Transportation


I was recently chosen to chair the Distracted Driving sub-committee of the Transportation Specialty Practice of the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE).  I fell strongly this is an important issue.  Little did I know how much national attention this issue is generating during the past several months.

First, Harris Interactive and HealthDay conducted a poll of almost 3000 drivers and some of the results are listed below.

Second, on December 13, the National Transportation Safety Board announced a recommendation on Distracted Driving, to ban all electronic devices when driving a motor vehicle.

Adult drivers engage in activities such as texting, eating, watching videos and surfing the Internet while driving, according to a new online poll, conducted by market research firm Harris Interactive and HealthDay, a producer of health news.

In the poll, conducted between Nov. 10 and 14, 2,810 adults older than 18 who drive regularly were asked whether they have ever or have often or sometimes engaged in certain distracting activities while driving. Among the poll’s results, drivers reported performing the following behaviors:

  • 86 percent ate or drank, with 57 percent doing it “often/sometimes.”
  • 44 percent drove while feeling drowsy or momentarily fell asleep while driving, with 12 percent doing it “often/sometimes.”
  • One-fourth drove after consuming two or more alcohol-based drinks, with 7 percent doing it “often/sometimes.”
  • 41 percent set or changed their GPS, with 21 percent doing it “often/sometimes.”
  • 37 percent sent or read text messages, with 18 percent doing it “often/sometimes.”

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued a recommendation to the 50 states, and D.C., to ban driver use of all portable electronic devices in a vehicle, including hands-free devices. The NTSB’s Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman addressed the press regarding the issue and some of the specifics about the recommendation.

“According to NHTSA, more than 3,000 people lost their lives last year in distraction-related accidents,” said Hersman. “It is time for all of us to stand up for safety by turning off electronic devices when driving. No call, no text, no update, is worth a human life.”

What do think NETS is?  A tennis game, Part of the NBA, a new reality show?  Not really, NETS stands for Network of Employers for Traffic Safety.  So, have you ever heard of NETS?  Probably not.

Do you have any employees who drive for your business or organization?   Maybe you have some employees who drive to and from work.  NETS is dedicated to improving the health and safety of employees, their families and the community by preventing traffic crashes that occur both on- and off-the-job.  Why should we be so concerned about employees who drive?  Because Motor Vehicle Collisions are the #1 cause of employee/worker death and injury in the US.  Nothing is even close. It is also the most costly injury to any company/organization according to the National Safety Council”s Injury and Facts publication.

The Board members of NETS include:

Abbott

AmeriFleet Transportation

Chubb Group of Insurance Companies

The Coca-Cola Company

Johnson & Johnson

Liberty Mutual Insurance Group

Monsanto

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company

UPS

In just over a month NETS will be sponsoring National Drive Safely Work Week, October 3-7.

Focus 360° – Getting there safely is everyone’s responsibility.

The 2011 campaign is focused on the dangers of distracted driving— but not just from the position of the driver. The new materials also help consider the roles and responsibilities of being a safe passenger, pedestrian and cyclist in preventing distracted driving-related incidents. If you want more information, go to NETS website.

Washington – Commercial motor vehicle drivers who operate vehicles containing hazardous materials will be prohibited from texting while driving, according to a final rule from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

In accordance with requirements adopted Sept. 27, 2010, by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, motor carriers also are prohibited from allowing drivers of covered motor vehicles to text message while driving.

PHMSA officials said the rulemaking will improve the health and safety of drivers on highways by reducing the prevalence of distracted driving-related crashes, fatalities and injuries involving CMV drivers.

The final rule went into effect on March 30, 2011.

Now The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) proposes to restrict the use of hand-held mobile telephones, including hand-held cell phones, by drivers during the operation of a motor vehicle containing a quantity of hazardous materials requiring placarding under Part 172 of the 49 CFR or any quantity of a select agent or toxin listed in 42 CFR Part 73.

Additionally, in accordance with requirements proposed by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), motor carriers are prohibited from requiring or allowing drivers of covered motor vehicles to engage in the use of handheld mobile telephones while driving.

This rulemaking would improve health and safety on the Nation’s highways by reducing the prevalence of distracted driving-related crashes, fatalities, and injuries involving drivers of commercial motor vehicles.

April is National Distracted Driving Month

Each day, more than 16 people are killed and more than 1,300 people are injured in crashes involving a distracted driver. Distracted driving is driving while doing another activity that takes your attention away from driving; these activities can increase the chance of a motor vehicle crash.

There are three main types of distraction:

  • Visual—taking your eyes off the road;
  • Manual—taking your hands off the wheel; and
  • Cognitive—taking your mind off what you are doing.

