Evaluation of an in-vehicle monitoring system (IVMS) to reduce risky driving behaviors in commercial drivers: Comparison of in-cab warning lights and supervisory coaching with videos of driving behavior

Abstract

Problem: Roadway incidents are the leading cause of work-related death in the United States.

Methods: The objective of this research was to evaluate whether two types of feedback from a commercially available in-vehicle monitoring system (IVMS) would reduce the incidence of risky driving behaviors in drivers from two companies. IVMS were installed in 315 vehicles representing the industries of local truck transportation and oil and gas support operations, and data were collected over an approximate two-year period in intervention and control groups. In one period, intervention group drivers were given feedback from in-cab warning lights from an IVMS that indicated occurrence of harsh vehicle maneuvers. In another period, intervention group drivers viewed video recordings of their risky driving behaviors with supervisors, and were coached by supervisors on safe driving practices.

Results: Risky driving behaviors declined significantly more during the period with coaching plus instant feedback with lights in comparison to the period with lights-only feedback (ORadj=0.61 95% CI 0.43-0.86; Holm-adjusted p=0.035) and the control group (ORadj=0.52 95% CI 0.33-0.82; Holm-adjusted p=0.032). Lights-only feedback was not found to be significantly different than the control group's decline from baseline (ORadj=0.86 95% CI 0.51-1.43; Holm-adjusted p>0.05).

Conclusions: The largest decline in the rate of risky driving behaviors occurred when feedback included both supervisory coaching and lights.

Practical applications: Supervisory coaching is an effective form of feedback to improve driving habits in the workplace. The potential advantages and limitations of this IVMS-based intervention program are discussed.

Keywords: Driving; In-vehicle monitoring system; Injury; Motor vehicle; Occupational safety.

Fig. 1

Timeline and study design, showing three groups (Intervention Group 1, Intervention Group 2, Control Group 3) and 4 study periods replicated in 2 industries.

Fig. 2

Proportion of constant-threshold triggered video events showing risky driving behaviors (severity 3 or 4) for the Intervention Group (Intervention Group 1 and Intervention Group 2, combined) and Control Group 3, and period, groupings for statistical contrast estimates. The IDF-only period includes data from Intervention Group 1 only, where IDF-only feedback

Fig. 3

Proportion of constant-threshold triggered video events showing driving unbelted for the Intervention Group (Intervention Group 1 and Intervention Group 2, combined) and Control Group 3, and period, groupings for statistical contrast estimates. The IDF-only period includes data from Intervention Group 1 only, where IDF-only feedback was presented as the first type of feedback.