Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
AN INVESTIGATION INTO HOW
WORK-RELATED ROAD SAFETY CAN BE ENHANCED
Tamara Dee Banks
BPsych (Hons), MOrgPsych.
A thesis submitted as fulfillment for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Queensland University of Technology
Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety – Queensland (CARRS-Q)
Brisbane, Australia
December 2008
i
Key Words
Work-related road safety, fleet safety, occupational road safety, workplace
health and safety, initiatives, interventions, stages of change, transtheoretical model,
fleet safety climate, safety ownership, change facilitators, change barriers.
ii
iii
Abstract
Despite the facts that vehicle incidents continue to be the most common
mechanism for Australian compensated fatalities and that employers have statutory
obligations to provide safe workplaces, very few organisations are proactively and
comprehensively managing their work-related road risks. Unfortunately, limited
guidance is provided in the existing literature to assist practitioners in managing
work-related road risks. The current research addresses this gap in the literature. To
explore how work-related road safety can be enhanced, three studies were conducted.
Study one explored the effectiveness of a range of risk management
initiatives and whether comprehensive risk management practices were associated
with safety outcomes. Study two explored barriers to, and facilitators for, accepting
risk management initiatives. Study three explored the influence of organisational
factors on road safety outcomes to identify optimal work environments for managing
road risks.
To maximise the research sample and increase generalisability, the studies
were designed to allow data collection to be conducted simultaneously drawing upon
the same sample obtained from four Australian organisations. Data was collected via
four methods. A structured document review of published articles was conducted to
identify what outcomes have been observed in previously investigated work-related
road safety initiatives. The documents reviewed collectively assessed the
effectiveness of 19 work-related road safety initiatives. Audits of organisational
practices and process operating within the four researched organisations were
conducted to identify whether organisations with comprehensive work-related road
risk management practices and processes have better safety outcomes than
organisations with limited risk management practices and processes. Interviews were
conducted with a sample of 24 participants, comprising 16 employees and eight
managers. The interviews were conducted to identify what barriers and facilitators
iv
within organisations are involved in implementing work-related road safety
initiatives and whether differences in fleet safety climate, stage of change and safety
ownership relate to work-related road safety outcomes. Finally, questionnaires were
administered to a sample of 679 participants. The questionnaires were conducted to
identify which initiatives are perceived by employees to be effective in managing
work-related road risks and whether differences in fleet safety climate, stage of
change and safety ownership relate to work-related road safety outcomes.
Seven research questions were addressed in the current research project. The
key findings with respect to each of the research questions are presented below.
Research question one: What outcomes have been observed in previously
investigated work-related road safety initiatives? The structured document review
indicated that initiatives found to be positively associated with occupational road
safety both during and after the intervention period included: a pay rise; driver
training; group discussions; enlisting employees as community road safety change
agents; safety reminders; and group and individual rewards.
Research question two: Which initiatives are perceived by employees to be
effective in managing work-related road risks? Questionnaire findings revealed that
employees believed occupational road risks could best be managed through making
vehicle safety features standard, providing practical driver skills training and through
investigating serious vehicle incidents. In comparison, employees believed initiatives
including signing a promise card commitment to drive safely, advertising the
organisation’s phone number on vehicles and consideration of driving competency in
staff selection process would have limited effectiveness in managing occupational
road safety.
Research question three: Do organisations with comprehensive work-related
road risk management practices and processes have better safety outcomes than
v
organisations with limited risk management practices and processes? The audit
identified a difference among the organisations in their management of work-related
road risks. Comprehensive risk management practices were associated with
employees engaging in overall safer driving behaviours, committing less driving
errors, and experiencing less fatigue and distraction issues when driving. Given that
only four organisations participated in this research, these findings should only be
considered as preliminary. Further research should be conducted to explore the
relationship between comprehensiveness of risk management practices and road
safety outcomes with a larger sample of organisations.
Research question four: What barriers and facilitators within organisations
are involved in implementing work-related road safety initiatives? The interviews
identified that employees perceived six organisational characteristics as potential
barriers to implementing work-related road safety initiatives. These included:
prioritisation of production over safety; complacency towards work-related road
risks; insufficient resources; diversity; limited employee input in safety decisions;
and a perception that road safety initiatives were an unnecessary burden. In
comparison, employees perceived three organisational characteristics as potential
facilitators to implementing work-related road safety initiatives. These included:
management commitment; the presence of existing systems that could support the
implementation of initiatives; and supportive relationships.
Research question five: Do differences in fleet safety climate relate to work-
related road safety outcomes? The interviews and questionnaires identified that
organisational climates with high management commitment, support for managing
work demands, appropriate safety rules and safety communication were associated
with employees who engaged in safer driving behaviours. Regression analyses
indicated that as participants’ perceptions of safety climate increased, the
corresponding likelihood of them engaging in safer driving behaviours increased.
Fleet safety climate was perceived to influence road safety outcomes through several
vi
avenues. Some of these included: the allocation of sufficient resources to manage
occupational road risks; fostering a supportive environment of mutual responsibility;
resolving safety issues openly and fairly; clearly communicating to employees that
safety is the top priority; and developing appropriate work-related road safety
policies and procedures.
Research question six: Do differences in stage of change relate to work-related
road safety outcomes? The interviews and questionnaires identified that participants’
perceptions of initiative effectiveness were found to vary with respect to their
individual stage of readiness, with stage-matched initiatives being perceived most
effective. In regards to safety outcomes, regression analyses identified that as
participants’ progress through the stages of change, the corresponding likelihood of
them being involved in vehicle crashes decreases.
Research question seven: Do differences in safety ownership relate to work-
related road safety outcomes? The interviews and questionnaires revealed that
management of road risks is often given less attention than other areas of health and
safety management in organisations. In regards to safety outcomes, regression
analyses identified that perceived authority and perceived shared ownership both
emerged as significant independent predictors of self-reported driving behaviours
pertaining to fatigue and distractions. The regression models indicated that as
participants’ perceptions of the authority of the person managing road risks
increases, and perceptions of shared ownership of safety tasks increases, the
corresponding likelihood of them engaging in driving while fatigued or multitasking
while driving decreases.
Based on the findings from the current research, the author makes several
recommendations to assist practitioners in developing proactive and comprehensive
approaches to managing occupational road risks. The author also suggests several
avenues for future research in the area of work-related road safety.
vii
Table of Contents
Key Words .................................................................................................................... i
Abstract ....................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................... vii
List of Figures ........................................................................................................... xiii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................. xv
List of Abbreviations .............................................................................................. xviii
Statement of Original Authorship .............................................................................. xx
Acknowledgments ..................................................................................................... xxi
Chapter 1: Program of Research Background ....................................................... 2
1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Key Research Terms ........................................................................................... 3
1.3 Project background ............................................................................................. 4
1.4 Project aims and studies ..................................................................................... 9
1.4.1 Study one – Road safety initiatives ....................................................... 10
1.4.2 Study two – Work-related road safety barriers and facilitators ............ 12
1.4.3 Study three – Organisational factors ..................................................... 13
1.5 Thesis outline .................................................................................................... 17
Chapter 2: Study one – Road safety initiatives .................................................... 21
2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 21
2.2 Study background ............................................................................................. 21
2.3 Method and results ............................................................................................ 24
2.3.1 Document review of work-related road safety initiative articles ...... 27
2.3.1.1 Description of reviewed articles ........................................................ 30
2.3.1.2 Results pertaining to research question one – What outcomes have
been observed in previously investigated work-related road safety
initiatives? .......................................................................................... 31
viii
2.3.2 Questionnaire on work-related road safety ........................................ 40
2.3.2.1 Participant recruitment and demographics ......................................... 40
2.3.2.2 Content ............................................................................................... 47
2.3.2.3 Procedure ........................................................................................... 51
2.3.2.4 Results pertaining to research question two – Which initiatives are
perceived by employees to be effective in managing work-related
road risks? … .................................................................................... 54
2.3.3 Audit of work-related road safety practices and processes ................ 57
2.3.3.1 Procedure ........................................................................................... 58
2.3.3.2 Results pertaining to research question three - Do organisations with
comprehensive work-related road risk management practices and
processes have better safety outcomes than organisations with
limited risk management practices and processes? ............................ 60
2.4 Discussion ......................................................................................................... 61
2.4.1 Research question one – What outcomes have been observed in
previously investigated work-related road safety initiatives? ........... 71
2.4.2 Research question two – Which initiatives are perceived by
employees to be effective in managing work-related road risks? ...... 72
2.4.3 Research question three – Do organisations with comprehensive
work-related road risk management practices and processes have
better safety outcomes than organisations with limited risk
management practices and processes? ............................................... 74
2.4.4 Future research ................................................................................... 76
2.4.5 Applications of study one findings .................................................... 78
Chapter 3: Study two – Work related road safety barriers and facilitators ..... 82
3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 82
3.2 Study background ............................................................................................. 82
3.3 Method .............................................................................................................. 85
3.3.1 Participant recruitment and demographic characteristics .................. 86
ix
3.3.2 Content ............................................................................................. 87
3.3.3 Procedure ........................................................................................... 88
3.4 Results ............................................................................................................... 91
3.4.1 Perceived barriers ............................................................................... 91
3.4.1.1 Prioritisation of production over safety ............................................. 91
3.4.1.2 Complacency towards work-related road risks ................................. 93
3.4.1.3 Diversity ............................................................................................ 93
3.4.1.4 Insufficient resources ......................................................................... 95
3.4.1.5 Limited employee input in safety decisions ........................................ 96
3.4.1.6 Perception that road safety initiatives are an unnecessary burden ... 97
3.4.1.7 Less cited barriers .............................................................................. 97
3.4.1.8 Suggestions to overcome barriers ...................................................... 99
3.4.2 Perceived facilitators ........................................................................ 100
3.4.2.1 Management commitment ................................................................ 101
3.4.2.2 Existing systems .............................................................................. 101
3.4.2.3 Supportive relationships .................................................................. 102
3.4.2.4 Less cited facilitators ....................................................................... 102
3.5 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 103
3.5.1 Perceived barriers ............................................................................. 104
3.5.2 Perceived facilitators ........................................................................ 105
3.5.3 Future research ................................................................................. 105
3.5.4 Applications of study two ................................................................ 106
Chapter 4: Study three – Organisational factors literature review ................. 108
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 108
4.2 Study background ........................................................................................ 108
4.3 Review of fleet safety climate literature ...................................................... 110
4.4 Review of stages of change literature .......................................................... 115
4.5 Review of safety ownership literature .......................................................... 121
4.6 Conclusion ................................................................................................... 126
x
Chapter 5: Study three – Organisational factors methodology ........................ 130
5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 130
5.2 Research Design .............................................................................................. 130
5.3 Interview ......................................................................................................... 131
5.3.1 Participant demographics ...................................................................... 131
5.3.2 Content ........................................................................................... 132
5.3.3 Procedure ............................................................................................. 135
5.4 Questionnaire .................................................................................................. 135
5.4.1 Participant demographics ...................................................................... 136
5.4.2 Content ........................................................................................... 136
5.4.3 Procedure ........................................................................................... 139
Chapter 6: Study three – Organisational factors results and discussion ......... 145
6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 145
6.2 Fleet safety climate ......................................................................................... 146
6.2.1 Questionnaire Results ...................................................................... 146
6.2.1.1 Factor analysis ................................................................................. 146
6.2.1.2 Mean and standard deviation scores ................................................ 149
6.2.1.3 Correlations and regressions ............................................................ 150
6.2.2 Interview Results ............................................................................. 158
6.2.2.1 Management commitment ............................................................... 158
6.2.2.2 Level of trust between employees and management........................ 159
6.2.2.3 Communication in relation to work-related road safety .................. 160
6.2.2.4 Level of work demands .................................................................... 161
6.2.2.5 Appropriateness of safety policies and procedures .......................... 161
6.2.3 Discussion ...................................................................................... 162
6.2.3.1 Road safety outcomes ..................................................................... 162
6.2.3.2 The influence of fleet safety climate on road safety outcomes ........ 164
6.2.3.3 Applications .................................................................................... 165
xi
6.3 Stages of change .............................................................................................. 166
6.3.1 Questionnaire Results ...................................................................... 166
6.3.1.1 Mean and standard deviation scores ................................................ 166
6.3.1.2 Correlations and regressions ............................................................ 167
6.3.2 Interview Results ............................................................................. 170
6.3.2.1 Stage of change classifications......................................................... 170
6.3.2.2 Variance in stages of change ........................................................... 170
6.3.2.3 Perceived initiative effectiveness and stage of change ................... 172
6.3.3 Discussion ..................................................................................... 173
6.3.3.1 Stage of change framework ............................................................. 173
6.3.3.2 Perceived initiative effectiveness ..................................................... 174
6.3.3.3 Road safety outcomes ..................................................................... 175
6.3.3.4 Applications .................................................................................... 176
6.4 Safety Ownership ............................................................................................ 179
6.4.1 Questionnaire Results ...................................................................... 179
6.4.1.1 Mean and standard deviation scores ................................................ 179
6.4.1.2 Correlations and regressions ............................................................ 179
6.4.2 Interview Results ............................................................................. 184
6.4.2.1 Position accepting primary ownership of managing occupational
road risks .......................................................................................... 184
6.4.2.2 Shared ownership of managing occupational road risks .................. 186
6.4.2.3 Road risks as compared to other OH&S risks .................................. 187
6.4.2.4 Competencies required for managing occupational road risks ........ 188
6.4.3 Discussion ..................................................................................... 189
6.4.3.1 Ownership of safety management tasks ........................................... 189
6.4.3.2 Road safety outcomes ...................................................................... 191
6.4.3.3 Applications ..................................................................................... 191
6.5 Chapter conclusion .......................................................................................... 193
xii
Chapter 7: Synthesis and Implications ............................................................... 196
7.1 Project background and methodology ............................................................. 196
7.2 Key findings .................................................................................................... 199
7.2.1 Research question one .......................................................................... 199
7.2.2 Research question two ......................................................................... 200
7.2.3 Research question three ....................................................................... 200
7.2.4 Research question four ......................................................................... 201
7.2.5 Research question five ......................................................................... 203
7.2.6 Research question six ........................................................................... 204
7.2.7 Research question seven ...................................................................... 205
7.3 Strengths and limitations of the previous research and suggestions for
future studies ................................................................................................... 206
7.4 Implications ..................................................................................................... 210
7.5 Recommendations ........................................................................................... 212
7.6 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 215
References ................................................................................................................ 217
Appendices ............................................................................................................... 235
xiii
List of Figures
Figure 1 Data collection methods used in each study ......................................... 10
Figure 2 Diagrammatic representation of the triangulation approach adopted in
study one ............................................................................................... 26
Figure 3 Structured document review search process ......................................... 30
Figure 4 Age of survey participants in the researched organisations .................. 43
Figure 5 Gender of survey participants in the researched organisations ............. 44
Figure 6 Hours typically driven for work each week per employee ................... 45
Figure 7 Kilometres typically driven for work each year per employee ............. 47
Figure 8 Number of infringements during the past 12 months per employee ..... 69
Figure 9 Number of vehicles incidents involved in while driving for work
during the past 12 months per employee............................................... 71
xiv
xv
List of Tables
Table 1 Employee perceptions of initiative effectiveness .................................. 56
Table 2 Audit ratings of work-related road safety practices and processes ....... 61
Table 3 Factor structure of the modified DBQ .................................................. 65
Table 4 Mean driver behaviour scores by organisations .................................... 67
Table 5 Factor structure of the modified fleet safety climate questionnaire .... 148
Table 6 Bivariate correlations between fleet safety climate variables, key
demographic variables and road safety outcome variables ................. 151
Table 7 Hierarchical regression for overall fleet safety climate as a predictor
of overall driver behaviour scores ....................................................... 153
Table 8 Summary table of hierarchical regressions for fleet safety climate
factors as predictors of overall driver behaviour scores...................... 154
Table 9 Summary table of hierarchical regressions for fleet safety climate
factors as predictors of fatigue and distraction scores ........................ 156
Table 10 Summary table of hierarchical regressions for appropriateness of rules
as a predictor of driving violation scores ............................................ 158
Table 11 Summary table of the logistic regression for stage of change as a
predictor of vehicle crashes ................................................................. 169
Table 12 Bivariate correlations between safety ownership variables and road
safety outcome variables ..................................................................... 180
Table 13 Summary table of hierarchical regressions for perceived authority as a
predictor of driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue and distractions 183
Table 14 Summary table of hierarchical regressions for perceived shared
ownership as a predictor of driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue
and distractions ................................................................................... 184
xvi
xvii
List of Abbreviations
Abbreviation/Symbol Definition
OH&S Occupational Health and Safety
e.g. For example
N Total sample
M Mean
SD Standard deviation (from the mean)
p The value of p (or probability level)
B Regression coefficient
β Beta (regression coefficient when all variables are expressed in standardised form)
r Pearson product-moment correlation
r2 r-squared or coefficient of determinant
X2 Chi-square
Adj R2 Adjusted r-squared (estimate of the population value of
r-squared)
ΔR2 R-squared change (unique contribution)
xviii
xix
Statement of Original Authorship
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet
requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the
best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously
published or written by another person except where due reference is made.
Signature: …....................……………....
Date: …............................…………
xx
xxi
Acknowledgments
Many people have provided me with support and I have appreciated this over
the past three years. I would like to formally acknowledge this support from my
family, friends and colleagues at CARRS-Q throughout the duration of my PhD. In
particular I would like to recognise the support provided by Darren, Bevan, Diane
and Kerry. Further to this, I wish to thank several people for the important roles they
have played in helping me complete my PhD.
Firstly I wish to thank my supervisors, Professor Jeremy Davey, Associate
Professor Herbert Biggs and Dr Mark King. I am grateful for the advice and
guidance they have provided. I am also especially grateful for the confidence they
had in me and the freedom they provided for me to control the direction of my
research. I also wish to thank Jeremy in particular for finally succeeding in
convincing me to embark on a PhD journey.
Secondly I wish to acknowledge the generous support provided by Eddie
Wheeler and the NRMA-ACT Road Safety Trust through their provision of my
scholarship. Their funding has allowed me to conduct this valuable research and to
present my findings at both National and International conferences. Their
commitment to road safety has also facilitated the expansion of my professional
network.
xxii
On a more personal note I wish to thank my husband, Mark Street, for his
support and understanding. I appreciate all the little things, like the extra cooking and
cleaning he has done over the last couple of months when I have been preoccupied
with my research and I’m happy to say that yes I am finished my PhD and we can
finally go on a picnic now!
I wish to thank my Mum, Margaret Banks, for volunteering to proof read the
numerous drafts of my PhD. I am sure there would have been many other exciting
ways for her to occupy her weekends, but I appreciate that she instead chose to read
my thesis and provide me with valuable feedback.
I also wish to thank Simba my playful Labrador that regularly insisted it was
time for me to take a break and enjoy a walk or a game of ball with her. She provided
me with the much needed opportunity to clear my mind and return in a more fresh
and productive state.
Finally I wish to thank our bub-to-be. His rapidly approaching due date more
than provided enough incentive to stay focused on my deadlines and motivated me to
finish my thesis early.
Work-Related Road Safety
1
Chapter 1: Program of Research Background
1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 2
1.2 Key Research Terms ........................................................................................... 3
1.3 Project background ............................................................................................. 4
1.4 Project aims and studies ...................................................................................... 9
1.4.1 Study one – Road safety initiatives ....................................................... 10
1.4.2 Study two – Work-related road safety barriers and facilitators ............ 12
1.4.3 Study three – Organisational factors ..................................................... 13
1.5 Thesis outline .................................................................................................... 17
Work-Related Road Safety
2
Chapter 1: Program of Research Background
“There are not many roads; there is a single road that extends across the length and
breadth of our vast planet. Each of us is responsible for a segment of that road. The
road safety decisions that we make or do not make, ultimately have the power to
affect the lives of people everywhere. We are one road – one world.”
Rochelle Sobel, President, Association for Safe International Road Travel, United
States of America (WHO, 2004a)
1.1 Introduction
At the world’s first recorded automobile death on the 31st August 1869 it is
reported that the Coroner stated “this must never happen again” (Fallon & O’Neill,
2005; WHO, 2004b). Tragically, a century later it is happening so frequently that
traffic injuries have become a leading global public health risk. It is estimated that
worldwide 50 million people are injured and an additional 1.2 million people are
killed annually in road crashes (WHO, 2004a). In 1990 using a comparison scale of
disability adjusted life years, road traffic injuries ranked ninth highest as the leading
cause of global burden of disease. Future projections predict that road traffic injuries
and deaths will increase by approximately 65%, placing road traffic injuries as the
third highest cause of global burden of disease by 2020 (Murray & Lopez, 1996).
As a global community, responsibility for creating a safer traffic environment
needs to be accepted and action taken to manage road risks. The management of
work-related road risks is one area where large gains in global road safety may
potentially be achieved. Organisations have the potential to enhance road safety
through many avenues including the selection of safe vehicles and fostering a strong
culture of road safety that may influence employees driving for both work and non-
work purposes. This thesis outlines research into how work-related road safety can
be improved.
Work-Related Road Safety
3
This chapter will firstly describe key terms used throughout this research to
achieve consistency of interpretation. Secondly, a background to this research project
including the social and financial costs incurred with respect to work-related road
incidents will be presented. Thirdly, details will be provided on how this research
program aims to assist in alleviating the burden of road injuries and fatalities, by
exploring how work-related road safety can be improved in organisations. Finally,
the structure of this thesis will be presented.
1.2 Key research terms
Throughout this research project, the term ‘work-related road safety’ will be
used interchangeably with ‘occupational road safety’ and ‘fleet safety’. The term
‘work-related road safety’ refers to aspects of road safety being applied within an
occupational health and safety framework to organisations (Haworth, Tingvall &
Kowadlo, 2000). Work-related road safety initiatives have the objective of
preventing or minimising employee and public exposure to the risk of illness, injury
or death caused by fleet vehicle incidents. It encompasses road safety aspects relating
both to when an employee is engaging in work tasks and also when an employee is
commuting to and from work. In the broader sense, work-related road safety also
encompasses pedestrian safety in occupations that involve walking and working on
roads. While the applications of this thesis may be applied to enhance the safety of
both drivers and pedestrians, this thesis focuses more on work-related road safety in
relation to vehicle drivers.
Other terms used throughout this project that may need clarification include
‘incident’ and ‘fleet vehicles’. The term ‘incident’ is used within the context defined
by Davey and Banks (2005). More specifically it refers to any event that involved
damage to a fleet vehicle or another vehicle, damage to any property, or injury to any
person. Using this definition, non-road crash related incidents including theft and
storm damage were included. The word incident is used rather than accident to
Work-Related Road Safety
4
indicate that each event results from a cause, or combination of causes, such as
fatigue or error of judgement rather than being purely a chance occurrence.
The term ‘fleet vehicle’ is used within the context defined by Davey and
Banks (2005) and Haworth et al. (2000). More specifically it refers to any vehicles
over whose selection and operation an organisation has some degree of influence. It
encompasses vehicles that are: owned or leased by the organisation and used
exclusively for work purposes or a combination of work and private purposes;
vehicles under novated leases; vehicles provided to employees through salary
sacrifice arrangements; and vehicles that are privately owned by employees or
volunteers but used for work purposes. It includes a range of vehicle types for
example, motorbikes, passenger cars, vans, buses, trucks and heavy commercial
vehicles.
1.3 Project background
Road traffic injuries and fatalities are risks faced both internationally and in
Australia. In Australia in 2005 1,636 persons were killed in road crashes (ATSB,
2006). This high number of men, women and children killed is typical of most years
and the tragic loss of these lives is made even more tragic by society’s sense of
acceptance and complacency towards road traffic risk. With such an overwhelming
number of traffic crashes each day, road fatalities appear to have lost a sense of
newsworthiness, with the mass media tending to focus on less frequent types of
tragedy. Despite the traffic death rate of 8 per 100,000 Australian population (ATSB,
2006), driving has become any every day task for many people. Over time, with high
levels of repeated exposure to driving, it appears that the risk of injury or fatality
seems to be readily accepted and perhaps even overlooked by many. There appears
to be a prevailing belief within society that crashes are an inevitable and acceptable
cost of road transport.
Work-Related Road Safety
5
This lack of appreciation for road traffic risk has also been observed within
organisations. For example a case study of Abbott Laboratories, a global healthcare
company, identified that 80 percent of Abbott employee fatalities and severe injuries
resulted from vehicle related incidents. Despite this trend, road safety was
overlooked in the company’s comprehensive safety program that focused on risk
areas pertaining to research and manufacturing (McKillips, 2003). A perceived lack
of appreciation for road traffic risk is of major concern, given that work-related
motor vehicle incidents represent substantial emotional and financial costs to society.
It has been estimated that the total cost of work-related road incidents in
Australia may be in the range of $1 billion to $1.5 billion per annum (Wheatley,
1997) and that the average total insurance cost of a work-related road incident is
approximately $28,000 with costs incurred to both the company and society (Davey
& Banks, 2005). Additionally, motor vehicle incidents are over represented in
Australian Workers Compensation claims. More specifically with 67 deaths in 2003-
2004, vehicle incidents were the most common mechanism for Australian
compensated fatalities, accounting for 35 percent of all compensated deaths (ASCC,
2006). Research in the domain of fleet and work-related road safety therefore has
important applications in the areas of both road safety and Occupational Health and
Safety (OHS).
While many organisations are committed to maintaining the health and safety
of employees within their workplace, it appears that risk management often fails to
include road safety. Although common, this is directly contrary to the spirit of
Australian Occupational Health and Safety legislation. The purpose of the
Occupational Health and Safety legislation is to make workplaces and work practices
safer for everyone.
The ‘Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995’ was legislated to prevent or
minimise a person’s exposure to the risk of illness, injury or death caused by a
Work-Related Road Safety
6
workplace, by a relevant workplace area, by work activities, or by plant or
substances for use at a workplace. In Queensland, the Act states that “a workplace is
any place where work is, or is to be, performed by a worker or a person conducting a
business or undertaking”. This includes “a vehicle supplied by an employer for use
by a worker in the performance of work”. In accordance with the Act, in all
Australian jurisdictions, duties of care to workers and third parties must be shared by
everyone. For example, employers and persons in control of relevant work areas
must provide safe and healthy workplaces, employees must not wilfully place
themselves or others at risk and manufactures, suppliers and designers must provide
safe products. Under the Act employers have statutory obligations to provide safe
workplaces, safe plant and equipment, safe systems of work and safety information,
instruction, training and supervision. Employers who fail to take reasonable care to
avoid exposing employees to unnecessary risks of traffic injury can face substantial
fines. In Queensland, the maximum penalties for breach of occupational health and
safety legislation are $150,000 and/or three years jail for an individual and $750,000
for a corporation.
In recent years several legal cases have been heard in Australia with respect
to work-related road incidents. Examples of some of these cases are described below.
Brew v. WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND – [2004] 1 Qd.R. 621 pertained to an
employee who allegedly suffered injuries when he fell asleep while driving a vehicle
in the course of his employment. Brew alleged that the incident was caused by his
employer’s wrongful act in requiring him to drive when he was unfit to do so by
reason of fatigue. Curtain Bros (Qld) Pty Ltd v. FAI General Insurance Company
Limited [1995] 1 Qd. R. 142 pertained to an employee who allegedly suffered
injuries while driving in the course of her employment. She was operating a vehicle
supplied by her employer and travelling along a road that the employer knew to be
unsafe. The employer failed to warn the employee of the danger in the road.
Newberry v. Suncorp [2006] 1 Qd.R. 519 pertained to an employee who allegedly
suffered injuries while travelling as a passenger in the course of his employment. The
Work-Related Road Safety
7
incident was considered to be the fault of another driver travelling on the wrong side
of the road. Manning v. Taroom Shire Council & Ors [1994] QCA 430 pertained to
an employee who allegedly suffered injuries while travelling in the course of his
employment as a result of the employer’s breach of duty to adequately warn the
plaintiff with respect to the management of his vehicle.
Given that vehicle incidents continue to be the most common mechanism for
Australian compensated fatalities and employers have statutory obligations to
provide safe workplaces, it is essential that organisational OHS risk management
strategies be expanded to include work-related road risks. The goal of enhancing
organisational road risk management is aligned with the Australian OHS strategy
targets. In 2002 the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI),
Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) and all Australian Governments
committed to the National OHS Strategy 2002-2012. This strategy sets targets to
reduce work-related injuries by at least 40 percent and work-related fatalities by at
least 20 percent by 30 June 2012. The National Strategy has an ambitious goal for
Australia to achieve the lowest rate of work-related traumatic fatalities in the world
by 2009. To meet these targets and achieve this goal, five national priorities have
been set. These include: reducing high incidence/severity risks; developing the
capacity of business operators and employees to manage OHS effectively; preventing
occupational disease more effectively; eliminating hazards at the design stage; and
strengthening the capacity of government to influence OHS outcomes (Australian
Safety and Compensation Council, 2005). Thus research exploring how work-related
road safety can be improved in organisations is aligned with the goals, targets and
priorities of the National OHS Strategy and will contribute to achieving short and
long term OHS improvements.
Research exploring how work-related road safety can be improved in
organisations is also aligned with Australia’s National Road Safety Strategy. In 2000
the Australian Transport Council (ATC) of Ministers endorsed the National Road
Work-Related Road Safety
8
Safety Strategy 2001-2010. This strategy presents the target of decreasing the annual
number of road deaths per 100,000 population by 40 per cent over the decade, to a
maximum of 5.6 by December 2010. This target is typical of many OECD countries.
For example the European Union has set an even more ambitious target of a 50 per
cent reduction in the number of road fatalities in the decade to 2010. To meet these
targets, action items are grouped into four areas. These include: safer speeds; safer
roads and roadsides; safer vehicles and safer road users and safer behaviour. The
strategy states that responsibility for reducing road trauma is shared among
governments, communities, industry, business and individuals. It specifically
identifies action items in relation to safety orientated fleet purchasing policies to
accelerate the market penetration of advanced vehicle safety features and for
organisations to promote higher standards of safe road user behaviour than are
required by road traffic law to enhance the safety of employees who drive
(Australian Transport Council, 2008).
The current research project will complement the National OHS Strategy and
the National Road Safety Strategy. It will assist in alleviating the burden of road
injuries and fatalities by exploring how work-related road safety can be improved in
organisations. Inspiration for this research arose from a desire to understand how to
optimise the effectiveness of road safety initiatives within different organisations.
From experience working as both a researcher and a practitioner in the area of
work-related road safety, the author recognised that many organisations have limited
or no practices and processes in place to manage their occupational road risks.
Furthermore, while consulting to several large Australian organisations and after
numerous discussions with Fleet Managers operating in small to medium
organisations, the author observed that of the organisations that were engaging in
some occupational road risk management strategies, very few were proactively and
comprehensively managing their risks.
Work-Related Road Safety
9
Unfortunately, of the organisations that were engaging in some occupational
road risk management strategies, many were adopting a ‘one size fits all approach’.
Nonetheless, some organisations were proactively managing risks. However this was
typically limited to only policies surrounding the management of fleet vehicles.
Other organisations were adopting a reactive approach, implementing a risk
management initiative in response to an incident that had occurred in their
organisation. These reactive initiatives were often observed to be narrow, short term
fixes that failed to address the ongoing organisational and behavioural issues that
contribute to occupational road risk. Similar observations pertaining to the
management of occupational road safety risks have also been made by other
researchers (Haworth, Greig, & Wishart, 2008; Wishart, Davey, & Freeman, 2007).
Given that limited guidance is provided in the existing literature to assist
practitioners in managing work-related road risks, the observed limited management
of occupational road risks in many organisations is understandable. The current
research addresses this gap in the literature through exploring how work-related road
safety can be enhanced.
1.4 Project aims and studies
The current research project aims to assist in alleviating the burden of traffic
injuries and fatalities by exploring how road safety can be improved in organisations.
To achieve this aim, three studies were conducted. Study one explored the
effectiveness of a range of risk management initiatives and whether comprehensive
risk management practices are associated with safety outcomes. Study two explored
barriers to, and facilitators for, accepting risk management initiatives. To identify
optimal work environments for managing road risks study three explored the
influence of organisational factors on road safety outcomes. These studies were
designed to comprehensively explore different yet complementary issues that may
influence the effectiveness of work-related road risk management.
Work-Related Road Safety
10
As the intent was to explore different influences upon work-related road
safety, rather than to sequentially build upon on one area of exploration, the same
research sample was utilised across the three studies. This data collection approach
was selected after consideration of the difficulty in obtaining access to organisations
to conduct research. Four organisations agreed to participate in this research project.
To maximise the research sample and increase generalisability, the studies were
designed to allow data collection to be conducted simultaneously drawing upon the
same sample across the four organisations. Data was collected via a structured
document review of published articles pertaining to work-related road safety
initiatives, audits of organisational practices and process, interviews and
questionnaires. Figure 1 provides a visual representation of how the data collection
methods relate to the three studies. The purpose, background and research questions
addressed are then outlined for each of the three studies.
Figure 1 Data collection methods used in each study
1.4.1 Study one – Road safety initiatives
The purpose of study one was to explore the effectiveness of a range of
initiatives for managing work-related road safety. Several reports have recently been
published that offer reviews of current industry practice and risk management
guidelines for organisations striving to achieve best practice in managing
occupational road risks (Anderson, Plowman, Leven, & Fraine, 1998; Haworth,
et al., 2008; Haworth et al., 2000; Health and Safety Executive, 2000; Murray, 2007;
Murray, Newnam, Watson, Davey, & Schonfeld, 2003).
Questionnaires Workplace Audit
Interviews Document Review
Study 1 Study 3 Study 2
Work-Related Road Safety
11
Practices and processes recommended in these reports include: having a fleet
safety policy that defines safe driving responsibilities and communicates to
employees the organisation’s commitment to safe driving; recruiting and selecting
drivers based on safe driving records and awareness of safety issues; including work-
related road safety and safe driving components in employee inductions; conducting
fleet safety training needs analyses and providing and evaluating any required fleet
safety training and education; recognising good and poor driving behaviours through
an official scheme of incentives and disincentives; eliminating or minimising
exposure to road hazards when planning and managing road journeys; selecting
vehicles based on safety features and documenting maintenance procedures;
managing access to vehicles in regards to job needs and ensuring that drivers are
physically/medically fit to drive safely; monitoring employee driving activities
through distances driven and public feedback regarding their driving performance;
and recording and monitoring individual driver, individual vehicle and overall fleet
incident involvement and managing identified high risks.
These reports provide some guidance to practitioners, however as many of
the recommended initiatives have not yet been scientifically evaluated, enthusiastic
endorsement of these guidelines is cautioned against. To assist practitioners in
making informed decisions about how they manage occupational road risks, study
one addresses three research questions. These are:
1. What outcomes have been observed in previously investigated work-related
road safety initiatives?
2. Which initiatives are perceived by employees to be effective in managing
work-related road risks?
3. Do organisations with comprehensive work-related road risk management
practices and processes have better safety outcomes than organisations with
limited risk management practices and processes?
Work-Related Road Safety
12
1.4.2 Study two - Work-related road safety barriers and facilitators
The purpose of study two was to explore barriers to and facilitators for
accepting work-related road safety initiatives. Previous researchers have argued that
some promising occupational health and safety initiatives may be found to be
ineffective due to an inadequate implantation of the initiative (Aborg, Fernstro, &
Ericson, 1998; Westgaard & Winkel, 1997). Identifying the restraining forces for
opposing a safety initiative and the driving forces for accepting a safety initiative
allows strategies to be implemented to maximise the effects of the facilitators, while
minimising the effects of the barriers.
Previous research conducted in the area of organisational change has
identified that organisational, financial and professional factors may act as
facilitators or barriers to implementing change programs (Blake, Kohler, Rask,
Davis, & Naylor, 2006; Weiner, Amick, & Lee, 2008). While these studies provide
some guidance to fleet safety practitioners, little is known about whether the
facilitators and barriers to implementing general organisational change programs
generalise to implementing work-related road safety initiatives. Research conducted
in the area of fleet safety has identified the following barriers to managing work-
related road safety: limited interaction between fleet managers and occupational
health and safety personnel; perceived lack of resources; and limited status/authority
of the person primarily responsible for managing fleet safety (Haworth & Senserrick,
2003; Haworth et al., 2008).
To assist practitioners in making informed decisions about how they manage
occupational road risks, study two addresses the following research question:
1. What barriers and facilitators within organisations are involved in
implementing work-related road safety initiatives?
Work-Related Road Safety
13
1.4.3 Study three – Organisational factors
To identify optimal work environments for managing road risks study three
explored the influence of organisational factors on road safety outcomes. Currently
many occupational road risk management initiatives, such as goal setting (Ludwig,
2000) and signing a promise card commitment to drive safely (Boyce & Geller,
1999), operate at a micro-level targeting individual employees. However research
pertaining to the manufacturing industry, suggests that a macro-level approach
should be adopted to achieve optimal improvements in workplace safety (Mullen,
2004). Given that an incident is most likely to eventuate when several errors occur
simultaneously, the adoption of a macro-level risk management approach makes
sense. Reason (1990) suggests that contributing conditions to an incident may relate
to organisational factors, unsafe supervision, preconditions for unsafe acts, and
unsafe acts by the operator.
Drawing upon this theoretical framework, the current research will focus on
exploring whether three organisational factors are related to self-reported driving
behaviours, traffic infringements and vehicle incidents. More specifically, these
factors comprise fleet safety climate, stages of change and safety ownership. Based
on previous research the author selected these factors as important aspects to explore
in this research project. Previous studies have indicated that each of these
organisational aspects may be related to safety outcomes and the effectiveness of
safety initiatives in organisations (Nielsen, Rasmussen, Glasscock, & Spangenberg,
2008; Wills, Watson, & Biggs, 2006; Slappendel, 2001 as cited in Haslam, 2002;
Prochaska, Prochaska & Levesque, 2001; Barrett, Haslam, Lee, & Ellis, 2005; Biggs,
Sheahan, & Dingsdag, 2006). Detailed information regarding these factors and their
potential relationships to safety outcomes is presented in later chapters. A brief
outline of the three organisational factors along with the three research questions
addressed in study three is presented below.
Work-Related Road Safety
14
1. Do differences in fleet safety climate relate to work-related road safety
outcomes? In recent years there has been a growing interest in researching the
social and organisational issues that may be linked to occupational road
incidents. These social and organisational issues are often referred to as fleet
safety climate. More specifically, fleet safety climate refers to employees’
shared perceptions of management’s commitment and performance with
regards to fleet safety policies, procedures and practices (Banks, Davey &
Brownlow, 2006; Wills, Watson & Biggs, 2004).
Fleet safety climate research increases our understanding of the antecedents
of driving behaviour in the workplace. A number of general dimensions that
may impact fleet safety climate have been identified. These include:
management commitment; trusting relationships and communication;
appropriateness of work demands; and appropriateness of education and rules
(Banks et al., 2006). Several studies have found a relationship between safety
climate and safety outcomes with respect to: safety performance and
behaviour (Wills et al., 2006); incident rates (Mearns, Whitaker, & Flin,
2003); frequency of workers compensation claims (O’Toole, 2002); and self-
reported occupational injury frequency and severity (Nielsen et al., 2008).
Given the links observed in previous research between safety climate and
safety outcomes, it is suggested that fleet safety climate may be related to
work-related road safety outcomes.
2. Do differences in stage of change relate to work-related road safety
outcomes? Previous researchers have argued that many attempts to
implement organisational change have failed due to change managers
ignoring existing knowledge and principles relating to the psychology of
change (Winum, Ryterband, & Stephensen, 1997). The author suggests that
the implementation of occupational road safety initiatives may be improved
Work-Related Road Safety
15
through the consideration and application of appropriate behaviour change
models such as the stage of change model.
The stages of change model (Prochaska, DiClemente & Norcross, 1992), also
known as the transtheoretical model of change, is a behaviour change model
that offers a framework for understanding variations in readiness for change.
The model suggests that individuals require different types of support based
on their position within the change process as they pass through the phases of
pre-contemplation (not thinking of changing one’s behaviour), contemplation
(seriously considering changing one’s behaviour in the near future),
preparation (making plans and intending to change one’s behaviour in the
very near future), action (engaged in changing one’s behaviour) and
maintenance (working to consolidate gains from one’s changed behaviour
and prevent relapse).
In recent years the model has been applied in organisational change research
in the areas of ergonomics, health promotion and change management
(Haslam, 2002; Prochaska, 2000; Prochaska et al., 2001). Previous
researchers have indicated that the application of the stages of change model
may assist in the reduction of resistance, stress and implementation time
associated with organisational change through accelerating employee
movement towards the action stage (Prochaska et al., 2001). Based on
previous research findings, it is suggested that the stages of change model
may provide a useful framework for developing an effective multi-pronged
risk management approach capable of targeting the behavioural change needs
of a range of employees.
Work-Related Road Safety
16
3. Do differences in safety ownership relate to work-related road safety
outcomes? The success of organisational change initiatives appears to be
influenced by the position of the primary change owner and the extent to
which ownership is shared across members of an organisation.
In relation to primary ownership, it is suggested that the organisational
position of the employee may be related to the effectiveness of the safety
initiative. A recent case study revealed that changes in management level and
department of the primary owner related to changes in safety behaviour of
employees (Barrett et al., 2005). Employees reported that the previous health
and safety manager did not carry the necessary authority or respect to achieve
compliance with procedures and rules, resulting in minimal employee
adherence to safe working practices. Upon the health and safety manager's
resignation, the production director assumed primary ownership of safety. It
was found that with his authority to fire employees immediately for non
compliance to rules or procedures, health and safety compliance increased
within the organisation.
In addition to the position of the primary owner, it is suggested that the extent
to which ownership of safety responsibilities is shared across members of an
organisation may also be related to the success of a safety initiative. It has
long been recognised in the safety literature that managers at different
hierarchical levels within an organisation have different roles in the overall
management of workplace health and safety (Andreissen, 1978). Therefore
sharing safety responsibilities, such as identifying high risk employees or
providing training in safe vehicle operations, across several job positions may
allow an organisation to draw upon the expertise of employees whose
competencies and position responsibilities are best aligned with each safety
management task. Recent research findings pertaining to manufacturing
companies support the formalisation of safety management responsibilities.
Work-Related Road Safety
17
More specifically, research investigating the characteristics of over 400
manufacturing companies, found that organisations with low rates of lost time
injuries typically defined health and safety responsibilities in all managerial
job descriptions and included health and safety topics in performance
appraisals (Shannon et al., 1996). Given the links observed in previous
research between safety ownership and safety outcomes, it is suggested that
safety ownership may be related to work-related road safety outcomes.
To assist in alleviating the burden of traffic injuries and fatalities, this
research project combines three studies to comprehensively explore how road safety
can be improved in organisations. This project is designed to contribute to the
theoretical understanding of factors associated with work-related road safety by:
identifying effective occupational road safety initiatives, identifying optimal
organisational environments for road safety; and identifying facilitators and barriers
within organisations to implementing occupational road safety initiatives. It is
envisaged that the findings from this research, will provide practical information that
can be used by practitioners to enhance safety within organisations. Practitioners will
be able to: access a current critical review of a range of road safety initiatives that
have been implemented in organisations; consider whether adjustments need to be
made within their organisation to achieve environments of fleet safety climate, stage
of change and safety ownership that are related to desired safety outcomes; and plan
to manage major change barriers and harness key facilitators when implementing
work-related road safety initiatives.
1.5 Thesis structure
As this program of research involves three studies that explore different
influences upon work-related road safety, rather than begin this thesis with a broad
literature review chapter, three focused literature reviews are provided at appropriate
times throughout the thesis as part of the study background sections relating to each
of the studies. An outline of each of the chapters is presented below.
Work-Related Road Safety
18
Chapter one provided a background to this research project, presented the
research project aims and detailed the structure of the thesis.
Chapter two pertains to study one. It explores the effectiveness of a range of
initiatives for managing work-related road safety and whether organisations with
comprehensive risk management practices have better safety outcomes than
organisations with limited risk management practices. The study background,
methodology, results and applied implications of study one are discussed.
Chapter three pertains to study two. It explores the facilitators and barriers to
implementing work-related road safety initiatives. The study background,
methodology, results and applied implications of study three are discussed.
Chapters four to six, pertain to study three. These chapters explore whether
organisational factors relate to differences in road safety outcomes. More
specifically, chapter four presents the study background and a review of literature
pertaining to organisational factors including fleet safety climate, stages of change
and safety ownership. Chapter five describes the methodology adopted in study
three. Chapter six presents the results from study three and discusses the applied
implications of these findings.
Chapter seven reviews and collectively summarises the key findings from the
three studies. To assist practitioners in making informed decisions about how they
manage occupational road risks, effective occupational road safety initiatives will be
identified, major facilitators and barriers to implementing occupational road safety
initiatives will be identified, and optimal organisational environments for road safety
will be discussed with respect to fleet safety climate, stage of change and safety
ownership.
Work-Related Road Safety
19
Chapter 2: Study one – Road safety initiatives
2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 21
2.2 Study background ............................................................................................. 21
2.3 Method and results ............................................................................................ 24
2.3.1 Document review of work-related road safety initiative articles ...... 27
2.3.1.1 Description of reviewed articles ........................................................ 30
2.3.1.2 Results pertaining to research question one – What outcomes have
been observed in previously investigated work-related road safety
initiatives? .......................................................................................... 31
2.3.2 Questionnaire on work-related road safety ........................................ 40
2.3.2.1 Participant recruitment and demographics ......................................... 40
2.3.2.2 Content ............................................................................................... 47
2.3.2.3 Procedure ............................................................................................ 51
2.3.2.4 Results pertaining to research question two – Which initiatives are
perceived by employees to be effective in managing work-related
road risks? … .................................................................................... 54
2.3.3 Audit of work-related road safety practices and processes ................ 57
2.3.3.1 Procedure ............................................................................................ 58
2.3.3.2 Results pertaining to research question three - Do organisations with
comprehensive work-related road risk management practices and
processes have better safety outcomes than organisations with
limited risk management practices and processes? ............................ 60
2.4 Discussion ......................................................................................................... 61
2.4.1 Research question one – What outcomes have been observed in
previously investigated work-related road safety initiatives? ........... 71
2.4.2 Research question two – Which initiatives are perceived by
employees to be effective in managing work-related road risks? ...... 72
2.4.3 Research question three – Do organisations with comprehensive
work-related road risk management practices and processes have
Work-Related Road Safety
20
better safety outcomes than organisations with limited risk
management practices and processes? ............................................... 74
2.4.4 Future research ................................................................................... 76
2.4.5 Applications of study one findings .................................................... 78
Work-Related Road Safety
21
Chapter 2: Study one – Road safety initiatives
2.1 Introduction
The purpose of study one was to explore which initiatives have been found to
be effective and are perceived to be effective in managing occupational road risks,
and also whether comprehensive risk management is associated with enhanced safety
outcomes. This chapter provides details pertaining to the study background,
methodology, results and discussion.
2.2 Study Background
Recently, as awareness of the extent of the problem of work-related road
incidents has begun to emerge, researcher and practitioner interest in the area has
grown. A range of government-led initiatives on work-related road safety have been
introduced in Australia, New Zealand, the United States of America, Ireland, and the
United Kingdom. Some of these initiatives include: safety campaigns; provision of
information on initiatives; audits and enforcement; support for training; support for
research; and stakeholder forums to exchange fleet safety information (Murray,
2007).
A range of industry-led initiatives on work-related road safety have also been
introduced in Australia, New Zealand, the United States of America, and the United
Kingdom. Some of these initiatives include: driver training; management education
and awareness; policies relating to the management of journeys, drivers and vehicles;
safe vehicle selection and maintenance; driver training; driver monitoring; awareness
raising initiatives including posters and newsletters; risk assessments; post-incident
investigations; assessments of health and fitness to operate vehicles; conferences,
seminars and workshops; incident data recording; safe driving awards; group
discussions; competency based licence testing; and programs focussing on vehicle
maintenance, fatigue management, driving hours, and driver health (Haworth et al.,
2008; Murray, 2007). Despite these advancements in work-related road safety risk
Work-Related Road Safety
22
management, there is a lack of available information pertaining to which initiatives
are most effective and how occupational road safety can best be achieved. Failures to
conduct evaluations of initiative effectiveness may be partly due to a perceived lack
of the financial resources required to conduct evaluations, or potentially the project
managers may lack the required knowledge and skills to conduct evaluations.
Although the Australian National Road Safety Strategy recognises that
organisations have the potential to impose requirements on drivers that are stricter
than current traffic law requirements, for example prohibiting the use of hands-free
mobile phones or enforcing a zero blood alcohol limit while operating a vehicle
(Australian Transport Council, 2008), many organisations are currently just adhering
to the legal requirements. Haworth et al. (2008) has identified that many
organisations cite cost constraints as the justification for not going beyond legal
requirements to improve occupational road safety.
When developing occupational risk management initiatives, it is useful to
consider the contributing causes of incidents. Researchers from the United Kingdom
have recently developed a model of occupational road risk (BOMEL, 2004). They
identified fatigue/alertness; individual attitudes; pressure/stress; compliance; and
suitable human resources as direct factors that influence occupational road risk. They
also identified several influences at both an organisational level and policy level. At
an organisational level, the key factors identified included: procedures; planning; pay
and conditions; training; communications; and incident management/feedback. At
the policy level, the key factors identified included: ownership and control;
organisational structure; safety management; contracting strategy; and profitability.
Furthermore, based on surveys conducted in Finland, Salminen and Lahdeniemi
(2002) identified tiredness, time pressure, thinking about work while driving and use
of mobile telephones as significant occupational road risk factors.
Work-Related Road Safety
23
Taking into account current government and industry practices and potential
contributing causes of incidents, several reports have been published that offer risk
management guidelines for organisations striving to achieve best practice in
managing occupational road risks (Anderson et al., 1998; Haworth et al., 2008;
Haworth et al., 2000; Health and Safety Executive, 2000; Murray, 2007; Murray et
al., 2003).
Practices and processes recommended in these reports include: having a fleet
safety policy that defines safe driving responsibilities and communicates to
employees the organisation’s commitment to safe driving; recruiting and selecting
drivers based on safe driving records and awareness of safety issues; including work-
related road safety and safe driving components in employee inductions; conducting
fleet safety training needs analyses and providing and evaluating any required fleet
safety training and education; recognising good and poor driving behaviours through
an official scheme of incentives and disincentives; eliminating or minimising
exposure to road hazards when planning and managing road journeys; selecting
vehicles based on safety features and documenting maintenance procedures;
managing access to vehicles in regards to job needs and ensuring that drivers are
physically/medically fit to drive safely; monitoring employee driving activities for
example distances driven and public feedback regarding their driving performance;
and recording and monitoring individual driver, individual vehicle and overall fleet
incident involvement and managing identified high risks.
These reports provide some guidance to practitioners, however as many of
the recommended initiatives have not yet been scientifically evaluated, enthusiastic
endorsement of these guidelines is cautioned against. To assist practitioners in
making informed decisions about how they manage occupational road risks, study
one addresses three research questions. These are:
Work-Related Road Safety
24
1. What outcomes have been observed in previously investigated work-related
road safety initiatives?
2. Which initiatives are perceived by employees to be effective in managing
work-related road risks?
3. Do organisations with comprehensive work-related road risk management
practices and processes have better safety outcomes than organisations with
limited risk management practices and processes?
This study will make a valuable contribution to the literature by providing a
current and comprehensive document review of studies pertaining to work-related
road safety initiatives. Study one will also pioneer two new avenues of research in
the area of work-related road safety. Firstly, employees’ perceptions in relation to the
effectiveness of a range of occupational road safety initiatives will be investigated.
Currently, employee perceptions pertaining to occupational road safety initiatives
have not been researched. Secondly, road safety outcomes will be compared across
organisations with comprehensive risk management practices and organisations with
limited risk management practices. Currently, comprehensiveness of risk
management practices has not been researched with respect to road safety outcomes.
The findings from study one will provide empirical evaluations of numerous work-
related road safety initiatives to assist practitioners in developing effective risk
management strategies.
2.3 Method and results
Given the scarcity of research pertaining to occupational road risk
management, an exploratory approach was considered most appropriate for study
one. Study one was designed to comprehensively investigate the effectiveness of
occupational road risk management strategies. To achieve this, a triangulation
approach was adopted in study one with the data being drawn from three different
sources.
Work-Related Road Safety
25
The term triangulation is borrowed from navigational circles, where it is a
strategy for taking multiple reference points to locate an unknown position. This
approach was first applied in the academic setting in 1959 to enhance research
(Campbell & Fiske, 1959). In the academic setting, triangulation refers to the use of a
combination of approaches to gain a holistic understanding and to depict more
accurately the phenomenon being investigated. The current research used method
triangulation, by adopting several research methods for gathering data and data
triangulation, by obtaining data from several different sources. This design was
applied with the purpose of seeking a convergence in results from different sources.
This mixed-method approach was also applied for the purposes of complementarity
as defined by Greene, Caracelli and Graham (1989). Combining data from three
sources facilitated the interpretability of results, by allowing findings obtained with
one method to be clarified with respect to findings from other methods.
More specifically, study one used complementary research methods including
a structured document review of published articles pertaining to work-related road
safety initiatives, a questionnaire and an audit of work-related road safety practices
and processes. Firstly, an extensive document review was conducted to explore
outcomes that have been observed in previously investigated work-related road
safety initiatives. Secondly, a questionnaire was conducted to identify which
initiatives are perceived by employees and managers to be effective in managing
work-related road risks and to obtain road safety outcome data. Thirdly, an audit was
conducted to compare risk management practices and processes currently operating
in organisations. Refer Figure 2 for a visual representation of the triangulation
research design that was conducted.
Work-Related Road Safety
26
Figure 2 Diagrammatic representation of the triangulation approach
adopted in study one
This combination of qualitative and quantitative methods was selected to
counterbalance the weaknesses of one method with the strengths of another method.
The use of a range of methods to explore the same research questions yields a robust
methodology (Cowman, 1993). The data triangulation process was used by the
researcher to clarify and challenge results obtained through one data collection
process with the data obtained through another method. This thorough approach
allowed findings to be critically evaluated as the information from the three data
sources converged. Before commencing study one, ethics and workplace health and
safety approval was applied for and granted through the appropriate research
departments within the Queensland University of Technology. The data collection
processes and results obtained for research questions one to three are outlined below.
