National Academies Press: OpenBook

Effectiveness of Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Training Curricula and Delivery Methods (2007)

Chapter: Chapter 3 - Commercial Vehicle Operator Training

« Previous: Chapter 2 - Review of the Literature
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Commercial Vehicle Operator Training." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Effectiveness of Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Training Curricula and Delivery Methods. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23272.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Commercial Vehicle Operator Training." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Effectiveness of Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Training Curricula and Delivery Methods. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23272.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Commercial Vehicle Operator Training." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Effectiveness of Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Training Curricula and Delivery Methods. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23272.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Commercial Vehicle Operator Training." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Effectiveness of Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Training Curricula and Delivery Methods. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23272.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Commercial Vehicle Operator Training." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Effectiveness of Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Training Curricula and Delivery Methods. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23272.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Commercial Vehicle Operator Training." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Effectiveness of Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Training Curricula and Delivery Methods. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23272.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Commercial Vehicle Operator Training." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Effectiveness of Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Training Curricula and Delivery Methods. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23272.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Commercial Vehicle Operator Training." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Effectiveness of Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Training Curricula and Delivery Methods. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23272.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Commercial Vehicle Operator Training." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Effectiveness of Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Training Curricula and Delivery Methods. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23272.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Commercial Vehicle Operator Training." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Effectiveness of Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Training Curricula and Delivery Methods. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23272.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Commercial Vehicle Operator Training." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Effectiveness of Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Training Curricula and Delivery Methods. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23272.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Commercial Vehicle Operator Training." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Effectiveness of Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Training Curricula and Delivery Methods. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23272.
×
Page 22

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

11 3.1 Overview of Training Organizations Schools. Commercial driving schools provide the most formal driver training. The schools can range from a full semester course in a college or junior college to a 2-week pro- gram that concentrates on the minimum skills and knowl- edge required to obtain a CDL. Many schools are privately owned. However, there are a significant number of publicly funded truck and bus operator training programs across the United States. Most of the larger schools concentrate on teaching tractor- trailer driving and operations. The survey reviewed in Chap- ter 4 provides more details about these various training programs. Carriers and Employers. Many carriers, motorcoach companies, transit agencies, and school bus operations provide training to their prospective drivers. In some cases, these employers provide the same training in a school-like environment that the independent schools provide. In other cases, they take the graduates of commercial driver training schools and provide additional training on the spe- cific vehicles and policies of the company, agency, or school district. Organizations and Associations. There are several orga- nizations that support various commercial driver training schools, carriers, transit agencies, and motorcoach compa- nies. The organizations support various industries and have training as one of the supported services. They include the Truckload Carrier Association, the American Trucking Asso- ciations (ATA), ABA, APTA, United Motorcoach Associa- tion (UMA), National Association for Pupil Transportation (NAPT), and the National School Transportation Associa- tion (NSCA). Other organizations have broader charters but also support commercial vehicle operator training. The two best known are the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association. In addition, there are associations primarily concerned with the training of commercial drivers. The Association of Publicly Funded Truck Driving Schools provides regional lists of public institutions that offer driver training. The Coalition of Proprietary Schools has information on pro- prietary schools that offer driver training throughout the country. The Commercial Vehicle Training Association is the national trade association representing the proprietary truck driving schools in the United States and Canada. The PTDI was established in 1986 to help carriers and stu- dents identify courses that provide quality training. PTDI’s curriculum and other course certification criteria are adap- ted from a 1984 FHWA Model Curriculum which listed the requisite content for a commercial driving curriculum. According to its website, the PTDI is the only organization, either public or private, that has established a standard for the training of entry-level truck drivers. PTDI certifies courses at truck driving schools; it is not a school and does not offer courses. The Truckload Carriers Association assumed man- agement of PTDI in 1997; since then, PTDI has undergone restructuring that includes the identification of skill stan- dards, a revision in the curriculum, and modification of cer- tification standards. The specifics of the PTDI curriculum, which has been updated as recently as 1999, are presented in Section 3.4. In Canada, the Canadian Trucking Highway Research Council (CTHRC) provides a set of standards and guide- lines for training beginning and more experienced commer- cial drivers. CTHRC offers a program called, Earning Your Wheels, which is an intensive 12-week program consisting of 8 weeks in-school training (a minimum of 120 hours of class- room and 85 hours BTW) followed by 4 weeks of super- vised workplace experience with a carrier (a minimum of 100 hours BTW). C H A P T E R 3 Commercial Vehicle Operator Training

