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.

6 of the Transportation Safety Institute/Florida Department of Transportation/Center for Urban Transportation Research (TSI/FDOT/CUTR) online course, which will be discussed in greater detail in the “Training” section of this chapter, or non- transit-specific documents from the U.S.DOT or the Center for Disease Control (CDC). Approximately 30% of the results were not related to the topic of distracted driving but con- tained the words in the heading or description of a document. Using an Internet search engine and the phrase “FTA Dis- tracted Driving” opens a Resource Library page on the FTA’s Transit Bus Safety and Security Program webpage. The link to this page is inconspicuously placed on the FTA Safety and Security page under the bulleted heading—among five others— “Voluntary guidance for bus safety and security.” Searching this library identified 15 results with some duplicates. There were: three copies of externally sponsored/produced studies or white papers; two NHTSA documents; a “Dear Colleague” letter from the FTA Administrator (4, pp. 1–2); the text of Secretary LaHood’s remarks at a 2010 press event (5, pp. 1–2); copies of the APTA Recommended Practices on Distracted Driving (which are included in appendices E and F of this report); a sample distracted driving policy from the About. com: Human Resources website; links to the U.S.DOT Distracted.gov page, the NHTSA distracted driving page, and the new TSI/CUTR course; and an FTA guidance docu- ment (6) on handling distracted driver text messaging con- cerns in reference to safe vehicle operation. The text of the last document is included here: GUIDANCE ON TRANSIT DRIVER TEXT MESSAGING On January 27, 2010, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Adminis- tration (FMCSA) published regulatory guidance in reference to the prohibition of texting while driving a Commercial Motor Vehicle involved in interstate service. This guidance, which takes effect imme- diately, applies to truck and bus drivers of services that cross state lines. A bus is defined as a passenger-carrying vehicle designed to seat 8 or more passengers, including the driver. Even if transit drivers are not part of interstate service delivery, they are subject to both state and local laws, regulations, and ordinances addressing general cell phone use and texting. It is important to note that continued attention is being given to the issue of distracted driving as a major concern in transit safety. Transit systems have the prerogative to develop agency policy that addresses distracted driving concerns including driver cell phone use and texting. Many transit agencies around the nation already have such policies in place. Those transit agencies that have not yet consid- ered developing policies on distracted driving are strongly encouraged to do so. INTRODUCTION In the years leading up to the U.S.DOT’s distracted driving initiative launch in 2009, public transportation systems had already begun developing and implementing rules to prohibit the use or carrying of cell phones while operating agency vehicles. States were also enacting laws specifically address- ing texting, and in some cases talking, on a cell phone while driving. The literature review identified several federal documents related to the 2009 initiative as well as more recent programs and regulations from the U.S.DOT. Lists and maps of state texting/cell phone laws were also quite common on the web but many were outdated and inaccurate. By cross-checking sites that listed laws against legislative updates from several states, it was possible to identify credible sources for current information. State-level accident statistics, along with many other documents and resources, were identified and accessed through the Transportation Research International Docu- mentation (TRID) service of the National Academies, which includes records from the TRB Transportation Research Information Services (TRIS) database and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Joint Transport Centre’s International Transport Research Docu- mentation (ITRD) database. Although TRID and other online sources provided a wealth of knowledge and information on the topic of distracted driving, the literature review, like the study, focused on public transit practices and relevant documents. FEDERAL RESOURCES AND DOCUMENTS As of May 2012, the U.S.DOT website homepage included an article on distracted driving in the primary banner, a “but- ton” on distracted driving—one of four—in its “Highlights” section, and a conspicuous link to the Distraction.gov web- site along the right column. At that time, however, the FTA home page had no mention of distracted driving, no links to any other pages or resources, and no buttons or scrolling ban- ners related to the topic. Navigating the FTA website pages for Safety and Security, Transit Safety and Oversight, and Training and Conferences likewise uncovered no mention of distracted driving. Ultimately, using the “search” mech- anism on the FTA page and entering the phrase “distracted driving” produced 85 results. The vast majority of these were announcements regarding the release and availability chapter two LITERATURE REVIEW

