Posts Tagged ‘vehicles’

Highway regulators calling for better truck safety

Wednesday, January 28th, 2015

ntsb
Since 2009, fatalities related to large truck road accidents have increased by 17%. In 2013, that number rose to 3,964 fatalities, the fourth straight year of increases. This bucks the trend of vehicle-related fatalities overall, which have been steadily decreasing. Fatalities involving large trucks and buses represent about 4% of the overall annual vehicle-related fatality total.

The increase in fatalities has prompted the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to call for tighter commercial trucking regulations.

Despite the annual uptick, NTSB says that more than 100 recommendations for improved truck safety have not come to fruition. And worse, instead of strengthening measures, it would appear that legislators rolled back safety-related regulations:

“Congress last year weakened regulations designed to reduce trucker fatigue. Lawmakers targeted a portion of a rule closing a loophole that kept some drivers from working 82 hours over eight days, according to Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. That provision won’t be enforced for at least a year as regulators conduct research to see if it had an unintended effect of forcing more trucks onto the road during rush hours. “

NTSB has included the need for a strengthening in commercial trucking on it 2015 Most Wanted List. Among some of the recommendations, NTSB says:

“Regulators have taken initial steps by maintaining science-based hours of service rules and are in the process of rulemaking mandating electronic logging devices that can help assure that drivers are adequately rested. Other important rulemaking initiatives include requirements to screen drivers for obstructive sleep apnea, other potentially impairing medical conditions, and potentially impairing drugs.”

Truck driver safety
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) truck drivers are six times more likely to be killed on the job than other workers. The trucking Industry is among the top 5 most catastrophic occupations. According to a 1992 article in the Journal of Public Health Policy:

“In the 1992 study, over one thousand long haul tractor-trailer drivers were interviewed by a research team over four months, and almost three-quarters of the respondents said they self-reported violations of Hours-of-Service rules. Two-thirds said they “routinely” drive more than legal weekly maximums. Those long hours in the driver’s seat lead to decreased attentiveness and heightened rates of fatigue, creating prime conditions for unwanted accidents and catastrophic injuries.”

One excellent resource for trucker safety is TIRES (Trucking Injury Reduction Emphasis), a research project developed by the SHARP program at the Washington Department of Labor & Industries. SHARP’s research shows that trucking has some of the highest claims rates and costs in the State of Washington.

In addition to a wide range of training and safety information, TIRES an excellent Keep Trucking Safe Blog that we’ll be adding to the sidebar.

Related

Health Wonk Review & Other Noteworthy News

Thursday, January 17th, 2013

Health Wonk Review: The Inauguration Edition is freshly posted by Chris Fleming at the Health Affairs Blog. Here’s a preview: 2013 predictions, healthcare spending, risky behaviors, nursing workforce projections and more. A good and substantive edition: Get your wonk on.
Electric car crashes could pose new risk for first responders – With the proliferation of hybrids and new technologies, emergency workers that respond to the scene of an auto accident could be subject to shocks from batteries that have not powered down. See our prior post on Electric Vehicle Safety Training for first responders.
Are the flu & Tamiflu overhyped? – At Managed Care Matters, Joe Paduda casts a skeptical eye on the hoopla over the flu and the media’s propensity to blow everything up into a crisis. If it’s not shark month or killer bee week, we need some fear-factor issue to fascinate, worry, and horrify us. Don’t miss his comments on Tamiflu. But if you do need some workplace guidance, see Influenza tools & tips for you & your employees at HR Web Cafe. Also of interest: NIOSH Research on Airborne Influenza Transmission
A Primer on Fee Schedules – Peter Rousmaniere’s most recent column in Risk & Insurance is a good bookmark. He offers an overview and a rundown on the status quo on this complex and important managed care issue of how doctors get paid.
Internet-Use Disorder: The Newest Disability? – There’s apparently a growing catalog of technology related maladies – we’ve previously discussed Blackberry Thumb, Cell Phone Elbow, IPod Ear. But this one is actually included in the DSM-5 – although as a condition that requires further research. Jon Hyman of Ohio Employer’s Blog thinks it bears watching because if it is deemed a psychiatric disorder, then employees who suffer from it may be protected by the ADA. See his post for more on this.
For Americans Under 50, Stark Findings on Health – “Younger Americans die earlier and live in poorer health than their counterparts in other developed countries, with far higher rates of death from guns, car accidents and drug addiction, according to a new analysis of health and longevity in the United States.” Access the full report.
Drugs & Guns: Arming Investigators – Dave DePaolo posts that the Texas Medical Board (TMB) has asked the state’s attorney general to rule on whether the board may authorize its investigators to carry concealed handguns as private citizens when investigating pill mills. Drugs are a big and dangerous business. Ohio recently approved such a measure so the request is not without precedent.
CT officials hope to change workers comp law for Sandy Hook responders – Some lawmakers are looking to extend benefits to first responders for PTSD related to incidents like Sandy Hook (although it is unlikely any legislation would be retroactive). Currently, state law extends workers compensation benefits only to those who had a serious injury/fatality but not PTSD. We’ve seen this issue before: (Uncompensable) Nightmare at Work.
News Briefs

