Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Prescriptive driving hours the next step



Barry Moore
National Road Transport Commission
PO Box 13105, Law Courts, Melbourne, Victoria, 8010

Chris Brooks
Australian Transport Safety Bureau
PO Box 976, Civic Square, Canberra ACT 2608

The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily of their


Prescriptive regulation of hours of service is the norm for control of fatigue in drivers of heavy
vehicles in most developed countries. In many cases, the origins of current prescriptive
regulations had more to do with industrial relations issues or protection of government owned
rail operations against competition from a rapidly developing road transport industry than with
notions of road safety.

Since the initiation of prescriptive regulation, and particularly in recent years, understanding
of the nature and causes of fatigue has grown. Little of this increased understanding has yet
been embodied in regulatory approaches to the management of heavy vehicle driver fatigue.

The purpose of this paper is to explore options for medium term improvements in fatigue
regulation, through application of current understanding of fatigue causation.


Quantitative estimates of the contribution of heavy vehicle driver fatigue to road crashes vary
considerably. In part, this is because the conceptual definition of fatigue is imprecise, but
there are also major practical difficulties in determining whether a driver was impaired by
fatigue immediately before a crash occurred.

Moreover, figures quoted (particularly in secondary sources) sometimes relate to the total
contribution of fatigue to heavy vehicle crashes, including fatigue in other road users apart
from the truck driver. Where the distinction between “truck driver fatigue” and “other driver
fatigue” is made carefully, the latter accounts for more than half of the estimated total
contribution of fatigue to heavy vehicle crashes.

For example, Howarth, Heffernan and Horne (1989) estimated that fatigue (either on the part
of a truck driver or another driver) was a contributing factor in between 9% and 20% of fatal
crashes involving trucks in Victoria, with between 4% and 8% attributable to truck driver
fatigue (the lower figure in each range was based on Coroners’ findings, and the higher
figure on judgements by the authors, taking account all available information about crash

More recent data from the ATSB fatality database (1990, 1992, 1994 and 1996), again based
on all available information in Coroner’s records, identifies truck driver fatigue as a factor in
4% of all crashes involving at least one articulated truck, with other-driver fatigue involved in
a further 6% of these crashes. There can be no doubt that there is significant under-
identification of fatigue in this type of database. However, it must also be remembered that
figures as high as 30% (often suggested as closer to the “real” value), tend to involve a large
element of inference or imputation. For example, in estimates from “in-depth” studies and
coding systems, fatigue may be inferred because the crash circumstances suggest driver
impairment but there is no evidence that alcohol or other drugs were a factor, or because the
driver had been on the road for a long time.

Despite the lack of hard evidence, we can draw some simple pragmatic conclusions about
the contribution of heavy vehicle driver fatigue to road crashes. Whatever the “true” figure, it
is higher than the public is willing to accept, higher than drivers and responsible operators
want, and (almost certainly) higher than it could be, if better preventive measures were in

Hence, fatigue management and prevention is recognised (by both industry groups and
government agencies) as a priority issue in the long distance road transport industry.

This paper argues that some form of regulation of hours of work and rest is likely to have a
continuing role, at least for a major proportion of operators: though there is considerable
scope for complementary measures.

Apart from the goal of preventing fatigue, there is another important motivation for trying to
improve the regulatory framework: such regulations are recognised as “among the most
important factors that affect the productivity of the trucking industry and its resulting impacts
on the cost of goods transported by truck to consumers”                  (US Federal Highway
Administration, FHWA 1996).


The current regulatory situation in Australia is one of prescriptive regulation in most of the
“populous” jurisdictions and Codes of Practice in the “remote” jurisdictions.

Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia have implemented the “national”
provisions approved by Australian Transport Council [ATC] in 1999.                  Victoria has
implemented these provisions but has not yet implemented the “extended offences” (chain of
responsibility) provisions (though it is understood that legislation is imminent). Tasmania has
implemented most of the provisions, but has not implemented the log book requirements for
long distance drivers. Australian Capital Territory has not yet implemented the national

Western Australia and Northern Territory have both implemented Codes of Practice under
occupational health and safety legislation. These codes have been developed by transport
agencies, in conjunction with the road transport industry. In both of these jurisdictions, there
were previously no specific regulatory provisions applying to heavy vehicle driver fatigue.

