evaluation of the e ec tiveness of ops bersepadu chinese ... 04_2011_ ops cny 2009_cs4...

Research Report

Evaluation of the E�ectiveness of OPS BERSEPADU CHINESE NEW YEAR 2009

Research Report


Mohd Rasid Osman, P EngFuad Abas, P EngNoor Faradila PaimanMohamad Su�an AhmadZarir Ha�z ZulkipliWahida Ameer BatchaIlhamah OthmanSiti Atiqah Mohd Faudzi

With Respect to Selected SHE Practices

With Respect to Selected SHE Practices MRR 04/2011

Designed by: Publications Unit, MIROS

Malaysian Institute of Road Safety ResearchLot 125-135, Jalan TKS 1, Taman Kajang Sentral43000 Kajang, Selangor Darul EhsanTel +603 8924 9200 Fax + 603 8733 2005Website www.miros.gov.my Email [email protected]

Research Report

Evaluation of the Effectiveness ofOPS BERSEPADU CHINESE NEW YEAR 2009With Respect to Selected SHE Practices

Mohd Rasid Osman, P EngFuad Abas, P EngNoor Faradila PaimanMohamad Suffian AhmadZarir Hafiz ZulkipliWahida Ameer BatchaIlhamah OthmanSiti Atiqah Mohd Faudzi

MIROS © 2011 All Rights Reserved

Published by:

Malaysian Institute of Road Safety Research (MIROS)Lot 125-135, Jalan TKS 1, Taman Kajang Sentral,43000 Kajang, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia.

Perpustakaan Negara Malaysia Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Evaluation of the effectiveness of OPS Bersepadu Chinese New Year 2009:with respect to selected SHE practices / Mohd Rasid Osman ... [et al.].(Research report. MRR 02/2011)Bibliography: p. 25ISBN 978-967-5967-03-01. Traffic accidents--Research--Malaysia. 2. Traffic safety--Research--Malaysia.I. Mohd Rasid Osman, 1979-. II. Institut Penyelidikan Keselamatan JalanrayaMalaysia.363.12563

For citation purposes

Mohd Rasid O, Fuad A, Noor Faradila P, Mohamad Suffian A, Zarir Hafiz Z, Wahida AB, Ilhamah O & Siti Atiqah MF (2011), Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Ops Bersepadu Chinese New Year 2009 With Respect to Selected SHE Practices, MRR 04/2011, Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Institute of Road Safety Research.

Printed by: Publications Unit, MIROS

Typeface : Myriad Pro LightSize : 11 pt / 15 pt

DISCLAIMERNone of the materials provided in this report may be used, reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including recording or the use of any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from MIROS. Any conclusion and opinions in this report may be subject to reevaluation in the event of any forthcoming additional information or investigations.

Evaluation of the Effectiveness of OPS BERSEPADU CHINESE NEW YEAR 2009With Respect to Selected SHE Practices

iii

Project Contributors

Team Members

Mohd Rasid Osman, P EngFuad Abas, P EngNoor Faradila PaimanMohamad Suffian AhmadZarir Hafiz ZulkipliWahida Ameer BatchaIlhamah OthmanSiti Atiqah Mohd FaudziMohd Sukri ArifinMohamad Sahidi MushawirMohd Nashriq Mohd Hanafiah


v

Contents

Page

Project Contributors iii

List of Tables vi

List of Figures vii

Acknowledgements ix

Abstract xi

1. Introduction 1 1.1 Scope and Objectives of the Study 1 1.2 Limitation of the Study 2

2. Literature Review 2 2.1 Risk Management in Transportation 3 2.1.1 Emergency Response Tools and Facilities 3 2.1.2 Restraint System 4 2.2 Inappropriate Driving Behaviours (IDB) 5 2.2.1 Smoking 6 2.1.2 Mobile phone usage 7 2.2.3 Speeding 8 2.2.4 Tailgating 8

3. Methodology 9

4. Results and Discussions 11 4.1 Sample Population 11 4.2 SHE COP Elements 12 4.3 Facilities and Services 13 4.4 Driving Behaviour and Practices 16 4.5 Pre-departure Inspections 21

5. Conclusion and Recommendations 23

References 25


vi

List of TablesPage

Table 1 Effectiveness of safety seatbelts and airbags in reducing driver fatality risk

