Driving While Phoning
December 2001
In IRMI Update 23, subscribers were asked
for their opinions on whether employers should adopt policies for cell phone
use during dangerous activities, particularly driving. This article examines
the responses, provides a bit of background, and offers possible options for
employers to take to confront the problem.
by
Bonnie Rogers
IRMI
In the IRMI Update 23
"Message from
the Editor," Jack Gibson commented on the use of cellular telephones while
driving. Jack asked readers for their opinions about the question of whether
employers should adopt policies for cell phone use during dangerous activities,
particularly driving. The response was emphatic on both ends of the spectrum.
This article examines these responses, provides a bit of background, and offers
possible options for employers to take to confront the problem.
Background
The number of cell phones in the United States has been steadily rising.
Never close to the European percentages of usage, the U.S. market seemed to
have a pocket of die-hards who refused to ever join the ranks of the wireless.
With the events of September 11, however, cell phones have moved from status
symbol to lifeline.
With such growth, the safety issues surrounding driving while phoning (DWP)
are growing. Are cellular telephones inherently dangerous while driving? Do
hand-free devices help? What about other distractions, such as children, food,
music, Palm Pilots?
Legislating Safety
Some point to federal legislation as the solution to accidents caused by
cell phone use while driving. Many IRMI Update readers don't think so, and neither
does the National Conference of State Legislatures. At their August meeting
in San Antonio, they passed a resolution opposing such legislation, calling
it "a pre-emption of state sovereignty" and an "unfounded mandate on the states."
However, some legislators disagree. Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., and Sen. Jon
Corzine, D-N.J., proposed a bill requiring states to adopt mobile phone restrictions
by October 1, 2003, or lose up to $30 billion in federal highway funding. Hands-free
devices would be exempt.
But is legislating safety the answer? New York became the first state to
ban the use of cell phones while driving. Starting November 1, 2001, those caught
using cell phones while driving-without the use of hands-free devices-received
a verbal warning, which turned to a $100 fine on December 1, emergency use exempted.
Courts could issue waivers to first-time offenders if hands-free devices were
purchased, but this waiver is due to expire March 1, 2002. In 2001, 43 other
states, including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, considered such
legislation. Arizona, Massachusetts, and California passed less restrictive
laws, with numerous local jurisdictions doing so as well.
International IRMI Update subscribers explained how their countries have
legislated solutions. In Singapore, there is strict policy on the use of "handphones"
while driving. Any driver caught red-handed is given a jail sentence and a hefty
fine. In Australia, the Commonwealth Government recently passed Road Laws that
restrict the use mobile phones while driving, hands-free devices excepted. Currently,
23 countries have some sort of restrictions regarding the use of cell phones
while driving.
What Do Studies Show?
Studies abound. A soon-to-be-released University of Utah study supports the
theory that it's the mental distraction, not the physical, involved in DWP that
causes accidents. John Moffat, chairman of the National Association of Governors'
Highway Safety Representatives, quoted a federal study showing that only 3 percent
of accidents that resulted from driver inattention were caused by mobile phones.
[Wireless Week 8/20/01] A recent
National Safety Council study found that regardless of whether hands-free
devices were used, conversing on cell phones led to significant decrements in
simulated driving performance.
Another recent study, this one by
AAA, stated that, based on 1995-1999 data, events that occur outside the
car, adjusting the stereo, and interactions with others in the vehicle were
frequently reported sources of driver distraction. Less frequently reported
sources were moving objects in the vehicle, other objects brought inside the
vehicle, adjusting vehicle or climate controls, eating, drinking, using a cell
phone, and smoking.
In response to IRMI's article, the director of education of the Florida Association
of Insurance Agents mentioned a study done by the Florida Highway Patrol. Of
100,000 accidents in 6 months, 600 were caused by driver distraction of any
kind. Cell phones were down that list in third or fourth place. Another Florida
study, by the
University of South Florida, concludes that the effect of mobile phone use
on driving is difficult to determine, with other factors such as the type of
phone, conversation, and demographics of the user coming into play. That study
reports people using mobile phones while driving were anywhere from 34 percent
to 300 percent more likely to have an accident.
These studies and many, many others have not come up with a conclusive answer
to the question of whether driving while talking on a cell phone is safe. Often,
you can guess the answer by looking at the study sponsor. However, all point
to the need for more studies and more detailed information on accident causes,
particularly where cellular phones are involved.
Telematics
What about other distractions? With Americans in their cars commuting for
longer periods in worse traffic, "helpful" devices to increase productivity
are fast coming to the market, such as navigational systems, Internet/e-mail
access, portable fax machines, real-time traffic advisories, stolen vehicle
tracking, and even concierge services! Manufacturers point to safety features
that free hands, such as projections onto the bottom of the windshield, mounted
in front of the instrument panel, and text-to-speech or voice activation systems.
But does eliminating the hands in the equation provide a solution to driver
distraction?
Studies abound here as well, most noticeably by those producing this newfangled
equipment. Ford Motor Co. is testing how distracting onboard devices are with
its Virtual Test Track Experiment (VIRTTEX),
a simulator designed to test driver reactions to various distractions, including
phones, radios, navigation systems, etc.
