Posts Tagged ‘Tracking Driver Behavior’
Monday, May 31st, 2010
“Risk with a Capital R” is a two-part webinar from the Truckload Carriers Association and Fleet Owner which delves into the timely topic of distracted driving. The series takes a comprehensive look at the issue by providing you with informative research, real-life experiences and practical suggestions.
In the first segment you’ll learn the about the current and pending regulations on distracted driving as well as the physiological reasons why driving while distracted is so dangerous. The second part of the webinar examines real-life fleet examples and gives suggestions on how to effectively develop and enforce policies and monitor driver behaviour with the help of in-vehicle communication systems.
Learn more and improve your fleet’s safety by watching the webinar here.
Thursday, April 22nd, 2010
It is well known that cell phone use while driving is a leading cause of accidents. In fact, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation, cell phone distractions cause 600,000 crashes and 3,000 deaths each year.[1] In addition, on-the-job crashes are very expensive for employers with average costs of $24,500 per crash, $150,000 per injury, and $3.6 million per fatality.[2]
An often overlooked aspect of distracted driving is a company’s liability when an employee causes an accident. Under the legal doctrine of vicarious liability, an employer is liable for actions of an employee if the employee was acting under the purview of his or her employment at the time of an accident.[3] In other words, if your employee causes injury to someone due to negligent conduct (i.e. distracted driving), the victim can sue your company directly for damages. ZoomSafer has written an excellent white paper delving further into the details of this issue and outlining the steps companies need to take to protect themselves from liability.
As discussed in the white paper, in the past ten years a wide variety of cases have resulted in companies paying restitution to victims injured by the negligent driving of an employee distracted by a cell phone. With settlements and verdicts ranging from $1.5 to $21 million[4] employees who use cell phones while driving are a costly risk for your company. Here are a few examples:
- Tiburzi v. Holmes Transport Inc. (2009) – $18 million judgment: The plaintiff was left in a permanent vegetative state from brain injuries caused by a collision with an 18-wheel truck driven by an employee of the defendant. During the trial, the judge found that at the time of the accident the truck driver had flipped open his cell phone and was checking for text messages. Holmes Transport was found vicariously liable for the plaintiff’s injuries and ordered to pay $18 million in restitution. Trials are still underway for three other people killed in the accident.[5]
- Bustos v. Leiva & Dyke Industries (2001) – $21 million judgment: An elderly woman was seriously injured after a collision with a truck driven by an employee of Dyke Industries. Though he claimed he was not distracted, the employee’s cell phone records proved he was using his cell phone at the time of the accident. Because the employee was working at the time of the accident, and in a company truck, Dyke Industries was held vicariously liable and subsequently settled for $16.2 million.[6]
- Smith v. Beers Skansksa, Inc. (2005) – $5 million settlement: The plaintiff was injured when a truck driven by an employee of Beers Skansksa, Inc. collided with his car. At the time of the crash, the employee was dialing his cell phone and checking his voicemail. Because the employee was on-duty and using a work-issued cell phone, Beers Skansksa, Inc. was held vicariously liable. The case settled for $5 million just before it was set to go to trial.[7]
To address this problem, many companies have instituted paper policies outlining acceptable cell phone use by employees. However, having a paper policy does not prevent a company from being held liable in the event of an accident, as seen in the case of Ford v. McGrogan & International Paper. In 2008, an employee of International Paper rear-ended another car while using a cell phone. The victim, whose arm had to be amputated, sued International Paper. Even though the company had a cell phone policy in place, management recognized they would likely be held vicariously responsible for the accident because the policy had not been enforced. They settled for $5.2 million dollars.[8]
Paper policies are inherently difficult to implement as their success relies on self-enforcement from employees. Fleet management technologies, such as mobile computers, enable companies to directly manage an employee’s cell phone or computer use while driving. Mobile computers can be programmed to disable functionality and display a blank screen while a vehicle is in motion. Once the vehicle is stopped, two-way messaging and cell phone capabilities allow drivers to communicate with the office safely and efficiently. These technologies eliminate the possibility of an employee using a company cell phone or mobile computer while driving and are one of the few ways to protect your company from liability in the case of an accident.
