Out Loud Blog

I’m going to be honest with you: I think the National Transportation Safety Board has a long road (pun intended) ahead of it if it expects states to ban all calling, texting, Web browsing and other activities performed on any type of personal electronic device while behind the wheel. And I’m going to take what might be a fairly unpopular view and say: I support a ban.

The recommendation calls for the 50 states and the District of Columbia to ban the nonemergency use of portable electronic devices (other than those designed to support the driving task) for all drivers.

David Strayer, Ph.D., a distracting driving researcher and the director of the University of Utah’s Applied Cognition Lab, told EHS Today that he thinks NTSB’s recommendations “are spot on,” adding, “Talking on a phone, or texting, or using GPS, or looking at your screen or using Facebook are significant distractions that are increasing crash risk.”

I’ve been known to talk and drive and even text and drive, but a close call this summer with a wrong-way driver opened my eyes to the danger in which I was placing others and myself. Although the wrong-way driver was clearly, well, wrong, I would have been killed had I been distracted because I was talking on the phone, looking at a GPS or texting. The crash would not have been my fault, but I still would have been dead.

More than 3,000 people lost their lives last year in distraction-related accidents. Globally, there are 5.3 billion mobile phone subscribers, which is 77 percent of the world’s population.

Let’s think back to what we did before cell phones and smart phones dominated our lives. Conversations weren’t limited to two-word texts. We offered the people on the other end of the phone our undivided attention because we weren’t driving at the same time we were talking. We paid attention to the road because we weren’t trying to read and drive at the same time.

As leaders in the safety industry, would we encourage employees to watch television while driving forklifts? Text their spouses while simultaneously operating a drill press? Operate a backhoe while updating their Facebook status? Not in a million years!

So why would it ever be OK for an employee to text, check missed calls or return an email while driving down a highway or a busy street?

As I found out this past summer, danger can come at you suddenly –seemingly out of nowhere – and you won’t see it coming if you’re busy checking in on Foursquare or Tweeting about the latest basketball trade.

Is it reasonable to expect that everyone will put down his or her smart phone? No. But speaking from experience, if you don’t want to die in horrible crashes, it is reasonable to put that phone down until you can give it your undivided attention.

Driving shouldn’t be the distraction that takes our attention away from our work and entertainment. Somehow our priorities have gotten screwed up and it’s time for that to change before more lives are lost.

Some safety professionals struggle to decide where to start when they set out to establish an effective occupational health and safety program. Implementing the components of ANSI Z-10 not only will alleviate the burden of determining where to begin, but also will ensure the implementation of a researched and standardized program.

What is ANSI Z-10?

With its foundation in the “Plan-Do-Check-Act” principle of workplace improvement, ANSI (American National Standards Institute) Z-10 is a voluntary occupational health and safety management system that was developed through the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) and published in 2005.

The standard provides the following basic elements: management leadership and employee participation; program planning; program implementation and operations; program evaluation and corrective actions; and management review. In addition, the standard also addresses risk controls, audits, incident/accident investigations, responsibilities and authorities. Suited for organizations of all sizes and applications, the standard was designed to facilitate sustainable growth in occupational safety and health programs.

The Standard’s Significance

With a primary purpose of providing a management tool that reduces the risk of occupational injuries, illnesses and fatalities, ANSI Z-10 provides a functional approach to program management.

ANSI Z-10 is comparable to other management systems, such as the 1989 federal OSHA safety and health program management guidelines, the National Safety Council’s nine elements of a safety management system, and OHSAS 1800 (published by the British Standards Institute). It also can be integrated with ISO 9000 and ISO 14000. These systems remove the guesswork from OHS program management and provide a tangible and tested approach to program management.

The Importance of Implementation

Since its inception in 2005, ANSI Z-10 has not been largely implemented. I suspect this is because it is a voluntary standard, and unfortunately, many organizations will only implement what they are legally required to (e.g., OSHA-mandated injury and illness prevention programs and hazard communication programs). Implementing the ANSI Z-10 standard, however, will only further augment an existing program and move the organization closer to an incident-free workplace.

