an investigation into how work-related road safety … · safety is the top priority; and...

AN INVESTIGATION INTO HOW

WORK-RELATED ROAD SAFETY CAN BE ENHANCED

Tamara Dee Banks

BPsych (Hons), MOrgPsych.

A thesis submitted as fulfillment for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Queensland University of Technology

Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety – Queensland (CARRS-Q)

Brisbane, Australia

December 2008

i

Key Words

Work-related road safety, fleet safety, occupational road safety, workplace

health and safety, initiatives, interventions, stages of change, transtheoretical model,

fleet safety climate, safety ownership, change facilitators, change barriers.

iii

Abstract

Despite the facts that vehicle incidents continue to be the most common

mechanism for Australian compensated fatalities and that employers have statutory

obligations to provide safe workplaces, very few organisations are proactively and

comprehensively managing their work-related road risks. Unfortunately, limited

guidance is provided in the existing literature to assist practitioners in managing

work-related road risks. The current research addresses this gap in the literature. To

explore how work-related road safety can be enhanced, three studies were conducted.

Study one explored the effectiveness of a range of risk management

initiatives and whether comprehensive risk management practices were associated

with safety outcomes. Study two explored barriers to, and facilitators for, accepting

risk management initiatives. Study three explored the influence of organisational

factors on road safety outcomes to identify optimal work environments for managing

road risks.

To maximise the research sample and increase generalisability, the studies

were designed to allow data collection to be conducted simultaneously drawing upon

the same sample obtained from four Australian organisations. Data was collected via

four methods. A structured document review of published articles was conducted to

identify what outcomes have been observed in previously investigated work-related

road safety initiatives. The documents reviewed collectively assessed the

effectiveness of 19 work-related road safety initiatives. Audits of organisational

practices and process operating within the four researched organisations were

conducted to identify whether organisations with comprehensive work-related road

risk management practices and processes have better safety outcomes than

organisations with limited risk management practices and processes. Interviews were

conducted with a sample of 24 participants, comprising 16 employees and eight

managers. The interviews were conducted to identify what barriers and facilitators

iv

within organisations are involved in implementing work-related road safety

initiatives and whether differences in fleet safety climate, stage of change and safety

ownership relate to work-related road safety outcomes. Finally, questionnaires were

administered to a sample of 679 participants. The questionnaires were conducted to

identify which initiatives are perceived by employees to be effective in managing

work-related road risks and whether differences in fleet safety climate, stage of

change and safety ownership relate to work-related road safety outcomes.

Seven research questions were addressed in the current research project. The

key findings with respect to each of the research questions are presented below.

Research question one: What outcomes have been observed in previously

investigated work-related road safety initiatives? The structured document review

indicated that initiatives found to be positively associated with occupational road

safety both during and after the intervention period included: a pay rise; driver

training; group discussions; enlisting employees as community road safety change

agents; safety reminders; and group and individual rewards.

Research question two: Which initiatives are perceived by employees to be

effective in managing work-related road risks? Questionnaire findings revealed that

employees believed occupational road risks could best be managed through making

vehicle safety features standard, providing practical driver skills training and through

investigating serious vehicle incidents. In comparison, employees believed initiatives

including signing a promise card commitment to drive safely, advertising the

organisation’s phone number on vehicles and consideration of driving competency in

staff selection process would have limited effectiveness in managing occupational

road safety.

Research question three: Do organisations with comprehensive work-related

road risk management practices and processes have better safety outcomes than

v

organisations with limited risk management practices and processes? The audit

identified a difference among the organisations in their management of work-related

road risks. Comprehensive risk management practices were associated with

employees engaging in overall safer driving behaviours, committing less driving

errors, and experiencing less fatigue and distraction issues when driving. Given that

only four organisations participated in this research, these findings should only be

considered as preliminary. Further research should be conducted to explore the

relationship between comprehensiveness of risk management practices and road

safety outcomes with a larger sample of organisations.

Research question four: What barriers and facilitators within organisations

are involved in implementing work-related road safety initiatives? The interviews

identified that employees perceived six organisational characteristics as potential

barriers to implementing work-related road safety initiatives. These included:

prioritisation of production over safety; complacency towards work-related road

risks; insufficient resources; diversity; limited employee input in safety decisions;

and a perception that road safety initiatives were an unnecessary burden. In

comparison, employees perceived three organisational characteristics as potential

facilitators to implementing work-related road safety initiatives. These included:

management commitment; the presence of existing systems that could support the

implementation of initiatives; and supportive relationships.

Research question five: Do differences in fleet safety climate relate to work-

related road safety outcomes? The interviews and questionnaires identified that

organisational climates with high management commitment, support for managing

work demands, appropriate safety rules and safety communication were associated

with employees who engaged in safer driving behaviours. Regression analyses

indicated that as participants’ perceptions of safety climate increased, the

corresponding likelihood of them engaging in safer driving behaviours increased.

Fleet safety climate was perceived to influence road safety outcomes through several

vi

avenues. Some of these included: the allocation of sufficient resources to manage

occupational road risks; fostering a supportive environment of mutual responsibility;

resolving safety issues openly and fairly; clearly communicating to employees that

safety is the top priority; and developing appropriate work-related road safety

policies and procedures.

Research question six: Do differences in stage of change relate to work-related

road safety outcomes? The interviews and questionnaires identified that participants’

perceptions of initiative effectiveness were found to vary with respect to their

individual stage of readiness, with stage-matched initiatives being perceived most

effective. In regards to safety outcomes, regression analyses identified that as

participants’ progress through the stages of change, the corresponding likelihood of

them being involved in vehicle crashes decreases.

Research question seven: Do differences in safety ownership relate to work-

related road safety outcomes? The interviews and questionnaires revealed that

management of road risks is often given less attention than other areas of health and

safety management in organisations. In regards to safety outcomes, regression

analyses identified that perceived authority and perceived shared ownership both

emerged as significant independent predictors of self-reported driving behaviours

pertaining to fatigue and distractions. The regression models indicated that as

participants’ perceptions of the authority of the person managing road risks

increases, and perceptions of shared ownership of safety tasks increases, the

corresponding likelihood of them engaging in driving while fatigued or multitasking

while driving decreases.

Based on the findings from the current research, the author makes several

recommendations to assist practitioners in developing proactive and comprehensive

approaches to managing occupational road risks. The author also suggests several

avenues for future research in the area of work-related road safety.

vii

Table of Contents

Key Words .................................................................................................................... i

Abstract ....................................................................................................................... iii

Table of Contents ....................................................................................................... vii

List of Figures ........................................................................................................... xiii

List of Tables ............................................................................................................. xv

List of Abbreviations .............................................................................................. xviii

Statement of Original Authorship .............................................................................. xx

Acknowledgments ..................................................................................................... xxi

Chapter 1: Program of Research Background ....................................................... 2

1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 2

1.2 Key Research Terms ........................................................................................... 3

1.3 Project background ............................................................................................. 4

1.4 Project aims and studies ..................................................................................... 9

1.4.1 Study one – Road safety initiatives ....................................................... 10

1.4.2 Study two – Work-related road safety barriers and facilitators ............ 12

1.4.3 Study three – Organisational factors ..................................................... 13

1.5 Thesis outline .................................................................................................... 17

Chapter 2: Study one – Road safety initiatives .................................................... 21

2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 21

2.2 Study background ............................................................................................. 21

2.3 Method and results ............................................................................................ 24

2.3.1 Document review of work-related road safety initiative articles ...... 27

2.3.1.1 Description of reviewed articles ........................................................ 30

2.3.1.2 Results pertaining to research question one – What outcomes have

been observed in previously investigated work-related road safety

initiatives? .......................................................................................... 31

viii

2.3.2 Questionnaire on work-related road safety ........................................ 40

2.3.2.1 Participant recruitment and demographics ......................................... 40

2.3.2.2 Content ............................................................................................... 47

2.3.2.3 Procedure ........................................................................................... 51

2.3.2.4 Results pertaining to research question two – Which initiatives are

perceived by employees to be effective in managing work-related

road risks? … .................................................................................... 54

2.3.3 Audit of work-related road safety practices and processes ................ 57

2.3.3.1 Procedure ........................................................................................... 58

2.3.3.2 Results pertaining to research question three - Do organisations with

comprehensive work-related road risk management practices and

processes have better safety outcomes than organisations with

limited risk management practices and processes? ............................ 60

2.4 Discussion ......................................................................................................... 61

2.4.1 Research question one – What outcomes have been observed in

previously investigated work-related road safety initiatives? ........... 71

2.4.2 Research question two – Which initiatives are perceived by

employees to be effective in managing work-related road risks? ...... 72

2.4.3 Research question three – Do organisations with comprehensive

work-related road risk management practices and processes have

better safety outcomes than organisations with limited risk

management practices and processes? ............................................... 74

2.4.4 Future research ................................................................................... 76

2.4.5 Applications of study one findings .................................................... 78

Chapter 3: Study two – Work related road safety barriers and facilitators ..... 82

3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 82


3.3 Method .............................................................................................................. 85

3.3.1 Participant recruitment and demographic characteristics .................. 86

ix

3.3.2 Content ............................................................................................. 87

3.3.3 Procedure ........................................................................................... 88

3.4 Results ............................................................................................................... 91

3.4.1 Perceived barriers ............................................................................... 91

3.4.1.1 Prioritisation of production over safety ............................................. 91

3.4.1.2 Complacency towards work-related road risks ................................. 93

3.4.1.3 Diversity ............................................................................................ 93

3.4.1.4 Insufficient resources ......................................................................... 95

3.4.1.5 Limited employee input in safety decisions ........................................ 96

3.4.1.6 Perception that road safety initiatives are an unnecessary burden ... 97

3.4.1.7 Less cited barriers .............................................................................. 97

3.4.1.8 Suggestions to overcome barriers ...................................................... 99

3.4.2 Perceived facilitators ........................................................................ 100

3.4.2.1 Management commitment ................................................................ 101

3.4.2.2 Existing systems .............................................................................. 101

3.4.2.3 Supportive relationships .................................................................. 102

3.4.2.4 Less cited facilitators ....................................................................... 102

3.5 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 103

3.5.1 Perceived barriers ............................................................................. 104


3.5.3 Future research ................................................................................. 105

3.5.4 Applications of study two ................................................................ 106

Chapter 4: Study three – Organisational factors literature review ................. 108

4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 108

4.2 Study background ........................................................................................ 108

4.3 Review of fleet safety climate literature ...................................................... 110

4.4 Review of stages of change literature .......................................................... 115

4.5 Review of safety ownership literature .......................................................... 121

4.6 Conclusion ................................................................................................... 126

x

Chapter 5: Study three – Organisational factors methodology ........................ 130

5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 130

5.2 Research Design .............................................................................................. 130

5.3 Interview ......................................................................................................... 131

5.3.1 Participant demographics ...................................................................... 131

5.3.2 Content ........................................................................................... 132

5.3.3 Procedure ............................................................................................. 135

5.4 Questionnaire .................................................................................................. 135


5.4.2 Content ........................................................................................... 136

5.4.3 Procedure ........................................................................................... 139

Chapter 6: Study three – Organisational factors results and discussion ......... 145

6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 145

6.2 Fleet safety climate ......................................................................................... 146

6.2.1 Questionnaire Results ...................................................................... 146

6.2.1.1 Factor analysis ................................................................................. 146

6.2.1.2 Mean and standard deviation scores ................................................ 149

6.2.1.3 Correlations and regressions ............................................................ 150

6.2.2 Interview Results ............................................................................. 158

6.2.2.1 Management commitment ............................................................... 158

6.2.2.2 Level of trust between employees and management........................ 159

6.2.2.3 Communication in relation to work-related road safety .................. 160

6.2.2.4 Level of work demands .................................................................... 161

6.2.2.5 Appropriateness of safety policies and procedures .......................... 161

6.2.3 Discussion ...................................................................................... 162

6.2.3.1 Road safety outcomes ..................................................................... 162

6.2.3.2 The influence of fleet safety climate on road safety outcomes ........ 164

6.2.3.3 Applications .................................................................................... 165

xi

6.3 Stages of change .............................................................................................. 166





6.3.2.1 Stage of change classifications......................................................... 170

6.3.2.2 Variance in stages of change ........................................................... 170

6.3.2.3 Perceived initiative effectiveness and stage of change ................... 172

6.3.3 Discussion ..................................................................................... 173

6.3.3.1 Stage of change framework ............................................................. 173

6.3.3.2 Perceived initiative effectiveness ..................................................... 174


6.3.3.4 Applications .................................................................................... 176

6.4 Safety Ownership ............................................................................................ 179





6.4.2.1 Position accepting primary ownership of managing occupational

road risks .......................................................................................... 184

6.4.2.2 Shared ownership of managing occupational road risks .................. 186

6.4.2.3 Road risks as compared to other OH&S risks .................................. 187

6.4.2.4 Competencies required for managing occupational road risks ........ 188

6.4.3 Discussion ..................................................................................... 189

6.4.3.1 Ownership of safety management tasks ........................................... 189

6.4.3.2 Road safety outcomes ...................................................................... 191

6.4.3.3 Applications ..................................................................................... 191

6.5 Chapter conclusion .......................................................................................... 193

xii

Chapter 7: Synthesis and Implications ............................................................... 196

7.1 Project background and methodology ............................................................. 196

7.2 Key findings .................................................................................................... 199

7.2.1 Research question one .......................................................................... 199

7.2.2 Research question two ......................................................................... 200

7.2.3 Research question three ....................................................................... 200

7.2.4 Research question four ......................................................................... 201

7.2.5 Research question five ......................................................................... 203

7.2.6 Research question six ........................................................................... 204

7.2.7 Research question seven ...................................................................... 205

7.3 Strengths and limitations of the previous research and suggestions for

future studies ................................................................................................... 206

7.4 Implications ..................................................................................................... 210

7.5 Recommendations ........................................................................................... 212

7.6 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 215

References ................................................................................................................ 217

Appendices ............................................................................................................... 235

xiii

List of Figures

Figure 1 Data collection methods used in each study ......................................... 10

Figure 2 Diagrammatic representation of the triangulation approach adopted in

study one ............................................................................................... 26

Figure 3 Structured document review search process ......................................... 30

Figure 4 Age of survey participants in the researched organisations .................. 43

Figure 5 Gender of survey participants in the researched organisations ............. 44

Figure 6 Hours typically driven for work each week per employee ................... 45

Figure 7 Kilometres typically driven for work each year per employee ............. 47

Figure 8 Number of infringements during the past 12 months per employee ..... 69

Figure 9 Number of vehicles incidents involved in while driving for work

during the past 12 months per employee............................................... 71

xv

List of Tables

Table 1 Employee perceptions of initiative effectiveness .................................. 56

Table 2 Audit ratings of work-related road safety practices and processes ....... 61

Table 3 Factor structure of the modified DBQ .................................................. 65

Table 4 Mean driver behaviour scores by organisations .................................... 67

Table 5 Factor structure of the modified fleet safety climate questionnaire .... 148

Table 6 Bivariate correlations between fleet safety climate variables, key

demographic variables and road safety outcome variables ................. 151

Table 7 Hierarchical regression for overall fleet safety climate as a predictor

of overall driver behaviour scores ....................................................... 153

Table 8 Summary table of hierarchical regressions for fleet safety climate

factors as predictors of overall driver behaviour scores...................... 154


factors as predictors of fatigue and distraction scores ........................ 156

Table 10 Summary table of hierarchical regressions for appropriateness of rules

as a predictor of driving violation scores ............................................ 158

Table 11 Summary table of the logistic regression for stage of change as a

predictor of vehicle crashes ................................................................. 169

Table 12 Bivariate correlations between safety ownership variables and road

safety outcome variables ..................................................................... 180

Table 13 Summary table of hierarchical regressions for perceived authority as a

predictor of driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue and distractions 183

Table 14 Summary table of hierarchical regressions for perceived shared

ownership as a predictor of driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue

and distractions ................................................................................... 184

xvii

List of Abbreviations

Abbreviation/Symbol Definition

OH&S Occupational Health and Safety

e.g. For example

N Total sample

M Mean

SD Standard deviation (from the mean)

p The value of p (or probability level)

B Regression coefficient

β Beta (regression coefficient when all variables are expressed in standardised form)

r Pearson product-moment correlation

r2 r-squared or coefficient of determinant

X2 Chi-square

Adj R2 Adjusted r-squared (estimate of the population value of

r-squared)

ΔR2 R-squared change (unique contribution)

xix

Statement of Original Authorship

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet

requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the

best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously

published or written by another person except where due reference is made.

Signature: …....................……………....

Date: …............................…………

xxi

Acknowledgments

Many people have provided me with support and I have appreciated this over

the past three years. I would like to formally acknowledge this support from my

family, friends and colleagues at CARRS-Q throughout the duration of my PhD. In

particular I would like to recognise the support provided by Darren, Bevan, Diane

and Kerry. Further to this, I wish to thank several people for the important roles they

have played in helping me complete my PhD.

Firstly I wish to thank my supervisors, Professor Jeremy Davey, Associate

Professor Herbert Biggs and Dr Mark King. I am grateful for the advice and

guidance they have provided. I am also especially grateful for the confidence they

had in me and the freedom they provided for me to control the direction of my

research. I also wish to thank Jeremy in particular for finally succeeding in

convincing me to embark on a PhD journey.

Secondly I wish to acknowledge the generous support provided by Eddie

Wheeler and the NRMA-ACT Road Safety Trust through their provision of my

scholarship. Their funding has allowed me to conduct this valuable research and to

present my findings at both National and International conferences. Their

commitment to road safety has also facilitated the expansion of my professional

network.

xxii

On a more personal note I wish to thank my husband, Mark Street, for his

support and understanding. I appreciate all the little things, like the extra cooking and

cleaning he has done over the last couple of months when I have been preoccupied

with my research and I’m happy to say that yes I am finished my PhD and we can

finally go on a picnic now!

I wish to thank my Mum, Margaret Banks, for volunteering to proof read the

numerous drafts of my PhD. I am sure there would have been many other exciting

ways for her to occupy her weekends, but I appreciate that she instead chose to read

my thesis and provide me with valuable feedback.

I also wish to thank Simba my playful Labrador that regularly insisted it was

time for me to take a break and enjoy a walk or a game of ball with her. She provided

me with the much needed opportunity to clear my mind and return in a more fresh

and productive state.

Finally I wish to thank our bub-to-be. His rapidly approaching due date more

than provided enough incentive to stay focused on my deadlines and motivated me to

finish my thesis early.

Work-Related Road Safety

1

Chapter 1: Program of Research Background

1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 2

1.2 Key Research Terms ........................................................................................... 3

1.3 Project background ............................................................................................. 4

1.4 Project aims and studies ...................................................................................... 9

1.4.1 Study one – Road safety initiatives ....................................................... 10

1.4.2 Study two – Work-related road safety barriers and facilitators ............ 12

1.4.3 Study three – Organisational factors ..................................................... 13

1.5 Thesis outline .................................................................................................... 17


2

Chapter 1: Program of Research Background

“There are not many roads; there is a single road that extends across the length and

breadth of our vast planet. Each of us is responsible for a segment of that road. The

road safety decisions that we make or do not make, ultimately have the power to

affect the lives of people everywhere. We are one road – one world.”

Rochelle Sobel, President, Association for Safe International Road Travel, United

States of America (WHO, 2004a)

1.1 Introduction

At the world’s first recorded automobile death on the 31st August 1869 it is

reported that the Coroner stated “this must never happen again” (Fallon & O’Neill,

2005; WHO, 2004b). Tragically, a century later it is happening so frequently that

traffic injuries have become a leading global public health risk. It is estimated that

worldwide 50 million people are injured and an additional 1.2 million people are

killed annually in road crashes (WHO, 2004a). In 1990 using a comparison scale of

disability adjusted life years, road traffic injuries ranked ninth highest as the leading

cause of global burden of disease. Future projections predict that road traffic injuries

and deaths will increase by approximately 65%, placing road traffic injuries as the

third highest cause of global burden of disease by 2020 (Murray & Lopez, 1996).

As a global community, responsibility for creating a safer traffic environment

needs to be accepted and action taken to manage road risks. The management of

work-related road risks is one area where large gains in global road safety may

potentially be achieved. Organisations have the potential to enhance road safety

through many avenues including the selection of safe vehicles and fostering a strong

culture of road safety that may influence employees driving for both work and non-

work purposes. This thesis outlines research into how work-related road safety can

be improved.


3

This chapter will firstly describe key terms used throughout this research to

achieve consistency of interpretation. Secondly, a background to this research project

including the social and financial costs incurred with respect to work-related road

incidents will be presented. Thirdly, details will be provided on how this research

program aims to assist in alleviating the burden of road injuries and fatalities, by

exploring how work-related road safety can be improved in organisations. Finally,

the structure of this thesis will be presented.

1.2 Key research terms

Throughout this research project, the term ‘work-related road safety’ will be

used interchangeably with ‘occupational road safety’ and ‘fleet safety’. The term

‘work-related road safety’ refers to aspects of road safety being applied within an

occupational health and safety framework to organisations (Haworth, Tingvall &

Kowadlo, 2000). Work-related road safety initiatives have the objective of

preventing or minimising employee and public exposure to the risk of illness, injury

or death caused by fleet vehicle incidents. It encompasses road safety aspects relating

both to when an employee is engaging in work tasks and also when an employee is

commuting to and from work. In the broader sense, work-related road safety also

encompasses pedestrian safety in occupations that involve walking and working on

roads. While the applications of this thesis may be applied to enhance the safety of

both drivers and pedestrians, this thesis focuses more on work-related road safety in

relation to vehicle drivers.

Other terms used throughout this project that may need clarification include

‘incident’ and ‘fleet vehicles’. The term ‘incident’ is used within the context defined

by Davey and Banks (2005). More specifically it refers to any event that involved

damage to a fleet vehicle or another vehicle, damage to any property, or injury to any

person. Using this definition, non-road crash related incidents including theft and

storm damage were included. The word incident is used rather than accident to


4

indicate that each event results from a cause, or combination of causes, such as

fatigue or error of judgement rather than being purely a chance occurrence.

The term ‘fleet vehicle’ is used within the context defined by Davey and

Banks (2005) and Haworth et al. (2000). More specifically it refers to any vehicles

over whose selection and operation an organisation has some degree of influence. It

encompasses vehicles that are: owned or leased by the organisation and used

exclusively for work purposes or a combination of work and private purposes;

vehicles under novated leases; vehicles provided to employees through salary

sacrifice arrangements; and vehicles that are privately owned by employees or

volunteers but used for work purposes. It includes a range of vehicle types for

example, motorbikes, passenger cars, vans, buses, trucks and heavy commercial

vehicles.

1.3 Project background

Road traffic injuries and fatalities are risks faced both internationally and in

Australia. In Australia in 2005 1,636 persons were killed in road crashes (ATSB,

2006). This high number of men, women and children killed is typical of most years

and the tragic loss of these lives is made even more tragic by society’s sense of

acceptance and complacency towards road traffic risk. With such an overwhelming

number of traffic crashes each day, road fatalities appear to have lost a sense of

newsworthiness, with the mass media tending to focus on less frequent types of

tragedy. Despite the traffic death rate of 8 per 100,000 Australian population (ATSB,

2006), driving has become any every day task for many people. Over time, with high

levels of repeated exposure to driving, it appears that the risk of injury or fatality

seems to be readily accepted and perhaps even overlooked by many. There appears

to be a prevailing belief within society that crashes are an inevitable and acceptable

cost of road transport.


5

This lack of appreciation for road traffic risk has also been observed within

organisations. For example a case study of Abbott Laboratories, a global healthcare

company, identified that 80 percent of Abbott employee fatalities and severe injuries

resulted from vehicle related incidents. Despite this trend, road safety was

overlooked in the company’s comprehensive safety program that focused on risk

areas pertaining to research and manufacturing (McKillips, 2003). A perceived lack

of appreciation for road traffic risk is of major concern, given that work-related

motor vehicle incidents represent substantial emotional and financial costs to society.

It has been estimated that the total cost of work-related road incidents in

Australia may be in the range of $1 billion to $1.5 billion per annum (Wheatley,

1997) and that the average total insurance cost of a work-related road incident is

approximately $28,000 with costs incurred to both the company and society (Davey

& Banks, 2005). Additionally, motor vehicle incidents are over represented in

Australian Workers Compensation claims. More specifically with 67 deaths in 2003-

2004, vehicle incidents were the most common mechanism for Australian

compensated fatalities, accounting for 35 percent of all compensated deaths (ASCC,

2006). Research in the domain of fleet and work-related road safety therefore has

important applications in the areas of both road safety and Occupational Health and

Safety (OHS).

While many organisations are committed to maintaining the health and safety

of employees within their workplace, it appears that risk management often fails to

include road safety. Although common, this is directly contrary to the spirit of

Australian Occupational Health and Safety legislation. The purpose of the

Occupational Health and Safety legislation is to make workplaces and work practices

safer for everyone.

The ‘Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995’ was legislated to prevent or

minimise a person’s exposure to the risk of illness, injury or death caused by a


6

workplace, by a relevant workplace area, by work activities, or by plant or

substances for use at a workplace. In Queensland, the Act states that “a workplace is

any place where work is, or is to be, performed by a worker or a person conducting a

business or undertaking”. This includes “a vehicle supplied by an employer for use

by a worker in the performance of work”. In accordance with the Act, in all

Australian jurisdictions, duties of care to workers and third parties must be shared by

everyone. For example, employers and persons in control of relevant work areas

must provide safe and healthy workplaces, employees must not wilfully place

themselves or others at risk and manufactures, suppliers and designers must provide

safe products. Under the Act employers have statutory obligations to provide safe

workplaces, safe plant and equipment, safe systems of work and safety information,

instruction, training and supervision. Employers who fail to take reasonable care to

avoid exposing employees to unnecessary risks of traffic injury can face substantial

fines. In Queensland, the maximum penalties for breach of occupational health and

safety legislation are $150,000 and/or three years jail for an individual and $750,000

for a corporation.

In recent years several legal cases have been heard in Australia with respect

to work-related road incidents. Examples of some of these cases are described below.

Brew v. WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND – [2004] 1 Qd.R. 621 pertained to an

employee who allegedly suffered injuries when he fell asleep while driving a vehicle

in the course of his employment. Brew alleged that the incident was caused by his

employer’s wrongful act in requiring him to drive when he was unfit to do so by

reason of fatigue. Curtain Bros (Qld) Pty Ltd v. FAI General Insurance Company

Limited [1995] 1 Qd. R. 142 pertained to an employee who allegedly suffered

injuries while driving in the course of her employment. She was operating a vehicle

supplied by her employer and travelling along a road that the employer knew to be

unsafe. The employer failed to warn the employee of the danger in the road.

Newberry v. Suncorp [2006] 1 Qd.R. 519 pertained to an employee who allegedly

suffered injuries while travelling as a passenger in the course of his employment. The


7

incident was considered to be the fault of another driver travelling on the wrong side

of the road. Manning v. Taroom Shire Council & Ors [1994] QCA 430 pertained to

an employee who allegedly suffered injuries while travelling in the course of his

employment as a result of the employer’s breach of duty to adequately warn the

plaintiff with respect to the management of his vehicle.

Given that vehicle incidents continue to be the most common mechanism for

Australian compensated fatalities and employers have statutory obligations to

provide safe workplaces, it is essential that organisational OHS risk management

strategies be expanded to include work-related road risks. The goal of enhancing

organisational road risk management is aligned with the Australian OHS strategy

targets. In 2002 the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI),

Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) and all Australian Governments

committed to the National OHS Strategy 2002-2012. This strategy sets targets to

reduce work-related injuries by at least 40 percent and work-related fatalities by at

least 20 percent by 30 June 2012. The National Strategy has an ambitious goal for

Australia to achieve the lowest rate of work-related traumatic fatalities in the world

by 2009. To meet these targets and achieve this goal, five national priorities have

been set. These include: reducing high incidence/severity risks; developing the

capacity of business operators and employees to manage OHS effectively; preventing

occupational disease more effectively; eliminating hazards at the design stage; and

strengthening the capacity of government to influence OHS outcomes (Australian

Safety and Compensation Council, 2005). Thus research exploring how work-related

road safety can be improved in organisations is aligned with the goals, targets and

priorities of the National OHS Strategy and will contribute to achieving short and

long term OHS improvements.

Research exploring how work-related road safety can be improved in

organisations is also aligned with Australia’s National Road Safety Strategy. In 2000

the Australian Transport Council (ATC) of Ministers endorsed the National Road


8

Safety Strategy 2001-2010. This strategy presents the target of decreasing the annual

number of road deaths per 100,000 population by 40 per cent over the decade, to a

maximum of 5.6 by December 2010. This target is typical of many OECD countries.

For example the European Union has set an even more ambitious target of a 50 per

cent reduction in the number of road fatalities in the decade to 2010. To meet these

targets, action items are grouped into four areas. These include: safer speeds; safer

roads and roadsides; safer vehicles and safer road users and safer behaviour. The

strategy states that responsibility for reducing road trauma is shared among

governments, communities, industry, business and individuals. It specifically

identifies action items in relation to safety orientated fleet purchasing policies to

accelerate the market penetration of advanced vehicle safety features and for

organisations to promote higher standards of safe road user behaviour than are

required by road traffic law to enhance the safety of employees who drive

(Australian Transport Council, 2008).

The current research project will complement the National OHS Strategy and

the National Road Safety Strategy. It will assist in alleviating the burden of road

injuries and fatalities by exploring how work-related road safety can be improved in

organisations. Inspiration for this research arose from a desire to understand how to

optimise the effectiveness of road safety initiatives within different organisations.

From experience working as both a researcher and a practitioner in the area of

work-related road safety, the author recognised that many organisations have limited

or no practices and processes in place to manage their occupational road risks.

Furthermore, while consulting to several large Australian organisations and after

numerous discussions with Fleet Managers operating in small to medium

organisations, the author observed that of the organisations that were engaging in

some occupational road risk management strategies, very few were proactively and

comprehensively managing their risks.


9

Unfortunately, of the organisations that were engaging in some occupational

road risk management strategies, many were adopting a ‘one size fits all approach’.

Nonetheless, some organisations were proactively managing risks. However this was

typically limited to only policies surrounding the management of fleet vehicles.

Other organisations were adopting a reactive approach, implementing a risk

management initiative in response to an incident that had occurred in their

organisation. These reactive initiatives were often observed to be narrow, short term

fixes that failed to address the ongoing organisational and behavioural issues that

contribute to occupational road risk. Similar observations pertaining to the

management of occupational road safety risks have also been made by other

researchers (Haworth, Greig, & Wishart, 2008; Wishart, Davey, & Freeman, 2007).

Given that limited guidance is provided in the existing literature to assist

practitioners in managing work-related road risks, the observed limited management

of occupational road risks in many organisations is understandable. The current

research addresses this gap in the literature through exploring how work-related road

safety can be enhanced.

1.4 Project aims and studies

The current research project aims to assist in alleviating the burden of traffic

injuries and fatalities by exploring how road safety can be improved in organisations.

To achieve this aim, three studies were conducted. Study one explored the

effectiveness of a range of risk management initiatives and whether comprehensive

risk management practices are associated with safety outcomes. Study two explored

barriers to, and facilitators for, accepting risk management initiatives. To identify

optimal work environments for managing road risks study three explored the

influence of organisational factors on road safety outcomes. These studies were

designed to comprehensively explore different yet complementary issues that may

influence the effectiveness of work-related road risk management.


10

As the intent was to explore different influences upon work-related road

safety, rather than to sequentially build upon on one area of exploration, the same

research sample was utilised across the three studies. This data collection approach

was selected after consideration of the difficulty in obtaining access to organisations

to conduct research. Four organisations agreed to participate in this research project.

To maximise the research sample and increase generalisability, the studies were

designed to allow data collection to be conducted simultaneously drawing upon the

same sample across the four organisations. Data was collected via a structured

document review of published articles pertaining to work-related road safety

initiatives, audits of organisational practices and process, interviews and

questionnaires. Figure 1 provides a visual representation of how the data collection

methods relate to the three studies. The purpose, background and research questions

addressed are then outlined for each of the three studies.

Figure 1 Data collection methods used in each study

1.4.1 Study one – Road safety initiatives

The purpose of study one was to explore the effectiveness of a range of

initiatives for managing work-related road safety. Several reports have recently been

published that offer reviews of current industry practice and risk management

guidelines for organisations striving to achieve best practice in managing

occupational road risks (Anderson, Plowman, Leven, & Fraine, 1998; Haworth,

et al., 2008; Haworth et al., 2000; Health and Safety Executive, 2000; Murray, 2007;

Murray, Newnam, Watson, Davey, & Schonfeld, 2003).

Questionnaires Workplace Audit

Interviews Document Review

Study 1 Study 3 Study 2


11

Practices and processes recommended in these reports include: having a fleet

safety policy that defines safe driving responsibilities and communicates to

employees the organisation’s commitment to safe driving; recruiting and selecting

drivers based on safe driving records and awareness of safety issues; including work-

related road safety and safe driving components in employee inductions; conducting

fleet safety training needs analyses and providing and evaluating any required fleet

safety training and education; recognising good and poor driving behaviours through

an official scheme of incentives and disincentives; eliminating or minimising

exposure to road hazards when planning and managing road journeys; selecting

vehicles based on safety features and documenting maintenance procedures;

managing access to vehicles in regards to job needs and ensuring that drivers are

physically/medically fit to drive safely; monitoring employee driving activities

through distances driven and public feedback regarding their driving performance;

and recording and monitoring individual driver, individual vehicle and overall fleet

incident involvement and managing identified high risks.

These reports provide some guidance to practitioners, however as many of

the recommended initiatives have not yet been scientifically evaluated, enthusiastic

endorsement of these guidelines is cautioned against. To assist practitioners in

making informed decisions about how they manage occupational road risks, study

one addresses three research questions. These are:

1. What outcomes have been observed in previously investigated work-related

road safety initiatives?

2. Which initiatives are perceived by employees to be effective in managing

work-related road risks?

3. Do organisations with comprehensive work-related road risk management

practices and processes have better safety outcomes than organisations with

limited risk management practices and processes?


12

1.4.2 Study two - Work-related road safety barriers and facilitators

The purpose of study two was to explore barriers to and facilitators for

accepting work-related road safety initiatives. Previous researchers have argued that

some promising occupational health and safety initiatives may be found to be

ineffective due to an inadequate implantation of the initiative (Aborg, Fernstro, &

Ericson, 1998; Westgaard & Winkel, 1997). Identifying the restraining forces for

opposing a safety initiative and the driving forces for accepting a safety initiative

allows strategies to be implemented to maximise the effects of the facilitators, while

minimising the effects of the barriers.

Previous research conducted in the area of organisational change has

identified that organisational, financial and professional factors may act as

facilitators or barriers to implementing change programs (Blake, Kohler, Rask,

Davis, & Naylor, 2006; Weiner, Amick, & Lee, 2008). While these studies provide

some guidance to fleet safety practitioners, little is known about whether the

facilitators and barriers to implementing general organisational change programs

generalise to implementing work-related road safety initiatives. Research conducted

in the area of fleet safety has identified the following barriers to managing work-

related road safety: limited interaction between fleet managers and occupational

health and safety personnel; perceived lack of resources; and limited status/authority

of the person primarily responsible for managing fleet safety (Haworth & Senserrick,

2003; Haworth et al., 2008).

To assist practitioners in making informed decisions about how they manage

occupational road risks, study two addresses the following research question:

1. What barriers and facilitators within organisations are involved in

implementing work-related road safety initiatives?


13

1.4.3 Study three – Organisational factors

To identify optimal work environments for managing road risks study three

explored the influence of organisational factors on road safety outcomes. Currently

many occupational road risk management initiatives, such as goal setting (Ludwig,

2000) and signing a promise card commitment to drive safely (Boyce & Geller,

1999), operate at a micro-level targeting individual employees. However research

pertaining to the manufacturing industry, suggests that a macro-level approach

should be adopted to achieve optimal improvements in workplace safety (Mullen,

2004). Given that an incident is most likely to eventuate when several errors occur

simultaneously, the adoption of a macro-level risk management approach makes

sense. Reason (1990) suggests that contributing conditions to an incident may relate

to organisational factors, unsafe supervision, preconditions for unsafe acts, and

unsafe acts by the operator.

Drawing upon this theoretical framework, the current research will focus on

exploring whether three organisational factors are related to self-reported driving

behaviours, traffic infringements and vehicle incidents. More specifically, these

factors comprise fleet safety climate, stages of change and safety ownership. Based

on previous research the author selected these factors as important aspects to explore

in this research project. Previous studies have indicated that each of these

organisational aspects may be related to safety outcomes and the effectiveness of

safety initiatives in organisations (Nielsen, Rasmussen, Glasscock, & Spangenberg,

2008; Wills, Watson, & Biggs, 2006; Slappendel, 2001 as cited in Haslam, 2002;

Prochaska, Prochaska & Levesque, 2001; Barrett, Haslam, Lee, & Ellis, 2005; Biggs,

Sheahan, & Dingsdag, 2006). Detailed information regarding these factors and their

potential relationships to safety outcomes is presented in later chapters. A brief

outline of the three organisational factors along with the three research questions

addressed in study three is presented below.


14

1. Do differences in fleet safety climate relate to work-related road safety

outcomes? In recent years there has been a growing interest in researching the

social and organisational issues that may be linked to occupational road

incidents. These social and organisational issues are often referred to as fleet

safety climate. More specifically, fleet safety climate refers to employees’

shared perceptions of management’s commitment and performance with

regards to fleet safety policies, procedures and practices (Banks, Davey &

Brownlow, 2006; Wills, Watson & Biggs, 2004).

Fleet safety climate research increases our understanding of the antecedents

of driving behaviour in the workplace. A number of general dimensions that

may impact fleet safety climate have been identified. These include:

management commitment; trusting relationships and communication;

appropriateness of work demands; and appropriateness of education and rules

(Banks et al., 2006). Several studies have found a relationship between safety

climate and safety outcomes with respect to: safety performance and

behaviour (Wills et al., 2006); incident rates (Mearns, Whitaker, & Flin,

2003); frequency of workers compensation claims (O’Toole, 2002); and self-

reported occupational injury frequency and severity (Nielsen et al., 2008).

Given the links observed in previous research between safety climate and

safety outcomes, it is suggested that fleet safety climate may be related to

work-related road safety outcomes.

2. Do differences in stage of change relate to work-related road safety

outcomes? Previous researchers have argued that many attempts to

implement organisational change have failed due to change managers

ignoring existing knowledge and principles relating to the psychology of

change (Winum, Ryterband, & Stephensen, 1997). The author suggests that

the implementation of occupational road safety initiatives may be improved


15

through the consideration and application of appropriate behaviour change

models such as the stage of change model.

The stages of change model (Prochaska, DiClemente & Norcross, 1992), also

known as the transtheoretical model of change, is a behaviour change model

that offers a framework for understanding variations in readiness for change.

The model suggests that individuals require different types of support based

on their position within the change process as they pass through the phases of

pre-contemplation (not thinking of changing one’s behaviour), contemplation

(seriously considering changing one’s behaviour in the near future),

preparation (making plans and intending to change one’s behaviour in the

very near future), action (engaged in changing one’s behaviour) and

maintenance (working to consolidate gains from one’s changed behaviour

and prevent relapse).

In recent years the model has been applied in organisational change research

in the areas of ergonomics, health promotion and change management

(Haslam, 2002; Prochaska, 2000; Prochaska et al., 2001). Previous

researchers have indicated that the application of the stages of change model

may assist in the reduction of resistance, stress and implementation time

associated with organisational change through accelerating employee

movement towards the action stage (Prochaska et al., 2001). Based on

previous research findings, it is suggested that the stages of change model

may provide a useful framework for developing an effective multi-pronged

risk management approach capable of targeting the behavioural change needs

of a range of employees.


16

3. Do differences in safety ownership relate to work-related road safety

outcomes? The success of organisational change initiatives appears to be

influenced by the position of the primary change owner and the extent to

which ownership is shared across members of an organisation.

In relation to primary ownership, it is suggested that the organisational

position of the employee may be related to the effectiveness of the safety

initiative. A recent case study revealed that changes in management level and

department of the primary owner related to changes in safety behaviour of

employees (Barrett et al., 2005). Employees reported that the previous health

and safety manager did not carry the necessary authority or respect to achieve

compliance with procedures and rules, resulting in minimal employee

adherence to safe working practices. Upon the health and safety manager's

resignation, the production director assumed primary ownership of safety. It

was found that with his authority to fire employees immediately for non

compliance to rules or procedures, health and safety compliance increased

within the organisation.

In addition to the position of the primary owner, it is suggested that the extent

to which ownership of safety responsibilities is shared across members of an

organisation may also be related to the success of a safety initiative. It has

long been recognised in the safety literature that managers at different

hierarchical levels within an organisation have different roles in the overall

management of workplace health and safety (Andreissen, 1978). Therefore

sharing safety responsibilities, such as identifying high risk employees or

providing training in safe vehicle operations, across several job positions may

allow an organisation to draw upon the expertise of employees whose

competencies and position responsibilities are best aligned with each safety

management task. Recent research findings pertaining to manufacturing

companies support the formalisation of safety management responsibilities.


17

More specifically, research investigating the characteristics of over 400

manufacturing companies, found that organisations with low rates of lost time

injuries typically defined health and safety responsibilities in all managerial

job descriptions and included health and safety topics in performance

appraisals (Shannon et al., 1996). Given the links observed in previous

research between safety ownership and safety outcomes, it is suggested that

safety ownership may be related to work-related road safety outcomes.

To assist in alleviating the burden of traffic injuries and fatalities, this

research project combines three studies to comprehensively explore how road safety

can be improved in organisations. This project is designed to contribute to the

theoretical understanding of factors associated with work-related road safety by:

identifying effective occupational road safety initiatives, identifying optimal

organisational environments for road safety; and identifying facilitators and barriers

within organisations to implementing occupational road safety initiatives. It is

envisaged that the findings from this research, will provide practical information that

can be used by practitioners to enhance safety within organisations. Practitioners will

be able to: access a current critical review of a range of road safety initiatives that

have been implemented in organisations; consider whether adjustments need to be

made within their organisation to achieve environments of fleet safety climate, stage

of change and safety ownership that are related to desired safety outcomes; and plan

to manage major change barriers and harness key facilitators when implementing

work-related road safety initiatives.

1.5 Thesis structure

As this program of research involves three studies that explore different

influences upon work-related road safety, rather than begin this thesis with a broad

literature review chapter, three focused literature reviews are provided at appropriate

times throughout the thesis as part of the study background sections relating to each

of the studies. An outline of each of the chapters is presented below.


18

Chapter one provided a background to this research project, presented the

research project aims and detailed the structure of the thesis.

Chapter two pertains to study one. It explores the effectiveness of a range of

initiatives for managing work-related road safety and whether organisations with

comprehensive risk management practices have better safety outcomes than

organisations with limited risk management practices. The study background,

methodology, results and applied implications of study one are discussed.

Chapter three pertains to study two. It explores the facilitators and barriers to

implementing work-related road safety initiatives. The study background,

methodology, results and applied implications of study three are discussed.

Chapters four to six, pertain to study three. These chapters explore whether

organisational factors relate to differences in road safety outcomes. More

specifically, chapter four presents the study background and a review of literature

pertaining to organisational factors including fleet safety climate, stages of change

and safety ownership. Chapter five describes the methodology adopted in study

three. Chapter six presents the results from study three and discusses the applied

implications of these findings.

Chapter seven reviews and collectively summarises the key findings from the

three studies. To assist practitioners in making informed decisions about how they

manage occupational road risks, effective occupational road safety initiatives will be

identified, major facilitators and barriers to implementing occupational road safety

initiatives will be identified, and optimal organisational environments for road safety

will be discussed with respect to fleet safety climate, stage of change and safety

ownership.


19

Chapter 2: Study one – Road safety initiatives

2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 21


2.3 Method and results ............................................................................................ 24

2.3.1 Document review of work-related road safety initiative articles ...... 27

2.3.1.1 Description of reviewed articles ........................................................ 30

2.3.1.2 Results pertaining to research question one – What outcomes have

been observed in previously investigated work-related road safety

initiatives? .......................................................................................... 31

2.3.2 Questionnaire on work-related road safety ........................................ 40

2.3.2.1 Participant recruitment and demographics ......................................... 40

2.3.2.2 Content ............................................................................................... 47

2.3.2.3 Procedure ............................................................................................ 51

2.3.2.4 Results pertaining to research question two – Which initiatives are

perceived by employees to be effective in managing work-related

road risks? … .................................................................................... 54

2.3.3 Audit of work-related road safety practices and processes ................ 57

2.3.3.1 Procedure ............................................................................................ 58


comprehensive work-related road risk management practices and

processes have better safety outcomes than organisations with

limited risk management practices and processes? ............................ 60

2.4 Discussion ......................................................................................................... 61

2.4.1 Research question one – What outcomes have been observed in

previously investigated work-related road safety initiatives? ........... 71

2.4.2 Research question two – Which initiatives are perceived by

employees to be effective in managing work-related road risks? ...... 72

2.4.3 Research question three – Do organisations with comprehensive

work-related road risk management practices and processes have


20

better safety outcomes than organisations with limited risk

management practices and processes? ............................................... 74

2.4.4 Future research ................................................................................... 76

2.4.5 Applications of study one findings .................................................... 78


21

Chapter 2: Study one – Road safety initiatives

2.1 Introduction

The purpose of study one was to explore which initiatives have been found to

be effective and are perceived to be effective in managing occupational road risks,

and also whether comprehensive risk management is associated with enhanced safety

outcomes. This chapter provides details pertaining to the study background,

methodology, results and discussion.

2.2 Study Background

Recently, as awareness of the extent of the problem of work-related road

incidents has begun to emerge, researcher and practitioner interest in the area has

grown. A range of government-led initiatives on work-related road safety have been

introduced in Australia, New Zealand, the United States of America, Ireland, and the

United Kingdom. Some of these initiatives include: safety campaigns; provision of

information on initiatives; audits and enforcement; support for training; support for

research; and stakeholder forums to exchange fleet safety information (Murray,

2007).

A range of industry-led initiatives on work-related road safety have also been

introduced in Australia, New Zealand, the United States of America, and the United

Kingdom. Some of these initiatives include: driver training; management education

and awareness; policies relating to the management of journeys, drivers and vehicles;

safe vehicle selection and maintenance; driver training; driver monitoring; awareness

raising initiatives including posters and newsletters; risk assessments; post-incident

investigations; assessments of health and fitness to operate vehicles; conferences,

seminars and workshops; incident data recording; safe driving awards; group

discussions; competency based licence testing; and programs focussing on vehicle

maintenance, fatigue management, driving hours, and driver health (Haworth et al.,

2008; Murray, 2007). Despite these advancements in work-related road safety risk


22

management, there is a lack of available information pertaining to which initiatives

are most effective and how occupational road safety can best be achieved. Failures to

conduct evaluations of initiative effectiveness may be partly due to a perceived lack

of the financial resources required to conduct evaluations, or potentially the project

managers may lack the required knowledge and skills to conduct evaluations.

Although the Australian National Road Safety Strategy recognises that

organisations have the potential to impose requirements on drivers that are stricter

than current traffic law requirements, for example prohibiting the use of hands-free

mobile phones or enforcing a zero blood alcohol limit while operating a vehicle

(Australian Transport Council, 2008), many organisations are currently just adhering

to the legal requirements. Haworth et al. (2008) has identified that many

organisations cite cost constraints as the justification for not going beyond legal

requirements to improve occupational road safety.

When developing occupational risk management initiatives, it is useful to

consider the contributing causes of incidents. Researchers from the United Kingdom

have recently developed a model of occupational road risk (BOMEL, 2004). They

identified fatigue/alertness; individual attitudes; pressure/stress; compliance; and

suitable human resources as direct factors that influence occupational road risk. They

also identified several influences at both an organisational level and policy level. At

an organisational level, the key factors identified included: procedures; planning; pay

and conditions; training; communications; and incident management/feedback. At

the policy level, the key factors identified included: ownership and control;

organisational structure; safety management; contracting strategy; and profitability.

Furthermore, based on surveys conducted in Finland, Salminen and Lahdeniemi

(2002) identified tiredness, time pressure, thinking about work while driving and use

of mobile telephones as significant occupational road risk factors.


23

Taking into account current government and industry practices and potential

contributing causes of incidents, several reports have been published that offer risk

management guidelines for organisations striving to achieve best practice in

managing occupational road risks (Anderson et al., 1998; Haworth et al., 2008;

Haworth et al., 2000; Health and Safety Executive, 2000; Murray, 2007; Murray et

al., 2003).

Practices and processes recommended in these reports include: having a fleet

safety policy that defines safe driving responsibilities and communicates to

employees the organisation’s commitment to safe driving; recruiting and selecting

drivers based on safe driving records and awareness of safety issues; including work-

related road safety and safe driving components in employee inductions; conducting

fleet safety training needs analyses and providing and evaluating any required fleet

safety training and education; recognising good and poor driving behaviours through

an official scheme of incentives and disincentives; eliminating or minimising

exposure to road hazards when planning and managing road journeys; selecting

vehicles based on safety features and documenting maintenance procedures;

managing access to vehicles in regards to job needs and ensuring that drivers are

physically/medically fit to drive safely; monitoring employee driving activities for

example distances driven and public feedback regarding their driving performance;

and recording and monitoring individual driver, individual vehicle and overall fleet

incident involvement and managing identified high risks.

These reports provide some guidance to practitioners, however as many of

the recommended initiatives have not yet been scientifically evaluated, enthusiastic

endorsement of these guidelines is cautioned against. To assist practitioners in

making informed decisions about how they manage occupational road risks, study

one addresses three research questions. These are:


24

1. What outcomes have been observed in previously investigated work-related

road safety initiatives?

2. Which initiatives are perceived by employees to be effective in managing

work-related road risks?

3. Do organisations with comprehensive work-related road risk management

practices and processes have better safety outcomes than organisations with

limited risk management practices and processes?

This study will make a valuable contribution to the literature by providing a

current and comprehensive document review of studies pertaining to work-related

road safety initiatives. Study one will also pioneer two new avenues of research in

the area of work-related road safety. Firstly, employees’ perceptions in relation to the

effectiveness of a range of occupational road safety initiatives will be investigated.

Currently, employee perceptions pertaining to occupational road safety initiatives

have not been researched. Secondly, road safety outcomes will be compared across

organisations with comprehensive risk management practices and organisations with

limited risk management practices. Currently, comprehensiveness of risk

management practices has not been researched with respect to road safety outcomes.

The findings from study one will provide empirical evaluations of numerous work-

related road safety initiatives to assist practitioners in developing effective risk

management strategies.

2.3 Method and results

Given the scarcity of research pertaining to occupational road risk

management, an exploratory approach was considered most appropriate for study

one. Study one was designed to comprehensively investigate the effectiveness of

occupational road risk management strategies. To achieve this, a triangulation

approach was adopted in study one with the data being drawn from three different

sources.


25

The term triangulation is borrowed from navigational circles, where it is a

strategy for taking multiple reference points to locate an unknown position. This

approach was first applied in the academic setting in 1959 to enhance research

(Campbell & Fiske, 1959). In the academic setting, triangulation refers to the use of a

combination of approaches to gain a holistic understanding and to depict more

accurately the phenomenon being investigated. The current research used method

triangulation, by adopting several research methods for gathering data and data

triangulation, by obtaining data from several different sources. This design was

applied with the purpose of seeking a convergence in results from different sources.

This mixed-method approach was also applied for the purposes of complementarity

as defined by Greene, Caracelli and Graham (1989). Combining data from three

sources facilitated the interpretability of results, by allowing findings obtained with

one method to be clarified with respect to findings from other methods.

More specifically, study one used complementary research methods including

a structured document review of published articles pertaining to work-related road

safety initiatives, a questionnaire and an audit of work-related road safety practices

and processes. Firstly, an extensive document review was conducted to explore

outcomes that have been observed in previously investigated work-related road

safety initiatives. Secondly, a questionnaire was conducted to identify which

initiatives are perceived by employees and managers to be effective in managing

work-related road risks and to obtain road safety outcome data. Thirdly, an audit was

conducted to compare risk management practices and processes currently operating

in organisations. Refer Figure 2 for a visual representation of the triangulation

research design that was conducted.


26

Figure 2 Diagrammatic representation of the triangulation approach

adopted in study one

This combination of qualitative and quantitative methods was selected to

counterbalance the weaknesses of one method with the strengths of another method.

