Abstract
Collisions between trucks and vulnerable road users (VRUs) represent one of the most severe types of road collisions. Research initiatives to mitigate truck–VRU collisions include vehicle redesign, infrastructure improvements, and driver warning systems. Truck driver training is a complementary solution that can lead to improved driving behavior and collision reduction. We aimed to understand the perceptions of subject matter experts of current truck driver training in Ontario, Canada, to identify gaps and potential improvements, particularly targeting VRU safety in urban areas. Further, we investigated the degree to which VRU safety is covered and the potential to incorporate it in training through simulators. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 truck driver trainees, novice and experienced truck drivers, a driving instructor, and road safety professionals. The participants highlighted a notable gap between current training and real-world truck driving. VRU safety and hazard anticipation training emerged as a missing component in training. Nine out of 11 participants who received simulator training perceived it positively and recommended it for its safe and relatively realistic environment. The main topics that should be incorporated in VRU safety training, as recommended by interviewees, include training on difficult truck maneuvers with presence of VRUs, anticipating hazardous VRU actions, and navigating difficult infrastructure components. This work presents subject matter expert perceptions of current truck driver training in Ontario, Canada, and identifies gaps and improvements targeting VRU safety. Although the study is based on Ontario, the results can apply across Canada and beyond, where trucks pose dangers to VRUs.
As urban populations continue to grow, the need for goods movement by trucks is also growing. At the same time, cycling and walking are encouraged for their health benefits and environmental sustainability. With the rise in truck, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic, interactions between trucks and these vulnerable road users (VRUs) are increasing, raising road safety concerns ( 1 ). Truck-involved collisions are associated with a high degree of severity, especially when VRUs are involved. The risk of severe injury and fatality for pedestrians struck by trucks is much higher compared with those struck by passenger cars or other small vehicles ( 2 ). In Canada, the yearly average cyclist and pedestrian fatalities from 2006 to 2017 went up by 74 to 317 ( 3 ). In Toronto, a large metropolitan city, pedestrians and cyclists constituted more than 53% of people killed and seriously injured in truck collisions between 2006 and 2017 ( 4 ).
Several studies have proposed ways to prevent or alleviate hazardous truck–VRU interactions and collisions. These include infrastructure improvements, such as removing sightline obstructions at intersections and increasing curb radii ( 5 ), vehicle design changes, and technical solutions including driver alert systems or traffic light phase adjustments to better accommodate VRUs ( 6 , 7 ). However, a high penetration rate of such improvements is required to achieve notable positive effects on truck–VRU collisions. Truck driver training is another important but not widely researched approach to improve truck–VRU interactions.
Truck drivers’ opinions and suggestions about training needs can provide important insights but are only occasionally considered. For instance, a Canadian truck driver survey study on training highlighted several gaps and inadequacies in relevant standards ( 8 ). The main component in training, that is, exclusively classroom training, was not favored by trainees whereas longer practical, on-road, and simulator-based training were recommended. The need to expose novice truck drivers to different driving settings, situations, and contexts (including driving during nighttime and severe winter conditions) was strongly advocated. A closer investigation of the Canadian truck driver training standards shows that standards differ between provinces, although the National Safety Code Standard 16 was developed and published in 2020 for truck driver training requirements ( 9 ). For instance, in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Nunavut, and Newfoundland and Labrador, training is currently recommended but not mandatory for new truck drivers ( 10 , 11 ).
In July 2017, Ontario was the first Canadian province to implement a 103.5 h mandatory entry-level training for heavy-truck drivers as a prerequisite to the truck driving road test ( 12 ). Truck driver training standards in Ontario are very similar to the National Safety Code Standard 16; they both include in-class, in-yard, and in-cab components, with minimums of 36.5, 17, and 50 h, respectively. The curriculum includes 10 sections that cover various topics, ranging from vehicle components, basic driving techniques, and professional driving habits to off-road tasks, paperwork, and employment in the trucking industry. Although the Ontario truck driver training standard suggests that trainees are taught, in an in-class environment, to “share the road with pedestrians and other vehicles” (one learning outcome of section 4), and “adapt to the presence of other motorists, pedestrians, cyclists and slow-moving vehicles” (section 10), no behind-the-wheel training is required for either section. Training content related specifically to VRU safety is generally lacking in Ontario and other Canadian provincial truck driver training standards, which is also the case in many other countries ( 13 , 14 ).
