PaQS HomeAdvancing Safety Thinking...  
 
PaQS Home
 
 
 
 
News & Publications
A Best Practice Process for Fleet Safety Training < Back to Publications Index

Paper presented at the Brisbane
Developing Safer Drivers and Riders Conference
 22-23 July 2002 

Written by:

Dr Will Murray
Visiting Research Fellow
Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety - Queensland (CARRS-Q)
Queensland University of Technology
Beams Road
Carseldine
Queensland 4034
AUSTRALIA
w.murray@qut.edu.au
www.carrsq.qut.edu.au/staff/Murray.htm
Tel. (07) 3864 4565

Quality reviewed by Barry Watson and Colin Edmonston

ABSTRACT
This paper outlines a process for fleet safety training based on research and management development programmes undertaken at the University of Huddersfield in the UK (www.hud.ac.uk/sas/trans/transnews.htm) and CARRS-Q in Australia (www.carrsq.qut.edu.au/staff/Murray.jsp) over the past 10 years. It presents the Proactive PCCSM approach to fleet safety and a training process based on a strong needs analysis using claims data analysis, risk and people assessments. It then focuses on training types, trainer selection and lead and lag indicators for evaluation.

INTRODUCTION
Driver training arouses a polarity of strong and extreme views. On the one hand driver trainers and their advocates believe in its value wholeheartedly, and stress the need for in-vehicle-skills-based programmes. At the other extreme, many researchers and 'experts' are questioning its usefulness as a road safety countermeasure. For examples see Skewes 2002 (1), Christie 2001 (2), and Jerrim 1997 (3).

This paper aims to step out of the wider debate and focus on the specific area of best practice in work-related road safety. Working closely with hundreds of managers, graduates and undergraduates from the transport and other industries since 1991 the University of Huddersfield in the UK has developed several approaches and frameworks for improving work-related driver safety (4). More recently similar work has been started at the Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety - Queensland (CARRS-Q) in Australia (5).

Most organisations striving to improve the performance of their fleet or in the current trendy jargon 'implement a crash-free culture' tend to follow a similar pattern based around the identification of high crash costs. This is reflected in the list of reasons vehicle operators have given for contacting the University of Huddersfield over the past few years:

  • involved in a fatal crash
  • involved in a very expensive crash
  • get a bad 'score' in the company's crash ratings
  • faced with large personal injury claims from a third party
  • increasing insurance premiums
  • increasing insurance excess
  • insurers refuse cover
  • crash costs increasing
  • rising number and cost of third party claims
  • increasing number of court cases with third parties
  • high maintenance costs
  • poor crash reporting/control/understanding
  • new manager wanting to make a name for her/himself

Most of these symptoms are cost-related. From here they have tended to look at causes and different systems they can implement to improve the situation. Monitoring and evaluation is often an afterthought as a mechanism to try to justify the money they have spent on expensive driver training which does not in many cases seem to be working as well as promised, or the effect of which wears off after about 6 months! Seeing this same pattern over and over again led Murray and Whiteing (1995, 6) to develop the CCSM approach shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 - The CCSM approach

Figure 1 - The CCSM approach

Over the past five years over 400 managers and supervisors have been trained in applying this approach (4). Research has also been undertaken on a range of issues including crash benchmarking, safe reversing, driver assessment, crash data analysis, managing temporary drivers, crash reporting, fleet fuel efficiency and over the past 18 months, work-related road safety in Australia (5).

This experience, and observations of the apparent limitations of traditional driver training, led to a revision of the CCSM approach to the PCCSM approach shown in Figure 2. This allows for fleets to be more proactive and implement safer systems of work before the identification of high costs forces them to do so. This is not an easy process - a bit like trying to sell someone insurance when they do not feel they need it. In cricketing terms, it's having the intuition to move a fielder to third slip before the ball is edged there - rather than just after - which is more common.

Figure 2 - The PCCSM approach

Figure 2 - The PCCSM approach

In both of these models monitoring and evaluation is a key element in the process of moving toward the development of a crash-free culture.

Figure 3 summarises the typical elements of such a proactive approach.

