Trucks at Work Blog

“The laws aren’t reducing crashes, even though we know that such laws have reduced hand-held phone use.” –Adrian Lund, president of both the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and Highway Loss Data Institute

I’m again today reminded of that old but oh-so-true saying: “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.”

It’s quite apropos for a study released the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI), an affiliate of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), that finds laws banning cell phone use and texting while driving aren’t changing crash rates one iota – again proving that you can’t legislate human behavior.

The HLDI compared insurance claims for crash damage in four U.S. jurisdictions before and after such bans and found claim rates remained steady when compared with nearby jurisdictions that never put such laws on the books. Month-to-month fluctuations in rates of collision claims in jurisdictions with bans didn’t change from before to after the laws were enacted, the group reported, nor did the patterns change in comparison with trends in jurisdictions that didn’t have such laws.

HLDI researchers calculated monthly collision claims per 100 insured vehicle years (a vehicle year is one car insured for one year, 2 insured for six months each, etc.) for vehicles up to three 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), with comparable data 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 due to the economy, seasonal changes in driving patterns, etc.

While HLDI’s database doesn’t identify drivers using cell phones when their crashes occur, reductions in observed phone use following bans are so substantial and estimated effects of phone use on crash risk are so large that reductions in aggregate crashes would be expected, the group said.

In New York, 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 phoning 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,” noted Adrian Lund, president of both the HLDI and IIHS. “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 also went a step further – comparing the District of Columbia’s collision claim frequency trend not only with statewide trends in Virginia and Maryland but also with the trend in nearby Baltimore. Again, the group’s findings were no different; there wasn’t a change in the pattern of collision claims. Nor were any differences apparent when the researchers applied a time-based regression model to claims data for each of the study and comparison jurisdictions.

Lund pointed 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 U.S. state currently 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.

While 21 states and the District of Columbia do prohibit beginning drivers from using any type of phone, including hands-free, such laws are difficult to enforce, he said. This was the finding in North Carolina, where teenage drivers 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 said. “This finding doesn’t auger well for any safety payoff from all the new laws that ban phone use and texting while driving.”

So what does this research tell us? That we should junk all these cell phone and texting ban efforts? No, that’s not the lesson here. What we need to realize here is that laws in and of themselves don’t restrict or change human behavior – rather, it takes a lot of time and effort to accomplish a behavioral shift of this magnitude.

Can it be done? Of course – just look at seat belt usage rates among truck drivers. Five years ago, the barely reached 50%. Today, they are well up over 72%. Why? Not just because laws are on the books mandating seat belt use; fleets reinforced the need for them through ongoing safety training, while drivers themselves incorporated seat belt use as part of their professional creed.

More importantly, I think this study touches on a much larger and more pervasive issue among motorists – taking driving for granted. Operating a motor vehicle just doesn’t seem to be a big deal anymore; it’s just another routine of daily life, from brushing one’s teeth to sitting on the couch to watch TV.

How else to explain the willingness of people to jabber on the phone, email one another, watch movies, change clothes, apply makeup, shave, read the newspaper, etc., while driving thousands of pounds of machinery at speeds fast enough to kill and/or cause significant property damage if they lose control of them?

Deaths due to drunk and/or drugged drivers offer another point. In 2008, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), an estimated 11,773 people died in drunk driving crashes involving a driver with an illegal blood alcohol (BAC) level of .08 or greater – deaths constituting 31.6% of the 37,261 total U.S. traffic fatalities in 2008. People still seem to think it’s OK to get behind the wheel completed wrecked out of one’s mind – as if driving a motor vehicle is child’s play, which it certainly isn’t.

Until the motoring public reacquaints itself more firmly with the dangers driving entails, and stops being so nonchalant about operating motor vehicles of all shapes and sizes, then we’re not going to see big changes in cell phone or texting use behind the wheel – no matter how many laws we put oin the books.

“We are committed to making strides to revitalize the American auto industry and supporting the development of clean energy vehicles. This is an investment in our clean energy future. It will bring the U.S. closer to reducing our dependence on foreign oil and help lower carbon pollution.” –U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu

I suspect many folks out in the trucking community think the billions in taxpayer funds being dispersed by the Department of Energy (DOE) of late to fund a variety of vehicle-related projects is money being thrown out the window. I mean, let’s face it: we’ve got trillions in public debt being piled up at an astronomical rate (this year’s federal deficit alone is equal to $4,500 for every man, woman and child in the U.S.) so I’m in no way surprised that many feel we oughta turn off the vehicle research funding spigot pretty quick here.

And yet all this money from the DOE – funding everything from the new “SuperTruck” fuel efficiency project to automaker loans for re-tooling factories – could, in the end, be the decisive factor in our nation developing a new generation of cars, light trucks, and commercial vehicles that use far less petroleum and leave us far less exposed to the vagaries of world’s oil markets.

Take the recent $1.4 billion loan agreement DOE just finalized Nissan North America to retool its Smyrna, Tennessee, factory to build electric automobiles and a new EV battery manufacturing facility. Those two projects are expected to create up to 1,300 American jobs and, potentially, conserve up to 65.4 million gallons of gasoline per year if electric vehicles are widely adopted by motorists – an amount equal to six times the oil spilled by the Exxon Valdez in 1989, DOE stressed.

Nissan plans to use the proceeds from the loan to produce its all-electric vehicle, the LEAF (above at right), at its existing Smyrna, Tennessee plant — eventually offering electric vehicles to fleet and retail customers, and plans to ramp up production capacity in Smyrna up to 150,000 vehicles annually.

In fact, Nissan said it is pursuing a global strategy of transitioning to electric vehicles, with its Smyrna plant expected to produce 200,000 battery packs annually. Nissan is also trying to lay the groundwork in developing an infrastructure in the U.S. to support electric vehicles, forming partnerships with states, counties, municipalities, and electric utilities to prepare markets for the introduction of electric vehicles including the installation of charging stations.

This isn’t the first such EV investment DOE’s made, it should be noted. Last week, DOE also signed a $465 million loan agreement with Tesla Motors – makers of the Model S all-electric roadster — to build manufacturing facilities in California for electric power-trains and Tesla’s slick car (the cool red machine at left) as well. DOE also signed a conditional commitment with Fisker Automotive to build plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and slid Tenneco funding in October last year to support EV technology component manufacturing.

