About 1.24 million people die each year as a result of road traffic crashes, equating to some 3,397 people a day, the World Health Organisation has reported. While there are many factors that can cause such crashes, driver actions play a major role in over 90% of collisions, according to reports.

And the UK’s Cranfield University – a leading research institution – adds to this by saying that drivers often hold distorted beliefs about their driving skills; believe they are less likely to be involved in a crash compared with their peers and may not consider they are at risk.

Across the globe, there are now many organisations offering driver risk profiling solutions to find out which drivers have potentially risky driving traits so that they can be targeted for subsequent onroad driver training, saving the organisation both time and money compared to putting all its company car drivers through such training.

On the face of it, this is a very compelling argument. But can such tests really provide an insight into whether your drivers are more likely to be found in the inside lane, cruising at under the speed limit (weather permitting) or hurtling down the outside lane at high speed, shouting obscenities at anyone who gets in the way?

Or are these programmes just another gimmick designed to part you and your company funds?

THE SCEPTIC’S VIEWPOINT

To assess the overall benefits of such technology, we put five systems available in the UK to the test: Virtual Risk Manager from Interactive Driving Systems, the Mac On-line Driver Profiler from MAC GB Ltd, Roadmarque from Imagitech, the ‘doc diagnostics’ system developed by A2om and offered by Fleet21, and the E-Training World system offered by Northgate Fleet Management.

The idea wasn’t to benchmark the systems – although in testing them I did notice some interesting ways in which the various technologies were differentiated – but to see if they all worked in broadly the same way and gave me the same results, thereby proving that risk profiling works.

I have to admit to having had some scepticism prior to the test, having previously tried out team-building exercises, such as the Four Colour Personality Test, whilst working for a previous employer as part of a move to encourage a better working environment. Such systems seemed heavily reliant upon employee honesty and, to be honest, never had long-term effects.

It was around eight years ago when I first tried a fleet road risk test at an exhibition; although I came out with a top score for knowledge and attitude, my annual fleet mileage of just under 30,000 miles (48,000km) meant I was instantly categorised as ‘high risk’ and would have been flagged up for further training. And at the time hazard perception had to be carried out by actual on-road testing, with no ability to sit at a computer and assess your skills.

So I approached this test with a great deal of scepticism. Can psychometric testing really evaluate your mindset to driving and also test your onroad skills without so much as an amber traffic light in sight?

BESPOKE APPROACHES

From my personal point of view it was interesting to see just how much the risk profiling industry has advanced in recent years, all to the benefit of the fleet itself.

Although some of the systems that I tested were more in-depth than others – and all were structured in different ways – most of them took basically the same approach: assessing my overall driving/ knowledge, looking at my practical skills and finally hazard perception – either through clicking on the potential problems in actual video footage or a static image.

There were some interesting touches too. I liked the way that the Virtual Risk Manager system from Interactive Driving Systems made the employee sign the Driver Safety Pledge, whereby I agreed to ‘Ensure that I am fit to drive, well rested, and not under the influence of alcohol or drugs before reporting to work or driving for work purposes’ amongst other items. This system also explored other vehicle areas in detail, putting the driver on the spot with such questions as how often their car is serviced, whose responsibility it is, and even about its Euro NCAP rating.

Meanwhile I also thought that it was an excellent idea that the Roadmarque system from Imagitech makes you give your licence details in order for a full licence check to be carried out. And this programme also includes a coordination test where you had to keep the mouse in the centre of a moving circle whilst typing in answers to arithmetic questions in a set time – a good indicator of a driver’s ability to multi-task (thankfully I came out ‘average’).

The other three systems I tested – the Mac On-line Driver Profiler, the ‘Doc Diagnostics’ system offered by Fleet21, and the E-Training World system offered by Northgate Fleet Management in the UK – all seemed to have particular strengths in hazard perception. In particular, the latter test highlighted that it’s a knowledge and skills-based system, not a psychometric one, with this practical approach extending to useful footage of a professional fleet driver trainer who explained prior to the test how hazard perception works, even down to pointing out the importance of noticing horse muck on the road as a sign of a possible impending problem!

SINNER OR SAINT?

However, it was such hazard perception tests that proved to be my Achilles’ Heel, with me ending as up ‘medium risk’ in every single one of the tests apart from one where I was designated ‘high risk’. Although I did find it much harder to take in everything that was going on whilst sitting at a computer rather than in a car, it showed that my attention to road signs and other hazard pointers is something to be worked on.

The actual psychometric questions were straightforward – most seemed to have moved on from the idea of double negative sentence structures to catch drivers out and just posed questions outright, like asking the tester to benchmark whether they get angry over other drivers’ bad behaviour, with answers ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. I have to admit here to getting confused on two of the tests, which both asked if I altered my driving as a result of other drivers’ behaviour.