Heavy vehicle driver fatigue: a policy advisers’ perspective                                2/14
The regulatory framework approved by ATC applies to vehicles of greater than 12 tonnes
gross mass and has three components:
   a regulated driving hours (standard hours) regime
   a transitional fatigue management scheme (TFMS, not available to bus drivers and
   provision for a full fatigue management scheme.

The standard hours regime is the default system: it applies to drivers/operators who are not
covered by the transitional fatigue management or full fatigue management option.

The prescriptive regulations under this regime include:
   maximum of 12 hours of driving and 14 hours of work (including driving) in any 24 hour
   minimum continuous rest break of 6 hours in any 24 hour period
   minimum rest break of 30 minutes (or 2x15 mins) in each period of 5 hrs 30 minutes
   minimum continuous rest break of 24 hours in each 7 day period (with a variation to cater
    for bus drivers on long tours)
   maximum hours of work of 72 in any 7 day period.

Drivers operating more than 100 kms from base are required to keep logbook records,
though provision is made for electronic recording or auditable management records as
alternatives to logbooks.

“Chain of responsibility” offences have been included, which place liability on employers,
consigners or other parties who take action which leads to breaches of the provisions.

The transitional fatigue management scheme was designed to legitimise a specific trip
(Brisbane-Sydney) which requires 14 hours, and which had previously been available under
an enforcement moratorium. It was intended as an interim measure; to be phased out when
the framework for full fatigue management programs became available. It provides some
relaxation of the limits in the core regulated driving hours regime, in exchange for
implementation of auditable processes relating to driver fatigue management training, health
and rostering.

The major flexibility offered under the TFMS is:
   14 hours of driving or work per day
   cycle can be operated over a 14 day period (ie, in any 14 day period: 144 hours
    maximum driving or work and 2x24 hours continuous rest).

In essence, TFMS is a variant of the core regulated hours approach, whereas full Fatigue
Management is a more radical departure. However, TFMS does add some elements of a
more comprehensive fatigue management approach to the traditional regulatory core, with
increased flexibility as an incentive. As discussed later, there may be scope for significant
further development of this kind of “hybrid” approach.

Under the (full) Fatigue Management Scheme, operators with approved programs for
managing driver fatigue will be exempted from most driving hours regulations. This option is
currently available only as a pilot program, with broader availability subject to results of an
evaluation of the pilot.

Heavy vehicle driver fatigue: a policy advisers’ perspective                              3/14
Apart from the full FMP approach, the national provisions (including TFMS) were designed
as an incremental reform: they were intended to achieve a greater degree of consistency
between jurisdictions which applied a prescriptive approach, better compliance with the
regulatory limits, some gains in flexibility, and some incentive to adopt a more pro-active
approach to fatigue prevention . There was no suggestion that the regulated hours provisions
had taken full account of current understanding of fatigue causation.

In terms of approaches to fatigue prevention, there is a great deal of similarity between the
full FMP approach and the Code of Practice approach developed in WA. The main
difference between the two systems is in the mechanisms used to ensure compliance and
quality control: FMP requires formal approval of an operator’s program by the relevant
transport agency, which also conducts audits of implementation. Sanctions for inadequate
implementation can include withdrawal of program approval. Under CoP, operators do not
need to seek program approval “up front”, but non-compliance with the code may leave the
operator open to legal sanctions under OH&S legislation.

The development of a “second generation” national fatigue policy in Australia has now
commenced. It is of interest that fatigue policy is simultaneously under review in Canada,
United States and New Zealand.