5

Table 2 Anti-smoking legislation penalties among commercial vehicle employers

7


vii

List of FiguresPage

Figure 3.1 Methodology framework 10

Figure 4.1.1 Distribution of bus companies by percentage 11

Figure 4.1.2 Percentage of buses having two drivers 12

Figure 4.2.1 Observation on selected SHE elements 13

Figure 4.3.1 Observations of bus facilities and services 14

Figure 4.3.2 Seatbelt availability in the buses 15

Figure 4.3.3 Availability of fire extinguisher on buses 15

Figure 4.3.4 Display of emergency numbers in buses 16

Figure 4.3.5 Display of customer service number in buses 16

Figure 4.4.1 Inappropriate driving behaviours (IDB) 17

Figure 4.4.2 Perception of high speed driving 18

Figure 4.4.3 Average speed of buses 18

Figure 4.4.4 Maximum speed measured using GPS and the mean value

19

Figure 4.4.5 Average speed of selected buses 19

Figure 4.4.6 Average speed during day time 20

Figure 4.4.7 Average speed during night time 21

Figure 4.4.8 Percentage of drivers wearing uniform 21

Figure 4.5.1 Percentage of observed JPJ activities 22

Figure 4.5.2 Observation on JPJ’s availability at each terminal 22


ix

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our gratitude to Jabatan Pengangkutan Jalan (JPJ), Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM), Lembaga Pelesenan Kenderaan Perdagangan (LPKP), and individuals for their invaluable time and the important role they played in shaping this comprehensive report. We also would like to express our deep appreciation to the Director General of the Malaysian Institute of Road Safety Research (MIROS) for extending his full support towards producing this report. Our appreciation also goes out to:

Tan Kean LeeRidzuan Abd BasahFazli YusofMohammad Syafeeq Ramli


xi

Abstract

Ops Bersepadu is an operation conducted during festive periods especially during Chinese New Year and Hari Raya Aidilfitri. It has been carried out since 2006, and is a joint operation by a few government agencies namely JPJ, LPKP, PDRM, PUSPAKOM Sdn Bhd and Agensi Anti Dadah Kebangsaan (AADK). There are some concerns about the effectiveness of the Ops in terms of Safety, Health and Environment (SHE) Code of Practice (COP) implementation among bus companies. The aim of this study is to evaluate the level of implementation of the SHE Code of Practice among express bus operators and the speed profile of express buses plying the Southern Region routes based on selected SHE elements. This study was conducted during the Ops Bersepadu Chinese New Year 2009 from 7 January 2009 to 28 February 2009. The sampling was limited to express buses plying the Southern Region. Samples were randomly selected from various bus companies. The data collection was administered using the observation method which consisted of a set of checklist to be filled up before departure, during the trip and at the end of the journey. A descriptive analysis was carried out to obtain the distributions and profiles of the data. The total number of companies involved in this study was 39 and the number of buses observed was 154. From the observations, SHE COP elements were widely practiced. However, attention was needed on some elements such as drivers not using seatbelts, no seatbelts for the drivers and front row passengers, and display of emergency and customer service hotlines. Additionally, 56% of the buses have average speed exceeding the maximum permissible speed on the highways (90 km/h). It can be concluded that the level of implementation is still at the infancy stage and clearly all the maximum speeds exceed the highway speed limit for buses.


1

1. Introduction

Ops Bersepadu has been conducted jointly by a few government agencies such as JPJ, LPKP, PDRM, PUSPAKOM and AADK since 2006 during the festive periods especially during Chinese New Year and Hari Raya Aidilfitri. The Ops started in 2006 due to the high fatality rates recorded during the festive seasons. Although the Ops is considered to be successful in reducing the fatality rate during those festive seasons, there are some concerns about the effectiveness of the Ops in terms of Safety, Health and Environment (SHE) Code of Practice (COP) implementations among bus companies.

A study on pre-departure checking and SHE COP element compliance was conducted for the first time during Ops Bersepadu Hari Raya 2008 (Mohd Rasid et al. 2008). In that study, the samples of bus routes covered all regions of Peninsular Malaysia. This study was the continuation of the said study conducted in conjunction with the Ops Bersepadu Chinese New Year (CNY) 2009 but focusing on the Southern Region routes. The majority of other research projects under the Ops Bersepadu CNY 2009 concentrated on the Southern Region routes. In addition, the Southern Region routes are the most suitable routes for investigation of speeding behaviour of express bus drivers due to the long stretch of flat roads. In this study, several major routes in the Southern Regions were selected. One of the criteria for selection was the availability of JPJ officers stationed at the bus terminal.

1.1 Scope and Objectives of the Study

• To evaluate the level of SHE Code of Practice implementations among express bus operators plying the Southern Region routes based on selected SHE elements.


2

• To evaluate the speed profile of express buses plying the Southern Region routes.

• To assess/observe the implementation of pre-departure roadworthiness inspection carried out by JPJ.

The outcomes of this study will provide recommendations to road transport related agencies in providing better services to their stakeholders. In addition, the findings would provide some recommendations for bus operators to improve their services.

1.2 Limitation of the Study

The study was conducted only for buses plying the Southern Region of Peninsular Malaysia. Hence, data collected is based on sampling of selected bus routes covering certain areas in the Southern Region of Peninsular Malaysia.

2. Literature Review

The focus of the literature review is the identification of risk management and the elements of driver performance that is often associated with the cause of accidents. Particular emphasis was placed on the risk management initiative taken by the bus operators to ensure safety and on the inclination for inappropriate driving behaviours or unsafe driving habits among the bus drivers. Significant elements of risk management as well as driver behaviours were identified and highlighted. Subsequently, the selection of the parameters used in the study was carried out.


