Truckers Risk Stiff Fines, Losing Their CDLs by Using Handheld Cellphones While Driving

Truck drivers will face fines of up to $2,750 for using handheld phones while driving and suspension or revocation of their commercial driver licenses for repeat offenses, under a regulation announced last month.

The regulation, which applies to interstate truck and bus drivers and all drivers of hazardous materials, follows an earlier regulation prohibiting texting for commercial drivers.

“When drivers of large trucks, buses and hazardous materials take their eyes off the road for even a few seconds, the outcome can be deadly,” Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement announcing the rule.

“I hope that this rule will save lives by helping commercial drivers stay laser-focused on safety at all times while behind the wheel.”

The ban will take effect 30 days after it is published in the Federal Register, which was scheduled for Dec. 2, after Transport Topics went to press. (Update: The rule will take effect Jan. 3.)

Employers who allow drivers to use handheld phones will face fines of up to $11,000 under the rule, which the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration proposed in December 2010. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposed the hazmat rule in April, and the joint final rule was announced Nov. 23.

“This final rule represents a giant leap for safety,” FMCSA Administrator Anne Ferro said in the statement. “It’s just too dangerous for drivers to use a handheld cellphone while operating a commercial vehicle.”

American Trucking Associations supports the final rule, President Bill Graves said.

“Studies have shown that actions like texting and dialing a phone can greatly increase crash risk, so taking steps to curb these behaviors holds great promise to improve highway safety,” he said in a statement.

The agencies said that studies of distracted driving do not clearly prove whether or not talking on a phone creates a risk. Instead, the agencies determined “that it is the action of taking one’s eyes off the forward roadway to reach for and dial a handheld mobile telephone . . . that has the greatest risk.”

For that reason, the rule also bans reaching for a phone that is out of reach and dialing a phone, but it does not ban hands-free use or using a single button to initiate, answer or end a call.

It also allows a driver to reach for a phone, “provided the device is within the driver’s reach while he or she is in the normal seated position, with the seat belt fastened.”

ATA, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association and some other groups filed comments saying, in part, that the agencies did not clearly define “reaching” in their proposed rules, which also allowed reaching.

The definition in the rule is fair, said Abigail Potter, a safety research analyst with ATA. “If you’re reaching into the sleeper berth, that’s reckless driving,” she told TT.

A larger change the agencies made was to remove the proposed ban on phone use while idling. Commenters, including the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, objected to language that would have applied the rule to phone use “with or without the motor running.”

Instead, phone use is banned while operating on a highway, including when temporarily stopping on the road. It does not include stopping on the side of the road.

But while ATA had requested a change in the proposal that held employers liable for drivers’ phone use even if the employers had taken good faith steps to prevent it, the agencies made no such change.

“Our issue is that there’s nothing we can do. There’s nothing for us to prevent them,” said Potter.

ATA, along with other commenters, argued that there is little employers can do to prevent phone use beyond instituting company policies and training drivers.

“We don’t want to get into cellphone records and matching the cellphone records with the hours-of-service logs,” Potter said.

While FMCSA acknowledged the concern, it declared that “a motor carrier is responsible for the actions of its drivers.”

ATA is “looking into” further steps to change the employer liability, Potter said.

OOIDA blasted the final rule.

“A handheld cellphone could certainly be a distraction for some, but it’s one of hundreds of possible distractions that confront drivers every day,” Todd Spencer, OOIDA’s executive vice president, said in a statement. “No matter how well-intentioned, the rule is an example of the government overreaching its authority and will most certainly create far more problems than it will ever resolve.”