Two years ago, to help articulate our vision, we produced a video dramatizing what could happen to employers if they failed to take the proper steps to promote safe and legal use of mobile phones while employees are driving on-the-job.  The video, in my opinion, bears an eerie resemblance to events that unfolded in a Texas court last week, events which led to a $21 million jury verdict in a distracted driving lawsuit against Coca-Cola.

Read this summary of the circumstances behind the Coca-Cola distracted driving crash lawsuit — then watch the video below.

I would love to get your thoughts and feedback about the similarities and differences between ZoomSafer’s two-year-old “What if?” video – and the real-world happenings at Coca-Cola – share your thoughts in the comments.

Here are three important lessons this historic case teaches fleet managers:

1. When it happens to you, the plaintiffs will sue:  Thomas J Henry, the lead plaintiff’s attorney was quoted as saying “from the time I took the Coca-Cola driver’s testimony and obtained the company’s inadequate cell phone driving policy, I knew we had a corporate giant with a huge safety problem on our hands.”  Furthermore, he said, “I hope the verdict sends a message to corporate America that you can’t have employees on a cell phone and endanger the motoring public.”The lesson is simple: plaintiffs are watching and waiting to sue employers whenever employees crash due to a cell phone related distractions.
2. A written cell phone use policy is not enough:  Coca-Cola’s lawyers argued that its company cell phone use policy, which required the use of a hands-free device when operating a motor vehicle, was consistent with, and in fact, exceeded the requirements of Texas law.  The plaintiff, however, argued that Coca-Cola’s cell phone policy for its delivery drivers was “vague and ambiguous” and it certainly wasn’t enforced in any way.  Regardless of whether Coca-Cola’s policy was well-documented or not, empirical evidence shows that many employee drivers flout written policies.  The bottom line is that written policies alone are not sufficient to change employee driving behavior, and therefore are not sufficient to protect employers from risk and liability.
3. Policy enforcement is critical:  Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that every single one of Coke’s drivers fully understood that the company required hands-free use of mobile devices while driving.  The critical question remains: “What, if anything, did Coke do to measure and manage compliance with its cell phone use policy policy?”  If the answer is “nothing”, the case law clearly shows that employers should expect to be held accountable for damages that occur when employees drive distracted.

This isn’t the first multi-million dollar lawsuit resulting from employee mobile phone use while driving – or even the first with a verdict over $20 million. But this case emphasizes just how serious the risk is – and that all employers can be vicariously implicated if they fail to manage and monitor how employees are using mobile devices while driving. Employers who want to minimize liability as much as possible must institute risk management programs to actively or passively enforce cell phone use policies.

On April 5, Idaho Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter signed the state’s ban on texting while driving into law. Idaho, which was the 37th state to enact a state texting ban, will begin enforcing its new law on July 1. The new law will receive primary enforcement – meaning police officers can pull over and cite drivers for texting violations alone – and imposes an $85 fine on violators. It also makes an exception for drivers using voice-activated or hands-free devices to compose text messages while driving.

And yesterday, Alabama became the 38th state to ban texting while driving when Governor Robert Bentley signed into law a bill prohibiting motorists from texting, emailing or instant messaging while behind the wheel. Specifically, Alabama’s texting law reads: “A person may not operate a motor vehicle on a public road, street, or highway in Alabama while using a wireless telecommunication device to write, send, or read a text-based communication.”

Alabama’s law, which goes into effect on August 1, also makes texting, emailing and instant messaging while driving a primary offense. A first offense will cost Alabama drivers a $25 fine – with the rate increasing to up to $75 a pop for subsequent offenses. It does allow for several exceptions, however, as drivers are allowed to:

• Dial phone numbers
• Make emergency calls
• Use their mobile phones for GPS navigation services as long as driving directions are “pre-programmed”

So what impact will these laws have? All of Alabama’s exceptions could make enforcement very difficult as a driver could simply claim he or she was making a phone call or checking directions rather than writing or reading a text or email. According to The Associated Press, the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Jim McClendon, reportedly explained that law enforcement”officers would be able to use [cell phone] records to prove that a text was sent while a driver was on the road” -  though such records usually require a subpoena and time to receive and review…

Likewise, police in Idaho are somewhat skeptical of the ban’s enforceability and think that catching violators will be purely “situational.” Pocatello Police Department Lt. Paul Manning says, “You’re going to have to catch them in the act,” or investigate drivers’ cell phone records to “reconstruct” a crash, reports the Idaho Reporter.  Such a stance implies that Idaho’s law won’t stop the crash from happening in the first place, but only establish whether a texting driver was the cause.

On the other hand, some Alabama law enforcement officials recognize that texting bans are no silver bullet – but think it could have a positive impact on drivers’ behavior. NBC affiliate WTVA reports Hamilton Police Chief Ralph Conner had this to say:

“Anything that will help bring the traffic death rate down, traffic accidents, insurance rates down, it’s very good. This includes young kids, old kids, people like me, police officers that have data terminals in their cars. We have to watch what we’re doing while we’re driving and it covers us too.”

Meanwhile, the Swedish government just received advice to forget about implementing an anti-texting law because research shows laws do not stop drivers from using their mobile phones.