The use of a range of methods to explore the same research questions yields a robust

methodology (Cowman, 1993). The data triangulation process was used by the

researcher to clarify and challenge results obtained through one data collection

process with the data obtained through another method. This thorough approach

allowed findings to be critically evaluated as the information from the three data

sources converged. Before commencing study one, ethics and workplace health and

safety approval was applied for and granted through the appropriate research

departments within the Queensland University of Technology. The data collection

processes and results obtained for research questions one to three are outlined below.

Audit of work-related road safety practices and processes conducted in 4 organisations

Document Review of published

articles

Questionnaire conducted in 4 organisations

Understanding of optimal approach to work-related road risk management


27

2.3.1 Document review of work-related road safety initiative articles

To obtain current Australian and international research, peer-reviewed

documents were searched using six electronic bibliographic databases. These

included:

ATRI – Australian Transport Index (via Informit Search) – Contains more

than 53,000 records on roads and road related information in Australia.

Produced by the Australian Road Research Board Ltd.

Business Source Elite (via EBSCOhost) – Contains full text articles for 800

journals and abstracts and indexing for 1,500 articles. This database covers a

wide range of records pertaining to business topics.

ISI Web of Science – Web of Science indexes over 8,500 high impact

research journals from a wide range of disciplines, and as such provides an

interdisciplinary view of international research literature that is well suited to

applied research.

PsycINFO (via EBSCOhost): Contains more than one million citations and

summaries of journal articles, book chapters, books, dissertations and

technical reports, in the field of psychology and psychological aspects of

related disciplines, for example business. Journal coverage includes

international material selected from more than 1,700 periodicals.

ScienceDirect – Contains over 1,900 ejournal titles in full text. This is a

cross-disciplinary academic database that covers a wide range of research

areas.

TRIS Online (Transportation Research Information Services) – The TRIS

Database is the world’s largest and most comprehensive bibliographic

resource on transportation information. TRIS is produced and maintained by

the Transportation Research Board (TRB) at the National Academies of

Sciences. TRIS contains almost a half million records of published and

ongoing research on all modes and disciplines in the field of transportation.


28

To minimise the chance of overlooking relevant articles, both key road safety

databases and multidisciplinary databases were searched. Furthermore searches were

not limited to road safety research journals because several key articles on the subject

appear in health, psychology, and workplace health and safety journals. Excluding

research published in these complementary journals may have rendered the

document review incomplete and limited its value to work-related road safety

researchers, practitioners and policy makers.

A master list of search terms was generated and used with each electronic

database. Search terms included: work road safety, organisation road safety,

occupation road safety, fleet safety, company driver, fleet driver, initiative, strategy,

program and intervention. These terms were selected based on the terminology used

within relevant published research papers and industry reports. To keep the review

current and manageable, the search was limited to articles published between January

1990 and September 2008.

The search identified 181 non-duplicated titles. These titles were reviewed

using pre-determined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Included articles had to appear in

English in a peer-reviewed journal, conference proceeding or book. As the purpose

of the document review was to explore scientific evaluations of various initiatives,

non peer-reviewed literature was excluded as the scientific quality of these

documents had not been established. In addition, included articles had to focus on

work-related road safety initiatives. This criterion eliminated articles that focused on

more general community road safety initiatives and general health and safety

initiatives. Using these criteria, 122 articles were excluded at the title-review stage. It

was observed that the ATRI and TRIS databases generated many non-peer reviewed

articles. Some of these articles were government funded reports, while other articles

were from less credible sources such as industry magazines.


29

The abstracts of the remaining 59 articles were then reviewed using the same

criteria and process. This review resulted in the exclusion of 33 additional articles.

The search terms selected in this review were designed to have a broad scope to

maximise the chance of finding all relevant articles. Unfortunately this process also

generated many ‘hits’ in bibliographic databases that were outside the scope of this

review. For example the search term ‘fleet safety’ yielded several articles pertaining

to aviation and sailing vessels that were unrelated to the subject of work-related road

safety.

The full text of the remaining 26 articles was then reviewed. Seventeen

articles that mentioned work-related road safety but did not focus on initiatives were

also excluded as they were considered to be extraneous. This review left nine peer-

reviewed relevant articles.

The researcher also used ISI Web of Science and Google Scholar to obtain

key articles cited in the reviewed papers. This process identified an additional 11

articles that survived the title-review, abstract-review, and full-text-review process.

This review process generated a total of 20 peer-reviewed relevant articles. Refer to

Figure 3 presented below for a visual representation of the review process. EndNote

libraries for each step of the review process are available from the researcher upon

request.

A structured data abstraction form was then used to extract key information

from each of the 20 articles that were retained after the full-text review. A

description of the articles reviewed and a summary of the major findings is presented

below. Following this, detailed information on each of the articles pertaining to the

source, initiatives researched, method, key findings and limitations is presented in

Appendix A.


30

Figure 3 Structured document review search process

2.3.1.1 Description of reviewed articles

Of the 20 articles included in this review, ten articles presented the findings

of research conducted using a pre-post design including at least one control group.

Five articles presented the findings of research conducted using a pre-post design

Combined (No duplicates) 181 articles

Reasons for discarding 122 articles at Title

Review: Non-English - 3

Non-Peer Reviewed – 71 Extraneous – 48

Retained after Title Review 59 articles

Retained after Full Text Review 20 articles

Retained after Abstract Review 26 articles

Reasons for

discarding 33 articles at

Abstract Review: Extraneous – 33

Reasons for

discarding 17 articles at Full Text Review:

Extraneous – 17

Added 11 articles: These articles were cited in the

reviewed articles and met the

inclusion criteria


31

with no control group. Two articles reported on research data obtained via the

combination of a questionnaire and data collected during the intervention phase. Two

articles reported on research data obtained via a questionnaire only. Finally one

article reported on case study research data.

Research findings were obtained based on samples of employees from six

major geographical locations. These included: eleven articles with an American

sample of drivers (one of these articles also included drivers from Canada); four

articles with a European (predominantly Sweden, but also Netherlands and Belgium)

sample of drivers; two articles with an Australian sample of drivers; one article with

a Japanese sample of drivers; and one article with a Taiwanese sample of drivers.

Research was conducted in relation to a mixture of vehicle types. Seven of

the articles focused on safety when operating commercial vehicles (such as trucks

and buses). Seven of the articles focused on safety when operating passenger

vehicles. Two of the articles focused on employee safety in environments that

required operation of a combination of commercial and passenger vehicles. Four

articles did not specify the class of vehicles operated.

The number of articles appearing in relation to work-related road safety

initiatives has increased over time. More specifically, twelve of the twenty articles

reviewed were published between 2000 and 2008.

2.3.1.2 Results pertaining to research question one - What outcomes have been

observed in previously investigated work-related road safety initiatives?

The structured document review findings are presented with respect to the

observed effectiveness of 19 work-related road safety initiatives. As detailed in

Appendix A, several of these studies did not indicate whether their findings were

statistically significant. Also several studies did not report whether the observed

safety improvements were maintained after the intervention phase. Bearing this in


32

mind, a summary of the major findings is presented below. For ease of interpretation,

the initiatives reviewed have been grouped according to whether they target safety at

an organisational level, employee level, or through implementing protective

equipment.

Initiatives reviewed targeting safety at the organisational level comprised:

policy development; driver selection criteria; a web based risk management tool; and

raised wages.

Ludwig and Geller (1999a) investigated the effectiveness of store managers

creating a policy mandating turn-signal use and attaching it to drivers pay checks in

America. They observed a slight increase in the targeted safe driving behaviour

during the policy implementation phase. The authors noted that the safest drivers

were the first to comply with the safe driving policy. The article did not indicate if

these outcomes were significant. It was also unclear whether the effects would be

maintained as no post-intervention data was collected. Additional research by White

and Murray (2007) explored the influence of policy development. Insurance data,

analysed 1 year pre-intervention and 1 year post-intervention, in an Australian case

study organization indicated a reduction in all major crash types and an improved

loss ration from 69% to 48%. The article did not indicate if these outcomes were

significant. Also, as policies were implemented in conjunction with other initiatives,

it is unclear whether policy development had a unique contribution to safety

enhancements.

A questionnaire, administered to a sample of the best safety performers in the

American trucking industry, indicated that the best safety performing trucking firms

utilised screening criteria in driver hiring situations. Top screening criteria when

hiring included a lack of: alcohol or drug related violations; speeding tickets; traffic

violations; and chargeable crashes, together with a preference for: honesty; self-

discipline; self-motivation; and patience (Mejza, Barnard, Corsi, & Keana, 2003).


33

Given that no comparative research was conducted to explore the prevalence of this

practice among less safe carriers it is unclear how effective this initiative is.

Research has investigated the effectiveness of a commercial web based risk

management tool designed to carry out risk assessments and monitor employee

safety. In an Australian case study organization, it was found that the use of the tool

was associated with a reduction in all major crash types and an improved loss ratio

(White & Murray, 2007). However the unique contribution of the web based risk

management tool to safety enhancements is unclear, as it was implemented in

conjunction with other initiatives.

The relationship between pay rises and crash risk has been investigated.

Using a driver crash involvement model, it has been found that as pay rises, crash

probability becomes lower. Using a sample of 2,368 truck drivers from an American

trucking and logistics firm, Rodriguez, Targa and Belzer (2006) calculated that a one

percentage increase in pay corresponded to a 1.3 percentage decrease in crash risk.

The authors did note that other minor policy changes occurred simultaneously with

the pay rise including a safety bonus for safety performance and greater effort to

return drivers to their homes after shifts. The researchers reported that they were not

able to control for any potential effects of these other initiatives.

Initiatives reviewed targeting safety at the employee level comprised: driver

training; group discussions; awareness and information campaign; goal setting;

performance feedback; enlisting employees as community road safety change agents;

self-monitoring forms; signing safety pledge cards; safety reminders; and rewards.

The effectiveness of driver training as an occupational road safety initiative

has been explored by several researchers. Practical driver training has been found to

be associated with decreased accident risk (Gregersen, Brehmer, & Moren, 1996).

Gregersen et al. found that monetary accident cost, obtained from insurance data,


34

decreased from about SEK 1,200/10,000 km to SEK 800/10,000km. It is interesting

to note that while these reductions are impressive, they were lower than the

reductions obtained as a result of participation in group discussions. Group

discussions achieved cost reductions from about SEK 800/10,000 km to SEK

300/10,000km.

Other researchers have also found driver training to be associated with

enhanced road safety outcomes. A combination of practical and classroom based

training has been found to be associated with improvements in audit ratings of work-

related traffic risk management in Japan (Salminen, 2008). Furthermore,

participation in an American training program on visual search and scanning patterns

was found to be associated with significantly enhanced overall driving ability,

performance during curve negotiation, visual search monitoring, and detection of

brake malfunction in a simulated driving exercise (Llaneras, Swezey, Brock, Rogers

& Van Cott, 1998). In addition to these empirical studies, questionnaire research has

also been conducted. A sample of the best safety performers in the American

trucking industry indicated that the best safety performing trucking firms required

pre-service and in-service driver training to build competence in regulatory

compliance, driving ability, vehicle condition assessment, operational and safety

procedures, and disciplinary policies. These firms utilised vehicle-based and

classroom-based training and evaluated whether learning was applied (Mejza et al.,

2003).

Several researchers have investigated the effectiveness of group discussions

focusing on occupational road safety problems and solutions. Interactive group

discussions have been found to be associated with decreased traffic-related work

incidents in Japan (Salminen, 2008) and increases in safe driving behaviours in

America (Ludwig & Geller, 1991). Ludwig and Geller found that the targeted

behaviour of safety-belt use increased during the intervention and remained high for

at least 3 months post-intervention. As group discussions were implemented in


35

conjunction with other initiatives in this study, the unique effects of discussions are

unclear. A more thorough investigation of the effects of group discussions was

achieved by Gregersen et al. (1996). This study found that group discussions were

associated with a significant decrease in both accident risk and accident cost based

on data collected two years pre-intervention and two years post-intervention in a

Swedish company. It was found that accident cost reduction was greatest in the

group discussion condition, as compared to the four other study conditions including

driver training, campaigns, rewards, and control.

Research suggests that a safety awareness and information campaigns may

have limited utility as an occupational road safety initiative. American research

investigating the effects of an intensive two week safety campaign (including

posters, fact sheets, electronic mail, promotion booth at annual health fair, thought

provoking survey, pledge card, letter from CEO, messages on pay check stubs, and

promotion on internal website) found that the initial improvements immediately after

the campaign were not maintained. The researchers observed that safety behaviours

measured one month post intervention and three months post intervention, had

returned to almost the pre intervention levels (Scheltema, Brost, Skager, & Roberts,

2002). Furthermore, research investigating a less intensive safety campaign

(including the presentation of videos and pamphlets) found no effect of the initiative

on accident risk (Gregersen et al., 1996).

The effectiveness of group goal setting as has been investigated in several

American studies. It was found that both participative group goal setting and

assigned group goal setting were associated with increased safe target behaviours

including performing a complete stop at stop signs (Ludwig & Geller, 1997) and

turn-signal use (Ludwig, Geller, & Clarke, 1999). In relation to non-targeted safety

behaviour, results are mixed. Ludwig et al. (1999) observed that regardless of

whether goal setting was participatory or assigned, no overall differences in safety

belt use occurred and an increase in complete intersection stops occurred in response


36

to a turn-signal intervention. In comparison, Ludwig and Geller (1997) found that

improvements in non-targeted safety behaviour, including turn-signal use and safety-

belt use, were only observed for employees in the participative goal setting

condition. Furthermore no changes were observed in safety-belt use and a slight

decrease in turn signal use was observed among employees in the assigned goal

setting condition. It is important to note that Ludwig and Geller did not indicate

whether the observed increases in safety behaviours were significant.

Performance feedback has been found in several American studies to be an

effective occupational road safety initiative. More specifically, feedback presented

publicly on individual driving behaviours has been found to be associated with

increases in the targeted safe driving behaviours, turn-signal use and complete

stopping at intersections (Ludwig, Biggs, Wagner, & Geller, 2001; Ludwig et al.,

1999). Similarly, the use of graphs displayed on worksite notice board presenting

individual and group performance feedback has been found to be associated with an

increase in overall safe driving performance (Olson & Austin, 2001). Overall safe

driving performance was assessed in relation to the loading and unloading of

passengers, cornering safely and allowing adequate following distances while

vehicles were in motion and the positioning of the vehicle when coming to a

complete stop. It is important to note that none of the above three studies indicated

whether the observed increases in safety behaviours were significant.

The effectiveness of enlisting delivery drivers to serve as change agents of a

community road safety campaign has been investigated in two American pizza

stores. This initiative was found to be associated with increases in both the targeted

behaviour of safety-belt use and the non-targeted behaviour of turn-signal use

(Ludwig & Geller, 1999b). It is important to note that Ludwig and Geller did not

indicate whether the observed increases in safety behaviours were significant.

Cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957) suggests that individuals are

motivated to achieve consistency between their beliefs and actions. Based on this


37

theory, Ludwig and Geller suggested that employees would be motivated to achieve

consistency between their own driving behaviours and the safe driving behaviours

that they were advocating.

Self-monitoring forms have been investigated as an occupational road safety

initiative. The use of self-monitoring forms recording safe behaviour estimates has

been found to be associated with a 12 percent increase in overall safe driving

performance over baseline performance within a sample of American bus drivers

(Olson & Austin, 2001). As previously indicated, overall safe driving performance

pertained to passenger loading and unloading and the operation of a vehicle both

while in motion and stopped. It is important to note that Olson and Austin did not

indicate whether the observed increase in safe driving behaviours was significant.

The signing of safety pledge cards has been researched in America. Ludwig

and Geller (1991) found that the signing of pledge cards promising personal

commitment to buckle-up was associated with increases in both the observed

targeted behaviour of safety-belt use and the non-targeted behaviour of turn-signal

use. Although Ludwig and Geller observed safety behaviours to remain high for at

least 3 months post-intervention, research by Scheltema et al., (2002) suggests that

the initial improvements observed in safety-belt use associated with the signing of

pledge cards may not be maintained after one month. Furthermore Ludwig and

Geller did not indicate whether the increases in safety-belt use and turn-signal use

were significant.

The presence of driver safety reminders has been found to be associated with

safer driving behaviours. More specifically, employee designed seat belt buckle-up

reminder signs displayed in the workplace and co-workers reminding delivery

drivers to buckle-up their seat belts when driving was found to be associated with

increases in both seat belt use and the non-targeted safe driving behaviour of turn-


38

signal use in American employees (Ludwig & Geller, 1991). Ludwig and Geller did

not indicate whether these increases were significant.

Several researchers have explored the relationship between rewards and road

safety outcomes. In relation to group rewards, it has been found that rewarding a

Swedish work group with money for incident free driving was associated with a

significant reduction in accident risk (Gregersen et al., 1996). In relation to

individual rewards, in America it has been found that running a competition and

rewarding only the safest driver with a vehicle maintenance prize was associated

with increases in the turn-signal use and complete intersection stopping (Ludwig, et

al., 2001). Further support for the use of rewards in managing occupational road risks

comes from a questionnaire administered to a sample of the best safety performers in

the American trucking industry. This study found that the best safety performing

trucking firms utilised a range of driver reinforcement methods to encourage safe

driving. The most popular rewards included verbal praise, public recognition,

congratulatory letters, safety decorations and cash (Mejza, et al., 2003). Given that

Mejza et al. did not investigate the prevalence of these practices among less safe

carriers it is unclear from their research whether the provision of rewards was

associated with safer driving performing. Furthermore, in contrast to the above three

studies, Newnam, Tay, and Mason (2006) found no support for the utility of financial

incentives, in the form of tailored insurance premiums for organizations based on

incident rates, in positively changing Australian fleet managers’ safety attitudes.

Safety initiatives reviewed pertaining to implementing protective equipment

comprised: alcolock devices; fatigue management technologies devices; in-vehicle

compensatory devices to target ability deficiencies of older commercial drivers; in

car data recorders; and gasoline vapour recovery devices.

Alcolock devices installed in Swedish commercial transport company vehicles

have successfully prevented vehicles from starting in cases where breath tests


39

indicated that drivers’ blood alcohol content levels exceeded the legal limit (Bjerre,

2005; Bjerre & Kostela, 2008). Questionnaire data indicated that although some

employees had initial suspicion and concerns of increased workloads when the

devices were installed, the alcolocks were very well accepted by most employers,

employees and passengers after the installation (Bjerre, 2005; Bjerre & Kostela,

2008).

A Fatigue Management Technologies device that provided information on

driver sleep need, driver drowsiness and lane tracking performance, and also reduced

driver work involved in controlling vehicle stability has been researched using a

sample of Canadian and American truck drivers. It was found that feedback from the

device reduced driver drowsiness and lane tracking variability during night driving.

The authors did caution that the benefits of this device may be reduced due to

increased attention and compensatory behaviours needed to respond to the device

(Dinges, Maislin, Brewster, Krueger, & Carroll, 2005).

The effectiveness of in-vehicle compensatory devices (comprising an auditory

navigational system, an automatic transmission and an advanced auditory warning

system) to target ability deficiencies of older commercial drivers has been researched

using a sample of American truck drivers. It was found that drivers with the device,

as compared to drivers with no device, demonstrated significantly enhanced overall

driving ability, performance during curves, visual search monitoring, and detection

of brake malfunction (Llaneras et al., 1998). It is important to note that these effects

were obtained in simulated driving experiences. Therefore it is unclear whether the

effects would be replicated in real traffic environments.

Research has investigated the effectiveness of in-car data recorders in

managing occupational road safety in seven European fleets. It was found that data

recorders and the feedback they generated and displayed for drivers, was associated

with a significant reduction in accident rate (Wouters & Bos, 2000). An average 20


40

percent reduction in accident rate was observed between the data collected one year

pre-intervention and one year post-intervention.

As solvents exposure is known to impair psychomotor performance, gasoline

vapour recovery devices were installed in attempt to reduce traffic injuries among

Taiwanese gasoline workers when commuting home after shifts. Chiang, Chan,

Tseng and Wang (2005) compared occupational injury registry data in relation to

traffic commuting incidents between employees exposed and not exposed to vapour.

Their analysis of pre-installation data and post-installation data revealed that the

installation of gasoline vapour recovery devices was associated with a significant

reduction in the cumulative injury rate for exposed employees only.

2.3.2 Questionnaire on Work-Related Road Safety Initiatives

This section describes: the questionnaire participant demographics and

recruitment process; the content of the questionnaire pertaining to study one; the

procedure adopted to conduct the questionnaire component of study one; and the

results pertaining to research question two.

2.3.2.1 Participant recruitment and demographics

The researcher contacted appropriate organisational representatives from four

unrelated Australian organisations and offered the opportunity to discuss their

organisation’s potential involvement in this work-related road safety research

project. Upon the organisational representative expressing an interest in this research,

the researcher scheduled a follow-up meeting to discuss the project in more detail. At

this meeting the researcher provided the organisational representative with an

industry project brief that can be viewed in Appendix B. The researcher outlined: the

project background; project aims and timelines; expected organisational

commitments; and the researcher’s deliverables.


41

Due to the difficulties of obtaining access to organisations and confidentiality

issues associated with conducting real world research, the four organisations were

selected as a convenience sample of Australian organisations. These sample

organisations were selected from a larger pool of organisations of which the PhD

Scholar and the Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety Queensland had

existing network contacts. To allow research findings to be generalised to a wide

range of organisations, these four organisations were purposefully selected to

represent a range of different Australian organisations that operate vehicle fleets.

The four organisations were selected to include a cross section of: private and

public organisations; State and National organisations; profit and not-for-profit

organisations; medium and large vehicle fleet organisations; and organisations from

a variety of industry sectors. All organisations participating in the research project

operated fleets that comprised a mixture of vehicle models including both passenger

and commercial vehicles, and required their employees to operate their fleet vehicles

in a range of environments including both rural and urban settings. The size of the

workforce and fleet varied among organisations. A brief de-identified description of

the four organisations that participated in the research project is provided below.

Organisation A was a for profit National utilities provider with a workforce

of approximately 35,000 employees. The organisation was owned by both the

Australian Government and private shareholders. Organisation A operated a fleet of

approximately 15,000 vehicles.

Organisation B was a State Government owned corporation for profit utilities

provider. The organisation had a workforce of about 4,000 employees and a fleet of

approximately 3,500 vehicles.

Organisation C was a for profit State community services provider with a

workforce of approximately 4,500 employees. The organisation was a department


42

within a Sate Government. Organisation C operated a fleet of approximately 1,200

vehicles.

Finally, organisation D was a not for profit State based provider of residential

and community services. Organisation D was a private organisation that received

some funding from the Government. It employed approximately 2,000 staff and was

supported by a network of approximately 500 volunteers. Organisation D operated a

fleet of approximately 200 vehicles.

In negotiating permission to administer the work-related road safety

questionnaire within the organisations, the researcher requested that the survey be

made available to a cross section of employees who drive as part of their work.

Although the researcher had initially hoped to access approximately 200 participants

from each of the four organisations, due to organisational needs to meet production

targets and to attend to business priorities, only two organisations were able to meet

this request. The other two organisations committed to providing access to a

minimum of 100 employees. A total sample of 679 participants was obtained. The

sample comprised 223 employees from organisation A, 103 employees from

organisation B, 235 employees from organisation C, and 118 employees from

organisation D.

These participants were a convenience sample determined by the

organisational representatives. The organisational representatives agreed to recruit

participants from a representative range of organisational positions and

responsibilities, geographical locations and demographic backgrounds. Overall the

profiles of employees participating in study three were similar across the four

organisations. As comparisons are made among the organisations in study one,

participant demographics for each of the organisations are described below in

relation to age, gender and exposure to work-related road risks.


43

Overall, participants ranged in age from 18 years to 65 years (M = 42, SD =

11). This distribution of questionnaire participants, presented in Figure 4 below,

corresponded with the workforce age distributions in each of the researched

organisations. However it is interesting to note that organisation A had considerably

more respondents from the 46 to 55 years age group (53 percent) than organisations

B (32 percent), C (24 percent) and D (29 percent). A review of the workforce

distribution within organisation A identified that organisation A’s participants may

slightly over represent the perceptions of their more mature employees, given that

this age group only accounted for approximately 30% of its employees.

Figure 4 Age of survey participants in the researched organisations

Across the organisations there was a relatively even distribution of male (58

percent) and female (42 percent) participants. However within the organisations the

distributions were skewed. As can be seen in Figure 5 below, a majority of the

survey respondents were male in organisations A and B. Comparatively a majority of

the survey respondents were female in organisations C and D. In organisation A, 92

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cent

age

A B C D

Organisation

56 Years and over

46-55 Years

36-45 Years

26-35 Years

25 Years and under


44

percent of respondents were male. The observed higher percentage of male

respondents as compared to female respondents was expected in organisation A as

males accounted for 70 percent of the workforce in organisation A. In organisation

B, almost 95 percent of respondents were male. Again the higher percentage of male

respondents as compared to female respondents was expected given that males

accounted for a large percentage of the workforce in organisation B. An exact gender

breakdown of the organisation B workforce was not able to be supplied due to

confidentiality reasons. In organisation C, 81 percent of respondents were female.

The higher percentage of female respondents as compared to male respondents was

expected given that females accounted for 87 percent of the workforce in

organisation C. In organisation D, 68 percent of respondents were female. Again the

higher percentage of female respondents as compared to male respondents was

expected given that females accounted for 87 percent of the workforce in

organisation D.

Figure 5 Gender of survey participants in the researched organisations

Overall 48 percent of the participants drove between one and 10 hours per

week for work-related purposes. Thirty-one percent of participants drove between

0

10

20

3040

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cen

tage

A B C D

Organisation

Female

Male


45

11-20 hours, and 13 percent drove in excess of 21 hours. Four percent of participants

reported not engaging in any driving for work purposes on a weekly basis. At an

organisational level, employees in organisation B appeared to have the highest

exposure, followed by employees in organisations D, A then C.

More specifically, all survey participants in organisations B and D engaged in

some work-related driving. In comparison, seven percent of the employees in

organisation A and six percent of the employees in organisation C engaged in no

work-related driving. As can be seen in Figure 6, in each of the organisations just

over 80 percent of survey respondents reported driving 20 hours or less for work

each week. More specifically, organisations A, C and D appeared to have moderate

exposure with just over 50 percent of their staff reporting driving 10 hours or less. In

comparison organisation B appeared to have higher exposure, with 57 percent of

respondents reporting typically driving between 11 and 20 hours for work each week.

In each of the participating organisations, some respondents reported high driving

exposure. Organisation B (18 percent) had the highest percentage of respondents

who reported driving 21 hours or more for week as compared to organisations D (14

percent), A (12 percent) and C (9 percent).


46

Figure 6 Hours typically driven for work each week per employee

A review of the reported kilometres annually driven for work identifies a

similar pattern of exposure to the hours driven per week. As can be seen in Figure 7,

employees in organisations A, C and D appeared to be exposed to moderate amounts

of work-related driving. Again organisation B appeared to have the highest exposure

with only 10 percent of its employees reporting driving less than 10,000 kilometres

and 28 percent reporting driving in excess of 40,000 kilometres per year for work.

Organisation C had the lowest employee exposure to driving. This is consistent with

the types of driving predominantly required of employees in organisation C.

Although all of the participating organisations require employees to operate vehicles

in both urban and rural environments, organisations A, B and D have a fairly

balanced mixture of urban and rural work sites as compared to organisation C which

is predominantly urban. The urban road environment which organisation C drivers

are typically exposed to is likely to have lower speed limits and higher traffic

congestion than rural environments. This may account for the observed similar levels

of exposure among organisations A, C and D when measured by hours by week, and

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cent

age

A B C D

Organisation

>30 hours

21-30 hours

11-20 hours

0-10 hours


47

the lower levels of exposure observed in organisation C when measured by

kilometres driven per year.

Figure 7 Kilometres typically driven for work each year per employee

2.3.2.2 Content

The study one questionnaire was administered as section one and section

three of the larger research project questionnaire. The research project questionnaire

comprised the following three sections:

1. Voice your thoughts on road safety initiatives

2. Describe your work environment

3. Test your driving behaviour

A copy of the online questionnaire can be viewed in Appendix C. The content of

sections one and three are described below. The content of section two of the

questionnaire is discussed where relevant in chapter three.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cent

age

A B C D

Organisation

>40,000kms

30,001-40,000kms

20,001-30,000kms

10,001-20,000kms

0-10,000kms


48

In section one, to explore employees’ perceptions with respect to the

effectiveness of a range of occupational road safety initiatives an online

questionnaire was developed by the researcher. Initiatives researched in study one

were selected based upon: organisational practices that had been previously observed

by the author while operating as a consultant; initiatives proposed to be best practice

in industry reports (Anderson et al., 1998; Haworth et al., 2008; Haworth et al., 2000;

Health and Safety Executive, 2000; Murray, 2007; Murray et al., 2003); and

initiatives that had been evaluated in previous studies (Bjerre, 2005; Bjerre &

Kostela, 2008; Dinges et al., 2005; Gregersen et al., 1996; Llaneras et al., 1998;

Mejza et al., 2003; Newman et al., 2006; Salminen, 2008; White & Murray, 2007;

Wouters & Bos, 2000).

Examples of some of the initiatives that were included in this study that have

been previously researched include: driver training, group discussions, awareness

raising initiatives, incentives for safe driving (Gregersen et al., 1996), goal setting,

(Ludwig, 2000) signing a promise card commitment to drive safely (Boyce & Geller,

1999), monitoring driver behaviour with in-car data recorders (Wouters & Bos,

1999), and encouraging self-monitoring of driving behaviour (Olson & Austin,

2000).

Participants were encouraged to voice their thoughts on road safety

initiatives. The questionnaire stated that some strategies work well in one

organisation but not in others. Participants were then asked to rate 35 initiatives

based on how effective they thought they would be in improving road safety in their

organisation. Initiatives were rated using a five-point Likert scale ranging from one

representing very ineffective to five representing very effective. Although it is

acknowledged that employees’ perceived ratings may not correspond to actual

initiative effectiveness, it is important to consider employees’ current perceptions to

determine how to best market the introduction of future initiatives to employees.


49

In section three, participants were encouraged to examine their work-related

driving behaviour using a modified version of the Manchester Driver Behaviour

Questionnaire (DBQ) and to provide some demographic details. Consistent with

previous work-related road safety research, the DBQ (Wills et al., 2006) and

demographic items including self-reported driving infringements and incidents

(Freeman, Davey, & Wishart, 2007) were collected for use in the current study as

dependent variables. Other demographic details including participants’ age, gender

and exposure to road risks were also collected.

The DBQ has been widely implemented as a measure of self-reported

aberrant driving behaviour. The scale has undergone considerable evolution since its

inception. The original scale developed by Reason et al. (1990) focused on driving

behaviours with respect to errors and violations. In the original study, errors referred

to unplanned actions including failures of observations and misjudgements, while

violations referred to deliberate deviations from safe driving behaviours, such as

speeding. The original scale has undergone continual modifications. For example,

Lawton, Parker, Stradling, and Manstead (1997) incorporated additional items to

achieve a greater level of distinction between ordinary and deliberate violations.

These are now identified as Highway code violations including behaviours such as

speeding and interpersonal aggressive violations including behaviours such as

chasing another motorist. Lajunen and Summala (2003) also developed an additional

factor referred to as “slips and lapses” that included items pertaining to failures in

memory or attention.

Furthermore, many minor modifications have been made to the DBQ to tailor

the scale to the driving environments in different countries. Previous research has

established that the DBQ is robust to minor changes to the wording of some

questions and the number of items used in the scale. The DBQ with minor

modifications has been used in many countries including: Australia (Newnam,

Watson & Murray, 2004; Freeman et al., 2007); China (Xie & Parker, 2002); Finland


50

(Bianchi & Summala, 2004), New Zealand (Sullman, Meadows & Pajo, 2002), and

the United Kingdom (Parker, McDonald, Rabbitt, & Sutcliffe, 2000; Parker, West,

Stradling, & Manstead, 1995).

The current research modified the DBQ scale as modified by Freeman et al.

(2007) to further increase the applicability of items to Australian work-related

drivers. Modifications made by Freeman et al. comprised: the inclusion of

contemporary factors that may influence professional driving performance, such as

time pressure, fatigue and multi-tasking (e.g., driving and eating and/or mobile phone

use), modification of some wording to make the measures more applicable to

Australian driving conditions (e.g. direction descriptions), duplication of some items

to examine the differences between intentional and unintentional versions of offence

violation (e.g. disobeying stop signs). Additional modifications were made to the 34

item scale used by Freeman et al. (2007) by adjusting the wording of 2 items. More

specifically, the wording in two items was changed from the word ‘junction’ to

‘intersection’ to better reflect Australian road terminology.

The DBQ was introduced in the current questionnaire with the statement that

“even the best drivers can make mistakes, do foolish things, or bend the rules while

driving. For each statement below, please indicate how often over the past 6 months

this kind of thing has happened to you while driving for work purposes.” To enhance

the accuracy in data reporting, the questionnaire stated that driving for work purposes

included both driving between work and home and completing work-related tasks

and also reminded participants that their responses were anonymous. Respondents

were required to indicate how often they commit each of the behaviours on a seven-

point Likert scale. Response options ranged from one representing never, to seven

representing always. As some items needed to be reverse coded, appropriate

calculations were then performed to achieve consistency in interpretation so that

lower scores on any item indicated safer behaviours.


51

Participant demographics were also collected in section three of the

questionnaire. As previously noted, incident involvement data was collected for use

in the current study as dependent variables. Incident involvement was measured in

two ways. Firstly, by the frequency of lost demerit points or fines for traffic offences

(excluding parking offences) incurred during the past 12 months while driving for

work. Secondly, by the frequency of crash involvement (any incident involving a

motor vehicle that resulted in damage to a vehicle or other property, or injury

regardless of who was considered to be ‘at fault’) experienced during the past 12

months while driving for work. The collection of crash involvement and

accumulation of demerit point data as measures of incident involvement is consistent

with previous work-related road safety research (Wishart, Freeman, & Davey, 2006).

Additional demographic data was collected to assist in interpreting the

comparisons made among the organisations in study one. Similar to previous

research in the area of work-related road safety (Darby, Murray, & Raeside, 2008;

Freeman, Wishart, Davey, & Rowland, 2008; Rowden, Watson, & Biggs, 2006; Burt,

Sepie, & McFadden, 2008), questionnaire participants were asked to provide their

age and gender details. Participants were also asked to estimate their exposure to

occupational road risks. Exposure was measured in relation to the number of hours

typically driven for work per week and the approximate kilometres driven for work

each year for work. The collection of hours driven and kilometres driven data as

measures of exposure is consistent with previous work-related road safety research

(Banks et al., 2006; Rowden et al, 2006; Wills et al., 2004; Wishart et al., 2006).

2.3.2.3 Procedure

The researcher discussed with the organisational representative whether

online, paper and pencil or a combination of both forms of questionnaires would be


52

most appropriate for their organisation. All four participating organisations elected to

have the questionnaires distributed online to their employees.

In the process of developing the research items and the online process, pilot

questionnaires were firstly conducted with five employees that were unrelated to the

researched organisations and secondly with an organisational representatives from

each of the researched organisations. Based on the feedback obtained in the pilot

study minor adjustments were made to several items to enhance item clarity.

The researcher then arranged for the online survey to be made available on

the intranet within each of the organisations. The researcher supplied all

organisational representatives with a short project brief and requested that they email

this to all staff announcing the opportunity to participate in the questionnaire and

providing the web address access details. A copy of the questionnaire project brief

emailed to participants can be viewed in Appendix D. To ensure participant

anonymity all completed questionnaires were sent directly to the researcher.

Upon submitting their questionnaire, all participants received instant and

personalised feedback in appreciation of their time spent participating in this study.

The researcher generated a range of feedback statements and programmed these to be

selected and displayed to participants based on their questionnaire responses. All

participants received the same feedback with respect to their responses to section

one’s ‘Voice your thoughts on road safety initiatives’. Participants were presented

with “Thanks for your feedback on the suitability of road safety initiatives for your

organisation. It is hoped that this feedback will assist in developing future work-

related road safety strategies.”

Participants received personalised feedback with respect to their responses to

section three’s ‘Test your driving behaviour’. Participant feedback was presented in

relation to whether their responses indicated that their driving behaviours were safer,


53

similar to, or less safe then Australian industry norms. The norms used for participant

feedback were derived from a large unpublished database owned by the Centre for

Accident Research and Road Safety – Queensland. Participants received feedback on

their self-reported driving with respect to nine behavioural categories. These

comprised: errors, highway-code violations, aggressive violations, time pressure,

distractions, fatigue, alcohol, maintenance and manoeuvring. All participant

feedback, stated how their behaviour compared to Australian industry norms,

potential implications of the behaviour and a recommendation to engage in safe

driving behaviours.

For example participants who reported engaging in safer maintenance

behaviours than the industry norm would have received the following feedback

“Congratulations you have scored better than the industry average on items relating

to performing maintenance checks on your vehicle, indicating that your vehicle may

be well maintained. Correct tyre pressure and fluid levels are crucial to the continued

safe operation of your vehicle. Always ensure that your vehicle is safe to operate”.

Comparatively participants who reported engaging in less safe aggressive behaviours

than the industry norm would have received the following feedback “You have

scored higher than industry averages on aggression. High levels of aggression have

been linked to road rage, crashes and traffic offences. These are all serious road

safety issues and compromise the safety of all road users. Please relax, calm down

and expect that other road users may make mistakes.”

Details pertaining to the personalised feedback displayed to participants

based on their questionnaire responses to sections two of the questionnaire are

presented in Chapter 5.

Interview data was then analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social

Sciences version 15. Before commencing analyses, the data was screened for

accuracy. An examination of histograms confirmed the absence of outliers and an


54

examination of residuals scatterplots confirmed that the assumptions of normality,

linearity and homoscedasticity were not violated. When conducting post hoc

comparisons, a Bonferroni adjustment was applied to the significance level. As only

a small number of planned comparisons were being made an alpha value of .025 was

selected to reduce the probability of making a type I error. In applying this more

stringent level of significance, the author recognises that the associated loss of power

may result in true differences in the treatment population not being identified.

In appreciation of the organisations providing permission to conduct work-

related road safety research within their organisation, the researcher committed to

providing a complimentary consultant’s report to each of the organisations. These

comprehensive reports were customised for each organisation. A generic detailed

description of the research project background and the methods and materials used to

conduct all three studies was presented. The author then analysed the findings from

each of the organisations separately and prepared detailed organisation specific

feedback in relation to each individual organisation. These findings pertained to the

audit, interview and questionnaire results obtained across the three studies. In

addition to this organisation specific feedback, de-identified comparisons among the

researched organisations were presented. This data was presented to allow each of

the organisations to benchmark how their road safety practices and processes,

organisational environment, driver behaviours, traffic infringement frequencies and

vehicle incident frequencies compared to other Australian organisations. In the

consultants report, the author also provided many suggestions tailored to each of the

organisations to enhance their management of work-related road risks.

2.3.2.4 Results pertaining to research question two - Which initiatives are perceived

by employees to be effective in managing work-related road risks?

With potential responses ranging from one representing very ineffective to

five representing very effective, the mean rating of perceived effectiveness across the

35 initiatives was 3.31. The initiatives perceived by employees to be most effective


55

in managing occupational road risks comprised: making vehicle safety features

standard e.g. passenger airbags; practical driver skills training; investigation of

serious vehicle incidents; making cruise control a standard vehicle feature; targeting

safety assistance to high risk drivers; and marking low visibility walls and objects

with hazard colours. The initiatives perceived to be least effective in managing

occupational road risks comprised: signing a promise card commitment to drive

safely; advertising the organisation’s phone number on vehicles for complaints and

compliments; consideration of driving competency in staff selection process;

communicating cost benefits of road safety e.g. fuel efficiency; presenting

comparisons of vehicle incident statistics between depots; and monitoring driver

behaviour with in-car data recorders. The means and standard deviations for all 35

initiatives are presented below in Table 1.


56

Table 1 Employee perceptions of initiative effectiveness

Work-Related Road Safety Initiative Mean SD Making vehicle safety features standard e.g. passenger airbags 4.02 1.11 Practical driver skills training 3.94 1.25 Investigation of serious vehicle incidents 3.89 1.09 Making cruise control a standard vehicle feature 3.69 1.23 Targeting safety assistance to high risk drivers 3.66 1.14 Marking low visibility walls and objects with hazard colours 3.60 1.21 Recording incidents and identify high risk employees and vehicles 3.59 1.16 Assessing competency before operating vehicles in difficult areas 3.57 1.22 Medical screening for problems that will affect driving e.g. vision 3.53 1.25 Journey planning to avoid high risk situations e.g. animals at dusk 3.49 1.19 Vehicle inductions for all drivers 3.48 1.22 Awareness communication on work related road risks 3.46 1.01 Employee input in selection of vehicles 3.44 1.27 Individual incentives for safe driving 3.44 1.27 Presenting personal stories about serious crashes in your organisation

3.43 1.19

Making ‘lights on’ during driving a standard vehicle feature 3.39 1.30 Documenting vehicle maintenance 3.39 1.10 Provision of driver safety information 3.38 1.02 Checking driver’s licences are current every 12 months 3.30 1.35 Group incentives for safe driving 3.27 1.21 Individual feedback on driving behaviour 3.27 1.13 Development and promotion of work related road safety policy 3.25 1.01 Including driving behaviour in performance assessments 3.21 1.21 Safe driving goal setting 3.15 1.10 Encouraging self monitoring of driving behaviour 3.09 1.06 Individual consequences for unsafe driving 3.07 1.03 Making speed-limiters a standard vehicle feature 3.06 1.36 Group discussions to identify safety problems and solutions 3.00 1.12 Group feedback on driving behaviour 3.00 1.17 Monitor driver behaviour with in-car data recorders 2.93 1.32 Presenting comparisons of vehicle incident statistics between depots 2.92 1.20 Communicating cost benefits of road safety e.g. fuel efficiency 2.87 1.13 Consideration of driving competency in staff selection process 2.87 1.18 Org. phone number on vehicles for complaints and compliments 2.81 1.36 Signing a promise card commitment to drive safely 2.37 1.17


57

The DBQ, traffic infringements and crash involvement data collected via the

questionnaire is presented with the audit data below as these measures were used to

answer research question three.

2.3.3 Audit of Work-Related Road Safety Practices and Processes

An audit was developed by the researcher to evaluate each organisation’s

road safety practices and processes with respect to best practice. For the purposes of

this research ‘best practice’ was based upon elements that have been identified in the

research literature (Haworth et al., 2000) and industry guides from both Australia

including Queensland Transport’s Workplace Fleet Safety System (Anderson et al.,

1998) and from other countries including the United Kingdom’s Driving at Work:

Managing work-related road safety (Health and Safety Executive, 2000) as best

practice in work-related road safety. Practices and processes reviewed in this audit

where grouped into eight categories comprising:

1. Having a written Fleet Safety Policy in place that clearly defines safe driving

responsibilities and communicates to employees the organisations

commitment to safe driving

2. Recruiting and selecting drivers based on safe driving records and awareness

of safety issues

3. Inducting all new employees and supervisors using a formal induction

program containing work related road safety and safe driving components

4. Conducting fleet safety training needs analyses and providing and evaluating

any required fleet safety training and education

5. Recognising good and poor driving behaviours through an official scheme of

incentives (not rewards) and disincentives

6. Eliminating or minimising exposure to road hazards when planning and

managing road journeys

7. Selecting vehicles based on safety features and documenting maintenance

procedures


58

8. Recording and monitoring individual driver, individual vehicle and overall

fleet incident involvement and managing identified high risks

These categories and the corresponding criteria used to rate the organisations

level of practice were selected based on: published international research findings

previously described in the literature review of study one; the Queensland Transport

audit system (Anderson et al., 1998); and the author’s observations made while

consulting, in relation to current organisational practices. Audit rating levels

included: zero (no practice in place), one (limited practice in place), two (moving

towards reduced harm) and three (moving towards zero harm). In developing this

research method the audit categories, criterions and ratings were reviewed by a panel

of work-related road safety professionals from the Centre for Accident Research and

Road Safety – Queensland. Feedback and suggestions from the panel were

incorporated to achieve a comprehensive audit system. The categories and criterions

used to conduct the work-related road safety audit in this research project are

presented in Appendix E.

2.3.3.1 Procedure

The audit was conducted using the same four organisations that participated

in the questionnaire. Within each organisation, the audit consisted of four phases.

Firstly, the researcher contacted the organisational representative and negotiated

access to all documents pertaining to work-related road safety. The researcher

obtained many documents including but not limited to, fleet safety policy statements,

risk appraisal forms and incident reporting forms. These documents were reviewed

with respect to each audit categories criterion. Reviewing official safety management

system documents provided insight into what the organisations ideally would be

doing to protect employees and the public from harm. However, it was recognised

that ideal and actual practice may not be congruent in organisations.


59

Therefore, to identify what practices were actually happening within the

organisations, the second phase of the audit comprised conducting interviews

separately with two managers. As some managers may not be completely aware of

all the practices that are occurring in different departments, a workplace health and

safety manager and a fleet manager were interviewed in each organisation. These

managers were selected for interviewing as a majority of occupational road safety

practices and processes are managed by either workplace health and safety or fleet

personnel. At the commencement of these interviews verbal consent was obtained to

take written notes and an audio recording of the session. Interviews followed a semi-

structured format, refer Appendix F, with the researcher requesting a description of

the organisations current practices and processes with respect to the eight audit

categories from the organisational representative. To verify the information provided,

the researcher also requested access to further supporting documentation. At this

point the researcher obtained many additional documents including but not limited

to, road safety email alerts, induction presentations including road safety

components, safety posters and incident trend statistics. During the interview several

structured questions, refer Appendix F, were asked to obtain detailed information

pertaining to how the organisation managed specific work-related road risks and

some unstructured questions were asked to explore any interesting issues raised in

the interview or clarify aspects from the organisations road safety documentation.

Upon completion of the interviews all audio recordings were transcribed for analysis.

Thirdly, once all audit data was collected, the organisation’s practices and

processes were compared to the eight audit categories criterion to determine audit

ratings.

Finally, a draft of the audit results was sent to a third manager to verify the

accuracy of the audit assessment. This process was adopted to achieve a thorough

and reliable assessment of the level at which each organisation was performing at in

relation to best practice in work-related road safety.


60


comprehensive work-related road risk management practices and processes

have better safety outcomes than organisations with limited risk management

practices and processes?

This section begins by presenting the audit results obtained for each of the

four organisations. Findings are then presented in relation to Analysis of Variance

(ANOVA) tests that were conducted to investigate if organisations with

comprehensive risk management practices had higher safety outcomes than

organisations with limited practices in place. Comparisons of means were conducted

for the following road safety outcomes: DBQ; traffic infringements; and crash

involvement.

Audit results

The audit revealed that overall occupational road safety practices and

processes were most developed in the areas of vehicle selection and maintenance and

incident monitoring and managing identified high risks. Practices and processes were

least developed in the area of recruiting and selecting safe drivers. Table 2 presents

an organisational comparison of audit ratings for each of the eight categories and an

overall averaged rating of work-related safety practices and processes.


61

Table 2 Audit ratings of work-related road safety practices and processes

Driver

Behaviour

Categories

Organisation

A

Organisation

B

Organisation

C

Organisation

D

Policy 3 2 2 0

Recruitment and

selection 1 1 0 1

Induction 2 2 1 1

Training 2 2 1 1

Performance 2 2 0 0

Journey planning 2 2 1 1

Vehicle selection

and maintenance 3 2 1 2

Incident

monitoring and

risk management

3 2 1 2

Average rating 2.3 1.9 0.9 1

Note. 0 = No practice in place, 1 = Limited practice in place,

2 = Moving towards reduced harm, 3 = Moving towards zero harm

It can be observed in Table 2, that overall road safety practices and processes

were most developed in organisation A (2.3), followed by organisation B (1.9).

Organisation D (1.0) and organisation C (0.9) had limited practices and processes in

place to manage work-related road safety risks. Detailed descriptions of the work-

related safety practices and processes operating in each of the organisations for each

of the eight categories can be viewed in Appendix G.


62

For example with respect to the category of ‘Recording and monitoring

individual driver, individual vehicle and overall fleet incident involvement and

managing identified high risks’ organisation C had limited practices in place. More

specifically, organisation C did not have a documented reporting system for all fleet

safety incidents or a procedure in place to inform employees of the process for

reporting fleet safety incidents. No process had been developed for investigating

serious incidents and the organisation did not formally monitor individual drivers or

vehicles to identify high risks. Although organisation C did maintain a database of

vehicle claims, the limited data recorded was primarily for insurance claims rather

than risk management. For example data included policy number and excess paid

rather than details of potential contributing causes of the incident.

In comparison organisation A had many practices in place in relation to

monitoring incidents and was moving towards zero harm risk management. More

specifically, organisation A had an online documented reporting system for all fleet

safety incidents. Incident data was comprehensive and was used by the business to

monitor vehicle incident trends and to target driving safety information to specific

key areas and employee’s. A procedure was in place to inform employees of the

process for reporting fleet incidents. The manager of a driver involved in an incident

was automatically notified by email and prompted to conduct an interview with the

driver to establish causal factors. The form used in this process guides the manager in

discussing the incident with the driver and looking at measures that can be taken, or

information that can be supplied, to reduce the possibility of a reoccurrence of the

incident. Organisation A also had an online infringement and fine system that

captured driver infringements against each driver for common items such as red

light, speeding and failure to wear a seatbelt. This information was used by business

units to identify staff who may require training or internal discussion regarding

driver behaviour.


63

Organisation A had linked several databases including infringement data,

driving compliments/complaints data and incident data to develop a reporting tool

with the potential to provide a full history of a driver’s occupational road behaviour.

This tool was used to manage driver safety at both an employee level and a business

unit level. Organisation A was also trialling a driver profile tool that gathered

information about employees’ driving attitudes and behaviours. The tool provided

instant personalised feedback to employees upon completion of their profile to

improve their road safety awareness and driving behaviours. In addition to these

methods of monitoring, investigating and managing incidents, organisation A had

also set driving safety targets. For example, one of organisation A’s targets was to

reduce their incident claim rate to 20 percent.

Driving behaviour

Using the responses from all questionnaire participants, an exploratory factor

analysis was conducted on the 34 item modified driver behaviour questionnaire. The

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure (msa = .914) and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (p>.001)

confirmed factorability. Principal components analysis with oblimin rotation

revealed seven factors exceeding Kaiser’s criterion of eigenvalues > 1. Cattell’s scree

plot strongly supported a four factor extraction. The four-factor solution accounted

for 44.1% of the total variance with factors one and three appearing to be moderate

to highly correlated, r = -.53.

The first factor accounted for approximately 26% of the total variance and

contained 12 items. A majority of the items related to traditional error items

identified by Reason et al. (1990). For example the items ‘when overtaking

underestimate speed of oncoming vehicle’ and ‘nearly hit another car while queuing

to enter a main road’ loaded onto this factor. In addition to the nine error items, three

traditional violation items also loaded on this factor, for example ‘cross intersection

knowing the traffic lights have turned red’. The combination of traditional error and


64

violation items loading on factor one is very similar to the error factor obtained in

previous research (Freeman et al., 2007).

The second factor accounted for approximately 8% of the total variance and

contained nine items relating to fatigue and distraction issues. Fatigue items

including ‘driving while tired’ and ‘have difficulty driving due to fatigue’ were

identified as the strongest contributors to the factor. In addition to the fatigue items,

several items relating to time pressure and multitasking loaded onto this factor.

Examples of these items include ‘saving time by driving quicker between jobs’ and

‘eating a meal while driving’. Factor two is identical to the fatigue factor identified in

previous research (Freeman et al., 2007).

The third factor accounted for approximately 6% of the total variance and

contained nine items relating to a combination of highway-code violations and

aggressive violations. Speeding items including ‘disregard speed limit on a

residential road’, ‘disregard speed limit on a highway’ and ‘race away from traffic

lights to beat car beside you were identified as the strongest contributors to the

factor. The combination of violation items loading on factor three is very similar to

the speeding/violation factor obtained in previous research (Freeman et al., 2007).

Finally, the fourth factor accounted for approximately 5% of the total variance and

contained three items relating to unsafe driving preparation. Examples of items that

loaded highly on this factor included ‘have alcoholic drinks before driving’ and ‘not

wear your seatbelt’.