7 Further, the Office of the Senior Procurement Executive of the US Department of Transportation issued a Financial Assistance Policy Letter (FAPL) #2010-10, dated 02/02/10, that addresses texting while driving a motor vehicle. This FAPL states that each DOT (Depart- ment of Transportation) Operating Administration should encour- age federal financial assistance recipients and sub-recipients to adopt and enforce policies that ban text messaging while driving company vehicles. The FAPL also encourages financial assistance recipients and sub-recipients to provide education to employees about the safety risks associated with texting while driving. Further study in the FTA National Transit Database revealed that, at this time, there are no provisions for report- ing incidents that were caused by distracted driving behaviors or other factors that would allow identification of patterns or trends associated with these primary or secondary causes. STATE LAWS Information on state motor vehicle laws pertaining to texting and talking on cell phones while driving is available through a multitude of online sites. By cross-referencing state-level legislative news with online lists of laws, the synthesis team identified the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) as the source of the most current information regarding laws that have been passed or amended in states or the District of Columbia. The information from its website (http://www.iihs. org/laws/cellphonelaws.aspx) as of May 2012 is presented here in its entirety to provide a factual, comprehensive, and current inventory of state laws that directly influence public transit bus operator cell phone practices: • Talking on a hand-held cell phone while driving is banned in 10 states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Washington, and West Virginia) and the District of Columbia. • The use of all cell phones by novice drivers is restricted in 31 states and the District of Columbia, and the use of all cell phones while driving a school bus is prohibited in 19 states and the District of Columbia. • Text messaging is banned for all drivers in 38 states and the District of Columbia. In addition, novice drivers are banned from texting in five states (Mississippi, Mis- souri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas) and school bus drivers are banned from text messaging in three states (Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas). • Many localities have enacted their own bans on cell phones or text messaging. In some but not all states, local jurisdictions need specific statutory authority to do so. Table 2 shows the states that have cell phone laws, whether they specifically ban text messaging, and whether they are enforced as primary or secondary laws. Under secondary (continued on next page) TABLE 2 LAWS RESTRICTING CELL PHONE USE AND TEXTING: MAY 2012 State Hand-Held Ban Young Drivers All Cell Phone Ban Bus Drivers All Cell Phone Ban Texting Ban Enforcement Alabama no 16-year-old drivers and 17-year-old drivers who have held an intermediate license for fewer than 6 months no all drivers (effective 08/01/12) primary Alaska no no no all drivers primary Arizona no no school bus drivers no primary Arkansas drivers 18 or older but younger than 21; school and highway work zones drivers younger than 18 school bus drivers all drivers primary: texting by all drivers and cell phone use by school bus drivers; secondary: cell phone use by young drivers, drivers in school and work zones1 California all drivers drivers younger than 18 school and transit bus drivers all drivers primary: hand held and texting laws; secondary: hands-free cell phone use by young drivers1

8 TABLE 2 (continued) Georgia no drivers younger than 18 school bus drivers all drivers primary Hawaii no2 no no no2 not applicable Idaho no no no all drivers (effective 07/01/12) primary (effective 07/01/12) Illinois drivers in construction and school speed zones drivers younger than 19 and learner's permit holders younger than 19 school bus drivers all drivers primary Indiana no drivers younger than 18 no all drivers primary Iowa no learner’s permit and intermediate license holders no all drivers primary for learner’s permit and intermediate license holders; secondary for texting Kansas no learner’s permit and intermediate license holders no all drivers primary Kentucky no drivers younger than 18 school bus drivers all drivers primary Louisiana with respect to novice drivers, see footnote3 all novice drivers, see footnote for detail3 school bus drivers all drivers primary3 Maine no learner’s permit and intermediate license holders no all drivers primary Maryland all drivers drivers younger than 18 (effective 10/01/12) school bus drivers (hand- held ban) all drivers secondary; primary for texting State Hand-Held Ban Young Drivers All Cell Phone Ban Bus Drivers All Cell Phone Ban Texting Ban Enforcement Colorado no drivers younger than 18 no all drivers primary Connecticut all drivers drivers younger than 18 school bus drivers all drivers primary Delaware all drivers learner’s permit and intermediate license holders school bus drivers all drivers primary District of Columbia all drivers learner’s permit holders school bus drivers all drivers primary Florida no no no no not applicable

