initial development of a practical safety audit tool to assess fleet safety management practices

Im

RT

a

ARRA

KFAS

1

oO2pdictva

a(tca

0d

Accident Analysis and Prevention 47 (2012) 102– 118

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Accident Analysis and Prevention

j ourna l ho me pa ge: www.elsev ier .com/ locate /aap

nitial development of a practical safety audit tool to assess fleet safetyanagement practices

ebecca Mitchell ∗, Rena Friswell, Lori Moorenransport and Road Safety (TARS) Research, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 20 July 2011eceived in revised form 11 January 2012ccepted 20 January 2012

eywords:leet safetyudit toolafety management

a b s t r a c t

Work-related vehicle crashes are a common cause of occupational injury. Yet, there are few studies thatinvestigate management practices used for light vehicle fleets (i.e. vehicles less than 4.5 tonnes). One ofthe impediments to obtaining and sharing information on effective fleet safety management is the lack ofan evidence-based, standardised measurement tool. This article describes the initial development of anaudit tool to assess fleet safety management practices in light vehicle fleets. The audit tool was developedby triangulating information from a review of the literature on fleet safety management practices andfrom semi-structured interviews with 15 fleet managers and 21 fleet drivers. A preliminary useabilityassessment was conducted with 5 organisations. The audit tool assesses the management of fleet safetyagainst five core categories: (1) management, systems and processes; (2) monitoring and assessment; (3)employee recruitment, training and education; (4) vehicle technology, selection and maintenance; and(5) vehicle journeys. Each of these core categories has between 1 and 3 sub-categories. Organisations are
rated at one of 4 levels on each sub-category. The fleet safety management audit tool is designed to identifythe extent to which fleet safety is managed in an organisation against best practice. It is intended that theaudit tool be used to conduct audits within an organisation to provide an indicator of progress in managingfleet safety and to consistently benchmark performance against other organisations. Application of thetool by fleet safety researchers is now needed to inform its further development and refinement and topermit psychometric evaluation.
. Introduction

Work-related vehicle crashes are the most common causef occupational injury (Driscoll et al., 2001, World Healthrganization and World Bank, 2004). It has been estimated that0–30% of fleet vehicles crash each year, with drivers of com-any vehicles experiencing 50% more crashes than private vehiclerivers (Haworth et al., 2000). In addition to crashes that result

n serious and prolonged injuries, there are many more vehiclerashes that result in minor injuries (i.e. injured workers not admit-ed to hospital) and/or vehicle damage (Blincoe et al., 2002). Fleetehicle crash costs have been estimated to account for 13–15% ofll fleet spending (Haworth et al., 2000).

The management of fleet vehicles has traditionally focused onsset management rather than on occupational health and safetyOHS) management (Haworth et al., 2000). In the road safety field,
here is considerable knowledge about risk factors for vehiclerashes (World Health Organization and World Bank, 2004) and
range of these factors are amenable to control by employers.

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 2 9385 7555; fax: +61 2 9385 6637.E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Mitchell).

001-4575/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.oi:10.1016/j.aap.2012.01.021

© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

However, there have been few studies that document the fleetsafety management practices used by organisations and fewer stillthat evaluate safety management practices in the light vehicle fleetcontext (Stuckey et al., 2007). One of the impediments to gatheringand sharing information on effective fleet safety management isthe lack of any standardised measurement tool capable of captur-ing the complex system of risk management policies and practicesthat an organisation might implement.

No risk management audit tools specifically focus on the man-agement of light vehicle fleet safety and allow organisations toconsistently assess themselves against current best practice. Theaim of this paper is to describe the initial development of a safetyaudit tool to assess fleet safety management practices in light vehi-cle fleets.

2. Method

There were four main stages in the development of the fleetsafety management audit tool. The first stage involved a review of
the literature to identify best practices in relation to fleet safetymanagement. The second stage involved semi-structured inter-views with fleet managers and drivers. The third stage involveddrafting the audit tool using information from the literature review
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2012.01.021

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00014575

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/aap

mailto:[email protected]

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2012.01.021

sis and

aarE

2m

rstcBabwc

IIptms‘l‘aiptvcatlo

imtasaaarrccras

2i

fmhkamc

R. Mitchell et al. / Accident Analy

nd interviews. The final stage involved a preliminary useabilityssessment of the audit tool. Ethics approval for the conduct of thisesearch was obtained from the University of New South Walesthics Committee (HREC 10212).

.1. Stage 1: identification of ‘best practice’ fleet safetyanagement practices

The aim of this stage was to conduct a comprehensive and cur-ent review of the literature to identify ‘best practice’ light fleetafety management practices for inclusion in the fleet safety auditool. For the review, light vehicles were considered to includears and vans less than 4.5 tonnes (Australian Transport Safetyureau, 2003) and ‘best practice’ was considered to refer to man-gement practices that had been identified as superior and/or hadeen shown through research and/or experience to be associatedith a reduction in vehicle crashes, occupant injuries or near-miss

rashes.Relevant literature was identified by searching Medline, Psych-

NFO, SourceOECD, Embase, Web of Science, Applied Social Sciencesndex and Abstracts, Health and Safety Science Abstracts, Com-endex, Scopus, and Google using a variety of combinations ofhe key words including: ‘fleet safety’; ‘vehicles’; ‘fleet manage-

ent’; ‘fleet safety evaluation’; ‘audit tools’; ‘OHS managementystem’; ‘motor carrier safety’; ‘safety management system’; andwork-related driving safety’. All searches were restricted to Englishanguage documents. References with terms ‘truck’; ‘bus’; ‘freight’;heavy’; ‘marine’; ‘ship’; ‘navy’; ‘air’; and ‘aviation’ were excludedfter abstract retrieval as they did not meet the fleet vehicle def-nition. However; references that specifically focused on the bestractice management of heavy vehicle fleets were retained due tohe likely overlap of common themes with the management of lightehicle fleets. To access the grey literature; targeted searches wereonducted of Australian and international government; researchnd other agency websites where the organisations were knowno be involved in transport and occupational safety. The referenceists of all identified literature were scanned for any other reportsr documents missed during the formal search process.

The database literature search resulted in 1042 references. Mostrrelevant items were culled on the basis of title and abstract infor-

ation. Detailed review and cull of the remaining references bywo investigators (RM and RF) left 37 papers in the final review. Andditional 76 documents and reports were identified from web-ites and via Google, but only one of these documents was retaineds relevant. A further 74 articles and reports were identified fromrticle reference lists and 44 of these documents were retainedfter examination. The process yielded a total of 82 references foreview. Duplicate reports of the same study were culled if no new,elevant analyses were reported. Retained references were thenlassified into categories of intervention or descriptive studies, dis-ussion or opinion pieces, and guidance or audit materials. Theesults of empirical studies were grouped according to the man-gement practices they examined, so that dimensions of effectiveafety management practice could be identified.

.2. Stage 2: fleet manager and driver questionnaires andnterviews

The aim of stage 2 was to obtain supplementary informationrom fleet managers and fleet drivers regarding the manage-

ent practices they had experienced and thought improved (orindered) fleet safety performance. Sampling current industry
nowledge was considered important for the development of theudit tool because the published literature on fleet safety manage-ent was neither comprehensive nor, necessarily, unambiguous or
urrent.

Prevention 47 (2012) 102– 118 103

Fleet managers were recruited from the 180 members of theAustralasian Fleet Management Association (AfMA) operating inthe state of New South Wales (NSW). AfMA emailed members invit-ing them to contact the investigators if they wished to participate ina short, semi-structured interview regarding fleet safety manage-ment practices at their organisation for the purpose of developingan audit tool. Seventeen managers (9.4%) volunteered initially, butonly 15 (8.3%) were able to participate within the study timeframe.

Volunteer fleet managers were provided with a participantinformation statement and consent form, a brief backgroundquestionnaire and a copy of the interview questions. The ques-tionnaire elicited basic demographic information about: (i) theinterviewee, (ii) the fleet, and (iii) the drivers and driving tasks atthe organisation. The interview questions were open-ended andasked managers what fleet safety management practices they hadexperienced or implemented in their current organisation, whichpractices had been successful or unsuccessful and what factorsassisted or hindered effective fleet safety management. Drawingon their wider experience, fleet managers identified fleet safetymanagement practices they had observed to reduce or to increasecrashes, injuries or near misses. Lastly, the perceived effectivenessof specific fleet safety management practices reported in the liter-ature was surveyed.

Fleet drivers (n = 21) were recruited from the sample of partic-ipating organisations. Fleet managers were asked to issue copiesof participant invitation letters and consent forms to the first tenpeople who drove a fleet vehicle at their organisation during a oneweek period. Drivers who wished to participate returned the signedconsent form directly to investigators. They then completed a briefbackground questionnaire designed to gather basic demographicinformation about themselves and their work driving, and wereprovided with a copy of the interview questions. The driver inter-views contained questions analogous to those asked of the fleetmanagers.

To ensure consistency, all interviews were conducted by oneinvestigator (LM) and all were conducted by telephone. Interviewswith fleet managers ranged widely in length (00:23 to 1:25) butaveraged around 45 min. Because of their length, fleet managerinterviews were audio recorded for transcription, if the intervie-wee provided consent. Fleet driver interviews were typically muchshorter (around 15–20 min) and were not recorded.

2.3. Stage 3: fleet safety management audit tool development

The draft fleet safety management audit tool was developed byinvestigators using the evidence regarding fleet safety best prac-tices obtained from the research literature and following interviewswith fleet managers and drivers regarding fleet safety practices. Ini-tially, the dimensions of fleet safety management practice extractedfrom the literature were examined to identify practices that werealso judged effective by managers and drivers. Triangulating infor-mation from these three sources assisted in the identification of thenecessary and sufficient audit categories and the creation of objec-tive, ‘best practice’ criteria against which to assess performance.Guiding the development of the tool was the need to ensure itspracticality, in particular, that it be self-completed and thereforerelatively easy to use and relatively short. As much as possible,the dimensions of fleet safety practice and the descriptions pro-vided for each rating referred to tangible practices that could beindependently observed to promote reliable ratings.

2.4. Stage 4: useability trial

The aim of this stage was to assess the useability of the fleetsafety management audit tool. Five fleet managers from volunteerorganisations not involved in the audit tool’s development were

1 sis and

rmiaotooc

3

3m

toiaimtpooflriwst

rdatoimdvbat

wt1hcTrd

3

3

els(wa

04 R. Mitchell et al. / Accident Analy

ecruited to assess the useability of the draft audit tool. The fleetanagers were provided with a copy of the draft audit tool, a scor-

ng sheet and a brief useability questionnaire. They were asked topply the audit tool to their own organisation, to note any issuesr problems with the tool, and to complete the useability ques-ionnaire. The questionnaire contained a mix of forced choice andpen-ended questions and asked the managers for their assessmentf the clarity of the language used in the draft audit tool, the tool’soverage, ease of use, and its potential usefulness.

. Results

.1. Stage 1: identification of ‘best practice’ fleet safetyanagement practices

Intervention and descriptive studies that examined the rela-ionships between fleet safety practices and outcomes, in termsf vehicle crashes, unsafe behaviour and/or crash-related injuries,dentified a number of elements of fleet safety management associ-ted with a positive impact on safety performance (Table 1). Thesencluded: aspects of management systems and procedures; driver

onitoring and assessment practices; employee recruitment andraining practices; use of behavioural incentive and disincentiverogrammes; vehicle selection and maintenance practices and usef safety technology; and vehicle journey management. A numberf studies also investigated the impact of driver characteristics oneet safety outcomes. Very few of the reviewed studies used robustesearch designs or systematically examined the effect of introduc-ng a particular fleet safety intervention. Rather, most of the studies

ere descriptive and typically used self-report questionnaire mea-ures. The literature contained few attempts to replicate findings oro systematically accumulate evidence around a particular practice.