3.2 Commercial Driver Training In CTBSSP Synthesis 1, safety managers and other industry experts ranked insufficient training as a significant safety management problem. Forty percent of the safety managers surveyed placed training and training standards as one of the top five solutions to industry safety problems. In CTBSSP Synthesis 5, the authors approached the topic somewhat differently from the research team of this synthe- sis; however, their review of the content and training method- ology of the truck and motorcoach industry is comprehensive and reflects many of the findings of the current study. This synthesis relies heavily on the information provided in CTBSSP Synthesis 5. Readers may refer to that synthesis for a longer discussion of these topics. Many truckload carriers rely on entry-level drivers. Batts (1999) cites a Gallop study commissioned by the ATAF indi- cating that more than 80,000 new drivers per year will be needed by the trucking industry in the first decade of the 21st century. She further states that the quality of training received by entry-level drivers from the three primary sources of such driver—public schools, for-profit training programs, and carrier-based schools—remains inconsistent. An area that has not received much investigation is the characteristics, abilities, and attitudes of the men and women entering the trucking profession and seeking commercial operator training. Nearly all of the literature and documen- tation focuses on the external events that are to shape the behavior of these aspiring professionals. Training and safety managers consistently report on the heterogeneous makeup of both their students and the commercial operator work force. Most of the training programs reviewed were developed for adult learners. Comparing students in their mid-20’s with students in their teens must be done with care. There is mounting data that adolescents have unique physiological and psychological characteristics that may not exist in older commercial driver students. The research team reports on some successful implementation of technology to train teen drivers (see Section 3.8). In the Driver Training and Development Resource Guide (Driver Training and Development Alliance 1997), authors stated the following about the students in commercial driver training programs: “Drivers in training want to do their jobs better, get pro- moted, receive raises, and generally be the best professional drivers they can be. . . . The more hands-on experiences they have, the better they will learn. This approach also keeps interest and motivation high. The best methods for practic- ing and testing put students to the actual job or tasks for which the training was developed.” (p.58) It is important to note that this statement came from a document prepared by truck and bus company professionals. It reflects the experiences of some of the top professionals in truck and bus operations, safety, and driver training. 3.3 CDL Test The Commercial Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 called for the Secretary of Transportation to establish minimum federal standards for the states to use in testing and ensuring the fit- ness of persons who operate CMVs. The standards were to include both knowledge tests and driving tests, and required that the driving tests take place in a vehicle that was represen- tative of the type of vehicle the driver operates or will oper- ate. If appropriate, different minimum testing standards were to apply to different classes of CMVs. The rule subsequently issued by the FHWA (49 CFR Part 383), containing the min- imum standards, stipulates specific knowledge, skills, and abilities that drivers of different types of CMVs must possess. The initial CDL development was conducted in the late 1980s to meet the requirements of the 1986 Act and the Federal Rule by designing a CDL testing system that would “ensure the fitness of persons who will be licensed by states to drive various types of commercial vehicles.” (Essex Cor- poration 1992, p. 1-1) CDL knowledge tests were developed that reflected both the general knowledge required of all commercial drivers and the specialized knowledge required of operators of particular classes of vehicles or vehicles haul- ing particular kinds of cargo. The knowledge tests to be taken by a CDL applicant directly reflected the type of vehicle that he or she operated or proposed to operate. They included the following: • A general knowledge test of safe driving principles • An air brakes test • A combination vehicles test • A tanker test • A doubles/triples test • A passenger transport test • A hazardous materials test In addition to the knowledge tests, there was also a require- ment for the development of three driver skills tests that would • Determine whether the applicant had an adequate understanding of how to ascertain the condition of key operational and safety systems of the vehicle. • Determine whether the driver had the fundamental psy- chomotor and perceptual skills necessary to control and maneuver heavy vehicles. • Determine whether the driver was capable of safely driving the vehicle in a variety of road environments and traffic conditions. 12

These tests were designed to be adaptable to different vehi- cle sizes and configurations. Each met professional standards for reliability and validity, and each measured an important, yet relatively independent, area of driver skill. Although the CDL testing standards and requirements rep- resent a national program, each jurisdiction must administer the various tests in compliance with jurisdictional laws and procedures. Therefore, although the overall goal of the CDL program was to have all commercial drivers meet the same standards regardless of where they receive their license, dif- ferences among the jurisdictions have increased during the decade following full program implementation. Recently, the original tests have been revised (Brock, Golembiewski, McFann, Robinson, and Lewis 2005). The major changes to the tests saw the knowledge test item pool enlarged, the vehicle inspection test become less predictable to applicants, the basic skills test more closely reflects on-the-job performance, and the on road test become more precise. As Staplin et al. (p.8) state: “While the CDL is a federally mandated licensing standard, there is no federally man- dated standard for the training of entry-level commercial truck drivers. And while the FMCSA believes that the FHWA Model Curriculum, the PTDI Curriculum, the Model Cur- riculum for Training Motorcoach Drivers, and the NHTSA School Bus Driver Instructional Program represent the basis for training adequacy, such training is not mandated. At the same time, the FMCSA does not agree that training adequacy is ensured simply by having the knowledge to pass the CDL test (Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 2003).” 3.4 Instructional Design and Content The content of most current motor vehicle driver training is derived from subject matter sources (regulations, textbooks, policies and procedures) rather than from an in-depth analy- sis of commercial vehicle operator performance requirements. This does not mean that the content is necessarily wrong, only that it is expressed in terms of instructional content rather than in performance outcome. The content that is in most reputable training programs is there because experts in truck and bus driving believe it should be there. The content is a result of an informal consensus of operators, trainers, and research professionals over the past 15 to 20 years. Although there have been various analyses of commercial driver tasks (e.g., Essex Corporation; Brock, Durham, and Wood, 1990), there has not been the kind of instructional design approach described in Chapter 2 for commercial driving. The research team could find no evi- dence of the kind of performance-based learning objectives that result from the traditional ISD approach in current commercial vehicle operator training programs. However, the PTDI curriculum comes close. Student per- formance is specified, but not to the level required in a for- mal learning objective. For instance, the PTDI curriculum has skill objectives which are stated, for example, “Practice good visual search techniques.” A learning objective follow- ing the ISD model could be stated, “In a computer-generated classroom exercise, student will identify 80% of potential risks in a projected 10-mile ride in an urban setting.” Note the three elements of the learning objective: Task—“identify potential risks,” Condition—“computer-generated classroom exercise,” and Standard—“identify 80% of potential risks in a projected 10-mile ride in an urban setting.” Of course, the objective could describe different conditions (actual driving on the road) and a higher or lower performance standard. Table 2 provides an outline of the minimum content for a PTDI-certified training program for entry-level drivers. In a report produced by the Driver Training and Development Alliance (DTDA 1997), the content in Table 2 was expanded to a list of 34 of the DTDA key topics that should be part of any entry-level driver training program (see Table 3). FMCSA has developed minimum training requirements for operators of double and triple trucks, also known as longer combination vehicles (LCVs). LCV training will consist of driving and non-driving activities, such as route planning and checking cargo and weight. Because LCV doubles and triples have different operating characteristics, FMCSA established different training courses for each vehicle group. The rule also establishes two types of LCV driver instructors, classroom instructors and skills instructors. Table 4 shows the specific content requirements for these special classes of vehicles. The point of this discussion and these tables is that there appear to be a set of generally agreed on topics and subject areas that entry-level drivers should learn. It is important to point out that all three examples go well beyond teaching safe driv- ing. What are described are training programs for professional drivers. The remainder of this report will discuss the various ways such content can be taught, practiced, and tested. 3.5 Documented Current Practices in Commercial Driver Training For an in-depth description and discussion of current commercial driver training practices in Europe and the United States, the reader is referred to Staplin et al. That report reviews the work of Horn and Tardif (1999), which found that private schools most commonly offer a 150-hour cur- riculum that includes classroom, range, and on-road train- ing. They also found that nonprofit schools tended to offer a more extensive curriculum, with some countries provid- ing 700 hours of training. In France, the curriculum can require up to 2 years to complete, depending on the entering student’s experience and knowledge. 13