Recent research reviews (National Transportation Safety Board, 1995, FHWA 1996; Hartley,
Penna, Corry and Feyer 1998; Swann 1998; Vespa et al 1998; Belenky et al 1998) suggest
that the most important determinants of fatigue are related to the duration and timing of work
and restorative rest (“scheduling factors”):
   sleep deficits
   time of day (circadian rhythms)
   time on task

The reviews also conclude that:
   circadian low points and sleep deficits appear to be more important than time on task
    effects: that is, the duration of work over a single shift
    –   however these three factors are rarely independent of each other
   there are important interactions between sleep deficit effects and circadian effects – for
    –   amount or quality of sleep can be affected when drivers try to sleep during the day,
        rather than at night, and particularly when patterns of sleep and activity are irregular.
    –   sleep deprivation can exacerbate the normal drowsy periods in the circadian cycle.
   the effects of sleep loss can be cumulative: regularly losing one to two hours of sleep a
    night can create a "sleep debt" and lead to chronic sleepiness over time. In more extreme
    cases, a single period of sleep can be insufficient to cancel the sleep debt.
   for professional long distance drivers, flexibility in work requirements and scheduling is an
    important factor in reducing fatigue risks (Williamson et al 1992, NRTC 1997, Hartley et al
    1998): in particular, the extent to which work practices, schedules and other rules allow or
    encourage drivers to take rest when they need it
    –   the key issue is that onset of fatigue often does not coincide neatly with pre-planned
        rest breaks.

Heavy vehicle driver fatigue: a policy advisers’ perspective                                 4/14
Other factors recognised as significant in the causation/prevention of fatigue include:
   trip preparation / fitness for duty
   health and lifestyle
   work environment (eg noise, vibration, heat; and adequacy of sleeper berths)
   individual differences in tolerance to fatigue.


Problems with prescriptive regulation of hours of service are well known. They include:
   lack of flexibility
   encouraging exclusive focus on hours of driving and work, rather than on other aspects of
    fatigue causation
   cumbersome record-keeping requirements
   focus on drivers, rather than other responsible parties in the transport chain.
   enforcement difficulty
   low compliance levels

The potential strength of the full FMP or Code of Practice approaches to fatigue prevention is
that (in principle) they provide a framework within which the wide range of factors relevant to
fatigue can be addressed, through a combination of control over scheduling practices,
education, training and other management practices. They also offer the potential for gains
in both safety and productivity through greater flexibility, based on a system of tradeoffs:
“pushing the envelope” on one important parameter of fatigue management (such as the
length of a single shift) can, in principle, be compensated by changes to other factors that
affect fatigue outcomes.

By contrast, approaches based on regulation of hours of service have tended to focus
narrowly on the “time on task” factor. Increasingly, it has been recognised that time on task
is a poor proxy for alertness, and current research does not allow confidence in applying any
single fixed limit on time on task:
    –   clearly, certain outer limits are determined by the need to provide adequate
        opportunity for restorative rest and sleep;
    –   beyond that, appropriate limits are likely to be context-specific, depending on other
        aspects of the overall work/rest cycle, and other factors affecting fatigue. A particular
        numerical limit might be too restrictive in some contexts, and too permissive in others.

Despite the weaknesses in the prescriptive approach, it is unlikely that prescriptive regulation
of hours of service will be quickly removed in jurisdictions where it currently applies.
Reasons for this include:

   lack of confidence in, or limited applicability of, alternative approaches

    Use of codes of practice under occupational health and safety legislation has only
    recently been implemented in Western Australia and Northern Territory and has not yet
    been evaluated. Under this approach, certainty in requirements may not be achieved
    until a history of court decisions has been developed. This may take many years. In the

Heavy vehicle driver fatigue: a policy advisers’ perspective                                5/14
    meantime more responsible operators may impose more onerous conditions on
    themselves and suffer competitive disadvantage. In addition, conditions are generally
    different for long distance operation in the less populous areas of Australia.