The resulting factor loadings of greater than .3 for the modified driver

behaviour questionnaire are shown in Table 3. As can be seen in the table, two items

cross loaded on more than one factor, although both of these items did have a more

dominant factor loading. It is also important to note that three items were excluded

from further analyses due to unsatisfactory factor loadings (<.30). These included:

(a) Drive while using a “hands-free” mobile phone, (b) Do paperwork or other admin


65

while driving and (c) Become angered by another driver and give chase. The failure

of the first two items to load to a factor at a satisfactory level is consistent with the

results obtained in previous Australian research using a sample of professional

drivers (Freeman et al., 2007).

Table 3 Factor structure of the modified DBQ

Description F1 F2 F3 F4

When overtaking underestimate speed of other vehicle .64

Nearly hit another car while queuing to enter a main road .62

Fail to notice pedestrian crossing in path .61

Nearly hit a cyclist while turning .59

Pull out of junction so far that you disrupt traffic .56

Fail to check rear-view mirror .55

Miss stop or giveway sign .51

Attempt to overtake someone you had not noticed turning .50

Cross intersection knowing traffic lights have turned red .38

Remove your seatbelt for some reason while driving .33

Skid while breaking or cornering on a slippery road .32

Drive while tired -.83

Have difficulty driving because of tiredness or fatigue -.79

Drive while under time pressure -.60

Drive home from work after a long day -.60

Find yourself driving on autopilot -.54

Eat a meal while driving for work -.54

Save time during the day by driving quicker between jobs -.54

Find yourself nodding off while driving for work -.53 .37

Find your attention being distracted from the road .37 -.48

Disregard speed limit on a residential road -.68

Disregard speed limit on a highway or freeway -.62


66

Table 3 (Continued)

Description F1 F2 F3 F4

Race away from traffic lights to beat car beside you -.61

Drive especially close to car in front to signal drive faster -.60

Become impatient by slow driver and overtake on inside -.58

Become angered by another driver and show anger -.52

Sound horn to indicate your annoyance at another driver -.40

Stay in a closing lane and force your way into another -.40

Drive while using a hands-held phone -.34

Have alcoholic drinks before driving .45

Not wear your seatbelt .42

Overall, reliability analyses revealed that the DBQ had a high internal

reliability of .90. High internal reliability was also observed for the first three factors.

More specifically, the following coefficient alpha values were obtained for Factor

One .83 (errors), Factor Two .87 (fatigue and distractions) and Factor Three .80

(violations). As Factor Four .41 (unsafe driving preparations) failed to achieve an

acceptable reliability coefficient cut-off level of .70 (De Vaus, 2002), this factor was

excluded from further analyses.

A one-way ANOVA was conducted to compare employees’ self-reported

work-related driving behaviours, as measured by the DBQ, among the organisations.

Scores ranged from one to seven, with lower scores indicating safer driving

behaviours. A significant difference in reported driving behaviours was found among

the organisations F(3,563) = 3.57, p > .05. Post hoc comparisons with Bonferroni

adjustments revealed that the mean DBQ scores did not differ significantly among

the organisations (p>.025).


67

This finding supports the hypothesis that organisations with comprehensive

risk management practices will have better safety outcomes than organisations with

limited risk management practices. More specifically, organisation A received an

audit rating of 2.3 indicating that the organisation’s risk management practices and

processes were at a level deemed to be between moving towards reduced harm and

moving towards zero injury. Comparatively, organisation D received an audit rating

of 0.9 indicating that the organisation’s risk management practices and processes

were deemed to be limited.

Refer Table 4 below to compare mean driving scores and standard deviations

for the modified DBQ and the three extracted reliable factors across the four

organisations.

Table 4 Mean driver behaviour scores by organisations

Scale

Organisation

A B C D

34-item DBQ 1.92 (0.53) 2.12 (0.57) 2.04 (0.65) 2.13 (0.70)

Errors 1.55 (0.44) 1.77 (0.55) 1.69 (0.55) 1.76 (0.71)

Fatigue 2.62 (1.01) 3.06 (1.08) 2.81 (1.07) 3.01 (1.04)

Violations 1.95 (0.76) 1.94 (0.65) 2.03 (0.92) 2.09 (0.84)

Note. Values in parentheses represent standard deviations.

Additional one-way ANOVAs were conducted to compare employees’

driving behaviours across the organisations with respect to the three extracted

reliable factors including errors, fatigue and violations. A significant difference in

reported errors was found among the organisations F(3,579) = 5.47, p > .01. Post hoc

comparisons with Bonferroni adjustments revealed that the mean error score for

organisation A was significantly lower than for organisation B (p > .01) and for


68

organisation D (p > .01). This suggests that employees in organisation A commit

fewer driving errors than employees in organisation B and employees in organisation

D.

Similarly, a significant difference in reported fatigue and distraction was

found among the organisations F(3,579) = 5.07, p > .01. Post hoc comparisons with

Bonferroni adjustments revealed that the mean fatigue and distraction score for

organisation A was significantly lower than for organisation B (p > .01) and for

organisation D (p > .025). This suggests that employees in organisation A experience

fewer fatigue and distraction issues when driving as compared to employees in

organisation B and employees in organisation D.

No significant difference was observed in reported driving violations among

organisations. Although not significant, the pattern of employees in organisation A

reporting safer driving behaviours than the employees from the other organisations,

was observed for violation behaviours also.

As organisation A had the most comprehensive risk management practices

and processes of all four organisations, the post hoc results support the hypothesis

that organisations with comprehensive risk management practices will have better

safety outcomes, than organisations with inferior risk management practices.

Work-related traffic infringements

Employees were asked to indicate how many times during the past 12 months

they had lost demerit points or been fined for traffic offences (excluding parking

offences) while driving for work. An ANOVA was calculated to compare mean

traffic infringement scores among the organisations. Although data was collected

with a high level of detail to allow the researcher to compare employees with no

infringements, one infringement, two infringements and three or more infringements,

a review of infringement frequencies revealed that 91% of employees across the four


69

organisations had no infringements. Given the skewed data, employees were

classified into two groups for the ANOVA. The first group comprised employees

obtaining no officially recorded traffic offences and the second group comprised

employees obtaining one or more infringements. No significant difference in the

number of traffic infringements obtained by employees was found among the

organisations X² (9, N = 652) = 10.79, p = .29.

Figure 8 below shows that employees in organisations A (M = .09, SD = .28),

B (M = .07, SD = .25) and C (M = .08, SD = .27) obtained a similar level of

infringements during the past 12 months with approximately 92 percent of

employees reporting no officially recorded traffic offences and approximately eight

percent of employees reporting obtaining one or more infringements. In comparison,

only 86 percent of employees in organisation D (M = .14, SD = .34) reported

obtaining no officially recorded traffic offences and fourteen percent of employees

reported obtaining one or more infringements.

Figure 8 Number of infringements during the past 12 months per employee

75

80

85

90

95

100

Per

cent

age

A B C D

Organisation

2 or more Infringements

1 Infrigement

No Infringements


70

Although not significant, the finding that employees in organisation D

reported the greatest frequency of traffic infringements is not surprising given that

organisation D had the least comprehensive risk management practices and processes

of all four organisations.

Work-related traffic incidents

Employees were asked to indicate how many times during the past 12 months

they had been involved in a vehicle incident (defined as any event involving a motor

vehicle that resulted in damage to a vehicle or other property or injury) while driving

for work. An ANOVA was calculated to compare mean traffic incident scores among

the organisations. Although data was collected with a high level of detail to allow the

researcher to compare employees with no incidents, one incident, two incidents and

three or more incidents, a review of incident frequencies revealed that 88% of

employees across the four organisations had not been involved in an incident. Given

the skewed data, employees were classified into two groups for the ANOVA. The

first group comprised employees who had not been involved in an incident and the

second group comprised employees who had not been involved in one or more

incidents. A significant difference in employee incident involvement was found

among the organisations X² (9, N = 652) = 18.79, p < .05.

Similar to the organisational profiles obtained through the infringement data,

Figure 9 below shows that employees in organisations A (M = .13, SD = .33), B (M

= .09, SD = .28) and C (M = .08, SD = .27) were involved in fewer incidents than

employees in organisation D (M = .21, SD = .32). The finding that employees in

organisation D had more infringements than employees in the other organisations, is

not surprising given that organisation D had the least comprehensive risk

management practices and processes of all four organisations.


71

Figure 9 Number of vehicles incidents involved in while driving for work

during the past 12 months per employee

2.4 Discussion

This section discusses the key findings from study one with respect to the

three research questions. Suggestions for future research are provided.

2.4.1 Research question one: What outcomes have been observed in previously

investigated work-related road safety initiatives?

As many of the reviewed studies investigated the effects of initiatives when

implemented in combination with other initiatives, it was not possible to distinguish

the unique impact of some initiatives. Therefore, observed positive safety outcomes

in relation to some initiatives may have actually resulted from other initiatives

implemented at the same time. Only one of the reviewed studies that investigated

multiple initiatives allowed for the unique effect of each initiative to be observed.

This study by Gregersen et al. (1996) adopted a between groups, pre-post design

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cent

age

A B C D

Organisation

2 or more Incidents

1 Incident

No Incidents


72

implementing one initiative per experimental group. They also included a control

group.

Overall the structured document review indicated that all of the initiatives

reviewed, except for driver selection criteria, appeared to be effective during the

intervention period. However, only six continued to be effective in the post-

intervention period. Initiatives found to be positively associated with occupational

road safety both during and after the intervention period included: a pay rise; driver

training; group discussions; enlisting employees as community road safety change

agents; safety reminders; and group and individual rewards. It is interesting to note

that of these, five were employee-level interventions. Although it needs to be taken

into account that half the interventions reviewed were at the employee-level, the

finding appears (on the surface at least) to call into question the role of

organizational-level interventions. However, it is also clear that none of the

employee-level interventions would be feasible without active implementation and

support by the organization. Similarly, it is interesting that none of the protective

equipment interventions showed a continued effect after the intervention period

2.4.2 Research question two: Which initiatives are perceived by employees to be

effective in managing work-related road risks?

Perceptions of initiative effectiveness did not appear to be associated with

initiative cost. Initiatives perceived to be effective comprised both higher cost

interventions, such as making vehicle safety features standard and lower cost

interventions, such as marking low visibility walls and objects with hazard colours.

Furthermore, perceptions of initiative effectiveness did not appear to be associated

with a particular initiative target. For example initiatives targeting behaviour change

at an employee level, such as driver skills training, were perceived to be effective.

Similarly initiatives targeting safety through enhancing equipment, such as making

vehicle safety features standard, were also perceived to be effective.


73

Perceptions of initiative effectiveness may have been influenced by

employees’ preference for an initiative being implemented. Although the

questionnaire requested that initiatives be rated based on how effective employees

thought they would be in improving road safety, a review of the ratings suggests that

some participants may have had difficulty differentiating between ineffectiveness

and inconvenience. For example employees perceived that making cruise control a

standard vehicle feature would be effective, but monitoring driver behaviour with in-

car data recorders would be ineffective. The low acceptance of monitoring driver

behaviour with in-car data recorders observed in this study is consistent with

previous research. For example, Dinges et al. (2005) found that employees preferred

vehicle monitoring devices rather than driver monitoring devices. Future research

could explore whether perceptions of initiative effectiveness are influenced by

employee preference by requesting that employees rate initiatives with respect to

both effectiveness and preference.

Overall, questionnaire findings revealed that employees believed

occupational road risks could best be managed through making vehicle safety

features standard, providing practical driver skills training and through investigating

serious vehicle incidents. Of these perceived top three initiatives, driver training was

the only initiative that was evaluated in the literature reviewed. Findings from the

literature review suggest that driver training may be an effective initiative for

improving work-related road safety.

Employees believed initiatives including signing a promise card commitment

to drive safely, advertising the organisation’s phone number on vehicles and

consideration of driving competency in staff selection process would have limited

effectiveness in managing occupational road safety. Of these perceived ineffective

initiatives, both signing a promise card and consideration of safety in staff selection

criteria were evaluated in the literature reviewed. Findings from the literature review

suggest that signing a safety pledge may achieve only temporary improvements in


74

safe driving behaviours. The literature review also revealed that that the best safety

performing trucking firms utilised a screening criteria in driver hiring situations.

These findings are important as research suggests that employees’ beliefs

may facilitate or act as a barrier to implementing organisational initiatives (Weiner et

al., 2008). Individuals are more likely to embrace initiatives that they believe will

assist them in achieving a goal and to resist initiatives that they believe will have

little utility in achieving goals or are not appropriate in their organisation. Therefore

the employee perceptions of initiative effectiveness identified in this study should be

of interest to practitioners. Academics may also utilise these findings to guide future

research into investigating whether the initiatives that are perceived to be effective,

are actually related to increased occupational road safety outcomes.

2.4.3 Research question three: Do organisations with comprehensive work-related

road risk management practices and processes have better safety outcomes

than organisations with limited risk management practices and processes?

The audit identified a difference among the organisations in their

management of work-related road risks. Occupational road risk management

practices and processes were most developed in organisation A. Organisation A

achieved an average rating of 2.3. This indicates that their risk management practices

satisfy the standard of moving towards reduced harm and that they are now moving

towards zero harm. Organisation B achieved an average rating of 1.9, indicating that

their risk management practices almost satisfy the standard of moving towards

reduced harm. Organisation D achieved an average rating of 1.0 and organisation C

achieved an average rating of 0.9. These ratings indicate that organisations C and D

had limited practices and processes in place to manage their work-related road safety

risks.

Employee driving behaviours were compared among the organisations to

identify if employees in organisations with comprehensive risk management


75

practices reported safer driving behaviours than employees in organisations with

limited risk management practices. In support of this hypothesis employees in

organisation A, that had the most comprehensive risk management approach,

reported engaging in the safest driving behaviours. As compared to the other three

organisations, employees from organisation A also reported committing less driving

errors, and experiencing less fatigue and distraction issues when driving.

It is unclear from the results of study one whether comprehensive risk

management practices are associated with road safety outcomes including traffic

infringements and incidents. No significant difference was observed among the

organisations with respect to work-related traffic infringements. This result may be

partially due to the low frequency of reported infringements. Across the four

organisations, 91% of employees reported obtaining no traffic infringements during

the past 12 months. Previous research in the area of work-related road safety

(Freeman et al., 2007; Wishart et al., 2006) has also acknowledged difficulties in

reliably analysing data due to only a small proportion of the sample reporting

involvement in offences.

Work-related traffic incidents were compared among the organisations to

identify if employees in organisations with comprehensive risk management

practices reported safer driving behaviours than employees in organisations with

limited risk management practices. In support of this hypothesis employees in

organisation D, that had limited risk management practices, reported the highest

frequency of involvement in traffic incidents. However as the questionnaire item

used in this study asked participants to indicate how many times they had been

involved in a vehicle incident, regardless of who was considered to be ‘at fault’, it is

possible that this item may have been measuring a road safety outcome that was

contaminated by factors outside of the organisations influence.


76

More specifically, although organisation A had comprehensive risk

management practices and their employees reported engaging in safe driving

behaviours, they also had the second highest frequency of involvement in traffic

incidents. It is unclear from this item what percentage of the reported incidents, were

considered to be the fault of the employee. Potentially employees from organisation

A may have been involved in a higher percentage of incidents where an external

party was considered to be at fault. It is possible that comprehensive risk

management practices may be associated with reduced employee ‘at fault’ traffic

incidents, but be unrelated to incidents caused by other drivers. Unfortunately this

speculation was not able to be tested from the data obtained from the organisations in

the current study. Further research should be conducted to explore the influence of

comprehensive risk management practices on employee ‘at fault’ traffic incidents.

2.4.4 Future Research

There are two key strengths of study one. Firstly, it provides a current review

of empirical evaluations of nineteen work-related road safety initiatives. This review

may be used by academics to select future research directions and by practitioners to

develop effective risk management strategies. Secondly, it pioneers research into two

new avenues of work-related road safety literature. The current study provides new

insights in the literature in relation to employees’ perceptions of the effectiveness of

a range of occupational road safety initiatives and whether comprehensiveness of risk

management practices is associated with road safety outcomes. By conducting

research in these three areas, study one has allowed the author to generate several

empirically supported recommendations, presented in section 2.4.5, to assist in

improving work-related road safety.

Future studies could expand upon the new areas of research introduced in

study one by exploring whether the findings identified in the current study are

applicable to organisations operating in different countries. For example, it would be

interesting to observe whether employee perceptions of initiative effectiveness varied


77

with respect to different cultures. The author suggests that employees may perceive

initiatives differently based on whether they belong to a collectivist or individualist

culture and whether their culture values a high or low power distance within

organisations as this may alter the perceived effectiveness of initiatives that require

employee involvement in decision making.

There are two key limitations of study one. Firstly, although the structured

procedure used in the document review was beneficial in restricting the review to

documents previously assessed by academic experts to be of scientific merit, this

process may have overlooked other relevant documents. Future research may wish to

expand upon the current review by including non peer-reviewed documents or by

adopting a broader scope. The author recognises that some non peer-reviewed

documents may potentially be of an equally high standard to peer-reviewed

documents. Furthermore the inclusion of research on community based initiatives

may have provided a different view on the effectiveness of some initiatives. For

example, community based research on the effectiveness of driver training has found

little evidence for the effectiveness of driver training in reducing crashes for

experienced drivers and that it may even have a negative impact on novice drivers

(Christie, 2001).

A second limitation of the current research was the small sample size used in

the audit. The use of only four organisations did limit the researcher’s ability to

compare organisations based on the comprehensiveness of their policies and

practices. Given the small sample size, the author suggests that the findings

pertaining to the relationship between comprehensiveness of risk management

practices and road safety outcomes should only be considered as preliminary. Future

research should be conducted to assess this relationship using a larger sample and a

more diverse range of organisations.


78

Additionally, future research should also be conducted to identify which risk

management areas offer the greatest improvements in occupational road safety.

Currently industry and government reports recommend numerous areas of risk

management. The current research has also identified that a pay rise, driver training,

group discussions, enlisting employees as community road safety change agents,

safety reminders and rewards have been found in previous literature to be related to

enhanced road safety outcomes. However it is unclear in the existing literature which

initiatives or risk management areas offer the greatest opportunity for advancing road

safety. Future research should follow the lead of Gregersen et al. (1996) by

attempting to eliminate confounds and comparing the effectiveness of several

occupational road safety initiatives.

2.4.5 Applications of Study One findings

Study one has provided a current and comprehensive review of empirical

evaluations of numerous work-related road safety initiatives and employee

perceptions of initiative effectiveness. The findings from this study make an

important contribution to the work-related road safety literature. The document

review results provide empirical support for some of the initiatives that are currently

being implemented in industry and being recommended by government and industry

reports, for example group safety discussions.

The findings from this study may also assist health and safety practitioners by

allowing them to make informed decisions when developing occupational road risk

management strategies. The author suggests that practitioners consider initiative

effectiveness, cost and involvement level. Some low cost initiatives that require

minimal involvement, such as group safety discussions, have been found to be

effective with a large majority of employees. However other low cost initiatives that

require minimal involvement, such as implementing a policy, were found to be

effective for safer employees but had minimal effect on higher risk employees. To


79

effectively manage higher risk employees, practitioners may have to implement

higher involvement initiatives which may be more expensive, such as driver training.

Furthermore in relation to initiative effectiveness, several empirical studies

have found interactive group discussions to be related to increased work-related road

safety outcomes. However employees do not perceive this to be a very effective

safety initiative. This finding is consistent with previous research exploring

community perceptions of road safety initiatives. Watson (1997) identified that

community perception of road safety countermeasures did not align with evidence,

but rather appeared to suffer from a misunderstanding of behaviour change principles

and crash causation. Therefore given that inconsistencies exist between empirical

findings and perceptions of initiative effectiveness, the author suggests that

practitioners may need to sell initiatives and convince employees of their value to

facilitate acceptance.

Study one also explored whether organisations with comprehensive work-

related road risk management practices and processes have better safety outcomes

than organisations with limited risk management practices and processes. It was

found that employees in organisations with comprehensive risk management

approaches engaged in safer driving behaviours than employees in organisations with

limited risk management practices. Based on this finding, the author suggests that

organisations adopt a proactive and comprehensive approach to managing

occupational road risk. Work-related road risk management may involve: having a

written fleet safety policy; recruiting and selecting drivers based on safe driving

records and awareness of safety issues; including road safety components in

employee inductions; conducting and evaluating fleet safety training; recognising

good and poor driving behaviours; managing road journeys to eliminate or minimise

exposure to road hazards; selecting and maintaining vehicles for safety; and

monitoring and managing driver and vehicle risks. While initially it may not be

possible to develop organisational practices in all of these risk management areas,


80

organisations are encouraged to strive towards the adoption of a comprehensive

approach.

The findings from study one, inform the reader of which initiatives have been

found to be effective and are perceived to be effective by employees. The findings

also suggest that comprehensive risk management practices and processes are

associated with safer employee driving behaviours. Study two will now explore

employees’ perceptions of barriers to, and facilitators for, implementing work-related

road safety initiatives.


81

Chapter 3: Study two – Work related road safety barriers and facilitators

3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 82

3.2 Study background .............................................................................................. 82

3.3 Method .............................................................................................................. 85

3.3.1 Participant recruitment and demographic characteristics .................. 86

3.3.2 Content ............................................................................................. 87

3.3.3 Procedure ............................................................................................ 88

3.4 Results ............................................................................................................... 91

3.4.1 Perceived barriers ............................................................................... 91

3.4.1.1 Prioritisation of production over safety ............................................. 91

3.4.1.2 Complacency towards work-related road risks ................................. 93

3.4.1.3 Diversity ............................................................................................ 93

3.4.1.4 Insufficient resources ......................................................................... 95

3.4.1.5 Limited employee input in safety decisions ........................................ 96

3.4.1.6 Perception that road safety initiatives are an unnecessary burden ... 97

3.4.1.7 Less cited barriers .............................................................................. 97

3.4.1.8 Suggestions to overcome barriers ...................................................... 99


3.4.2.1 Management commitment ................................................................ 101

3.4.2.2 Existing systems .............................................................................. 101

3.4.2.3 Supportive relationships ................................................................... 102

3.4.2.4 Less cited facilitators ....................................................................... 102

3.5 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 103

3.5.1 Perceived barriers ............................................................................. 104


3.5.3 Future research ................................................................................. 105

3.5.4 Applications of study two ................................................................ 106


82

Chapter 3: Study two – Work-related road safety barriers and facilitators

3.1 Introduction

Study two makes a valuable contribution to the safety literature by exploring

the barriers to, and the facilitators for, accepting and implementing work-related road

safety initiatives. This chapter provides details pertaining to the study background,

methodology, results and discussion.


After observing mixed evidence for the effectiveness of initiatives to enhance

workplace safety, previous researchers have recommended that future studies be

conducted in order to understand the conditions that influence the effectiveness of

initiatives (McAfee & Winn, 1989). Identifying the restraining forces for opposing a

safety initiative and the driving forces for accepting a safety initiative, allows

strategies to be implemented to maximise the effects of the facilitators, while

minimising the effects of the barriers. This avenue of research has important

applications for practitioners, given that Aborg et al. (1998) and Westgaard and

Winkel (1997) have identified that some promising OH&S initiatives have been

found to be ineffective due to an inadequate implementation. It also has important

applications for researchers as it provides insight into future research results and

variances observed in outcomes (Karsh, Moro & Smith, 2001).

Previous research conducted in the area of organisational change has

identified that organisational, financial and professional factors may act as barriers

to, or facilitators for, implementing change programs (Blake et al., 2006; Weiner et

al., 2008). Several studies have been conducted to explore the barriers and facilitators

to implementing safety initiatives.

For example, questionnaire research conducted on a sample of 115 Turkish

food businesses identified seven barriers to implementing food safety programs.


83

These barriers included: a lack of understanding of the system; the safety system

being too complicated; lack of time; high staff turnover; lack of employee

motivation; complicated terminology; and a lack of personnel training (Bas, Yuksel

& Cavusoglu, 2007).

Research conducted in the United Kingdom to explore barriers to

implementing initiatives aimed at tackling musculoskeletal disorders identified seven

additional barriers. These included: employee resistance to changing their behaviour;

difficulties in obtaining senior managerial authorisation for changes; managers’ lack

of appreciation for the importance of health and safety initiatives; insufficient

resources; difficulty finding appropriate space and equipment; industrial relations

issues; and prioritisation of production over safety (Whysall, Haslam, & Haslam,

2006).

A prioritisation of production over safety has also been identified as a barrier

in the automobile manufacturing (Clarke, 2006) and agricultural industries (ASCC,

2006). Other barriers to adopting safe behaviours and protective equipment in the

Australian agricultural industry include farmers’ current attitudes to safety. More

specifically there was a general view that injuries were a normal and accepted part of

farming operations. There was also a reluctance to accept safety standards imposed

by OH&S personnel, as farmers believed this undermined autonomy and the farmers

perceived that they had sufficient experience and common sense to manage their own

practices (ASCC, 2006).

Resistance to change, particularly by the more experienced staff, has also

been identified as a major barrier to the implementation of safe practices in health

care (Blake et al., 2006). Other barriers to adopting safe behaviours in the United

States Health Care industry include: mistrust and fear of punitive outcomes; poor

communication between departments; time constraints; and use of contract staff

(Blake et al., 2006).


84

With respect to facilitators, research conducted in the United Kingdom to

explore factors that enhanced the implementation of initiatives aimed at tackling

musculoskeletal disorders identified four facilitators. These included: supportive

managers; change in management which had prompted a review of practices and

prompted action; good communication between management and workers; and

localised control over health and safety budget spending (Whysall et al. 2006).

The importance of management commitment has also been identified as a

facilitator in two additional studies. Firstly, management commitment has been

recognised as a facilitator for implementation of safe practices in health care (Blake

et al., 2006). Other facilitators for adopting safe behaviours in the United States

Health Care industry include: regular audits and feedback to reinforce compliance;

education aimed at raising awareness; confronting resistance and discussing

expectations; presence of a change champion; staff involvement in implementation;

external pressure to enhance safety; and presence of safety reminders such as posters

(Blake et al., 2006).

Secondly, management commitment has been recognised as a facilitator for

implementation of incentive programs (Wilde, 1994). Other conditions believed to

maximise the effectiveness of incentive program efficacy included: simple rules;

attractiveness of the rewards; attainability; short incubation period; staff

involvement; and rewarding all levels of the organisation (Wilde, 1994).

While these studies provide some guidance to fleet safety practitioners, little

is known about whether the facilitators and barriers observed in industries such as

hospitality and agriculture, generalise to implementing work-related road safety

initiatives. Research conducted in the area of fleet safety has identified the following

barriers to managing work-related road safety in Australia and the United Kingdom:

limited interaction between fleet managers and occupational health and safety


85

personnel; perceived lack of resources; limited status/authority of the person

primarily responsible for managing fleet safety; operational procedures and

structures; lack of senior management commitment; reactive focus on injury

prevention; and claims-led rather than safety-led procedures (Haworth & Senserrick,

2003; Haworth et al., 2008; Murray et al., 2001).

To assist practitioners in identifying and managing potential barriers and

facilitators to implementing work-related road safety initiatives, study two addresses

the following research question:

1. What facilitators and barriers within organisations are involved in

implementing work-related road safety initiatives?

3.3 Method

Interviews were conducted to explore the facilitators and barriers to

implementing work-related road safety initiatives. This method was selected based

on previous calls for qualitative investigations into OH&S initiatives (Hignett &

Wilson, 2004; Kompier, Cooper, & Geurts, 2000). Furthermore, Ovretweit (1998)

has argued that experimental designs are of limited utility in exploring the complex

manner in which interventions work with subjects and their environment. Therefore

to effectively investigate influences on initiative effectiveness, data was collected in

this study via interviews. This section describes: the interview participant

demographics and recruitment process; the content of the interview pertaining to

study two; and the procedure adopted to conduct the interview component of study

two. It is important to note that this research adopts an epistemological approach

consistent with the theoretical stance on qualitative research outlined in Seale and

Silverman (1997). More specifically research objectivity was established though the

use of several techniques, that are outlined in the procedure section of this Chapter,

to achieve a critical distance between the researcher and the data.


86

3.3.1 Participant recruitment and demographic characteristics

Participants for study two were obtained from the same four organisations

that were described in study one. Therefore readers may refer back to Chapter Two

for detailed information on how and why the researcher recruited these organisations.

As a reminder, these organisations included a cross section of private and public

organisations, profit and not-for-profit organisations, and medium and large vehicle

fleet organisations. Participating organisations operated fleets that comprised a

mixture of vehicle models and required their employees to operate vehicles in both

rural and urban environments.

In negotiating permission to conduct the work-related road safety interview

within the organisations, the researcher requested access to a cross section of

employees whose employment involves driving. The researcher requested that

interview participants comprised a sample of employees that was representative of

each organisation’s driving workforce with respect to age, gender, occupational roles

and experience with the organisation. To gain comprehensive information, interview

participants from within each organisation comprised of two managers and four

employees. This resulted in a total 24 interview participants. Although it would have

been ideal to obtain a random sample, this was not possible. Given the real-world

context of this qualitative study, the selection of participants was a convenience

sample, determined by the organisational representatives within the guidelines

stipulated by the researcher.

Participants ranged in age from 24 years to 58 years. The majority of interview

participants were aged between 36 and 55 years. Eighty-seven percent of the

participants were male. Although all organisations employed a mixture of male and

female staff, the organisational representatives believed that because work-related

driving tasks were predominantly performed by male employees, interviewing a

sample of predominantly male employees would provide a more representative

sample of their employees who drive for work-related purposes. All interview


87

participants reported regularly driving a vehicle for work-related purposes. Although

in each of the organisations, some employees do not drive a vehicle for work-related

purposes, the interview was focused on work-related driving and therefore a sample

of employees who drove regularly was obtained from each of the organisations.

3.3.2 Content

The interview questions for study two were administered in conjunction with

the larger research project interview. The research project interview obtained data in

relation to participant demographics, potential facilitators and barriers to

implementing initiatives, fleet safety climate, stages of change, and safety ownership.

Questions pertaining to participant demographics and potential facilitators and

barriers to implementing initiatives are described in this section. The remainder of

the questionnaire content will be described where relevant in Chapter Five.

As the purpose of the interview was to gain an authentic understanding of

employees’ perceptions regarding barriers to facilitators for implementing safety

initiatives, a semi-structured interview format requiring open-ended responses was

developed. Seale and Silverman (1997) advocate the use of open-ended questions to

obtain authentic information from interview participants. Interview questions were

flexible and were adapted in formality and depth to suit the employees’ level of

seniority and involvement in driver safety initiatives. Two versions of the interview

were created. The first version was brief and designed to be administered to

employees. The second version was more comprehensive and designed to be

administered to managers. The semi-structured interview questions that were asked

to employees and managers are presented in Appendix H.

In regards to the demographic characteristics of the participants, similar to

most studies in the area of work-related road safety (Darby et al., 2008; Freeman et

al., 2008; Rowden et al., 2006; Burt et al., 2008), this researcher asked participants to

provide their gender and age details. Additional questions were also incorporated to


88

gain insight into employees’ perspectives including their organisational role, tenure

and typical involvement in work-related driving.

To explore employees’ perceptions with respect to potential facilitators and

barriers to implementing road safety initiatives in Australian organisations, several

core questions were incorporated into the semi-structured interview schedule. These

core questions were formulated based on adaptations to questions used in previous

research pertaining to implementing initiatives aimed at managing musculoskeletal

disorders (Whysall et al., 2006). Employees and managers were asked the same core

questions. The questions used in study two comprised:

Has your company already taken any action that you know of to reduce work-

related road safety risk? What and when?

Is your company currently taking any actions that you know of to maintain

work-related road safety within your company? What?

What do you think are the main barriers or difficulties experienced when

making or attempting to make safety changes in your organisation?

If applicable, how have (or how could) these barriers be overcome?

What do you think are the main facilitators or things that have helped in

implementing safety changes in your organisation?

What have been the outcomes (actual and perceived) of the safety changes

that have been made?

What do you think were the main reasons for this outcome?

3.3.3 Procedure

Before commencing study two, ethics and workplace health and safety

approvals were obtained. In the process of developing the interview schedule, face-

to-face pilot interviews were conducted with five employees who were external to

the researched organisations. The pilot sample was selected from organisations that

were similar to the researched organisations to ensure that the questions could be


89

understood, the terminology used was appropriate to the target population, and the

interview duration was acceptable. Based on the feedback obtained in the pilot study,

minor adjustments were made to the interview schedule to enhance the format and

appropriateness of some questions.

To arrange a time that was convenient for the researcher to conduct the

interviews, the researcher contacted the organisational representatives of the four

organisations involved. Interviews were conducted face-to-face on the premises of

each organisation. To minimise distractions and ensure confidentiality, all interviews

were conducted in private offices. To maximise the integrity of the data collected, the

researcher began each session by informing participants that their participation was

voluntary, that all information collected would be treated as confidential, and asked

for their permission to take notes and audio record the session. The researcher

obtained written consent from all participants before conducting the interview using

the consent form presented in Appendix I. Employees were interviewed individually

to minimise any contamination of data arising from potential group bias. Each

interview lasted between 30 and 60 mins.

Based on recommendations by (Silverman, 1993), to increase the reliability

of the interview, a standardised interview protocol was adopted. The interviewer

asked the same structured questions in the same order that it appeared in the schedule

to each participant. Furthermore the interviewer did not lead the participants by

suggesting possible replies to questions.

While it is acknowledged that the researcher did not explicitly evaluate the

credibility or trustworthiness of the interview participants, the researcher reflected

upon the dynamics between the researcher and the participants. The researcher was

independent from the organisation and had communicated to the participants that

there responses would be anonymous. Furthermore the interviewer was careful not to

show surprise or disapproval in response to an answer. Upon reflection of the


90

interviews, the researcher believes that participants were not motivated to falsify or

fabricate information in their responses.

Upon completion of the interviews, all audio recordings were transcribed

verbatim by an independent transcribing service provider. This methodological

process is consistent with Seale and Silverman’s (1997) recommendation to enhance

reliability through developing an objective and comprehensible record of data. The

notes taken by the researcher were then used in combination with the transcripts to

achieve an accurate interview summary that captured employee’s key points and

significant statements.

Interview data was analysed using a three-phase approach as described by

Miles and Huberman (1994). Firstly, data was organised via grouping material into

meaningful collections that corresponded with the interview questions. Secondly,

emerging themes were identified and patterns within and between themes were

explored. This phase involved summarising the data under each theme and selecting

verbatim quotes to illustrate the themes. Thirdly, conclusions were drawn after

interpretations of the data were verified against the interview transcripts and existing

literature. To enhance the reliability of this analysis process, a quasi-statistics

approach was adopted. This involved counting the number of participants that

discussed each identified theme. The process of supporting generalisations by counts

of events provides greater transparency to allow the reader to observe that undue

attention has not been paid to rare events and that anecdotes have not been selected

to just support the author’s arguments (Seale & Silverman, 1997). Furthermore in

analysing the data, the researcher searched for instances in the data which may

contradict the emerging themes. This process was conducted to ensure that

generalisations were supported by adequate evidence.


91

3.4 Results

The following section describes the themes that emerged as perceived

barriers and facilitators to implementing work-related road safety initiatives in four

Australian organisations. Themes are presented in order of their strength. The

strength of a theme was determined by the number of interview participants that

presented information pertaining to that theme. The deviant case analysis revealed no

instances where data contradicted the emerged themes.

Key themes that emerged as perceived barriers to implementing work-related

road safety initiatives included: prioritisation of production over safety; complacency

towards work-related road risks; diversity; insufficient resources; limited employee

input in safety decisions; and a perception that road safety initiatives were an

unnecessary burden.

Key themes that emerged as perceived facilitators for implementing work-

related road safety initiatives included: management commitment; the presence of

existing systems that could support the implementation of initiatives; and supportive

relationships.

3.4.1 Perceived barriers

The seven key themes that emerged as perceived barriers to implementing

work-related road safety initiatives are presented below.

3.4.1.1 Prioritisation of production over safety

Nine participants cited conflicts in priorities between production and safety as

a barrier to managing occupational road risks. Two subthemes emerged in this

theme. These included mixed messages from management and self-imposed

production pressure. In regards to mixed messages from management, participants

from all four organisations described how their managers conveyed that safety was

the highest priority. However the high workloads set by managers encouraged


92

drivers to focus more on production targets. Several employees described their

frustration with attempting to meet both high production goals and high safety goals.

For example one employee stated that “safety changes normally impact with a

negative. Normally, changes will be to not drive as long or far, but increased work

loads always conflict. All layers of Management are aware of the situation about

staff shortages and extra distances to travel. I believe the company does have a

commitment to driver safety but is willing to overlook its own policy when it comes to

a situation of resources and money.”

In regards to self-imposed production pressure, some staff reported being

highly committed to their work and at times believed that their work commitment

motivated them to engage in risky driving practices. For example, one manager

reported how she chose to attend a late work appointment even though it meant that

she would have to engage in night driving which she acknowledged was becoming

challenging for her due to her degenerating vision. She commented that “I probably

am not keen on driving at night very much anymore. I still do it. You've got to do

it.” Another participant described the normative behaviour in her work team as

everyone wanting to help out their co-workers and deliver the best services for their

clients. She described how some employees would volunteer to do “a night shift and

a day shift because no-one turned up” and expressed her concerns that this could

lead to them driving home feeling “very fatigued”.

Both managers and employees described how production priorities were a

barrier to accepting safety initiatives. For example one participant commented “there

was an e-mail this morning which was another road safety tip, which I didn't read

because I was too busy”. Similarly another participant commented “We have an

internal intranet and it often has road safety tips in it, but I have to admit that I

haven't always had the time to read it… probably I'm just so time poor.”


93

3.4.1.2 Complacency towards work-related road risks

Nine participants cited complacency towards work-related road risks as a

barrier to the intervention process. Although participants acknowledged that there

were risks involved with driving, they believed that most people accepted these risks.

Participants commented that road risks were accepted both in society, for example

“if, 300 people died in one air crash in Queensland in one year, it would be huge

news. But 300 people die on the road…..and it's almost tolerated” and in the

workplace, for example “It's an accepted risk because you have to drive to do the

work”. One manager noted that road risks are “a very known risk and a very familiar

risk” and hypothesised that the high risk tolerance observed in his area was probably

due to the risk being considered as “more of a chronic risk rather than a catastrophic

one”. An indifference towards road risks was reported by both employees, for

example “our cars are getting dinted…Doesn't really matter” and managers, for

example “All they did was reverse into a post, you know. They didn't hurt anybody”.

Several participants commented on how work-related road safety was not treated as

seriously as other OH&S issues in their organisation.

Employees cited complacency as a barrier when describing reasons for non-

compliance with an occupational road risk management process. For example one

employee commented “You are supposed to write down your own hazards… and

no-one classes driving as a significant hazard”. Managers also believed that

complacency was a hurdle that needed to be overcome when implementing road

safety initiatives. In relation to rolling out a planned initiative, the manager

anticipated that due to employee complacency, “I think people won't take notice of

it.”

3.4.1.3 Diversity

Seven participants cited diversity across their organisation as a barrier to

managing occupational road risks. Two subthemes emerged in this theme. These

included diversity within the organisation and diversity in vehicle ownership. In


94

regards to diversity within the organisation, participants commented that differences

between geographical regions and provided studies created difficulty in producing

risk management strategies that would be applicable organisation-wide. Several

participants recognised challenges in implementing initiatives consistently across

organisational branches due to the different risks associated with urban and rural

driving environments. Other participants recognised that some initiatives that were

able to be offered in urban areas were not feasible to deliver in remote areas. For

example, when describing her experience in implementing a previous driver training

program, one manager reported that “we could do it down here in Brisbane, but we

couldn't do it in Mount Isa…..you can't just organise a generic training…I think

that's just about accepting that different communities have different resources.”

Similar risk management difficulties were expressed due to diversity in

services offered by different organisational departments. For example “it's probably

not as applicable to other divisions because we transport our kids. Whereas no-one

else transports their clients”

Two participants perceived that the use of private vehicles for work-related

purposes, presented challenges in applying work related road risk management

practices. It was perceived that the organisation did not have as much authority over

the use of these vehicles as they did fleet vehicles. One manager expressed that he

believed that he could not apply the standard organisational risk management

strategies to these vehicles and he raised questions such as “How safe are their cars?

Are they licensed?” Another participant believed that drivers of private vehicles may

not perceive organisational risk management initiatives as relevant to them. He

suggested that “people that are reading it might think well, I don't have to take any

notice because I don't have an organisational vehicle”.

Due to the diversity described above, some managers reported difficulty in

enforcing consistent risk management strategies. To overcome this barrier, managers


95

reported creating guidelines rather than detailed practices and processes. However it

was recognised that this solution was limited in effectiveness. For example, when

describing a guide designed for use by managers when interviewing employees who

had been involved in a vehicle incident, one manager commented “whether they use

them or not is pretty much up to them. I could imagine sometimes the interview

would be simply, you know, "Don't do it again," and that's it. It's difficult to enforce

some of these things at times.”

3.4.1.4 Insufficient resources

Six participants cited the cost of managing work-related road risks as a

barrier. Participants reported that there was only a very limited budget, or in some

organisations no budget, for managing occupational road risks. Managers believed

that limited resources had delayed the implementation of initiatives. For example it

was stated that “there will be push back, you know, getting in the dollar budget”.

Several managers also reported pressure to justify initiatives in terms of the cost

versus potential outcomes. One manager described his experience in trying to gain

approval from senior management to implement a $10,000 driver training program as

“That would be a serious business case to justify I need to strongly convince my

manager. He's a good manager, but he's an accountant and he's responsible for the

finances for the organisation.” A similar experience was reported by a manager in

another organisation who felt that the biggest barriers to implementing driver training

in their organisation would be the financial costs of the course and the resource costs

of taking staff off the floor for training.

Employees also cited cost as a barrier to effective management of road risks.

For example, one employee described having arguments with administrative staff

over the cost of replacing a spare tyre. The driver reported how he had said to the

administrative personnel that “We've got to have a spare at all times when we are

driving. Just don't worry about the pricing or whatever like that. Just fix it.”


96

3.4.1.5 Limited employee input in safety decisions

Five participants cited limited involvement in decision making as a barrier to

accepting risk management initiatives. Employees reported a feeling of ‘us’ versus

‘them’. Management and administrative personnel were perceived to make knee-jerk

decisions that were not appropriate for operational staff. Employees from all of the

organisations reported that many decisions were made without consulting them and

that this had resulted in ineffective safety initiatives. For example, one employee

reported how he perceived that a management decision to reduce vehicle loading

weight had made his job harder and less safe. He stated that “since the weight has

been off them, it's slipping all over the shop, because there's no weight to bed you”.

Another employee described how the vehicles they had been supplied with were not

considered to be fit for purpose. His team was supplied with big, luxury V8

Landcruisers for use in remote areas. The participant described how a lack of

employee involvement in the vehicle selection decision had resulted in inappropriate

vehicles being supplied. He commented “you put the window up and dust just comes

through the gaps in the floors. It's crazy. Brand new vehicle, but they're just not

designed for it. They're for the city. They look good and that's it.”

One employee in attempting to convey his frustration with management

imposing initiatives on operational staff without understanding the work tasks and

environments used the following analogy “It works like an old story, superannuation

guy comes around. Old mister whatever his name is, Yokomoto, walks in and he's

worth about 5 million bucks, sits down in front of this 22-year-old kid. This

22-year-old kid goes, "I think you should do this and this and this and it will makes

you heaps of money, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah." Mr Yokomoto turns around and

says, "How much are you worth, buddy?" "I just bought myself a new car." He said,

"Well, when you have got $5 million sitting in front of you, then you can tell me what

to do with it." You have got people that have never been there, never had anything to

do with it, telling you how to drive.”


97

3.4.1.6 Perception that road safety initiatives are an unnecessary burden

Five participants cited perceptions of unnecessary burdens as a barrier. Both

managers and employees reported that there was a mentality of “it was ok last time”

and that this made it difficult to change people’s habits and work routines. When

asked to describe their experiences with implementing work-related road safety

initiatives one manager commented that “it's another thing that you've got to get staff

to do. So one of the barriers would be that staff would see that as another burden,

another thing that they've got to try and fit in their roster, fit in their budget.”

Another manager described how he had experienced difficulty selling an initiative to

other managers. He reported that he was asked by another manager “why do you

want to make the people do that? That's extra work, you know.” Employees tended

to express concerns relating to additional work associated with engaging in safe

practices. For example one employee stated that it “ends up taking longer to

accomplish tasks”.

3.4.1.7 Less cited barriers

Seven additional factors were also perceived to hamper the implementation of

risk management initiatives. As each of these factors was only cited once, only a

brief description is provided for each barrier. The factors were: limited data systems;

quality vehicles; lack of knowledge; reduced client rapport; perceptions of initiative

effectiveness; change fatigue; and gaining managerial authorisation.

Limited data systems were cited as a barrier. One manager perceived that the

incident data system in use in his organisation restricted his ability to identify and

monitor high risk employees and vehicles. He noted that the incident data that was

currently collected was collected for insurance purposes. He believed that this was a

problem because it was not detailed and did not include incidents that cost less than

the insurance premium to repair or were unlikely to receive an insurance payout for

example “if it's the baseball bat on the car or whatever, then they won't even bother

filling one of those out”.


98

The provision of quality fleet vehicles was cited as a barrier. One employee

perceived that the quality of vehicles supplied by his organisation tempted him to

drive at “160km on a straight, flat road in the middle of nowhere because you can”.

He commented that historically it felt unsafe driving an old ute on a dirt road, but

with the improvements in road surface and vehicle designs over the years, he now

felt more safe driving and this encouraged him to operate vehicles at higher speeds.

He reported that “it’s not because you want to go faster. It's just because it feels so

slow. It feels so agonisingly slow to sit on 130 on a highway in an SV6.”

One manager recognised knowledge deficiencies as a barrier. This manager

believed that the health and safety officers were interested in managing occupational

road risks but believed that they didn’t “have any knowledge of road safety or fleet

safety”.

Reduced client rapport was cited as a barrier. More specifically, one

employee explained how his team had resisted the implementation of cargo barriers

between the front and rear seats. He expressed that while his team recognised that

management was fitting the barriers to protect them from violent clients, the staff

resisted their implementation because they perceived it may reduce client rapport. He

reported that employees were concerned that “it would be an impediment to either

their conversation or their relationship with clients.”

People’s perceptions of initiatives were cited as a barrier by one manager.

She believed that driver training has high face validity. She commented that “people

think if you're going to do something about road safety it's driver training… It is

what makes sense to the lay person”. She viewed this as a barrier to implementing

other road risk management strategies such as “policies and induction” because staff

only wanted driver training and resisted other initiatives because they did not

recognise their value.


99

Change fatigue was also cited as a barrier. One manager believed that

employees in his organisation may resist change because they are tired of constantly

having to change their practices and processes. He believed that people “just want

things to stay the same for three days in a row….the biggest barrier to any campaign

at the moment is that people are just campaign sick….they just need to get their job

done and they've got to stop being told how they can do it better and just have some

time to actually do the work.”

Finally, gaining managerial authorisation was cited as a barrier by an

employee. This employee believed that the hierarchical structure in his organisation

slowed down the implementation of risk management initiatives and restricted the

approval of several employee suggested safety enhancements to vehicle operation

practices. He commented that “there's so many chiefs that if you say something to

this fellow and he agrees - he's got to go through ten chiefs before he gets to the next

- to the big chiefs and by that time it's all changed and it's not worth shit any way.

The whole place is just too top heavy.”

3.4.1.8 Suggestions to overcome barriers

When asked how the perceived barriers could be overcome, participants

provided several suggestions. These included: having an effective change

management approach; increasing employee involvement in decision making;

reducing work demands; and increasing awareness and knowledge of work-related

road risks.

Several participants stressed the value in having an effective overall risk

management approach. It was believed that this approach should have a number of

different layers and strategies. It should include initiatives that “will get people on

board, you've got to get some quick wins” and some initiatives designed for long-

term sustainability. It should be “a simplistic program…that the we can refresh and


100

change. In the past…we just roll the same thing out year after year…You need to

take a fresh approach and you need to step back from it every now and again and

say, "How can we change this? Where is it not working? What is the feedback?” It

was believed that all initiatives should be integrated into this overall risk

management approach.

Both mangers and employees suggested that staff should become more

involved in decision making. Employees believed that the appropriateness of, and

acceptance, of risk management initiatives could be enhanced by allowing “the

fellows driving the vehicles, to have a bit more of a say in what vehicles they get”.

One manager noted that their organisation was already taking steps to increase

employee participation in risk management decisions due to a realisation that in the

past there had “been a bit too much health and safety coming down from the top.”

Several participants believed there was a need to reduce work demands to

reduce the perceived conflicts between production and safety targets. Suggested

methods included: outsourcing duties; increasing the number of permanent staff;

decreasing the distances having to be travelled; setting aside time for staff to

specifically discuss occupational road safety issues.

Increasing awareness and knowledge was also suggested as a method to

overcome barriers. Several participants believed that more communication was

needed to reduce complacency and to inform staff of their individual risk

management responsibilities. It was also believed that managers needed further

education to increase their knowledge of how to effectively manage work-related

road risks.

3.4.2 Perceived facilitators

Three key themes emerged as perceived facilitators for implementing work-

related road safety initiatives. These included: management commitment; the


101

presence of existing systems that could support the implementation of initiatives; and

supportive relationships.

3.4.2.1 Management commitment

Seven participants cited management commitment as a facilitator in the

intervention process. Employees believed managers were committed to driver safety,

as illustrated statements including “management is very safety oriented.” Managers

also believed that senior managers were committed to safety and noted how this had

assisted them in implementing occupational road safety initiatives. For example one

manager commented “I'm generally happy with the support given to do that from our

executive director. He's happy for me to do that. So it's not pushing water uphill.”

Another manager believed that all safety initiatives would benefit from management

commitment. He stated “if you have your executive team on board, it just happens.

It doesn't matter what it is, really.”

3.4.2.2 Existing systems

The presence of existing systems was recognised as a facilitator by four

participants. Systems perceived to be beneficial in implementing road risks

management strategies included communication systems and risk management

systems. Participants believed that the presence of good communication structures

allowed safety messages to be easily conveyed to staff. For example one employee

noted that her organisation has a “team brief every quarter. Our pay slip system

means that there's room on our pay slips to put an organisational message every pay

slip… So they've got lots of systems that would - that already enable them to

communicate with every staff member regularly.” Other participants discussed how

the implementation of initiatives could be enhanced by drawing upon the risk

management framework already operating within the organisation. For example a

manager noted that “We do have a philosophy in the department in terms of the

language of risk management. So that's positive, because the risk management


102

paradigm is part of our core business. Participants believed that these existing

systems could facilitate the implementation of road safety initiatives.

3.4.2.3 Supportive relationships

Three participants cited supportive relationships as a facilitator in the

intervention process. For example one employee described how the supportive

culture within his organisation provided a positive environment that could be tapped

into when implementing initiatives. He described the presence of “a community kind

of atmosphere in work. So this is our family. So we all look after each other.” He

believed that this “kind of mutual responsibility feeling” would facilitate employees

embracing road safety initiatives that involved employees looking out for each other.

Another employee compared his team environment to how other employees operated

alone when they are working in the bush. Unlike the employees working alone in the

bush where he believed “everything becomes more blasé…We take the time out to

work together as a team and a group and I think that's far more effective.”

3.4.2.4 Less cited facilitators

Four additional factors were also perceived to assist in the implementation of

risk management initiatives. As each of these factors was only cited once, only a

brief description is provided for each facilitator. These included: autonomy;

community road safety campaigns; openness to change; and a culture of

accountability and governance.

Autonomy was cited as a facilitator by one manager. He perceived that the

smaller organisation he now worked in allowed him the autonomy to rapidly

implement initiatives. Unlike in a previous organisation that he worked for, “that

required going to the media and marketing people and doing this and that and it

would take a week” in his current organisation he is now able to write driving safety

messages and publish them the next day. He commented on how “things happen a lot


103

quicker and I have much more control, more responsibility and I see that as a

definite plus.”

Community road safety campaigns were cited as a facilitator. One employee

believed that community road safety campaigns provided a good foundation for her

organisation to build upon when implementing safety initiatives. She commented that

“the road signs have helped out there…They put big signs up saying "passenger, is

your driver alert?" So they're good. They actually make you think oh, wow, keep

alert.”

Openness to change was cited as a facilitator. One employee believed that

many employees in his area embraced change. He commented that “I think people

just look forward to the opportunities that change brings. So they pretty much grab

onto anything.” He believed that this open attitude towards change would definitely

assist with the implementation of risk management initiatives.

