Transcript Proposal for Revised Electronic Device Standards

Sources: National Safety Council, WHO, NHTSA Publications, and Governor’s Highway
Safety Association
1
Global Road Safety…Magnitude of the Problem
If nothing is done, road traffic crashes will move from #9 to #5 cause of death.
•
•
•
•
•
•
1.3 million deaths
20-50 million
non-fatal injuries
30% work-related
Expected to get
worse
Particularly in
LMICs where J&J
conducts
business
The world is
unprepared
NA – 8,739
EMEA – 14,949
AP – 6,520
LAC – 3,327
• 33,534 vehicles
• >657 million miles
•
•
•
•
Passenger Vehicles
Two-Wheelers
Leased, Company Owned
Employee Owned (allowance)

J&J’s way of protecting employees, families, customers and
communities from injury on the road.

Addresses the most hazardous occupation at J&J – driving on
company business.
 Since 1987, every work-related fatality has been associated with
vehicle use or air travel.
 Leading cause of LWDCs in non-operations areas.

Facilitates meeting our Credo responsibility for a safe workplace in
the company vehicle.
4



The current J&J Worldwide Fleet Safety Mobile Phone policy prohibits
hand-held mobile phone use while operating a company vehicle (or
personal vehicle with a car allowance).
J&J affiliates in the following countries have in place full mobile phone
bans (both hand-held and hands-free use while driving is prohibited):
 U.S./Puerto Rico – full ban
 Canada – full ban
 UK – full ban
 France – full ban
 Pakistan – full ban
 Russia – full ban
We are concerned for the safety of all our drivers and communities
where we live and work. A policy that we believe will reduce the risk of
injury or fatality to our drivers or other road users should be consistent
throughout the corporation, regardless of where our driver is based.
5
J&J employees or Authorized drivers may not use hand-held
or hands-free mobile electronic devices while operating a
motor vehicle under any of the following situations:
 When the employee or Authorized Driver is operating a vehicle, whether on
company business or on personal time, that is owned or leased by J&J or
operating a rental vehicle paid for by J&J.
 When an employee is driving a personal vehicle, for which he/she receives
financial subsidy (monthly allowance), in the course of company business.
Employees in this category are generally regarded as part of the “fleet”
audience and may include sales, marketing, service, clinical and other fieldbased representatives, or management personnel who are eligible for a
company vehicle.
6

The National Safety Council estimates that at least 24% of crashes in 2010
involved drivers using cell phones:
 1.1 million crashes where drivers were talking on cell phones
 160,000 crashes where drivers were texting instead of focusing on driving


Cognitive attention to driving can become secondary to a phone
conversation
When driving becomes a secondary task for the brain, driving becomes
impaired resulting in:
 Inattention blindness (drivers “look but don’t see”)
 Tunnel vision (tendency to look straight ahead)
 Decrease in brain activation


The risk of a crash increases fourfold when a person is using a mobile
phone – regardless of hand-held or hands-free.
More than 30 research studies have found that hands-free devices offer
no safety benefit as they do not eliminate the cognitive distraction of the
conversation.
7
Companies that have instituted full ban Mobile Phone Policies:
Exxon Mobil
Shell
Chevron
BP
 3M
 Abbott (in process of implementing worldwide ban)
 GlaxoSmithKline
 UPS
 DuPont
 Time Warner Cable




8


Productivity concerns are often cited as a common barrier to
total ban policies as evident in the results of the 2012 J&J
Mobile Phone Survey.
Among companies with policies prohibiting both hand-held
and hands-free devices, productivity decreases are rare:
 2009 survey of 469 National Safety Council members that had
implemented total cell phone bans, only 1% reported that productivity
decreased.
 2010 survey of Fortune 500 companies that had implemented total cell
phone bans, only 7% of respondents said productivity decreased, while
19% thought productivity had actually increased.
9
10
Companies that are committed to safety excellence know
that their safety systems and policies often exceed
regulations because they often prescribe minimum
standards, not best-in-class safety.
 Designing safety policies that only comply with country
regulations often leave employees vulnerable to injury and
employers vulnerable to liability.
 Knowing the risks and allowing cell phone use may be viewed
as negligent and willful.
 An employer may be held legally accountable for negligent
employee actions if the employee was acting within the
scope of his or her employment, or using an employer
provided vehicle or phone at the time of a crash.

