Matthew Bowman of Houston, a former executive with Port Arthur Chemical and Environmental Services (PACES), has pleaded guilty to violating the Occupational Safety and Health Act and making a false statement.

Exposure to hydrogen sulfide caused the deaths of two employees, both truck drivers: Joey Sutter on Dec. 18, 2008, and Charles Sittig on April 14, 2009.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office says Bowman had admitted not properly protecting PACES employees from hydrogen sulfide exposure. He’s also pleaded guilty to directing employees to falsify transportation documents to conceal waste water was coming from PACES after a disposal facility banned all shipments from the company after it received water containing hydrogen sulfide. The shipments didn’t contain the required safety placards.

PACES was in the business of producing and selling caustic materials to paper mills. That production involved hydrogen sulfide, a gas which is an acute toxic substance. OSHA requires employers to implement engineering controls to prevent employees from being exposed to harmful levels of hydrogen sulfide. PACES ceased operation in 2010 and filed for bankruptcy.

Bowman faces up to five years in federal prison and a fine of up to $250,000. The corporation faces a fine of up to $500,000 per count. The judge hasn’t set a sentencing date.

“Bowman’s actions showed a preference for profit above the safety of his employees,” said Assistant Attorney General Ignacia Moreno. “The Justice Department will continue to vigorously enforce laws enacted for the protection of human health and the environment.”

“The plea agreement sends a strong signal to all who would illegally transport hazardous materials,” said Max Smith, regional Special Agent-in-Charge with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Inspector General. “We will continue our efforts to ensure safety in the transport of these materials and vigorously pursue those who violate the law.”

The post Former company president faces jail, huge fines for workers’ deaths appeared first on Safety News Alert.

The average number of text messages sent in the U.S. per day is 6.1 billion.

On top of that, a AAA survey found 35% of drivers admitted reading a text or email while driving in the past month, and 26% said they typed one.

There’s no doubt texting is dangerous distracted driving behavior.

Cell phone providers created voice-to-text software to reduce the dangers of texting while driving.

But new research by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI) shows using voice-to-text is not safer than manual texting while behind the wheel.

TTI had 43 people drive a test course four times: once without using a cell phone, two times using different voice-to-text applications (Siri and Vlingo) and once texting manually (video).

The results:

• Driver response times were two times slower while texting, both manually and using either voice-to-text app
• The percentage of eye gazes to the road ahead were significantly fewer no matter which texting method was used
• It actually took drivers more time to complete the same message using the voice-to-text apps than typing them manually, and
• The voice-to-text apps created a false sense of being safer among the drivers, despite the fact that the measured driving safety didn’t improve.

The major conclusion, according to the TTI study:

“These findings suggest that using voice-to-text applications to send and receive text messages while driving do not increase driver safety compared to manual texting.”

While this is the first research of its kind about voice-to-text apps, it parallels previous research which showed that drivers’ attention suffered as much using a hands-free cell phone as a hand-held one while driving.

So, it’s easy to come to this conclusion: It’s not safe to use your cell phone in any way while you’re driving. That includes hands-free texting and hands-free calling.

April is National Distracted Driving Awareness Month. It’s a good a time as any to remind all employees, but especially those who drive as part of their jobs, that using a cell phone while operating a motor vehicle increases the chances for crashes, injuries and deaths. If your company doesn’t already have one, it might also be a good time to consider a policy banning employees who drive as part of their jobs from using their cell phone when behind the wheel. Such a policy will not only keep your employees safer, it can also reduce your company’s liability.

Voluntary guidelines for automakers

Meantime, the federal government has released voluntary guidelines for automakers to disable certain phone, entertainment and navigation functions while a vehicle is in motion.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recommends limiting the time a driver must take his eyes off the road to perform any task to 2 seconds at a time and 12 seconds total.