Figure 3 - The proactive approach

THE PROACTIVE APPROACH
Policy - do it rather than just have it
Risk assessments
Occupational health and safety (OHS) integration
Assess managers, supervisors and drivers
Crash investigation and data analysis
Train managers, supervisors and drivers
Implementation and change management
Very enthusiastic management champion
Evaluate - quantitative, $s and qualitative

Many organisations that actually have a fleet safety policy rarely do more than just having it. Only the best organizations live it, breath it, make it happen and understand the wider tradeoffs and relationships with quality, business effectiveness, customer service, environmental sustainability, company image and PR. Risk assessments are the starting point in understanding the extent of the problem and how to address it. OHS structures and approaches provide an excellent framework for improving fleet safety. Assessment and auditing should come before any training - to identify needs. Managers, supervisors and work schedulers should be included as well as (ideally before) drivers for the following reasons.

  • Who recruits the driver / writes their job specification?
  • Who implements the change management processes?
  • Who sets the schedule?
  • Who tells the driver what to do?
  • Who gives last instructions to drivers when they go off-site?
  • Who sets the manager's bonus scheme? 
  • Who is responsible for assessing / training the driver?
  • Who sets and supervises the reversing policy?
  • Who sets the policy for health, eyesight and drugs / alcohol?
  • Who collects and analyses the crash data?
  • Who undertakes risk assessments at frequently visited sites?
  • Who manages the safety and risk management work group?

Detailed claims analysis and investigation allows a much better understanding of the extent and costs of the problem, as well as how to treat it. 'Post-September 11', and a range of lesser insurance disasters in 2001 (including the Petrobras oil rig, Air Lanka aeroplane attack, Tropical storm Alison and Toulouse factory explosion), all fleets will need to manage their insurance more effectively. Implementation and change management skills are a key requirement in improving fleet safety - often the passion and enthusiasm of one senior person can make all the difference. Finally evaluation is a vital element in fleet safety - because it lets you see that you are doing the right things - or not - helps to justify the cost of change and identifies areas for future action.

FLEET SAFETY TRAINING COUNTERMEASURES

Most of the likely systems and solutions (Figure 2) or countermeasures for fleet safety tend to follow the Haddon Matrix (Williams 1999, 7) and focus on people (assessment, training and in some cases discipline), the vehicle (vehicle selection), the road/site environment and the organisation's culture. A similar structure that some organizations follow is the Six 'E's of work-related road safety education (training), enforcement (disciplinary policy), engineering (vehicle selection and maintenance), enthusiasm (management champion), encouragement (implementation and change management) and evaluation (crash rates and $s). In relation to undertaking relevant assessment and training of people, the flow diagram in Figure 4 has emerged from a series of case studies (several of which are discussed in Murray and Dubens 2000, 8).

Figure 4 - Fleet safety assessment and training flow diagram

Figure 4 - Fleet safety assessment and training flow diagram

Typical symptoms are described above, most are cost-related, as shown in the example in Figure 5 from a UK retailer where a high cost crash (>£140,000) involving the write off of a very specialised and expensive vehicle was the catalyst for a safety improvement programme.

Figure 5 - Example of a high cost crash as the catalyst for a fleet safety improvement programme

Figure 5 - Example of a high cost crash as the catalyst for a fleet safety improvement programme

Training needs analysis

Whatever type and level of training is chosen must be based on a training needs analysis. Involving participants in assessing their own training requirements and the process of developing the programme through a detailed consultation helps win people's support (and that of the unions). To achieve this requires an understanding of who the current facilitators are and the barriers to policy and workplace change. Using daily driver debriefs to feed into the process is also useful.

In an ideal Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) driven process, undertaking proactive risk assessments would be the starting point for a training needs analysis. In reality, analysing the claims data is a much more common approach to undertaking the training needs analysis. For a typical mainly urban courier operation requiring vehicles to 'stop' 50-80 times per day a pattern similar to the one in Figure 6 would probably emerge. This suggests that a large emphasis should be given in the training (whichever type) to urban driving and particularly avoiding rear end shunts, manoeuvring and reversing incidents in traffic and at delivery and collection points. This information is useful for feeding back to managers and drivers through intranets, noticeboards, newsletters and handbooks. There may also be an argument in this case for working with local agencies and road safety officers to help educate other road users in how to share the road with larger commercial vehicles.

Figure 6 - Table showing the 2001 'blameworthy' crash data for a UK courier company

Figure 6 - Table showing the 2001 'blameworthy' crash data for a UK courier company

The company in Figure 6 operates a 4000+ mixed vehicle fleet, and is involved in approximately 3-10 fatal crashes per year in the UK.

Other useful analysis from the claims data focuses on the drivers involved (Figure 7), time of day (Figure 8) and crash locations (Figure 9), as well as vehicle and third party information.