9 TABLE 2 (continued) Michigan no no no all drivers primary Minnesota no learner’s permit holders and provisional license holders during the first 12 months after licensing school bus drivers all drivers primary Mississippi no no school bus drivers learner’s permit and intermediate license holders and school bus drivers primary Missouri no no no drivers 21 and younger primary Montana no no no no not applicable Nebraska no learner’s permit and intermediate license holders younger than 18 no all drivers secondary Nevada all drivers no no all drivers primary New Hampshire no no no all drivers primary New Jersey all drivers learner’s permit and intermediate license holders school bus drivers all drivers primary New Mexico no learner’s permit and intermediate license holders no learner’s permit and intermediate license holders primary New York all drivers no no all drivers primary North Carolina no drivers younger than 18 school bus drivers all drivers primary North Dakota no drivers younger than 18 no all drivers primary Massachusetts no drivers younger than 18 school bus drivers and passenger bus drivers all drivers primary State Hand-Held Ban Young Drivers All Cell Phone Ban Bus Drivers All Cell Phone Ban Texting Ban Enforcement Ohio no no no no not applicable Oklahoma learner’s permit and intermediate license holders no4 no learner’s permit holders, intermediate license holders, school bus drivers and public transit drivers primary (continued on next page)

10 TABLE 2 (continued) Oregon all drivers drivers younger than 18 no all drivers primary Pennsylvania no no no all drivers primary Rhode Island no drivers younger than 18 school bus drivers all drivers primary South Carolina no no no no not applicable South Dakota no no no no not applicable Tennessee no learner’s permit and intermediate license holders school bus drivers all drivers primary Texas drivers in school crossing zones drivers younger than 18 bus drivers when a passenger 17 and younger is present bus drivers when a passenger 17 and younger is present; drivers in school crossing zones; drivers younger than 18 primary Utah no5 no no all drivers primary5 Vermont no drivers younger than 18 no all drivers primary Virginia no drivers younger than 18 school bus drivers all drivers secondary; primary for school bus drivers Washington all drivers learner’s permit and intermediate license holders no all drivers primary West Virginia all drivers (effective 07/01/12) drivers younger than 18 who hold either a learner’s permit or no all drivers (effective 07/01/12) primary; secondary for hand-held ban until 7/1/13, then primary State Hand-Held Ban Young Drivers All Cell Phone Ban Bus Drivers All Cell Phone Ban Texting Ban Enforcement an intermediate license Wisconsin no learner’s permit and intermediate license holders (effective 11/01/12) no all drivers primary Wyoming no No no all drivers primary 1The laws in Arkansas and California prohibit police from stopping a vehicle to determine if a driver is in compliance with the law. Clearly, that language prohibits the use of checkpoints to enforce the law, but it has been interpreted as the functional equivalent of secondary provisions that typically state the officer may not stop someone suspected of a violation unless there is other, independent, cause for a stop. 2Hawaii does not have a state law banning cell phones or text messaging. However, all Hawaii counties have enacted ordinances addressing distracted driving. 3In Louisiana, all learners’ permit holders, irrespective of age, and all intermediate license holders are prohibited from driving while using a hand-held cell phone and all drivers younger than 18 are prohibited from using any cell phone. Effective April 1, 2010, all drivers, irrespective of age, issued a first driver’s license will be prohibited from using a cell phone for one year. The cell phone ban is secondary for novice drivers age 18 and older. 4In Oklahoma, learner’s permit and intermediate license holders are banned from using a hand-held electronic device while operating a motor vehicle for non-life-threatening emergency purposes. 5In 2007, Utah defined careless driving as committing a moving violation (other than speeding) while distracted by use of a hand-held cell phone or other activities not related to driving. IIHS reported this as the functional equivalent of a secondary law. 2012 Utah law states that a person is not prohibited from using a hand-held wireless device while operating a moving motor vehicle when making or receiving a telephone call.