Finally, a culture of accountability and governance was cited as a facilitator.

More specifically, one manager perceived that there was a culture of accountability

and governance within his organisation. He perceived that “if somebody at a very

high level says it has to happen, then it happens. Or if there's a policy released with

regards to something, then it generally happens.” He believed that this culture would

facilitate the implementation of road safety initiatives that were endorsed by senior

management.

3.5 Discussion

This section discusses the key findings from the interviews conducted in

study two. Suggestions for future research and applications of findings are provided.


104

3.5.1 Perceived barriers

All of the key themes that emerged as perceived barriers to implementing

work-related road safety initiatives in this study have been identified as barriers in

previous studies, except for diversity. More specifically, prioritisation of production

over safety has been identified as a barrier when implementing risk management

strategies targeting musculoskeletal disorders (Whysall et al. 2006), safe automobile

manufacturing (Clarke, 2006) and safe agricultural practices (ASCC, 2006).

Complacency has been identified as a barrier in the agricultural industry, where

farmers view injuries to be a normal and accepted part of farming operations (ASCC,

2006). Insufficient resources have been identified as a barrier to implementing a

range of health and safety initiatives (Bas et al., 2007; Blake et al., 2006; Whysall

et al. 2006) including work-related road safety initiatives (Haworth et al., 2008).

Limited employee input in safety decisions has been identified as a barrier in the

agricultural industry, where farmers reported a reluctance to accept safety standards

imposed by OH&S personnel as they perceived that they had sufficient experience

and common sense to manage their own practices (ASCC, 2006). Finally,

perceptions that safety initiatives are an unnecessary burden has been identified as a

barrier when implementing risk management strategies targeting musculoskeletal

disorders (Whysall et al. 2006).

Three of the less cited themes that emerged as perceived barriers to

implementing work-related road safety initiatives in this study have been identified

as barriers in previous studies. More specifically, limited data systems have been

identified as a barrier to managing work-related road risks. Murrray et al. (2001)

identified barriers to managing risks when incident data is collected for insurance

claims purposes rather than risk management purposes. Lack of knowledge has been

identified as a barrier in the hospitality industry. Bas et al. (2007) identified

employees’ lack of understanding of a new food safety system as the main barrier to

implementing a new international strategy to reduce food-borne disease. Finally,

difficulties in obtaining senior managerial authorisation for changes has been


105

identified as a barrier when implementing risk management strategies targeting

musculoskeletal disorders (Whysall et al. 2006).

3.5.2 Perceived facilitators

Of the seven themes that emerged as perceived facilitators to implementing

road safety initiatives in this study, only three themes have been identified as

facilitators in previous studies. These included: management commitment; the

presence of existing systems that could support the implementation of initiatives; and

autonomy.

More specifically, management commitment has been identified as a

facilitator to implementing risk management strategies targeting: musculoskeletal

disorders (Whysall et al. 2006); safe practices in health care (Blake et al., 2006); and

a range of safety behaviours through the use of incentives (Wilde, 1994). The

presence of existing systems that could support the implementation of initiatives,

including good communication systems between management and workers, has been

identified as a facilitator to implementing risk management strategies (Whysall et al.

2006). Finally, autonomy in regards to localised control over health and safety

budget spending has also been identified as a facilitator to implementing risk

management strategies in previous research (Whysall et al. 2006).

3.5.3 Future research

A strength of the current research was that it used a structured method of data

collection to obtain insights into the barriers to, and facilitators for, implementing

work-related road safety initiatives. A limitation of the current research was the small

sample size and the use of only Australian organisations. Future studies can expand

upon this exploratory research by applying the same methodology with a more

diverse sample. It would be interesting to determine if the facilitators and barriers

identified in this study will generalise to organisations operating in different

industries and in different countries.


106

3.5.4 Applications of study two

The findings from study two highlight potential barriers to, and facilitators

for, implementing work-related road safety initiatives. This research has important

applications for academics and practitioners. For academics, the author suggests that

the findings from the current study may be applied to assist in the understanding of

research results pertaining to the effectiveness of initiatives. It is hypothesised that

the organisational environment including the presence of any change barriers or

facilitators may influence initiative outcomes. To assist in the interpretation of study

findings, future researchers may briefly acknowledge the presence of any change

barriers or facilitators that may impact upon the results they obtain.

For practitioners, when implementing occupational road safety initiatives, the

author suggests that considerations be given to managing the key barriers identified

in this study. These included: prioritisation of production over safety; complacency

towards work-related road risks; insufficient resources; diversity; limited employee


unnecessary burden. The author also suggests that practitioners consider proactively

developing and utilising the key facilitators identified in this study. These included:

management commitment; the presence of existing systems that could support the

implementation of initiatives; and supportive relationships. Study three will now

explore the influences of organisational factors on road safety outcomes to identify

optimal work environments for managing road risks.


107

Chapter 4: Study three – Organisational factors literature review

4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 108

4.2 Study background ......................................................................................... 108

4.3 Review of fleet safety climate literature ...................................................... 110

4.4 Review of stages of change literature .......................................................... 115

4.5 Review of safety ownership literature .......................................................... 121

4.6 Conclusion .................................................................................................... 126


108

Chapter 4: Study three – Organisational factors literature review

4.1 Introduction

The purpose of study three was to explore the influence of organisational

factors on road safety outcomes, to identify optimal work environments for

managing road risks. This chapter presents the background to study three and a

review of literature pertaining to three organisational factors. These factors include

fleet safety climate, stages of change and safety ownership.


When an incident occurs in the workplace, it is common to attribute blame to

the last employee who was operating the system when the incident occurred (Mullen,

2004). This micro-level analysis fails to consider the numerous underlying

organisational factors that may have contributed to the occurrence of a work-related

road incident. Investigations into several major workplace disasters including: Three

Mile Island (Kemeny, 1979); Chernobyl (IAEA, 1986); the Herald of Free Enterprise

(Sheen, 1987), Piper Alpha (Cullen, 1990), and the Esso Longford gas plant

explosion (Hopkins, 2000); have identified that multiple factors beyond the

employee often contribute to incidents. For example after investigating the sinking of

the Herald of Free Enterprise, Mr Justice Sheen (1987, pg. 14) concluded, “...a full

investigation into the circumstances of the disaster leads inexorably to the

conclusion that the underlying or cardinal faults lay higher up in the

company…From top to bottom the body corporate was infected with the disease of

sloppiness”.

To explain the causal chain that leads to incidents, Reason (1990) developed

the ‘Swiss cheese’ model. The model proposes that errors can occur at four levels.

These levels comprise: organisational factors; unsafe supervision; preconditions for

unsafe acts; and unsafe acts by the operator. Using the analogy of holes in Swiss


109

cheese lining up, Reason suggests that an incident is likely to eventuate when errors

occur simultaneously across the levels.

Research pertaining to the manufacturing industry, has also identified that

several organisational and social factors contribute to unsafe work practices (Mullen,

2004). In light of her research, Mullen suggested that a macro-level approach should

be adopted to achieve optimal improvements in workplace safety. Contrary to this

suggestion, many occupational road risk management initiatives, such as goal setting

(Ludwig, 2000) and signing a promise card commitment to drive safely (Boyce &

Geller, 1999), currently operate at a micro-level targeting individual employees.

Given that an incident is most likely to eventuate when several errors occur

simultaneously, it makes sense that risk management strategies may benefit from

adopting a macro-level approach. To assist practitioners in understanding some of

the organisational factors that may contribute to unsafe work practices, the current

research will focus on exploring whether three organisational factors are related to

self-reported driving behaviours, traffic infringements and vehicle incidents. More

specifically, these factors comprise fleet safety climate, stages of change and safety

ownership.

The author selected these factors for exploration in study three based on

previous research. Previous studies have indicated that fleet safety climate (Nielsen

et al., 2008; Wills et al., 2006); stages of change (Slappendel, 2001 as cited in

Haslam, 2002; Prochaska et al., 2001); and safety ownership (Barrett et al., 2005;

Biggs et al, 2006) may be related to safety outcomes and the effectiveness of safety

initiatives in organisations. Detailed information regarding these factors and their

potential relationships to safety outcomes is presented later in this chapter.

Based on previous research in the domain of organisational psychology, it is

suggested that road safety initiative outcomes may be influenced by the extent to


110

which an initiative is compatible with an organisation’s working environment.

Within organisational psychology there is much support for the notion of person-

environment fit (Choi, & Price, 2005; French, Caplan & Harrison, 1982; Latham, &

Pinder, 2005; Takase, Maude, & Manias, 2005; Searle, & Bright, 2003). It is

commonly believed that the degree of match between a person (employee’s

knowledge, skills, abilities, interests and values) and the environment (demands of

the job and values of the organisation) is related to outcomes for both the individual

and organisation. Similarly it is suggested that the degree of match between a work-

related road safety initiative and an organisational environment may be related to

safety outcomes. Therefore it may be beneficial to consider organisational factors

such as safety climate, stages of change and safety ownership when attempting to

improve occupational road safety.

4.3 Review of Fleet Safety Climate Literature

In recent years there has been a growing interest in researching the social and

organisational issues that may be linked to occupational incidents (Mearns et al.,

2003; Pidgeon & O’Leary, 2000). These social and organisational issues are often

referred to as safety climate and safety culture. Although some researchers have

argued that the differences between climate and culture may be too inconsequential

to be of interest in practice (Glick, 1985), many researchers have recognised their

distinct differences (Zohar, 2000; Glendon & Stanton, 2000; Schein, 1990;

Guldenmund, 2000; Mearns & Flin, 1999). According to the above researchers,

safety climate has been defined as employees’ shared perceptions of management’s

commitment and performance with regards to safety policies, procedures and

practices. It is considered to be a psychological construct referring to shared

perceptions. In contrast, safety culture is been defined as the values, beliefs, attitudes

and normative behaviours pertaining to occupational safety. It is considered to

comprise psychological, behavioural and social constructs that endure over time and

that are difficult to directly influence.


111

While recognising that safety climate is related to safety culture, the focus of

this chapter is safety climate. Safety climate was selected as the focus in this research

as it is a measure which is believed to have the ability to provide insight into

potential workplace safety hazards and how to address these hazards (Cooper &

Phillips, 2004). Measuring an organisation’s safety climate can assist in three key

areas: (1) identifying where safety requires improvement; (2) determining trends in

safety performance; and (3) providing data benchmarks that may be compared across

different departments or organisations (Lutness, 1987).

In recent years, numerous surveys have been developed to measure safety

climate. Although the exact number and the precise labels of safety climate factors

are unclear, several recurring themes have been identified (Glendon & Litherland,

2001; Flin, Mearns, O’Connor, & Bryden, 2000). Recurring safety climate themes

include: management commitment; participation; work demands; communication;

relationships; and policies.

Management commitment is recognised as the most typically assessed

dimension of safety climate (Flin et al., 2000). Commitment can be expressed

through various avenues such as management participation in safety committees,

allocation of resources for training and personal protective equipment, consideration

of safety in job design and scheduling of work tasks. Research has linked

management commitment to occupational safety outcomes including: motivation to

drive safely (Newnam, Griffin & Mason, 2008); personal actions for safety (Cox,

Tomas, Cheyne & Oliver, 1998; Walton, 1999); incident reporting (Clarke, 1999);

and incident rates (Alexander, Cox & Cheyne, 1995; Mearns, Flin, Gordon &

Fleming, 1998; Smith, Cohen, Cohen & Cleveland, 1978).

For example research that compared 42 matched pairs of American

companies found that management commitment to safety was greater in the low

incident-rate plants than in the high incident-rate plants (Cohen, Smith & Cohen,


112

1975; Smith et al., 1978). Similarly, recent research drawing upon a sample of

professional truck drivers found that drivers reported engaging in less safe driving

behaviours when they perceived their employers had low regard for their safety and

little concern for the number of hours they drove (Walton, 1999).

Employee participation has also been identified as an important factor in

safety climate research. Participation refers to involving employees in

communication and decision-making processes. It has been suggested that employee

participation can lead to increased safety communication and adoption of safe

behaviours (Hofmann, & Morgeson, 1999; Parker, Axtell, & Turner, 2001). Research

has found that employee involvement in all aspects of a hospital injury prevention

program was related to dramatic reductions in the lost-time injury cases (Garrett &

Perry, 1996). Similarly O’Toole (1999) identified that participation, regardless of

whether it was mandatory and voluntary, has been shown to decrease the frequency

and severity of workplace injuries.

Work demand is another commonly identified safety climate theme. Work

demands relate to employees’ perceptions of pressures to perform tasks quickly.

Investigations into the causes of incidents in the UK’s offshore oil industry identified

that perceptions of performance pressure can encourage employees to forgo safe

work practices and engage in unsafe short cut behaviours if they perceive the unsafe

behaviours to be quicker or more efficient methods (Wright, 1986). This finding is

consistent with research conducted in the coal mining industry (Sanders, Patterson, &

Peay, 1976) and with research drawing upon a sample of workers from a range of

moderate-risk jobs such as police officers (Mullen, 2004). More specifically Sanders

et al. (1976) found that increased levels of production pressure were associated with

increased lost time injury rates. Similarly, Mullen (2004) found that perceived

coercive pressure from management and co-workers to work quickly rather than

safely was associated with employees engaging in unsafe work behaviours. Mullen

describes how one employee endured an oil burn injury due to their decision not to


113

wear personal protective equipment, based on previous experiences with managers

expressing anger related to the increased time taken to fit protective gloves.

Communication has frequently emerged as a safety climate factor in previous

studies. Researchers have suggested that there is value in fostering an environment

where safety feedback can be openly communicated between employees and

management (Hall & Hecht, 1979; Pidgeon, 1991; Vredenburgh, 2002). A climate of

‘no fault’ incident investigations allows both near-miss and actual incidents to be

identified, analysed and findings disseminated to manage occupational risks.

Effective communication has been linked to positive outcomes in previous research.

For example, research comparing communication quality between low-incident rate

plants and high-incident rate plants, identified that managers in low-incident rate

plants often provided direct and immediate channels of communication through

engaging in one-to-one interaction with their employees. Comparatively, managers in

high-incident rate plants often relied on committees to interact with employees

(Smith et al, 1978). Furthermore, research with a sample of nuclear power plant

personnel, has found that high levels of communication and feedback were

associated with high safety performance (Kivimaki, Kalimo, & Salminen, 1995).

Relationships are another commonly identified safety climate theme. This

theme encompasses perceived trust, support and cohesiveness between co-workers

and between employees and management. Research suggests that high quality

working relationships are associated with enhanced safety outcomes (DeMichiei,

Langton, Bullock, & Wiles, 1982; Gaertner, Newman, Perry, Fisher, & Whitehead,

1987; Shannon et al., 1996; Simard & Marchand, 1997). For example research has

found that mining companies with negative labour relations had almost double the

injury rates of mining companies with positive labour relations (Gaertner et al.,

1987). Similarly research investigating the characteristics of over 400 manufacturing

companies, found that harmonious relationships between managers and workers was


114

a characteristic of organisations with low rates of lost time injuries (Shannon et al.,

1996).

Policies and procedures have frequently emerged as a safety climate factor. It

is thought that the presence of and implementation of organisational safety policies

and procedures may influence safety outcomes through convincing employees that

managers consistently and clearly support safety. Much research has been conducted

exploring the relationships between safety policies and procedures and safety

outcomes. For example, enhanced safety outcomes have been found to be associated

with: safety rules and procedures (Lee, 1998; Mearns et al., 1998; Simonds & Shafai-

Sharai, 1977); accident investigation and record keeping (Gaertner et al., 1987;

Simonds & Shafai-Sharai, 1977); selection, promotion and training, (Cohen et al.,

1975; DeMichiei et al., 1982; Smith et al., 1978); and work planning and

organisation, (Cohen et al., 1975; DeMichiei et al., 1982).

Research has also been conducted to investigate the antecedents of safety

climate and the relationships between safety climate and safety outcomes across a

range of occupations, geographical locations and cultures. Safety climate perceptions

are thought to be based on employee interpretations of events, features, and

processes in the work environment related to employee safety (Lindell, 1994). To

date, little research has been conducted to explore the antecedents of safety climate.

A review of the research that has been conducted in the trucking industry and

emergency services industry suggests that driver training, employee opportunity for

safety input, and top management commitment to safety may be antecedents to safety

climate (Arboleda, Morrow, Crum, & Shelley, 2003; Banks et al., 2006).

In comparison, many researchers have investigated relationships between

safety climate and safety outcomes. Studies have found that safety climate factors are

related to: safety performance and behaviour (Neal, Griffin, & Heart, 2000; Griffin &

Neal, 2000; Wills et al., 2006); incident rates (Diaz & Cabrera, 1997; Varonen &


115

Mattila, 2000; Zohar, 2000; Mearns et al., 1998; Mearns et al., 2003); frequency of

workers compensation claims (O’Toole, 2002); and occupational injury frequency

and severity (Nielsen et al., 2008; Gillen, Baltz, Gassel, Kirsch, & Vaccaro, 2002;

Vredenburgh, 2002; Felknor, Aday, Burau, Delclos, & Kapadia, 2000; Silva, Lima,

& Baptista, 2004).

Recently, research into workplace safety climate has been extended to

specifically include work vehicle usage (Banks et al., 2006; Wills et al, 2004). The

development of this research, called ‘fleet safety climate’, increases our

understanding of the antecedents of driving behaviour in the workplace. Similar to

safety climate, a number of general dimensions that may impact fleet safety climate

have been identified. These include: management commitment; trusting relationships

and communication; appropriateness of work demands; and appropriateness of

education and rules (Banks et al., 2006).

Given the links observed in previous research between safety climate and

safety outcomes, it is suggested that fleet safety climate may be related to work-

related road safety outcomes. Study three will build upon the recently conducted fleet

safety climate research by exploring whether differences in fleet safety climate are

related to road safety outcomes.

4.4 Review of Stages of Change Literature

An organisation’s collective readiness to embrace change is constantly being

shaped by the individual readiness of the employees it comprises (Armenakis, Harris

& Mossholder, 1993). Therefore to facilitate change at an organisational level,

attempts need to be made to mobilise collective employee support for safety. In the

past, many organisations have attempted to discover the ‘silver bullet’ to managing

occupational safety and then attempted to impose the selected safety processes upon

their employees. Development of safety management processes have often occurred

without consideration for employees’ current beliefs, knowledge and attitudes


116

towards targeted safety behaviours. Despite this, a workforce may be best

conceptualised as involving a heterogeneous mixture of employees with different

degrees of readiness to embrace safety behaviours. These differences in employee

readiness may necessitate the development of a multi-pronged risk management

approach involving several employee targeted initiatives.

Previous researchers have argued that many attempts to implement

organisational change have failed due to change managers ignoring existing

knowledge and principles relating to the psychology of change (Winum et al., 1997).

It is suggested that the implementation of occupational road safety initiatives may be

improved through the consideration and application of appropriate behaviour change

models. Research in the areas of occupational health promotion and ergonomics

provides theoretical models of health-related behaviour that may be extrapolated to

the area of work-related road safety. Three stage-matched models have recently been

applied in the areas of occupational health promotion and ergonomics.

Urlings, Nijboer, and Dul (1990) have argued that attempts to manage

musculoskeletal complaints could benefit from the consideration of managers’ and

employees’ current attitudes and then tailoring communication to change their

attitudes and behaviour. Based on their case study research within the Dutch

furniture industry, Urlings et al. suggest that the six-stage behaviour change model

that they researched may provide a useful framework for implementing health

promotion initiatives. The six stages comprised: giving attention to information;

understanding information; changing attitudes; changing intentions; changing

behaviour; and maintenance of new behaviour.

After reviewing a range of health behaviour models in light of their

applicability to workplace safety, DeJoy (1996) proposed a four-stage model to

conceptualise workplace self-protective behaviour. These stages comprised: hazard

appraisal; decision-making; initiation; and adherence. DeJoy also identified five


117

constructs believed to be important throughout the four stages. They comprised:

threat-related beliefs about severity and susceptibility; self-efficacy beliefs held by

individuals regarding their ability to successfully follow safety procedures; response

efficacy beliefs held by individuals regarding the effectiveness of safety procedures;

facilitating conditions in relation to supports and barriers to engaging in self-

protective behaviour; and safety climate with respect to organisational and social

factors. DeJoy recommended the use of targeted initiatives, addressing each of the

four stages to enhance self-protective employee behaviours.

While the above mentioned stage-matched models may provide useful

theoretical frameworks in the area of work-related road safety, the current research

will focus on the utility of Prochaska and DiClemente’s (1982) stage of change

model. This model has attracted considerable attention from both researchers and

practitioners in the areas of health promotion and has been credited as the most

influential approach to the integration of behaviour change practices and theories

(Pendlebury, 1996). Compared to other stage-matched models, it provides a simple

framework for describing the process of behaviour change and guiding the

development of targeted initiatives. Furthermore, research applying this model has

indicated that stage-targeted health initiatives have been found to be more effective

than less structured health initiatives (Campbell, et al., 1994; Rakowski, et al., 1998).

The stage of change model (Prochaska et al., 1992) also known as the

transtheoretical model of change is a behaviour change model that offers a

framework for understanding variations in readiness for change. The model considers

an individual’s past behaviours and behavioural intentions to classify their readiness

to change with respect to one of five or six predictable phases of behaviour change.

These stages include: pre-contemplation; contemplation; preparation; action;

maintenance; and in some cases termination or relapse.


118

Exact definitions of the stages vary across the behaviours researched.

However the stages are typically defined as follows (Laforge et al. 1998; Prochaska

et al. 2001). Pre-contemplation characterises individuals who are not thinking of

changing their behaviour in the next six months. Contemplation characterises

individuals who are seriously considering changing their behaviour in the near

future, approximately within the next 31 days to six months. Preparation

characterises individuals who are making plans and intending to change their

behaviour in within the next 30 days. Some researchers also classify individuals to

this stage if they have begun making minor behavioural changes. Action

characterises individuals who have changed their behaviour for between zero and six

months. Maintenance characterises individuals who have been engaging in the

changed behaviour for more than six months and are working to consolidate the

gains from their changed behaviour and prevent relapse. Some researches include a

sixth stage in the model, referred to as either the termination or relapse stage.

Termination has been defined as a stage in which individuals have permanently

adopted the changed behaviour (West, 2005). In comparison, relapse has been

defined as a stage in which individuals have failed to maintain the changed behaviour

and have reverted to a previous behaviour (Barrett et al., 2005).

Some researchers have expressed concern that the mixture of different types

of constructs (i.e. immediacy of intention, past behaviours, durations of engaging in

behaviours) used to define the stages may not always fit together coherently (Etter &

Sutton, 2002). Although little research has been conducted to determine the optimal

terms of stage classification, research that has compared stage algorithms has

identified that the stage construct is appropriate and robust across many methods of

classification (Laforge, Maddock, & Rossi, 1998; Reed, Velicer, & Prochaska,

1997). Furthermore, research has found stage distributions to be stable across risk

factors, gender and countries (Laforge, Velicer, Richmond & Owen, 1999). This

research will follow the standard approach adopted in previous research and will

only include the first five stages of the model. The model proposes that individuals


119

sequentially progress through the stages however they may at times regress to

previous stages before achieving the maintenance stage (Prochaska & Velicer, 1997).

Originally developed in the field of psychotherapy for studying individual

behaviour change, the model has strong empirical support in the area of health

promotion. For example research has demonstrated the utility of the model in

changing a range of behaviours including: dietary behaviour (Robinson, et. al., 2008;

Wolf et al., 2008); smoking cessation (Erol & Erdogan, 2008); exercise adoption

(Kim, 2008; Robinson, et. al., 2008); sun exposure (Rossi, Blais, Redding, &

Weinstock, 1995); excessive alcohol consumption (Carbonari, & DiClemente, 2000);

injury rehabilitation (Clement, 2008); and mammography screening (Rakowski, et

al., 1998). More specifically, it has been found that stage-matched initiatives were

more effective in changing behaviour than ‘one size fits all’ initiatives (Campbell, et

al., 1994; Rakowski, et al., 1998).

This makes sense considering that research comparing stage distributions

across a range of health-related behaviours has found that in pre-action individuals

approximately 40 percent of the population are in the pre-contemplation phase, 40

percent are in the contemplation phase and only 20 percent are in the preparation

phase (Velicer et al., 1985; Laforge et al., 1999). This distribution pattern indicates

that a combination of initiatives targeting awareness raising, discussing how changes

could be made and making plans to change may be a more effective approach to

managing organisational change, than a single action orientated initiative that may

only cater to approximately 20 percent of pre-action employees.

Many work-related road safety initiatives in the past have been developed

which are suitable for employees who are already cognitively prepared to change

their behaviours, for example introducing a driving risk assessment form for

employees to complete. While these types of initiatives may be effective for some

employees, they often ignore the needs of other employees who are not yet ready to


120

modify their behaviour or may require remedial interventions prior to accepting new

behaviours. An inappropriate match between initiatives and the target workforce may

partially explain undesirable outcomes described in previous research including

managers rejecting ergonomic recommendations (Trevelyan & Haslam, 2001) and

employees failing to apply the safe lifting techniques they had been trained in

(Wright & Haslam, 1999). It is suggested that the stages of change model has

potential applications as a framework for designing work-related road safety

initiatives that are appropriate to managers and employees readiness for change.

In recent years the model has started to be applied internationally to

organisational change in the areas of ergonomics, health promotion and change

management (Haslam, 2002; Prochaska, 2000; Prochaska et al., 2001). A case study

of health and safety appraisals within an English manufacturing company identified

that the stages of change model provided a useful framework for assessing attitudes

and beliefs and assisting in recognising individual and organisational readiness to

change (Barrett et al., 2005). Additionally the model provided a framework for

explaining the observed effectiveness of a cattle handling injury prevention program

in New Zealand. Interviews with approximately 1,500 farming personnel revealed

that awareness raising methods including leaflets and videos were most effective in

transitioning farmers from contemplation to action. Alternatively field days that

provided farmers with an opportunity for tailored advice were more effective in

transitioning farmers from action to maintenance (Slappendel, 2001 as cited in

Haslam, 2002). Previous researchers have indicated that the application of the stages

of change model may assist in the reduction of resistance, stress and implementation

time associated with organisational change through accelerating employee movement

towards the action stage (Prochaska et al., 2001).

In providing a balanced review it is important to recognise that the model has

been critiqued for neglecting to consider entrenched behavioural patterns associated

with addicted behaviours (West, 2005). West expresses concern that the application


121

of the model may result in an effective treatment, such as a new smoking cessation

aid, not being offered to a pre-contemplative individual who may respond favourably

to the treatment. It is acknowledged that the strict and narrow application of a stage

targeted initiative may not always be appropriate in the case of treating an individual

with an addictive behaviour. However it is believed that in the case of managing non-

addictive behaviours such as occupational driving, the stages of change model may

provide a useful framework for developing a multi-pronged risk management

approach capable of targeting the behavioural change needs of a range of employees.

Study three will pioneer research into the area of stage of change and work-

related road safety. Currently the influences of stage of change have not been

researched in relation to occupational road safety. To address this gap, the current

research will explore whether differences in stages of change relate to work-related

road safety outcomes.

4.5 Review of Safety Ownership Literature

The success of organisational change initiatives appears to be influenced by

the owners of the change initiative. In accordance with the Queensland Workplace

Health and Safety Act 1995, duties of care to workers and third parties are shared by

everyone. Therefore ownership of work-related road safety must be embraced by all

members of an organisation. However in practice it currently appears that ownership

of work-related road safety is often only adopted by employees operating in specific

positions such as Workplace Health Safety Manager or Fleet Manager. The current

research will explore safety ownership with respect to the position of the primary

change owner and the extent to which ownership is shared across members of an

organisation.

In relation to primary ownership, it is suggested that the organisational

position of the employee may be related to the effectiveness of the safety initiative. A

recent case study revealed that changes in management level and department of the


122

primary owner related to changes in safety behaviour of employees (Barrett et al.,

2005). Employees initially reported only minimal adherence to safe working

practices as they believed that the health and safety manager did not carry the

necessary authority or respect to achieve compliance with safety procedures and

rules. Upon the health and safety manager’s resignation, the production director

assumed primary ownership of safety. With his authority to fire employees

immediately for non compliance to rules or procedures, health and safety compliance

increased within the organisation.

The importance of position authority has also been recognised in earlier

research. For example a lack of upper management involvement in safety matters has

been identified as a serious impediment to managing safety. De Michiei et al. (1982)

observed that responsibility for safety procedures in high incident-rate mines was

often delegated to safety personnel who lacked the authority to enforce safe work

procedures. Similarly Zohar (1980) found that in less effective plants, managers

often assigned all safety responsibility to designated safety personnel who had

minimal executive power to manage risks. Findings from these studies suggest that

management department and level of authority may be related to achieving effective

implementation of safety initiatives.

Research within the broader work safety context has found that organisational

structures and management approaches associated with the position of the primary

safety owner have influenced safety outcomes (Bentley & Haslam, 2001; Clarke,

1999; Haines, Victor, Merrheim, & Roy, 2001; O’Toole, 1999; Roy, 2003; Simard &

Marchand, 1997; Griffin & Neal, 2000). Examples of this include supervisor

autonomy, management commitment and leadership styles. Firstly, supervisor

autonomy has been linked to safety outcomes. Research has found that the propensity

of workgroups to embrace safety initiatives was higher when the supervisor had

some power or influence over decisions that affected group safety and engaged in

participative management of accident prevention (Simard & Marchard, 1995; Simard


123

& Marchard, 1997). Similarly, research has found that section supervisors at low

incident-rate mines had greater freedom to make health, safety and production

decisions than section supervisors at high-incident rate mines (De Michiei et al.,

1982).

Secondly, management commitment has been linked to safety outcomes.

Research that compared 42 matched pairs of American companies found that

management commitment to safety was greater in the low incident-rate plants than in

the high incident-rate plants. In this study, managers in low incident-rate plants

allocated greater resources to plant safety and were more actively involved in safety

programs (Cohen et al., 1975; Smith et al., 1978). Similarly, recent research has also

found relationships between management commitment and safety outcomes

including: personal actions for safety (Cox et al., 1998); incident reporting (Clarke,

1999); and incident rates (Alexander et al., 1995; Mearns et al., 1998).

Thirdly, leadership style has been linked to safety outcomes. Australian

research has found that supportive supervision made an independent positive

contribution to workers’ self reported safety compliance and safety motivation in a

study of manufacturing and mining workers (Griffin & Neal, 2000). Similarly, UK

research found that a high involvement supervision style was associated with positive

safety outcomes in industrial organisations (Wood, Barling, Lasaosa, & Parker,

2000).

It is suggested that the department and level of authority of the primary

change owner may be linked to their ability to execute key management practices

with respect to safety. A study of safety management practices revealed that several

key management practices were associated with either low or high incident rates in

postal offices (Bentley & Haslam, 2001). These management practices included:

prompt action in response to reported hazards; comprehensive incident investigation;


124

taking remedial action to reduce the chances of further incidents occurring; and

frequent safety communication with employees.

The job description and authority of the primary change owner may restrict

their ability to execute or influence others to execute key safety management

practices. For example it is suggested that within an organisation, the position of

Fleet Asset Manager may require different priorities, competencies, authority levels

and circles of influence to the position of Workplace Health Safety Manager. The

appropriateness of a safety owner’s position may also vary in relation to the safety

initiative. For example a risk management strategy comprising the selection of safe

vehicles may be better suited to leadership from within a fleet department rather than

a health and safety department.

Study three will pioneer research into the area of safety ownership and work-

related road safety. Currently the influences of safety ownership have not been

researched with respect to occupational road safety. To address this gap, the current

research will explore whether the position of the person primarily responsible for

managing road safety is related to road safety outcomes.

In addition to the position of the primary owner, it is suggested that the extent

to which ownership is shared across members of an organisation may also be related

to the success of a safety initiative. It has long been recognised in the safety literature

that managers at different hierarchical levels within an organisation have different

roles in the overall management of workplace health and safety (Andreissen, 1978).

Senior managers are typically responsible for organisational strategies such as

managing organisational structure and developing policy. Middle level managers are

typically responsible for interpreting and implementing policies and programs.

Lower level managers, including supervisors and team leaders, are typically

responsible for operational matters such as co-ordinating and facilitating work tasks

(Management Charter Initiative, 1997).


125

As managers operating within different positions and levels within an

organisation typically have different responsibilities, each manager may be able to

provide a unique and valuable role in managing safety. Furthermore, research

conducted across a range of westernised countries including New Zealand, Canada

and America, supports the utility of a decentralised risk management approach to

enhance occupational safety (Dwyer & Raftery 1991; Simard & Marchand, 1997;

Goodman 1987). For example research has found that the reorganisation of a coal

mine work section into an autonomous work group resulted in increased employee

knowledge of safe practices and procedures, beneficial communication, and

increased employee responsibility for safety (Goodman, 1987).

To effectively manage OHS performance it is suggested that ownership of

safety management tasks should be shared by employees in all safety critical

positions. Safety critical positions may vary among organisations but will typically

include: Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer; Senior Manager; Operations

Manager; Project Manager; Site Manager; National OHS Manager; State OHS

Manager; Regional OHS Manager; Site OHS Advisor and employees (Dingsdag,

Biggs, & Sheahan, 2007). The sharing of safety responsibilities may allow an

organisation to draw upon the expertise of employees whose competencies and

position responsibilities are best aligned with each safety management task. Recent

research findings pertaining to manufacturing companies support the formalisation of

safety management responsibilities. More specifically, research investigating the

characteristics of over 400 manufacturing companies, found that organisations with

low rates of lost time injuries typically defined health and safety responsibilities in

all managers’ job descriptions and included health and safety topics in performance

appraisals (Shannon et al., 1996).

Past research within the construction industry has identified 39 safety

management tasks that are seen as critical to the management of OHS performance


126

(Dingsdag, Biggs, Sheahan & Cipolla, 2006). These tasks cover a range of

competency areas for example; proactively identifying, assessing and determining

appropriate controls for OHS hazards and risks; communicating OHS risks;

evaluating safety program effectiveness; implementing workers compensation

management systems; and managing OHS performance. Of these 39 safety

management tasks, research has identified that in the construction industry the three

tasks perceived to be most important in reducing injury include: challenge unsafe

behaviour/attitude at any level when you encounter it; monitor subcontractor

activities; and carry out workplace and task hazard identification, risk assessments

and control (Biggs et al., 2006).

In relation to work-related road safety, currently no nationally based or

accepted framework exists that identifies which tasks are critical to managing

occupational road safety. To address this gap, the current research will explore which

tasks are considered relevant to managing work-related road safety. Study three will

also pioneer research into the area of safety ownership and work-related road safety.

As previously noted, the influences of safety ownership have not been researched

with respect to occupational road safety. To address this gap, the current research

will explore whether the level of shared ownership of safety management tasks by

employees in safety critical positions is related to road safety outcomes.

4.6 Conclusion

Limited guidance is provided in the existing literature to assist practitioners in

determining how work-related road safety can be improved in their organisation.

This gap in the literature restricts practitioners’ ability to evaluate and select

initiatives that are suitable to their organisation’s environment. The author has

observed fleet managers and occupational health and safety practitioners

simplistically attempting to transfer road risk management strategies operating in one

organisation, to another organisation that may be substantially different. It is

suggested that as no two organisations are identical it may be unrealistic to expect


127

that the same risk management strategy will have the same effect in two different

organisations.

While every organisation has unique qualities, it is suggested that many

commonalities also exist among organisations. By considering organisational factors,

such as fleet safety climate, stage of change and safety ownership, an understanding

of the organisational environment may be gained. Previous studies have indicated

that fleet safety climate (Nielsen et al., 2008; Wills, et al., 2006); stage of change

(Slappendel, 2001 as cited in Haslam, 2002; Prochaska et al., 2001); and safety

ownership (Barrett et al., 2005; Biggs et al., 2006) may be related to safety outcomes

and the effectiveness of safety initiatives in organisations.

To assist practitioners in making informed decisions about how they manage

occupational road risks, study three will explore whether three organisational factors

are related to self-reported driving behaviours, traffic infringements and vehicle

incidents. This research will build upon recently conducted fleet safety climate

research and will pioneer research into two new areas of work-related road safety.

Currently the influences of organisational factors including stage of change and

safety ownership have not been researched in relation to occupational road safety.

Study three will conduct exploratory research in these areas to provide new research

insights. The findings from study three will assist practitioners in evaluating and

selecting initiatives in an informed manner that are suitable to their organisation’s

environment.


128


129

Chapter 5: Study three – Organisational factors methodology

5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 130

5.2 Research Design .............................................................................................. 130

5.3 Interview ......................................................................................................... 131


5.3.2 Content ........................................................................................... 132

5.3.3 Procedure ............................................................................................. 135

5.4 Questionnaire .................................................................................................. 135


5.4.2 Content ........................................................................................... 136

5.4.3 Procedure ........................................................................................... 139


130

Chapter 5: Study three – Organisational factors methodology

5.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the methodology utilised in study three to explore the

influence of three organisational factors on road safety outcomes. These factors

include fleet safety climate, stages of change and safety ownership. In this chapter,

the research design is presented, followed by information pertaining to the two data

collection processes utilised in study three.

5.2 Research Design

As identified in the study three literature review, there is a scarcity of

research pertaining to the relationships between organisational factors and work-

related road safety outcomes. Given that the influences of organisational factors

including stages of change and safety ownership have not been researched in regards

to occupational road safety, an exploratory approach was considered most

appropriate for study three. Study three was designed to comprehensively explore

whether fleet safety climate, stages of change and safety ownership were related to

self-reported driving behaviours, traffic infringements and vehicle incidents.

To comprehensively explore the relationships between organisational factors

and work-related road safety outcomes, two data collection processes were

conducted. These comprised a semi-structured interview and an online questionnaire.

This combination of qualitative and quantitative methods was selected for two

reasons. Firstly, it allowed the weaknesses of one method to be counteracted with the

strengths of the other method. Secondly, it allowed the researcher to clarify and

challenge the data obtained through the interviews with the data obtained through the

questionnaires. Two methods were used to explore the same research questions in

study three to increase the robustness of the methodology.


131

Study three utilised the same interview and questionnaire participants,

recruitment processes and procedures as study one and two. Therefore only a brief

outline of the participant demographics and procedures is presented in this chapter.

For more information on these topics, the reader is referred back to Chapters Two

and Three. Detailed information on the content of the questions pertaining to study

three is presented in this chapter. Before commencing study three, ethics and

workplace health and safety approval was granted through the Queensland

University of Technology.

5.3 Interview

This section describes the study three participant demographics, interview

content and procedure. As previously described in study two, this research adopts an

epistemological approach consistent with the theoretical stance on qualitative

research outlined in Seale and Silverman (1997). More specifically the researcher

strives to achieve methodological rigour through objectively creating distance

between the researcher and the data.

5.3.1 Participant demographics

Each organisation provided access to four employees and two managers,

yielding a total of 24 interview participants. The participants were a convenience

sample, determined by the organisational representatives. The organisational

representatives agreed to recruit participants from a representative range of

organisational positions and responsibilities, geographical locations and demographic

backgrounds. Participants ranged in age from 24 years to 58 years. To represent the

workforce distribution of drivers, a majority (87 percent) of the participants were

male. All interview participants reported regularly driving a vehicle for work-related

purposes.


132

5.3.2 Content

Study three interview questions were administered in conjunction with the

larger research project interview. The research project interview obtained data with

respect to participant demographics, potential barriers and facilitators to

implementing initiatives, fleet safety climate, stages of change and safety ownership.

The semi-structured interview questions that were asked to employees and managers

are presented in Appendix H. Questions pertaining to fleet safety climate, stage of

change and safety ownership are described in this section.

To explore employees’ perceptions in relation to fleet safety climate, several

questions were incorporated into the interview schedule. These questions were based

on underlying factor structures that have previously been identified in safety climate

and more specifically fleet safety climate research. As identified in the literature

review in Chapter 4, several reoccurring safety climate factors have been identified

across studies. These comprised: management attitudes and behaviours; work

pressures; competency; risks; and safety management systems including policies and

procedures (Flin et al., 2000). In recent years, researchers have extended safety

climate research to specifically investigate safety climate with respect to work-

related driving (Banks et al., 2006; Wills et al., 2004; Wills et al., 2006). In

reviewing these studies, several reoccurring factors were again identified. These

comprised: management commitment; trusting relationships including

communication and support; work demands and pressure; appropriateness of safety

rules and safety training. Based on the factors identified in previous fleet safety

climate research, the interview questions in this study explored employees’

perceptions with respect to the following areas: management commitment; level of

trust between employees and management; communication in relation to work-

related road safety; level of work demands; and appropriateness of safety policies

and procedures.


133

To explore employees’ perceptions with respect to stage of change, several

questions were incorporated into the interview schedule. Research suggests that it is

possible to assess stages of change via individuals’ responses to a small number of

questions (Haslam, 2002; Haslam & Draper, 2000). Based on adaptations from

previous research (Barrett et al., 2005; Whysall et al., 2006), combinations of open

and closed questions were developed. In some cases several questions were asked at

each stage to elicit sufficient information to identify employees’ stage of change. The

following core questions were asked in this order until a negative response was

obtained. The last positive response indicated the employee’s perception of their

organisation’s stage of readiness for change.

Are you aware of any work-related road safety risk? (Yes = continue, No = pre-

contemplation)

Are you planning to take any action to reduce work-related road safety risk in the

next 6 months? (Yes = continue, No = pre-contemplation)

Do you have any definite plans to reduce work-related road safety risk in the next

month? (Yes = continue, No = contemplation)

Have you already taken any action to reduce work-related road safety risk? (Yes

= continue, No = preparation)

Are you currently taking any action to maintain work-related road safety within

your company? (Yes = maintenance, No = action)

Consistent with the descriptions provided in previous research (Barrett et al.,

2005; Velicer, Prochaska, Fava, Norman, & Redding, 1998), the current research

conceptualises the stage of change variable as a continuous variable. Unlike some

behaviour change measures that use a single discrete measure of outcome, where any

progress that does not reach criterion is not recognised, the stage of change model

provides a more sensitive measure of change progress. It is recognised that the stage

construct represents a temporal dimension and that change implies phenomena

occurring over time. Consistent with previous research, the current research


134

conceptualises stage of change as a process involving progress through a series of

five stages.

Interview participants were also asked to comment on any work-related road

safety initiatives they were aware of that their organisation was intending to, or

already engaging in.

To explore employees’ perceptions in relation to safety ownership, several

questions were incorporated into the interview schedule. All participants were asked

to identify the position of the person primarily responsible for managing work-

related road safety in their organisation. To explore the extent to which safety was

shared across members of the organisation, all participants were also presented with

a list of seven task categories and asked to indicate the positions of anyone in their

organisation who was accepting responsibility for actioning the safety tasks with

respect to each category. The task categories were selected based on previous

research findings in the construction industry that identified links between the

categories and workplace safety (Dingsdag et al., 2006).

The task categories enquired about in the interviews comprised: proactively

identifying, assessing and determining appropriate controls for OHS hazards and

risks; communicating and consulting with stakeholders regarding OHS risks;

monitoring, reporting and evaluating safety program effectiveness; engaging with

subcontractors in OHS performance management; identifying and implementing

relevant components of the OHS and workers compensation management systems;

understanding and applying workers compensation and case management principles;

and providing leadership and management to staff and subcontractors in OHS

performance. To identify if differences existed within the organisations in regards to

the approach taken to managing road risks as compared to other workplace risks,

participants were asked to indicate the positions accepting responsibility for


135

actioning the tasks in relation to both overall OHS and then more specifically with

respect to work-related road safety.

As noted in Chapter Three, an employee version and a manager version of the

interview was developed. In addition to the above questions, managers were also

asked to review a list of 39 safety management tasks. As described in the literature

review in Chapter Four, these tasks have been identified in previous research

(Dingsdag et al., 2006) as critical to the management of OH&S performance. The list

of safety management tasks enquired about can be viewed in the interview schedule

presented in Appendix H. After reviewing the list, managers were asked to indicate

the minimum (rather than best practice) level of competency required within their

organisation to manage work-related road safety using a scale from one to three. A

rating of one indicted that full understanding was required. A rating of two indicated

that a working knowledge and awareness was required. Finally, a rating of three

indicated that the competency was not required at the minimal level or was not

relevant to managing work-related road safety in their organisation.

5.3.3 Procedure

After piloting the interview process and content, face-to-face interviews were

conducted in private offices on the premises of each organisation. Participation was

voluntary and written consent was obtained from all participants. Employees were

interviewed individually to minimise any contamination of data arising from

potential group bias. Each interview lasted between 30 and 60 mins. Upon

completion of the interviews, key points and significant statements were identified

through reviewing the notes taken by the researcher in combination with the

verbatim transcripts.

5.4 Questionnaire

This section describes the study three participant demographics, questionnaire

content and procedure.


136

5.4.1 Participant demographics

A total of 679 participants took part in the questionnaire. The participants

were a convenience sample, determined by the cooperating organisational

representatives. Participants ranged in age from 18 years to 65 years (M = 42, SD =

11). There was a relatively even distribution of male (58 percent) and female (42

percent) participants. A majority of the participants (48 percent) drove between one

and 10 hours per week for work-related purposes. Thirty-one percent of participants

drove between 11-20 hours, and 13 percent drove in excess of 21 hours. Four percent

of participants reported not engaging in any driving for work purposes on a weekly

basis.

5.4.2 Content

Items for study three were administered as part of section two (describe your

work environment) and section three (test your driving behaviour) of the larger

research project questionnaire. A copy of the questionnaire can be viewed in

Appendix C. The relevant content of sections two and three of the questionnaire is

discussed below.

In section two, participants were encouraged to describe their work

environment in relation to the fleet safety climate, stages of change, and safety

ownership. Fleet safety climate, stages of change, and safety ownership data were

collected for use in the current study as independent variables.

Given the real-world context that the data was collected within, the researcher

was limited by time restrictions imposed by the participating organisations for their

employees to complete the questionnaire. To achieve a brief but psychometrically

valid questionnaire, the 36 item fleet safety climate scale used in previous research

(Banks & Davey, 2005) was reduced to 24 items. In modifying the scale, the purpose

of the scale and the factor structures that emerged in previous research were


137

reviewed. The focus of the previous research was to examine the relationship

between fleet safety climate and driver education, therefore there were three items

that related specifically to driver education. As the purpose of the current study was

to explore the relationship between fleet safety climate and road safety outcomes the

author removed the education specific items used in the previous study. The author

also removed several items from each of the factors. Items were selected for removal

based on their low factor loadings. For example the item ‘Employees can easily

identify the relevant procedure for each job’ was removed as it emerged with the

lowest loading .47 on factor one (management commitment). Refer to Appendix C to

view the brief fleet safety climate scale included in the current questionnaire and

Appendix J to view a list of the items removed from the original fleet safety climate

scale. Participants were presented with the list of the 24 items and asked to indicate

how much they thought the practices applied to their organisation. Items were

measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from one representing never to five

representing always. All factors were calculated such that higher scores indicated

safer perceptions.

To explore differences in stages of change, a forced choice question was

developed based on adaptations from previous research (Barrett et al., 2005; Whysall

et al., 2006). Participants were presented with the question “How would you describe

your approach to work-related road risks?” and asked to select one of the following

response options: “I’m not exposed to risk and I’m not considering changing my

driving behaviour” (indicating the pre-contemplative stage); “I’m planning to take

action to reduce my risk in the next 6 months” (indicating the contemplative stage);

“I have definite plans to reduce my risk in the next month” (indicating the

preparation stage); “I have already taken actions to reduce my risk” (indicating the

action stage); or “I’m continuing to take actions to reduce my risk” (indicating the

maintenance stage). As described in section 5.3.2, consistent with the descriptions

provided in previous research (Barrett et al., 2005; Velicer, Prochaska, Fava,


138

Norman, & Redding, 1998), the current research conceptualises the stage of change

variable as a continuous variable.

To explore differences in safety ownership, two items were utilised. These

items were developed to further investigate previous research findings that suggest

that the department and level of authority of the person taking primary ownership of

safety tasks (Barrett et al., 2005; Bentley & Haslam, 2001; Simard & Marchand,

1995) and the extent to which ownership of safety tasks is shared (Dingsdag et al.,

2007; Dingsdag et al., 2006) may be related to organisational safety outcomes.

Participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the following two

statements. The first statement “The people predominantly responsible for road

safety in my organisation carry the necessary authority and respect to achieve

compliance” was developed to assess employees’ perceptions in regards to the

person primarily responsible for managing road risks in their organisation. The

second statement “Responsibility for achieving work-related road safety is shared

across members in my organisation” was developed to assess employees’ perceptions

of the extent to which safety was shared across members of the organisation. Items

were measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from one representing strongly

disagree to five representing strongly agree.

In section three, participants were encouraged to examine their work-related

driving behaviour using a modified version of the Manchester Driver Behaviour

Questionnaire (DBQ) and to provide some demographic details. Consistent with

previous work-related road safety research, the DBQ (Wills et al., 2006) and

demographic items including self-reported driving infringements and incidents

(Freeman et al., 2007) were collected for use in the current study as dependent

variables. Study three used the same DBQ, driving infringements and vehicle

incident items as study one. Therefore only a brief overview of their content is

provided in this section. The reader is referred back to section 2.3.3 for more

information on these items.


139

The modified DBQ was introduced in the current questionnaire with the

statement that “even the best drivers can make mistakes, do foolish things, or bend

the rules while driving. For each statement below, please indicate how often over the

past 6 months this kind of thing has happened to you while driving for work

purposes.” Respondents were presented with a list of 34 items and were required to

indicate how often they commit each of the behaviours on a seven-point Likert scale.

Response options ranged from one representing never, to seven representing always.

Refer to Appendix C for a complete copy of the questionnaire.

Demographic details pertaining to participant’s involvement in work-related

road incidents were collected to allow exploration of the relationships between

organisational environments and road safety outcomes. Incident involvement was

measured in two ways. Firstly, by the frequency of lost demerit points or fines for

traffic offences (excluding parking offences) incurred during the past 12 months

while driving for work. Secondly, by the frequency of crash involvement (any

incident involving a motor vehicle that resulted in damage to a vehicle or other

property, or injury regardless of who was considered to be ‘at fault’) experienced

during the past 12 months while driving for work. The collection of crash

involvement and accumulation of demerit point data as measures of incident

involvement is consistent with previous work-related road safety research (Wishart et

al., 2006).

5.4.3 Procedure

After piloting the questionnaire to enhance item clarity, the online

questionnaire was distributed to a sample of employees from the four organisations.

To ensure participant anonymity all completed questionnaires were sent directly to

the researcher. Upon submitting their questionnaire, all participants received instant


140

and personalised feedback in appreciation of their time spent participating in this

study. The researcher generated a range of feedback statements and programmed

these to be selected and displayed to participants based on their questionnaire

responses.

With respect to the ‘Describe your work environment’ section, participant’s

feedback was determined by their response to the first item “How would you

describe your approach to work related road risks?” Participants who selected a

response that indicated they were in a pre-contemplative stage of change obtained the

following feedback “Based on the responses you provided it appears that you do not

consider driving to be a high risk activity for you. You may benefit most from road

safety initiatives that focus on raising awareness of work-related driving risks. For

example you may be surprised to find that worldwide approximately 50 million

people are injured and an additional 1.2 million people are killed annually in road

crashes. Motor vehicle incidents are the most common cause of work compensated

deaths in Australia so please drive carefully.”

Participants who selected a response that indicated they were in a

contemplative stage of change obtained the following feedback “Based on the

responses you provided it appears that you are keen to increase your work-related

road safety. You may benefit most from road safety initiatives that outline what is

involved in adopting safer driving behaviours. Motor vehicle incidents are the most

common cause of work compensated deaths in Australia so please drive carefully.”

Participants who selected a response that indicated they were in a preparation

stage of change obtained the following feedback “Based on the responses you

provided it appears that you are intending to take action in the very near future to

increase your work-related road safety. You may benefit most from road safety

initiatives that provide practical information and support in learning new safe driving


141

skills. Motor vehicle incidents are the most common cause of work compensated

deaths in Australia so please drive carefully.”

Participants who selected a response that indicated they were in an action

stage of change obtained the following feedback “Based on the responses you

provided it appears that you are taking steps to increase your work-related road

safety. You may benefit most from road safety initiatives that provide ongoing

advice, feedback and support for your safe driving. Motor vehicle incidents are the

most common cause of work compensated deaths in Australia so please drive

carefully.”