    The Queensland Fatigue Management Pilot has been under development since 1994,
    but still has only a small number of operators and has not yet been evaluated. It is
    generally agreed that the approach has potential, but it has not yet been demonstrated
    that it is suited to broad application. The most suitable role for this approach may be as a
    voluntary alternative to more prescriptive regulation.

   public concerns over operating practices in long distance trucking

    There is frequent media evidence of public concerns over safety in long distance trucking
    operations. It is unlikely that movement towards a less interventionist approach to a key
    area of safety would be supported while these attitudes persist.

   enforcement at the roadside

    Prescriptive regulation is the only regulatory approach which allows enforcement action
    to be taken against drivers at the roadside. Despite the apparent limited effectiveness of
    this form of enforcement, it is arguable that it does have a place in the compliance
    armory, particularly in an industry dominated by small operators (mainly owner/drivers).

If this assessment is correct, regulation of hours of service is likely to remain in force for a
large proportion of long distance freight operations in Australia, and development of an
improved framework for such regulation remains an important policy goal.

It may be possible to develop a regulatory regime which is both more flexible and more
comprehensive than those we have had in the past, and in the process to narrow the gap
between current road transport and OH&S approaches.

It is also possible that the process of developing a better targetted system of regulatory limits
will produce approaches that can be applied with benefit in the context of full FMP and Code
of practice systems. At present, both approaches are open to the criticism that that the
boundaries between what is acceptable, and what is not acceptable, in regard to scheduling
and actual operational practices, has not been defined with sufficient clarity and rigour.


One of the reasons for the difficulty in applying prescriptive regulation to road transport in
Australia is the diverse nature of the industry, which is characterised by:
   a small number of large operators and a large number of small operators
   a wide variety of operating environments: including urban, rural, remote and populous
   varied contractual relationships: including employees, prime contractors and sub-
   many different transport tasks: with varying freight densities, varying degrees of time-
    sensitivity, varying value of product and variation between regular schedules and one-off
   a mix of ancillary transport (own business) and hire and reward transport companies
   a wide variety of vehicle types

Heavy vehicle driver fatigue: a policy advisers’ perspective                                6/14
There is great difficulty in developing prescriptive regulation which is flexible enough to suit
this diversity of circumstances.

There is open entry to most sectors of the road transport industry (no operator licensing) and
many operators are subject to high levels of competition. As levels of traditional (on-road)
enforcement are often low, operators wishing to adopt higher levels of compliance with
regulatory requirements may be at a significant competitive disadvantage and may not
survive against less compliant competitors.


The aim of fatigue policy is to achieve safety outcomes required by the community while
enabling maximum productivity in the road transport industry.

Requirements of good policy in the regulatory approach to management of heavy vehicle
driver fatigue are:
   it should encourage management of the key determinants of fatigue
   it should target all those responsible for practices which result in unsafe outcomes
   it should provide confidence to operators that they are complying. This is of greatest
    importance for smaller operators who are less likely to have the resources to develop
    complex compliance systems
   it should be applicable in the full range of circumstances in which road transport
    operations are undertaken
   it should not impose excessive compliance costs on transport operators
   it should enable cost-effective enforcement.

In a federal system of government, it is highly desirable that consistent requirements be
applied, so that operators who are regarded as complying in one jurisdiction are not found to
be in breach elsewhere. There may well be scope for convergence between the
requirements that apply in “regulated” as compared to “unregulated” jurisdictions (that is,
those where regulation is undertaken through road transport law, and those where the
approach is based on occupational health and safety provisions).

Potential elements of a regulatory approach include:

   Legislation (Acts and Regulations)

    Legislation is most useful for setting out general obligations (eg, duty of care) and specific
    (prescriptive) requirements (eg, maximum hours of service). Legislation may provide a
    framework for flexibility, but may not be an appropriate tool for directly specifying
    requirements which cannot be defined precisely (eg, control over factors leading to driver

    An advantage of legislation is that it can impose specific obligations and enable direct

Heavy vehicle driver fatigue: a policy advisers’ perspective                                 7/14
   Codes of practice

    Codes can be given status by being referenced in road transport legislation or
    occupational health and safety legislation.

