Runzheimer International Government Workshop Training Session 4 – June 26 FedFleet 2012

©Runzheimer International 2012

Runzheimer InternationalGovernment WorkshopTraining Session 4 – June 26FedFleet 2012Distracted Driving:Is your agency at risk?


1. Distracted Driving Background2. Defining the Problem3. Types and Causes of Distracted Driving4. Federal Government Data5. Agency Risk6. Consequences – Cost and Liability7. Prevention and Policy Enforcement

2

Distracted Driving

Today’s Agenda


Distracted DrivingCan take many forms

Photo credits: carinsurance.org and claybennett.com

3


Distracted Driving: Reviewing the Numbers

1. As of December 2011A. US Population: 311 Million (est.)B. # of Mobile Phones: 331.6 MillionC. # of Licensed Drivers: 203 millionD. # of Mobile subscribers: 285 million

2. CTIA’s March 2010 wireless survey showed that 91% of all Americans had a cell phone.

3. Using a cell phone while driving reduces brain activity associated with driving by 37%.

1. Census Bureau, DOT. 2. CTIA. 3. Carnegie Mellon.

We are both a “Mobile” & “Connected” Society

4


Distracted Driving: Reviewing the Numbers 2

4. TextingA. Headset cell phone use is not substantially safer

than hand-held use.B. In June 2011, more than 196 billion text

messages were sent or received in the US, up more than 50% from June 2009.

C. 40% of all American teens say they have been in a car when the driver used a cell phone in a way that put people in danger.

D. The average teenager sends 3,339 texts per month.

A. VTTI B. CTIA C. Pew Research D. Nielsen Company

5

http://www.clipartof.com/portfolio/bnpdesignstudio/illustration/teen-girl-sitting-on-a-stool-and-texting-on-her-cell-phone-230211.html


Distracted Driving: Reviewing the Numbers 3

4. Texting (cont’d)E. The texting problem isn’t confined to one

demographic group:

6

http://www.clipartof.com/portfolio/djart/illustration/distracted-texting-worker-man-using-his-finger-to-direct-a-driver-while-backing-up-85056.html


Distracted Driving: Real World Examples - 1

The bus driver wastalking on a hands-free cell phone and missed all of these posted warning signs.

National Transportation Safety Board

7




8




9




10


Distracted Driving: Defining the Problem

• Half of our workers are mobile and feel the need to be connected to their employer.

11


Distracted Driving: We’ve All Seen It

12


Distracted Driving: Three Categories

1. Visual – Taking your eyes off the road

Photo credit: Kristin Oguntoyinbo/UNC Highway Safety Research Center

13

http://www.hsrc.unc.edu/news_room/distraction_images/baby1800x1202.jpg




2. Physical – Taking your hand(s) off of the steering wheel


14





3. Cognitive – Not paying attention to the road


15




Distracted Driving Kills

1. 25 - 50% of auto accidents are caused by driver distraction due to mobile phone usage.

2. Cell phone distractions annually cause:A. 1.1 million crashesB. 500,000 injuriesC. 5,000 deaths

3. Drivers’ texting are 23 times more likely to have an accident or near miss (and that’s 8 times higher than driving drunk!).

4. Federal Government drivers have an accident rate over 8 times that of the average American driver.

1. AAA. 2. NHTSA. 3. Virginia Tech Transportation Institute. 4. GSA Fleet.

16


Distracted Driving: Most Common Causes

1. Texting2. Interact with/Look at Dispatching device3. Write on pad, in notebook, etc.4. Use calculator5. Look at map6. Dial cell phone7. Talk/Listen on cell phone8. Talk/Listen on hands-free cell phone9. Talk/Listen on CB radio

OSHA

17


GSA Fleet Safety Statistics

Accidents: FY09: 7,950 FY10: 7,881 FY11: 7,616

Incidents: FY09: 16,172 FY10: 16,749 FY11: 16,177

Average accidents per million miles: FY09: 3.67 FY10: 3.7 FY11:

3.73

FatalitiesFY 2009 9

FY 2010 9

FY 2011 10

18


GSA Fleet Accidents by Type, FY2011

19

http://www.arthursclipart.org/accidents/accidents/car%20accident.gif


GSA Fleet Accident Breakdown, FY2011

20


Distracted Driving: Is Costly

1. Motor vehicle crashes are consistently the leading cause of fatalities in the workplace.

2. On the job crashes cost employers, on average:A. $24,500 per crashB. $150,000 per injuryC. $3.6 million per fatality

3. The legal theory of respondeat superior, or vicarious responsibility, means an employer may be held legally accountable for negligent employee actions if the employee was acting within the scope of his/her employment at the time of a crash, including government employees.

1. CDC. 2. NHTSA. 3. NSC, et al.

21

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.aperfectworld.org/clipart/government/judge.png&imgrefurl=http://www.aperfectworld.org/government.html&h=766&w=1000&sz=31&tbnid=PZJFjlJhmOezmM:&tbnh=114&tbnw=149&prev=/search?q=clip+art+judge&tbm=isch&tbo=u&zoom=1&q=clip+art+judge&usg=__hRkxN_ITXqEO3fyK_dYFyAEAj4c=&sa=X&ei=9BrUTbGiNqfc0QGh-O3hCw&ved=0CCgQ9QEwAQ


http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.free-clipart-pictures.net/free_clipart/money_clipart/money_clipart_dollar.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.free-clipart-pictures.net/money_clipart.html&h=200&w=160&sz=4&tbnid=6lhsX2v2jolieM:&tbnh=104&tbnw=83&prev=/search?q=clip+art+money&tbm=isch&tbo=u&zoom=1&q=clip+art+money&usg=__TCPIvBRl9LR3Yu-YUOeDS7fH9bU=&sa=X&ei=RBvUTZWiBYTZgQeRv4ku&ved=0CC4Q9QEwAw



Federal Government Liability

Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)• The FTCA permits private parties to sue the

United States in a federal court for most torts committed by persons acting on behalf of the United States.

• …"[t]he United States [is] liable . . . in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances, but [is not] liable for interest prior to judgment or for punitive damages." Federal courts have jurisdiction over such claims, but apply the law of the state "where the act or omission occurred.”

22

28 U.S.C. 2674.


FTCA Origin

23


Distracted Driving: Can Get You Sued

Ford v. McGrogan & International Paper – $5.2 million settlement (2008):

Here an employee of International Paper rear-ended another car while distracted by use of a mobile phone. The plaintiff, whose arm had to be amputated as a result of the crash, sued International Paper under a theory of vicarious responsibility. Even though International Paper had previously adopted a policy banning employees from using a cell phone while driving, it nevertheless agreed to settle the case for $5.2 million.

24






Distracted Driving: Government Liability

1. Gray vs. Prince George’s County, Maryland (2009) - $4 million verdict

2. State of Hawaii (1996) - $1.5 million verdict3. Obregon vs. the City of Palo Alto, CA (2010) -

$1.45 million verdict4. State of Illinois (2007) - $8.7 million verdict

25






Distracted Driving: Can Get You Sued

Nueces County, TX Case no.10-61510-2: Coca-Cola– $21 million judgment (2012):

A Coca-Cola driver struck and killed another driver while on their cell phone. The jury heard overwhelming evidence of how Coca Cola knew of the dangers of using a cell phone while driving, including having a cognitive distraction of 37% while on a cell phone. The jury heard that Coca Cola withheld this information from its employee driver, in addition to the data on the numbers of deaths and injuries arising from cell phone use while operating vehicles, according to court documents.

26






Distracted Driving: Can Be Illegal

1. 39 states have banned some form of cell phone usage while driving.

2. 11 states, DC and the Virgin Islands have total bans on handheld devices.