Participants who selected a response that indicated they were in a

maintenance stage of change obtained the following feedback “Based on the

responses you provided it appears that you are continuing to take steps to increase

your work-related road safety. You may benefit most from road safety initiatives that

provide ongoing advice, feedback and support for your safe driving. Motor vehicle

incidents are the most common cause of work compensated deaths in Australia so

please drive carefully.”

Interview data was analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social

Sciences version 15. Before commencing analyses, the data was screened for

accuracy. An examination of histograms confirmed the absence of outliers and an

examination of residuals scatterplots confirmed that the assumptions of normality,

linearity and homoscedasticity were not violated. The sample size was considered

sufficient as the cases-to-IV ratio exceed the level of 40 to 1 as recommended by

Tabachnick and Fidell (2001) for conducting statistical regression analyses.

When conducting post hoc comparisons, a Bonferroni adjustment was applied

to the significance level. As only a small number of planned comparisons were being

made an alpha value of .025 was selected to reduce the probability of making a type I


142

error. In applying this more stringent level of significance, the author recognises that

the associated loss of power may result in true differences in the treatment population

not being identified. Details of the specific analyses conducted are presented in the

next chapter which details the results from study three.


143

Chapter 6: Study three – Organisational factors results and discussion

6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 145

6.2 Fleet safety climate ......................................................................................... 146


6.2.1.1 Factor analysis ................................................................................. 146




6.2.2.1 Management commitment ............................................................... 158

6.2.2.2 Level of trust between employees and management ........................ 159

6.2.2.3 Communication in relation to work-related road safety .................. 160

6.2.2.4 Level of work demands .................................................................... 161

6.2.2.5 Appropriateness of safety policies and procedures .......................... 161

6.2.3 Discussion ...................................................................................... 162


6.2.3.2 The influence of fleet safety climate on road safety outcomes ........ 164

6.2.3.3 Applications .................................................................................... 165

6.3 Stages of change .............................................................................................. 166





6.3.2.1 Stage of change classifications ......................................................... 170

6.3.2.2 Variance in stages of change ........................................................... 170

6.3.2.3 Perceived initiative effectiveness and stage of change ................... 172

6.3.3 Discussion ..................................................................................... 173

6.3.3.1 Stage of change framework ............................................................. 173

6.3.3.2 Perceived initiative effectiveness ..................................................... 174


6.3.3.4 Applications .................................................................................... 176


144

6.4 Safety Ownership ............................................................................................ 179





6.4.2.1 Position accepting primary ownership of managing occupational

road risks .......................................................................................... 184

6.4.2.2 Shared ownership of managing occupational road risks .................. 186

6.4.2.3 Road risks as compared to other OH&S risks .................................. 187

6.4.2.4 Competencies required for managing occupational road risks ........ 188

6.4.3 Discussion ..................................................................................... 189

6.4.3.1 Ownership of safety management tasks ........................................... 189

6.4.3.2 Road safety outcomes ...................................................................... 191

6.4.3.3 Applications ..................................................................................... 191

6.5 Chapter conclusion .......................................................................................... 193


145

Chapter 6: Study three – Organisational factors results and discussion

6.1 Introduction

The purpose of study three was to identify optimal work environments for

managing road risks. This was achieved by exploring the influence of three

organisational factors on road safety outcomes. These organisational factors

included: fleet safety climate; stage of change; and safety ownership. The road safety

outcomes explored included: driver behaviours; traffic infringements; and crash

involvement.

This chapter firstly presents the findings from the questionnaire data. Mean and

standard deviation scores are presented for each of the organisational factors.

Bivariate correlation scores between each of the organisational factors and the road

safety outcomes are then presented. To examine the utility of the organisational

factors for predicting road safety outcomes, regression analyses were conducted in

relation to driver behaviours and crash involvement. As detailed in Study Two,

driver behaviours were measured using the 34-item modified driver behaviour

questionnaire. A factor analysis of this scale extracted the following four factors:

errors; fatigue and distractions; violations; and unsafe driving preparations. As

previously noted in Chapter Two, factor four failed to achieve an acceptable

reliability coefficient cut-off level of .70 (De Vaus, 2002) and was therefore

excluded from further analyses. Crash involvement was a dichotomous variable with

employees grouped according to whether they reported being involved in no vehicle

incidents, or one or more vehicle incidents, while driving for work during the past 12

months. Due to the relatively small number of participants who reported obtaining

traffic infringements in the last 12 months (N = 58), it was not possible to implement

a logistic regression to reliably analyse on this outcome measure. Previous research

in the area of occupational road safety has also acknowledged difficulties in reliably

analysing outcome data due to only a small proportion of the sample reporting

infringement and incident involvement (Freeman, et al., 2007; Wishart et al., 2006).


146

Interview data is then presented to further explore the influence of fleet safety

climate, stage of change and safety ownership on road safety outcomes.

6.2 Fleet safety climate

6.2.1 Questionnaire Results

To investigate employees’ perceptions regarding their organisations work-

related road safety climate, the current research utilised a brief fleet safety climate

scale developed by the author.

6.2.1.1 Factor Analysis

An exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the brief 24 item

questionnaire. Using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure (msa = .928) and Bartlett’s

Test of Sphericity (p>.001) factorability was confirmed. Principal components

analysis with oblimin rotation revealed five factors exceeding Kaiser’s criterion of

eigenvalues > 1. Cattell’s scree plot also strongly supported a five factor extraction.

The five-factor solution accounted for 68.8% of the total variance with factors one

and five appearing to be moderate to highly correlated, (r = .66) and factors two and

four appearing to be moderate to highly correlated, (r = .51).

The first factor accounted for approximately 40% of the total variance and

contained 7 items. A majority of the items related to management commitment, for

example ‘Management are committed to driver safety’ and ‘Management are

committed to motor vehicle safety’. The extraction of a management commitment

factor is consistent with previous fleet safety climate research (Banks et al., 2005;

Wills et al., 2006).

The second factor accounted for approximately 8% of the total variance and

contained five items relating to work demands. Work demand items including


147

‘workload is reasonably balanced’ and ‘time schedules for completing work projects

are realistic’ were identified as the strongest contributors to the factor. The extraction

of a work demands factor is consistent with previous fleet safety climate research

(Banks et al., 2005; Wills et al., 2006).

The third factor accounted for approximately 6% of the total variance. This

factor contained three items relating to relationships. Relationship items including

‘employees trust management’ and ‘management trust employees’ were identified as

the strongest contributors to the factor. The extraction of a relationships factor is

consistent with previous fleet safety climate research (Banks et al., 2005; Wills et al.,

2006).

The fourth factor accounted for approximately 3% of the total variance and

contained five items relating to appropriateness of rules. Examples of items that

loaded highly on this factor included ‘safety rules relating to the use of motor

vehicles can be followed without conflicting with work practices’ and ‘safety rules

relating to the use of motor vehicles are always practical. This finding is consistent

with previous research that identified the appropriateness of rules and education

(Banks et al., 2005) and safety rules (Wills et al., 2006) as a safety climate factor.

Finally, the fifth factor accounted for approximately 3% of the total variance

and contained seven items relating to communication. Examples of items that loaded

highly on this factor included ‘Safety problems and policies are openly discussed

between employees and managers/supervisors’ and ‘Changes in working procedures

and their effects on safety are effectively communicated to workers’. Again, this

finding is consistent with previous research (Banks et al., 2005; Wills et al., 2006)

which has identified communication as a safety climate factor.

The resulting factor loadings of greater than .3 for the modified fleet safety

climate questionnaire are shown in Table 5. As can be seen in the table, three items


148

cross loaded on more than one factor. These items contained similar weightings

across two factors. Overall, reliability analyses revealed that the fleet safety climate

questionnaire had a high internal reliability of .94. High internal reliability was also

observed for each of the factors. More specifically, observed reliability coefficients

for each of the factors was above the acceptable cut-off level of .70 (De Vaus, 2002).

The following coefficient alpha values were obtained for Factor One .93

(management commitment), Factor Two .89 (work demands), Factor Three .88

(relationships), Factor Four .79 (appropriateness of rules) and Factor Five .86

(communication).

Table 5 Factor structure of the modified fleet safety climate questionnaire

Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5

Management are committed to driver safety .96

Management are committed to motor vehicle safety .86

Driver safety is seen as an important part of fleet

management in this organisation

.85

Driver safety is central to management’s values .73

Driver safety procedures complete and comprehensive .37 .33

An effective documentation management system

ensures the availability of vehicle safety procedures

.32

Workload is reasonably balanced .89

Time schedules for work projects are realistic .87

There is sufficient ‘thinking time’ to enable employees

to carry out their work to an adequate standard

.81

There are enough employees for the required work .71

Changes in workload or problems can be dealt with in

a way that does not affect driver safety

.44 .39

Employees trust management .79

Management trust employees .78


149

Table 5 (Continued)

Description F1 F2 F3 F4 F5

Good working relationships exist in this organisation .56

Safety rules do not conflict with work practices .73

Safety rules are practical .69

Safety rules are followed even when a job is rushed .50

Safety procedures match actual practice .30 .30

Safety problems and policies are openly discussed .84

Changes in working procedures are communicated .75

Safety policies are communicated to workers .63

Employees are consulted for safety improvements .56

Employees are encouraged to support each other .45

Employees are told when changes are made to the

working environment such as vehicle procedures

.42

6.2.1.2 Mean and standard deviation scores

Mean and standard deviation scores were calculated for overall fleet safety

climate and for each of the five extracted factors. For all fleet safety climate factors,

potential responses ranged from one to five, with higher scores indicating safer

perceptions. The mean overall fleet safety climate score was 3.33 (SD = .67). Mean

scores remained relatively consistent across the five factors. More specifically, the

scores were as follows: Factor One - management commitment (M = 3.47, SD =

.88); Factor Two - work demands (M = 3.13, SD = .89); Factor Three - relationships

(M = 3.15, SD = .89); Factor Four - appropriateness of rules (M = 3.55, SD = .72);

and Factor Five - communication (M = 3.27, SD = .80). Overall these means indicate

that participants perceived a moderate level of organisational support for safety.


150

6.2.1.3 Correlations and regressions

Bivariate correlation scores were calculated for fleet safety climate variables,

key demographic variables and road safety outcome variables. These statistics are

presented below in Table 6. It can be observed from the table that the correlations

between the safety climate factors ranged from moderate to strong (r = .41 to .78).

Age was significantly negatively correlated with all driver behaviour measures,

indicating that younger drivers in the sample reported a higher tendency towards

unsafe road behaviours. The number of hours driven per week was significantly

positively correlated with all driver behaviour measures. This finding indicates that

employees with greater exposure to driving reported a higher tendency towards

unsafe road behaviours.

Driver behaviours and vehicle crashes

The overall fleet safety climate scale shows a significant negative relationship

to the overall driver behaviour scale. This suggests that organisational support for

road safety is associated with employees engaging in safer driving behaviours. A non

significant relationship was observed between the overall fleet safety climate scale

and employees self-reported crash involvement. Therefore follow up analyses were

only conducted with respect to self-reported driver behaviours. To examine the

utility of the fleet safety climate scale for predicting driver behaviours, a hierarchical

regression was conducted. Details of this analysis are presented below.


151

Table 6 Bivariate correlations between fleet safety climate variables, key demographic variables and road safety outcome variables

Overall

Driver

Behaviour

Errors

Fatigue

and

distractions

Violations Vehicle

Crashes2 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

1. Age -.23** -.18** -.17** -.25** .04 - -.33** -.31 .12** .20** .14** -.08* .07 .12**

2. Gender 1 .02 .03 .04 -.01 .08* - -.09* -.17** -.25** -.23** .16** -.10* -.17**

3. Hours driven

per week .20** .11** .27** .07* .10** - -.04 -.04 -.03 -.09* -.03 .02

4. Overall Fleet

Safety Climate -.17** -.07 -.24** -.07 .05 - .89** .77** .62** .80** .86**

5. Management

commitment -.15** -.07 -.19** -.07 .03 - .55** .41** .67** .78**

6. Work

demands -.14** -.06 -.22** -.04 .05 - .45** .65** .49**

7. Relationships -.05 .01 -.12** .01 .12** - .42** .41**

8.

Appropriateness

of rules

-.21** -.10* -.25** -.14** .00 - .60**

9.

Communication -.11** -.05 -.16** -.04 .02 -

Note: *p < .05 **p < .001

1 1 = Male, 2 = Female. 2 1 = No crashes, 2 = One or more crashes


152

Overall driver behaviours

A hierarchical regression was conducted to investigate the combined capacity

of the safety climate factors to predict overall self-reported work-related driver

behaviour. Employee age and gender, along with the average hours driven each week

for work, were entered as demographic control variables at step 1. Hours driven each

week, rather than kilometres driven each year, was selected as the measure of driving

exposure as the author believed it would best reflect actual driving exposure. When

making this decision the author considered that although organisations A, B and D

have a fairly balanced mixture of urban and rural work sites, organisation C is

predominantly urban based. The urban road environment which organisation C

drivers are typically exposed to is likely to have lower speed limits and higher traffic

congestion than rural environments. It was for this reason, the author believed that

use of the kilometres driven each year data might underestimate actual exposure for

drivers from organisation C.

The fleet safety climate variable was then entered at step 2 of the hierarchical

regression analysis to examine its ability to predict work-related driving behaviours

over and above the control factors.

As can be seen in Table 7, the first block comprising demographic and

exposure variables was significant in predicting overall driver behaviour (F(1, 438)

19.87 = p < .001) and accounted for 10% of the overall variance. The second block,

comprising overall fleet safety climate, was also significant (F(1, 437) 9.45 =

p < .01) but only uniquely accounted for an additional two percent in overall variance

in the final step. The overall model (with all variables entered) significantly predicted

overall driver behaviour (F(4, 437) 14.83 = p < .001) and accounted for 11%

(adjusted R2) of the variance total. Although significant, it is important to recognise

that 11% is a relatively low amount of variance being explained. Inspection of the

Beta (β) coefficients revealed that age (p < .001), hours per week (p < .001) and


153

overall fleet safety climate (p < .01) made a significant contribution to the overall

regression model.

Table 7 Hierarchical regression for overall fleet safety climate as a

predictor of overall driver behaviour scores

B SE β R2 Adj R2 ΔR2

Block 1

Age -.01** .00 -.23

Gender -.07 .06 -.05

Hours per week .14** .03 .19

.10 .06

Block 2

Overall fleet safety climate -.13** -.04 -.14** .02

.12 .11 .02 Note: *p < .05 **p < .01

To precisely identify which aspects of fleet safety climate were associated with

overall driver behaviour, additional correlation analyses were conducted between

each of the fleet safety climate factors and overall driver behaviour. Follow-up

hierarchical regression analyses were also conducted to investigate the capacity of

each of the safety climate factors to predict overall driving behaviour. In each of

these analyses employee age and gender, along with the average hours driven each

week for work, were entered as demographic control variables at step 1. A safety

climate factor was then entered at step 2 of the hierarchical regression analyses to

examine its ability to predict driving behaviours over and above the control factors.

Details pertaining to these correlation and regression analyses are provided below.

As can be seen in Table 6, all of the fleet safety climate factors, except for

relationships, had significant negative relationships with overall driver behaviour.


154

This suggests that safer driving behaviours are associated with organisational

climates with: high management commitment; support for managing work demands;

appropriate safety rules; and safety communication. When fleet safety climate factors

were separately entered as predictor variables in step two, hierarchical regressions

revealed that all of the factors, except for relationships, were significant predictors

over and above demographic and exposure variables of overall driving behaviours. It

is important to note that although these factors were significant predictors, they only

accounted for between one and four percent of additional variance. Table 8 provides

a summary of these analyses.


factors as predictors of overall driver behaviour scores

R2 Adj R2 ΔR2

Follow-up analysis 1

Block 1 - Control variables .10** .10

Block 2 - Management commitment .11* .10 .01*



Block 2 – Work demands .11* .10 .01*



Block 2 – Relationships .10 .10 .00



Block 2 – Rules .14** .13 .04**


155

Table 8 (Continued)



Block 2 – Communication .12* .11 .01* Note: *p < .05 **p < .01

Driver behaviour factors

To explore which aspects of fleet safety climate were associated with which

aspects of driver behaviours, additional correlation analyses were conducted between

each of the fleet safety climate factors and each of the driver behaviour factors.

Follow-up hierarchical regression analyses were also conducted to investigate the

capacity of each of the safety climate factors to predict each of the driving behaviour

factors. In each of these analyses, employee age and gender, along with the average

hours driven each week for work, were entered as control variables at step 1. A

safety climate factor was then entered at step 2 of the hierarchical regression analyses

to examine its ability to predict work-related driving behaviours over and above the

control factors. Details pertaining to these correlation and regression analyses are

provided below.

Driving errors

Appropriateness of rules was the only fleet safety climate factor found to be

significantly related to the first driver behaviour factor. Appropriateness of rules was

negatively related to errors. This finding indicates that employees who perceived

their organisation to have appropriate road safety rules and procedures reported a

lower tendency to make driving errors. When fleet safety climate factors were

separately entered as predictor variables in step two, hierarchical regressions

revealed that none of the factors were significant independent predictors of driving

errors.


156

Fatigue and distractions

The overall fleet safety climate scale and all of the fleet safety climate factors

were found to have significant negative relationships with the second driver

behaviour factor. This finding indicates that employees who perceived their

organisations climate to be supportive of road safety, reported lower tendencies to

engage in driving while fatigued and lower multitasking while driving. When overall

fleet safety climate and each of the fleet safety climate factors were separately

entered as predictor variables in step two, hierarchical regressions revealed that all of

the factors were significant independent predictors of driving behaviours pertaining

to fatigue and distraction. Again it is important to note that although these factors

were significant predictors, the amount of additional variance being explained is only

between two and five percent. Table 9 provides a summary of these analyses.


factors as predictors of fatigue and distraction scores

R2 Adj R2 ΔR2



Block 2 – Fleet safety climate .14** .13 .04**



Block 2 - Management commitment .12** .12 .02**



Block 2 – Work demands .13** .12 .04**


157

Table 9 (Continued)

R2 Adj R2 ΔR2



Block 2 – Relationships .11* .11 .05*



Block 2 – Rules .15** .15 .05**


Block 1 – Control variables .11** .10

Block 2 – Communication .13** .12 .02** Note: *p < .05 **p < .01

Driving violations

Appropriateness of rules was the only fleet safety climate factor found to be

significantly related to the third driver behaviour factor. Appropriateness of rules was

negatively related to violations (r = -.14, p < .001). This finding indicates that

employees who perceived their organisation to have appropriate road safety rules and

procedures reported a lower tendency to engage in driving violations. When fleet

safety climate factors were separately entered as predictor variables in step two,

hierarchical regressions revealed that appropriateness of rules was the only factor

found to independently significantly predict driving violations. Again, although

appropriateness of rules was a significant predictor, it only accounted for two percent

of additional variance. Table 10 provides a summary of this analysis.


158

Table 10 Summary table of hierarchical regressions for appropriateness of

rules as a predictor of driving violation scores

R2 Adj R2 ΔR2



Block 2 – Rules .08** .08 .02** Note: *p < .05 **p < .01

6.2.2 Interview Results

To further explore the influence of fleet safety climate on road safety

outcomes, interviews were conducted with employees and managers. The interviews

explored participants’ perceptions in regards to the influence, or lack of influence,

fleet safety climate had on occupational road risk management. Participants were

asked to comment on the following aspects of fleet safety climate: management

commitment; level of trust between employees and management; communication in

relation to work-related road safety; level of work demands; and appropriateness of

safety policies and procedures. Participants’ perceptions are described below.

6.2.2.1 Management commitment

An analysis of the interview transcripts suggests that participants believed

that management commitment was crucial to the effective management of work-

related road risks. This belief is exemplified through the following statement from a

manager “if you have your executive team on board, it just happens.” Perceptions of

management commitment appeared to be based on participants’ observations of

whether management prioritised safety through work scheduling and resource

allocation in the forms of money and time.

Participants described how management commitment influenced road safety

outcomes in their organisation. In regards to work scheduling, one manager


159

explained how she scheduled her team’s meetings, training and appointments to

minimise the need for employees to drive at higher risk times such as dusk or after a

long day. For example she commented “I don't really want them driving at

night…most training events that involve people from other areas will finish at three

in the afternoon so that people have that time to at least get the majority of their

driving done before five. In regards to resource allocation, another manager described

how his organisation would only commit limited resources to coordinating road risk

management projects and funding initiatives. He commented that “the luxury of

working for a year on it as a project, you don't get that here” and explained how he

perceived that low commitment from senior management reduced his ability to

effectively manage occupational road risks.

6.2.2.2 Level of trust between employees and management

Perceptions of trust varied between participants. Participants who reported

high levels of trust expressed high commitment towards engaging in safer behaviours

and encouraging co-workers to also behave safely. These participants described how

employees and managers worked together to enhance occupational road safety. For

example one employee commented “it's part of the organisational culture that says

that they're striving to really create a community kind of atmosphere in work. So this

is our family. So we all look after each other. So it's just that kind of mutual

responsibility feeling that's there.”

In comparison, participants who reported low levels of trust expressed

cynicism and frustration in relation to occupational road risk management initiatives.

For example one employee perceived management’s motives behind an initiative to

be purely “about management looking like they care or looking like they're doing

something.” Another employee described how he believed that the presence of a

company phone number displayed on the work vehicle for community members to

comment on employees driving did not make employees’ drive safer as community

compliments and complaints did not match actual driving behaviours. Based on his


160

observations of how previous incidents had been managed in his organisation, the

employee commented “Normally the reports are unjustified, but staff are threatened

with dismissal if ongoing reports are received. Staff are not allowed to correspond

with the complainer. Very one sided affair.” Although, participants who reported low

levels of trust appeared to be sceptical of some risk management initiatives, they did

not report engaging in less safe driving behaviours.

6.2.2.3 Communication in relation to work-related road safety

Participants believed that regular communication enhanced work-related road

safety. A range of communication methods were described including: one-on-one

discussions; meetings; presentations; emails; information bulletins on the intranet;

newsletters; and posters. Of these methods there appeared to be a preference for face-

to-face communication. This method was preferred because it conveyed to

employees that the message was genuine and that management considered it to be

important. For example, when describing how members of this team responded to

different communication methods, one employee commented that if “an individual

comes to talk to them they're more likely to listen.”

Participants also believed that the presence of good communication systems

facilitated the flow of safety information that was necessary to enhance road safety

outcomes. Several participants commented on how the inclusion of road safety issues

in monthly meetings and quarterly OH&S meetings allowed important safety

information to flow from managers to employees and also from employees to

managers. For example one employee described how “the monthly meetings always

include road safety issues and alerts to promote safe driving.” Our organisation is

always trying to achieve good road safety and encourages drivers by supplying all

necessary information.


161

6.2.2.4 Level of work demands

A majority of participants strongly believed that high work demands were

associated with reduced safety outcomes. For example one participant commented

that “we're just trying to do so much good stuff. That's the thing. And you can't say

no because it's good stuff… People just don't slack off and that can contribute to a

risk thing because people are tired and busy and so more likely to have

concentration lapses and all that sort of stuff.” Participants described feeling work

demands with respect to both time pressure and emotionally draining job tasks.

Several participants also perceived that work demands influenced some drivers more

than others. For example one driver commented “I guess it's an individual thing.

Some people get hyped up, others don't worry about it.”

It is important to note that work demands may not stem solely from

management but can also result from personal goals or client needs. For example one

employee described how a fear of client abuse for arriving late regularly lead him to

engage in driving behaviors that he believed were unsafe. He commented, “They're

going to yell at me. I've got to get there on time……So you drive that little bit faster

often with children in the car possibly just to try to make it on time and avoid that

agro from the clients, yeah, which is a pretty scary thing. I've never had anyone in

management or any other staff member have the pressure for them to be there on

time. Our clients are fairly demanding in most respects and if you're late a minute or

30 seconds, that's an in for them to start having a go at you.”

6.2.2.5 Appropriateness of safety policies and procedures

Participants perceived that the presence of safety policies and procedures lead

to greater safety outcomes. Some participants believed that safety policies influenced

safety outcomes through conveying managements’ “commitment to driver safety”.

Other participants felt coerced into driving safer as a result of policies. These

participants believed that policies were implemented mainly as a means of mitigating

managements’ legal exposure to risk. For example one employee stated “obviously


162

everything is in place because if you ever do anything wrong they are going to come

down and say, "Did you do this, this, this, this, this and this?"

Many participants commented on the appropriateness of policies and

procedures. Participants described how compliance with safety procedures was

higher when policies were current and achievable. For example one manager

commented that “I think our processes, procedures, if anything in recent times, were

too stringent and gold-plated…we're working harder and have other pressures and

you have to keep things simple. If you over-complicate things, people won't do it.”

This manager stressed that it was important to keep “things simplistic, risk-based,

giving a genuine understanding of why we're doing things.”

6.2.3 Discussion

6.2.3.1 Road safety outcomes

Study three builds upon recently conducted work-related road safety research

by exploring whether differences in fleet safety climate relate to self-reported

occupational road safety outcomes. Bivariate correlation scores revealed that the

overall fleet safety climate scale had a significant negative relationship with the

overall driver behaviour scale. Follow-up analyses revealed that all of the fleet safety

climate factors, except for relationships, had significant negative relationships with

overall driver behaviour. This suggests that organisational climates with high

management commitment, support for managing work demands, appropriate safety

rules and safety communication are associated with employees who engage in safer

driving behaviours.

Regression analyses were conducted to investigate the capacity of fleet safety

climate to predict road safety outcomes, over and above demographic and exposure

variables. Overall fleet safety climate emerged as a significant independent predictor

of overall driving behaviours. Similarly, all of the factors, except for relationships,


163

were significant independent predictors of overall driving behaviours. These models

indicate that as participants’ perceptions of safety climate increase, the corresponding

likelihood of them engaging in safer driving behaviours increases.

Although the regression analyses indicated the relationships were not strong,

the finding in the current study that perceptions of higher fleet safety climate were

associated with safer driving behaviours is consistent with previous research that has

found enhanced safety outcomes to be associated with: management commitment

(Newnam et al., 2008; Walton, 1999); appropriate safety rules and procedures (Lee,

1998; Mearns et al., 1998); and safety communication (Kivimaki, et al., 1995). It is

also consistent with previous research that has found unsafe behaviours to be

associated with perceived high work demands (Mullen, 2004; Wright, 1986).

To explore which aspects of fleet safety climate were associated with which

aspects of driver behaviours, additional analyses were conducted between each of the

fleet safety climate factors and each of the driver behaviour factors. In regards to

driving errors, bivariate correlation scores revealed employees who perceived their

organisation to have appropriate road safety rules and procedures reported a lower

tendency to make driving errors. Regression analyses revealed that none of the fleet

safety climate factors were significant independent predictors of driving errors.

In regards to driving violations, bivariate correlation scores revealed that

employees who perceived their organisation to have appropriate road safety rules and

procedures reported a lower tendency to commit driving violations. Regression

analyses revealed that appropriateness of rules was the only fleet safety climate

factor that emerged as a significant independent predictor of driving violations, over

and above the control variables.

In regards to driving behaviours relating to fatigue and distractions, a negative

correlation was observed with the overall fleet safety climate scale and all of the fleet


164

safety climate factors. This finding indicates that employees who perceived their

organisation’s climate to be supportive of road safety, reported lower tendencies to

engage in driving while fatigued and lower multitasking while driving. Furthermore,

regression analyses revealed that overall fleet safety climate, and all of the fleet

safety climate factors emerged as significant independent predictors of driving

behaviours relating to fatigue and distraction, although the amount of additional

variance that they explained was small.

6.2.3.2 The influence of fleet safety climate on road safety outcomes

Examination of the interview results provides insights into how aspects of fleet

safety climate may influence road safety outcomes. In regards to management

commitment, the findings from study three suggest that managers have the potential

to enhance road safety outcomes through allocating sufficient resources to manage

occupational road risks and through the scheduling of work tasks to reduce driving

exposure at higher risk times.

In regards to trust, the findings suggest that managers have the potential to

enhance road safety outcomes through fostering a supportive environment of mutual

responsibility. To achieve an environment where employees feel comfortable in

reporting near miss incidents and are motivated to engage in safe behaviours, safety

issues should be resolved openly and fairly.

In regards to communication, the findings suggest that managers have the

potential to enhance road safety outcomes through developing good communication

systems to allow safety information to efficiently flow between employees and

managers. Participants reported a preference for face-to-face communication as this

method conveyed to them that the message was genuine and considered by

management to be important.


165

In regards to work demands, the findings suggest that managers have the

potential to enhance road safety outcomes through ensuring that the work

responsibilities are achievable. An important finding from study three was that work

pressures may not stem solely from management, but can also be self or client

imposed. To address these work pressures, management may need to clearly

communicate to employees that safety is the top priority and to involve employees in

generating solutions to mitigate client pressures. For example, managers and

employees may discuss driving situations where employees feel pressured to engage

in unsafe driving and develop solutions such as phoning ahead to inform clients of a

new estimated time of arrival.

In regards to policies and procedures, the findings suggest that managers have

the potential to enhance road safety outcomes through developing appropriate work-

related road safety policies and procedures. It was believed that policies and

procedures needed to be current and achievable to influence employee compliance

with safe work practices.

6.2.3.3 Applications

Overall, the findings from study three suggest that organisations may have

more influence over employees’ driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue and

distractions, than driving behaviours pertaining to errors and violations.

Organisations may be able to reduce the likelihood of employees engaging in unsafe

driving as a result of fatigue or distractions through increasing aspects of fleet safety

climate including: management commitment; level of trust; safety communication;

appropriateness of work demands; and appropriateness of safety policies and

procedures. These aspects of fleet safety climate appear to have little influence over

drivers’ behaviours pertaining to errors and violations. This finding may suggest that

errors and violations are influenced more strongly by an employees’ personal style of

driving rather than the safety climate of their organisation.


166

Based on the findings from study three, the author recommends that

organisations should aim to foster perceptions of high fleet safety climate. Advances

in occupational road safety may be achieved through: allocating sufficient resources

to manage occupational road risks; scheduling of work tasks to reduce driving

exposure at higher risk times; fostering a supportive environment of mutual

responsibility; resolving safety issues openly and fairly; developing good

communication systems to allow safety information to efficiently flow between

employees and managers; ensuring that the work responsibilities are achievable;

clearly communicating to employees that safety is the top priority; involving

employees in generating solutions to mitigate client pressures; and developing

current and achievable work-related road safety policies and procedures.

The findings from this study indicate that employee perceptions of

appropriateness of policies and procedures were associated with, but not predictive

of, the likelihood of committing in driving violations and errors. To further enhance

our understanding of how organisational factors influence road safety outcomes,

future research could explore in more depth the extent of influence organisations

may have upon employees’ driving errors and violations.

6.3 Stages of change


Using a forced choice response format, participants were asked to describe

their stage of change in regards to work-related road risks.


Mean and standard deviation scores were calculated for individuals’ perceived

stage of change. Potential responses ranged from one to five, with higher scores

indicating further advancement towards engaging in safe behaviours. For example a

score of one would indicate that an employee is in the pre-contemplative phase


167

where they believe that they are not exposed to risk and are not considering changing

their driving behaviour. Comparatively, a score of five would indicate that an

employee is in the maintenance phase where they believe that they are continuing to

take actions to reduce their risk. The mean individual stage of change score was 3.99

(SD = 1.58).

This mean indicates that a majority of participants described themselves as

having recently commenced engaging in behaviours to manage their work-related

road risks. The high standard deviation score that was observed in relation to the

mean stage of change indicates that stage of change varied among employees. To

determine if this variance was associated with differences among organisations, the

author calculated descriptive statistics for each of the organisations separately.

Although there was some variance among organisations, high standard deviations

pertaining to the stage of change means were observed in each of the organisations.

This finding suggests that stage of change may vary considerably among individuals

within a workforce.


Bivariate correlation scores were calculated for individuals’ perceived stage of

change and road safety outcome variables. It was found that individuals’ perceived

stage of change was positively associated with both the second driver behaviour

factor (fatigue and distractions) and vehicle crashes. Details pertaining to these

correlation analyses and the follow up regression analyses are provided below. No

significant relationships were observed among employees’ perceived stage of change

and self-reported overall driver behaviour (r = .04, p = .19), driving errors (r = .02, p

= .34), or driving violations (r = -.05, p = .14).


Correlation results indicate that participants who identified themselves as

further progressed towards engaging in occupational road risk management actions


168

reported lower tendencies to engage in driving while fatigued and lower multitasking

while driving (r = .09, p < .05). It is important to note that although significant, this is

a relatively weak relationship. A hierarchical regression was conducted to investigate

the capacity of individuals’ perceived stage of change to predict driving behaviours

pertaining to fatigue and distraction.

In predicting driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue and distraction, age,

gender and average hours driven each week for work, were entered into the equation

as control variables at step 1. To examine the influence of stage of change on driving

behaviours beyond these variables, this variable was entered separately at step 2. The

overall model (including all predictors) was significant F(4, 556) 16.85 = p < .001.

The first step accounted for 3% of the variance in overall driving behaviours

(F(2, 558) = 8.17, p <.001). Inspection of the Beta (β) coefficients revealed that age

(p < .001) and hours per week (p < .001) made a significant contribution to the

overall regression model. Perceived stage of change did not predict driving

behaviours pertaining to fatigue and distraction, over and above the control factors

(R2Cha = .01, F(1, 556) 3.61 = p = .06).

Vehicle crashes

Correlation results indicate that participants who identified themselves as further

progressed towards engaging in occupational road risk management actions reported

lower involvement in vehicle crashes (r = .11, p < .01). It is important to note that

although significant, this is a relatively weak relationship. Because crashes were

classified into a dichotomous variable, a logistic regression was conducted to

investigate the capacity of individuals’ perceived stage of change to predict

involvement in vehicle crashes. Table 11 presents the variables in each model, the

regression coefficients, as well as the Wald and odds ratio values.

Employee age and gender, along with the average weekly hours driven for

work, were entered as control variables at step 1. Next, employees’ perceived stage


169

of change was entered in the model to assess whether it improved the prediction of

vehicle crash involvement over and above the control variables. It was found that

both age and average weekly hours driven were predictive of involvement in vehicle

crashes (p < .01). Perceived stage of change was significant, with a chi-square

statistic of X² (1, N = 571) = 7.35, p < .01. The model indicates that as participants’

progress through the stages of change, the corresponding likelihood of them being

involved in vehicle crashes decreases (p < .001). Overall classification was

unimpressive. Correlation classification rates were 100 percent for no crash

involvement and zero percent for crash involvement. Clearly, cases were over

classified into the largest group: no crash involvement (N = 496).

Table 11 Summary table of the logistic regression for stage of change as a

predictor of vehicle crashes

Variables B SE Wald Odds ratio

Exp (B)

95% CI

Lower Upper

Block 1

Age .02 .01 1.67 1.02 0.99 1.04

Gender .82** .27 9.20 2.23 1.33 3.83

Hours per week .26* .12 4.45 1.30 1.02 1.66

Model Chi-Square 13.05** (df = 3)

Block 2

Stage of change .26* .10 6.24 1.30 1.06 1.59

Model Chi-Square 20.40** (df = 4)

Block Chi-Square 7.35** (df = 1)

Note: *p < .05 **p < .01


170


To further explore the influence of stage of change on road safety outcomes,

interviews were conducted. The purpose of the interviews was to: investigate if it

was possible to assess an individual’s stage of change with respect to work-related

road safety via responses to a small number of questions; explore if readiness varied

among individuals; and identify whether perceptions pertaining to initiative

effectiveness varied in relation to an individuals’ stage of readiness.

6.3.2.1 Stage of change classifications

An analysis of the interview transcripts suggests that the five core questions

provided a useful starting point for classifying employees’ stage of change. However

in this research, the five questions were not sufficient to distinguish between

adjoining stages for some participants. With the inclusion of additional probing

questions it was identified that the stages of change model could provide a

framework for classifying employee readiness to engage in work-related road safety

behaviour change.

6.3.2.2 Variance in stages of change

It was identified that the observed stage of readiness varied among

organisations and within organisations between the levels of managers and

employees. For example, a majority of the interview participants from organisation A

described themselves as being in the action or maintenance stage of managing their

work related road risks. These interview participants indicated an awareness of their

organisation’s exposure to work-related road risks. Reported risks included both

general road risks and risks that could be considered specific to their organisation.

Generic risks reported included wildlife, poor road conditions, fatigue, driving in

isolated areas, travelling long distances and reduced concentration when answering

phone calls via hands free kits. Organisation specific risks pertained more to the

nature of the work demands. For example one manager recognised that employees

“…might get called out of bed at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning to drive long


171

distances so sleep deprivation comes into it…” Managers and employees from

organisation A also reported engaging in several behaviours to manage their risks.

These included: using cruise control to manage speeding; slowing down to allow for

Kangaroos potentially crossing the roads in the afternoons; taking a slower more

careful approach when in the city; performing safety checks on vehicles; and actively

participating in the monthly Health and Safety meetings.

Comparatively in organisation D, managers varied between the preparation

and action stages of readiness, and a majority of employees described themselves as

being in the pre-contemplative stage. Stage of readiness classifications were based on

all managers indicating an awareness of their exposure to both generic road risks and

work-related road risks. For example when describing perceived risks, one manager

reported that some clients “…might just grab the hand brake or grab the wheel.

We've had a couple of grab the wheel situations. We had a towel over the head the

other day while the driver was driving. So we have a few young people that pose a

risk with our cars...” Managers also reported engaging in behaviours to manage their

risks. Risk management examples provided by managers from organisation D

included monitoring other driver’s actions as part of a defensive driving strategy,

arranging objects within the car to maximise vision of the road environment and

ensuring there were no projectiles in the car.

Unlike the managers that recognised both general and organisation specific

road risks, the employees from organisation D acknowledged only general road risks.

It was interesting to note that there was a tendency for these interview participants to

consider themselves as above average drivers and to perceive that it was the ‘other’

road users that were the source of risk. For example one employee commented on the

‘other’ road using “dickheads running red lights”. Despite being aware of some

generic driving risks, these employees reported no intentions to change their driving

behaviour. For example one employee stated that “I haven't had any damage to the


172

car in the last seven years. So I've done pretty well. So I can't see any way of

improving what I do as such. That would probably change if I had an accident”

6.3.2.3 Perceived initiative effectiveness and stage of change

Perceptions pertaining to initiative effectiveness were found to vary with

respect to an individuals’ stage of readiness. For example in organisation A, where a

majority of the interview participants described themselves as being in the action or

maintenance stage, initiatives that provided ongoing advice, practical information

and trouble shooting opportunities were perceived to be most effective. For example

one employee described how he believed that the current safety meetings were

working well as they provided a great opportunity to “present and trouble shoot

safety concerns as a team”. Comments from another employee potentially suggest

that additional initiatives are required in organisation A to provide advice on how to

juggle the perceived conflicting requirements of production and safety. This

employee described how some of the current safety initiatives are difficult to

implement while maintaining efficient work practices. For example he stated

“changes will be to not drive as long or far, but increased work loads always

conflict.”

In comparison, in organisation D where a majority of the employees

described themselves as being in the pre-contemplation stage, initiatives that

generated awareness of road risks were perceived to be more effective than

initiatives that provided risk management information. More specifically, based on

previous discussions with subordinates, one manager believed that the regular road

safety posters, emails and risk exposure information provided on her organisation’s

intranet were effective because they increased awareness. When comparing the

perceived outcomes of a practical driver training course with a feature article

focusing on road risks within departments, this manager explained how “our staff

don't talk about what they learnt at the 4-wheel drive course, but you'll go to a staff

meeting and someone will say, "Hey, have you seen that thing about us?” Comments


173

from another manager reinforced the belief that initiatives that provided risk

management information currently had limited utility in improving road safety

outcomes. For example, she stated that “There's been a couple of information

bulletins go out on it...I don't think people stop to take a lot of notice of it.”

Overall, comments from managers in organisation D suggest that more

awareness raising initiatives are needed to enhance road safety outcomes within their

organisation. Managers believed that employees were not typically aware of road

risks and that this may lead to resistance when implementing action initiatives. This

belief was demonstrated through statements about action initiatives such as “I think

management will embrace it, but the next couple of levels will struggle because the

people I know are still saying we're about doing this and our cars getting dinted.

You know, I was in a hurry. Doesn't really matter…”

6.3.3 Discussion

Study three findings demonstrate that the stage of change model provides a

useful framework for understanding employee readiness for safe driving behaviour

change. Additionally, this research indicates that differences in stages of change

relate to perceived initiative effectiveness and to self-reported work-related road

safety outcomes. Given these findings the author suggests that the model may be

used by practitioners to design occupational road risk management initiatives that are

appropriate to employees’ readiness for change.

6.3.3.1 Stage of change framework

A review of the interview transcripts suggests that the five core questions

provided a useful starting point for classifying employees’ stage of change. However

in this research, the five questions were not sufficient to distinguish between

adjoining stages for some participants. With the inclusion of additional probing

questions it was identified that the stages of change model could provide a

framework for classifying employee readiness to engage in work-related road safety


174

behaviour change. Given that the stage of change model has been identified as a

useful framework for classifying employee readiness to engage in safety behaviours

both in this research and previous studies (Barrett et al., 2005; Whysall et al., 2006),

the author recommends that future research be conducted to achieve a parsimonious

set of questions that can be used by practitioners and researchers to reliably classify

employees in regards to their stage of change. Furthermore, although the questions

used in this study were derived from previous research by Barrett et al. (2005) and

Whysall et al. (2006), it is unclear whether the questions accurately capture the

construct. Therefore based on this potential limitation, it is recommended that future

research also explores the construct validity of these questions.

6.3.3.2 Perceived initiative effectiveness

Perceptions pertaining to initiative effectiveness were found to vary with

respect to an individual’s stage of readiness. For example employees who were

classified as being in the pre-contemplation stage, perceived awareness raising

initiatives such as posters, to be more effective than advice giving initiatives such as

information bulletins on how to enhance road safety. This finding makes sense based

on the stage of change model. The model suggests that awareness raising initiatives

are most appropriate for individuals in the pre-contemplation stage, as these

individuals see no problem with their current behaviour and express no intention to

change.

In comparison, employees who were classified as being in the maintenance

stage, perceived initiatives that provided ongoing advice and practical information to

be most effective. This finding also makes sense based on the stage of change model.

The model suggests that initiatives that provide ongoing education and advice are

appropriate for individuals in the maintenance stage. These individuals have been

engaging in safety behaviours over a prolonged period of time and may benefit most

from tailored information and performance feedback to motivate them to continue

engaging in desirable driving behaviours.


175

It was also interesting to observe that a manager forecasted employee

resistance to the implementation of an incident reporting process. The manager

believed that employees in his organisation were not typically aware of road risks

and that this may lead to behaviour change resistance. The stage of change model

would suggest that employee resistance would be likely to occur with the

implementation of this initiative, if a majority of the employees are in a pre-

contemplation stage. More specifically the model indicates that resistance to change

may occur when safety initiatives are not targeted at an appropriate level for

employees’ readiness for change.

The selection of an inappropriate level may arise due to differences in

readiness for change between managers and employees. When rolling out safety

initiatives, managers have often previously spent much time in the contemplation and

preparation phases. Understandably, managers are then ready for action and often

attempt to impose action initiatives upon employees. Alternatively, employees may

not have previously considered the risks of their current practice or the benefits of

new safety initiatives. They are often not prepared for change and are therefore slow

to respond or may even resist the change initiatives.


Study three pioneered research into a new area of work-related road safety, by

exploring whether differences in stage of change related to self-reported occupational

road safety outcomes. Bivariate correlation scores revealed that individuals’

perceived stage of change was positively associated with driving behaviours relating

to fatigue and distraction and also vehicle crash involvement. More specifically,

participants who had progressed through more stages of change, reported lower

tendencies to engage in driving while fatigued and lower multitasking while driving.

Participants who had progressed through more stages of change also reported lower

involvement in vehicle crashes.


176

Regression analyses were conducted to investigate the capacity of individuals’

perceived stage of change to predict road safety outcomes, over and above

demographic and exposure variables. Individuals’ perceived stage of change

emerged as a significant independent predictor of vehicle crash involvement. The

model indicated that as participants progress through the stages of change, the

corresponding likelihood of them being involved in vehicle crashes decreases.


Based on the findings from study three, the author suggests that the stage of

change model could be used by practitioners to design occupational road risk

management initiatives that are appropriate to employees’ readiness for change. In

the current study, stage of change varied considerably among individuals. This

finding is consistent with previous research pertaining to health-related behaviour

change (Velicer et al., 1985; Laforge et al., 1999). The mean stage of change in the

current study indicated that on average, employees had recently commenced

engaging in safe driving behaviours. Given this finding the author suggests that a

multi-method approach to managing work-related road risks may be necessary to

provide initiatives that are appropriate to the range of individuals within a workforce.

Further research is needed to explore if the variance in stage of change

observed in the four researched organisations is typical of most organisations. If this

stage distribution is typical, the author advocates that an optimal work-related road

risk management approach may include action orientated initiatives, in combination

with other initiatives that are designed to target the full spectrum of change stages.

Examples of how the stage of change framework could be applied to guide the

design of initiatives is outlined below.

In the pre-contemplation stage, employees would see no problem with their

current road safety behaviour and express no intention to change. In this stage,


177

individuals need to be persuaded to acknowledge that unsafe driving behaviours need

to be addressed. The model would suggest that attempts to impose action orientated

initiatives on pre-contemplative individuals may only achieve partial success as a

personal understanding of the risks and a desire to engage in safe behaviours has not

first been achieved. To help transition employees from a pre-contemplative to a

contemplative stage, practitioners should focus on raising awareness of work-related

driving risks.

In the contemplation stage, employees would be aware of the risks associated

with work-related driving and the need to adopt safe behaviours. Contemplative

individuals would be making long term plans to reduce and manage their road risks.

To help transition employees from a contemplative to a preparation stage, initiatives

should provide educational material designed to reinforce employee motivation to

adopt safe behaviours and outline what is involved in adopting safer driving

behaviours.

In the preparation stage, employees would be intending to take action in the

very near future. To help transition employees from a preparation to an action stage,

initiatives should provide practical information and support in learning new skills.

Barriers to change should be resolved, and individuals should be encouraged to make

specific plans through goal setting or contracting to foster employee commitment and

ownership of safe driving behaviours.

In the action stage, employees would be modifying their behaviour or

environment to manage work-related road risks. Individuals in this stage require

support to achieve new safety behaviours and to maintain modified behaviours. To

facilitate commitment to the modified behaviours and help transition employees from

an action to a maintenance stage, initiatives should provide ongoing advice, feedback

and skills training.


178

In the maintenance stage, employees would have been engaging in safety

behaviours over a prolonged period of time. To facilitate employees remaining in the

maintenance stage, initiatives should focus on consolidating the gains made and

preventing relapse. This can be achieved through the provision of ongoing advice,

feedback and training and the monitoring of employees for early signs of behaviour

relapses.

It is important to note that the stage of change model indicates that employees,

regardless of their current stage, may relapse to an earlier stage of change. To target

relapsed employees that have failed to continue engaging in work-related road safety

behaviours, initiatives should be designed to support progression back through the

stages towards action and maintenance. Practitioners should aim to discover the

barriers that led to the employee ceasing safe practices and to motivate the employee

to re-engage in safe practices through the provision of tailored information, training

and feedback.

In applying the stage of change model, the author suggests that during project

negotiations, road safety practitioners could make a brief assessment of managers’

and employees’ readiness for change. Based on their assessment, practitioners could

then determine the most appropriate structure and content of initiatives to effectively

meet the needs of their client. By adopting a stage matched approach, practitioners

may be able to reduce change resistance and accelerate employee movement towards

the action and maintenance stage of work-related road safety behaviours. By

progressing employees towards the action and maintenance stage, organisations may

be able to achieve a reduction in employee involvement in vehicle crashes.


179

6.4 Safety ownership


Two items were utilised to assess employees’ perceptions in regards to safety

ownership. The first item assessed perceptions pertaining to the authority of the

person primarily responsible for managing road risks in their organisation. The

second item assessed perceptions pertaining to the extent to which safety was shared

across members of the organisation.


Mean and standard deviation scores were calculated for both safety ownership

items. Potential responses ranged from one to five, with higher scores indicating

safer perceptions. Participants indicated moderate agreement with the first item “The

people predominantly responsible for road safety in my organisation carry the

necessary authority and respect to achieve compliance” (M = 3.18, SD = .99).

Participants indicated slightly higher agreement with the second item “Responsibility

for achieving work-related road safety is shared across members in my organisation”

(M = 3.38, SD = .99).


Bivariate correlation scores were calculated for the two ownership variables

and the road safety outcome variables. It was found that the two safety ownership

variables were significantly correlated (r = .54, p < .01). Table 12 presents the

correlation statistics between the ownership variables and the road safety outcome

variables.


180

Table 12 Bivariate correlations between safety ownership variables and

road safety outcome variables

Overall

Driver

Behaviour

Errors

Fatigue and

distractions Violations

Vehicle

Crashes1

Authority -.13** -.07 -.19** -.03 .04

Shared -.09* -.05 -.11** -.04 .02 Note: *p < .05 **p < .001

1 1 = No crashes, 2 = One or more crashes

As can be seen in Table 12, it was found that individuals’ safety ownership

perceptions were negatively associated with both overall driver behaviours and the

second driver behaviour factor (fatigue and distractions). While these correlations are

significant, it is important to note that they are relatively weak. Details pertaining to

these correlation analyses and the follow up regression analyses are provided below.

No significant relationships were observed among employees’ safety ownership

perceptions and self-reported driving errors, driving violations, or vehicle crashes.

Overall driver behaviours

Authority

Correlation results reveal that perceived authority was negatively related to

overall driver behaviours (r = -.13, p < .001). This finding indicates that participants

who perceived that road risks were managed by personnel with authority and respect

reported engaging in overall safer driving behaviours. A hierarchical regression was

conducted to investigate the capacity of perceived authority to predict overall driving

behaviours.

In predicting overall driving behaviours, age, gender and average hours driven

each week for work, were entered into the equation as control variables at step 1. To


181

examine the influence of perceived authority on driving behaviours beyond these

variables, this variable was entered separately at step 2. The overall model (including

all predictors) was significant (F(4, 459) 14.42 = p < .001). The first step accounted

for 6% of the variance in overall driving behaviours (F(2, 461) = 14.69, p <.001).

Inspection of the Beta (β) coefficients revealed that age (p < .001) and hours per

week (p < .001) made a significant contribution to the overall regression model.

Perceived authority did not predict overall driving behaviours, over and above the

control factors (R2Cha = .01, F(1, 459 = 2.72, p = .10).

Shared

Secondly, in regards to shared ownership, correlation results reveal that

perceived shared ownership was negatively related to overall driver behaviours

(r = -.09, p < .05). This finding indicates that participants who perceived that

responsibility for managing road risks was shared across several organisational

personnel reported engaging in overall safer driving behaviours. A hierarchical

regression was conducted to investigate the capacity of perceived shared ownership

to predict overall driving behaviours.

In predicting overall driving behaviours, age, gender and average hours driven

each week for work, were entered into the equation as control variables at step 1. To

examine the influence of perceived shared ownership on driving behaviours beyond

these variables, this variable was entered separately at step 2. The overall model

(including all predictors) was significant (F(4, 460) = 14.41, p < .001). The first step

accounted for 6% of the variance in overall driving behaviours (F(2, 462) = 14.45,

p <.001). Inspection of the Beta (β) coefficients revealed that age (p < .001) and

hours per week (p < .001) made a significant contribution to the overall regression

model. Perceived shared ownership did not predict overall driving behaviours, over

and above the control factors (R2Cha = .01, F(1, 460) = 2.96, p = .09).


182


Authority

Correlation results reveal that perceived authority was negatively related to

driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue and distractions (r = -.19, p < .001). This

finding indicates that employees who perceived that road risks were managed by

personnel with authority, reported lower tendencies to engage in driving while

fatigued and lower multitasking while driving. A hierarchical regression was

conducted to investigate the capacity of perceived authority to predict driving

behaviours pertaining to fatigue and distraction.



as control variables at step 1. To examine the influence of perceived authority on

driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue and distraction beyond these variables, this

variable was entered separately at step 2. The overall model (including all predictors)

was significant (F(4, 473) = 17.23, p < .001). The first step accounted for 11% of the

variance in driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue and distraction (F(2, 475) =

17.23, p < .001). The second step accounted for a significant additional amount of

variance in driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue and distraction (R2Cha = .02,

F(1, 473) = 10.76, p < .01). Inspection of the Beta (β) coefficients revealed that age

(p < .001) and hours per week (p < .001) made a unique significant contribution to

the overall regression model. Perceived authority also emerged as a significant

independent predictor of driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue and distractions

(r=.36, p < .01). Although significant, perceived authority only explained an

additional two percent of the variance. Table 13 provides a summary of this analysis.