The guidelines also recommend disabling these operations accept if the vehicle is stopped and in park:

• manual text message entry and internet browsing
• video-based entertainment and communications like video phoning or conferencing, and
• display of certain types of text, including text messages, web pages and social media content.

What do you think about TTI’s new research and/or the voluntary NHTSA guidelines for automakers? What is your company’s policy about using cell phones while driving? Let us know in the comments below.

The post No safety advantage to using voice-to-text while driving appeared first on Safety News Alert.

Tina Shannon worked as a surgical technician at the Roane Medical Center in Harriman, TN. She regularly worked 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. and was also on call for various rotating shifts.

On April 19, 2010, Shannon was still on call as she was driving home after assisting with emergency surgery. Another car crossed the center line of the road and crashed into Shannon’s vehicle. She suffered serious injuries, including a splintered tibia that required three separate surgeries. She missed almost nine months of work as a result.

Shannon filed for workers’ comp benefits, but the hospital denied them, arguing she wasn’t injured in the course and scope of her employment.

Her case went to trial, and the court also denied her benefits under the coming and going rule, that states injuries that occur when an employee is injured traveling to or from work are generally not compensable.

Shannon appealed the trial court’s ruling. In Tennessee, those appeals go directly to a special panel of the state’s supreme court.

No clear-cut rule

The TN Supreme Court found there was only one question in Shannon’s case:

“whether being injured while on call under these particular circumstances constitutes as injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment.”

The court found there was no question that her injury arose out of her employment, because she wouldn’t have been driving home at 2:30 a.m. if she hadn’t been called into work.

The real issue was whether the injury occurred in the course of her employment.

If the coming and going rule was absolute, there’d be no question that Shannon wouldn’t qualify for workers’ comp benefits. But there are exceptions to the rule:

• when an employee is injured in a company vehicle
• when the travel itself is a substantial part of the services for which the employee is compensated
• if the employee is using a vehicle to transport materials used in employment, or
• if the employee is compensated for travel expenses.

Although the TN Supreme Court had previously addressed the question of workers’ comp benefits for injuries when an employee is on call, Shannon’s situation was different from its three previous rulings on the subject.

As state courts sometimes do, the TN Supreme Court turned to other states to see how they’ve ruled. That wasn’t much help. There was no clear-cut majority rule about whether injuries to on-call employees qualify for workers’ comp benefits.

“It is not possible to categorically grant or deny benefits when an on-call employee is injured while in transit to or from work,” the TN Supreme Court wrote. Therefore, the court said several factors should be considered, including these:

• whether the employee is paid for time spent on call, either hourly or as an increased salary
• the nature of any restrictions imposed by the employer during the on-call hours
• the extent to which the employer benefits from the on-call system, and
• the extent to which the on-call system requires additional travel that subjects the employee to increased risk compared to an ordinary commuter.

In Shannon’s case:

• She was paid an hourly wage by the hospital for the time she spent on call
• The hospital imposed several restrictions on its staffers during their on-call hours including that they remain in contact by phone, they be able to get to the hospital within 30 minutes and that they refrain from consuming alcohol during their on-call hours
• The on-call system permitted the hospital to offer operating room services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week even though it didn’t have regular surgical staff on second and third shifts, and
• It also subjected the employees to a greater risk by requiring more frequent and extensive travel, often at odd hours.

For those reasons, the TN Supreme Court found Shannon’s injury did occur in the course of her employment and she should get workers’ comp benefits for the 37 weeks she missed work.

In its opinion, the court noted that this does not extend workers’ comp benefits to all on-call employees in Tennessee who are injured while traveling home from work while on call. Each case must be considered on its merits.

And the court’s research on similar rulings in other states shows there are no clear-cut rules in cases involving injuries to workers who were on call. However, the questions the court posed in this case can provide some guidelines on the likelihood that workers’ comp will apply to employees injured while on call. Situations will vary from state to state due to the differences in workers’ comp laws and state court rulings.