DOE also loaded $5.9 billion to Ford Motor Company in September last year to help transform the automakers factories across Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, and Ohio so it could build more fuel efficient models. That deal is part of Obama Administration’s effort to boost corporate average fuel economy (CAFÉ) standards up to 35.5 miles per gallon in the year 2016; a standard expected to reduce oil consumption by an estimated 1.8 billion barrels, saving motorists some $3,000 a year in average fuel costs, while preventing greenhouse gas emissions of approximately 950 million metric tons annually.

Ford said its using that money to improve the efficiency of light vehicles with technologies to improve internal combustion engines and transmissions, reduce vehicle weight, reduce vehicle drag with more aerodynamic designs, and improve vehicle efficiency through the development of hybrid and plug-in electric vehicles. The loan proceeds will enable Ford to raise the fuel efficiency of more than a dozen popular models, representing close to two million new vehicles annually, and save more than 200 million gallons of gas a year.

Altogether, DOE’s loans to Ford, Tesla, Nissan and others total more than $8 billion – not chump change in my book, at least.

On another front, DOE is shifting nearly $80 million from funds it received through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act [the big $787 billion “stimulus bill” passed by Congress in Feb. 2009] for research into biofuels research and refueling infrastructure.

Two biofuels consortia – the National Alliance for Advanced Biofuels and Bioproducts (NAABB), with $44 million, led by the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in St. Louis, Missouri, along with the National Advanced Biofuels Consortium (NABC), with $33.8 million, led by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory – are getting the lion’s share that funding, mainly to research algae-based and other next-generation biofuels.

“Advanced biofuels are crucial to building a clean energy economy,” said Energy Secretary Steven Chu recently (seen here at left).

“By harnessing the power of science and technology, we can bring new biofuels to the market and develop a cleaner and more sustainable transportation sector,” he explained. “This investment will help spur the creation of the domestic bio-industry, while creating jobs and reducing our dependence on foreign oil.”

Now, will all of this pay for the U.S. taxpayer, in terms of less fuel consumption and greater energy security? That’s the real trick in all of this. I for one hope it does.

“Our commitment to working with companies that develop zero-emission trucks is another important strategy in our plan to grow Los Angeles green by being a catalyst in testing and bringing to market the most promising emission reduction technologies.” –Antonio Villaraigosa, Mayor, Los Angeles

So the port of Los Angeles is in the midst of testing a new kind of “green” truck, if you will: a fuel cell-electric hybrid drayage tractor designed for short and medium distance cargo-hauling operations.

This tractor prototype, retrofitted by Vision Industries of Los Angeles, is being put through a series of on-road and laboratory tests to mimic a variety of drayage duty cycles, including different loads, road conditions and travel distances.

The port says local drayage trucking companies are expected to assist with the demonstration over the next 12 to 18 months, with the University of California at Riverside’s college of engineering center for environmental research and technology (CE-CERT) laboratories will help guide the data collection and analysis.

[Here’s a video walk-around of this new hybrid tractor, courtesy of Los Angeles’ port authority.]

The powertrain for this tractor, as noted, is very from what’s typically brought to mind by the word “hybrid.” Instead of a diesel engine linked to an electric motor and battery pack, Vision’s hybrid trucks are powered by the combination of a hydrogen fuel cell, electric motor, and lithium batteries — with a purported range of up to 400 miles. In essence, the truck runs on hydrogen, which emits nothing more than water vapor out the tail pipe. Frankly, you can’t get much cleaner than that.

The key, however, is sustainability – from an economic standpoint, I stress. Hydrogen fuel cells to power vehicles don’t come cheap. It’s been rumored that the value of Honda’s FCX Clarity fuel cell passenger cars, for example, is about $10 million a copy – a price tag that incorporates the millions in research Honda has spent developing a fuel cell-powered vehicle. Indeed, Honda’s been researching fuel cells since 1989, but only released a prototype vehicle back in 2003 powered by this technology.

[Here’s an overview of the 2009 model Honda FCX Clarity – the only production-level fuel cell vehicle to my knowledge.]

Obviously, with water vapor as the only emission from such a vehicle, it garners a lot of interest from a lot of different areas. Indeed, Honda is taking the next step in making fuel cells more convenient for the average motorist with the testing of a solar hydrogen generation station prototype (appropriately located in Los Angeles, the home of Honda R&D Americas Inc.’s main reserach center) intended for ultimate use as a home refueling appliance capable of an overnight refill of fuel cell electric vehicles.

Designed as a single, integrated unit to fit in the user’s garage, Honda said its next generation solar hydrogen station reduces the size of the system, while producing enough hydrogen (0.5 kg) via an 8-hour overnight fill for daily commuting (10,000 miles per year) for a fuel cell electric vehicle.

Compatible with a “Smart Grid” energy system, Honda said its solar hydrogen station would enable users to refill their vehicle overnight without the requirement of hydrogen storage, which would lower carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by using less expensive off-peak electrical power. During daytime peak power times, the solar hydrogen station can export renewable electricity to the grid, providing a cost benefit to the customer, while remaining energy neutral.

You can see why this innovation would convince fleet operators to perhaps look more closely at fuel cells for trucks – for if you could build a solar-powered hydrogen generating system at a terminal with enough capacity to refuel your trucks overnight, presto! Kiss OPEC and local diesel filling station goodbye.

But as the old British seafaring song says, “It’s a long way to Tipperary.” These are but the very first baby steps on a very long road to making fuel cells sustainable from an economic perspective for fleets. For starters, while solar power generation looks good on paper, but as we all know, the sun doesn’t shine 24/7 across the U.S.

Indeed, on the trucking side, Vision Industries has been marketing its Class 8 zero-emission hydrogen fuel cell hybrid-electric truck for more than a year and is just now getting to work with the port of Los Angeles to further evaluate its performance in the rigorous port trucking environment.