11 in 2010 (10, pp. 1–40) following the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey, which collected on-scene informa- tion on several crash factors, including those related to driver inattention. Another study by the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI), which is part of IIHS, concluded that laws banning cell phone use while driving failed to reduce the number of crashes. A news release, issued by the HLDI in January 2010, stated: As state legislators across the United States enact laws that ban phon- ing and/or texting while driving, a new Highway Loss Data Institute study finds no reductions in crashes after hand-held phone bans take effect. Comparing insurance claims for crash damage in 4 US jurisdic- tions before and after such bans, the researchers find steady claim rates compared with nearby jurisdictions without such bans. The Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) is an affiliate of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. HLDI researchers calculated monthly collision claims per 100 insured vehicle years (a vehicle year is 1 car insured for 1 year, 2 insured for 6 months each, etc.) for vehicles up to 3 years old during the months immediately before and after hand-held phone use was banned while driving in New York (Nov. 2001), the District of Columbia (July 2004), Connecticut (Oct. 2005), and California (July 2008). Compa- rable data were collected for nearby jurisdictions without such bans. This method controlled for possible changes in collision claim rates unrelated to the bans—changes in the number of miles driven because of the economy, seasonal changes in driving patterns, etc. Month-to-month fluctuations in rates of collision claims in juris- dictions with bans didn’t change from before to after the laws were enacted. Nor did the patterns change in comparison with trends in jurisdictions that didn’t have such laws. “The laws aren’t reducing crashes, even though we know that such laws have reduced hand-held phone use, and several studies have estab- lished that phoning while driving increases crash risk,” says Adrian Lund, president of both the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and HLDI. For example, an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study that relies on driver phone records found a 4-fold increase in the risk of injury crashes. A study in Canada found a 4-fold increase in the risk of crashes involving property damage. Separate surveys of driver behavior before and after hand-held phone use bans show reductions in the use of such phones while driving. The HLDI database doesn’t identify drivers using cell phones when their crashes occur. However, reductions in observed phone use fol- lowing bans are so substantial and estimated effects of phone use on crash risk are so large that reductions in aggregate crashes would be expected. In New York the HLDI researchers did find a decrease in collision claim frequencies, relative to comparison states, but this decreasing trend began well before the state’s ban on hand-held phon- ing while driving and actually paused briefly when the ban took effect. Trends in the District of Columbia, Connecticut, and California didn’t change. “So the new findings don’t match what we already know about the risk of phoning and texting while driving,” Lund points out. “If crash risk increases with phone use and fewer drivers use phones where it’s illegal to do so, we would expect to see a decrease in crashes. But we aren’t seeing it. Nor do we see collision claim increases before the phone bans took effect. This is surprising, too, given what we know about the growing use of cell phones and the risk of phoning while driving. We’re currently gathering data to figure out this mismatch.” HLDI researchers compared the District of Columbia’s collision claim frequency trend not only with statewide trends in Virginia and Mary- land but also with the trend in the nearby city of Baltimore. Again, the finding is no difference in the pattern of collision claims. Nor were laws, an officer must have some other reason to stop a vehi- cle before citing a driver for using a cell phone. Laws without this restriction are called primary. These data are current as of May 2012. From state to state, this is an evolving process where new laws are being passed, existing laws are being modified, and the status of laws (as primary or secondary) is changing. While some changes may have occurred and been publicized since then, the absence of a complete updated list and the lack of access to information validating the status of every state’s laws dictated that the synthesis team limit any updates so as to maintain the integrity of the complete list of data. RECOMMENDED PRACTICES The only public transit industry-based standards or recom- mended practices identified in the literature review were issued by APTA in 2009 as part of the APTA Standards Develop- ment Program. The first document, entitled “Reducing Driver- Controlled Distractions While Operating a Vehicle on Agency Time,” established best agency practices concerning mitigating or minimizing driver-controlled distractions while operating a vehicle on company business. The second practice, “Reduc- ing Agency-Controlled Distractions While Operating a Vehi- cle on Agency Time,” guides transit agencies in mitigating or minimizing agency-controlled distractions for drivers while they operate vehicles on company business. These APTA documents are included in the report in Appendices E and F. RESEARCH STUDIES As previously mentioned, there have been a number of stud- ies done on the topic of distracted driving, primarily focusing on cell phone usage. Only one, conducted by DriveCam, Inc. (7), focused on distracted driving behaviors in the public tran- sit sector: After reviewing more than 100,000 risky