What do you think about the court’s decision? Let us know in the comments below.

(Shannon v. Roane Medical Center, Supreme Court of TN, No. E2011-02649-WC-R3-WC, 3/13/13)

The post When does workers’ comp kick in for on-call employees? appeared first on Safety News Alert.

New research, Investigation of the Effects of Split Sleep Schedules on Commercial Vehcle Driver Safety and Health, shows a split sleep schedule is better than consolidated sleep during the day. The best bet is still consolidated sleep during the night.

Among test subjects, a consolidated nighttime rest period provided the most sleep: 8.4 hours on average. The split schedule was the second best, averaging 7.2 hours of sleep. Consolidated daytime rest was the worst, averaging just 6.4 hours of sleep.

The study was conducted for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration by sleep scientist Gregory Belenky of Washington State University.

The purpose of the study: The FMCSA’s current truck driver hours of service rule allows for split sleep periods, but says the required 10 hours of rest must include at least one eight-hour period.

The new study tested two periods of five hours each (3-8 a.m. and 3-8 p.m.).

The conclusion: It’s possible the HOS rules could be relaxed to allow drivers more flexibility in choosing their rest periods without their safety performance being compromised.

While getting eight hours of sleep per day is important, this study shows it doesn’t have to come mostly in one long period.

Sleep and circadian rhythm

The natural sleepiness we feel during certain times of the day are due to the body’s circadian rhythm — a biological process that allows most people to operate on a 24-hour cycle.

When circadian rhythms are lowest, at 2-4 a.m. and 1-3 p.m., adults’ strongest sleep drives occur.

Combining that information with the new research on split-sleep periods could help night shift workers get eight hours of sleep per day.

Example: A worker’s regular shift is 5 p.m. to 1 a.m. After the shift, and worker has to drive home and then wind down before going to bed. Let’s say that means the worker doesn’t feel like going to bed until 3 a.m.

But, the worker finds he usually wakes up around 8 a.m., only getting about five hours of sleep.

The worker could take advantage of the body’s secondary low circadian rhythm period between 1-3 p.m. and get three more hours of sleep during the early to mid afternoon.

Do you know any methods shift workers use to get their full eight hours of sleep per day? What do you think about this new study? Let us know in the comments below.

The post What’s better for safety: Daytime or split sleep schedules? appeared first on Safety News Alert.

OSHA said BNSF’s policies discouraged its workers from reporting on-the-job injuries.

The major terms of the agreement include:

• changing its disciplinary policy so injuries no longer determine the length of an employee’s probation for a serious rule violation (BNSF has reduced the probations of 136 employees as a result)
• eliminating a policy that assigned points to employees who suffered on-the-job injuries
• revising a program so work-related injuries will no longer be the basis for enrolling employees in a program that required increased safety counseling
• implementing a training program for BNSF‘s managers and HR professionals to educate them about their responsibilities under the FRSA, and
• making settlement offers in 36 cases to employees who filed whistleblower complaints with OSHA alleging they were affected by the company’s policies.

This agreement doesn’t constitute an admission of liability or wrongdoing on BNSF’s part. BNSF expressly denies any such liability or wrongdoing.

“If employees do not feel free to report injuries or illnesses, the employer’s entire workforce is put at risk because employers do not learn of and correct dangerous conditions that have resulted in injuries,” said OSHA administrator David Michaels.

OSHA has put more emphasis on whistleblower cases under Michaels’ direction.

The post Company settles whistleblower case with OSHA, changes policies appeared first on Safety News Alert.

Research from DePaul University says a federal crackdown on unsafe bus operators in 2012 along with a sluggish economy has allowed other motor coach companies to flourish.

In May 2012, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) shut down 26 of the most unsafe bus lines in the nation.

Later in 2012, a new motor carrier law, MAP-21, required improved federal registration to detect reincarnations of bus companies that had been previously shut down for safety reasons. It was common practice for shut-down bus companies to reopen with the same management but a different name.