Audit of work-related road safety practices and processes conducted in 4 organisations
Document Review of published
articles
Questionnaire conducted in 4 organisations
Understanding of optimal approach to work-related road risk management
Work-Related Road Safety
27
2.3.1 Document review of work-related road safety initiative articles
To obtain current Australian and international research, peer-reviewed
documents were searched using six electronic bibliographic databases. These
included:
ATRI – Australian Transport Index (via Informit Search) – Contains more
than 53,000 records on roads and road related information in Australia.
Produced by the Australian Road Research Board Ltd.
Business Source Elite (via EBSCOhost) – Contains full text articles for 800
journals and abstracts and indexing for 1,500 articles. This database covers a
wide range of records pertaining to business topics.
ISI Web of Science – Web of Science indexes over 8,500 high impact
research journals from a wide range of disciplines, and as such provides an
interdisciplinary view of international research literature that is well suited to
applied research.
PsycINFO (via EBSCOhost): Contains more than one million citations and
summaries of journal articles, book chapters, books, dissertations and
technical reports, in the field of psychology and psychological aspects of
related disciplines, for example business. Journal coverage includes
international material selected from more than 1,700 periodicals.
ScienceDirect – Contains over 1,900 ejournal titles in full text. This is a
cross-disciplinary academic database that covers a wide range of research
areas.
TRIS Online (Transportation Research Information Services) – The TRIS
Database is the world’s largest and most comprehensive bibliographic
resource on transportation information. TRIS is produced and maintained by
the Transportation Research Board (TRB) at the National Academies of
Sciences. TRIS contains almost a half million records of published and
ongoing research on all modes and disciplines in the field of transportation.
Work-Related Road Safety
28
To minimise the chance of overlooking relevant articles, both key road safety
databases and multidisciplinary databases were searched. Furthermore searches were
not limited to road safety research journals because several key articles on the subject
appear in health, psychology, and workplace health and safety journals. Excluding
research published in these complementary journals may have rendered the
document review incomplete and limited its value to work-related road safety
researchers, practitioners and policy makers.
A master list of search terms was generated and used with each electronic
database. Search terms included: work road safety, organisation road safety,
occupation road safety, fleet safety, company driver, fleet driver, initiative, strategy,
program and intervention. These terms were selected based on the terminology used
within relevant published research papers and industry reports. To keep the review
current and manageable, the search was limited to articles published between January
1990 and September 2008.
The search identified 181 non-duplicated titles. These titles were reviewed
using pre-determined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Included articles had to appear in
English in a peer-reviewed journal, conference proceeding or book. As the purpose
of the document review was to explore scientific evaluations of various initiatives,
non peer-reviewed literature was excluded as the scientific quality of these
documents had not been established. In addition, included articles had to focus on
work-related road safety initiatives. This criterion eliminated articles that focused on
more general community road safety initiatives and general health and safety
initiatives. Using these criteria, 122 articles were excluded at the title-review stage. It
was observed that the ATRI and TRIS databases generated many non-peer reviewed
articles. Some of these articles were government funded reports, while other articles
were from less credible sources such as industry magazines.
Work-Related Road Safety
29
The abstracts of the remaining 59 articles were then reviewed using the same
criteria and process. This review resulted in the exclusion of 33 additional articles.
The search terms selected in this review were designed to have a broad scope to
maximise the chance of finding all relevant articles. Unfortunately this process also
generated many ‘hits’ in bibliographic databases that were outside the scope of this
review. For example the search term ‘fleet safety’ yielded several articles pertaining
to aviation and sailing vessels that were unrelated to the subject of work-related road
safety.
The full text of the remaining 26 articles was then reviewed. Seventeen
articles that mentioned work-related road safety but did not focus on initiatives were
also excluded as they were considered to be extraneous. This review left nine peer-
reviewed relevant articles.
The researcher also used ISI Web of Science and Google Scholar to obtain
key articles cited in the reviewed papers. This process identified an additional 11
articles that survived the title-review, abstract-review, and full-text-review process.
This review process generated a total of 20 peer-reviewed relevant articles. Refer to
Figure 3 presented below for a visual representation of the review process. EndNote
libraries for each step of the review process are available from the researcher upon
request.
A structured data abstraction form was then used to extract key information
from each of the 20 articles that were retained after the full-text review. A
description of the articles reviewed and a summary of the major findings is presented
below. Following this, detailed information on each of the articles pertaining to the
source, initiatives researched, method, key findings and limitations is presented in
Appendix A.
Work-Related Road Safety
30
Figure 3 Structured document review search process
2.3.1.1 Description of reviewed articles
Of the 20 articles included in this review, ten articles presented the findings
of research conducted using a pre-post design including at least one control group.
Five articles presented the findings of research conducted using a pre-post design
Combined (No duplicates) 181 articles
Reasons for discarding 122 articles at Title
Review: Non-English - 3
Non-Peer Reviewed – 71 Extraneous – 48
Retained after Title Review 59 articles
Retained after Full Text Review 20 articles
Retained after Abstract Review 26 articles
Reasons for
discarding 33 articles at
Abstract Review: Extraneous – 33
Reasons for
discarding 17 articles at Full Text Review:
Extraneous – 17
Added 11 articles: These articles were cited in the
reviewed articles and met the
inclusion criteria
Work-Related Road Safety
31
with no control group. Two articles reported on research data obtained via the
combination of a questionnaire and data collected during the intervention phase. Two
articles reported on research data obtained via a questionnaire only. Finally one
article reported on case study research data.
Research findings were obtained based on samples of employees from six
major geographical locations. These included: eleven articles with an American
sample of drivers (one of these articles also included drivers from Canada); four
articles with a European (predominantly Sweden, but also Netherlands and Belgium)
sample of drivers; two articles with an Australian sample of drivers; one article with
a Japanese sample of drivers; and one article with a Taiwanese sample of drivers.
Research was conducted in relation to a mixture of vehicle types. Seven of
the articles focused on safety when operating commercial vehicles (such as trucks
and buses). Seven of the articles focused on safety when operating passenger
vehicles. Two of the articles focused on employee safety in environments that
required operation of a combination of commercial and passenger vehicles. Four
articles did not specify the class of vehicles operated.
The number of articles appearing in relation to work-related road safety
initiatives has increased over time. More specifically, twelve of the twenty articles
reviewed were published between 2000 and 2008.
2.3.1.2 Results pertaining to research question one - What outcomes have been
observed in previously investigated work-related road safety initiatives?
The structured document review findings are presented with respect to the
observed effectiveness of 19 work-related road safety initiatives. As detailed in
Appendix A, several of these studies did not indicate whether their findings were
statistically significant. Also several studies did not report whether the observed
safety improvements were maintained after the intervention phase. Bearing this in
Work-Related Road Safety
32
mind, a summary of the major findings is presented below. For ease of interpretation,
the initiatives reviewed have been grouped according to whether they target safety at
an organisational level, employee level, or through implementing protective
equipment.
Initiatives reviewed targeting safety at the organisational level comprised:
policy development; driver selection criteria; a web based risk management tool; and
raised wages.
Ludwig and Geller (1999a) investigated the effectiveness of store managers
creating a policy mandating turn-signal use and attaching it to drivers pay checks in
America. They observed a slight increase in the targeted safe driving behaviour
during the policy implementation phase. The authors noted that the safest drivers
were the first to comply with the safe driving policy. The article did not indicate if
these outcomes were significant. It was also unclear whether the effects would be
maintained as no post-intervention data was collected. Additional research by White
and Murray (2007) explored the influence of policy development. Insurance data,
analysed 1 year pre-intervention and 1 year post-intervention, in an Australian case
study organization indicated a reduction in all major crash types and an improved
loss ration from 69% to 48%. The article did not indicate if these outcomes were
significant. Also, as policies were implemented in conjunction with other initiatives,
it is unclear whether policy development had a unique contribution to safety
enhancements.
A questionnaire, administered to a sample of the best safety performers in the
American trucking industry, indicated that the best safety performing trucking firms
utilised screening criteria in driver hiring situations. Top screening criteria when
hiring included a lack of: alcohol or drug related violations; speeding tickets; traffic
violations; and chargeable crashes, together with a preference for: honesty; self-
discipline; self-motivation; and patience (Mejza, Barnard, Corsi, & Keana, 2003).
Work-Related Road Safety
33
Given that no comparative research was conducted to explore the prevalence of this
practice among less safe carriers it is unclear how effective this initiative is.
Research has investigated the effectiveness of a commercial web based risk
management tool designed to carry out risk assessments and monitor employee
safety. In an Australian case study organization, it was found that the use of the tool
was associated with a reduction in all major crash types and an improved loss ratio
(White & Murray, 2007). However the unique contribution of the web based risk
management tool to safety enhancements is unclear, as it was implemented in
conjunction with other initiatives.
The relationship between pay rises and crash risk has been investigated.
Using a driver crash involvement model, it has been found that as pay rises, crash
probability becomes lower. Using a sample of 2,368 truck drivers from an American
trucking and logistics firm, Rodriguez, Targa and Belzer (2006) calculated that a one
percentage increase in pay corresponded to a 1.3 percentage decrease in crash risk.
The authors did note that other minor policy changes occurred simultaneously with
the pay rise including a safety bonus for safety performance and greater effort to
return drivers to their homes after shifts. The researchers reported that they were not
able to control for any potential effects of these other initiatives.
Initiatives reviewed targeting safety at the employee level comprised: driver
training; group discussions; awareness and information campaign; goal setting;
performance feedback; enlisting employees as community road safety change agents;
self-monitoring forms; signing safety pledge cards; safety reminders; and rewards.
The effectiveness of driver training as an occupational road safety initiative
has been explored by several researchers. Practical driver training has been found to
be associated with decreased accident risk (Gregersen, Brehmer, & Moren, 1996).
Gregersen et al. found that monetary accident cost, obtained from insurance data,
Work-Related Road Safety
34
decreased from about SEK 1,200/10,000 km to SEK 800/10,000km. It is interesting
to note that while these reductions are impressive, they were lower than the
reductions obtained as a result of participation in group discussions. Group
discussions achieved cost reductions from about SEK 800/10,000 km to SEK
300/10,000km.
Other researchers have also found driver training to be associated with
enhanced road safety outcomes. A combination of practical and classroom based
training has been found to be associated with improvements in audit ratings of work-
related traffic risk management in Japan (Salminen, 2008). Furthermore,
participation in an American training program on visual search and scanning patterns
was found to be associated with significantly enhanced overall driving ability,
performance during curve negotiation, visual search monitoring, and detection of
brake malfunction in a simulated driving exercise (Llaneras, Swezey, Brock, Rogers
& Van Cott, 1998). In addition to these empirical studies, questionnaire research has
also been conducted. A sample of the best safety performers in the American
trucking industry indicated that the best safety performing trucking firms required
pre-service and in-service driver training to build competence in regulatory
compliance, driving ability, vehicle condition assessment, operational and safety
procedures, and disciplinary policies. These firms utilised vehicle-based and
classroom-based training and evaluated whether learning was applied (Mejza et al.,
2003).
Several researchers have investigated the effectiveness of group discussions
focusing on occupational road safety problems and solutions. Interactive group
discussions have been found to be associated with decreased traffic-related work
incidents in Japan (Salminen, 2008) and increases in safe driving behaviours in
America (Ludwig & Geller, 1991). Ludwig and Geller found that the targeted
behaviour of safety-belt use increased during the intervention and remained high for
at least 3 months post-intervention. As group discussions were implemented in
Work-Related Road Safety
35
conjunction with other initiatives in this study, the unique effects of discussions are
unclear. A more thorough investigation of the effects of group discussions was
achieved by Gregersen et al. (1996). This study found that group discussions were
associated with a significant decrease in both accident risk and accident cost based
on data collected two years pre-intervention and two years post-intervention in a
Swedish company. It was found that accident cost reduction was greatest in the
group discussion condition, as compared to the four other study conditions including
driver training, campaigns, rewards, and control.
Research suggests that a safety awareness and information campaigns may
have limited utility as an occupational road safety initiative. American research
investigating the effects of an intensive two week safety campaign (including
posters, fact sheets, electronic mail, promotion booth at annual health fair, thought
provoking survey, pledge card, letter from CEO, messages on pay check stubs, and
promotion on internal website) found that the initial improvements immediately after
the campaign were not maintained. The researchers observed that safety behaviours
measured one month post intervention and three months post intervention, had
returned to almost the pre intervention levels (Scheltema, Brost, Skager, & Roberts,
2002). Furthermore, research investigating a less intensive safety campaign
(including the presentation of videos and pamphlets) found no effect of the initiative
on accident risk (Gregersen et al., 1996).
The effectiveness of group goal setting as has been investigated in several
American studies. It was found that both participative group goal setting and
assigned group goal setting were associated with increased safe target behaviours
including performing a complete stop at stop signs (Ludwig & Geller, 1997) and
turn-signal use (Ludwig, Geller, & Clarke, 1999). In relation to non-targeted safety
behaviour, results are mixed. Ludwig et al. (1999) observed that regardless of
whether goal setting was participatory or assigned, no overall differences in safety
belt use occurred and an increase in complete intersection stops occurred in response
Work-Related Road Safety
36
to a turn-signal intervention. In comparison, Ludwig and Geller (1997) found that
improvements in non-targeted safety behaviour, including turn-signal use and safety-
belt use, were only observed for employees in the participative goal setting
condition. Furthermore no changes were observed in safety-belt use and a slight
decrease in turn signal use was observed among employees in the assigned goal
setting condition. It is important to note that Ludwig and Geller did not indicate
whether the observed increases in safety behaviours were significant.
Performance feedback has been found in several American studies to be an
effective occupational road safety initiative. More specifically, feedback presented
publicly on individual driving behaviours has been found to be associated with
increases in the targeted safe driving behaviours, turn-signal use and complete
stopping at intersections (Ludwig, Biggs, Wagner, & Geller, 2001; Ludwig et al.,
1999). Similarly, the use of graphs displayed on worksite notice board presenting
individual and group performance feedback has been found to be associated with an
increase in overall safe driving performance (Olson & Austin, 2001). Overall safe
driving performance was assessed in relation to the loading and unloading of
passengers, cornering safely and allowing adequate following distances while
vehicles were in motion and the positioning of the vehicle when coming to a
complete stop. It is important to note that none of the above three studies indicated
whether the observed increases in safety behaviours were significant.
The effectiveness of enlisting delivery drivers to serve as change agents of a
community road safety campaign has been investigated in two American pizza
stores. This initiative was found to be associated with increases in both the targeted
behaviour of safety-belt use and the non-targeted behaviour of turn-signal use
(Ludwig & Geller, 1999b). It is important to note that Ludwig and Geller did not
indicate whether the observed increases in safety behaviours were significant.
Cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957) suggests that individuals are
motivated to achieve consistency between their beliefs and actions. Based on this
Work-Related Road Safety
37
theory, Ludwig and Geller suggested that employees would be motivated to achieve
consistency between their own driving behaviours and the safe driving behaviours
that they were advocating.
Self-monitoring forms have been investigated as an occupational road safety
initiative. The use of self-monitoring forms recording safe behaviour estimates has
been found to be associated with a 12 percent increase in overall safe driving
performance over baseline performance within a sample of American bus drivers
(Olson & Austin, 2001). As previously indicated, overall safe driving performance
pertained to passenger loading and unloading and the operation of a vehicle both
while in motion and stopped. It is important to note that Olson and Austin did not
indicate whether the observed increase in safe driving behaviours was significant.
The signing of safety pledge cards has been researched in America. Ludwig
and Geller (1991) found that the signing of pledge cards promising personal
commitment to buckle-up was associated with increases in both the observed
targeted behaviour of safety-belt use and the non-targeted behaviour of turn-signal
use. Although Ludwig and Geller observed safety behaviours to remain high for at
least 3 months post-intervention, research by Scheltema et al., (2002) suggests that
the initial improvements observed in safety-belt use associated with the signing of
pledge cards may not be maintained after one month. Furthermore Ludwig and
Geller did not indicate whether the increases in safety-belt use and turn-signal use
were significant.
The presence of driver safety reminders has been found to be associated with
safer driving behaviours. More specifically, employee designed seat belt buckle-up
reminder signs displayed in the workplace and co-workers reminding delivery
drivers to buckle-up their seat belts when driving was found to be associated with
increases in both seat belt use and the non-targeted safe driving behaviour of turn-
Work-Related Road Safety
38
signal use in American employees (Ludwig & Geller, 1991). Ludwig and Geller did
not indicate whether these increases were significant.
Several researchers have explored the relationship between rewards and road
safety outcomes. In relation to group rewards, it has been found that rewarding a
Swedish work group with money for incident free driving was associated with a
significant reduction in accident risk (Gregersen et al., 1996). In relation to
individual rewards, in America it has been found that running a competition and
rewarding only the safest driver with a vehicle maintenance prize was associated
with increases in the turn-signal use and complete intersection stopping (Ludwig, et
al., 2001). Further support for the use of rewards in managing occupational road risks
comes from a questionnaire administered to a sample of the best safety performers in
the American trucking industry. This study found that the best safety performing
trucking firms utilised a range of driver reinforcement methods to encourage safe
driving. The most popular rewards included verbal praise, public recognition,
congratulatory letters, safety decorations and cash (Mejza, et al., 2003). Given that
Mejza et al. did not investigate the prevalence of these practices among less safe
carriers it is unclear from their research whether the provision of rewards was
associated with safer driving performing. Furthermore, in contrast to the above three
studies, Newnam, Tay, and Mason (2006) found no support for the utility of financial
incentives, in the form of tailored insurance premiums for organizations based on
incident rates, in positively changing Australian fleet managers’ safety attitudes.
Safety initiatives reviewed pertaining to implementing protective equipment
comprised: alcolock devices; fatigue management technologies devices; in-vehicle
compensatory devices to target ability deficiencies of older commercial drivers; in
car data recorders; and gasoline vapour recovery devices.
Alcolock devices installed in Swedish commercial transport company vehicles
have successfully prevented vehicles from starting in cases where breath tests
Work-Related Road Safety
39
indicated that drivers’ blood alcohol content levels exceeded the legal limit (Bjerre,
2005; Bjerre & Kostela, 2008). Questionnaire data indicated that although some
employees had initial suspicion and concerns of increased workloads when the
devices were installed, the alcolocks were very well accepted by most employers,
employees and passengers after the installation (Bjerre, 2005; Bjerre & Kostela,
2008).
A Fatigue Management Technologies device that provided information on
driver sleep need, driver drowsiness and lane tracking performance, and also reduced
driver work involved in controlling vehicle stability has been researched using a
sample of Canadian and American truck drivers. It was found that feedback from the
device reduced driver drowsiness and lane tracking variability during night driving.
The authors did caution that the benefits of this device may be reduced due to
increased attention and compensatory behaviours needed to respond to the device
(Dinges, Maislin, Brewster, Krueger, & Carroll, 2005).
The effectiveness of in-vehicle compensatory devices (comprising an auditory
navigational system, an automatic transmission and an advanced auditory warning
system) to target ability deficiencies of older commercial drivers has been researched
using a sample of American truck drivers. It was found that drivers with the device,
as compared to drivers with no device, demonstrated significantly enhanced overall
driving ability, performance during curves, visual search monitoring, and detection
of brake malfunction (Llaneras et al., 1998). It is important to note that these effects
were obtained in simulated driving experiences. Therefore it is unclear whether the
effects would be replicated in real traffic environments.
Research has investigated the effectiveness of in-car data recorders in
managing occupational road safety in seven European fleets. It was found that data
recorders and the feedback they generated and displayed for drivers, was associated
with a significant reduction in accident rate (Wouters & Bos, 2000). An average 20
Work-Related Road Safety
40
percent reduction in accident rate was observed between the data collected one year
pre-intervention and one year post-intervention.
As solvents exposure is known to impair psychomotor performance, gasoline
vapour recovery devices were installed in attempt to reduce traffic injuries among
Taiwanese gasoline workers when commuting home after shifts. Chiang, Chan,
Tseng and Wang (2005) compared occupational injury registry data in relation to
traffic commuting incidents between employees exposed and not exposed to vapour.
Their analysis of pre-installation data and post-installation data revealed that the
installation of gasoline vapour recovery devices was associated with a significant
reduction in the cumulative injury rate for exposed employees only.
2.3.2 Questionnaire on Work-Related Road Safety Initiatives
This section describes: the questionnaire participant demographics and
recruitment process; the content of the questionnaire pertaining to study one; the
procedure adopted to conduct the questionnaire component of study one; and the
results pertaining to research question two.
2.3.2.1 Participant recruitment and demographics
The researcher contacted appropriate organisational representatives from four
unrelated Australian organisations and offered the opportunity to discuss their
organisation’s potential involvement in this work-related road safety research
project. Upon the organisational representative expressing an interest in this research,
the researcher scheduled a follow-up meeting to discuss the project in more detail. At
this meeting the researcher provided the organisational representative with an
industry project brief that can be viewed in Appendix B. The researcher outlined: the
project background; project aims and timelines; expected organisational
commitments; and the researcher’s deliverables.
Work-Related Road Safety
41
Due to the difficulties of obtaining access to organisations and confidentiality
issues associated with conducting real world research, the four organisations were
selected as a convenience sample of Australian organisations. These sample
organisations were selected from a larger pool of organisations of which the PhD
Scholar and the Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety Queensland had
existing network contacts. To allow research findings to be generalised to a wide
range of organisations, these four organisations were purposefully selected to
represent a range of different Australian organisations that operate vehicle fleets.
The four organisations were selected to include a cross section of: private and
public organisations; State and National organisations; profit and not-for-profit
organisations; medium and large vehicle fleet organisations; and organisations from
a variety of industry sectors. All organisations participating in the research project
operated fleets that comprised a mixture of vehicle models including both passenger
and commercial vehicles, and required their employees to operate their fleet vehicles
in a range of environments including both rural and urban settings. The size of the
workforce and fleet varied among organisations. A brief de-identified description of
the four organisations that participated in the research project is provided below.
Organisation A was a for profit National utilities provider with a workforce
of approximately 35,000 employees. The organisation was owned by both the
Australian Government and private shareholders. Organisation A operated a fleet of
approximately 15,000 vehicles.
Organisation B was a State Government owned corporation for profit utilities
provider. The organisation had a workforce of about 4,000 employees and a fleet of
approximately 3,500 vehicles.
Organisation C was a for profit State community services provider with a
workforce of approximately 4,500 employees. The organisation was a department
Work-Related Road Safety
42
within a Sate Government. Organisation C operated a fleet of approximately 1,200
vehicles.
Finally, organisation D was a not for profit State based provider of residential
and community services. Organisation D was a private organisation that received
some funding from the Government. It employed approximately 2,000 staff and was
supported by a network of approximately 500 volunteers. Organisation D operated a
fleet of approximately 200 vehicles.
In negotiating permission to administer the work-related road safety
questionnaire within the organisations, the researcher requested that the survey be
made available to a cross section of employees who drive as part of their work.
Although the researcher had initially hoped to access approximately 200 participants
from each of the four organisations, due to organisational needs to meet production
targets and to attend to business priorities, only two organisations were able to meet
this request. The other two organisations committed to providing access to a
minimum of 100 employees. A total sample of 679 participants was obtained. The
sample comprised 223 employees from organisation A, 103 employees from
organisation B, 235 employees from organisation C, and 118 employees from
organisation D.
These participants were a convenience sample determined by the
organisational representatives. The organisational representatives agreed to recruit
participants from a representative range of organisational positions and
responsibilities, geographical locations and demographic backgrounds. Overall the
profiles of employees participating in study three were similar across the four
organisations. As comparisons are made among the organisations in study one,
participant demographics for each of the organisations are described below in
relation to age, gender and exposure to work-related road risks.
Work-Related Road Safety
43
Overall, participants ranged in age from 18 years to 65 years (M = 42, SD =
11). This distribution of questionnaire participants, presented in Figure 4 below,
corresponded with the workforce age distributions in each of the researched
organisations. However it is interesting to note that organisation A had considerably
more respondents from the 46 to 55 years age group (53 percent) than organisations
B (32 percent), C (24 percent) and D (29 percent). A review of the workforce
distribution within organisation A identified that organisation A’s participants may
slightly over represent the perceptions of their more mature employees, given that
this age group only accounted for approximately 30% of its employees.
Figure 4 Age of survey participants in the researched organisations
Across the organisations there was a relatively even distribution of male (58
percent) and female (42 percent) participants. However within the organisations the
distributions were skewed. As can be seen in Figure 5 below, a majority of the
survey respondents were male in organisations A and B. Comparatively a majority of
the survey respondents were female in organisations C and D. In organisation A, 92
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cent
age
A B C D
Organisation
56 Years and over
46-55 Years
36-45 Years
26-35 Years
25 Years and under
Work-Related Road Safety
44
percent of respondents were male. The observed higher percentage of male
respondents as compared to female respondents was expected in organisation A as
males accounted for 70 percent of the workforce in organisation A. In organisation
B, almost 95 percent of respondents were male. Again the higher percentage of male
respondents as compared to female respondents was expected given that males
accounted for a large percentage of the workforce in organisation B. An exact gender
breakdown of the organisation B workforce was not able to be supplied due to
confidentiality reasons. In organisation C, 81 percent of respondents were female.
The higher percentage of female respondents as compared to male respondents was
expected given that females accounted for 87 percent of the workforce in
organisation C. In organisation D, 68 percent of respondents were female. Again the
higher percentage of female respondents as compared to male respondents was
expected given that females accounted for 87 percent of the workforce in
organisation D.
Figure 5 Gender of survey participants in the researched organisations
Overall 48 percent of the participants drove between one and 10 hours per
week for work-related purposes. Thirty-one percent of participants drove between
0
10
20
3040
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tage
A B C D
Organisation
Female
Male
Work-Related Road Safety
45
11-20 hours, and 13 percent drove in excess of 21 hours. Four percent of participants
reported not engaging in any driving for work purposes on a weekly basis. At an
organisational level, employees in organisation B appeared to have the highest
exposure, followed by employees in organisations D, A then C.
More specifically, all survey participants in organisations B and D engaged in
some work-related driving. In comparison, seven percent of the employees in
organisation A and six percent of the employees in organisation C engaged in no
work-related driving. As can be seen in Figure 6, in each of the organisations just
over 80 percent of survey respondents reported driving 20 hours or less for work
each week. More specifically, organisations A, C and D appeared to have moderate
exposure with just over 50 percent of their staff reporting driving 10 hours or less. In
comparison organisation B appeared to have higher exposure, with 57 percent of
respondents reporting typically driving between 11 and 20 hours for work each week.
In each of the participating organisations, some respondents reported high driving
exposure. Organisation B (18 percent) had the highest percentage of respondents
who reported driving 21 hours or more for week as compared to organisations D (14
percent), A (12 percent) and C (9 percent).
Work-Related Road Safety
46
Figure 6 Hours typically driven for work each week per employee
A review of the reported kilometres annually driven for work identifies a
similar pattern of exposure to the hours driven per week. As can be seen in Figure 7,
employees in organisations A, C and D appeared to be exposed to moderate amounts
of work-related driving. Again organisation B appeared to have the highest exposure
with only 10 percent of its employees reporting driving less than 10,000 kilometres
and 28 percent reporting driving in excess of 40,000 kilometres per year for work.
Organisation C had the lowest employee exposure to driving. This is consistent with
the types of driving predominantly required of employees in organisation C.
Although all of the participating organisations require employees to operate vehicles
in both urban and rural environments, organisations A, B and D have a fairly
balanced mixture of urban and rural work sites as compared to organisation C which
is predominantly urban. The urban road environment which organisation C drivers
are typically exposed to is likely to have lower speed limits and higher traffic
congestion than rural environments. This may account for the observed similar levels
of exposure among organisations A, C and D when measured by hours by week, and
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cent
age
A B C D
Organisation
>30 hours
21-30 hours
11-20 hours
0-10 hours
Work-Related Road Safety
47
the lower levels of exposure observed in organisation C when measured by
kilometres driven per year.
Figure 7 Kilometres typically driven for work each year per employee
2.3.2.2 Content
The study one questionnaire was administered as section one and section
three of the larger research project questionnaire. The research project questionnaire
comprised the following three sections:
1. Voice your thoughts on road safety initiatives
2. Describe your work environment
3. Test your driving behaviour
A copy of the online questionnaire can be viewed in Appendix C. The content of
sections one and three are described below. The content of section two of the
questionnaire is discussed where relevant in chapter three.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cent
age
A B C D
Organisation
>40,000kms
30,001-40,000kms
20,001-30,000kms
10,001-20,000kms
0-10,000kms
Work-Related Road Safety
48
In section one, to explore employees’ perceptions with respect to the
effectiveness of a range of occupational road safety initiatives an online
questionnaire was developed by the researcher. Initiatives researched in study one
were selected based upon: organisational practices that had been previously observed
by the author while operating as a consultant; initiatives proposed to be best practice
in industry reports (Anderson et al., 1998; Haworth et al., 2008; Haworth et al., 2000;
Health and Safety Executive, 2000; Murray, 2007; Murray et al., 2003); and
initiatives that had been evaluated in previous studies (Bjerre, 2005; Bjerre &
Kostela, 2008; Dinges et al., 2005; Gregersen et al., 1996; Llaneras et al., 1998;
Mejza et al., 2003; Newman et al., 2006; Salminen, 2008; White & Murray, 2007;
Wouters & Bos, 2000).
Examples of some of the initiatives that were included in this study that have
been previously researched include: driver training, group discussions, awareness
raising initiatives, incentives for safe driving (Gregersen et al., 1996), goal setting,
(Ludwig, 2000) signing a promise card commitment to drive safely (Boyce & Geller,
1999), monitoring driver behaviour with in-car data recorders (Wouters & Bos,
1999), and encouraging self-monitoring of driving behaviour (Olson & Austin,
2000).
Participants were encouraged to voice their thoughts on road safety
initiatives. The questionnaire stated that some strategies work well in one
organisation but not in others. Participants were then asked to rate 35 initiatives
based on how effective they thought they would be in improving road safety in their
organisation. Initiatives were rated using a five-point Likert scale ranging from one
representing very ineffective to five representing very effective. Although it is
acknowledged that employees’ perceived ratings may not correspond to actual
initiative effectiveness, it is important to consider employees’ current perceptions to
determine how to best market the introduction of future initiatives to employees.
Work-Related Road Safety
49
In section three, participants were encouraged to examine their work-related
driving behaviour using a modified version of the Manchester Driver Behaviour
Questionnaire (DBQ) and to provide some demographic details. Consistent with
previous work-related road safety research, the DBQ (Wills et al., 2006) and
demographic items including self-reported driving infringements and incidents
(Freeman, Davey, & Wishart, 2007) were collected for use in the current study as
dependent variables. Other demographic details including participants’ age, gender
and exposure to road risks were also collected.
The DBQ has been widely implemented as a measure of self-reported
aberrant driving behaviour. The scale has undergone considerable evolution since its
inception. The original scale developed by Reason et al. (1990) focused on driving
behaviours with respect to errors and violations. In the original study, errors referred
to unplanned actions including failures of observations and misjudgements, while
violations referred to deliberate deviations from safe driving behaviours, such as
speeding. The original scale has undergone continual modifications. For example,
Lawton, Parker, Stradling, and Manstead (1997) incorporated additional items to
achieve a greater level of distinction between ordinary and deliberate violations.
These are now identified as Highway code violations including behaviours such as
speeding and interpersonal aggressive violations including behaviours such as
chasing another motorist. Lajunen and Summala (2003) also developed an additional
factor referred to as “slips and lapses” that included items pertaining to failures in
memory or attention.
Furthermore, many minor modifications have been made to the DBQ to tailor
the scale to the driving environments in different countries. Previous research has
established that the DBQ is robust to minor changes to the wording of some
questions and the number of items used in the scale. The DBQ with minor
modifications has been used in many countries including: Australia (Newnam,
Watson & Murray, 2004; Freeman et al., 2007); China (Xie & Parker, 2002); Finland
Work-Related Road Safety
50
(Bianchi & Summala, 2004), New Zealand (Sullman, Meadows & Pajo, 2002), and
the United Kingdom (Parker, McDonald, Rabbitt, & Sutcliffe, 2000; Parker, West,
Stradling, & Manstead, 1995).
The current research modified the DBQ scale as modified by Freeman et al.
(2007) to further increase the applicability of items to Australian work-related
drivers. Modifications made by Freeman et al. comprised: the inclusion of
contemporary factors that may influence professional driving performance, such as
time pressure, fatigue and multi-tasking (e.g., driving and eating and/or mobile phone
use), modification of some wording to make the measures more applicable to
Australian driving conditions (e.g. direction descriptions), duplication of some items
to examine the differences between intentional and unintentional versions of offence
violation (e.g. disobeying stop signs). Additional modifications were made to the 34
item scale used by Freeman et al. (2007) by adjusting the wording of 2 items. More
specifically, the wording in two items was changed from the word ‘junction’ to
‘intersection’ to better reflect Australian road terminology.
The DBQ was introduced in the current questionnaire with the statement that
“even the best drivers can make mistakes, do foolish things, or bend the rules while
driving. For each statement below, please indicate how often over the past 6 months
this kind of thing has happened to you while driving for work purposes.” To enhance
the accuracy in data reporting, the questionnaire stated that driving for work purposes
included both driving between work and home and completing work-related tasks
and also reminded participants that their responses were anonymous. Respondents
were required to indicate how often they commit each of the behaviours on a seven-
point Likert scale. Response options ranged from one representing never, to seven
representing always. As some items needed to be reverse coded, appropriate
calculations were then performed to achieve consistency in interpretation so that
lower scores on any item indicated safer behaviours.
Work-Related Road Safety
51
Participant demographics were also collected in section three of the
questionnaire. As previously noted, incident involvement data was collected for use
in the current study as dependent variables. Incident involvement was measured in
two ways. Firstly, by the frequency of lost demerit points or fines for traffic offences
(excluding parking offences) incurred during the past 12 months while driving for
work. Secondly, by the frequency of crash involvement (any incident involving a
motor vehicle that resulted in damage to a vehicle or other property, or injury
regardless of who was considered to be ‘at fault’) experienced during the past 12
months while driving for work. The collection of crash involvement and
accumulation of demerit point data as measures of incident involvement is consistent
with previous work-related road safety research (Wishart, Freeman, & Davey, 2006).
Additional demographic data was collected to assist in interpreting the
comparisons made among the organisations in study one. Similar to previous
research in the area of work-related road safety (Darby, Murray, & Raeside, 2008;
Freeman, Wishart, Davey, & Rowland, 2008; Rowden, Watson, & Biggs, 2006; Burt,
Sepie, & McFadden, 2008), questionnaire participants were asked to provide their
age and gender details. Participants were also asked to estimate their exposure to
occupational road risks. Exposure was measured in relation to the number of hours
typically driven for work per week and the approximate kilometres driven for work
each year for work. The collection of hours driven and kilometres driven data as
measures of exposure is consistent with previous work-related road safety research
(Banks et al., 2006; Rowden et al, 2006; Wills et al., 2004; Wishart et al., 2006).
2.3.2.3 Procedure
The researcher discussed with the organisational representative whether
online, paper and pencil or a combination of both forms of questionnaires would be
Work-Related Road Safety
52
most appropriate for their organisation. All four participating organisations elected to
have the questionnaires distributed online to their employees.
In the process of developing the research items and the online process, pilot
questionnaires were firstly conducted with five employees that were unrelated to the
researched organisations and secondly with an organisational representatives from
each of the researched organisations. Based on the feedback obtained in the pilot
study minor adjustments were made to several items to enhance item clarity.
The researcher then arranged for the online survey to be made available on
the intranet within each of the organisations. The researcher supplied all
organisational representatives with a short project brief and requested that they email
this to all staff announcing the opportunity to participate in the questionnaire and
providing the web address access details. A copy of the questionnaire project brief
emailed to participants can be viewed in Appendix D. To ensure participant
anonymity all completed questionnaires were sent directly to the researcher.
Upon submitting their questionnaire, all participants received instant and
personalised feedback in appreciation of their time spent participating in this study.
The researcher generated a range of feedback statements and programmed these to be
selected and displayed to participants based on their questionnaire responses. All
participants received the same feedback with respect to their responses to section
one’s ‘Voice your thoughts on road safety initiatives’. Participants were presented
with “Thanks for your feedback on the suitability of road safety initiatives for your
organisation. It is hoped that this feedback will assist in developing future work-
related road safety strategies.”
Participants received personalised feedback with respect to their responses to
section three’s ‘Test your driving behaviour’. Participant feedback was presented in
relation to whether their responses indicated that their driving behaviours were safer,
Work-Related Road Safety
53
similar to, or less safe then Australian industry norms. The norms used for participant
feedback were derived from a large unpublished database owned by the Centre for
Accident Research and Road Safety – Queensland. Participants received feedback on
their self-reported driving with respect to nine behavioural categories. These
comprised: errors, highway-code violations, aggressive violations, time pressure,
distractions, fatigue, alcohol, maintenance and manoeuvring. All participant
feedback, stated how their behaviour compared to Australian industry norms,
potential implications of the behaviour and a recommendation to engage in safe
driving behaviours.
For example participants who reported engaging in safer maintenance
behaviours than the industry norm would have received the following feedback
“Congratulations you have scored better than the industry average on items relating
to performing maintenance checks on your vehicle, indicating that your vehicle may
be well maintained. Correct tyre pressure and fluid levels are crucial to the continued
safe operation of your vehicle. Always ensure that your vehicle is safe to operate”.
Comparatively participants who reported engaging in less safe aggressive behaviours
than the industry norm would have received the following feedback “You have
scored higher than industry averages on aggression. High levels of aggression have
been linked to road rage, crashes and traffic offences. These are all serious road
safety issues and compromise the safety of all road users. Please relax, calm down
and expect that other road users may make mistakes.”
Details pertaining to the personalised feedback displayed to participants
based on their questionnaire responses to sections two of the questionnaire are
presented in Chapter 5.
Interview data was then analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences version 15. Before commencing analyses, the data was screened for
accuracy. An examination of histograms confirmed the absence of outliers and an
Work-Related Road Safety
54
examination of residuals scatterplots confirmed that the assumptions of normality,
linearity and homoscedasticity were not violated. When conducting post hoc
comparisons, a Bonferroni adjustment was applied to the significance level. As only
a small number of planned comparisons were being made an alpha value of .025 was
selected to reduce the probability of making a type I error. In applying this more
stringent level of significance, the author recognises that the associated loss of power
may result in true differences in the treatment population not being identified.
In appreciation of the organisations providing permission to conduct work-
related road safety research within their organisation, the researcher committed to
providing a complimentary consultant’s report to each of the organisations. These
comprehensive reports were customised for each organisation. A generic detailed
description of the research project background and the methods and materials used to
conduct all three studies was presented. The author then analysed the findings from
each of the organisations separately and prepared detailed organisation specific
feedback in relation to each individual organisation. These findings pertained to the
audit, interview and questionnaire results obtained across the three studies. In
addition to this organisation specific feedback, de-identified comparisons among the
researched organisations were presented. This data was presented to allow each of
the organisations to benchmark how their road safety practices and processes,
organisational environment, driver behaviours, traffic infringement frequencies and
vehicle incident frequencies compared to other Australian organisations. In the
consultants report, the author also provided many suggestions tailored to each of the
organisations to enhance their management of work-related road risks.
2.3.2.4 Results pertaining to research question two - Which initiatives are perceived
by employees to be effective in managing work-related road risks?
With potential responses ranging from one representing very ineffective to
five representing very effective, the mean rating of perceived effectiveness across the
35 initiatives was 3.31. The initiatives perceived by employees to be most effective
Work-Related Road Safety
55
in managing occupational road risks comprised: making vehicle safety features
standard e.g. passenger airbags; practical driver skills training; investigation of
serious vehicle incidents; making cruise control a standard vehicle feature; targeting
safety assistance to high risk drivers; and marking low visibility walls and objects
with hazard colours. The initiatives perceived to be least effective in managing
occupational road risks comprised: signing a promise card commitment to drive
safely; advertising the organisation’s phone number on vehicles for complaints and
compliments; consideration of driving competency in staff selection process;
communicating cost benefits of road safety e.g. fuel efficiency; presenting
comparisons of vehicle incident statistics between depots; and monitoring driver
behaviour with in-car data recorders. The means and standard deviations for all 35
initiatives are presented below in Table 1.
Work-Related Road Safety
56
Table 1 Employee perceptions of initiative effectiveness
Work-Related Road Safety Initiative Mean SD Making vehicle safety features standard e.g. passenger airbags 4.02 1.11 Practical driver skills training 3.94 1.25 Investigation of serious vehicle incidents 3.89 1.09 Making cruise control a standard vehicle feature 3.69 1.23 Targeting safety assistance to high risk drivers 3.66 1.14 Marking low visibility walls and objects with hazard colours 3.60 1.21 Recording incidents and identify high risk employees and vehicles 3.59 1.16 Assessing competency before operating vehicles in difficult areas 3.57 1.22 Medical screening for problems that will affect driving e.g. vision 3.53 1.25 Journey planning to avoid high risk situations e.g. animals at dusk 3.49 1.19 Vehicle inductions for all drivers 3.48 1.22 Awareness communication on work related road risks 3.46 1.01 Employee input in selection of vehicles 3.44 1.27 Individual incentives for safe driving 3.44 1.27 Presenting personal stories about serious crashes in your organisation
3.43 1.19
Making ‘lights on’ during driving a standard vehicle feature 3.39 1.30 Documenting vehicle maintenance 3.39 1.10 Provision of driver safety information 3.38 1.02 Checking driver’s licences are current every 12 months 3.30 1.35 Group incentives for safe driving 3.27 1.21 Individual feedback on driving behaviour 3.27 1.13 Development and promotion of work related road safety policy 3.25 1.01 Including driving behaviour in performance assessments 3.21 1.21 Safe driving goal setting 3.15 1.10 Encouraging self monitoring of driving behaviour 3.09 1.06 Individual consequences for unsafe driving 3.07 1.03 Making speed-limiters a standard vehicle feature 3.06 1.36 Group discussions to identify safety problems and solutions 3.00 1.12 Group feedback on driving behaviour 3.00 1.17 Monitor driver behaviour with in-car data recorders 2.93 1.32 Presenting comparisons of vehicle incident statistics between depots 2.92 1.20 Communicating cost benefits of road safety e.g. fuel efficiency 2.87 1.13 Consideration of driving competency in staff selection process 2.87 1.18 Org. phone number on vehicles for complaints and compliments 2.81 1.36 Signing a promise card commitment to drive safely 2.37 1.17
Work-Related Road Safety
57
The DBQ, traffic infringements and crash involvement data collected via the
questionnaire is presented with the audit data below as these measures were used to
answer research question three.
2.3.3 Audit of Work-Related Road Safety Practices and Processes
An audit was developed by the researcher to evaluate each organisation’s
road safety practices and processes with respect to best practice. For the purposes of
this research ‘best practice’ was based upon elements that have been identified in the
research literature (Haworth et al., 2000) and industry guides from both Australia
including Queensland Transport’s Workplace Fleet Safety System (Anderson et al.,
1998) and from other countries including the United Kingdom’s Driving at Work:
Managing work-related road safety (Health and Safety Executive, 2000) as best
practice in work-related road safety. Practices and processes reviewed in this audit
where grouped into eight categories comprising:
1. Having a written Fleet Safety Policy in place that clearly defines safe driving
responsibilities and communicates to employees the organisations
commitment to safe driving
2. Recruiting and selecting drivers based on safe driving records and awareness
of safety issues
3. Inducting all new employees and supervisors using a formal induction
program containing work related road safety and safe driving components
4. Conducting fleet safety training needs analyses and providing and evaluating
any required fleet safety training and education
5. Recognising good and poor driving behaviours through an official scheme of
incentives (not rewards) and disincentives
6. Eliminating or minimising exposure to road hazards when planning and
managing road journeys
7. Selecting vehicles based on safety features and documenting maintenance
procedures
Work-Related Road Safety
58
8. Recording and monitoring individual driver, individual vehicle and overall
fleet incident involvement and managing identified high risks
These categories and the corresponding criteria used to rate the organisations
level of practice were selected based on: published international research findings
previously described in the literature review of study one; the Queensland Transport
audit system (Anderson et al., 1998); and the author’s observations made while
consulting, in relation to current organisational practices. Audit rating levels
included: zero (no practice in place), one (limited practice in place), two (moving
towards reduced harm) and three (moving towards zero harm). In developing this
research method the audit categories, criterions and ratings were reviewed by a panel
of work-related road safety professionals from the Centre for Accident Research and
Road Safety – Queensland. Feedback and suggestions from the panel were
incorporated to achieve a comprehensive audit system. The categories and criterions
used to conduct the work-related road safety audit in this research project are
presented in Appendix E.
2.3.3.1 Procedure
The audit was conducted using the same four organisations that participated
in the questionnaire. Within each organisation, the audit consisted of four phases.
Firstly, the researcher contacted the organisational representative and negotiated
access to all documents pertaining to work-related road safety. The researcher
obtained many documents including but not limited to, fleet safety policy statements,
risk appraisal forms and incident reporting forms. These documents were reviewed
with respect to each audit categories criterion. Reviewing official safety management
system documents provided insight into what the organisations ideally would be
doing to protect employees and the public from harm. However, it was recognised
that ideal and actual practice may not be congruent in organisations.
Work-Related Road Safety
59
Therefore, to identify what practices were actually happening within the
organisations, the second phase of the audit comprised conducting interviews
separately with two managers. As some managers may not be completely aware of
all the practices that are occurring in different departments, a workplace health and
safety manager and a fleet manager were interviewed in each organisation. These
managers were selected for interviewing as a majority of occupational road safety
practices and processes are managed by either workplace health and safety or fleet
personnel. At the commencement of these interviews verbal consent was obtained to
take written notes and an audio recording of the session. Interviews followed a semi-
structured format, refer Appendix F, with the researcher requesting a description of
the organisations current practices and processes with respect to the eight audit
categories from the organisational representative. To verify the information provided,
the researcher also requested access to further supporting documentation. At this
point the researcher obtained many additional documents including but not limited
to, road safety email alerts, induction presentations including road safety
components, safety posters and incident trend statistics. During the interview several
structured questions, refer Appendix F, were asked to obtain detailed information
pertaining to how the organisation managed specific work-related road risks and
some unstructured questions were asked to explore any interesting issues raised in
the interview or clarify aspects from the organisations road safety documentation.
Upon completion of the interviews all audio recordings were transcribed for analysis.
Thirdly, once all audit data was collected, the organisation’s practices and
processes were compared to the eight audit categories criterion to determine audit
ratings.
Finally, a draft of the audit results was sent to a third manager to verify the
accuracy of the audit assessment. This process was adopted to achieve a thorough
and reliable assessment of the level at which each organisation was performing at in
relation to best practice in work-related road safety.
Work-Related Road Safety
60
2.3.3.2 Results pertaining to research question three - Do organisations with
comprehensive work-related road risk management practices and processes
have better safety outcomes than organisations with limited risk management
practices and processes?
This section begins by presenting the audit results obtained for each of the
four organisations. Findings are then presented in relation to Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) tests that were conducted to investigate if organisations with
comprehensive risk management practices had higher safety outcomes than
organisations with limited practices in place. Comparisons of means were conducted
for the following road safety outcomes: DBQ; traffic infringements; and crash
involvement.
Audit results
The audit revealed that overall occupational road safety practices and
processes were most developed in the areas of vehicle selection and maintenance and
incident monitoring and managing identified high risks. Practices and processes were
least developed in the area of recruiting and selecting safe drivers. Table 2 presents
an organisational comparison of audit ratings for each of the eight categories and an
overall averaged rating of work-related safety practices and processes.
Work-Related Road Safety
61
Table 2 Audit ratings of work-related road safety practices and processes
Driver
Behaviour
Categories
Organisation
A
Organisation
B
Organisation
C
Organisation
D
Policy 3 2 2 0
Recruitment and
selection 1 1 0 1
Induction 2 2 1 1
Training 2 2 1 1
Performance 2 2 0 0
Journey planning 2 2 1 1
Vehicle selection
and maintenance 3 2 1 2
Incident
monitoring and
risk management
3 2 1 2
Average rating 2.3 1.9 0.9 1
Note. 0 = No practice in place, 1 = Limited practice in place,
2 = Moving towards reduced harm, 3 = Moving towards zero harm
It can be observed in Table 2, that overall road safety practices and processes
were most developed in organisation A (2.3), followed by organisation B (1.9).
Organisation D (1.0) and organisation C (0.9) had limited practices and processes in
place to manage work-related road safety risks. Detailed descriptions of the work-
related safety practices and processes operating in each of the organisations for each
of the eight categories can be viewed in Appendix G.
Work-Related Road Safety
62
For example with respect to the category of ‘Recording and monitoring
individual driver, individual vehicle and overall fleet incident involvement and
managing identified high risks’ organisation C had limited practices in place. More
specifically, organisation C did not have a documented reporting system for all fleet
safety incidents or a procedure in place to inform employees of the process for
reporting fleet safety incidents. No process had been developed for investigating
serious incidents and the organisation did not formally monitor individual drivers or
vehicles to identify high risks. Although organisation C did maintain a database of
vehicle claims, the limited data recorded was primarily for insurance claims rather
than risk management. For example data included policy number and excess paid
rather than details of potential contributing causes of the incident.
In comparison organisation A had many practices in place in relation to
monitoring incidents and was moving towards zero harm risk management. More
specifically, organisation A had an online documented reporting system for all fleet
safety incidents. Incident data was comprehensive and was used by the business to
monitor vehicle incident trends and to target driving safety information to specific
key areas and employee’s. A procedure was in place to inform employees of the
process for reporting fleet incidents. The manager of a driver involved in an incident
was automatically notified by email and prompted to conduct an interview with the
driver to establish causal factors. The form used in this process guides the manager in
discussing the incident with the driver and looking at measures that can be taken, or
information that can be supplied, to reduce the possibility of a reoccurrence of the
incident. Organisation A also had an online infringement and fine system that
captured driver infringements against each driver for common items such as red
light, speeding and failure to wear a seatbelt. This information was used by business
units to identify staff who may require training or internal discussion regarding
driver behaviour.
Work-Related Road Safety
63
Organisation A had linked several databases including infringement data,
driving compliments/complaints data and incident data to develop a reporting tool
with the potential to provide a full history of a driver’s occupational road behaviour.
This tool was used to manage driver safety at both an employee level and a business
unit level. Organisation A was also trialling a driver profile tool that gathered
information about employees’ driving attitudes and behaviours. The tool provided
instant personalised feedback to employees upon completion of their profile to
improve their road safety awareness and driving behaviours. In addition to these
methods of monitoring, investigating and managing incidents, organisation A had
also set driving safety targets. For example, one of organisation A’s targets was to
reduce their incident claim rate to 20 percent.
Driving behaviour
Using the responses from all questionnaire participants, an exploratory factor
analysis was conducted on the 34 item modified driver behaviour questionnaire. The
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure (msa = .914) and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (p>.001)
confirmed factorability. Principal components analysis with oblimin rotation
revealed seven factors exceeding Kaiser’s criterion of eigenvalues > 1. Cattell’s scree
plot strongly supported a four factor extraction. The four-factor solution accounted
for 44.1% of the total variance with factors one and three appearing to be moderate
to highly correlated, r = -.53.
The first factor accounted for approximately 26% of the total variance and
contained 12 items. A majority of the items related to traditional error items
identified by Reason et al. (1990). For example the items ‘when overtaking
underestimate speed of oncoming vehicle’ and ‘nearly hit another car while queuing
to enter a main road’ loaded onto this factor. In addition to the nine error items, three
traditional violation items also loaded on this factor, for example ‘cross intersection
knowing the traffic lights have turned red’. The combination of traditional error and
Work-Related Road Safety
64
violation items loading on factor one is very similar to the error factor obtained in
previous research (Freeman et al., 2007).
The second factor accounted for approximately 8% of the total variance and
contained nine items relating to fatigue and distraction issues. Fatigue items
including ‘driving while tired’ and ‘have difficulty driving due to fatigue’ were
identified as the strongest contributors to the factor. In addition to the fatigue items,
several items relating to time pressure and multitasking loaded onto this factor.
Examples of these items include ‘saving time by driving quicker between jobs’ and
‘eating a meal while driving’. Factor two is identical to the fatigue factor identified in
previous research (Freeman et al., 2007).
The third factor accounted for approximately 6% of the total variance and
contained nine items relating to a combination of highway-code violations and
aggressive violations. Speeding items including ‘disregard speed limit on a
residential road’, ‘disregard speed limit on a highway’ and ‘race away from traffic
lights to beat car beside you were identified as the strongest contributors to the
factor. The combination of violation items loading on factor three is very similar to
the speeding/violation factor obtained in previous research (Freeman et al., 2007).
Finally, the fourth factor accounted for approximately 5% of the total variance and
contained three items relating to unsafe driving preparation. Examples of items that
loaded highly on this factor included ‘have alcoholic drinks before driving’ and ‘not
wear your seatbelt’.
The resulting factor loadings of greater than .3 for the modified driver
behaviour questionnaire are shown in Table 3. As can be seen in the table, two items
cross loaded on more than one factor, although both of these items did have a more
dominant factor loading. It is also important to note that three items were excluded
from further analyses due to unsatisfactory factor loadings (<.30). These included:
(a) Drive while using a “hands-free” mobile phone, (b) Do paperwork or other admin
Work-Related Road Safety
65
while driving and (c) Become angered by another driver and give chase. The failure
of the first two items to load to a factor at a satisfactory level is consistent with the
results obtained in previous Australian research using a sample of professional
drivers (Freeman et al., 2007).
Table 3 Factor structure of the modified DBQ
Description F1 F2 F3 F4
When overtaking underestimate speed of other vehicle .64
Nearly hit another car while queuing to enter a main road .62
Fail to notice pedestrian crossing in path .61
Nearly hit a cyclist while turning .59
Pull out of junction so far that you disrupt traffic .56
Fail to check rear-view mirror .55
Miss stop or giveway sign .51
Attempt to overtake someone you had not noticed turning .50
Cross intersection knowing traffic lights have turned red .38
Remove your seatbelt for some reason while driving .33
Skid while breaking or cornering on a slippery road .32
Drive while tired -.83
Have difficulty driving because of tiredness or fatigue -.79
Drive while under time pressure -.60
Drive home from work after a long day -.60
Find yourself driving on autopilot -.54
Eat a meal while driving for work -.54
Save time during the day by driving quicker between jobs -.54
Find yourself nodding off while driving for work -.53 .37
Find your attention being distracted from the road .37 -.48
Disregard speed limit on a residential road -.68
Disregard speed limit on a highway or freeway -.62
Work-Related Road Safety
66
Table 3 (Continued)
Description F1 F2 F3 F4
Race away from traffic lights to beat car beside you -.61
Drive especially close to car in front to signal drive faster -.60
Become impatient by slow driver and overtake on inside -.58
Become angered by another driver and show anger -.52
Sound horn to indicate your annoyance at another driver -.40
Stay in a closing lane and force your way into another -.40
Drive while using a hands-held phone -.34
Have alcoholic drinks before driving .45
Not wear your seatbelt .42
Overall, reliability analyses revealed that the DBQ had a high internal
reliability of .90. High internal reliability was also observed for the first three factors.