Numerous discussion and opinion pieces were publishedegarding light vehicle fleet safety. Several of these documentsescribed initiatives that were implemented by organisations in anttempt to improve fleet safety performance, but often no evalua-ion of the outcomes of these initiatives had been conducted. Manyf the elements of fleet safety programmes that were identifiedn these documents, such as a fleet safety culture, regular bench-

arking of safety performance, various fleet management policies,river selection practices, vehicle selection policies and regularehicle maintenance, are likely to have an effect on fleet safety,ut these elements were not consistently or rigorously evaluatednd consequently it was difficult to determine the exact impact ofhese management practices (Table 2).

Many of the existing fleet safety guidance and audit materialsere largely based on the Motor Fleet Safety Manual produced ini-

ially in the late 1960s by the US National Safety Council (Brodbeck,996). The existing audit materials were largely designed for theeavy vehicle sector, with only one audit tool developed to specifi-ally assess light vehicle fleets (Queensland Transport, 1998; seeable 2). However, this tool appeared to be based on limitedesearch evidence, and was not built into a framework that enabledifferent organisations to benchmark their performance.

.2. Stage 2: fleet manager and driver interviews

.2.1. Characteristics of participating organisationsThe participating organisations came from a range of differ-

nt industry sectors (Table 3). Fleets contained a median of 305ight vehicles (range 83–2700), and were distributed evenly across
maller (≤250 vehicles), medium (251–500 vehicles) and larger>500 vehicles) fleet categories. Passenger vehicles (cars, stationaggons, 4WDs and SUVs) occurred in all the light vehicle fleets,
nd made up more than half of the vehicles in each fleet, on

Prevention 47 (2012) 102– 118

average. Utes/twin cabs and light commercial vans were commonlyincluded in the fleets as well, but utes and twin cabs typically com-prised a much bigger percentage of the fleets than vans. Light trucksand buses, motorcycles and quad bikes were also a component ofsome fleets. Fleets averaged about seven and a half million kilo-metres per year (range 667,436 to 65,000,000 km) reflecting thedifferent fleet sizes and fleet tasks. The distance travelled per vehi-cle per year was around 27,000 km. Estimates of the annual distancedriven per driver were around 16,000 km.

3.2.2. Characteristics of participating fleet managers and driversAlmost all of the fleet managers (n = 13; 86.7%) held posi-

tions specialising in fleet or transport logistics management. Theremainder held management positions in risk management or envi-ronmental health and safety. The fleet managers averaged 6.8 years(SD = 5.6) in their current position and a total of 12.6 years (SD = 9.0)in similar positions across their careers. On average, the fleet man-agers were 46.7 years old (SD = 7.7), ranging from 30 to 60 years,and most were male (80%).

Drivers from 11 of the 15 participating organisations volun-teered to participate. In 4 organisations, more than one drivervolunteered. In total, 21 drivers were interviewed. The driversmost frequently held professional and para-professional (42.9%)or managerial and administrative (42.9%) positions within theirorganisation. Smaller numbers of drivers held technical/trades(9.5%) or sales (4.5%) positions. The drivers had been with theircurrent organisation for a considerable period (median = 10 years,range 1–40 years). They had held their current jobs for a medianof 5.5 years (range 1–28 years). Most of the drivers were male(76.2%). The average age of the drivers was 47.2 years (SD = 11.8)and they had held a full drivers’ licence for most of their adult lives(mean = 29.4 years, SD = 11.9).

3.2.3. Fleet manager and driver interviewsFleet managers described using a variety of strategies to manage

fleet safety in their organisations. These strategies largely focusedon developing and implementing policies and procedures related tofleet safety management, such as vehicle selection and purchasingprocedures, fatigue management and mobile phone use policies.Fleet managers relied on timely information obtained from crashand/or near-miss reports to target initiatives. A few organisationsalso reported conducting vehicle audits, random inspections andidentifying ‘risky’ drivers for focused interventions. Driver trainingwas often reported as a practice used to manage fleet safety. How-ever, the type of driver training and its frequency varied widely.Fleet managers indicated that management and organisationalcommitment, crash investigation and reporting practices, use ofsafe vehicles, and safe driving policies all assisted in the manage-ment of fleet safety. Fleet drivers indicated that driver educationand training, vehicle inspections and maintenance, safe vehiclesand the provision of safety information to staff were the main fac-tors used to promote fleet safety in the organisation.

Fleet managers and drivers reported that, in some cases, it wasdifficult to gauge how successful individual practices had been tomanage fleet safety. However, fleet managers and drivers indi-cated that, in their opinion, the essential practices to managethe risk of fleet vehicle crashes were practical driver awarenesstraining and education (including vehicle familiarisation), use ofwell maintained vehicles with high Australasian New Car Assess-ment Program (ANCAP) ratings, an organisational awareness offleet safety practices, along with crash reporting and investigationstrategies, as long as the information obtained was acted upon.

Both fleet manager and driver responses when asked, in theirexperience, whether specific factors, identified from the liter-ature review, impacted on fleet safety management are listedin Table 4. Almost all managers and drivers rated aspects of

R. Mitchell et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 47 (2012) 102– 118 105

Table 1Fleet safety programme elements identified in intervention or descriptive studies examining the relationship between practices and outcomes.

Fleet safety programme elements Impact or outcomes Studies

A. Management, systems and proceduresISO9002:1994 certification Positive impact Naveh and Marcus (2007) – heavy vehicle sectorMulti-component bespoke programmes Positive impact Matusalen et al. (2006), Al Kurdi et al. (2008), Murray

et al. (2009), Gray (1990), Sochon and BrisbaneStrong safety culture Company active in driver safety – self-report Downs et al. (1999)Driving or distribution as the main activity Company active in driver safety – self-report Downs et al. (1999)Transport of expensive or dangerous materials Company active in driver safety – self-report Downs et al. (1999)Concern for company image Company active in driver safety – self-report Downs et al. (1999)Concern for employee well-being Company active in driver safety – self-report Downs et al. (1999)Management commitment to health and safety Unsafe behaviour – self-report Machin and De Souza (2004)Driving exposure Crashes – self-report Darby et al. (2009)Compliance with crash reporting regulations Crashes & injuries Moses and Savage (1992)Compliance as measured by safety and roadside audits Crashes Moses and Savage (1996)Safety director with driver hire/fire authority Crashes & injuries Moses and Savage (1992)More extensive policies and practices Unsafe behaviour – self-report Newnam et al. (2002)Fleet managers perceptions’ of organisational safety

values affects drivers’ perceptions of safety values,safety motivation and crashes

Company safety values – self-report Newnam et al. (2008)

Safety rules, management commitment, work pressureand communication aspects of safety climatedifferentially predict distraction/fatigue, violationsand aggressive driving, driver errors and pre-tripmaintenance activities

Unsafe behaviour – self-report Wills et al. (2004, 2006b)

Safety climate Behavioural intentions & unsafe behaviour –self-report

Wills et al. (2004, 2009)

Work overload Insurance claims Cartwright et al. (1993, 1996)

B. Monitoring and assessmentParticipation in accreditation scheme Insurance claims TruckSafe (Austroads, 2008a)Eyesight check Crashes – self-report Darby et al. (2009)Licence checks Crashes – self-report Darby et al. (2009)Monitoring hours of service Crashes & injuries Moses and Savage (1992)In-vehicle monitoringwith feedback

Positive impact Wouters and Bos (2000) – overall; O’connell (2008),Larson et al. (1980) – feedback with independentreview

Negative or no impact Wouters and Bos (2000) – light vehicle fleets only;Larson et al. (1980) – feedback without independentreview

In-vehicle monitoring without feedback Negative or no impact Larson et al. (1980)Behavioural self-monitoring with feedback Positive impact Olson and Winchester (2008), Hickman and Geller

(2005)

C. Employee recruitment, training and educationIndependent verification of driver credentials at hiring Crashes & injuries Moses and Savage (1992)Driver training – manoeuvring, skid training, and

commentary drivingPositive impact Gregersen et al. (1996)

Post-licence driver education (not consistent evidence) Positive impact Ker et al. (2005)Defensive driver courses (not consistent evidence) Positive impact Lund and Williams (1985)Group discussion sessions on safety and seat belt use Positive impact Gregersen et al. (1996), Lund and Aaro (2004)Driver training and lower accident liability Crashes – self-report Lynn and Lockwood (1998)Driver education Safety climate – self-report Banks et al. (2006)Higher driver safety policy awareness (but policy

awareness likely post-dates crash)Crashes – self-report Darby et al. (2009)

Fleet manager newsletter style and content Attitudes and practices – self-report Newnam et al. (2006)

D. Driver characteristicsOlder, experienced drivers less accident liability than

younger driversCrashes – self-report Lynn and Lockwood (1998), Darby et al. (2009)

Traffic citations related to accidents Crashes – self-report Caird and Kline (2004)Fatigue related to dangerous errors Driving errors – self-report Caird and Kline (2004)Speeding related to fatigue and traffic citations Citations – self-report Caird and Kline (2004)Work pressure and driving errors Crashes – self-report Davey et al. (2006), Rowland et al. (2008)Uncertain or aggressive/impulsive/irresponsible

personality self-descriptionCrashes – self-report Darby et al. (2009)

Poorer attitudes to safedriving

Crashes – self-report Darby et al. (2009), Newnam et al. (2008)Behavioural intentions & unsafe behaviour –self-report

Wills et al. (2004, 2009)

Subjective norms on safe driving Behavioural intentions & unsafe behaviour –self-report

Wills et al. (2004, 2009)

Attitudes + behavioural control + subjective norms Behavioural intentions Newnam et al. (2004)Anticipated regret Behavioural intentions Newnam et al. (2004)Poorer self-report driving behaviour Crashes – self-report Darby et al. (2009)Poorer hazard perception scores Crashes – self-report Darby et al. (2009)Poorer safe driving self-efficacy relates to crash

involvementCrashes – self-report Newnam et al. (2008)

Type of driver job moderates predictors of crashinvolvement

Crashes – self-report Darby et al. (2009)

106 R. Mitchell et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 47 (2012) 102– 118

Table 1 (Continued)

Fleet safety programme elements Impact or outcomes Studies

E. Performance-based incentives and disincentivesMonetary reward for no accidents Crashes – self-report Lynn and Lockwood (1998)Performance-based monetary incentives (but effect

depends on broader payment practices)Crashes & violations Shaw et al. (2002)

Disciplining drivers involved in ‘preventable’ crashes Crashes & injuries Moses and Savage (1992)Bonus/group monetary reward for good performance Positive impact Gregersen et al. (1996)Immediate direct rewards for good performance Positive impact Geller et al. (1987)Delayed direct rewards for good performance Positive impact Geller et al. (1987)Indirect rewards for good performance Positive impact Geller et al. (1987)

F. Vehicle technology, selection and maintenanceDrivers driving a variety of vehicles associated with

low accidentsCrashes – self-report Lynn and Lockwood (1998)

Antilock Braking System associated with more crashes(but is likely a training issue)

Crashes – self-report Darby et al. (2009)

Breath alcohol ignition interlock devices Alcohol lock-outs Bjerre and Kostela (2008)Advanced Brake Warning System Negative or no impact Shinar (2000)

G. Vehicle journeysGroup discussion sessions regarding road safety

problems and solutionsPositive impact Gregersen et al. (1996), Geller et al. (1987)

F. OtherPerception of safety measures providing financial Company active in driver safety – self-report Downs et al. (1999)

s and

msmmwdbmmtv

3

umo

(((((

wwfatm1spith

o

benefitHigher risk driving situations predict driving

behaviour and behavioural intentionsBehavioural intentionself-report

anagement, systems and procedures as having an impact on fleetafety management, except for contracting out of services. The ele-ents relating to monitoring and assessment, vehicle selection andaintenance, and employee recruitment, training and educationere all rated highly by both fleet managers and drivers, except foristribution of a fleet safety newsletter. The use of performance-ased incentives, and reviewing vehicle journeys largely receivedixed responses regarding their impact on fleet safety from fleetanagers and drivers. Age-related driver characteristics were not

hought to be as relevant to fleet safety as a drivers’ attitude, trafficiolation history or work pressure on drivers.