Despite its importance, the subject of safe interactions with VRUs, which ultimately require drivers to anticipate and adapt to VRU actions, is difficult to teach using passive classroom methods ( 15 ). Even behind-the-wheel training in a real truck is inadequate to develop this skill as the limited training time would prevent trainees from gaining repeated exposure to relevant scenarios. A promising alternative approach is simulation-based training, which enables the repetition of training exercises and scenarios that may not be possible in the real world (e.g., properly reacting to and managing adverse events such as tire blowout). Simulators have been widely adopted for training in the aviation industry and found to be highly effective ( 16 , 17 ). Although the adoption of simulators for truck driver training is more limited, research shows promising results on its effectiveness for passenger vehicle driving and basic truck driving skills. For instance, Romoser and Fisher ( 18 ) developed a simulator training, consisting of several simulator drives, followed by a review and feedback session where error portions of the drive were replayed and instructions were given on how they could have been avoided. The training was found to significantly increase passenger vehicle drivers’ probability of looking for potential hazards during turns. Casutt et al. ( 19 ) also found that simulator drives, followed by a feedback session, improved drivers’ on-road performance by training them to perform multiple tasks at the same time: controlling the car, scanning the environment (perception), remembering similar situations (memory), and anticipating and planning maneuvers (cognition). As for truck drivers, simulators have been shown to be effective for training on straight-line backing and reverse lane-change maneuvers ( 20 ). Further, truck drivers in a focus group study indicated that simulators should be used in training to improve situational awareness, which includes hazard anticipation, safety-conscious behaviors, and handling rare situations ( 21 ), three topics that are highly relevant to VRU safety.
Overall, VRU safety training for truck drivers is an area that requires further development, with driving simulators as a potential approach. Based on the gaps identified in Canadian truck driver training, the feedback reported from truck drivers, and the promising potential of using simulators, the objectives of this study are as follows:
Gather opinions and feedback on current conventional and simulator-based truck driver training;
Investigate the degree to which VRU safety is covered and the necessity of incorporating it in training; and
Obtain feedback on hazardous scenarios to guide the development of future simulator-based VRU safety training, including hazard anticipation.
To achieve these objectives, a semi-structured interview study was conducted with Ontario truck drivers (novice and experienced), trainees, a driving instructor, and road safety professionals (i.e., Ontario government and private sector employees with expertise in road and truck safety). The participants’ training and driving experiences and suggestions for the improvement of VRU safety were recorded. Although the focus of this study is on Ontario drivers, the lessons learned also apply across Canada and internationally where VRU safety is threatened by truck traffic, which can also lead to a reduction in people choosing to adopt more vulnerable but healthier forms of transportation.
Methods
One-on-one interviews were conducted with subject matter experts (truck drivers, trainees, a training instructor, and road safety professionals) in Ontario between May and October 2021. Interviews took place over an online platform because of COVID-19 measures in effect at the time. The study was approved by the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board and all procedures were performed in compliance with the approved protocol (#40646).
Participants
Participants were recruited through postings on social media and on trucking platforms and pages, through emails disseminated to the authors’ network, to the network of an accredited Ontario commercial driver training school, and by word of mouth. Five categories of participants were recruited and overall 21 participants completed the study (see Table 1):
two current truck driver trainees; coded and referred to as T1 and T2;
10 novice truck drivers (with less than five years of truck driving experience), N1 to N10;
five experienced truck drivers (with more than five years of truck driving experience), E1 to E5;
one truck driving instructor who was also an experienced truck driver, I1; and
three road safety professionals (government or private sector professionals who have expertise in road safety, particularly truck safety), RS1 to RS3. (RS3 was also receiving their training at the time of the interview and is indicated as such in Table 1; they are reported as a road safety professional in the results section because of their significant and more dominant experience in that role.)
Participant Information
Trainees, novice truck drivers, and an instructor were recruited to gain insights related to current training practices and transferability of training to real-world conditions. Experienced truck drivers were interviewed to collect information about best practices, common collision and conflict scenarios with VRUs, and other insights gained through their driving experience. Road safety professionals were sought to provide knowledge about collision trends and professional opinions about the factors contributing to truck–VRU collisions and the development of VRU safety training. We focused only on Ontario residents to ensure all participants had similar driving and training experiences and drove under the same traffic rules and through the same circumstances.