More specifically, the following coefficient alpha values were obtained for Factor
One .83 (errors), Factor Two .87 (fatigue and distractions) and Factor Three .80
(violations). As Factor Four .41 (unsafe driving preparations) failed to achieve an
acceptable reliability coefficient cut-off level of .70 (De Vaus, 2002), this factor was
excluded from further analyses.
A one-way ANOVA was conducted to compare employees’ self-reported
work-related driving behaviours, as measured by the DBQ, among the organisations.
Scores ranged from one to seven, with lower scores indicating safer driving
behaviours. A significant difference in reported driving behaviours was found among
the organisations F(3,563) = 3.57, p > .05. Post hoc comparisons with Bonferroni
adjustments revealed that the mean DBQ scores did not differ significantly among
the organisations (p>.025).
Work-Related Road Safety
67
This finding supports the hypothesis that organisations with comprehensive
risk management practices will have better safety outcomes than organisations with
limited risk management practices. More specifically, organisation A received an
audit rating of 2.3 indicating that the organisation’s risk management practices and
processes were at a level deemed to be between moving towards reduced harm and
moving towards zero injury. Comparatively, organisation D received an audit rating
of 0.9 indicating that the organisation’s risk management practices and processes
were deemed to be limited.
Refer Table 4 below to compare mean driving scores and standard deviations
for the modified DBQ and the three extracted reliable factors across the four
organisations.
Table 4 Mean driver behaviour scores by organisations
Scale
Organisation
A B C D
34-item DBQ 1.92 (0.53) 2.12 (0.57) 2.04 (0.65) 2.13 (0.70)
Errors 1.55 (0.44) 1.77 (0.55) 1.69 (0.55) 1.76 (0.71)
Fatigue 2.62 (1.01) 3.06 (1.08) 2.81 (1.07) 3.01 (1.04)
Violations 1.95 (0.76) 1.94 (0.65) 2.03 (0.92) 2.09 (0.84)
Note. Values in parentheses represent standard deviations.
Additional one-way ANOVAs were conducted to compare employees’
driving behaviours across the organisations with respect to the three extracted
reliable factors including errors, fatigue and violations. A significant difference in
reported errors was found among the organisations F(3,579) = 5.47, p > .01. Post hoc
comparisons with Bonferroni adjustments revealed that the mean error score for
organisation A was significantly lower than for organisation B (p > .01) and for
Work-Related Road Safety
68
organisation D (p > .01). This suggests that employees in organisation A commit
fewer driving errors than employees in organisation B and employees in organisation
D.
Similarly, a significant difference in reported fatigue and distraction was
found among the organisations F(3,579) = 5.07, p > .01. Post hoc comparisons with
Bonferroni adjustments revealed that the mean fatigue and distraction score for
organisation A was significantly lower than for organisation B (p > .01) and for
organisation D (p > .025). This suggests that employees in organisation A experience
fewer fatigue and distraction issues when driving as compared to employees in
organisation B and employees in organisation D.
No significant difference was observed in reported driving violations among
organisations. Although not significant, the pattern of employees in organisation A
reporting safer driving behaviours than the employees from the other organisations,
was observed for violation behaviours also.
As organisation A had the most comprehensive risk management practices
and processes of all four organisations, the post hoc results support the hypothesis
that organisations with comprehensive risk management practices will have better
safety outcomes, than organisations with inferior risk management practices.
Work-related traffic infringements
Employees were asked to indicate how many times during the past 12 months
they had lost demerit points or been fined for traffic offences (excluding parking
offences) while driving for work. An ANOVA was calculated to compare mean
traffic infringement scores among the organisations. Although data was collected
with a high level of detail to allow the researcher to compare employees with no
infringements, one infringement, two infringements and three or more infringements,
a review of infringement frequencies revealed that 91% of employees across the four
Work-Related Road Safety
69
organisations had no infringements. Given the skewed data, employees were
classified into two groups for the ANOVA. The first group comprised employees
obtaining no officially recorded traffic offences and the second group comprised
employees obtaining one or more infringements. No significant difference in the
number of traffic infringements obtained by employees was found among the
organisations X² (9, N = 652) = 10.79, p = .29.
Figure 8 below shows that employees in organisations A (M = .09, SD = .28),
B (M = .07, SD = .25) and C (M = .08, SD = .27) obtained a similar level of
infringements during the past 12 months with approximately 92 percent of
employees reporting no officially recorded traffic offences and approximately eight
percent of employees reporting obtaining one or more infringements. In comparison,
only 86 percent of employees in organisation D (M = .14, SD = .34) reported
obtaining no officially recorded traffic offences and fourteen percent of employees
reported obtaining one or more infringements.
Figure 8 Number of infringements during the past 12 months per employee
75
80
85
90
95
100
Per
cent
age
A B C D
Organisation
2 or more Infringements
1 Infrigement
No Infringements
Work-Related Road Safety
70
Although not significant, the finding that employees in organisation D
reported the greatest frequency of traffic infringements is not surprising given that
organisation D had the least comprehensive risk management practices and processes
of all four organisations.
Work-related traffic incidents
Employees were asked to indicate how many times during the past 12 months
they had been involved in a vehicle incident (defined as any event involving a motor
vehicle that resulted in damage to a vehicle or other property or injury) while driving
for work. An ANOVA was calculated to compare mean traffic incident scores among
the organisations. Although data was collected with a high level of detail to allow the
researcher to compare employees with no incidents, one incident, two incidents and
three or more incidents, a review of incident frequencies revealed that 88% of
employees across the four organisations had not been involved in an incident. Given
the skewed data, employees were classified into two groups for the ANOVA. The
first group comprised employees who had not been involved in an incident and the
second group comprised employees who had not been involved in one or more
incidents. A significant difference in employee incident involvement was found
among the organisations X² (9, N = 652) = 18.79, p < .05.
Similar to the organisational profiles obtained through the infringement data,
Figure 9 below shows that employees in organisations A (M = .13, SD = .33), B (M
= .09, SD = .28) and C (M = .08, SD = .27) were involved in fewer incidents than
employees in organisation D (M = .21, SD = .32). The finding that employees in
organisation D had more infringements than employees in the other organisations, is
not surprising given that organisation D had the least comprehensive risk
management practices and processes of all four organisations.
Work-Related Road Safety
71
Figure 9 Number of vehicles incidents involved in while driving for work
during the past 12 months per employee
2.4 Discussion
This section discusses the key findings from study one with respect to the
three research questions. Suggestions for future research are provided.
2.4.1 Research question one: What outcomes have been observed in previously
investigated work-related road safety initiatives?
As many of the reviewed studies investigated the effects of initiatives when
implemented in combination with other initiatives, it was not possible to distinguish
the unique impact of some initiatives. Therefore, observed positive safety outcomes
in relation to some initiatives may have actually resulted from other initiatives
implemented at the same time. Only one of the reviewed studies that investigated
multiple initiatives allowed for the unique effect of each initiative to be observed.
This study by Gregersen et al. (1996) adopted a between groups, pre-post design
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cent
age
A B C D
Organisation
2 or more Incidents
1 Incident
No Incidents
Work-Related Road Safety
72
implementing one initiative per experimental group. They also included a control
group.
Overall the structured document review indicated that all of the initiatives
reviewed, except for driver selection criteria, appeared to be effective during the
intervention period. However, only six continued to be effective in the post-
intervention period. Initiatives found to be positively associated with occupational
road safety both during and after the intervention period included: a pay rise; driver
training; group discussions; enlisting employees as community road safety change
agents; safety reminders; and group and individual rewards. It is interesting to note
that of these, five were employee-level interventions. Although it needs to be taken
into account that half the interventions reviewed were at the employee-level, the
finding appears (on the surface at least) to call into question the role of
organizational-level interventions. However, it is also clear that none of the
employee-level interventions would be feasible without active implementation and
support by the organization. Similarly, it is interesting that none of the protective
equipment interventions showed a continued effect after the intervention period
2.4.2 Research question two: Which initiatives are perceived by employees to be
effective in managing work-related road risks?
Perceptions of initiative effectiveness did not appear to be associated with
initiative cost. Initiatives perceived to be effective comprised both higher cost
interventions, such as making vehicle safety features standard and lower cost
interventions, such as marking low visibility walls and objects with hazard colours.
Furthermore, perceptions of initiative effectiveness did not appear to be associated
with a particular initiative target. For example initiatives targeting behaviour change
at an employee level, such as driver skills training, were perceived to be effective.
Similarly initiatives targeting safety through enhancing equipment, such as making
vehicle safety features standard, were also perceived to be effective.
Work-Related Road Safety
73
Perceptions of initiative effectiveness may have been influenced by
employees’ preference for an initiative being implemented. Although the
questionnaire requested that initiatives be rated based on how effective employees
thought they would be in improving road safety, a review of the ratings suggests that
some participants may have had difficulty differentiating between ineffectiveness
and inconvenience. For example employees perceived that making cruise control a
standard vehicle feature would be effective, but monitoring driver behaviour with in-
car data recorders would be ineffective. The low acceptance of monitoring driver
behaviour with in-car data recorders observed in this study is consistent with
previous research. For example, Dinges et al. (2005) found that employees preferred
vehicle monitoring devices rather than driver monitoring devices. Future research
could explore whether perceptions of initiative effectiveness are influenced by
employee preference by requesting that employees rate initiatives with respect to
both effectiveness and preference.
Overall, questionnaire findings revealed that employees believed
occupational road risks could best be managed through making vehicle safety
features standard, providing practical driver skills training and through investigating
serious vehicle incidents. Of these perceived top three initiatives, driver training was
the only initiative that was evaluated in the literature reviewed. Findings from the
literature review suggest that driver training may be an effective initiative for
improving work-related road safety.
Employees believed initiatives including signing a promise card commitment
to drive safely, advertising the organisation’s phone number on vehicles and
consideration of driving competency in staff selection process would have limited
effectiveness in managing occupational road safety. Of these perceived ineffective
initiatives, both signing a promise card and consideration of safety in staff selection
criteria were evaluated in the literature reviewed. Findings from the literature review
suggest that signing a safety pledge may achieve only temporary improvements in
Work-Related Road Safety
74
safe driving behaviours. The literature review also revealed that that the best safety
performing trucking firms utilised a screening criteria in driver hiring situations.
These findings are important as research suggests that employees’ beliefs
may facilitate or act as a barrier to implementing organisational initiatives (Weiner et
al., 2008). Individuals are more likely to embrace initiatives that they believe will
assist them in achieving a goal and to resist initiatives that they believe will have
little utility in achieving goals or are not appropriate in their organisation. Therefore
the employee perceptions of initiative effectiveness identified in this study should be
of interest to practitioners. Academics may also utilise these findings to guide future
research into investigating whether the initiatives that are perceived to be effective,
are actually related to increased occupational road safety outcomes.
2.4.3 Research question three: Do organisations with comprehensive work-related
road risk management practices and processes have better safety outcomes
than organisations with limited risk management practices and processes?
The audit identified a difference among the organisations in their
management of work-related road risks. Occupational road risk management
practices and processes were most developed in organisation A. Organisation A
achieved an average rating of 2.3. This indicates that their risk management practices
satisfy the standard of moving towards reduced harm and that they are now moving
towards zero harm. Organisation B achieved an average rating of 1.9, indicating that
their risk management practices almost satisfy the standard of moving towards
reduced harm. Organisation D achieved an average rating of 1.0 and organisation C
achieved an average rating of 0.9. These ratings indicate that organisations C and D
had limited practices and processes in place to manage their work-related road safety
risks.
Employee driving behaviours were compared among the organisations to
identify if employees in organisations with comprehensive risk management
Work-Related Road Safety
75
practices reported safer driving behaviours than employees in organisations with
limited risk management practices. In support of this hypothesis employees in
organisation A, that had the most comprehensive risk management approach,
reported engaging in the safest driving behaviours. As compared to the other three
organisations, employees from organisation A also reported committing less driving
errors, and experiencing less fatigue and distraction issues when driving.
It is unclear from the results of study one whether comprehensive risk
management practices are associated with road safety outcomes including traffic
infringements and incidents. No significant difference was observed among the
organisations with respect to work-related traffic infringements. This result may be
partially due to the low frequency of reported infringements. Across the four
organisations, 91% of employees reported obtaining no traffic infringements during
the past 12 months. Previous research in the area of work-related road safety
(Freeman et al., 2007; Wishart et al., 2006) has also acknowledged difficulties in
reliably analysing data due to only a small proportion of the sample reporting
involvement in offences.
Work-related traffic incidents were compared among the organisations to
identify if employees in organisations with comprehensive risk management
practices reported safer driving behaviours than employees in organisations with
limited risk management practices. In support of this hypothesis employees in
organisation D, that had limited risk management practices, reported the highest
frequency of involvement in traffic incidents. However as the questionnaire item
used in this study asked participants to indicate how many times they had been
involved in a vehicle incident, regardless of who was considered to be ‘at fault’, it is
possible that this item may have been measuring a road safety outcome that was
contaminated by factors outside of the organisations influence.
Work-Related Road Safety
76
More specifically, although organisation A had comprehensive risk
management practices and their employees reported engaging in safe driving
behaviours, they also had the second highest frequency of involvement in traffic
incidents. It is unclear from this item what percentage of the reported incidents, were
considered to be the fault of the employee. Potentially employees from organisation
A may have been involved in a higher percentage of incidents where an external
party was considered to be at fault. It is possible that comprehensive risk
management practices may be associated with reduced employee ‘at fault’ traffic
incidents, but be unrelated to incidents caused by other drivers. Unfortunately this
speculation was not able to be tested from the data obtained from the organisations in
the current study. Further research should be conducted to explore the influence of
comprehensive risk management practices on employee ‘at fault’ traffic incidents.
2.4.4 Future Research
There are two key strengths of study one. Firstly, it provides a current review
of empirical evaluations of nineteen work-related road safety initiatives. This review
may be used by academics to select future research directions and by practitioners to
develop effective risk management strategies. Secondly, it pioneers research into two
new avenues of work-related road safety literature. The current study provides new
insights in the literature in relation to employees’ perceptions of the effectiveness of
a range of occupational road safety initiatives and whether comprehensiveness of risk
management practices is associated with road safety outcomes. By conducting
research in these three areas, study one has allowed the author to generate several
empirically supported recommendations, presented in section 2.4.5, to assist in
improving work-related road safety.
Future studies could expand upon the new areas of research introduced in
study one by exploring whether the findings identified in the current study are
applicable to organisations operating in different countries. For example, it would be
interesting to observe whether employee perceptions of initiative effectiveness varied
Work-Related Road Safety
77
with respect to different cultures. The author suggests that employees may perceive
initiatives differently based on whether they belong to a collectivist or individualist
culture and whether their culture values a high or low power distance within
organisations as this may alter the perceived effectiveness of initiatives that require
employee involvement in decision making.
There are two key limitations of study one. Firstly, although the structured
procedure used in the document review was beneficial in restricting the review to
documents previously assessed by academic experts to be of scientific merit, this
process may have overlooked other relevant documents. Future research may wish to
expand upon the current review by including non peer-reviewed documents or by
adopting a broader scope. The author recognises that some non peer-reviewed
documents may potentially be of an equally high standard to peer-reviewed
documents. Furthermore the inclusion of research on community based initiatives
may have provided a different view on the effectiveness of some initiatives. For
example, community based research on the effectiveness of driver training has found
little evidence for the effectiveness of driver training in reducing crashes for
experienced drivers and that it may even have a negative impact on novice drivers
(Christie, 2001).
A second limitation of the current research was the small sample size used in
the audit. The use of only four organisations did limit the researcher’s ability to
compare organisations based on the comprehensiveness of their policies and
practices. Given the small sample size, the author suggests that the findings
pertaining to the relationship between comprehensiveness of risk management
practices and road safety outcomes should only be considered as preliminary. Future
research should be conducted to assess this relationship using a larger sample and a
more diverse range of organisations.
Work-Related Road Safety
78
Additionally, future research should also be conducted to identify which risk
management areas offer the greatest improvements in occupational road safety.
Currently industry and government reports recommend numerous areas of risk
management. The current research has also identified that a pay rise, driver training,
group discussions, enlisting employees as community road safety change agents,
safety reminders and rewards have been found in previous literature to be related to
enhanced road safety outcomes. However it is unclear in the existing literature which
initiatives or risk management areas offer the greatest opportunity for advancing road
safety. Future research should follow the lead of Gregersen et al. (1996) by
attempting to eliminate confounds and comparing the effectiveness of several
occupational road safety initiatives.
2.4.5 Applications of Study One findings
Study one has provided a current and comprehensive review of empirical
evaluations of numerous work-related road safety initiatives and employee
perceptions of initiative effectiveness. The findings from this study make an
important contribution to the work-related road safety literature. The document
review results provide empirical support for some of the initiatives that are currently
being implemented in industry and being recommended by government and industry
reports, for example group safety discussions.
The findings from this study may also assist health and safety practitioners by
allowing them to make informed decisions when developing occupational road risk
management strategies. The author suggests that practitioners consider initiative
effectiveness, cost and involvement level. Some low cost initiatives that require
minimal involvement, such as group safety discussions, have been found to be
effective with a large majority of employees. However other low cost initiatives that
require minimal involvement, such as implementing a policy, were found to be
effective for safer employees but had minimal effect on higher risk employees. To
Work-Related Road Safety
79
effectively manage higher risk employees, practitioners may have to implement
higher involvement initiatives which may be more expensive, such as driver training.
Furthermore in relation to initiative effectiveness, several empirical studies
have found interactive group discussions to be related to increased work-related road
safety outcomes. However employees do not perceive this to be a very effective
safety initiative. This finding is consistent with previous research exploring
community perceptions of road safety initiatives. Watson (1997) identified that
community perception of road safety countermeasures did not align with evidence,
but rather appeared to suffer from a misunderstanding of behaviour change principles
and crash causation. Therefore given that inconsistencies exist between empirical
findings and perceptions of initiative effectiveness, the author suggests that
practitioners may need to sell initiatives and convince employees of their value to
facilitate acceptance.
Study one also explored whether organisations with comprehensive work-
related road risk management practices and processes have better safety outcomes
than organisations with limited risk management practices and processes. It was
found that employees in organisations with comprehensive risk management
approaches engaged in safer driving behaviours than employees in organisations with
limited risk management practices. Based on this finding, the author suggests that
organisations adopt a proactive and comprehensive approach to managing
occupational road risk. Work-related road risk management may involve: having a
written fleet safety policy; recruiting and selecting drivers based on safe driving
records and awareness of safety issues; including road safety components in
employee inductions; conducting and evaluating fleet safety training; recognising
good and poor driving behaviours; managing road journeys to eliminate or minimise
exposure to road hazards; selecting and maintaining vehicles for safety; and
monitoring and managing driver and vehicle risks. While initially it may not be
possible to develop organisational practices in all of these risk management areas,
Work-Related Road Safety
80
organisations are encouraged to strive towards the adoption of a comprehensive
approach.
The findings from study one, inform the reader of which initiatives have been
found to be effective and are perceived to be effective by employees. The findings
also suggest that comprehensive risk management practices and processes are
associated with safer employee driving behaviours. Study two will now explore
employees’ perceptions of barriers to, and facilitators for, implementing work-related
road safety initiatives.
Work-Related Road Safety
81
Chapter 3: Study two – Work related road safety barriers and facilitators
3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 82
3.2 Study background .............................................................................................. 82
3.3 Method .............................................................................................................. 85
3.3.1 Participant recruitment and demographic characteristics .................. 86
3.3.2 Content ............................................................................................. 87
3.3.3 Procedure ............................................................................................ 88
3.4 Results ............................................................................................................... 91
3.4.1 Perceived barriers ............................................................................... 91
3.4.1.1 Prioritisation of production over safety ............................................. 91
3.4.1.2 Complacency towards work-related road risks ................................. 93
3.4.1.3 Diversity ............................................................................................ 93
3.4.1.4 Insufficient resources ......................................................................... 95
3.4.1.5 Limited employee input in safety decisions ........................................ 96
3.4.1.6 Perception that road safety initiatives are an unnecessary burden ... 97
3.4.1.7 Less cited barriers .............................................................................. 97
3.4.1.8 Suggestions to overcome barriers ...................................................... 99
3.4.2 Perceived facilitators ........................................................................ 100
3.4.2.1 Management commitment ................................................................ 101
3.4.2.2 Existing systems .............................................................................. 101
3.4.2.3 Supportive relationships ................................................................... 102
3.4.2.4 Less cited facilitators ....................................................................... 102
3.5 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 103
3.5.1 Perceived barriers ............................................................................. 104
3.5.2 Perceived facilitators ........................................................................ 105
3.5.3 Future research ................................................................................. 105
3.5.4 Applications of study two ................................................................ 106
Work-Related Road Safety
82
Chapter 3: Study two – Work-related road safety barriers and facilitators
3.1 Introduction
Study two makes a valuable contribution to the safety literature by exploring
the barriers to, and the facilitators for, accepting and implementing work-related road
safety initiatives. This chapter provides details pertaining to the study background,
methodology, results and discussion.
3.2 Study Background
After observing mixed evidence for the effectiveness of initiatives to enhance
workplace safety, previous researchers have recommended that future studies be
conducted in order to understand the conditions that influence the effectiveness of
initiatives (McAfee & Winn, 1989). Identifying the restraining forces for opposing a
safety initiative and the driving forces for accepting a safety initiative, allows
strategies to be implemented to maximise the effects of the facilitators, while
minimising the effects of the barriers. This avenue of research has important
applications for practitioners, given that Aborg et al. (1998) and Westgaard and
Winkel (1997) have identified that some promising OH&S initiatives have been
found to be ineffective due to an inadequate implementation. It also has important
applications for researchers as it provides insight into future research results and
variances observed in outcomes (Karsh, Moro & Smith, 2001).
Previous research conducted in the area of organisational change has
identified that organisational, financial and professional factors may act as barriers
to, or facilitators for, implementing change programs (Blake et al., 2006; Weiner et
al., 2008). Several studies have been conducted to explore the barriers and facilitators
to implementing safety initiatives.
For example, questionnaire research conducted on a sample of 115 Turkish
food businesses identified seven barriers to implementing food safety programs.
Work-Related Road Safety
83
These barriers included: a lack of understanding of the system; the safety system
being too complicated; lack of time; high staff turnover; lack of employee
motivation; complicated terminology; and a lack of personnel training (Bas, Yuksel
& Cavusoglu, 2007).
Research conducted in the United Kingdom to explore barriers to
implementing initiatives aimed at tackling musculoskeletal disorders identified seven
additional barriers. These included: employee resistance to changing their behaviour;
difficulties in obtaining senior managerial authorisation for changes; managers’ lack
of appreciation for the importance of health and safety initiatives; insufficient
resources; difficulty finding appropriate space and equipment; industrial relations
issues; and prioritisation of production over safety (Whysall, Haslam, & Haslam,
2006).
A prioritisation of production over safety has also been identified as a barrier
in the automobile manufacturing (Clarke, 2006) and agricultural industries (ASCC,
2006). Other barriers to adopting safe behaviours and protective equipment in the
Australian agricultural industry include farmers’ current attitudes to safety. More
specifically there was a general view that injuries were a normal and accepted part of
farming operations. There was also a reluctance to accept safety standards imposed
by OH&S personnel, as farmers believed this undermined autonomy and the farmers
perceived that they had sufficient experience and common sense to manage their own
practices (ASCC, 2006).
Resistance to change, particularly by the more experienced staff, has also
been identified as a major barrier to the implementation of safe practices in health
care (Blake et al., 2006). Other barriers to adopting safe behaviours in the United
States Health Care industry include: mistrust and fear of punitive outcomes; poor
communication between departments; time constraints; and use of contract staff
(Blake et al., 2006).
Work-Related Road Safety
84
With respect to facilitators, research conducted in the United Kingdom to
explore factors that enhanced the implementation of initiatives aimed at tackling
musculoskeletal disorders identified four facilitators. These included: supportive
managers; change in management which had prompted a review of practices and
prompted action; good communication between management and workers; and
localised control over health and safety budget spending (Whysall et al. 2006).
The importance of management commitment has also been identified as a
facilitator in two additional studies. Firstly, management commitment has been
recognised as a facilitator for implementation of safe practices in health care (Blake
et al., 2006). Other facilitators for adopting safe behaviours in the United States
Health Care industry include: regular audits and feedback to reinforce compliance;
education aimed at raising awareness; confronting resistance and discussing
expectations; presence of a change champion; staff involvement in implementation;
external pressure to enhance safety; and presence of safety reminders such as posters
(Blake et al., 2006).
Secondly, management commitment has been recognised as a facilitator for
implementation of incentive programs (Wilde, 1994). Other conditions believed to
maximise the effectiveness of incentive program efficacy included: simple rules;
attractiveness of the rewards; attainability; short incubation period; staff
involvement; and rewarding all levels of the organisation (Wilde, 1994).
While these studies provide some guidance to fleet safety practitioners, little
is known about whether the facilitators and barriers observed in industries such as
hospitality and agriculture, generalise to implementing work-related road safety
initiatives. Research conducted in the area of fleet safety has identified the following
barriers to managing work-related road safety in Australia and the United Kingdom:
limited interaction between fleet managers and occupational health and safety
Work-Related Road Safety
85
personnel; perceived lack of resources; limited status/authority of the person
primarily responsible for managing fleet safety; operational procedures and
structures; lack of senior management commitment; reactive focus on injury
prevention; and claims-led rather than safety-led procedures (Haworth & Senserrick,
2003; Haworth et al., 2008; Murray et al., 2001).
To assist practitioners in identifying and managing potential barriers and
facilitators to implementing work-related road safety initiatives, study two addresses
the following research question:
1. What facilitators and barriers within organisations are involved in
implementing work-related road safety initiatives?
3.3 Method
Interviews were conducted to explore the facilitators and barriers to
implementing work-related road safety initiatives. This method was selected based
on previous calls for qualitative investigations into OH&S initiatives (Hignett &
Wilson, 2004; Kompier, Cooper, & Geurts, 2000). Furthermore, Ovretweit (1998)
has argued that experimental designs are of limited utility in exploring the complex
manner in which interventions work with subjects and their environment. Therefore
to effectively investigate influences on initiative effectiveness, data was collected in
this study via interviews. This section describes: the interview participant
demographics and recruitment process; the content of the interview pertaining to
study two; and the procedure adopted to conduct the interview component of study
two. It is important to note that this research adopts an epistemological approach
consistent with the theoretical stance on qualitative research outlined in Seale and
Silverman (1997). More specifically research objectivity was established though the
use of several techniques, that are outlined in the procedure section of this Chapter,
to achieve a critical distance between the researcher and the data.
Work-Related Road Safety
86
3.3.1 Participant recruitment and demographic characteristics
Participants for study two were obtained from the same four organisations
that were described in study one. Therefore readers may refer back to Chapter Two
for detailed information on how and why the researcher recruited these organisations.
As a reminder, these organisations included a cross section of private and public
organisations, profit and not-for-profit organisations, and medium and large vehicle
fleet organisations. Participating organisations operated fleets that comprised a
mixture of vehicle models and required their employees to operate vehicles in both
rural and urban environments.
In negotiating permission to conduct the work-related road safety interview
within the organisations, the researcher requested access to a cross section of
employees whose employment involves driving. The researcher requested that
interview participants comprised a sample of employees that was representative of
each organisation’s driving workforce with respect to age, gender, occupational roles
and experience with the organisation. To gain comprehensive information, interview
participants from within each organisation comprised of two managers and four
employees. This resulted in a total 24 interview participants. Although it would have
been ideal to obtain a random sample, this was not possible. Given the real-world
context of this qualitative study, the selection of participants was a convenience
sample, determined by the organisational representatives within the guidelines
stipulated by the researcher.
Participants ranged in age from 24 years to 58 years. The majority of interview
participants were aged between 36 and 55 years. Eighty-seven percent of the
participants were male. Although all organisations employed a mixture of male and
female staff, the organisational representatives believed that because work-related
driving tasks were predominantly performed by male employees, interviewing a
sample of predominantly male employees would provide a more representative
sample of their employees who drive for work-related purposes. All interview
Work-Related Road Safety
87
participants reported regularly driving a vehicle for work-related purposes. Although
in each of the organisations, some employees do not drive a vehicle for work-related
purposes, the interview was focused on work-related driving and therefore a sample
of employees who drove regularly was obtained from each of the organisations.
3.3.2 Content
The interview questions for study two were administered in conjunction with
the larger research project interview. The research project interview obtained data in
relation to participant demographics, potential facilitators and barriers to
implementing initiatives, fleet safety climate, stages of change, and safety ownership.
Questions pertaining to participant demographics and potential facilitators and
barriers to implementing initiatives are described in this section. The remainder of
the questionnaire content will be described where relevant in Chapter Five.
As the purpose of the interview was to gain an authentic understanding of
employees’ perceptions regarding barriers to facilitators for implementing safety
initiatives, a semi-structured interview format requiring open-ended responses was
developed. Seale and Silverman (1997) advocate the use of open-ended questions to
obtain authentic information from interview participants. Interview questions were
flexible and were adapted in formality and depth to suit the employees’ level of
seniority and involvement in driver safety initiatives. Two versions of the interview
were created. The first version was brief and designed to be administered to
employees. The second version was more comprehensive and designed to be
administered to managers. The semi-structured interview questions that were asked
to employees and managers are presented in Appendix H.
In regards to the demographic characteristics of the participants, similar to
most studies in the area of work-related road safety (Darby et al., 2008; Freeman et
al., 2008; Rowden et al., 2006; Burt et al., 2008), this researcher asked participants to
provide their gender and age details. Additional questions were also incorporated to
Work-Related Road Safety
88
gain insight into employees’ perspectives including their organisational role, tenure
and typical involvement in work-related driving.
To explore employees’ perceptions with respect to potential facilitators and
barriers to implementing road safety initiatives in Australian organisations, several
core questions were incorporated into the semi-structured interview schedule. These
core questions were formulated based on adaptations to questions used in previous
research pertaining to implementing initiatives aimed at managing musculoskeletal
disorders (Whysall et al., 2006). Employees and managers were asked the same core
questions. The questions used in study two comprised:
Has your company already taken any action that you know of to reduce work-
related road safety risk? What and when?
Is your company currently taking any actions that you know of to maintain
work-related road safety within your company? What?
What do you think are the main barriers or difficulties experienced when
making or attempting to make safety changes in your organisation?
If applicable, how have (or how could) these barriers be overcome?
What do you think are the main facilitators or things that have helped in
implementing safety changes in your organisation?
What have been the outcomes (actual and perceived) of the safety changes
that have been made?
What do you think were the main reasons for this outcome?
3.3.3 Procedure
Before commencing study two, ethics and workplace health and safety
approvals were obtained. In the process of developing the interview schedule, face-
to-face pilot interviews were conducted with five employees who were external to
the researched organisations. The pilot sample was selected from organisations that
were similar to the researched organisations to ensure that the questions could be
Work-Related Road Safety
89
understood, the terminology used was appropriate to the target population, and the
interview duration was acceptable. Based on the feedback obtained in the pilot study,
minor adjustments were made to the interview schedule to enhance the format and
appropriateness of some questions.
To arrange a time that was convenient for the researcher to conduct the
interviews, the researcher contacted the organisational representatives of the four
organisations involved. Interviews were conducted face-to-face on the premises of
each organisation. To minimise distractions and ensure confidentiality, all interviews
were conducted in private offices. To maximise the integrity of the data collected, the
researcher began each session by informing participants that their participation was
voluntary, that all information collected would be treated as confidential, and asked
for their permission to take notes and audio record the session. The researcher
obtained written consent from all participants before conducting the interview using
the consent form presented in Appendix I. Employees were interviewed individually
to minimise any contamination of data arising from potential group bias. Each
interview lasted between 30 and 60 mins.
Based on recommendations by (Silverman, 1993), to increase the reliability
of the interview, a standardised interview protocol was adopted. The interviewer
asked the same structured questions in the same order that it appeared in the schedule
to each participant. Furthermore the interviewer did not lead the participants by
suggesting possible replies to questions.
While it is acknowledged that the researcher did not explicitly evaluate the
credibility or trustworthiness of the interview participants, the researcher reflected
upon the dynamics between the researcher and the participants. The researcher was
independent from the organisation and had communicated to the participants that
there responses would be anonymous. Furthermore the interviewer was careful not to
show surprise or disapproval in response to an answer. Upon reflection of the
Work-Related Road Safety
90
interviews, the researcher believes that participants were not motivated to falsify or
fabricate information in their responses.
Upon completion of the interviews, all audio recordings were transcribed
verbatim by an independent transcribing service provider. This methodological
process is consistent with Seale and Silverman’s (1997) recommendation to enhance
reliability through developing an objective and comprehensible record of data. The
notes taken by the researcher were then used in combination with the transcripts to
achieve an accurate interview summary that captured employee’s key points and
significant statements.
Interview data was analysed using a three-phase approach as described by
Miles and Huberman (1994). Firstly, data was organised via grouping material into
meaningful collections that corresponded with the interview questions. Secondly,
emerging themes were identified and patterns within and between themes were
explored. This phase involved summarising the data under each theme and selecting
verbatim quotes to illustrate the themes. Thirdly, conclusions were drawn after
interpretations of the data were verified against the interview transcripts and existing
literature. To enhance the reliability of this analysis process, a quasi-statistics
approach was adopted. This involved counting the number of participants that
discussed each identified theme. The process of supporting generalisations by counts
of events provides greater transparency to allow the reader to observe that undue
attention has not been paid to rare events and that anecdotes have not been selected
to just support the author’s arguments (Seale & Silverman, 1997). Furthermore in
analysing the data, the researcher searched for instances in the data which may
contradict the emerging themes. This process was conducted to ensure that
generalisations were supported by adequate evidence.
Work-Related Road Safety
91
3.4 Results
The following section describes the themes that emerged as perceived
barriers and facilitators to implementing work-related road safety initiatives in four
Australian organisations. Themes are presented in order of their strength. The
strength of a theme was determined by the number of interview participants that
presented information pertaining to that theme. The deviant case analysis revealed no
instances where data contradicted the emerged themes.
Key themes that emerged as perceived barriers to implementing work-related
road safety initiatives included: prioritisation of production over safety; complacency
towards work-related road risks; diversity; insufficient resources; limited employee
input in safety decisions; and a perception that road safety initiatives were an
unnecessary burden.
Key themes that emerged as perceived facilitators for implementing work-
related road safety initiatives included: management commitment; the presence of
existing systems that could support the implementation of initiatives; and supportive
relationships.
3.4.1 Perceived barriers
The seven key themes that emerged as perceived barriers to implementing
work-related road safety initiatives are presented below.
3.4.1.1 Prioritisation of production over safety
Nine participants cited conflicts in priorities between production and safety as
a barrier to managing occupational road risks. Two subthemes emerged in this
theme. These included mixed messages from management and self-imposed
production pressure. In regards to mixed messages from management, participants
from all four organisations described how their managers conveyed that safety was
the highest priority. However the high workloads set by managers encouraged
Work-Related Road Safety
92
drivers to focus more on production targets. Several employees described their
frustration with attempting to meet both high production goals and high safety goals.
For example one employee stated that “safety changes normally impact with a
negative. Normally, changes will be to not drive as long or far, but increased work
loads always conflict. All layers of Management are aware of the situation about
staff shortages and extra distances to travel. I believe the company does have a
commitment to driver safety but is willing to overlook its own policy when it comes to
a situation of resources and money.”
In regards to self-imposed production pressure, some staff reported being
highly committed to their work and at times believed that their work commitment
motivated them to engage in risky driving practices. For example, one manager
reported how she chose to attend a late work appointment even though it meant that
she would have to engage in night driving which she acknowledged was becoming
challenging for her due to her degenerating vision. She commented that “I probably
am not keen on driving at night very much anymore. I still do it. You've got to do
it.” Another participant described the normative behaviour in her work team as
everyone wanting to help out their co-workers and deliver the best services for their
clients. She described how some employees would volunteer to do “a night shift and
a day shift because no-one turned up” and expressed her concerns that this could
lead to them driving home feeling “very fatigued”.
Both managers and employees described how production priorities were a
barrier to accepting safety initiatives. For example one participant commented “there
was an e-mail this morning which was another road safety tip, which I didn't read
because I was too busy”. Similarly another participant commented “We have an
internal intranet and it often has road safety tips in it, but I have to admit that I
haven't always had the time to read it… probably I'm just so time poor.”
Work-Related Road Safety
93
3.4.1.2 Complacency towards work-related road risks
Nine participants cited complacency towards work-related road risks as a
barrier to the intervention process. Although participants acknowledged that there
were risks involved with driving, they believed that most people accepted these risks.
Participants commented that road risks were accepted both in society, for example
“if, 300 people died in one air crash in Queensland in one year, it would be huge
news. But 300 people die on the road…..and it's almost tolerated” and in the
workplace, for example “It's an accepted risk because you have to drive to do the
work”. One manager noted that road risks are “a very known risk and a very familiar
risk” and hypothesised that the high risk tolerance observed in his area was probably
due to the risk being considered as “more of a chronic risk rather than a catastrophic
one”. An indifference towards road risks was reported by both employees, for
example “our cars are getting dinted…Doesn't really matter” and managers, for
example “All they did was reverse into a post, you know. They didn't hurt anybody”.
Several participants commented on how work-related road safety was not treated as
seriously as other OH&S issues in their organisation.
Employees cited complacency as a barrier when describing reasons for non-
compliance with an occupational road risk management process. For example one
employee commented “You are supposed to write down your own hazards… and
no-one classes driving as a significant hazard”. Managers also believed that
complacency was a hurdle that needed to be overcome when implementing road
safety initiatives. In relation to rolling out a planned initiative, the manager
anticipated that due to employee complacency, “I think people won't take notice of
it.”
3.4.1.3 Diversity
Seven participants cited diversity across their organisation as a barrier to
managing occupational road risks. Two subthemes emerged in this theme. These
included diversity within the organisation and diversity in vehicle ownership. In
Work-Related Road Safety
94
regards to diversity within the organisation, participants commented that differences
between geographical regions and provided studies created difficulty in producing
risk management strategies that would be applicable organisation-wide. Several
participants recognised challenges in implementing initiatives consistently across
organisational branches due to the different risks associated with urban and rural
driving environments. Other participants recognised that some initiatives that were
able to be offered in urban areas were not feasible to deliver in remote areas. For
example, when describing her experience in implementing a previous driver training
program, one manager reported that “we could do it down here in Brisbane, but we
couldn't do it in Mount Isa…..you can't just organise a generic training…I think
that's just about accepting that different communities have different resources.”
Similar risk management difficulties were expressed due to diversity in
services offered by different organisational departments. For example “it's probably
not as applicable to other divisions because we transport our kids. Whereas no-one
else transports their clients”
Two participants perceived that the use of private vehicles for work-related
purposes, presented challenges in applying work related road risk management
practices. It was perceived that the organisation did not have as much authority over
the use of these vehicles as they did fleet vehicles. One manager expressed that he
believed that he could not apply the standard organisational risk management
strategies to these vehicles and he raised questions such as “How safe are their cars?
Are they licensed?” Another participant believed that drivers of private vehicles may
not perceive organisational risk management initiatives as relevant to them. He
suggested that “people that are reading it might think well, I don't have to take any
notice because I don't have an organisational vehicle”.
Due to the diversity described above, some managers reported difficulty in
enforcing consistent risk management strategies. To overcome this barrier, managers
Work-Related Road Safety
95
reported creating guidelines rather than detailed practices and processes. However it
was recognised that this solution was limited in effectiveness. For example, when
describing a guide designed for use by managers when interviewing employees who
had been involved in a vehicle incident, one manager commented “whether they use
them or not is pretty much up to them. I could imagine sometimes the interview
would be simply, you know, "Don't do it again," and that's it. It's difficult to enforce
some of these things at times.”
3.4.1.4 Insufficient resources
Six participants cited the cost of managing work-related road risks as a
barrier. Participants reported that there was only a very limited budget, or in some
organisations no budget, for managing occupational road risks. Managers believed
that limited resources had delayed the implementation of initiatives. For example it
was stated that “there will be push back, you know, getting in the dollar budget”.
Several managers also reported pressure to justify initiatives in terms of the cost
versus potential outcomes. One manager described his experience in trying to gain
approval from senior management to implement a $10,000 driver training program as
“That would be a serious business case to justify I need to strongly convince my
manager. He's a good manager, but he's an accountant and he's responsible for the
finances for the organisation.” A similar experience was reported by a manager in
another organisation who felt that the biggest barriers to implementing driver training
in their organisation would be the financial costs of the course and the resource costs
of taking staff off the floor for training.
Employees also cited cost as a barrier to effective management of road risks.
For example, one employee described having arguments with administrative staff
over the cost of replacing a spare tyre. The driver reported how he had said to the
administrative personnel that “We've got to have a spare at all times when we are
driving. Just don't worry about the pricing or whatever like that. Just fix it.”
Work-Related Road Safety
96
3.4.1.5 Limited employee input in safety decisions
Five participants cited limited involvement in decision making as a barrier to
accepting risk management initiatives. Employees reported a feeling of ‘us’ versus
‘them’. Management and administrative personnel were perceived to make knee-jerk
decisions that were not appropriate for operational staff. Employees from all of the
organisations reported that many decisions were made without consulting them and
that this had resulted in ineffective safety initiatives. For example, one employee
reported how he perceived that a management decision to reduce vehicle loading
weight had made his job harder and less safe. He stated that “since the weight has
been off them, it's slipping all over the shop, because there's no weight to bed you”.
Another employee described how the vehicles they had been supplied with were not
considered to be fit for purpose. His team was supplied with big, luxury V8
Landcruisers for use in remote areas. The participant described how a lack of
employee involvement in the vehicle selection decision had resulted in inappropriate
vehicles being supplied. He commented “you put the window up and dust just comes
through the gaps in the floors. It's crazy. Brand new vehicle, but they're just not
designed for it. They're for the city. They look good and that's it.”
One employee in attempting to convey his frustration with management
imposing initiatives on operational staff without understanding the work tasks and
environments used the following analogy “It works like an old story, superannuation
guy comes around. Old mister whatever his name is, Yokomoto, walks in and he's
worth about 5 million bucks, sits down in front of this 22-year-old kid. This
22-year-old kid goes, "I think you should do this and this and this and it will makes
you heaps of money, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah." Mr Yokomoto turns around and
says, "How much are you worth, buddy?" "I just bought myself a new car." He said,
"Well, when you have got $5 million sitting in front of you, then you can tell me what
to do with it." You have got people that have never been there, never had anything to
do with it, telling you how to drive.”
Work-Related Road Safety
97
3.4.1.6 Perception that road safety initiatives are an unnecessary burden
Five participants cited perceptions of unnecessary burdens as a barrier. Both
managers and employees reported that there was a mentality of “it was ok last time”
and that this made it difficult to change people’s habits and work routines. When
asked to describe their experiences with implementing work-related road safety
initiatives one manager commented that “it's another thing that you've got to get staff
to do. So one of the barriers would be that staff would see that as another burden,
another thing that they've got to try and fit in their roster, fit in their budget.”
Another manager described how he had experienced difficulty selling an initiative to
other managers. He reported that he was asked by another manager “why do you
want to make the people do that? That's extra work, you know.” Employees tended
to express concerns relating to additional work associated with engaging in safe
practices. For example one employee stated that it “ends up taking longer to
accomplish tasks”.
3.4.1.7 Less cited barriers
Seven additional factors were also perceived to hamper the implementation of
risk management initiatives. As each of these factors was only cited once, only a
brief description is provided for each barrier. The factors were: limited data systems;
quality vehicles; lack of knowledge; reduced client rapport; perceptions of initiative
effectiveness; change fatigue; and gaining managerial authorisation.
Limited data systems were cited as a barrier. One manager perceived that the
incident data system in use in his organisation restricted his ability to identify and
monitor high risk employees and vehicles. He noted that the incident data that was
currently collected was collected for insurance purposes. He believed that this was a
problem because it was not detailed and did not include incidents that cost less than
the insurance premium to repair or were unlikely to receive an insurance payout for
example “if it's the baseball bat on the car or whatever, then they won't even bother
filling one of those out”.
Work-Related Road Safety
98
The provision of quality fleet vehicles was cited as a barrier. One employee
perceived that the quality of vehicles supplied by his organisation tempted him to
drive at “160km on a straight, flat road in the middle of nowhere because you can”.
He commented that historically it felt unsafe driving an old ute on a dirt road, but
with the improvements in road surface and vehicle designs over the years, he now
felt more safe driving and this encouraged him to operate vehicles at higher speeds.
He reported that “it’s not because you want to go faster. It's just because it feels so
slow. It feels so agonisingly slow to sit on 130 on a highway in an SV6.”
One manager recognised knowledge deficiencies as a barrier. This manager
believed that the health and safety officers were interested in managing occupational
road risks but believed that they didn’t “have any knowledge of road safety or fleet
safety”.
Reduced client rapport was cited as a barrier. More specifically, one
employee explained how his team had resisted the implementation of cargo barriers
between the front and rear seats. He expressed that while his team recognised that
management was fitting the barriers to protect them from violent clients, the staff
resisted their implementation because they perceived it may reduce client rapport. He
reported that employees were concerned that “it would be an impediment to either
their conversation or their relationship with clients.”
People’s perceptions of initiatives were cited as a barrier by one manager.
She believed that driver training has high face validity. She commented that “people
think if you're going to do something about road safety it's driver training… It is
what makes sense to the lay person”. She viewed this as a barrier to implementing
other road risk management strategies such as “policies and induction” because staff
only wanted driver training and resisted other initiatives because they did not
recognise their value.
Work-Related Road Safety
99
Change fatigue was also cited as a barrier. One manager believed that
employees in his organisation may resist change because they are tired of constantly
having to change their practices and processes. He believed that people “just want
things to stay the same for three days in a row….the biggest barrier to any campaign
at the moment is that people are just campaign sick….they just need to get their job
done and they've got to stop being told how they can do it better and just have some
time to actually do the work.”
Finally, gaining managerial authorisation was cited as a barrier by an
employee. This employee believed that the hierarchical structure in his organisation
slowed down the implementation of risk management initiatives and restricted the
approval of several employee suggested safety enhancements to vehicle operation
practices. He commented that “there's so many chiefs that if you say something to
this fellow and he agrees - he's got to go through ten chiefs before he gets to the next
- to the big chiefs and by that time it's all changed and it's not worth shit any way.
The whole place is just too top heavy.”
3.4.1.8 Suggestions to overcome barriers
When asked how the perceived barriers could be overcome, participants
provided several suggestions. These included: having an effective change
management approach; increasing employee involvement in decision making;
reducing work demands; and increasing awareness and knowledge of work-related
road risks.
Several participants stressed the value in having an effective overall risk
management approach. It was believed that this approach should have a number of
different layers and strategies. It should include initiatives that “will get people on
board, you've got to get some quick wins” and some initiatives designed for long-
term sustainability. It should be “a simplistic program…that the we can refresh and
Work-Related Road Safety
100
change. In the past…we just roll the same thing out year after year…You need to
take a fresh approach and you need to step back from it every now and again and
say, "How can we change this? Where is it not working? What is the feedback?” It
was believed that all initiatives should be integrated into this overall risk
management approach.
Both mangers and employees suggested that staff should become more
involved in decision making. Employees believed that the appropriateness of, and
acceptance, of risk management initiatives could be enhanced by allowing “the
fellows driving the vehicles, to have a bit more of a say in what vehicles they get”.
One manager noted that their organisation was already taking steps to increase
employee participation in risk management decisions due to a realisation that in the
past there had “been a bit too much health and safety coming down from the top.”
Several participants believed there was a need to reduce work demands to
reduce the perceived conflicts between production and safety targets. Suggested
methods included: outsourcing duties; increasing the number of permanent staff;
decreasing the distances having to be travelled; setting aside time for staff to
specifically discuss occupational road safety issues.
Increasing awareness and knowledge was also suggested as a method to
overcome barriers. Several participants believed that more communication was
needed to reduce complacency and to inform staff of their individual risk
management responsibilities. It was also believed that managers needed further
education to increase their knowledge of how to effectively manage work-related
road risks.
3.4.2 Perceived facilitators
Three key themes emerged as perceived facilitators for implementing work-
related road safety initiatives. These included: management commitment; the
Work-Related Road Safety
101
presence of existing systems that could support the implementation of initiatives; and
supportive relationships.
3.4.2.1 Management commitment
Seven participants cited management commitment as a facilitator in the
intervention process. Employees believed managers were committed to driver safety,
as illustrated statements including “management is very safety oriented.” Managers
also believed that senior managers were committed to safety and noted how this had
assisted them in implementing occupational road safety initiatives. For example one
manager commented “I'm generally happy with the support given to do that from our
executive director. He's happy for me to do that. So it's not pushing water uphill.”
Another manager believed that all safety initiatives would benefit from management
commitment. He stated “if you have your executive team on board, it just happens.
It doesn't matter what it is, really.”
3.4.2.2 Existing systems
The presence of existing systems was recognised as a facilitator by four
participants. Systems perceived to be beneficial in implementing road risks
management strategies included communication systems and risk management
systems. Participants believed that the presence of good communication structures
allowed safety messages to be easily conveyed to staff. For example one employee
noted that her organisation has a “team brief every quarter. Our pay slip system
means that there's room on our pay slips to put an organisational message every pay
slip… So they've got lots of systems that would - that already enable them to
communicate with every staff member regularly.” Other participants discussed how
the implementation of initiatives could be enhanced by drawing upon the risk
management framework already operating within the organisation. For example a
manager noted that “We do have a philosophy in the department in terms of the
language of risk management. So that's positive, because the risk management
Work-Related Road Safety
102
paradigm is part of our core business. Participants believed that these existing
systems could facilitate the implementation of road safety initiatives.
3.4.2.3 Supportive relationships
Three participants cited supportive relationships as a facilitator in the
intervention process. For example one employee described how the supportive
culture within his organisation provided a positive environment that could be tapped
into when implementing initiatives. He described the presence of “a community kind
of atmosphere in work. So this is our family. So we all look after each other.” He
believed that this “kind of mutual responsibility feeling” would facilitate employees
embracing road safety initiatives that involved employees looking out for each other.
Another employee compared his team environment to how other employees operated
alone when they are working in the bush. Unlike the employees working alone in the
bush where he believed “everything becomes more blasé…We take the time out to
work together as a team and a group and I think that's far more effective.”
3.4.2.4 Less cited facilitators
Four additional factors were also perceived to assist in the implementation of
risk management initiatives. As each of these factors was only cited once, only a
brief description is provided for each facilitator. These included: autonomy;
community road safety campaigns; openness to change; and a culture of
accountability and governance.
Autonomy was cited as a facilitator by one manager. He perceived that the
smaller organisation he now worked in allowed him the autonomy to rapidly
implement initiatives. Unlike in a previous organisation that he worked for, “that
required going to the media and marketing people and doing this and that and it
would take a week” in his current organisation he is now able to write driving safety
messages and publish them the next day. He commented on how “things happen a lot
Work-Related Road Safety
103
quicker and I have much more control, more responsibility and I see that as a
definite plus.”
Community road safety campaigns were cited as a facilitator. One employee
believed that community road safety campaigns provided a good foundation for her
organisation to build upon when implementing safety initiatives. She commented that
“the road signs have helped out there…They put big signs up saying "passenger, is
your driver alert?" So they're good. They actually make you think oh, wow, keep
alert.”
Openness to change was cited as a facilitator. One employee believed that
many employees in his area embraced change. He commented that “I think people
just look forward to the opportunities that change brings. So they pretty much grab
onto anything.” He believed that this open attitude towards change would definitely
assist with the implementation of risk management initiatives.
Finally, a culture of accountability and governance was cited as a facilitator.
More specifically, one manager perceived that there was a culture of accountability
and governance within his organisation. He perceived that “if somebody at a very
high level says it has to happen, then it happens. Or if there's a policy released with
regards to something, then it generally happens.” He believed that this culture would
facilitate the implementation of road safety initiatives that were endorsed by senior
management.
3.5 Discussion
This section discusses the key findings from the interviews conducted in
study two. Suggestions for future research and applications of findings are provided.
Work-Related Road Safety
104
3.5.1 Perceived barriers
All of the key themes that emerged as perceived barriers to implementing
work-related road safety initiatives in this study have been identified as barriers in
previous studies, except for diversity. More specifically, prioritisation of production
over safety has been identified as a barrier when implementing risk management
strategies targeting musculoskeletal disorders (Whysall et al. 2006), safe automobile
manufacturing (Clarke, 2006) and safe agricultural practices (ASCC, 2006).
Complacency has been identified as a barrier in the agricultural industry, where
farmers view injuries to be a normal and accepted part of farming operations (ASCC,
2006). Insufficient resources have been identified as a barrier to implementing a
range of health and safety initiatives (Bas et al., 2007; Blake et al., 2006; Whysall
et al. 2006) including work-related road safety initiatives (Haworth et al., 2008).
Limited employee input in safety decisions has been identified as a barrier in the
agricultural industry, where farmers reported a reluctance to accept safety standards
imposed by OH&S personnel as they perceived that they had sufficient experience
and common sense to manage their own practices (ASCC, 2006). Finally,
perceptions that safety initiatives are an unnecessary burden has been identified as a
barrier when implementing risk management strategies targeting musculoskeletal
disorders (Whysall et al. 2006).
Three of the less cited themes that emerged as perceived barriers to
implementing work-related road safety initiatives in this study have been identified
as barriers in previous studies. More specifically, limited data systems have been
identified as a barrier to managing work-related road risks. Murrray et al. (2001)
identified barriers to managing risks when incident data is collected for insurance
claims purposes rather than risk management purposes. Lack of knowledge has been
identified as a barrier in the hospitality industry. Bas et al. (2007) identified
employees’ lack of understanding of a new food safety system as the main barrier to
implementing a new international strategy to reduce food-borne disease. Finally,
difficulties in obtaining senior managerial authorisation for changes has been
Work-Related Road Safety
105
identified as a barrier when implementing risk management strategies targeting
musculoskeletal disorders (Whysall et al. 2006).
