Posts Tagged ‘driving’

High hazard highway work zones: risky for workers and motorists alike

Wednesday, July 20th, 2011

Pop quiz: 1) In highway construction zones, do most fatalities occur A) to the vulnerable workers who are standing in the work zone while thousands of cars and trucks speed by, or B) to the motorists in the cars and trucks that are speeding by?
2) Are most highway construction workers killed by A) being struck by passing motorists or B) being struck by construction vehicles?
If you guessed “A” for both answers, you are correct.
Motorist safety in highway work zones
Highway construction projects pose hazards for drivers and workers alike, but about 85% of the vehicle-related fatalities that occur in work zones each year involve motorists. Lane changes,uneven surfaces, stop and go traffic, driver impatience at delays, unpredictable occurrences, and poor night visibility are all factors that make these zones hazardous. For those who need further incentive for caution than self preservation, bear in mind that 32 states and the District of Columbia double the fine for speeding (or committing other traffic violations) in a work zone. The Governors’ Highway Safety Administration offers a handy state by state chart of work zone traffic laws.
One of the best safety strategies a driver can take is avoidance: seek an alternate route. The Department of Transportation offers national traffic and road closure information to help drivers plan in advance – or drivers can check with state transportation authorities – most offer alerts about major construction projects. For those who can’t avoid a construction route, the Wisconsin DOT offers tips for safe driving in a work zone. The tip sheet notes that work zones requiring special caution encompass more than just highway construction projects. They include emergency vehicles at the side of the road, snowplows, garbage pickups, landscapers and any situation where workers are at risk.
Worker safety in highway work zones
This spring, the NIOSH Science Blog featured an excellent post by David E. Fosbroke about construction equipment visibility. In the post, Fosbroke cites a multi-year study of 844 fatalities at road construction sites. While 73% of these fatalities occurred when workers were struck by vehicles, victims were killed by construction equipment at least as often as by passing motorists. And of the incidents when workers were killed by construction equipment, at least 50% of those fatalities involved vehicles backing up.
To help prevent such fatalities, NIOSH offers downloadable blind area diagrams of of 38 pieces of construction equipment and 5 pieces of mining equipment. These diagrams map out the area around a vehicle or piece of equipment that cannot be seen from the operator’s position. The post explains this and other issues related to highway construction safety – including some good observations in the comments section.
For additional information, The National Work Zone Safety Information Clearinghouse provides comprehensive information to improve motorist, worker and pedestrian safety in roadway work zones. Resource include links to related sites and training resources.
More safety resources:
NIOSH: Highway Work Zone
OSHA: Highway Work Zones and Signs, Signals, and Barricades

Toyota: Hands Off!