Result: Remaining companies that have had better safety records all along can now compete with one another without having to match deep discount prices from the unsafe carriers. Bus companies still in business were also able to expand into the markets of those that were shut down.

Not heeding safety rules can save all types of companies money in the short-term. However, serious incidents often catch up with these unsafe firms.

The discount carriers suffered a number of crashes that caused serious injuries and deaths in recent years.

The situation came to a head following a May 2011 bus crash in Virginia that killed four passengers. The National Transportation Safety Board said the bus driver fell asleep. But the NTSB also faulted the FMCSA for not shutting the company down sooner. Sky Express had one of the worst safety records in the nation before the crash.

Map-21 does increase some costs for carriers. But the higher cost of starting a motor coach business is expected to keep companies that otherwise would have skimped on safety out of business.

Results of the DePaul research were discussed last weekend at the American Bus Association convention in Charlotte, NC.

DePaul professor Joseph Schwieterman says the combination of the safety improvements and sluggish economy has made bus transportation “a happening sector.” Bus transportation continues to be significantly less expensive than air or rail, a benefit in a slow economy.

The post How safety regulations are helping one industry to flourish appeared first on Safety News Alert.

Sheila Burgess is director of the Massachusetts Highway Safety Division. Her mission is to reduce crashes by promoting safe driving practices, such as not using cell phones behind the wheel.

There’s just one problem — or several, depending on how you look at it. Burgess’ own driving record is far from exemplary.

According to the Boston Globe, her driving record includes:

• seven crashes
• four speeding violations
• two failures to stop for a police officer
• one failure to stay in her lane
• one driving without registration or license
• one driving without wearing a seat belt, and
• one failure to show up for a hearing for a speeding ticket.

Being appointed to a position responsible for auto safety may have had a good influence on her. From the time she was appointed to the position in 2007 until this August, she didn’t have any marks on her driving record or crashes.

But on Aug. 24, Burgess’ state-provided car veered off a road and slammed into a rock outcropping. She wasn’t cited for any driving violations. She suffered a head injury in the crash and hasn’t returned to work; she’s been on approved leave.

Not long after the Globe made the situation public, word came that Burgess would be leaving her job.

She resigned effective Dec. 31, citing her health, saying she needed to concentrate on recovering from her most recent crash.

It seems, however, she wouldn’t have had much choice in the matter if she wanted to stay.

“She could not expect the public’s trust if she were to continue in the position,” said her boss, Massachusetts Public Safety Secretary Mary Beth Heffernan.

Governor Deval Patrick (D) also issued a statement, which said, in part, “Given her driving background, it was a mistake to hire her for this position.”

Have you ever had a supervisor who didn’t stick by safety rules — or even worse, a chief executive who didn’t wear required PPE while walking through a safety-sensitive area? What did you do? Let us know about it in the comments below.

The post Safe driving: Do as I say, not as I do appeared first on Safety News Alert.

A bus driver brought brownies to work and offered them to other drivers. Three ate brownies, but they didn’t know they were laced with pot. The three drivers were told to undergo drug counseling after the incident, but two of them refused.

San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) bus driver Ku’uipoaloha Lawler is accused of providing the pot brownies to the other drivers. MTS fired him, and San Diego police have turned over results of their investigation to the District Attorney for consideration.

There was more controversy about what should happen to the three drivers who unknowingly consumed pot in the brownies.

On the day Lawler brought the brownies to work, all three of the drivers who ate them went on their regular routes but pulled over when they realized what was happening. MTS sent replacement drivers to take over.

The three drivers were required to provide urine samples and were placed on paid leave. MTS said they had to submit to substance-abuse counseling before returning to work in a capacity other than driving a bus.

One driver agreed to the conditions, but two objected and refused to go to the counseling.

Mark Hall, one of the two drivers who objected to the MTS conditions, took his case public, to the San Diego Union-Tribune.