3.5.2 Perceived facilitators
Of the seven themes that emerged as perceived facilitators to implementing
road safety initiatives in this study, only three themes have been identified as
facilitators in previous studies. These included: management commitment; the
presence of existing systems that could support the implementation of initiatives; and
autonomy.
More specifically, management commitment has been identified as a
facilitator to implementing risk management strategies targeting: musculoskeletal
disorders (Whysall et al. 2006); safe practices in health care (Blake et al., 2006); and
a range of safety behaviours through the use of incentives (Wilde, 1994). The
presence of existing systems that could support the implementation of initiatives,
including good communication systems between management and workers, has been
identified as a facilitator to implementing risk management strategies (Whysall et al.
2006). Finally, autonomy in regards to localised control over health and safety
budget spending has also been identified as a facilitator to implementing risk
management strategies in previous research (Whysall et al. 2006).
3.5.3 Future research
A strength of the current research was that it used a structured method of data
collection to obtain insights into the barriers to, and facilitators for, implementing
work-related road safety initiatives. A limitation of the current research was the small
sample size and the use of only Australian organisations. Future studies can expand
upon this exploratory research by applying the same methodology with a more
diverse sample. It would be interesting to determine if the facilitators and barriers
identified in this study will generalise to organisations operating in different
industries and in different countries.
Work-Related Road Safety
106
3.5.4 Applications of study two
The findings from study two highlight potential barriers to, and facilitators
for, implementing work-related road safety initiatives. This research has important
applications for academics and practitioners. For academics, the author suggests that
the findings from the current study may be applied to assist in the understanding of
research results pertaining to the effectiveness of initiatives. It is hypothesised that
the organisational environment including the presence of any change barriers or
facilitators may influence initiative outcomes. To assist in the interpretation of study
findings, future researchers may briefly acknowledge the presence of any change
barriers or facilitators that may impact upon the results they obtain.
For practitioners, when implementing occupational road safety initiatives, the
author suggests that considerations be given to managing the key barriers identified
in this study. These included: prioritisation of production over safety; complacency
towards work-related road risks; insufficient resources; diversity; limited employee
input in safety decisions; and a perception that road safety initiatives were an
unnecessary burden. The author also suggests that practitioners consider proactively
developing and utilising the key facilitators identified in this study. These included:
management commitment; the presence of existing systems that could support the
implementation of initiatives; and supportive relationships. Study three will now
explore the influences of organisational factors on road safety outcomes to identify
optimal work environments for managing road risks.
Work-Related Road Safety
107
Chapter 4: Study three – Organisational factors literature review
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 108
4.2 Study background ......................................................................................... 108
4.3 Review of fleet safety climate literature ...................................................... 110
4.4 Review of stages of change literature .......................................................... 115
4.5 Review of safety ownership literature .......................................................... 121
4.6 Conclusion .................................................................................................... 126
Work-Related Road Safety
108
Chapter 4: Study three – Organisational factors literature review
4.1 Introduction
The purpose of study three was to explore the influence of organisational
factors on road safety outcomes, to identify optimal work environments for
managing road risks. This chapter presents the background to study three and a
review of literature pertaining to three organisational factors. These factors include
fleet safety climate, stages of change and safety ownership.
4.2 Study Background
When an incident occurs in the workplace, it is common to attribute blame to
the last employee who was operating the system when the incident occurred (Mullen,
2004). This micro-level analysis fails to consider the numerous underlying
organisational factors that may have contributed to the occurrence of a work-related
road incident. Investigations into several major workplace disasters including: Three
Mile Island (Kemeny, 1979); Chernobyl (IAEA, 1986); the Herald of Free Enterprise
(Sheen, 1987), Piper Alpha (Cullen, 1990), and the Esso Longford gas plant
explosion (Hopkins, 2000); have identified that multiple factors beyond the
employee often contribute to incidents. For example after investigating the sinking of
the Herald of Free Enterprise, Mr Justice Sheen (1987, pg. 14) concluded, “...a full
investigation into the circumstances of the disaster leads inexorably to the
conclusion that the underlying or cardinal faults lay higher up in the
company…From top to bottom the body corporate was infected with the disease of
sloppiness”.
To explain the causal chain that leads to incidents, Reason (1990) developed
the ‘Swiss cheese’ model. The model proposes that errors can occur at four levels.
These levels comprise: organisational factors; unsafe supervision; preconditions for
unsafe acts; and unsafe acts by the operator. Using the analogy of holes in Swiss
Work-Related Road Safety
109
cheese lining up, Reason suggests that an incident is likely to eventuate when errors
occur simultaneously across the levels.
Research pertaining to the manufacturing industry, has also identified that
several organisational and social factors contribute to unsafe work practices (Mullen,
2004). In light of her research, Mullen suggested that a macro-level approach should
be adopted to achieve optimal improvements in workplace safety. Contrary to this
suggestion, many occupational road risk management initiatives, such as goal setting
(Ludwig, 2000) and signing a promise card commitment to drive safely (Boyce &
Geller, 1999), currently operate at a micro-level targeting individual employees.
Given that an incident is most likely to eventuate when several errors occur
simultaneously, it makes sense that risk management strategies may benefit from
adopting a macro-level approach. To assist practitioners in understanding some of
the organisational factors that may contribute to unsafe work practices, the current
research will focus on exploring whether three organisational factors are related to
self-reported driving behaviours, traffic infringements and vehicle incidents. More
specifically, these factors comprise fleet safety climate, stages of change and safety
ownership.
The author selected these factors for exploration in study three based on
previous research. Previous studies have indicated that fleet safety climate (Nielsen
et al., 2008; Wills et al., 2006); stages of change (Slappendel, 2001 as cited in
Haslam, 2002; Prochaska et al., 2001); and safety ownership (Barrett et al., 2005;
Biggs et al, 2006) may be related to safety outcomes and the effectiveness of safety
initiatives in organisations. Detailed information regarding these factors and their
potential relationships to safety outcomes is presented later in this chapter.
Based on previous research in the domain of organisational psychology, it is
suggested that road safety initiative outcomes may be influenced by the extent to
Work-Related Road Safety
110
which an initiative is compatible with an organisation’s working environment.
Within organisational psychology there is much support for the notion of person-
environment fit (Choi, & Price, 2005; French, Caplan & Harrison, 1982; Latham, &
Pinder, 2005; Takase, Maude, & Manias, 2005; Searle, & Bright, 2003). It is
commonly believed that the degree of match between a person (employee’s
knowledge, skills, abilities, interests and values) and the environment (demands of
the job and values of the organisation) is related to outcomes for both the individual
and organisation. Similarly it is suggested that the degree of match between a work-
related road safety initiative and an organisational environment may be related to
safety outcomes. Therefore it may be beneficial to consider organisational factors
such as safety climate, stages of change and safety ownership when attempting to
improve occupational road safety.
4.3 Review of Fleet Safety Climate Literature
In recent years there has been a growing interest in researching the social and
organisational issues that may be linked to occupational incidents (Mearns et al.,
2003; Pidgeon & O’Leary, 2000). These social and organisational issues are often
referred to as safety climate and safety culture. Although some researchers have
argued that the differences between climate and culture may be too inconsequential
to be of interest in practice (Glick, 1985), many researchers have recognised their
distinct differences (Zohar, 2000; Glendon & Stanton, 2000; Schein, 1990;
Guldenmund, 2000; Mearns & Flin, 1999). According to the above researchers,
safety climate has been defined as employees’ shared perceptions of management’s
commitment and performance with regards to safety policies, procedures and
practices. It is considered to be a psychological construct referring to shared
perceptions. In contrast, safety culture is been defined as the values, beliefs, attitudes
and normative behaviours pertaining to occupational safety. It is considered to
comprise psychological, behavioural and social constructs that endure over time and
that are difficult to directly influence.
Work-Related Road Safety
111
While recognising that safety climate is related to safety culture, the focus of
this chapter is safety climate. Safety climate was selected as the focus in this research
as it is a measure which is believed to have the ability to provide insight into
potential workplace safety hazards and how to address these hazards (Cooper &
Phillips, 2004). Measuring an organisation’s safety climate can assist in three key
areas: (1) identifying where safety requires improvement; (2) determining trends in
safety performance; and (3) providing data benchmarks that may be compared across
different departments or organisations (Lutness, 1987).
In recent years, numerous surveys have been developed to measure safety
climate. Although the exact number and the precise labels of safety climate factors
are unclear, several recurring themes have been identified (Glendon & Litherland,
2001; Flin, Mearns, O’Connor, & Bryden, 2000). Recurring safety climate themes
include: management commitment; participation; work demands; communication;
relationships; and policies.
Management commitment is recognised as the most typically assessed
dimension of safety climate (Flin et al., 2000). Commitment can be expressed
through various avenues such as management participation in safety committees,
allocation of resources for training and personal protective equipment, consideration
of safety in job design and scheduling of work tasks. Research has linked
management commitment to occupational safety outcomes including: motivation to
drive safely (Newnam, Griffin & Mason, 2008); personal actions for safety (Cox,
Tomas, Cheyne & Oliver, 1998; Walton, 1999); incident reporting (Clarke, 1999);
and incident rates (Alexander, Cox & Cheyne, 1995; Mearns, Flin, Gordon &
Fleming, 1998; Smith, Cohen, Cohen & Cleveland, 1978).
For example research that compared 42 matched pairs of American
companies found that management commitment to safety was greater in the low
incident-rate plants than in the high incident-rate plants (Cohen, Smith & Cohen,
Work-Related Road Safety
112
1975; Smith et al., 1978). Similarly, recent research drawing upon a sample of
professional truck drivers found that drivers reported engaging in less safe driving
behaviours when they perceived their employers had low regard for their safety and
little concern for the number of hours they drove (Walton, 1999).
Employee participation has also been identified as an important factor in
safety climate research. Participation refers to involving employees in
communication and decision-making processes. It has been suggested that employee
participation can lead to increased safety communication and adoption of safe
behaviours (Hofmann, & Morgeson, 1999; Parker, Axtell, & Turner, 2001). Research
has found that employee involvement in all aspects of a hospital injury prevention
program was related to dramatic reductions in the lost-time injury cases (Garrett &
Perry, 1996). Similarly O’Toole (1999) identified that participation, regardless of
whether it was mandatory and voluntary, has been shown to decrease the frequency
and severity of workplace injuries.
Work demand is another commonly identified safety climate theme. Work
demands relate to employees’ perceptions of pressures to perform tasks quickly.
Investigations into the causes of incidents in the UK’s offshore oil industry identified
that perceptions of performance pressure can encourage employees to forgo safe
work practices and engage in unsafe short cut behaviours if they perceive the unsafe
behaviours to be quicker or more efficient methods (Wright, 1986). This finding is
consistent with research conducted in the coal mining industry (Sanders, Patterson, &
Peay, 1976) and with research drawing upon a sample of workers from a range of
moderate-risk jobs such as police officers (Mullen, 2004). More specifically Sanders
et al. (1976) found that increased levels of production pressure were associated with
increased lost time injury rates. Similarly, Mullen (2004) found that perceived
coercive pressure from management and co-workers to work quickly rather than
safely was associated with employees engaging in unsafe work behaviours. Mullen
describes how one employee endured an oil burn injury due to their decision not to
Work-Related Road Safety
113
wear personal protective equipment, based on previous experiences with managers
expressing anger related to the increased time taken to fit protective gloves.
Communication has frequently emerged as a safety climate factor in previous
studies. Researchers have suggested that there is value in fostering an environment
where safety feedback can be openly communicated between employees and
management (Hall & Hecht, 1979; Pidgeon, 1991; Vredenburgh, 2002). A climate of
‘no fault’ incident investigations allows both near-miss and actual incidents to be
identified, analysed and findings disseminated to manage occupational risks.
Effective communication has been linked to positive outcomes in previous research.
For example, research comparing communication quality between low-incident rate
plants and high-incident rate plants, identified that managers in low-incident rate
plants often provided direct and immediate channels of communication through
engaging in one-to-one interaction with their employees. Comparatively, managers in
high-incident rate plants often relied on committees to interact with employees
(Smith et al, 1978). Furthermore, research with a sample of nuclear power plant
personnel, has found that high levels of communication and feedback were
associated with high safety performance (Kivimaki, Kalimo, & Salminen, 1995).
Relationships are another commonly identified safety climate theme. This
theme encompasses perceived trust, support and cohesiveness between co-workers
and between employees and management. Research suggests that high quality
working relationships are associated with enhanced safety outcomes (DeMichiei,
Langton, Bullock, & Wiles, 1982; Gaertner, Newman, Perry, Fisher, & Whitehead,
1987; Shannon et al., 1996; Simard & Marchand, 1997). For example research has
found that mining companies with negative labour relations had almost double the
injury rates of mining companies with positive labour relations (Gaertner et al.,
1987). Similarly research investigating the characteristics of over 400 manufacturing
companies, found that harmonious relationships between managers and workers was
Work-Related Road Safety
114
a characteristic of organisations with low rates of lost time injuries (Shannon et al.,
1996).
Policies and procedures have frequently emerged as a safety climate factor. It
is thought that the presence of and implementation of organisational safety policies
and procedures may influence safety outcomes through convincing employees that
managers consistently and clearly support safety. Much research has been conducted
exploring the relationships between safety policies and procedures and safety
outcomes. For example, enhanced safety outcomes have been found to be associated
with: safety rules and procedures (Lee, 1998; Mearns et al., 1998; Simonds & Shafai-
Sharai, 1977); accident investigation and record keeping (Gaertner et al., 1987;
Simonds & Shafai-Sharai, 1977); selection, promotion and training, (Cohen et al.,
1975; DeMichiei et al., 1982; Smith et al., 1978); and work planning and
organisation, (Cohen et al., 1975; DeMichiei et al., 1982).
Research has also been conducted to investigate the antecedents of safety
climate and the relationships between safety climate and safety outcomes across a
range of occupations, geographical locations and cultures. Safety climate perceptions
are thought to be based on employee interpretations of events, features, and
processes in the work environment related to employee safety (Lindell, 1994). To
date, little research has been conducted to explore the antecedents of safety climate.
A review of the research that has been conducted in the trucking industry and
emergency services industry suggests that driver training, employee opportunity for
safety input, and top management commitment to safety may be antecedents to safety
climate (Arboleda, Morrow, Crum, & Shelley, 2003; Banks et al., 2006).
In comparison, many researchers have investigated relationships between
safety climate and safety outcomes. Studies have found that safety climate factors are
related to: safety performance and behaviour (Neal, Griffin, & Heart, 2000; Griffin &
Neal, 2000; Wills et al., 2006); incident rates (Diaz & Cabrera, 1997; Varonen &
Work-Related Road Safety
115
Mattila, 2000; Zohar, 2000; Mearns et al., 1998; Mearns et al., 2003); frequency of
workers compensation claims (O’Toole, 2002); and occupational injury frequency
and severity (Nielsen et al., 2008; Gillen, Baltz, Gassel, Kirsch, & Vaccaro, 2002;
Vredenburgh, 2002; Felknor, Aday, Burau, Delclos, & Kapadia, 2000; Silva, Lima,
& Baptista, 2004).
Recently, research into workplace safety climate has been extended to
specifically include work vehicle usage (Banks et al., 2006; Wills et al, 2004). The
development of this research, called ‘fleet safety climate’, increases our
understanding of the antecedents of driving behaviour in the workplace. Similar to
safety climate, a number of general dimensions that may impact fleet safety climate
have been identified. These include: management commitment; trusting relationships
and communication; appropriateness of work demands; and appropriateness of
education and rules (Banks et al., 2006).
Given the links observed in previous research between safety climate and
safety outcomes, it is suggested that fleet safety climate may be related to work-
related road safety outcomes. Study three will build upon the recently conducted fleet
safety climate research by exploring whether differences in fleet safety climate are
related to road safety outcomes.
4.4 Review of Stages of Change Literature
An organisation’s collective readiness to embrace change is constantly being
shaped by the individual readiness of the employees it comprises (Armenakis, Harris
& Mossholder, 1993). Therefore to facilitate change at an organisational level,
attempts need to be made to mobilise collective employee support for safety. In the
past, many organisations have attempted to discover the ‘silver bullet’ to managing
occupational safety and then attempted to impose the selected safety processes upon
their employees. Development of safety management processes have often occurred
without consideration for employees’ current beliefs, knowledge and attitudes
Work-Related Road Safety
116
towards targeted safety behaviours. Despite this, a workforce may be best
conceptualised as involving a heterogeneous mixture of employees with different
degrees of readiness to embrace safety behaviours. These differences in employee
readiness may necessitate the development of a multi-pronged risk management
approach involving several employee targeted initiatives.
Previous researchers have argued that many attempts to implement
organisational change have failed due to change managers ignoring existing
knowledge and principles relating to the psychology of change (Winum et al., 1997).
It is suggested that the implementation of occupational road safety initiatives may be
improved through the consideration and application of appropriate behaviour change
models. Research in the areas of occupational health promotion and ergonomics
provides theoretical models of health-related behaviour that may be extrapolated to
the area of work-related road safety. Three stage-matched models have recently been
applied in the areas of occupational health promotion and ergonomics.
Urlings, Nijboer, and Dul (1990) have argued that attempts to manage
musculoskeletal complaints could benefit from the consideration of managers’ and
employees’ current attitudes and then tailoring communication to change their
attitudes and behaviour. Based on their case study research within the Dutch
furniture industry, Urlings et al. suggest that the six-stage behaviour change model
that they researched may provide a useful framework for implementing health
promotion initiatives. The six stages comprised: giving attention to information;
understanding information; changing attitudes; changing intentions; changing
behaviour; and maintenance of new behaviour.
After reviewing a range of health behaviour models in light of their
applicability to workplace safety, DeJoy (1996) proposed a four-stage model to
conceptualise workplace self-protective behaviour. These stages comprised: hazard
appraisal; decision-making; initiation; and adherence. DeJoy also identified five
Work-Related Road Safety
117
constructs believed to be important throughout the four stages. They comprised:
threat-related beliefs about severity and susceptibility; self-efficacy beliefs held by
individuals regarding their ability to successfully follow safety procedures; response
efficacy beliefs held by individuals regarding the effectiveness of safety procedures;
facilitating conditions in relation to supports and barriers to engaging in self-
protective behaviour; and safety climate with respect to organisational and social
factors. DeJoy recommended the use of targeted initiatives, addressing each of the
four stages to enhance self-protective employee behaviours.
While the above mentioned stage-matched models may provide useful
theoretical frameworks in the area of work-related road safety, the current research
will focus on the utility of Prochaska and DiClemente’s (1982) stage of change
model. This model has attracted considerable attention from both researchers and
practitioners in the areas of health promotion and has been credited as the most
influential approach to the integration of behaviour change practices and theories
(Pendlebury, 1996). Compared to other stage-matched models, it provides a simple
framework for describing the process of behaviour change and guiding the
development of targeted initiatives. Furthermore, research applying this model has
indicated that stage-targeted health initiatives have been found to be more effective
than less structured health initiatives (Campbell, et al., 1994; Rakowski, et al., 1998).
The stage of change model (Prochaska et al., 1992) also known as the
transtheoretical model of change is a behaviour change model that offers a
framework for understanding variations in readiness for change. The model considers
an individual’s past behaviours and behavioural intentions to classify their readiness
to change with respect to one of five or six predictable phases of behaviour change.
These stages include: pre-contemplation; contemplation; preparation; action;
maintenance; and in some cases termination or relapse.
Work-Related Road Safety
118
Exact definitions of the stages vary across the behaviours researched.
However the stages are typically defined as follows (Laforge et al. 1998; Prochaska
et al. 2001). Pre-contemplation characterises individuals who are not thinking of
changing their behaviour in the next six months. Contemplation characterises
individuals who are seriously considering changing their behaviour in the near
future, approximately within the next 31 days to six months. Preparation
characterises individuals who are making plans and intending to change their
behaviour in within the next 30 days. Some researchers also classify individuals to
this stage if they have begun making minor behavioural changes. Action
characterises individuals who have changed their behaviour for between zero and six
months. Maintenance characterises individuals who have been engaging in the
changed behaviour for more than six months and are working to consolidate the
gains from their changed behaviour and prevent relapse. Some researches include a
sixth stage in the model, referred to as either the termination or relapse stage.
Termination has been defined as a stage in which individuals have permanently
adopted the changed behaviour (West, 2005). In comparison, relapse has been
defined as a stage in which individuals have failed to maintain the changed behaviour
and have reverted to a previous behaviour (Barrett et al., 2005).
Some researchers have expressed concern that the mixture of different types
of constructs (i.e. immediacy of intention, past behaviours, durations of engaging in
behaviours) used to define the stages may not always fit together coherently (Etter &
Sutton, 2002). Although little research has been conducted to determine the optimal
terms of stage classification, research that has compared stage algorithms has
identified that the stage construct is appropriate and robust across many methods of
classification (Laforge, Maddock, & Rossi, 1998; Reed, Velicer, & Prochaska,
1997). Furthermore, research has found stage distributions to be stable across risk
factors, gender and countries (Laforge, Velicer, Richmond & Owen, 1999). This
research will follow the standard approach adopted in previous research and will
only include the first five stages of the model. The model proposes that individuals
Work-Related Road Safety
119
sequentially progress through the stages however they may at times regress to
previous stages before achieving the maintenance stage (Prochaska & Velicer, 1997).
Originally developed in the field of psychotherapy for studying individual
behaviour change, the model has strong empirical support in the area of health
promotion. For example research has demonstrated the utility of the model in
changing a range of behaviours including: dietary behaviour (Robinson, et. al., 2008;
Wolf et al., 2008); smoking cessation (Erol & Erdogan, 2008); exercise adoption
(Kim, 2008; Robinson, et. al., 2008); sun exposure (Rossi, Blais, Redding, &
Weinstock, 1995); excessive alcohol consumption (Carbonari, & DiClemente, 2000);
injury rehabilitation (Clement, 2008); and mammography screening (Rakowski, et
al., 1998). More specifically, it has been found that stage-matched initiatives were
more effective in changing behaviour than ‘one size fits all’ initiatives (Campbell, et
al., 1994; Rakowski, et al., 1998).
This makes sense considering that research comparing stage distributions
across a range of health-related behaviours has found that in pre-action individuals
approximately 40 percent of the population are in the pre-contemplation phase, 40
percent are in the contemplation phase and only 20 percent are in the preparation
phase (Velicer et al., 1985; Laforge et al., 1999). This distribution pattern indicates
that a combination of initiatives targeting awareness raising, discussing how changes
could be made and making plans to change may be a more effective approach to
managing organisational change, than a single action orientated initiative that may
only cater to approximately 20 percent of pre-action employees.
Many work-related road safety initiatives in the past have been developed
which are suitable for employees who are already cognitively prepared to change
their behaviours, for example introducing a driving risk assessment form for
employees to complete. While these types of initiatives may be effective for some
employees, they often ignore the needs of other employees who are not yet ready to
Work-Related Road Safety
120
modify their behaviour or may require remedial interventions prior to accepting new
behaviours. An inappropriate match between initiatives and the target workforce may
partially explain undesirable outcomes described in previous research including
managers rejecting ergonomic recommendations (Trevelyan & Haslam, 2001) and
employees failing to apply the safe lifting techniques they had been trained in
(Wright & Haslam, 1999). It is suggested that the stages of change model has
potential applications as a framework for designing work-related road safety
initiatives that are appropriate to managers and employees readiness for change.
In recent years the model has started to be applied internationally to
organisational change in the areas of ergonomics, health promotion and change
management (Haslam, 2002; Prochaska, 2000; Prochaska et al., 2001). A case study
of health and safety appraisals within an English manufacturing company identified
that the stages of change model provided a useful framework for assessing attitudes
and beliefs and assisting in recognising individual and organisational readiness to
change (Barrett et al., 2005). Additionally the model provided a framework for
explaining the observed effectiveness of a cattle handling injury prevention program
in New Zealand. Interviews with approximately 1,500 farming personnel revealed
that awareness raising methods including leaflets and videos were most effective in
transitioning farmers from contemplation to action. Alternatively field days that
provided farmers with an opportunity for tailored advice were more effective in
transitioning farmers from action to maintenance (Slappendel, 2001 as cited in
Haslam, 2002). Previous researchers have indicated that the application of the stages
of change model may assist in the reduction of resistance, stress and implementation
time associated with organisational change through accelerating employee movement
towards the action stage (Prochaska et al., 2001).
In providing a balanced review it is important to recognise that the model has
been critiqued for neglecting to consider entrenched behavioural patterns associated
with addicted behaviours (West, 2005). West expresses concern that the application
Work-Related Road Safety
121
of the model may result in an effective treatment, such as a new smoking cessation
aid, not being offered to a pre-contemplative individual who may respond favourably
to the treatment. It is acknowledged that the strict and narrow application of a stage
targeted initiative may not always be appropriate in the case of treating an individual
with an addictive behaviour. However it is believed that in the case of managing non-
addictive behaviours such as occupational driving, the stages of change model may
provide a useful framework for developing a multi-pronged risk management
approach capable of targeting the behavioural change needs of a range of employees.
Study three will pioneer research into the area of stage of change and work-
related road safety. Currently the influences of stage of change have not been
researched in relation to occupational road safety. To address this gap, the current
research will explore whether differences in stages of change relate to work-related
road safety outcomes.
4.5 Review of Safety Ownership Literature
The success of organisational change initiatives appears to be influenced by
the owners of the change initiative. In accordance with the Queensland Workplace
Health and Safety Act 1995, duties of care to workers and third parties are shared by
everyone. Therefore ownership of work-related road safety must be embraced by all
members of an organisation. However in practice it currently appears that ownership
of work-related road safety is often only adopted by employees operating in specific
positions such as Workplace Health Safety Manager or Fleet Manager. The current
research will explore safety ownership with respect to the position of the primary
change owner and the extent to which ownership is shared across members of an
organisation.
In relation to primary ownership, it is suggested that the organisational
position of the employee may be related to the effectiveness of the safety initiative. A
recent case study revealed that changes in management level and department of the
Work-Related Road Safety
122
primary owner related to changes in safety behaviour of employees (Barrett et al.,
2005). Employees initially reported only minimal adherence to safe working
practices as they believed that the health and safety manager did not carry the
necessary authority or respect to achieve compliance with safety procedures and
rules. Upon the health and safety manager’s resignation, the production director
assumed primary ownership of safety. With his authority to fire employees
immediately for non compliance to rules or procedures, health and safety compliance
increased within the organisation.
The importance of position authority has also been recognised in earlier
research. For example a lack of upper management involvement in safety matters has
been identified as a serious impediment to managing safety. De Michiei et al. (1982)
observed that responsibility for safety procedures in high incident-rate mines was
often delegated to safety personnel who lacked the authority to enforce safe work
procedures. Similarly Zohar (1980) found that in less effective plants, managers
often assigned all safety responsibility to designated safety personnel who had
minimal executive power to manage risks. Findings from these studies suggest that
management department and level of authority may be related to achieving effective
implementation of safety initiatives.
Research within the broader work safety context has found that organisational
structures and management approaches associated with the position of the primary
safety owner have influenced safety outcomes (Bentley & Haslam, 2001; Clarke,
1999; Haines, Victor, Merrheim, & Roy, 2001; O’Toole, 1999; Roy, 2003; Simard &
Marchand, 1997; Griffin & Neal, 2000). Examples of this include supervisor
autonomy, management commitment and leadership styles. Firstly, supervisor
autonomy has been linked to safety outcomes. Research has found that the propensity
of workgroups to embrace safety initiatives was higher when the supervisor had
some power or influence over decisions that affected group safety and engaged in
participative management of accident prevention (Simard & Marchard, 1995; Simard
Work-Related Road Safety
123
& Marchard, 1997). Similarly, research has found that section supervisors at low
incident-rate mines had greater freedom to make health, safety and production
decisions than section supervisors at high-incident rate mines (De Michiei et al.,
1982).
Secondly, management commitment has been linked to safety outcomes.
Research that compared 42 matched pairs of American companies found that
management commitment to safety was greater in the low incident-rate plants than in
the high incident-rate plants. In this study, managers in low incident-rate plants
allocated greater resources to plant safety and were more actively involved in safety
programs (Cohen et al., 1975; Smith et al., 1978). Similarly, recent research has also
found relationships between management commitment and safety outcomes
including: personal actions for safety (Cox et al., 1998); incident reporting (Clarke,
1999); and incident rates (Alexander et al., 1995; Mearns et al., 1998).
Thirdly, leadership style has been linked to safety outcomes. Australian
research has found that supportive supervision made an independent positive
contribution to workers’ self reported safety compliance and safety motivation in a
study of manufacturing and mining workers (Griffin & Neal, 2000). Similarly, UK
research found that a high involvement supervision style was associated with positive
safety outcomes in industrial organisations (Wood, Barling, Lasaosa, & Parker,
2000).
It is suggested that the department and level of authority of the primary
change owner may be linked to their ability to execute key management practices
with respect to safety. A study of safety management practices revealed that several
key management practices were associated with either low or high incident rates in
postal offices (Bentley & Haslam, 2001). These management practices included:
prompt action in response to reported hazards; comprehensive incident investigation;
Work-Related Road Safety
124
taking remedial action to reduce the chances of further incidents occurring; and
frequent safety communication with employees.
The job description and authority of the primary change owner may restrict
their ability to execute or influence others to execute key safety management
practices. For example it is suggested that within an organisation, the position of
Fleet Asset Manager may require different priorities, competencies, authority levels
and circles of influence to the position of Workplace Health Safety Manager. The
appropriateness of a safety owner’s position may also vary in relation to the safety
initiative. For example a risk management strategy comprising the selection of safe
vehicles may be better suited to leadership from within a fleet department rather than
a health and safety department.
Study three will pioneer research into the area of safety ownership and work-
related road safety. Currently the influences of safety ownership have not been
researched with respect to occupational road safety. To address this gap, the current
research will explore whether the position of the person primarily responsible for
managing road safety is related to road safety outcomes.
In addition to the position of the primary owner, it is suggested that the extent
to which ownership is shared across members of an organisation may also be related
to the success of a safety initiative. It has long been recognised in the safety literature
that managers at different hierarchical levels within an organisation have different
roles in the overall management of workplace health and safety (Andreissen, 1978).
Senior managers are typically responsible for organisational strategies such as
managing organisational structure and developing policy. Middle level managers are
typically responsible for interpreting and implementing policies and programs.
Lower level managers, including supervisors and team leaders, are typically
responsible for operational matters such as co-ordinating and facilitating work tasks
(Management Charter Initiative, 1997).
Work-Related Road Safety
125
As managers operating within different positions and levels within an
organisation typically have different responsibilities, each manager may be able to
provide a unique and valuable role in managing safety. Furthermore, research
conducted across a range of westernised countries including New Zealand, Canada
and America, supports the utility of a decentralised risk management approach to
enhance occupational safety (Dwyer & Raftery 1991; Simard & Marchand, 1997;
Goodman 1987). For example research has found that the reorganisation of a coal
mine work section into an autonomous work group resulted in increased employee
knowledge of safe practices and procedures, beneficial communication, and
increased employee responsibility for safety (Goodman, 1987).
To effectively manage OHS performance it is suggested that ownership of
safety management tasks should be shared by employees in all safety critical
positions. Safety critical positions may vary among organisations but will typically
include: Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer; Senior Manager; Operations
Manager; Project Manager; Site Manager; National OHS Manager; State OHS
Manager; Regional OHS Manager; Site OHS Advisor and employees (Dingsdag,
Biggs, & Sheahan, 2007). The sharing of safety responsibilities may allow an
organisation to draw upon the expertise of employees whose competencies and
position responsibilities are best aligned with each safety management task. Recent
research findings pertaining to manufacturing companies support the formalisation of
safety management responsibilities. More specifically, research investigating the
characteristics of over 400 manufacturing companies, found that organisations with
low rates of lost time injuries typically defined health and safety responsibilities in
all managers’ job descriptions and included health and safety topics in performance
appraisals (Shannon et al., 1996).
Past research within the construction industry has identified 39 safety
management tasks that are seen as critical to the management of OHS performance
Work-Related Road Safety
126
(Dingsdag, Biggs, Sheahan & Cipolla, 2006). These tasks cover a range of
competency areas for example; proactively identifying, assessing and determining
appropriate controls for OHS hazards and risks; communicating OHS risks;
evaluating safety program effectiveness; implementing workers compensation
management systems; and managing OHS performance. Of these 39 safety
management tasks, research has identified that in the construction industry the three
tasks perceived to be most important in reducing injury include: challenge unsafe
behaviour/attitude at any level when you encounter it; monitor subcontractor
activities; and carry out workplace and task hazard identification, risk assessments
and control (Biggs et al., 2006).
In relation to work-related road safety, currently no nationally based or
accepted framework exists that identifies which tasks are critical to managing
occupational road safety. To address this gap, the current research will explore which
tasks are considered relevant to managing work-related road safety. Study three will
also pioneer research into the area of safety ownership and work-related road safety.
As previously noted, the influences of safety ownership have not been researched
with respect to occupational road safety. To address this gap, the current research
will explore whether the level of shared ownership of safety management tasks by
employees in safety critical positions is related to road safety outcomes.
4.6 Conclusion
Limited guidance is provided in the existing literature to assist practitioners in
determining how work-related road safety can be improved in their organisation.
This gap in the literature restricts practitioners’ ability to evaluate and select
initiatives that are suitable to their organisation’s environment. The author has
observed fleet managers and occupational health and safety practitioners
simplistically attempting to transfer road risk management strategies operating in one
organisation, to another organisation that may be substantially different. It is
suggested that as no two organisations are identical it may be unrealistic to expect
Work-Related Road Safety
127
that the same risk management strategy will have the same effect in two different
organisations.
While every organisation has unique qualities, it is suggested that many
commonalities also exist among organisations. By considering organisational factors,
such as fleet safety climate, stage of change and safety ownership, an understanding
of the organisational environment may be gained. Previous studies have indicated
that fleet safety climate (Nielsen et al., 2008; Wills, et al., 2006); stage of change
(Slappendel, 2001 as cited in Haslam, 2002; Prochaska et al., 2001); and safety
ownership (Barrett et al., 2005; Biggs et al., 2006) may be related to safety outcomes
and the effectiveness of safety initiatives in organisations.
To assist practitioners in making informed decisions about how they manage
occupational road risks, study three will explore whether three organisational factors
are related to self-reported driving behaviours, traffic infringements and vehicle
incidents. This research will build upon recently conducted fleet safety climate
research and will pioneer research into two new areas of work-related road safety.
Currently the influences of organisational factors including stage of change and
safety ownership have not been researched in relation to occupational road safety.
Study three will conduct exploratory research in these areas to provide new research
insights. The findings from study three will assist practitioners in evaluating and
selecting initiatives in an informed manner that are suitable to their organisation’s
environment.
Work-Related Road Safety
128
Work-Related Road Safety
129
Chapter 5: Study three – Organisational factors methodology
5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 130
5.2 Research Design .............................................................................................. 130
5.3 Interview ......................................................................................................... 131
5.3.1 Participant demographics ...................................................................... 131
5.3.2 Content ........................................................................................... 132
5.3.3 Procedure ............................................................................................. 135
5.4 Questionnaire .................................................................................................. 135
5.4.1 Participant demographics ...................................................................... 136
5.4.2 Content ........................................................................................... 136
5.4.3 Procedure ........................................................................................... 139
Work-Related Road Safety
130
Chapter 5: Study three – Organisational factors methodology
5.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the methodology utilised in study three to explore the
influence of three organisational factors on road safety outcomes. These factors
include fleet safety climate, stages of change and safety ownership. In this chapter,
the research design is presented, followed by information pertaining to the two data
collection processes utilised in study three.
5.2 Research Design
As identified in the study three literature review, there is a scarcity of
research pertaining to the relationships between organisational factors and work-
related road safety outcomes. Given that the influences of organisational factors
including stages of change and safety ownership have not been researched in regards
to occupational road safety, an exploratory approach was considered most
appropriate for study three. Study three was designed to comprehensively explore
whether fleet safety climate, stages of change and safety ownership were related to
self-reported driving behaviours, traffic infringements and vehicle incidents.
To comprehensively explore the relationships between organisational factors
and work-related road safety outcomes, two data collection processes were
conducted. These comprised a semi-structured interview and an online questionnaire.
This combination of qualitative and quantitative methods was selected for two
reasons. Firstly, it allowed the weaknesses of one method to be counteracted with the
strengths of the other method. Secondly, it allowed the researcher to clarify and
challenge the data obtained through the interviews with the data obtained through the
questionnaires. Two methods were used to explore the same research questions in
study three to increase the robustness of the methodology.
Work-Related Road Safety
131
Study three utilised the same interview and questionnaire participants,
recruitment processes and procedures as study one and two. Therefore only a brief
outline of the participant demographics and procedures is presented in this chapter.
For more information on these topics, the reader is referred back to Chapters Two
and Three. Detailed information on the content of the questions pertaining to study
three is presented in this chapter. Before commencing study three, ethics and
workplace health and safety approval was granted through the Queensland
University of Technology.
5.3 Interview
This section describes the study three participant demographics, interview
content and procedure. As previously described in study two, this research adopts an
epistemological approach consistent with the theoretical stance on qualitative
research outlined in Seale and Silverman (1997). More specifically the researcher
strives to achieve methodological rigour through objectively creating distance
between the researcher and the data.
5.3.1 Participant demographics
Each organisation provided access to four employees and two managers,
yielding a total of 24 interview participants. The participants were a convenience
sample, determined by the organisational representatives. The organisational
representatives agreed to recruit participants from a representative range of
organisational positions and responsibilities, geographical locations and demographic
backgrounds. Participants ranged in age from 24 years to 58 years. To represent the
workforce distribution of drivers, a majority (87 percent) of the participants were
male. All interview participants reported regularly driving a vehicle for work-related
purposes.
Work-Related Road Safety
132
5.3.2 Content
Study three interview questions were administered in conjunction with the
larger research project interview. The research project interview obtained data with
respect to participant demographics, potential barriers and facilitators to
implementing initiatives, fleet safety climate, stages of change and safety ownership.
The semi-structured interview questions that were asked to employees and managers
are presented in Appendix H. Questions pertaining to fleet safety climate, stage of
change and safety ownership are described in this section.
To explore employees’ perceptions in relation to fleet safety climate, several
questions were incorporated into the interview schedule. These questions were based
on underlying factor structures that have previously been identified in safety climate
and more specifically fleet safety climate research. As identified in the literature
review in Chapter 4, several reoccurring safety climate factors have been identified
across studies. These comprised: management attitudes and behaviours; work
pressures; competency; risks; and safety management systems including policies and
procedures (Flin et al., 2000). In recent years, researchers have extended safety
climate research to specifically investigate safety climate with respect to work-
related driving (Banks et al., 2006; Wills et al., 2004; Wills et al., 2006). In
reviewing these studies, several reoccurring factors were again identified. These
comprised: management commitment; trusting relationships including
communication and support; work demands and pressure; appropriateness of safety
rules and safety training. Based on the factors identified in previous fleet safety
climate research, the interview questions in this study explored employees’
perceptions with respect to the following areas: management commitment; level of
trust between employees and management; communication in relation to work-
related road safety; level of work demands; and appropriateness of safety policies
and procedures.
Work-Related Road Safety
133
To explore employees’ perceptions with respect to stage of change, several
questions were incorporated into the interview schedule. Research suggests that it is
possible to assess stages of change via individuals’ responses to a small number of
questions (Haslam, 2002; Haslam & Draper, 2000). Based on adaptations from
previous research (Barrett et al., 2005; Whysall et al., 2006), combinations of open
and closed questions were developed. In some cases several questions were asked at
each stage to elicit sufficient information to identify employees’ stage of change. The
following core questions were asked in this order until a negative response was
obtained. The last positive response indicated the employee’s perception of their
organisation’s stage of readiness for change.
Are you aware of any work-related road safety risk? (Yes = continue, No = pre-
contemplation)
Are you planning to take any action to reduce work-related road safety risk in the
next 6 months? (Yes = continue, No = pre-contemplation)
Do you have any definite plans to reduce work-related road safety risk in the next
month? (Yes = continue, No = contemplation)
Have you already taken any action to reduce work-related road safety risk? (Yes
= continue, No = preparation)
Are you currently taking any action to maintain work-related road safety within
your company? (Yes = maintenance, No = action)
Consistent with the descriptions provided in previous research (Barrett et al.,
2005; Velicer, Prochaska, Fava, Norman, & Redding, 1998), the current research
conceptualises the stage of change variable as a continuous variable. Unlike some
behaviour change measures that use a single discrete measure of outcome, where any
progress that does not reach criterion is not recognised, the stage of change model
provides a more sensitive measure of change progress. It is recognised that the stage
construct represents a temporal dimension and that change implies phenomena
occurring over time. Consistent with previous research, the current research
Work-Related Road Safety
134
conceptualises stage of change as a process involving progress through a series of
five stages.
Interview participants were also asked to comment on any work-related road
safety initiatives they were aware of that their organisation was intending to, or
already engaging in.
To explore employees’ perceptions in relation to safety ownership, several
questions were incorporated into the interview schedule. All participants were asked
to identify the position of the person primarily responsible for managing work-
related road safety in their organisation. To explore the extent to which safety was
shared across members of the organisation, all participants were also presented with
a list of seven task categories and asked to indicate the positions of anyone in their
organisation who was accepting responsibility for actioning the safety tasks with
respect to each category. The task categories were selected based on previous
research findings in the construction industry that identified links between the
categories and workplace safety (Dingsdag et al., 2006).
The task categories enquired about in the interviews comprised: proactively
identifying, assessing and determining appropriate controls for OHS hazards and
risks; communicating and consulting with stakeholders regarding OHS risks;
monitoring, reporting and evaluating safety program effectiveness; engaging with
subcontractors in OHS performance management; identifying and implementing
relevant components of the OHS and workers compensation management systems;
understanding and applying workers compensation and case management principles;
and providing leadership and management to staff and subcontractors in OHS
performance. To identify if differences existed within the organisations in regards to
the approach taken to managing road risks as compared to other workplace risks,
participants were asked to indicate the positions accepting responsibility for
Work-Related Road Safety
135
actioning the tasks in relation to both overall OHS and then more specifically with
respect to work-related road safety.
As noted in Chapter Three, an employee version and a manager version of the
interview was developed. In addition to the above questions, managers were also
asked to review a list of 39 safety management tasks. As described in the literature
review in Chapter Four, these tasks have been identified in previous research
(Dingsdag et al., 2006) as critical to the management of OH&S performance. The list
of safety management tasks enquired about can be viewed in the interview schedule
presented in Appendix H. After reviewing the list, managers were asked to indicate
the minimum (rather than best practice) level of competency required within their
organisation to manage work-related road safety using a scale from one to three. A
rating of one indicted that full understanding was required. A rating of two indicated
that a working knowledge and awareness was required. Finally, a rating of three
indicated that the competency was not required at the minimal level or was not
relevant to managing work-related road safety in their organisation.
5.3.3 Procedure
After piloting the interview process and content, face-to-face interviews were
conducted in private offices on the premises of each organisation. Participation was
voluntary and written consent was obtained from all participants. Employees were
interviewed individually to minimise any contamination of data arising from
potential group bias. Each interview lasted between 30 and 60 mins. Upon
completion of the interviews, key points and significant statements were identified
through reviewing the notes taken by the researcher in combination with the
verbatim transcripts.
5.4 Questionnaire
This section describes the study three participant demographics, questionnaire
content and procedure.
Work-Related Road Safety
136
5.4.1 Participant demographics
A total of 679 participants took part in the questionnaire. The participants
were a convenience sample, determined by the cooperating organisational
representatives. Participants ranged in age from 18 years to 65 years (M = 42, SD =
11). There was a relatively even distribution of male (58 percent) and female (42
percent) participants. A majority of the participants (48 percent) drove between one
and 10 hours per week for work-related purposes. Thirty-one percent of participants
drove between 11-20 hours, and 13 percent drove in excess of 21 hours. Four percent
of participants reported not engaging in any driving for work purposes on a weekly
basis.
5.4.2 Content
Items for study three were administered as part of section two (describe your
work environment) and section three (test your driving behaviour) of the larger
research project questionnaire. A copy of the questionnaire can be viewed in
Appendix C. The relevant content of sections two and three of the questionnaire is
discussed below.
In section two, participants were encouraged to describe their work
environment in relation to the fleet safety climate, stages of change, and safety
ownership. Fleet safety climate, stages of change, and safety ownership data were
collected for use in the current study as independent variables.
Given the real-world context that the data was collected within, the researcher
was limited by time restrictions imposed by the participating organisations for their
employees to complete the questionnaire. To achieve a brief but psychometrically
valid questionnaire, the 36 item fleet safety climate scale used in previous research
(Banks & Davey, 2005) was reduced to 24 items. In modifying the scale, the purpose
of the scale and the factor structures that emerged in previous research were
Work-Related Road Safety
137
reviewed. The focus of the previous research was to examine the relationship
between fleet safety climate and driver education, therefore there were three items
that related specifically to driver education. As the purpose of the current study was
to explore the relationship between fleet safety climate and road safety outcomes the
author removed the education specific items used in the previous study. The author
also removed several items from each of the factors. Items were selected for removal
based on their low factor loadings. For example the item ‘Employees can easily
identify the relevant procedure for each job’ was removed as it emerged with the
lowest loading .47 on factor one (management commitment). Refer to Appendix C to
view the brief fleet safety climate scale included in the current questionnaire and
Appendix J to view a list of the items removed from the original fleet safety climate
scale. Participants were presented with the list of the 24 items and asked to indicate
how much they thought the practices applied to their organisation. Items were
measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from one representing never to five
representing always. All factors were calculated such that higher scores indicated
safer perceptions.
To explore differences in stages of change, a forced choice question was
developed based on adaptations from previous research (Barrett et al., 2005; Whysall
et al., 2006). Participants were presented with the question “How would you describe
your approach to work-related road risks?” and asked to select one of the following
response options: “I’m not exposed to risk and I’m not considering changing my
driving behaviour” (indicating the pre-contemplative stage); “I’m planning to take
action to reduce my risk in the next 6 months” (indicating the contemplative stage);
“I have definite plans to reduce my risk in the next month” (indicating the
preparation stage); “I have already taken actions to reduce my risk” (indicating the
action stage); or “I’m continuing to take actions to reduce my risk” (indicating the
maintenance stage). As described in section 5.3.2, consistent with the descriptions
provided in previous research (Barrett et al., 2005; Velicer, Prochaska, Fava,
Work-Related Road Safety
138
Norman, & Redding, 1998), the current research conceptualises the stage of change
variable as a continuous variable.
To explore differences in safety ownership, two items were utilised. These
items were developed to further investigate previous research findings that suggest
that the department and level of authority of the person taking primary ownership of
safety tasks (Barrett et al., 2005; Bentley & Haslam, 2001; Simard & Marchand,
1995) and the extent to which ownership of safety tasks is shared (Dingsdag et al.,
2007; Dingsdag et al., 2006) may be related to organisational safety outcomes.
Participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the following two
statements. The first statement “The people predominantly responsible for road
safety in my organisation carry the necessary authority and respect to achieve
compliance” was developed to assess employees’ perceptions in regards to the
person primarily responsible for managing road risks in their organisation. The
second statement “Responsibility for achieving work-related road safety is shared
across members in my organisation” was developed to assess employees’ perceptions
of the extent to which safety was shared across members of the organisation. Items
were measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from one representing strongly
disagree to five representing strongly agree.
In section three, participants were encouraged to examine their work-related
driving behaviour using a modified version of the Manchester Driver Behaviour
Questionnaire (DBQ) and to provide some demographic details. Consistent with
previous work-related road safety research, the DBQ (Wills et al., 2006) and
demographic items including self-reported driving infringements and incidents
(Freeman et al., 2007) were collected for use in the current study as dependent
variables. Study three used the same DBQ, driving infringements and vehicle
incident items as study one. Therefore only a brief overview of their content is
provided in this section. The reader is referred back to section 2.3.3 for more
information on these items.
Work-Related Road Safety
139
The modified DBQ was introduced in the current questionnaire with the
statement that “even the best drivers can make mistakes, do foolish things, or bend
the rules while driving. For each statement below, please indicate how often over the
past 6 months this kind of thing has happened to you while driving for work
purposes.” Respondents were presented with a list of 34 items and were required to
indicate how often they commit each of the behaviours on a seven-point Likert scale.
Response options ranged from one representing never, to seven representing always.
Refer to Appendix C for a complete copy of the questionnaire.
Demographic details pertaining to participant’s involvement in work-related
road incidents were collected to allow exploration of the relationships between
organisational environments and road safety outcomes. Incident involvement was
measured in two ways. Firstly, by the frequency of lost demerit points or fines for
traffic offences (excluding parking offences) incurred during the past 12 months
while driving for work. Secondly, by the frequency of crash involvement (any
incident involving a motor vehicle that resulted in damage to a vehicle or other
property, or injury regardless of who was considered to be ‘at fault’) experienced
during the past 12 months while driving for work. The collection of crash
involvement and accumulation of demerit point data as measures of incident
involvement is consistent with previous work-related road safety research (Wishart et
al., 2006).
5.4.3 Procedure
After piloting the questionnaire to enhance item clarity, the online
questionnaire was distributed to a sample of employees from the four organisations.
To ensure participant anonymity all completed questionnaires were sent directly to
the researcher. Upon submitting their questionnaire, all participants received instant
Work-Related Road Safety
140
and personalised feedback in appreciation of their time spent participating in this
study. The researcher generated a range of feedback statements and programmed
these to be selected and displayed to participants based on their questionnaire
responses.
With respect to the ‘Describe your work environment’ section, participant’s
feedback was determined by their response to the first item “How would you
describe your approach to work related road risks?” Participants who selected a
response that indicated they were in a pre-contemplative stage of change obtained the
following feedback “Based on the responses you provided it appears that you do not
consider driving to be a high risk activity for you. You may benefit most from road
safety initiatives that focus on raising awareness of work-related driving risks. For
example you may be surprised to find that worldwide approximately 50 million
people are injured and an additional 1.2 million people are killed annually in road
crashes. Motor vehicle incidents are the most common cause of work compensated
deaths in Australia so please drive carefully.”
Participants who selected a response that indicated they were in a
contemplative stage of change obtained the following feedback “Based on the
responses you provided it appears that you are keen to increase your work-related
road safety. You may benefit most from road safety initiatives that outline what is
involved in adopting safer driving behaviours. Motor vehicle incidents are the most
common cause of work compensated deaths in Australia so please drive carefully.”
Participants who selected a response that indicated they were in a preparation
stage of change obtained the following feedback “Based on the responses you
provided it appears that you are intending to take action in the very near future to
increase your work-related road safety. You may benefit most from road safety
initiatives that provide practical information and support in learning new safe driving
Work-Related Road Safety
141
skills. Motor vehicle incidents are the most common cause of work compensated
deaths in Australia so please drive carefully.”
Participants who selected a response that indicated they were in an action
stage of change obtained the following feedback “Based on the responses you
provided it appears that you are taking steps to increase your work-related road
safety. You may benefit most from road safety initiatives that provide ongoing
advice, feedback and support for your safe driving. Motor vehicle incidents are the
most common cause of work compensated deaths in Australia so please drive
carefully.”
Participants who selected a response that indicated they were in a
maintenance stage of change obtained the following feedback “Based on the
responses you provided it appears that you are continuing to take steps to increase
your work-related road safety. You may benefit most from road safety initiatives that
provide ongoing advice, feedback and support for your safe driving. Motor vehicle
incidents are the most common cause of work compensated deaths in Australia so
please drive carefully.”
Interview data was analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences version 15. Before commencing analyses, the data was screened for
accuracy. An examination of histograms confirmed the absence of outliers and an
examination of residuals scatterplots confirmed that the assumptions of normality,
linearity and homoscedasticity were not violated. The sample size was considered
sufficient as the cases-to-IV ratio exceed the level of 40 to 1 as recommended by
Tabachnick and Fidell (2001) for conducting statistical regression analyses.
When conducting post hoc comparisons, a Bonferroni adjustment was applied
to the significance level. As only a small number of planned comparisons were being
made an alpha value of .025 was selected to reduce the probability of making a type I
Work-Related Road Safety
142
error. In applying this more stringent level of significance, the author recognises that
the associated loss of power may result in true differences in the treatment population
not being identified. Details of the specific analyses conducted are presented in the
next chapter which details the results from study three.
Work-Related Road Safety
143
Chapter 6: Study three – Organisational factors results and discussion
6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 145
6.2 Fleet safety climate ......................................................................................... 146
6.2.1 Questionnaire Results ...................................................................... 146
6.2.1.1 Factor analysis ................................................................................. 146
6.2.1.2 Mean and standard deviation scores ................................................ 149
6.2.1.3 Correlations and regressions ............................................................ 150
6.2.2 Interview Results ............................................................................. 158
6.2.2.1 Management commitment ............................................................... 158
6.2.2.2 Level of trust between employees and management ........................ 159
6.2.2.3 Communication in relation to work-related road safety .................. 160
6.2.2.4 Level of work demands .................................................................... 161
6.2.2.5 Appropriateness of safety policies and procedures .......................... 161
6.2.3 Discussion ...................................................................................... 162
6.2.3.1 Road safety outcomes ..................................................................... 162
6.2.3.2 The influence of fleet safety climate on road safety outcomes ........ 164
6.2.3.3 Applications .................................................................................... 165
6.3 Stages of change .............................................................................................. 166
6.3.1 Questionnaire Results ...................................................................... 166
6.3.1.1 Mean and standard deviation scores ................................................ 166
6.3.1.2 Correlations and regressions ............................................................ 167
6.3.2 Interview Results ............................................................................. 170
6.3.2.1 Stage of change classifications ......................................................... 170
6.3.2.2 Variance in stages of change ........................................................... 170
6.3.2.3 Perceived initiative effectiveness and stage of change ................... 172
6.3.3 Discussion ..................................................................................... 173
6.3.3.1 Stage of change framework ............................................................. 173
6.3.3.2 Perceived initiative effectiveness ..................................................... 174
6.3.3.3 Road safety outcomes ..................................................................... 175
6.3.3.4 Applications .................................................................................... 176
Work-Related Road Safety
144
6.4 Safety Ownership ............................................................................................ 179
6.4.1 Questionnaire Results ...................................................................... 179
6.4.1.1 Mean and standard deviation scores ................................................ 179
6.4.1.2 Correlations and regressions ............................................................ 179
6.4.2 Interview Results ............................................................................. 184
6.4.2.1 Position accepting primary ownership of managing occupational
road risks .......................................................................................... 184
6.4.2.2 Shared ownership of managing occupational road risks .................. 186
6.4.2.3 Road risks as compared to other OH&S risks .................................. 187
6.4.2.4 Competencies required for managing occupational road risks ........ 188
6.4.3 Discussion ..................................................................................... 189
6.4.3.1 Ownership of safety management tasks ........................................... 189
6.4.3.2 Road safety outcomes ...................................................................... 191
6.4.3.3 Applications ..................................................................................... 191
6.5 Chapter conclusion .......................................................................................... 193
Work-Related Road Safety
145
Chapter 6: Study three – Organisational factors results and discussion
6.1 Introduction
The purpose of study three was to identify optimal work environments for
managing road risks. This was achieved by exploring the influence of three
organisational factors on road safety outcomes. These organisational factors
included: fleet safety climate; stage of change; and safety ownership. The road safety
outcomes explored included: driver behaviours; traffic infringements; and crash
involvement.