3

2.1 Risk Management in Transportation

Risk Management is a systematic method of identifying, analysing, treating and monitoring the risks involved in any activity or process (UNCTAD 2000). This safety element sets out the requirement for the identification of hazards and risks, the potential consequences and implementation plans to eliminate, reduce or mitigate the possible resulting damage or injury (UNSW 2006). Risk management is one of the important elements required in the SHE Code of Practice for Transportation Sector (MIROS 2007) with a focus on the activities related to risk management along the routes and emergency response plan. These are clearly stated in the SHE Code of Practice for Transportation Sector (MIROS 2007) in section 3.4.1 (Hazards identification and risk assessment along the routes) and 3.4.5 (Emergency response).

For the emergency response clause, the requirements are:

i) first aid kit must be available in the bus with adequate items and in good condition; and

ii) fire evacuation facilities are compulsory and must be visible to all bus occupants and must be functional.

2.1.1 Emergency Response Tools and Facilities

Accidents are mostly predictable and can be prevented. However, should an accident happen, it must be handled effectively. Thus, express buses must be fully equipped with good facilities such as first aid kits, triangle reflectors and fire extinguishers. These items must also be fully maintained. For example, fire extinguisher maintenance needs to be carried out every six months to ensure it is functioning effectively (Queensland Transport 2003). Similarly, contents in the first aid kit also need to be checked regularly to ensure the kit is well stocked with relevant medications and ready for use. In addition, it is advisable to check that emergency exit


4

doors are functioning and effective. They should not be blocked or locked. Emergency door should be checked regularly so that it could be opened accordingly during emergency.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) 217 standard on “Emergency Exits and Window Retention & Release” also states that there should be an emergency management procedure for the purpose of providing readily accessible emergency egress (National Transport Safety Board 1999). Therefore, it is crucial to observe the availability of these emergency precautionary items before buses depart from any bus terminal.

2.1.2 Restraint System

By far, the most effective occupant protection device is the familiar lap or shoulder safety belt. Use of seatbelt is effective in reducing the likelihood and severity of impact with the interior of the vehicle. Furthermore it is also useful in preventing ejection from the vehicle. Ejection quadruples the risk of death in a crash at which about one in four unbelted drivers killed were ejected from their vehicles (Redelmeier et al. 2003).

As reported by Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA 2008) in 2002, more than half of the 588 commercial motor vehicle drivers killed in crashes were not wearing safety belts. Furthermore, 80% of drivers ejected from their trucks were not wearing safety seatbelts (Rothe 2008). Australia and the United Kingdom have undertaken programmes to encourage commercial motor vehicle drivers to wear safety belts as part of their daily operating practices.

Research has shown that for light truck occupants, seatbelts when properly used can reduce the risk of fatal injury by 60% and moderate-to-critical injury by 65% (Kentucky Institute of Medicine 2005). Moreover, wearing a seatbelt reduces a driver’s risk of being killed in a crash by 42% as shown in Table 1.


5

Table 1 Effectiveness of safety seatbelts and airbags in reducing driver fatality risk (Redelmeier et al. 2003).

Occupant protection deviceEffectiveness in preventing

driver fatalities

Lap/shoulder belt alone 42%

Lap/shoulder belt plus airbag 47%

Airbag alone* 13%

The Safety Belt Usage by Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers (SBUCMVD) Survey is a United States nationally representative field data collection programme. It is conducted in order to provide estimates of safety belt restraint use by drivers and other occupants of medium and heavy duty commercial motor vehicles. From this study, 65% of 15 864 drivers for all medium and heavy duty trucks and buses were observed, used the seatbelts. Whereas, the usage rate for 1 059 CMV other occupants was 57% (FMCSA 2008).

In Malaysia, it is a mandatory practice for drivers to use seatbelts, depending on the type of commercial vehicles category. However, an evaluation study (Mohd Rasid et al. 2008) among commercial bus drivers conducted by MIROS during Ops Bersepadu Hari Raya 2008 showed a high percentage of drivers was not using seatbelts. A significant number of buses did not even have seatbelts for the drivers. In addition, a majority of the buses did not have front row passengers’ seatbelts. At the same time, only a very small percentage of passengers were using seatbelts for buses that have installed front row passengers’ seatbelts. In fact, front row passengers’ seatbelt is mandatory for every bus according to SHE Code of Practice (MIROS 2007).

2.2 Inappropriate Driving Behaviours (IDB)

Certain inappropriate driving behaviour can result in unsafe driving conditions and increase accident potential. Drivers may or may not be aware that these behaviours can be hazardous, or


6

they may not perceive the seriousness of potential consequences should accidents result (Mason et al. 1992). To make matters worse, many of these inappropriate driving behaviours have become a habit for the drivers, thus making them a high-risk driver group. Some of the risky practices and unhealthy habits reported in studies are smoking, using mobile phone while driving, speeding and tailgating (Leistikow et al. 2000; Ontario Medical Association (OMA) 2008; Meijman and Kompier 1998).