Though Martin Schuermann, Vision’s president and CEO, noted that these fuel cell hybrid tractors are 30% to 40% less expensive to operate than diesel trucks, the sticker price is a different story – as is the lack of convenient refueling infrastructure. In time, these obstacles can be overcome, but at the end of the day, fuel cell-powered commercial vehicles can’t just be “green” trucks from an environmental perspective alone – they have to economically “green” as well to convince fleets to try them, buy them, and then keep them for the long haul.

“We want to make it crystal clear to operators and their employers that texting while driving is the type of unsafe activity that these regulations are intended to prohibit.” –Anne Ferro, Administrator for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)

It’s official now: texting while driving a big rig or bus is now expressly prohibited under the law, effective today by order of the Department of Transportation (DOT) and its commercial vehicle regulatory body, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

U.S Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said at a press conference in downtown Washington D.C. today that this action – banning texting while driving big rigs – results from interpretation of standing DOT regulations. And there’s big fines attached to this new rule as well: Truck and bus drivers who text while driving commercial vehicles may be subject to civil or criminal penalties of up to $2,750.

“We want the drivers of big rigs and buses and those who share the roads with them to be safe,” said Secretary LaHood. “This is an important safety step and we will be taking more to eliminate the threat of distracted driving.” He added that regulatory guidance on this new ruling will be on public display in the Federal Register January 26 and will appear in print in the Federal Register on January 27.

Now, there’s good reasoning behind this band – snicker though some of us might do. FMCSA’s research shows that drivers who send and receive text messages behind the wheel take their eyes off the road for an average of 4.6 seconds out of every 6 seconds spent texting. At 55 miles per hour, this means that the driver is traveling the length of a football field – including the end zones, the agency stressed – without looking at the road.

As a result, FMCSA said drivers that text while operating a vehicle – and not just a commercial vehicle, it should be stressed – are more than 20 times more likely to get in an accident than non-distracted drivers.

The agency pointedly noted at the press conference announcing this new rule that, due to the safety risks associated with the use of electronic devices while driving, it’s also working on additional regulatory measures that will be announced in the coming months.

Most of the trucking community is in favor of these rules with some caveats here and there. I mean, come on, let’s face it: truck drivers KNOW how much chaos exists on our roadways today, and most try to keep their eyes glued to the asphalt outside their windshields and reflected in their mirrors.

Look, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety itself found that when trucks and cars have accidents, in almost two-thirds of the cases, a mistake by the CAR driver caused the crash to occur. To me, that means much of the “driving while distracted” issue isn’t going to found or solved in the cabs of big rigs.

There’s also the ticklish matter of bypassing the nominal regulatory process to make this ban on texting the rule of the road – something that particularly bothered the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA).

“We support where they are going, but not how they got there,” said Todd Spencer, OOIDA’s executive vice president. “Making their action effective immediately bypasses normal regulatory rulemaking processes. Those processes allow actions to be vetted for unintended consequences, as well as potential implementation and enforcement problems. We very much share in their goal, but their legal justification for taking immediate action raises many concerns.”

Spencer said professional truckers have a vested interest in highway safety as their lives and livelihoods quite literally depend on it. “Every day on roadways across America, professional truckers’ witness drivers operating vehicles while engaged in activities that significantly impede their ability to attend to the task of driving safely,” he pointed out. “Experience has shown these professionals that, in particular, drivers sending text or e-mail messages while operating a vehicle are a significant hazard to themselves and to other roadway users.”

That’s why OOIDA supports government efforts to prohibit ALL motorists from sending text or email messages while operating a moving vehicle, not just truck drivers. And it’s getting fire support for its position from an often-times opponent of trucking issues, the American Trucking Associations (ATA).

“ATA recognizes that texting while driving substantially elevates the risk of being involved in a crash and, to promote highway safety, and further improve the trucking industry’s continually improving safety record, we support DOT’s action to ban the use of handheld wireless devices by commercial drivers to send or receive text messages,” noted Governor Bill Graves, the group’s president and CEO.

Yet he cautioned that it is important to study the DOT’s regulatory guidance to know the full effect of this change on truck and bus drivers, while also broadening its scope to include all motorists.

“This prohibition would be enforced against drivers of commercial vehicles, including trucks and buses. ATA would like to see a ban on texting extended to all automobile drivers as well. DOT could influence the states to do so,” Graves added.

Funny enough, the association representing motorists wants to see this ban expanded, too. “This action reinforces the fact that any form of distracted driving by any driver is a serious traffic safety issue,” noted AAA Vice President of Public Affairs Kathleen Marvaso. “[Yet our] state advocacy agenda for 2010 includes enacting texting while driving bans in all 50 states, as texting while driving presents a danger to ALL road users … in addition to the mental distraction caused by taking one’s mind off the task at hand.”

AAA is strongly urging all drivers – not just truckers and bus operators – to focus on driving and avoid all behaviors that result in distractions while at the wheel, Marvaso added.

That, of course, will be the real trick; for as the old saying goes, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.” Eliminating texting while behind the wheel is easy to do on paper, but not so in real life. And yet … in the space of just five years, the use of seat belts by truckers jumped from under 50% to over 72%, and it’s still climbing. That tells me truckers can and will change their habits behind the wheel – the question is, will the rest of the motoring public follow their example?

“Targeted government policies can build the U.S. electric drive industry and get more vehicles on the road that will reduce our dependence on oil, establish sustainable transportation options and build the green jobs economy.” –Brian Wynne, president, Electric Drive Transportation Association (EDTA)

Do electric vehicles (EVs) have the “legs” to survive and thrive here in the U.S.? That’s a questions being raised this week as the Electric Drive Transportation Association (EDTA) seeks backing from Congress and the Obama Administration to growth of hybrid, plug-in, battery and fuel cell vehicles in the U.S.

[As an example of what’s coming to the market, here’s an overview of the new Chevrolet Volt by General Motor’s Bob Lutz – an electric car with a small gasoline-powered “backup” motor in case recharging stations aren’t nearby.]

EDTA’s 2010 Electric Drive Action Plan for Energy Security aims to get the government to initiate policies to beef up EV infrastructure, along with the extension and expansion of federal tax incentives for medium and heavy duty electric drive vehicles, which can transform federal and private fleets.