14 UNIT 1: BASIC OPERATION 1.1 Orientation 1.2 Control Systems 1.3 Vehicle Inspections 1.4 Basic Control 1.5 Shifting 1.6 Backing and Docking 1.7 Coupling and Uncoupling UNIT 2: SAFE OPERATING PRACTICES FOR BASIC OPERATION 2.1 Visual Search 2.2 Vehicle Communication 2.3 Speed Management 2.4 Space Management UNIT 3: ADVANCED OPERATING PROCEDURES 3.1 Night Operation 3.2 Extreme Driving Conditions 3.3 Hazard Perception 3.4 Emergency Maneuvers/Skid Avoidance 3.5 Skid Control and Recovery 3.6 Passive (Unmarked or Uncontrolled) Railroad Crossings UNIT 4: VEHICLE SYSTEMS AND REPORTING MALFUNCTIONS 4.1 Identification and Maintenance 4.2 Diagnosing and Reporting Malfunctions UNIT 5: NON-VEHICLE ACTIVITIES 5.1 Handling and Documenting Cargo 5.2 Environmental Issues 5.3 Hours of Service Requirements 5.4 Accident Procedures 5.5 Managing Life on the Road/Personal Resources 5.6 Trip Planning 5.7 Communication Skills Table 2. PTDI content topics for a certified training curriculum. Introduction to Trucking Control Systems Vehicle Inspection Basic Control Backing Coupling and Uncoupling Fifth Wheel and Sliding Tandems Special Rigs Night Driving Extreme Driving Conditions Hazard Awareness Emergency Maneuvers Skid Control Vehicle Systems Braking Systems Driver Wellness Pre-trip Inspection Product Handling Cargo Documentation Hours of Service/Fatigue Management Accident Procedures Trip Planning Public Relations Employer/Employee Relations CDL Requirements Visual Search Communications Space Management Speed Management Recognizing and Reporting Malfunctions Preventive Maintenance and Servicing Diesel Engines Drug and Alcohol Abuse Continuous Career Development (Source: DTDA 1997) Table 3. Model driver training curriculum outline. Staplin et al. also reported on a study by Dueker (1995). The Staplin et al. discussion of that study merits quoting at length: Dueker (1995) conducted a study to determine the effectiveness of the private sector in ensuring adequate training of entry-level CMV drivers. This study focused on training for CMV drivers of heavy trucks, motorcoaches, and school buses. Operational definitions created for each of the terms included in the study objectives are presented below. “Entry-level training” was defined as all training received during the first 3 years of the driver’s experience, including pre-service training, on-the-job training, and in-service training.