…As you can see, it doesn’t go well. You can bet these folks are now part of the 95% of drivers who think texting while driving is dangerous. The question is, though, are they still part of the 35% who text and drive despite knowing how much it raises crash risk?

The temptation to use mobile phones while driving is often overwhelming. While the vast majority of U.S. drivers say they think other drivers’ texting creates traffic danger, a third of those same people also say they text while driving themselves. So why do people do it if they know it’s dangerous? Maybe it’s human nature. Wherever there are cell phones and cars – there are drivers distracted by their mobile devices.

A new Ford survey found that 48% of European drivers check their texts while behind the wheel. The survey of 5,500 drivers from Germany, Spain, France, Great Britain, Italy and Russia also found that 95% of drivers think that “texting affect[s] a person’s ability to drive and [is] therefore dangerous.”  That’s right on par with AAA’s survey of American drivers, which found that 95% of U.S. drivers think that other people’s texting while driving is dangerous. It’s interesting to note, however, that more European drivers than American drivers admit to having texted while behind the wheel.

These statistics help make clear why it’s pointless to expect that telling people to put down the phone will magically solve the distracted driving problem. Want more proof? In a report released earlier this month, the Swedish National Road and Transport Institute (VTI), an independent government agency, said that laws banning texting or hand-held mobile phone use while driving aren’t effective. Explained VTI’s Katja Kircher to Sveriges Radio, “We’ve seen that it doesn’t help to have such a law while driving. This is partly because we’ve seen that people wouldn’t adhere to the law, and partly because we’ve seen no effect on crash risks.” The Swedish parliament is currently trying to implement a national ban on hand-held device use while driving, according to Gawker.

And the VTI is not the only agency to come to such a conclusion. In 2010, the U.S.-based Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) released a study showing that anti-texting laws not only fail to reduce texting while driving, but may also increase the number of texting while driving crashes as drivers attempt to evade police.

So what does the VTI recommend instead? A multi-facted, complex solution that emphasizes safe driving technology and education over legislation. “It is our opinion that a combination of different countermeasures – which educate and inform the driver, while at the same time support him or her in a safe usage of communication devices – is preferable to a law against communication device usage while driving,” says the VTI report.

Though stringent enforcement of laws restricting cell phone use while driving can have an impact on people’s behavior, cell phone use bans are difficult and expensive to enforce. Whether here in the U.S. or in Sweden – or anywhere else in the world, really – changing driver behavior is no small feat.

FleetSafer Vision, which we launched in January 2011, combines cell phone use data with vehicle use data to enable corporate fleets to measure and manage employee cell phone use while driving.

After reading the article, a good friend called me on the phone and asked if I was concerned about the news.

Like any entrepreneur working to develop innovative products in a new market, my answer is two-fold.  On one hand, of course I am concerned about potential competition from such a huge player.  On the other hand, I would be far more concerned if we were the only ones innovating in this arena.

The simple truth is that lots of entrepreneurs and start-ups have good ideas – but ideas only have value when there is a market to monetize.  In that sense, the presence of AT&T’s cell phone analytics prototype is comforting to me for four reasons:

1. It validates the potential market opportunity
2. It validates ZoomSafer’s hard work and investments over the past three years
3. It increases confidence as we continue trailblazing our way to a new market
4. It increases the relevance and value of our existing software, IP and experience

To see for yourself how ZoomSafer’s cell phone analytics service measures and manages employee cell phones use while driving, sign-up for a free, online demo of FleetSafer Vision.

Risk managers are growing increasingly aware of the issues employee cell phone use while driving can create. And many of the folks who stopped by our booth (like the two shown chatting with VP of Sales Paul Blamer here) were well-versed in the ways employee driving behavior can create problems for an employer. And many attendees were intrigued to learn that technology to monitor and manage that behavior already exists – in the form of our FleetSafer enterprise distracted driving solutions.

Additionally, RIMS included a session on distracted driving on its schedule, “Distracted Driving: Avoid Becoming a Statistic.” This session also included a great presentation from Liberty Mutual on how allowing employees to text, email and browse while driving leaves corporations exposed to vicarious liability and accusations of negligent entrustment. And the best way to reduce those risks? Implement a cell phone use policy – then enforce that cell phone use policy. (I’m pleased to report ZoomSafer earned a shout-out as one such policy enforcement solution.)

At the end of the day, the risks cell phone use while driving creates are not going to magically disappear overnight – and companies are increasingly paying attention and taking proactive steps to manage those risks.

All in all, we greatly enjoyed our time at RIMS. Philadelphia was kind to us: the weather was gorgeous, and the Pennsylvania Convention Center is right next door to the Reading Terminal Market. The markett, which occupies a former train station, is packed with little shops and food stalls – check out this picture for a glimpse.

It’s still National Distracted Driving Awareness Month – so if your company is tackling the problem of employee distracted driving, we want to hear from you! Share your thoughts on employee use of mobile phones while driving in ZoomSafer’s two-minute distracted driving survey, then enter to win a FREE Apple iPad3!