Click here to read the whitepaper by ZoomSafer.
To learn more about how in-vehicle computers can increase your fleet’s safety and decrease your risk of liability, click here.
[1] Harvard Center for Risk Analysis
[2] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) & Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
[3] “Distracted Driving: Understanding Your Business Risk and Liability.” ZoomSafer. http://zoomsafer.com/Portals/43/Whitepapers/Distracted%20Driving%20Corporate%20White%20Paper%20FINAL.pdf. January 2010.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
Thursday, April 15th, 2010
When temperatures start to rise, fleet drivers have one of two options: they can crank the air conditioning or open windows. We’ve all heard that opening windows is more environmentally-friendly solution because air conditioning requires a running engine, and a running engine takes fuel.
The answer isn’t as cut and dry as you might expect, but it’s very simple.
“When you’re driving across town in stop-and-go traffic,” says Frank Hampshire, Director of Market Research with the Automotive Aftermarket Suppliers Association (AASA), “it’s more fuel efficient to drive with the air conditioning off, windows down.” More specifically, when your vehicle is travelling at 40 miles per hour, or slower.[i]
But once you hit the open road of the highway and your speed starts to increase, aerodynamics become a factor. Go over 45 miles per hour and open windows will create drag, reducing fuel efficiency by 10 percent. Go over 55 miles per hour with your windows down and you’ll reduce fuel efficiency by 20 percent. [ii]
[i] http://www.bankrate.com/finance/auto/will-rolling-down-windows-save-fuel-or-not.aspx
[ii] http://www.bankrate.com/finance/auto/will-rolling-down-windows-save-fuel-or-not.aspx
Thursday, November 12th, 2009
Here is a BUSRide Web Exclusive article that brings the issue of driver error in motorcoach collisions to the forefront. The article claims that driver error is actually the biggest factor in motorcoach crashes, and addresses the growing need for safety and enforcement organizations to be active in helping to prevent serious bus accidents. There are some links to videos of incidents caused by driver error or bad habits, complete with discussion on how the accident could be avoided. For safety’s sake, check it out.
Monday, August 10th, 2009
Rick Mayer installing his new system
Located in picturesque Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Island Pumping provides concrete pumping services to not only the city of Nanaimo, but all of Vancouver Island. President and Owner, Rick Mayer, founded Island Pumping in 1988. Since then, Island Pumping has seen continuous growth and expansion. Rick has been involved in the construction industry all his life and has some great experiences to share with us today.
1. Why did you decide to invest in a fleet management solution?
Before this system was in place we relied on drivers to keep track of their hours, to write down when they arrived or left a job site, and we billed by the hour. With our equipment costing $125 to $230 per hour, the minutes can add up. We were losing an average of 15 minutes per job, which translates to about $100,000 a year.
We also had some problems with security. On a couple of occasions, we found vehicles in places they weren’t supposed to be, doing jobs they weren’t supposed to be doing. Because of this, we had to implement security policies where the trucks returned to the yard each night. This wasn’t cost effective, but we didn’t have another option. With the new system, we can have trucks in different cities and there is never a need to bring the vehicle back. This saves us money on fuel, and wear and tear on the vehicles. It also allows us to be much more productive, as we are spending our time at the job site as opposed to driving.
Also, our dispatch system wasn’t at the level it could be. It took a lot of guesswork and was time consuming. Our new system lets us track the vehicles and what stage they are at in the job. Sensors feed back to dispatch and we know, for example, that the truck is pumping or washing out. We don’t have to bother the driver anymore because we always know what they’re doing.
2. What one piece of advice would you give someone considering a similar technology purchase?
Be prepared for a lot of work, and find a company that is very supportive. You need a company who will be there for you if you need to pick up the phone for help at ten o’clock at night. Once you get started on a project like this you’ve got to keep it moving forward. You need to find companies that are willing to put in that effort with you.