.3. Stage 3: fleet safety management audit tool development

Information from the literature review and the interviews wassed by investigators to form the basis of the fleet safety manage-ent audit tool. From this evidence, five categories of fleet safety

perations management emerged:

1) management, systems and processes;2) monitoring and assessment;3) employee recruitment, training and education;4) vehicle technology, selection and maintenance; and5) vehicle journeys.

For each of these 5 categories, between 1 and 3 sub-categoriesere created. Each sub-category represented an area where thereas demonstrated evidence of effectiveness, or emerging support,

or managing fleet safety from the research literature that waslso rated as important by fleet managers and drivers. For each ofhese sub-categories, a rating scale, based on the evidence-based

edicine framework (Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group,992), with standardised criteria was created to enable organi-ations to benchmark their fleet safety performance against bestractice. The evidence-based medicine framework was chosen as

ts hierarchical structure and its use of clearly defined rating cri-
eria have been successfully applied in other areas, such as publicealth interventions (Rychetnik et al., 2002).
An organisation rates its performance on each sub-category atne of 4 levels using rating criteria that focus on management

unsafe behaviour – Wills et al. (2004, 2009)

practices that can be verified, rather than less easily measuredqualities. These ratings range from level I to level IV and indicate:

• Level I: the organisation is performing at a high standard for thesecriteria;

• Level II: the organisation is performing well for these criteria, butthere is some room for improvement;

• Level III: the organisation is performing OK on these criteria butthere is considerable room for improvement; and

• Level IV: the organisation is performing poorly on these criteria,with little to no activity.

For each level, a general description of the criteria is pro-vided (‘Strategic Criteria’), together with concrete examples of howthey could be reflected in an organisation (‘Operational Criteria’).The Level that an organisation achieves on each sub-category isscored. Although some safety management practices are likely tohave a greater impact on safety outcomes than others and should,therefore, be given a higher score weighting, at present there isinsufficient evidence about the comparative impact of differenttypes of practices to inform such a weighted scoring system. Forthis reason a simple scoring system was adopted in this first iter-ation of the audit tool, giving equal weight to each subcategory ofmanagement practice. A rating of Level IV receives a score of 0,Level III receives a score of 1, Level II receives a score of 2 and Level1 receives a score of 3. Each subcategory score can be summed toprovide a total score out of 36 (Appendix A). The total score can beused to provide an indication of how the organisation is performingin relation to best practice fleet safety management.

The audit tool can be applied to the whole organisation. How-ever, when an organisation has divisions that are at different stageswith their fleet safety management system, it may be more infor-mative to apply the audit tool to individual divisions separately.Alternatively, if the audit tool is applied to the whole organisation,the lowest level of performance achieved by any division should beused as the organisation’s score.

3.4. Stage 4: useability trial

Four of the five pilot organisations were large, commercialorganisations. The fifth was a government agency. All but one of the


Table 2Fleet safety programme elements identified in discussion and opinion pieces, guidance and audit materials and other publications.

Fleet safety programme elements Sources

A. Management, systems and proceduresBuild and maintain a fleet safety culture Moser (2001), Spear (Spear, 2007)Leadership and commitment by management Tokyo Electric Power Company (Anonymous, 1990), Schon (1999), Spear (2007), Wills

et al. (2006a), Kedjidjian (1995), Safe Practices for Motor Vehicle Operations (AmericanSociety of Safety Engineers, 2006), Fleet Safety Manual (Federal Office of Road Safety,1995), UK guidelines (Health and Safety Executive UK, 2000; Royal Society for thePrevention of Accidents, 2003), Safety Management System (SMS) Handbook for bus andcoach operators (NSW Ministry of Transport, 2007)

Preventive approach to crashes Tokyo Electric Power Company (Anonymous, 1990)Adaption of safety policies to each worksite Tokyo Electric Power Company (Anonymous, 1990), Schon (1999)Driver management policies Tokyo Electric Power Company (Anonymous, 1990)Policies and practices address regulatory obligations Spear (2007), Murray (2005); Safe Practices for Motor Vehicle Operations (American

Society of Safety Engineers, 2006), Fleet Safety Manual (Federal Office of Road Safety,1995), UK guidelines (Health and Safety Executive UK, 2000; Royal Society for thePrevention of Accidents, 2003), Safety Management System (SMS) Handbook for bus andcoach operators (NSW Ministry of Transport, 2007), UK guidelines (Health and SafetyExecutive UK, 2000; Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, 2003)

Systems in place to record accidents, injuries Motor Fleet Safety Manual (Brodbeck, 1996), Safe Practices for Motor Vehicle Operations(American Society of Safety Engineers, 2006), Fleet Safety Manual (Federal Office ofRoad Safety, 1995), UK guidelines (Health and Safety Executive UK, 2000, Royal Societyfor the Prevention of Accidents, 2003), Safer Motoring How to Guide (Australasian FleetManagers Association, 2008), Safety Management System (SMS) Handbook for bus andcoach operators (NSW Ministry of Transport, 2007)

Beliefs and values around work-related driving Wills et al. (2006a)Organisational structure and processes Wills et al. (2006a)Content and communication of rules and procedures Wills et al. (2006a)Safety responsibilities/cooperation between departments UK guidelines (Health and Safety Executive UK, 2000; Royal Society for the Prevention

of Accidents, 2003), Safety Management System (SMS) Handbook for bus and coachoperators (NSW Ministry of Transport, 2007)

Regular benchmarking of safety performance Murray et al. (2003)

B. Monitoring and assessmentDriver performance monitoring and feedback Spear (2007), Brock (2004);Collect and examine crash records Tokyo Electric Power Company (Anonymous, 1990), Schon (1999), Spear (2007),

Kedjidjian (1995)Substance use screening Spear (2007)Use a community telephone feedback service Kedjidjian (1995)Audit and evaluation Safety Management System (SMS) Handbook for bus and coach operators (NSW Ministry

of Transport, 2007)

C. Employee recruitment, training and educationEmployee selection, training, education and supervision Motor Fleet Safety Manual (Brodbeck, 1996), Safe Practices for Motor Vehicle Operations

(American Society of Safety Engineers, 2006), Fleet Safety Manual (Federal Office ofRoad Safety, 1995), UK guidelines (Health and Safety Executive UK, 2000; RoyalSociety for the Prevention of Accidents, 2003), Safer Motoring How to Guide(Australasian Fleet Managers Association, 2008), Safety Management System (SMS)Handbook for bus and coach operators (NSW Ministry of Transport, 2007)

Careful driver selection (e.g., examine employee driving history) Moser (2001), Spear (2007), Brock (2004)Medical screening Tokyo Electric Power Company (Anonymous, 1990), Spear (2007)Develop driver risk profiles Moser (2001)Focus prevention measures on high risk drivers Moser (2001), Spear (2007)Driver training Spear (2007), Brock (2004), Kedjidjian (1995)Supervisor and manager training Spear (2007)Traffic/fleet manager Tokyo Electric Power Company (Anonymous, 1990), Schon (1999)Driver safety awareness programmes Tokyo Electric Power Company (Anonymous, 1990)Induction programmes Fleet Safety Manual (Federal Office of Road Safety, 1995)Employee monitoring Safety Management System (SMS) Handbook for bus and coach operators (NSW Ministry

of Transport, 2007)Fleet safety working groups Schon (1999)

D. Performance-based incentives and disincentivesPerformance incentives and rewards (tangible or recognition) Spear (2007), Brock (2004), Kedjidjian (1995), Motor Fleet Safety Manual (Brodbeck,

1996), Fleet Safety Manual (Federal Office of Road Safety, 1995)Disincentives for poor performance Fleet Safety Manual (Federal Office of Road Safety, 1995)

E. Vehicle technology, selection and maintenanceVehicle selection Safe Practices for Motor Vehicle Operations (American Society of Safety Engineers, 2006),

Fleet Safety Manual (Federal Office of Road Safety, 1995), UK guidelines (Health andSafety Executive UK, 2000; Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, 2003), SaferMotoring How to Guide (Australasian Fleet Managers Association, 2008)

Vehicle maintenance Fleet Safety Manual (Federal Office of Road Safety, 1995), UK guidelines (Health andSafety Executive UK, 2000; Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, 2003), SaferMotoring How to Guide (Australasian Fleet Managers Association, 2008)

Select vehicles with safety technologies Kedjidjian (1995), Austroads (2008b), Scully and Newstead (2008)Preventive vehicle maintenance regime Spear (2007), Brock (2004)

108 R. Mitchell et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 47 (2012) 102– 118

Table 2 (Continued)

Fleet safety programme elements Sources

F. Vehicle journeysPre-trip vehicle inspection regime Spear (2007)Safe route identification UK guidelines (Health and Safety Executive UK, 2000; Royal Society for the Prevention

of Accidents, 2003), UK guidelines (Health and Safety Executive UK, 2000; RoyalSociety for the Prevention of Accidents, 2003), Safer Motoring How to Guide(Australasian Fleet Managers Association, 2008)

Risk factor management (e.g. speed, fatigue, weather, distractions) Fleet Safety Manual (Federal Office of Road Safety, 1995), Safety Management System(SMS) Handbook for bus and coach operators (NSW Ministry of Transport, 2007)

Pre-trip load inspection regime Spear (2007)

Moser

pfes

sbapaicd

safl

TT

G. OtherCost-benefit analysis of fleet safety practices

ilot participants found the audit tool easy to use. This participantelt that the practice of ensuring appropriate safety and emergencyquipment within a vehicle in case of vehicle breakdown should bepecified in the tool.

Most participants reported the language clear and easy to under-tand and had no problems interpreting the audit category criteria,ut one participant felt the criteria for the first category (man-gement, systems and processes) could be made clearer. Mostarticipants reported that there was enough information in theudit criteria to identify the appropriate rating for their organ-sation. Two participants indicated that they spent some timeomparing the criteria for the four levels to determine how theyiffered.

All participants felt that the audit criteria assisted in identifyingtrengths and weaknesses in fleet safety management and that theudit criteria for each category could be used as a guide for planningeet safety management improvements. All five pilot participants

able 3ype of organisation and composition of light vehicle fleets.

Organisation characteristics

Type of organisation n

Local council 5

Government agency 1

Utility or service organisation 4Commercial organisation 3

Educational institution 2

Fleet characteristics

Light vehicle fleet size Number of fleets

≤250 vehicles 6

251–500 vehicles 4

>500 vehicles 5

Number of vehicles per fleet 15

Types of light vehicles Number of fleets Number

Passenger vehiclesa 15 191

Utes/twin cabs 13 119

Light commercial vans 14 13

Light trucks 10 29.5

Light buses 7 2

Motorcycles 5 3

Other 1 31

Vehicle ownership arrangements Number of fleets

Purchased 12

Leased 11

Short-term hire 1

a Includes sedans, station waggons, 4WDs, SUVs.b Fleets in which the number of a type of vehicle was zero were not used in the calculac Fleets in which the percent of a type of vehicle was zero were used in the calculation

(2001)

were interested in using an audit tool for benchmarking and fourthought the current tool would be useful or very useful for thispurpose.

