Here’s a summary of the changes:

For anyone familiar with these rules, note that cell phone violations are weighted with a 10 — which is serious as it gets.

Because of the FMCSA regulations the new hand-held phone ban modifies, it automatically became part of the Unsafe Driving BASIC when it came into effect last month, so violations have both financial and CSA implications. Specifically adding these five cell phone violations to the safety ‘snapshot’ it sends to motor carriers shows how seriously the FMCSA is taking this new rule.

To minimize the impact of these news rules on your business — learn how you can automatically promote safe and legal use of cell phones while your employees are driving on the job.

Image via ats_500

What few people, however, understand (and what TODAY‘s segment failed to mention) is that the distracted driving epidemic is not exclusive to teen drivers.  Adults are just as much a part of the problem – a fact that creates serious financial risk and liability for America’s employers.

Here’s five reasons why cell phone use while driving is much more than just a “teen problem”:

1.  The Data Doesn’t Lie:  In June 2010, the Pew Research Center conducted a study which found that One in four (27%) American adults say they have texted while driving, the same proportion as the number of driving age teens (26%) who say they have texted while driving.  Also, the study found that 61% of adults say they have talked on their cell phones while they were behind the wheel.  That is considerably greater than the number of 16- and 17-year-olds (43%) who have talked on their cells while driving.

2.  Cell Phone-Toting Adults Teach Teens to Drive:  A nationwide survey commissioned by State Farm of 517 sets of teen drivers and their parents found that 61% of teens reported their parents were distracted by their cell phone or other electronic device at least once while teaching them to drive; 29% said their parents were distracted “sometimes, often or all the time” while driving.

3.  Cell Phone Use While Driving Increases Crash Risk-Regardless of Age:  After examining the behavior of drivers over more than six million miles of road, the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI) found that texting drivers were 23 times more likely to be in a crash or near-crash than non-distracted drivers – regardless of age.  The study also showed that texting drivers involved in ‘safety-critical’ events had their eyes off the road for an average of 4.6 seconds–enough time to travel the length of a football field when driving at 55 mph.  By contrast, talking on a cell phone, which allows drivers to keep their eyes on the road, represented an increased risk of only 1.3 times that of a nondistracted driver.

4.  Vehicle Crashes Are #1 Killer of Teens *AND* Employees:  While it’s true that motor vehicle crashes are the number-one cause of death for U.S. teens — it’s also true that motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of workplace fatalities.  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 39% of occupational fatalities in 2010 involved motor vehicle incidents.

5.  Vehicle Crashes Have Massive Human and Economic Costs:  The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that motor vehicle crashes involving employees costs employers $60 billion annually.  Furthermore, NHTSA also reports that fatal crashes cost employers $500,000 per, and nonfatal crashes with injury cost $74,000 per.  Additionally, a recent AAA study found that fatal car crashes cost society $6 million each.  Under the theory of vicarious liability, companies whose employees are involved in distracted driving crashes can be held legally and financially liable.  Many companies have already paid millions in damages, as you can read in this white paper.

So while the issue of teen distracted driving *is* critically important — so, too, is the issue of *adult* distracted driving.  Companies especially face significant risk and liability as a result of employee use of phones while driving on the job.  Each and every day there are 18 million commercial fleet vehicles on American roads.  These vehicles are driven by cell phone-toting adults (not teens) and every single one of them is tempted to text, email or browse while on the road.

Regardless of whether you’re a parent or employer — it’s time to promote safe, legal and responsible use of phones while driving.

Soon after that incident, you’ll receive a ticket in the mail, usually with the option to just go ahead and pay it via postal mail- or  you have the choice to show up in court to contest it. But fighting it won’t do you much good when there’s photo evidence. The question is, does getting caught by a camera make you think twice before you run a red light again?

Most people would say yes, if only to avoid having to pay fines or having points added to their driving record, as is the case in many states including Oklahoma. But others feel a camera mounted on a traffic light isn’t as accurate as an actual police officer. Some even claim it’s an invasion of privacy – although I think that’s a difficult argument to make when you’re traveling on public roads.

Opposition to traffic cameras, or red-light cameras, often stems from a lack of understanding of how they work. Most intersections using this technology will have four cameras, one on each corner. The cameras are connected both to triggers in the intersection and to a computer.

When a car passes a trigger when the light is red, it trips the camera, which takes two photos—one of the vehicle just over the line, and one of the vehicle in the middle of the intersection—and sends it to the computer, which records the date and time of the incident. More often than not, the cameras are more accurate than police officers at detecting red light runners.

Here in Oklahoma, we have more than our share of dangerous intersections. In Oklahoma City, Pennsylvania Avenue and Memorial Road has been called the deadliest intersection, with 94 crashes recorded there in a single year.