183

Table 13 Summary table of hierarchical regressions for perceived authority

as a predictor of driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue and

distractions

R2 Adj R2 ΔR2



Block 2 – Fleet safety climate .13** .12 .02** Note: *p < .05 **p < .01

Shared

Secondly, in regards to shared ownership, correlation results reveal that

perceived shared ownership was negatively related to driving behaviours pertaining

to fatigue and distractions (r = -.11, p < .001). This finding indicates that participants

who perceived that responsibility for managing road risks was shared across several

organisational personnel, reported lower tendencies to engage in driving while

fatigued and lower multitasking while driving. A hierarchical regression was

conducted to investigate the capacity of perceived shared ownership to predict

driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue and distraction.



as control variables at step 1. To examine the influence of perceived shared

ownership on driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue and distraction beyond these

variables, this variable was entered separately at step 2. The overall model (including

all predictors) was significant (F(4, 474) = 15.70, p < .001). The first step accounted

for 11% of the variance in driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue and distraction

(F(2, 476) = 8.59, p < .001). The second step accounted for a significant additional

amount of variance in driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue and distraction (R2Cha

= .01, F(1, 474) = 5.48, p < .05). Inspection of the Beta (β) coefficients revealed that


184

age (p < .001) and hours per week (p < .001) made a unique significant contribution

to the overall regression model. Perceived shared ownership also emerged as a

significant independent predictor of driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue and

distractions (r=.34, p < .01). Although significant, perceived shared ownership only

explained an additional one percent of the variance. Table 14 provides a summary of

this analysis.

Table 14 Summary table of hierarchical regressions for perceived shared

ownership as a predictor of driving behaviours pertaining to

fatigue and distractions

R2 Adj R2 ΔR2



Block 2 – Fleet safety climate .12* .11 .01* Note: *p < .05 **p < .01


To further explore the influence of safety ownership on road safety outcomes,

interviews were conducted. The purpose of the interviews was to: identify which

organisational positions were primarily responsible for managing work-related road

safety; explore the extent to which safety responsibilities were shared across

members within organisations; identify if differences existed in regards to the

approach taken to managing road risks as compared to other workplace risks; and to

identify the perceived minimum level of competency required within organisations to

manage work-related road safety.

6.4.2.1 Position accepting primary ownership of managing occupational road risks

Road safety responsibilities were not formally stated in job descriptions in

any of the researched organisations. An analysis of the interview transcripts revealed


185

that the position of the person accepting primary ownership of managing work-

related road risks varied among organisations. In organisations A, B and C, a

member of the OH&S team was identified as the person primarily responsible for

managing occupational road safety. More specifically, in organisations A and C the

person primarily responsible was a manger. In comparison, in organisation B the

person was a senior employee who did not have as much authority within the

organisation as a manager. In organisation D, the person primarily responsible for

managing occupational road safety was the Strategic Procurement Manager.

The author, when reviewing the interview transcripts in relation to primary

ownership, made two interesting observations. Firstly, it was observed that some

employees preferred primary ownership of occupational road risks to come from

within the OH&S team. These employees believed that management of road risks

was more of an OH&S issue than a fleet issue. For example one employee

commented that management from within the fleet team could “be seen as too far

removed”.

Secondly, it was observed that organisational practices and processes varied

with respect to the position of the person primarily responsible for managing work

related road safety. For example in organisation D, where the Strategic Procurement

Manager was the primary safety owner, the organisation’s road safety practices and

processes were most developed in the areas of vehicle selection and maintenance and

monitoring vehicle incident data. This finding makes sense as these types of safety

tasks align with the competencies and responsibilities required for a Procurement

Manager. In comparison in organisation C, road safety practices and processes were

most developed in the area of safety policy. Again, this makes sense as the

competencies and responsibilities required for OH&S Managers are well suited to

tasks including the development of safety policies.


186

6.4.2.2 Shared ownership of managing occupational road risks

Across the four organisations, employees from a range of positions were

accepting partial ownership of managing occupational road risks. These positions

included: General Manager; Health and Safety Manager; Health and Safety Senior

Advisor; Health and Safety Coordinator; Insurance Compensation Manager;

Business Unit Manager; Strategic Procurement Manager; Risk Management Officer;

Fleet Manager; Fleet Technical Officer; Supervisor; and Driver.

The extent that ownership was shared across members within an organisation

varied. For example participants from organisation B reported cooperative sharing of

safety responsibilities among several positions within the organisation. Employees in

the positions of General Manager, Health and Safety Manager, Health and Safety

Coordinator, Business Unit Manager, Fleet Technical Officer, Supervisor and Driver

accepted partial ownership of safety management tasks. In comparison, participants

from Organisation D reported limited sharing of safety responsibilities among

positions within the organisation. Employees in the positions of Fleet Manager, Risk

Management Officer, Supervisor and Driver accepted partial ownership of safety

management tasks.

The author made three interesting observations when reviewing the interview

transcripts in relation to shared ownership. Firstly, it was observed that the sharing of

ownership for managing work-related road risks may cause some role ambiguity

within the workforce in regards to who is responsible for specific aspects of risk

management. For example, one employee commented “It's all pass the buck. When

they say something's wrong with the vehicle, oh, go and talk to so and so.” The

author also identified that in some organisations, this ambiguity appeared to be being

used strategically by some personnel to defer responsibility to other departments.

Secondly, it was observed that greater sharing of safety responsibility

ownership was associated with greater development of work-related road safety


187

practices and processes. More specifically, within organisations A and B, safety

ownership was shared cooperatively across several positions. These organisations

also had more advanced safety practices and processes (for more details refer back to

the audit results presented in Chapter Two). The author suggests that the more

advanced safety practices and processes in organisations A and B could be explained

by an effective integration of safety knowledge, skills and abilities from a range of

employees gained through sharing the ownership of safety responsibilities. In

analysing the relationship between shared ownership and development of safety

practices and procedures it also interesting to note that all of the organisations had

only limited practices in place to recruit and select safe drivers. Perhaps this is not

surprising given that safety ownership was not accepted by employees with human

resource competencies and responsibilities in any of the researched organisations.

Finally, it was observed that a shared approach was perceived necessary to

comprehensively manage occupational road risks. For example one manager

commented that although the manager currently accepting primary risk management

responsibility was “passionate about improving work-related road safety, the amount

of work needing to be done in this area would be too large for him to manage and

more support would be needed from other members of the organisation.”

6.4.2.3 Road risks as compared to other OH&S risks

Findings from study three indicate that overall, the management of

occupational road risks is given less attention than other areas of health and safety

risk management. More specifically, all participants from organisations B, C and D,

perceived that management commitment and ownership of safety management tasks

was lower for road risks than other occupational risks. One manager described how

the number of occupational road incidents in his organisation would suggest that it is

a high risk area. He pointed out that despite this, road risks were not managed to the

same extent as risks pertaining to core business operations. He believed that driving

was just seen as something that had to be done on the way to a job and that risk


188

management in his organisation focused on ‘on the job’ risks. When asked if

ownership of safety management tasks pertaining to road safety was similar to other

areas of OH&S, he commented that “safety is a lot more paramount than with

fleet….. Definitely not, that's a big no, very big no.” In comparison, participants from

organisation A perceived that management commitment and ownership of safety

management tasks pertaining to road safety were similar to other areas of OH&S.

6.4.2.4 Competencies required for managing work-related road risks

To identify the perceived minimum (rather than best practice) level of

competency required within organisations to manage work-related road safety,

managers were asked to review a list of 39 safety management tasks. As described in

the literature review in Chapter Four, these tasks have been identified in previous

research (Dingsdag et al., 2006) as critical to the management of OH&S

performance.

All of the managers interviewed perceived that a full understanding of six of

the safety management tasks was required within their organisation to manage work-

related road safety. The six tasks perceived as critical to the management of work-

related road risks comprised: carry out workplace and task hazard identification, risk

assessments and control; provide general OH&S information and provide basic

OH&S instruction; carry out formal incident investigations; carry out formal

inspections of workplace and work tasks; research and prepare reports on OH&S

issues, performance and improvement strategies; and understand and apply general

legislative OH&S requirements.

Competencies pertaining to an additional nine safety management tasks were

also perceived to be important to the management of work-related road risks. In

relation to these tasks, some managers perceived that a full understanding was

required, while others perceived that a working knowledge and an awareness of how

to perform the safety management tasks were all that was required. The nine tasks


189

perceived to be important by managers comprised: carry out project risk assessments;

develop OH&S procedures and instructions; deliver site/workplace specific

induction; consult on and resolve OH&S issues; speak to senior management about

OH&S issues in the workplace; make site visits where a site worker is spoken to

directly about OH&S in the workplace; recognise and reward people who have

positively impacted on OH&S; deliver OH&S training; apply full working

knowledge of the organisation’s safety management system.

Detailed results pertaining to managers’ ratings of the perceived competence

required to manage occupational road risks, with respect to each of the 39 safety

management tasks, is presented in Appendix K.

6.4.3 Discussion

Study three findings indicate that safety ownership varied across organisations.

Commonalities identified in safety ownership are discussed below. Additionally this

research indicates that the level of ownership of safety management tasks within an

organisation is related to self-reported work-related road safety outcomes. Given

these findings the author makes several recommendations regarding the ownership of

safety management tasks to assist organisations in optimally managing their

occupational road risks.

6.4.3.1 Ownership of safety management tasks

Examination of the interview results provides insights into how occupational

road risks are being managed in Australian organisations. Based on participants’

perceptions, it appears that management of occupational road risks is often given less

attention than other areas of health and safety management. More specifically,

management commitment and ownership of safety management tasks was reported

to be lower for road risks than other occupational risks.


190

It was observed that the position of the person accepting primary ownership

of managing occupational road risk was typically a member of the OH&S team. In

one organisation, the person primarily responsible for managing occupational road

risks was the Strategic Procurement Manager. The position of the person accepting

primary risk management responsibilities varied among organisations. In three of the

organisations, the person was in a management position. In one of the organisations,

road risks were being managed primarily by a senior employee.

Across the four organisations, employees from a range of positions were

accepting partial ownership of managing occupational road risks. These positions

included: General Manager; Health and Safety Manager; Health and Safety Senior

Advisor; Health and Safety Coordinator; Insurance Compensation Manager;

Business Unit Manager; Strategic Procurement Manager; Risk Management Officer;

Fleet Manager; Fleet Technical Officer; Supervisor; and Driver. The extent that

ownership was shared across members within an organisation varied among the

organisations researched.

It was observed that greater sharing of safety responsibility ownership was

associated with greater development of work-related road safety practices and

processes. The author suggests that the integration of safety knowledge, skills and

abilities from a range of employees gained through shared ownership of safety

responsibilities may facilitate the development of superior safety practices and

procedures.

Managers perceived that the personnel responsible for managing occupational

road risks within their organisation would require high competency levels in the

following risk management tasks: hazard identification and control; provide OH&S

information and instruction; incident investigations; inspections of workplace and

work tasks; researching and reporting on OH&S issues and strategies; and applying

legislative OH&S requirements.


191


Study three pioneered research into a new area of work-related road safety, by

exploring whether differences in safety ownership related to self-reported

occupational road safety outcomes. Although the strengths of the relationships were

weak, several significant relationships were identified. Bivariate correlation scores

revealed that individuals’ safety ownership perceptions were negatively associated

with overall driving behaviour and driving behaviours relating to fatigue and

distraction. More specifically, participants who perceived that road risks were

managed by personnel with authority reported engaging in overall safer driving

behaviours and less driving while fatigued or multitasking. Similarly, participants

who perceived that responsibility for managing road risks was shared across several

organisational personnel reported engaging in overall safer driving behaviours and

less driving while fatigued or multitasking.

Regression analyses were conducted to investigate the capacity of perceived

safety ownership to predict road safety outcomes, over and above demographic and

exposure variables. Although only accounting for a small amount of additional

variance, perceived authority and perceived shared ownership both emerged as

significant independent predictors of driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue and

distractions. The regression models indicated that as participants’ perceptions of the

authority of the person managing road risks increases the corresponding likelihood of

them engage in driving while fatigued or multitasking while driving decreases.

Similarly, as participants’ perceptions of shared ownership of safety tasks increases,

the corresponding likelihood of them engaging in driving while fatigued or

multitasking while driving decreases.


Similar to the findings pertaining to fleet safety climate, the findings with

respect to safety ownership, suggest that organisations may have more influence over


192

employees’ driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue and distractions, than driving

behaviours pertaining to errors and violations. Organisations may be able to reduce

the likelihood of employees engaging in unsafe driving as a result of fatigue or

distractions through increasing ownership of safety management tasks.

Based on the findings from study three, the author proposes that organisations

should aim to foster cooperative sharing of occupational road risk management tasks

among organisational personnel. To formally facilitate shared ownership, the author

recommends that employees and managers should be educated about their OH&S

responsibilities. To minimise potential role ambiguity associated with shared

ownership, the author recommends that responsibility for work-related road safety

management tasks should be explicitly stated in job descriptions across all safety

critical positions.

To guide organisations in formally distributing road safety responsibilities,

study three collated managers’ perceptions regarding which tasks must be performed

competently by those occupying safety critical positions. Based on the findings from

study three, to manage occupational road risks, it is recommended that organisations

ensure that personnel responsible for managing road risks within their organisation

have a full understanding of the following risk management tasks: hazard

identification and control; provide OH&S information and instruction; incident

investigations; inspections of workplace and work tasks; researching and reporting

on OH&S issues and strategies; and applying legislative OH&S requirements.

Given that this research has important applications for enhancing road safety

outcomes, it is recommended that future studies expand upon this exploratory

research by applying the same methodology with a more diverse sample.


193

6.5 Chapter conclusion

The findings from study three indicate that organisational factors do influence

road safety outcomes. It is important to note that the hierarchical regressions showed

that, although aspects of fleet safety climate, stage of change and safety ownership

make a significant contribution to self-reported road safety outcomes, many of the

factors contributed very little additional explanatory power above the control factors.

Suggestions have been made as to how practitioners can apply the findings

from study three to achieve optimal work environments for managing road risks.

Suggestions have also been provided to guide future research in this area.

At this point, it is important to recognise the strengths and limitations of

study three. A key strength of this research is that it pioneers research into two new

avenues of work-related road safety literature. Although the influences of stage of

change has been considered other health related disciplines and the influences of

safety ownership have been considered in the construction literature, the influences

of these factors have not been considered in relation to occupational road safety.

Therefore the current study provides new and valuable insights into how work-

related road safety can be enhanced. Based on the findings from study three, the

author strongly advocates future research be conducted to establish an efficient and

reliable method of classifying employee stage of change with respect to road safety

and to optimise the implementation of distributive ownership of safety

responsibilities.

A key limitation of this research was that a restricted range was obtained for

the outcome measures of traffic infringements and vehicle incidents. Across the four

organisations, 91% of employees reported obtaining no traffic infringements during

the past 12 months. Similarly, 88% of employees reported not being involved in a

vehicle incident during the past 12 months. Previous research in the area of work-

related road safety (Freeman et al., 2007; Wishart et al., 2006) has also


194

acknowledged difficulties in reliably analysing data due to only a small proportion of

the sample reporting infringement and incident involvement. To overcome this

limitation, the author suggests that future research could adopt a case study approach

and select several organisations with a history of high infringement and incident

involvement to be compared with several organisations with a history of low

infringement and incident involvement.

Furthermore, consistent with previous research, the item relating to incident

involvement asked participants to indicate how many times they had been involved

in a vehicle incident, regardless of who was considered to be ‘at fault’. By including

both ‘at fault’ and ‘not at fault’ incidents a higher frequency of participants reporting

incident involvement may have been obtained, however it is possible that this item

may have been measuring a road safety outcome that was contaminated by factors

outside of the organisations influence. More specifically, the author acknowledges

that organisational factors may be associated with reduced employee ‘at fault’ traffic

incidents, but be unrelated to incidents caused by other drivers. To gain a better

understanding of organisational influences upon incident involvement, further

research should be conducted using a measure of employee ‘at fault’ traffic incidents.

Finally, to assist practitioners in making informed decisions about how they

manage occupational road risks and to assist academics in considering the theoretical

implications of this research, Chapter Seven will now review and collectively

summarise the key findings from all three studies.


195

Chapter 7: Synthesis and Implications

7.1 Project background and methodology ............................................................. 196

7.2 Key findings .................................................................................................... 199

7.2.1 Research question one .......................................................................... 199

7.2.2 Research question two ......................................................................... 200

7.2.3 Research question three ....................................................................... 200

7.2.4 Research question four ......................................................................... 201

7.2.5 Research question five ......................................................................... 203

7.2.6 Research question six ........................................................................... 204

7.2.7 Research question seven ...................................................................... 205

7.3 Strengths and limitations of the previous research and suggestions for

future studies ................................................................................................... 206

7.4 Implications ..................................................................................................... 210

7.5 Recommendations ........................................................................................... 212

7.6 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 215


196

Chapter 7: Synthesis and Implications

The chapter begins by briefly reminding the reader of the project background

and the methodology used throughout this research project. Key findings with

respect to the seven research questions are then presented. Limitations of this

research project along with suggestions for future research are outlined. Finally

implications of this research along with key recommendations are presented.

7.1 Project background and methodology

Given the high social and financial costs of road incidents, the global

community needs to accept responsibility for creating a safer traffic environment and

take action to manage road risks. The management of work-related road risks is one

area where large gains in global road safety may potentially be achieved. At present,

very few organisations are managing their work-related road risks. This is of concern

given that vehicle incidents continue to be the most common mechanism for

Australian compensated fatalities and that employers have statutory obligations to

provide safe workplaces.

Of the organisations that are attempting to improve their work-related road

risks, many appear to have deficiencies in their risk management approach. For

example, the author has observed that some organisations appear to have adopted a

‘one size fits all approach’, attempting to manage all road risks with one initiative.

These organisations appear to have implemented any initiative in trend without

considering whether there is any scientific evidence supporting its effectiveness or

how appropriate the initiative is for their organisation. Other organisations appear to

have adopted a reactive approach, implementing an initiative in response to an

incident that had occurred in their organisation. These reactive initiatives were often

observed to be narrow, short term fixes that failed to address the ongoing

organisational and behavioural issues that contribute to occupational road risk. To

assist in alleviating the burden of traffic injuries and fatalities, the author proposes


197

that substantial gains need to be made in the area of occupational road risk

management.

At present, limited guidance is provided in the existing literature to assist

practitioners in managing work-related road risks. Several industry reports that offer

reviews of current industry practice and risk management guidelines for

organisations striving to achieve best practice in managing occupational road risks,

have been published both within Australia and internationally. While these reports do

provide some guidance to practitioners, many of the recommended initiatives were

not empirically evaluated. Therefore these reports fail to assist practitioners in

making informed decisions based on scientific research and evaluation, about how

they manage occupational road risks. The current research addresses this gap in the

literature, by scientifically exploring how work-related road safety can be enhanced

and by providing recommendations supported by comprehensive research to assist

practitioners in optimally managing their risks.

The current research project aims to assist in alleviating the burden of traffic

injuries and fatalities by empirically exploring how road safety can be improved in

organisations. To achieve this aim, three studies were conducted. Study one explored

the effectiveness of a range of risk management initiatives and whether

comprehensive risk management practices were associated with safety outcomes.

Study two explored barriers to, and facilitators for, accepting risk management

initiatives. Study three explored the influence of organisational factors on road safety

outcomes to identify optimal work environments for managing road risks.

To maximise the research sample and increase generalisability, the studies

were designed to allow data collection to be conducted simultaneously drawing upon

the same sample obtained from four Australian organisations. Data was collected via

four methods.


198

A structured document review of published articles was conducted to identify

what outcomes have been observed in previously investigated work-related road

safety initiatives. A search of six electronic bibliographic databases identified 181

non-duplicated titles relating to work-related road safety initiatives. These titles were

reviewed using pre-determined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Included articles had to

appear in English in a peer-reviewed journal, conference proceeding or book. This

review process generated a total of 20 peer-reviewed relevant articles that

collectively assessed the effectiveness of 19 work-related road safety initiatives. The

findings from the structured document review are discussed in section 7.2.1.

Audits of organisational practices and process operating within the four

researched organisations were conducted to identify whether organisations with

comprehensive work-related road risk management practices and processes have

better safety outcomes than organisations with limited risk management practices

and processes. The audit criteria used in the current study were developed by the

researcher based upon elements that have been identified in the research literature

and industry guides as best practice in work-related road safety. The findings from

the audit are discussed in section 7.2.3.

Face-to-face interviews were conducted with a sample of 24 participants.

This sample comprised six representatives from each of the four organisations. The

interviews were conducted to identify what barriers and facilitators within

organisations were perceived to affect the implementation of work-related road

safety initiatives and whether differences in fleet safety climate, stage of change and

safety ownership relate to work-related road safety outcomes. The findings from the

interview are discussed in sections 7.2.4, 7.2.5, 7.2.6 and 7.2.7.

Finally, online questionnaires were conducted with a sample of 679

participants. This sample comprised 223 employees from organisation A, 103

employees from organisation B, 235 employees from organisation C, and 118


199

employees from organisation D. The questionnaires were conducted to identify

which initiatives are perceived by employees to be effective in managing work-

related road risks and whether differences in fleet safety climate, stage of change and

safety ownership relate to work-related road safety outcomes. The findings from the

questionnaire are discussed in sections 7.2.2, 7.2.5, 7.2.6 and 7.2.7.

7.2 Key findings

Seven research questions were addressed in the current research project. The

key findings in relation to each of the research questions are presented below.

7.2.1 Research question one: What outcomes have been observed in previously

investigated work-related road safety initiatives?

As the purpose of the document review was to explore scientific evaluations

of various initiatives, non peer-reviewed literature was excluded as the scientific

quality of these documents had not previously been established. The 20 peer-

reviewed articles that satisfied the document review process collectively assessed the

effectiveness of 19 work-related road safety initiatives. Initiatives reviewed targeting

safety at the organisational level comprised: policy development; driver selection

criteria; a web based risk management tool; and raised wages. Initiatives reviewed

targeting safety at the employee level comprised: driver training; group discussions;

awareness and information campaign; goal setting; performance feedback; enlisting

employees as community road safety change agents; self-monitoring forms; signing

safety pledge cards; safety reminders; and rewards. Safety initiatives reviewed

pertaining to implementing protective equipment comprised: alcolock devices;

fatigue management technologies devices; in-vehicle compensatory devices to target

ability deficiencies of older commercial drivers; in car data recorders; and gasoline

vapour recovery devices.

The structured document review indicated that initiatives found to be

positively associated with occupational road safety during the intervention period


200

included: policy development; a web based risk management tool; an awareness and

information campaign; goal setting; performance feedback; self-monitoring forms;

signing safety pledge cards; alcolock devices; fatigue management technologies

devices; in-vehicle compensatory devices to target ability deficiencies of older

commercial drivers; in car data recorders; and gasoline vapour recovery devices. In

the reviewed literature, only six initiatives were found to be positively associated

with occupational road safety both during and after the intervention period. These

included: a pay rise; driver training; group discussions; enlisting employees as

community road safety change agents; safety reminders; and group and individual

rewards.

7.2.2 Research question two: Which initiatives are perceived by employees to be

effective in managing work-related road risks?

Questionnaire findings revealed that employees believed occupational road

risks could best be managed through making vehicle safety features standard,

providing practical driver skills training and through investigating serious vehicle

incidents. In comparison, employees believed initiatives including signing a promise

card commitment to drive safely, advertising the organisation’s phone number on

vehicles and consideration of driving competency in staff selection process would

have limited effectiveness in managing occupational road safety. These findings are

important, as individuals are more likely to embrace initiatives that they believe will

assist them in achieving a goal and to resist initiatives that they believe will have

little utility in achieving goals or are not appropriate in their organisation.

7.2.3 Research question three: Do organisations with comprehensive work-related

road risk management practices and processes have better safety outcomes than

organisations with limited risk management practices and processes?

Practices and processes audited in the current study comprised: having a fleet

safety policy; recruiting and selecting safe drivers; including safe driving in

employee inductions; conducting and evaluating fleet safety training; recognising


201

good and poor driving behaviours; managing road journeys to minimise exposure to

road hazards; selecting and maintaining safe vehicles; and recording and monitoring

incidents to identify risks.

The audit identified differences among the organisations in their management

of work-related road risks. The organisation with the most comprehensive risk

management practices was found to have the highest employee ratings of

engagement in overall safe driving behaviours. These employees also reported

committing the least driving errors, and experiencing the least fatigue and distraction

issues when driving. Furthermore, the organisation with the least comprehensive risk

management practices was found to have the highest frequency of employee

involvement in traffic incidents. Given that only four organisations participated in

this research, and that a consistent relationship between comprehensiveness of

practices and incident involvement was not observed, these findings should be

interpreted with caution. Further research should be conducted to explore the


safety outcomes with a larger sample of organisations and a more precise measure of

incident involvement.

7.2.4 Research question four: What barriers and facilitators within organisations

are involved in implementing work-related road safety initiatives?

The interviews identified that employees perceived six organisational

characteristics as potential barriers to implementing work-related road safety

initiatives. These included: prioritisation of production over safety; complacency

towards work-related road risks; insufficient resources; diversity; limited employee


unnecessary burden. Of these organisational characteristics, prioritisation of

production over safety and complacency were the most frequently cited barriers. In

regards to conflicts in priorities between production and safety, participants

described how their managers conveyed that safety was the highest priority. Some


202

staff also reported being highly committed to their work and at times believed that

their work commitment motivated them to engage in risky driving practices to

achieve higher work outputs. In regards to complacency, although participants

acknowledged that there were risks involved with driving, they believed that most

people accepted these risks. Several participants commented on how work-related

road safety was not treated as seriously as other OH&S issues in their organisation

and how complacency contributed to non-compliance with occupational road risk

management processes.

When asked how the perceived barriers could be overcome, participants

provided four suggestions. Firstly, participants believed that organisations should

develop and implement initiatives that are part of an overall risk management

approach. They believed that the approach should comprise several layers and

include some initiatives designed to achieve quick results and other initiatives

designed for long-term sustainability of safety. Secondly, participants believed that

employees’ involvement in decision making should be increased to enhance the

appropriateness of, and acceptance, of risk management initiatives. Thirdly,

participants believed that work demands needed to be reduced to mitigate the

perceived conflicts between production and safety targets. Participants suggested

several methods for reducing work demands, for example outsourcing duties and

decreasing the distances having to be travelled. Finally, participants believed that

increased awareness of risks and knowledge of individual risk management

responsibilities was needed to reduce complacency and enhance work-related road

safety outcomes.

In regards to facilitators, participants perceived three organisational

characteristics as potential facilitators to implementing work-related road safety

initiatives. These included: management commitment; the presence of existing

systems that could support the implementation of initiatives; and supportive

relationships. Of these organisational characteristics, management commitment was


203

the most frequently cited facilitator. Some participants believed that senior

management commitment to safety had assisted in the implementation of

occupational road safety initiatives.

7.2.5 Research question five: Do differences in fleet safety climate relate to work-

related road safety outcomes?

The interviews and questionnaires identified that organisational climates with

high management commitment, support for managing work demands, appropriate

safety rules, and safety communication, were associated with employees who

engaged in more frequent overall safe driving behaviours Furthermore, regression

analyses revealed that overall fleet safety climate and all of the fleet safety climate

factors except for relationships, emerged as significant independent predictors of

driving behaviours. This indicates that as participants’ perceptions of fleet safety

climate increased, the corresponding likelihood of them engaging in safer driving

behaviours increased.

Fleet safety climate and all of the fleet safety climate factors, were also found

to be related to driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue and distractions. This finding

indicates that employees who perceived their organisation’s climate to be supportive

of road safety, reported lower tendencies to engage in driving while fatigued and

lower multitasking while driving. Furthermore, regression analyses revealed that

overall fleet safety climate, and all of the fleet safety climate factors, emerged as

significant independent predictors of driving behaviours relating to fatigue and

distraction.

Fleet safety climate was perceived to influence road safety outcomes through

several avenues. Some of these included: the allocation of sufficient resources to

manage occupational road risks; fostering a supportive environment of mutual

responsibility; resolving safety issues openly and fairly; clearly communicating to


204

employees that safety is the top priority; and developing appropriate work-related

road safety policies and procedures.

7.2.6 Research question six: Do differences in stage of change relate to work-


The interviews and questionnaires identified that individuals’ perceived stage

of change was associated with driving behaviours relating to fatigue and distraction

and also vehicle crash involvement. More specifically, participants who had

progressed through more stages of change, reported lower tendencies to engage in

driving while fatigued and lower multitasking while driving. Participants who had

progressed through more stages of change also reported lower involvement in vehicle

crashes. Furthermore, regression analyses indicated that as participants’ progress

through the stages of change, the corresponding likelihood of them being involved in

vehicle crashes decreases.

Finally, participants’ perceptions of initiative effectiveness were found to vary

with respect to their individual stage of readiness. For example employees who were

classified as being in the pre-contemplation stage, perceived awareness raising

initiatives such as posters, to be more effective than advice giving initiatives such as

information bulletins on how to enhance road safety. This finding makes sense based

on the stage of change model. The model suggests that awareness raising initiatives

are most appropriate for individuals in the pre-contemplation stage, as these

individuals see no problem with their current behaviour and express no intention to

change. In comparison, employees who were classified as being in the maintenance

stage, perceived initiatives that provided ongoing advice and practical information to

be most effective. This finding also makes sense based on the stage of change model.

The model suggests that initiatives that provide ongoing education and advice are

appropriate for individuals in the maintenance stage. This finding suggests that

differences in individuals’ stage of change may operate as a moderating variable


205

influencing whether a work-related road safety initiative will achieve desired safety

outcomes in an organisation.

7.2.7 Research question seven: Do differences in safety ownership relate to work-


The interviews and questionnaires revealed that management of road risks is

often given less attention than other areas of health and safety management in

organisations. With regards to safety outcomes, participants’ safety ownership

perceptions were related to their overall driving behaviour and driving behaviours

pertaining to fatigue and distraction. Regression analyses identified that perceived

authority and perceived shared ownership both emerged as significant independent

predictors of driving behaviours pertaining to fatigue and distractions. The regression

models indicated that as participants’ perceptions of the authority of the person

managing road risks increases the corresponding likelihood of them engaging in

driving while fatigued or multitasking while driving decreases. Similarly, as

participants’ perceptions of shared ownership of safety tasks increases, the

corresponding likelihood of them engaging in driving while fatigued or multitasking

while driving decreases.

Furthermore, it was observed that greater sharing of safety responsibility

ownership was associated with greater development of work-related road safety

practices and processes. The author suggests that the integration of safety knowledge,

skills and abilities from a range of employees gained through shared ownership may

facilitate the development of superior safety practices and procedures. Personnel

from a range of organisational positions were identified for accepting some safety

ownership responsibilities. These positions included: General Manager; Health and

Safety Manager; Health and Safety Senior Advisor; Health and Safety Coordinator;

Insurance Compensation Manager; Business Unit Manager; Strategic Procurement

Manager; Risk Management Officer; Fleet Manager; Fleet Technical Officer;

Supervisor; and Driver.


206

To facilitate the achievement of desirable road safety outcomes, managers

perceived that the personnel responsible for managing occupational road risks within

their organisation would require high competency levels in the following risk

management tasks: hazard identification and control; provide OH&S information and

instruction; incident investigations; inspections of workplace and work tasks;

researching and reporting on OH&S issues and strategies; and applying legislative

OH&S requirements.

7.3 Strengths and limitations of the current research and suggestions for

future studies

Key strengths of the current program of research include addressing a gap in

the literature by providing a current review of empirical findings with respect to

occupational road safety initiative effectiveness and pioneering research into four

new areas.

Firstly, the current research makes a valuable contribution to the literature by

providing a current review of empirical evaluations of work-related road safety

initiatives. This review may be used by academics to select future research directions

and by practitioners to develop effective risk management strategies. As it is

currently unclear in the existing literature as to which initiatives provide the greatest

opportunity for advancing road safety, the author encourages academics to conduct

future research to identify which risk management areas offer the greatest potential

for improving occupational road safety.

Secondly, it pioneers research into four new avenues of work-related road

safety literature. In relation to initiative effectiveness, the current research provides

new insights with respect to employees’ perceptions of the effectiveness of a range of

occupational road safety initiatives and whether the comprehensiveness of risk

management practices is associated with road safety outcomes. This research has


207

allowed the author to generate several empirically supported recommendations, to

assist in improving work-related road safety. Future studies could expand upon the

new areas of research by exploring whether the findings identified in the current

study will generalise to organisations operating in different countries. For example, it

would be interesting to observe whether employee perceptions of initiative

effectiveness varied with respect to different cultures. The author suggests that

employees may perceive initiatives differently based on whether they belong to a

collectivist or individualist culture and whether there culture values a high or low

power distance within organisations.

In relation to organisational factors, the current research provides new

insights with respect to the influences of stage of change and safety ownership upon

the management of occupational road safety. Based on the findings from the current

research, the author strongly advocates future research be conducted to establish an

efficient and reliable method of classifying employee stage of change in relation to

road safety and to optimise the implementation of distributive ownership of safety

responsibilities.

Key limitations of the current program of research include the restricted

scope of the document review, the small sample size and the restricted range

obtained for the outcome measures of traffic infringements and vehicle incidents.

Firstly, although the structured procedure used in the document review was

beneficial in restricting the review to documents previously assessed by academic

experts to be of scientific merit, this process may have overlooked other relevant

documents. Future research may wish to expand upon the current review by

including non peer-reviewed documents or by adopting a broader scope. The author

recognises that some non peer-reviewed documents may potentially be of an equally

high standard to peer-reviewed documents. Furthermore the inclusion of research on

community based initiatives may have provided a different view on the effectiveness


208

of some initiatives. For example, although driver training was found to be associated

with positive road safety outcomes in four reviewed documents on occupational road

safety initiatives, this is not consistent with some community based research. For

example, a review of community based research on the effectiveness of driver

training has found little evidence for the effectiveness of driver training in reducing

crashes for experienced drivers and that it may even have a negative impact on

novice drivers (Christie, 2001).

A second limitation of the current research was the small sample size. The

use of only four organisations did limit the researcher’s ability to compare

organisations based on the comprehensiveness of their policies and practices. Given

the small sample size, the author suggests that the findings pertaining to the


safety outcomes should only be considered as preliminary. Future research should be

conducted to assess this relationship using a larger sample and a more diverse range

of organisations.

Finally, the current research was limited by the obtainment of a restricted

range for the outcome measures of traffic infringements and vehicle incidents.

Across the four organisations, approximately 90% of employees reported obtaining

no traffic infringements and reported not being involved in a vehicle incident during

the past 12 months. Previous research in the area of work-related road safety

(Freeman et al., 2007; Wishart et al., 2006) has also acknowledged difficulties in

reliably analysing data due to only a small proportion of the sample reporting

infringement and incident involvement. To overcome this limitation, the author

suggests that future research could adopt a case study approach and select several

organisations with a history of high infringement and incident involvement to be

compared with several organisations with a history of low infringement and incident

involvement.


209

To address methodological issues identified in this research, the author also

proposes two additional areas of exploration for future research. These comprise in-

depth exploration of the extent of influence organisations potentially have upon

employees’ driving errors and violations, and the development of a parsimonious set

of questions to reliably classify employees in regards to their stage of change.

Firstly, the current research indicates that organisational factors are predictive

of employees’ overall driving behaviours and driving behaviours relating to fatigue

and distractions. However, organisational factors appeared to have little influence

over employees’ driving behaviours relating to errors and violations. More

specifically, the fleet safety climate factor ‘appropriateness of rules’ was the only

organisational characteristic found to independently predict driving violations. Based

on this finding, the author speculates that driving errors and violations may be

influenced more strongly by an employees’ personal style of driving rather than

organisational factors including fleet safety climate, stage of change and safety

ownership. If this were the case, it would appear that organisations may have limited

influence over risks arising from employees’ driving errors and violations. To guide

the development of risk management approaches, future research could explore the

extent of influence organisations have upon employees’ driving errors and violations

and identify if any organisational factors have the potential to influence these driving

behaviours.

Secondly, the author identified that the five core questions used in the current

research provided a useful starting point for classifying employees’ stage of change.

However, these questions were not sufficient to distinguish between adjoining stages

for some participants. With the inclusion of additional probing questions it was

identified that the stages of change model could provide a framework for classifying

employee readiness to engage in work-related road safety behaviour change. Given

that the stage of change model has been identified as a useful framework for

classifying employee readiness to engage in safety behaviours both in this research


210

and previous studies (Barrett et al., 2005; Whysall et al., 2006), the author

recommends that future research be conducted to achieve a parsimonious set of

questions that can be used by practitioners and researchers to reliably classify

employees in regards to their stage of change.

7.4 Implications

The current research indicates that organisations have the potential to

enhance road safety outcomes through the implementation of appropriate work-

related road safety initiatives and through fostering a work environment that is

conducive to safety.

In regards to work-related road safety initiatives, the current research implies

that the popular search for a ‘silver bullet’, or one easy solution, to managing work-

related road safety may be futile. Rather, a comprehensive risk management

approach that includes multiple initiatives may be necessary to achieve optimal

safety outcomes. The use of a combination of initiatives would allow organisations to

implement some initiatives that are designed to achieve fast results and build

momentum within the organisation for adopting further risk management strategies,

and also some more involved initiatives that are designed to achieve long-term

stability in enhanced road safety outcomes. The use of a combination of initiatives

would also allow organisations to implement a mixture of initiatives appropriate to

the range of individuals within a workforce. For example, an awareness raising

initiative could be included to target employees who are in a pre-contemplation stage

of road safety behaviour change. This initiative could be complemented by an

initiative that provides ongoing advice and performance feedback to consolidate

safety gains and prevent relapses to unsafe behaviours. This type of initiative would

be appropriate for employees in the maintenance stage of road safety behaviour

change. A combination of initiatives that are designed to target the full spectrum of

change stages is necessary as the implementation of an initiative that is not


211

appropriate for an individuals’ stage of change may at best, have only a limited

ability to achieve advances in safety behaviours.

When designing and implementing initiatives, practitioners should consider

the face-validity of initiatives and whether there is any scientific evidence indicating

that the initiative is effective. More specifically, it was identified that initiatives such

as driver training were both perceived to be effective by employees and found to be

effective in enhancing road safety outcomes in previous studies. By implementing

initiatives with high face validity, organisations have the potential to minimise

employee resistance. By implementing initiatives that have empirically been linked

to safety outcomes, organisations have the potential to maximise their safety

outcomes.

As the cost of implementing initiatives was perceived to be a key barrier in

managing work-related road risks, practitioners should also consider initiative costs.

The current research suggests that initiative cost does not appear to be associated

with initiative effectiveness. For example, some low cost initiatives that require

minimal involvement, such as group safety discussions, have been found to be

effective with a large majority of employees. However other low cost initiatives that

require minimal involvement, such as implementing a policy, were found to be

effective for safer employees but had minimal effect on higher risk employees. Given

that organisations often have limited budgets for safety, an implication of this

research is that it may be most appropriate to implement a combination of low and

higher cost methods to manage road risks. Low cost initiatives could be efficiently

implemented across the whole organisation, with more expensive initiatives such as

remedial driver training being reserved for the management of higher risk

employees. To be able to support the implementation of a combination of initiatives,

organisations do need to budget for occupational road risk management expenses.


212

In regards to organisational factors, the current research implies that

organisations may be able to influence road safety outcomes through fostering a

work environment that is conducive to safety. However, this influence may be

limited to employees’ overall driving behaviour and their driving behaviours

specifically relating to fatigue and distractions. As both the current research and

previous research has identified that fleet safety climate (Nielsen et al., 2008; Wills

et al., 2006), stage of change (Prochaska et al., 2001) and safety ownership (Barrett

et al., 2005; Biggs et al., 2006) are related to safety outcomes, recommendations are

provided below to assist organisations in fostering optimal work environments for

managing road safety.

7.5 Recommendations

Based on the findings from study one, which indicate that comprehensive risk

management practices are associated with employee engagement in safer driving

behaviours, the author recommends that organisations adopt a comprehensive

approach to managing occupational road risk. Work-related road risk management

may involve: having a written fleet safety policy; recruiting and selecting drivers

based on safe driving records and awareness of safety issues; including road safety

components in employee inductions; conducting and evaluating fleet safety training;

recognising good and poor driving behaviours; managing road journeys to eliminate

or minimise exposure to road hazards; selecting and maintaining vehicles for safety;

and monitoring and managing driver and vehicle risks. While initially it may not be

possible to develop organisational practices in all of these risk management areas,

organisations are encouraged to strive towards the adoption of a comprehensive

approach.

To maximise the safety return on initiative investment, attempts should be

made to implement economical initiatives that have been found to be effective with a

large majority of employees, such as group discussions. It is suggested that higher

cost initiatives, such as driver training, may be required to effectively manage higher


213

risk employees. Furthermore, given that inconsistencies exist between empirical

findings and employee perceptions of initiative effectiveness, the author suggests that

practitioners may need to promote initiatives and convince employees of their value

to facilitate acceptance.

Study two identified several key barriers to, and facilitators for, the

implementation of road safety initiatives. Based on these findings, when

implementing occupational road safety initiatives, the author recommends that

practitioners consider managing the key barriers identified in this study. These

included: prioritisation of production over safety; complacency towards work-related

road risks; insufficient resources; diversity; limited employee input in safety

decisions; and a perception that road safety initiatives were an unnecessary burden.

Of these organisational characteristics, prioritisation of production over safety and

complacency were the most frequently cited barriers. The author also suggests that

practitioners consider proactively developing and utilising the key facilitators

identified in this study. These included: management commitment; the presence of

existing systems that could support the implementation of initiatives; and supportive

relationships. By adopting a proactive approach which utilises these change

facilitators, organisations are able to achieve an environment which is conducive to

supporting the implementation of occupational road risk management initiatives.

Based on the findings from study three that indicate that organisational factors

are related to safety outcomes, the author recommends that organisations should aim

to foster work environments with high fleet safety climate, which encourage

progression through the stages of change towards maintenance of safety behaviours

and encourage cooperative sharing of road risk management tasks.

More specifically in regards to fleet safety climate, to achieve advances in road

safety outcomes, the author recommends that organisations: allocate sufficient

resources to manage occupational road risks; schedule work tasks to reduce driving


214

exposure at higher risk times; foster a supportive environment of mutual

responsibility; resolve safety issues openly and fairly; develop good communication

systems to allow safety information to efficiently flow between employees and

managers; ensure that work responsibilities are achievable; clearly communicate to

employees that safety is the top priority; involve employees in generating solutions

to mitigate client pressures; and develop appropriate work-related road safety

policies and procedures.

In regards to stage of change, by adopting a stage matched approach

practitioners may be able to reduce change resistance and accelerate employee

movement towards the action and maintenance stage of work-related road safety

behaviours. The author proposes that a multi-method approach to managing work-

related road risks may be necessary to provide initiatives that are appropriate to the

range of individuals within a workforce. Practitioners could design risk management

initiatives that are appropriate to employees’ readiness for change by using the stage

of change model. During project negotiations road safety practitioners could make a

brief assessment of managers’ and employees’ readiness for change. Based on their

assessment, practitioners could then determine the most appropriate structure and

content of initiatives to effectively meet the needs of their client.

In regards to safety ownership of occupational road risk management tasks, the

author recommends that employees and managers should be educated about their

OH&S responsibilities. To minimise potential role ambiguity associated with shared

ownership, the author recommends that responsibility for work-related road safety

management tasks should be explicitly stated in job descriptions across all safety

critical positions. Finally, it is recommended that organisations ensure that personnel

responsible for managing occupational road risks have sufficient authority to

implement initiatives and that they have a full understanding of the following risk

management tasks: hazard identification and control; provide OH&S information and

instruction; incident investigations; inspections of workplace and work tasks;


215

researching and reporting on OH&S issues and strategies; and applying legislative

OH&S requirements.

It is important to acknowledge that these key variables only accounted for a

small amount of variance in the observed road safety outcomes in study three.

Therefore adopting these recommendations in isolation may not have a significant

impact on traffic safety outcomes. Future research should explore other possible

variables, such as organisational culture, that could be accounting for additional

variance in traffic related outcome measures.

7.6 Conclusion

This thesis contributes to the theoretical understanding of factors associated

with work-related road safety by: identifying effective occupational road safety

initiatives, identifying facilitators and barriers within organisations to implementing

occupational road safety initiatives; and identifying optimal organisational

environments for road safety. The findings from this research provide practical

information that can be used by practitioners to enhance safety within organisations.

By identifying how road safety can be improved in organisations, it is envisaged that

this thesis has the potential to assist in alleviating the global burden of traffic injuries

and fatalities.


216


217

References

Aborg, C., Fernstro, M., & Ericson, M. (1998). Work content and satisfaction before

and after a reorganisation of data entry work. Applied Ergonomics, 29, (473-

480).

Alexander, M., Cox, S., & Cheyne, A. (1995, February). The concept of safety

culture within a UK offshore organisation. Paper presented at the

Understanding Risk Perception Conference, Aberdeen.

Anderson, W, Plowman, B, Leven, B., & Fraine, G. (1998). Workplace Fleet Safety

System. Brisbane, Australia: Queensland Transport.

Andriessen, J. H. (1978). Safe behaviour and safety motivation. Journal of

Occupational Accidents, 1, 363-376.

Australian Safety and Compensation Council (2005). National OHS Strategy 2002-

2012. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Australian Transport Council (2008). National Road Safety Action Plan 2009-2010.

Retrieved December 8, 2008. from

http://www.atcouncil.gov.au/documents/actionplan_0910.aspx

Arboleda, A., Morrow, P., Crum, M., & Shelley, M. (2003). Management practices

as antecedents of safety culture within the trucking industry: similarities and

differences by hierarchical level. Journal of Safety Research, 34, 189–197.

Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for

organizational change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681-703.

Australian Safety and Compensation Council (2006). Beyond Common Sense: Report

on the barriers to adoption of safety in the agriculture industry. Canberra:

Commonwealth of Australia.

Australian Transport Safety Bureau (2005) Road deaths Australia: 2005 Statistical

Summary. [Electronic version]. Civic Square, ACT. Australian Transport

Safety Bureau.


218

Banks, T., Davey, J., & Brownlow, D. (2006). Driver education and fleet safety

climate in an emergency service fleet. Journal of Occupational Health and

Safety, 22(4), 341-350.

Barrett, J., Haslam, R., Lee, K., & Ellis, M. (2005). Assessing attitudes and beliefs

using the stage of change paradigm - case study of health and safety appraisal

within a manufacturing company. International Journal of Industrial

Ergonomics, 35, 871-887.

Bas, M., Yuksel, M., & Cavusoglu, T. (2007). Difficulties and barriers for the

implementation of HACCP and food safety systems in food businesses in

Turkey. Food Control, 18, 124-130.

Bentley, T., & Haslam, R. (2001). A comparison of safety practices used by

managers of high and low accident rate post offices. Safety Science, 37, 19-

37.

Bianchi, A., & Summala, H. (2004). The “genetics” of driving behaviour: parents’

driving style predicts their children’s driving style. Accident Analysis and

Prevention, 36, 655-569.

Biggs, H. C., Sheahan, V. L., & Dingsdag, D. P. (2006). Improving Industry Safety

Culture: The Tasks in Which Safety Critical Positions Holders Must be

Competent. In Proceedings CIB99 International Conference on Global Unity

for Safety & Health in Construction, pages pp. 181-187, Beijing, China.

Bjerre, B. (2005). Primary and secondary prevention of drink driving by the use of

alcolock device and program: Swedish experiences. Accident Analysis &

Prevention, 37(6), 1145-1152.

Bjerre, B., & Kostela, J. (2008). Primary prevention of drink driving by the large-

scale use of alcolocks in commercial vehicles. Accident Analysis &

Prevention, 40(4), 1294-1299.

Blake, S., Kohler, S., Rask, K., Davis, A., & Naylor, D. V. (2006). Facilitators and

Barriers to 10 National Quality Forum Safe Practices. American Journal of

Medical Quality, 21, 323-334.


219

BOMEL Ltd (2004). Safety culture and work-related road accidents (Road Safety

Research Report No. 51). London: Department of Transport.

Boyce, T. E., & Geller, E. S. (1999). Attempts to increase vehicle safety-belt use

among industry workers: What can we learn from our failures? Journal of

Organizational Behavior Management, 19(3), 27-44.

Brew v. WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND – [2004] 1 Qd.R. 621.

Burt, C. D., Sepie, B., & McFadden, G. (2008). The development of a considerate

and responsible safety attitude in work teams. Safety Science, 46(1), 79-91.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by

the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 35, 81-105.

Campbell, M. K., DeVellis, B. M., Strecher, V. J., Ammerman, A. S., DeVellis, R.

E., & Sandler, R. S. (1994). Improving dietary behavior: The effectiveness of

tailored messages in primary care settings. American Journal of Public

Health, 4(5), 783-787.

Carbonari, J. P., & DiClemente, C. C. (2000). Using transtheoretical model profiles

to differentiate levels of alcohol abstinence success. Journal of Consulting

and Clinical Psychology, 68(5), 810-817.

Chiang, W., Chan, C., Tseng, C., & Wang, J. (2005). Reduction of post-shift traffic

injuries among gasoline station workers: Are they related to the reduction of

occupational gasoline vapor exposure. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37,

956-961.

Choi, J., & Price, R. (2005). The effects of person-innovation fit on individual

responses to innovation. Journal of Occupational & Organizational

Psychology, 78(1), 83-96.

Christie, R. (2001). The effectiveness of driver training as a road safety measure: A

review of the literature. RACV Literature Report No. 01/03, Nobel Park,

Victoria, November.

Cohen, A., Smith, M., & Cohen, H. (1975). Safety program practices in high versus

low accident rate companies- and interim report (Publication no. 75-185).


220

Cincinnati: National institute for Occupational Safety and Health: U.S.

Department of Health Education and Welfare.

Cowman, S. (1993). Triangulation: A means of reconciliation in nursing research.

Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18, 788-792.

Cox, S., Tomas, J. M., Cheyne, A., & Oliver, A. (1998). Safety culture: The

prediction of commitment to safety in the manufacturing industry. British

Journal of Management, 9, S3-S11.

Clarke, S. (2006). Safety climate in an automobile manufacturing plant: The effects

of work environment, job communication and safety attitudes on accidents

and unsafe behaviour. Personnel Review, 35(4), 413-430.

Clarke, S. (1999). Perceptions of organizational safety: Implications for the

development of safety culture. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 20, 185-

198.

Clement, D. (2008). The transtheoretical model: An exploratory look at its

applicability to injury rehabilitation. Journal of Sport Rehabilitation, 17(3),

269-282.

Cooper, MD & Phillips, RA. (2004). Exploratory analysis of the safety climate and

safety behavior relationship. Journal of Safety Research, 35(5), 497-512.

Cullen, H. L. (1990). The public inquiry into the Piper Alpha disaster (Report to the

Parliament by the Secretary of State for Energy by Command of Her Majesty

Vols. 1 and 2). London: HMSO.

Curtain Bros (Qld) Pty Ltd v. FAI General Insurance Company Limited [1995] 1 Qd.

R. 142.

Darby, P., Murray, W., & Raeside, R. Applying online fleet driver assessment to help

identify, target and reduce occupational road safety risks. Safety Science, In

Press, Corrected Proof.

Davey, J., & Banks, T (2005), Estimating the Cost of Work Motor Vehicle Incidents

in Australia. Paper presented at the Australasian Road Safety Research

Policing Education Conference, Wellington, New Zealand.


221

Dejoy, D. M. (1996). Theoretical models of health behaviour and workplace self-

protective behavior. Journal of Safety Research, 27(2), 61-72.

De Michiei, J., Langton, J., Bullock, K., & Wiles, T. (1982). Factors associated with

disabling injuries in underground coal mines. MSHA, USA.

De Vaus, D. (2002). Surveys in Social Research. Crows Nest: Allen and Unwin.

Diaz, R. I., & Cabrera, D. D. (1997). Safety climate and attitude as evaluation

measures of organizational safety. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 29,

643-650.

Dinges, D. F., Maislin, G., Brewster, R. M., Krueger, G. P., & Carroll, R. J. (2005).

