CVSA COMMITTEE AND PROGRAM NEWS
Does the Benefit of Fatigue Management Technologies Outweigh Driver Privacy Concerns? By Rodolfo Giacoman, Fatigue Management Specialist, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
Does the benefit of fatigue management technologies (FMTs) outweigh driver privacy concerns? The safety manager of a major motor carrier asked me that question during a webinar I conducted on June 9, “The Alertness Toolkit — A Motor Carrier’s Guide to Fatigue Management Technologies.” My answer then and today is an unequivocal yes. FMTs are effective at preventing fatigue-related crashes, and we know that fatigue-related crashes tend to be dangerous and are often lethal. Privacy has little value to somebody who dies in a crash, especially when the incident could have been prevented. This does not mean that driver privacy is trivial or should not be protected. As a safety-conscious motor carrier, you should be aware of the types of FMTs available and which ones have higher intrinsic privacy and legal considerations. Keep reading to learn where to find privacy principles and best practices when incorporating FMTs into motor carrier operations as part of a comprehensive Fatigue Management Program (FMP). Implementing a comprehensive FMP reduces your medical and retention costs, lowers exposure to legal liabilities, decreases overall risk of fatal crashes and makes for a more productive, healthier and happier workforce. The 2020 report “Review of Commercially Available Devices to Detect Fatigue and Distraction in Drivers,” published by the Institute for Road Safety Research in The Hague, Netherlands, rated approximately 100 fatigue management devices based on eight criteria:
1. Validity 2. Intrusiveness 3. Availability 4. Robustness 5. Sustainability 6. Acceptability 7. Cost 8. Compatibility with other devices in the vehicle or otherwise used by the driver The report reviewed the following types of devices: heart rate measurements, headnodding indicators, camera systems (with or without computer vision and with road and/or driver monitoring), activity trackers, fatigue models, temperature monitoring, electroencephalography (EEG) systems, skin conductance tests, steering movement monitors, eye tracking and percentage of eyelid closure (PERCLOS) systems. These devices may be grouped into three categories, each with different levels of privacy concerns: 1. Fitness-for-duty tests 2. Driving performance 3. Driver monitoring
Low Privacy Concerns: Fitness-for-duty Tests
These tests help determine if a driver is sufficiently alert before starting duties. While these FMTs do not monitor fatigue in realtime on a continuous basis, they have high acceptability, have been thoroughly evaluated and have a high return on investment (ROI). These FMTs are expected to remain on the market for a long time, do not require
20
GUARDIAN
high maintenance, do not interfere with driving, work for most drivers and can be used in combination with other types of FMTs. Weaknesses include the fact that they concentrate on the beginning of the work shift, do not detect driving risks and do not flag distractions on the road. Fitness-for-duty tests may measure several types of signals, such as pupillary responses, reaction time, accuracy, past sleep, caffeine intake, time spent on the job and so on. These FMTs have low privacy concerns because drivers are not monitored while on duty and there is no equipment to wear nor install inside the vehicle.
Medium Privacy Concerns: Driving Performance Driving performance measures may track braking, lane crossing, corrective or erratic steering, pedal movements, driving lower than the speed limit, position variability within the lane and the like. Such performance deviations may indicate fatigue and/or distraction. Some of the FMTs tracking these measures have become ubiquitous in four-wheelers. The strength of these FMTs is that the measurements are not as intrusive as driver monitoring systems (see next column), do not require the driver to wear sensors and may tap into already existing internal sensors in the vehicle. The weakness is that these measures are the last line of defense because the intervention occurs at the latest stage of driver fatigue or distraction. Drivers report mid-level privacy concerns with these FMTs, as they focus on vehicle performance rather than directly on the driver.