“Hybrid-electric delivery trucks can provide up to 50% reduction in fuel consumption and emissions,” noted Brian Wynne, ETDA’s president, at a special policy session held on Capitol Hill today. “Local, regional and national efforts are necessary to ensure that government and industry work together to keep the public, businesses and first responders informed about industry developments.”

Expanding public/private partnerships to advance manufacturing breakthroughs, expanding recharging infrastructure, and establishing coherent standards for integrated infrastructure are also required, he stressed.

“We need to maximize the advantages that smart grid will provide for grid-connected transportation,” Wynne said. “Electric drive infrastructure means integrating the charging options with the smart grid technologies that will enable the most efficient and sustainable use of electric fuel. Because changing the U.S. transportation fleet to electric drive won’t happen overnight, we’re calling for policies that would get us ‘on the right road, right away.’”

[One of things that mustn’t change, of course, is the driving “feel” of EVs as compared to traditional gasoline or diesel powered models. Below, Andrew Farah, chief engineer for Chevy’s Volt, gives an overview of how GM’s trying to deal with those issues.]

EDTA has identified five key “next steps” policymakers should take to achieve “commercial scale” for EVs in the U.S. They are:

1. Reduce Market Hurdles for Electric Drive Technologies

2. Expand U.S. Manufacturing Capacity

3. Establish Coherent Regulatory Policies for Electric

4. Drive Vehicles and Infrastructure; Accelerate Technology Breakthroughs

5. Promote Public and Private Outreach and Education to Increase Consumer Awareness.

Yet the real question remains unanswered: will the general public, much less commercial fleets, buy these vehicles? In this context, the jury remains decidedly undecided.

According to a recent survey by Ernst & Young’s Global Automotive Center, over 10% of U.S. drivers polled said they would consider purchasing a plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle. This report, which canvassed the views of 1,000 American licensed drivers to gauge consumer awareness and interest of plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles in the market, concludes some 20 million American drivers are favorably disposed to purchase.

“Although only 10% of the drivers responded positively to purchasing plug-in hybrid or electric vehicles, for a powertrain technology which is not yet widely available, it is a significant number which should not be ignored,” noted Mike Hanley, leader of Ernst & Young’s global automotive group.

“As the survey suggests, electric vehicles have an opportunity to make a significant entrance into the US public consciousness over the next few years,” he explained. “Even if only a small portion of the 10% of survey respondents who said they would consider a plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle when introduced are serious, there would still be more than enough demand to sell out the 2010 and 2011 production runs of the major and new manufacturers, while buying crucial time to build out infrastructure and increase public awareness.”

Still, big hurdles remain for advancing hybrid and EV sales alike. Some of the biggest challenges highlighted in Ernst & Young’s survey are access to charging stations, battery driving range and vehicle costs. While there are clear barriers to consumers fully embracing these technologies, 34% of the firm’s survey participants said they would subsidize local charging stations, further illustrating that a significant number of drivers recognize the future benefits of plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles.

[Batteries are perhaps one of the most challenging technological aspects of EVs. Here, Bill Wallace, group manager-Volt battery group, explains how GM is driving to improve battery capability.]

And yet … the general public still isn’t completely fired about buying them. Take the recent Detroit Auto Show for example; although many automakers used this show as a platform to debut small and more fuel-efficient vehicles, consumer data – based on model research volume within each brand – showed the highest consumer interest remains high in big, bold vehicles.

For example, according to NADAguides.com, the Chevy Camaro — a modern-day “muscle car” — led the way in most of 2009 and into the first weeks of 2010 as being the most researched vehicle on its web site.

“Although electric, hybrid and small cars are being showcased in Detroit this week, the patterns we are seeing from consumers show a desire for affordable and efficient vehicles that offer substantial performance, upscale amenities and impressive technology,” said Mike Caudill, spokesperson for NADAguides.com.

“This most recent data not only identifies the top cars consumers are most interested in, but also provides automakers with a clear roadmap of what consumers are looking to buy,” he added. “One aspect that may also surprise critics is that despite the demand for small, fuel efficient hybrids, muscle cars – while a small part of the market – sold relatively well last year and continue to pique consumer interest.”

Obviously, this means that EVs still face an uphill battle to command the attention of the motoring public. However, there yet may be plenty of opportunity to do so — especially if fuel prices spike again like they did in 2008.

“The airport is in bad condition but things are organized and extremely busy.” –Dave Thompson, president and CEO, TEC Equipment

As I detailed in this space last Tuesday, Dave Thompson – president and CEO of Mack, Volvo, and GMC truck dealership chain TEC Equipment – and his employees pulled together to support a medical relief mission to Haiti, trying to provide what help they could to that devastated country.

With Thompson (seen here in the black jacket at right) at the controls of TEC’s corporate jet – a nine-seat Cessna Citation Encore – this special mission successfully delivered a team of seven volunteer doctors, nurses, health professionals and desperately needed medical supplies from Medical Teams International to Port-au-Prince airport in Haiti yesterday.

“The landing went well,” Thompson reported yesterday to TEC’s marketing manager, Dave Schwanke, back at the company’s headquarters in Portland, Oregon. “The volunteers from Medical Teams International thanked us for our donation of transport, jumped into a waiting truck and they were off to action.”

Sadly, though, the other part of his mission – to bring a recently adopted orphan Haitian child to her waiting parents in Portland – didn’t pan out as Thompson said he was unable to make contact with officials in Haiti.

“I had to stay with the jet and was not allowed to leave the airport,” he told Schwanke. “Without telephones I had no way of reaching anybody to learn more.”

However, he was able to return with two U.S. citizens and four other Haitian children, dropping them off to officials waiting at the Fort Lauderdale airport before continuing the trip home. He stopped last night in Wellington, Kansas to refuel, and plans to return back to Portland sometime today.

Thompson talked to Schwanke briefly about his experience on the ground in Haiti. Even though he only spent to two hours there, confined to a corner of the super-busy tarmac at Port-au-Prince International, Thompson got a glimpse of the heroic unsung work being done to help Haiti recover from the catastrophic 7.0 earthquake it suffered last week.