It certainly didn’t seem fair that Hall and the two other drivers had to undergo drug counseling when they didn’t know they were eating pot brownies.

Hall says people even asked Lawler whether the brownies had pot in them, and he denied it.

Federal regulations kick in

But there was a problem: Federal Transit Administration safety regulations require bus drivers to undergo substance-abuse counseling when they have a positive drug test.

MTS said it wanted to treat the drivers fairly, but it had to wait for a federal waiver.

About a month after the incident, the feds finally issued the waiver. The three drivers didn’t have to undergo counseling, and they were allowed to return to bus driving.

Although the MTS employees needed a waiver from federal regulations to go back to driving, they wouldn’t have faced criminal DUI charges if they were pulled over. Criminal law has an exception for involuntary intoxication when the affected person didn’t know they were ingesting a mind-altering substance.

Do you think the system worked as it should have in this case, or should it have been easier for the three bus drivers to go back to their jobs? Let us know what you think in the comments below.

The post Did bus drivers have to undergo drug counseling after unwittingly eating laced brownies? appeared first on Safety News Alert.

A majority of states already have bans on texting while driving. Some also ban the use of phones in a hand-held mode while behind the wheel. But how far should these bans go? In Pogue’s Posts, The New York Times’ David Pogue asks whether bans should be placed on drivers using voice-recognition software, such as Siri on iPhones. Is that any less distracting than texting while driving?

Cities in the U.S. and Europe are encouraging bicycling to cut down on inner-city congestion. There’s one big difference in bicycling here and across the pond: In Europe, helmets aren’t required. Is that a bad safety practice? That’s the question in another New York Times article on transportation safety from last week.

OSHA doesn’t mess around when it comes to lockout/tagout fines. In Manufacturing Weekly, Alex Irwin outlines how one manufacturer was hit hard with an OSHA fine for exposing workers to lockout/tagout hazards.

Know someone who volunteers at a nonprofit? If they get injured during their volunteer hours, they may not be covered by the organization’s workers’ comp insurance. Read more about that at Insurance Journal.

And finally this week, the replacement refs are gone from the NFL with the full-timers back on the job. However, Workerscomplawyerhelp.com warns that replacement workers’ comp magistrates may be coming to Michigan.

Read something online about safety this week that you’d like to share with your peers? Let us know about it, and we’ll feature it in an upcoming Safety News Summary.

The post Safety News Summary, October 8, 2012 appeared first on Safety News Alert.

Each year, after the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) releases the preliminary numbers for workplace fatalities, the news filters to the general media, bringing attention to workplace fatalities. See America’s 10 Deadliest Jobs from Forbes.

Staying on the topic of the BLS fatality report, American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) President Richard A. Pollock asks, “Where’s the concern?” since 13 employees are still killed on the job each day.

What do employees want from company wellness programs? Megan Berry at HR Benefits Alert writes about a new survey that answers the question.

A Texas plastic surgeon who reviews workers’ comp cases for the state says he uncovered a plot to assassinate President Obama by a patient he was assessing. The only problem is that this never happened. The doctor’s been temporarily barred from practicing medicine.

And how safe would you feel in a car that drives itself? New technology is supposed to make these driverless cars even safer than traditional ones that require a person behind the wheel. Let us know what you think about this.

And while you’re letting us know your opinion about driverless cars, you can also let us know about interesting posts related to safety that you’ve read on the web this week. Pass them along, and we’ll feature the posts in a future Safety News Summary.

The post Safety News Summary, Oct. 1, 2012 appeared first on Safety News Alert.

A total of 4,609 workplace fatalities occurred in 2011, down from 4,690 in 2010. That’s 13 workers killed on the job each day.

However, these preliminary numbers usually go up by the time the report is finalized several months later (the big asterisk).