Most participants (81%) were between 35 and 54 years old and identified as male (Table 1). No age or sex restrictions were implemented in recruitment as diversity was deemed essential to avoid bias and ensure an equitable representation of opinions. Out of the 18 interviewed truck drivers and trainees, two current trainees and nine novice truck drivers used a truck simulator during training.
Study Design and Procedures
Participants first completed a short online form to register for the interview. This form captured basic demographics (sex, age range, types of driving licenses, and occupation) and was used to collect contact information for future communication and availability for the interview. After signing the informed consent form, participants were asked open-ended questions following a semi-structured interview guide (Table 2) that had been prepared before the data collection period commenced. They were asked about their perceptions of truck driver training, the use of a truck simulator as part of training, potential training for hazard anticipation skills and VRU safety, and to provide examples of hazardous scenarios between trucks and VRUs. Urban areas were of particular focus because of the high presence of VRUs and frequent interactions between trucks and VRUs in urban areas. Some of the conventional and simulator training-specific questions were skipped and replaced by more open-ended questions for road safety professionals. One interviewer, that is, the first author, conducted all the interviews, and used probing questions to clarify participant answers whenever needed. The interviews lasted about 30 min each. As a token of appreciation, each participant was compensated with a C$25 gift card. The interviews were audio-recorded for further analysis.
Semi-Structured Interview Guide
Data Analysis
The interviewer first manually transcribed the interview recordings. Transcripts were then transferred to NVivo 12, a qualitative data analysis software that helps researchers in organizing, coding, and thematic grouping of text elements in a structured manner. The interviewer then organized transcript extracts into themes and subthemes, which were then grouped, divided, and synthesized to match the main objectives of the study. These analyses followed the thematic analysis procedure presented in Braun and Clarke ( 22 ).
Results
The results are presented according to the three objectives listed in the introduction. We also present additional insights the interviewees shared. Key findings are summarized in Table 3.
Key Findings
Objective 1: Feedback on Conventional and Simulator-Based Truck Driver Training
Conventional Training
Participants, especially novice drivers, brought up concerns about the inconsistent quality of truck driving schools in Ontario, the insufficient length of conventional training, and training differing from real-life truck driving. Aspects that contribute to a positive training experience were also identified.
Two participants (I1, RS2) believed the cost of training to be associated with the amount of information taught in training; less expensive schools provide shorter and sometimes lower quality training that is mainly designed for relatively experienced truck drivers, who may have been licensed in a different country. However, these schools also admit individuals with no experience, which was deemed problematic, attracting lower-budgeted inexperienced individuals who wish to start practicing the occupation as soon as possible.
A frequently mentioned negative training experience was the insufficient training duration (I1, N4, N8, E3, RS2). Interviewees thought that the training was shorter than it should be and insufficient to prepare new truck drivers for the occupation. Three participants (N4, N6, RS2) indicated that training prepared drivers to be licensed, but did not teach them how to operate and drive a truck properly and safely: “They don’t teach how to drive. They concentrate more on how you get the license, and the school will get the fee, that’s all. That’s lack of education. [Training is] 100% not sufficient for the students. There are a lot of corrections to be done for all the schools.”– N4.
Some novice participants (N4, N6, N8) felt that there is a significant gap between training and real-world practice, necessitating novice drivers to learn many skills at the beginning of their job as truck drivers: “Training is much different than real life. When you drive for a long-distance or even local, they don’t train you for these work jobs, they are just training you to get a license. It’s a huge difference. While working, we have to learn a lot more about driving compared to what we are taught in school.”– N6. An idea emerged to have trainees accompany an experienced truck driver for multiple drives as part of the training. This practice, it was believed, would bridge the gap between training and real practice (N4, N8): “There was no ‘go on a run with somebody and see how it is all done.’ That I had to figure out all on my own […] You should go on a run with someone before you drive your own truck all by yourself.”– N8.
On the other hand, a well-organized training schedule, committed and cautious instructors who ensure trainees are well trained, and a high quality, sufficiently long, in-depth, and inclusive training were all believed to contribute to a positive training experience. Some participants (N2, N7, T1, T2) had a much more positive training experience than others: “[My school] won’t let you get on a truck until you are 100% able to. They (the instructors) are very cautious. The training is very effective.”– N2.