Following the useability pilot, several changes were made tothe fleet safety management audit tool based on the commentsreceived from the pilot organisations. Provision of safety and emer-gency equipment in vehicles in case of vehicle breakdown wasincluded in the ‘fleet safety management’ criteria and, where pos-sible, a system of lettering the individual criteria was introducedto improve the ease with which the four rating levels could becompared.

4. Discussion

In order for organisations to benchmark fleet safety man-agement performance, standard criteria against which to rateperformance are needed. However, standard measurement tools

%

33.36.7

26.720.013.3

% of fleets

40.026.733.3

Median vehicles

305

of vehicles per fleet (median)b % of fleet vehicles (mean (SD))c

57.2 (25.7)31.2 (22.3)

5.8 (6.2)4.7 (4.6)0.4 (0.9)0.6 (1.2)0.2 (0.6)

% of fleets % of fleet vehicles (mean (SD))c

80.0 51.2 (44.7)73.3 48.7 (44.6)

6.7 0.07 (0.26)

tion of medians. of means.


Table 4Fleet manager (n = 15) and driver (n = 21) opinions of factors that may have an impact on fleet safety management (% yes).

Fleet managers Drivers

A. Management systems and proceduresManagement leadership and commitment for fleet safety 100 95.2Having in place company policies, guidelines or

procedures that address fleet safety100 95.2

Having cooperation between departments in anorganisation regarding fleet safety responsibilities (e.g.HR and OHS)

93.3 85.7

Having a system in place to record information regardingany vehicle crashes or worker injuries

100 100

Adopting a risk management or preventive approach tovehicle crashes

100 95.2

The safety culture of an organisation 100 100Concern for the company’s image 93.3 76.2Having consultation between management and workers

regarding safety issues (i.e. involving workers in decisionmaking)

100 95.2

Contracting out of services 53.3 47.6

B.Monitoring and assessmentConducting audits or evaluating fleet safety practices (e.g.

participation in an accreditation scheme or self-auditing)73.3 95.2

Conducting driver performance monitoring and feedback(e.g. in-vehicle monitoring)

86.7 85.7

Analysing and reviewing past vehicle crash trends 93.3 100

C.Vehicle selection and maintenanceHaving vehicle selection guidelines in place (e.g. ABS

brakes)100 100

Conducting routine vehicle maintenance 100 100Conducting pre-trip vehicle inspections 73.3 90.5

D.Employee recruitment, training and educationUsing employee selection procedures (e.g. licence checks,

eye sight checks, driver history)93.3 85.7

Conducting employee induction training 93.3 95.2Conducting employee education and training (e.g.

defensive driver training, manoeuvring)93.3 85.7

Driver safety awareness programmes 93.3 95.2Producing and distributing a fleet safety newsletter 73.3 47.6Having fleet safety working groups or discussion groups 80.0 66.7

E.Performance-based incentives and disincentivesRewarding drivers for good or improved vehicle safety

performance (e.g. recognition, bonus)66.7 47.6

Having disincentives for drivers for poor or worse vehiclesafety performance

93.3 57.1

F.Vehicle journeysReviewing the route travelled by drivers for possible safety

issues80.0 42.9

Using risk management strategies to reduce the risk ofvehicle crashes (e.g. for speed, fatigue)

100 95.2

G.Driver characteristicsEmploying older drivers 20.0 47.6Employing younger drivers 46.7 52.4A driver’s attitude to safe driving/road safety 100 90.5

hma

bipflasvimd

A driver’s road traffic violation history (e.g. speedingtickets)

Work pressure on drivers

ave been lacking in the area of light vehicle fleet safety manage-ent. The development of the current fleet safety management

udit tool represents the initial step towards addressing that need.The fleet safety management audit tool is intended to be used

y managers to conduct audits within a company to provide anndicator of progress in managing fleet safety and to benchmarkerformance with other companies. It identifies the extent to whicheet safety is managed using best practice techniques. To encour-ge industry adoption, the audit tool was designed to allow atraight-forward and relatively quick self-audit. This means that
alid results depend on honest and critical self-evaluation by organ-sations, but has the potential benefit that organisations which
ight not purchase commercial audit services can assess the stan-ard of their fleet safety management. As far as possible, the audit

100 81.0

100 90.5

tool rating criteria are grounded in tangible, concrete managementpractices (e.g., managers’ performance evaluation criteria includefleet safety management targets), rather than more abstract con-cepts (e.g., management commitment to fleet safety is high), tohelp promote valid and reliable ratings between users. Users arealso advised to use a range of information sources within theirorganisation to inform their responses. Despite these precautions,the potential for self-report bias remains. Further research thatcompares audit tool self-assessments to independently collectedmeasures of management practices would allow the likelihood and
extent of any self-report bias to be quantified. Work to establishthe consistency of scores obtained by different users within anorganisation (inter-rater reliability) and by the same user over time(test-retest reliability) is also needed.

1 sis and

ednflsdefat

fwfltaate

mwcwflti(iGa

danbrTfiu

ravctccLatf

wplba(aicmgr


The audit tool was developed using the published research lit-rature regarding fleet safety, interviews with fleet managers andrivers, and useability assessments. Overall, there were only a smallumber of research studies specifically examining light vehicleeet safety. However, there were a number of elements of fleetafety programmes identified during the literature review that hademonstrated a positive impact on fleet safety performance. Theselements related to management, systems and procedures, systemsor monitoring and assessment, employee recruitment, trainingnd education, driver characteristics, vehicle selection and main-enance, performance-based incentives, and vehicle journeys.

The literature review identified that the supporting evidenceor best practices in fleet safety was fairly weak. As a result, itas often difficult to determine with confidence which elements ofeet safety management actually reduced vehicle crashes. In addi-ion, there were also multifaceted programmes that incorporated

range of fleet safety management elements. These multi-facetedpproaches made it difficult to identify the elements of fleet safetyhat had an impact on reducing crash rates, as the effect of onelement could not be singled out.

Many of the published studies had methodological flaws thatade interpretation of the results difficult. Some of the researchas conducted with mixed fleets (i.e. both light and heavy vehi-

les) or with heavy vehicle fleets only and it is not clear howell the results from these studies may generalise to light vehicleeets as differences in exposure to both driving and the interven-ion elements may occur in different types of fleets. Several of thentervention studies did not include control groups in the designWouters and Bos, 2000; Naveh and Marcus, 2007), but a few stud-es did include a no-treatment, control group (Larson et al., 1980;eller et al., 1987; Gregersen et al., 1996; Shinar, 2000; Hickmannd Geller, 2005).

The majority of the published descriptive research that was con-ucted to examine the relationships between fleet safety practicesnd outcomes relied on obtaining information from question-aires. Questionnaire data are prone to a number of potentialiases, including recall and social desirability bias. In addition, pooresponse rates are common in applied survey research (Galea andracy, 2007) and can have an impact on the representativeness ofndings. Furthermore, no causal inferences are able to be madesing descriptive studies.

Relatively few of the published discussion and opinion piecesegarding light vehicle fleet safety were supported by good evalu-tive research. However, many of the elements discussed, such asarious fleet management policies, driver selection practices, vehi-le selection policies and regular vehicle maintenance, are likelyo have an effect on fleet safety, but these elements have not beenonsistently or rigorously evaluated and consequently it is diffi-ult to determine the exact impact of these management practices.astly, there was little indication that the existing guidance andudit materials were based on research evidence. This means thathere is a real need for evidence-based guidelines and related toolsor fleet safety management.

Although the literature on light vehicle fleet safety managementas sparse, it was nonetheless consistent with the broader occu-ational safety intervention literature. This, too, typically reveals

ittle unambiguous evidence of overall safety system effectiveness,ut a number of studies have suggested that particular safety man-gement practices and characteristics can predict safety outcomese.g., see Robson et al., 2007). For example, successful safety man-gement has been reported to involve: management and supervisornterest and commitment to safety; effective communication and
onsultation with workers and involvement of workers in safetyanagement; clear responsibility for safety management and inte-
ration of safety with other management functions; systematicisk management processes, regular audits, good OHS recording

Prevention 47 (2012) 102– 118

systems and continuous improvement processes; standard oper-ating procedures; safety training; safety-relevant hiring practices;work environment and technology consistent with safety; andorganisation of work (e.g., workload and pressure) consistent withsafety (Cohen, 1977; Simonds and Saafai-Sahrai, 1977; Shannonet al., 1997). Many of these same factors have also been interpretedas signs of the maturity of an organisation’s safety culture (e.g., seeFlemming, 2001).

Despite the limitations of the existing research literature onlight fleet safety management, the interviews with fleet man-agers and drivers were supportive of the elements identified inthe literature as having an impact on fleet safety management. Theinterviews also identified additional and emerging components ofelements thought to impact on fleet safety. The development pro-cess of the fleet safety management audit tool sought to incorporateinformation from both research findings and practical experience.Nonetheless, it is still limited by the quality of the available infor-mation. This, of course, is the conundrum facing the developers ofany standardised measurement tool – development of the measurerequires a good understanding of the to-be-measured quantity, butthat good understanding requires the use of a good measure. Forthis reason, dissemination of the current, early version of the safetyaudit tool is important because it will encourage its use in researchwhich, in turn, will enable evaluation and improvement of the tool.

The experiences of a relatively small sample of Australian organ-isations operating light vehicle fleets were used to supplement theresearch literature when developing the audit tool. These organ-isations shared an interest in fleet management issues sufficientto join an industry association (i.e. AfMA) and to volunteer for thecurrent study. They may represent organisations with, for exam-ple, greater levels of awareness or commitment to fleet safety thanorganisations that are not AfMA members or that did not volun-teer. Alternatively, there may be organisations that find fleet safetymanagement particularly challenging. Because the study partici-pants were a small sample of organisations operating light vehiclefleets and because they may have differed systematically fromother organisations, further research is needed to confirm that theaudit tool is relevant to a wider range of light vehicle fleets.

The scoring system that was adopted in the audit tool alsorequires empirical evaluation. Currently, the different subcate-gories of fleet safety management performance are assigned scoreswith equal weighting. This simple system was used because notenough is known about the relative effects of different fleet safetystrategies to weight them meaningfully during scoring. Research tobetter understand the relative importance of the different audit toolsubcategories for safety outcomes would allow the scoring systemto be refined to reflect the varying impact of different managementstrategies. There is clearly a need for further research that exam-ines the relationships between the different safety audit tool scoresand objective measures of safe practices across a range of organi-sations. Of course, an analysis of the relative ability of the differentdimension scores to predict measures of unsafe outcomes like theincidence, severity, and cost of fleet crashes will be necessary todevelop an empirical score weighting system.

From the research literature examined and the interviews con-ducted for the development of the fleet safety audit tool, there wasno one strategy identified that, if performed well, would result in‘best practice’ fleet safety performance. Rather a combination ofstrategies was used to manage fleet safety in organisations. How-ever, the research literature did not identify which were the bestcombinations of fleet safety strategies that an organisation shouldadopt in order to reach best practice in fleet safety management.
Further research is needed in this area to identify which combina-tions of fleet safety strategies are the most successful in managingfleet safety performance. In addition, it is possible that some ofthe criteria in the audit tool will be also relevant for heavy vehicle

sis and

flrvo

rfctevuhtfcc

5

tawawao

A

fcai

fKtflat

A

A

AAwauoaa

Amobasc


eets, due to common themes, however, it is likely that extra crite-ia would need to be added to the audit tool to accommodate heavyehicle-specific safety elements because of the particular demandsf the vehicle and the freight task.