Included in the definition of “private sector” were driving schools (i.e., public, private, and company-operated); certifica- tion and accreditation groups; carriers and fleet operators; associations; insurance companies; and drivers. Programs were considered as “formal training” only if they provided some number of class or lab hours, to discriminate between pro- grams that just provided on-the-job training. Further, it was determined that on-street hours must be provided in addition to classroom hours for a program to be considered “adequate.” “Adequate training” for heavy trucks and motor coaches was defined . . . using the FHWA model tractor-trailer driver curricu- lum (Federal Highway Administration 1985) as a starting point and the consensus of a panel of 36 experts on the minimum acceptable requirements for each of the listed curriculum charac- teristics. . . . Data regarding the adequacy of heavy truck and motorcoach training were provided by a total of 640 respondents from industry, schools, and individual drivers who were surveyed in the Dueker (1995) study. The study concluded that the private sector is not effective in providing adequate training for drivers of heavy trucks, motorcoaches, or school buses. Data were provided to describe percentages of motor carriers that provide adequate training as well as percentages of drivers receiving adequate train- ing. Of the heavy truck carriers who were surveyed, only 22% indicated that they provide formal training to the entry-level driv- ers they hire. This compares with 63% of motorcoach carriers surveyed who provide formal training to their entry-level drivers. In terms of the adequacy of the formal training provided, approx- imately one-third of the heavy truck carriers and motorcoach car- riers provided training that was considered “adequate,” as defined by project criteria. For heavy truck carriers, 38% provided train- ing defined as “adequate;” and, for motorcoach carriers, 30% provided training that was defined as “adequate.” Combining the prevalence of formal training and the adequacy of formal training, the findings indicated that only 8.1% of heavy truck carriers who hire entry-level drivers provide adequate training for them, and only 18.5% of the motorcoach carriers who hire entry-level drivers provide adequate training for them. Dueker (1995) also reports data provided by 141 heavy truck drivers and 22 motorcoach drivers to describe the number of drivers who are being adequately trained and the extent to which schools (publicly funded and proprietary) add to the percentage of adequately trained truck drivers. The drivers in the sample were limited to those with 5 or fewer years of experience (i.e., “new” drivers). The findings of the driver survey . . . show that both publicly and privately funded schools contribute substan- tially to the number of CMV drivers who receive adequate training (pp. 9–10). The Canadian model tends to follow either the PTDI cur- riculum standards or those of the CTHRC. The CTHRC cur- riculum is a 12-week program with 120 hours of classroom time and 185 hours BTW. Although European Union countries tend to have longer training programs, including significantly longer in-cab practice times, the subject matter in the training is very sim- ilar to that in the United States (Horn and Tardif). It goes beyond U.S. topics in teaching the various rules, practices, and cultures of the various countries in which the drivers will eventually drive. The basic driver training model in Europe is vocational education. The process is selective and advances overall busi- ness competence as well as driving skills. This contrasts with U.S. training that focuses solely on developing driver skills (Hartman et al. 2000). These authors describe the basic European model: “In Europe, a public/private effort has established a standard- ized curriculum that often uses advanced technologies such as simulators and password-protected Internet access. . . . Promotional activities publicize truck driver and related occupations.” (Hartman et al., p.4) The Hartman et al. report describes a study financed by the Office of International Programs of the FHWA. The panel conducting the study visited two institutions that “exemplify the European focus on using new technologies and related research to educate commercial vehicle drivers: the Association for the Development of Professional Training in Transport- Institute of Training and Warehousing Techniques (AFT- IFTIM) in Menchy Saint-Eloi, France, and Stora Holm in Gothenburg, Sweden.” (p.4) The ATF-IFTIM trains 20% of France’s new commercial drivers each year. The institute offers an extensive curricu- lum that combines simulator, personal computer, and BTW training. It also requires a prescribed number of classroom hours and closely monitors BTW performance. The institute uses an innovative onboard recording device with individual- ized smart cards to establish driver trainee baseline per- formance and skills and to assess progress at prescribed intervals. In addition to vocational training, drivers must participate in refresher programs every 5 years (Hartman et al.; Staplin et al.). The Swedish approach concentrates on developing the overall competence of professional drivers. The approach is based on the belief that greater breadth in training will produce more effective, safer drivers. The Stora Holm in 15 Section 1: Orientation 1.1 LCVs in Trucking 1.2 Regulatory Factors 1.3 Driver Qualifications 1.4 Vehicle Configuration Factors Section 2: Basic Operation 2.1 Coupling and Uncoupling 2.2 Basic Control and Handling 2.3 Basic Maneuvers 2.4 Turning, Steering and Tracking 2.5 Proficiency Development Section 3: Safe Operating Practices 3.1 Interacting with Traffic 3.2 Speed and Space Management 3.3 Night Operations 3.4 Extreme Driving Conditions 3.5 Security Issues 3.6 Proficiency Development Section 4:Advanced Operations 4.1 Hazard Perception 4.2 Hazardous Situations 4.3 Maintenance and Troubleshooting Section 5: Non-Driving Activities 5.1 Routes and Trip Planning 5.2 Cargo and Weight Considerations Table 4. Course topics for LCV drivers.

Gothenburg, Sweden, is an example of a municipal voca- tional center that offers the standard vocational curriculum and training program. Drivers take a 10-week course to qualify for a commercial vehicle license. Learning involves a combination of computers, simulators, and BTW training. A noteworthy advance is the use of computer-based train- ing delivered via an extranet. The extranet training includes narrative Q&A and illustrations that use video stream inserts. All Stora Holm graduates are hired directly into the transport industry. Kuncyté, Laberge-Nadeau, Crainic, and Read (2003) com- pared the training programs for hazmat drivers in Europe and North America. The authors selected Sweden and the Netherlands to represent Europe and Canada and the United States to represent North America. The differences among the four countries reflect both various regulatory pressures and diverse cultures. They found “In Canada and the US, it is the role of the employer to ensure appropriate truck-driver training for the transportation of dangerous goods. In Sweden and the Netherlands, a competent national authority must accredit training institutions or trainers and monitor the examination of truck drivers. However, all training system approaches pursue the same goal: to ensure appropriate train- ing and prevent the accidental release of dangerous goods dur- ing transportation. . . . The involvement of national authorities is important for truck-driver training quality and control. Hence, without some standards, training does not always meet actual driver tasks and employer expectations” (Kuncyté et al., p. 1999). Perhaps the best example of how culture influences truck driving training can be found in India. The Ashok Leyland Driver Training Centre at Namakkal was established in 1995. “. . . . this state-of-the-art school has comprehensive training facilities including a 2.5-km driving range, and imparts wholesome training to drivers for life on and off the road: sci- entific driving techniques apart, the curriculum includes health care, AIDS awareness and yoga.” (http://www.ashokleyland. com/home.jsp) The research team also looked at training programs for licensed commercial vehicle operators. Many carriers and motorcoach companies have what are basically apprentice- ship programs. New drivers are paired with experienced driv- ers for normal operations. In some cases, the senior drivers are trained as instructors; in most cases, although they may be superior drivers they are not trained instructors. There are some data that suggest that training licensed but poor com- mercial drivers can result in significant reductions of accident rates (McFann). There are commercial vehicle drivers who are driving vehicles that do not require an operator to hold a CDL. These are mostly straight trucks weighing less that 26,000 lb and passenger conveyance vehicles that carry fewer than 16 persons. The training of the drivers of these vehicles is not well documented. Training tends to be company and vehicle specific. Chapter 4 summarizes the most recent findings on the latest practices in truck and bus operator training. During the past two decades, truck and bus professionals have reached an informal consensus on what it is that entry-level drivers must be taught. But there still remain very big ques- tions about how instruction should be conducted and how the results of commercial vehicle operator training should be evaluated. The remainder of this report will address those issues. 3.6 Instructional Technology in Commercial Driver Training—CBI There are a wide variety of products on the market claiming to be commercial driving CBI that lack one or more of the minimum characteristics of CBI. In addition, there are no generally accepted criteria against which vari- ous products and services could be compared. The team found the same issue in the discussion of simulation-based instruction. The senior author of this report has written extensively on CBI (e.g., Eberts and Brock; Brock 1997; Brock 2006), driver training (Brock 1998, Hodell et al., Brock 2006) and commercial vehicle operations (Llaneras, Swezey, Brock, Rogers, and Van Cott 1998; DTDA; Brock, Krueger, Golembiewski, Daecher, Bishop, and Bergoffen 2005). From these and other research and development experi- ences, the following list describes the minimum character- istics one should find in a CBI program for commercial vehicle operators. Interactive Learning. Students should be able to actively effect the operation of the training program. At a minimum, the program should ask frequent questions of the student and, based on the answers of the student, direct his or her progress through the training program. The student should also be able to query the program for answers, drills, and criterion tests. A set of slides copied to a CD-ROM, DVD, or website is not CBI. Students Enter and Exit as Needed. At the very least, the learning management system accompanying the instruc- tional program should have the flexibility of allowing each student to stop, go back, leave the program, and return in place as needed. Easy to Use. Most driver training students will be expe- rienced users of technology. Many will have expectations of 16