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010

Toyota, the world’s largest automaker, is in the midst of a public relations nightmare. Over two million vehicles have been recalled for a problem with acceleration: gas pedals are prone to sticking, which leads to unstoppable cars hurtling along at high speeds. For months, Toyota denied that there was a problem. Well, there is no denying it now. U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood has advised owners of the vehicles not to drive them. [Update: he is backpedaling from his statement.]That’s over two million people who are not supposed to drive for the foreseeable future. With all due respect, Mr. Secretary, in this culture where the automobile is less a luxury than an essential, what are these millions of drivers supposed to do?
For the sake of clarity, here are the specific vehicles with a pedal problem:
2007-10 Camry
2009-10 RAV4
2009-10 Corolla
2009-10 Matrix
2005-10 Avalon
2010 Highlander
2007-10 Tundra
2008-10 Sequoia
2004-09 Prius
2007-10 Tacoma
2009-10 Venza
We frequently blog the compelling issue of personal risk management: the myriad decisions we all make in mitigating risk and prolonging the chances of living to see another day. Well, we have here a crisis of huge proportions that confronts Toyota drivers with some very difficult decisions. In keeping with our usual mandate, we will try to focus primarily, but not exclusively, on the implications for workers comp.
At the head of the line are companies that operate Toyota fleets, or that have employees operating Toyotas leased by the employer. At this moment there are irrevocably immense liabilities in allowing employees to continue to drive the vehicles listed above. Of course, the usual “to and fro” issues prevail in determining whether employees injured in an accident are covered by workers comp. (Astute readers will recall that in California, anyone driving a company car is covered by comp 24/7.) But even where comp should be the “exclusive remedy,” employers are vulnerable to suits alleging “wilful intent” should they insist that Toyota drivers stay behind the wheel. Prudent risk managers will rent alternative vehicles until the Toyotas have been repaired.
For employees driving their own Toyotas, the “to and fro” rule prevails. However, what happens when an employee is “in the course and scope” of employment and gas pedal lock leads to an accident? Will the employer be held liable for the injuries to third parties? Should employers prohibit employees from driving the compromised Toyotas while working? If yes, how are these employees supposed to do their jobs? Who pays for the replacement vehicles?
Secretary Lahood has accelerated the risks associated with the Toyota recall. He has put the nation on notice than any use of the above vehicles entails unreasonable risk.
This all brings to mind a Toyota ad campaign from an earlier decade. The slogan was: “Get your hands on a Toyota. You’ll never let go.” I remember thinking at the time that there was a gruesome ambiguity to the wording. The image of a dead driver behind the wheel of a crushed vehicle rose up in my (admittedly hyper-active) imagination. Well, that slogan has come back to haunt the automotive giant. This is no time to put your hands on the wheel of a Toyota. Until this immanent hazard is addressed, it’s definitely time to let go.
Addendum:
We just noticed that Renaissance Alliance’s Consumer Insurance Blog has a post on what to do if you experience sudden acceleration – it includes a video and some tips from Consumer Reports – whether you own a Toyota or not, it’s a good safety skill to learn

In Search of a Good Cup of Joe

Wednesday, January 20th, 2010

We recently blogged a “to and fro” case involving a meandering motorcycle ride back to work from a conference. The cycle crashed and the employee filed for workers comp. The court in Wyoming determined that the accident took place during a deviation from the direct route home and thus was not compensable. Some readers commented that the employee was following his supervisor’s lead, so the injury should have been compensable. “To and fro” often raises issues in the gray zone. Here’s another gray area: coffee breaks.
Jesse Cooper, master plumber and foreman, needed to consult with someone at the union hall in Winslow Township, New Jersey. His contact was teaching a class, so Jesse decided to take a coffee break. He preferred the coffee at a deli some five miles down the road. On his way to a good cuppa, he was involved in a serious accident, breaking his arm and both legs.
Personal Comfort or Personal Errand?
Cooper’s employer, Bernickel Enterprises, argued that the coffee break was a personal errand. Workers comp judge Bradley Henson determined that a coffee break was part of the working day and that Cooper was under the “coming and going” rule while on his way to a somewhat distant cup of joe*. He found the injuries to be compensable.
Henson describes Winslow Township as a “rural area”, so the options for coffee are somewhat limited. In his summary of the case, New Jersey comp guru John Geaney notes that there were other coffee options closer than the deli; the judge, however, “accepted as credible that petitioner knew the deli had good coffee.”
This ruling certainly stretches the parameters of the “personal comfort” doctrine to its outer limits. One wonders when that hypothetical line between work and personal might actually be crossed: if I have a sudden craving for a Caramel Brulee Latte (not likely, mind you) and the nearest Starbuck’s is 15 miles out of the way, am I still “working” when I head in that direction?
The Driving Hazard
These two cases share one important characteristic: both involve accidents while driving, statistically the most dangerous part of the working day. As risk managers contemplate enhancements to safety programs, they would do well to put safe driving near the top of the list.
* Why do they call it a “cup of Joe”? Check this link for a possible if not entirely plausible answer involving a former Secretary of the Navy.

California Comp: Personal Responsibility?