In total 37% of the crash-involved drivers in Figure 7 were temporary employees from driver agencies - suggesting that there is an 'agency driver problem' in this case. The seasonal nature of the company's operations with Christmas, summer and mid season peaks means that temporary agency drivers are necessary. A major problem facing most companies is a lack of exposure data to compare hours or shifts worked by the temporary agency drivers and full time employees. Hence they cannot make a real comparison of which group of drivers has the highest crash rate and costs. At first glance, however, it would suggest that temporary agency drivers and the managers recruiting them should be included in any assessment and training programme in this case.

Figure 7 - Driver type involved in the crashes

Figure 7 - Driver type involved in the crashes

The time of day that crashes occur is an important measure because it allows some attention to be focused on fatigue issues and can identify the most relevant and targeted times for assessment and training to be undertaken. Figure 8 shows that in this case the crashes follow the 'normal' working day. Ideally, this would be compared with the exposure data for the operation. It also shows that time was not recorded for 13% of the crashes, which suggests that more could be done to improve the recording of the data. Such information can also be used as a training tool and key performance indicator for improving the reporting and recording of the crashes.

Figure 8 - Time of day of the crash

Figure 8 - Time of day of the crash

In Figure 9, the 'off-road' crashes are a high proportion of total incidents, 62% of them occurring at delivery and collection points, respondents' own premises, or in car parks. This is a fairly 'typical' pattern for fleet vehicles.

Figure 9 - Crash locations

Figure 9 - Crash locations

This is important information because own premises and, to a slightly lesser extent, collection and delivery points and staff car parks come under the control of vehicle operators. This means that action (such as Pareto Analysis of frequency of deliveries and accidents, black spot analysis, driver work instructions, training, fitting safety equipment or changed site layout) can be taken. If organisations do not monitor and analyse the location (or potential locations) of accidents it is very difficult to implement reduction interventions on the basis of need.

Murray and Dubens (2000, 8) and Murray (2000, 9) provide more comprehensive reviews of the use of claims data analysis for risk management purposes.

Following risk assessments and claims data analysis, a third form of need analysis is to undertaken driver assessments.

A wide range of types of driver assessment tools are currently available, including those listed below.

  • Assessment of the driver's pre-drive vehicle circle check and in-vehicle driving.
  • Knowledge (typically written) tests.
  • Wellbeing.
  • Specific vehicle and task related skills.
  • 'Wilson' safe driver selection test including 'attention to detail' and 'hand/eye co-ordination'.
  • IT-based assessment of 'knowledge', 'attitude', 'behaviour' and 'hazard perception'.
  • Personality assessment.
  • Safety attitude scales such as the PaQS ARM-Q, which tests 'safety control', 'risk avoidance', 'stress tolerance', 'driver attitude', 'quality orientation' and 'fairness'.

All these types of assessment are important and have their advantages, disadvantages and champions. All require the necessary cost, cultural and operational tradeoffs to be made to evaluate their usefulness in each situation. In an ideal world, every organization that recruits and employs drivers would use a range of such tools. In reality, cost and operational issues, as well as market trends, such as the current shortage of heavy truck drivers in the UK, USA and increasingly Australia, will influence those that are chosen. At the University of Huddersfield the main focus has been on the development and use of IT-based assessment tools.

Whatever approach to assessment is chosen, however, a systematic four stage process is recommended as follows.

  • Managers, supervisors, driver assessors, shop stewards and any other potential users should undertake the assessment themselves. This shows their commitment to safe driving and helps to sell the concept to the rest of the workforce, as well as learning how to use the system and the data outputs from it.
  • All existing drivers should then undertake the assessment, possibly at one site initially, to build up a benchmarking database of existing company norms and standards.
  • Use this output to identify the training needs of existing staff and set appropriate targets for all new drivers to achieve. In a typical recent case, if a driver obtained a >80% score no action was taken, 60-80% scorers received a 'web-based' training package and those with <60% had to take an immediate on-road assessment. In another case, anyone scoring <80% on the attitude scale was not given work by a driver recruitment agency.
  • Utilise the tool for a range of purposes, including the following 15 pre-employment, current staff and other uses.

Pre-employment

  • To pre-screen drivers for recruitment, as part of a pre-interview evaluation of a candidate's suitability to be commercial vehicle or company car drivers. Those who do not meet the required standard will not be interviewed or allowed to drive a company vehicle.
  • Part of the interview process for new employees, both professional and non-professional drivers.
  • To assess the driving skills of all new employees as a part of their induction process.
  • To evaluate temporary agency drivers and driver agencies.