    A code of practice is a more flexible regulatory tool, in that it includes guidelines which
    can be varied in different circumstances (eg, need for restorative rest).

    A disadvantage of a code of practice is that it may be difficult for an operator to obtain
    certainty on regulatory requirements.

   Education and training

    Education and training requirements can be also referenced in legislation or codes of

Within this framework, we can now consider some of the requirements of an effective system
in more detail:

   Management of the key determinants of fatigue

Management of cycles of work and restorative rest must be a central element of any credible
approach to fatigue prevention.
    –   minimum sleep requirements should be taken into account,
    –   to the extent feasible, cumulative fatigue effects and circadian effects should be taken
        into account, as well as time on task.

Other fatigue management approaches, such as management of health and fitness, the work
environment and provision for discretionary breaks have an important place, and can be
addressed through a combination of training and operational policies
    –   while recognising that the capacity to use such measures to compensate for
        extension of working time and restriction of sleep is strictly limited.

   Flexibility

Flexibility is a desirable approach to any regulatory approach to driver alertness. It is the
addition of flexibility to current regulatory requirements which may enable improved levels of
safety while maintaining or even improving industry productivity.

However, flexibility must be closely tied to the concept of compensatory tradeoffs: “pushing
the envelope” in one area must be offset by adequate compensatory action in other areas.

Within a regulatory framework, increases in flexibility on hours of operation can provide
incentives to operators to adopt more comprehensive fatigue management approaches.

   Broad applicability

Because of the diversity of road transport operations, a “one size fits all” approach is clearly
inappropriate, and a range of options needs to be available.

In some operations, and for some operators, it is not necessary to push hours of service
regulations to the limit. In these circumstances a regulatory option which is easily

Heavy vehicle driver fatigue: a policy advisers’ perspective                               8/14
understood is desirable, even at the cost of flexibility. This could be referred to as the “base
prescriptive” option, which could be enforced through “old fashioned” driver logbooks,
supplemented by appropriate operator records.

Even for this option, consistency with ”duty of care” requirements of occupational health and
safety legislation is required.

In parallel with the base system, there is probably scope for one or more levels of “flexible
regulatory” approach, which pick up more of the elements of the full FMP and OH&S Code of
Practice approaches.

   Effective compliance mechanisms

Compliance techniques such as education and moral suasion will not always be effective in
achieving compliance with fatigue regulation or with the alertness standard which it is
intended to achieve. Unless compliance levels are high, the regulatory approach would be
self-defeating as compliant operators could be forced out of business by competitors who
survived by breaching regulations.

A major difference between a code of practice under occupational health and safety
legislation and transport regulation, is that under the latter, the option exists to target the
driver on-road. Whilst this may not be the most effective form of enforcement, it may have a
place in the compliance armoury. It may also be a useful means of enabling direct targeting
of offenders, particularly in an industry with a large number of single-vehicle operators. In
addition, it is unlikely that the potential to target drivers would be easily relinquished by
enforcement agencies, road authorities and the community in jurisdictions where the power
currently exists.

Despite this, there is an argument that, in an environment where enforcement resources
applied to driver fatigue are scarce (and likely to remain so), enforcement effectiveness can
be better achieved by targeting operators and employers, rather than through on-road
enforcement, which has been the focus of Australian enforcement efforts.

However, the merits of shifting the onus entirely to operators are debatable: a more
comprehensive approach, addressing all levels of the chain of responsibility, might be
expected to promote better outcomes.

Operator-based enforcement requires operators and employers to be held responsible for
collating and maintaining records of driving and schedules, as well as for their duties in
arranging transport tasks in such a way as to enable drivers to maintain adequate standards
of alertness.

Operator-based enforcement can be facilitated through electronic record-keeping. Electronic
records also enable implementation and enforcement of more flexible hours of service

   Education and training

Education and training can provide a wide range of information to assist and promote good
fatigue management by managers, drivers and other employees. It is important that all of
these groups be targeted specifically, particularly for those operating under more flexible
(and therefore more complex) regulations or guidelines.