Simulator-Based Training
As mentioned earlier, 11 out of the 18 interviewees received simulator training. They discussed their positive and negative experiences while those interviewees with no simulator experience were also encouraged to provide their thoughts about the use of a simulator. Trainees reported that they received between 6 h and 10 h of simulator training, mainly for manual transmission and gear shifting, which was of particular interest to drivers: “You should not be on the road and not sure which gear you need to put on and how it goes. So it was a pretty good exercise, and simulator was effective.”– T2. The simulator scenarios were generally personalized and thus different for each trainee, according to their experience and needs as identified by the instructors.
Of the 11 participants who had simulator training, nine thought that the simulator enriched their training experience and was useful. The relatively realistic environment allowed trainees to translate their theoretical knowledge into practical application without having to drive a real truck. Interviewees also valued the ability to make mistakes in the simulator without having an actual collision: “The simulator helps you make expensive mistakes so that you can get in the frame of mind when you are actually in the situation. It’s actually good to make mistakes in a virtual environment first and then if that environment presents itself in real life, then you know you need to react in such and such a way”– N10. RS2’s views were also in line with that, supporting the finding that simulators allow truck drivers to make mistakes and learn from them without harming others on the road.
Regardless of their usefulness, a few disadvantages of simulators were also highlighted. Both I1 and RS1 expressed concern for motion sickness. The virtual environment of the simulator was also criticized by some interviewees. Almost half of the participants who had simulator training (N4, N8, N9, N10, T2) stated that the simulator graphics and hardware were not similar to reality: “The simulator is not very real. Like it was good for learning to change gears but when you learn to clutch and change gears, the driving part of it didn’t seem realistic. Like the buildings didn’t look real, you could tell they were cartoon buildings. It wasn’t a real feeling.”– N8. One participant also brought up the difficulty of sensing the real dimensions of the truck in the simulator, especially while backing up: “It was difficult to know how much to go back, you don’t have a rear-view mirror or any sensors so you can hit the trailer.”– T2.
Objective 2: VRU Safety and the Need to Incorporate it in Training
VRU Safety in Current Training
Of several areas for improvement in truck driver training, we focused on the extent to which VRU safety is covered in training. Four participants (N2, N7, T1, T2) mentioned that training included some instructions on VRU safety, while six participants (N1, N4, N6, N8, E3, RS2) said that it did not. A trainee and two novice drivers (T2, N1, and N7) indicated that VRU safety instructions were given to them during the on-road drives, particularly when VRUs were physically encountered on the road: “On the road drive, on a Saturday morning, it was all clear, there was no one. Gradually, the cyclists came up and the instructor was telling me if you see a cyclist you have to focus on them, slow down, lower your gears or just don’t overtake that person and be behind that person and give them enough time. When there were 2 or 3 cyclists the instructor told me OK, it is only your second class so let’s go on another road where there are not so many cyclists”– T2. If VRUs are not encountered on the road, no instructions may be given, and if they are encountered, instructors may be hesitant to let trainees interact with VRUs.
Only one participant (N9) mentioned a simulator scenario they encountered in their training where a pedestrian was jaywalking. Almost everyone else agreed on the lack of scenarios about VRUs in their simulator training component: “No cyclists at all that I can remember. And I don’t think there were actually people”– N8.
Training Hazard Anticipation Skills and the Use of Simulators for VRU Safety
When asked whether they thought training on VRU safety, including hazard anticipation skills, was important, nine participants strongly agreed: “I think there should be training for pedestrian and cyclist safety and how to deal with it and how to look out for it rather than just throwing you out there and you having to deal with it.”– N1.
According to RS2, if new truck drivers get training on the most repetitive crash scenarios between trucks and VRUs, such as side runovers of cyclists by turning trucks, it would be easier for them to avoid such collisions later in their career. RS1, however, provided a critique and stated that training hazard anticipation skills is difficult since hazardous events are infrequent and therefore require experience to anticipate, detect and avoid: “[you are] training truck drivers to look for something that is rare and unexpected, and you learn to do this by driving and experiencing it and seeing it often enough.”
Both drivers and road safety professionals supported the idea of using simulators to train on hazardous scenarios with VRUs. It was suggested that the simulator would be a great tool to train new truck drivers on various unsafe scenarios instead of having to face them on the road for the first time: “More training rather than just putting them on the simulator to get used to driving, that could be more useful. I think the simulator would be an excellent opportunity to throw different scenarios at it. Using VRUs in the simulator would be valuable”-N1; “Something to be considered [is] to integrate hazardous VRU situations into the design of the simulation, which could save lives, absolutely”– RS2. More generally, RS3 thought that the use of a simulator is essential for training any driving skill, including hazard anticipation. They also highlighted the importance of emphasizing hazard anticipation in truck driver training.