driving events in a sampling of 10,000 transit vehicles, the researchers determined that distractions, including hand-held and hands- free cellular devices, food and/or drink, passengers, and other electronic devices only accounted for 4% of recorded behav- iors in risky driving events. (The number one and two risky behaviors, not looking far enough ahead and following too close or tailgating, accounted for 37% and 32%, respectively.) The Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI) (8, pp. 1–4), and the University of Vermont (9, pp. 1–8) have conducted a few often-referenced studies on distracted driv- ing, but their focus has been on differentiating vehicle size/ weights, driver age, and specific behaviors or distractions with no clear distinction between public transit and other sectors. The National Safety Council released a white paper in 2010: “Understanding the distracted brain—Why driv- ing while using hands-free cell phones is risky behavior.” As indicated by the title, the subject of the paper is research demonstrating that hands-free devices are still contributing to distracted behaviors. The NHTSA also released a report

12 and services on the market that are related to “geofencing,” which in this case is technology that reduces distracted driv- ing caused by mobile-phone usage while driving. TRAINING The literature review identified three training programs spe- cifically designed for and/or marketed to transit systems: • “Curbing Transit Operator Distracted Driving” devel- oped initially by the Florida DOT and CUTR at the University of South Florida was then modified in a col- laborative effort with the TSI and offered under FTA sponsorship as a 30-minute online course. The Instructor Guide is reproduced in Appendix D. CUTR and TSI plan on offering an instructor-led version of a train-the-trainer course in the near future. • “Distracted Driving: At What Cost?” Transit Version was developed by Aurora Pictures in Minneapolis. The course is a 14-minute video-based program commer- cially available directly from Aurora or from several training material suppliers. • Metro Transit worked with Aurora in in 2008 and pro- duced a modified version of the “Distracted Driving: At What Cost?” video and training program specifically for its needs, with additional footage and dialogue to make it relevant to Metro Transit bus operators. SUMMARY The literature review process did identify a few resources to help guide and/or support the development of an agency- based program to deter distracted driving behaviors and to reduce the number and frequency of distractions under agency control. The training materials, particularly the program devel- oped and offered through CUTR and TSI, offer transit systems a relatively easy-to-implement program that can begin address- ing the issue of problematic behaviors contributing to distract driving. Based solely on content, the CUTS/TSI course and the two APTA recommended practices are the most compre- hensive resources for the transit industry because they were all developed specifically for this sector and cover the full range of behavioral and environmental factors that cause or contribute to distracted driving. any differences apparent when the researchers applied a time-based regression model to claims data for each of the study and comparison jurisdictions. Lund points to factors that might be eroding the effects of hand-held phone bans on crashes. One is that drivers in jurisdictions with such bans may be switching to hands-free phones because no US state cur- rently bans all drivers from using such phones. In this case crashes wouldn’t go down because the risk is about the same, regardless of whether the phones are hand-held or hands-free. Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia do prohibit beginning drivers from using any type of phone, including hands-free, but such laws are difficult to enforce. This was the finding in North Carolina, where teenage driv- ers didn’t curtail phone use in response to a ban, in part because they didn’t think the law was being enforced. “Whatever the reason, the key finding is that crashes aren’t going down where hand-held phone use has been banned,” Lund points out. “This finding doesn’t auger well for any safety payoff from all the new laws that ban phone use and texting while driving.” This study clearly questioned the viability and effective- ness of laws banning hand-held cell phone use but, as stated in the press release, may also substantiate the findings of the National Safety Council and others that the distracted behavior is not just holding the phone but engaging in con- versation. None of the states currently enforcing cell phone bans while driving includes hands-free devices in the laws. California and Massachusetts are the only two states in the country that have a law specifically prohibiting transit bus drivers from using any cellular devices, including hands-free phones, while operating a vehicle. Steve Vidal of New York City Transit (NYCT) also pointed out that, from that agency’s research, legislated bans on the use of hand-held phones did not necessarily result in com- mensurate enforcement. He also noted that HDLI has been silent on how, or even if, enforcement had been studied. Another white paper that addressed cell phone usage while operating transit vehicles was written by Michael Conlon of Metro Transit and published in 2011 (11, pp. 25–29). The paper contains a brief historical overview of the problems in transit within the United States, some international trends, and tables for estimating probability and severity. The Research and Innovative Technology Administra- tion of the U.S.DOT sponsored a survey, conducted by the University of California at Berkley (12, pp. 1–10), to iden- tify existing commercial technology, applications, products,