Further refinement and testing of the audit tool is likely to beequired in the future as fleet safety practices and vehicle safetyeatures improve. Further testing of the audit tool could also beonducted with additional organisations to ensure relevance to allypes of organisations. In addition, future research could assess theffectiveness of the fleet safety management audit tool in reducingehicle crashes and costs as this would also shed light on the tools’sefulness to manage light vehicle fleet safety. In the first instance,owever, preliminary validation research on the effectiveness ofhe audit tool should be conducted by examining outcome per-ormance measures, such as ‘at-fault’ fleet crashes, fleet insuranceosts, for organisations and assessing the association of these out-ome measures with audit scores for the tool.

. Conclusion

The fleet safety management audit tool was designed to iden-ify the extent to which fleet safety is managed in an organisationgainst best practice. The audit tool can be used to conduct auditsithin an organisation to provide an indicator of progress in man-

ging fleet safety and it can be used to benchmark performanceith other organisations using a best practice framework. Research

pplication and evaluation of the audit tool is encouraged to guidengoing refinement.

cknowledgements

This research was conducted with assistance from AfMA and wasunded by a NSW WorkCover Assist Program grant. The researchonclusions are those of the authors and any views expressedre not necessarily those of WorkCover NSW. The funder was notnvolved in the design, conduct, analysis or reporting of the study.

We would like to thank Amy Chung for assistance with identi-ying and obtaining the publications used in the literature review.en Thompson and Mel Nelson from AfMA assisted in recruiting

he participating organisations. We would also like to thank theeet managers and drivers who participated in the interviews andssisted in the development of the tool and also the organisationshat participated in the useability testing.

ppendix A.

.1. Fleet safety management audit tool

.1.1. Background and instructions

.1.1.1. Using the fleet safety management audit tool. The audit toolas primarily developed for light fleet vehicles i.e. vehicles, such

s cars and vans less than 4.5 tonnes. The audit tool was developedsing evidence regarding fleet safety best practices from a reviewf the research literature and following interviews with fleet man-gers and drivers regarding fleet safety practices and a useabilityssessment.

.1.1.2. Aim of the fleet safety audit tool. The aim of the fleet safetyanagement audit tool is to provide standardised criteria to enable

rganisations to benchmark their fleet safety performance against
est practice. The audit tool can be used to conduct audits within
company to provide an indicator of progress in managing fleetafety and it can be used to benchmark performance with otherompanies. The fleet safety audit tool is designed to identify the

Prevention 47 (2012) 102– 118 111

extent to which fleet safety is managed in an organisation usingbest practice techniques.

A.1.1.3. Structure of the fleet safety audit tool. The audit tool coversfive aspects of operations management. These include:

• management, systems and processes;• monitoring and assessment;• employee recruitment, training and education;• vehicle technology, selection and maintenance; and• vehicle journeys.

Each of the five categories consists of between 1 and 3 sub-categories. The categories focus on management practices that canbe verified, rather than less easily measured qualities. An organisa-tion rates its performance on each sub-category at one of 4 levels.These ratings range from level I to level IV as follows:

• Level I indicates the organisation is performing at a high standardfor this criteria;

• Level II indicates the organisation is performing well for this cri-teria, but there is some room for improvement;

• Level III indicates the organisation is performing OK on this cri-teria but there is considerable room for improvement; and

• Level IV indicates the organisation is performing poorly on thiscriteria, with little to no activity.

For each level, a general description of the criteria is provided(‘Strategic Criteria’), together with concrete examples of how theycould be reflected in an organisation (‘Operational Criteria’).

A.1.1.4. Scoring of the fleet safety audit tool. The Level that an organ-isation achieves on each sub-category is scored. A rating of Level IVreceives a score of 0, Level III receives a score of 1, Level II receives ascore of 2 and Level 1 receives a score of 3. All the subcategory scorescan then be summed to provide a total score out of 36. The totalscore can be used to provide an indication of how the organisationis performing in relation to best practice fleet safety management.

0–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–36

Poor Well belowbest practice

Below bestpractice

Approachingbest practice

Achieving bestpractice

A.1.1.5. Using the fleet safety audit tool. The audit tool requires hon-est and critical self-evaluation from organisations. It is intendedthat information to conduct a fleet safety audit using the tool will beobtained from a range of sources, which could include direct obser-vations, interviews with managers and staff, and an examination ofpolicies and other relevant documents.

The audit tool can be applied to the whole organisation. How-ever, when an organisation has divisions that are at different stageswith their fleet safety management system, it may be more infor-mative to apply the audit tool to individual divisions separately.Alternatively, if the audit tool is applied to the whole organisation,the lowest level of performance achieved by a division should beused as the organisation’s score.

If an organisation outsources any of the activities associatedwith fleet safety management, such as vehicle selection and/ormaintenance, the organisation should rate the level of safety man-agement performance that is formally expected of, and met, by thatservice provider under the service contract conditions.

A.1.1.6. Using the fleet safety audit tool for benchmarking. The fleetsafety audit tool can be used to identify areas for improvementin managing fleet safety in an organisation and can then be used

1 sis and

tica

tBctota

A

A

srai

A

.


o measure progress in improving the management of fleet safetyn the organisation. For example, a low score for a particular sub-ategory provides an indication of a need for improvement in thatrea.

The audit tool can also be used by an organisation to benchmarkheir management of fleet safety again against other organisations.enchmarking involves identifying key processes or criteria thatontribute towards best practice in an organisation, assessing howhe organisation rates on these criteria, and then comparing howther organisations are faring on these same key criteria. Essen-ially, it involves learning how other organisations are performingnd learning from what they do to improve performance.

.2. Audit tool ratings

.2.1. Management, systems and processesManagement demonstrates leadership and commitment to fleet

afety management. Fleet safety is managed using a pro-active,isk management approach. There is consultation between man-gement and workers regarding fleet safety issues, with workersnvolved in the decision making process.

.2.1.1. Management commitment

Strategic criteria Operational criteria

I A. Management commitment isformally required and assessed forfleet safety management and/orperformance. This occurs acrossmanagement levels.

A. All levels of management(executive, senior and middlemanagement, and front linesupervisors) have documentedresponsibilities and performancecriteria specifically for fleet safetymanagement.

B. Management accountabilitiesare linked to fleet safetymanagement and/or performanceobjectives.

B. There is a system in place toassess fleet safety managementand/or performance againstperformance agreements orstatements of responsibility.

C. There is recognition bymanagement of the need toallocate resources specifically tofleet safety management and tocommit adequate resources.

C. Dedicated and sufficientresources are allocated to managefleet safety.

II A. Management commitment isformally required and assessed forsome management levels for fleetsafety management and/orperformance.

A. Some, but not all levels ofmanagement (executive, seniorand middle management, and frontline supervisors), havedocumented responsibilities andperformance criteria specificallyfor fleet safety management.

B. Some managementaccountabilities are linked to fleetsafety management and/orperformance objectives.

B. There is a system in place toassess fleet safety managementand/or performance againstperformance agreements orstatements of responsibility.

C. There is recognition bymanagement of the need toallocate resources specifically tofleet safety management.

C. Some resources are allocatedspecifically to manage fleet safetybut not all requests are funded.

III A. Management commitment islimited to front line supervisors ormiddle management and is notassessed for fleet safetymanagement and/or performance.

A. Front line supervisors or middlemanagement are responsible forfleet safety management.

B. No front line supervisor ormiddle managementaccountabilities are linked to fleetsafety management and/orperformance objectives.

B. There is no system in place toassess fleet safety managementand/or performance againstperformance agreements orstatements of responsibility.

C. There is recognition bymanagement of the need toallocate resources to fleet safetymanagement.

C. Resources allocated to managefleet safety are embedded withinother programme budgets so thatthere is competition for thesefunds.

Prevention 47 (2012) 102– 118

IV A. Management commitment is notdemonstrated for fleet safetymanagement and/or performance.

A. There are no documentedmanagement responsibilitiesregarding fleet safety managementand/or performance.

B. No management accountabilitiesare linked to fleet safetymanagement and/or performanceobjectives.

B. There is no system in place toassess fleet safety managementand/or performance againstperformance agreements orstatements of responsibility.

C. Management allocate no, orlimited, resources to fleet safetymanagement.

C. No, or minimal, resources areallocated to manage fleet safety inthe organisation. If resources areallocated, these tend to beembedded within otherprogramme budgets.

A.2.1.2. Fleet safety management

.


I A. A fleet safety policy exists andits implementation is activelymonitored by management.

A. The organisation has a fleetsafety policy and a system formonitoring its application.

B. There is a proactive, riskmanagement-based system inplace to manage fleet safety in theorganisation. That is, hazardidentification and risk assessmentsare done routinely and preventionstrategies are implementedaccordingly.Fleet safety management isembedded within a broadersystem of OHS management.The organisation strives forcontinuous improvement in fleetsafety management.

B. Fleet safety is managed using arisk management approach that isintegrated into holistic systemwith OHS management.There is a mechanism for ongoingreview of existing riskmanagement approaches tomanaging fleet safety to improveperformance.The risk management approachoutlines the responsibilities of allparties in relation to fleet safety,including management,supervisors and workers. Allparties are aware of theirresponsibilities.The system meets currentlegislative requirements.

II A. A fleet safety policy exists andits implementation is activelymonitored by management.

A. The organisation has a fleetsafety policy and a system formonitoring its application.

B. There is a proactive, riskmanagement-based system inplace to manage fleet safety in theorganisation. That is, hazardidentification and risk assessmentsare done routinely and preventionstrategies are implementedaccordingly.

B. Fleet safety is managed using arisk management approach.The risk management approachoutlines the responsibilities of allparties in relation to fleet safety,including management,supervisors and workers. Allparties are aware of theirresponsibilities.The system meets currentlegislative requirements.

III B. There is a proactive, riskmanagement approach to themanagement of fleet safety in theorganisation. However, fleet safetyis largely managed through specificpolicies aimed at managingdifferent aspects of fleet safety.

B. Fleet safety is managedproactively using a number ofseparate policies aimed atmanaging aspects of fleet safety,such as a fleet safety policy, afatigue management policy, amobile phone use whilst drivingpolicy, a policy outlining safety andemergency equipment that shouldbe available in a vehicle (e.g.reflective vest, fire extinguisher,torch, signage to indicate a vehiclebreakdown)The policies outline theresponsibilities of all partiesincluding management,supervisors and workers, in
relation to aspects of fleet safety.All parties are aware of theirresponsibilities.The policies meet currentlegislative requirements.

sis and

A

.

A

cpapd


IV C. There is a reactive approach tothe management of fleet safety inthe organisation.

C. Fleet safety is largely managedusing a reactive approach. Forexample, the organisationimplements prevention initiativesonly after crashes. There is limitedto no proactive forward planningto manage fleet safety.

.2.1.3. Communication regarding fleet safety


I A. There is a mechanism for formalconsultation betweenmanagement and staff regardingfleet safety on a regular basis.

A. The organisation has a formalmechanism for regular two-wayconsultation and communicationbetween management and staffregarding fleet safety. For example,a dedicated fleet safetymanagement committee thatconsists of a mix of staff andmanagement representatives.

B. Information on fleet safetyperformance is distributed andopinions sought on performanceimprovement strategies.

B. A formal consultation process isused to discuss fleet safetymanagement strategies. Forexample, a fleet safetymanagement committee reviewsrisk assessment results, fleet safetyperformance, including the resultsof crash investigations, andprovides advice regardingpreventive measures, including,hazard elimination strategies,training needs, or communicationand awareness raising strategies.