    Current staff
  • Assess on a regular basis, for example annually, as part of an on-going programme.
  • To assess all company drivers - written into conditions of employment - if a driver does not get a certain score corrective training and reassessment will take place.
  • To allow driver assessment and training at remote sites.
  • Use as part of the selection and training process for new driving instructors and assessors.
  • To evaluate training needs and allow targeted training, by identifying those drivers who actually need training and providing a guide to setting the level and content of training courses. This process could involve an assessment using the chosen tool to identify subsequent training needs. Finally, reassess using the assessment tool to identify improvements. In this case, users should be aware of any potential order or familiarity effects. It is also common for 'gossip' about the correct answers and how to cheat the system to spread quickly.
  • As part of the post-crash investigation process, to identify hazard perception/attitude problems and training/re-training needs.

    Other uses
  •  To decide on the allocation of company cars.
  • For high employee turnover operations where there are many young 'non-professional', temporary drivers or 'white van men' driving high mileages.
  • To assess the risks for insurance and vehicle hire purposes.
  • For driver agencies, who do not own any vehicles, to assess their drivers.
  • Accident management companies, driver trainers, insurers, distribution companies and driver agencies can use 'out of vehicle' assessment tools as an income generator or business development tool for their own company. Examples include assessing existing clients or potential new ones, and as part of the process of pitching for new business.

Murray and Dubens (2001, 10) and Murray, Whiteing and Bamford (2002, 11) provide more detailed reviews of the use of IT-based driver assessment tools.

Based on the training needs analysis the best type and level of training can be determined.

Type and level of training

Christie (2001, 2) reviews a range of types of types of driver training in Australia. At Huddersfield the specific focus has tended to be on managers rather than drivers (4), however Murray (1998, 12) provided a similar, if less critical, review than Christie's of the types of fleet driver training used in the UK. This review focused on 'best practice steps' and suggested that driver training must part of a proactive, systematic and on-going process, rather than a one-off event. It must be implemented with senior and local management commitment in a way that can be evaluated, however, it can rarely be divorced from a whole range of other related issues, including a comprehensive system for monitoring and evaluating accidents, goal setting and a positive management attitude.

Murray (12) went on to describe four main approaches to driver training including in-vehicle RTFM (Read the flipping manual) or 'how to do keeping the vehicle moving in the green band' training and defensive driving. Out of vehicle training covered attitude and safety/team culture-based training.

This range of approaches was suggested because driver training should be seen as a process, rather than a one-off and the RTFM->Defensive->Attitude->Safety/team culture approach gives a clear continuum, very loosely in order of difficulty, and from almost totally 'in-vehicle' to almost totally 'out of vehicle' training. This is not suggesting, however, that organisations wishing to develop their drivers should not go straight to attitude-based training if that is what their training needs analysis identifies as being important. Nor does it suggest that they are mutually exclusive, as there is clearly a great deal of overlap between each type. For example defensive driver training takes place both in and out of the vehicle and involves developing certain attitudes toward driving. It may also be the case that different parts of the same organization would adopt different types of training to ensure that the most positive spread of effect occurred. Ludvig and Geller's (2000, 13) 'pizza studies' explore this, and several other important fleet driver training issues in great depth. The Swedish Televerket study (Gregersen, Brehmer, and Morén 1996, 14) also provides a good insight into different types of training, particularly focussing on the use of group decision theory, which is similar to Murray's attitude and safety/team culture-based approaches (12).

Trainer selection

Selecting the trainer or trainers is a very important issue. If, as is common, an existing driver is to become an assessor/trainer they must be well respected by the other drivers and have the strength of personality to be able to give honest feedback to their peers and friends. Some questions to ask external fleet safety improvement trainers are listed.

