Operator fatigue is an issue in all 24-hour operations; operator fatigue is a leading cause of vehicle crashes. The oil and gas industry is a 24-hour operation that relies extensively on land transportation. It comes as no surprise then that drowsy driving has been recognized as a cause of many land transportation-related fatalities. Dealing with drowsy driving is a difficult task. Training is a powerful tool; however, drivers trained to recognize and manage fatigue frequently fail to effectively apply this training at critical times because sound judgment is one of the first things affected by fatigue. As part of an ongoing commitment to crash-free driving, a major oilfield service company turned to a leading fatigue research and technology company to assist in eliminating drowsy driving. This paper reports on the experiences of a field trial with a new fatigue warning device for drivers and operators. The device utilizes a camera system installed in the dashboard of the vehicle that monitors the eyes of the driver. In contrast to previously proposed devices, this system does not utilize infra-red (IR) reflections, and as a result, is able to operate during daytime and when eyeglasses are worn. Deployed in four heavy trucks and one light truck, the systems have successfully recorded sequences of the eyes of drivers during potential fatigue events. This paper also reports on staff acceptance of such fatigue management systems. Privacy concerns are an issue when camera-bsaed systems are used to monitor drivers. Introduction Fatigue and the resulting drowsiness is a key risk factor in land transportation operations, and for industries like the oil and gas industry in particular, where operations in many cases continue around the clock. While truck safety has increased through numerous safety systems and improvements of their mechanical design, key risk factors related to the driver have proved to be hard to address so far. Research in recent years suggests that fatigue and distraction are major factors in accident causation in transportation, and for heavy vehicles in particular, fatigue is a big contributor. A study [1] conducted by the National Transportation Safety Board concluded that 30% to 40% of all heavy truck crashes may be attributed to driver drowsiness. Another study [2], which involved extensive instrumentation of 100 passenger vehicles for one year, concluded that 78% of the 82 accidents recorded by the vehicles were attributed to driver inattention to the road ahead. In their work, inattention is defined as secondary task engagement, driving related inattention to the roadway, drowsiness, or non-specific eye glances, which encompasses all possible causes for inattention to the road ahead. In addition to the high proportion of fatigue-related heavy vehicle crashes, accidents as a result of fatigue are much more severe than accidents on average. The plot in Figure 1 shows the impact of fatigue on accident severity. The left column represents all vehicle accidents grouped according to the severity of the injury of the most severely injured person in the accident (Maximum Accident Injury Scale). About 90% of all accidents result in medium or lesser injuries, while less than 1% of all accidents are fatal. The right column represents only fatigue-related accidents, and only 65% of these result in medium or lesser injuries, while 7% result in fatalities. The reason for this increase in injury severity is that fatigue-related crashes often involve no or considerably delayed braking, and therefore, a higher average impact velocity. While this statistic is based on all road transport accidents, a similar trend can be assumed for heavy truck accidents.
Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for U.S. oil and gas extraction workers; the motor vehicle fatality rate in this industry is 8.5 times higher than for all U.S. workers (Retzer et al., 2013). This may be due to a variety of factors, including long work hours and long distances traveled, often on rural roads which may lack safety features. There are four main strategies for reducing the number of work-related motor vehicle fatalities: 1) reduce the risk of injury by reducing the total amount of travel, 2) substitute the means of travel (e.g., road vs. air), to reduce the level of risk to the worker, 3) reduce the risks for necessary road travel, and 4) reduce crash severity, thereby reducing injury severity. Journey management is a promising prevention strategy to reduce the total number of miles driven and to reduce the risks associated with road travel. Journey management is accomplished through company policies and procedures that systematically question the need for trips and select the safest routes, driving conditions, drivers, and vehicles for necessary road travel. Many oil and gas companies have implemented a journey management procedure to protect their workers and assets. As a result of the success of journey management, the International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (OGP) recommends that all oil and gas extraction companies implement a journey management procedure as part of an overall land transportation safety program (OGP 2011a). However, the application of journey management is somewhat limited in the U.S. and there appears to be a need for more clarification of journey management and the elements of a journey management procedure. This paper will define journey management, describe the elements of a journey management procedure, and describe the steps to develop a journey management procedure tailored to your company’s driving environment.1
The exposure to risk from driving in field-type operations by companies engaged in the oil and gas industry is generally well recognized and, in many places, well addressed. Driving in a non-field or support-role environment provides similar exposure; however, even when this exposure is recognized, it is generally not well addressed. A challenge to a large oilfield service company was to leverage the best practices of a successful field-oriented journey management program for application in a metropolitan environment. The number of miles driven on company business in this non-field metropolitan environment is substantial, but driving to and from work (commuting) was found to eclipse this exposure by 25 times. Because the greatest exposure to our metropolitan employees is commuting, the challenge becomes even greater---to develop a journey management plan that not only addresses business driving but also commuter driving. Introduction A major international oilfield service company recognized many years ago that driving was its greatest exposure to a catastrophic