Distracted driving activities include things like using a cell phone, texting, eating, drinking, and talking with passengers. Using in-vehicle technologies (such as navigation systems) and portable communication devices can also be sources of distraction. While any of these distractions can endanger the driver and others, texting while driving is especially dangerous because it combines all three types of distraction.

How big is the problem?

  • In 2008, nearly 6,000 people died in crashes involving a distracted driver and more than 500,000 people were injured.
  • The proportion of drivers reportedly distracted at the time of a fatal crash has increased from 8 percent in 2004 to 11 percent in 2008.
  • When asked whether driving feels safer, less safe, or about the same as it did five years ago, more than 1 in 3 drivers say driving feels less safe today. Distracted driving—cited by 3 out of 10 of these drivers—was the single most common reason given for feeling less safe today.

What are the risk factors?

  • Some activities—such as texting—take the driver’s attention away from driving more frequently and for longer periods than other distractions.
  • Younger, inexperienced drivers under the age of 20 may be at highest risk because they have the highest proportion of distraction-related fatal crashes.

How can distracted driving be prevented?

  • Many states are enacting laws—such as banning texting while driving—or using graduated driver licensing systems for teen drivers to help raise awareness about the dangers of distracted driving and to keep it from occurring.
  • On October 1, 2009, President Obama issued an executive order prohibiting federal employees from texting while driving on government business or with government equipment.
  • In January 2010, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration enacted an interim ban that prohibits commercial vehicle drivers from texting while behind the wheel. In March 2010, a proposed rule was announced that would make that ban stronger and more durable.
  • The Department of Transportation recently launched a national campaign to encourage the public to get involved in ending distracted driving.   Put It Down focuses on the key messages that drivers can’t do two things at once, and everyone has a personal responsibility to pay attention while behind the wheel.

If your company ships any type of hazardous materials in commerce you will need to be advised of the new final ruling by the US DOT.  As stated below if will make it mandatory that hazardous shipments are properly packaged and labeled under 49 CFR, parts 100-185.   Failure to follow these regulations, can result in significant delay in the shipment of your package.

Federal hazardous materials transport inspectors will be allowed to open, detain, remove, and divert suspicious packages in transit for further investigation, under a final rule published March 2 by the Department of Transportation (76 Fed. Reg. 11,570).

The rule is aimed at reducing the number of shipments of undeclared hazardous materials and the number of shipments that do not meet hazardous materials regulations.

In a Federal Register notice, DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration specified procedures under which inspectors will gain access to open and examine a package offered for or in transportation if they have “reason to believe” that the package contained hazardous material.

The inspectors also are authorized to detain a shipment for up to 48 hours if they believe the package might pose an imminent hazard and to have that package diverted to a facility for further analysis. If that package is found to pose an imminent hazard, then the inspector has the authority under the rule to render that shipment “out of service.”

The rule, which takes effect May 2, was proposed Oct. 2 and applies to all modes of transportation. It amends 49 C.F.R. Part 109 by allowing DOT inspectors to exercise the expanded authority to inspect, open, and detain packages conferred by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety and Security Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Pub. L. No. 109-59) (32 CRR 970, 10/6/08).

Enforcement Authority Expanded.

The need for expanded DOT authority is aimed at not only reducing undeclared shipments of hazardous materials but also curtailing shipments of improperly packaged and labeled hazardous materials.

Undeclared shipments are those that are not marked, labeled, and accompanied by shipping papers or otherwise identified as hazardous materials. PHMSA said such shipments pose a significant threat to transportation workers, emergency responders, and the general public.

According to DOT, each year about 3 billion tons of hazardous materials are transported in the United States without safety incidents, following packaging and labeling protocols spelled out in the hazardous materials regulations. But, PHMSA said, “when a package containing hazardous materials is placed in transportation without regard to hazardous materials regulations, the effectiveness of all risk controls is compromised.”

The final rule would allow inspectors to open outer packagings, freight containers, or other packaging components not immediately adjacent to the hazardous material. Inspectors would not open single packagings, such as cylinders, portable tanks, cargo tanks, or rail tank cars, and they also would not open the innermost receptacle of a combination packaging.

Detained for 48 Hours.

The rule also outlines procedures inspectors would follow to remove a package or shipment from transportation if they believe the shipment poses an imminent hazard or to allow the package to be transported if no imminent hazard is found. For instance, the rule will allow inspectors to detain packages for up to 48 hours if they can provide a written rationale for why they believe a package might pose an imminent hazard.

Imminent hazards are those that require immediate intervention to reduce the substantial likelihood of death, serious illness, severe personal injury, or a substantial endangerment to health, property, or the environment.