what computers should do through their use of video games, personal computers, automated teller machines, cell phones, and various television recording and playing devices. These students should be receptive to well-designed and challeng- ing CBI programs. However, the challenge must come from the content and instructional strategy, not from the operation of the CBI itself. The current CDL Manual is written at a sixth grade level (Brock, Golembiewski, McFann, Robinson, and Lewis, 2005). A driving CBI must be accessible to users who may not have strong verbal skills. Visually Rich. Major components of driving are the per- ception and information processing of visual information. CBI directed at teaching safe driving performance must have a rich and realistic visual component. Can be Customized to Include Company Policies, Vehicles, and Drivers. This is an important component for any suc- cessful commercial driver training program. Training should contain elements of culture and best practices, as well as regulations and driving fundamentals. For example, an over- the-road tanker carrier will have unique instructional require- ments that are different from a grocery chain with its own fleet of trucks. High Retention by Students. Students must learn from the CBI. Seemingly obvious, the failure of some commercial CBI products to adequately define the expected learning out- come of the instruction is a major product weakness. Information Collected on a Common Database. The documentation of student achievement and interim progress is essential to a training program provided in a regulated environment. Schools can use the documentation to track students and provide student achievement information to potential employers. Carriers can also use the documentation to provide thorough records of driver training for insurance or legal inquiries. Students Set Their Own Pace. The key to any competent CBI is the ability for each student to set his or her own pace through the learning experience. Each student must demon- strate that he or she has met the objectives of the training by passing tests. But the rate or pathway to meeting those objectives should be under the control of the student. Criteria Testing. Students complete the CBI when they can pass the criteria test set out in the curriculum. The amount of time spent in front of the computer is not an attribute of interest (although excessive time might indi- cate a student who cannot master the material). Each stu- dent must meet the minimum standards as defined in the instructional package. Modal Consistency. It is important that the CBI provide information and practice opportunities in ways that reflect the material being taught. For instance, if a lesson is being provided on “space management of a tractor-trailer,” the CBI must provide visual displays showing what space manage- ment is. Simply providing text without photographs, graph- ics, or videos falls short of the minimum required. By the same token, lesson on maintaining logs or hazmat documents should provide realistic examples of such documents and allow the student to actually practice his or her role in keeping those documents accurate. Much is made of distance learning—the ability to distrib- ute learning over the Internet to remote places. The ability to provide high quality instruction to remote locations and to be available when the student is available is a major jump for- ward for CBI. Distant learning’s potential for carriers and over-the-road motorcoach companies is obvious. However, distance learning must meet the same criteria as other CBI. ABA members now have a new educational resource with the introduction of online driver safety training via the Internet. According to ABA, this new educational tool sets a precedent within the industry, allowing drivers and maintenance per- sonnel to take the classes online, at their own pace, eliminating costly training classes and company turnover. The obvious advantage to distance learning in commercial vehicle operator training is that it can go where the drivers are. Instead of forcing drivers to assemble in some centralized location, the drivers can receive the instruction at their own rates and when it is convenient for them. CBI is popular among users, although its contribution to traffic safety has not been systematically studied. One com- pany has provided more than 500,000 hours of training using both CD-ROM-based and web-based training since 2001 (Voorhees 2006). The survey data, presented in the next chapter shows that a few carriers and schools are rely- ing on CBI more and more, but most of the commercial driver training programs remain conventional, in-the-classroom programs. Some commercially available driver training CBI, whether for commercial drivers or the general public, target specific aspects of vehicle operation (e.g., risk recognition and com- pensation, defensive driving). Others provide either complete instructional packages (e.g., CDL in a box), or computer- based products that integrate into a complete training course. According to Staplin et al., UPS states that its CD-ROM- and web-based training programs are much more efficient and yield better results than paper manuals. Smithway Motor Xpress uses a computer-based training program to teach load securement procedures and reports training costs decrease from $1,000 per driver to $150 per driver. Most of the cost savings result from a reduction in the time it takes drivers to learn the material. 17