event on a daily basis. This continues to hold true. The International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (OGP) has also established that the highest common cause of fatalities in the industry---21.9% (2004)---is driving related. The company responded to this critical situation with aggressive goals for reduction, and supported these with the development of comprehensive and multilayered practices and processes collectively referred to as journey management. These measures have been instrumental in significantly decreasing crash events. For example, in 2000 the crash rate was 2.0 per million miles driven and in 2004 it had been lowered to 0.5 per million miles. This has been achieved with a fleet of over 12,500 vehicles and mileages now totaling over 200 million miles annually (Fig. 1). With this reduction in the number of events that occur primarily in "the field," the company is now focusing more closely on "non-field" events. These non-field events have traditionally been associated with product/technology centers and headquarter support facilities that tend to be in metropolitan areas. Historically, these events don't receive the same attention as those occurring in the field as they have less impact on business continuity. However, it is realized that the impact on the employee is equal. This paper addresses the company's application of field-derived risk management process and controls to provide the basis for a journey management plan for the city of Houston, Texas. The exposure in this target city is composed of:11 company facilities5,500 employees plus contractors5,500 personal vehicles70 company vehicles40,000,000 commuter miles annually320,000 business miles annually1,200,000 mi/yr driven by visitors on business* * including "for hire" transport and rental vehicles
Significant progress has been made globally in the upstream oil and gas industry in reducing the number and rate of fatalities related to land transport (hereafter referred to as "motor vehicle") related activities. However, motor vehicle crashes remain the leading cause of death to oil and gas extraction workers in the United States. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) analyzed motor vehicle fatalities in the U.S. oil and gas extraction industry from 2003–2009 (Retzer, 2011). The study made three significant findings: 1) 74% of all motor vehicle-related fatalities occurred to workers employed by companies with less than 100 employees; 2) 30% of the fatalities occurred to employees with less than one year experience with their current employer; and 3) at least 38% were not wearing their seat belt at the time of the fatal crash. Many large oil and gas extraction companies as well as companies in other industries have found that monitoring their drivers’ behaviors is an effective way to reduce the risk of motor vehicle crashes. As recognized by the OGP LTS RP 365, In-Vehicle Monitoring Systems (IVMS) are electronic devices used to identify at-risk behavior as well as seatbelt use, providing data for targeted driver coaching. For large companies, the research, selection, implementation and management of an IVMS program is a daunting challenge; for a small business, it can be overwhelming. Working with recognized industry leaders, NIOSH has developed tools to assist smaller oil and gas companies and others to reduce risk of motor vehicle fatality. One of these tools is a guidance document for IVMS use: "Implementing an In-Vehicle Monitoring Program: A Guide for the Oil and Gas Extraction Industry". The IVMS guide provides ‘best practice’ in how to: Select the system that best fits a company's needs.Successfully implement an in-vehicle monitoring program.Best utilize IVMS data to improve motor vehicle safety and reduce fatalities. The purpose of this paper is to provide information about motor vehicle crashes, describe some benefits of IVMS, and introduce the IVMS guide developed by NIOSH and its partners for the U.S. oil and gas extraction industry.
In Western Canada, a significant portion of fatalities in the oil field can be related to driving events. A major service company has implemented a multifaceted approach to addressing the hazards associated with driving in the oilfield. A key component of the driving program is the driving simulator. In 2001, this service company purchased its first mobile computerized driving simulators to complement its driving program in the United States. The service company worked with the simulator manufacturer to develop a custom oilfield-specific driving program. The program evolved to include a multitude of scenarios and hazards that drivers are exposed to in field operations. Implementation of these simulators helped to account for a 50% reduction in automobile incidents and a 70% reduction in high-potential automotive incidents. The operations for this service company in Canada took notice and utilized a driving simulator as part of a pre-winter campaign in the fourth quarter of 2003. During Q1 of 2004, Canadian operations realized the lowest crash rate in its history. In 2007, the next generation of driving simulator was purchased for dedicated use in this region. New features include the ability to link student driver stations to simulate convoys, the ability of the instructor to interact independently with either or both students, and an enhanced scenario tool box to allow the instructor to craft custom scenarios. This paper describes evolution in the use of a simulator for driver training in an oilfield environment. Introduction A major service company historically delivers driver training to new recruits in the North American theater of operations via central training schools. For the purposes of this discussion, there are two benefits in particular that can be realized by the centralized training:Consistency in focus of training and the passion of delivery.Ability to allow the students to practice in a complete or comparative risk-free environment with opportunity to practice new found skills until they perform at a desired level of competence. This training provides the foundation for regular scheduled competence assessments to reinforce practical skills and training refreshers to support awareness and communicate expected behaviors at the various field locations. There has been at least one of these facilities in continuous operation since 1975. To help address driving safety with ever-increasing field activity, an initiative was undertaken to employ mobiles teams to deliver both skilled and motivated instructors and the ability to practice skill maneuvers in a risk-free environment to field locations.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.