Low clearance: truckers, this one is for you

Wednesday, January 19th, 2011


A website called 11foot8 videos chronicles “the good, the bad and the ugly” of low clearance truck accidents at a single Durham NC trestle bridge. While one might think this is the purview of inexperienced drivers and rental trucks, the videos don’t lie: professionals have had their share of accidents, too.
When professionals make a mistake, the results can turn deadly. In September, four people were killed when a bus crashed into a railroad bridge in Syracuse after deviating from the normal route. And even non-fatal incidents wreak havoc in terms of injuries, property losses, hazards to pedestrians and other drivers, and costly traffic tie ups. Here are photos of four serious nonfatal truck and bridge collisions
Prevention tips
Prevention might seem obvious to some, but approximately 5,000 bridge-truck collisions per year say otherwise. Here are some pointers we gleaned from the pros:

  • Plan route in advance and stay on route
  • Check atlas and or gps systems in advance
  • Keep atlases and gps systems up to date
  • Check with any state or major city DOTs (examples: NYC; TX); they often provide good information about the local area
  • Be religious about watching for and heeding signage
  • If on an unfamiliar route, check with other drivers about hazards
  • Talk to shippers and receivers on your route about nearby low clearance
  • When in doubt, don’t risk it

Additional Resources
America’s Independent Truckers Association (AITA) offers an online database of low clearance bridges with heights broken down by state.
For situations that might require escorts, AITA maintains a truck escort referral listing
This trucker forum discusses low clearance solutions.