As of February 2010, the most dangerous intersection in Tulsa was at U.S. Highway 169 and 51st street, according to the Tulsa Police Department (TPD). Between 2007 and that time, police responded to 280 crashes at that one location.

Traffic camera detractors may say just put more traffic cops on the roads to decrease accidents. But the solution isn’t that simple. Due to budget cuts, TPD had to lay off many of its officers, and even temporarily suspended its traffic units altogether. In fact, TPD will no longer respond to non-injury crashes.

This brings up another interesting potential use of red-light cameras—liability. Let’s say someone runs a red light and hits your car, but neither you nor the other driver are injured. If the police have adopted a stance of only responding when there’s an injury – there’s no police report generated at the scene. That means you don’t get a chance to tell *your* side of the story to anyone. How are you going to prove who was at fault so that the other driver’s insurance will cover your damages?

And what if the other driver leaves the scene? That traffic camera photo may be your only salvation when you’re the victim of a hit-and-run driver. This would be especially true if you were a pedestrian hit by a car that ran a red light and then drove away.

Additionally, the increasing prevalence of cell phone-related distracted driving means that ‘accidental’ red light running could become more common, as drivers enter intersections against the light simply because they are not paying attention. And that is behavior that can have truly tragic consequences, as the deaths of Joe Teater and Martha Ovalle show.

Not being able to recover damages creates a liability problem for both individual drivers and those who drive as part of their job – meaning employers could be left footing the bill for non-employee drivers’ erratic behavior. Until cities can afford to have enough traffic cops on duty, or better yet, drivers slow down and use more caution on the roads, traffic cameras may be the best way to deter reckless driving, at least in dangerous intersections.

Noble McIntyre is the senior partner and owner of McIntyre Law, a firm staffed by experienced Oklahoma car crash lawyers.

Images via brewbooks, Noble McIntyre

That promise sounds like the definition of too good to be true – but for one Ontario, CA-based truck driver, it really was that easy.

The Yanke Group of Companies recently announced it has awarded owner-operator Sasa Gavranovic with a brand-new Ford F-150 as his prize for participating in its “Be the One” Safety Program, reports Today’s Trucking. Gavronovic was one of 473 drivers to enter the yearly giveaway, which also offers participants the chance to win monthly cash prizes in addition to the annual grand prize of a new pick-up truck.

Yanke’s safety program, created in 2009, involves everything from safety breakfasts to social media – but perhaps most interesting is its focus on information and data:

“While Yanke said that the program’s main focus is ‘safety,’ it specifically looks at personal attitudes, behaviours and core values, and how that impacts each workday. A critical component of this, Yanke said, is information sharing, emphasizing the awareness of potential emotional, financial and physical loss that might occur.”

It’s hardly a novel idea to suggest that you have to win “hearts and minds” before you’ll see any change in behavior. By both offering enticing incentives and leveraging data on potential risks, Yanke is cleverly changing its staff’s approach to safety. So while it may cost Yanke $10,000 in cash and another $50,000 for the car to run this program every year – how much are they saving by improving safety and reducing crash expenses?

Surely thousands of dollars-  and maybe even millions, if we take into account potential plaintiff actions following crashes involving Yanke-employed drivers.

Coupling data on potential risk with rewards to encourage drivers to change their behavior is exactly the kind of safety program we were aiming to support as we developed our innovative cell phone use analytics service, FleetSafer Vision. By providing fleet operators with rich analytics on how employees use their mobile phones while driving, we enable companies to reward their safest drivers – and encourage safer habits – or identify risky drivers in order to fix the problems.

Safety improvements don’t come cheap – but as Yanke’s success shows, paying for one pick-up truck a year could turn out to be a relative bargain.

Image via TruckNews.com

Here at ZoomSafer, we want to know what you think about the new rule. Do you think it will enhance highway safety – or will it make commercial fleet drivers’ and operators’ lives more difficult for little benefit? What kind of steps, if any, does your company plan to take to ensure compliance?

Take our two-minute survey now – and as a thank-you for sharing your thoughts, enter to win a FREE Apple iPad2!

Get started now!

Writing for Network World, the author, Ellen Messmer, does a great job of presenting both sides of the argument for why a company might adopt a Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) policy and encourage employees to buy their own mobile smartphones or tablet computers for use within the workplace.

Clearly, there are corporations like Holly Hunt that think BYOD programs make perfect sense, and have gone so far as to position a BYOD program as an employee benefit — giving employees the flexibility to chose the mobile device that not only fits their personal preferences — but one that works both at home and at the office (thanks to management software from BoxTone).