Monday, October 5th, 2009

Fernando Martinez worked for the D. H. Smith Company, as did his two sons. The company provided Martinez and his sons a Ford F350 flatbed to drive to and from work. Because Martinez did not have a driver’s license, only the sons were to operate the vehicle. In June 2007, Martinez and his sons were on their way to a construction site, with the elder Martinez behind the wheel. Martinez rear-ended another vehicle on the freeway, injuring himself and his son. At first, Fernando and his son lied to the investigating officer from the Califomia Highway Patrol about who was driving the company truck. However, marks on their bodies from their seatbelts showed that Fernando was driving and his son was a passenger at the time of the collision. They eventually fessed up to the fact that Fernando was driving.
Both filed workers comp claims. There is no doubt that the son’s injuries are compensable. But what about Fernando?
At first, Fernando’s claim was denied. Here is an excerpt from the initial ruling:

After consideration of all of the evidence, testimony at trial and in deposition, and the demeanor of witnesses, it was found that applicant’s conduct in driving the company truck to work without a driver’s license, against the express orders of the employer, was a cause of the injury, and takes the activity in which the injury occurred outside the course of employment. The conduct of driving the company truck on public highways against the express order of the company was more than the manner of performing duties. It was different duties than he was employed for. It appears that applicant did drive the truck before his sons were licensed, contrary to the testimony of defendants. However, on the evidence it is clear that he was not allowed to drive after they were licensed, and he and his sons were well aware of that…Applicant’s conduct in this case posed an increased hazard to his own safety and life, to that of his son and members of the public, and greatly increased the risk of liability to the employer for damage to property and injury.

Sounds reasonable, but remember, this is California. The review board overturned this decision. They found the injuries to Fernando were compensable, as he was in the course and scope of employment and furthering the interests of the employer, even though he was disregarding the employer’s instructions pertaining to his driving.
Golden State Precedents
The review board cited some fascinating cases to support their contention that the injuries were compensable:

Benefits not barred for injury incurred following a high-speed chase through heavy traffic after employee had run a red light [Williams v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974)];

Bus driver who sustained injury as a result of nearly hitting an oncoming vehicle while recklessly driving his bus not barred from recovering workers’ compensation benefits for the injury [Westbrooks v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1988)]

With precedents like these, it would be hard to come up with a case where employee misconduct resulting in an injury was not compensable. In California at least, virtually anything you do at work is compensable.
The review board goes on to say:

In this case, it does not matter that applicant may not have been authorized by defendant to drive the truck because his travel to the job site in the truck was authorized by the employer and was of benefit to the employer.

A distinction must be made between an unauthorized departure from the course of employment and the performance of a duty in an unauthorized manner. Injury occurring during the course of the former conduct is not compensable. The latter conduct … does not take the employee outside the course of his employment.

It is apparently not a concern to the review board that the “unauthorized manner” in this particular case involves an illegal activity (driving without a license).
The End of “To and Fro”?
Finally, California has interpreted the “coming and going” rule in the most generous manner. In most states, commuting “to and fro” is generally not compensable, even when the employee is operating a company vehicle. The workday usually begins at the worksite. Not in California: “When the employer provides the means of transportation, the course of employment begins when the employee begins to travel.”
NOTE to CA employers: you may want to bag it on the company cars.
Workers comp costs in California are the highest in the country, despite the fact that employee benefits are relatively stingy. The high costs derive from many factors, one of which is revealed in this particular case. There are embedded in case law deeply rooted concepts that tilt the interpretation of compensability in the direction of injured employees. In many states, defense could certainly raise the issue of whether Fernando’s insistence on driving the truck without a license crossed the line into “serious and wilful misconduct.” You know, the concept of personal responsibility. That might be a reasonable argument in some states, but it doesn’t hold any water in California.

Thumbs Down on New York Texting Ban?

Tuesday, September 1st, 2009

As a follow up to Julie Ferguson’s gruesome imagery from Monday’s blog, we find Clyde Haberman’s entertaining piece in the New York Times about the state’s new statute outlawing texting. As of November 1, it will be illegal for anyone to drive and text in the Empire State. Haberman goes on to write:

If any law may be described as a no-brainer, this one is it. You have to be certifiable to think that you can stare at a small screen and thumb-type on a tiny keyboard for five or six seconds while going 65 miles an hour, and not be a potential threat to everyone in your path. In the opinion of many safety experts, self-deluding multitaskers have had their way long enough. It’s time for some multi-tsking to rein them in.