Heavy vehicle driver fatigue: a policy advisers’ perspective                               9/14
Education and training can include coverage of fatigue precursors and fatigue
countermeasures, and of the responsibilities of all parties under relevant legislation, codes
and company policies. The concept of shared responsibility can also be promoted.

Public education strategies are also needed to harness support for the new requirements
and to create a better understanding of the road transport industry and assist in the safer
sharing of the road network.


Figure 1 illustrates the coverage of the four main approaches currently available for
addressing driver fatigue, and indicates the potential for an expanded range of regulatory

Shaded cells in the table indicate areas that are covered by the different approaches, though
“coverage” can be achieved in quite different ways
   –    for example, the base regulatory approach seeks to address cumulative fatigue
        issues by setting limits to weekly hours of service (an approach recognised as crude
        and inadequate); while the Code of Practice and full Fatigue Management
        approaches promote more sophisticated scheduling criteria.

The table does not attempt to make fine-grained assessments of the relative adequacy of
coverage in different areas: though light shading has been used to flag areas of marginal

The central column (“enhanced regulation – [potential]”) suggests the scope for a regulatory
option which might pick up elements of the Code of practice and full fatigue management
approaches, to a significantly greater extent than the current TFMS option: while retaining a
somewhat firmer prescriptive base.

Cells marked “potential?” in that central column indicate areas not covered by current
regulatory approaches, or where coverage might be enhanced significantly.

A key question to be addressed is whether new approaches to regulation of hours-of-service
can be developed, to take better account of circadian factors and cumulative fatigue. In
effect: is it possible to adapt advice on appropriate scheduling practices into a form that is
more prescriptive than the current Code of practice and full fatigue management approaches,
so as to provide an intermediate option between conventional prescription and full fatigue

Clearly, there are potential problems with such an approach, including potential complexity,
and the need for careful evaluation of the operational and safety implications of a system that
might create pressures to change the existing balance between day and night operations;

   –    however, the same potential issues arise in relation to non-regulatory approaches to
        improved scheduling practices.

As noted earlier, the scope for more effective prescription of scheduling practices depends
on whether it is possible to specify clear criteria for distinguishing between schedules that are
likely to be acceptable in fatigue terms, and those that are not (with a possible allowance for
a grey area in the middle). If such criteria can be developed, they should help to facilitate the
consistent and efficient administration of full FMP and Code of Practice approaches (by

Heavy vehicle driver fatigue: a policy advisers’ perspective                               10/14
providing a base-line, against which individual cases could still be considered on their
merits), as well as a better targetted and more flexible regulatory approach.

However, development of a wider range of regulatory options does not depend on being able
to draft fully prescriptive regulations to cover all relevant principles: a combination of
prescription, guidelines and education may well be optimal.

If the problem of specifying criteria for acceptable schedules proves too complex and subtle
for clear guidelines, this would present a major challenge to the broad application of current
“non-regulatory” alternatives, as well as to flexible regulation.

                                         Figure 1
                   Areas addressed under current and potential approaches

                                             Current            TFMS   Enhanced Code of            FMP
                                             "standard                 Regulation practice
                                             hours"                    (potential) (WA model)
Fatigue factors
     Time on task                                                                   (guidelines)
     (hours of work and breaks)
                                                                        potential    (training & education)
        Hours of sleep
        Circadian factors
                                                     (outer limits)                     (outer limits +
        Cumulative fatigue                                                           scheduling practices)

     Trip preparation, fitness for duty

     Health & lifestyle
                                                 (coverage outside
     Work environment                            driving hours regs)

     Discretionary breaks


     Chain of responsibility

     Training & education

     Documented program &                                               potential
     procedures - auditing

     Documented program &                                               potential
     procedures - entry requirement

     Record of actual hours

     Roadside enforcement &

     Duty of care / civil liability

Heavy vehicle driver fatigue: a policy advisers’ perspective                                          11/14

A comprehensive approach to heavy vehicle driver fatigue has to be flexible, broad in
coverage of issues and able to address a wide range of targets.