II A. There is a mechanism forconsultation betweenmanagement and staff regardingfleet safety on a regular basis.

A. The organisation has amechanism for staff consultationregarding fleet safety on a regularbasis. For example, staff are givenan opportunity to participateand/or provide informationregarding fleet safety through amechanism, such as groupmeetings or toolbox talks.Staff can formally raise fleet safetyissues and assist to identifyappropriate solutions during groupmeetings or toolbox talks.

III B. Information is provided to staffregarding vehicle and/or roadsafety practices on a regular basis.

B. The organisation has amechanism to distribute fleet orroad safety information to staff ona regular basis. For example, theorganisation distributes emails or afleet safety newsletter or circular,or has an on-line forum to conveymessages to staff regarding vehicleand/or road safety issues.Staff can raise fleet safety issuesinformally through, for example,discussions with their supervisor.

IV C. Little to no information isprovided to staff on vehicle and/orroad safety on a regular basis.

C. The organisation does not haveany formal communicationmechanisms to provideinformation to staff regarding fleetand/or road safety on a regularbasis.There is no systematic process forstaff consultation or feedback onfleet safety issues.

.2.2. Monitoring and assessmentThe organisation conducts crash investigations for at-fault vehi-

le crashes involving workers. The organisation has systems in
lace to monitor fleet safety performance and is able to reviewt-fault vehicle crash trends. The organisation has mechanisms inlace to recognise good driving performance and to respond toriver infractions.
Prevention 47 (2012) 102– 118 113

A.2.2.1. Vehicle crash and incident investigation

.


I A. Fleet vehicle crashes andincidents are routinelyinvestigated by the organisation.The investigative processsystematically identifies anddocuments the circumstances andthe causal factors (immediate androot causes) of vehicle crashes andincidents.

A. Established processes are inplace for the investigation anddocumentation of fleet vehiclecrashes and incidents in theorganisation. These processes mayinclude driver interviews, vehicleinspections, crash sceneinspections, and review of policereports.The investigative process seeks toidentify the circumstancessurrounding the vehicle crash,particularly the causal factors ofthe vehicle crash. The investigativeprocess includes:(i) establishing the circumstancesof the crash (such as who wasinvolved; the location of the crash);(ii) characteristics of the driver(e.g. age, gender, number ofprevious crashes);(iii) characteristics of the vehicle(e.g. any defects; damagesustained);(iv) weather and road conditions(e.g. wet/dry; sealed/dirt road,dual/single carriageway); and(v) immediate and root causalfactors of the crash (e.g. speed dueto time pressure, fatigue due toexcessive work, shift work etc., lossof control in the wet due to lack ofsafety features on the car).

B. The information obtained fromcrash and incident investigations isused to develop preventioninitiatives to improve fleet safety.

B. The information obtained fromthe investigative process is used toidentify appropriate crash andincident preventive strategies.

C. Identified vehicle crash andincident prevention measures areimplemented in the organisationand a mechanism is in place tofollow-up on the status ofimplementation.

C. Identified prevention strategiesare implemented in theorganisation within a suitabletimeframe. There are mechanismsin place to follow-up on theimplementation of recommendedprevention measures.

II A. Fleet vehicle crashes areroutinely investigated by theorganisation. The investigativeprocess systematically identifiesand documents the circumstancesand the causal factors (immediateand root causes) of vehicle crashes.

A. Established processes are inplace for the investigation anddocumentation of vehicle crashesin the organisation. Theseprocesses may include driverinterviews, vehicle inspections,crash scene inspections, review ofpolice reports.The investigative process seeks toidentify the circumstancessurrounding the vehicle crash,particularly the causal factors ofthe vehicle crash. The investigativeprocess includes:(i) establishing the circumstancesof the crash (such as who wasinvolved; the location of the crash);(ii) characteristics of the driver(e.g. age, gender, number ofprevious crashes);(iii) characteristics of the vehicle(e.g. any defects; damagesustained);(iv) weather and road conditions(e.g. wet/dry; sealed/dirt road,dual/single carriageway); and(v) immediate and root causal
factors of the crash (e.g. speed dueto time pressure, fatigue due toexcessive work, shift work, etc.,loss of control in the wet due tolack of safety features on the car).

1 sis and

A

.


B. The information obtained fromcrash investigations is used todevelop prevention initiatives toimprove fleet safety.

B. The information obtained fromthe investigative process is used toidentify appropriate crashpreventive strategies.

III C. Fleet vehicle crashes areinvestigated in an ad hoc way andminimal information about theroot causes of crashes is collectedor analysed.

C. Established processes are inplace for the investigation anddocumentation of vehicle crashesin the organisation. Theseprocesses may include driverinterviews, vehicle inspections,crash scene inspections, review ofpolice reports.The investigative process seeks toidentify the circumstancessurrounding the vehicle crash, andmay examine causal factors but notin a systematic way.

IV D. There is no investigation ofvehicle crashes.

D. No formal crash investigationprocess or procedures exist in theorganisation.

.2.2.2. Monitoring fleet safety performance


I A. There is a mechanism in placefor monitoring fleet safetyperformance on a regular basis.

A. Fleet safety performance isassessed through monitoringoutcomes, such as the number andrate of all fleet vehicle crashes,at-fault fleet vehicle crashes andnear-misses, including anyfatalities or injuries, fleet vehiclerepair costs, fleet vehicle insurancepremium costs, and trafficinfringements on at least aquarterly basis.Performance monitoringmechanisms meet currentlegislative requirements for thereporting of workplace incidents.

B. Performance is measured usingboth outcome and proactiveperformance measures.

B. Monitoring is also undertaken ofproactive fleet safety performancemeasures, such as audit results,fleet vehicle inspection results,training outcomes.

C. Fleet safety performancemonitoring is linked to continuousimprovement strategies for fleetsafety management.

C. There is a mechanism forongoing review of existing fleetmanagement approaches based onfleet safety performance results.

D. The organisations’ fleet safetyperformance is benchmarked withother organisations.

D. The organisation benchmarksfleet safety performance withother organisations.

II A. There is a mechanism in placefor monitoring fleet safetyperformance on a regular basis.


B. Performance is measured usingboth outcome and proactiveperformance measures.

B. Monitoring is also undertaken ofproactive fleet safety performancemeasures, such as audit results,
fleet vehicle inspection results,training outcomes.
C. Fleet safety performancemonitoring is linked to continuousimprovement strategies for fleetsafety management.

C. There is a mechanism forongoing review of existing fleetmanagement approaches based onfleet safety performance results.

Prevention 47 (2012) 102– 118

III A. There is a mechanism in placefor monitoring fleet safetyperformance on a regular basis.


B. Performance is measured usingoutcome performance measures.

IV A. There is a mechanism in placefor recording informationregarding fleet safety performance.

A. A system exists for recordinginformation on fleet safetyperformance that includes:workers injuries, fleet vehiclecrashes, and fleet vehicle repaircosts.Performance monitoringmechanisms meet currentlegislative requirements for thereporting of workplace incidents.

A.2.2.3. Performance monitoring and recognition

.


I A. Good or poor drivingperformance is identified andrecognised in the organisation.

A. The organisation has amechanism in place to identify andrecognise good or poor drivingperformance in the organisation.This recognition is in the form ofincentives for good drivingperformance or disincentives forpoor driving performance.

B. The organisation uses in-vehiclemonitoring technology as part of aformal driving performancemonitoring system.

B. Driving performance is assessedby monitoring performancemeasures such as: at-fault vehiclecrashes, traffic infringements,vehicle panel repair costs, fuelconsumption checks, in-vehiclemonitoring (e.g. speed, heavybraking).

C. Feedback regarding drivingperformance is part of a formalperformance monitoring systemthat includes consequences forpoor performance.

C. Feedback is provided regardingdriving performance as part of aformal employee performancemonitoring system withconsequences for poorperformance, such as mandatorydriving training, suspension fromusing fleet vehicles.

II A. Good or poor drivingperformance is identified andrecognised in the organisation.

A. The organisation has amechanism in place to identify andrecognise good or poor drivingperformance in the organisation.

B. The organisation uses in-vehiclemonitoring technology andencourages drivers to self-monitortheir driving performance.

B. Driving performance is assessedby monitoring performancemeasures such as: at-fault vehiclecrashes, traffic infringements,vehicle panel repair costs, fuelconsumption checks, in-vehiclemonitoring (e.g. speed, heavybraking).Self-monitoring is conducted usingin-vehicle monitoring devicesregarding driving performance. Forexample, auditory warnings of safedriving breeches such as vehicle
speed.
C. Feedback regarding drivingperformance is provided, butfeedback is not part of a formalperformance monitoring system.

C. Feedback is provided regardingdriving performance to the driver,but there are no consequences forpoor performance.

sis and

A

opar

A

.


III A. Good or poor drivingperformance is identified in theorganisation.

A. The organisation has amechanism in place to identifygood or poor driving performance.However, the organisation doesnot provide any performancerecognition for good or poordriving performance.

B. The organisation does not usein-vehicle monitoring technology.

B. Driving performance is assessedby monitoring performancemeasures such as: at-fault vehiclecrashes, traffic infringements,vehicle panel repair costs, fuelconsumption checks.

C. No feedback regarding drivingperformance is provided to drivers.

IV A. Good or poor drivingperformance is not identified in theorganisation.

A. The organisation does not have amechanism in place to identifygood or poor driving performance.

.2.3. Employee recruitment, training and educationThe organisation has systems in place to select safe drivers. The

rganisation conducts fleet safety and vehicle-specific inductionrogrammes for employees. The organisation identifies, conductsnd evaluates driver training programmes for employees, asequired.

.2.3.1. Driver selection and assessment


I A. The organisationconducts pre-hire checkson safe driving history andlicence currency beforehiring drivers, or conductschecks before permittingfleet vehicle use for thefirst time.

A. The organisation has procedures inplace to conduct pre-hire drivinghistory checks for people hired asdrivers. This might include licencechecks or obtaining information onpast driving history, including drivinginfringements, such as speeding fines.It might also include referee checks. Or,the organisation applies theseprocedures before allowing new staffto drive fleet vehicles.

B. The organisation checksdriver competency beforepermitting fleet vehicle usefor the first time.

B. The organisation has a formalsystem in place to check the driving ofnew fleet drivers (e.g. a test drive orride-along assessment).

C. The organisationassesses drivers’ on-roadrisk on a continuous basis.

C. The organisation has mechanism inplace to identify risky drivers. Thismight include obtaining informationon driver performance including:at-fault vehicle crashes, trafficinfringements, vehicle panel repaircosts, fuel consumption checks,in-vehicle monitoring.

D. The organisationregularly checks driverinfringements and licencecurrency.

D. The organisation conductscontinuous monitoring of driverperformance using all or some of theperformance measures describedabove.

II A. The organisationconducts pre-hire checkson safe driving historybefore hiring drivers, orconducts checks beforepermitting fleet vehicle usefor the first time.

A. The organisation has procedures inplace to conduct pre-hire drivinghistory checks of drivers. This mightinclude obtaining information on pastdriving history, including drivinginfringements, such as speeding fines.It might also include referee checks. Or,the organisation applies theseprocedures before allowing new staffto drive fleet vehicles.

B. The organisationregularly checks driver

B. The organisation has mechanisms inplace to identify risky drivers. This

infringements and licencecurrency.

might include obtaining informationon driver performance including:at-fault vehicle crashes, trafficinfringements, vehicle panel repaircosts, fuel consumption checks,in-vehicle monitoring.