2.2.1 Smoking

Distraction and impairments in attentions during driving due to smoking may contribute to various types of accidents especially road traffic accident. Smoking while driving has been shown to increase the number of accidents and mortality risk (Leistikow et al. 2000). There are a lot of unhealthy behaviours that may be induced from smoking. Nicotine deprivation from the cigarettes may directly impair attention as well as cognitive responses (Heishman 1998). Nicotine may also increase level of stress and this would lead to an increase in aggressive behaviour (Verona et al. 2008) that could evoke road rage response (James 1997). Furthermore, the smoke, ashes and/or burning embers from the smouldering cigarettes may reduce vision range as well as may affect the attention of smokers during dangerous tasks such as driving. Leistikow et al. (2000) reported that many smokers have difficulty in coping with a smouldering cigarette in their lap when one is dropped while driving. Thus, it is proven that smoking while driving is a danger—at least as hazardous as some other distractions that have been banned such as the use of mobile phone while driving.

Several countries have banned smoking while driving, especially for drivers of commercial vehicles such as company cars, public transport vehicles and heavy goods vehicles. New Delhi, India banned smoking while driving effective from 9 April 2007. In Wales and England, the anti-smoking legislation which applies on work vehicles came into effect from 1 July 2007. The penalties for employers who fail to comply with the Wales and England’s law are shown in Table 2.


7

Table 2 Anti-smoking legislation penalties among commercial vehicle employers (Rule 148 (UK) 2007)

Offences Fixed penalty Fine

Smoking in smoke-free premises or vehicle £50 £200

Failing to display no smoking sign in smoke-free premises or vehicle

£200 £1 000

Failing to prevent smoking in smoke-free premises or vehicle

- £2 500

It was highlighted in the report that the law is in place not specifically for road safety reason but health reasons. However, Transport Research Laboratory has provided evidence that smoking whilst driving could cause road accident through their analysis of fatal accidents involving distraction within vehicles (Phase II 1997, unpublished report). Thus, it is crucial for drivers of commercial vehicles transporting passengers or goods be prohibited from smoking while driving.

2.2.2 Mobile phone usage

Using mobile phone while driving can distract driving. Distraction arising from such action or similar behaviour can lead to traffic accident (Ontario Medical Association (OMA) 2008). Distracted driving as a result of performing the activity may distract attention from the driving task. The driver may be looking at the road ahead, but his attention is directed elsewhere. This distracted driving may create danger to vehicle occupant and other vehicles (Idaho Transportation Department 2008). In fact, over 30 countries have banned the usage of hand-held devices while driving due to increase risk for traffic collision (Ontario Medical Association (OMA) 2008). In California, drivers are required to use hands-free equipment while talking on their cellular telephones starting on 1 July 2008. In addition, starting from 1 January 2009, reading, writing or sending a text messages while driving is also banned. Thus, it is vital to evaluate the extent of the mobile phone usage by commercial vehicle drivers in Malaysia, especially bus drivers, as the lives of the passengers are at stake.


8

2.2.3 Speeding

Excessive speeding is another form of inappropriate driving behaviour. There is evidence to show that excessive speeding can lead to the severity and frequency of road traffic accidents as reported by Blincoe et al. (2006). Low driving speeds are effective at reducing the frequency of collision. The findings of a study conducted by Taylor et al. (2000) show that for every one mile per hour (mph) reduction in average speed, collisions are reduced between 2% and 7%. Hence, excessive speeding behaviour among drivers can be a major determinant of road traffic accidents. Therefore, it is vital to identify and prevent excessive speeding among commercial bus drivers.

2.2.4 Tailgating

Generally, tailgating or following another vehicle too closely is associated with aggressive driving. Shinar (1998) defines aggressive driving as a syndrome of frustration-driven instrumental behaviours which are manifested in: (a) inconsiderateness towards or annoyance of other drivers (tailgating, flashing lights, and honking at other drivers); and (b) deliberate dangerous driving to save time at the expense of others (running red lights and stop signs, obstructing path of others, weaving). Furthermore, these hostile driving behaviours have been shown to give rise to high levels of anger (Joint 1995; Parker et al. 2002).

These particular behaviours, however, can mean different things to different people and their purpose is open to misinterpretation. For example, honking and headlight flashing may be used in some situations to warn other road users of one’s presence and to avoid a potential accident. Another person may use these behaviours to express disapproval of others’ actions or to threaten them. Tailgating may be interpreted as hostile but might represent a stage in the sequence of events leading up to overtaking.


9

Existing studies have shown relationships between driver stress, frustration, irritation, negative mood and aggressive driving such as tailgating. A study by Hennessy and Wiesenthal (1997) on motorcar vehicles revealed that tailgating occurs frequently in frustrating conditions that elicit anger in drivers. As for bus drivers, making up for lost time was the primary reason drivers gave for this unsafe behaviour. Study by Meijman and Kompier (1998) shows that 46% of drivers forced themselves to drive fast in order to maintain running schedules, with 57% admitting to regularly exceeding speed limits in the suburbs, and 15% of drivers confessing to occasionally or regularly ignoring local traffic regulations.

3. Methodology

This study was conducted during the Ops Bersepadu Chinese New Year 2009 from 7 January 2009 to 28 February 2009. The design of this study is generally similar to the previous study which was carried out during the last Ops Bersepadu Hari Raya 2008. However for this study, the sampling was limited to express buses plying the Southern Region. Random samples selected consisted of various bus companies which have buses travelling from Central zone (Kuala Lumpur, Klang, Shah Alam and Klang) to Southern zone (Johor, Melaka, and Negeri Sembilan) and within the region during Chinese New Year period.