Bravo, Clyde! But Haberman goes on to say that the new law is pretty toothless. “It doesn’t throw the book at texters so much as it tosses a few pages in their direction.” (Shades of Keith Olbermann?)
The problem is in enforcement. The new statute will only receive “secondary” enforcement, which means that a fine may be imposed only if the police find some other violation, such as speeding or running a red light. Beyond that, the maximum penalty is only $150. That’s chump change for the high rolling multi-taskers who clog New York’s multitudinous arteries.
Live Free and Die?
Haberman interviews Judith Lee Stone, president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, a Washington lobbying group. She says “secondary enforcement is not OK, and there’s no reason for it.”
The good folks in New York like to creep up on enforcement. When they first initiated a seat belt law, they began with secondary enforcement and eventually moved to primary status. All states now require seatbelts, with the notable exception of New Hampshire, which exempts adults over 18 from the mandate.
“It must be that “Live Free or Die” spirit,” Haberman quips.
To which Stone responds, “Live free and die, I’d say.”
The low budget ($20,000) video was produced by the Chief Constable of the tiny town of Gwent in SE Wales UK. The video has become a You-Tube sensation. The Insider humbly suggests that New York legislators check it out and then revisit the enforcement section of the new law. No one wants to suffer injury or even death just because some twit can’t wait to for the proper time to communicate something that, in the scheme of things, most certainly can wait.

Brutal, graphic video aimed at teens: don’t text while driving

Monday, August 31st, 2009

There’s been quite a lot of media coverage on the high risk of texting while driving and several states are lining up to issue bans or restrictions on the practice. We recently featured a texting while driving game that let’s you get a rough gauge of how you’d fare while texting at the wheel. But this simulator really soft pedals things in comparison to the approach that some countries are taking in getting the message out. Nothing that we’ve seen or read here in the U.S. has the raw, visceral power that a recent British public service announcement aimed at teens.
Before watching, please be warned that this video is very graphic.

There’s no disputing the danger that texting while driving poses – the studies are adding up. One of the more recent is a study by the VirginiaTech Transportation Institute, which found that texting truck drivers were 23 times more at risk of a crash or near crash event than nondistracted drivers. But there has been some debate about the effectiveness of shock advertising as an awareness and prevention tactic – some see them as highly effective, while other think that viewers tend to tune them out. This is an issue that came up about two years ago when Ontario’s Workplace Safety and Insurance Board released a series of graphic public service announcements designed to highlight worker safety.
As for the subject of this ad – currently, 18 states ban texting for all drivers. The Governors’ Highway Safety Association maintains and updates a handy chart of state cell phone and texting laws – check back often, as this is an issue on several state legislative dockets.

Distractions Behind the Wheel, Revisited

Tuesday, August 4th, 2009

The other Nicholas Sparks is in a bit of trouble: not the well-known writer, but an obscure 25 year old tow truck driver from upstate New York. The lesser known Sparks has earned himself a place in the Business Hall of Shame when he raised multi-tasking to new heights (or better, depths). He was talking on one cell phone, texting on another(!), when, surprise of surprises, he lost control of his vehicle, smashed into another car, careened across a front lawn and plunged his flatbed tow truck into a swimming pool. The 68 year-old woman driving the other car suffered head injuries but is in good condition; her 8 year old niece suffered minor injuries.
Sparks has been charged with reckless driving, talking on a cell phone and following too closely. He was driving a truck for Adams Towing Company. While I was unable to find an area company listed under this name, I do hope they carry robust liability coverage. The company is clearly guilty of negligence and will pay dearly for their multi-multi-tasking employee.
Driven to Distraction
The New York Times has singled out the use of cell phones while driving as a major danger. They have a begun a series focusing on this new road hazard entitled “Driving to Distraction.” In their most recent article, they describe the ubiquitous talking on cells performed by taxi drivers. (My family caught a cab during a downpour in Brooklyn last week; I sat in the front seat and listened to one side of a conversation in an Arabic tongue that was underway when we entered the cab and continued after we had paid and exited.)
While New York City has one of the most stringent laws in the country prohibiting taxi drivers from using cell phones while driving, it is rarely enforced. Fewer than 800 summonses were issued to cab drivers in 2007. If the law were enforced, the annual summonses would run in the hundreds of thousands.
It all comes down to this: anyone who drives can no longer plead ignorance to the dangers of talking/texting and driving. A new and potentially huge liability has emerged for the employers of people who drive in the course of employment. The employers are going to be held accountable for the mistakes of their employees. Property will be damaged and people will be hurt, even killed. In order to avoid liability, management will have to demonstrate that effective cell phone policies have been both promulgated and enforced.
Which leads to one final question: with liability ultimately falling to the insurance companies, what steps have they taken to ensure that policy holders have mitigated this ever-increasing risk? How will their underwriters identify the companies most likely to produce the next Nicholas Sparks – the driver, that is, not the writer.