Objective 3: Hazardous Scenarios Between Trucks and VRUs
The most frequently identified unsafe situations involving VRUs are summarized in Figure 1. The situations can be categorized into three main groups, truck maneuvers, VRU behavior, and infrastructure. Interviewees also commented on three general issues they face that can exacerbate the risks. Inclement weather including snow, rain, slush, and fog were seen as high risk because of low visibility and slippery roads. Two experienced drivers (E1 and E2) in fact stated that they avoided driving during the winter months. Poor nighttime visibility was another identified risk factor, especially for the detection of VRUs in dark colored clothes. Finally, peak hour was deemed to be risky as it increases the mental demand associated with achieving awareness of the truck surroundings.
Hazardous situations between trucks and vulnerable road users (VRUs), as identified by interviewees.
Risky Situations Related to Truck Maneuvers
As presented in Figure 1, more than half of the participants stated that turns (both left and right) and backing up are the most difficult truck maneuvers and require caution because of their danger to VRUs. Interviewees highlighted the stress associated with turns as drivers must merge with oncoming traffic while being mindful of other road users. They mentioned that other drivers frequently do not understand or respect truck dynamics, which causes stress for truck drivers: “Turns are absolutely stressful. The expectations of other motorists, they don’t view you as much larger than them, they sort of expect you to turn and act the same way that they would. There’s a lot of planning and pre-planning involved in it.”– N1; “During turns, people do not let truck drivers take their time and do not consider their size and weight and hence their need to be slow and careful.”– E5.
VRUs were noted to sometimes misjudge the space needed by trucks to perform right turns and that they stop on the right side of the trucks too close to the intersection, which puts them at risk of being hit by the right turning truck and increases the difficulty of the turn for truck drivers. Lack of visibility of the right side of the truck to the driver increases the risk of VRUs being unintentionally run over, especially by the rear right wheels of the truck: “Right turn is always an alarming thing. You have to always be mentally prepared for this type of turn because you cannot see exactly. So give the pedestrians complete room and complete time and focus before you even prepare to make a turn.”– T1.
Backing up was considered to be another risky truck maneuver. The most important reason given was poor backward visibility, even in good light conditions. Eight truck drivers (five novices, two experienced drivers, and the instructor [I1]) mentioned the rear blind spot that makes objects and people behind the truck almost impossible to see: “Backing is a stressful thing as well and you could hit pedestrians as well because there is a lot of blind spots when you’re backing. Sometimes I would back up and I would have no clue that there is someone back there.”– N1. It was stated that truck drivers must be constantly aware of the movement of people behind the truck when backing up, especially in residential areas, and that they are sometimes required to fully or partially block the street, which greatly increases their mental workload and is deemed as hazardous and stressful.
Risky Situations Related to VRU Behavior
Interviewees frequently mentioned that VRU actions are also problematic. Five truck drivers mentioned that VRUs that cross the street when their light is red or do not stop at a stop sign cause truck drivers to brake heavily, which puts them in a stressful situation (E1, E5, N5, N9, N10). Pedestrians who start crossing the street when their counter is flashing also cause annoyance to truck drivers who are starting to prepare to accelerate after a red light: “I had green light and I am going through the green light and there was a cyclist that just went right through his red light in front of me. I just had to slam on my brakes just so that I don’t hit them. Same with pedestrians, they see that the light is red and they run across the street.”– E2.
Other road users’ lack of respect, courtesy, and mindfulness toward trucks were thought to create unsafe scenarios on the road (N5, E2, E4): “We expect other road users to have the knowledge that we drive a very big truck. We cannot stop it right away, we take time to turn, to back up, sometimes we are stuck because of narrow roads.”– E4. Not giving trucks enough space or time to complete maneuvers was deemed to put VRUs at a higher risk. A need was therefore identified to mitigate other road users’ lack of courtesy and poor understanding of truck dynamics. It was suggested that passenger vehicle drivers and the general public should receive education about the dynamics of trucks and their blind spots: “I’d say, pedestrian and cyclist safety should be public education. Regular drivers need public education about trucks and where the large blind spots are.”– RS3. Two truck drivers (N9 and E5) found that VRUs were negligent or unaware of their own safety, sharing the same scenario: “In downtown Toronto, [there were] some cyclists holding on to my trailer and I'm pulling them. This is extremely unsafe.”– E5.