That’s what happened with the 2010 numbers. The preliminary report showed a decrease, but workplace deaths actually increased slightly from 2009 to 2010 when the numbers were finalized.

The average increase over the last three years has been 166 fatalities.

If that holds true this year — and it’s likely it will — there will be a slight increase in the number of deaths for the second year in a row.

Mix of good and bad news

Some other key findings from the Bureau of Labor Statistics report:

• The rate of fatal injury decreased slightly from 3.6 to 3.5 workers per 100,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees.
• Construction fatalities declined for the fifth straight year. They’re down 42% since 2006, but part of this can be attributed to a drop in construction activity.
• Fatalities in private truck transportation rose 14% in 2011 for the second consecutive year.
• Transportation incidents accounted for 41% of fatalities. Of those, about 57% were roadway incidents; nonroadway ones, such as those involving tractors on farms, accounted for another 11%, and about 16% involved pedestrians struck by vehicles, such as workers at road construction sites.
• Overall, 17% of occupational deaths resulted from workplace violence, including 242 suicides.
• Falls, slips or trips accounted for 14% of the deaths. Most of these were falls to a lower level. About one in four of those cases were falls of 10 feet or less.
• About 15% of deaths were from contact with objects and equipment. This includes being struck by a falling object or by a powered vehicle.
• Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting had the highest rate of of occupational fatalities, at 24.4 per 100,000 FTE. Mining was second at 15.8, and transportation and warehousing was third at 15.0.

The post Workplace deaths decreased in 2011 … or did they? appeared first on Safety News Alert.

A new study has found poor health costs the U.S. economy an eyeball-popping $576 billion each year. Dan Wisniewski has more about that in HR Morning.

Insurance claims fraud is exploding, according to a new report. The rate of questionable claims for the first time increased by 19% from 2009 to 2011 with workers’ comp one of the largest fraud areas. RiskAndInsurance.com looks at the barriers to fighting this trend.

Staying in that subject area, what are the best and worst states for getting employees off workers’ comp and back on the job? You can find out on BusinessBrief.com.

Vehicle travel is far safer than it was a few decades ago. Several factors appear to account for the sharp decline in fatalities. You can learn why in this infographic from NYTimes.com.

And finally, there’s been a growing debate on whether programs that reward employees for how many days they’ve gone without an injury cause workers to hide their injuries. On the lighter side of safety, here’s a takeoff on a typical “days without an injury” sign often used in those programs. Most workplaces won’t have to worry about this type of incident because the cause is extinct.

Have you seen something on the web that you’d like to share with your fellow occupational safety pros? Let us know about it, and we’ll feature it in a future Safety News Summary.

The post Safety News Summary, Sept. 24, 2012 appeared first on Safety News Alert.

M3 Transport/SLT Expressway must pay the former employee $280,000 in back wages and interest, $15,000 in compensatory damages and $20,000 in punitive damages.

The driver refused to drive a truck containing explosives with a co-driver who smoked in the vehicle, a violation of Department of Transportation regulations.

A complaint the driver filed alleged that on Feb. 8, 2010, he was informed a new co-driver had been assigned to haul a vehicle full of explosives to Canada. The driver found an ashtray overflowing with cigarette butts in the new co-driver’s truck and notified his supervisors that he wouldn’t drive with this co-worker because smoking while hauling explosives violates federal regulations.

The driver who complained was told to go home and wait to be assigned a new co-driver, but he was terminated two days later.

OSHA has also ordered the company to:

• expunge any adverse references relating to the termination from the driver’s personnel records, and
• post a notice for all employees notifying them of their rights to raise safety problems under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA).

M3 specializes in transporting explosives for military and defense contractors. The company has 30 from receiving OSHA’s decision to contest the order.

OSHA enforces the whistleblower provisions of the STAA and 21 other statutes protecting employees who report violations of federal regulations, including safety rules.