Figure 3.1 shows the overall flow of this study. The project ran from 7 January 2009 to 28 February 2009. The data collection period was from 19 January to 2 February 2009. The data collection was administered using the observation method which consisted of a set of checklist. MIROS’ researchers were required to fill up the form based on their observations before departure, during the trip and at the end of the journey. While conducting the data collection, MIROS’ personnel had to observe the three main criteria which were the pre-departure inspection, journey


10

management and driver management. All criteria were based on SHE elements from SHE Code of Practice MIROS MCP 01/2007.

The data collection activities were completed by 2 February 2009. The data were then gathered and analysed according to the objectives of the study. The descriptive analyses were done to obtain the distributions and profiles of the data. Finally, report writing was conducted from 13 February till 20 February 2009. The results obtained were categorised according to the three main criteria and the new findings were highlighted in the discussion. A few conclusions were made and some recommendations were listed in order to improve the SHE implementation by commercial bus operators and enforcement bodies. Suggestions on how to improve the study further were also included at the end of this report.

Figure 3.1 Methodology framework

Revise the existing questionnaires

Sample and site selection

Data collection (19 Jan – 2 Feb 2009)

Data analysis and report writing


11

4. Results and Discussions

This section discusses the results and findings of the study. This section is divided into four subsections; sample population, SHE elements observation, facilities and services, and driver behaviour and practices.

4.1 Sample Population

Figure 4.1.1 shows the percentage distribution of buses by company being observed in this study. The total number of companies involved in this study was 39 and the number of buses being observed was 154.

Figure 4.1.2 shows the percentage of the two-driver practice on long trips. Only 35% of the total long trips have two drivers in the buses. A long trip is defined as a trip of more than 280 km. Out of 154 trips observed, only 20 (13%) were considered as long trips.

Figure 4.1.1 Distribution of bus companies by percentage

Company A

Company B

Company C

Company D

Company E

Company F

Company G

Company H

Company I

Company J

Company K

Company L

Company M

Company N

Company O

Company P

Others

Bus companies involved in this study

25 %2 %

3 %

5 %

4 %3 %

5 %2 %

4 %2 % 3 % 3 %

3 %3 %

5 %

7 %

22 %

Bus companies involved in this study


12

4.2 SHE COP Elements

Figure 4.2.1 shows that many companies are closely observing the four SHE elements; use of antiglare film, wearing of uniform by drivers, availability of fire extinguishers, and rest after four hours of driving. In addition, it was observed that use of illegal cruise control tools such as bricks, brooms and rocks was not prevalent. Only one out of 154 buses observed was found to have these illegal cruise control tools in the drivers’ compartment.

It is interesting to note that a high percentage of drivers did not use seatbelts although it is a mandatory requirement. In addition, a significant number of buses did not even have seatbelts for the drivers. Only 20% of the buses provided seatbelts for the drivers. The trend was the same for front row passengers. The availability of seatbelts for the whole bus was even worse. Display of emergency and customer service hotline was very limited.

Figure 4.1.2 Percentage of buses having two drivers

Yes

35%

No

65%

Two Drivers for Long Journey Two drivers for long journey


13

4.3 Facilities and Services

Figure 4.3.1 shows the observers’ perceptions on the housekeeping of the buses. Most of the observers were satisfied with the cleanliness of the buses (either interior or exterior), seats adjustability, “feel safe” during the journey, spacious legroom and interior temperature of the buses. In terms of departure and arrival times, a majority of the observers agreed that the buses were not punctual most of the time.

A significant number of observers experienced vibrations while travelling on the buses. This indicated that many of the buses are either not well maintained or had reached the end of their service life.

It is interesting to note that for the ‘others’ category, some of the comments highlighted were as follows:

• driver smoking while driving;• no signalling before changing lane;• spitting while driving;• sleepy while driving;

Figure 4.2.1 Observation on selected SHE elements

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

An#g

lare *lm

Driv

er W

ear U

niform

Driv

er Seatbelt A

vailable

Driv

er Use Seatbelt

Fron

t Row

Seatbelt A

vailable

Fron

t Row

Passenger W

ear S

eatbelt

All Seat S

eatbelt A

vailable

Fire E<#

nguis>er Available

Emergency Hotlin

e

Custom

er Service Hotlin

e

Rest Stop AD

er E Hou

rs

Illegal Item

For Spe

ed Con

trol

Perc

enta

ge

SHE Elements

Observation on SHE Elements

Yes No

Antiglare

film

Driver w

ear unifo

rm

Driver s

eatbelt a

vailable

Driver u

se se

atbelt

All seat s

eatbelt a

vailable

Fire extin

guisher a

vailable

Emergency hotli

ne

Customer s

ervice

hotline

Rest sto

p after 4

hours

Illegal it

em for s

peed contro

l

Front r

ow seatb

elt availa

ble

Front r

ow passenger w

ear seatb

elt

Observation on SHE elements


14

• driving non-roadworthiness bus;• overtaking at double line; and• red light running.