3. How has your organization changed since implementing this technology?
We discovered that before this system was in place, two operators doing the same job could each be using a different billing format, making it hard for customers to understand their bill. For example, say one of our operators had a problem onsite, and decided to give the customer a free wash out. They wouldn’t necessarily write that on the bill so customers wouldn’t realize they were getting a discount.
We are much more standardized now, and customers really like that. If the same scenario happened today the operator tells dispatch about the discount and dispatch issues a credit on the bill in real-time. By the time the operator prints the bill out onsite, the discount is already on the bill and the customer can see they’re getting a break. Being able to present the bill correctly in the field and instantly having that information back in the office is great. Literally seconds after the job is done, the dispatcher is able to print out the invoice and mail it. That’s a key benefit.
4. What do your customers think of the system?
Customers are enjoying the technology. It’s made us a premier choice because everything we do now looks professional. The bill isn’t someone’s chicken scratch on a piece of paper. It’s printed out professionally, it is dated and time stamped, and the customer just has to sign it.
There has definitely been a reduction in customer complaints. Now we have a reliable way of backing up our invoicing because we can pull the detailed ticket if needed. We don’t get any calls about invoicing concerns because customers know they are being billed accurately.
5. What do your drivers think of the system?
Occasionally we’ve had to assign drivers to an older truck that doesn’t have the in-vehicle computer installed yet and they’re lost! I even experienced this myself in an older truck, where I went out to a job site without any billing paperwork or anything [laughs]. With the computer in the truck, everything is right there. My stress level goes right down. I hop in the truck, print out my pre-trip, do my work, finish the job, and hit print ticket. I don’t even have to remember what time I got there!
Time-wise, drivers are probably saving at least thirty minutes to one hour per day because there is so much less paperwork. The system makes our drivers’ jobs a lot less stressful as the hassle of filing paperwork is eliminated. We actually had a field operator who came to work for us from a competitor because we were using this system.
6. Have you seen a Return on Investment? If so, how much and how quickly?
We saw a return on investment instantly. At the beginning, we had the drivers hand-write bills like they always did and then we compared them with the printouts from the mobile computer. We started finding discrepancies in time and charges right away. Sometimes they’d just forgotten to write things on the bill. We stopped using the hand written bills immediately.
We are now able to very accurately predict how much time it will take to complete a job. Customers then know what to expect. There is an industry standard to charge a minimum number of hours per job, but we have been able to eliminate this because we are much more efficient now. If everything was status quo with the economy, I expect we would be saving between $50,000 and $100,000 per year with this technology.
We also used to have two people working to dispatch job assignments. Now there is hardly enough work for one person. There is less congestion for dispatchers as they can continually send jobs to drivers to be stored on their in-vehicle computer instead of having to reach them by phone.
And finally, we’re able to expand our business. We’ve remotely located trucks in different areas, and we couldn’t have done this before. It gives us a real edge. Being able to track the equipment, where our operators are, and where they have been, all from the office gives us peace of mind that we won’t be taken advantage of. The long-term use of the technology will probably save us millions of dollars because we won’t have to invest the money into opening new offices in order to expand our business.
To learn more about Island Pumping’s technology solution, click here.
Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009
Speeding might get your drivers where they need to go a little bit quicker, but what are the real costs of this behavior for your organization? Take a look at these ROI numbers, and you might be surprised:
- Each mile per hour above 50 mph increases fuel consumption by 1.5% percent. A truck, which averages 8 mpg at 50 mph, will average 6.8 mpg at 60 mph. (Argonne National Laboratories)
- Increasing speed from 55 to 75 mph can increase fuel consumption by 39%, while cutting the effectiveness of fuel-efficient tires by 27%, (2009, Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, Real Answers Magazine, Volume 13, Issue 3)
- By tracking and controlling driver speeding behavior, a company can reduce accidents by a significant percentage. An accident reduction of 5% for a 50-vehicle fleet amounts to nearly 3 fewer accidents each year. The total savings available is between $18,000 and $36,000 annually. (“Fleet ‘Soft Costs’ Can be Measured and Addressed,” in Automotive Fleet Magazine, June 2006.)