Implementing voluntary standards such as ANSI Z-10 helps an organization transition from the historic safety management approach of “We will do only what we are required to do” to the progressive approach of “We will do what is necessary to achieve the greatest amount of success in our OHS programs.”

When it comes to safety, that “greatest amount of success” can sometimes mean the difference between life and death. And that is why every safety professional should be familiar with ANSI Z-10.

EHS Today guest blogger Jason Townsell, CSP, was named the 2010 Future Leader in EHS. He works for AECOM as a program safety manager at San Diego International Airport.

Let’s play the game Catch Phrase for a minute. I’ll give the hints. Ready? Go! Two words. Most the time you feel like you’re getting ripped off. They’re expensive. You don’t really have a choice in the matter. They promise it will only take an hour to finish. They service or fix your vehicle.

OK, time is up. What did you come up with? The answer we’re looking for is “auto mechanic.” If you guessed correctly, you win the prize of reading the rest of this article.

I have nothing against auto mechanics. In fact, I’m somewhat envious of their knowledge of the inner workings of the automobile. Sure, I can change a flat tire or my oil if I’m in a pinch, but that’s it. Otherwise, my descriptions of any truck problems I may have run along the lines of, “It’s making a clicky, clangy, squeaking sound.” I’m embarrassed to admit this, but it’s true. So when a mechanic tells me what might be wrong, I look at him like Albert Einstein’s friends when he came out of his basement and said E=mc2. Sure Albee, whatever you say. $1,000 for a 10-cent plastic piece that could prevent my engine from exploding into a million pieces … who do I make the check out to?

Getting Aligned

Fortunately, I found a really good shop near my house. I needed new tires, which I hear are pretty important, and this particular mechanic informed me that I can continue replacing the tires, but they’ll keep wearing out quickly until I have my tires properly aligned. He was right. I can keep patching up the obvious issues, but unless the root cause of the problem is taken care of, it’s only a matter of time before I’ll need to replace my tires again.

Root Cause Analysis (RCA) in safety is an approach to identifying any and all factors that resulted in an accident or near miss due to certain behaviors, actions or conditions and in which one, if not all, need to be corrected to prevent a similar occurrence in the future. RCA is predicated on the idea that a problem is best corrected or eliminated at the root cause of a particular incident rather than just focusing on the problem’s consequences. Sort of like a doctor treating the cause, and not just the symptoms. This approach usually is much different than our natural tendencies to solve problems in a reactive manner.

In order for RCA to be effective, it needs to be a part of a systematic, in-depth investigation of specific events and timelines that played a part in the accident or incident. There may be more than one factor that resulted in the harmful, destructive outcome. Your analysis should be a part of a fluid and continuous program, as jobsites, people and environments are always changing. Of course, all findings need to be backed up with documentation.

Here’s an example of a very simple RCA system:

>>Describe the incident or event based on the facts, not what you think may have happened.

>>Gather all the pertinent documentation and pictures.

>>Ask the “who” and the “what” questions.

>>Classify your findings into groups. (i.e., People, Environment, Equipment, etc.)

>>Indentify solutions and corrective actions to prevent future events.

>>Implement those solutions and corrective actions into your procedures and trainings.

>>Observe effectiveness of the new changes in your procedures.

>>Continue to monitor.

If your company doesn’t currently have a written investigation program that includes a root cause analysis system, you might want to look into it. Multiple sources are available that can help you find what you’re looking for. It’s worth the investment.

As for my truck’s alignment issue? Thanks to getting to the root, the source of my tires wearing out so fast has been taken care of. Now my truck is easier to maneuver and safer to drive.

Guest blogger Aaron J. Morrow, CHST, works as a project HSE manager and is a safety consultant, an OSHA 500 trainer, a Cal/OSHA 5109 trainer and a construction risk insurance specialist.