Figure 4.3.2 shows the availability of driver, front passengers and overall passengers’ seatbelts. From the observations, although seatbelts are available in the buses, only a few of the drivers or the passengers used them.

Figure 4.3.3 shows the availability of fire extinguishers in the buses. Although the percentage of availability was high, most of the fire extinguishers were hidden and difficult to access.

Figure 4.3.4 and Figure 4.3.5 show the visibility of emergency and customer service contact numbers in the buses. From the observations, most of the buses did not display the required numbers.

Figure 4.3.1 Observations of bus facilities and services

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Clean Interior

Clean Exterior

On Time Departure

On Time Arrival

Adjustable Seat

Safe Journey

Bus Vibrate

Spacious Legroom

Suitable Temperature

Percentage

Characteristics

Observer Perception

Yes No

Clean in

terio

rClean exte

rior

On time departu

reOn tim

e arrival

Adjustable se

atSafe jo

urney

Bus vibrate

Spacious legro

omSuita

ble temperatu

re

Observation perceptionPe

rcen

tage

Characteristics


15

Yes

67%

No

33%

+,-e ./0123,s4e-

Figure 4.3.3 Availability of fire extinguisher on buses

30 29

11

124 124

143

Driver Front passenger Overall passenger

Seatbelt Availability

Yes No

Figure 4.3.2 Seatbelt availability in the buses

Seatbelt availability

Fire extinguisher


16

4.4 Driving Behaviour and Practices

Figure 4.4.1 shows the categories of Inappropriate Driving Behaviours (IDB) as observed during the study. Using mobile phone, tailgating, harsh braking and overtaking dangerously were the four categories with the highest number of infractions. The use of mobile phone by bus drivers was quite widespread. Tailgating, dangerous overtaking and harsh braking are hazardous manoeuvres which can lead to accidents.

Figure 4.3.5 Display of customer service number in buses

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Yes No

31

123

Display Customer Service Number Display customer service number

0

50

100

150

Yes No

23

131

Display Emergency Number Display emergency number

Figure 4.3.4 Display of emergency numbers in buses


17

Figure 4.4.2 shows the occasions when the drivers are driving at high speed. It can be generalised that the drivers were perceived by the observers as not driving at high speed throughout the journey but only on certain occasions. Based on the samples, speeding for entire journey was low (15%), but for “part of the journey” the percentage was quite high (42%). Although the speed of the buses was difficult to be verified quantitatively, most of the observers felt that the drivers were driving at high speed. Figure 4.4.3 shows the calculated average speed for all the buses. It can be seen that 39% of the buses exceeded the speed limit of 90 km/h. In addition, 20% of the buses were observed travelling at speed of more than 100 km/h.

Figure 4.4.1 Inappropriate driving behaviours (IDB)

20

1

30

8

47

0 10 20 30 40 50

Harsh braking

Sleepy

9ailga:ng

Overtaking dangerously

Handphone usage

Inappropriate Driving Behaviours

Use of handphone

Inappropriate driving behaviours


18

Figure 4.4.4 shows the maximum speed of the selected buses measured by global positioning system (GPS) and also the mean value. Only 37 buses were involved. On these selected buses, GPS devices carried by observers were used to measure the maximum speed. The graph shows that the mean value of the maximum speed was 114 km/h. It can also be seen that the lowest maximum speed was 95 km/h and the highest was 132 km/h. Clearly all the maximum speeds exceeded the highway speed limit for buses.

15%

42%

18%

8%

17%

Driving at high speed

!n#re journey

Part of journey

Rarely

Never

During overtake

Figure 4.4.2 Perception of high speed driving

Driving at high speed

Figure 4.4.3 Average speed of buses

Average speed


19

Figure 4.4.5 shows the average speed of the selected buses. The mean value for the average speed was 88 km/h which is just below the speed limit. 42% of the buses have average speed exceeding 90 km/h and this is an unhealthy trend.

Figure 4.4.6 shows the breakdown of the average speed during day time travelling. Day time travelling is defined as any journey undertaken between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. More than 50% of the journeys had an average speed exceeding 90 km/h, which is the speed limit. In addition, 4% of them had an average speed exceeding 110 km/h. This trend is unhealthy for public safety.

Figure 4.4.4 Maximum speed measured using GPS and the mean value

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Maximum Speed

Average Speed

Bus Speed Limit

Maximum speed

Average speed

Bus speed limit

Figure 4.4.5 Average speed of selected buses

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Average Speed

Average speed Average speed

Bus Speed Limit

Average speed

Bus speed limit


20

Figure 4.4.7 shows the breakdown of the average speed during night time travelling. Night time travelling is defined as any journey undertaken between 7:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. The time 7:00 p.m. is used as a boundary separating day time and night time journey. If a bus starts the journey at 6:00 p.m. and arrives at 9:00 p.m., the journey will be considered as night journey as most of the travelling time is during the night. More than 60% of the journeys had an average speed exceeding 90 km/h, which is the speed limit. In addition, 22% of them had an average speed exceeding 110 km/h. Comparing the results of day and night travels, it can be concluded that there was a tendency to drive at a higher speed during the night. This might be due to the perception of being caught during night time was lower at night.