  • Can you carry out risk management needs analysis on costs, causes and numbers?
  • Can you provide a crash profile and graphs to illustrate/monitor performance?
  • What type of training are you offering (ranging from basic skills, through defensive driving to attitude and culture-based programmes)?
  • Can you administer the programme?
  • Can you train managers, supervisors and in-house trainers if necessary?
  • Will the training be based on a detailed needs analysis and driver assessments rather than an off the shelf package?
  • Who are your other clients (they will happily tell you about their successes but you may have to 'dig deeper' to find out the cases where they have 'failed') and do you have long term performance evaluation data that allows for issues such as regression to the mean, order effect or negative spread of effects?
  • Will you run an initial small scale pilot programme? Undertaking a pilot study at one site, or with one team of drivers, is a very useful exercise because it helps to evaluate the effectiveness of a programme, make appropriate cost tradeoffs and to develop the process for implementation for any wider programme. 
  • What are your pricing mechanisms (eg do you have a 'pay by results' scheme)?
  • Will the training require 'work time' or can it take place 'on the job'?
  • What 'shift patterns' do the trainers work to?
  • What feedback and evaluation processes and tools do you apply?
  • Are you registered and what quality badges do you have?
  • Is driver training actually what we really need?

Evaluation

When the training has been undertaken, realistic and simple follow-up, feedback and goals should be provided to participants. Having a clear process for management, as well as driver, feedback that gives enough information on key trends and areas for performance improvement is vital. Evaluation and reinforcement of the results of the assessment and training through lead and lag key performance indicators (KPIs) such as costs, complaints, fuel utilisation, crashes, and qualitative issues including attitude, safety awareness and teamwork is important. Some typical KPIs are shown in Figure 10. How often do you monitor them in your organisation? Participants should also be encouraged to evaluate the assessment itself and the overall process.

Figure 10 - Lead and lag KPIs for fleet safety

Post Crash/reactive KPIs

Weekly

Monthly

Quarterly

6 Monthly

Yearly

Never

Agency performance
Average cost of claims per million kms
Average crash cost
Blameworthy/non-blameworthy (unavoidable/avoidable or fault/no fault)
Claims per million kms
Collision with
Complaints
Costs (vehicles, driver and third party)
Costs a % of total fleet or maintenance costs
Crashes per £100,000 turnover
Crashes per 1,000 employees
Crashes per 1,000,000 miles/kms
Crashes per 100,000 hours worked
Crashes per 100,000 miles/kms
Crashes per driver
Crashes per vehicle
Customer service failures
Damage while parked
Date/Day
Driver age/experience
Drivers' shift and sleep pattern
Fault/non-fault crashes
Location
Manoeuvre
Miles/kms per crash
Non-claim/minor/under excess crashes
Number of crashes
Repeat offenders
Shifts/months per crash
Single vehicle crashes
Terrain
Third party type
Time of day
Time to report
Type of crash
Type of damage
Underlying causes
Uninsured losses/recoveries
Unreported damage
Vehicle downtime
Vehicle manufacturer
Vehicle type
Vehicle use
Violations
Other (please state)
Pre-crash/lead/proactive KPIs
Circle checks undertaken and actioned
Crash-free days
Hazards identified, risk assessed and controlled
Job safety analysis scores
Level of employees observed safety behaviour
Near hits
Processes monitored
Safety attitude surveys undertaken
Safety 'comfort' surveys undertaken
Safety toolbox meetings undertaken
Safety training sessions undertaken
Senior management safety tours
Staff assessed
Site audit and risk assessment scores
Wear and tear
Total (Write in total number of ticks)

Does it work is an important question? Controlled evaluations that separate out each individual countermeasure are not easy nor in many cases practical. In general the 'best' fleets all appear to apply some or all of the above. Even where safety gains in a pure academic or statistical sense cannot be proved the above process has very high face validity, helps provide protection from OHS regulations and duty of care or chain of responsibility requirements, encourages more systematic processes, creates a set of norms and offers a range of PR and business development opportunities.

The relevant cost tradeoffs need to be evaluated on a case by case basis, typically the extra costs are the programme itself, management and staff time. Potential cost savings include insurance, crashes, vehicles, drivers and quality. Developing realistic evaluation mechanisms is difficult. Undertaking a pilot study is one way around this process. Although not as rigorous as a detailed experiment using a control group, it is much more practical and easier to 'cost justify'. In many ways the change management and implementation processes are probably as important as the safety training tool itself.

Finally, assessment and training should not be a one-off event, but part of an on-going process. For example an annual driver assessment could take place to identify particular training needs for that year as part of a rolling programme. This could include: quarter 1 - assessment; quarter 2 - skills training; quarter 3 - defensive driving; and, quarter 4 - attitude development. In many of the UK organisations that have worked closely with Huddersfield this occurs annually or bi-annually rather than quarterly. Making the process interesting, varied and innovative helps to keep the peoples' attention.