Pilot Test of Fatigue Management Technologies. Paper presented at the

Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research

Board.

Dingsdag, D. P., Biggs, H. C., & Sheahan, V. L. (2007). Understanding and defining

OH&S competency for construction site positions: Worker perceptions.

Safety Science, 46(4), 619-633.

Dingsdag, D. P., Biggs, H. C., Sheahan, V. L., & Cipolla, D. J. (2006). A

Construction Safety Competency Framework: Improving OH&S performance

by creating and maintaining a safety culture. Brisbane, Australia:

Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation.

Dwyer, T., & Raftery, A. E. (1991). Industrial accidents are produced by social

relations of work: A sociological theory of industrial accidents. Applied

Ergonomics, 22(3), 167-178.

Erol, S., & Erdogan, S. (2008). Application of a stage based motivational

interviewing approach to adolescent smoking cessation: The Transtheoretical

Model-based study. Patient Education and Counseling, 72(1), 42-48.

Etter, J. F., & Perneger, T. V. (1999). A comparison of two measures of stage of

change for smoking cessation. Addiction, 94, 1881-1889.

Fallon, I., & O'Neill, D. (2005). The world's first automobile fatality. Accident

Analysis & Prevention, 37(4), 601-603.


222

Felknor, S. A., Aday, L. A., Burau, K. D., Delclos, G. L., & Kapadia, A. S. (2000).

Safety climate and its association with injuries and safety practices in public

hospitals in Costa Rica. International Journal of Occupational Environmental

Health, 6(1), 18-25.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. New York. Harper and Row.

Flin, R., Mearns, K., O'Connor, P., & Bryden, R. (2000). Measuring safety climate:

Identifying the common features. Safety Science, 34, 177-193.

Freeman, J. Davey, J., & Wishart, D. (2007) A study of contemporary modifications

to the Manchester Drivers Behaviour Questionnaire for organizational fleet

settings. In Proceedings 3rd International Driver Behaviour and Training

Conference, Dublin, Ireland.

Freeman, J. E., Wishart, D. E., Davey, J. D., & Rowland, B. D. (2008). Driving

safety for work: A study investigating aberrant driving behaviours within a

fleet setting. In Proceedings Canadian Multidisciplinary Road Safety

Conference, Whistler, Canada.

French, J., Caplan, R., & Harrison, R. (1982). Mechanisms of Job Stress and Strain.

New York: John Wiley.

Garrett, R. B., & Perry, A. J. (1996). A safer way to move patients. Occupational

Health and Safety, 65(9), 60– 64.

Gaertner, G., Newman, P., Perry, M., Fisher, G., & Whitehead, K. (1987).

Determining the effects of management practices on coal miners' safety.

Human engineering and human resource management in mining proceedings,

82-94.

Gillen, M., Baltz, D., Gassel, M., Kirsch, L., & Vaccaro, D. (2002). Perceived safety

climate, job demands, and coworker support among union and nonunion

injured construction workers. Journal of Safety Research, 33, 33–51.

Glendon, AI & Litherland, DK. (2001). Safety climate factors, group differences and

safety behavior in road construction. Safety Science, 39, 157-188.

Glendon, A. I., & Stanton, N. A. (2000). Perspectives on safety culture. Safety

Science, 34, 193-214.


223

Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and

psychological climate: pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of

Management Review, 10(3), 601-616.

Goodman, P. S. (1987). Determining the effect of incentive programs on the

occurrence of accidents, injuries and productivity (OFR 47-88). Pittsburgh:

US Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines.

Gregersen, N., Brehmer, B., & Morén, B. (1996). Road safety improvement in large

companies. An experimental comparison of different measures. Accident

Analysis & Prevention, 28(3), 297-306.

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989) Toward a Conceptual

Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs. Educational Evaluation

and Policy Analysis, 11(3) 255-274.

Griffin, M. A., & Neal, A. (2000). Perceptions of safety at work: A framework for

linking safety climate to safety performance, knowledge, and motivation.

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 347-358.

Guldenmund, F.W., 2000. The nature of safety culture: a review of theory and

research. Safety Science 34(1–3), 215–257.

Haines, I., Victor Y., Merrheim, G., & Roy, M. (2001). Understanding reactions to

safety incentives. Journal of Safety Research, 32(1), 17-30.

Hall, D. W., & Hecht, A. W. (1979). Summary of the characteristics of the air safety

system reporting database. Ninth Quarterly Report NASA, TM 78608, 23–34.

Haslam, R. A. (2002). Targeting ergonomics interventions—learning from health

promotion, Applied Ergonomics, 33, 241–249.

Haslam, C., & Draper, E. S. (2000). Stage of change is associated with assessment of

the health risks of maternal smoking among pregnant women. Social Science

and Medicine, 51, 1189-1196.

Haworth, N., Greig, K., & Wishart, D. (2008). Improving fleet safety - Current

approaches and best practice guidelines. Sydney, Australia: Austroads.

Haworth, N., & Senserrick, T. (2003). Review of fleet safety and driver training:

Current practices and recommendations. Unpublished report prepared for the


224

Department of Treasury and Finance: Monash University Accident Research

Centre.

Haworth, N., Tingvall, C., & Kowadlo, N. (2000). Review of best practice road

safety initiatives in the corporate and/or business environment. Clayton,

Australia: Monash University Accident Research Centre.

Health and Safety Executive (2000). Driving at Work: Managing work-related road

safety. Sudbury, United Kingdom.

Hignett, S., & Wilson, J. R. (2004). The role for qualitative methodology in

ergonomics: a case study to explore theoretical issues. Theoretical issues in

Ergonomics Sciences 5(6), 473-493.

Hofmann, D. A., & Morgeson, F. P. (1999). Safety-related behavior as a social

exchange: the role of perceived organizational support and leader –member

exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(2), 286– 296.

Hopkins, A. (2000). Lessons from Longford: The Esso Gas Plant Explosion. Sydney:

CCH Australia.

IAEA. (1986). Summary report on the post-accident review meeting on the

Chernobyl accident (Safety Series 75-INSAG-4). Vienna: International

Safety Advisory Group.

Karsh, B. T., Moro, F. B., & Smith, M. J. (2001). The efficacy of workplace

ergonomic interventions to control musculoskeletal disorders: A critical

analysis of the peer-reviewed literature. Theoretical issues in Ergonomics

Sciences 2 (1), 23-96.

Kemeny, J. (1979). The need for change: The legacy of TMI. Report of the

President's Commission of the accident at Three Mile Island. Washington

DC: Government Printing Office.

Kim, Y. (2008). A stage-matched intervention for exercise behavior change based on

the Transtheoretical Model. Psychological Reports, 102(3), 939-950.

Kivimaki, K., Kalimo, R., & Salminen, S. (1995). Perceived nuclear risk,

organizational commitment, and appraisals of management: A study of

nuclear power plant personnel. Risk Analysis, 15(3), 391-396.


225

Kompier, M. A., Cooper, C. L., & Geurts, S. A. (2000). A multiple case study

approach to work stress prevention in Europe. European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology, 9(3), 371-400.

Latham, G., & Pinder, C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn

of the Twenty-first Century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1), 485-516.

Laforge, R., Maddock, J., & Rossi, J. (1998, March). Comparison of five stage

methods for alcohol abuse among college students. In proceedings of the

Society of Behavioral Medicine, New Orleans, LA, S170.

Laforge, R., Velicer, W., Richmond, R., & Owen, N. (1999). Stage distributions for

five health behaviors in the United States and Australia. Preventive Medicine,

28, 61-74.

Lajunen, T., & Summala, H. (2003). Can we trust self-reports of driving? Effects Of

impression management on driver behaviour questionnaire responses.

Transportation Research, Part F, 6, 97-107.

Lawton, R., Parker, D., Stradling, S., & Manstead, A. (1997). The role of affect in

predicting social behaviours: the vase of road traffic violations. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1258–1276.

Lee, T. (1998). Assessment of safety culture at a nuclear reprocessing plant. Work

and Stress, 12(3), 217-231.

Lindell, MK. (1994). Motivational and organizational factors affecting

implementation of worker safety training. Occupational Medicine, 9(2), 211-

240.

Llaneras, R., Swezey, R., Brock, J., Rogers, W., & Van Cott, H. (1998). Enhancing

the safe driving performance of older commercial vehicle drivers.

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 22, 217-245.

Ludwig, T. D. (2000). Intervening to improve the safety of delivery drivers: A

systematic behavioral approach. Journal of Organizational Behavior

Management, 19(4), 1-124.


226

Ludwig, T., & Geller, E. (1991). Improving the driving practices of pizza deliverers:

Response generalization and moderating effects of driving history. Journal of

Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 31-34.

Ludwig, T., & Geller, E. (1997). Managing injury control among professional pizza

deliverers: Effects of goal setting and response generalization. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 82, 253-261.

Ludwig, T., & Geller, E. (1999a). Behavioral impact of a corporate driving policy:

Undesirable side-effects reflect countercontrol. Journal of Organizational

Behavior Management, 19(2), 25-34.

Ludwig, T., & Geller, E. (1999b). Behavior change among agents of a community

safety program: Pizza deliverers advocate community safety belut use.

Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 19(2), 3-24.

Ludwig, T., Geller, E., & Clarke, S. (1999). Using publicly-displayed feedback to

increaseturn-signal use: Examing spread of effect to safe stops and safety belt

use. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 19(2), 3-24.

Ludwig, T., Biggs, J., Wagner, S., & Geller, E. (2001). Using public feedback and

competitive rewards to increase the safe driving of pizza deliverers. Journal

of Organizational Behavior Management, 21, 75-104.

Ludwig, T., & Geller, E. (1999). Behavior change among agents of a community

safety program: Pizza deliverers advocate community safety belut use.


Lutness, J. (1987). Measuring up: assessing safety with climate surveys.

Occupational Health and Safety, 56(2), 20-26.

Management Charter Initiative. (1997). Management standards. London:

Management Charter Initiative.

Manning v. Taroom Shire Council & Ors [1994] QCA 430.

McAfee, R. B., & Winn, A. R. (1989). The use of incentives/feedback to enhance

workplace safety: A critique of the literature. Journal of Safety Research,

20(1), 7-19.


227

McKillips, JL. (2003). Fleet Safety: Protecting drivers and the bottom line.

Professional Safety, 22-26.

Mearns, K.J., & Flin, R., 1999. Assessing the state of organizational safety – culture

or climate? Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality,

Social 18(1), 5–17.

Mearns, K., Flin, R., Gordon, R., & Fleming, M. (1998). Measuring safety climate on

offshore installations. Work and Stress, 12(3), 238-254.

Mearns, K., Whitaker, S. M., & Flin, R. (2003). Safety climate, safety management

practice and safety performance in offshore environments. Safety Science,

41(8), 641-680.

Mejza, M. C., Barnard, R. E., Corsi, T. M., & Keane, T. (2003). Driver Management

Practices of Motor Carriers with High Compliance and Safety Performance.

Transportation Journal, 42(4), 16-29.

Miles, M.N., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). An Expanded Sourcebook. Qualitative Data

Analysis, Sage, London.

Mullen, J. (2004). Investigating factors that influence individual safety behavior at

work. Journal of Safety Research, 35(3), 275-285.

Murray, W. (2007). Worldwide Occupational Road Safety (WORS) Review Project.

Murray, C. J., & Lopez, A.D. (1996). The global burden of disease: A comprehensive

assessment of mortality and disability from diseases, injuries and risk factors

in 1990 and projected to 2020. Boston, MA; Harvard School of Public

Health.

Murray, W., Newnam, S., Watson, B., Davey, J., & Schonfeld, C. (2003). Evaluating

and improving fleet safety in Australia. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Australian

Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB).

Neal, A., Griffin, M. A., & Hart, P. M. (2000). The impact of organizational climate

on safety climate and individual behaviour. Safety Science, 34, 99-109.

Nielsen, K. J., Rasmussen, K., Glasscock, D., & Spangenberg, S. (2008). Changes in

safety climate and accidents at two identical manufacturing plants. Safety

Science, 46(3), 440-449.


228

Newberry v. Suncorp [2006] 1 Qd.R. 519.

Newman, S., Griffin, M., & Mason, C. (2008). Safety in Work Vehicles: A

Multilevel Study Linking Safety Values and Individual Predictors to Work-

Related Driving Crashes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 632-644.

Newnam, S., Tay, R., & Mason, C. (2006). Using psychological frameworks to

inform the evaluation of fleet safety initiatives. Safety Science, 44(9), 809-

820.

Newnam, S., Watson, B., & Murray, W. (2004). Factors predicting intentions to

speed in a work and personal vehicle. Transportation Research Part F, 7,

287-300.

Olson, R., & Austin, J. (2001). Behavior-based safety and working alone: The effects

of a self-monitoring package on the safe performance of bus operators.


O’Toole, M. F. (1999). Successful safety committees: participation not legislation.

Journal of Safety Research, 30(1), 39–65.

O’Toole, M. (2002). The relationship between employees’ perceptions of safety and

organizational culture. Journal of Safety Research, 33(2) 231-243.

Ovretweit, J. (1998). Evaluating Health Interventions. Open University Press,

Buckingham.

Parker, S. K., Axtell, C. M., & Turner, N. (2001). Designing a safer workplace:

importance of job autonomy, communication quality, and supportive

supervisors. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(3), 211– 228.

Parker, D., McDonald, L., Rabbitt, P., & Sutcliffe, P. (2000). Elderly drivers and

their accidents: the aging driver questionnaire. Accident Analysis and

Prevention, 32, 751-759.

Parker, D., West, R. J., Stradling, S. G., & Manstead, A. R. (1995). Behavioural

characteristics and involvement in different types of traffic accident. Accident

Analysis and Prevention, 27(4), 571-581.

Pidgeon, N. F. (1991). Safety culture and risk management in organizations. Journal

of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22(1), 129– 140.


229

Pidgeon, N., & O'Leary, M. (2000). Man-made disasters: Why technology and

organizations (sometimes) fail. Safety Science, 34, 15-30.

Pendlebury, D. A. (1996). Which psychology papers, places and people have made a

mark? American Psychological Society Observer, 14-18.

Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1982). Transtheoretical therapy: Toward a

more integrative model of change. Psychotherapy: Theory Research and

Practice, 19, 276-288.

Prochaska, J. M. (2000). A transtheoretical model for assessing organizational

change: A study of family service agencies' movement to time-limited

therapy. Families in Society-the Journal of Contemporary Human Services,

81(1), 76-84.

Prochaska, J. O., DiClemente, C. C., & Norcross, J. C. (1992). In search of how

people change: Applications to addictive behaviors. American Psychologist,

47(9), 1102-1114.

Prochaska, J. M., Prochaska, J. O., & Levesque, D. A. (2001). A transtheoretical

approach to changing organizations. Administration and Policy in Mental

Health, 28(4), 247-261.

Prochaska, J. O., & Velicer, W. (1997). The transtheoretical model of health

behavior change. American Journal of Health Promotion, 12, 38-48.

Rakowski, W., Ehrich, B. E., Goldstein, M. G., Dube, C. E., Clark, M. A., Pearlman,

D. A., et al. (1997, April). A stage-matched intervention for screening

mammography. Paper presented at the 18th annual meeting of The Society of

Behavioral Medicine, San Francisco, CA.

Reason, J. (1990). Human Error. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Reason, J., Manstead, A., Stradling, S., Baxter, J., & Campbell, K. (1990). Errors and

violations: a real distinction? Ergonomics, 33, 1315-1332.

Reed G. R, Velicer W. F, & Prochaska J. O. (1997). What makes a good staging

algorithm: examples from regular exercise. American Journal of Health

Promotion, 12, 57–66.


230

Robinson, A. H., Norman, G. J., Sallis, J. F., Calfas, K. J., Rock, C. L., & Patrick, K.

(2008). Validating stage of change measures for physical activity and dietary

behaviors for overweight women. International Journal of Obesity, 32(7),

1137-1144.

Rodrigues, D., Targa, F., & Belzer, M. (2006). Pay incentives and truck driver

safety: A case study. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 59(2), 205-225.

Rossi, J. S., Blais, L. M., Redding, C. A., & Weinstock, M. A. (1995). Behavior

change for reducing sun exposure and ultraviolet light exposure: Implications

for interventions. Dermantologic Clinics, 13, 613-622.

Rowden, P. J., Watson, B. C. & Biggs, H. C. (2006) The Transfer of Stress from

Daily Hassles to the Driving Environment in a Fleet Sample. In Proceedings

Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference,

Gold Coast, Queensland.

Roy, M. (2003). Self-directed work teams and safety: A winning combination?

Safety Science, 41, 359-376.

Salminen, S. (2008). Two interventions for the prevention of work-related road

accidents. Safety Science Regulatory Issues, Safety Climate, Culture and

Management Papers selected from the third international conference

Working on Safety (WOS2006), September 12-15th, 2006, Zeewolde, The

Netherland, 46(3), 545-550.

Salminen, S., & Lahdeniemi E. (2002). Risk factors in work-related traffic.

Transportation Research Part F, Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol 5F,

No. 1, 77-86.

Sanders, M., Patterson, T., & Peay, J. (1976). The effect of organizational climate

and policy on coal mine safety (OFR 108-77): Bureau of Mines. US

Department of Interior.

Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45, 109-119.

Scheltema, K., Brost, S., Skager, G., & Roberts, D. (2002). Seat-belt use by trauma

center employees before and after a safety campaign. American Journal of

Health Behavior, 26(4), 278-283.


231

Seale, C., & Silverman, D. (1997). Ensuring rigour in qualitative research. European

Journal of Public Health, 7(4), 379–384.

Searle, B., & Bright, J. (2003). Helpful boss, healthy worker? The effects of

supervisory support on stress. Australian Journal of Psychology, 55, 61-61.

Shannon, H., Walters, V., Lewchuk, W., Richardson, J., Moran, L., Haines, T., et al.

(1996). Workplace organizational correlates of lost time accident rates in

manufacturing. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 29, 258-268.

Sheen, M. J. (1987). M.V. Herald of Free Enterprise. London: HMSO: Department

of Transport.

Silva, S., Lima, M. L., & Baptista, C. (2004) OSCI: an organisational and safety

climate inventory. Safety Science, 42(3), 205-220.

Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text

and interaction. London: Sage Publications.

Simard, M., & Marchand, A. (1995). A multilevel analysis of organisational factors

related to the taking of safety initiatives by work groups. Safety Science, 21,

113-129.

Simard, M., & Marchand, A. (1997). Workgroups' propensity to comply with safety

rules: The influence of micro-macro organisational factors. Ergonomics,

40(2), 127-188.

Simonds, R. H., & Shafai-Sharai, Y. (1977). Factors apparently affecting injury

frequency in eleven matched pairs of companies. Journal of Safety Research,

9(3), 120-127.

Smith, M., Cohen, H., Cohen, A., & Cleveland, R. (1978). Characteristics of

successful safety programs. Journal of Safety Research, 10(1), 5-15.

Sullman, M.J., Meadows, M., & Pajo, K.B. (2002). Aberrant driving behaviours

amongst New Zealand truck drivers. Transportation Research Part F, 5, 217-

232.

Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics. Needham Heights,

MA: Allyn and Bacon.


232

Takase, M., Maude, P., & Manias, E. (2005). Nurses’ job dissatisfaction and turnover

intention: Methodological myths and an alternative approach. Nursing &

Health Sciences, 7(3), 209-217.

Trevelyan, F. C., & Haslam, R. A. (2001). Musculoskeletal disorders in a handmade

brick manufacturing plant. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,

27, 43-55.

Urlings, I., Nijboer, I., & Dul, J. (1990). A method for changing the attitudes and

behaviour of management and employees to stimulate the implementation of

ergonomic improvement. Ergonomics, 33(5), 629-637.

Varonen, U., & Mattila, M. (2000). The safety climate and its relationship to safety

practices, safety of the work environment and occupational accidents in eight

wood-processing companies. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 21, 761-769.

Velicer, W. F, Prochaska, J. O., Fava, J. L., Norman, G. J., & Redding, C. A. (1998).

Smoking cessation and stress management: Applications of the

Transtheoretical Model of behavior change. Homeostasis, 38, 216-233.

Vredenburgh, A. G. (2002). Organizational safety: Which management practices are

most effective in reducing employee injury rates? Journal of Safety Research,

33, 259-276.

Walton, D. (1999). Examining the self-enhancement bias: professional truck drivers’

perceptions of speed, safety, skill and consideration. Transportation

Research. Part F, Traffic Psychology and Behavior, 2, 91– 113.

Watson, B.C. (1997) When common sense just won't do: Misconceptions about

changing the behaviour of road users. In: The 2nd International Conference

on Accident Investigation, Reconstruction, Interpretation and the Law, 20-23

October 1997, Brisbane, Queensland.

Weiner, B., Amick, H., & Lee, S. (2008). Conceptualization and Measurement of

Organizational Research and Other Fields Readiness for Change: A Review

of the Literature in Health Services. Medical Care Research Review, 65, 379-

436.


233

West, R. (2005). Time for a change: putting the Transtheoretical (stages of change)

model to rest. Addiction, 100, 1036-1039.

Westgaard, R., & Winkel, J. (1997). Ergonomic intervention research for improved

musculoskeletal disorders: a critical review. International Journal of

Industrial Ergonomics, 20, 463-500.

Wheatley, K. (1997). An overview of issues in work-related driving. 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, 15-

24.

White, J., & Murray, W. (2007). Occupational Road Safety Case Study: Rocke

Australia cuts risks, collisions and costs. Journal of the Australasian College

of Road Safety, 18(3), 28-29.

Whysall, Z., Haslam, C., & Haslam, R. (2006). Implementing health and safety

interventions in the workplace: An exploratory study. International Journal

of Industrial Ergonomics, 36(9), 809-818.

Wilde, G. J. (1994). Target risk: Dealing with the danger of death, disease and

damage in everyday decisions. Toronto: PDE Publications.

Wills, A. R., Watson, B., & Biggs, H. C. (2004, November). The relative influence of

fleet safety climate on work-related driver safety. Proceedings of the Road

Safety Research, Education and Policing Conference, Perth, Australia.

Wills, A. R., Watson, B., & Biggs, H. C. (2006) Comparing safety climate factors as

predictors of work-related driving behavior. Journal of Safety Research, 37,

375-383.

Winum, P., Ryterband, E., & Stephensen, P. (1997). Helping organizations change:

A model for guiding consultation. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice

and Research, 49, 6-16.

Wishart, D., Davey, J., & Freeman, J. (2007). A review of developing and

implementing Australian fleet safety interventions: A case study approach


234

update. Paper presented at the 3rd International Driver Behavior and Training

Conference, Dublin, Ireland.

Wishart, D., Freeman, J., & Davey, J. (2006) Utilising the Driver Behaviour

Questionnaire in an Organisational Fleet Setting: Are Modifications

Required. Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety 17(2), 31-38.

Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995

Wolf, R. L., Lepore, S. J., Vandergirift, J. L., Wetmore-Arkader, L., McGinty, E.,

Pietrzak, G., et al. (2008). Knowledge, barriers, and stage of change as

correlates of fruit and vegetable consumption among urban and mostly

immigrant black men. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 108(8),

1315-1322.

Wood, S., Barling, J., Lasaosa, A., & Parker, S. (2000). Organizational practices and

safety performance. Unpublished manuscript.

World Health Organization (2004). World report on road traffic injury prevention.

Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

Wouters, P. I., & Bos, J. M. (2000). Traffic accident reduction by monitoring driver

behaviour with in-car data recorders. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 32(5),

643-650.

Wright, C. (1986). Routine deaths: Fatal accidents in the oil industry. Sociological

Review, 34, 265-289.

Wright, E., & Haslam, R. (1999). Manual handling risks and controls in a soft drinks

distribution centre. Applied Ergonomics, 30, 311-318.

Xie, C., & Parker, D. (2002). A social psychological approach to driving violations

in two Chinese cities. Transportation Research Part F, 5, 293-308.

Zohar, D. (2000). A group level model of safety climate: testing the effect of group

climate on microaccidents in manufacturing jobs. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 85, 587-596.


235

Appendices

A Structured document summary - Review of published articles

pertaining to work-related road safety initiatives 1990-2008 ................ 237

B Industry project brief .............................................................................. 253

C Questionnaire ......................................................................................... 256

D Questionnaire project brief ..................................................................... 271

E Audit criteria .......................................................................................... 273

F Audit interview ....................................................................................... 285

G Audit results for each organisation ......................................................... 291

H Interview schedule .................................................................................. 315

I Interview consent form ........................................................................... 333

J Fleet safety climate items ....................................................................... 337

K Managers’ ratings of perceived competence required to manage

occupational road risks ............................................................................ 339


236


237

APPENDIX A

STRUCTURED DOCUMENT SUMMARY:

REVIEW OF PUBLISHED ARTICLES PERTAINING TO

WORK-RELATED ROAD SAEFTY INITIATIVES

1990-2008


238

Structured document summary: Review of published articles pertaining to work-related road safety initiatives

Source Initiatives Method Key Findings and Limitations

Bjerre, 2005 Alcolock device Questionnaire and breath

test records. Three Swedish

commercial transport

companies. Vehicles =

buses, trucks & taxis

Process evaluation indicated that at time of

installation, some drivers reported initial

suspicion & concerns of increased workload &

work disturbances. Three years post

installation the alcolocks were very well

accepted by most employers, employees &

passengers. Outcome evaluation indicated that

3.4 of 1000 starts were prevented by the

alcolocks after a BAC level exceeding the legal

limit had been measured. Some self-reports of

reduced vehicle damage post intervention. Data

analysed over 1 year during intervention

condition. Note: No follow up data outcome

data collected.

Bjerre &

Kostela,

2008

Alcolock device Questionnaire and breath

test records. Swedish

commercial transport

Questionnaire indicated reasons for installing =

improving quality of transport, inline with

alcohol policy, customer demand, known


239

companies including 88

companies with alcolocks

installed & 131 companies

without alcolocks installed.

Vehicles = buses, trucks,

taxis, heavy vehicles,

official cars, & others.

alcohol problems in workforce. Reasons

against installing = high cost, problems with

device, perceived not needed, potential

integrity problems. Breath test data where

available indicated that 1.9 of 1000 starts were

prevented by the alcolocks after a BAC level

exceeding the legal limit had been measured.

Highest rate of positive breath tests on

weekends. Data analysed over 2 years during

intervention condition. Note: No follow up

data collected.

Chiang,

Chan, Tseng,

& Wang,

2005

Gasoline vapour recovery

devices

Between groups, pre-post

observations of occupational

injury registry data in

relation to traffic commuting

incidents. Comparisons

made in a petrochemical

company with 20,000

employees in Taiwan. Pre-

For both exposed & non-exposed employees,

the overall cumulative injury rate decreased

between 1991 and 2000. However, in relation

to commuting home data, the cumulative injury

rate only decreased in the exposed employees.

The rate ratio of commuting incidents on the

way back home in the exposed group

decreased from 2.15 (during 1991-1992) to


240

intervention data collected

during 1991-1992. Post-

intervention data collected

1997-2000. Comparisons

made between employees

exposed and not exposed to

vapour.

0.53 (during 1997-2000).*

Dinges,

Maislin,

Brewster,

Krueger, &

Carroll, 2005

Fatigue Management

Technologies (FMT). One

initiative including 4 devices

that provided information on

driver sleep need, driver

drowsiness, lane tracking

performance & reducing work

involved in controlling vehicle

stability

With-in groups, crossover

design used. Volunteer truck

drivers from Canada (n=27)

& United States (n=12)

underwent 2 weeks of no

feedback (control condition)

followed by 2 weeks of

feedback (intervention

condition).

During night driving, FMT feedback reduced

driver drowsiness and lane tracking

variability.*

Authors noted that benefits of FMT devices

may come at cost of added attention &

compensatory behaviours to respond to

devices.

Participants agreed that commercial drivers

would benefit from fatigue management

devices. They preferred vehicle, rather than

driver, monitoring devices. Data analysed

during control condition and intervention


241

condition. Note: No follow up data collected.

Gregersen,

Brehmer, &

Moren, 1996

4 initiatives:

(1) Driver training (3 x 2.5

hour practical sessions).

(2) Group discussions (3 x 1

hour meetings in small groups

to discuss problems &

solutions).

(3) Campaigns (5 group

information sessions where

videos & pamphlets were

presented).

(4) Reward system (work

group was given money for

incident free driving).


observations with 4

experimental conditions & 1

control condition. 5 groups

of approximately 900 drivers

each. All drivers from a

Swedish telephone

company.

Accident risk (accidents in relation to mileage)

indicated that group discussions & driver

training, followed by the bonus gave the largest

effect.* No reduction found for campaign or

control group. Accident costs were reduced in

all experimental conditions but not the control

group. Greatest accident cost reduction

occurred in group discussion condition. Data

analysed 2 years pre-intervention & 2 years

post-intervention.

Llaneras,

Swezey,

Brock,

Rogers &

4 initiatives designed to target

ability deficiencies of older

commercial drivers:

(1) 3 in-vehicle compensatory

Between-groups design

used. 107 commercially

licensed American truck

drivers aged 50 years and

Drivers in the experimental condition as

compared to the control condition

demonstrated enhanced: overall driving

ability*; performance during curves*; visual


242

Van Cott,

1998

devices (auditory navigational

system, automatic

transmission, advanced

auditory warning system)

(2) 1 training program on

visual search & scanning

patterns.

above were assigned to

either the experimental

condition with all 4

initiatives or control

condition.

search monitoring*; detection of brake

malfunction*; ability to adjust vehicle speed to

external conditions, adherence to traffic

signals. Note: These effects were obtained in

simulated driving experiences. It is unclear

whether the effects would be replicated on road

or how long the effects would be maintained.

Ludwig,

Biggs,

Wagner, &

Geller, 2001

2 initiatives:

(1) Individual competition

with weekly rewards (driver

who performed target

behaviour most often received

reward, while others received

no reward. Reward was a

choice of a car maintenance

product or service e.g. Free oil

change or car wash).

(2) Public individual feedback

presented via weekly graphs


observations with of pizza

delivery drivers from 5

American national franchise

pizza stores & a sample of

civilian drivers. Stores A &

B served as the experimental

conditions receiving the

same intervention. The only

difference being that the

target behaviour in store A

was turn signal use & in

At store A, turn signal use rose from 35%

during baseline to 58% during intervention.

Turn signal use dropped slightly to 53% post

intervention. At store B, complete intersection

stopping increased from 14% during baseline

to 31% during intervention. Complete

intersection stopping dropped to 21% post

intervention. No considerable changes were

observed in turn signal use or complete

intersection stopping in the control groups.

Note: The article does not indicate if these

outcomes were significant.


243

displaying each drivers’ target

behaviours.

store B was complete

intersection stopping. Store

C, D & E and the civilian

driver group served as

controls.

Ludwig, &

Geller, 1991

4 initiatives:

(1) Awareness (20-25 minute

interactive group discussion)

(2) Signing of pledge cards

indicating individual

commitment to buckle-up

(3) Employee designed

buckle-up reminder signs

displayed in store

(4) Cooks reminded drivers to

buckle-up when leaving store


observations over 7 months

with multiple baseline

design. Pizza delivery

drivers from 3 American

national franchise pizza

stores. Experimental

condition applied in stores A

& B, store C used as a

control.

Safety-belt use at Stores A & B increased

respectively from baseline means of 41% &

14%, to 68% & 69% during the interventions.

After the reminder signs were removed safety

belt use remained high (mean usage being 69%

& 41% at stores A & B respectively) for at

least 3 months post-intervention. Interestingly,

improvements generalised to a non-targeted

similar safety behaviour. Mean turn signal use

in stores A & B rose by an average of 25%

during intervention relative to baseline. No

changes were observed in store C over the 7

month period. Note: The article does not

indicate if these outcomes were significant.


244

Ludwig, &

Geller, 1997

2 initiatives:

(1) Participative group goal

setting (during 45 minute

meeting) & feedback

(2) Assigned group goal

setting (video presented of

previous groups goals during

45 minute meeting) &

feedback


observations. Pizza delivery

drivers from 3 American

national franchise pizza

stores. Employees in store A

participated in goal setting.

Employees in store B were

assigned a goal. Both stores

A & B received same group

feedback. Store C served as

a control.

Complete stops at Stores A & B increased

respectively from baseline means of 54% &

45%, to 66% & 69% during the interventions.

Post-intervention, complete stops decreased

again in both stores (mean usage being 53% &

42% at stores A & B respectively).

Improvements generalised to a non-targeted

safety behaviour including turn-signal use &

use of seat-belts in employees at store A. For

employees in store B, no change was observed

in seat belt use & a slight decrease was

observed in turn signal use. The article does

not indicate if these outcomes were significant.

Ludwig, &

Geller, 1999a

Store managers created a

policy mandating turn-signal

use & attached it to drivers

pay checks over 2 pay periods

With-in groups, pre-post

observations over 13 weeks.

Pizza delivery drivers from 2


pizza stores. Experimental

condition applied in both

Slight increase observed concurrent with

policy onset. At store A, turn-signal use rose

from 70% during baseline to 84% measured at

2 weeks & 4 weeks during intervention. At

store B, turn-signal use rose from 46% during

baseline to 51% at 2 weeks into intervention &


245

stores. 59% at 4 weeks into intervention. It was

observed that the safest drivers were the first to

comply with the safe driving policy. Note: The

article does not indicate if these outcomes were

significant. It is also unclear whether the

effects would be maintained as no post-

intervention data was collected.

Ludwig, &

Geller,

1999b

Delivers enlisted to serve as

change agents of a community

safety belt campaign targeting

the community of the

surrounding town. Campaign

included radio and newspaper

promotions, discount on

pizzas if customers mentioned

buckle up reminder and safety

reminder cards posted on

pizza box tops.


observations. Pizza delivery

drivers from 2 different


pizza stores in the same

town. Employees in store A

participated in intervention.

Store B served as a control.

At store A, safety belt use rose 32% above

baseline to a mean of 75% during the

intervention. Seat belt use remained at his

higher level throughout follow up observations

conducted at 6 weeks after the intervention

finished and again at 17 weeks after the

intervention. With respect to generalisation

effects, it was observed that turn signal use

increased 68% over baseline during the

intervention and remained high. Note: The

article does not indicate if these outcomes were

significant.


246

Ludwig,

Geller, &

Clarke, 1999

2 initiatives:

(1) Group participative goal

setting & public

individualised feedback

(2) Assigned group goal

setting & public

individualised feedback


observations with multiple

baselines across 2 stores.

Time series design

containing 3 phases in

ABCA format. Pizza

delivery drivers from 5


pizza stores & a sample of

civilian drivers. Employees

in store A participated in

goal setting. Employees in

store B were assigned a goal.

Both stores A & B received

same group feedback. Store

C, D & E, plus the civilian

driver group served as

controls.

At store A, employee turn signal use increased

from a baseline mean of 6% to 21% during the

group feedback phase, to 32% when

individualised feedback was provided & then

returned to 21% during an 8 week post-

intervention follow-up phase. At store B,

employee turn signal use increased from a

baseline mean of 33% to 53% during the group

feedback phase, to 59% when individualised

feedback was provided & then returned to 36%

during the follow-up phase. No significant

changes were observed in any of the four

control groups. With respect to generalisation

effects, it was observed that no overall

differences in safety belt use occurred as a

result of the turn-signal intervention. An

increase in complete intersection stops was

observed in stores A & B as a result of the

turn-signal intervention.


247

Mejza,

Barnard,

Corsi, &

Keana, 2003

3 initiatives:

(1) Screening criteria applied

in driver hiring situations.

(2) Pre-service & in-service

driver training.

(3) Reward safe driving

performance.

Questionnaire administered

to 148 motor carriers

selected from a sample of

480 of the ‘Best safety

performers’ in the American

trucking industry.

Best safety performers engaged in the

following practices: (1) Top screening criteria

when hiring include lack of: alcohol or drug

related violations; speeding tickets; traffic

violations; chargeable crashes. Preference for:

honesty; self-discipline; self-motivation; &

patience.

(2) Require pre-service & in-service driver

training that builds competence in regulatory

compliance; driving ability; vehicle condition

assessment; operational & safety procedures;

& disciplinary policies. Vehicle-based and

classroom-based training & evaluations of

learning applied.

(3) Range of driver reinforcement methods

used. Most popular rewards include: verbal

praise; public recognition; congratulatory

letters; safety decorations; & cash. Note:

Implications about relationships considered


248

preliminary until prevalence of these practices

among less safe carriers is determined.

Newman,

Tay, &

Mason, 2006

2 initiatives:

(1) An information campaign

(monthly newsletter

containing articles on new

products, service and

maintenance, & driver

education).

(2) An incentive program that

calculates insurance premiums

based on Fleet claim history.

Questionnaire administered

to 24 Fleet Mangers in

Australian Government

agencies

Fleet managers’ questionnaire responses

indicated that they are more likely to have a

positive attitude change if they perceive the

newsletter to have intrinsic relevance. No

support was found for the utility of the

financial incentive or performance feedback in

positively changing fleet managers’ attitudes.

Olson, &

Austin, 2001

2 initiatives:

(1) Self-monitoring forms

(twice daily record estimated

percentage of time they

performed safe target

behaviours).

(2) Individual & group


observations with multiple

baseline design across

performance. 4 American

male bus drivers.

Resulted in a 12% increase in overall safe

performance for the group over baseline

performance. Dependent variable with greatest

improvement was coming to a complete stop

(21% improvement), followed by remaining

motionless for 2 seconds after

loading/unloading passengers (12%), mirror


249

performance feedback graphs

from researchers based on

self-monitoring data

checks (10%), bus stopping position (6%).


outcomes were significant. It is also unclear

whether the effects would be maintained as no

post-intervention data was collected.

Rodriguez,

Targa &

Belzer, 2006

Raised wages (an average

increase of 39%)


observations of conducted

for 12 months pre-

intervention & 12 months

post-intervention. Sample

was 2,368 truck drivers from

an American trucking &

logistics firm.

Driver crash involvement models found that as

pay rises, the crash probability becomes lower,

but at a decreasing rate. A 1% increase in pay

corresponded to a 1.3% decrease in crash risk.

Note: Other minor policy changes occurred

simultaneously with the pay rise including a

safety bonus for safety performance & greater

effort to return drivers to their homes after

shifts. The researchers report that they were not

able to control for any potential effects of these

other initiatives.

Salminen,

2008

2 separate studies:

(1) Social psychological

discussion (3 group sessions


observations. (1) 172

electricians from a Japanese

(1) During the 3 years after the discussion

process, traffic-related work incidents

decreased by 72% (at a time when overall


250

of 45-60 mins over 6 months.

1st session = brainstorm

problems, 2nd session =

suggest solutions, 3rd session

= commit to changes).

(2) 1 day course of

anticipatory driving (3 hours

lecture & 5 hours practical)

electrical company (drove

company vans & lorries).

(2)179 employees from a

separate electrical company

servicing rural areas.

occupational incidents rose by 15%)*

(2) Drivers reported satisfaction with course.

Improvement in audit rating of work-related

traffic risk management post training * Non-

significant increase in traffic incidents post

training.

Scheltema,

Brost,

Skager, &

Roberts,

2002

2 week intensive safety

campaign including posters,

distribution of fact sheets,

staff electronic mail, seat belt

promotion booth at annual

health fair, survey that

prompted employees to

consider why they did not

always wear seat belts,

requested employees to sign a

pledge to always wear seat


observations of experimental

group & control group.

Experimental group was

employees from an

American trauma center.

Control group was visitors to

the same American trauma

center.

Data analysed prior to intervention & post-

intervention (at conclusion of intervention &

follow-ups at 4 weeks & 12 weeks post-

intervention). In the experimental group, seat

belt use increased from 76% pre-intervention

to 82% immediately after intervention.* These

modest effects were not maintained. Seat belt

use reduced to 77% one month post-

intervention & 77% three months post-

intervention. In the control group, no

significant changes in seat belt use were


251

belt, letter sent from CEO to

employees urging seat belt

use, buckle up message on

paycheck stub, seat belt use

promoted on internal website.

observed between the pre-intervention and

post-intervention time points.

White &

Murray,

2007

3 initiatives:

(1) A commercial web based

risk management tool

designed to carry out risk

assessments and monitor

employee safety

(2) Policy development

(3) Communication

Case study on an Australian

pharmaceutical

manufacturer & distributor

with approximately 650 staff

Insurance data (analysed 1 year pre-

intervention & 1 year post-intervention)

indicated a reduction in all major crash types &

improved loss ration from 69% to 48%.


outcomes were significant. It is also unclear

what the effect was of each of the individual

initiatives.

Wouters &

Bos, 2000

In-car data recorders Between groups, pre-post

observations with matched

experimental and control

groups. 7 European fleets.

Drivers of 840 fleet vehicles

(including heavy trucks,

Data recorders and the feedback drivers were

given resulted in an average 20% reduction in

accident rate * Data was analysed 1 year pre-

intervention & 1 year post-intervention.

Accident rate was observed to increase in the

control group during the same time period.


252

medium trucks, coaches,

taxis and vans, company

cars)

Note: * = Significant at .05


253

APPENDIX B

INDUSTRY PROJECT BRIEF


254

INDUSTRY PROJECT BRIEF:

AN INVESTIGATION INTO HOW WORK-RELATED ROAD SAFETY

CAN BE ENHANCED

Project Background:

It has been estimated that the total cost of work related road incidents in Australia

may be in the range of $1 billion to $1.5 billion per annum (Wheatley, 1997) and that

the average total insurance cost of a fleet incident is approximately $28,000 with

costs incurred to both the company and society (Davey & Banks, 2005).

Additionally, motor vehicle incidents are over represented in Australian Workers

Compensation claims. More specifically with 67 deaths in 2003-2004, vehicle

incidents were the most common mechanism for Australian compensated fatalities,

representing 35 percent of all compensated deaths (ASCC, 2006). Research in the

domain of fleet and work-related road safety therefore has important applications

in the areas of both Road Safety and Occupational Health and Safety.

Project Aims:

This CARRS-Q PhD will contribute to the theoretical understanding of factors that

influence fleet safety and provide practical information that can be used by

practitioners to enhance safety within organisations. The central research question

underpinning this PhD program is: How can fleet safety be improved in an

organisation? To answer this question several sub questions will be explored

including:

1. What outcomes have been observed in previously investigated fleet safety

interventions?

2. Do organisational differences in readiness for change, fleet safety climate or

safety ownership relate to fleet safety practices or outcomes?


255

3. What facilitators and barriers are involved in implementing fleet safety

interventions?

Organisational Involvement:

This project is funded by the NRMA-ACT Road Safety Trust and is therefore

offered complimentary to your organisations. The research will comprise 3 phases.

1. Policy & practice review - The PhD scholar will meet with an organisational

representative to review the organisations’ approach to work related road

safety. The scholar will identify the level at which the organisation is

currently performing at in relation to elements that have been identified in the

literature and Queensland Transport’s Workplace Fleet Safety System as best

practice in fleet safety.

2. Interviews – The PhD scholar will meet with approximately 5 organisational

members to conduct interviews. The interviews will require a once off

commitment of approximately 1 hour from employees.

3. Questionnaires – Organisational members will be provided with an

opportunity to participate in an online survey. A copy of the questionnaire

will be provided to you in June to seek approval for its release in July.

In appreciation of your organisations support a report outlining the following will

be provided: Research findings, de-identified organisational comparisons, a review

of your organisations policies and practices in relation to best practice as outlined by

the QLD Transport Fleet Safety Audit, suggestions for improving work-related road

safety in your organisation.

Further information:

To discuss your organisations involvement in this research or if you would like more

information, please contact either:

PhD Scholar – Tamara Banks on 3138 4963 or email – [email protected]

Supervisor – Assoc Prof Jeremy Davey on 3138 4574 or email [email protected]


256


257

APPENDIX C

QUESTIONNAIRE


258

The Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety Queensland (CARRS-Q) at the Queensland University of Technology is constantly developing initiatives aimed at improving road safety. This profile forms part of a CARRS-Q PhD research project funded by the NRMA Road Safety Trust. The aim of the PhD is to enhance the safety of the Australian road-using community through improving work related road safety.

The following Work Related Road Safety Profile contains 3 sections:

Voice your thoughts on road safety initiatives Describe your work environment Test your driving behaviour

The Work Related Road Safety Profile should take about 10 minutes to complete and you will be provided with immediate personalised feedback. Your answers are strictly confidential and anonymous. If you require further information about the conduct of this survey please view our ethics statement.

Please take the time to complete the exercise and then click on the submit button.

Start Survey

CRICOS 00213J


259

Ethics Statement

This research on work-related road safety is conducted by PhD scholar Tamara Banks from the Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety Queensland (CARRS-Q) at the Queensland University of Technology

(QUT) and is funded by the NRMA-ACT Road Safety Trust.

Four Australian organisations, including yours, have agreed to participate in this research. This means that you now have the opportunity to express your beliefs about road safety in your organisation. The

information obtained from the work related road safety profile will be used to enhance the safety of the Australian road- using community through

improving work related road safety.

Your answers are anonymous and strictly confidential. You need not answer a question if you consider it too personal. The exercise should

take about 10 minutes to complete. Please note that should you have any questions or concerns about the conduct of the research, you may

contact either:

PhD scholar – Tamara Banks email: [email protected]

Supervisor - Assoc Prof Jeremy Davey email: [email protected]


260

Voice your thoughts on road safety initiatives!

Some strategies work well in one organisation but not in others. Please rate the following initiatives based on how effective you think they would be in improving road safety in your organisation

Awareness communication on work related road risks Practical driver skills training Provision of driver safety information Presenting genuine personal stories about serious vehicle crashes in your organisation

Presenting comparisons of vehicle incident statistics between Departments

Communicating cost benefits of road safety e.g. fuel efficiency

Safe Driving Goal Setting Signing a promise card commitment to drive safely Encouraging self monitoring of driving behaviour Development and promotion of work related road safety policy

Group discussions to identify safety problems and brainstorm solutions

Consideration of driving competency in staff selection process

Vehicle Inductions for all drivers


261

Assessing competency before being cleared to operate vehicles in difficult areas

Employee Input in selection of vehicles Documenting vehicle maintenance Making vehicle safety features standard e.g. passenger airbags

Making ‘lights on’ during driving a standard vehicle feature Making speed-limiters a standard vehicle feature Making cruise control a standard vehicle feature Monitor driver behaviour with in-car data recorders Advertising organisations phone number on vehicles for complaints and compliments

Marking low visibility walls and objects with hazard colours

Investigation of serious vehicle incidents

Including driving behaviour in performance assessments

Individual feedback on driving behaviour

Group feedback on driving behaviour

Individual incentives for safe driving

Group incentives for safe driving

Individual consequences for unsafe driving

Recording vehicle incidents and identifying high risk employees and vehicles

Targeting safety assistance to high risk drivers


262

Medical screening for problems that will affect driving e.g. vision

Journey planning to avoid high risk situations e.g. animals at dusk

Checking driver’s licences are current every 12 months

Continue


263

Describe your work environment! From the options below, please select the description that best describes you and your work environment.

How would you describe your approach to work- related road risks?

From what you’ve experienced, how would you describe your organisations approach to work- related road risks?

Pleases indicate how much you think the following practices apply to your organisation?

Safety rules relating to the use of motor vehicles are followed even when a job is rushed

Safety rules relating to the use of motor vehicles can be followed without conflicting with work practices

Safety rules relating to the use of motor vehicles are always practical

Employees are consulted for suggested vehicle/driver safety improvements

Safety problems and policies are openly discussed between employees and managers/supervisors


264

Changes in working procedures and their effects on safety are effectively communicated to workers

Employees are told when changes are made to the working environment such as vehicle, maintenance or garaging procedures

Employees are encouraged to support and look out for each other

Safety policies relating to the use of motor vehicles are effectively communicated to workers

There are enough employees/drivers to carry out the required work

There is sufficient ‘thinking time’ to enable employees to plan and carry out their work to an adequate standard

Changes in workload or problems that arise outside of employees control can be dealt with in a way that does not affect driver safety

Time schedules for completing work projects are realistic

Workload is reasonably balanced An effective documentation management system ensures the availability of safety procedures relating to the use of motor vehicles

Safety procedures relating to the use of motor vehicles are complete and comprehensive

Safety procedures relating to the use of motor vehicles match the way tasks are done in practice

Management are committed to motor vehicle safety Driver safety is seen as an important part of fleet management in this organisation

Management are committed to driver safety Driver safety is central to management’s values and philosophies

Good working relationships exist in this organisation

Employees trust management Management trust employees


265

Please indicate your beliefs about the following statements.

Work-related road safety is treated with the same level of commitment as other areas of Workplace Health and Safety in my organisation

I understand my organisations work related driving policies

The people predominantly responsible for road safety in my organisation carry the necessary authority and respect to achieve compliance

Responsibility for achieving work related road safety is shared across members in my organisation

The Workplace Health & Safety Act influences the way I drive

0 Continue


266

Even the best drivers can make mistakes, do foolish things, or bend the rules while driving. For each statement below, please indicate how often over the past 6 months has this kind of thing happened to you while driving for work purposes (including driving between work and home and completing work related tasks). Remember that your responses are anonymous, so please answer truthfully.

Attempt to overtake someone that you hadn’t noticed to be turning in front of you

Stay in a lane that you know will be closed ahead until the last minute before forcing your way into another lane

Miss ‘Stop’ or ‘Give Way’ signs Become angered by another driver and give chase

Pull out of an intersection so far that you disrupt the flow of traffic

Fail to notice that pedestrians are crossing in your path of traffic

Drive especially close to the car in front as a signal to its driver to go faster or get out of the way

Sound your horn to indicate your


267

annoyance to another driver Queuing to enter a main road, you pay such close attention to the main stream of traffic that you nearly hit the car in front

Cross an intersection knowing that the traffic lights are already changing to red

Whilst turning nearly hit a cyclist who has come up on your inside

Intentionally exceed the speed limit on a highway/freeway

Intentionally disregard the speed limit on a residential road

Fail to check your rear-view mirror before pulling out or changing lanes, etc

Become angered by a certain type of driver and indicate your hostility by whatever means you can

Become impatient with a slow driver ahead and overtake on the inside

When overtaking underestimate the speed of an oncoming vehicle

Race away from the traffic lights with the intention of beating the driver next to you

Skid while braking or cornering on a slippery road

Drive while under time pressure Find your attention being distracted from the road

Lose concentration while driving

Drive while tired Save time during the day by driving quicker between jobs

Have difficulty driving because of tiredness or fatigue


268

Not wear your seatbelt Find yourself nodding off while driving for work

Have one or two alcoholic drinks before driving for work

Do paperwork or other admin while driving

Remove your seatbelt for some reason while driving

Eat a meal while driving for work Drive home from work after a long day (after working 12 hours or more)

Find yourself driving on "autopilot" on the way home from work

Drive while using a "hand-held" mobile phone

Drive while using a "hands-free" mobile phone

The information below is not used for identification it is only used for statistics purposes.

What is your age? YEARS

Gender:

Approximately how many hours per week do you normally drive for work?

Approximately how many kilometres do you drive each year for work?

During the past 12 months how many crashes (any incident involving a motor vehicle that resulted in damage to a vehicle or other property, or


269

injury) have you been involved in while driving for work?

During the past 12 months on how many occasions have you lost any demerit points or been fined for any traffic offences while driving for work (please exclude parking offences)?

0 Submit


270


271

APPENDIX D

QUESTIONNAIRE PROJECT BRIEF


272

OPPORTUNITY TO

EXPRESS YOUR VIEWS ON

WORK-RELATED ROAD SAEFTY

Organisation A values the wellbeing of its employees and is committed to supporting research aimed at improving employee health and safety. Organisation A is participating in a research project on work-related road safety conducted by PhD scholar Tamara Banks from the Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety Queensland (CARRS-Q). The aim of this research is to enhance the safety of the Australian road-using community through improving work-related road safety. You are invited to participate in a brief survey containing 3 sections:

1. Voice your thoughts on road safety initiatives 2. Describe your work environment 3. Test your driving behaviour

The survey is confidential and should take about 15 minutes to complete. In recognition of your valuable support, you will obtain instant personalised feedback based on your responses. Please use the following link to access the survey: http://safetyprofile.carrsq.net.au/006 username: safetyprofile, password: stopsign As the same survey is being used by other organisations, the above password and username will be used to identify you as a survey respondent from Organisation A. Organisation A Management support this research and strongly encourage you to participate in this survey.