Distracted VRUs were mentioned as another reason for risky situations (N4, N7, N9, T1), with VRUs that use cellphones or listen to headsets while crossing the street or cycling being less aware of their environment: “Sometimes [VRUs] are listening to headsets and can’t hear anything. They are in a totally different world.”– N4. Child pedestrians were also referred to as contributing to hazardous situations (I1, N7, E4). Children running toward traffic or appearing on the roadway unexpectedly were thought to be of particular concern because they are small and make rapid unpredictable movements that are difficult to anticipate, even when the truck driver is careful.
Risky Situations Related to Infrastructure
Ten interviewees identified either one or a combination of the following infrastructure characteristics to contribute to unsafe situations with VRUs: construction sites and lane closures, traffic lights and intersections, and lack of bike lanes.
Participants (N3, N5, E2) thought that construction sites and the resulting lane closures create turbulence in traffic and cause bottlenecks, confusion, and conflicts between road users: “The most intense would probably be construction zones because there is so little road and so much going on, reducing the lane size. There are no more bike lanes, no sidewalks and everybody is just trying to use the same lane on the road itself.”– E2. Some participants thought that construction sites increased the difficulty and risks associated with turns and backing. Sharing a one-lane pedestrian-dense road with other vehicles and VRUs was also thought by many to be frustrating and unsafe. Overtaking bicycles was considered to be particularly hazardous in single lane roads since VRUs might be hit or run over by the side of the truck during the maneuver (N9, N10, T2, E2).
Poor infrastructure that allows unsafe truck–VRU interactions was frequently mentioned. Three novice and two experienced drivers, two road safety professionals, and the instructor highlighted problems related to poor design of intersections and traffic lights, especially in the City of Toronto. For instance, a different way of traffic light operation was suggested as the current system was believed to overwhelm drivers and make pedestrians feel unsafe: “They should design the traffic control signals to ensure that when the pedestrian has a go to cross the street, that nobody is turning. Based on my life experience and training, the way intersections and signals are designed and timed make the difference between life and death.”– RS2. Another suggestion was changing truck drivers’ attitude toward traffic lights by training them to approach a green light with caution, anticipating the potential presence of VRUs on the road: “So, kind of changing the attitude towards what green and red and orange lights mean would be something to be considered, which could save lives, absolutely”– RS2.
Four of the same participants also described the lack or inconsistency of bicycle infrastructure as problematic for truck drivers, especially while turning, as it increases the likelihood of blind spot-related collisions with bicycles. A participant highlighted the difficulties in detecting bicycles in the absence of bike lanes: “One of the main problems in downtown Toronto are the cyclists. Most of the time—80% of the time—you can’t see them, especially when you turn.”– E4.
Additional Comments
Truck Driver Expertise
From the participants’ point of view, a lot of effort should be put to make roads more equitable for trucks and safer for VRUs. While driver education improvements were deemed necessary, E2, E3 and RS3 highlighted truck drivers’ talent and expertise and endorsed their safe driving. The Commercial Vehicle Operator Registration (CVOR) certificate ( 23 ) enforces safe driving by truck drivers as the certificate tracks and records drivers’ safety violations which affects their employment: “Truckers are keenly aware that if they break the rules, they may not be working. And also the CVOR program, which is excellent, keeps track of everyone. They are already on the mindset that they have to keep a clean record.”– RS2.
Changing Regulations for Truck Driver Working Hours
Driver fatigue and extreme tiredness, along with several negative emotions, resulting from long driving hours, were commonly expressed. According to the hours-of-service requirements in Ontario ( 24 ), truck drivers are allowed to drive for up to 13 h and be on-duty for up to 14 h a day. A 14 h working day was described as “inhuman,”“unfair,” or “too long” (N8, E1, E5). Drivers thought that long working days negatively affected their physical and mental health and abilities: “My shift is usually from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., so when the sun sets at about 8:00 p.m., I am tired already. 14-hour shifts are too much! It is inhuman. It is too much for your brain, for your eyes.”– E5.
Discussion
We conducted 21 semi-structured online interviews with truck driver trainees, truck drivers (novice and experienced), a truck driving instructor, and road safety professionals. Our objectives were (i) to understand their perspectives about current truck driver training in Ontario, Canada, (ii) to investigate the degree to which VRU safety is covered in training, and the necessity of incorporating it in training, and (iii) to learn about common hazardous scenarios between trucks and VRUs to inform the development of future simulator-based VRU safety training, including hazard anticipation.