“He told me it’s like ‘organized chaos’ on the ground at the airport,” Schwanke explained to me last night. “There’s only one working runway at the airport – there used to be two – and flights are landing and taking off nonstop, around the clock.”

U.S. Air Force personnel are running the airport now and Thompson said they are doing a phenomenal job with the few resources they’ve got. “It’s running like clockwork and its ‘go-go-go’ all the time,” Schwanke related to me. “They are telling everyone that if you want to land at Port-au-Prince you better be on the schedule and you better not be late. It’s amazing what they are doing.”

As an aside, I know that the general news reports won’t be noting any of this – that the news will be focused on the delays, the failures, etc. So let me be the first to give the Air Force personnel on the ground in Haiti a huge “thumbs up” for getting a near-impossible job done while being criticized every step of the way.

It’s true that relief supplies are piling up in warehouses and on the airport’s tarmac, and that little of it is flowing inland yet. People will be critical of this and we’ll read a ton of news stories about it, but it merely shows that oh-so-few people realize how challenging the logistics are on the ground post-natural disaster.

In some respects, this is a reflection I believe of how good logistics are these days – so good it’s all taken for granted. People just expect goods from a warehouse to get picked up and dropped off where needed – hey, happens every day over here. Never mind that Haiti lacks heavy trucks and roads to support them – that most of these supplies will need to be taken via helicopter inland. And transporting the necessary helicopters into Haiti to do all this takes time.

One thing’s for certain, though – the aid is on the ground and people are working night and day to figure out a way to deliver it over the last mile. We’re not in their shoes over there, in the heat, the mud, picking our way through the rubble as the stench of death clogs the air. It’s a heartrending situation in Haiti, but the logisticians will find a way to get the job done.

“Whatever decision is made with the rules, please keep them in place! Constantly changing the rules creates challenges with consistency and uniformity in compliance and enforcement.” –Steve Keppler, interim executive director, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance

Needless to say, the hours of service (HOS) reform effort launched by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) late last year is the big topic of discussion in trucking circles this week. As you no doubt know, the feds held their first of four public “listening sessions” this week to gather comments on the current HOS rules from all corners within – and without – the trucking industry.

The testimony from Steve Keppler (seen here at right), interim executive director for the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA), in particular proved interesting, insofar as he tried to lay down for FMCSA some suggested guidelines for the estimated two years it’ll take to revise HOS rules yet again (the third time in 10 years the agency’s taken this on).

While Keppler’s HOS perspective is rooted in the “enforcement” side of commercial vehicle operations, he nonetheless offered I think many observations ubiquitous among all the players in the HOS debate – the biggest one being his quote above, to stop changing the rules so much.

“To be effective for both enforcement and industry, hours of service regulations need clarity and brevity; to be simple and practical,” he explained. “[Today’s] rules are fairly easy to understand and enforce roadside.”

The issues with the current HOS regulations – and these are issued to watch as FMCSA begins reformulating them – is a lack rules related to supporting documents required for HOS to be maintained on the vehicle.

“This has made it difficult in some cases for roadside enforcement to verify compliance and to identify falsification,” Keppler said. “In a number of instances drivers are not providing complete/accurate or producing records of duty status roadside.” That’s why he thinks supporting HOS documents should be required to be maintained on the vehicle with the record of duty status during current inspection periods.

Going forward, he suggested several other “guiding principles” for any new rules:

Uniformity. ”This is important for several fundamental reasons,” he said. “It makes training and education efforts, as well as compliance and enforcement activities, simpler and more effective; it provides a better means to measure impacts on safety and programs; it provides a better means to share and implement best practices among the various enforcement jurisdictions; and it facilitates reciprocity and fair treatment to industry across jurisdictional boundaries.”

Be simple. “Complexity affects uniformity in a number of ways,” Keppler said. “It creates difficulty and variation in application and interpretation; it creates harmonization challenges with state, provincial, and local laws; it creates frustration, leading to misunderstanding; it creates difficulty in developing training and educational tools; it creates an environment of subjectivity rather than objectivity.”

Keppler also believes the new rules must be science-based and data-driven on factors relating to driver fatigue, health, workload, safety performance and crash reduction. Also, adequate time is required to allow for the smooth implementation for compliance and enforcement personnel as well as industry – i.e., time need for regulatory changes at the state level, development of uniform ‘out of service’ criteria, time for putting together training, software programs, etc.

Here’s another key point: “Include passenger carrying vehicle drivers in the process so the end result is one set of rules for all CMV [commercial motor vehicle] drivers,” stressed Keppler. Right now, truckers and motorcoach (or simple “bus”) drivers use two different sets of rules. Having one set for both of them would reduce a lot of headaches for everyone on the enforcement side of the ledger.

He also noted that the “one set for all” mindset is beneficial when looking north of the border. “Evaluate Canada’s HOS rules and supporting research for potential areas of harmonization,” he said. “For example, the U.S. restart provision is for 34 hours, while Canada’s is 36.” Such harmonization would help make things easier for drivers that operate in both countries, I would think.

“Ensure there is clarity and clear understanding with respect to the HOS regulations, regulatory guidance and FMCSA enforcement policies,” added Keppler. “Make sure there is no conflicting information that hampers enforcement.”

One big item up for debate is the development of adequate provisions within the rules to permit the opportunity for drivers to achieve restorative sleep during their work week. “We need to provide flexibility for drivers to use sleeper berths effectively, having the opportunity to take short-term naps as well as longer term sleep periods,” Keppler noted.

This isn’t a popular idea with other advocacy groups, such as Public Citizen, which believe such “flexibility” leads to drivers pushing themselves for longer stretches behind the wheel. But common sense – and my own experience – tells me such flexibility is vital. Drivers should be able to take a break as needed. No two people are the same in terms of circadian rhythms, especially when it comes to sleep and nap needs. Giving the rules enough flex to accommodate the many different sleep/waking cycles among the human population is vital, in my view.

CVSA is also a big supporter of mandating electronic on board recorders (EOBRs) for HOS compliance for all commercial vehicle drivers. “We know FMCSA has a current rulemaking on this and another one is being planned; however, we strongly suggest that consideration be given to an across the board mandate,” Keppler said.