This chapter firstly presents the findings from the questionnaire data. Mean and
standard deviation scores are presented for each of the organisational factors.
Bivariate correlation scores between each of the organisational factors and the road
safety outcomes are then presented. To examine the utility of the organisational
factors for predicting road safety outcomes, regression analyses were conducted in
relation to driver behaviours and crash involvement. As detailed in Study Two,
driver behaviours were measured using the 34-item modified driver behaviour
questionnaire. A factor analysis of this scale extracted the following four factors:
errors; fatigue and distractions; violations; and unsafe driving preparations. As
previously noted in Chapter Two, factor four failed to achieve an acceptable
reliability coefficient cut-off level of .70 (De Vaus, 2002) and was therefore
excluded from further analyses. Crash involvement was a dichotomous variable with
employees grouped according to whether they reported being involved in no vehicle
incidents, or one or more vehicle incidents, while driving for work during the past 12
months. Due to the relatively small number of participants who reported obtaining
traffic infringements in the last 12 months (N = 58), it was not possible to implement
a logistic regression to reliably analyse on this outcome measure. Previous research
in the area of occupational road safety has also acknowledged difficulties in reliably
analysing outcome data due to only a small proportion of the sample reporting
infringement and incident involvement (Freeman, et al., 2007; Wishart et al., 2006).
Work-Related Road Safety
146
Interview data is then presented to further explore the influence of fleet safety
climate, stage of change and safety ownership on road safety outcomes.
6.2 Fleet safety climate
6.2.1 Questionnaire Results
To investigate employees’ perceptions regarding their organisations work-
related road safety climate, the current research utilised a brief fleet safety climate
scale developed by the author.
6.2.1.1 Factor Analysis
An exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the brief 24 item
questionnaire. Using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure (msa = .928) and Bartlett’s
Test of Sphericity (p>.001) factorability was confirmed. Principal components
analysis with oblimin rotation revealed five factors exceeding Kaiser’s criterion of
eigenvalues > 1. Cattell’s scree plot also strongly supported a five factor extraction.
The five-factor solution accounted for 68.8% of the total variance with factors one
and five appearing to be moderate to highly correlated, (r = .66) and factors two and
four appearing to be moderate to highly correlated, (r = .51).
The first factor accounted for approximately 40% of the total variance and
contained 7 items. A majority of the items related to management commitment, for
example ‘Management are committed to driver safety’ and ‘Management are
committed to motor vehicle safety’. The extraction of a management commitment
factor is consistent with previous fleet safety climate research (Banks et al., 2005;
Wills et al., 2006).
The second factor accounted for approximately 8% of the total variance and
contained five items relating to work demands. Work demand items including
Work-Related Road Safety
147
‘workload is reasonably balanced’ and ‘time schedules for completing work projects
are realistic’ were identified as the strongest contributors to the factor. The extraction
of a work demands factor is consistent with previous fleet safety climate research
(Banks et al., 2005; Wills et al., 2006).
The third factor accounted for approximately 6% of the total variance. This
factor contained three items relating to relationships. Relationship items including
‘employees trust management’ and ‘management trust employees’ were identified as
the strongest contributors to the factor. The extraction of a relationships factor is
consistent with previous fleet safety climate research (Banks et al., 2005; Wills et al.,
2006).
The fourth factor accounted for approximately 3% of the total variance and
contained five items relating to appropriateness of rules. Examples of items that
loaded highly on this factor included ‘safety rules relating to the use of motor
vehicles can be followed without conflicting with work practices’ and ‘safety rules
relating to the use of motor vehicles are always practical. This finding is consistent
with previous research that identified the appropriateness of rules and education
(Banks et al., 2005) and safety rules (Wills et al., 2006) as a safety climate factor.
Finally, the fifth factor accounted for approximately 3% of the total variance
and contained seven items relating to communication. Examples of items that loaded
highly on this factor included ‘Safety problems and policies are openly discussed
between employees and managers/supervisors’ and ‘Changes in working procedures
and their effects on safety are effectively communicated to workers’. Again, this
finding is consistent with previous research (Banks et al., 2005; Wills et al., 2006)
which has identified communication as a safety climate factor.
The resulting factor loadings of greater than .3 for the modified fleet safety
climate questionnaire are shown in Table 5. As can be seen in the table, three items
Work-Related Road Safety
148
cross loaded on more than one factor. These items contained similar weightings
across two factors. Overall, reliability analyses revealed that the fleet safety climate
questionnaire had a high internal reliability of .94. High internal reliability was also
observed for each of the factors. More specifically, observed reliability coefficients
for each of the factors was above the acceptable cut-off level of .70 (De Vaus, 2002).
The following coefficient alpha values were obtained for Factor One .93
(management commitment), Factor Two .89 (work demands), Factor Three .88
(relationships), Factor Four .79 (appropriateness of rules) and Factor Five .86
(communication).
Table 5 Factor structure of the modified fleet safety climate questionnaire
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5
Management are committed to driver safety .96
Management are committed to motor vehicle safety .86
Driver safety is seen as an important part of fleet
management in this organisation
.85
Driver safety is central to management’s values .73
Driver safety procedures complete and comprehensive .37 .33
An effective documentation management system
ensures the availability of vehicle safety procedures
.32
Workload is reasonably balanced .89
Time schedules for work projects are realistic .87
There is sufficient ‘thinking time’ to enable employees
to carry out their work to an adequate standard
.81
There are enough employees for the required work .71
Changes in workload or problems can be dealt with in
a way that does not affect driver safety
.44 .39
Employees trust management .79
Management trust employees .78
Work-Related Road Safety
149
Table 5 (Continued)
Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5
Good working relationships exist in this organisation .56
Safety rules do not conflict with work practices .73
Safety rules are practical .69
Safety rules are followed even when a job is rushed .50
Safety procedures match actual practice .30 .30
Safety problems and policies are openly discussed .84
Changes in working procedures are communicated .75
Safety policies are communicated to workers .63
Employees are consulted for safety improvements .56
Employees are encouraged to support each other .45
Employees are told when changes are made to the
working environment such as vehicle procedures
.42
6.2.1.2 Mean and standard deviation scores
Mean and standard deviation scores were calculated for overall fleet safety
climate and for each of the five extracted factors. For all fleet safety climate factors,
potential responses ranged from one to five, with higher scores indicating safer
perceptions. The mean overall fleet safety climate score was 3.33 (SD = .67). Mean
scores remained relatively consistent across the five factors. More specifically, the
scores were as follows: Factor One - management commitment (M = 3.47, SD =
.88); Factor Two - work demands (M = 3.13, SD = .89); Factor Three - relationships
(M = 3.15, SD = .89); Factor Four - appropriateness of rules (M = 3.55, SD = .72);
and Factor Five - communication (M = 3.27, SD = .80). Overall these means indicate
that participants perceived a moderate level of organisational support for safety.
Work-Related Road Safety
150
6.2.1.3 Correlations and regressions
Bivariate correlation scores were calculated for fleet safety climate variables,
key demographic variables and road safety outcome variables. These statistics are
presented below in Table 6. It can be observed from the table that the correlations
between the safety climate factors ranged from moderate to strong (r = .41 to .78).
Age was significantly negatively correlated with all driver behaviour measures,
indicating that younger drivers in the sample reported a higher tendency towards
unsafe road behaviours. The number of hours driven per week was significantly
positively correlated with all driver behaviour measures. This finding indicates that
employees with greater exposure to driving reported a higher tendency towards
unsafe road behaviours.
Driver behaviours and vehicle crashes
The overall fleet safety climate scale shows a significant negative relationship
to the overall driver behaviour scale. This suggests that organisational support for
road safety is associated with employees engaging in safer driving behaviours. A non
significant relationship was observed between the overall fleet safety climate scale
and employees self-reported crash involvement. Therefore follow up analyses were
only conducted with respect to self-reported driver behaviours. To examine the
utility of the fleet safety climate scale for predicting driver behaviours, a hierarchical
regression was conducted. Details of this analysis are presented below.
Work-Related Road Safety
151
Table 6 Bivariate correlations between fleet safety climate variables, key demographic variables and road safety outcome variables
Overall
Driver
Behaviour
Errors
Fatigue
and
distractions
Violations Vehicle
Crashes2 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
1. Age -.23** -.18** -.17** -.25** .04 - -.33** -.31 .12** .20** .14** -.08* .07 .12**
2. Gender 1 .02 .03 .04 -.01 .08* - -.09* -.17** -.25** -.23** .16** -.10* -.17**
3. Hours driven
per week .20** .11** .27** .07* .10** - -.04 -.04 -.03 -.09* -.03 .02
4. Overall Fleet
Safety Climate -.17** -.07 -.24** -.07 .05 - .89** .77** .62** .80** .86**
5. Management
commitment -.15** -.07 -.19** -.07 .03 - .55** .41** .67** .78**
6. Work
demands -.14** -.06 -.22** -.04 .05 - .45** .65** .49**
7. Relationships -.05 .01 -.12** .01 .12** - .42** .41**
8.
Appropriateness
of rules
-.21** -.10* -.25** -.14** .00 - .60**
9.
Communication -.11** -.05 -.16** -.04 .02 -
Note: *p < .05 **p < .001
1 1 = Male, 2 = Female. 2 1 = No crashes, 2 = One or more crashes
Work-Related Road Safety
152
Overall driver behaviours
A hierarchical regression was conducted to investigate the combined capacity
of the safety climate factors to predict overall self-reported work-related driver
behaviour. Employee age and gender, along with the average hours driven each week
for work, were entered as demographic control variables at step 1. Hours driven each
week, rather than kilometres driven each year, was selected as the measure of driving
exposure as the author believed it would best reflect actual driving exposure. When
making this decision the author considered that although organisations A, B and D
have a fairly balanced mixture of urban and rural work sites, organisation C is
predominantly urban based. The urban road environment which organisation C
drivers are typically exposed to is likely to have lower speed limits and higher traffic
congestion than rural environments. It was for this reason, the author believed that
use of the kilometres driven each year data might underestimate actual exposure for
drivers from organisation C.
The fleet safety climate variable was then entered at step 2 of the hierarchical
regression analysis to examine its ability to predict work-related driving behaviours
over and above the control factors.
As can be seen in Table 7, the first block comprising demographic and
exposure variables was significant in predicting overall driver behaviour (F(1, 438)
19.87 = p < .001) and accounted for 10% of the overall variance. The second block,
comprising overall fleet safety climate, was also significant (F(1, 437) 9.45 =
p < .01) but only uniquely accounted for an additional two percent in overall variance
in the final step. The overall model (with all variables entered) significantly predicted
overall driver behaviour (F(4, 437) 14.83 = p < .001) and accounted for 11%
(adjusted R2) of the variance total. Although significant, it is important to recognise
that 11% is a relatively low amount of variance being explained. Inspection of the
Beta (β) coefficients revealed that age (p < .001), hours per week (p < .001) and
Work-Related Road Safety
153
overall fleet safety climate (p < .01) made a significant contribution to the overall
regression model.
Table 7 Hierarchical regression for overall fleet safety climate as a
predictor of overall driver behaviour scores
B SE β R2 Adj R2 ΔR2
Block 1
Age -.01** .00 -.23
Gender -.07 .06 -.05
Hours per week .14** .03 .19
.10 .06
Block 2
Overall fleet safety climate -.13** -.04 -.14** .02
.12 .11 .02 Note: *p < .05 **p < .01
To precisely identify which aspects of fleet safety climate were associated with
overall driver behaviour, additional correlation analyses were conducted between
each of the fleet safety climate factors and overall driver behaviour. Follow-up
hierarchical regression analyses were also conducted to investigate the capacity of
each of the safety climate factors to predict overall driving behaviour. In each of
these analyses employee age and gender, along with the average hours driven each
week for work, were entered as demographic control variables at step 1. A safety
climate factor was then entered at step 2 of the hierarchical regression analyses to
examine its ability to predict driving behaviours over and above the control factors.
Details pertaining to these correlation and regression analyses are provided below.
As can be seen in Table 6, all of the fleet safety climate factors, except for
relationships, had significant negative relationships with overall driver behaviour.
Work-Related Road Safety
154
This suggests that safer driving behaviours are associated with organisational
climates with: high management commitment; support for managing work demands;
appropriate safety rules; and safety communication. When fleet safety climate factors
were separately entered as predictor variables in step two, hierarchical regressions
revealed that all of the factors, except for relationships, were significant predictors
over and above demographic and exposure variables of overall driving behaviours. It
is important to note that although these factors were significant predictors, they only
accounted for between one and four percent of additional variance. Table 8 provides
a summary of these analyses.
Table 8 Summary table of hierarchical regressions for fleet safety climate
factors as predictors of overall driver behaviour scores
R2 Adj R2 ΔR2
Follow-up analysis 1
Block 1 - Control variables .10** .10
Block 2 - Management commitment .11* .10 .01*
Follow-up analysis 2
Block 1 - Control variables .10** .10
Block 2 – Work demands .11* .10 .01*
Follow-up analysis 3
Block 1 - Control variables .10** .10
Block 2 – Relationships .10 .10 .00
Follow-up analysis 4
Block 1 - Control variables .10** .10
Block 2 – Rules .14** .13 .04**
Work-Related Road Safety
155
Table 8 (Continued)
Follow-up analysis 5
Block 1 - Control variables .10** .10
Block 2 – Communication .12* .11 .01* Note: *p < .05 **p < .01
Driver behaviour factors
To explore which aspects of fleet safety climate were associated with which
aspects of driver behaviours, additional correlation analyses were conducted between
each of the fleet safety climate factors and each of the driver behaviour factors.
Follow-up hierarchical regression analyses were also conducted to investigate the
capacity of each of the safety climate factors to predict each of the driving behaviour
factors. In each of these analyses, employee age and gender, along with the average
hours driven each week for work, were entered as control variables at step 1. A
safety climate factor was then entered at step 2 of the hierarchical regression analyses
to examine its ability to predict work-related driving behaviours over and above the
control factors. Details pertaining to these correlation and regression analyses are
provided below.
Driving errors
Appropriateness of rules was the only fleet safety climate factor found to be
significantly related to the first driver behaviour factor. Appropriateness of rules was
negatively related to errors. This finding indicates that employees who perceived
their organisation to have appropriate road safety rules and procedures reported a
lower tendency to make driving errors. When fleet safety climate factors were
separately entered as predictor variables in step two, hierarchical regressions
revealed that none of the factors were significant independent predictors of driving
errors.
Work-Related Road Safety
156
Fatigue and distractions
The overall fleet safety climate scale and all of the fleet safety climate factors
were found to have significant negative relationships with the second driver
behaviour factor. This finding indicates that employees who perceived their
organisations climate to be supportive of road safety, reported lower tendencies to
engage in driving while fatigued and lower multitasking while driving. When overall
fleet safety climate and each of the fleet safety climate factors were separately
entered as predictor variables in step two, hierarchical regressions revealed that all of
the factors were significant independent predictors of driving behaviours pertaining
to fatigue and distraction. Again it is important to note that although these factors
were significant predictors, the amount of additional variance being explained is only
between two and five percent. Table 9 provides a summary of these analyses.
Table 9 Summary table of hierarchical regressions for fleet safety climate
factors as predictors of fatigue and distraction scores
R2 Adj R2 ΔR2
Follow-up analysis 1
Block 1 - Control variables .10** .09
Block 2 – Fleet safety climate .14** .13 .04**
Follow-up analysis 2
Block 1 - Control variables .10** .10
Block 2 - Management commitment .12** .12 .02**
Follow-up analysis 3
Block 1 - Control variables .10** .09
Block 2 – Work demands .13** .12 .04**
Work-Related Road Safety
157
Table 9 (Continued)
R2 Adj R2 ΔR2
Follow-up analysis 4
Block 1 - Control variables .10** .10
Block 2 – Relationships .11* .11 .05*
Follow-up analysis 5
Block 1 - Control variables .10** .10
Block 2 – Rules .15** .15 .05**
Follow-up analysis 6
Block 1 – Control variables .11** .10
Block 2 – Communication .13** .12 .02** Note: *p < .05 **p < .01
Driving violations
Appropriateness of rules was the only fleet safety climate factor found to be
significantly related to the third driver behaviour factor. Appropriateness of rules was
negatively related to violations (r = -.14, p < .001). This finding indicates that
employees who perceived their organisation to have appropriate road safety rules and
procedures reported a lower tendency to engage in driving violations. When fleet
safety climate factors were separately entered as predictor variables in step two,
hierarchical regressions revealed that appropriateness of rules was the only factor
found to independently significantly predict driving violations. Again, although
appropriateness of rules was a significant predictor, it only accounted for two percent
of additional variance. Table 10 provides a summary of this analysis.
Work-Related Road Safety
158
Table 10 Summary table of hierarchical regressions for appropriateness of
rules as a predictor of driving violation scores
R2 Adj R2 ΔR2
Follow-up analysis 1
Block 1 - Control variables .07** .06
Block 2 – Rules .08** .08 .02** Note: *p < .05 **p < .01
6.2.2 Interview Results
To further explore the influence of fleet safety climate on road safety
outcomes, interviews were conducted with employees and managers. The interviews
explored participants’ perceptions in regards to the influence, or lack of influence,
fleet safety climate had on occupational road risk management. Participants were
asked to comment on the following aspects of fleet safety climate: management
commitment; level of trust between employees and management; communication in
relation to work-related road safety; level of work demands; and appropriateness of
safety policies and procedures. Participants’ perceptions are described below.
6.2.2.1 Management commitment
An analysis of the interview transcripts suggests that participants believed
that management commitment was crucial to the effective management of work-
related road risks. This belief is exemplified through the following statement from a
manager “if you have your executive team on board, it just happens.” Perceptions of
management commitment appeared to be based on participants’ observations of
whether management prioritised safety through work scheduling and resource
allocation in the forms of money and time.
Participants described how management commitment influenced road safety
outcomes in their organisation. In regards to work scheduling, one manager
Work-Related Road Safety
159
explained how she scheduled her team’s meetings, training and appointments to
minimise the need for employees to drive at higher risk times such as dusk or after a
long day. For example she commented “I don't really want them driving at
night…most training events that involve people from other areas will finish at three
in the afternoon so that people have that time to at least get the majority of their
driving done before five. In regards to resource allocation, another manager described
how his organisation would only commit limited resources to coordinating road risk
management projects and funding initiatives. He commented that “the luxury of
working for a year on it as a project, you don't get that here” and explained how he
perceived that low commitment from senior management reduced his ability to
effectively manage occupational road risks.
6.2.2.2 Level of trust between employees and management
Perceptions of trust varied between participants. Participants who reported
high levels of trust expressed high commitment towards engaging in safer behaviours
and encouraging co-workers to also behave safely. These participants described how
employees and managers worked together to enhance occupational road safety. For
example one employee commented “it's part of the organisational culture that says
that they're striving to really create a community kind of atmosphere in work. So this
is our family. So we all look after each other. So it's just that kind of mutual
responsibility feeling that's there.”
In comparison, participants who reported low levels of trust expressed
cynicism and frustration in relation to occupational road risk management initiatives.
For example one employee perceived management’s motives behind an initiative to
be purely “about management looking like they care or looking like they're doing
something.” Another employee described how he believed that the presence of a
company phone number displayed on the work vehicle for community members to
comment on employees driving did not make employees’ drive safer as community
compliments and complaints did not match actual driving behaviours. Based on his
Work-Related Road Safety
160
observations of how previous incidents had been managed in his organisation, the
employee commented “Normally the reports are unjustified, but staff are threatened
with dismissal if ongoing reports are received. Staff are not allowed to correspond
with the complainer. Very one sided affair.” Although, participants who reported low
levels of trust appeared to be sceptical of some risk management initiatives, they did
not report engaging in less safe driving behaviours.
6.2.2.3 Communication in relation to work-related road safety
Participants believed that regular communication enhanced work-related road
safety. A range of communication methods were described including: one-on-one
discussions; meetings; presentations; emails; information bulletins on the intranet;
newsletters; and posters. Of these methods there appeared to be a preference for face-
to-face communication. This method was preferred because it conveyed to
employees that the message was genuine and that management considered it to be
important. For example, when describing how members of this team responded to
different communication methods, one employee commented that if “an individual
comes to talk to them they're more likely to listen.”
Participants also believed that the presence of good communication systems
facilitated the flow of safety information that was necessary to enhance road safety
outcomes. Several participants commented on how the inclusion of road safety issues
in monthly meetings and quarterly OH&S meetings allowed important safety
information to flow from managers to employees and also from employees to
managers. For example one employee described how “the monthly meetings always
include road safety issues and alerts to promote safe driving.” Our organisation is
always trying to achieve good road safety and encourages drivers by supplying all
necessary information.
Work-Related Road Safety
161
6.2.2.4 Level of work demands
A majority of participants strongly believed that high work demands were
associated with reduced safety outcomes. For example one participant commented
that “we're just trying to do so much good stuff. That's the thing. And you can't say
no because it's good stuff… People just don't slack off and that can contribute to a
risk thing because people are tired and busy and so more likely to have
concentration lapses and all that sort of stuff.” Participants described feeling work
demands with respect to both time pressure and emotionally draining job tasks.
Several participants also perceived that work demands influenced some drivers more
than others. For example one driver commented “I guess it's an individual thing.
Some people get hyped up, others don't worry about it.”
It is important to note that work demands may not stem solely from
management but can also result from personal goals or client needs. For example one
employee described how a fear of client abuse for arriving late regularly lead him to
engage in driving behaviors that he believed were unsafe. He commented, “They're
going to yell at me. I've got to get there on time……So you drive that little bit faster
often with children in the car possibly just to try to make it on time and avoid that
agro from the clients, yeah, which is a pretty scary thing. I've never had anyone in
management or any other staff member have the pressure for them to be there on
time. Our clients are fairly demanding in most respects and if you're late a minute or
30 seconds, that's an in for them to start having a go at you.”
6.2.2.5 Appropriateness of safety policies and procedures
Participants perceived that the presence of safety policies and procedures lead
to greater safety outcomes. Some participants believed that safety policies influenced
safety outcomes through conveying managements’ “commitment to driver safety”.
Other participants felt coerced into driving safer as a result of policies. These
participants believed that policies were implemented mainly as a means of mitigating
managements’ legal exposure to risk. For example one employee stated “obviously
Work-Related Road Safety
162
everything is in place because if you ever do anything wrong they are going to come
down and say, "Did you do this, this, this, this, this and this?"
Many participants commented on the appropriateness of policies and
procedures. Participants described how compliance with safety procedures was
higher when policies were current and achievable. For example one manager
commented that “I think our processes, procedures, if anything in recent times, were
too stringent and gold-plated…we're working harder and have other pressures and
you have to keep things simple. If you over-complicate things, people won't do it.”
This manager stressed that it was important to keep “things simplistic, risk-based,
giving a genuine understanding of why we're doing things.”
6.2.3 Discussion
6.2.3.1 Road safety outcomes
Study three builds upon recently conducted work-related road safety research
by exploring whether differences in fleet safety climate relate to self-reported
occupational road safety outcomes. Bivariate correlation scores revealed that the
overall fleet safety climate scale had a significant negative relationship with the
overall driver behaviour scale. Follow-up analyses revealed that all of the fleet safety
climate factors, except for relationships, had significant negative relationships with
overall driver behaviour. This suggests that organisational climates with high
management commitment, support for managing work demands, appropriate safety
rules and safety communication are associated with employees who engage in safer
driving behaviours.
Regression analyses were conducted to investigate the capacity of fleet safety
climate to predict road safety outcomes, over and above demographic and exposure
variables. Overall fleet safety climate emerged as a significant independent predictor
of overall driving behaviours. Similarly, all of the factors, except for relationships,
Work-Related Road Safety
163
were significant independent predictors of overall driving behaviours. These models
indicate that as participants’ perceptions of safety climate increase, the corresponding
likelihood of them engaging in safer driving behaviours increases.
Although the regression analyses indicated the relationships were not strong,
the finding in the current study that perceptions of higher fleet safety climate were
associated with safer driving behaviours is consistent with previous research that has
found enhanced safety outcomes to be associated with: management commitment
(Newnam et al., 2008; Walton, 1999); appropriate safety rules and procedures (Lee,
1998; Mearns et al., 1998); and safety communication (Kivimaki, et al., 1995). It is
also consistent with previous research that has found unsafe behaviours to be
associated with perceived high work demands (Mullen, 2004; Wright, 1986).
To explore which aspects of fleet safety climate were associated with which
aspects of driver behaviours, additional analyses were conducted between each of the
fleet safety climate factors and each of the driver behaviour factors. In regards to
driving errors, bivariate correlation scores revealed employees who perceived their
organisation to have appropriate road safety rules and procedures reported a lower
tendency to make driving errors. Regression analyses revealed that none of the fleet
safety climate factors were significant independent predictors of driving errors.
In regards to driving violations, bivariate correlation scores revealed that
employees who perceived their organisation to have appropriate road safety rules and
procedures reported a lower tendency to commit driving violations. Regression
analyses revealed that appropriateness of rules was the only fleet safety climate
factor that emerged as a significant independent predictor of driving violations, over
and above the control variables.
In regards to driving behaviours relating to fatigue and distractions, a negative
correlation was observed with the overall fleet safety climate scale and all of the fleet
Work-Related Road Safety
164
safety climate factors. This finding indicates that employees who perceived their
organisation’s climate to be supportive of road safety, reported lower tendencies to
engage in driving while fatigued and lower multitasking while driving. Furthermore,
regression analyses revealed that overall fleet safety climate, and all of the fleet
safety climate factors emerged as significant independent predictors of driving
behaviours relating to fatigue and distraction, although the amount of additional
variance that they explained was small.
6.2.3.2 The influence of fleet safety climate on road safety outcomes
Examination of the interview results provides insights into how aspects of fleet
safety climate may influence road safety outcomes. In regards to management
commitment, the findings from study three suggest that managers have the potential
to enhance road safety outcomes through allocating sufficient resources to manage
occupational road risks and through the scheduling of work tasks to reduce driving
exposure at higher risk times.
In regards to trust, the findings suggest that managers have the potential to
enhance road safety outcomes through fostering a supportive environment of mutual
responsibility. To achieve an environment where employees feel comfortable in
reporting near miss incidents and are motivated to engage in safe behaviours, safety
issues should be resolved openly and fairly.
In regards to communication, the findings suggest that managers have the
potential to enhance road safety outcomes through developing good communication
systems to allow safety information to efficiently flow between employees and
managers. Participants reported a preference for face-to-face communication as this
method conveyed to them that the message was genuine and considered by
management to be important.
Work-Related Road Safety
165
In regards to work demands, the findings suggest that managers have the
potential to enhance road safety outcomes through ensuring that the work
responsibilities are achievable. An important finding from study three was that work
pressures may not stem solely from management, but can also be self or client
imposed. To address these work pressures, management may need to clearly
communicate to employees that safety is the top priority and to involve employees in
generating solutions to mitigate client pressures. For example, managers and
employees may discuss driving situations where employees feel pressured to engage
in unsafe driving and develop solutions such as phoning ahead to inform clients of a
new estimated time of arrival.
In regards to policies and procedures, the findings suggest that managers have
the potential to enhance road safety outcomes through developing appropriate work-
related road safety policies and procedures. It was believed that policies and
procedures needed to be current and achievable to influence employee compliance
with safe work practices.
6.2.3.3 Applications
Overall, the findings from study three suggest that organisations may have
more influence over employees’ driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue and
distractions, than driving behaviours pertaining to errors and violations.
Organisations may be able to reduce the likelihood of employees engaging in unsafe
driving as a result of fatigue or distractions through increasing aspects of fleet safety
climate including: management commitment; level of trust; safety communication;
appropriateness of work demands; and appropriateness of safety policies and
procedures. These aspects of fleet safety climate appear to have little influence over
drivers’ behaviours pertaining to errors and violations. This finding may suggest that
errors and violations are influenced more strongly by an employees’ personal style of
driving rather than the safety climate of their organisation.
Work-Related Road Safety
166
Based on the findings from study three, the author recommends that
organisations should aim to foster perceptions of high fleet safety climate. Advances
in occupational road safety may be achieved through: allocating sufficient resources
to manage occupational road risks; scheduling of work tasks to reduce driving
exposure at higher risk times; fostering a supportive environment of mutual
responsibility; resolving safety issues openly and fairly; developing good
communication systems to allow safety information to efficiently flow between
employees and managers; ensuring that the work responsibilities are achievable;
clearly communicating to employees that safety is the top priority; involving
employees in generating solutions to mitigate client pressures; and developing
current and achievable work-related road safety policies and procedures.
The findings from this study indicate that employee perceptions of
appropriateness of policies and procedures were associated with, but not predictive
of, the likelihood of committing in driving violations and errors. To further enhance
our understanding of how organisational factors influence road safety outcomes,
future research could explore in more depth the extent of influence organisations
may have upon employees’ driving errors and violations.
6.3 Stages of change
6.3.1 Questionnaire Results
Using a forced choice response format, participants were asked to describe
their stage of change in regards to work-related road risks.
6.3.1.1 Mean and standard deviation scores
Mean and standard deviation scores were calculated for individuals’ perceived
stage of change. Potential responses ranged from one to five, with higher scores
indicating further advancement towards engaging in safe behaviours. For example a
score of one would indicate that an employee is in the pre-contemplative phase
Work-Related Road Safety
167
where they believe that they are not exposed to risk and are not considering changing
their driving behaviour. Comparatively, a score of five would indicate that an
employee is in the maintenance phase where they believe that they are continuing to
take actions to reduce their risk. The mean individual stage of change score was 3.99
(SD = 1.58).
This mean indicates that a majority of participants described themselves as
having recently commenced engaging in behaviours to manage their work-related
road risks. The high standard deviation score that was observed in relation to the
mean stage of change indicates that stage of change varied among employees. To
determine if this variance was associated with differences among organisations, the
author calculated descriptive statistics for each of the organisations separately.
Although there was some variance among organisations, high standard deviations
pertaining to the stage of change means were observed in each of the organisations.
This finding suggests that stage of change may vary considerably among individuals
within a workforce.
6.3.1.2 Correlations and regressions
Bivariate correlation scores were calculated for individuals’ perceived stage of
change and road safety outcome variables. It was found that individuals’ perceived
stage of change was positively associated with both the second driver behaviour
factor (fatigue and distractions) and vehicle crashes. Details pertaining to these
correlation analyses and the follow up regression analyses are provided below. No
significant relationships were observed among employees’ perceived stage of change
and self-reported overall driver behaviour (r = .04, p = .19), driving errors (r = .02, p
= .34), or driving violations (r = -.05, p = .14).
Fatigue and distractions
Correlation results indicate that participants who identified themselves as
further progressed towards engaging in occupational road risk management actions
Work-Related Road Safety
168
reported lower tendencies to engage in driving while fatigued and lower multitasking
while driving (r = .09, p < .05). It is important to note that although significant, this is
a relatively weak relationship. A hierarchical regression was conducted to investigate
the capacity of individuals’ perceived stage of change to predict driving behaviours
pertaining to fatigue and distraction.
In predicting driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue and distraction, age,
gender and average hours driven each week for work, were entered into the equation
as control variables at step 1. To examine the influence of stage of change on driving
behaviours beyond these variables, this variable was entered separately at step 2. The
overall model (including all predictors) was significant F(4, 556) 16.85 = p < .001.
The first step accounted for 3% of the variance in overall driving behaviours
(F(2, 558) = 8.17, p <.001). Inspection of the Beta (β) coefficients revealed that age
(p < .001) and hours per week (p < .001) made a significant contribution to the
overall regression model. Perceived stage of change did not predict driving
behaviours pertaining to fatigue and distraction, over and above the control factors
(R2Cha = .01, F(1, 556) 3.61 = p = .06).
Vehicle crashes
Correlation results indicate that participants who identified themselves as further
progressed towards engaging in occupational road risk management actions reported
lower involvement in vehicle crashes (r = .11, p < .01). It is important to note that
although significant, this is a relatively weak relationship. Because crashes were
classified into a dichotomous variable, a logistic regression was conducted to
investigate the capacity of individuals’ perceived stage of change to predict
involvement in vehicle crashes. Table 11 presents the variables in each model, the
regression coefficients, as well as the Wald and odds ratio values.
Employee age and gender, along with the average weekly hours driven for
work, were entered as control variables at step 1. Next, employees’ perceived stage
Work-Related Road Safety
169
of change was entered in the model to assess whether it improved the prediction of
vehicle crash involvement over and above the control variables. It was found that
both age and average weekly hours driven were predictive of involvement in vehicle
crashes (p < .01). Perceived stage of change was significant, with a chi-square
statistic of X² (1, N = 571) = 7.35, p < .01. The model indicates that as participants’
progress through the stages of change, the corresponding likelihood of them being
involved in vehicle crashes decreases (p < .001). Overall classification was
unimpressive. Correlation classification rates were 100 percent for no crash
involvement and zero percent for crash involvement. Clearly, cases were over
classified into the largest group: no crash involvement (N = 496).
Table 11 Summary table of the logistic regression for stage of change as a
predictor of vehicle crashes
Variables B SE Wald Odds ratio
Exp (B)
95% CI
Lower Upper
Block 1
Age .02 .01 1.67 1.02 0.99 1.04
Gender .82** .27 9.20 2.23 1.33 3.83
Hours per week .26* .12 4.45 1.30 1.02 1.66
Model Chi-Square 13.05** (df = 3)
Block 2
Stage of change .26* .10 6.24 1.30 1.06 1.59
Model Chi-Square 20.40** (df = 4)
Block Chi-Square 7.35** (df = 1)
Note: *p < .05 **p < .01
Work-Related Road Safety
170
6.3.2 Interview Results
To further explore the influence of stage of change on road safety outcomes,
interviews were conducted. The purpose of the interviews was to: investigate if it
was possible to assess an individual’s stage of change with respect to work-related
road safety via responses to a small number of questions; explore if readiness varied
among individuals; and identify whether perceptions pertaining to initiative
effectiveness varied in relation to an individuals’ stage of readiness.
6.3.2.1 Stage of change classifications
An analysis of the interview transcripts suggests that the five core questions
provided a useful starting point for classifying employees’ stage of change. However
in this research, the five questions were not sufficient to distinguish between
adjoining stages for some participants. With the inclusion of additional probing
questions it was identified that the stages of change model could provide a
framework for classifying employee readiness to engage in work-related road safety
behaviour change.
6.3.2.2 Variance in stages of change
It was identified that the observed stage of readiness varied among
organisations and within organisations between the levels of managers and
employees. For example, a majority of the interview participants from organisation A
described themselves as being in the action or maintenance stage of managing their
work related road risks. These interview participants indicated an awareness of their
organisation’s exposure to work-related road risks. Reported risks included both
general road risks and risks that could be considered specific to their organisation.
Generic risks reported included wildlife, poor road conditions, fatigue, driving in
isolated areas, travelling long distances and reduced concentration when answering
phone calls via hands free kits. Organisation specific risks pertained more to the
nature of the work demands. For example one manager recognised that employees
“…might get called out of bed at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning to drive long
Work-Related Road Safety
171
distances so sleep deprivation comes into it…” Managers and employees from
organisation A also reported engaging in several behaviours to manage their risks.
These included: using cruise control to manage speeding; slowing down to allow for
Kangaroos potentially crossing the roads in the afternoons; taking a slower more
careful approach when in the city; performing safety checks on vehicles; and actively
participating in the monthly Health and Safety meetings.
Comparatively in organisation D, managers varied between the preparation
and action stages of readiness, and a majority of employees described themselves as
being in the pre-contemplative stage. Stage of readiness classifications were based on
all managers indicating an awareness of their exposure to both generic road risks and
work-related road risks. For example when describing perceived risks, one manager
reported that some clients “…might just grab the hand brake or grab the wheel.
We've had a couple of grab the wheel situations. We had a towel over the head the
other day while the driver was driving. So we have a few young people that pose a
risk with our cars...” Managers also reported engaging in behaviours to manage their
risks. Risk management examples provided by managers from organisation D
included monitoring other driver’s actions as part of a defensive driving strategy,
arranging objects within the car to maximise vision of the road environment and
ensuring there were no projectiles in the car.
Unlike the managers that recognised both general and organisation specific
road risks, the employees from organisation D acknowledged only general road risks.
It was interesting to note that there was a tendency for these interview participants to
consider themselves as above average drivers and to perceive that it was the ‘other’
road users that were the source of risk. For example one employee commented on the
‘other’ road using “dickheads running red lights”. Despite being aware of some
generic driving risks, these employees reported no intentions to change their driving
behaviour. For example one employee stated that “I haven't had any damage to the
Work-Related Road Safety
172
car in the last seven years. So I've done pretty well. So I can't see any way of
improving what I do as such. That would probably change if I had an accident”
6.3.2.3 Perceived initiative effectiveness and stage of change
Perceptions pertaining to initiative effectiveness were found to vary with
respect to an individuals’ stage of readiness. For example in organisation A, where a
majority of the interview participants described themselves as being in the action or
maintenance stage, initiatives that provided ongoing advice, practical information
and trouble shooting opportunities were perceived to be most effective. For example
one employee described how he believed that the current safety meetings were
working well as they provided a great opportunity to “present and trouble shoot
safety concerns as a team”. Comments from another employee potentially suggest
that additional initiatives are required in organisation A to provide advice on how to
juggle the perceived conflicting requirements of production and safety. This
employee described how some of the current safety initiatives are difficult to
implement while maintaining efficient work practices. For example he stated
“changes will be to not drive as long or far, but increased work loads always
conflict.”
In comparison, in organisation D where a majority of the employees
described themselves as being in the pre-contemplation stage, initiatives that
generated awareness of road risks were perceived to be more effective than
initiatives that provided risk management information. More specifically, based on
previous discussions with subordinates, one manager believed that the regular road
safety posters, emails and risk exposure information provided on her organisation’s
intranet were effective because they increased awareness. When comparing the
perceived outcomes of a practical driver training course with a feature article
focusing on road risks within departments, this manager explained how “our staff
don't talk about what they learnt at the 4-wheel drive course, but you'll go to a staff
meeting and someone will say, "Hey, have you seen that thing about us?” Comments
Work-Related Road Safety
173
from another manager reinforced the belief that initiatives that provided risk
management information currently had limited utility in improving road safety
outcomes. For example, she stated that “There's been a couple of information
bulletins go out on it...I don't think people stop to take a lot of notice of it.”
Overall, comments from managers in organisation D suggest that more
awareness raising initiatives are needed to enhance road safety outcomes within their
organisation. Managers believed that employees were not typically aware of road
risks and that this may lead to resistance when implementing action initiatives. This
belief was demonstrated through statements about action initiatives such as “I think
management will embrace it, but the next couple of levels will struggle because the
people I know are still saying we're about doing this and our cars getting dinted.
You know, I was in a hurry. Doesn't really matter…”
6.3.3 Discussion
Study three findings demonstrate that the stage of change model provides a
useful framework for understanding employee readiness for safe driving behaviour
change. Additionally, this research indicates that differences in stages of change
relate to perceived initiative effectiveness and to self-reported work-related road
safety outcomes. Given these findings the author suggests that the model may be
used by practitioners to design occupational road risk management initiatives that are
appropriate to employees’ readiness for change.
6.3.3.1 Stage of change framework
A review of the interview transcripts suggests that the five core questions
provided a useful starting point for classifying employees’ stage of change. However
in this research, the five questions were not sufficient to distinguish between
adjoining stages for some participants. With the inclusion of additional probing
questions it was identified that the stages of change model could provide a
framework for classifying employee readiness to engage in work-related road safety
Work-Related Road Safety
174
behaviour change. Given that the stage of change model has been identified as a
useful framework for classifying employee readiness to engage in safety behaviours
both in this research and previous studies (Barrett et al., 2005; Whysall et al., 2006),
the author recommends that future research be conducted to achieve a parsimonious
set of questions that can be used by practitioners and researchers to reliably classify
employees in regards to their stage of change. Furthermore, although the questions
used in this study were derived from previous research by Barrett et al. (2005) and
Whysall et al. (2006), it is unclear whether the questions accurately capture the
construct. Therefore based on this potential limitation, it is recommended that future
research also explores the construct validity of these questions.
6.3.3.2 Perceived initiative effectiveness
Perceptions pertaining to initiative effectiveness were found to vary with
respect to an individual’s stage of readiness. For example employees who were
classified as being in the pre-contemplation stage, perceived awareness raising
initiatives such as posters, to be more effective than advice giving initiatives such as
information bulletins on how to enhance road safety. This finding makes sense based
on the stage of change model. The model suggests that awareness raising initiatives
are most appropriate for individuals in the pre-contemplation stage, as these
individuals see no problem with their current behaviour and express no intention to
change.
In comparison, employees who were classified as being in the maintenance
stage, perceived initiatives that provided ongoing advice and practical information to
be most effective. This finding also makes sense based on the stage of change model.
The model suggests that initiatives that provide ongoing education and advice are
appropriate for individuals in the maintenance stage. These individuals have been
engaging in safety behaviours over a prolonged period of time and may benefit most
from tailored information and performance feedback to motivate them to continue
engaging in desirable driving behaviours.
Work-Related Road Safety
175
It was also interesting to observe that a manager forecasted employee
resistance to the implementation of an incident reporting process. The manager
believed that employees in his organisation were not typically aware of road risks
and that this may lead to behaviour change resistance. The stage of change model
would suggest that employee resistance would be likely to occur with the
implementation of this initiative, if a majority of the employees are in a pre-
contemplation stage. More specifically the model indicates that resistance to change
may occur when safety initiatives are not targeted at an appropriate level for
employees’ readiness for change.
The selection of an inappropriate level may arise due to differences in
readiness for change between managers and employees. When rolling out safety
initiatives, managers have often previously spent much time in the contemplation and
preparation phases. Understandably, managers are then ready for action and often
attempt to impose action initiatives upon employees. Alternatively, employees may
not have previously considered the risks of their current practice or the benefits of
new safety initiatives. They are often not prepared for change and are therefore slow
to respond or may even resist the change initiatives.
6.3.3.3 Road safety outcomes
Study three pioneered research into a new area of work-related road safety, by
exploring whether differences in stage of change related to self-reported occupational
road safety outcomes. Bivariate correlation scores revealed that individuals’
perceived stage of change was positively associated with driving behaviours relating
to fatigue and distraction and also vehicle crash involvement. More specifically,
participants who had progressed through more stages of change, reported lower
tendencies to engage in driving while fatigued and lower multitasking while driving.
Participants who had progressed through more stages of change also reported lower
involvement in vehicle crashes.
Work-Related Road Safety
176
Regression analyses were conducted to investigate the capacity of individuals’
perceived stage of change to predict road safety outcomes, over and above
demographic and exposure variables. Individuals’ perceived stage of change
emerged as a significant independent predictor of vehicle crash involvement. The
model indicated that as participants progress through the stages of change, the
corresponding likelihood of them being involved in vehicle crashes decreases.
6.3.3.4 Applications
Based on the findings from study three, the author suggests that the stage of
change model could be used by practitioners to design occupational road risk
management initiatives that are appropriate to employees’ readiness for change. In
the current study, stage of change varied considerably among individuals. This
finding is consistent with previous research pertaining to health-related behaviour
change (Velicer et al., 1985; Laforge et al., 1999). The mean stage of change in the
current study indicated that on average, employees had recently commenced
engaging in safe driving behaviours. Given this finding the author suggests that a
multi-method approach to managing work-related road risks may be necessary to
provide initiatives that are appropriate to the range of individuals within a workforce.
Further research is needed to explore if the variance in stage of change
observed in the four researched organisations is typical of most organisations. If this
stage distribution is typical, the author advocates that an optimal work-related road
risk management approach may include action orientated initiatives, in combination
with other initiatives that are designed to target the full spectrum of change stages.
Examples of how the stage of change framework could be applied to guide the
design of initiatives is outlined below.
In the pre-contemplation stage, employees would see no problem with their
current road safety behaviour and express no intention to change. In this stage,
Work-Related Road Safety
177
individuals need to be persuaded to acknowledge that unsafe driving behaviours need
to be addressed. The model would suggest that attempts to impose action orientated
initiatives on pre-contemplative individuals may only achieve partial success as a
personal understanding of the risks and a desire to engage in safe behaviours has not
first been achieved. To help transition employees from a pre-contemplative to a
contemplative stage, practitioners should focus on raising awareness of work-related
driving risks.
In the contemplation stage, employees would be aware of the risks associated
with work-related driving and the need to adopt safe behaviours. Contemplative
individuals would be making long term plans to reduce and manage their road risks.
To help transition employees from a contemplative to a preparation stage, initiatives
should provide educational material designed to reinforce employee motivation to
adopt safe behaviours and outline what is involved in adopting safer driving
behaviours.
In the preparation stage, employees would be intending to take action in the
very near future. To help transition employees from a preparation to an action stage,
initiatives should provide practical information and support in learning new skills.
Barriers to change should be resolved, and individuals should be encouraged to make
specific plans through goal setting or contracting to foster employee commitment and
ownership of safe driving behaviours.
In the action stage, employees would be modifying their behaviour or
environment to manage work-related road risks. Individuals in this stage require
support to achieve new safety behaviours and to maintain modified behaviours. To
facilitate commitment to the modified behaviours and help transition employees from
an action to a maintenance stage, initiatives should provide ongoing advice, feedback
and skills training.
Work-Related Road Safety
178
In the maintenance stage, employees would have been engaging in safety
behaviours over a prolonged period of time. To facilitate employees remaining in the
maintenance stage, initiatives should focus on consolidating the gains made and
preventing relapse. This can be achieved through the provision of ongoing advice,
feedback and training and the monitoring of employees for early signs of behaviour
relapses.
It is important to note that the stage of change model indicates that employees,
regardless of their current stage, may relapse to an earlier stage of change. To target
relapsed employees that have failed to continue engaging in work-related road safety
behaviours, initiatives should be designed to support progression back through the
stages towards action and maintenance. Practitioners should aim to discover the
barriers that led to the employee ceasing safe practices and to motivate the employee
to re-engage in safe practices through the provision of tailored information, training
and feedback.
In applying the stage of change model, the author suggests that during project
negotiations, road safety practitioners could make a brief assessment of managers’
and employees’ readiness for change. Based on their assessment, practitioners could
then determine the most appropriate structure and content of initiatives to effectively
meet the needs of their client. By adopting a stage matched approach, practitioners
may be able to reduce change resistance and accelerate employee movement towards
the action and maintenance stage of work-related road safety behaviours. By
progressing employees towards the action and maintenance stage, organisations may
be able to achieve a reduction in employee involvement in vehicle crashes.
Work-Related Road Safety
179
6.4 Safety ownership
6.4.1 Questionnaire Results
Two items were utilised to assess employees’ perceptions in regards to safety
ownership. The first item assessed perceptions pertaining to the authority of the
person primarily responsible for managing road risks in their organisation. The
second item assessed perceptions pertaining to the extent to which safety was shared
across members of the organisation.
6.4.1.1 Mean and standard deviation scores
Mean and standard deviation scores were calculated for both safety ownership
items. Potential responses ranged from one to five, with higher scores indicating
safer perceptions. Participants indicated moderate agreement with the first item “The
people predominantly responsible for road safety in my organisation carry the
necessary authority and respect to achieve compliance” (M = 3.18, SD = .99).
Participants indicated slightly higher agreement with the second item “Responsibility
for achieving work-related road safety is shared across members in my organisation”
(M = 3.38, SD = .99).
6.4.1.2 Correlations and regressions
Bivariate correlation scores were calculated for the two ownership variables
and the road safety outcome variables. It was found that the two safety ownership
variables were significantly correlated (r = .54, p < .01). Table 12 presents the
correlation statistics between the ownership variables and the road safety outcome
variables.
Work-Related Road Safety
180
Table 12 Bivariate correlations between safety ownership variables and
road safety outcome variables
Overall
Driver
Behaviour
Errors
Fatigue and
distractions Violations
Vehicle
Crashes1
Authority -.13** -.07 -.19** -.03 .04
Shared -.09* -.05 -.11** -.04 .02 Note: *p < .05 **p < .001
1 1 = No crashes, 2 = One or more crashes
As can be seen in Table 12, it was found that individuals’ safety ownership
perceptions were negatively associated with both overall driver behaviours and the
second driver behaviour factor (fatigue and distractions). While these correlations are
significant, it is important to note that they are relatively weak. Details pertaining to
these correlation analyses and the follow up regression analyses are provided below.
No significant relationships were observed among employees’ safety ownership
perceptions and self-reported driving errors, driving violations, or vehicle crashes.
Overall driver behaviours
Authority
Correlation results reveal that perceived authority was negatively related to
overall driver behaviours (r = -.13, p < .001). This finding indicates that participants
who perceived that road risks were managed by personnel with authority and respect
reported engaging in overall safer driving behaviours. A hierarchical regression was
conducted to investigate the capacity of perceived authority to predict overall driving
behaviours.
In predicting overall driving behaviours, age, gender and average hours driven
each week for work, were entered into the equation as control variables at step 1. To
Work-Related Road Safety
181
examine the influence of perceived authority on driving behaviours beyond these
variables, this variable was entered separately at step 2. The overall model (including
all predictors) was significant (F(4, 459) 14.42 = p < .001). The first step accounted
for 6% of the variance in overall driving behaviours (F(2, 461) = 14.69, p <.001).
Inspection of the Beta (β) coefficients revealed that age (p < .001) and hours per
week (p < .001) made a significant contribution to the overall regression model.
Perceived authority did not predict overall driving behaviours, over and above the
control factors (R2Cha = .01, F(1, 459 = 2.72, p = .10).
Shared
Secondly, in regards to shared ownership, correlation results reveal that
perceived shared ownership was negatively related to overall driver behaviours
(r = -.09, p < .05). This finding indicates that participants who perceived that
responsibility for managing road risks was shared across several organisational
personnel reported engaging in overall safer driving behaviours. A hierarchical
regression was conducted to investigate the capacity of perceived shared ownership
to predict overall driving behaviours.
In predicting overall driving behaviours, age, gender and average hours driven
each week for work, were entered into the equation as control variables at step 1. To
examine the influence of perceived shared ownership on driving behaviours beyond
these variables, this variable was entered separately at step 2. The overall model
(including all predictors) was significant (F(4, 460) = 14.41, p < .001). The first step
accounted for 6% of the variance in overall driving behaviours (F(2, 462) = 14.45,
p <.001). Inspection of the Beta (β) coefficients revealed that age (p < .001) and
hours per week (p < .001) made a significant contribution to the overall regression
model. Perceived shared ownership did not predict overall driving behaviours, over
and above the control factors (R2Cha = .01, F(1, 460) = 2.96, p = .09).
Work-Related Road Safety
182
Fatigue and distractions
Authority
Correlation results reveal that perceived authority was negatively related to
driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue and distractions (r = -.19, p < .001). This
finding indicates that employees who perceived that road risks were managed by
personnel with authority, reported lower tendencies to engage in driving while
fatigued and lower multitasking while driving. A hierarchical regression was
conducted to investigate the capacity of perceived authority to predict driving
behaviours pertaining to fatigue and distraction.
In predicting driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue and distraction, age,
gender and average hours driven each week for work, were entered into the equation
as control variables at step 1. To examine the influence of perceived authority on
driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue and distraction beyond these variables, this
variable was entered separately at step 2. The overall model (including all predictors)
was significant (F(4, 473) = 17.23, p < .001). The first step accounted for 11% of the
variance in driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue and distraction (F(2, 475) =
17.23, p < .001). The second step accounted for a significant additional amount of
variance in driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue and distraction (R2Cha = .02,
F(1, 473) = 10.76, p < .01). Inspection of the Beta (β) coefficients revealed that age
(p < .001) and hours per week (p < .001) made a unique significant contribution to
the overall regression model. Perceived authority also emerged as a significant
independent predictor of driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue and distractions
(r=.36, p < .01). Although significant, perceived authority only explained an
additional two percent of the variance. Table 13 provides a summary of this analysis.
Work-Related Road Safety
183
Table 13 Summary table of hierarchical regressions for perceived authority
as a predictor of driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue and
distractions
R2 Adj R2 ΔR2
Follow-up analysis 1
Block 1 - Control variables .11** .10
Block 2 – Fleet safety climate .13** .12 .02** Note: *p < .05 **p < .01
Shared
Secondly, in regards to shared ownership, correlation results reveal that
perceived shared ownership was negatively related to driving behaviours pertaining
to fatigue and distractions (r = -.11, p < .001). This finding indicates that participants
who perceived that responsibility for managing road risks was shared across several
organisational personnel, reported lower tendencies to engage in driving while
fatigued and lower multitasking while driving. A hierarchical regression was
conducted to investigate the capacity of perceived shared ownership to predict
driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue and distraction.
In predicting driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue and distraction, age,
gender and average hours driven each week for work, were entered into the equation
as control variables at step 1. To examine the influence of perceived shared
ownership on driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue and distraction beyond these
variables, this variable was entered separately at step 2. The overall model (including
all predictors) was significant (F(4, 474) = 15.70, p < .001). The first step accounted
for 11% of the variance in driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue and distraction
(F(2, 476) = 8.59, p < .001). The second step accounted for a significant additional
amount of variance in driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue and distraction (R2Cha
= .01, F(1, 474) = 5.48, p < .05). Inspection of the Beta (β) coefficients revealed that
Work-Related Road Safety
184
age (p < .001) and hours per week (p < .001) made a unique significant contribution
to the overall regression model. Perceived shared ownership also emerged as a
significant independent predictor of driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue and
distractions (r=.34, p < .01). Although significant, perceived shared ownership only
explained an additional one percent of the variance. Table 14 provides a summary of
this analysis.