Looking at my results, it became apparent that ‘strongly agree’ was the wrong answer although my thinking was that if I didn’t alter my behaviour if someone, say, did an emergency stop, it could be rather risky…

I also found that the questions such as the ones on driver speeding were heavily dependent on driver honesty, although the companies involved said that most drivers do recognise the need for truthful answers.

There were also some questions that, to me anyway, seemed blindingly obvious or even quite comic – such as the one asking whose responsibility it is to keep the vehicle clean, with one of the choices being the driver’s family (which I was quite tempted to tick).

THE RESULTS

So have such systems altered my perception of psychometric testing and, more importantly, would I recommend their usage? In a nutshell, yes. While all tests had a psychometric element, they seemed to strike a good balance between balancing that with a driver’s day-to-day driving profile, history and actual hazard skills to assess the areas where they need work.

And with all tests offering effective ways of testing drivers’ hazard perception without them even needing to venture out to the car park, they provide a far more cost- effective alternative than widespread driver training and are also far easier to fit into an employee’s working day.

All of the companies I spoke to were also impressively principled when I asked what percentage of drivers would be recommended for further training, saying that they wouldn’t believe in pushing a set number through just for the purpose of money making. And when I asked the operations director at Mac GB about what their recommended course of action would be for me, he explained that no further training would be needed but they’d advise my employer to supply advice and guidance throughout the year by conducting several Driving Campaigns.

And I think this is the crux of the matter for campaigns. Firstly they should be targeted in the right way, with questions appropriate to the individual/depart-ment, for example on LCVs if they’re part of the company fleet or on eco-driving if the company is looking to promote this. Of course, for a multi-national fleet, such tailoring to fit in with local rules and regulations would be essential too.

It’s also important that the training itself and any immediate interventions required are followed up in a fresh and interesting way, maintaining driver engagement, possibly with a competitive element such as a league table or incentives, to ensure that the effects of the training are not just short-term.

As for my results, well I know now that my driving history and attitude are pretty good, with an all-round ‘low risk’ score. But with some higher risk scores for both my hazard perception and general driving knowledge, I now at least know my weaknesses – and am already taking action to work on them.

THE SYSTEMS…

1. Virtual Risk Manager from Interactive Driving Systems

RoadRISK is the online risk assessment element of virtual Risk Manager (VRM) and is made up of three elements:

RoadRISK Profile, which focuses on the participant's driver, vehicle and journey based exposure levels, in line with the HSE/DfT Driving at Work document requirements. It provides section and overall risk ratings.

Road Risk Defensive Driving focuses on the participant's attitude, behaviour, knowledge and hazard perception. It provides section and overall risk ratings. The Profile and Defensive Driving risk ratings are then combined into an overall risk rating.

RoadRISK Feedback provides instant feedback to the participant on all the risk factors. www.virtualriskmanager.net

2. Mac On-line Driver Profiler from MAC GB

Mac’s on-line profiling system is a valuable tool for evaluating the potential accident-risk of a driver. As a result, it can be used to determine which drivers are most in need of an eco and defensive driver training day, and can also help an instructor to tailor driver training to the specific needs of the driver in question. In addition to this, the resulting report highlights risk in the five personality areas (Attitude and Aggression, Alertness and Concentration, Stress, Anticipation and Violations). www.macdrivertraining.com

3. Roadmarque from Imagitech

The Roadmarque independent risk and driver management system includes a risk management element that features a driver survey combining the factual information provided by the driver with the results from the licence check to compute a risk profile – and risk score. There’s also an Aptitude Assessment offering up to eight tests (scope selected by the employer), each test produces a valid numerical score that can be interpreted as a risk level. www.roadmarque.com

4. ‘Doc Diagnostics’ developed by A2om and offered by Fleet21

The Fleet21 driver risk assessment and e-learning tool is delivered through the company’s partnership with a2om technology. It examines employees on driving knowledge, skill and, perhaps more importantly, their driving attitude. It only takes around 20 minutes to complete, highlighting any areas of weakness that need to be addressed so that these risks can be minimised quickly. www.fleet21drivertraining.com

5. E-Training World system offered by Northgate Fleet Management

This is a knowledge and skills-based system. It is incredibly comprehensive, easy-to-use and drivers understand why they’re being asked certain questions, and tested on specific topics.

The key things the drivers are judged on are attitude, knowledge, concentration and observation, and hazard perception; the results of this give a balanced view on how the driver will behave/perform on the roads. www.e-trainingworld.com