When viewed as an employee benefit — BYOD sure sounds like a great way for corporate IT departments to save money by exiting-out of the mobile phone business — but it it really less expensive?  I am not convinced that it is.  Here’s why:

Operational expenses may be higher for BYOD phones.  Employees giving up their company BlackBerry smartphones in favor of personal devices receive an average monthly stipend of $70, versus $80 per month for traditional corporate rate plans.  At first glance, this looks like a clear win for the BYOD approach — but upon closer inspection you’ll see that this comparison fails to account for cost reductions associated with bulk rate plans and contract negotiations.  Aberdeen finds that most companies can achieve a 25% savings by simply negotiating with the wireless carrier — not something that is possible for BYOD phones tied to personal accounts.  Furthermore, this comparison does not account for the fact that BYOD users are typically reimbursed through monthly expense reports — which, according to Aberdeen, cost an average $29 to process.  So, when you look at the big picture, you’ll see that the total cost per month for a BYOD phone is $99 compared to $85 per month (including management) for non-BYOD phones.

Corporate risk factors may be higher for BYOD devices.  BYOD devices are by definition “dual-use” – one device used for both business and personal communications.  Synergies clearly exist, but there are also increased risks for employers, especially those who own and operate commercial fleets and regularly equip employees with keys to company vehicles.  In such cases, BYOD might inadvertently blur the line between employer liability and individual liability — a key issue as we continue to see increased auto crashes due to use of cell phones while driving.

Conclusion.

If your company wants to maximize employee choice and elegantly blend the line between home-life and work-life then BYOD could be the perfect way to go.

Alternatively, if your company wants to save money, minimize risk, and maximize control over a homogenous population of devices, then BYOD may be nothing more than a red herring.

On January 3, that new rule came into effect and today, the FMCSA released new materials to help commercial fleet operators ensure they stay in compliance with the changing regulatory landscape.

Fact sheets are now available from the FMCSA’s Compliance, Safety and Accountability (CSA) program, outlining the agency’s seven BASICs – that is, the seven Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories used to “determine how a motor carrier ranks relative to other carriers with a similar number of safety events.”

The seven BASICs are:

• Unsafe Driving
• Fatigued Driving (Hours-of-Service)
• Driver Fitness
• Controlled Substances/Alcohol
• Vehicle Maintenance
• Cargo-Related
• Crash Indicator

The new Unsafe Driving fact sheet explains that commercial drivers and fleet operators must abide by FMCSR 392 — the newly-amended federal regulation which specifically prohibits drivers from using hand-held mobile phones and forbids their employers from requiring them to do so.

Employers caught violating the ban, either by requiring employees to use hand-held phones or by failing to ensure that they don’t, not only carries a fine of up to $11,000 – but it could also negatively impact the Safety Measurement System (SMS) score a carrier receives from CSA. According to the new fact sheet, violations will stay on carriers’ records for at least 24 months – and only “time and clean inspections” will erase the damage done by a cell phone ban violation.

So getting caught in violation could be a painful double-whammy – first a hit to your bottom line, followed by a hit to your safety score.

Image via claudiogennari

Providing employees with company-owned phones means the company’s IT managers can control which phones employees use, and what employees do with them.  But putting a company-owned phone in the hand of every employee doesn’t come cheap – and making each phone a smartphone is even pricier.

So there appears to be a clear and powerful financial incentive for companies to instead allow their employees to bring their own smartphones to work (even if the company provides some expense reimbursement). Encouraging “Bring Your Own Device” (BYOD) programs as an alternative to investing in smartphones for all spares the company the full cost of buying and maintaining fancy gadgetry. But there two major risk and liability issues of concern for corporate IT managers that make BYOD a much less-appetizing idea:

1. The loss or misuse of sensitive and important company data
2. The growing concerns regarding employee use of cell phones while driving in the scope of work

In effect, allowing employees to use their own smartphones for work could open Pandora’s box of problems and headaches if phones are lost, stolen or used by employees while driving.

Or will it?

A recent article in Mobile Enterprise Magazine suggests that a lot of corporate IT managers’ fear is misplaced – and that encouraging employee BYOD programs is actually a very smart move.  According to Mike Rizzo, encouraging BYOD is a ‘Trojan horse’  that allows IT managers to reclaim “control” over employee-owned phones used in the workplace. Argues Rizzo, ”As nice as it has been to think of BYOD as a grass roots, employee-driven movement, enterprise IT will fully learn in 2012 that BYOD is really an opportunity for the enterprise, rather than a threat.”

In this way, companies can encourage their employees to bring their own phones (saving money), while enforcing policies dictating what phones/tablets, software and services are required in order for employees to be allowed to use them at work (reducing risk).

So where does your company fit? Can you use this Trojan horse strategy to balance the company-owned versus employee-owned device challenges?  Let me know what you think – share your thoughts in the comments!