273

APPENDIX E

AUDIT CRITERIA


274

WORK-RELATED ROAD SAFETY

PRACTICES AND PROCESSES AUDIT

Note. 0 = No practice in place, 1 = Limited practice in place,

2 = Moving towards reduced harm, 3 = Moving towards zero harm

Work-Related Road Safety Policy

0 No policy

No process

1 Some inclusion of fleet safety and safe driving policy in company policies and objectives

2 Some safety areas included in policy documents

Communication of policies conducted on an adhoc basis

Some employee involvement in consultation

Work-related road safety responsibilities defined for some people

Reviews of the policy are conducted on an adhoc basis

The fleet safety policy is communicated to employees and, where appropriate, other visitors to the organisation

A process exists for distributing information on fleet safety issues and activities to all employees

3 The organisation has a work-related road safety policy that is signed and dated, contains clear fleet safety objectives

and a commitment to improving fleet safety performance


275

Consultation with appropriate employee representatives has been conducted by management in developing the

organisation’s fleet safety policy

The organisation has defined and documented the responsibilities, authority to act and reporting requirements of

fleet safety and has communicated these to all employees

Accountability for fleet safety performance within individual work areas is the responsibility of management

The organisation has avenues for discussing fleet safety issues in the workplace

A process exists for storing and updating fleet safety documents

The organisation’s fleet safety policy has the authorisation of an appropriate senior officer with executive

responsibility

Employees sign a copy of the fleet safety policy, confirming understanding and acceptance of the policy

A process exists for scheduled reviews of fleet safety policy objectives to assess effectiveness and appropriateness

Fleet safety issues are addressed in the workplace health and safety policy

The organisation allocates responsibility for disseminating up-to-date information and legislation on fleet safety

Implementing the fleet safety management system is the responsibility of a member of the organisation’s executive

or board

Crucial fleet safety documents are identified as such. Authorisation and the dates of document issue and

modifications appear in the document

Changes to fleet safety documents are identified in an attachment or in the document

In regards to consultations regarding changes to fleet safety documents, an appropriate system for monitoring


276

employee and management representatives exists, changes are recorded and the organisation has a procedure to

follow when considering changes

Managers discuss fleet safety in workplace health and safety meetings with staff

Employees are informed of the procedures for dealing with fleet safety issues and receive progress feedback

The distribution list for a document is clearly identified

Fleet safety management systems are regularly audited according to a set schedule to assess the match between

objectives and activities

Fleet safety management systems are independently audited by appropriately qualified persons

Results of fleet safety audits are formerly reported to relevant personnel, including management

Action is taken to correct deficits identified by audits and follow-up monitoring is conducted

The organisations annual report documents fleet safety performance

Senior management regularly reviews the effectiveness of the fleet safety management system in satisfying the

organisation’s stated fleet objectives

Obsolete fleet safety documents are withdrawn from use and archived for reference purposes

A procedure exists for altering and approving changes to fleet safety documents

The effectiveness of communicating the policy objectives is evaluated

Where appropriate, review outcomes are incorporated in organisational action planning

Checks are carried out to ensure that staff understand organisational fleet safety requirements

Records are kept on the distribution of fleet safety information within the organisation and to visitors


277

Driver Selection

1 Safe driving is not discussed in position descriptions or during selection process

2 Some consideration is given to safe driving records when hiring drivers

Applicants are requested to provide evidence of a current driver’s licence

3 Safe driving is mentioned in position descriptions for jobs involving significant driving tasks

A potential employee’s driving record is assessed for jobs involving significant driving risks

An applicant’s driving record is a factor in the hiring of new employees for jobs involving significant driving tasks

Applicant’s previous employers are contacted to verify driving record

4 Applicants for positions involving significant driving tasks are asked to provide details of crash records and traffic

infringements for the past three years

Applicants provide details of licences held, driver training courses attended or any awards received for their driving

A medical assessment is conducted to check an applicant’s fitness to operate the required vehicles

An applicant’s attitude to safety is addressed in the interview

An independent driving record assessment is made for jobs involving significant driving tasks


278

Driver Induction

1 Work-related road safety is not included in induction programs

2 Some inclusion of work-related road safety components in employee induction

3 The organisation ensures that all employees undergo an induction program containing a work-related road safety

component, including the organisation’s work-related road safety policy and procedures

Vehicles are assigned to new employees based on the needs of their job

New employees are trained to operate their vehicle before they drive it

4 A driver assessment program is carried out for new employees

The organisation has an induction program for supervisors which includes work-related road safety issues

Training and Education

0 Work-related road safety training is not conducted

Training needs have not been identified

1 Some safe driving information is provided to drivers

2 Training is conducted on an adhoc basis

Suitable and effective training facilities are available

Work-related road safety information is passed on to drivers

Documentation is kept on training undertaken


279

3 Before assigning a vehicle to an employee, organisations check whether the employee has driven that type of

vehicle before

The organisation ensures that quality training is provided by engaging suitably qualified and experienced trainers

The organisation conducts a training needs analysis to determine fleet safety training requirements

The organisation has a system to identify those drivers in need of further driver training and/or remediation

The organisation ensures that managers and supervisors are trained in their work-related road safety roles and

responsibilities

Organisations minimise risk by providing training to all new and transferred employees

The organisation has a policy on training and development

The organisation has a procedure to ensure that all authorised drivers (including non employees such as family

members) are educated in how to operate the vehicle safely and in accordance with approved organisational

procedures

Each training session is properly evaluated to gain a measure of performance in terms of participants’

comprehension and retention

Regular reviews of training program are conducted regarding the effectiveness and relevance of the program to the

organisation

Where driver training needs have been identified, employees undertake relevant practical driver training

A training plan has been developed to meet identified fleet safety training needs of all personnel in the organisation

The organisation considers the varying levels of ability (including literacy) of its employees and selects training to


280

suit

Legal obligations are articulated to the organisation’s executive and senior management through formal training

Refresher training is provided to all personnel as appropriate

Where an organisation or individual is legally required to hold specific qualifications or licences to undertake

duties, the organisation has a procedure for ensuring conformance with all training requirements

Incentives and Disincentives

0 Driving performance is not formally monitored

1 Some recognition of good/poor driving performance

2 Driving performance is monitored but incentives/disincentives are not offered

3 Employees receive feedback about their driving performance

A process exists by which members of the public can comment on the driving behaviour of employees

Organisations keep a record of traffic infringements incurred by employees

The organisation has an incentive scheme for safe driving

The organisation has a system for recognising good driving behaviour

Incentives are distributed to employees in front of the peers

The organisation has a system for recognising poor driving behaviour

Drivers are held accountable and organisations penalise poor drivers


281

Journey Planning and Management

0 No consideration of road safety when planning and conducting work

1 Some consideration of safe driving when planning and conducting driving

2 Sufficient consideration is given to adverse weather conditions when planning journeys

Steps are taken to stop employees from driving if they feel tired

A procedure is in place regarding the use of hands free communication devices and operating vehicles

Drivers are supported to make an overnight stay rather than complete a long road journey at the end of the working

day

3 Work schedules are realistic

Work related journeys are included in formal job/daily risk assessments

Route planning takes into account hazards e.g. overhead restrictions

Journey planning time takes into account road condition and allows for rest periods

Work is scheduled to avoid driving during periods of peak traffic flow

Work is scheduled to avoid driving during periods were sleep-related incidents are most likely to occur e.g. between

2-6am & 2-4pm

Where appropriate, long road journeys are eliminated or reduced by combing with other methods of transport

Where appropriate, tachometers are regularly checked to ensure that drivers are not cutting corners and putting

themselves and others at risk


282

Vehicle Selection and Maintenance

0 Safety features are not considered when purchasing vehicles

No formal process for conducting vehicle maintenance

1 Some consideration of safety in fleet selection and maintenance

Maintenance of vehicles occurs per manufacturers specifications

Fleet vehicles are registered annually (including CTP insurance)

2 Employees are consulted when determining fleet safety requirements for purchasing vehicles

Procedures are in place if there is a problem with a vehicle

Reporting of fleet vehicle inspections, maintenance, repairs and modification is maintained as a running record by

the organisation

The organisation ensures that maintenance, repairs and modifications to fleet vehicles are conducted by suitably

qualified individuals with appropriate expertise

The organisation ensures compliance with relevant legislation for all vehicle modifications

The organisation has a procedure for authorising the safety of vehicles being returned to drivers following repair or

modification

The organisation has a vehicle maintenance program

Drivers regularly inspect their vehicles

There is a procedure to follow if there is a problem with a vehicle

Relevant safety features are considered when selecting vehicles


283

3 The organisation obtains advice from a qualified fleet safety professional (in-house or external)

The withdrawal of unsafe vehicles from use may be initiated through a maintenance request procedure

Fuel consumption is monitored

Purchasing decisions are made in consultation with employees to determine the fleet safety requirements and

specifications where decisions may affect those employees

Goods and services purchased by the organisations (e.g. vehicles and modifications) are checked for compliance

with purchase order requirements and/or specifications

Tyre wear is monitored

Vehicle Incident Involvement

0 Incidents are reported for insurance claims only

Incident data is not collected

1 Major incidents are reported

Incidents involving personal injury are investigated

Fleet safety data is collected but not analysed on a regular basis

2 The organisation has a documented reporting system for all work-related road safety incidents


284

A procedure is in place to inform all employees of the process for reporting vehicle incidents

Regular reports on fleet safety performance are produced

Pertinent fleet safety data is collected and analysed

Incident and infringement data analyses are used to inform fleet safety strategies

3 Reported incidents are investigated in accordance with an organisational investigation procedure

Investigation reports contain recommendations and a timetable for implementing corrective actions

Employees within the organisation are responsible form implementing remedial measures and counteraction based

on investigation reports

Infringement data including vehicle speeding and red light infringements are collected and analysed

Vehicles and employees involved in multiple incidents or repeat infringement offences are identified and remedial

measures taken

Crash investigation training is provided to staff involved in the area

A crash documentation process is kept within all vehicles and is easily accessible to operators

Before implementing corrective measures, employees who may be affected by such action are consulted

A procedure exists for evaluating and monitoring remedial/corrective measures

Benchmarking data is collected


285

APPENDIX F

AUDIT INTERVIEW


286


PRACTICES AND PROCESSES

AUDIT INTERVIEW

Please describe any formal or informal procedures that your organisation has in place to ensure that drivers are: Competent and capable of doing their work in a way that is safe for them and other people?

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Properly trained?

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Sufficiently fit and healthy to drive safely and not put themselves or other drivers at risk?

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________


287

Please describe any formal or informal procedures that your organisation has in place to ensure that your vehicles are: Fit for the purpose for which they are used?

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Maintained in a safe and fit condition?

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Please describe any formal or informal procedures that your organisation has in place to ensure that vehicle journeys: Have thoroughly planned routes?

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Adhere to realistic work schedules?

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________


288

Do not put drivers at risk from fatigue caused by driving excessive distances without breaks?

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Have sufficient consideration given to adverse weather conditions when planning journeys?

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________


289

Please describe any formal or informal practices or processes that your organisation has in place in relation to the following eight areas of business operations.

Policy / Practice Description Documentation

Written Fleet Safety Policy in place that defines safe driving responsibilities & communicates to employees the organisations commitment to safe driving

Recruit & select drivers based on safe driving records & awareness of safety issues

Induct all new employees and supervisors using a formal induction program containing work related road safety & safe driving components

Conduct fleet safety training needs analyses & provide & evaluate any required fleet safety training and education


290

Policy / Practice Description Documentation

Recognise good & poor driving behaviours through an official scheme of incentives & disincentives

Eliminating or minimising exposure to road hazards when planning and managing road journeys

Select vehicles based on safety features and documenting maintenance procedures

Record & monitor individual driver, individual vehicle and overall fleet incident involvement & manage identified high risks


291


292

APPENDIX G

AUIT RESULTS FOR EACH ORGANISATION


293

Review of Work-related Road Safety Practices and Processes at Organisation A

Road Safety Practices and Processes

Description Rating


Organisation A has a Fleet Policy that states the organisation’s expectations of safe driving. This document addresses: Medical health and fitness to operate a vehicle, safety checks of vehicles, vehicle procurement, fittings and maintenance, eligibility criteria for vehicle use, licence to operate vehicle, suspension and cancellation of a licence, payment of driving fines and penalties, vehicle to be used for official purposes, parking, commuter use, approved passengers, pool vehicle use, private vehicle use, compliance with Traffic Acts, Legislation, Regulations and Laws, fuel cards, etag management, driver feedback, technical support, disposal, hire, claims management and vehicle third party personal insurance, engineering consultancy and fleet management reporting

The policy contains clear fleet safety objectives and a commitment to improving fleet safety performance

Is developed through consultation with appropriate employee representatives Is communicated to employees and, where appropriate, other visitors to the

organisation Defines and documents the accountabilities of Organisation A Fleet (e.g.

providing all fleet support processes, including operational and salary sacrifice ordering, fine management, registration, driver feedback, maintenance approval), each business unit (e.g. supporting and enforcing fleet related policies) and drivers (e.g. complete all required fleet training prior to operating any fleet vehicle)

Communicates that breaches of the Company Fleet Policy, may lead to Organisation A taking actions against the employee to recover incident costs

Moving towards zero harm


294

and disciplinary action under Organisation A’s Performance Improvement and Conduct Management (PICM) process. This disciplinary action may involve a verbal or written warning or termination of employment. The policy also states that if you break the law you may also be personally liable

Includes a process for distributing information on fleet safety issues and activities to all employees via the intranet. Although all interviewed employees were aware that there was a policy, most employees reported some uncertainty of the policy content

Ensures employees are informed of the procedures for dealing with fleet safety issues and that they receive progress feedback

Ensures that the distribution list for a document is clearly identified Ensures action is taken to correct deficits identified by audits and follow-up

monitoring is conducted Recruit & select drivers based on safe driving records & awareness of safety issues

The Department does not formally consider safe driving records and awareness of safety issues when recruiting and selecting employees who will drive as part of their work.

Position Descriptions do not state that a driver’s license is required. No mandatory health checks are requested to ensure that employees meet a

minimum standard of health to drive. However all drivers of Organisation A vehicles must answer the question “Do you consider yourself medically fit to drive?” every six months when they complete their vehicle safety check.

Limited practice in place

Induct all new employees & supervisors using a formal induction program containing work-related road safety & safe driving components

Employee inductions are conducted however work-related road safety is currently not formally included in the induction process

Organisation A Corporate Health Safety and Environment and Organisation A Fleet have internally developed an on-line driving safety course that outlines Organisation A’s Fleet Driver safety expectations and policy. The course is mandatory for all drivers of Organisation A vehicles, both Operational and Salary Sacrifice (novated lease drivers are welcome and encouraged to complete it as well). All employees’ (including contractors) must complete

Moving towards reduced harm


295

this course before driving a Organisation A vehicle. A CD version was also developed for people unable to access the on-line version of the course.

The AUSTROADS fact sheet “Driving and Your Health” is included with “drivers pack” when a staff member collects a new vehicle. The fact sheet has been distributed in Organisation A’s Fleet News and is available on the Organisation A Care Intranet page Driving Safety.

Organisation A is in the very early stages of exploring driver induction in new vehicles by a quick training session with a qualified instructor as they have identified a trend of increased incidents in new vehicles in the first 5,000-10,000 km.

Conduct fleet safety training needs analyses & provide & evaluate any required fleet safety training & education

Formal training needs analyses are not currently being conducted Instructor led training is currently limited to 4 wheel drive and trailer towing.

An external training provider experienced with fleet training delivers this training for Organisation A. Organisation A also provides online access to driver skills video’s provided by Lumley insurance and internal broad based video’s by Peter Brock on subjects such as vehicle loading, fatigue etc. A number of driving safety “briefs” are also available for use by team leaders and managers.

A steady flow of information is released to staff regarding driving safety initiatives, safe-driving behaviours, drivers health, driving safety related processes and vehicle safety related alerts. During peak incident periods such as holidays, additional safety related information is released targeted at main incident causes. In the past, driving safety posters have been mailed out for use at building sites as a reminder to staff of Organisation A's commitment to safe driving. A monthly internal fleet magazine link is emailed directly to all Organisation A drivers and this informative 10 page magazine covers the latest vehicle alerts, driver safety and general fleet related news items.

Information relating to driving safety including Vehicle Inspection Checklists, Vehicle Manufacturers Alerts & Bulletins, Health Advice as well as Driving



296

Safety Guides from a number of Government road safety departments is available for employees to access via the intranet.

The monthly Occupational Health and Safety meetings are utilised by drivers to discuss work-related road difficulties and to view work-related road safety videos

Provided training is not currently evaluated Recognise good & poor driving behaviours through an official scheme of incentives & disincentives

Organisation A operates a national driver feedback program. A sticker with the message “Organisation A Values Safe Driving Ph 1800 800 437” is placed on the rear of all Organisation A operational vehicles. The program has a supporting call centre that receives and distributes the compliments or complaints to senior Organisation A managers who investigate and report back on the outcome (and to the member of public where requested) and who use the process to either reward staff for good driving or in a constructive manner to coach and or better train staff who might be the subject of a complaint. Recently the introduction of GPS technology has helped with identifying whether drivers were actually in the area at the time of the complaint thus improving accuracy.

Salary sacrifice drivers contribute costs to a 2nd at-fault vehicle claim in a 12-month period. This process involves passing on information to business units so they can determine if this charge is appropriate for the driver concerned. If appropriate the charge is passed on to the driver as a deterrent to poor driving. This system is used as an alternative to 1800 stickers on salary sacrifice vehicles.

When Organisation A receives an infringement notice, the offending employee is sent a copy of the infringement notice with a letter concerning the type of infringement and the risks associated with that offence. Employees who receive several infringement notices may receive disciplinary action. Organisation A provides Managers with guidelines on how to run the interview with the employee, however the interview process adopted is not



297

enforced and is at the discretion of the individual Manager. Journey planning & management

Organisation A has a working in isolation process that involves employee pre-checks to ensure that the right equipment, amount of water and food is collected.

Organisation A has a working in isolation managing authority, where employees are tracked while operating in isolated areas. Employees phone a call centre and inform them of where they are going, what time they are leaving, the path they are taking, their estimated time of arrival and their accommodation provider. When employees arrive at their destination they ring in and log off with the authority at the end of the day. If employees fail to contact the call centre, Organisation A management is notified and a process is in place to begin searching for the employees.

Employees report that work schedules can be demanding, however Management report that work schedules are realistic and employee feelings of work pressure would be more self-imposed than applied from the organisation.

No formal process for managing risks including road and weather conditions, fatigue or traffic hazards associated with specific time periods. Some drivers report informally using risk management strategies including taking rest breaks and rotating drivers


Select vehicles based on safety features & document maintenance procedures

Organisation A Fleet, Vendor Management and the Organisation A Business Units work as a group to select the correct units for Organisation A staff. Vendor management and Fleet source appropriate vehicles in different type categories e.g. van, wagons & sedans. Business units then match the vehicle types available to the needs of Organisation A's business. On initial introduction of a new vehicle type, a risk assessment is carried out and the unit is usually tested and trialled to eliminate or mitigate any health and safety risks. Business units are involved in these vehicle assessments to ensure that a fit for purpose vehicle is sourced. Vehicle safety and safety options and environmental concerns are also part of the selection process.



298

A majority of Organisation A’s fleet has been fitted with hardwired daytime running lights, using engineering controls to ensure it operates only on the low beam headlights of the vehicle. The intended output of this feature is increased visibility of the Organisation A vehicle to other road users and a reduction in vehicle incidents. Vehicles with low order numbers are not fitted for commercial reasons but any high volume units are requested to have this technology fitted. Acceptance is widespread and drivers now ask about fitment prior to leasing a salary sacrifice vehicle.

Cargo barriers have been fitted to all applicable vehicles. The cargo barrier is a steel mesh barrier that separates the vehicle occupants from items stored in the cargo area of the vehicle. Cargo barriers are mandatory for Organisation A operational and salary sacrifice station wagons, and operational 4 wheel drive vehicles. This feature is intended to prevent injury from loads moving in the event of an incident.

Gas safes are provided in all operational vehicles that are required to transport compressed gas (e.g. Liquid Petroleum Gas for operation of gas torch). The provision of a gas safe allows the safe transportation of compressed gas. In the event that a gas leak occurs within the safe, the gas is safely dispersed to the outside of the vehicle.

Drivers of Organisation A vehicles are required to complete a checklist. This checklist identifies basic safety checks that must be completed to ensure that the vehicle is safe. In addition, the driver’s license details are also provided. Any actions identified on the checklist are then managed as appropriate. This checklist, and any identified issues are verified as a component of Organisation A’s internal and external health and safety audits. This check expands upon standard service checks to include additional safety aspects of operating Organisation A vehicles for example, loose items within the cabin. The self-check is in addition to the safety requirements stipulated in the manufacturer's handbook.


299

Organisation A's vehicle servicing requirements are monitored and recorded by Telefleet. Organisation A use a system called predictive servicing to monitor when a vehicle is due for service, prior to it becoming due using the FLEETMIS computer system. A monthly report is then sent to dealerships that call the driver and arrange a time for the servicing to occur prior to the due date. In this way, Organisation A vehicles are serviced when they are due, thus increasing the level of mechanical safety of the fleet.

Organisation A Fleet produce monthly exception reports via CDW (Corporate Data Warehouse) to Organisation A vehicle owners and users. An alert email is sent to any vehicle contact having an exception marked against their vehicle. These exceptions can include servicing not done, recalls and other important vehicle related safety items.

Organisation A Fleet Engineering group risk assesses fittings for large volume vehicle orders and follows up any problems that occur in service with these items. Assessment can be of a manufacturer’s specific product or assessment of multiple suppliers of items such as roof racks, towbars or bull bars. Single fittings orders are located in the area to allow monitoring of the suitability to Organisation A's business needs. Assessment of additional fittings reduces the risk of injury or damage from poorly matched or designed add on equipment.

Fleet vehicles are registered annually (including CTP insurance) Record & monitor individual driver, individual vehicle & overall fleet incident involvement & manage identified high risks

Work related driving incidents are reported via an online form. Incidents are investigated and measures are taken to address the cause and prevent reoccurrence. Incident information then flows into Organisation A’s claims management provider and Health Safety and Environment incident reporting areas for monitoring and reporting purposes.

The one up manager of a driver involved in an incident is automatically notified by email and prompted to conduct an interview with the driver to establish causal factors. The form used in this process guides the manager in discussing the incident with the driver and looking at measures that can be



300

taken, or information that can be supplied, to reduce the possibility of a reoccurrence of the incident.

Organisation A has an online infringement and fine system that captures driver infringements against each driver for common items such as red light, speeding and failure to wear a seatbelt. This data is available to Organisation A’s reporting systems for use in reducing poor driver behaviour. The system was implemented in 2005 and is currently building up a profile of Organisation A driver’s infringement behaviour. This information is used by business units to identify staff who may require training or internal discussion regarding driver behaviour.

Organisation A's vehicle claims manager provides data reports to Fleet and Health and Safety business groups on vehicle fleet incident numbers, incident types, incident costs, time of incident, age of driver, fault type, type of vehicle, incidents per 100km and various other parameters. This data is used by the business to monitor vehicle incident trends and to target driving safety information to specific key areas and employee’s.

Organisation A has linked several databases including infringement data, 1800 compliments/complaints data and incident data to develop a reporting tool with the potential to provide a full history of a driver’s on road behaviour whilst driving a Organisation A vehicle. This tool can be used to manage driver safety at a business unit level or whenever a driver is involved in an incident. Reports can be run on a person, a business unit group or by state identifying by the key parameters the best or worst drivers in any measured category.

Organisation A is currently trialling the CARRS-Q driver profile tool. This tool gathers information about employees’ driving attitudes and behaviours. It also provides instant personalised feedback to employees upon completion of their profile to improve their road safety awareness and driving behaviours.

Organisation A has set two driving safety targets. These are for business units


301

to achieve an incident claim rate of 20% and a driver at fault rate of 50%. These targets are included in the business unit Health, Safety and Environment plans and are benchmarked via online reporting available to managers.


302

Review of Work-related Road Safety Practices and Processes at Organisation B


Description Rating


The organisation has a vehicle use policy. The policy has an emphasis on defining eligibility criteria for vehicle use and is supported by a Motor Vehicle Use Standard guideline that includes aspects of work-related road safety.

The Chief Executive Officer is documented as the policy owner on the Motor Vehicle Use policy.

The Motor Vehicle Use policy states that vehicle use categories have been designed to improve safety, however the document fails to contain work-related road safety objectives or to state the organisation’s commitment to improving road safety.

The Motor Vehicle Use guideline states the most recent revision date and is updated on a regular basis determined by its need for revision. The Motor Vehicle Use policy is not dated.

It is reported that the policy has been developed in consultation with appropriate employee representatives

The organisation has avenues for discussing work-related road safety issues such as team meetings

Accountability and authority for work-related road safety performance within individual work areas is the responsibility of management. However this is not formally articulated in position descriptions and distributed as a list to employees of personnel with work-related road safety responsibilities. Vehicle safety performance is reported for individual work areas and associated costs are charged back to individual work areas.

A process exists for distributing information on fleet safety issues to all



303

employees. A process exists for storing and updating safety documents. Both the Motor

Vehicle Use policy and guideline are available to all employees via the intranet. Some employees report uncertainty about its content and where to access it.

The Motor Vehicle Use standard states that: vehicle use is restricted to the approved driver and their spouse/partner. In

the case of spouses, use is limited to vehicles that are deemed suitable, e.g. not fitted with boxes/ladders.

a no smoking policy applies within the vehicle vehicles are not permitted to be used for sporting or competitive events, in

4WD recreational parks or in extreme off-road environments under normal circumstances, employees are not permitted to pick up

‘hitch-hikers’. No constraints are imposed on the carrying of passengers within legal limits.

all employees are required to maintain the vehicle in accordance with the manufacturers recommendations and to obey the road rules, including the securing of loads

all workplace incidents that cause or have the potential to cause injury or illness or damage to plant shall be managed in accordance with the organisations policy for logging and tracking incidents. Employees must notify Managers immediately of serious incidents.

the driver is responsible for ensuring that they hold a valid and current driver’s licence which is free from disqualifying endorsements. The driver has the duty to immediately advise their Manager and Human Resource department of any disqualification from driving incurred.

Recruit & select drivers based on safe driving records & awareness of

Licence checks are being conducted in some areas however this is not occurring across the organisation and there is not a formal process.



304

safety issues Medical assessments are not conducted Discussion about driving record during reference checks for applicants whose

job involves substantial driving duties is not occurring across the organisation as a formal process.


The organisation ensures that all employees undergo an induction program which includes a work-related road safety component which includes identifying high risk vehicle incident categories. However not all employees receive induction content including the organisation’s vehicle safety policy, maintenance procedures, what to do in the event of an incident and expected driver behaviour.

It was reported that vehicles are assigned to new employees based on the needs of their job

A formal induction process does not exist where new employees are trained to operate their vehicle before they drive it. Drivers report vehicle ‘hand-over’ instances of just being handed the keys and told where the vehicle is currently parked.



Formal training needs analyses are not currently being conducted at a whole of business level.

The Motor Vehicle Use standard states that where multiple infringement offences occur the driver will be required to undertake a competence based driver training course, however infringement notices do not currently appear to be formally monitored.

4WD training is being delivered adhoc. Some departments provide 4WD training to staff that do not drive a 4WD while other departments do not provide training to any staff including those who drive a 4WD.

At a whole of business level, a driver education program including online road safety information and hands on training is being piloted with drivers who have been identified to be at high risk based on their high exposure to driving

Standardised work-related road safety information is being provided across



305

the organisation via log on messages to all employees who operate computers. Not all drivers have access to computers.

Documentation is kept on training undertaken. Provided training is not currently evaluated.


The Motor Vehicle Use standard states that vehicle use which departs from the standards will be managed in accordance with the organisation’s Performance Management Process. This may include drivers funding payment of infringement notices, the General Manager meeting with drivers who are responsible for incidents to discuss their performance and reinforce the organisation’s safe driving message and disciplinary action including the withdrawal of driving use privileges. If it is a fundamental requirement of the position to drive a company vehicle, loss of licence may result in reallocation of duties or dismissal.

Implementation of disciplinary action is adhoc. If drivers receive an infringement notice for exceeding the speed limit they are formally counselled in some departments and not in others.

The organisation does not have process for recognising good driving behaviour

Driving performance is not formally monitored or linked to performance reviews.


Journey planning & management

The Motor Vehicle Use standard states that: drivers are responsible for completing pre-operation checklists for vehicle

use and complying with the managing fatigue risk work instruction document

drivers must ensure that vehicles carry suitable first aid kits and torches at all times

unless a hands-free mobile phone kit is fitted to the vehicle, all use of mobile phones whilst driving is prohibited. It is recommended that even when a hands-free kit is fitted that, the vehicle is stationary and the engine



306

turned off when having a telephone conversation when driving whilst using a mobile radio steps should be taken to increase

safety such as getting passengers to operate the device, keeping conversations brief, pulling over before responding to a call

Journey planning takes into account road condition Work-related journeys are often not included in the job risk assessments

conducted by drivers When scheduling work, little consideration is given to avoid driving during

peak traffic flows or during periods were sleep related incidents are most likely to occur

Drivers are supported to make an overnight stay rather than complete a long road journey at the end of the working day

Some departments encourage the use of alternative methods of transport to reduce long road journeys.


Vehicles are selected based on safety features. Standard appointments in company cars include dual SRS Air bags, ABS braking, Cargo barriers in station wagons, cruise control and hands free mobile phone kits.

Some consultation is made with employees to determine fleet safety requirements. Business units submit a form to Fleet requesting a vehicle with specific capabilities and Fleet provides a choice of approved company vehicles meeting the requested capabilities.

Fleet vehicles are registered and insured annually (including CTP and comprehensive insurance)

In regards to maintenance, the organisation has a vehicle maintenance program that notifies employees when maintenance is due, maintenance occurs per manufacturers specification, vehicle inspections, maintenance, repairs and modification are recorded and maintenance/ modifications to fleet vehicles are conducted by suitably qualified individuals with appropriate expertise



307

The Motor Vehicle Use Standard states that modifications of standard features require the approval of the business unit manager, fleet manager and lease service provider. The organisation ensures compliance with relevant legislation for all vehicle modifications however some vehicle modifications are not approved by the vehicle manufacturer.

The organisation has a set procedure to follow in the event of a breakdown or incident, however some drivers report being unaware of this process

The organisation does not have formal procedures for authorising the safety of vehicles being returned to drivers following repair or modification or for resolving an identified vehicle problem

Record & monitor individual driver, individual vehicle & overall fleet incident involvement & manage identified high risks

The organisation has a documented reporting system for all fleet safety incidents and a procedure in place to inform all employees of the process for reporting fleet safety incidents

The Motor Vehicle Use standard states that infringement notices are to be recorded and managed in the organisations incident database however in practice, it appears that recording of infringement incidents is occurring adhoc

Pertinent road safety data is collected and analysed although there is a large amount of missing data

Serious incidents are formally investigated in accordance with an organisational investigation process and where appropriate, external consultants specialising in road safety are contracted

Investigation reports contain recommendations, although these are sometimes toned down so as not to rock the boat, and identifies persons responsible for implementing any actions required

Employees within the organisation are responsible for implementing remedial measures based on investigation reports although it appeared that actions were not always implemented

Informal crash investigation training is provided to staff involved in incident investigation



308

Monthly reports on safety performance including vehicle incidents are produced however these are often not circulated or acted upon

The organisation does not formally monitor individual drivers frequency of incidents or infringements to identify high risks

The organisation has investigated a vehicle model identified through incident data to be high risk and taken some minor steps towards reducing the risk


309

Review of Work-related Road Safety Practices and Processes at Organisation C


Description Rating


The Department has a Motor Vehicle – Authority to Use and Responsibility policy and procedure. This document addresses: License to drive, Suspension and Cancellation of a Licence, Payment of Driver's Licence / Permit Fees, Vehicle to be Used for Official Purposes, Ad hoc use of a Departmental vehicle by a Carer, Long term allocation of a Departmental vehicle to a Carer, Carriage of Passengers (Private Passengers – excluding children in care and carers), Use of Private Vehicles, Compliance with Traffic Acts, Legislation, Regulations and Laws, Infringement Notices (Speeding & Red Light Camera and Parking Offences), Drugs and Alcohol, Use of Mobile / Satellite Telephones, Ignition Keys (Vehicle Security), Seat Belts, Carrying a Load, and Booking of Vehicles at Head Office

The Motor Vehicle – Authority to Use and Responsibility policy is not disseminated and enforced

A fleet safety policy and procedure practice statement is being drafted to address: driving risk, courteous and safe driving behaviours, vehicle induction and familiarisation, operating conditions, seatbelts and other safety features, speed, journey planning and fatigue management, impairment, licensing and fitness to drive, mobile phones and other distractions, incident reporting, driver performance, equipment loading, security, compliance with other government policy, and shared safety responsibilities



The Department does not formally consider safe driving records and awareness of safety issues when recruiting and selecting employees who will drive as part of their work. Position Descriptions do not state that a driver’s license is required and no mandatory health checks are requested to ensure that employees meet a minimum standard of health to drive

Practice not in place


310


Formal employee inductions are conducted however work-related road safety is not currently included in the induction process

Although the Policy states that ‘Prior to any departmental employee or non-employee (including carers) being authorised to drive a departmental vehicle, the responsible Manager is to ensure that the driver is appropriately licensed, few licence checks are being conducted and these are occurring on an adhoc basis



Formal training needs analyses are not currently being conducted Some 4WD training is being provided on an ad hoc basis Provided training is not currently evaluated



Driving performance is not formally recognised Practice not in place


Some regions encourage employees to make an overnight stay or fly rather than complete a long road journey at the end of the working day

Work schedules are often demanding with self-imposed work pressure No formal process for managing risks including road and weather conditions,

fatigue or traffic hazards associated with specific time periods. Some drivers report informally using risk management strategies including taking rest breaks and rotating drivers

Journey planning and fatigue management procedures are being drafted for implementation



311


Vehicles are selected based on safety features. ABS brakes and airbags are mandatory features. Electronic Stability Control is preferred but not mandatory

Employees report having little input in the selection of fleet vehicles to meet their needs

Fleet vehicles are registered annually (including CTP insurance) Government policy and insurance agreement state that vehicles are

maintained in accordance with vehicle specifications however employees report that there is no organisational compliance regime or routine inspections to enforce maintenance

Maintenance history documented in central database The organisation did not appear to have formal procedures for authorising the

safety of vehicles being returned to drivers following repair or modification, ensuring that drivers regularly inspect their vehicles or for resolving an identified vehicle problem



An external organisation managers the Departments database of vehicle claims. The data is recorded primarily for insurance claims and includes the following fields: Incident date, Accident Type, Number of Vehicles involved, Apparent Fault, Cost of Property Damage, Driver Age and Gender, Vehicle Make and Model, Post Code where incident occurred, Road Surface where occurred and the status of the Trip (e.g. commuting to work). Currently the external organisation will only analyse agency crash data and send to agencies if requested. Organisation C is not currently requesting this information

All vehicles and drivers are monitored at a whole of Government and agency level. Certain high risk drivers are identified on a case by case basis. It was noted that there was the potential to report high risk drivers to the Department to allow them to better manage their risk. Organisation C does not appear to be currently requesting this information

The organisation does not appear to have a documented reporting system for



312

all fleet safety incidents or a procedure in place to inform all employees of the process for reporting fleet safety incidents

The organisation does not appear to have a process for investigating serious incidents


313

Review of Work-related Road Safety Practices and Processes at Organisation D


Description Rating


The organisation has a safety policy but it currently does not include work-related road safety.

Practice not in place


Licence checks are being conducted in some areas however this is not occurring across the organisation and is not a formal process.



Aspects of work-related road safety are covered for some employees. For example in some departments, some employees who operate large 8-seater vehicles attend 4WD training and road safety classes as part of their induction.

At a whole of business level, formal employee inductions are conducted however work-related road safety is not currently included in the induction process.


Conduct fleet safety training needs analyses & provide & evaluate any required fleet safety

Formal training needs analyses are not currently being conducted. Informal training needs analyses are being conducted in some departments.

For example in some departments employees are identified as needing road



314

training & education

safety training based on the frequency or severity of vehicle incidents they have been involved in.

Some departments provide 4WD and road safety training. At a whole of business level, road safety information is conveyed on an adhoc

basis with no standardised work related road safety information/training being provided across the organisation.

Provided training is not currently evaluated. Recognise good & poor driving behaviours through an official scheme of incentives & disincentives

Driving performance is not formally monitored. Practice not in place


GPS devices have been purchased to assist trip planners Some departments encourage employees to make an overnight stay rather than

complete a long road journey at the end of the working day Work schedules are often demanding with self-imposed work pressure. No formal process for managing risks including road and weather conditions,

fatigue or traffic hazards associated with specific time periods.



Vehicles are selected based on safety features, consideration of ANCAP results and consultation with employees to determine fleet safety requirements

Fleet vehicles are registered annually (including CTP insurance) In regards to maintenance, the organisation has a vehicle maintenance program

that notifies employees when maintenance is due, maintenance occurs per manufacturers specification, vehicle inspections, maintenance, repairs and modifications are recorded and maintenance/modifications to fleet vehicles are conducted by suitably qualified individuals with appropriate expertise

The organisation ensures compliance with relevant legislation for all vehicle modifications



315

The organisation does not have formal procedures for authorising the safety of vehicles being returned to drivers following repair or modification, ensuring that drivers regularly inspect their vehicles or for resolving an identified vehicle problem


The organisation has a database of vehicle claims that is recorded primarily for insurance claims. It includes the following fields: Incident date, Policy Number, Registration, Division, Service, Driver’s Name, Details of Claim, Driver at Fault, Amount Claimed, Excess Paid, Date Finalised, Action Taken, Recovery, Third Party Costs, Date Reported, Paid to Date).

Other data that could be used to identify high risks is collected on the claims forms but not recorded including: Road and weather condition, had the driver consumed alcohol or drugs within 12hrs prior.

The organisation does not have a documented reporting system for all fleet safety incidents or a procedure in place to inform all employees of the process for reporting fleet safety incidents

No serious incidents have occurred to date No process has been developed for investigating serious incidents. The organisation does not formally monitor individual drivers or vehicles to

identify high risks The organisation recently analysed incident data and identified reversing as a

high risk area in a presentation to organisational members.



316

APPENDIX H

INTERVIEW SCHEDULE


317


MANAGERS INTERVIEW

Demographic details:

Gender? Male/Female

Age? <20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 >61

What is your role within the organisation? __________________________

How long have you been in this role with this organisation? _____________

What industry does your organisation operate in? ______________________

Approx. how many staff are employed in your organisation? _____________

Approx. how many vehicles are owned or leased by your organisation? _____

Stages of Change:

1. Are you aware of any work-related road safety risk? No / Yes

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

2. Do you believe that other managers and employees within your company

share similar beliefs in relation to work related road safety? No / Yes

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________


318

3. Are you planning to take any action to reduce work-related road safety risk in

the next 6 months? No / Yes

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

4. Do you have any definite plans to reduce work-related road safety risk in the

next month? What? No / Yes

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

5. Have you already taken any action to reduce work-related road safety risk?

What & when? No / Yes

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

6. Are you taking any actions to maintain work-related road safety within your

company? What? No / Yes

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

7. Is your company planning to take any action that you know of to reduce

work-related road safety risk? What? No / Yes

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________


319

8. Is your company already engaging in any action that you know of to reduce

work-related road safety within your company? What? No / Yes

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

9. What do you think motivated your company to think about managing or to

begin managing work-related road safety?

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

Potential Facilitators and Barriers of Change:

1. What do you think are the main barriers or difficulties experienced when

making, or attempting to make, safety changes in your organisation?

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

2. If applicable, how have (or how could) these barriers be overcome?

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________


320

3. What do you think are the main facilitators or things that have helped in


______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

4. What have been the outcomes (actual and perceived) of the safety changes


______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

5. What do you think were the main reasons for this outcome?

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

Fleet Safety Climate

1. How would you describe Management’s commitment, or lack of

commitment, to driver safety within your company?

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

2. How would you describe the level of trust between employees and

management within your company in relation to work-related road safety?

_____________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________


321

3. How would you describe communication within your company in relation to

work-related road safety?

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

4. How would you describe the level of work demands within your

organisation?

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

5. How would you describe the level of appropriateness of safety policies and

procedures within your organisation?

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

6. Is work-related road safety treated with the same level of commitment as

other areas of WH&S in your company?

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________


322

Safety ownership: The following tasks have been identified as important to overall OH&S performance in the construction industry. I am interested in identifying which of these tasks, if any, are relevant to work related road safety. For each of the Safety Management Tasks listed below, please indicate the minimum (rather than best practice) level of competency required within your organisation to manage work related road safety. Competency required key: 1= Full understanding required,

2 = Working knowledge & awareness required, 3 = Not required at the minimal level

Task Category Safety Management Tasks Competency Required

Proactively identify, assess and determine appropriate controls for OH&S risks

Carry out project risk assessments Undertake & design safety reviews for construction, operability & maintenance

Undertake formal OH&S review of tenders Develop project safety management plans Develop OH&S procedures and instructions Carry out workplace and task hazard identification, risk assessments and control

Carry out basic competency assessments Effectively communicate & consult with stakeholders regarding OH&S risks

Provide general OH&S information and provide basic OH&S instruction

Deliver Company Induction Deliver site/workplace specific induction Facilitate group/work team OH&S discussions & meetings

Initiate & coordinate OH&S awareness activities or presentations

Plan & deliver toolbox talks Give formal OH&S presentations to management

Participate in site safety committee Consult on and resolve OH&S issues Speak to Senior management about OH&S issues in the workplace

Challenge unsafe behaviour/attitude at any level when encountered

Make site visits where a site worker is spoken to directly about OH&S in the workplace

Recognise & reward people who have positively impacted on OH&S

Deliver OH&S training in the workplace


323

Monitor, report, review & evaluate safety program effectiveness

Carry out formal incident investigations Carry out basic project OH&S system element audits

Carry out formal inspections of workplace & work tasks

Research & prepare reports on OH&S issues, performance & improvement strategies

Engage with sub-contractors in OH&S performance management

Monitor sub-contractor activities Identify & include suitable OH&S requirements into sub-contractor packages

Evaluate OH&S performance of sub-contractors

Identify & implement relevant components of the OH&S & workers’ compensation management system

Understand & apply general legislative OH&S requirements

Understand & apply detailed OH&S legislative requirements

Apply full working knowledge of the organisation’s safety management system

Understand & apply workers’ compensation & case management principles

Assist with return to work & rehabilitation processes

Understand & apply general regulatory workers’ compensation requirements

Provide leadership & manage staff & sub-contractor OH&S performance

Mentor staff and follow their progress Conduct employee performance appraisals Work with staff to solve safety problems Discipline staff for poor OH&S behaviour/attitude

Recruit & select new staff Administer 1st Aid to injured persons


324

I’m also interested in exploring who (if anyone) is accepting responsibility for

actioning these tasks in relation to OH&S and work-related road safety.

Task Organisational Safety Work Road Safety

Proactively identifying,

assessing and determining

appropriate controls for

OHS hazards and risks

Effectively communicating

and consulting with

stakeholders regarding

OHS risks

Monitoring, reporting,

reviewing and evaluating

safety program

effectiveness

Engaging with

subcontractors in OHS

performance management

Identifying and


325

implementing relevant

components of the OHS

and workers compensation

management system

Understanding and

applying workers

compensation and case

management principles

Providing leadership and

management to staff and


performance


326

What is the position of the person primarily responsible for managing work-

related road safety in your organisation?

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Finally, how could work-related road safety be improved in your organisation?

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Do you have any additional comments?

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________


327


EMPLOYEE INTERVIEW

Demographic details:

Gender? Male/Female

Age? <20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 >61

What is your role within the organisation? ___________________________

How long have you been in this role with this organisation? _____________

Brief description of your work-related driving? ____________________

______________________________________________________________

Stages of Change:

1. Are you aware of any work-related road safety risk? No / Yes

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

2. Do you believe that other managers and employees within your company

share similar beliefs in relation to work related road safety? No / Yes

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________


328

3. Are you planning to take any action to reduce work-related road safety risk in

the next 6 months? No / Yes

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

4. Do you have any definite plans to reduce work-related road safety risk in the

next month? What? No / Yes

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

5. Have you already taken any action to reduce work-related road safety risk?

What & when? No / Yes

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

6. Are you taking any actions to maintain work-related road safety within your

company? What? No / Yes

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

7. Is your company planning to take any action that you know of to reduce

work-related road safety risk? What? No / Yes

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________


329

8. Is your company already engaging in any action that you know of to reduce

work-related road safety within your company? What? No / Yes

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

9. What do you think motivated your company to think about managing or to

begin managing work-related road safety?

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

Potential Facilitators and Barriers of Change:

1. What do you think are the main barriers or difficulties experienced when

making, or attempting to make, safety changes in your organisation?

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

2. If applicable, how have (or how could) these barriers be overcome?

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________


330

3. What do you think are the main facilitators or things that have helped in


______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

4. What have been the outcomes (actual and perceived) of the safety changes


______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

5. What do you think were the main reasons for this outcome?

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

Fleet Safety Climate

1. How would you describe Management’s commitment, or lack of

commitment, to driver safety within your company?

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

2. How would you describe the level of trust between employees and

management within your company in relation to work-related road safety?

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________


331

3. How would you describe communication within your company in relation to

work-related road safety?

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

4. How would you describe the level of work demands within your

organisation?

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

5. How would you describe the level of appropriateness of safety policies and

procedures within your organisation?

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

6. Is work-related road safety treated with the same level of commitment as

other areas of WH&S in your company?

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________


332

Safety ownership:

The following tasks have been identified as important to overall OH&S performance.

Please identify who (if anyone) is accepting responsibility for actioning these tasks in

relation to OH&S and work-related road safety in your organisation.

Task Organisational Safety Work Road Safety

Proactively identifying,

assessing and determining

appropriate controls for

OHS hazards and risks

Effectively communicating

and consulting with

stakeholders regarding

OHS risks

Monitoring, reporting,

reviewing and evaluating

safety program

effectiveness

Engaging with


performance management

Identifying and

implementing relevant


333

components of the OHS

and workers compensation

management system

Understanding and

applying workers

compensation and case

management principles

Providing leadership and

management to staff and


performance

What is the position of the person primarily responsible for managing work-

related road safety in your organisation?

_________________________________________________________________

Finally, how could work-related road safety be improved in your organisation?

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Do you have any additional comments?

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________


334


335

APPENDIX I

INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM


336


INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM

This research project on work-related road safety is conducted by PhD scholar

Tamara Banks from the Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety Queensland

(CARRS-Q) at the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) and is funded by the

NRMA-ACT Road Safety Trust.

The purpose of this research is to contribute to the theoretical understanding of

factors that influence work-related road safety and to provide practical information

that can be used by practitioners to enhance safety within organisations. A major

component of this program is gathering vital information from personnel who are

responsible for aspects of safety within organisations. Interviews are being conducted

to gain practitioners’ perspectives and insights to experiences they have had in

implementing safety initiatives.

You are invited to participate in an anonymous interview about your perspectives on

work-related road safety. The interview is strictly confidential and you need not

answer a question if you consider it too personal. The interview should take about 30-

40 minutes to complete. Please note that should you have any questions or concerns

about the conduct of the research, you may contact either:

PhD scholar – Tamara Banks ph 617 3138 4963

email: [email protected]

Supervisor - Assoc Prof Jeremy Davey ph 617 3138 4574

email: [email protected]

Informed Consent


337

Please tear off the following section and return it to the Researcher.

I am willing to participate in this research project. I understand that I am free to withdraw

my participation in the research at any time. The research has been explained to me and I

have been given the opportunity to ask questions about the research. I understand that

neither my name nor any other identifying information will be used or published without

my permission. I understand that if I have any complaints about this research that I may

contact Assoc Prof Jeremy Davey on ph 617 3138 4574.

Signed: _________________________________________ (I agree to be interviewed)

Thank you for your assistance

CRICOS 00213J


338


339

APPENDIX J

FLEET SAFETY CLIMATE ITEMS


340

Items removed from original Fleet Safety Climate scale

To achieve a brief questionnaire, the 36 item fleet safety climate scale used in

previous research (Banks & Davey, 2005) was reduced to 24 items. A list of the

items removed from the original fleet safety climate scale is presented below:

1. Driver education is provided on skills specific to the type of vehicle driven

for work

2. Potential risks and consequences are identified in driver education

3. Motor vehicle education is carried out by people with relevant experience

4. Employees can express their views to management about safety problems

5. Employees can discuss important driver safety policy issues with

management

6. Employees are consulted when changes to driver safety practices are

suggested

7. Employees are confident about their future with the organisation

8. Morale is good

9. When driving employees have enough time to carry out their tasks

10. Seatbelt use is enforced

11. Employees can easily identify the relevant procedure for each job

12. Changes in workload which have been made at short notice, can be dealt with

in a way that does not affect driver safety


341

APPENDIX K

MANAGERS RATINGS OF

PERCEIVED COMPETENCE REQUIRED TO

MANAGE OCCUPATIONAL ROAD RISKS


342

Managers’ ratings of perceived competence required to manage occupational road risks

Task Category Safety Management Tasks Organisation Combined rating A B C D

Proactively identify, assess and determine appropriate controls for OH&S risks

Carry out project risk assessments 1 1 2 2 1-2 Undertake & design safety reviews for construction, operability & maintenance

1 3 3 3 3

Undertake formal OH&S review of tenders 1 3 2 1 2 Develop project safety management plans 1 2 2 2 2 Develop OH&S procedures and instructions 1 2 2 1 1-2 Carry out workplace & task hazard identification, risk assessments & control

1 1 2 1 1

Carry out basic competency assessments 3 1 2 2 2 Effectively communicate & consult with stakeholders regarding OH&S risks

Provide general OH&S information and provide basic OH&S instruction

1 1 1 2 1

Deliver Company Induction 2 1 2 2 2 Deliver site/workplace specific induction 2 1 1 2 1-2 Facilitate group/work team OH&S discussions & meetings 2 2 2 3 2 Initiate & coordinate OH&S awareness activities or presentations 2 2 2 2 2 Plan & deliver toolbox talks 2 2 3 3 2-3 Give formal OH&S presentations to management 1 2 2 2 2 Participate in site safety committee 2 2 2 3 2 Consult on and resolve OH&S issues 1 1 2 2 1-2 Speak to Senior management about OH&S issues in the workplace 1 2 2 1 1-2 Challenge unsafe behaviour/attitude at any level when encountered 1 2 2 2 2 Make site visits where a site worker is spoken to directly about OH&S in the workplace

1 1 2 2 1-2

Recognise & reward people who have positively impacted on OH&S 2 1 1 2 1-2 Deliver OH&S training tin the workplace 2 1 1 2 1-2


343

Task Category Safety Management Tasks Organisation Combined rating A B C D

Monitor, report, review & evaluate safety program effectiveness

Carry out formal incident investigations 1 1 2 1 1 Carry out basic project OH&S system element audits 2 2 1 2 2 Carry out formal inspections of workplace & work tasks 2 1 1 1 1 Research & prepare reports on OH&S issues, performance & improvement strategies

1 2 1 1 1

Engage with sub-contractors in OH&S performance management

Monitor sub-contractor activities (including volunteers) 2 1 2 2 2 Identify & include suitable OH&S requirements into sub-contractor packages

2 1 2 2 2

Evaluate OH&S performance of sub-contractors 3 1 2 2 2 Identify & implement relevant components of the OH&S & workers’ comp management system

Understand & apply general legislative OH&S requirements 1 1 1 2 1 Understand & apply detailed OH&S legislative requirements

2 3 2 3 2-3

Apply full working knowledge of the organisation’s safety management system

2 3 1 1 1-2

Understand & apply workers’ comp & case management principles

Assist with return to work & rehabilitation processes

2 3 2 3 2-3

Understand & apply general regulatory workers’ compensation requirements

2 3 2 3 2-3

Provide leadership & manage staff & sub-contractor OH&S performance

Mentor staff and follow their progress 2 1 2 2 2 Conduct employee performance appraisals 2 1 2 3 2 Work with staff to solve safety problems 2 1 2 2 2 Discipline staff for poor OH&S behaviour/attitude 2 1 2 2 2 Recruit & select new staff 2 1 2 2 2 Administer 1st Aid to injured persons 2 1 2 3 2

Note: 1 = Full understanding required, 2 = Working knowledge and awareness required,

3 = Competency not required at the minimal level or was not relevant to managing work-related road safety in their organisation.

an investigation into how work-related road safety … · safety is the top priority; and...

Documents