This is another controversial issue, as many fleets and drivers openly loathe this technology. Surprisingly, though, a fleet guy – Chris Peters (seen here at right), vp-operations for regional trucking operator Carlisle Carrier Corp. – gave a pretty compelling argument to making it mandatory.

Carlisle actually took a big productivity hit, on the order of 6% to 9%, when the current HOS rules went into full effect back in 2004. But one of the ways they compensated for that over time is by installing a type of EOBR in every one of their vehicles. “There’s a cost to this technology, to be sure, but it significantly reduced the costs of our compliance with HOS,” Peters explained. “That’s why we support and across the board mandate [for EOBRs] – we find it to be a helpful tool in offsetting our loss of productivity.”

CVSA’s Keppler also said FMCSA should implement fatigue management programs and driver health and wellness programs in the industry that have been proven to improve driver safety, health and performance. Further, the agency should more deeply investigate sleep apnea regarding CMV drivers and, based on science, research and testing, make needed regulatory changes to minimize driver risk and improve driver alertness, health and performance in relation to sleep apnea findings.

Again, another controversial area, but one fleets themselves are supporting more research into. Marsha Vande Hei (at left), director of regulatory compliance for truckload carrier Schneider National, stressed to FMCSA that dealing with sleep disorders, not changing HOS rules per se, should be the agency’s primary focus.

“Fatigue management is a much more broad-based concern,” Vande Hei said. “It’s estimated that 28% of the truck driver population suffers from sleep disorders. Among Schneider’s drivers, we estimate 17% have some sort of sleep disorder.”

More than a few experts I talked to at FMCDSA’s first “listening session” added that some sort of “sleep disorder” policy is coming down the pike – most likely involving screening of drivers and work rules related to sleep disorder maladies.

Finally, Keppler backs the establishment of what he calls “a robust process” for evaluating the safety impacts related to existing and any potential future regulatory AND statutory HOS exemptions.

“There are several statutory HOS exemptions that were enacted in SAFETEA-LU [the last highway bill] and we do not believe providing for safety exemptions through statute is good public policy, especially in light of the fact that some of these exemptions were not granted — in our view — based on science and safety,” he stressed. “HOS regulations are first and foremost highway safety rules and are not meant to conform to industry operations.”

I think that is smart, though I think some in the trucking industry would object. I mean, let’s face it; these rules are all about safety and frankly, if a trucker can’t get his or her job done within a 14 hour work day window, some red flags should be raised. I know harvest season is a go-go time for many truckers, but figuring out a way to do it safely without leading to excessive driver fatigue should be relatively easy as we have so much technology and resources available to us today.

Finally, Keppler suggested an interesting process: developing a systematic system for periodically reviewing and evaluating HOS rules for relevance and whether they are having the desired effects (i.e. crash reduction). Basically, then, instead of having to go back and rewrite the rules, they can be adjusted based upon the ongoing collection of real-world data – that would make the rules more relevant and adaptable to changing conditions, one would think.

It’s a lot to chew on, no doubt, but as this HOS revision effort marks the third time in a decade the FMCSA has tackled it, they are well worth considering.

“My wife told me, ‘Life’s been good to us. We need to do more.’” –Dave Thompson, president and CEO of truck dealership chain TEC Equipment

In a way, a truck technician started it all, Dave Thompson told me yesterday. One of the many hard-working wrench turners at his company’s main shop in Portland, Oregon, asked Thompson what TEC Equipment, Inc., was doing to help the Haitian earthquake relief efforts. Not much, he recalled, so Thompson called down to his human resources department to see what ideas they had.

“We discussed the usual things – linking to a charity web site so people could donate money if they wished,” he explained to me. Yet Thompson felt that he needed to carry the standard on any such effort, so he wrote a note on his official stationary saying he’d match employee donations up to $5,000. Then he went home and told his wife about TEC’s charity plan.

“My wife told me, ‘Life’s been good to us. We need to do more.’ And she was right,” he told me. So he called back and upped the ante to a $10,000 match.

Indeed, Thompson (seen at left standing in the black jacket) can afford it because he’s done well. TEC stands for “Thompson Equipment Company” and rightly so. From one small shop in 1976, today TEC has 12 locations strategically located along the west coast’s I-5 corridor including Portland, Wilsonville, Eugene and Medford, OR, Oakland, CA, three locations in the Los Angeles area and one in Reno-Sparks, NV. It’s become one of the most well-recognized full service truck dealership groups out on the West Coast, with franchises for Mack, Volvo and GMC trucks along with authorized service centers for Autocar and Cummins & CAT engines.

So good has TEC’s business been that it purchased a corporatel jet – a Cessna Citation Encore – and they don’t come cheap. While many might disdain such a plane, viewing it as “unnecessary frill” in these hard economic times, TEC’s jet suddenly took on a very different role as TEC’s charity effort quickly gained speed.

“I came into the office the next day and the phone was literally ringing off the hook from our branches; all the employees were excited to get on board with our Haiti charity drive,” he told me. “Then one of my managers point blank asked me; ‘What about the plane?’ I honestly hadn’t thought about it, so he said we should see if a charity could use it.”

But Thompson didn’t think TEC’s jet would find many takers – indeed, Haiti’s lone airstrip is so overcrowded that U.S. Air Force plans are air-dropping relief supplies directly into Haiti’s countryside because the airport in Port-au-Prince is so jammed. But Thompson made a call anyway – and wasn’t surprised by the response.

“I called one charity and they basically told me my plane offer would just be a hassle; in essence, a ‘thanks but no thanks’ reply,” he explained to me. Pretty surprising, since a round trip jaunt from Portland, Oregon, to Haiti is nearly 7,000 miles (some 3,421 miles one way) and would cost him $35,000 in fuel and operational costs alone.

But he’d hung up the phone no more than 15 minutes when suddenly a call came through Medical Teams International – an organization similar to Doctors Without Borders. They told Thompson they’d heard he had offered up a free flight to Haiti and was that offer still good? “I couldn’t believe this; I told the guy I had just hung up with another charity that rejected it and he said, ‘Yes, a wife of one of our staffers works there and overheard it and called us immediately – we could really use that plane.’”