11
May 31, 2012
Coca Cola Clarifies Details Regarding Lawsuit In
Distracted Driving Case
Coca Cola issued a statement and provided clarification regarding the details of
the case where a jury awarded $21 million to Vanice Chatman-Wilson, an
individual whose automobile was reportedly struck by a Coca Cola employee
driving a company-owned vehicle.
The company said the Coca Cola driver, Araceli Venessa Cabral, was driving a
car, not a truck, and worked in a sales role, rather than as a delivery driver, as
originally reported by law firm Thomas J. Henry Injury Attorneys. The original
statement by the law firm described the incident as a “trucking accident case
involving a distracted delivery driver.” In addition, a Coca Cola spokesperson
said the driver was using a hands-free device at the time of the accident, not a
cell phone.
12
 SAFE Fleet Survey sent to all drivers in EMEA, LAC, AP to obtain input
regarding mobile phone use/behavior and opinions about mobile phone
policies.
 6,478 respondents /26% response rate
 Survey sent out in 14 languages
 Key Findings:
 97% of respondents use a mobile phone for company business
 50% use a hands-free mobile phone while driving 1-10 times per day
 44% of drivers admit to complying to the WW Cell Phone policy with occasional
lapses
 46% of drivers said they feel their productivity will be somewhat impacted by a
total ban, 32% believe it will not make an impact at all, 22% believe it will
dramatically impact their productivity
 39% of drivers believe J&J should have a policy banning both hand held and
hands-free devices, however 34% stated NO because it’s not enforceable and
people will use their phone anyway
13
14

Driver Distraction is the diversion of attention away
from activities critical for safe driving towards a
competing activity.

Distracted driving is not restricted to high-income
countries.

Action needs to be taken globally.
* Mobile Phone Use: A Growing Problem of Driver Distraction (WHO, NHTSA)
15
 Visual – eyes on the road
 Mechanical – hands on the wheel
 Cognitive – mind on driving
 More than “eyes on the road, hands on the
wheel.”
 Visual and mechanical distractions can be
short-lived.
 Cognitive distractions tend to last longer.
16

When brains are overloaded by two cognitive tasks, people
switch attention (without realizing it)
 One task becomes primary; the other task becomes secondary

Cognitive attention to driving can become secondary to a
phone conversation

When driving becomes a secondary task for the brain, driving
becomes impaired resulting in:
 Inattention blindness (drivers “look but don’t see”)
 Tunnel vision (tendency to look straight ahead)
 Decrease in brain activation
17
18



Role of Mobile Phones in Motor Vehicle
Crashes Resulting in Hospital Attendance.
Based on study by Suzanne P. McAvoy, Mark
R. Stevenson, Anne T. McCartt, et al 2004
Findings:
 Likelihood of crashing increases by 4x
 Risk was elevated regardless of whether a hand-
held or hands-held device was used.
19

Hands-free devices do not reduce crash risk
 National Safety Council
 National Transportation Safety Board
 World Health Organization
 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
 Governors Highway Safety Association


30+ studies reported substantial negative effects of cellphone use on driving tasks for hand held and hands-free
phones.
Similar effects in reaction time, speed, headway, and lateral
lane position, for both hand-held and hands-free phones.
20


A decrease in brain activation is associated
with driving and listening.
Based on a study by Carnegie Mellon
University, Center for Cognitive Brain Imaging
- 2008
21
The parietal activation associated with driving
decreases substantially (by 37%) with sentence
listening.
22