Cell Phones: Unsafe at Any Speed?

Monday, June 1st, 2009

We’ve been following the tentative steps taken by management to confront a relatively new and ubiquitous risk: the use of cell phones while driving. Most people seem to realize that cell phone use is a dangerous distraction, whether involving talking or, lord help us, texting. While surveys indicate that nearly every driver (98 percent) considers him or herself a safe driver (NOT!), fully 20 percent of drivers between 16 and 61 admitting to texting while driving and 80 percent admit to talking on their cells. What we have is a serious disconnect between risk and action. We are all just driving obliviously up DeNile.
We have focused our attention on the potential risks to corporations, who are liable for the actions of their employees “in the course and scope of employment.” Back in 2001, Dyke Industries settled a case for $16 million, involving one of their salespeople taking out an elderly pedestrian while chatting on a phone.
Maggie Jackson in the Boston Globe writes that some corporations have taken aggressive action to mitigate the risk. Back in 2005, the engineering firm AMEC prohibited employees from any and all cell phone use while operating a vehicle. DuPont, a legendary leader in safety, first required employees to use headsets and then, on second thought, forbid all cell phone use while driving. AstraZeneca has similar policies in place.
Risky Business
What about everyone else? When, if ever, will managers of major and minor corporations bring the hammer down on blatantly risky behaviors behind the wheel?
We have two thoughts on the matter. First, it will take a few more tragedies to get the attention of corporate America on this risk. We all seem to labor under the delusion that multi-tasking is necessary and harmless. It is neither. Secondly, insurance companies are bound to wake up and smell this distinctly acrid brew: underwriters for general liability and fleet auto policies will begin to ask whether potential insureds have policies in place prohibiting the use of cell phones while driving. Those failing to implement such policies may find themselves scrambling for coverage. Perhaps a few innovative carriers will begin to offer discounts to employers with credible policies in place.
Employees subject to cell phone restrictions are beginning to develop new means of coping. Heck, there are support groups for everything, why not for cell phone withdrawal? Here are some of the tips that have emerged:

Plan Ahead. Call and send messages before leaving your desk.
Play relaxing music in traffic jams to reduce the frustration of “not doing anything.”
Turn off wireless devices. Still tempted? Lock them in a bag. Place the bag in the trunk.
Put a message on your voicemail saying, “I’m in a meeting or driving.”
Take a cab instead of driving, especially on out-of-town trips.
Warn people who regularly call – i.e. spouses – that you aren’t available in transit.

The Insider would add one more tip: when driving, just drive, with one relentless point of attention and with one goal in mind: arriving safely at your destination. For most of us, driving is the riskiest part of the work day, yet we treat driving as a relatively mindless means to an end. Alas, if we are not careful, driving may be the last thing we ever do.

