONS:

Keywords

1 Introduction

2 Methodology

3 Situated accounts of motivation for risky driving behavior

Table 1 Accounts of motivation for risky driver behavior near trucks Motivation of Driver Number of Comments Percentage of Truckers 1. Purposely Take Risks 48 27.2% (N = 44) 2. Not Paying Attention 43 26.6% (N = 42) 3. Lack Knowledge of Risks 31 19.6% (N = 31)

3.2 Not paying attention

3.3 Lack knowledge of risks

4 Risky driving behaviors near trucks

4.2 Distracted driving

4.4 Personal distractions

4.5 Passenger distractions

5 Limitations

6 Conclusion

Conflict of interest

Footnotes

References

Table 1
Accounts of motivation for risky driver behavior near trucks

Motivation of Driver Number of Comments Percentage of Truckers

1. Purposely Take Risks 48 27.2% (N = 44)

2. Not Paying Attention 43 26.6% (N = 42)

3. Lack Knowledge of Risks 31 19.6% (N = 31)