Table 14 Summary table of hierarchical regressions for perceived shared
ownership as a predictor of driving behaviours pertaining to
fatigue and distractions
R2 Adj R2 ΔR2
Follow-up analysis 1
Block 1 - Control variables .11** .10
Block 2 – Fleet safety climate .12* .11 .01* Note: *p < .05 **p < .01
6.4.2 Interview Results
To further explore the influence of safety ownership on road safety outcomes,
interviews were conducted. The purpose of the interviews was to: identify which
organisational positions were primarily responsible for managing work-related road
safety; explore the extent to which safety responsibilities were shared across
members within organisations; identify if differences existed in regards to the
approach taken to managing road risks as compared to other workplace risks; and to
identify the perceived minimum level of competency required within organisations to
manage work-related road safety.
6.4.2.1 Position accepting primary ownership of managing occupational road risks
Road safety responsibilities were not formally stated in job descriptions in
any of the researched organisations. An analysis of the interview transcripts revealed
Work-Related Road Safety
185
that the position of the person accepting primary ownership of managing work-
related road risks varied among organisations. In organisations A, B and C, a
member of the OH&S team was identified as the person primarily responsible for
managing occupational road safety. More specifically, in organisations A and C the
person primarily responsible was a manger. In comparison, in organisation B the
person was a senior employee who did not have as much authority within the
organisation as a manager. In organisation D, the person primarily responsible for
managing occupational road safety was the Strategic Procurement Manager.
The author, when reviewing the interview transcripts in relation to primary
ownership, made two interesting observations. Firstly, it was observed that some
employees preferred primary ownership of occupational road risks to come from
within the OH&S team. These employees believed that management of road risks
was more of an OH&S issue than a fleet issue. For example one employee
commented that management from within the fleet team could “be seen as too far
removed”.
Secondly, it was observed that organisational practices and processes varied
with respect to the position of the person primarily responsible for managing work
related road safety. For example in organisation D, where the Strategic Procurement
Manager was the primary safety owner, the organisation’s road safety practices and
processes were most developed in the areas of vehicle selection and maintenance and
monitoring vehicle incident data. This finding makes sense as these types of safety
tasks align with the competencies and responsibilities required for a Procurement
Manager. In comparison in organisation C, road safety practices and processes were
most developed in the area of safety policy. Again, this makes sense as the
competencies and responsibilities required for OH&S Managers are well suited to
tasks including the development of safety policies.
Work-Related Road Safety
186
6.4.2.2 Shared ownership of managing occupational road risks
Across the four organisations, employees from a range of positions were
accepting partial ownership of managing occupational road risks. These positions
included: General Manager; Health and Safety Manager; Health and Safety Senior
Advisor; Health and Safety Coordinator; Insurance Compensation Manager;
Business Unit Manager; Strategic Procurement Manager; Risk Management Officer;
Fleet Manager; Fleet Technical Officer; Supervisor; and Driver.
The extent that ownership was shared across members within an organisation
varied. For example participants from organisation B reported cooperative sharing of
safety responsibilities among several positions within the organisation. Employees in
the positions of General Manager, Health and Safety Manager, Health and Safety
Coordinator, Business Unit Manager, Fleet Technical Officer, Supervisor and Driver
accepted partial ownership of safety management tasks. In comparison, participants
from Organisation D reported limited sharing of safety responsibilities among
positions within the organisation. Employees in the positions of Fleet Manager, Risk
Management Officer, Supervisor and Driver accepted partial ownership of safety
management tasks.
The author made three interesting observations when reviewing the interview
transcripts in relation to shared ownership. Firstly, it was observed that the sharing of
ownership for managing work-related road risks may cause some role ambiguity
within the workforce in regards to who is responsible for specific aspects of risk
management. For example, one employee commented “It's all pass the buck. When
they say something's wrong with the vehicle, oh, go and talk to so and so.” The
author also identified that in some organisations, this ambiguity appeared to be being
used strategically by some personnel to defer responsibility to other departments.
Secondly, it was observed that greater sharing of safety responsibility
ownership was associated with greater development of work-related road safety
Work-Related Road Safety
187
practices and processes. More specifically, within organisations A and B, safety
ownership was shared cooperatively across several positions. These organisations
also had more advanced safety practices and processes (for more details refer back to
the audit results presented in Chapter Two). The author suggests that the more
advanced safety practices and processes in organisations A and B could be explained
by an effective integration of safety knowledge, skills and abilities from a range of
employees gained through sharing the ownership of safety responsibilities. In
analysing the relationship between shared ownership and development of safety
practices and procedures it also interesting to note that all of the organisations had
only limited practices in place to recruit and select safe drivers. Perhaps this is not
surprising given that safety ownership was not accepted by employees with human
resource competencies and responsibilities in any of the researched organisations.
Finally, it was observed that a shared approach was perceived necessary to
comprehensively manage occupational road risks. For example one manager
commented that although the manager currently accepting primary risk management
responsibility was “passionate about improving work-related road safety, the amount
of work needing to be done in this area would be too large for him to manage and
more support would be needed from other members of the organisation.”
6.4.2.3 Road risks as compared to other OH&S risks
Findings from study three indicate that overall, the management of
occupational road risks is given less attention than other areas of health and safety
risk management. More specifically, all participants from organisations B, C and D,
perceived that management commitment and ownership of safety management tasks
was lower for road risks than other occupational risks. One manager described how
the number of occupational road incidents in his organisation would suggest that it is
a high risk area. He pointed out that despite this, road risks were not managed to the
same extent as risks pertaining to core business operations. He believed that driving
was just seen as something that had to be done on the way to a job and that risk
Work-Related Road Safety
188
management in his organisation focused on ‘on the job’ risks. When asked if
ownership of safety management tasks pertaining to road safety was similar to other
areas of OH&S, he commented that “safety is a lot more paramount than with
fleet….. Definitely not, that's a big no, very big no.” In comparison, participants from
organisation A perceived that management commitment and ownership of safety
management tasks pertaining to road safety were similar to other areas of OH&S.
6.4.2.4 Competencies required for managing work-related road risks
To identify the perceived minimum (rather than best practice) level of
competency required within organisations to manage work-related road safety,
managers were asked to review a list of 39 safety management tasks. As described in
the literature review in Chapter Four, these tasks have been identified in previous
research (Dingsdag et al., 2006) as critical to the management of OH&S
performance.
All of the managers interviewed perceived that a full understanding of six of
the safety management tasks was required within their organisation to manage work-
related road safety. The six tasks perceived as critical to the management of work-
related road risks comprised: carry out workplace and task hazard identification, risk
assessments and control; provide general OH&S information and provide basic
OH&S instruction; carry out formal incident investigations; carry out formal
inspections of workplace and work tasks; research and prepare reports on OH&S
issues, performance and improvement strategies; and understand and apply general
legislative OH&S requirements.
Competencies pertaining to an additional nine safety management tasks were
also perceived to be important to the management of work-related road risks. In
relation to these tasks, some managers perceived that a full understanding was
required, while others perceived that a working knowledge and an awareness of how
to perform the safety management tasks were all that was required. The nine tasks
Work-Related Road Safety
189
perceived to be important by managers comprised: carry out project risk assessments;
develop OH&S procedures and instructions; deliver site/workplace specific
induction; consult on and resolve OH&S issues; speak to senior management about
OH&S issues in the workplace; make site visits where a site worker is spoken to
directly about OH&S in the workplace; recognise and reward people who have
positively impacted on OH&S; deliver OH&S training; apply full working
knowledge of the organisation’s safety management system.
Detailed results pertaining to managers’ ratings of the perceived competence
required to manage occupational road risks, with respect to each of the 39 safety
management tasks, is presented in Appendix K.
6.4.3 Discussion
Study three findings indicate that safety ownership varied across organisations.
Commonalities identified in safety ownership are discussed below. Additionally this
research indicates that the level of ownership of safety management tasks within an
organisation is related to self-reported work-related road safety outcomes. Given
these findings the author makes several recommendations regarding the ownership of
safety management tasks to assist organisations in optimally managing their
occupational road risks.
6.4.3.1 Ownership of safety management tasks
Examination of the interview results provides insights into how occupational
road risks are being managed in Australian organisations. Based on participants’
perceptions, it appears that management of occupational road risks is often given less
attention than other areas of health and safety management. More specifically,
management commitment and ownership of safety management tasks was reported
to be lower for road risks than other occupational risks.
Work-Related Road Safety
190
It was observed that the position of the person accepting primary ownership
of managing occupational road risk was typically a member of the OH&S team. In
one organisation, the person primarily responsible for managing occupational road
risks was the Strategic Procurement Manager. The position of the person accepting
primary risk management responsibilities varied among organisations. In three of the
organisations, the person was in a management position. In one of the organisations,
road risks were being managed primarily by a senior employee.
Across the four organisations, employees from a range of positions were
accepting partial ownership of managing occupational road risks. These positions
included: General Manager; Health and Safety Manager; Health and Safety Senior
Advisor; Health and Safety Coordinator; Insurance Compensation Manager;
Business Unit Manager; Strategic Procurement Manager; Risk Management Officer;
Fleet Manager; Fleet Technical Officer; Supervisor; and Driver. The extent that
ownership was shared across members within an organisation varied among the
organisations researched.
It was observed that greater sharing of safety responsibility ownership was
associated with greater development of work-related road safety practices and
processes. The author suggests that the integration of safety knowledge, skills and
abilities from a range of employees gained through shared ownership of safety
responsibilities may facilitate the development of superior safety practices and
procedures.
Managers perceived that the personnel responsible for managing occupational
road risks within their organisation would require high competency levels in the
following risk management tasks: hazard identification and control; provide OH&S
information and instruction; incident investigations; inspections of workplace and
work tasks; researching and reporting on OH&S issues and strategies; and applying
legislative OH&S requirements.
Work-Related Road Safety
191
6.4.3.2 Road safety outcomes
Study three pioneered research into a new area of work-related road safety, by
exploring whether differences in safety ownership related to self-reported
occupational road safety outcomes. Although the strengths of the relationships were
weak, several significant relationships were identified. Bivariate correlation scores
revealed that individuals’ safety ownership perceptions were negatively associated
with overall driving behaviour and driving behaviours relating to fatigue and
distraction. More specifically, participants who perceived that road risks were
managed by personnel with authority reported engaging in overall safer driving
behaviours and less driving while fatigued or multitasking. Similarly, participants
who perceived that responsibility for managing road risks was shared across several
organisational personnel reported engaging in overall safer driving behaviours and
less driving while fatigued or multitasking.
Regression analyses were conducted to investigate the capacity of perceived
safety ownership to predict road safety outcomes, over and above demographic and
exposure variables. Although only accounting for a small amount of additional
variance, perceived authority and perceived shared ownership both emerged as
significant independent predictors of driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue and
distractions. The regression models indicated that as participants’ perceptions of the
authority of the person managing road risks increases the corresponding likelihood of
them engage in driving while fatigued or multitasking while driving decreases.
Similarly, as participants’ perceptions of shared ownership of safety tasks increases,
the corresponding likelihood of them engaging in driving while fatigued or
multitasking while driving decreases.
6.4.3.3 Applications
Similar to the findings pertaining to fleet safety climate, the findings with
respect to safety ownership, suggest that organisations may have more influence over
Work-Related Road Safety
192
employees’ driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue and distractions, than driving
behaviours pertaining to errors and violations. Organisations may be able to reduce
the likelihood of employees engaging in unsafe driving as a result of fatigue or
distractions through increasing ownership of safety management tasks.
Based on the findings from study three, the author proposes that organisations
should aim to foster cooperative sharing of occupational road risk management tasks
among organisational personnel. To formally facilitate shared ownership, the author
recommends that employees and managers should be educated about their OH&S
responsibilities. To minimise potential role ambiguity associated with shared
ownership, the author recommends that responsibility for work-related road safety
management tasks should be explicitly stated in job descriptions across all safety
critical positions.
To guide organisations in formally distributing road safety responsibilities,
study three collated managers’ perceptions regarding which tasks must be performed
competently by those occupying safety critical positions. Based on the findings from
study three, to manage occupational road risks, it is recommended that organisations
ensure that personnel responsible for managing road risks within their organisation
have a full understanding of the following risk management tasks: hazard
identification and control; provide OH&S information and instruction; incident
investigations; inspections of workplace and work tasks; researching and reporting
on OH&S issues and strategies; and applying legislative OH&S requirements.
Given that this research has important applications for enhancing road safety
outcomes, it is recommended that future studies expand upon this exploratory
research by applying the same methodology with a more diverse sample.
Work-Related Road Safety
193
6.5 Chapter conclusion
The findings from study three indicate that organisational factors do influence
road safety outcomes. It is important to note that the hierarchical regressions showed
that, although aspects of fleet safety climate, stage of change and safety ownership
make a significant contribution to self-reported road safety outcomes, many of the
factors contributed very little additional explanatory power above the control factors.
Suggestions have been made as to how practitioners can apply the findings
from study three to achieve optimal work environments for managing road risks.
Suggestions have also been provided to guide future research in this area.
At this point, it is important to recognise the strengths and limitations of
study three. A key strength of this research is that it pioneers research into two new
avenues of work-related road safety literature. Although the influences of stage of
change has been considered other health related disciplines and the influences of
safety ownership have been considered in the construction literature, the influences
of these factors have not been considered in relation to occupational road safety.
Therefore the current study provides new and valuable insights into how work-
related road safety can be enhanced. Based on the findings from study three, the
author strongly advocates future research be conducted to establish an efficient and
reliable method of classifying employee stage of change with respect to road safety
and to optimise the implementation of distributive ownership of safety
responsibilities.
A key limitation of this research was that a restricted range was obtained for
the outcome measures of traffic infringements and vehicle incidents. Across the four
organisations, 91% of employees reported obtaining no traffic infringements during
the past 12 months. Similarly, 88% of employees reported not being involved in a
vehicle incident during the past 12 months. Previous research in the area of work-
related road safety (Freeman et al., 2007; Wishart et al., 2006) has also
Work-Related Road Safety
194
acknowledged difficulties in reliably analysing data due to only a small proportion of
the sample reporting infringement and incident involvement. To overcome this
limitation, the author suggests that future research could adopt a case study approach
and select several organisations with a history of high infringement and incident
involvement to be compared with several organisations with a history of low
infringement and incident involvement.
Furthermore, consistent with previous research, the item relating to incident
involvement asked participants to indicate how many times they had been involved
in a vehicle incident, regardless of who was considered to be ‘at fault’. By including
both ‘at fault’ and ‘not at fault’ incidents a higher frequency of participants reporting
incident involvement may have been obtained, however it is possible that this item
may have been measuring a road safety outcome that was contaminated by factors
outside of the organisations influence. More specifically, the author acknowledges
that organisational factors may be associated with reduced employee ‘at fault’ traffic
incidents, but be unrelated to incidents caused by other drivers. To gain a better
understanding of organisational influences upon incident involvement, further
research should be conducted using a measure of employee ‘at fault’ traffic incidents.
Finally, to assist practitioners in making informed decisions about how they
manage occupational road risks and to assist academics in considering the theoretical
implications of this research, Chapter Seven will now review and collectively
summarise the key findings from all three studies.
Work-Related Road Safety
195
Chapter 7: Synthesis and Implications
7.1 Project background and methodology ............................................................. 196
7.2 Key findings .................................................................................................... 199
7.2.1 Research question one .......................................................................... 199
7.2.2 Research question two ......................................................................... 200
7.2.3 Research question three ....................................................................... 200
7.2.4 Research question four ......................................................................... 201
7.2.5 Research question five ......................................................................... 203
7.2.6 Research question six ........................................................................... 204
7.2.7 Research question seven ...................................................................... 205
7.3 Strengths and limitations of the previous research and suggestions for
future studies ................................................................................................... 206
7.4 Implications ..................................................................................................... 210
7.5 Recommendations ........................................................................................... 212
7.6 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 215
Work-Related Road Safety
196
Chapter 7: Synthesis and Implications
The chapter begins by briefly reminding the reader of the project background
and the methodology used throughout this research project. Key findings with
respect to the seven research questions are then presented. Limitations of this
research project along with suggestions for future research are outlined. Finally
implications of this research along with key recommendations are presented.
7.1 Project background and methodology
Given the high social and financial costs of road incidents, the global
community needs to accept responsibility for creating a safer traffic environment and
take action to manage road risks. The management of work-related road risks is one
area where large gains in global road safety may potentially be achieved. At present,
very few organisations are managing their work-related road risks. This is of concern
given that vehicle incidents continue to be the most common mechanism for
Australian compensated fatalities and that employers have statutory obligations to
provide safe workplaces.
Of the organisations that are attempting to improve their work-related road
risks, many appear to have deficiencies in their risk management approach. For
example, the author has observed that some organisations appear to have adopted a
‘one size fits all approach’, attempting to manage all road risks with one initiative.
These organisations appear to have implemented any initiative in trend without
considering whether there is any scientific evidence supporting its effectiveness or
how appropriate the initiative is for their organisation. Other organisations appear to
have adopted a reactive approach, implementing an initiative in response to an
incident that had occurred in their organisation. These reactive initiatives were often
observed to be narrow, short term fixes that failed to address the ongoing
organisational and behavioural issues that contribute to occupational road risk. To
assist in alleviating the burden of traffic injuries and fatalities, the author proposes
Work-Related Road Safety
197
that substantial gains need to be made in the area of occupational road risk
management.
At present, limited guidance is provided in the existing literature to assist
practitioners in managing work-related road risks. Several industry reports that offer
reviews of current industry practice and risk management guidelines for
organisations striving to achieve best practice in managing occupational road risks,
have been published both within Australia and internationally. While these reports do
provide some guidance to practitioners, many of the recommended initiatives were
not empirically evaluated. Therefore these reports fail to assist practitioners in
making informed decisions based on scientific research and evaluation, about how
they manage occupational road risks. The current research addresses this gap in the
literature, by scientifically exploring how work-related road safety can be enhanced
and by providing recommendations supported by comprehensive research to assist
practitioners in optimally managing their risks.
The current research project aims to assist in alleviating the burden of traffic
injuries and fatalities by empirically exploring how road safety can be improved in
organisations. To achieve this aim, three studies were conducted. Study one explored
the effectiveness of a range of risk management initiatives and whether
comprehensive risk management practices were associated with safety outcomes.
Study two explored barriers to, and facilitators for, accepting risk management
initiatives. Study three explored the influence of organisational factors on road safety
outcomes to identify optimal work environments for managing road risks.
To maximise the research sample and increase generalisability, the studies
were designed to allow data collection to be conducted simultaneously drawing upon
the same sample obtained from four Australian organisations. Data was collected via
four methods.
Work-Related Road Safety
198
A structured document review of published articles was conducted to identify
what outcomes have been observed in previously investigated work-related road
safety initiatives. A search of six electronic bibliographic databases identified 181
non-duplicated titles relating to work-related road safety initiatives. These titles were
reviewed using pre-determined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Included articles had to
appear in English in a peer-reviewed journal, conference proceeding or book. This
review process generated a total of 20 peer-reviewed relevant articles that
collectively assessed the effectiveness of 19 work-related road safety initiatives. The
findings from the structured document review are discussed in section 7.2.1.
Audits of organisational practices and process operating within the four
researched organisations were conducted to identify whether organisations with
comprehensive work-related road risk management practices and processes have
better safety outcomes than organisations with limited risk management practices
and processes. The audit criteria used in the current study were developed by the
researcher based upon elements that have been identified in the research literature
and industry guides as best practice in work-related road safety. The findings from
the audit are discussed in section 7.2.3.
Face-to-face interviews were conducted with a sample of 24 participants.
This sample comprised six representatives from each of the four organisations. The
interviews were conducted to identify what barriers and facilitators within
organisations were perceived to affect the implementation of work-related road
safety initiatives and whether differences in fleet safety climate, stage of change and
safety ownership relate to work-related road safety outcomes. The findings from the
interview are discussed in sections 7.2.4, 7.2.5, 7.2.6 and 7.2.7.
Finally, online questionnaires were conducted with a sample of 679
participants. This sample comprised 223 employees from organisation A, 103
employees from organisation B, 235 employees from organisation C, and 118
Work-Related Road Safety
199
employees from organisation D. The questionnaires were conducted to identify
which initiatives are perceived by employees to be effective in managing work-
related road risks and whether differences in fleet safety climate, stage of change and
safety ownership relate to work-related road safety outcomes. The findings from the
questionnaire are discussed in sections 7.2.2, 7.2.5, 7.2.6 and 7.2.7.
7.2 Key findings
Seven research questions were addressed in the current research project. The
key findings in relation to each of the research questions are presented below.
7.2.1 Research question one: What outcomes have been observed in previously
investigated work-related road safety initiatives?
As the purpose of the document review was to explore scientific evaluations
of various initiatives, non peer-reviewed literature was excluded as the scientific
quality of these documents had not previously been established. The 20 peer-
reviewed articles that satisfied the document review process collectively assessed the
effectiveness of 19 work-related road safety initiatives. Initiatives reviewed targeting
safety at the organisational level comprised: policy development; driver selection
criteria; a web based risk management tool; and raised wages. Initiatives reviewed
targeting safety at the employee level comprised: driver training; group discussions;
awareness and information campaign; goal setting; performance feedback; enlisting
employees as community road safety change agents; self-monitoring forms; signing
safety pledge cards; safety reminders; and rewards. Safety initiatives reviewed
pertaining to implementing protective equipment comprised: alcolock devices;
fatigue management technologies devices; in-vehicle compensatory devices to target
ability deficiencies of older commercial drivers; in car data recorders; and gasoline
vapour recovery devices.
The structured document review indicated that initiatives found to be
positively associated with occupational road safety during the intervention period
Work-Related Road Safety
200
included: policy development; a web based risk management tool; an awareness and
information campaign; goal setting; performance feedback; self-monitoring forms;
signing safety pledge cards; alcolock devices; fatigue management technologies
devices; in-vehicle compensatory devices to target ability deficiencies of older
commercial drivers; in car data recorders; and gasoline vapour recovery devices. In
the reviewed literature, only six initiatives were found to be positively associated
with occupational road safety both during and after the intervention period. These
included: a pay rise; driver training; group discussions; enlisting employees as
community road safety change agents; safety reminders; and group and individual
rewards.
7.2.2 Research question two: Which initiatives are perceived by employees to be
effective in managing work-related road risks?
Questionnaire findings revealed that employees believed occupational road
risks could best be managed through making vehicle safety features standard,
providing practical driver skills training and through investigating serious vehicle
incidents. In comparison, employees believed initiatives including signing a promise
card commitment to drive safely, advertising the organisation’s phone number on
vehicles and consideration of driving competency in staff selection process would
have limited effectiveness in managing occupational road safety. These findings are
important, as individuals are more likely to embrace initiatives that they believe will
assist them in achieving a goal and to resist initiatives that they believe will have
little utility in achieving goals or are not appropriate in their organisation.
7.2.3 Research question three: Do organisations with comprehensive work-related
road risk management practices and processes have better safety outcomes than
organisations with limited risk management practices and processes?
Practices and processes audited in the current study comprised: having a fleet
safety policy; recruiting and selecting safe drivers; including safe driving in
employee inductions; conducting and evaluating fleet safety training; recognising
Work-Related Road Safety
201
good and poor driving behaviours; managing road journeys to minimise exposure to
road hazards; selecting and maintaining safe vehicles; and recording and monitoring
incidents to identify risks.
The audit identified differences among the organisations in their management
of work-related road risks. The organisation with the most comprehensive risk
management practices was found to have the highest employee ratings of
engagement in overall safe driving behaviours. These employees also reported
committing the least driving errors, and experiencing the least fatigue and distraction
issues when driving. Furthermore, the organisation with the least comprehensive risk
management practices was found to have the highest frequency of employee
involvement in traffic incidents. Given that only four organisations participated in
this research, and that a consistent relationship between comprehensiveness of
practices and incident involvement was not observed, these findings should be
interpreted with caution. Further research should be conducted to explore the
relationship between comprehensiveness of risk management practices and road
safety outcomes with a larger sample of organisations and a more precise measure of
incident involvement.
7.2.4 Research question four: What barriers and facilitators within organisations
are involved in implementing work-related road safety initiatives?
The interviews identified that employees perceived six organisational
characteristics as potential barriers to implementing work-related road safety
initiatives. These included: prioritisation of production over safety; complacency
towards work-related road risks; insufficient resources; diversity; limited employee
input in safety decisions; and a perception that road safety initiatives were an
unnecessary burden. Of these organisational characteristics, prioritisation of
production over safety and complacency were the most frequently cited barriers. In
regards to conflicts in priorities between production and safety, participants
described how their managers conveyed that safety was the highest priority. Some
Work-Related Road Safety
202
staff also reported being highly committed to their work and at times believed that
their work commitment motivated them to engage in risky driving practices to
achieve higher work outputs. In regards to complacency, although participants
acknowledged that there were risks involved with driving, they believed that most
people accepted these risks. Several participants commented on how work-related
road safety was not treated as seriously as other OH&S issues in their organisation
and how complacency contributed to non-compliance with occupational road risk
management processes.
When asked how the perceived barriers could be overcome, participants
provided four suggestions. Firstly, participants believed that organisations should
develop and implement initiatives that are part of an overall risk management
approach. They believed that the approach should comprise several layers and
include some initiatives designed to achieve quick results and other initiatives
designed for long-term sustainability of safety. Secondly, participants believed that
employees’ involvement in decision making should be increased to enhance the
appropriateness of, and acceptance, of risk management initiatives. Thirdly,
participants believed that work demands needed to be reduced to mitigate the
perceived conflicts between production and safety targets. Participants suggested
several methods for reducing work demands, for example outsourcing duties and
decreasing the distances having to be travelled. Finally, participants believed that
increased awareness of risks and knowledge of individual risk management
responsibilities was needed to reduce complacency and enhance work-related road
safety outcomes.
In regards to facilitators, participants perceived three organisational
characteristics as potential facilitators to implementing work-related road safety
initiatives. These included: management commitment; the presence of existing
systems that could support the implementation of initiatives; and supportive
relationships. Of these organisational characteristics, management commitment was
Work-Related Road Safety
203
the most frequently cited facilitator. Some participants believed that senior
management commitment to safety had assisted in the implementation of
occupational road safety initiatives.
7.2.5 Research question five: Do differences in fleet safety climate relate to work-
related road safety outcomes?
The interviews and questionnaires identified that organisational climates with
high management commitment, support for managing work demands, appropriate
safety rules, and safety communication, were associated with employees who
engaged in more frequent overall safe driving behaviours Furthermore, regression
analyses revealed that overall fleet safety climate and all of the fleet safety climate
factors except for relationships, emerged as significant independent predictors of
driving behaviours. This indicates that as participants’ perceptions of fleet safety
climate increased, the corresponding likelihood of them engaging in safer driving
behaviours increased.
Fleet safety climate and all of the fleet safety climate factors, were also found
to be related to driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue and distractions. This finding
indicates that employees who perceived their organisation’s climate to be supportive
of road safety, reported lower tendencies to engage in driving while fatigued and
lower multitasking while driving. Furthermore, regression analyses revealed that
overall fleet safety climate, and all of the fleet safety climate factors, emerged as
significant independent predictors of driving behaviours relating to fatigue and
distraction.
Fleet safety climate was perceived to influence road safety outcomes through
several avenues. Some of these included: the allocation of sufficient resources to
manage occupational road risks; fostering a supportive environment of mutual
responsibility; resolving safety issues openly and fairly; clearly communicating to
Work-Related Road Safety
204
employees that safety is the top priority; and developing appropriate work-related
road safety policies and procedures.
7.2.6 Research question six: Do differences in stage of change relate to work-
related road safety outcomes?
The interviews and questionnaires identified that individuals’ perceived stage
of change was associated with driving behaviours relating to fatigue and distraction
and also vehicle crash involvement. More specifically, participants who had
progressed through more stages of change, reported lower tendencies to engage in
driving while fatigued and lower multitasking while driving. Participants who had
progressed through more stages of change also reported lower involvement in vehicle
crashes. Furthermore, regression analyses indicated that as participants’ progress
through the stages of change, the corresponding likelihood of them being involved in
vehicle crashes decreases.
Finally, participants’ perceptions of initiative effectiveness were found to vary
with respect to their individual stage of readiness. For example employees who were
classified as being in the pre-contemplation stage, perceived awareness raising
initiatives such as posters, to be more effective than advice giving initiatives such as
information bulletins on how to enhance road safety. This finding makes sense based
on the stage of change model. The model suggests that awareness raising initiatives
are most appropriate for individuals in the pre-contemplation stage, as these
individuals see no problem with their current behaviour and express no intention to
change. In comparison, employees who were classified as being in the maintenance
stage, perceived initiatives that provided ongoing advice and practical information to
be most effective. This finding also makes sense based on the stage of change model.
The model suggests that initiatives that provide ongoing education and advice are
appropriate for individuals in the maintenance stage. This finding suggests that
differences in individuals’ stage of change may operate as a moderating variable
Work-Related Road Safety
205
influencing whether a work-related road safety initiative will achieve desired safety
outcomes in an organisation.
7.2.7 Research question seven: Do differences in safety ownership relate to work-
related road safety outcomes?
The interviews and questionnaires revealed that management of road risks is
often given less attention than other areas of health and safety management in
organisations. With regards to safety outcomes, participants’ safety ownership
perceptions were related to their overall driving behaviour and driving behaviours
pertaining to fatigue and distraction. Regression analyses identified that perceived
authority and perceived shared ownership both emerged as significant independent
predictors of driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue and distractions. The regression
models indicated that as participants’ perceptions of the authority of the person
managing road risks increases the corresponding likelihood of them engaging in
driving while fatigued or multitasking while driving decreases. Similarly, as
participants’ perceptions of shared ownership of safety tasks increases, the
corresponding likelihood of them engaging in driving while fatigued or multitasking
while driving decreases.
Furthermore, it was observed that greater sharing of safety responsibility
ownership was associated with greater development of work-related road safety
practices and processes. The author suggests that the integration of safety knowledge,
skills and abilities from a range of employees gained through shared ownership may
facilitate the development of superior safety practices and procedures. Personnel
from a range of organisational positions were identified for accepting some safety
ownership responsibilities. These positions included: General Manager; Health and
Safety Manager; Health and Safety Senior Advisor; Health and Safety Coordinator;
Insurance Compensation Manager; Business Unit Manager; Strategic Procurement
Manager; Risk Management Officer; Fleet Manager; Fleet Technical Officer;
Supervisor; and Driver.
Work-Related Road Safety
206
To facilitate the achievement of desirable road safety outcomes, managers
perceived that the personnel responsible for managing occupational road risks within
their organisation would require high competency levels in the following risk
management tasks: hazard identification and control; provide OH&S information and
instruction; incident investigations; inspections of workplace and work tasks;
researching and reporting on OH&S issues and strategies; and applying legislative
OH&S requirements.
7.3 Strengths and limitations of the current research and suggestions for
future studies
Key strengths of the current program of research include addressing a gap in
the literature by providing a current review of empirical findings with respect to
occupational road safety initiative effectiveness and pioneering research into four
new areas.
Firstly, the current research makes a valuable contribution to the literature by
providing a current review of empirical evaluations of work-related road safety
initiatives. This review may be used by academics to select future research directions
and by practitioners to develop effective risk management strategies. As it is
currently unclear in the existing literature as to which initiatives provide the greatest
opportunity for advancing road safety, the author encourages academics to conduct
future research to identify which risk management areas offer the greatest potential
for improving occupational road safety.
Secondly, it pioneers research into four new avenues of work-related road
safety literature. In relation to initiative effectiveness, the current research provides
new insights with respect to employees’ perceptions of the effectiveness of a range of
occupational road safety initiatives and whether the comprehensiveness of risk
management practices is associated with road safety outcomes. This research has
Work-Related Road Safety
207
allowed the author to generate several empirically supported recommendations, to
assist in improving work-related road safety. Future studies could expand upon the
new areas of research by exploring whether the findings identified in the current
study will generalise to organisations operating in different countries. For example, it
would be interesting to observe whether employee perceptions of initiative
effectiveness varied with respect to different cultures. The author suggests that
employees may perceive initiatives differently based on whether they belong to a
collectivist or individualist culture and whether there culture values a high or low
power distance within organisations.
In relation to organisational factors, the current research provides new
insights with respect to the influences of stage of change and safety ownership upon
the management of occupational road safety. Based on the findings from the current
research, the author strongly advocates future research be conducted to establish an
efficient and reliable method of classifying employee stage of change in relation to
road safety and to optimise the implementation of distributive ownership of safety
responsibilities.
Key limitations of the current program of research include the restricted
scope of the document review, the small sample size and the restricted range
obtained for the outcome measures of traffic infringements and vehicle incidents.
Firstly, although the structured procedure used in the document review was
beneficial in restricting the review to documents previously assessed by academic
experts to be of scientific merit, this process may have overlooked other relevant
documents. Future research may wish to expand upon the current review by
including non peer-reviewed documents or by adopting a broader scope. The author
recognises that some non peer-reviewed documents may potentially be of an equally
high standard to peer-reviewed documents. Furthermore the inclusion of research on
community based initiatives may have provided a different view on the effectiveness
Work-Related Road Safety
208
of some initiatives. For example, although driver training was found to be associated
with positive road safety outcomes in four reviewed documents on occupational road
safety initiatives, this is not consistent with some community based research. For
example, a review of community based research on the effectiveness of driver
training has found little evidence for the effectiveness of driver training in reducing
crashes for experienced drivers and that it may even have a negative impact on
novice drivers (Christie, 2001).
A second limitation of the current research was the small sample size. The
use of only four organisations did limit the researcher’s ability to compare
organisations based on the comprehensiveness of their policies and practices. Given
the small sample size, the author suggests that the findings pertaining to the
relationship between comprehensiveness of risk management practices and road
safety outcomes should only be considered as preliminary. Future research should be
conducted to assess this relationship using a larger sample and a more diverse range
of organisations.
Finally, the current research was limited by the obtainment of a restricted
range for the outcome measures of traffic infringements and vehicle incidents.
Across the four organisations, approximately 90% of employees reported obtaining
no traffic infringements and reported not being involved in a vehicle incident during
the past 12 months. Previous research in the area of work-related road safety
(Freeman et al., 2007; Wishart et al., 2006) has also acknowledged difficulties in
reliably analysing data due to only a small proportion of the sample reporting
infringement and incident involvement. To overcome this limitation, the author
suggests that future research could adopt a case study approach and select several
organisations with a history of high infringement and incident involvement to be
compared with several organisations with a history of low infringement and incident
involvement.
Work-Related Road Safety
209
To address methodological issues identified in this research, the author also
proposes two additional areas of exploration for future research. These comprise in-
depth exploration of the extent of influence organisations potentially have upon
employees’ driving errors and violations, and the development of a parsimonious set
of questions to reliably classify employees in regards to their stage of change.
Firstly, the current research indicates that organisational factors are predictive
of employees’ overall driving behaviours and driving behaviours relating to fatigue
and distractions. However, organisational factors appeared to have little influence
over employees’ driving behaviours relating to errors and violations. More
specifically, the fleet safety climate factor ‘appropriateness of rules’ was the only
organisational characteristic found to independently predict driving violations. Based
on this finding, the author speculates that driving errors and violations may be
influenced more strongly by an employees’ personal style of driving rather than
organisational factors including fleet safety climate, stage of change and safety
ownership. If this were the case, it would appear that organisations may have limited
influence over risks arising from employees’ driving errors and violations. To guide
the development of risk management approaches, future research could explore the
extent of influence organisations have upon employees’ driving errors and violations
and identify if any organisational factors have the potential to influence these driving
behaviours.
Secondly, the author identified that the five core questions used in the current
research provided a useful starting point for classifying employees’ stage of change.
However, these questions were not sufficient to distinguish between adjoining stages
for some participants. With the inclusion of additional probing questions it was
identified that the stages of change model could provide a framework for classifying
employee readiness to engage in work-related road safety behaviour change. Given
that the stage of change model has been identified as a useful framework for
classifying employee readiness to engage in safety behaviours both in this research
Work-Related Road Safety
210
and previous studies (Barrett et al., 2005; Whysall et al., 2006), the author
recommends that future research be conducted to achieve a parsimonious set of
questions that can be used by practitioners and researchers to reliably classify
employees in regards to their stage of change.
7.4 Implications
The current research indicates that organisations have the potential to
enhance road safety outcomes through the implementation of appropriate work-
related road safety initiatives and through fostering a work environment that is
conducive to safety.
In regards to work-related road safety initiatives, the current research implies
that the popular search for a ‘silver bullet’, or one easy solution, to managing work-
related road safety may be futile. Rather, a comprehensive risk management
approach that includes multiple initiatives may be necessary to achieve optimal
safety outcomes. The use of a combination of initiatives would allow organisations to
implement some initiatives that are designed to achieve fast results and build
momentum within the organisation for adopting further risk management strategies,
and also some more involved initiatives that are designed to achieve long-term
stability in enhanced road safety outcomes. The use of a combination of initiatives
would also allow organisations to implement a mixture of initiatives appropriate to
the range of individuals within a workforce. For example, an awareness raising
initiative could be included to target employees who are in a pre-contemplation stage
of road safety behaviour change. This initiative could be complemented by an
initiative that provides ongoing advice and performance feedback to consolidate
safety gains and prevent relapses to unsafe behaviours. This type of initiative would
be appropriate for employees in the maintenance stage of road safety behaviour
change. A combination of initiatives that are designed to target the full spectrum of
change stages is necessary as the implementation of an initiative that is not
Work-Related Road Safety
211
appropriate for an individuals’ stage of change may at best, have only a limited
ability to achieve advances in safety behaviours.
When designing and implementing initiatives, practitioners should consider
the face-validity of initiatives and whether there is any scientific evidence indicating
that the initiative is effective. More specifically, it was identified that initiatives such
as driver training were both perceived to be effective by employees and found to be
effective in enhancing road safety outcomes in previous studies. By implementing
initiatives with high face validity, organisations have the potential to minimise
employee resistance. By implementing initiatives that have empirically been linked
to safety outcomes, organisations have the potential to maximise their safety
outcomes.
As the cost of implementing initiatives was perceived to be a key barrier in
managing work-related road risks, practitioners should also consider initiative costs.
The current research suggests that initiative cost does not appear to be associated
with initiative effectiveness. For example, some low cost initiatives that require
minimal involvement, such as group safety discussions, have been found to be
effective with a large majority of employees. However other low cost initiatives that
require minimal involvement, such as implementing a policy, were found to be
effective for safer employees but had minimal effect on higher risk employees. Given
that organisations often have limited budgets for safety, an implication of this
research is that it may be most appropriate to implement a combination of low and
higher cost methods to manage road risks. Low cost initiatives could be efficiently
implemented across the whole organisation, with more expensive initiatives such as
remedial driver training being reserved for the management of higher risk
employees. To be able to support the implementation of a combination of initiatives,
organisations do need to budget for occupational road risk management expenses.
Work-Related Road Safety
212
In regards to organisational factors, the current research implies that
organisations may be able to influence road safety outcomes through fostering a
work environment that is conducive to safety. However, this influence may be
limited to employees’ overall driving behaviour and their driving behaviours
specifically relating to fatigue and distractions. As both the current research and
previous research has identified that fleet safety climate (Nielsen et al., 2008; Wills
et al., 2006), stage of change (Prochaska et al., 2001) and safety ownership (Barrett
et al., 2005; Biggs et al., 2006) are related to safety outcomes, recommendations are
provided below to assist organisations in fostering optimal work environments for
managing road safety.
7.5 Recommendations
Based on the findings from study one, which indicate that comprehensive risk
management practices are associated with employee engagement in safer driving
behaviours, the author recommends that organisations adopt a comprehensive
approach to managing occupational road risk. Work-related road risk management
may involve: having a written fleet safety policy; recruiting and selecting drivers
based on safe driving records and awareness of safety issues; including road safety
components in employee inductions; conducting and evaluating fleet safety training;
recognising good and poor driving behaviours; managing road journeys to eliminate
or minimise exposure to road hazards; selecting and maintaining vehicles for safety;
and monitoring and managing driver and vehicle risks. While initially it may not be
possible to develop organisational practices in all of these risk management areas,
organisations are encouraged to strive towards the adoption of a comprehensive
approach.
To maximise the safety return on initiative investment, attempts should be
made to implement economical initiatives that have been found to be effective with a
large majority of employees, such as group discussions. It is suggested that higher
cost initiatives, such as driver training, may be required to effectively manage higher
Work-Related Road Safety
213
risk employees. Furthermore, given that inconsistencies exist between empirical
findings and employee perceptions of initiative effectiveness, the author suggests that
practitioners may need to promote initiatives and convince employees of their value
to facilitate acceptance.
Study two identified several key barriers to, and facilitators for, the
implementation of road safety initiatives. Based on these findings, when
implementing occupational road safety initiatives, the author recommends that
practitioners consider managing the key barriers identified in this study. These
included: prioritisation of production over safety; complacency towards work-related
road risks; insufficient resources; diversity; limited employee input in safety
decisions; and a perception that road safety initiatives were an unnecessary burden.
Of these organisational characteristics, prioritisation of production over safety and
complacency were the most frequently cited barriers. The author also suggests that
practitioners consider proactively developing and utilising the key facilitators
identified in this study. These included: management commitment; the presence of
existing systems that could support the implementation of initiatives; and supportive
relationships. By adopting a proactive approach which utilises these change
facilitators, organisations are able to achieve an environment which is conducive to
supporting the implementation of occupational road risk management initiatives.
Based on the findings from study three that indicate that organisational factors
are related to safety outcomes, the author recommends that organisations should aim
to foster work environments with high fleet safety climate, which encourage
progression through the stages of change towards maintenance of safety behaviours
and encourage cooperative sharing of road risk management tasks.
More specifically in regards to fleet safety climate, to achieve advances in road
safety outcomes, the author recommends that organisations: allocate sufficient
resources to manage occupational road risks; schedule work tasks to reduce driving
Work-Related Road Safety
214
exposure at higher risk times; foster a supportive environment of mutual
responsibility; resolve safety issues openly and fairly; develop good communication
systems to allow safety information to efficiently flow between employees and
managers; ensure that work responsibilities are achievable; clearly communicate to
employees that safety is the top priority; involve employees in generating solutions
to mitigate client pressures; and develop appropriate work-related road safety
policies and procedures.
In regards to stage of change, by adopting a stage matched approach
practitioners may be able to reduce change resistance and accelerate employee
movement towards the action and maintenance stage of work-related road safety
behaviours. The author proposes that a multi-method approach to managing work-
related road risks may be necessary to provide initiatives that are appropriate to the
range of individuals within a workforce. Practitioners could design risk management
initiatives that are appropriate to employees’ readiness for change by using the stage
of change model. During project negotiations road safety practitioners could make a
brief assessment of managers’ and employees’ readiness for change. Based on their
assessment, practitioners could then determine the most appropriate structure and
content of initiatives to effectively meet the needs of their client.
In regards to safety ownership of occupational road risk management tasks, the
author recommends that employees and managers should be educated about their
OH&S responsibilities. To minimise potential role ambiguity associated with shared
ownership, the author recommends that responsibility for work-related road safety
management tasks should be explicitly stated in job descriptions across all safety
critical positions. Finally, it is recommended that organisations ensure that personnel
responsible for managing occupational road risks have sufficient authority to
implement initiatives and that they have a full understanding of the following risk
management tasks: hazard identification and control; provide OH&S information and
instruction; incident investigations; inspections of workplace and work tasks;
Work-Related Road Safety
215
researching and reporting on OH&S issues and strategies; and applying legislative
OH&S requirements.
It is important to acknowledge that these key variables only accounted for a
small amount of variance in the observed road safety outcomes in study three.
Therefore adopting these recommendations in isolation may not have a significant
impact on traffic safety outcomes. Future research should explore other possible
variables, such as organisational culture, that could be accounting for additional
variance in traffic related outcome measures.
7.6 Conclusion
This thesis contributes to the theoretical understanding of factors associated
with work-related road safety by: identifying effective occupational road safety
initiatives, identifying facilitators and barriers within organisations to implementing
occupational road safety initiatives; and identifying optimal organisational
environments for road safety. The findings from this research provide practical
information that can be used by practitioners to enhance safety within organisations.
By identifying how road safety can be improved in organisations, it is envisaged that
this thesis has the potential to assist in alleviating the global burden of traffic injuries
and fatalities.
Work-Related Road Safety
216
Work-Related Road Safety
217
References
Aborg, C., Fernstro, M., & Ericson, M. (1998). Work content and satisfaction before
and after a reorganisation of data entry work. Applied Ergonomics, 29, (473-
480).
Alexander, M., Cox, S., & Cheyne, A. (1995, February). The concept of safety
culture within a UK offshore organisation. Paper presented at the
Understanding Risk Perception Conference, Aberdeen.
Anderson, W, Plowman, B, Leven, B., & Fraine, G. (1998). Workplace Fleet Safety
System. Brisbane, Australia: Queensland Transport.
Andriessen, J. H. (1978). Safe behaviour and safety motivation. Journal of
Occupational Accidents, 1, 363-376.
Australian Safety and Compensation Council (2005). National OHS Strategy 2002-
2012. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Australian Transport Council (2008). National Road Safety Action Plan 2009-2010.
Retrieved December 8, 2008. from
http://www.atcouncil.gov.au/documents/actionplan_0910.aspx
Arboleda, A., Morrow, P., Crum, M., & Shelley, M. (2003). Management practices
as antecedents of safety culture within the trucking industry: similarities and
differences by hierarchical level. Journal of Safety Research, 34, 189–197.
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for
organizational change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681-703.
Australian Safety and Compensation Council (2006). Beyond Common Sense: Report
on the barriers to adoption of safety in the agriculture industry. Canberra:
Commonwealth of Australia.
Australian Transport Safety Bureau (2005) Road deaths Australia: 2005 Statistical
Summary. [Electronic version]. Civic Square, ACT. Australian Transport
Safety Bureau.
Work-Related Road Safety
218
Banks, T., Davey, J., & Brownlow, D. (2006). Driver education and fleet safety
climate in an emergency service fleet. Journal of Occupational Health and
Safety, 22(4), 341-350.
Barrett, J., Haslam, R., Lee, K., & Ellis, M. (2005). Assessing attitudes and beliefs
using the stage of change paradigm - case study of health and safety appraisal
within a manufacturing company. International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics, 35, 871-887.
Bas, M., Yuksel, M., & Cavusoglu, T. (2007). Difficulties and barriers for the
implementation of HACCP and food safety systems in food businesses in
Turkey. Food Control, 18, 124-130.
Bentley, T., & Haslam, R. (2001). A comparison of safety practices used by
managers of high and low accident rate post offices. Safety Science, 37, 19-
37.
Bianchi, A., & Summala, H. (2004). The “genetics” of driving behaviour: parents’
driving style predicts their children’s driving style. Accident Analysis and
Prevention, 36, 655-569.
Biggs, H. C., Sheahan, V. L., & Dingsdag, D. P. (2006). Improving Industry Safety
Culture: The Tasks in Which Safety Critical Positions Holders Must be
Competent. In Proceedings CIB99 International Conference on Global Unity
for Safety & Health in Construction, pages pp. 181-187, Beijing, China.
Bjerre, B. (2005). Primary and secondary prevention of drink driving by the use of
alcolock device and program: Swedish experiences. Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 37(6), 1145-1152.
Bjerre, B., & Kostela, J. (2008). Primary prevention of drink driving by the large-
scale use of alcolocks in commercial vehicles. Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 40(4), 1294-1299.
Blake, S., Kohler, S., Rask, K., Davis, A., & Naylor, D. V. (2006). Facilitators and
Barriers to 10 National Quality Forum Safe Practices. American Journal of
Medical Quality, 21, 323-334.
Work-Related Road Safety
219
BOMEL Ltd (2004). Safety culture and work-related road accidents (Road Safety
Research Report No. 51). London: Department of Transport.
Boyce, T. E., & Geller, E. S. (1999). Attempts to increase vehicle safety-belt use
among industry workers: What can we learn from our failures? Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, 19(3), 27-44.
Brew v. WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND – [2004] 1 Qd.R. 621.
Burt, C. D., Sepie, B., & McFadden, G. (2008). The development of a considerate
and responsible safety attitude in work teams. Safety Science, 46(1), 79-91.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by
the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 35, 81-105.
Campbell, M. K., DeVellis, B. M., Strecher, V. J., Ammerman, A. S., DeVellis, R.
E., & Sandler, R. S. (1994). Improving dietary behavior: The effectiveness of
tailored messages in primary care settings. American Journal of Public
Health, 4(5), 783-787.
Carbonari, J. P., & DiClemente, C. C. (2000). Using transtheoretical model profiles
to differentiate levels of alcohol abstinence success. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 68(5), 810-817.
Chiang, W., Chan, C., Tseng, C., & Wang, J. (2005). Reduction of post-shift traffic
injuries among gasoline station workers: Are they related to the reduction of
occupational gasoline vapor exposure. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37,
956-961.
Choi, J., & Price, R. (2005). The effects of person-innovation fit on individual
responses to innovation. Journal of Occupational & Organizational
Psychology, 78(1), 83-96.
Christie, R. (2001). The effectiveness of driver training as a road safety measure: A
review of the literature. RACV Literature Report No. 01/03, Nobel Park,
Victoria, November.
Cohen, A., Smith, M., & Cohen, H. (1975). Safety program practices in high versus
low accident rate companies- and interim report (Publication no. 75-185).
Work-Related Road Safety
220
Cincinnati: National institute for Occupational Safety and Health: U.S.
Department of Health Education and Welfare.
Cowman, S. (1993). Triangulation: A means of reconciliation in nursing research.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18, 788-792.
Cox, S., Tomas, J. M., Cheyne, A., & Oliver, A. (1998). Safety culture: The
prediction of commitment to safety in the manufacturing industry. British
Journal of Management, 9, S3-S11.
Clarke, S. (2006). Safety climate in an automobile manufacturing plant: The effects
of work environment, job communication and safety attitudes on accidents
and unsafe behaviour. Personnel Review, 35(4), 413-430.
Clarke, S. (1999). Perceptions of organizational safety: Implications for the
development of safety culture. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 20, 185-
198.
Clement, D. (2008). The transtheoretical model: An exploratory look at its
applicability to injury rehabilitation. Journal of Sport Rehabilitation, 17(3),
269-282.
Cooper, MD & Phillips, RA. (2004). Exploratory analysis of the safety climate and
safety behavior relationship. Journal of Safety Research, 35(5), 497-512.
Cullen, H. L. (1990). The public inquiry into the Piper Alpha disaster (Report to the
Parliament by the Secretary of State for Energy by Command of Her Majesty
Vols. 1 and 2). London: HMSO.
Curtain Bros (Qld) Pty Ltd v. FAI General Insurance Company Limited [1995] 1 Qd.
R. 142.
Darby, P., Murray, W., & Raeside, R. Applying online fleet driver assessment to help
identify, target and reduce occupational road safety risks. Safety Science, In
Press, Corrected Proof.
Davey, J., & Banks, T (2005), Estimating the Cost of Work Motor Vehicle Incidents
in Australia. Paper presented at the Australasian Road Safety Research
Policing Education Conference, Wellington, New Zealand.
Work-Related Road Safety
221
Dejoy, D. M. (1996). Theoretical models of health behaviour and workplace self-
protective behavior. Journal of Safety Research, 27(2), 61-72.
De Michiei, J., Langton, J., Bullock, K., & Wiles, T. (1982). Factors associated with
disabling injuries in underground coal mines. MSHA, USA.
De Vaus, D. (2002). Surveys in Social Research. Crows Nest: Allen and Unwin.
Diaz, R. I., & Cabrera, D. D. (1997). Safety climate and attitude as evaluation
measures of organizational safety. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 29,
643-650.
Dinges, D. F., Maislin, G., Brewster, R. M., Krueger, G. P., & Carroll, R. J. (2005).
Pilot Test of Fatigue Management Technologies. Paper presented at the
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board.
Dingsdag, D. P., Biggs, H. C., & Sheahan, V. L. (2007). Understanding and defining
OH&S competency for construction site positions: Worker perceptions.
Safety Science, 46(4), 619-633.
Dingsdag, D. P., Biggs, H. C., Sheahan, V. L., & Cipolla, D. J. (2006). A
Construction Safety Competency Framework: Improving OH&S performance
by creating and maintaining a safety culture. Brisbane, Australia:
Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation.
Dwyer, T., & Raftery, A. E. (1991). Industrial accidents are produced by social
relations of work: A sociological theory of industrial accidents. Applied
Ergonomics, 22(3), 167-178.
Erol, S., & Erdogan, S. (2008). Application of a stage based motivational
interviewing approach to adolescent smoking cessation: The Transtheoretical
Model-based study. Patient Education and Counseling, 72(1), 42-48.
Etter, J. F., & Perneger, T. V. (1999). A comparison of two measures of stage of
change for smoking cessation. Addiction, 94, 1881-1889.
Fallon, I., & O'Neill, D. (2005). The world's first automobile fatality. Accident
Analysis & Prevention, 37(4), 601-603.
Work-Related Road Safety
222
Felknor, S. A., Aday, L. A., Burau, K. D., Delclos, G. L., & Kapadia, A. S. (2000).
Safety climate and its association with injuries and safety practices in public
hospitals in Costa Rica. International Journal of Occupational Environmental
Health, 6(1), 18-25.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. New York. Harper and Row.
Flin, R., Mearns, K., O'Connor, P., & Bryden, R. (2000). Measuring safety climate:
Identifying the common features. Safety Science, 34, 177-193.
Freeman, J. Davey, J., & Wishart, D. (2007) A study of contemporary modifications
to the Manchester Drivers Behaviour Questionnaire for organizational fleet
settings. In Proceedings 3rd International Driver Behaviour and Training
Conference, Dublin, Ireland.
Freeman, J. E., Wishart, D. E., Davey, J. D., & Rowland, B. D. (2008). Driving
safety for work: A study investigating aberrant driving behaviours within a
fleet setting. In Proceedings Canadian Multidisciplinary Road Safety
Conference, Whistler, Canada.