Ryder Truck (2000) describes a computer program that delivers 32 1-hour lessons on trucking fundamentals based on the PTDI curriculum. Lessons are delivered via a high- speed internet connection to the students, rather than having the students travel to a single location. Thompson (1996) describes a CD-ROM training program implemented by Frito-Lay to train drivers about U.S. DOT regulations, focus- ing on alcohol and drug requirements. CD-ROMs and PCs have been placed in 40 company locations throughout the United States. This review found driver training CBI courses being offered by insurance companies, for-profit training schools, not-for- profit associations and organizations, and the U.S. military. In Europe, much the same thing was found, with somewhat more government involvement. What was not found was spe- cific safety or performance data showing a causal relationship between CBI and traffic safety. However, a few carriers are measuring the effectiveness of advanced technology training that includes both CBI and simulator-based training, which is discussed in the next section. Schneider National in Green Bay, Wisconsin, has recently implemented an innovative and technology-based training program for entry-level commercial drivers. The training course included traditional classroom instruction, CBI, simu- lation, BTW training, and reading assignments as homework. Since the new program was put into effect, Schneider is reporting that the graduation rate has increased from 75% to 81%, average time to going on the job decreased by 38%, and 0-to-90 day accident rate decreased from 31% to 10%. Schneider also estimates that for each 1-day reduction in training time, it saved $7,000,000 annually. 3.7 Instructional Technology in Commercial Driver Training— Simulator-Based Training Data regarding the effectiveness of simulator training for truck drivers is better documented than that for CBI. In their review of practices in the European Union and North America, Horn and Tardif state that truck driver training has generally remained low tech, with the majority of training done using traditional methods of teaching. Although train- ing simulators are appearing in some schools, they will remain the exception for years to come because the trucking indus- try and the private training schools do not have the money to pay for these tools. However, where there are simulators, there is good record keeping establishing the value of such costly devices. Pierowicz et al. (2002) evaluated the adequacy of six sim- ulators for use in a three-part study to determine whether simulator-based training can enhance training effectiveness and improve the performance of tractor-trailer drivers, com- pared with conventional training methods. The bulk of the Pierowicz et al. report describes the functionality of the six simulators and their adequacy for use in three upcoming validation studies. The simulators were evaluated on 183 fac- tors to determine their adequacy in supporting the research design of the three study phases. Regarding the use of driving simulators for training driv- ers, Brock et al. (2001) conducted a literature review, sur- veys, and site visits for TCRP Report 72. They concluded that transit bus operator training can be improved with selective use of transit bus simulators. They also noted that a critical feature in the success of simulator training programs is the competence and enthusiasm of the instructional staff. The Brock et al. (2001) report discussed three current appli- cations of simulator technology: (1) an open-loop video sim- ulator, (2) a low-end simulator, and (3) a so-called mid-range simulator. All three simulators are used to train new drivers; they are also often used to retrain more experienced drivers. However, each device trains a subset of the skills required by drivers of transit buses, but none trains them all. Table 5 de- scribes these three levels of simulation; Table 6 shows how the levels of simulation can train the various components of the driving task. Brock et al. (2001) note that the use of simulation decreased trainee drop-out rates by 35% for an agency using the mid- level simulator, decreased student failure rates by 50% in an agency that uses the open-loop and the low-end simulators, and decreased the collision rate by 10% in an agency using a combination of open-loop and low-end simulators. In addi- tion, the use of simulation reduced training time in one agency from 19 days to 17 days by replacing classroom bus training with simulator training. In another agency, using just the open-loop system, training time was reduced by 5 days when simulation was employed. The only agency surveyed that used the mid-range sim- ulator reported that, 90 days after training, 32% of their conventionally trained drivers had experienced a crash, compared with 18% of their simulator trained drivers. In this agency, simulator training in tasks related to overtak- ing and being overtaken by vehicles on the left and right sides of the bus resulted in fewer crashes by the students perform- ing these maneuvers in the real world (17 crashes by the simulator-trained students compared with 154 crashes for the non-simulator-trained students). The transit agencies surveyed by Brock et al. (2001) reported that simulators are also able to replace some of the hours spent in the actual vehicle. This can have a significant impact on training costs, as simulator costs can run as low as $3 per hour per student versus $40 per hour per student for in-vehicle training. Results of a survey of bus operator trainers conducted by Brock et al. (2001) indicate a high level of satisfaction with their training simulators. Fifty- 18