Figure 4.4.8 shows the percentages of drivers wearing uniform. 65% of the drivers complied with this requirement of the SHE COP. This practice was commendable and should be adopted by all bus operators.

Figure 4.4.6 Average speed during day time

6%

38 % 52 %

4 %

Average Speed During Day Time

<70 km/hours

70‐90 km/hours

90‐110 km/hours

>110 km/hours

Average speed during day time


21

4.5 Pre-departure Inspections

Figure 4.5.1 shows JPJ’s activities that were observed at the listed terminals excluding Batu Pahat. From the observations, JPJ officers were visible at the terminals during 59% of the time. It was noted that, although JPJ officers were available at the terminals, most

Figure 4.4.7 Average speed during night time

33%

45%

22%

Average Speed During Night Time

70‐90 km/hours

90‐110 km/hours

>110 km/hours

Average speed during night time

Yes

65%

No

35%

Driver Wearing Uniform

Figure 4.4.8 Percentage of drivers wearing uniform

Driver wearing uniform


22

Figure 4.5.2 shows the presence of JPJ officers at the eight terminals being observed. It can be seen that the presence of the officers was inconsistent. This might be due to the duty schedule of JPJ officers being different for different terminals. It can be seen that the presence of JPJ officers were observed to be consistent at only three terminals; Shah Alam, Klang and Melaka.

of them did not conduct pre-departure inspection. In Shah Alam and Melaka, JPJ officers only checked the documents submitted by the drivers.

Yes

59 %

No

41 %

!"!#$%&'()*(+$%JPJ’s activities

Figure 4.5.1 Percentage of observed JPJ activities

0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Batu P

ahat

Johor B

ahru

Kaja

ng

Klan

g Se

ntra

l

Mel

aka

Sent

ral

Muar

Pudura

ya

Sega

mat

Sere

mban

Shah

Ala

m

Frequency

Terminal

?b@erAaBon on JPJC@ aAaDlabDlDty Dn eaEh termDnal

Frequency

JPJ Availability Yes

JPJ Availability No

Figure 4.5.2 Observation on JPJ’s availability at each terminal

Observation on JPJ’s availability in each terminal


23

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

This study has three main objectives. The first objective is to evaluate the level of implementation of SHE Code of Practice among express bus operators plying the Southern Region routes. The evaluation was based on compliance with selected SHE elements. From the observations, SHE COP elements that were widely practiced included use of antiglare film, wearing of uniform by drivers, availability of fire extinguishers, and rest after four hours of driving. In addition, it was observed that use of illegal cruise control tools such as bricks, brooms and rocks was not prevalent. However, the followings need attention: drivers were not using seatbelts, the majority of buses did not have seatbelts for the drivers and front row passengers, use of front row passengers’ seatbelts and display of emergency and customer service hotlines. It can be concluded that the level of SHE COP implementation is still at the infancy stage.

The second objective is to evaluate the speed profile of the express buses. 56% of the buses had average speed exceeding the maximum permissible speed on the highways (90 km/h). It can also be concluded that buses travelling during night time have a tendency to travel at a higher speed when compared to buses travelling during day time. Among the buses observed, the maximum speeds ranged from 95 km/h to 132 km/h. Clearly all the maximum speeds exceeded the highway speed limit for buses.

The third objective is to observe the implementation and operation of pre-departure inspection carried out by JPJ. From the observations at the terminals, the presence of JPJ officers varied according to the time of day and location. In addition, pre-departure inspection was limited to only checking of documents submitted by bus drivers.


24

As a result of this study, the following recommendations are proposed.

i) The top management of bus companies should improve awareness of SHE practices in their operations such as use of seatbelts for drivers and front row passengers, display of emergency and customer service hotlines and high visibility and accessibility of fire extinguishers.

ii) Prohibition of using mobile phone and smoking while driving must be enforced by the respective companies on their bus drivers.

iii) Top management of bus companies should provide training to instil good and safe driving habits among drivers.

iv) Top management of bus companies are encouraged to install GPS monitoring system on their buses in order to monitor their buses. SHE Committee must effectively use the data generated to manage the safety of buses.

v) JPJ officers should ensure their availability as per schedule for pre-departure inspection.

vi) JPJ personnel should conduct pre-departure inspection according to the standard checklist and procedures (for example inspection of brake system).

vii) Wider availability of the AADK personnel to conduct drug tests on bus drivers.

Recommendations for future study.

• A similar study is recommended to be conducted outside the festive season.

• The study should adopt the stratified sampling approach from a known population.


25

References

Accident Research Centre, Monash Transportation (1997), The relationship between speeding behaviour, Phase 2. Report 42, Unpublished Project Report, Prepared for Swedish National Road Administration, Transport Research Laborator.

Alvarez, A (2007), Commercial motor vehicle driver safety belt usage, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

Blincoe, KM, Jones, AP, Sauerzapf, V & Haynes, R (2006), Speeding drivers’ attitudes and perceptions of speed cameras in rural England, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 38(2): 371–8.

Department for Transport (2007), Rule 148, Highway Code, Department for Transport, United Kingdom.

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) (2008), CMV driving tips, failure to buckle up.