French, J., Caplan, R., & Harrison, R. (1982). Mechanisms of Job Stress and Strain.
New York: John Wiley.
Garrett, R. B., & Perry, A. J. (1996). A safer way to move patients. Occupational
Health and Safety, 65(9), 60– 64.
Gaertner, G., Newman, P., Perry, M., Fisher, G., & Whitehead, K. (1987).
Determining the effects of management practices on coal miners' safety.
Human engineering and human resource management in mining proceedings,
82-94.
Gillen, M., Baltz, D., Gassel, M., Kirsch, L., & Vaccaro, D. (2002). Perceived safety
climate, job demands, and coworker support among union and nonunion
injured construction workers. Journal of Safety Research, 33, 33–51.
Glendon, AI & Litherland, DK. (2001). Safety climate factors, group differences and
safety behavior in road construction. Safety Science, 39, 157-188.
Glendon, A. I., & Stanton, N. A. (2000). Perspectives on safety culture. Safety
Science, 34, 193-214.
Work-Related Road Safety
223
Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and
psychological climate: pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of
Management Review, 10(3), 601-616.
Goodman, P. S. (1987). Determining the effect of incentive programs on the
occurrence of accidents, injuries and productivity (OFR 47-88). Pittsburgh:
US Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines.
Gregersen, N., Brehmer, B., & Morén, B. (1996). Road safety improvement in large
companies. An experimental comparison of different measures. Accident
Analysis & Prevention, 28(3), 297-306.
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989) Toward a Conceptual
Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 11(3) 255-274.
Griffin, M. A., & Neal, A. (2000). Perceptions of safety at work: A framework for
linking safety climate to safety performance, knowledge, and motivation.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 347-358.
Guldenmund, F.W., 2000. The nature of safety culture: a review of theory and
research. Safety Science 34(1–3), 215–257.
Haines, I., Victor Y., Merrheim, G., & Roy, M. (2001). Understanding reactions to
safety incentives. Journal of Safety Research, 32(1), 17-30.
Hall, D. W., & Hecht, A. W. (1979). Summary of the characteristics of the air safety
system reporting database. Ninth Quarterly Report NASA, TM 78608, 23–34.
Haslam, R. A. (2002). Targeting ergonomics interventions—learning from health
promotion, Applied Ergonomics, 33, 241–249.
Haslam, C., & Draper, E. S. (2000). Stage of change is associated with assessment of
the health risks of maternal smoking among pregnant women. Social Science
and Medicine, 51, 1189-1196.
Haworth, N., Greig, K., & Wishart, D. (2008). Improving fleet safety - Current
approaches and best practice guidelines. Sydney, Australia: Austroads.
Haworth, N., & Senserrick, T. (2003). Review of fleet safety and driver training:
Current practices and recommendations. Unpublished report prepared for the
Work-Related Road Safety
224
Department of Treasury and Finance: Monash University Accident Research
Centre.
Haworth, N., Tingvall, C., & Kowadlo, N. (2000). Review of best practice road
safety initiatives in the corporate and/or business environment. Clayton,
Australia: Monash University Accident Research Centre.
Health and Safety Executive (2000). Driving at Work: Managing work-related road
safety. Sudbury, United Kingdom.
Hignett, S., & Wilson, J. R. (2004). The role for qualitative methodology in
ergonomics: a case study to explore theoretical issues. Theoretical issues in
Ergonomics Sciences 5(6), 473-493.
Hofmann, D. A., & Morgeson, F. P. (1999). Safety-related behavior as a social
exchange: the role of perceived organizational support and leader –member
exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(2), 286– 296.
Hopkins, A. (2000). Lessons from Longford: The Esso Gas Plant Explosion. Sydney:
CCH Australia.
IAEA. (1986). Summary report on the post-accident review meeting on the
Chernobyl accident (Safety Series 75-INSAG-4). Vienna: International
Safety Advisory Group.
Karsh, B. T., Moro, F. B., & Smith, M. J. (2001). The efficacy of workplace
ergonomic interventions to control musculoskeletal disorders: A critical
analysis of the peer-reviewed literature. Theoretical issues in Ergonomics
Sciences 2 (1), 23-96.
Kemeny, J. (1979). The need for change: The legacy of TMI. Report of the
President's Commission of the accident at Three Mile Island. Washington
DC: Government Printing Office.
Kim, Y. (2008). A stage-matched intervention for exercise behavior change based on
the Transtheoretical Model. Psychological Reports, 102(3), 939-950.
Kivimaki, K., Kalimo, R., & Salminen, S. (1995). Perceived nuclear risk,
organizational commitment, and appraisals of management: A study of
nuclear power plant personnel. Risk Analysis, 15(3), 391-396.
Work-Related Road Safety
225
Kompier, M. A., Cooper, C. L., & Geurts, S. A. (2000). A multiple case study
approach to work stress prevention in Europe. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 9(3), 371-400.
Latham, G., & Pinder, C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn
of the Twenty-first Century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1), 485-516.
Laforge, R., Maddock, J., & Rossi, J. (1998, March). Comparison of five stage
methods for alcohol abuse among college students. In proceedings of the
Society of Behavioral Medicine, New Orleans, LA, S170.
Laforge, R., Velicer, W., Richmond, R., & Owen, N. (1999). Stage distributions for
five health behaviors in the United States and Australia. Preventive Medicine,
28, 61-74.
Lajunen, T., & Summala, H. (2003). Can we trust self-reports of driving? Effects Of
impression management on driver behaviour questionnaire responses.
Transportation Research, Part F, 6, 97-107.
Lawton, R., Parker, D., Stradling, S., & Manstead, A. (1997). The role of affect in
predicting social behaviours: the vase of road traffic violations. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1258–1276.
Lee, T. (1998). Assessment of safety culture at a nuclear reprocessing plant. Work
and Stress, 12(3), 217-231.
Lindell, MK. (1994). Motivational and organizational factors affecting
implementation of worker safety training. Occupational Medicine, 9(2), 211-
240.
Llaneras, R., Swezey, R., Brock, J., Rogers, W., & Van Cott, H. (1998). Enhancing
the safe driving performance of older commercial vehicle drivers.
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 22, 217-245.
Ludwig, T. D. (2000). Intervening to improve the safety of delivery drivers: A
systematic behavioral approach. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 19(4), 1-124.
Work-Related Road Safety
226
Ludwig, T., & Geller, E. (1991). Improving the driving practices of pizza deliverers:
Response generalization and moderating effects of driving history. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 31-34.
Ludwig, T., & Geller, E. (1997). Managing injury control among professional pizza
deliverers: Effects of goal setting and response generalization. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 82, 253-261.
Ludwig, T., & Geller, E. (1999a). Behavioral impact of a corporate driving policy:
Undesirable side-effects reflect countercontrol. Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management, 19(2), 25-34.
Ludwig, T., & Geller, E. (1999b). Behavior change among agents of a community
safety program: Pizza deliverers advocate community safety belut use.
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 19(2), 3-24.
Ludwig, T., Geller, E., & Clarke, S. (1999). Using publicly-displayed feedback to
increaseturn-signal use: Examing spread of effect to safe stops and safety belt
use. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 19(2), 3-24.
Ludwig, T., Biggs, J., Wagner, S., & Geller, E. (2001). Using public feedback and
competitive rewards to increase the safe driving of pizza deliverers. Journal
of Organizational Behavior Management, 21, 75-104.
Ludwig, T., & Geller, E. (1999). Behavior change among agents of a community
safety program: Pizza deliverers advocate community safety belut use.
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 19(2), 3-24.
Lutness, J. (1987). Measuring up: assessing safety with climate surveys.
Occupational Health and Safety, 56(2), 20-26.
Management Charter Initiative. (1997). Management standards. London:
Management Charter Initiative.
Manning v. Taroom Shire Council & Ors [1994] QCA 430.
McAfee, R. B., & Winn, A. R. (1989). The use of incentives/feedback to enhance
workplace safety: A critique of the literature. Journal of Safety Research,
20(1), 7-19.
Work-Related Road Safety
227
McKillips, JL. (2003). Fleet Safety: Protecting drivers and the bottom line.
Professional Safety, 22-26.
Mearns, K.J., & Flin, R., 1999. Assessing the state of organizational safety – culture
or climate? Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality,
Social 18(1), 5–17.
Mearns, K., Flin, R., Gordon, R., & Fleming, M. (1998). Measuring safety climate on
offshore installations. Work and Stress, 12(3), 238-254.
Mearns, K., Whitaker, S. M., & Flin, R. (2003). Safety climate, safety management
practice and safety performance in offshore environments. Safety Science,
41(8), 641-680.
Mejza, M. C., Barnard, R. E., Corsi, T. M., & Keane, T. (2003). Driver Management
Practices of Motor Carriers with High Compliance and Safety Performance.
Transportation Journal, 42(4), 16-29.
Miles, M.N., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). An Expanded Sourcebook. Qualitative Data
Analysis, Sage, London.
Mullen, J. (2004). Investigating factors that influence individual safety behavior at
work. Journal of Safety Research, 35(3), 275-285.
Murray, W. (2007). Worldwide Occupational Road Safety (WORS) Review Project.
Murray, C. J., & Lopez, A.D. (1996). The global burden of disease: A comprehensive
assessment of mortality and disability from diseases, injuries and risk factors
in 1990 and projected to 2020. Boston, MA; Harvard School of Public
Health.
Murray, W., Newnam, S., Watson, B., Davey, J., & Schonfeld, C. (2003). Evaluating
and improving fleet safety in Australia. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Australian
Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB).
Neal, A., Griffin, M. A., & Hart, P. M. (2000). The impact of organizational climate
on safety climate and individual behaviour. Safety Science, 34, 99-109.
Nielsen, K. J., Rasmussen, K., Glasscock, D., & Spangenberg, S. (2008). Changes in
safety climate and accidents at two identical manufacturing plants. Safety
Science, 46(3), 440-449.
Work-Related Road Safety
228
Newberry v. Suncorp [2006] 1 Qd.R. 519.
Newman, S., Griffin, M., & Mason, C. (2008). Safety in Work Vehicles: A
Multilevel Study Linking Safety Values and Individual Predictors to Work-
Related Driving Crashes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 632-644.
Newnam, S., Tay, R., & Mason, C. (2006). Using psychological frameworks to
inform the evaluation of fleet safety initiatives. Safety Science, 44(9), 809-
820.
Newnam, S., Watson, B., & Murray, W. (2004). Factors predicting intentions to
speed in a work and personal vehicle. Transportation Research Part F, 7,
287-300.
Olson, R., & Austin, J. (2001). Behavior-based safety and working alone: The effects
of a self-monitoring package on the safe performance of bus operators.
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 21(3), 5-43.
O’Toole, M. F. (1999). Successful safety committees: participation not legislation.
Journal of Safety Research, 30(1), 39–65.
O’Toole, M. (2002). The relationship between employees’ perceptions of safety and
organizational culture. Journal of Safety Research, 33(2) 231-243.
Ovretweit, J. (1998). Evaluating Health Interventions. Open University Press,
Buckingham.
Parker, S. K., Axtell, C. M., & Turner, N. (2001). Designing a safer workplace:
importance of job autonomy, communication quality, and supportive
supervisors. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(3), 211– 228.
Parker, D., McDonald, L., Rabbitt, P., & Sutcliffe, P. (2000). Elderly drivers and
their accidents: the aging driver questionnaire. Accident Analysis and
Prevention, 32, 751-759.
Parker, D., West, R. J., Stradling, S. G., & Manstead, A. R. (1995). Behavioural
characteristics and involvement in different types of traffic accident. Accident
Analysis and Prevention, 27(4), 571-581.
Pidgeon, N. F. (1991). Safety culture and risk management in organizations. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22(1), 129– 140.
Work-Related Road Safety
229
Pidgeon, N., & O'Leary, M. (2000). Man-made disasters: Why technology and
organizations (sometimes) fail. Safety Science, 34, 15-30.
Pendlebury, D. A. (1996). Which psychology papers, places and people have made a
mark? American Psychological Society Observer, 14-18.
Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1982). Transtheoretical therapy: Toward a
more integrative model of change. Psychotherapy: Theory Research and
Practice, 19, 276-288.
Prochaska, J. M. (2000). A transtheoretical model for assessing organizational
change: A study of family service agencies' movement to time-limited
therapy. Families in Society-the Journal of Contemporary Human Services,
81(1), 76-84.
Prochaska, J. O., DiClemente, C. C., & Norcross, J. C. (1992). In search of how
people change: Applications to addictive behaviors. American Psychologist,
47(9), 1102-1114.
Prochaska, J. M., Prochaska, J. O., & Levesque, D. A. (2001). A transtheoretical
approach to changing organizations. Administration and Policy in Mental
Health, 28(4), 247-261.
Prochaska, J. O., & Velicer, W. (1997). The transtheoretical model of health
behavior change. American Journal of Health Promotion, 12, 38-48.
Rakowski, W., Ehrich, B. E., Goldstein, M. G., Dube, C. E., Clark, M. A., Pearlman,
D. A., et al. (1997, April). A stage-matched intervention for screening
mammography. Paper presented at the 18th annual meeting of The Society of
Behavioral Medicine, San Francisco, CA.
Reason, J. (1990). Human Error. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Reason, J., Manstead, A., Stradling, S., Baxter, J., & Campbell, K. (1990). Errors and
violations: a real distinction? Ergonomics, 33, 1315-1332.
Reed G. R, Velicer W. F, & Prochaska J. O. (1997). What makes a good staging
algorithm: examples from regular exercise. American Journal of Health
Promotion, 12, 57–66.
Work-Related Road Safety
230
Robinson, A. H., Norman, G. J., Sallis, J. F., Calfas, K. J., Rock, C. L., & Patrick, K.
(2008). Validating stage of change measures for physical activity and dietary
behaviors for overweight women. International Journal of Obesity, 32(7),
1137-1144.
Rodrigues, D., Targa, F., & Belzer, M. (2006). Pay incentives and truck driver
safety: A case study. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 59(2), 205-225.
Rossi, J. S., Blais, L. M., Redding, C. A., & Weinstock, M. A. (1995). Behavior
change for reducing sun exposure and ultraviolet light exposure: Implications
for interventions. Dermantologic Clinics, 13, 613-622.
Rowden, P. J., Watson, B. C. & Biggs, H. C. (2006) The Transfer of Stress from
Daily Hassles to the Driving Environment in a Fleet Sample. In Proceedings
Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference,
Gold Coast, Queensland.
Roy, M. (2003). Self-directed work teams and safety: A winning combination?
Safety Science, 41, 359-376.
Salminen, S. (2008). Two interventions for the prevention of work-related road
accidents. Safety Science Regulatory Issues, Safety Climate, Culture and
Management Papers selected from the third international conference
Working on Safety (WOS2006), September 12-15th, 2006, Zeewolde, The
Netherland, 46(3), 545-550.
Salminen, S., & Lahdeniemi E. (2002). Risk factors in work-related traffic.
Transportation Research Part F, Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol 5F,
No. 1, 77-86.
Sanders, M., Patterson, T., & Peay, J. (1976). The effect of organizational climate
and policy on coal mine safety (OFR 108-77): Bureau of Mines. US
Department of Interior.
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45, 109-119.
Scheltema, K., Brost, S., Skager, G., & Roberts, D. (2002). Seat-belt use by trauma
center employees before and after a safety campaign. American Journal of
Health Behavior, 26(4), 278-283.
Work-Related Road Safety
231
Seale, C., & Silverman, D. (1997). Ensuring rigour in qualitative research. European
Journal of Public Health, 7(4), 379–384.
Searle, B., & Bright, J. (2003). Helpful boss, healthy worker? The effects of
supervisory support on stress. Australian Journal of Psychology, 55, 61-61.
Shannon, H., Walters, V., Lewchuk, W., Richardson, J., Moran, L., Haines, T., et al.
(1996). Workplace organizational correlates of lost time accident rates in
manufacturing. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 29, 258-268.
Sheen, M. J. (1987). M.V. Herald of Free Enterprise. London: HMSO: Department
of Transport.
Silva, S., Lima, M. L., & Baptista, C. (2004) OSCI: an organisational and safety
climate inventory. Safety Science, 42(3), 205-220.
Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text
and interaction. London: Sage Publications.
Simard, M., & Marchand, A. (1995). A multilevel analysis of organisational factors
related to the taking of safety initiatives by work groups. Safety Science, 21,
113-129.
Simard, M., & Marchand, A. (1997). Workgroups' propensity to comply with safety
rules: The influence of micro-macro organisational factors. Ergonomics,
40(2), 127-188.
Simonds, R. H., & Shafai-Sharai, Y. (1977). Factors apparently affecting injury
frequency in eleven matched pairs of companies. Journal of Safety Research,
9(3), 120-127.
Smith, M., Cohen, H., Cohen, A., & Cleveland, R. (1978). Characteristics of
successful safety programs. Journal of Safety Research, 10(1), 5-15.
Sullman, M.J., Meadows, M., & Pajo, K.B. (2002). Aberrant driving behaviours
amongst New Zealand truck drivers. Transportation Research Part F, 5, 217-
232.
Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics. Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Work-Related Road Safety
232
Takase, M., Maude, P., & Manias, E. (2005). Nurses’ job dissatisfaction and turnover
intention: Methodological myths and an alternative approach. Nursing &
Health Sciences, 7(3), 209-217.
Trevelyan, F. C., & Haslam, R. A. (2001). Musculoskeletal disorders in a handmade
brick manufacturing plant. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,
27, 43-55.
Urlings, I., Nijboer, I., & Dul, J. (1990). A method for changing the attitudes and
behaviour of management and employees to stimulate the implementation of
ergonomic improvement. Ergonomics, 33(5), 629-637.
Varonen, U., & Mattila, M. (2000). The safety climate and its relationship to safety
practices, safety of the work environment and occupational accidents in eight
wood-processing companies. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 21, 761-769.
Velicer, W. F, Prochaska, J. O., Fava, J. L., Norman, G. J., & Redding, C. A. (1998).
Smoking cessation and stress management: Applications of the
Transtheoretical Model of behavior change. Homeostasis, 38, 216-233.
Vredenburgh, A. G. (2002). Organizational safety: Which management practices are
most effective in reducing employee injury rates? Journal of Safety Research,
33, 259-276.
Walton, D. (1999). Examining the self-enhancement bias: professional truck drivers’
perceptions of speed, safety, skill and consideration. Transportation
Research. Part F, Traffic Psychology and Behavior, 2, 91– 113.
Watson, B.C. (1997) When common sense just won't do: Misconceptions about
changing the behaviour of road users. In: The 2nd International Conference
on Accident Investigation, Reconstruction, Interpretation and the Law, 20-23
October 1997, Brisbane, Queensland.
Weiner, B., Amick, H., & Lee, S. (2008). Conceptualization and Measurement of
Organizational Research and Other Fields Readiness for Change: A Review
of the Literature in Health Services. Medical Care Research Review, 65, 379-
436.
Work-Related Road Safety
233
West, R. (2005). Time for a change: putting the Transtheoretical (stages of change)
model to rest. Addiction, 100, 1036-1039.
Westgaard, R., & Winkel, J. (1997). Ergonomic intervention research for improved
musculoskeletal disorders: a critical review. International Journal of
Industrial Ergonomics, 20, 463-500.
Wheatley, K. (1997). An overview of issues in work-related driving. In Staysafe 36:
Drivers as workers, vehicles as workplaces: Issues in fleet management.
(Report No. 9/51). Ninth report of the Joint Standing Committee on Road
Safety of the 51st Parliament. Sydney: Parliament of New South Wales, 15-
24.
White, J., & Murray, W. (2007). Occupational Road Safety Case Study: Rocke
Australia cuts risks, collisions and costs. Journal of the Australasian College
of Road Safety, 18(3), 28-29.
Whysall, Z., Haslam, C., & Haslam, R. (2006). Implementing health and safety
interventions in the workplace: An exploratory study. International Journal
of Industrial Ergonomics, 36(9), 809-818.
Wilde, G. J. (1994). Target risk: Dealing with the danger of death, disease and
damage in everyday decisions. Toronto: PDE Publications.
Wills, A. R., Watson, B., & Biggs, H. C. (2004, November). The relative influence of
fleet safety climate on work-related driver safety. Proceedings of the Road
Safety Research, Education and Policing Conference, Perth, Australia.
Wills, A. R., Watson, B., & Biggs, H. C. (2006) Comparing safety climate factors as
predictors of work-related driving behavior. Journal of Safety Research, 37,
375-383.
Winum, P., Ryterband, E., & Stephensen, P. (1997). Helping organizations change:
A model for guiding consultation. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice
and Research, 49, 6-16.
Wishart, D., Davey, J., & Freeman, J. (2007). A review of developing and
implementing Australian fleet safety interventions: A case study approach
Work-Related Road Safety
234
update. Paper presented at the 3rd International Driver Behavior and Training
Conference, Dublin, Ireland.
Wishart, D., Freeman, J., & Davey, J. (2006) Utilising the Driver Behaviour
Questionnaire in an Organisational Fleet Setting: Are Modifications
Required. Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety 17(2), 31-38.
Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995
Wolf, R. L., Lepore, S. J., Vandergirift, J. L., Wetmore-Arkader, L., McGinty, E.,
Pietrzak, G., et al. (2008). Knowledge, barriers, and stage of change as
correlates of fruit and vegetable consumption among urban and mostly
immigrant black men. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 108(8),
1315-1322.
Wood, S., Barling, J., Lasaosa, A., & Parker, S. (2000). Organizational practices and
safety performance. Unpublished manuscript.
World Health Organization (2004). World report on road traffic injury prevention.
Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
Wouters, P. I., & Bos, J. M. (2000). Traffic accident reduction by monitoring driver
behaviour with in-car data recorders. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 32(5),
643-650.
Wright, C. (1986). Routine deaths: Fatal accidents in the oil industry. Sociological
Review, 34, 265-289.
Wright, E., & Haslam, R. (1999). Manual handling risks and controls in a soft drinks
distribution centre. Applied Ergonomics, 30, 311-318.
Xie, C., & Parker, D. (2002). A social psychological approach to driving violations
in two Chinese cities. Transportation Research Part F, 5, 293-308.
Zohar, D. (2000). A group level model of safety climate: testing the effect of group
climate on microaccidents in manufacturing jobs. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85, 587-596.
Work-Related Road Safety
235
Appendices
A Structured document summary - Review of published articles
pertaining to work-related road safety initiatives 1990-2008 ................ 237
B Industry project brief .............................................................................. 253
C Questionnaire ......................................................................................... 256
D Questionnaire project brief ..................................................................... 271
E Audit criteria .......................................................................................... 273
F Audit interview ....................................................................................... 285
G Audit results for each organisation ......................................................... 291
H Interview schedule .................................................................................. 315
I Interview consent form ........................................................................... 333
J Fleet safety climate items ....................................................................... 337
K Managers’ ratings of perceived competence required to manage
occupational road risks ............................................................................ 339
Work-Related Road Safety
236
Work-Related Road Safety
237
APPENDIX A
STRUCTURED DOCUMENT SUMMARY:
REVIEW OF PUBLISHED ARTICLES PERTAINING TO
WORK-RELATED ROAD SAEFTY INITIATIVES
1990-2008
Work-Related Road Safety
238
Structured document summary: Review of published articles pertaining to work-related road safety initiatives
Source Initiatives Method Key Findings and Limitations
Bjerre, 2005 Alcolock device Questionnaire and breath
test records. Three Swedish
commercial transport
companies. Vehicles =
buses, trucks & taxis
Process evaluation indicated that at time of
installation, some drivers reported initial
suspicion & concerns of increased workload &
work disturbances. Three years post
installation the alcolocks were very well
accepted by most employers, employees &
passengers. Outcome evaluation indicated that
3.4 of 1000 starts were prevented by the
alcolocks after a BAC level exceeding the legal
limit had been measured. Some self-reports of
reduced vehicle damage post intervention. Data
analysed over 1 year during intervention
condition. Note: No follow up data outcome
data collected.
Bjerre &
Kostela,
2008
Alcolock device Questionnaire and breath
test records. Swedish
commercial transport
Questionnaire indicated reasons for installing =
improving quality of transport, inline with
alcohol policy, customer demand, known
Work-Related Road Safety
239
companies including 88
companies with alcolocks
installed & 131 companies
without alcolocks installed.
Vehicles = buses, trucks,
taxis, heavy vehicles,
official cars, & others.
alcohol problems in workforce. Reasons
against installing = high cost, problems with
device, perceived not needed, potential
integrity problems. Breath test data where
available indicated that 1.9 of 1000 starts were
prevented by the alcolocks after a BAC level
exceeding the legal limit had been measured.
Highest rate of positive breath tests on
weekends. Data analysed over 2 years during
intervention condition. Note: No follow up
data collected.
Chiang,
Chan, Tseng,
& Wang,
2005
Gasoline vapour recovery
devices
Between groups, pre-post
observations of occupational
injury registry data in
relation to traffic commuting
incidents. Comparisons
made in a petrochemical
company with 20,000
employees in Taiwan. Pre-
For both exposed & non-exposed employees,
the overall cumulative injury rate decreased
between 1991 and 2000. However, in relation
to commuting home data, the cumulative injury
rate only decreased in the exposed employees.
The rate ratio of commuting incidents on the
way back home in the exposed group
decreased from 2.15 (during 1991-1992) to
Work-Related Road Safety
240
intervention data collected
during 1991-1992. Post-
intervention data collected
1997-2000. Comparisons
made between employees
exposed and not exposed to
vapour.
0.53 (during 1997-2000).*
Dinges,
Maislin,
Brewster,
Krueger, &
Carroll, 2005
Fatigue Management
Technologies (FMT). One
initiative including 4 devices
that provided information on
driver sleep need, driver
drowsiness, lane tracking
performance & reducing work
involved in controlling vehicle
stability
With-in groups, crossover
design used. Volunteer truck
drivers from Canada (n=27)
& United States (n=12)
underwent 2 weeks of no
feedback (control condition)
followed by 2 weeks of
feedback (intervention
condition).
During night driving, FMT feedback reduced
driver drowsiness and lane tracking
variability.*
Authors noted that benefits of FMT devices
may come at cost of added attention &
compensatory behaviours to respond to
devices.
Participants agreed that commercial drivers
would benefit from fatigue management
devices. They preferred vehicle, rather than
driver, monitoring devices. Data analysed
during control condition and intervention
Work-Related Road Safety
241
condition. Note: No follow up data collected.
Gregersen,
Brehmer, &
Moren, 1996
4 initiatives:
(1) Driver training (3 x 2.5
hour practical sessions).
(2) Group discussions (3 x 1
hour meetings in small groups
to discuss problems &
solutions).
(3) Campaigns (5 group
information sessions where
videos & pamphlets were
presented).
(4) Reward system (work
group was given money for
incident free driving).
Between groups, pre-post
observations with 4
experimental conditions & 1
control condition. 5 groups
of approximately 900 drivers
each. All drivers from a
Swedish telephone
company.
Accident risk (accidents in relation to mileage)
indicated that group discussions & driver
training, followed by the bonus gave the largest
effect.* No reduction found for campaign or
control group. Accident costs were reduced in
all experimental conditions but not the control
group. Greatest accident cost reduction
occurred in group discussion condition. Data
analysed 2 years pre-intervention & 2 years
post-intervention.
Llaneras,
Swezey,
Brock,
Rogers &
4 initiatives designed to target
ability deficiencies of older
commercial drivers:
(1) 3 in-vehicle compensatory
Between-groups design
used. 107 commercially
licensed American truck
drivers aged 50 years and
Drivers in the experimental condition as
compared to the control condition
demonstrated enhanced: overall driving
ability*; performance during curves*; visual
Work-Related Road Safety
242
Van Cott,
1998
devices (auditory navigational
system, automatic
transmission, advanced
auditory warning system)
(2) 1 training program on
visual search & scanning
patterns.
above were assigned to
either the experimental
condition with all 4
initiatives or control
condition.
search monitoring*; detection of brake
malfunction*; ability to adjust vehicle speed to
external conditions, adherence to traffic
signals. Note: These effects were obtained in
simulated driving experiences. It is unclear
whether the effects would be replicated on road
or how long the effects would be maintained.
Ludwig,
Biggs,
Wagner, &
Geller, 2001
2 initiatives:
(1) Individual competition
with weekly rewards (driver
who performed target
behaviour most often received
reward, while others received
no reward. Reward was a
choice of a car maintenance
product or service e.g. Free oil
change or car wash).
(2) Public individual feedback
presented via weekly graphs
Between groups, pre-post
observations with of pizza
delivery drivers from 5
American national franchise
pizza stores & a sample of
civilian drivers. Stores A &
B served as the experimental
conditions receiving the
same intervention. The only
difference being that the
target behaviour in store A
was turn signal use & in
At store A, turn signal use rose from 35%
during baseline to 58% during intervention.
Turn signal use dropped slightly to 53% post
intervention. At store B, complete intersection
stopping increased from 14% during baseline
to 31% during intervention. Complete
intersection stopping dropped to 21% post
intervention. No considerable changes were
observed in turn signal use or complete
intersection stopping in the control groups.
Note: The article does not indicate if these
outcomes were significant.
Work-Related Road Safety
243
displaying each drivers’ target
behaviours.
store B was complete
intersection stopping. Store
C, D & E and the civilian
driver group served as
controls.
Ludwig, &
Geller, 1991
4 initiatives:
(1) Awareness (20-25 minute
interactive group discussion)
(2) Signing of pledge cards
indicating individual
commitment to buckle-up
(3) Employee designed
buckle-up reminder signs
displayed in store
(4) Cooks reminded drivers to
buckle-up when leaving store
Between groups, pre-post
observations over 7 months
with multiple baseline
design. Pizza delivery
drivers from 3 American
national franchise pizza
stores. Experimental
condition applied in stores A
& B, store C used as a
control.
Safety-belt use at Stores A & B increased
respectively from baseline means of 41% &
14%, to 68% & 69% during the interventions.
After the reminder signs were removed safety
belt use remained high (mean usage being 69%
& 41% at stores A & B respectively) for at
least 3 months post-intervention. Interestingly,
improvements generalised to a non-targeted
similar safety behaviour. Mean turn signal use
in stores A & B rose by an average of 25%
during intervention relative to baseline. No
changes were observed in store C over the 7
month period. Note: The article does not
indicate if these outcomes were significant.
Work-Related Road Safety
244
Ludwig, &
Geller, 1997
2 initiatives:
(1) Participative group goal
setting (during 45 minute
meeting) & feedback
(2) Assigned group goal
setting (video presented of
previous groups goals during
45 minute meeting) &
feedback
Between groups, pre-post
observations. Pizza delivery
drivers from 3 American
national franchise pizza
stores. Employees in store A
participated in goal setting.
Employees in store B were
assigned a goal. Both stores
A & B received same group
feedback. Store C served as
a control.
Complete stops at Stores A & B increased
respectively from baseline means of 54% &
45%, to 66% & 69% during the interventions.
Post-intervention, complete stops decreased
again in both stores (mean usage being 53% &
42% at stores A & B respectively).
Improvements generalised to a non-targeted
safety behaviour including turn-signal use &
use of seat-belts in employees at store A. For
employees in store B, no change was observed
in seat belt use & a slight decrease was
observed in turn signal use. The article does
not indicate if these outcomes were significant.
Ludwig, &
Geller, 1999a
Store managers created a
policy mandating turn-signal
use & attached it to drivers
pay checks over 2 pay periods
With-in groups, pre-post
observations over 13 weeks.
Pizza delivery drivers from 2
American national franchise
pizza stores. Experimental
condition applied in both
Slight increase observed concurrent with
policy onset. At store A, turn-signal use rose
from 70% during baseline to 84% measured at
2 weeks & 4 weeks during intervention. At
store B, turn-signal use rose from 46% during
baseline to 51% at 2 weeks into intervention &
Work-Related Road Safety
245
stores. 59% at 4 weeks into intervention. It was
observed that the safest drivers were the first to
comply with the safe driving policy. Note: The
article does not indicate if these outcomes were
significant. It is also unclear whether the
effects would be maintained as no post-
intervention data was collected.
Ludwig, &
Geller,
1999b
Delivers enlisted to serve as
change agents of a community
safety belt campaign targeting
the community of the
surrounding town. Campaign
included radio and newspaper
promotions, discount on
pizzas if customers mentioned
buckle up reminder and safety
reminder cards posted on
pizza box tops.
Between groups, pre-post
observations. Pizza delivery
drivers from 2 different
American national franchise
pizza stores in the same
town. Employees in store A
participated in intervention.
Store B served as a control.
At store A, safety belt use rose 32% above
baseline to a mean of 75% during the
intervention. Seat belt use remained at his
higher level throughout follow up observations
conducted at 6 weeks after the intervention
finished and again at 17 weeks after the
intervention. With respect to generalisation
effects, it was observed that turn signal use
increased 68% over baseline during the
intervention and remained high. Note: The
article does not indicate if these outcomes were
significant.
Work-Related Road Safety
246
Ludwig,
Geller, &
Clarke, 1999
2 initiatives:
(1) Group participative goal
setting & public
individualised feedback
(2) Assigned group goal
setting & public
individualised feedback
Between groups, pre-post
observations with multiple
baselines across 2 stores.
Time series design
containing 3 phases in
ABCA format. Pizza
delivery drivers from 5
American national franchise
pizza stores & a sample of
civilian drivers. Employees
in store A participated in
goal setting. Employees in
store B were assigned a goal.
Both stores A & B received
same group feedback. Store
C, D & E, plus the civilian
driver group served as
controls.
At store A, employee turn signal use increased
from a baseline mean of 6% to 21% during the
group feedback phase, to 32% when
individualised feedback was provided & then
returned to 21% during an 8 week post-
intervention follow-up phase. At store B,
employee turn signal use increased from a
baseline mean of 33% to 53% during the group
feedback phase, to 59% when individualised
feedback was provided & then returned to 36%
during the follow-up phase. No significant
changes were observed in any of the four
control groups. With respect to generalisation
effects, it was observed that no overall
differences in safety belt use occurred as a
result of the turn-signal intervention. An
increase in complete intersection stops was
observed in stores A & B as a result of the
turn-signal intervention.
Work-Related Road Safety
247
Mejza,
Barnard,
Corsi, &
Keana, 2003
3 initiatives:
(1) Screening criteria applied
in driver hiring situations.
(2) Pre-service & in-service
driver training.
(3) Reward safe driving
performance.
Questionnaire administered
to 148 motor carriers
selected from a sample of
480 of the ‘Best safety
performers’ in the American
trucking industry.
Best safety performers engaged in the
following practices: (1) Top screening criteria
when hiring include lack of: alcohol or drug
related violations; speeding tickets; traffic
violations; chargeable crashes. Preference for:
honesty; self-discipline; self-motivation; &
patience.
(2) Require pre-service & in-service driver
training that builds competence in regulatory
compliance; driving ability; vehicle condition
assessment; operational & safety procedures;
& disciplinary policies. Vehicle-based and
classroom-based training & evaluations of
learning applied.
(3) Range of driver reinforcement methods
used. Most popular rewards include: verbal
praise; public recognition; congratulatory
letters; safety decorations; & cash. Note:
Implications about relationships considered
Work-Related Road Safety
248
preliminary until prevalence of these practices
among less safe carriers is determined.
Newman,
Tay, &
Mason, 2006
2 initiatives:
(1) An information campaign
(monthly newsletter
containing articles on new
products, service and
maintenance, & driver
education).
(2) An incentive program that
calculates insurance premiums
based on Fleet claim history.
Questionnaire administered
to 24 Fleet Mangers in
Australian Government
agencies
Fleet managers’ questionnaire responses
indicated that they are more likely to have a
positive attitude change if they perceive the
newsletter to have intrinsic relevance. No
support was found for the utility of the
financial incentive or performance feedback in
positively changing fleet managers’ attitudes.
Olson, &
Austin, 2001
2 initiatives:
(1) Self-monitoring forms
(twice daily record estimated
percentage of time they
performed safe target
behaviours).
(2) Individual & group
With-in groups, pre-post
observations with multiple
baseline design across
performance. 4 American
male bus drivers.
Resulted in a 12% increase in overall safe
performance for the group over baseline
performance. Dependent variable with greatest
improvement was coming to a complete stop
(21% improvement), followed by remaining
motionless for 2 seconds after
loading/unloading passengers (12%), mirror
Work-Related Road Safety
249
performance feedback graphs
from researchers based on
self-monitoring data
checks (10%), bus stopping position (6%).
Note: The article does not indicate if these
outcomes were significant. It is also unclear
whether the effects would be maintained as no
post-intervention data was collected.
Rodriguez,
Targa &
Belzer, 2006
Raised wages (an average
increase of 39%)
With-in groups, pre-post
observations of conducted
for 12 months pre-
intervention & 12 months
post-intervention. Sample
was 2,368 truck drivers from
an American trucking &
logistics firm.
Driver crash involvement models found that as
pay rises, the crash probability becomes lower,
but at a decreasing rate. A 1% increase in pay
corresponded to a 1.3% decrease in crash risk.
Note: Other minor policy changes occurred
simultaneously with the pay rise including a
safety bonus for safety performance & greater
effort to return drivers to their homes after
shifts. The researchers report that they were not
able to control for any potential effects of these
other initiatives.
Salminen,
2008
2 separate studies:
(1) Social psychological
discussion (3 group sessions
With-in groups, pre-post
observations. (1) 172
electricians from a Japanese
(1) During the 3 years after the discussion
process, traffic-related work incidents
decreased by 72% (at a time when overall
Work-Related Road Safety
250
of 45-60 mins over 6 months.
1st session = brainstorm
problems, 2nd session =
suggest solutions, 3rd session
= commit to changes).
(2) 1 day course of
anticipatory driving (3 hours
lecture & 5 hours practical)
electrical company (drove
company vans & lorries).
(2)179 employees from a
separate electrical company
servicing rural areas.
occupational incidents rose by 15%)*
(2) Drivers reported satisfaction with course.
Improvement in audit rating of work-related
traffic risk management post training * Non-
significant increase in traffic incidents post
training.
Scheltema,
Brost,
Skager, &
Roberts,
2002
2 week intensive safety
campaign including posters,
distribution of fact sheets,
staff electronic mail, seat belt
promotion booth at annual
health fair, survey that
prompted employees to
consider why they did not
always wear seat belts,
requested employees to sign a
pledge to always wear seat
Between groups, pre-post
observations of experimental
group & control group.
Experimental group was
employees from an
American trauma center.
Control group was visitors to
the same American trauma
center.
Data analysed prior to intervention & post-
intervention (at conclusion of intervention &
follow-ups at 4 weeks & 12 weeks post-
intervention). In the experimental group, seat
belt use increased from 76% pre-intervention
to 82% immediately after intervention.* These
modest effects were not maintained. Seat belt
use reduced to 77% one month post-
intervention & 77% three months post-
intervention. In the control group, no
significant changes in seat belt use were
Work-Related Road Safety
251
belt, letter sent from CEO to
employees urging seat belt
use, buckle up message on
paycheck stub, seat belt use
promoted on internal website.
observed between the pre-intervention and
post-intervention time points.
White &
Murray,
2007
3 initiatives:
(1) A commercial web based
risk management tool
designed to carry out risk
assessments and monitor
employee safety
(2) Policy development
(3) Communication
Case study on an Australian
pharmaceutical
manufacturer & distributor
with approximately 650 staff
Insurance data (analysed 1 year pre-
intervention & 1 year post-intervention)
indicated a reduction in all major crash types &
improved loss ration from 69% to 48%.
Note: The article does not indicate if these
outcomes were significant. It is also unclear
what the effect was of each of the individual
initiatives.
Wouters &
Bos, 2000
In-car data recorders Between groups, pre-post
observations with matched
experimental and control
groups. 7 European fleets.
Drivers of 840 fleet vehicles
(including heavy trucks,
Data recorders and the feedback drivers were
given resulted in an average 20% reduction in
accident rate * Data was analysed 1 year pre-
intervention & 1 year post-intervention.
Accident rate was observed to increase in the
control group during the same time period.
Work-Related Road Safety
252
medium trucks, coaches,
taxis and vans, company
cars)
Note: * = Significant at .05
Work-Related Road Safety
253
APPENDIX B
INDUSTRY PROJECT BRIEF
Work-Related Road Safety
254
INDUSTRY PROJECT BRIEF:
AN INVESTIGATION INTO HOW WORK-RELATED ROAD SAFETY
CAN BE ENHANCED
Project Background:
It has been estimated that the total cost of work related road incidents in Australia
may be in the range of $1 billion to $1.5 billion per annum (Wheatley, 1997) and that
the average total insurance cost of a fleet incident is approximately $28,000 with
costs incurred to both the company and society (Davey & Banks, 2005).
Additionally, motor vehicle incidents are over represented in Australian Workers
Compensation claims. More specifically with 67 deaths in 2003-2004, vehicle
incidents were the most common mechanism for Australian compensated fatalities,
representing 35 percent of all compensated deaths (ASCC, 2006). Research in the
domain of fleet and work-related road safety therefore has important applications
in the areas of both Road Safety and Occupational Health and Safety.
Project Aims:
This CARRS-Q PhD will contribute to the theoretical understanding of factors that
influence fleet safety and provide practical information that can be used by
practitioners to enhance safety within organisations. The central research question
underpinning this PhD program is: How can fleet safety be improved in an
organisation? To answer this question several sub questions will be explored
including:
1. What outcomes have been observed in previously investigated fleet safety
interventions?
2. Do organisational differences in readiness for change, fleet safety climate or
safety ownership relate to fleet safety practices or outcomes?
Work-Related Road Safety
255
3. What facilitators and barriers are involved in implementing fleet safety
interventions?
Organisational Involvement:
This project is funded by the NRMA-ACT Road Safety Trust and is therefore
offered complimentary to your organisations. The research will comprise 3 phases.
1. Policy & practice review - The PhD scholar will meet with an organisational
representative to review the organisations’ approach to work related road
safety. The scholar will identify the level at which the organisation is
currently performing at in relation to elements that have been identified in the
literature and Queensland Transport’s Workplace Fleet Safety System as best
practice in fleet safety.
2. Interviews – The PhD scholar will meet with approximately 5 organisational
members to conduct interviews. The interviews will require a once off
commitment of approximately 1 hour from employees.
3. Questionnaires – Organisational members will be provided with an
opportunity to participate in an online survey. A copy of the questionnaire
will be provided to you in June to seek approval for its release in July.
In appreciation of your organisations support a report outlining the following will
be provided: Research findings, de-identified organisational comparisons, a review
of your organisations policies and practices in relation to best practice as outlined by
the QLD Transport Fleet Safety Audit, suggestions for improving work-related road
safety in your organisation.
Further information:
To discuss your organisations involvement in this research or if you would like more
information, please contact either:
PhD Scholar – Tamara Banks on 3138 4963 or email – [email protected]
Supervisor – Assoc Prof Jeremy Davey on 3138 4574 or email [email protected]
Work-Related Road Safety
256
Work-Related Road Safety
257
APPENDIX C
QUESTIONNAIRE
Work-Related Road Safety
258
The Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety Queensland (CARRS-Q) at the Queensland University of Technology is constantly developing initiatives aimed at improving road safety. This profile forms part of a CARRS-Q PhD research project funded by the NRMA Road Safety Trust. The aim of the PhD is to enhance the safety of the Australian road-using community through improving work related road safety.
The following Work Related Road Safety Profile contains 3 sections:
Voice your thoughts on road safety initiatives Describe your work environment Test your driving behaviour
The Work Related Road Safety Profile should take about 10 minutes to complete and you will be provided with immediate personalised feedback. Your answers are strictly confidential and anonymous. If you require further information about the conduct of this survey please view our ethics statement.
Please take the time to complete the exercise and then click on the submit button.
Start Survey
CRICOS 00213J
Work-Related Road Safety
259
Ethics Statement
This research on work-related road safety is conducted by PhD scholar Tamara Banks from the Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety Queensland (CARRS-Q) at the Queensland University of Technology
(QUT) and is funded by the NRMA-ACT Road Safety Trust.
Four Australian organisations, including yours, have agreed to participate in this research. This means that you now have the opportunity to express your beliefs about road safety in your organisation. The
information obtained from the work related road safety profile will be used to enhance the safety of the Australian road- using community through
improving work related road safety.
Your answers are anonymous and strictly confidential. You need not answer a question if you consider it too personal. The exercise should
take about 10 minutes to complete. Please note that should you have any questions or concerns about the conduct of the research, you may
contact either:
PhD scholar – Tamara Banks email: [email protected]
Supervisor - Assoc Prof Jeremy Davey email: [email protected]
Work-Related Road Safety
260
Voice your thoughts on road safety initiatives!
Some strategies work well in one organisation but not in others. Please rate the following initiatives based on how effective you think they would be in improving road safety in your organisation
Awareness communication on work related road risks Practical driver skills training Provision of driver safety information Presenting genuine personal stories about serious vehicle crashes in your organisation
Presenting comparisons of vehicle incident statistics between Departments
Communicating cost benefits of road safety e.g. fuel efficiency
Safe Driving Goal Setting Signing a promise card commitment to drive safely Encouraging self monitoring of driving behaviour Development and promotion of work related road safety policy
Group discussions to identify safety problems and brainstorm solutions
Consideration of driving competency in staff selection process
Vehicle Inductions for all drivers
Work-Related Road Safety
261
Assessing competency before being cleared to operate vehicles in difficult areas
Employee Input in selection of vehicles Documenting vehicle maintenance Making vehicle safety features standard e.g. passenger airbags
Making ‘lights on’ during driving a standard vehicle feature Making speed-limiters a standard vehicle feature Making cruise control a standard vehicle feature Monitor driver behaviour with in-car data recorders Advertising organisations phone number on vehicles for complaints and compliments
Marking low visibility walls and objects with hazard colours
Investigation of serious vehicle incidents
Including driving behaviour in performance assessments
Individual feedback on driving behaviour
Group feedback on driving behaviour
Individual incentives for safe driving
Group incentives for safe driving
Individual consequences for unsafe driving
Recording vehicle incidents and identifying high risk employees and vehicles
Targeting safety assistance to high risk drivers
Work-Related Road Safety
262
Medical screening for problems that will affect driving e.g. vision
Journey planning to avoid high risk situations e.g. animals at dusk
Checking driver’s licences are current every 12 months
Continue
Work-Related Road Safety
263
Describe your work environment! From the options below, please select the description that best describes you and your work environment.
How would you describe your approach to work- related road risks?
From what you’ve experienced, how would you describe your organisations approach to work- related road risks?
Pleases indicate how much you think the following practices apply to your organisation?
Safety rules relating to the use of motor vehicles are followed even when a job is rushed
Safety rules relating to the use of motor vehicles can be followed without conflicting with work practices
Safety rules relating to the use of motor vehicles are always practical
Employees are consulted for suggested vehicle/driver safety improvements
Safety problems and policies are openly discussed between employees and managers/supervisors
Work-Related Road Safety
264
Changes in working procedures and their effects on safety are effectively communicated to workers
Employees are told when changes are made to the working environment such as vehicle, maintenance or garaging procedures
Employees are encouraged to support and look out for each other
Safety policies relating to the use of motor vehicles are effectively communicated to workers
There are enough employees/drivers to carry out the required work
There is sufficient ‘thinking time’ to enable employees to plan and carry out their work to an adequate standard
Changes in workload or problems that arise outside of employees control can be dealt with in a way that does not affect driver safety
Time schedules for completing work projects are realistic
Workload is reasonably balanced An effective documentation management system ensures the availability of safety procedures relating to the use of motor vehicles
Safety procedures relating to the use of motor vehicles are complete and comprehensive
Safety procedures relating to the use of motor vehicles match the way tasks are done in practice
Management are committed to motor vehicle safety Driver safety is seen as an important part of fleet management in this organisation
Management are committed to driver safety Driver safety is central to management’s values and philosophies
Good working relationships exist in this organisation
Employees trust management Management trust employees
Work-Related Road Safety
265
Please indicate your beliefs about the following statements.
Work-related road safety is treated with the same level of commitment as other areas of Workplace Health and Safety in my organisation
I understand my organisations work related driving policies
The people predominantly responsible for road safety in my organisation carry the necessary authority and respect to achieve compliance
Responsibility for achieving work related road safety is shared across members in my organisation
The Workplace Health & Safety Act influences the way I drive
0 Continue
Work-Related Road Safety
266
Even the best drivers can make mistakes, do foolish things, or bend the rules while driving. For each statement below, please indicate how often over the past 6 months has this kind of thing happened to you while driving for work purposes (including driving between work and home and completing work related tasks). Remember that your responses are anonymous, so please answer truthfully.
Attempt to overtake someone that you hadn’t noticed to be turning in front of you
Stay in a lane that you know will be closed ahead until the last minute before forcing your way into another lane
Miss ‘Stop’ or ‘Give Way’ signs Become angered by another driver and give chase
Pull out of an intersection so far that you disrupt the flow of traffic
Fail to notice that pedestrians are crossing in your path of traffic
Drive especially close to the car in front as a signal to its driver to go faster or get out of the way
Sound your horn to indicate your
Work-Related Road Safety
267
annoyance to another driver Queuing to enter a main road, you pay such close attention to the main stream of traffic that you nearly hit the car in front
Cross an intersection knowing that the traffic lights are already changing to red
Whilst turning nearly hit a cyclist who has come up on your inside
Intentionally exceed the speed limit on a highway/freeway
Intentionally disregard the speed limit on a residential road
Fail to check your rear-view mirror before pulling out or changing lanes, etc
Become angered by a certain type of driver and indicate your hostility by whatever means you can
Become impatient with a slow driver ahead and overtake on the inside
When overtaking underestimate the speed of an oncoming vehicle
Race away from the traffic lights with the intention of beating the driver next to you
Skid while braking or cornering on a slippery road
Drive while under time pressure Find your attention being distracted from the road
Lose concentration while driving
Drive while tired Save time during the day by driving quicker between jobs
Have difficulty driving because of tiredness or fatigue
Work-Related Road Safety
268
Not wear your seatbelt Find yourself nodding off while driving for work
Have one or two alcoholic drinks before driving for work
Do paperwork or other admin while driving
Remove your seatbelt for some reason while driving
Eat a meal while driving for work Drive home from work after a long day (after working 12 hours or more)
Find yourself driving on "autopilot" on the way home from work
Drive while using a "hand-held" mobile phone
Drive while using a "hands-free" mobile phone
The information below is not used for identification it is only used for statistics purposes.
What is your age? YEARS
Gender:
Approximately how many hours per week do you normally drive for work?
Approximately how many kilometres do you drive each year for work?
During the past 12 months how many crashes (any incident involving a motor vehicle that resulted in damage to a vehicle or other property, or
Work-Related Road Safety
269
injury) have you been involved in while driving for work?
During the past 12 months on how many occasions have you lost any demerit points or been fined for any traffic offences while driving for work (please exclude parking offences)?
0 Submit
Work-Related Road Safety
270
Work-Related Road Safety
271
APPENDIX D
QUESTIONNAIRE PROJECT BRIEF
Work-Related Road Safety
272
OPPORTUNITY TO
EXPRESS YOUR VIEWS ON
WORK-RELATED ROAD SAEFTY
Organisation A values the wellbeing of its employees and is committed to supporting research aimed at improving employee health and safety. Organisation A is participating in a research project on work-related road safety conducted by PhD scholar Tamara Banks from the Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety Queensland (CARRS-Q). The aim of this research is to enhance the safety of the Australian road-using community through improving work-related road safety. You are invited to participate in a brief survey containing 3 sections:
1. Voice your thoughts on road safety initiatives 2. Describe your work environment 3. Test your driving behaviour
The survey is confidential and should take about 15 minutes to complete. In recognition of your valuable support, you will obtain instant personalised feedback based on your responses. Please use the following link to access the survey: http://safetyprofile.carrsq.net.au/006 username: safetyprofile, password: stopsign As the same survey is being used by other organisations, the above password and username will be used to identify you as a survey respondent from Organisation A. Organisation A Management support this research and strongly encourage you to participate in this survey.
