STRENGTH IN NUMBERS… Fleet Safety Benchmarking Collaborating to Reduce Crashes, Injuries, and Fatalities Jack Hanley Executive Director Network of Employers

STRENGTH IN NUMBERS…STRENGTH IN NUMBERS…

Fleet Safety Benchmarking

Collaborating to Reduce Crashes, Injuries, and Fatalities

Jack HanleyExecutive DirectorNetwork of Employersfor Traffic Safety (NETS)

International Conference onRoad Safety at Work

Washington, D.C.February 17, 2009

Contents


1

Background and mission………………………2 Profile of participating companies…………….3 Benchmark objectives………………………….4 Business case…………………………………..5 Scope…………………………………………….6 Types of drivers and types of vehicles……….7 Metrics and Program Elements……………….9 Best practices summary................................11 CPMM, Program Elements results................12 Critical success factors..................................23 Statistical analyses........................................24 Summary and conclusions............................25


Fleet Safety Benchmarking

Started in 1994 Mostly big pharma in early years Funded by J&J through 2006 Funded by Monsanto Co. 2007

2008 Under auspices of Network of Employers for Traffic Safety Collect global and by-country benchmark data

Mission is to reduce crashes, injuries, fatalities among member companies and to model safe driving in the communities where member companies operate

2

Profile of Participating Companies Pharma Ag Automotive Beverage Chemical Consumer Delivery/Logistics mgmt Insurance Medical Manufacturing Oil Service

28 Companies

249,000 Total Vehicles

6 Billion Total Miles Driven

104 Countries

Anonymity is maintained


3


Benchmark Objectives Improve the vehicle safety record of participating companies

Establish common definitions to permit cross-comparisons

Be a vehicle safety role model to other companies and organizations

Share best practices among participants

Provide a network to assess and resolve vehicle safety-related concerns/issues

Provide a network to assess the benefits of emerging vehicle technologies

Provide resources to assist companies wanting to develop a road safety program

Share best practices to put in place a cost effective, integrated, and comprehensive vehicle safety program

4

Justification/Business Case


eco3eco3 ecoeconomic cost of crashes ecoeconomic cost of poor driving habits ecoecological cost to the environment

5

Benchmark Scope1. Metrics

By country

2. Program Elements By country/world area

Light Vehicles Sedans, SUVs, Pick-up Trucks,

Mini-vans Medium (10,000-25,999 lbs.) Heavy (>26,000 lbs) 2 and 3-wheeled motorized

STRENGTH IN NUMBERSSTRENGTH IN NUMBERS……

6


Categories of Drivers Covered by Survey

Written policy in place by region%

US (22)

% M/C (13)

% EMEA (14)

% AP (12)

% LA/CA

(12)

Employees driving a company vehicle100% 92% 93% 92% 92%

Employees driving personal/rental on business 86% 77% 79% 83% 83%

Family members driving a company vehicle 73% 46% 43% 42% 42%

Contractors driving on company business 50% 46% 43% 50% 50%

Passengers45% 62% 57% 67% 67%

7

Written policy in place by region

% US (22)

% M/C (13)

%EMEA

(14)

% AP (12)

%LA/CA (12)

Light vehicles100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Medium vehicles68% 77% 71% 75% 75%

Heavy vehicles50% 54% 50% 50% 50%

2/3-wheel vehicles36% 62% 57% 58% 58%


Types of Vehicles Covered by Survey

8

Metrics CollisionsCollisions

46,734 Total Composite: 8.34 CPMM Range : 0.48-16.89 CPMM

Injuries Injuries 1,334 Total Composite: 0.25 IPMM Range : 0.0-1.48 IPMM

FatalitiesFatalities 9 Total

% of Fleet in Crash% of Fleet in Crash Composite: 20% Range : 1-31%


9

Policies

High risk drivers

Collision review process

Driver education/training

Commentary Drives

Crash review process

Deductible charge policy

Use of technology

Vehicle safety features

Metrics reporting process

Severity indices

Vehicle safety communication

Vehicle safety outreach programs

Green fleet initiatives

Vehicle safety critical success factors

Telemetrics and telematics


Benchmark Program Elements

Statistical analysis is done to determine which Program Elements correlate to lowest CPMMs