Prevention 47 (2012) 102– 118 115

III A. The organisation conductspre-hire checks on safe drivinghistory and licence currency beforehiring drivers, or conducts checksbefore permitting fleet vehicle usefor the first time.

A. The organisation has proceduresin place to conduct pre-hire drivinghistory checks of drivers. Thismight include licence checks orobtaining information on pastdriving history, including drivinginfringements, such as speedingfines. It might also include refereechecks. Or, the organisation appliesthese procedures before allowingnew staff to drive fleet vehicles.

IV A. The organisation does notconduct pre-hire checks on safedriving history before hiringworkers nor does it identify riskydrivers.

A. No pre-hire driving historychecks are conducted by theorganisation and risky drivers arenot identified.

A.2.3.2. Employee fleet safety induction

.


I A. The organisationconducts a fleet safetyinduction programme forworkers.

A. The organisation has in place a fleet safetyinduction programme for employees. Theinduction programme includes:(i) policies and procedures around safevehicle use;(ii) policies and procedures around vehiclemaintenance and pre-trip vehicle checks;and(iii) reporting requirements for vehicledefects, crashes and near misses.

B. The organisationconducts vehicle-specificorientation training forworkers.

B. The organisation has in placevehicle-specific orientation training.Vehicle-specific orientation trainingincludes:(i) orientation to vehicle;(ii) orientation to safety features of vehicle;and(iii) vehicle maintenance and checkingprotocols.

C. Workers receivetraining on new vehicletechnologies, asappropriate.

C. The fleet safety induction programmeincludes specific training for any new vehicletechnologies that are fitted in fleet vehicles,such as ABS brakes, stability control,in-vehicle monitoring devices, GPS.

II A. The organisationconducts a fleet safetyinduction programme forworkers.ORC. The organisationconducts vehicle-specificorientation training forworkers.

A. The organisation has in place a fleet safetyinduction programme for employees. Theinduction programme includes:(i) policies and procedures around safevehicle use;(ii) policies and procedures around vehiclemaintenance and pre-trip vehicle checks;and(iii) reporting requirements for vehicledefects, crashes and near misses.ORC. The organisation has in placevehicle-specific orientation training.Vehicle-specific orientation trainingincludes:(i) orientation to vehicle;(ii) orientation to safety features of vehicle;and(iii) vehicle maintenance and checkingprotocols.

III D. The organisationconducts a general OHSinduction for workers.The OHS inductiontraining includesinformation on fleetsafety.

D. The organisation has in place a generalOHS induction programme for employees.The OHS induction programme includes acomponent on fleet safety that encompasses:(i) general OHS hazard identification and riskassessment practices; and(ii) reporting requirements for vehicledefects and crashes.

IV E. The organisation doesnot have an inductionprogramme for workerswith information on fleetsafety.

E. No induction processes are conducted forworkers around fleet safety by theorganisation.

1 sis and

A

.

A

a

A

.

The organisation provides staff with


.2.3.3. Driver training


I A. The organisation conductstraining needs analysis for driversbased on a detailed understandingof the particular driving tasks thatare required.

A. The organisation conducts atraining needs analysis for workersin relation to fleet driving. Thetraining needs analysis shouldencompass:(i) acknowledgement of priordriver training;(ii) identification of training needs,including specific training, such as4WD terrain training, driving insnow, fatigue management etc.

B. The organisation providesdriving training to workers, asrequired, based on the needsidentified in the training needsanalysis.

B. The organisation provides drivertraining, as identified in thetraining needs analysis, forworkers, as appropriate. This mightinclude: training targeting specificskills or risks, risk avoidancetraining, defensive driver training,driver awareness training.

C. The organisation conducts anevaluation of the driver trainingconducted.

C. Regular review and evaluation oftraining and training materials isconducted by the organisation tomonitor effectiveness and impact.

II A. The organisation providesgeneric driver training for workers.

A. The organisation provides drivertraining to workers. This mightinclude: risk avoidance training,defensive driver training, driverawareness training.

C. The organisation conducts anevaluation of the driver trainingconducted.

C. Evaluation of training andtraining materials is conducted bythe organisation to monitoreffectiveness and impact.

III A. The organisation providesgeneric driver training for workers.

A. The organisation provides drivertraining to workers. This mightinclude: risk avoidance training,defensive driver training, driverawareness training.

C. No evaluation is conductedregarding the driver training.

IV D. The organisation does notprovide driving training forworkers.

D. No driver training programmesfor workers are conducted by theorganisation.

.2.4. Vehicle technology, selection and maintenanceThe organisation has in place fleet vehicle selection guidelines

nd conducts a regular programme of fleet vehicle maintenance.

.2.4.1. Fleet vehicle selection


I A. The organisation has safefleet vehicle selectionguidelines that specify specificsafety features that should beincluded in fleet vehicles.

A. The organisation has fleet vehicleselection guidelines that specifyspecific safety features that should beincluded in fleet vehicles. These specifya vehicle with an ANCAP rating of 4 or5, along with specific safety features,such as front airbag, side curtainairbag, ABS brakes, stability control,parking sensors, advanced brakewarning system, vehicle colour.

B. Workers are consultedregarding vehicle selection.

B. The organisation consults withworkers regarding fleet vehicleselection.

C. Processes are in place toobtain worker feedbackregarding fleet vehicles.

C. There is a system in place forworkers to provide feedback regardingthe safety performance of fleet
vehicles.
II A. The organisation has safefleet vehicle selectionguidelines for fleet vehicles.

A. The organisation has fleet vehicleselection guidelines that specify thepurchase of vehicles with an ANCAPrating of 4 or 5.

Prevention 47 (2012) 102– 118

III A. The organisation has somespecific selection guidelines forsafe fleet vehicles.

A. The organisation has fleet vehicleselection guidelines that includespecific safety considerations. Safetyfeatures specified may include: frontairbag, side curtain airbag, ABS brakes,stability control, parking sensors,advanced brake warning system,vehicle colour.

IV A. The organisation selectsvehicles on grounds other thansafety.

A. No vehicle selection specifications orguidelines based on safety exist at theorganisation.

A.2.4.2. Fleet vehicle maintenance

.


I A. The organisation has aregular fleet vehiclemaintenance schedule.

A. Routine vehicle maintenance isconducted on fleet vehicles consistentwith, or better than, the manufacturersrecommended maintenance standardfor the vehicle.Drivers conduct and sign offstandardised pre-trip vehicle checks.

B. Vehicle condition isinspected regularly and defectsare corrected in a timely way

B. Fleet vehicle inspection andmaintenance records are kept andinclude mechanic sign-off.

C. Processes are in place forstaff to report vehicle defectsand to ensure action is takenon reports.

C. There is a mechanism in place forworkers to report vehicle defects and amechanism to ensure that vehicledefects are assessed and corrected in atimely manner.

II A. The organisation has aregular fleet vehiclemaintenance schedule.

A. Routine vehicle maintenance isconducted on fleet vehicles consistentwith the manufacturers recommendedmaintenance standard for the vehicle.

C. Processes are in place forstaff to report vehicle defectsand to ensure action is takenon reports.

C. There is a mechanism in place forworkers to report vehicle defects and amechanism to ensure that vehicledefects are assessed and corrected in atimely manner.

III B. The organisation does nothave a fleet vehiclemaintenance programme, butprocesses are in place to reportvehicle defects and actionreported defects.

B. There is a mechanism in place forworkers to report vehicle defects and amechanism to ensure that vehicledefects are assessed and corrected in atimely manner.

IV D. The organisation does nothave a fleet maintenanceprogramme or a mechanism toreport vehicle defects.

D. No routine fleet vehiclemaintenance is conducted by theorganisation and there is nomechanism to report vehicle defects.

A.2.5. Vehicle journeysThe organisation recognises the role of journey planning, includ-

ing the identification of safe routes and risk factor management.

A.2.5.1. Journey management

.


I A. The organisation recognisesthe role of journey planning insafe driving through formalpolicies and procedures thatencourage safer journey routesand scheduling or alternativesto driving.

A. The organisation has a formalmechanism to assess the need for trips.The organisation has policies andprocedures that seek to eliminate orreduce long journeys (e.g. encouragingthe use of skype, teleconferencemeetings, or travel by other modes oftransport for long trips).

guidelines on journey planning (e.g.recommended limits on the number ofkm travelled per hour of driving, thedistances driven in a single unbrokenjourney, break planning, safe routeplanning, etc.).

sis and

A

AAchacp

i

R

A


II A. The organisation recognisesthe role of journey planning insafe driving and has formalpolicies and procedures aroundspecific elements of journeyrisk.

A. Policies and procedures exist aroundspecific journey risks, for example,journey planning for fatiguemanagement, journey planning toavoid adverse conditions such ascongestion or weather, journeyplanning to minimise time pressure)

III A. The organisation recognisesthe role of journey planning insafe driving and providesinformal advisory material todrivers on aspects of safejourneys.

A. The organisation distributesinformation to staff about safe journeyplanning. For example, theorganisation uses emails, newslettersor circulars, or has an on-line forum toconvey messages to staff regarding safejourney planning issues.

IV A. The organisation does notpromote vehicle journeymanagement strategies.

A. No journey management strategiesare promoted or encouraged by theorganisation.

.3. Fleet safety management audit tool

.3.1. Scoring sheet

.3.1.1. Instructions. Please complete the fleet safety audit tool andircle your organisation’s score below for each category. After youave rated each category, add up the subtotals from each columnnd add them together to calculate the total score. The total scorean then used to provide an indication of how the organisation iserforming in relation to best practice fleet safety management.

Rating

Categories I II III IV

1. Management, systems and processes1.1 Management commitment 3 2 1 01.2 Fleet safety management 3 2 1 01.3 Communication regarding fleet

safety3 2 1 0

2. Monitoring and assessment2.1 Vehicle crash and incident

investigation3 2 1 0

2.2 Monitoring fleet safetyperformance

3 2 1 0

2.3 Performance monitoring andrecognition

3 2 1 0

3. Employee recruitment, training and education3.1 Driver selection and

assessment3 2 1 0

3.2 Employee fleet safety induction 3 2 1 03.3 Driver training 3 2 1 0

4. Vehicle technology, selection and maintenance4.1 Fleet vehicle selection 3 2 1 04.2 Fleet vehicle maintenance 3 2 1 0

5. Vehicle journeys5.1 Journey management 3 2 1 0 TotalSub total

The total score can provide an indication of how the organisations performing in relation to best practice fleet safety management.

0–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–36

Poor Well belowbest practice

Below bestpractice

Approachingbest practice

Achieving bestpractice

eferences

l Kurdi, O.F.A., Al Marzooqi, A., Ahmed, A.Y., El Farmawi, M.A., 2008. Improving roadsafety in corporate fleet settings—engaging technology, people, governmentorganizations (police) and nongovernment organizations (NGOs). In: Proceed-ings of the SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment inOil and Gas Exploration and Production, Nice, France, 15–17 April.

Prevention 47 (2012) 102– 118 117

American Society of Safety Engineers, 2006. American National Standard ANSI/ASSEz15. 1-2006. Safe Practices for Motor Vehicle Operations. American Society ofSafety Engineers, Des Plaines, Illinois.

Anonymous, 1990. Motor Fleet Safety at an Enterprise. International Road SafetyOrganisation. IVth World Congress, Tokyo.

Australasian Fleet Managers Association, 2008. Safer Motoring How to Guide. Aus-tralasian Fleet Managers Association, Melbourne.

Australian Transport Safety Bureau, 2003. Evaluating and Improving Fleet Safety inAustralia. Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Canberra.