Image via Alaskan Dude

That means individual drivers caught violating the ban will now face fines of up to $2,750 – and they could lose their commercial driver’s licenses for multiple infractions. Employers whose drivers are caught will likewise face civil penalties of up to $11,000 if employees are engaged in company business at the time of the violation.

We’ve published a free FMCSA cell phone regulations compliance guide to help companies who are covered by the new rule understand and conform to it – download it here.

Here’s a quick summary of what the rule means for commercial fleet operators:

Who Issued the Rule?

FMCSA and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) jointly finalized the rule prohibiting commercial drivers from using hand-held cell phones on November 23, 2011. It is effective as of Tuesday, January 3, 2012.

Who’s Affected?

Approximately four million interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers and their employers. Right now, the rule is at the federal level only but allows for state-level punishments (including CDL disqualification) and it’s likely that states will start adopting provisions to cover in-state commercial drivers soon.

What, Exactly, Is Prohibited?

As our free compliance guide explains, FMCSA implemented the rule to reduce crash risk from hand-held cell phone use – specifically, reaching for, holding or dialing a mobile phone. Commercial drivers are still permitted to engage in hands-free mobile phone use (for example, make or take calls via speaker phone or Bluetooth® earpiece). There’s no exception for when commercial drivers are stopped in traffic or at signals, however, as they’re still engaged in the task of driving.

How Can Companies Ensure Compliance with the Rule?

The rule holds not only individual drivers, but also their employers, liable for violations – so employers have compelling reasons to ensure their drivers are in compliance. Unfortunately, simply implementing a policy telling your drivers not to use their phones isn’t sufficient. Download our free FMCSA cell phone rule compliance guide for more info, including suggestions for cell phone policy enforcement.

July:

• Marsh Carroll creates an awesome and hilarious music video about employee distracted driving, “Won’t Start Texting,” for ZoomSafer
• New research from Pew reveals that more than 1/3 of American adults are now ‘smartphowners,’ the highest U.S. market penetration for smartphones to date
• A ZoomSafer case study shows how preventing distracted driving can cost as little as $0.32/day (versus millions in crash costs, plaintiff damages and other expenses associated with employee distracted driving)

August:

• A 16-year-old is killed when a truck driver’s suspected cell phone use allegedly causes a serious crash – a preventable tragedy that will likely lead to serious financial consequences for the trucker’s employer, Mountain Milk
• In time for Insurance Telematics in Detroit, MI, ZoomSafer publishes a new white paper examining how usage-based insurance (UBI) programs that leverage in-vehicle telematics could be expanded to include data on drivers’ cell phone use
• Famous mixed-martial arts fighter Tito Ortiz crashes his $300,000 Rolls Royce after texting while driving, showing that no one is immune from the dangerous temptations of distracted driving – or its severe repercussions

September:

• Two big companies are taking proactive steps to prevent distracted driving; profiles of KCI Technologies and Sunoco reveal how each is handling employee cell phone use while driving
• A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigation concludes that a 2010 crash in Kentucky that left eleven people dead was the result of a trucker’s cell phone use while driving – and prompts the NTSB to call for a total ban on cell phone use for commercial drivers

October:

•  A massive, global BlackBerry service outage is seriously bad news for smartphone manufacturer RIM – but police in Dubai and Abu Dhabi speculate that the loss of service had a hidden upside of fewer car crashes as BlackBerry users were unable to use their phones while driving
• The Network of Employers for Traffic Safety (NETS) holds Drive Safely Work Week October 3-7, 2011 – and makes the campaign’s focus preventing distracted driving for a second year in a row
• Two new studies show that distracted driving remains a big problem: first, AAA’s annual safety survey showcases many drivers’ hypocrisy when it comes to cell phone distractions; then another analysis reveals that texting while driving is even more likely to cause a crash than previously thought

November:

• The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) finalizes a new rule prohibiting interstate commercial drivers from using handheld mobile phones – and imposes tough penalties on companies who fail to ensure employees comply
• A California court rules that the state’s ban on texting while driving includes time drivers are stopped at intersections and traffic lights
• AAA reveals a new analysis that shows fatal crashes not only cost human lives – but also cost society $6million each

December:

• ZoomSafer publishes a new white paper designed to help truck and bus fleet operators understand and comply with FMCSA’s new rule banning commercial drivers from using handheld cell phones
• The NTSB issues a recommendation that all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia enact laws prohibiting drivers from any and all cell phone use behind the wheel
• The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) releases updated 2010 crash data showing that while the crash fatality rate has dropped – crashes involving distracted driving are still a very big issue

So now that you’re caught up on some of the biggest news in the fight to prevent cell phone-related distracted driving – tell us if you think we missed any major stories! Leave us a note in the comments.

Next up: Predictions for 2012 – and the future of distracted driving prevention.

Images via mattox, Aaron Frutman