Work-Related Road Safety
273
APPENDIX E
AUDIT CRITERIA
Work-Related Road Safety
274
WORK-RELATED ROAD SAFETY
PRACTICES AND PROCESSES AUDIT
Note. 0 = No practice in place, 1 = Limited practice in place,
2 = Moving towards reduced harm, 3 = Moving towards zero harm
Work-Related Road Safety Policy
0 No policy
No process
1 Some inclusion of fleet safety and safe driving policy in company policies and objectives
2 Some safety areas included in policy documents
Communication of policies conducted on an adhoc basis
Some employee involvement in consultation
Work-related road safety responsibilities defined for some people
Reviews of the policy are conducted on an adhoc basis
The fleet safety policy is communicated to employees and, where appropriate, other visitors to the organisation
A process exists for distributing information on fleet safety issues and activities to all employees
3 The organisation has a work-related road safety policy that is signed and dated, contains clear fleet safety objectives
and a commitment to improving fleet safety performance
Work-Related Road Safety
275
Consultation with appropriate employee representatives has been conducted by management in developing the
organisation’s fleet safety policy
The organisation has defined and documented the responsibilities, authority to act and reporting requirements of
fleet safety and has communicated these to all employees
Accountability for fleet safety performance within individual work areas is the responsibility of management
The organisation has avenues for discussing fleet safety issues in the workplace
A process exists for storing and updating fleet safety documents
The organisation’s fleet safety policy has the authorisation of an appropriate senior officer with executive
responsibility
Employees sign a copy of the fleet safety policy, confirming understanding and acceptance of the policy
A process exists for scheduled reviews of fleet safety policy objectives to assess effectiveness and appropriateness
Fleet safety issues are addressed in the workplace health and safety policy
The organisation allocates responsibility for disseminating up-to-date information and legislation on fleet safety
Implementing the fleet safety management system is the responsibility of a member of the organisation’s executive
or board
Crucial fleet safety documents are identified as such. Authorisation and the dates of document issue and
modifications appear in the document
Changes to fleet safety documents are identified in an attachment or in the document
In regards to consultations regarding changes to fleet safety documents, an appropriate system for monitoring
Work-Related Road Safety
276
employee and management representatives exists, changes are recorded and the organisation has a procedure to
follow when considering changes
Managers discuss fleet safety in workplace health and safety meetings with staff
Employees are informed of the procedures for dealing with fleet safety issues and receive progress feedback
The distribution list for a document is clearly identified
Fleet safety management systems are regularly audited according to a set schedule to assess the match between
objectives and activities
Fleet safety management systems are independently audited by appropriately qualified persons
Results of fleet safety audits are formerly reported to relevant personnel, including management
Action is taken to correct deficits identified by audits and follow-up monitoring is conducted
The organisations annual report documents fleet safety performance
Senior management regularly reviews the effectiveness of the fleet safety management system in satisfying the
organisation’s stated fleet objectives
Obsolete fleet safety documents are withdrawn from use and archived for reference purposes
A procedure exists for altering and approving changes to fleet safety documents
The effectiveness of communicating the policy objectives is evaluated
Where appropriate, review outcomes are incorporated in organisational action planning
Checks are carried out to ensure that staff understand organisational fleet safety requirements
Records are kept on the distribution of fleet safety information within the organisation and to visitors
Work-Related Road Safety
277
Driver Selection
1 Safe driving is not discussed in position descriptions or during selection process
2 Some consideration is given to safe driving records when hiring drivers
Applicants are requested to provide evidence of a current driver’s licence
3 Safe driving is mentioned in position descriptions for jobs involving significant driving tasks
A potential employee’s driving record is assessed for jobs involving significant driving risks
An applicant’s driving record is a factor in the hiring of new employees for jobs involving significant driving tasks
Applicant’s previous employers are contacted to verify driving record
4 Applicants for positions involving significant driving tasks are asked to provide details of crash records and traffic
infringements for the past three years
Applicants provide details of licences held, driver training courses attended or any awards received for their driving
A medical assessment is conducted to check an applicant’s fitness to operate the required vehicles
An applicant’s attitude to safety is addressed in the interview
An independent driving record assessment is made for jobs involving significant driving tasks
Work-Related Road Safety
278
Driver Induction
1 Work-related road safety is not included in induction programs
2 Some inclusion of work-related road safety components in employee induction
3 The organisation ensures that all employees undergo an induction program containing a work-related road safety
component, including the organisation’s work-related road safety policy and procedures
Vehicles are assigned to new employees based on the needs of their job
New employees are trained to operate their vehicle before they drive it
4 A driver assessment program is carried out for new employees
The organisation has an induction program for supervisors which includes work-related road safety issues
Training and Education
0 Work-related road safety training is not conducted
Training needs have not been identified
1 Some safe driving information is provided to drivers
2 Training is conducted on an adhoc basis
Suitable and effective training facilities are available
Work-related road safety information is passed on to drivers
Documentation is kept on training undertaken
Work-Related Road Safety
279
3 Before assigning a vehicle to an employee, organisations check whether the employee has driven that type of
vehicle before
The organisation ensures that quality training is provided by engaging suitably qualified and experienced trainers
The organisation conducts a training needs analysis to determine fleet safety training requirements
The organisation has a system to identify those drivers in need of further driver training and/or remediation
The organisation ensures that managers and supervisors are trained in their work-related road safety roles and
responsibilities
Organisations minimise risk by providing training to all new and transferred employees
The organisation has a policy on training and development
The organisation has a procedure to ensure that all authorised drivers (including non employees such as family
members) are educated in how to operate the vehicle safely and in accordance with approved organisational
procedures
Each training session is properly evaluated to gain a measure of performance in terms of participants’
comprehension and retention
Regular reviews of training program are conducted regarding the effectiveness and relevance of the program to the
organisation
Where driver training needs have been identified, employees undertake relevant practical driver training
A training plan has been developed to meet identified fleet safety training needs of all personnel in the organisation
The organisation considers the varying levels of ability (including literacy) of its employees and selects training to
Work-Related Road Safety
280
suit
Legal obligations are articulated to the organisation’s executive and senior management through formal training
Refresher training is provided to all personnel as appropriate
Where an organisation or individual is legally required to hold specific qualifications or licences to undertake
duties, the organisation has a procedure for ensuring conformance with all training requirements
Incentives and Disincentives
0 Driving performance is not formally monitored
1 Some recognition of good/poor driving performance
2 Driving performance is monitored but incentives/disincentives are not offered
3 Employees receive feedback about their driving performance
A process exists by which members of the public can comment on the driving behaviour of employees
Organisations keep a record of traffic infringements incurred by employees
The organisation has an incentive scheme for safe driving
The organisation has a system for recognising good driving behaviour
Incentives are distributed to employees in front of the peers
The organisation has a system for recognising poor driving behaviour
Drivers are held accountable and organisations penalise poor drivers
Work-Related Road Safety
281
Journey Planning and Management
0 No consideration of road safety when planning and conducting work
1 Some consideration of safe driving when planning and conducting driving
2 Sufficient consideration is given to adverse weather conditions when planning journeys
Steps are taken to stop employees from driving if they feel tired
A procedure is in place regarding the use of hands free communication devices and operating vehicles
Drivers are supported to make an overnight stay rather than complete a long road journey at the end of the working
day
3 Work schedules are realistic
Work related journeys are included in formal job/daily risk assessments
Route planning takes into account hazards e.g. overhead restrictions
Journey planning time takes into account road condition and allows for rest periods
Work is scheduled to avoid driving during periods of peak traffic flow
Work is scheduled to avoid driving during periods were sleep-related incidents are most likely to occur e.g. between
2-6am & 2-4pm
Where appropriate, long road journeys are eliminated or reduced by combing with other methods of transport
Where appropriate, tachometers are regularly checked to ensure that drivers are not cutting corners and putting
themselves and others at risk
Work-Related Road Safety
282
Vehicle Selection and Maintenance
0 Safety features are not considered when purchasing vehicles
No formal process for conducting vehicle maintenance
1 Some consideration of safety in fleet selection and maintenance
Maintenance of vehicles occurs per manufacturers specifications
Fleet vehicles are registered annually (including CTP insurance)
2 Employees are consulted when determining fleet safety requirements for purchasing vehicles
Procedures are in place if there is a problem with a vehicle
Reporting of fleet vehicle inspections, maintenance, repairs and modification is maintained as a running record by
the organisation
The organisation ensures that maintenance, repairs and modifications to fleet vehicles are conducted by suitably
qualified individuals with appropriate expertise
The organisation ensures compliance with relevant legislation for all vehicle modifications
The organisation has a procedure for authorising the safety of vehicles being returned to drivers following repair or
modification
The organisation has a vehicle maintenance program
Drivers regularly inspect their vehicles
There is a procedure to follow if there is a problem with a vehicle
Relevant safety features are considered when selecting vehicles
Work-Related Road Safety
283
3 The organisation obtains advice from a qualified fleet safety professional (in-house or external)
The withdrawal of unsafe vehicles from use may be initiated through a maintenance request procedure
Fuel consumption is monitored
Purchasing decisions are made in consultation with employees to determine the fleet safety requirements and
specifications where decisions may affect those employees
Goods and services purchased by the organisations (e.g. vehicles and modifications) are checked for compliance
with purchase order requirements and/or specifications
Tyre wear is monitored
Vehicle Incident Involvement
0 Incidents are reported for insurance claims only
Incident data is not collected
1 Major incidents are reported
Incidents involving personal injury are investigated
Fleet safety data is collected but not analysed on a regular basis
2 The organisation has a documented reporting system for all work-related road safety incidents
Work-Related Road Safety
284
A procedure is in place to inform all employees of the process for reporting vehicle incidents
Regular reports on fleet safety performance are produced
Pertinent fleet safety data is collected and analysed
Incident and infringement data analyses are used to inform fleet safety strategies
3 Reported incidents are investigated in accordance with an organisational investigation procedure
Investigation reports contain recommendations and a timetable for implementing corrective actions
Employees within the organisation are responsible form implementing remedial measures and counteraction based
on investigation reports
Infringement data including vehicle speeding and red light infringements are collected and analysed
Vehicles and employees involved in multiple incidents or repeat infringement offences are identified and remedial
measures taken
Crash investigation training is provided to staff involved in the area
A crash documentation process is kept within all vehicles and is easily accessible to operators
Before implementing corrective measures, employees who may be affected by such action are consulted
A procedure exists for evaluating and monitoring remedial/corrective measures
Benchmarking data is collected
Work-Related Road Safety
285
APPENDIX F
AUDIT INTERVIEW
Work-Related Road Safety
286
WORK-RELATED ROAD SAFETY
PRACTICES AND PROCESSES
AUDIT INTERVIEW
Please describe any formal or informal procedures that your organisation has in place to ensure that drivers are: Competent and capable of doing their work in a way that is safe for them and other people?
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Properly trained?
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Sufficiently fit and healthy to drive safely and not put themselves or other drivers at risk?
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Work-Related Road Safety
287
Please describe any formal or informal procedures that your organisation has in place to ensure that your vehicles are: Fit for the purpose for which they are used?
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Maintained in a safe and fit condition?
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Please describe any formal or informal procedures that your organisation has in place to ensure that vehicle journeys: Have thoroughly planned routes?
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Adhere to realistic work schedules?
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Work-Related Road Safety
288
Do not put drivers at risk from fatigue caused by driving excessive distances without breaks?
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Have sufficient consideration given to adverse weather conditions when planning journeys?
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Work-Related Road Safety
289
Please describe any formal or informal practices or processes that your organisation has in place in relation to the following eight areas of business operations.
Policy / Practice Description Documentation
Written Fleet Safety Policy in place that defines safe driving responsibilities & communicates to employees the organisations commitment to safe driving
Recruit & select drivers based on safe driving records & awareness of safety issues
Induct all new employees and supervisors using a formal induction program containing work related road safety & safe driving components
Conduct fleet safety training needs analyses & provide & evaluate any required fleet safety training and education
Work-Related Road Safety
290
Policy / Practice Description Documentation
Recognise good & poor driving behaviours through an official scheme of incentives & disincentives
Eliminating or minimising exposure to road hazards when planning and managing road journeys
Select vehicles based on safety features and documenting maintenance procedures
Record & monitor individual driver, individual vehicle and overall fleet incident involvement & manage identified high risks
Work-Related Road Safety
291
Work-Related Road Safety
292
APPENDIX G
AUIT RESULTS FOR EACH ORGANISATION
Work-Related Road Safety
293
Review of Work-related Road Safety Practices and Processes at Organisation A
Road Safety Practices and Processes
Description Rating
Written Fleet Safety Policy in place that defines safe driving responsibilities & communicates to employees the organisations commitment to safe driving
Organisation A has a Fleet Policy that states the organisation’s expectations of safe driving. This document addresses: Medical health and fitness to operate a vehicle, safety checks of vehicles, vehicle procurement, fittings and maintenance, eligibility criteria for vehicle use, licence to operate vehicle, suspension and cancellation of a licence, payment of driving fines and penalties, vehicle to be used for official purposes, parking, commuter use, approved passengers, pool vehicle use, private vehicle use, compliance with Traffic Acts, Legislation, Regulations and Laws, fuel cards, etag management, driver feedback, technical support, disposal, hire, claims management and vehicle third party personal insurance, engineering consultancy and fleet management reporting
The policy contains clear fleet safety objectives and a commitment to improving fleet safety performance
Is developed through consultation with appropriate employee representatives Is communicated to employees and, where appropriate, other visitors to the
organisation Defines and documents the accountabilities of Organisation A Fleet (e.g.
providing all fleet support processes, including operational and salary sacrifice ordering, fine management, registration, driver feedback, maintenance approval), each business unit (e.g. supporting and enforcing fleet related policies) and drivers (e.g. complete all required fleet training prior to operating any fleet vehicle)
Communicates that breaches of the Company Fleet Policy, may lead to Organisation A taking actions against the employee to recover incident costs
Moving towards zero harm
Work-Related Road Safety
294
and disciplinary action under Organisation A’s Performance Improvement and Conduct Management (PICM) process. This disciplinary action may involve a verbal or written warning or termination of employment. The policy also states that if you break the law you may also be personally liable
Includes a process for distributing information on fleet safety issues and activities to all employees via the intranet. Although all interviewed employees were aware that there was a policy, most employees reported some uncertainty of the policy content
Ensures employees are informed of the procedures for dealing with fleet safety issues and that they receive progress feedback
Ensures that the distribution list for a document is clearly identified Ensures action is taken to correct deficits identified by audits and follow-up
monitoring is conducted Recruit & select drivers based on safe driving records & awareness of safety issues
The Department does not formally consider safe driving records and awareness of safety issues when recruiting and selecting employees who will drive as part of their work.
Position Descriptions do not state that a driver’s license is required. No mandatory health checks are requested to ensure that employees meet a
minimum standard of health to drive. However all drivers of Organisation A vehicles must answer the question “Do you consider yourself medically fit to drive?” every six months when they complete their vehicle safety check.
Limited practice in place
Induct all new employees & supervisors using a formal induction program containing work-related road safety & safe driving components
Employee inductions are conducted however work-related road safety is currently not formally included in the induction process
Organisation A Corporate Health Safety and Environment and Organisation A Fleet have internally developed an on-line driving safety course that outlines Organisation A’s Fleet Driver safety expectations and policy. The course is mandatory for all drivers of Organisation A vehicles, both Operational and Salary Sacrifice (novated lease drivers are welcome and encouraged to complete it as well). All employees’ (including contractors) must complete
Moving towards reduced harm
Work-Related Road Safety
295
this course before driving a Organisation A vehicle. A CD version was also developed for people unable to access the on-line version of the course.
The AUSTROADS fact sheet “Driving and Your Health” is included with “drivers pack” when a staff member collects a new vehicle. The fact sheet has been distributed in Organisation A’s Fleet News and is available on the Organisation A Care Intranet page Driving Safety.
Organisation A is in the very early stages of exploring driver induction in new vehicles by a quick training session with a qualified instructor as they have identified a trend of increased incidents in new vehicles in the first 5,000-10,000 km.
Conduct fleet safety training needs analyses & provide & evaluate any required fleet safety training & education
Formal training needs analyses are not currently being conducted Instructor led training is currently limited to 4 wheel drive and trailer towing.
An external training provider experienced with fleet training delivers this training for Organisation A. Organisation A also provides online access to driver skills video’s provided by Lumley insurance and internal broad based video’s by Peter Brock on subjects such as vehicle loading, fatigue etc. A number of driving safety “briefs” are also available for use by team leaders and managers.
A steady flow of information is released to staff regarding driving safety initiatives, safe-driving behaviours, drivers health, driving safety related processes and vehicle safety related alerts. During peak incident periods such as holidays, additional safety related information is released targeted at main incident causes. In the past, driving safety posters have been mailed out for use at building sites as a reminder to staff of Organisation A's commitment to safe driving. A monthly internal fleet magazine link is emailed directly to all Organisation A drivers and this informative 10 page magazine covers the latest vehicle alerts, driver safety and general fleet related news items.
Information relating to driving safety including Vehicle Inspection Checklists, Vehicle Manufacturers Alerts & Bulletins, Health Advice as well as Driving
Moving towards reduced harm
Work-Related Road Safety
296
Safety Guides from a number of Government road safety departments is available for employees to access via the intranet.
The monthly Occupational Health and Safety meetings are utilised by drivers to discuss work-related road difficulties and to view work-related road safety videos
Provided training is not currently evaluated Recognise good & poor driving behaviours through an official scheme of incentives & disincentives
Organisation A operates a national driver feedback program. A sticker with the message “Organisation A Values Safe Driving Ph 1800 800 437” is placed on the rear of all Organisation A operational vehicles. The program has a supporting call centre that receives and distributes the compliments or complaints to senior Organisation A managers who investigate and report back on the outcome (and to the member of public where requested) and who use the process to either reward staff for good driving or in a constructive manner to coach and or better train staff who might be the subject of a complaint. Recently the introduction of GPS technology has helped with identifying whether drivers were actually in the area at the time of the complaint thus improving accuracy.
Salary sacrifice drivers contribute costs to a 2nd at-fault vehicle claim in a 12-month period. This process involves passing on information to business units so they can determine if this charge is appropriate for the driver concerned. If appropriate the charge is passed on to the driver as a deterrent to poor driving. This system is used as an alternative to 1800 stickers on salary sacrifice vehicles.
When Organisation A receives an infringement notice, the offending employee is sent a copy of the infringement notice with a letter concerning the type of infringement and the risks associated with that offence. Employees who receive several infringement notices may receive disciplinary action. Organisation A provides Managers with guidelines on how to run the interview with the employee, however the interview process adopted is not
Moving towards reduced harm
Work-Related Road Safety
297
enforced and is at the discretion of the individual Manager. Journey planning & management
Organisation A has a working in isolation process that involves employee pre-checks to ensure that the right equipment, amount of water and food is collected.
Organisation A has a working in isolation managing authority, where employees are tracked while operating in isolated areas. Employees phone a call centre and inform them of where they are going, what time they are leaving, the path they are taking, their estimated time of arrival and their accommodation provider. When employees arrive at their destination they ring in and log off with the authority at the end of the day. If employees fail to contact the call centre, Organisation A management is notified and a process is in place to begin searching for the employees.
Employees report that work schedules can be demanding, however Management report that work schedules are realistic and employee feelings of work pressure would be more self-imposed than applied from the organisation.
No formal process for managing risks including road and weather conditions, fatigue or traffic hazards associated with specific time periods. Some drivers report informally using risk management strategies including taking rest breaks and rotating drivers
Moving towards reduced harm
Select vehicles based on safety features & document maintenance procedures
Organisation A Fleet, Vendor Management and the Organisation A Business Units work as a group to select the correct units for Organisation A staff. Vendor management and Fleet source appropriate vehicles in different type categories e.g. van, wagons & sedans. Business units then match the vehicle types available to the needs of Organisation A's business. On initial introduction of a new vehicle type, a risk assessment is carried out and the unit is usually tested and trialled to eliminate or mitigate any health and safety risks. Business units are involved in these vehicle assessments to ensure that a fit for purpose vehicle is sourced. Vehicle safety and safety options and environmental concerns are also part of the selection process.
Moving towards zero harm
Work-Related Road Safety
298
A majority of Organisation A’s fleet has been fitted with hardwired daytime running lights, using engineering controls to ensure it operates only on the low beam headlights of the vehicle. The intended output of this feature is increased visibility of the Organisation A vehicle to other road users and a reduction in vehicle incidents. Vehicles with low order numbers are not fitted for commercial reasons but any high volume units are requested to have this technology fitted. Acceptance is widespread and drivers now ask about fitment prior to leasing a salary sacrifice vehicle.
Cargo barriers have been fitted to all applicable vehicles. The cargo barrier is a steel mesh barrier that separates the vehicle occupants from items stored in the cargo area of the vehicle. Cargo barriers are mandatory for Organisation A operational and salary sacrifice station wagons, and operational 4 wheel drive vehicles. This feature is intended to prevent injury from loads moving in the event of an incident.
Gas safes are provided in all operational vehicles that are required to transport compressed gas (e.g. Liquid Petroleum Gas for operation of gas torch). The provision of a gas safe allows the safe transportation of compressed gas. In the event that a gas leak occurs within the safe, the gas is safely dispersed to the outside of the vehicle.
Drivers of Organisation A vehicles are required to complete a checklist. This checklist identifies basic safety checks that must be completed to ensure that the vehicle is safe. In addition, the driver’s license details are also provided. Any actions identified on the checklist are then managed as appropriate. This checklist, and any identified issues are verified as a component of Organisation A’s internal and external health and safety audits. This check expands upon standard service checks to include additional safety aspects of operating Organisation A vehicles for example, loose items within the cabin. The self-check is in addition to the safety requirements stipulated in the manufacturer's handbook.
Work-Related Road Safety
299
Organisation A's vehicle servicing requirements are monitored and recorded by Telefleet. Organisation A use a system called predictive servicing to monitor when a vehicle is due for service, prior to it becoming due using the FLEETMIS computer system. A monthly report is then sent to dealerships that call the driver and arrange a time for the servicing to occur prior to the due date. In this way, Organisation A vehicles are serviced when they are due, thus increasing the level of mechanical safety of the fleet.
Organisation A Fleet produce monthly exception reports via CDW (Corporate Data Warehouse) to Organisation A vehicle owners and users. An alert email is sent to any vehicle contact having an exception marked against their vehicle. These exceptions can include servicing not done, recalls and other important vehicle related safety items.
Organisation A Fleet Engineering group risk assesses fittings for large volume vehicle orders and follows up any problems that occur in service with these items. Assessment can be of a manufacturer’s specific product or assessment of multiple suppliers of items such as roof racks, towbars or bull bars. Single fittings orders are located in the area to allow monitoring of the suitability to Organisation A's business needs. Assessment of additional fittings reduces the risk of injury or damage from poorly matched or designed add on equipment.
Fleet vehicles are registered annually (including CTP insurance) Record & monitor individual driver, individual vehicle & overall fleet incident involvement & manage identified high risks
Work related driving incidents are reported via an online form. Incidents are investigated and measures are taken to address the cause and prevent reoccurrence. Incident information then flows into Organisation A’s claims management provider and Health Safety and Environment incident reporting areas for monitoring and reporting purposes.
The one up manager of a driver involved in an incident is automatically notified by email and prompted to conduct an interview with the driver to establish causal factors. The form used in this process guides the manager in discussing the incident with the driver and looking at measures that can be
Moving towards zero harm
Work-Related Road Safety
300
taken, or information that can be supplied, to reduce the possibility of a reoccurrence of the incident.
Organisation A has an online infringement and fine system that captures driver infringements against each driver for common items such as red light, speeding and failure to wear a seatbelt. This data is available to Organisation A’s reporting systems for use in reducing poor driver behaviour. The system was implemented in 2005 and is currently building up a profile of Organisation A driver’s infringement behaviour. This information is used by business units to identify staff who may require training or internal discussion regarding driver behaviour.
Organisation A's vehicle claims manager provides data reports to Fleet and Health and Safety business groups on vehicle fleet incident numbers, incident types, incident costs, time of incident, age of driver, fault type, type of vehicle, incidents per 100km and various other parameters. This data is used by the business to monitor vehicle incident trends and to target driving safety information to specific key areas and employee’s.
Organisation A has linked several databases including infringement data, 1800 compliments/complaints data and incident data to develop a reporting tool with the potential to provide a full history of a driver’s on road behaviour whilst driving a Organisation A vehicle. This tool can be used to manage driver safety at a business unit level or whenever a driver is involved in an incident. Reports can be run on a person, a business unit group or by state identifying by the key parameters the best or worst drivers in any measured category.
Organisation A is currently trialling the CARRS-Q driver profile tool. This tool gathers information about employees’ driving attitudes and behaviours. It also provides instant personalised feedback to employees upon completion of their profile to improve their road safety awareness and driving behaviours.
Organisation A has set two driving safety targets. These are for business units
Work-Related Road Safety
301
to achieve an incident claim rate of 20% and a driver at fault rate of 50%. These targets are included in the business unit Health, Safety and Environment plans and are benchmarked via online reporting available to managers.
Work-Related Road Safety
302
Review of Work-related Road Safety Practices and Processes at Organisation B
Road Safety Practices and Processes
Description Rating
Written Fleet Safety Policy in place that defines safe driving responsibilities & communicates to employees the organisations commitment to safe driving
The organisation has a vehicle use policy. The policy has an emphasis on defining eligibility criteria for vehicle use and is supported by a Motor Vehicle Use Standard guideline that includes aspects of work-related road safety.
The Chief Executive Officer is documented as the policy owner on the Motor Vehicle Use policy.
The Motor Vehicle Use policy states that vehicle use categories have been designed to improve safety, however the document fails to contain work-related road safety objectives or to state the organisation’s commitment to improving road safety.
The Motor Vehicle Use guideline states the most recent revision date and is updated on a regular basis determined by its need for revision. The Motor Vehicle Use policy is not dated.
It is reported that the policy has been developed in consultation with appropriate employee representatives
The organisation has avenues for discussing work-related road safety issues such as team meetings
Accountability and authority for work-related road safety performance within individual work areas is the responsibility of management. However this is not formally articulated in position descriptions and distributed as a list to employees of personnel with work-related road safety responsibilities. Vehicle safety performance is reported for individual work areas and associated costs are charged back to individual work areas.
A process exists for distributing information on fleet safety issues to all
Moving towards reduced harm
Work-Related Road Safety
303
employees. A process exists for storing and updating safety documents. Both the Motor
Vehicle Use policy and guideline are available to all employees via the intranet. Some employees report uncertainty about its content and where to access it.
The Motor Vehicle Use standard states that: vehicle use is restricted to the approved driver and their spouse/partner. In
the case of spouses, use is limited to vehicles that are deemed suitable, e.g. not fitted with boxes/ladders.
a no smoking policy applies within the vehicle vehicles are not permitted to be used for sporting or competitive events, in
4WD recreational parks or in extreme off-road environments under normal circumstances, employees are not permitted to pick up
‘hitch-hikers’. No constraints are imposed on the carrying of passengers within legal limits.
all employees are required to maintain the vehicle in accordance with the manufacturers recommendations and to obey the road rules, including the securing of loads
all workplace incidents that cause or have the potential to cause injury or illness or damage to plant shall be managed in accordance with the organisations policy for logging and tracking incidents. Employees must notify Managers immediately of serious incidents.
the driver is responsible for ensuring that they hold a valid and current driver’s licence which is free from disqualifying endorsements. The driver has the duty to immediately advise their Manager and Human Resource department of any disqualification from driving incurred.
Recruit & select drivers based on safe driving records & awareness of
Licence checks are being conducted in some areas however this is not occurring across the organisation and there is not a formal process.
Limited practice in place
Work-Related Road Safety
304
safety issues Medical assessments are not conducted Discussion about driving record during reference checks for applicants whose
job involves substantial driving duties is not occurring across the organisation as a formal process.
Induct all new employees & supervisors using a formal induction program containing work-related road safety & safe driving components
The organisation ensures that all employees undergo an induction program which includes a work-related road safety component which includes identifying high risk vehicle incident categories. However not all employees receive induction content including the organisation’s vehicle safety policy, maintenance procedures, what to do in the event of an incident and expected driver behaviour.
It was reported that vehicles are assigned to new employees based on the needs of their job
A formal induction process does not exist where new employees are trained to operate their vehicle before they drive it. Drivers report vehicle ‘hand-over’ instances of just being handed the keys and told where the vehicle is currently parked.
Moving towards reduced harm
Conduct fleet safety training needs analyses & provide & evaluate any required fleet safety training & education
Formal training needs analyses are not currently being conducted at a whole of business level.
The Motor Vehicle Use standard states that where multiple infringement offences occur the driver will be required to undertake a competence based driver training course, however infringement notices do not currently appear to be formally monitored.
4WD training is being delivered adhoc. Some departments provide 4WD training to staff that do not drive a 4WD while other departments do not provide training to any staff including those who drive a 4WD.
At a whole of business level, a driver education program including online road safety information and hands on training is being piloted with drivers who have been identified to be at high risk based on their high exposure to driving
Standardised work-related road safety information is being provided across
Moving towards reduced harm
Work-Related Road Safety
305
the organisation via log on messages to all employees who operate computers. Not all drivers have access to computers.
Documentation is kept on training undertaken. Provided training is not currently evaluated.
Recognise good & poor driving behaviours through an official scheme of incentives & disincentives
The Motor Vehicle Use standard states that vehicle use which departs from the standards will be managed in accordance with the organisation’s Performance Management Process. This may include drivers funding payment of infringement notices, the General Manager meeting with drivers who are responsible for incidents to discuss their performance and reinforce the organisation’s safe driving message and disciplinary action including the withdrawal of driving use privileges. If it is a fundamental requirement of the position to drive a company vehicle, loss of licence may result in reallocation of duties or dismissal.
Implementation of disciplinary action is adhoc. If drivers receive an infringement notice for exceeding the speed limit they are formally counselled in some departments and not in others.
The organisation does not have process for recognising good driving behaviour
Driving performance is not formally monitored or linked to performance reviews.
Moving towards reduced harm
Journey planning & management
The Motor Vehicle Use standard states that: drivers are responsible for completing pre-operation checklists for vehicle
use and complying with the managing fatigue risk work instruction document
drivers must ensure that vehicles carry suitable first aid kits and torches at all times
unless a hands-free mobile phone kit is fitted to the vehicle, all use of mobile phones whilst driving is prohibited. It is recommended that even when a hands-free kit is fitted that, the vehicle is stationary and the engine
Moving towards reduced harm
Work-Related Road Safety
306
turned off when having a telephone conversation when driving whilst using a mobile radio steps should be taken to increase
safety such as getting passengers to operate the device, keeping conversations brief, pulling over before responding to a call
Journey planning takes into account road condition Work-related journeys are often not included in the job risk assessments
conducted by drivers When scheduling work, little consideration is given to avoid driving during
peak traffic flows or during periods were sleep related incidents are most likely to occur
Drivers are supported to make an overnight stay rather than complete a long road journey at the end of the working day
Some departments encourage the use of alternative methods of transport to reduce long road journeys.
Select vehicles based on safety features & document maintenance procedures
Vehicles are selected based on safety features. Standard appointments in company cars include dual SRS Air bags, ABS braking, Cargo barriers in station wagons, cruise control and hands free mobile phone kits.
Some consultation is made with employees to determine fleet safety requirements. Business units submit a form to Fleet requesting a vehicle with specific capabilities and Fleet provides a choice of approved company vehicles meeting the requested capabilities.
Fleet vehicles are registered and insured annually (including CTP and comprehensive insurance)
In regards to maintenance, the organisation has a vehicle maintenance program that notifies employees when maintenance is due, maintenance occurs per manufacturers specification, vehicle inspections, maintenance, repairs and modification are recorded and maintenance/ modifications to fleet vehicles are conducted by suitably qualified individuals with appropriate expertise
Moving towards reduced harm
Work-Related Road Safety
307
The Motor Vehicle Use Standard states that modifications of standard features require the approval of the business unit manager, fleet manager and lease service provider. The organisation ensures compliance with relevant legislation for all vehicle modifications however some vehicle modifications are not approved by the vehicle manufacturer.
The organisation has a set procedure to follow in the event of a breakdown or incident, however some drivers report being unaware of this process
The organisation does not have formal procedures for authorising the safety of vehicles being returned to drivers following repair or modification or for resolving an identified vehicle problem
Record & monitor individual driver, individual vehicle & overall fleet incident involvement & manage identified high risks
The organisation has a documented reporting system for all fleet safety incidents and a procedure in place to inform all employees of the process for reporting fleet safety incidents
The Motor Vehicle Use standard states that infringement notices are to be recorded and managed in the organisations incident database however in practice, it appears that recording of infringement incidents is occurring adhoc
Pertinent road safety data is collected and analysed although there is a large amount of missing data
Serious incidents are formally investigated in accordance with an organisational investigation process and where appropriate, external consultants specialising in road safety are contracted
Investigation reports contain recommendations, although these are sometimes toned down so as not to rock the boat, and identifies persons responsible for implementing any actions required
Employees within the organisation are responsible for implementing remedial measures based on investigation reports although it appeared that actions were not always implemented
Informal crash investigation training is provided to staff involved in incident investigation
Moving towards reduced harm
Work-Related Road Safety
308
Monthly reports on safety performance including vehicle incidents are produced however these are often not circulated or acted upon
The organisation does not formally monitor individual drivers frequency of incidents or infringements to identify high risks
The organisation has investigated a vehicle model identified through incident data to be high risk and taken some minor steps towards reducing the risk
Work-Related Road Safety
309
Review of Work-related Road Safety Practices and Processes at Organisation C
Road Safety Practices and Processes
Description Rating
Written Fleet Safety Policy in place that defines safe driving responsibilities & communicates to employees the organisations commitment to safe driving
The Department has a Motor Vehicle – Authority to Use and Responsibility policy and procedure. This document addresses: License to drive, Suspension and Cancellation of a Licence, Payment of Driver's Licence / Permit Fees, Vehicle to be Used for Official Purposes, Ad hoc use of a Departmental vehicle by a Carer, Long term allocation of a Departmental vehicle to a Carer, Carriage of Passengers (Private Passengers – excluding children in care and carers), Use of Private Vehicles, Compliance with Traffic Acts, Legislation, Regulations and Laws, Infringement Notices (Speeding & Red Light Camera and Parking Offences), Drugs and Alcohol, Use of Mobile / Satellite Telephones, Ignition Keys (Vehicle Security), Seat Belts, Carrying a Load, and Booking of Vehicles at Head Office
The Motor Vehicle – Authority to Use and Responsibility policy is not disseminated and enforced
A fleet safety policy and procedure practice statement is being drafted to address: driving risk, courteous and safe driving behaviours, vehicle induction and familiarisation, operating conditions, seatbelts and other safety features, speed, journey planning and fatigue management, impairment, licensing and fitness to drive, mobile phones and other distractions, incident reporting, driver performance, equipment loading, security, compliance with other government policy, and shared safety responsibilities
Moving towards reduced harm
Recruit & select drivers based on safe driving records & awareness of safety issues
The Department does not formally consider safe driving records and awareness of safety issues when recruiting and selecting employees who will drive as part of their work. Position Descriptions do not state that a driver’s license is required and no mandatory health checks are requested to ensure that employees meet a minimum standard of health to drive
Practice not in place
Work-Related Road Safety
310
Induct all new employees & supervisors using a formal induction program containing work-related road safety & safe driving components
Formal employee inductions are conducted however work-related road safety is not currently included in the induction process
Although the Policy states that ‘Prior to any departmental employee or non-employee (including carers) being authorised to drive a departmental vehicle, the responsible Manager is to ensure that the driver is appropriately licensed, few licence checks are being conducted and these are occurring on an adhoc basis
Limited practice in place
Conduct fleet safety training needs analyses & provide & evaluate any required fleet safety training & education
Formal training needs analyses are not currently being conducted Some 4WD training is being provided on an ad hoc basis Provided training is not currently evaluated
Limited practice in place
Recognise good & poor driving behaviours through an official scheme of incentives & disincentives
Driving performance is not formally recognised Practice not in place
Journey planning & management
Some regions encourage employees to make an overnight stay or fly rather than complete a long road journey at the end of the working day
Work schedules are often demanding with self-imposed work pressure No formal process for managing risks including road and weather conditions,
fatigue or traffic hazards associated with specific time periods. Some drivers report informally using risk management strategies including taking rest breaks and rotating drivers
Journey planning and fatigue management procedures are being drafted for implementation
Limited practice in place
Work-Related Road Safety
311
Select vehicles based on safety features & document maintenance procedures
Vehicles are selected based on safety features. ABS brakes and airbags are mandatory features. Electronic Stability Control is preferred but not mandatory
Employees report having little input in the selection of fleet vehicles to meet their needs
Fleet vehicles are registered annually (including CTP insurance) Government policy and insurance agreement state that vehicles are
maintained in accordance with vehicle specifications however employees report that there is no organisational compliance regime or routine inspections to enforce maintenance
Maintenance history documented in central database The organisation did not appear to have formal procedures for authorising the
safety of vehicles being returned to drivers following repair or modification, ensuring that drivers regularly inspect their vehicles or for resolving an identified vehicle problem
Limited practice in place
Record & monitor individual driver, individual vehicle & overall fleet incident involvement & manage identified high risks
An external organisation managers the Departments database of vehicle claims. The data is recorded primarily for insurance claims and includes the following fields: Incident date, Accident Type, Number of Vehicles involved, Apparent Fault, Cost of Property Damage, Driver Age and Gender, Vehicle Make and Model, Post Code where incident occurred, Road Surface where occurred and the status of the Trip (e.g. commuting to work). Currently the external organisation will only analyse agency crash data and send to agencies if requested. Organisation C is not currently requesting this information
All vehicles and drivers are monitored at a whole of Government and agency level. Certain high risk drivers are identified on a case by case basis. It was noted that there was the potential to report high risk drivers to the Department to allow them to better manage their risk. Organisation C does not appear to be currently requesting this information
The organisation does not appear to have a documented reporting system for
Limited practice in place
Work-Related Road Safety
312
all fleet safety incidents or a procedure in place to inform all employees of the process for reporting fleet safety incidents
The organisation does not appear to have a process for investigating serious incidents
Work-Related Road Safety
313
Review of Work-related Road Safety Practices and Processes at Organisation D
Road Safety Practices and Processes
Description Rating
Written Fleet Safety Policy in place that defines safe driving responsibilities & communicates to employees the organisations commitment to safe driving
The organisation has a safety policy but it currently does not include work-related road safety.
Practice not in place
Recruit & select drivers based on safe driving records & awareness of safety issues
Licence checks are being conducted in some areas however this is not occurring across the organisation and is not a formal process.
Limited practice in place
Induct all new employees & supervisors using a formal induction program containing work-related road safety & safe driving components
Aspects of work-related road safety are covered for some employees. For example in some departments, some employees who operate large 8-seater vehicles attend 4WD training and road safety classes as part of their induction.
At a whole of business level, formal employee inductions are conducted however work-related road safety is not currently included in the induction process.
Limited practice in place
Conduct fleet safety training needs analyses & provide & evaluate any required fleet safety
Formal training needs analyses are not currently being conducted. Informal training needs analyses are being conducted in some departments.
For example in some departments employees are identified as needing road
Limited practice in place
Work-Related Road Safety
314
training & education
safety training based on the frequency or severity of vehicle incidents they have been involved in.
Some departments provide 4WD and road safety training. At a whole of business level, road safety information is conveyed on an adhoc
basis with no standardised work related road safety information/training being provided across the organisation.
Provided training is not currently evaluated. Recognise good & poor driving behaviours through an official scheme of incentives & disincentives
Driving performance is not formally monitored. Practice not in place
Journey planning & management
GPS devices have been purchased to assist trip planners Some departments encourage employees to make an overnight stay rather than
complete a long road journey at the end of the working day Work schedules are often demanding with self-imposed work pressure. No formal process for managing risks including road and weather conditions,
fatigue or traffic hazards associated with specific time periods.
Limited practice in place
Select vehicles based on safety features & document maintenance procedures
Vehicles are selected based on safety features, consideration of ANCAP results and consultation with employees to determine fleet safety requirements
Fleet vehicles are registered annually (including CTP insurance) In regards to maintenance, the organisation has a vehicle maintenance program
that notifies employees when maintenance is due, maintenance occurs per manufacturers specification, vehicle inspections, maintenance, repairs and modifications are recorded and maintenance/modifications to fleet vehicles are conducted by suitably qualified individuals with appropriate expertise
The organisation ensures compliance with relevant legislation for all vehicle modifications
Moving towards reduced harm
Work-Related Road Safety
315
The organisation does not have formal procedures for authorising the safety of vehicles being returned to drivers following repair or modification, ensuring that drivers regularly inspect their vehicles or for resolving an identified vehicle problem
Record & monitor individual driver, individual vehicle & overall fleet incident involvement & manage identified high risks
The organisation has a database of vehicle claims that is recorded primarily for insurance claims. It includes the following fields: Incident date, Policy Number, Registration, Division, Service, Driver’s Name, Details of Claim, Driver at Fault, Amount Claimed, Excess Paid, Date Finalised, Action Taken, Recovery, Third Party Costs, Date Reported, Paid to Date).
Other data that could be used to identify high risks is collected on the claims forms but not recorded including: Road and weather condition, had the driver consumed alcohol or drugs within 12hrs prior.
The organisation does not have a documented reporting system for all fleet safety incidents or a procedure in place to inform all employees of the process for reporting fleet safety incidents
No serious incidents have occurred to date No process has been developed for investigating serious incidents. The organisation does not formally monitor individual drivers or vehicles to
identify high risks The organisation recently analysed incident data and identified reversing as a
high risk area in a presentation to organisational members.
Moving towards reduced harm
Work-Related Road Safety
316
APPENDIX H
INTERVIEW SCHEDULE
Work-Related Road Safety
317
WORK-RELATED ROAD SAFETY
MANAGERS INTERVIEW
Demographic details:
Gender? Male/Female
Age? <20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 >61
What is your role within the organisation? __________________________
How long have you been in this role with this organisation? _____________
What industry does your organisation operate in? ______________________
Approx. how many staff are employed in your organisation? _____________
Approx. how many vehicles are owned or leased by your organisation? _____
Stages of Change:
1. Are you aware of any work-related road safety risk? No / Yes
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
2. Do you believe that other managers and employees within your company
share similar beliefs in relation to work related road safety? No / Yes
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Work-Related Road Safety
318
3. Are you planning to take any action to reduce work-related road safety risk in
the next 6 months? No / Yes
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
4. Do you have any definite plans to reduce work-related road safety risk in the
next month? What? No / Yes
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
5. Have you already taken any action to reduce work-related road safety risk?
What & when? No / Yes
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
6. Are you taking any actions to maintain work-related road safety within your
company? What? No / Yes
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
7. Is your company planning to take any action that you know of to reduce
work-related road safety risk? What? No / Yes
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Work-Related Road Safety
319
8. Is your company already engaging in any action that you know of to reduce
work-related road safety within your company? What? No / Yes
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
9. What do you think motivated your company to think about managing or to
begin managing work-related road safety?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Potential Facilitators and Barriers of Change:
1. What do you think are the main barriers or difficulties experienced when
making, or attempting to make, safety changes in your organisation?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
2. If applicable, how have (or how could) these barriers be overcome?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Work-Related Road Safety
320
3. What do you think are the main facilitators or things that have helped in
implementing safety changes in your organisation?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
4. What have been the outcomes (actual and perceived) of the safety changes
that have been made?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
5. What do you think were the main reasons for this outcome?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Fleet Safety Climate
1. How would you describe Management’s commitment, or lack of
commitment, to driver safety within your company?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
2. How would you describe the level of trust between employees and
management within your company in relation to work-related road safety?
_____________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
Work-Related Road Safety
321
3. How would you describe communication within your company in relation to
work-related road safety?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
4. How would you describe the level of work demands within your
organisation?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
5. How would you describe the level of appropriateness of safety policies and
procedures within your organisation?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
6. Is work-related road safety treated with the same level of commitment as
other areas of WH&S in your company?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Work-Related Road Safety
322
Safety ownership: The following tasks have been identified as important to overall OH&S performance in the construction industry. I am interested in identifying which of these tasks, if any, are relevant to work related road safety. For each of the Safety Management Tasks listed below, please indicate the minimum (rather than best practice) level of competency required within your organisation to manage work related road safety. Competency required key: 1= Full understanding required,
2 = Working knowledge & awareness required, 3 = Not required at the minimal level
Task Category Safety Management Tasks Competency Required
Proactively identify, assess and determine appropriate controls for OH&S risks
Carry out project risk assessments Undertake & design safety reviews for construction, operability & maintenance
Undertake formal OH&S review of tenders Develop project safety management plans Develop OH&S procedures and instructions Carry out workplace and task hazard identification, risk assessments and control
Carry out basic competency assessments Effectively communicate & consult with stakeholders regarding OH&S risks
Provide general OH&S information and provide basic OH&S instruction
Deliver Company Induction Deliver site/workplace specific induction Facilitate group/work team OH&S discussions & meetings
Initiate & coordinate OH&S awareness activities or presentations
Plan & deliver toolbox talks Give formal OH&S presentations to management
Participate in site safety committee Consult on and resolve OH&S issues Speak to Senior management about OH&S issues in the workplace
Challenge unsafe behaviour/attitude at any level when encountered
Make site visits where a site worker is spoken to directly about OH&S in the workplace
Recognise & reward people who have positively impacted on OH&S
Deliver OH&S training in the workplace
Work-Related Road Safety
323
Monitor, report, review & evaluate safety program effectiveness
Carry out formal incident investigations Carry out basic project OH&S system element audits
Carry out formal inspections of workplace & work tasks
Research & prepare reports on OH&S issues, performance & improvement strategies
Engage with sub-contractors in OH&S performance management
Monitor sub-contractor activities Identify & include suitable OH&S requirements into sub-contractor packages
Evaluate OH&S performance of sub-contractors
Identify & implement relevant components of the OH&S & workers’ compensation management system
Understand & apply general legislative OH&S requirements
Understand & apply detailed OH&S legislative requirements
Apply full working knowledge of the organisation’s safety management system
Understand & apply workers’ compensation & case management principles
Assist with return to work & rehabilitation processes
Understand & apply general regulatory workers’ compensation requirements
Provide leadership & manage staff & sub-contractor OH&S performance
Mentor staff and follow their progress Conduct employee performance appraisals Work with staff to solve safety problems Discipline staff for poor OH&S behaviour/attitude
Recruit & select new staff Administer 1st Aid to injured persons
Work-Related Road Safety
324
I’m also interested in exploring who (if anyone) is accepting responsibility for
actioning these tasks in relation to OH&S and work-related road safety.
Task Organisational Safety Work Road Safety
Proactively identifying,
assessing and determining
appropriate controls for
OHS hazards and risks
Effectively communicating
and consulting with
stakeholders regarding
OHS risks
Monitoring, reporting,
reviewing and evaluating
safety program
effectiveness
Engaging with
subcontractors in OHS
performance management
Identifying and
Work-Related Road Safety
325
implementing relevant
components of the OHS
and workers compensation
management system
Understanding and
applying workers
compensation and case
management principles
Providing leadership and
management to staff and
subcontractors in OHS
performance
Work-Related Road Safety
326
What is the position of the person primarily responsible for managing work-
related road safety in your organisation?
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Finally, how could work-related road safety be improved in your organisation?
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Do you have any additional comments?
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Work-Related Road Safety
327
WORK-RELATED ROAD SAFETY
EMPLOYEE INTERVIEW
Demographic details:
Gender? Male/Female
Age? <20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 >61
What is your role within the organisation? ___________________________
How long have you been in this role with this organisation? _____________
Brief description of your work-related driving? ____________________
______________________________________________________________
Stages of Change:
1. Are you aware of any work-related road safety risk? No / Yes
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
2. Do you believe that other managers and employees within your company
share similar beliefs in relation to work related road safety? No / Yes
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Work-Related Road Safety
328
3. Are you planning to take any action to reduce work-related road safety risk in
the next 6 months? No / Yes
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
4. Do you have any definite plans to reduce work-related road safety risk in the
next month? What? No / Yes
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
5. Have you already taken any action to reduce work-related road safety risk?
What & when? No / Yes
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
6. Are you taking any actions to maintain work-related road safety within your
company? What? No / Yes
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
7. Is your company planning to take any action that you know of to reduce
work-related road safety risk? What? No / Yes
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Work-Related Road Safety
329
8. Is your company already engaging in any action that you know of to reduce
work-related road safety within your company? What? No / Yes
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
9. What do you think motivated your company to think about managing or to
begin managing work-related road safety?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Potential Facilitators and Barriers of Change:
1. What do you think are the main barriers or difficulties experienced when
making, or attempting to make, safety changes in your organisation?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
2. If applicable, how have (or how could) these barriers be overcome?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Work-Related Road Safety
330
3. What do you think are the main facilitators or things that have helped in
implementing safety changes in your organisation?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
4. What have been the outcomes (actual and perceived) of the safety changes
that have been made?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
5. What do you think were the main reasons for this outcome?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Fleet Safety Climate
1. How would you describe Management’s commitment, or lack of
commitment, to driver safety within your company?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
2. How would you describe the level of trust between employees and
management within your company in relation to work-related road safety?
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Work-Related Road Safety
331
3. How would you describe communication within your company in relation to
work-related road safety?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
4. How would you describe the level of work demands within your
organisation?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
5. How would you describe the level of appropriateness of safety policies and
procedures within your organisation?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
6. Is work-related road safety treated with the same level of commitment as
other areas of WH&S in your company?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Work-Related Road Safety
332
Safety ownership:
The following tasks have been identified as important to overall OH&S performance.
Please identify who (if anyone) is accepting responsibility for actioning these tasks in
relation to OH&S and work-related road safety in your organisation.
Task Organisational Safety Work Road Safety
Proactively identifying,
assessing and determining
appropriate controls for
OHS hazards and risks
Effectively communicating
and consulting with
stakeholders regarding
OHS risks
Monitoring, reporting,
reviewing and evaluating
safety program
effectiveness
Engaging with
subcontractors in OHS
performance management
Identifying and
implementing relevant
Work-Related Road Safety
333
components of the OHS
and workers compensation
management system
Understanding and
applying workers
compensation and case
management principles
Providing leadership and
management to staff and
subcontractors in OHS
performance
What is the position of the person primarily responsible for managing work-
related road safety in your organisation?
_________________________________________________________________
Finally, how could work-related road safety be improved in your organisation?
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Do you have any additional comments?
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Work-Related Road Safety
334
Work-Related Road Safety
335
APPENDIX I
INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM
Work-Related Road Safety
336
WORK-RELATED ROAD SAFETY
INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM
This research project on work-related road safety is conducted by PhD scholar
Tamara Banks from the Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety Queensland
(CARRS-Q) at the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) and is funded by the
NRMA-ACT Road Safety Trust.
The purpose of this research is to contribute to the theoretical understanding of
factors that influence work-related road safety and to provide practical information
that can be used by practitioners to enhance safety within organisations. A major
component of this program is gathering vital information from personnel who are
responsible for aspects of safety within organisations. Interviews are being conducted
to gain practitioners’ perspectives and insights to experiences they have had in
implementing safety initiatives.
You are invited to participate in an anonymous interview about your perspectives on
work-related road safety. The interview is strictly confidential and you need not
answer a question if you consider it too personal. The interview should take about 30-
40 minutes to complete. Please note that should you have any questions or concerns
about the conduct of the research, you may contact either:
PhD scholar – Tamara Banks ph 617 3138 4963
email: [email protected]
Supervisor - Assoc Prof Jeremy Davey ph 617 3138 4574
email: [email protected]
Informed Consent
Work-Related Road Safety
337
Please tear off the following section and return it to the Researcher.
I am willing to participate in this research project. I understand that I am free to withdraw
my participation in the research at any time. The research has been explained to me and I
have been given the opportunity to ask questions about the research. I understand that
neither my name nor any other identifying information will be used or published without
my permission. I understand that if I have any complaints about this research that I may
contact Assoc Prof Jeremy Davey on ph 617 3138 4574.
Signed: _________________________________________ (I agree to be interviewed)
Thank you for your assistance
CRICOS 00213J
Work-Related Road Safety
338
Work-Related Road Safety
339
APPENDIX J
FLEET SAFETY CLIMATE ITEMS
Work-Related Road Safety
340
Items removed from original Fleet Safety Climate scale
To achieve a brief questionnaire, the 36 item fleet safety climate scale used in
previous research (Banks & Davey, 2005) was reduced to 24 items. A list of the
items removed from the original fleet safety climate scale is presented below:
1. Driver education is provided on skills specific to the type of vehicle driven
for work
2. Potential risks and consequences are identified in driver education
3. Motor vehicle education is carried out by people with relevant experience
4. Employees can express their views to management about safety problems
5. Employees can discuss important driver safety policy issues with
management
6. Employees are consulted when changes to driver safety practices are
suggested
7. Employees are confident about their future with the organisation
8. Morale is good
9. When driving employees have enough time to carry out their tasks
10. Seatbelt use is enforced
11. Employees can easily identify the relevant procedure for each job
12. Changes in workload which have been made at short notice, can be dealt with
in a way that does not affect driver safety
Work-Related Road Safety
341
APPENDIX K
MANAGERS RATINGS OF
PERCEIVED COMPETENCE REQUIRED TO
MANAGE OCCUPATIONAL ROAD RISKS
Work-Related Road Safety
342
Managers’ ratings of perceived competence required to manage occupational road risks
Task Category Safety Management Tasks Organisation Combined rating A B C D
Proactively identify, assess and determine appropriate controls for OH&S risks
Carry out project risk assessments 1 1 2 2 1-2 Undertake & design safety reviews for construction, operability & maintenance
1 3 3 3 3
Undertake formal OH&S review of tenders 1 3 2 1 2 Develop project safety management plans 1 2 2 2 2 Develop OH&S procedures and instructions 1 2 2 1 1-2 Carry out workplace & task hazard identification, risk assessments & control
1 1 2 1 1
Carry out basic competency assessments 3 1 2 2 2 Effectively communicate & consult with stakeholders regarding OH&S risks
Provide general OH&S information and provide basic OH&S instruction
1 1 1 2 1
Deliver Company Induction 2 1 2 2 2 Deliver site/workplace specific induction 2 1 1 2 1-2 Facilitate group/work team OH&S discussions & meetings 2 2 2 3 2 Initiate & coordinate OH&S awareness activities or presentations 2 2 2 2 2 Plan & deliver toolbox talks 2 2 3 3 2-3 Give formal OH&S presentations to management 1 2 2 2 2 Participate in site safety committee 2 2 2 3 2 Consult on and resolve OH&S issues 1 1 2 2 1-2 Speak to Senior management about OH&S issues in the workplace 1 2 2 1 1-2 Challenge unsafe behaviour/attitude at any level when encountered 1 2 2 2 2 Make site visits where a site worker is spoken to directly about OH&S in the workplace
1 1 2 2 1-2
Recognise & reward people who have positively impacted on OH&S 2 1 1 2 1-2 Deliver OH&S training tin the workplace 2 1 1 2 1-2
Work-Related Road Safety
343
Task Category Safety Management Tasks Organisation Combined rating A B C D
Monitor, report, review & evaluate safety program effectiveness
Carry out formal incident investigations 1 1 2 1 1 Carry out basic project OH&S system element audits 2 2 1 2 2 Carry out formal inspections of workplace & work tasks 2 1 1 1 1 Research & prepare reports on OH&S issues, performance & improvement strategies
1 2 1 1 1
Engage with sub-contractors in OH&S performance management
Monitor sub-contractor activities (including volunteers) 2 1 2 2 2 Identify & include suitable OH&S requirements into sub-contractor packages
2 1 2 2 2
Evaluate OH&S performance of sub-contractors 3 1 2 2 2 Identify & implement relevant components of the OH&S & workers’ comp management system
Understand & apply general legislative OH&S requirements 1 1 1 2 1 Understand & apply detailed OH&S legislative requirements
2 3 2 3 2-3
Apply full working knowledge of the organisation’s safety management system
2 3 1 1 1-2
Understand & apply workers’ comp & case management principles
Assist with return to work & rehabilitation processes
2 3 2 3 2-3
Understand & apply general regulatory workers’ compensation requirements
2 3 2 3 2-3
Provide leadership & manage staff & sub-contractor OH&S performance
Mentor staff and follow their progress 2 1 2 2 2 Conduct employee performance appraisals 2 1 2 3 2 Work with staff to solve safety problems 2 1 2 2 2 Discipline staff for poor OH&S behaviour/attitude 2 1 2 2 2 Recruit & select new staff 2 1 2 2 2 Administer 1st Aid to injured persons 2 1 2 3 2
Note: 1 = Full understanding required, 2 = Working knowledge and awareness required,
3 = Competency not required at the minimal level or was not relevant to managing work-related road safety in their organisation.