Most European countries have legislation banning the use of handheld devices while driving.
In October of 2010, Morocco increased the penalty associated with
the use of hand-held phones.
Portugal extended bans on mobile phones to include hands-free
kits.
The state of New Delhi has extended the ban on mobile phones
when driving to include use with a hands-free unit and text
messaging.
Some countries ban all young or inexperienced drivers from mobile
phone use.
All states and territories in Australia ban the use of mobile handheld phones while the vehicle is moving (or stationary, but not
parked).
23



Hand-Held Cell Phone Use Laws: 10 states, D.C., Guam and the Virgin
Islands prohibit all drivers from using handheld cell phones while driving.
Except for Maryland and West Virginia (until July 2013), all laws are
primary enforcement—an officer may cite a driver for using a handheld
cell phone without any other traffic offense taking place.
All Cell Phone Use: No state bans all cell phone use for all drivers, but
many prohibit use by certain subsets:
 32 states and D.C. ban all cell phone use by novice drivers.
 School bus drivers in 19 states and D.C. may not use a cell phone when
passengers are present.
Text Messaging: 39 states, D.C., Guam and the Virgin Islands ban text
messaging for all drivers. All but 4 have primary enforcement.
 An additional 5 states prohibit text messaging by novice drivers.
 3 states restrict school bus drivers from texting.
24

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Recommendation
 In December of 2011, the NTSB recommended that all 50 states and DC enact
complete bans of all portable electronic devices for all drivers – including banning
the use of hands-free devices. “The data are clear; the time to act is now. How
many more lives will be lost before we, as a society, change our attitudes about
the deadliness of distractions?” (NTSB Chairwoman Deborah Hersman)
 In October of 2011, the NTSB recommended a total ban for commercial drivers.

Federal Railroad Association (FRA) Ban
 In September of 2010, the FRA published a final rule banning the use of any
electronic device by railroad operating employees.

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (HMSA) Ban
 In November of 2011, the FMCSA and the HMSA banned interstate commercial
motor vehicle drivers and drivers of vehicles hauling hazardous materials from
using hand-held electronic devices.
25

Executive Order 13513
 President Obama issued Executive Order 13513 prohibiting all
government employees and federal contractors from texting while driving
government vehicles on official government business or while using
government-supplied equipment.
26
• The National Safety Council today is calling on motorists to stop using cell
phones and messaging devices while driving, and is urging businesses to
enact policies prohibiting it and governors and legislators in all 50 states
and the District of Columbia to pass laws banning the behavior. (January
12, 2009)
27
Companies that are committed to safety excellence
know that their safety systems and policies often
exceed regulations because they often prescribe
minimum standards, not best-in-class safety.
 Designing safety policies that only comply with
country regulations often leave employees
vulnerable to injury and employers vulnerable to
liability.
 Knowing the risks and allowing cell phone use may
be viewed as negligent and willful.

28
According to a 2010 National Safety Council survey
of Fortune 500 companies, one in five companies
had a policy in place banning cell phone use while
driving.
 20% had total cell phone bans.
 22% with total bans said they experienced decreases
in crash rates and property damage.

29
30
2012 IPMM Target < 0.20
43 recordable
injuries
33,534 vehicles
658 million miles
2 fatalities
1 fatality
1 fatality*
1 fatality**
Note: Worldwide IPMM data become available starting in 2005. In 2009, we enhanced injury reporting for the US fleet
to include only recordable injuries, in alignment with Worldwide Fleet Safety reporting standards.
* Personal 2-Wheeler (Fleet – Car Allowance) ** Personal Vehicle (Non-Fleet)
2012 CPMM Target < 5.30
2015 CPMM Target < 4.70
3,862 crashes
35,382 vehicles
795 million miles
10.9% vehicles in crashes
3,832 crashes
33,534 vehicles
658 million miles
11.4% vehicles in crashes
2013 Target: Focus on all teams reducing their CPMMs by at least 10%.
33
May 31, 2012
Coca Cola Clarifies Details Regarding Lawsuit In
Distracted Driving Case
Coca Cola issued a statement and provided clarification regarding the details of
the case where a jury awarded $21 million to Vanice Chatman-Wilson, an
individual whose automobile was reportedly struck by a Coca Cola employee
driving a company-owned vehicle.
The company said the Coca Cola driver, Araceli Venessa Cabral, was driving a
car, not a truck, and worked in a sales role, rather than as a delivery driver, as
originally reported by law firm Thomas J. Henry Injury Attorneys. The original
statement by the law firm described the incident as a “trucking accident case
involving a distracted delivery driver.” In addition, a Coca Cola spokesperson
said the driver was using a hands-free device at the time of the accident, not a
cell phone.
34
June 06, 2012|By the CNN Wire Staff
Massachusetts teen convicted of homicide in
texting-while-driving case
TEXT-MESSAGING
In a landmark case for the state, Aaron Deveau, 18, was found guilty
on charges of vehicular homicide, texting while driving and
negligent operation of a motor vehicle in a 2011 crash that fatally
injured Donald Bowley, 55, of Danville, New Hampshire, and
seriously injured a passenger in Bowley's car.
35