Employees using their own devices (smart phones, tablets, PCs) in the workplace are able to use the technology they’re most comfortable with–which can have a positive impact on productivity. But as anyone in IT can tell you, allowing employees to use personally-liable devices in place of company-liable devices has risks. Some organizations are creating BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) policies that establish guidelines for proper use in an attempt to manage the risks and benefits of allowing (and even encouraging) employees to use their own mobile devices.

Last month, I launched a survey to get a pulse on what companies are doing to manage employee-owned mobile devices.

Fact: Employees Are Already Using Their Own Devices for Work

The question many business leadersare asking their HR partners is: “Do we need a formal policy for managing mobile devices?” This is not an easy question to address, as it requires perspective on what employees are doing with their mobile devices. To that end, we asked a couple of questions around usage.

The most important question when discussing BYOD, of course, is whether or not people are even using their personal devices for work-related purposes. As shown in Figure 1, the majority of employees (77%) are using their own devices to some extent–either exclusively or in addition to company-issued devices–to do work. Of course, “work-related purposes” could be something as simple as checking their email. So we wanted to gauge what else they’re doing.

According to our respondents, employees are using mobile devices at a roughly equivalent frequency for personal and business use. As shown in Figure 2, 67% of employees are using devices for business correspondence (email, phone calls, etc.), and 44% are using their devices -company-owned or not–for professional networking.

Whenever employees are using mobile devices to access company data (48%), one would think a policy with guidelines for proper use is a must. However, another survey question revealed that only 30% of respondents’ companies have a policy for managing personal mobile devices in place. Is there a disconnect here? Survey says… Quite possibly.

Will BYOD Become a Higher Priority?

Considering the majority of employees are already using personal devices for work-related purposes, we were surprised that only 12% of organizations without a BYOD policy plan to adopt one in the near future (half of those are currently developing policies). 30% of participants without BYOD policies said that instituting one wasn’t a priority, 33% plan to modify their plans for managing use of personal mobile devices in 2012.

The above are just a few highlights from the survey – you can find the full report at my blog.

Security risks associated with BYOD policies continue to intimidate some–one respondent said he is “scared to death of security vulnerabilities”–but what would do more to minimize risks than to adopt an official policy? Are organizations better served by addressing issues as they arise? Or should leadership elevate mobile device policy as a priority for 2012?

About this guest author:

Kyle Lagunas is the HR Analyst at Software Advice–an online resource for reviewing and comparing software across various markets. Based in Austin, TX, he reports on trends and best practices in human resources technology, and uses his work to connect with industry thought leaders and in-the-trenches professionals.

Earlier this week USA Today published an excellent article highlighting how employers are growing increasingly aware of the corporate risk and liability associated with employee use of mobile devices while driving on-the-job.

While reporter Larry Copeland’s conclusions are encouraging, it’s important to note that “awareness of risk” is only the first step in a process toward changing employee driving behavior and improving roadway safety.  Step number two? Actually measuring employee behavior to develop an empirical understanding (e.g. size, scope, frequency) of the risk associated with employee use of mobile phones while driving.

To that end, I would like to share a small sample of data from a FleetSafer Vision audit that ZoomSafer recently conducted on behalf of a customer:

Fleet background:

• One-hundred FMCSA-regulated construction vehicles
• Company-issued BlackBerry smartphones
• ‘Zero tolerance’ policy in place for cell phone usage while driving
• Self-insured with strong safety culture

Audit data:

• 2 weeks of employee driving data, derived from fleet telematics system
• 2 weeks of employee calling data, derived from carrier billing system
• 2 weeks of employee email data, derived from Blackberry Server (BES)

Despite a zero tolerance policy, the audit revealed that62% of company’s employees drive while distracted by their mobile devices:

• 450 cell phone distractions per day
• 111 distractions per hour
• 4 distractions per mile driven

Conclusions:

• While implementing a cell phone use policy is critically important, simply telling employees not to use their mobile devices while driving is not sufficient to change behavior.
• Employee driving behavior is manageable only if corporations measure it.

Take advantage of a free, online demo of FleetSafer Vision to see how ZoomSafer can help your organization measure employee use of mobile devices while driving!

USA Today

Reporter Larry Copeland credits a new FMCSA rule restricting commercial drivers’ cell phone use, which came into effect on January 3, 2012, for this increased awareness. The new rule imposes significant financial penalties (up to $11,000 per incident) on commercial fleet operators that turn a blind eye toward the 60% of commercial truck drivers who admit to using cell phones while on the road. And the scale of the potential liability? Enormous. Explains Copeland in his piece:

“Some companies are not aware of their potential exposure, says Steven Bojan, senior loss control consultant for transportation risk at Chicago-based insurance broker Hub International. ‘You may be driving your own car for work,’ Bojan says. ‘Now, it’s a work-related vehicle.’”

Unfortunately for employers, the new rule (like similar state laws) is inherently difficult to enforce as drivers are disinclined to put their phones down just because they are told to do so.

Therefore, in order to fully manage risk and liability going forward, employers will be compelled to do more than just tell their employee drivers to “put the phone down.”  Indeed, employers will adopt technology solutions to actively and passively promote safe and legal use of mobile devices while driving.