10

Universal Practice Seatbelts

Best Practices (Statistically significant)1. Complete mobile phone ban by ALL LEADING companies2. Collision reviews required by ALL LEADING companies

Additional commonalities from 5 leading companies Seat belts and air bags Training for tenured drivers Classroom format used Immediate manager involved Follow-up action required Lessons learned shared Mgmt meeting presentations

Best Practices(Based on lowest CPMMs)


11

Country Fleet% GT

Fleets Collisions% GT

Collisions

United States 114,558 48% 20,411 44%

France 8,798 4% 2,532 5%

Japan 8,429 4% 1,759 5%

Germany 7,738 3% 2,096 4%

Italy 7.433 3% 2,213 5%

Mexico 6,921 3% 1,985 4%

United Kingdom 6,304 3% 1,343 3%

Spain 5,040 2% 1,455 3%

Brazil 4,995 2% 341 1%

Canada 4,603 2% 717 2%

Russia 4,017 2% 984 2%

Total SIN Fleet 238,466 46,734 20%


Fleet Size and Collision Frequency

12


2007 CPMM by Company2007 CPMMs by Company

(Passenger Vehicles)

1.07

2.38

2.38

2.65

3.33

4.16

4.48

5.32

6.40

6.54

7.37

8.85

9.53

9.98

10.06

10.15

10.66

10.84

11.10

11.51

11.64

12.22

14.03

15.98

16.46

16.89

0.48

8.34

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00

Co. 1

Co. 2

Co. 3

Co. 4

Co. 5

Co. 6

Co. 7

Co. 8

Co. 9

Co. 10

Co. 11

Co. 12

Co. 13

Co. 14

Co. 15

Co. 16

Co. 17

Co. 18

Co. 19

Co. 20

Co. 21

Co. 22

Co. 23

Co. 24

Co. 25

Co. 26

Co. 27

Composite

Co

mp

an

y

APMM

7

APMM Range: 0.48 to 16.89

27 companies Company numbers assigned by APMM

Based on passenger-vehicle data

13


2007 CPMM by Country

14

2007 APMMs by Country(Passenger Vehicles)

6.82

14.28

11.42

15.83

14.95

13.51

13.69

14.24

11.21

7.46

3.59

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00

BRAZIL

CANADA

FRANCE

GERMANY

ITALY

JAPAN

MEXICO

RUSSIA

SPAIN

UNITED KINGDOM

UNITED STATES

Co

un

try

APMM

2007 APMMs by World Region(Passenger Vehicles)

7.46

5.29

11.96

9.63

10.57

8.34

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00

US

CA/LA

EMEA

AP

CAN/MEX

COMPOSITE

Reg

ion

APMM


CPMM by World Region

15

Policies in place%US(26)

% M/C(15)

%EMEA

(15)

% AP (13)

%LA/CA

(13)

Driver training for new hires 69% 80% 80% 77% 77%

Driver training for tenured drivers 92% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Commentary drives 58% 60% 67% 62% 62%

Collision reviews, for on-the-job collision 85% 80% 73% 77% 77%

Collision reviews, for off-the-job collision

42% 27% 13% 15% 15%

Periodic motor vehicle record checks 88% 67% 60% 54% 54%

Remedial action for high risk drivers 81% 80% 73% 69% 69%

Deny employment based on high risk records 69% 40% 33% 23% 23%

Termination for DUI/DWI conviction 88% 67% 67% 62% 62%

Restrict or ban phone/telematic use 88% 87% 87% 85% 85%


Fleet Safety Policies

16

Written policy in place%

US (26)

% M/C (15)

% EMEA

(15)