Employers have an obligation to protect their employees (no matter
where they live or work) and others with whom they share the roads.
The risk of a crash increases fourfold when a person is using a mobile
phone – regardless of hand-held or hands-free.
More than 30 research studies have found that hands-free devices offer
no safety benefit as they do not eliminate the cognitive distraction of the
conversation.
Based on available science and research studies, the safest action for
employers is to implement a total ban mobile phone policy.
36
s
37
38
Overview
 Johnson & Johnson conducted a survey across their sales and service fleets in the EMEA, LAC
and AP regions to gain a better understanding of the mobile phone use of employees while
driving.
 The survey design allowed participants to be categorized by region, business segment, role,
age, etc… The majority of the questions dealt with mobile phone use by J&J employees
during the work day. The intended goal was aimed at better understanding:
 How mobile phones are used during the day.
 The employee’s dependency.
 Is distracted driving a road safety issue.
 Compliancy to the J&J mobile phone policy.
 Changes needed to the policy.
 Should J&J ban all mobile phone use while driving?
 The final count of respondents for the Johnson and Johnson mobile survey was 6,478.
The survey was presented in fourteen different languages in an effort to capture the
broadest population of J&J employees.
39

While many of the participants answered the survey questions as expected some responses
were surprising, some unexpected and some contradictory. We do however believe the
questions were answered honestly since the survey respondents were completely
anonymous. The following tables provide the cumulative results for each of the questions.
We have provided commentary and input on questions where we found interesting results.
The tan shaded rows reflect the highest response rate in each question category.


Survey Summary
Select a region.
 52% of respondents answered EMEA
Please choose your sector.
 49% designated Pharma
Please Select your age group.
 59% were in the 26-40 range
Please let us know what job role you are in.
 68% selected Sales & Marketing
Do you use a mobile phone for company business?
 97% answered Yes




40




On a daily basis, I have used a hands-free mobile phone while driving;
 50% admit to using mobile phones 1 to 10 times a day.
Do you consider Distracted Driving through the use of a mobile phone as
a serious road safety issue?
 76% agree that it is a danger.
How compliant are you with the J&J WW policy around mobile phone
use?
 44% report; I comply most of the time, with the occasional lapses.
What are your principal reasons for complying with the Worldwide J&J
mobile phone policy? –
 68% state; I think using a mobile phone while driving is a dangerous
distraction and could lead to a crash and/or could injure someone.
41




To prevent people from driving while distracted using a mobile phone,
Johnson & Johnson should have a policy banning the use of both handsfree and hand-held mobile phones:
 39% stated Yes
 while 34% selected; No, because it is not enforceable and people will
still use their phones anyway.
If Johnson & Johnson were to ban the use of hand held and hands-free
mobile phone devices while driving, how would your productivity be
impacted:
 46% admit that they would be “somewhat impacted”
Johnson & Johnson should continue to provide awareness and training
materials on the subject of distracted driving:
87% agree that; Yes, this information is always of value and serves as a
good reminder See Appendix for additional comments submitted by
respondents.
42