Heishman, SJ (1998), Behavioral-cognitive effects of smoking, addicted to nicotine: A National research forum, US DHHS, PHS, NIH, Bethesda, MD.

Hennessy, DA & Wiesenthal, DL (1997), Traffic congestion, driver stress and driver aggression, Department of Psychology and LaMarsh Centre for Research on Violence and Conflict Resolution, York University, North York, Ontario, Canada.

Idaho Transportation Department (2008), Idaho commercial driver’s license manual, Idaho Transportation Department, Division of Motor Vehicles.

James, L (1997), Congressional testimony on aggressive driving, University of Hawaii, Honolulu.


26

Joint, M (1995), Road rage, The Automobile Association Group Policy Road Safety Unit, London.

Kentucky Institute of Medicine (2005), Saving lives, saving money: the impact of a kentucky primary seat belt law, Kentucky Institute of Medicine.

King, Y & Parker, D (2008), Driving violations, aggression and perceived consensus, Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée, 58: 43–49.

Leistikow, BN, Martin, DC, Jacobs, J, Rocke, DM & Noderer, K (2000), Smoking as a risk factor for accident death: a meta-analysis of cohort studies, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 32: 397–405.

Mason, JM, Fitzpatrick, K, Seneca, DL & Davinroy, TB (1992), Identification of inappropriate driving behaviours, Journal of Transpn.Engrg., ASCE, 118(2), March/April: 281–82.

Meijman, TF & Kompier, MA (1998), Bussy business: how urban bus drivers cope with time pressure, passengers, and traffic safety, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3:109–121.

Ministry of Transport NSW (2005), Safety management system (sms) guidelines: for bus and coach operators in NSW, Pursuant to section 9D (2) (c) of the Passenger Transport Act 1990.

MIROS (2007), Kod Amalan Keselamatan, Kesihatan dan Alam Sekitar untuk Sektor Pengangkutan, MCP 01/2007, Kuala Lumpur: Institut Penyelidikan Keselamatan Jalan Raya Malaysia

Mohd Rasid Osman, Fuad A, Ilhamah O, Zarir HZ, Noor Faradila P, Mohd Sukri A & Muhammad Sahidi M (2008), Evaluation of the effectiveness of Ops Bersepadu with respect to selected SHE practices, unpublished report.


27

National Transportation Safety Board (1999), Bus crashworthiness issues, Highway Special Investigation Report: PB98-917006, NTSB/SIR-99/04, Washington, D.C.

New South Wales Injury Risk Management Research Centre (UNSW) (2006), Road transport work and fatigue: a comparison of drivers in the light and long distance heavy vehicle road transport sectors.

Ontario Medical Association (OMA) (2008), Cellular phone use and driving: a dangerous combination, Ministry of Transportation, Toronto.

Parker, D, Lajunen, T & Summala, H (2002), Anger and aggression among drivers in three European countries, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 34: 229–235.

Queensland Transport (2003), Fire extinguishers in buses: public passenger vehicles inspection, Vehicle Standards Instruction, Queensland Government.

Redelmeier, DA, Tibshirani, RJ & Evans, L (2003), Traffic-law enforcement and risk of death from motor-vehicle crashes: case-crossover study.

Rothe, JP (2008), Oil workers and seatbelt wearing behaviour: the Northern Alberta context, Alberta Centre for Injury Control and Research, Centre for Health Promotions.

Rule 148, United Kingdom, Laws TSf(EV) regs 2007, TSfP(W) regs 2007 & TPSCP(S) regs 2006.

Shinar, D (1998), Aggressive driving: the contribution of the drivers and the situation. Transport. Res. Part F 1: 137–160.

Taylor, MC, Lynam, DA & Baruya, A (2000), The effects of drivers’ speed on the frequency of road accidents, TRL Report 421, prepared for the Road Safety Division, DETR.


28

Tse , JLM, Flin, R & Mears, K (2006), Bus driver well-being review: 50 years of research, Transportation Research Part F 9: 89–114.

U.S. Department of Transportation (2008), Safety belt usage by commercial motor vehicle drivers (SBUCMVD) 2007 survey, Final Report, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.

UNCTAD (2000), Risk management, Automated System for Custom Data (ASYCUDA).

Verona, E & Sullivan, EA (2008), Emotional catharsis and aggression revisited: heart rate reduction following aggressive responding, Emotion, 8(3): 331–340.

Research Report


Research Report


Mohd Rasid Osman, P EngFuad Abas, P EngNoor Faradila PaimanMohamad Su�an AhmadZarir Ha�z ZulkipliWahida Ameer BatchaIlhamah OthmanSiti Atiqah Mohd Faudzi

With Respect to Selected SHE Practices

With Respect to Selected SHE Practices MRR 04/2011

Designed by: Publications Unit, MIROS

Malaysian Institute of Road Safety ResearchLot 125-135, Jalan TKS 1, Taman Kajang Sentral43000 Kajang, Selangor Darul EhsanTel +603 8924 9200 Fax + 603 8733 2005Website www.miros.gov.my Email [email protected]

evaluation of the e ec tiveness of ops bersepadu chinese ... 04_2011_ ops cny 2009_cs4...

Documents