We propose a model comprising a combination of legislation, codes of practice, education
and training, and other initiatives.

   Legislation

    Legislation would provide a framework for a range of schemes, from “base prescription”,
    through a number of flexibility options (probably only one or two), to full fatigue
    management. Each form of prescription would be designed to be consistent with
    occupational health and safety “duty of care” requirements but may not be sufficiently
    comprehensive to fully satisfy those requirements. Movement along the flexibility
    spectrum would involve higher degrees of operator and driver responsibility and may
    require electronic record keeping. Legislation would include “chain of responsibility”
    provisions to target all in the transport chain who undertook actions leading to unsafe
    fatigue practices (subject to some form of “knew or reasonably ought to have known”

    In jurisdictions which relied solely on occupational health and safety legislation to
    regulate heavy vehicle driver fatigue, elements of this teired approach might be built into
    relevant codes of practice.

   Codes of practice

    One or more codes of practice could cover drivers, transport operators and others in the
    transport chain. These codes could be given status by being referenced in road transport
    legislation or occupational health and safety legislation. Compliance with road transport
    legislation or occupational health and safety legislation, combined with adherence to the
    appropriate code of practice, would ensure compliance with both road transport and
    occupational health and safety requirements.

    A jurisdiction without specific road transport legislation on driver fatigue would include
    some elements of that legislation in the code of practice. The codes of practice should
    be consistent in all jurisdictions (ie, identical but for different coverage in jurisdictions
    using the OH&S approach).

   Education and training

    Education and training requirements could be referenced in legislation or codes of

   Other initiatives

    Other initiatives may be required to enable a comprehensive approach to the
    management of heavy vehicle driver fatigue.        These include: public education,
    infrastructure measures, industry codes and education of consignors and others in the
    transport chain.

Heavy vehicle driver fatigue: a policy advisers’ perspective                               12/14
This model of “flexible prescription” would enable full flexibility in “prescriptive” jurisdictions, a
comprehensive approach to factors affecting fatigue and improved consistency between
“prescriptive” and “non-prescriptive jurisdictions”.

Application of this model would enable:
   simplicity and certainty for operators choosing the “base prescription” option
   flexibility options with enhanced driver and operator responsibilities, combined with
    electronic record-keeping
   full flexibility for a limited number of operators
   consistency of all options with occupational health and safety requirements
   continued emphasis on chain of responsibility
   more emphasis on codes of practice and training for drivers, operators and others in the
    transport chain
   greater consistency between jurisdictions basing their regulatory approach on road
    transport law and those relying entirely on occupational health and safety provisions.

Heavy vehicle driver fatigue: a policy advisers’ perspective                                   13/14

Belenky G, McKnight AJ, Mitler MM, Smiley A, Tijerina L, Waller PF, Wierville W and Willis
DK (1998). Potential hours-of-service regulations for commercial drivers. Office of Motor
Carriers, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA 97-2350-618)

Hartley LR, Penna F, Corry A and Feyer A-M (1998) Comprehensive Review of Fatigue
Research. Institute for Research in Safety & Transport Report, Murdoch University (Number

Howarth, N.L., Heffernan, C.J. and Horne, E.J. (1989) Fatigue in truck accidents. Monash
University Accident Research Centre Technical Report 3, Melbourne: Monash University
Accident Research Centre.

National Transportation Safety Board] (1995). Safety study: Factors that affect fatigue in
heavy truck accidents. NTSB PB95-917001 - SS-95/01.

Swann, P (1998). Fatigue, sleep and accidents. Melbourne, Vicroads. TC report number:
TP 12876E

Vespa S, Rhodes W, Heslgrave R, Smiley A & Baranski J (1998). Options for changes to
hours of service for commercial vehicle drivers Transport Canada, Transport Development
Centre (TP 13309E)

Heavy vehicle driver fatigue: a policy advisers’ perspective                        14/14

To top