The study participants highlighted the need for longer and more practical training to bridge the gap between training and real-world truck driving. This finding is consistent with the literature; the short length of Canadian truck driver training was also criticized in a study where truck drivers also highlighted their need for being mentored by an experienced driver as part of their training ( 8 ). Our participants agreed that current training programs are in need of more components related to VRU safety. Similarly, increasing the degree to which safety in general is covered in training was also recommended in Gargoum et al. ( 25 ).
More than half of our interviewees used a truck simulator as part of their training. Overall, the use of simulators was positively perceived, including for VRU safety training. Particularly, simulators were favored in training hazard anticipation skills and participants advocated the ability to repeat specific scenarios. Nevertheless, simulator sickness and low resolution graphics were brought up as two concerning factors that have also been widely studied in the literature ( 26 , 27 ). Although we focused on simulator training as a potential medium for VRU safety training, recent research has shown that general anticipatory driving training, provided through combined theory, a workshop, and on the road, helped increase truck driver monitoring of cyclists ( 14 ). Simulators are one useful medium that can complement other forms of hazard anticipation training.
Interviewees also identified many causes for hazardous scenarios involving VRUs. Turns, backing, distracted VRUs, VRU lack of courtesy and non-abidance by the rules, presence of children on the road, and poor or lack of infrastructure were perceived as hazardous for VRU safety. Although truck drivers’ high degree of expertise was clearly endorsed by experienced drivers and road safety professionals, any combination of the mentioned causes for hazardous scenarios with VRUs can increase truck driver stress and mental workload and thus the potential for collisions. These hazardous scenarios can be utilized in future training programs to better prepare truck drivers to navigate them safely.
Some of the interviewee safety concerns can be better addressed through policy and regulation changes rather than mainly through improved driver training. The relevant mitigation strategies that potentially require policy changes emerged as infrastructure and traffic light design improvements, general public education about truck dynamics, and improved truck driver working hour regulations, many of which are in line with the literature. For instance, bike lanes are known to reduce collisions with bicycles as they provide physical separation from motor vehicle traffic ( 28 ). Talbot et al. ( 29 ) provided evidence that improving intersection and traffic light design decreases collisions, especially during truck turns. Long driving hours were found to be associated with fatigue which is known to degrade drivers’ ability to anticipate and act promptly in hazardous situations ( 30 ) and can also lead to general health and safety concerns.
We acknowledge that using the terms “pedestrians” and “cyclists” while using “trucks” rather than “truckers” may give the impression of victim blaming in the interviewee comments. Further, our interviews focused on truck driver perspectives as an initial step to research this topic; truck drivers were chosen as the population of interest given that the greater responsibility lies with the operator of the vehicle that can cause the most harm. Future research should address these limitations by including VRU interviews and adopting a more neutral terminology around VRUs.
COVID-19 restrictions in Ontario during the time of the interviews made it difficult to approach a larger sample of truck drivers or conduct the interviews in person. Some truck drivers’ discomfort and unfamiliarity with virtual meeting platforms likely influenced the participation rate. Also, 14 out of the 18 truck drivers and trainees whom we interviewed had received or were currently receiving training from the same school. However, for an interview study, our sample size would not be considered small and is comparable to the sample sizes used in other driver interview studies ( 31 , 32 ). It is also a strength of our study to provide viewpoints from various participant groups (trainees, novices, experienced drivers, an instructor, and road safety professionals).
The outcomes of this study can inform the enhancement of truck driver training standards in Ontario which can be generalized to other Canadian provinces, as well as countries. They can also help in the development of training modules focusing on VRU safety, for example, the hazardous scenarios between VRUs and trucks identified by our participants can inform the design of simulator scenarios.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the members of the Human Factors and Applied Statistics Laboratory and the Urban Freight Research Laboratory who provided feedback on earlier versions of this manuscript.
Author Contributions
The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows: study conception and design: A. Galal, B. Donmez, M. J. Roorda; data collection: A. Galal; analysis and interpretation of results: A. Galal; draft manuscript preparation: A. Galal, B. Donmez, M. J. Roorda. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding for this project is provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Alliance grant ALLRP 555620 - 20), the Commercial Heavy Equipment Training Ltd., and the City of Toronto.
Data Accessibility Statement
Research data cannot be shared because of Research Ethics limitations.