Finally, the rule gives inspectors the ability to order the package to be taken to a facility for examination, where if deemed hazardous the package can be taken out of service until it complies with hazardous materials regulations. It would also allow PHMSA, the FAA, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, or the Federal Railroad Administration to issue an emergency order if they determine that a noncompliant shipment is causing an imminent hazard. The order could be issued in conjunction with or in place of an out-of-service order.

Currently, DOT must coordinate with the Department of Justice to file a civil action seeking a restraining order or preliminary injunction against a shipper or offeror committing a hazmat safety violation.

Speeding is one of the primary factors leading to vehicle crashes. In 2008, 31% of all fatal crashes were speeding-related. The estimated economic cost to society for speeding related crashes is $40.4 billion per year.

Driving at higher speeds reduces the ability of drivers to avoid obstacles or react to sudden changes in the roadway environment and increases crash severity. The pervasiveness of speeding behavior is reflected in a recent national survey that showed that approximately 75% of all drivers reported speeding in the past month. Since most drivers often do not see speeding as risky or dangerous behavior, it is imperative that

NHTSA gain a better understanding of the motivations for speeding behaviors in order to develop and refine effective interventions and countermeasures.

NHTSA proposes to conduct follow-up focus groups with 72 participants from an earlier on-road instrumented vehicle data collection conducted in Seattle, WA and College Station, TX.

Focus group recruitment will be based on participants’ speeding patterns in the on-road data. The focus groups will contribute to a better understanding of speeding and speeders, a more accurate taxonomy of high/low speed driver subgroups, and a better understanding of the motives, attitudes and habits of these subgroups. The focus groups will explore speed choices and speeding behaviors and the factors that influence them, beliefs and attitudes toward speeding, reactions to and discussions about specific driving scenarios, and individual/group responses to various speeding countermeasures. The focus groups are expected to provide data relevant to descriptions of key motivations, attitudes, normative commitment to law, driving habits relevant to speeding and speeding

countermeasures; descriptions of countermeasures with the greatest likely benefits; implementation issues and concerns associated with the countermeasures; and key advantages and disadvantages associated with various countermeasures.

Affected Public: NHTSA plans to conduct six focus group sessions, three in Seattle, WA and three in College Station, TX. Each focus group will consist of 8–12 participants and last approximately 80 minutes. Participants will be recruited by e-mail or telephone based on their driving behaviors in the earlier on-road phase of the study and their demographic characteristics. Participation by all respondents would be voluntary and confidential.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: The total estimated annual burden is between 64 and 96 hours, depending on the number of participants (range 8–12) in each group. The respondents would not incur any reporting cost from the information collection. The respondents also would not incur any record keeping burden or record keeping cost from the information collection.

Comments are invited on the following:

(i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(ii) The accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection;

(iii) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(iv) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.

What are hazmat package markings? By definition, markings can be a descriptive name, UN identification number (some are on placards or orange panels), instructions, cautions, weight, and package specification. Markings can also be UN marks (such as UN package identification code), or any combination required by the regulations on the outer packaging of hazardous materials. Marking on the outside of packages communicates the presence of the hazardous materials inside.

Unless there’s an exception in the regulations, a package is required to have markings displayed on the outside. When markings are required, there are also certain rules on how the marking has to be maintained (such as durability and legibility), minimum size requirements and times when the display for certain markings may be prohibited for bulk packages. Even the hazardous material itself may require an additional marking, such as a material that is poisonous by inhalation. The regulations also dictate how the marking has to appear on the packaging or transport vehicle, so make sure you consult the regulations on marking display. After all, it wouldn’t do any good to place a marking on the bottom of the package where nobody can see it right?

When determining whether or not a package has to marked and what kind of markings have to be on the package itself, it’s important that the hazmat shipping papers are looked at. Again, this re-emphasizes the importance of well prepared shipping papers. If shipping papers are prepared wrong it can start an avalanche of other violations! If you put the wrong UN identification number on the shipping papers, then you may have the wrong identification number on the package. So now you have two violations on an  inspection report – a shipping papers violation and a marking violation. If the transport vehicle itself was required to be marked with the UN number, and it’s marked wrong, that vehicle may be placed out of service.

Once you’ve looked at the shipping papers, take a close look at the quantity to determine whether you’re hauling a bulk or non-bulk amount of hazmat. If the material meets the definition of non bulk, then the general requirements of 172.301 (non bulk requirements) will apply. If the hazmat meets the definition of bulk, then the requirements for bulk packages in 172.302 will apply. Keep in mind that these are just the basic requirements for bulk and non bulk markings, and there may be more requirements that apply to the package.