General Motors' telematics subsidiary OnStar conducted a 5-year company study
that showed little correlation between accidents and using its hands-free feature
for making calls. In an August 27, 2001, interview in
Wireless Week, OnStar President Chet Hubor
said that "out of the 8.1 million calls placed from an embedded OnStar phone
to one of the company's call centers, only two coincided with accidents severe
enough to deploy an airbag." He said there was no evidence those two accidents
were caused by the call.
Employer Response
Where does this leave employers? What is their obligation? Does a company
bear vicarious responsibility if its employee's negligence while driving causes
an accident? Can employer-instituted policies to restrict such dangerous behavior
shield them from lawsuits? Or will such policies confirm-in the minds' of the
courts-that employers realize what dangerous positions they are putting employees
in when they supply cars and cell phones, and then require contact with the
office or customers? What about enforcement? Remember employee privacy rights?
There does not seem to be one sure-fire solution. IRMI Update readers offered
several suggestions and examples of employment policies that they have witnessed,
including the following:
- An employer cell phone use agreement, signed by both parties, coupled
with a mandatory video that would dramatically explain the potential consequences
of inadvertent distraction, even to the most adept multi-taskers.
- Adding a driving safety policy to the "Prohibited Actions" section in
the employment policy, prohibiting the use of a cell phone while the vehicle
is in motion. Failure to comply could result in corrective action up to
and including termination. Employees must sign an acknowledgement and agree
to comply with its terms and conditions.
- Fleet manual sections on cell phone use reminding drivers to use cellular
telephones carefully while operating a vehicle; requesting that, if possible,
employees pull off the road before initiating a cell phone call and, if
not possible, keeping all calls as short as possible and trying to avoid
allowing the phone conversation to distract the driver from traffic conditions,
driving, and other drivers.
- Employer recommendations or requirements of the use of hands-free devices
for cellular telephones.
- An outright ban all cell phone use while operating company-owned vehicles,
while operating a personal vehicle while conducting company business, while
using a phone furnished or required by the firm while operating any vehicle.
- More general warnings in the company's safety policy stating that the
primary function of the vehicle operator is to drive the vehicle; should
additional tasks be necessary, they should be handled by a passenger/co-worker
or the vehicle should be stopped in a safe place prior to undertaking any
additional tasks which may inhibit safe operation of the company vehicle.
- Company policies stating that employees who are charged with traffic
violations resulting from the use of their phones while driving will be
solely responsible for all penalties that result from such actions, whether
on a personal or business cellular phone.
One reader submitted his company's policy, shown in Figure 1, that employees
are required to sign:
The Company's policy is that cellular
telephones and other electronic devices shall not be used while driving
or at times when such use might be distracting to the user or otherwise
cause a dangerous situation. Everyone should assure themselves that
use of a cellular phone or other device does not interfere with safe
performance of the job task being performed or the operation of any
motor vehicle or mobile equipment.
Acknowledged:_____________
Date:____________________
|
How do firms go about developing such a policy? IRMI Update subscriber and
risk tip provider Phil Moser, National Sales Manager of Advanced Driver Training
Services, offered this suggestion:
Create a policy that works. Use a multi-disciplinary
team to develop a policy that is practical, legal, and reflects your organization's
risk tolerance. Some companies no longer provide cell phones and refuse to reimburse
drivers for cell phone-related expenses. Others permit or provide cell phones,
but very clearly specify how and when they may be used. If you allow cell phone
use in emergency situations, be sure to define what constitutes an "emergency."
Reinforce the policy. Provide all new hires
with a copy of the policy and review it in detail during their orientation.
Cover safe cell phone use in all driver-training programs and in periodic reminders,
such as in a company newsletter.
Inform drivers. Ensure that drivers understand
the reason for the cell phone policy-including the increased odds of an accident,
the potential liability for the company, and the possibility of personal injury
or fatalities. Outline the ways in which cell phones pose these risks, so drivers
will understand how to reduce their odds of an accident.
Provide alternatives. Offer drivers practical
options that recognize their need to communicate while traveling. You might
permit drivers to use the phone only when safely pulled off the road. Or you
might instruct them to forward their calls to voice mail while driving, to avoid
being distracted by an incoming call.
Conclusion
It's rather obvious at this point that the question of whether driving while
phoning is inherently dangerous has yet to be answered. While state government
is voicing its concern, the federal government has yet to speak. And the attitude
of the judiciary has not been ascertained. Employers would be wise not to wait
for guidance from our judicial and legislative branches.
Whether using the carrot—in the form of instructional videos, safety incentives,
and suggestions for alternatives to DWP—or the stick—by instituting outright
bans backed by termination or fines—employers have a duty to address the issue
head-on. Proper risk management so dictates.
Opinions expressed in Expert Commentary articles are those of the author and are
not necessarily held by the author's employer or IRMI. Expert Commentary articles
and other IRMI Online content do not purport to provide legal, accounting, or other
professional advice or opinion. If such advice is needed, consult with your attorney,
accountant, or other qualified adviser.