So that’s how Thompson ended up volunteering to pilot the TEC corporate jet to Port-au-Prince to transport a Medical Teams International squad of seven doctors, nurses and health professionals and their supplies. His employees are pledging and raising money to pay for the costs of the round trip flight including 4,000 gallons of jet fuel.

“Everyone at TEC Equipment wanted to go beyond simply donating money to Medical Teams International and their relief efforts,” Thompson said. “We feel our donation of jet transportation is invaluable to their work. The contribution from our employees has been overwhelming.”

Thompson’s mercy flight leaves this morning from Aurora, Oregon, and will stop overnight in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, before heading to Haiti first thing Thursday morning. He already has a landing slot arranged in Port-au-Prince – Slot 592 for humanitarian airlift – courtesy of the U.S. Air Force.

“This Air Force Sergeant called up me up and gave me this slot, telling me that I had a window of 20 minutes before and 20 minutes after my 9:15 a.m. Haiti time landing time,” Thompson related. “Otherwise, if I missed it, I’d be put in a holding pattern or diverted.” Needless to say, Thompson plans to be on time.

The story doesn’t end here, however.

After the flight had been arranged, Thompson found himself back home, sitting in the kitchen reading a book while his wife watched CNN. “We almost never watch the television,” he said. “It was on because we were following the crisis in Haiti.”

Then, out of the blue, a story came on about a Portland, Oregon, couple who had just adopted a Haitian baby right before the earthquake hit – and were thus unable to find a way to bring her home. Thompson’s wife immediately pulled him from the kitchen and the next thing he knew, he was calling the local CNN affiliate for more information.

So now, if luck is with them, Thompson won’t be flying home empty on his return journey from Haiti. He has two hours on the ground to meet up with this couple’s adopted child and get her on board the TEC jet for a flight back to her new home. “It’s tough, because there’s no phone service – wireless or otherwise,” he said. “But we’ve got a satellite phone on the plane so we are hoping – really hoping – we can connect with the orphanage and make this happen.”

Sure, it’s but one small child plucked from a sea of misery – a country with over 200,000 dead and 1.5 million left homeless by one of the deadliest earthquakes ever to hit the Caribbean. But then again, it’s still one life rescued from a terrible tragedy.

Good luck, Dave. We wish you and the doctors you are transporting good speed and good fortune for the good works you’re embarking upon.

“Our job is to respond quickly and get supplies to those who need it most … but it’s not an easy task in Haiti.” –John Vera, health & safety manager for United Parcel Service‘s Americas Region

It’s difficult to truly comprehend the extent of the horror occurring in Haiti right now: 200,00-plus dead, their bodies decaying in the rubble; the lack and food, water, shelter, and medical care that’s making life almost unendurable for the survivors; and the grim recognition that it may take over a decade for one of the most impoverished countries on earth to regain even the wretched pittance that existed before an earthquake registering 7.0 of the Richter scale made everything so much worse.

[You can see what the devastation looks like in the clip below, from video shot by Reuters and shown on CBS News. There’s an 11-second advertisement before the film starts rolling and I caution you, it’s not pretty.]

And yet … U.S. logisticians are ready to go to Haiti, knowing full well the terrible tragedy that awaits them; ready to do what they can to try and bring that country back to a semblance of normalcy.

John Vera is one such person; health & safety manager for United Parcel Service‘s Americas Region that serves on one of the World Food Programme’s (WFP) Logistics Emergency Teams (LETs). He’s down in Miami, FL, right now, awaiting word from the WFP as to when and where he and his fellow LET members go into action on Haiti.

I talked with Vera late Friday and you could already tell the waiting was getting to him. The earthquake that hit Haiti Jan. 13 – generating more energy than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, according to experts – wreaked havoc not only on the 9.7 million human population but on that nation’s infrastructure, already brittle at best.

The airport at the country’s only major city, Port-au-Prince, is hopelessly jammed – so much so that one U.S. Air Force C-17 transport flying from North Carolina dropped more than 55,000 pounds of supplies, including 6,900 bottles of water and more than 42,000 packets of combat rations, about five miles northeast of Port-au-Prince.

Capt. John Kirby, a spokesman for the U.S. Joint Task Force Haiti, told CNN that “literally hundreds” of flights are trying to land at Port-au-Prince airfield – and airport, however, that has “one tarmac, one runway, one ramp for all the aircraft.”

“It is a sheer volume issue,” he told CNN. “There are more planes that want to land here than we can accommodate in any given hour.”

That’s the biggest problem LETs face, UPS’s Vera told me; you’re trying to transport vitally needed humanitarian aid to a place that lacks the very means necessary to support effective transportation of any kind.

“Many of the major roads in Haiti aren’t even paved; most of them are dirt roads,” he said. “It’s difficult to get trucks out of the city to get the relief supplies where they are needed most.”

Vera is no stranger to any of this, either; he’s been to Haiti before two years ago when that island nation got slammed by hurricanes and flooding. “The level of poverty in Haiti is truly eye-opening,” he said, his calm words belying what must have been a huge shock. “I’ve been all over the world working for UPS; I’ve been to a lot of rough spots. But Haiti is one of the poorest places I’ve ever seen.”

He recounted watching a 5-year child trudging home one evening, struggling to pull two one-gallon cans of kerosene necessary to help cook food. “It’s so disheartening to see that,” he told me.

Yet even amid such desolation – made all the worse by epic natural disasters – the human spirit never failed to rise to the occasion, Vera stressed.

“We came in off the choppers [helicopters] one day to deliver relief supplies, and I saw this 13 year old boy sitting there,” he recalled. “I had this snack bag of chips, so I called him over and gave them to him. He got very teary eyed and thanked me – then proceeded to share the contents of that snack mix with as many people as he could.”

Vera is still struck but the selflessness of a teenager – obviously hungry, if not malnourished – sharing a gift of food he could readily have kept to himself. “It didn’t matter how dire the situation was; that kid had enough heart to share. That confirmed to me there’s still a lot of hope left for humanity.”