Remember when marking hazmat packages, what the markings are for – to warn others of the danger inside that package. Make sure you take your time and get the markings right, others are depending on you!

A new safety group called FocusDriven hopes to do for distracted driving what MADD has done for drunken driving and that is to increase awareness about the problem and influence action against it.

FocusDriven formed as a national nonprofit following the U.S. Department of Transportation’s summit on distracted driving held in September 2009.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and National Safety Council President Janet Froetscher made a joint announcement in support of the new group on Wednesday, Jan. 13. As readers may know, the National Safety Council is the group that is calling for a nationwide ban on all use of cellular phones while driving.

The members of FocusDriven appear to have similar goals. According to the group’s Web site, www.focusdriven.org, group members are rallying as “advocates for cell-free driving.”

The five-member board of FocusDriven consists of advocates and victims of tragedies involving distracted driving. Heading up the group is Jennifer Smith, whose mother was killed by someone talking on a cell phone while driving in 2008.

LaHood said that like what Mothers Against Drunk Driving has done to change society’s view of drunken driving, FocusDriven will work to change attitudes about distracted driving.

Congress is also considering legislation – HR3535 and H3994 in the House and S1536 and S1938 in the Senate – related to distracted driving especially text messaging. OOIDA supports the approach taken in H3994 and S1938.

Two dozen states have laws and penalties for distracted drivers and more are expected to follow.

Automakers, communications companies and manufacturers are also working on technological approaches including hands-free systems and locking software for mobile devices.

OOIDA believes driver education and the enforcement of existing laws pertaining to inattentive or negligent driving would go a long way to solving some of the worst problems on the road.

The Association said in October 2009 that because of the “vested interest” that truckers have in highway safety, OOIDA supports a ban on texting and e-mailing messages while operating a moving vehicle.

A pair of online surveys conducted by Land Line Magazine in the fall showed that 82 percent of respondents in favor of a national ban on texting while driving, but just 27 percent said they would favor an outright ban of cell-phone use while driving.

Many truckers conduct business from the road and use cell phones. Many already use hands-free devices

Since statistics prove more than 90 percent of all collisions are a direct result of driver error, and an increasingly large number of people choose to drive distracted, it shouldn’t be surprising that motorists consider unsafe driving a threat to themselves and others who use our roads and highways.
Many drivers frequently use cell phones for personal and business purposes, everyone from soccer moms to company CEOs. There is no question regarding the benefits of being in constant communication.
Realistically we all have to think about the times it’s just not proper to use your cell phone. Operating a motor vehicle is one of those times.  According to the results of a study by Carnegie Mellon University in 2008, talking on the cell phone while driving reduces the amount of brain activity associated with driving by 37 percent.
There is enough evidence from agencies such as AAA Traffic Safety Foundation, National Safety Council and the American College of Emergency Physicians that there should be a national ban on cell phone use and text messaging while behind the wheel.
There are only five states along with Washington, D.C., that ban hand-held cell phone use: California, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and Washington. Sixteen additional states and D.C. restrict cell phone use by drivers under the age of 18.
An important point to apply here is that the level and danger of the distraction is not lessened by the use of “hands-free.”  Most drivers are unaware of the liability issues related to distracted driving. Insurance companies routinely subpoena driver’s cell phone records when a client is involved in a crash with bodily injury.
Anything that allows you to drive your vehicle in an unsafe manner can result in a charge of careless driving. Remember the law requires us to maintain control of the vehicle at all times.  Let’s transfer that liability over to employers who encourage or allow cell phone use, especially in company vehicles. You better have some good insurance if you do so.

Recently the International Paper Company settled a lawsuit for a reported $5.2 million. The suit alleged that an IP employee was using her company-supplied cell phone when she rear-ended another vehicle. The other driver suffered such severe traumatic injuries she eventually had to have her arm amputated.
Experience indicates the importance of prohibiting cell phone usage while driving through the use of a written policy.  Employers should implement a strong policy forbidding phone calls by all employees while driving a vehicle on company business. It may limit use to hands free calling or completely ban cell phone usage while driving.  Supervisors, for example, will have to understand when the call goes to voice mail or why it might take awhile for the employee to check in.
 

 

As an ex-Air Force medic and current safety guy, I could not be prouder of the pilot of the US Airway jet, flight 1549, Chesley Sullenberger.

From AP:

Chesley Sullenberger spent practically his whole life preparing for the five-minute crucible that was US Airways Flight 1549.

He got his pilot’s license at 14, flew fighter jets in the Air Force, investigated air disasters, mastered glider flying and even studied the psychology of how cockpit crews behave in a crisis.