3. Executive Order 13513, signed in 2009, mandates:A. No texting & driving in Federal Government vehicles.B. No texting & driving by Federal Government employees,

or contractors, with a mobile device provided by the Federal Government, even if in a POV.

4. Certain drivers have additional regulation:A. Novice Drivers: 31 states & DC ban all cell phone use.B. School Bus Drivers: 19 states & DC ban cell phone use.

5. Chapel Hill, NC bans all cell phone use while driving. 1., 2., 4., 5. IIHS. 3. Executive Order 13513.

27

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.clker.com/cliparts/1/4/c/5/1194984609285255522police_man_ganson.svg.med.png&imgrefurl=http://www.clker.com/clipart-2406.html&h=275&w=300&sz=27&tbnid=VrEsdm1UZGVy9M:&tbnh=106&tbnw=116&prev=/search?q=clip+art+police&tbm=isch&tbo=u&zoom=1&q=clip+art+police&usg=__f2H5BpJJnRwhy21BtGFEt0Ti3oU=&sa=X&ei=nRzUTZD8B8jSgQeYgLEu&ved=0CCMQ9QEwAA


Essex County, MA vs. Aaron Deveau (2012):

•Deveau was charged with motor vehicle homicide and negligent operation of a motor vehicle, using a mobile phone while operating a motor vehicle, reading or sending an electronic message, a marked lanes violation, and two counts of negligent operation and injury from mobile phone use. •He became the first driver in Massachusetts to be convicted of motor vehicle homicide by texting, has been sentenced to 2.5 years in prison and loss of his license for 15 years

Distracted Driving: Can Put You in Prison

28



Distracted Driving: Restrictive

National Transportation Safety Board• In December 2011, NTSB recommended that all

50 states and the District of Columbia enact complete bans of all portable electronic devices for all drivers – including banning use of hands-free devices.

• This recommendation follows their total ban recommendation for commercial drivers in October, 2011.

• Several companies have already instituted total cell phone bans, including: UPS, DuPont, Chevron, CSX, Shell, Time Warner and Owens-Corning.

NTSB, Washington Post

29


Distracted Driving: Prevention & Enforcement

Policy: “It is the employer’s responsibility and legal obligation to

have a clear, unequivocal, and enforced policy against texting and driving.” OSHA, 10/2/2010.

Reality: • Companies are increasingly concerned: 80% of companies

have adopted written policies pertaining to the use of mobile devices while employees are driving on-the-job - a 29% increase since last year.

• Efforts to enforce policies have increased: 86% of companies now take steps to enforce their documented policies - a 62% increase from last year.

• Confidence in current enforcement methods has decreased: Only 26% of companies say they are "very confident" that current enforcement efforts are sufficient to modify driver behavior.

• Interest in cell phone compliance technology grows: 26% of companies plan to evaluate technology solutions within the next twelve months to help manage compliance with documented policies.

30



Cell Phone Policies:• Employers can and should design cell phone

policies to follow best safety practice, reduce significant risks and minimize liability. Employers should implement cell phone policies which include:– Handheld and hands-free devices– All employees– All company vehicles– All company cell phone devices– All work-related communications – even in a

personal vehicle or on a personal cell phone

NSC

31



Having a policy is not enough! Employers need to:

• Educate employees• Monitor compliance• Enforce the policy• Address violations

NSC

32



What solutions are out there?A. Mobile appsB. In-vehicle camerasC. GPS Telematics capture devices

A. PassiveB. Active

33



So what’s the Best Solution?• The best solution is to have restrictive policies,

training, monitoring, and proactive enforcement appropriate to the risk threshold of the agency.

• Risk can never be entirely eliminated, and different companies are comfortable assuming risk at different levels.

• However, by following the basic best practices outlined above, you should be able to appropriately minimize the risk to your agency from the distracted driving practices of employees.

34


Distracted Driving: The Reality

35


Distracted Driving: Q & A

36

Runzheimer International Government Workshop Training Session 4 – June 26 FedFleet 2012

Documents