Transit Bus Operator Distraction Policies (2013)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

41 Outside the survey instrument, one participant indicated that his public transit agency has not taken any steps to imple- ment a policy because the contract operator who provides all the bus operators for the agency has a zero-tolerance policy for all of its employees. In situations where there are state laws prohibiting local laws addressing the issue, such an arrange- ment could potentially circumvent the prohibition, because it is would not be a local ordinance but rather a private corpora- tion policy that establishes the rule and punitive actions. Following the survey, 15 of the 33 transit system partic- ipants were contacted and asked if there was one specific event or a combination of events that initiated the process of developing and implementing a policy. An overwhelm- ing majority, 14 of the 15, cited a combination of four fac- tors: the September 2008 fatal commuter rail collision and derailment in Chatsworth, California; the May 2009 light rail collision in Boston; a rise in distracted driving-related cus- tomer complaints and media investigations of their respec- tive systems; and the presentations and programs put forth by Secretary LaHood and the U.S.DOT. The first three, with the Chatsworth incident being by far the most frequently mentioned, were referred to during follow-up interviews as the primary reasons for developing and implementing a cell phone and/or distracted driving policy. Two of the three labor participants independently offered similar perceptions on the evolution of the operator’s work space. The steady increase in technological equipment being installed in the driver’s area has increased the number of distractions and interfered with carrying out fundamental principles of defensive driving. Both cited visual-message radio heads, audible and visual alarms, and turning camera monitors and other displays as examples of technological advancements that may compromise safe driving practices. The survey results indicated that some agencies are not only implementing and enforcing policies to address dis- tracted driving behaviors but are also proactively examin- ing and modifying bus operator schedules, duties, and work spaces to reduce the number of distractions inherent in the job. Industry-wide research in this area may yield construc- tive processes for conducting similar evaluations at transit systems across the county. Any such studies would benefit significantly from collaboration between agency manage- ment representatives and organized labor. Federal initiatives, state laws, and transit agency policies have been enacted to address distracted driving behaviors. Aside from some of the agency-level practices, the literature review and the survey results show that most of these efforts have focused on deterring or prohibiting drivers from talking and texting on cell phones. Clearly, as several academic stud- ies have demonstrated, cell phone use—including the use of hands-free devices—is a highly-distracting and dangerous behavior while driving. The review and the data also identify a number of other behaviors and factors that could cause or contribute to distracted driving incidents. Any non-driving activities that encompass two or all three of the main types of distractions—visual, manual, and cognitive—should be considered just as risky as talking on a hand-held phone and addressed appropriately in policies and practices. In reviewing empirical data specifically for this study, authors identified two categories of sources but neither was of much help. At the state level—through state police, depart- ments of motor vehicles, departments of transportation, high- way departments, or offices of public safety—records of incidents involving distracted driving are maintained through recording local and state police accident reports. Unfortu- nately, none of these data sources categorically identifies, beyond the possible narrative in a specific accident report, the involvement of a bus or other transit vehicle. At the federal level, the FTA maintains the National Transit Database. At this time, despite the U.S.DOT’s focus on reducing distracted driving incidents, there is no causation category within the National Transit Database that identifies cell phone use or other distracted driving behaviors on the part of the operator. This lack of data makes it difficult to identify any national or regional trends in public transit bus incidents related to dis- tracted driving. One indication of the timeliness of this synthesis is that 14 of the 33 transit system participating in the survey, rep- resenting the whole range of size and geographic areas, reported that they were in the process of developing—or, in most cases, modifying or revising—their agency’s policies on distracted driving. However, there were no identifiable patterns or trends based on system characteristics. Neither location, number of employees, age of system, presence (or lack thereof) of other operating modes, nor unionization influence the agencies’ activities in developing and enforcing distracted driving policies. chapter five CONCLUSIONS

42 Additionally, research into the variety and potential sever- ity of distracted driving factors and behaviors for public tran- sit bus operators would help identify and prioritize possible remedies. Although this type of study would require greater efforts of research and analysis, it might ultimately provide a cost-effective path for the industry to reduce the severity and frequency of accidents in which distracted driving was a primary or contributing cause. The pair of recommended practices from APTA that address distracted driving (see Appendices E and F) would also be beneficial in developing model programs, policies, or plans to deter and prevent risky behaviors and conditions. Devel- oping and disseminating “models” at the national or state level—either through trade associations or offices such as the Rural Transit Assistance Program or Local Technical Assis- tance Program/Tribal Technical Assistance Program—would not only be a cost-effective process for the transit industry, particularly smaller systems, but would also begin to interject some level of standardization in policies, practices, and puni- tive actions. The most striking disparity in any data category of the survey is in cell phone possession policies, with three agencies in the study prohibiting operators from carrying cell phones while driving and three systems issuing cell phones to their operators. The CUTR/TSI training program has been hailed as a good step in the process of developing and delivering training on the topic, but additional efforts to present and discuss the haz- ards and potential outcomes associated with distracted driv- ing behaviors would enhance bus operators’ understanding of and respect for the possible ramifications of their actions on their own lives and the lives of others. As with other cur- rent training initiatives, the primary challenge is finding a way to deliver the message in an environment that is not particularly conducive to formal, instructor-led courses. The fact that the CUTR/TSI program was launched as an on-line course demonstrates the organizations’ resourcefulness and the sponsoring agencies’ (the FTA and Florida DOT) sense of urgency in trying to deliver the program and its message to the industry as effectively and expeditiously as possible. Another approach that supports but doesn’t supplant traditional training initiatives is illustrated by the series of 24 posters that New York City Transit has developed con- tinually to remind their 12,000 operators of the seriousness of deterring distracted driving behaviors (reproduced in Appendix C). Whether through national initiatives or training programs, industry-based recommended practices, or agency-level efforts to implement policies and practices, the literature review and synthesis survey illustrate that while much has been done to address the problem of distracted driving behaviors in the pub- lic transit sector, much more could be done to reach the goal of New York City Transit: zero tolerance.