The Pizza Delivery Chronicles, Part One: Liability

Monday, October 4th, 2010

Every time I see a marginal car with a pizza delivery sign slapped onto the roof, I think about the driver. How old? How experienced? How desperate to make a few bucks in a tough economy? And from the employer’s viewpoint: how competent is the driver? Just how far must an employer go before they entrust a driver with the plastic logo and the insulated bag for delivering pizza to those of us who want dinner delivered in a box?
These thoughts congeal like day-old pizza in the sad case of Nicole Fisk, an 18 year old driver who worked (briefly) for Pizza Hut. Nicole only had her license for 3 months when hired by Pizza Hut in Clairemont CA. She was delivering pizza in November 2008 when she blacked out and drifted across the solid line into oncoming traffic. She slammed into a car operated by Shari Novak, 62, who suffered permanent brain damage and can no longer take care of herself. Shari’s mother, Olena, suffered a broken neck.
Who Pays?
The Novaks sued Pizza Hut, arguing that the company was responsible for the collision because they hired Fisk, a relatively inexperienced driver, who had a history of suffering blackout spells. Ah, there’s the rub. What did the employer know about Nicole Fisk? Only what she told them. She had a clean record, she carried the necessary insurance and her references were fine. She was not diagnosed with epilepsy until after the crash. Pizza Hut called it an “unforeseeable medical emergency” – which can be used as a defense to a negligence lawsuit.
Jurors rejected the defense, awarding Shari Novak $8.6 million and her mother $2.2 million. As one juror put it, “Fisk should have known she could have a blackout episode because of her medical history.”
Here’s where it gets interesting and where the issue of employer accountability comes to the fore. A consultant attorney points out that Nicole lied continuously about her health problems. When she first experienced blackouts, she was put on medication for acid reflux (a seemingly bizarre diagnosis, but perhaps based upon the limited information she provided her doctors). She apparently under-reported subsequent problems to these doctors. When she applied for a driver’s license, she failed to disclose her medical condition to the Registry. And when she applied for a job at Pizza Hut, she once again lied about her condition and its potential impact on her ability to perform the job safely.
It’s not difficult to feel some sympathy for Nicole. She is only 18. Her medical condition frightens her – she probably prefers not to think about it. Like any 18 year old, she wants to drive like her friends and earn a few bucks. In her own mind, she was not endangering herself or anyone else.
Impossible Standard?
While it’s important to note that the jury did not find Pizza Hut guilty of negligent hiring, it did conclude that the company is responsible for damages because Fisk was their employee at the time of the accident. John Gomez, the attorney for the Novaks, said that the verdict should send a signal to other companies “to be a little more careful when hiring professional drivers.” This is a bit disingenuous. Surely, the attorney is not suggesting that employers (illegally) research medical records on every potential hire. In this case, Pizza Hut followed its own reasonable procedures. Other than hiring a relatively inexperienced driver, they did nothing wrong.
Nicole Fisk was initially named in the personal-injury lawsuit but was later dropped from the case. Not because she was innocent – she is responsible for the tragic events on that November day – but because she had no assets of the magnitude sought – and secured – by the Novak attorneys.
There are few lessons to be learned here. Employers are routinely held accountable for many things which they do not control. It’s not so much a matter of accountability as the crass ability to pay. In a case of this scale, with damages this severe, someone must pay. That someone, obviously, is the corporate entity that was unfortunate enough to hire Nicole Fisk.

Reckless, Negligent, Compensable

Tuesday, September 21st, 2010

Matt Mitchell was an Illinois state trooper. On November 23, 2007, he was bombing along Interstate 64 at 126 miles per hour, on his way to an accident scene. He was chatting with his girlfriend and sending text messages. The road was somewhat clogged with holiday travelers. His speeding was not necessary, as help had already arrived at the accident scene. The distracted trooper crossed over the median and hit a car head on. Two sisters, Kelli and Jessica Uhl, were killed instantly. Two other occupants of the car were injured. Trooper Mitchell suffered severe leg injuries.
Speeding for no reason. Texting and talking unrelated to his job. Reckless. Negligent. And, it appears, compensable.
Mitchell pleaded guilty to reckless homicide and reckless driving and was sentenced to 30 months probation. He resigned his position with the state police. He has filed a claim for workers comp benefits, which is likely to be awarded because Mitchell was in the course and scope of employment. In the stipulation during a civil suit filed by the parents of the Uhl sisters, the Illinois attorney general agreed that, despite the criminal negligence, Mitchell was acting in his capacity as a state trooper when the accident occurred. Yes, the speeding was gratuitous, the texting irresponsible, the girl friend chats unrelated to work. But Mitchell was heading to the scene of an accident. He was a jerk and a menace, but he was working.
On the Hook
Illinois taxpayers face an interesting double jeopardy. They are on the hook for the deaths of the Uhl sisters. And they will soon be on the hook for Mitchell’s loss of function payments and possibly for permanent total benefits.
It’s worth noting that just three days after pleading guilty to the criminal charges, Mitchell testified in a claims hearing that he was not responsible for the crash.
If Mitchell had not been heading for an accident scene, if he was speeding simply because he wore a uniform that allowed him to get away with it, perhaps his claim would be denied under the concept of “wilful intent.” We are reminded once again of comp’s cornerstone principle of “no fault.” There’s plenty of fault in this sorry saga, but it does not – alas, it cannot – matter one bit.

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.