Companies are prohibited by law from retaliating against employees who raise various concerns to the employer or to the government. Employees who believe they are victims of such retaliation can file complaints with OSHA’s parent agency, the Department of Labor.

Recently, OSHA has issued several decisions against companies who fired employees in retaliation for reporting safety problems at work.

The post Fired for saying co-driver shouldn’t smoke in vehicle carrying explosives appeared first on Safety News Alert.

In one case, a switchman based in Decatur, IL, was fired in August 2009 after reporting an injury to his shoulder three months earlier. The injury occurred while the worker was riding a train that derailed during movement of cars in the Decatur yard.

Norfolk Southern said the employee provided false information about his injury.

OSHA has ordered the railroad to pay him a total of $581,000 in compensatory damages for pain and suffering, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and back wages and benefits.

In the second case, a trackman in Melvindale, MI, was fired in August 2009 after Norfolk Southern said he made false statements regarding his injuries to receive time off.

The worker was injured while traveling from the Melvindale terminal to a job site. The truck hit a rough patch of road, causing the worker to strike his head on its roof and suffer whiplash. OSHA’s investigation determined the trackman’s injury caused severe medical problems involving his back, neck and shoulders, which restrict his ability to sit, stand, walk and operate machinery.

OSHA ordered Norfolk Southern to pay him a total of almost $351,000 including compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and medical expenses.

Since 2011, OSHA has cited Norfolk Southern four times regarding the firing of seven employees who had reported injuries at work. The recent two cases involve the largest penalty against the railroad.

Norfolk Southern has appealed the previous cases to an administrative law judge. It has up to 30 days to decide whether to appeal the two most recent cases.

In an interview with a Virginia newspaper, top Norfolk Southern lawyers said the growth of cases against the railroad is the result of the “adversarial atmosphere” created by the Federal Employers Liability Act, which requires railroad workers to prove their employers’ negligence to received workers’ compensation.

The post OSHA orders company to pay almost $1 million for illegal firings appeared first on Safety News Alert.

When an Alaska fisherman heard a distress call on his radio, he didn’t know exactly what to do to help his fellow fishermen. The son of a close friend died in the mishap. The fisherman told his friend he would make sure good came from the loss of life. That led to an attempt to Tame the (Real) Deadliest Fishing Jobs as described in this report.

How does sleep affect health? Take this sleep quiz from The New York Times to learn more about the fascinating and sometimes strange world of sleep.

Steve Rhodes at mySafetynews.com recently had the opportunity to sit in on a meeting with a client and the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“Cal-OSHA”) Consultation. He blogs about the experience.

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) says drunker drunks kill more people. Williams Peacock at The Chicago DUI Blog writes, “really NHTSA? If you’re going to release studies, can they tell us something besides the obvious?”

If you’ve read something on the web about safety and want to share it with others in the profession, let us know about it here at SafetyNewsAlert.com in the comments section below. We’ll spread the word.

The post Safety News Summary for August 27, 2012 appeared first on Safety News Alert.

Roger Chesley, a columnist for The Virginian-Pilot wrote recently:

“For 23 straight years, [Norfolk Southern] has won the gold medal in the E.H. Harriman Awards, signifying that it has the lowest casualty rate for every 200,000 hours worked in the railroad industry. Recent criticism by a federal agency, however, clouds that stellar reputation.”

OSHA ordered Norfolk Southern to pay $802,168 in three cases.

In one case, a railroad conductor based in Harrisburg, PA, was fired after reporting a head injury he suffered when he blacked out and fell down steps while returning from the locomotive lavatory. Norfolk Southern said the employee faked his injury and made false and conflicting statements.

The day before the injury, the employee had been praised for excellent performance, highlighted by no lost work time due to injuries in his 35-year career.

“When workers are discouraged from reporting injuries, no investigation into the cause of the injury can occur,” said OSHA administrator David Michaels. “To prevent more injuries, railroad workers must be able to report an injury without fear of retaliation.”