eight percent of the respondents indicated that simula- tor training is more effective than traditional training for teaching certain types of knowledge, skills, or attitudes. In particular, simulator training validates defensive driving techniques taught in the classroom, provides an opportu- nity to experience hazardous situations without putting the students or the bus at risk, reinforces proper driving habits and defensive driving principles, and allows instructors to check reaction time, eye-hand coordination, and driving skills. Instructors indicated that trainees with little or no expe- rience were better prepared for their initial driving assign- ment. Seventy-five percent of the drivers surveyed reported that their bus simulation training enhanced their learning experience, although 6 of the 51 respondents reported motion sickness, dizziness, and disorientation after bus simulation training. Staplin et al. report on a high-end simulator application for CMV driver training. It is a $1 million system purchased by the Texas Motor Transportation Association. This system is used to allow experienced truck drivers to safely experi- ence dangerous situations such as a veering car, a tire blowout, or dense fog. The full-motion simulator is built into a 53-ft trailer and uses an authentic truck cab that moves in response to a driver’s inputs when viewing driving scenarios on a large screen. The trailer also contains a small classroom with six computers that provide interactive lessons on topics such as space management and securing loads. The association will rent the unit to carriers for $1,000 per day. No data regarding the effectiveness of this training tool was found for this review. Throughout Europe, driving simulators are becoming an important enhancement for cost-effective, safe driver train- ing (Hartman et al.). They are cost-effective because they allow year round training and cost less than BTW training. Hartman et al. do observe that “because simulators cannot capture real-life terrain and vehicle dynamics, the optimal 19 Level 1: Open-Loop Video The most popular method of driver training delivery in use in transit agencies. It uses open-loop video to display traffic and other instructional information. It consists of several student stations, each with a steering wheel, gas and brake pedals, and a rudimentary dashboard. This device is characterized as an “open-loop” system because it is non-interactive. Although each station is equipped with a steering wheel, gas pedal, and brake pedal, the student’s engagement of any of these controls will not produce any appreciable effect on the video display. The system, as designed, trains and tests very specific bus operator activities (e.g., reaction time and visual recognition). Stopping distances, road conditions, the relationship of speed to both, and the role of reaction time can be shown and then practiced. Because the instructor station for the system measures performance in each learning station, the instructors can monitor and identify students who are not correctly responding as the scenarios play out. Level 2: Low-End Simulator The second method of driver training delivery is a model-board system. In this low-end simulation, a miniature camera is installed in a small model of a bus that physically moves about on a small terrain board in an adjoining room. This system replicates the visual, auditory, and vibratory effects of driving a bus in an urban, crowded environment to train student operators to maneuver a transit bus in relatively tight situations. The system demonstrates basic maneuvering of transit buses in typical urban areas. Such skills as approaching a bus stop, parking, tight turns, and backing can be taught to a single student without risk of damage to either an actual bus or to platforms, other vehicles, or pedestrians. Level 3: Mid-Range Simulator The third driver training delivery method is a mid-range simulator that uses realistic audio and video; including rear projection, to deliver a fuller replication of the driving experience. A larger field-of-view (FOV), on the order of 180 degrees forward, a vertical FOV of at least 45 degrees, and 60 degrees to the rear, distinguishes this simulator from the low-end simulator. Additionally, a more sophisticated vehicle model is provided, along with more complex environmental effects (weather, day-night, and road friction), and motion cues to replicate the look and feel of the outside world as seen by a driver looking out the windows of a bus cabin. One of the very strong features of this device is the fact that the mirrors in the simulated cab are actual mirrors; they can be physically manipulated to reflect the imagery that is projected behind the simulator cab. The visual imagery for this system was developed for the specific driving environment of the transit buses for which the operators are being trained. Therefore, the device provides high fidelity simulation of actual driving situations that trainees are likely to encounter on completion of the training program. (Source: Brock, Jacobs, and Buchter 2001) Table 5. Levels of transit bus operator simulators.

20 Open-Loop Low-End Simulation Mid-Range Simulation Throughput/Session 8 1 1 Simulated Vehicle Environment ✓ ✓ ✓ Interactivity ✓ ✓ High Task Fidelity ✓ Model Terrain Board ✓ Realistic Audio/Visual Systems ✓ Instructor Console ✓ ✓ Realistic Gauges and Instruments ✓ ✓ ✓ Performance Measurement Tools ✓ ✓ ✓ Full Visual Replication of Driving Scene ✓ Fully Functional Traffic Signals ✓ Virtual Driving World Encompassing 50 Square Miles ✓ Intelligent Traffic ✓ Real Mirrors ✓ Skill-Based Training ✓ ✓ ✓ Rule-Based Training ✓ ✓ Knowledge-Based Training ✓ (Source: Brock, Jacobs, and McCauley 2001) Table 6. Operational capabilities matrix. METHOD TRAINING TIME PERCENTAGE OF COURSE Classroom 45 Hours 35% Truck 53 Hours 43% Behind-the-wheel 41 Hours 33% Observing 12 Hours 10% Simulation 13 Hours 11% Behind-the-wheel 7 Hours 6% Observing 6 Hours 5% Lab at the truck (hands on) 13 Hours 11% (Source: Schneider International) Table 7. Basic training methods. blend of simulator/computer/behind-the-wheel training needs has not yet been determined.” (p.5) First-year deployment of the AFT-IFTIM’s driver simula- tor yielded impressive results. Reports indicate both time- saving and training effectiveness. Most notable was enhanced maneuvering training. AFT-IFTIM considers 1 hour on the simulator and 4 hours BTW to be more effective than 8 hours BTW. (Hartman et al.) Driving simulators are also being extensively used in research settings, often with interesting and relevant exper- imental results. For instance, Strayer and Drews (2005) found that drivers who spent 2 hours in a simulator learn- ing to shift to maximize fuel efficiency were “assessed over a 6-month interval using measures of fuel consumption obtained by drivers in their own vehicles driving their nor- mal route. Training increased fuel efficiency by an aver- age of 2.8% over the six-month interval.” (p.190) These findings held steady even for those drivers who drove vehi- cles not specifically simulated in the training sessions, sug- gesting that simulators can be used to teach general driving skills. In the Schneider data, the instructional staff believes that dramatic accident reduction and course completion can be primarily attributed to the use of simulation in the training program. Table 7 shows the ratio of various training methods to each other in the Schneider program. It seems clear from reviewing the simulation literature and the current industry use of simulators that the real pay- off from simulation technology is in the larger context of a particular training program. The senior author observed the