When the ultimate test came on a descent over the Hudson River, he spoke into the intercom only once and gave perhaps the most terrifying instruction a pilot can give — “Brace for impact” — with remarkable calm.
And as the 150 passengers of Flight 1549 marveled at their hero pilot’s skill and cool head, they learned what friends and relatives of Sullenberger say they have known all along.

“This is someone who has not just spent his life flying airplanes, but has actually dug very deeply into what makes these things work, and I think he proved it,” said Robert Bea, a civil engineer who has known Sullenberger for a year.

“He is, how should I call it, a humble man,” he added. “But he is damned smart.”

‘Miracle on the Hudson’
On Friday, the 57-year-old pilot fielded a congratulatory call from President George W. Bush. His wife said he was still in New York and probably would not return home to California for several days. 
 
Who is Captain Sullenberger?
Jan. 16: A classmate and former teacher share memories of a young Sullenberger.
Nightly News
 
 
The engineer of what Gov. David Paterson called “a miracle on the Hudson” had yet to speak publicly, but the accolades piled up. Mayor Michael Bloomberg showed off a key to the city for the pilot. Congress took up a resolution paying tribute. The governor said someone had offered $10,000 to build a statue of Sullenberger.

His wife, Lorraine, appearing outside their Danville, Calif., home, called her husband a “pilot’s pilot” who “loves the art of the airplane.” She described him, as almost everyone else had, as controlled and professional.

“This is the Sully I know,” she said. “I always knew how he would react. So to me this is not something unusual. It’s the man I know.”

Sullenberger grew up in Denison, Texas, about an hour north of Dallas. In those days, he went by his middle name, Burnett. People remember he made headlines in the local paper for flying a crop duster at age 15.

His sister, Mary Margaret Wilson, said Sullenberger built model airplanes, taking care to paint even the most minuscule details on the faces of the pilots.

“He was in the brainiac clique,” said Robert Brady, who graduated from Denison High with Sullenberger in 1969 and is mayor today. “I knew who he was — a nice guy, the kind of guy you wanted to sit behind in class so you could cheat off him.”

Sullenberger served in the Air Force from 1973 to 1980 and flew F-4 Phantom II fighter planes. The Air Force said he was a flight leader in Europe and the Pacific and led war-game exercises over Nevada.

He became a commercial pilot in 1980 for an airline later bought by US Airways. In the cockpit with Sullenberger on Thursday was a 49-year-old co-pilot, Jeffrey Skiles, whose life story bore some of the same marks: Skiles’ father said he had been flying since age 15, and had been with US Airways almost 26 years.

“I know he did everything he could,” his mother, Deloris Skiles, said Friday at her home in Verona, Wis. “He’s a modest fellow and a very modest man.”

‘Always looking to get better’
Two years ago, Sullenberger started a California consulting firm, Safety Reliability Methods. It advertises itself as offering companies ways to apply the latest safety advances from “the ultra-safe world of commercial aviation.”

Bea, who co-founded the Center for Catastrophic Rick Management at the University of California at Berkeley, said Sullenberger had approached him about a job after he retires as a commercial pilot.

He said Sullenberger, who has degrees in psychology from the Air Force Academy and Purdue University, had been studying how crews react in a crisis.

Wilson, recalling her brother’s childhood crop duster flights, said she was usually nervous flying in small planes — but never with him. She said he was always professional and never cut corners.

“I think Burnett is a very duty-oriented person,” Wilson said. “He is always looking to get better. He would be the one person who could land a plane in the water without any engines.”

‘Brace for impact’
On Thursday afternoon, as Sullenberger banked his crippled Airbus A320 left over the Bronx, steered it over the George Washington Bridge and down the Hudson River, his life and 154 others depended on his expertise. The jet’s twin engines had apparently been disabled by a collision with a flock of birds.

The cabin was almost completely silent when Sullenberger came on the intercom seconds before the plane hit water.

“I can tell you verbatim: ‘Brace for impact,’” said Mark Hood of Charlotte, N.C., who was flying home after a work trip. “He said it in a calm, cool, controlled voice. It was a testament to leadership.”

“Had he let any tension leak into his voice,” Hood said, “it would have been magnified in the passengers.”

As the cabin took on water, Sullenberger climbed out of the jet only after the four other crew members and 150 passengers made their orderly exit. When he reached a raft, someone on a ferry tossed him a knife, and he cut away the tether to the jet.

One by one, the passengers were plucked to safety from the rafts, Hood and Sullenberger the last ones left. The passenger insisted the pilot get off first, but Sullenberger refused. He had been the last off the plane, and he would be the last off the raft.

Next Page »