Texting and Driving: Dying to Communicate

Monday, May 11th, 2009

Aiden Quinn is 24 years old. He drives a trolley for the Mass Bay Transit Authority (MBTA or T) in Boston. He has a mediocre driving record, with three speeding violations (while operating a motor vehicle). Last week he was driving a trolley underground between Park Street and Government Center. He was texting his girlfriend, when he ran a red light and crashed into another trolley stopped in front of him. Over 40 people were injured, including Quinn. The T was shut down for hours.
Quinn has been fired – no surprise – and the T has now issued a policy prohibiting drivers from carrying cell phones. (I’m sure that made the other drivers real happy with their former colleague.) The 40 injured passengers are going to have numerous avenues for lawsuits, including: negligent hiring/negligent entrustment (should Quinn have been operating the trolley in the first place?); and negligent policies (they only prohibited cell phone use after the accident). We can assume that the T will settle as quickly as possible. This case is a real loser.
The larger policy implications are intriguing. It is safe to assume that any employee in the course and scope of employment who tries to text while driving is opening a huge liability for the employer. Texting is even more dangerous than talking on a cell phone: after all, you have to look at the screen to read a message and at the key board to reply.
[Aside: my teenage daughter assures me that her friends can text behind their backs without looking at the keyboard. This might work in class, but not very well on the road: “Look Ma, no hands on the wheel!”]
[Second aside: speaking of Ma, for a truly appalling (YouTube) video of a teenager who texts over 5,000 times a month, often while driving, check this out. If you can explain the passive “what can you do?” attitude of the mother, please explain via our comment section.]
Policy Conundrum
Employers are caught in a bind: they are virtually compelled to issue policies limiting cell phone use and texting while driving, even while they recognize that some of their best and most productive employees are multi-taskers who routinely operate this way.
Which brings us to the sad story of Phyllis Jen, a talented internal medicine specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. Jen was driving her 2007 Toyota Prius when she drifted over the center lane at 6 pm (in full daylight). She crashed into another vehicle and was killed.
Police say it did not appear speed or alcohol played a role in the crash, but they were investigating whether Jen was using her Blackberry. Jen was famous for always being available, always willing to go the extra mile. Alas, she has abruptly and tragically run out of miles to go.
As companies struggle to integrate new technologies into safety procedures and as public officials struggle with whole new categories of risk, one thing is certain: the ubiquitous cell phone and related texting have taken a firm hold in our professional and personal lives. We just cannot seem to function without them. The problem is, in making ourselves available 24/7, we put our own lives and the lives of strangers at risk. Sure, we have important things to communicate. But on the scale of life itself, virtually all of these communications can and should be put off until time and circumstances allow. We might be dying to communicate with a colleague or friend, but it’s certainly not worth dying for.

Texting can be lethal

Tuesday, October 14th, 2008

With the recent focus on the economic meltdown and the pending election, you might have missed the story about the likely cause of the horrific California train crash that killed 25 people last month and injured 135 others. Almost immediately, authorities knew that the accident was the result of human error – the driver had failed to stop at a stop sign. But what didn’t surface until later is that the driver was text messaging just seconds before the crash:

“Robert Sanchez, the driver of a Los Angeles Metrolink commuter train that crashed head-on with a freight locomotive, may have been text messaging seconds before the fatal crash, according to subpoenaed reports from Verizon Wireless. Records show the driver had received a text at 4:21.03 p.m. and sent a text at 4:22.01 p.m. The two trains crashed seconds later at 4:22.23 p.m.
Records also showed that during his time operating the train, the engineer received seven text messages and sent five. Earlier in the day, during a two-hour morning shift, the engineer’s cell phone received 21 text messages and sent 24 text messages.”

The driver’s texting was in violation of the National Transportation Safety Board’s policy banning all use of phones while operating a train. As any employer knows, having a policy and enforcing it can be two separate matters, in this case with tragic results.
In most states, texting while driving is still a legal practice. While several states are looking at potential laws to ban the practice, only a handful of states currently have such laws on the books – the state of California and the city of Chicago have recently both banned the practice. A recent survey of 1500 drivers by Nationwide Insurance revealed that about 20% of drivers are texting while behind the wheel – and that number may reach as high as 66% when isolating drivers aged 18 to 24.
Regardless of state law, employers should enact safety policies that encompass mobile devices. Tom Starner deals with safety and other issues related to emerging technology in Human Resource Executive Online article Calling for Enforcement. And if the human cost alone isn’t enough to catch an employer’s attention, Starner cites a number of litigated cases with multi-million dollar settlements related to fatalities caused by employees who were using mobile devices. He quotes Portland, Ore. attorney Nancy M. Cooper:

“As those latest examples show, it’s becoming increasingly important for employers to implement effective cell-phone-use policies, both to limit liability and improve safety,” Cooper says. “It doesn’t matter if a call is being made during regular office hours or not; what matters is that the call [or text messaging] is work related. Employers may be found liable for any damages caused by an employee acting within the scope of his or her employment.”

Motor vehicle related workplace injuries are among the most common, and are also one of the leading causes of workplace death. We’ve talked about he need for diligent risk management policies and procedures for employees who drive – it’s a good time for employers to update policies to specifically address text messaging.