% AP(13)

% LA/CA

(13)

Yes 85% 87% 93% 92% 92%

Mobile Phone Policy


17

Written policy in place by region

% US (22)

% M/C (13)

% EMEA

(14)

% AP (12)

% LA/CA

(12)

Ban the use of any type of mobile phone equipment unless vehicle is stopped and parked 41% 31% 29% 33% 33%

Permit the use of hands-free mobile phone equipment while driving 59% 69% 71% 67% 67%

Ban vs. Permit Hands-free


18

Reasons for not banning phones% Companies

(13)

Management hasn't been asked to ban all phone use

8%

Management is not aware of the research8%

A ban would be too difficult to enforce85%

A ban is unrealistic; mobile phones are a fact of life

77%

Reasons for Not Banning Mobile Phones


19

Check phone records after collision

% US (22)

% M/C (13)

% EMEA

(14)

% AP (12)

% LA/CA

(12)

Yes, all collisions 9% 8% 7% 8% 8%

Yes, but only for injuries 5% 8% 7% 8% 8%

Yes, but only for serious or fatal injuries

32% 38% 36% 42% 42%

Phone Records for Collisions


20

Data reported to%

US (26)

% M/C (15)

% EMEA

(15)

% AP (13)

% LA/CA

(13)

Fleet management 81% 67% 53% 62% 62%

Field management 73% 67% 67% 69% 62%

Drivers 46% 33% 27% 23% 23%

Senior management92% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Safety staff 85% 93% 93% 92% 92%

Severity index in place

% US (26)

% M/C (15)

% EMEA

(15)

% AP (13)

% LA/CA

(13)

Yes 15% 27% 27% 31% 31%

Reporting and Severity


21

Green fleet program in place% US

(26)

% M/C (15)

% EMEA

(15)

% AP (13)

% LA/CA

(13)

Yes 42% 47% 53% 54% 54%

If yes above, program components include:

% US (11)

% M/C

(7)

% EMEA

(8)

% AP (7)

% LA/CA

(7)

Evaluate/quantify greenhouse gas emissions 91% 100% 88% 86% 86%

Set reduction goals 64% 71% 63% 57% 57%

Educate drivers 73% 43% 38% 29% 29%

Limit the use of 4x4s and SUVs 64% 29% 25% 14% 14%

Add greener vehicles to fleet options 82% 71% 75% 57% 57%

Vehicle upgrades for choosing green fleet vehicles 45% 14% 13% 0% 0%

Cash incentives for choosing green fleet vehicles 18% 29% 25% 29% 29%

Purchase greenhouse gas credits 9% 0% 0% 0% 0%


Green Fleet Programs

22

Choose one # of CompaniesSenior management support 16

Field management support 5

Driver training 3

Strong policies 1

High risk program 1

Use of metrics to set goals 1

Incentives 0


Critical Success Factors ( Fleet Safety Manager Opinions)

23

Statistical Analyses Results


Based on the 2006 and 2007 data years, the following correlate best with low CPMMs…

Frequent measuring of CPPM Reporting of serious crashes to senior management Frequent training of company driversTotal cell phone use ban

Note: There is no correlation between fleet size and CPMM

24


Summary and Conclusions

STRENGTH IN NUMBERSSTRENGTH IN NUMBERS Benchmark Program Administered by Network of Employers for Traffic Safety Annual survey Global membership Comprehensive

Metrics and Program Elements Low cost/high return For all fleet sizes, public and private organizations Engages People, Processes, and Technology Includes 2 newsletters

Annual post-benchmark best practices conference

For information on participating in NETS’ STRENGTH IN NUMBERSSTRENGTH IN NUMBERS

Benchmark program, please email [email protected]

QUESTIONS? 25

Documents

STRENGTH IN NUMBERS… Fleet Safety Benchmarking Collaborating to Reduce Crashes, Injuries, and Fatalities Jack Hanley Executive Director Network of Employers