use of simulators at New York and New Jersey transit train- ing facilities. The two agencies actually use quite different simulators. However, both agencies also report data sup- porting the use of simulation technology to reduce acci- dents and enhance the training experience (Brock, Jacobs, and McCauley 2001). The key similarities of the two training programs were enthusiasm of the instructors, management support of sim- ulator costs, and careful mentoring of each student as he or she cycles through the training program. Also, each train- ing program capitalized on the specific capabilities of the individual device. 3.8 Training Effectiveness Do Current Training Practices Work? Certainly, this is one of the fundamental questions the research team set out to answer. Persons familiar with the motor carrier, motorcoach, transit, and school bus communities will not be surprised to learn that the answer is “yes” when opinions are sought, but only “maybe” when hard data are needed. The findings of the survey are presented in Chapter 4, but one question the team asked was, Do you have any data that indicates that driver training works? None reported data on the general benefit of training. A few had data on specific interventions (e.g., simulation), but it was limited and far too specific to draw any general conclusions. Ironically, the most common response to the question was, No, but could you send us some? Is the CDL Enough? The only current U.S. measurement of driver proficiency is the CDL. Applicants for that license do not have to have completed any formal training; they sim- ply have to pass all components of the test (knowledge, vehi- cle inspection, basic skills, and road test). The CDL test is a necessary step in becoming a professional driver; however, it is unlikely that it is a sufficient one. Like most tests, the CDL test uses a sampling technique to measure each applicant. Questions on the general knowl- edge test, the endorsement tests, and the air brake test are ran- domly drawn from a pool of more than 300 questions (Essex Corporation; Brock, Golembiewski, McFann, Robinson, and Lewis 2005). The vehicle inspection test also follows a sam- pling model; applicants are randomly assigned to one of four (for tractor trailers) or three (for straight trucks and buses) test conditions. The basic skills test tries to measure basic maneuvering skills, but is limited by both the avail- able time and geographic restrictions of the testing facility. The road test, while attempting to provide as many real- world situations as possible, is usually 30 to 40 minutes long, is dependent on the traffic and weather conditions occur- ring during the test, and is restricted to the vicinity of the test site. (Brock et al. 2005) Current Measurement Techniques. In the surveys, the most often used standard reported for the measurement of training effectiveness was CDL test pass rate. If significant numbers of students (more than 70%) were receiving their CDL, the schools were seen as successful. For schools, another measure of success was the number of graduates hired for driv- ing positions. Carriers had some general sense of improved safety performance resulting from training, but firm data were in short supply. Using the language of the Kirkpatrick model presented in Chapter 2, every training organization surveyed reported mea- suring reaction (student opinions of the training) and learning (student test performance in the course). However, behavior (on-the-job) measures tended to be reflected in the CDL test pass rates and percentage of graduates hired into commercial driving jobs. Other than a general belief that training has a positive effect on the cost of operations, the surveys revealed no instance of impact measures. What Needs to Be Measured? The ultimate question about commercial driver training is, Does it reduce com- mercial vehicle crashes? Industry also would like to see more data on the effects of training on the costs of opera- tions, maintenance, and driver turnover. Once a chain of causation can be linked between driver on-the-job per- formance, organizational safety improvement, cost reduc- tions, and training, a set of standards can be derived for appropriate measures of training effectiveness at various links on that chain. For instance, measures of student performance in the course are essential. The ISD model, if it were followed, would provide a set of training tasks that each student would have to perform before he or she could be considered a graduate of a training program. But then what happens? The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety has recently sponsored a research program on evaluating driver education programs (Lonero and Clinton 2006). Although specifically aimed at evaluating driver training programs for young drivers, much of the report’s content can apply to evaluating commercial driver training programs as well. Table 8 shows the various events and activities that can act as targets to provide evalua- tion of a commercial driver training program, as well as the novice driver education program specifically addressed in the report. Two other documents (Clinton and Lonero 2006a, Clinton and Lonero 2006b), providing guidelines and a how-to manual for conducting driver education, have been published. These documents provide a sound basis for devel- oping tools, methodologies, and procedures for evaluating 21

22 Evaluation Types Program Areas General Evaluation Targets Regulatory environment Program context Contractual environment Quality management and control Marketing Business processes Customer service Benchmarking and certification Program standards Transferability of the program Curriculum materials Instructional products Tests and measurement Instructor preparation Curriculum delivery; in-car practice Formative Evaluation Instructional processes Instructional facilities Knowledge outcomes Skill outcomes Motivation outcomes Mobility outcomes Student outcomes Behavioral outcomes Crash reduction impacts Injury reduction impacts Summative Evaluation Social impacts Socioeconomic impacts Meta-evaluation Evaluation quality Evaluation effectiveness (Source: Lonero and Clinton 2006, p. 50) Table 8. Driver education evaluation targets. commercial driver training programs as well as novice driver training programs. Final Comments on the Literature Review. Although the literature review produced instances of driving improve- ment linked specifically to training interventions (e.g., sim- ulators), there are no general data linking decreased accident rates to formal training programs. The two primary reasons for this are (1) training, as a concept, is not well nor oper- ationally defined and (2) there are no generally agreed upon standards by which various training programs can be compared. A third problem is the likelihood that most training effects are realized in the first 6 months of a driver being on the road.

Next: Chapter 4 - Survey Procedures and Results »
Effectiveness of Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Training Curricula and Delivery Methods Get This Book
×
 Effectiveness of Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Training Curricula and Delivery Methods
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program (CTBSSP) Synthesis 13: Effectiveness of Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Training Curricula and Delivery Methods explores the state of commercial motor vehicle (CMV) operator training in the trucking and motorcoach industries. The report examines the experiences of training programs that are using some combination of simulators and computer-based instruction and identifies measures of training effectiveness being used in the CMV community.

READ FREE ONLINE

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!