Session No.

520

Achieving Support for Driver Risk Management Solutions

In a Union Environment
Del Lisk
Vice President Safety Services
Lytx, Inc.
San Diego, CA

Introduction
The subject of this paper is Achieving Support for Driver Risk Management Solutions in a Union
Environment. The term driver risk management solutions could be applied to several different
solutions. As we use this term in this paper, we are specifically referring to driver monitoring
solutions that include the use of in-cab video to improve driver behavior.
First, heres a little background on how this driver risk management solution works. At
Lytx, Inc. (formerly known as DriveCam), our clients deploy in-cab video technology as a means
to improve driving, as well as capture the truth if an incident occurs. The video camera is
commonly affixed to the windshield and is loop recording in front, as well as inside, the vehicle.
When the vehicle experiences unusual force, such as hard braking or swerving, the device is
triggered to save the 8 seconds of video and audio before the moment of force, as well as an
additional 4 seconds afterward. The net result is a video that reveals what happened and why. This
video, which we refer to as an event, may then be uploaded to our review center where it is
reviewed and assessed for risk. Events with a significant level of concern are then directed to the
client for driver coaching via a web platform. The following diagram illustrates the process.

This behavior-based solution has been proven to reduce risky driving as well as vehicle
collisions and their associated costs. For example, a study funded by the Federal Motor Carriers
Safety Administration (FMCSA) found that the two fleets in the study reduced risky driving
behaviors by 52% and 37% respectively. In the first, after the San Francisco Municipal Transit
Authority (SFMTA) installed the solution in their 800 buses, vehicle collisions were reduced from
964 to 483a 50 percent reduction in incidents.

The IssueLabor Concerns

Despite the proven safety benefits, there can be initial resistance from fleet drivers, particularly in
union workforces where relations with management may be contentious. Its understandable. After
all, for most of these employees, getting behind the wheel was a place where they could get away
from being supervised and they were pretty much on their own. Technologies such as in-cab video
are changing this and people tend to naturally resist change.
When drivers are interviewed, most of the questions or concerns usually relate to how the
technology works or how it will impact their job security. Here are a few of the common questions
and concerns:

Are they being captured on video continuously? No. Its an exception-based technology
that only saves video when triggered by unusual driver force.

Can a manager look in live? No. The technology does not have this capability.
Why does it also save audio? Audio can be critical in understanding what happened if a
collision occurs. Was a horn sounded in warning? Could an emergency vehicle siren be
heard? Can we hear skidding or air brakes being applied?
How does it benefit them? It will improve how you drive and protects against false
statements and fraudulent claims by others if you are involved in a collision.
Is this just an excuse to penalize employees? No. The program is intended as a coaching
and improvement tool. The goal is to make drivers safer.

Methodology of the Paper

Lytx has now deployed this solution in over 500 fleets, protecting several hundred thousand
drivers, including many union members. Our customers have learned to navigate the waters to
work through the issues and get this important safety solution installed in both their union and nonunion sites. We interviewed two of our customers on this topic to get their insights on best
practices and lessons learned. In both cases, we have left out the company names. The following
are highlights from those interviews.

Case Study #1
Background: This is a fleet of several thousand trucks doing mostly local deliveries nation-wide.
They have a mix of union and non-union sites.
Getting Started: The Vice President of Safety had been interested in the solution for quite a
while before deciding to pilot the program at about 100 trucks split between two non-union sites.
There were union sites with much poorer safety results, but the feeling was that it would be better
to start with non-union sites and then move to the other locations. Results from the pilot program
were exceptional, and that provided the validation needed to move forward with rolling out to the
entire fleet.
One of the key steps for the roll out was to sit down with the internal Labor Relations team to
discuss the implementation proposal and ensure there were no limitations in labor contracts that
could have an impact. Management usually has appropriate latitude in the area of safety and safety
tools, so Labor Relations did not anticipate there would be contractual barriers. However, it would
be appropriate to meet with leadership of the various local unions to explain the safety initiative
and begin a dialogue.
One of the areas that came up in discussions with labor had to do with discipline for policy
violations. Policies were already in place with clear consequences for behaviors such as using a
hand-held cell phone while driving or carrying unauthorized passengers. But would these
consequences still apply when identified on video? A few local unions argued that these
consequences should only be applied when it was directly observed by management, not through
use of the video technology. Managements position was that they had to enforce policy and why
would it matter if it was directly observed or through video? Common ground was established
during discussions. Both the union and the company wanted to improve the safety of the driver.
However, the union was concerned a driver with ingrained bad habits could get immediately

disciplined before having time to change his or her behavior. They came to a compromise by
agreeing to a grace period when the program kicked off. During the first 30-60 days, drivers
identified on video with risky behavior would be coached but discipline would not be applied.
Discipline for policy violations only kicked in once the grace period expired.
Another key step was to work with Human Resources to develop an effective communications
plan. Some of the key elements within this plan included:

Identifying the roles and responsibilities for each stakeholder in the program
Ensuring each stakeholder received training, and complete/accurate information about the
program
Assuring that all levels of management received guidance on how to respond to questions
from drivers as well as representatives from labor

Along with the inclusion of Human Resources and Labor Relations, it was critical that
Operations understand and support the program. As they were the direct link to the driver, the
program would not succeed without their engagement. In this organization, each site was its own
profit and loss center. If a traffic incident occurred, an allocation or reserve was charged back to
that site. Using the actual savings achieved at the two pilot sites due to accident reduction the
deployment team calculated the savings for each additional site if they accomplished similar
results. These projected savings were significant and helped to get Operations on board.
One key turning point in driver acceptance was when one of their trucks collided with a bus at
an intersection. It was a classic he said/she said incident. Our clients driver stated he had the
green light; the bus driver claimed it was the truck driver who ran the red. Fortunately, the video
proved our clients driver had the green and he was exonerated; the bus company had to pay for
damages. Word spread about the video protecting the driver, and attitudes began to change. This
driver subsequently agreed to provide a video testimonial about the incident which was then shown
to drivers at new sites as the program was being implemented.

Case Study #2
Background: This client is a large transit operation with several sites that are unionized.
Getting Started: The DriveCam program was initially rolled out with a heavy corporate hand,
and limited communication to drivers, coaches and other staff. Supervisors received limited
training, and were not fully prepped on how to deal with driver and union questions and concerns.
At the same time, they were under a lot of pressure to reduce incidents at their sites. The result of
this launch plan was supervisors who had mixed feelings about the program and were not fully
supportive.
The system this client put in place was mostly punitive. Supervisors only talked to drivers and
shared videos when it was based on a negative event, not to reinforce positive behavior and safe
driving. The method this company chose for measuring driver performance only measured what
drivers were doing poorly. It was a debit systemyou could only get worse in the program. There
was no mechanism to measure and recognize how well drivers were doing or how they were
improving.

At the three-year mark of the DriveCam program, collisions had been reduced by about 20%
but they had expected more and the program had a negative reputation in the field. Unions were not
supportive and labor grievances related to consequences to drivers related to the program was
common. At this point, the company took a hard look at the program and decided to do a relaunch. In effect, they treated it as if it was a new program and no one knew anything about it. In
this re-launch, they worked with Human Resources and Labor Relations to develop a new program
that included both a reasonable disciplinary program, but also a mechanism to identify and
reward high performing drivers. They met again with unions to share and refine these strategies.
Location managers and supervisors were re-trained on how to effectively coach drivers and answer
common questions and concerns. Driver orientation sessions were held at each location to explain
the technology, the program and opportunities for recognition and rewards.
During the re-launch, management were amazed to find out how much mis-information there
was about the DriveCam program. For instance, some drivers still thought management could look
in on them live and that video was recording and saving each drivers entire shift. Had the relaunch and subsequent driver orientation sessions not occurred, these myths would have continued
to exist and been a formidable barrier to improving driver acceptance.
After the re-launch there is now solid support from managers in the field, driver perception is
much better, and results are improving.
The company now has monthly recognition and annual driver awards tied to the program based
on performance in leading indicators such as:

Drivers with the fewest number of risky events

Most improved driver in the program
Supervisors with the biggest reduction of risky driving behaviors for the group of
drivers they manage

By actively listening to the field, they are getting new ideas and continue to evolve the
program.

Conclusions
These two case studies expose some simple best practices that are required to successfully roll out
new safety technologies to drivers.
1. Include key internal stakeholders such as HR, legal and operations in the planning process.
Leverage their knowledge, experience and different perspectives before and during your
roll out.
2. Develop a roll out plan that includes a communications plan to all stakeholders especially
labor.
3. Share your plan with unions in advance so issues can be worked through in advance of
actual deployment.
4. Dont institute new policies in conjunction with the roll-out. Use the new safety technology
to reinforce the expectations already in place.
5. Include a grace period for most behaviors. Change can be difficult. Provide reasonable
time for positive changes to take place before applying discipline.

6. Have a balanced approach with recognition and rewards for high achievers as well as
coaching, training and discipline, if necessary, for drivers who are demonstrating driving
dangerously.
7. Broadcast the positives such as collisions where the technology served to exonerate the
driver who otherwise may have been falsely blamed.
As was demonstrated by the second company, dont be afraid to go back to the drawing board
if it appears the program is off track.
Safety technologies that make drivers safer and more efficient are evolving quickly. These
technologies need to be embraced by management and drivers because they prevent crashes, reduce
claims and fleet costs and most importantly save lives. Learn from the mistakes of others and apply
the best practices from other fleets experiences to successfully deploy these technologies within
your own fleet.