CONCLUSIONS
This paper has set out some reflections on what is best practice for fleet safety training, through a framework of the PCCSM approach developed at the University of Huddersfield in the UK in collaboration and discussion with hundreds of managers, graduates and undergraduates over a 10-year period. A process has been identified to allow managers to systematically identify training needs through claims data analysis and or driver assessments. Guidelines have been provided for using either internal or external assessors and trainers and some KPIs suggested for evaluation.

The process of fleet safety training can have a very important role to play. Four types of driver training, ranging from the most basic 'how to do' (RTFM) skills training, through defensive driving and attitude-based training to safety/team culture training were mentioned. Although these four are not mutually exclusive, and can be undertaken independently, it is suggested that they should be undertaken in that order. This allows driver training to be a proactive and progressive process, rather than a one-off event.

Training should be based on a detailed 'needs analysis', typically in the form of an analysis of previous claims data. Risk and driver assessment tools are also useful for needs analysis. In this case the analysis shown was done for the operation as a whole, but if the information is available it could be targeted on a driver-by-driver or site-by-site basis. Driver training cannot be undertaken in isolation. Indeed it is vital that if it is implemented it is in conjunction with other safety and risk management initiatives, such as claims analysis and management development. In fact, the findings from the Huddersfield and more recently CARRS-Q-based work on fleet safety would suggest that management, supervisory and scheduler attitude, training and awareness is as important, if not more so. Driver training is only one part of a range of risk management techniques for improving fleet safety.

We welcome feedback on and criticism of our work. Please email w.murray@qut.edu.au or call 07 3864 4565 with any comments or ideas you may have on this paper or the issue in general.

REFERENCES
1. Skewes, D. Fleet risk management - cases/experience of what works, what doesn't and why. Paper published in Murray, W. and Hansen, R. (Eds.) (2002). Work-Related Road Trauma and Fleet Risk Management in Australia. Australian Transport Safety Bureau: Canberra
2. Christie, R. The Effectiveness of Driver Training as a Road Safety Measure: A Review of the Literature, November 2001, Report No. 01/03, Royal Automobile Club Of Victoria, ISBN 1 875963 26 X
3. Jerrim, A. Contemporary issues in post-licence driver training In Staysafe 36: Drivers as workers, vehicles as workplaces: Issues in fleet management. (Report No. 9/51). Ninth report of the Joint Standing Committee on Road Safety of the 51st Parliament. Sydney: Parliament of New South Wales, 1997
4. Transport and Logistics, University of Huddersfield, www.hud.ac.uk/sas/trans/transnews.htm
5. CARRS-Q, www.carrsq.qut.edu.au/staff/Murray.jsp
6. Murray, W and Whiteing, T. Reducing commercial vehicle accidents through accident databases. Logistics Information Management, Volume 8 (3), 1995, p22-29
7. Williams, A.F. (1999). The Haddon matrix: Its contribution to injury prevention and control. Paper presented at the 3rd National Conference on Injury Prevention and Control, 9-12 May 1999 Brisbane
8. Murray, W. and Dubens, E. Creating a crash free culture, 2000, 4Di, Brighouse, UK
9. Murray, W. Crash counting: a review of fleet crash reporting in the UK. Paper published in the proceedings of the Road safety research policing and education conference, Brisbane, 26-28 November 2000, p615-620, http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/qt/driver.nsf/index/conference_fleet
10. Murray, w. and Dubens, E. Driver assessment including the use of interactive CD-ROMs Paper presented at the 9th World Conference on Transportation Research, Seoul, 24-27 July 2001
11. Murray, W., Whiteing, T. and Bamford, C. Managing occupational road risk in SME organisations. Paper published in the proceedings of the RoSPA Safer driving - the road to success 67th Road Safety Congress, Stratford upon Avon, 4-6 March 2002
12. Murray, W. Driver training to reduce accidents. Croner's Road Transport Operation Bulletin. Issue 36, July 1998
13. Ludvig T and Geller E Intervening to improve the safety of occupational driving: A behaviour-change model and review of empirical evidence. Journal of Organisational Behavior Management, Volume 19 (4), 2000, p1-124
14. Gregersen, N.P., Brehmer, B, and Morén, B. Road safety improvement in large companies. An experimental comparison of different measures. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Volume 28(3), 1996, p297-306

People &
Quality Solutions
Pty Ltd
ABN 53070246427

© PaQS 2001
People & Quality
Solutions Pty Ltd

 
 
Top  safety@paqs.com.au | Tel. +61 2 4949 4500 Web design by psyborg™ multimedia + design
 
Home Sitemap