That’s why the waiting is so grueling – knowing the aid and logistics expertise is ready to go, but the situation on the ground might not allow it to get delivered.

“That’s the biggest challenge in the emergency logistics world – you want to go head first, full blast forward, to get the job done; to get the aid delivered,” Vera told me. “But you MUST remember to go slow. You need to keep an open mind; listen to the expertise that’s been on the ground and the other parties involved. You need to pick the best solution to get the job done right. We’re all there for one reason – to help. We’ve got to make sure we do so.”

He pointed to his experiences on Haiti in 2008 as an example. “First and foremost, you’ve got this tremendous series of language barriers – not just the Haiti form of French, mind you, but the Italians, Germans, Pakistanis and whomever else might be on the ground,” Vera explained. “We all must communicate to get the job done – that can be a tremendous difficulty.”

The key, however, is focusing on the mission, Vera found. “We were using Ukrainian helicopters and crews to airlift supplies in the countryside when I was in Haiti before,” he said. “Sure, we could barely understand each other – but within a week we all knew how to communicate to do what we needed to do. We were there to help the Haitians, so we figured out as way to get it done.”

The LETs initiative involves providing “loaned” logistics experts to oversee on-site disaster response, normally for a deployment of three-to-six months, comprised of individuals from UPS, TNT Logistics, DHL, Agility Logistics, and others – all picked for their a wide range of expertise covering air and ground transportation, warehousing, etc.

[The clip below details TNT’s LET involement with relief efforts in Darfur, Sudan about three years ago now. It shows how difficult conducting such relief efforts are from a logistics perspective.]

Vera said LET training takes about a week – roughly 40 hours – covering everything from security needs, what non-governmental organizations (NGOs) teams work with on the ground, and other details.

LETs are all-volunteer and require a commitment of two years service. One pleasant surprise, he noted, is that while such teams are made up of people from erstwhile competitors in the business world, once they join an LET, all of that gets left behind. “The camaraderie is extraordinary, since in many cases we’re from different cultures with very different senses of humor,” he explained. “But when the goal is helping people in a crisis, all those differences go over the aide.”

Vera (seen here on the left in this photo) related that he draws on his wide-ranging experience at UPS to help find solutions to whatever logistical challenges present themselves. From shipping hazardous materials, working in a cargo warehouse, plus loading and unloading planes, to designing health and safety procedures for all manner of jobs at UPS, Vera’s done a little of everything – but he quickly told me nothing ever goers by the book in situations like Haiti’s.

“We’ve got a very structured way of doing things at UPS – specific methods for performing jobs a certain way,” Vera said. “But when you get on the ground after a natural disaster, a lot of that goes by the wayside. You must to step back, look at the resources you have, and go from there. The biggest benefit from my UPS experience is record retention – always keeping clear documentation of what’s going where and how it’s getting there.”

[Indeed, companies like UPS aren’t just providing logistical expertise – they’re donating money for Haiti’s relief as well. UPS itself has donated more than $1 million in cash and in-kind support to earthquake relief efforts in Haiti through its charitable arm, The UPS Foundation, divided between The American Red Cross, CARE, UNICEF and other organizations that assist with long-term relief activities.]

Still, the waiting is hard – almost the hardest part of a disaster-relief operation of this magnitude, knowing so many lives are at stake but that none might be helped if all you do is make the logistical logjam worse. “Crisis response in Haiti is extraordinarily difficult because the country has little modern infrastructure,” Vera stressed to me. “We got to get all that straightened out before we can go in.”

“We know that cell phone use is a very risky distraction and texting is even higher risk. We now know that cell phone use causes many more crashes than texting. The main reason is that millions more drivers use cell phones than text. That is why we need to address both texting and cell phone use on our roads.” –Janet Froetscher, president & CEO of the National Safety Council

So, the National Safety Council (NSC) estimates at least 28% of all traffic crashes – some 1.6 million per year – are caused by drivers using cell phones and texting. The NSC further estimates that 1.4 million crashes each year are caused by drivers using cell phones, with a further 200,000 additional crashes annually caused by drivers who are texting.

In constructing these estimates, NSC said it used widely-accepted statistical methods and analysis based on data of driver cell phone use from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and from peer-reviewed research that quantifies the risk of using a cell phone and texting while driving. The group added that its statistical model and estimates were peer-reviewed by academic researchers in traffic safety and biostatistics.

The estimate of 25% of all crashes – or 1.4 million crashes – caused by cell phone use was derived from NHTSA data showing 11% of drivers at any one time are using cell phones and from peer-reviewed research reporting cell phone use increases crash risk by four times. The minimum 3% of crashes – or 200,000 crashes – caused by texting comes from NHTSA data showing 1% of drivers at any one time are manipulating their device in ways that include texting and from research reporting texting increases crash risk by eight times.

Using the highest risk for texting reported by research of 23 times results in a maximum of 1 million crashes due to texting; still less than the 1.4 million crashes caused by other cell phone use, NSC said. How many highway fatalities and injuries those crashes result in isn’t addressed in the group’s research, but one can insinuate that the numbers are not small.

Now, a lot of truckers are probably rolling their eyes at all of this – lord knows, I’ve done it myself in this very space. But this issue of distracted driving is extremely important to the trucking community – not so much for the distraction cell phone/texting use among its own community of drivers, but how such distractions among the larger population of everyday motorists impacts truckers.

About four years ago, Craig Harper, then an executive vp for Lowell, AR-based truckload carrier J.B. Hunt, stated that truck-car accident research done by the AAA Foundation and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) revealed that blame for the truck-car crash fatality rate is largely the fault of motorists, not truck drivers.

“The AAA study found that in 73% of the truck-car crashes studied, no unsafe act on the part of the truck driver caused the accident,” he said at the time.

Other crash research Harper pointed to showed that car drivers are four times more likely to rear end a truck than truckers are to rear end cars; are 10 times more likely to crash into a truck head on than vice versa; are three times more likely to speed in poor road conditions (such as rain) than truck drivers; and are eight times more likely to be involved in crashes involving drowsiness than truckers.

Now, add distracted driving to that dangerous mix and you can see how such behaviors behind the wheel can make a bad situation worse on our roadways.