Austroads, 2008a. Analysis of the Safety Benefits of Heavy Vehicle AccreditationSchemes. Austroads Incorporated, Sydney.

Austroads, 2008b. Safer Vehicle Purchases: Developing Cost-Effective Estimates forFleet Managers and Others—Part D: Injury Reductions with Various Fleet Pur-chasing Policies. Austroads Incorporated, Sydney.

Banks, T., Davey, J., Brownlow, D., 2006. Driver education and safety climate in anemergency services fleet. Journal of Occupational Health and Safety—Australiaand New Zealand 22 (4), 341–350.

Bjerre, B., Kostela, J., 2008. Primary prevention of drink driving by the large-scaleuse of alcolocks in commercial vehicles. Accident Analysis & Prevention 40 (4),1294–1299.

Blincoe, L., Seay, A., Zaloshnja, E., Miller, T., Romano, E., Luchter, S., Spicer, R., 2002.The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2000. National Highway TrafficSafety Administration, Washington DC.

Brock, K.D., 2004. How’s my driving? Waste Age 7 (3), 18.Brodbeck, J., 1996. Motor Fleet Safety Manual. National Safety Council, United States.Caird, J., Kline, T., 2004. The relationships between organizational and individ-

ual variables to on-the-job driver accidents and accident-free kilometres.Ergonomics 47 (15), 1598–1613.

Cartwright, S., Cooper, C.L., Barron, A., 1993. An investigation of the relationshipbetween occupational stress and accidents amongst company car drivers. Jour-nal of General Management 19 (2), 78–85.

Cartwright, S., Cooper, C.L., Barron, A., 1996. The company car driver; occupationalstress as a predictor of motor vehicle accident involvement. Human Relations49 (2), 195–208.

Cohen, A., 1977. Factors in successful occupational safety programs. Journal of SafetyResearch 4, 168–178.

Darby, P., Murray, W., Raeside, R., 2009. Applying online fleet driver assessment tohelp identify, target and reduce occupational road safety risks. Safety Science 47(3), 436–442.

Davey, J., Freeman, J., Wishart, D., 2006. A study predicting self-reported crashesamong fleet drivers. In: Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Educa-tion Conference, Surfers Paradise, Australia, 25–27 October.

Downs, C., Keigan, M., Maycock, G., Grayson, G., 1999. The Safety of Fleet Car Drivers:A Review. Transport Research Laboratory, Berkshire.

Driscoll, T., Mitchell, R., Mandryk, J., Healey, S., Hendrie, L., Hull, B., 2001. Work-related fatalities in Australia, 1989 to 1992: an overview. Journal of OccupationalHealth and Safety—Australia and New Zealand 17 (1), 45–66.

Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group, 1992. Evidence-based medicine. A newapproach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA 268 (17), 2420–2425.

Federal Office of Road Safety, 1995. Fleet Safety Manual. Commonwealth of Australia,Canberra.

Flemming, M., 2001. Safety Culture Maturity Model. Health and Safety Executive,London.

Galea, S., Tracy, M., 2007. Participation rates in epidemiologic studies. Annals ofEpidemiology 17 (9), 643–653.

Geller, E.S., Rudd, J.R., Kalsher, M.J., Streff, F.M., Lehman, G.R., 1987. Employer-basedprograms to motivate safety belt use: a review of short-term and long-termeffects. Journal of Safety Research 18 (1), 1–17.

Gray, I., 1990. An attempt to reduce accidents in a company car fleet by driver train-ing and encouragement of low risk driving habits. Journal of Traffic Medicine 18(3), 139–141.

Gregersen, N., Brehmer, B., Moren, B., 1996. Road safety improvement in large com-panies. An experimental comparison of different measures. Accident Analysis &Prevention 28 (3), 297–306.

Haworth, N., Tingvall, C., Kowadlo, N., 2000. Review of Best Practice Road SafetyInitiatives in the Corporate and/or Business Environment. Monash UniversityAccident Research Centre, Clayton, Victoria.

Health and Safety Executive UK, 2000. Driving at Work. Managing Work-RelatedRoad Safety. Suffolk, Health and Safety Executive UK.

Hickman, J.S., Geller, E.S., 2005. Self-management to increase safe driving amongshort-haul truck drivers. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management 23(4), 1–20.

Kedjidjian, C.B., 1995. Fleet safety: how to save lives and money. Traffic Safety 95(2), 20–23.

Ker, K., Roberts, I., Collier, T., Beyer, F., Bunn, F., Frost, C., 2005. Post-licencedriver education for the prevention of road traffic crashes: a systematicreview of randomised controlled trials. Accident Analysis & Prevention 37,305–313.

Larson, L.D., Schnelle, J.F., Kirchner, R., Carr, A.F., Domash, M., Risley, T.R., 1980.Reduction of police vehicle accidents through mechanically aided supervision.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 13 (4), 571–581.

Lund, A., Williams, A., 1985. A review of the literature evaluating the defensivedriving course. Accident Analysis & Prevention 17 (6), 449–460.

Lund, J., Aaro, L.E., 2004. Accident prevention. Presentation of a model placingemphasis on human, structural and cultural factors. Safety Science 42 (4),271–324.

1 sis and

L

M

M

M

M

M

MM

M

N

N

N

N

N

N

O

O

Q


ynn, P., Lockwood, C., 1998. The Accident Liability of Company Car Drivers. Trans-port Research Laboratory, Berkshire.

achin, M., De Souza, J., 2004. Predicting health outcomes and safety behaviour intaxi drivers. Transport Research Part F 7, 257–270.

atusalen, J., Bohorquez, A., Stelling, D., Barboza, F., Lizio, M., Smith, S.L., 2006. Devel-opment of a successful motor vehicle safety process for western Venezuela. In:Proceedings of the 8th SPE International Conference on Health, Safety and Envi-ronment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Abu Dhabi, United ArabEmirates, 2–4 April, pp. 758–765.

oser, P., 2001. Rewards of creating a fleet safety culture. Professional Safety 48 (6),39–41.

oses, L.N., Savage, I., 1992. The effectiveness of motor carrier safety audits. AccidentAnalysis & Prevention 24 (5), 479–496.

oses, L.N., Savage, I., 1996. Identifying dangerous trucking firms. Risk Analysis 16(3), 359–366.

urray, W., 2005. Regulating risks. Commercial Motor 202 (5136), 32–33.urray, W., Ison, S., Gallemore, P., Nijjar, H., 2009. Effective occupational road safety

programs. Transport Research Record: Journal of the Transportation ResearchBoard 2096, 55–64.

urray, W., Newnam, S., Watson, B., Davey, J., Schonfeld, C., 2003. Evaluating andimproving fleet safety in Australia. Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Canberra.

aveh, E., Marcus, A., 2007. Financial performance, ISO 9000 standard and safe driv-ing practices effects on accident rate in the U.S. Motor carrier industry. AccidentAnalysis & Prevention 39 (4), 731–742.

ewnam, S., Griffin, M.A., Mason, C., 2008. Safety in work vehicles: a multilevel studylinking safety values and individual predictors to work-related driving crashes.Journal of Applied Psychology 93 (3), 632–644.

ewnam, S., Tay, R., Mason, C., 2006. Using psychological frameworks to inform theevaluation of fleet safety initiatives. Safety Science 44 (9), 809–820.

ewnam, S., Watson, B., Murray, W., 2002. A comparison of the factors influencingthe safety of work-related drivers in work and personal vehicles. In: Proceedingsof the Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference,Adelaide, 4–5 November, pp. 488–495.

ewnam, S., Watson, B., Murray, W., 2004. Factors predicting intentions to speed ina work and personal vehicle. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychologyand Behaviour 7 (4–5), 287–300.

SW Ministry of Transport, 2007. Safety Management System (SMS) Handbook. AGuide for Bus and Coach Operators. Sydney, NSW Ministry of Transport.

’connell, S., 2008. Driving monitors—the ultimate behavior based safety tool? In:Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Health, Safety and Environ-ment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Nice, France, 15–17 April, pp.211–215.

lson, R., Winchester, J., 2008. Behavioral self-monitoring of safety and productivityin the workplace: a methodological primer and quantitative literature review.Journal of Organizational Behavior Management 28 (1), 9–75.

ueensland Transport, 1998. The Workplace Fleet Safety System: How to Conducta Self-Audit. Queensland Transport, Brisbane.

Prevention 47 (2012) 102– 118

Robson, L.S., Clarke, J.A., Cullen, K., Bielecky, A., Severin, C., Bigelow, P.L., Irwin, E.,Cullyer, A., Mahood, Q., 2007. The effectiveness of occupational health and safetymanagement system interventions: a systematic review. Safety Science 45 (3),329–353.

Rowland, B., Davey, J., Freeman, J., Wishart, D., 2008. Work-related road safety riskassessment: Utilisation of self-report surveys to predict organisational risk. In:Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference, Aus-tralian College of Road Safety, Adelaide.

Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, 2003. Managing Occupational RoadRisk. The ROSPA Guide. Birmingham, ROSPA.

Rychetnik, L., Frommer, M., Hawe, P., Shiell, A., 2002. Criteria for evaluating evidenceon public health interventions. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 56,119–127.

Schon, P., 1999. Improving Driver and Vehicle Safety. Fleetsafe Policy and Guidelinesfor Local Government in the Southern Sydney Region. Mascot, SSROC.

Scully, J., Newstead, S., 2008. Evaluation of electronic stability control effectivenessin Australasia. Accident Analysis & Prevention 40 (6), 2050–2057.

Shannon, H., Mayr, J., Haines, T., 1997. Overview of the relationship between organ-isational and workplace factors and injury rates. Safety Science 26 (3), 201–217.

Shaw, J.D., Gupta, N., Delery, J.E., 2002. Pay dispersion and workforce performance:moderating effects of incentives and interdependence. Strategic ManagementJournal 23 (6), 491–512.

Shinar, D., 2000. Fleet study evaluation of an advance brake warning system. HumanFactors 42 (3), 482–489.

Simonds, R., Saafai-Sahrai, Y., 1977. Factors apparently affecting injury frequency ineleven matched pairs of companies. Journal of Safety Research 9 (3), 120–127.

Sochon, P., Brisbane, G., Fleetsafe—how to improve driver and vehicle safety incouncils. Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia.

Spear, J., 2007. Safety on the road. Water Well Journal 61 (4), 40–41.Stuckey, R., Lamontagne, A., Sim, M., 2007. Working in light vehicles: a review and

conceptual model for occupational health and safety. Accident Analysis & Pre-vention 39 (5), 1006–1014.

Wills, A., Biggs, H., Watson, B., 2006a. Road safety in corporate fleet settings:approaches from organisational and industrial psychology. Road and TransportResearch 15 (1), 61–68.

Wills, A., Watson, B., Biggs, H., 2004. The relative influence of fleet safety climate onwork-related driver safety. In: Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing andEducation Conference, Austroads, Perth.

Wills, A., Watson, B., Biggs, H., 2009. An exploratory investigation into safety climateand work-related driving. Work 32 (1), 81–94.

Wills, A.R., Watson, B., Biggs, H.C., 2006b. Comparing safety climate factors as predic-tors of work-related driving behavior. Journal of Safety Research 37 (4), 375–383.

World Health Organization and World Bank, 2004. World Report on Road TrafficInjury Prevention. World Health Organization, Geneva.

Wouters, P.I.J., Bos, J.M.J., 2000. Traffic accident reduction by monitoring driverbehaviour with in-car data recorders. Accident Analysis & Prevention 32 (5),643–650.

initial development of a practical safety audit tool to assess fleet safety management practices

Documents