In his column, The Virginian-Pilot’s Roger Chesley noted that what’s unknown is how many other Norfolk Southern employees had been discouraged from reporting injuries because the railroad had fired others for doing the same.

The railroad says it will fight OSHA’s rulings in all three cases.

This isn’t the first time Norfolk Southern has landed in OSHA’s cross-hairs.

Last year, OSHA ordered the railroad to pay a former employee $122,199 in damages for firing the employee for reporting an on-the-job injury.

In its press release regarding that incident, OSHA noted Norfolk Southern had intimidated other employees from reporting injuries:

“This ‘chilling effect’ allowed Norfolk Southern to maintain the appearance of an exemplary safety record and continue its 22-consecutive-year record as recipient of the E.H. Harriman Gold Medal Rail Safety Award.”

The post Tarnish on railroad’s low injury rate award appeared first on Safety News Alert.

The bus companies transported more than 1,800 passengers a day along the I-95 corridor from New York to Florida.

FMCSA also ordered 10 individual bus company owners, managers and employees to cease all passenger transportation operations.

The 26 companies were all part of three primary organizations: Apex Bus, I-95 Coach and New Century Travel. Among the 26 companies, 13 had already been ordered out of service but were continuing to operate, and three others were applying for operating authority. The companies are based in Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, New York, North Carolina and Pennsylvania.

All of the companies had multiple safety violations, including:

• using drivers without valid commercial drivers’ licenses (CDLs)
• failing to conduct alcohol and drug testing programs
• operating vehicles that had not been regularly inspected and repaired, and
• allowing drivers to operate vehicles when they had serious hours-of-service and qualification violations.

Using a new rule published in April, FMCSA is taking steps to ensure the bus companies it shut down can’t continue to operate under other names. FMCSA has revoked the carriers’ operating authority and linked the active companies to others that were previously placed out of service.

The new rule was created to crack down on companies that attempted to evade enforcement by reincarnating themselves as new entities.

FMCSA began its investigation after a series of deadly bus crashes last spring along the I-95 corridor.

In May, FMCSA and state and local law enforcement agencies also conducted safety inspections of passenger buses in 13 states and the District of Columbia. The crackdown netted more than 2,200 safety inspections and successful removal of 116 commercial motor vehicle drivers and 169 buses from the roads for substantial safety violations.

The post Feds shut down 26 bus companies for safety appeared first on Safety News Alert.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports 30% of civilian employed U.S. adults (about 40.6 million workers) reported they get six or less hours of sleep per day, based on 2010 data. The National Sleep Foundation recommends adults get seven to nine hours of sleep daily.

Here are some other stats from the survey:

• The rate for workers in manufacturing was higher (34%)
• Those who usually worked the night shift had a much higher rate of short sleep duration (44%) compared to those who worked day shift (28%) or those who worked other or irregular shifts (32%)
• 70% of night shift workers in transportation and warehousing are sleep deprived
• 52% of night shift workers in healthcare and social assistance reported sleep deprivation
• Workers ages 30-64 are more likely to miss out on sleep (32%) than their younger (26.5%) or older (22%) counterparts
• Workers with more than one job are more sleep deprived (37%) than those with just one job (29%), and
• 36% of people who work more than 40 hours a week miss out on the recommended amount of sleep compared to those who work 40 hours or less (28%).

The CDC recommends two ways to counter sleepy workers who can be a safety risk:

• Use shift system designs that improve sleep opportunities for employees, and
• educate employees about the importance of getting enough sleep and the ways they can do that.

Do workers scoff at the idea that not getting enough sleep can be dangerous? Tell them this: Medical experts say getting the right amount of sleep is as important to general health as a good diet and exercising.

The post 1 in 3 workers don’t get enough sleep appeared first on Safety News Alert.

A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report says the probable cause of a collision between two BNSF Railway trains was the crew’s fatigue. Both crew members had fallen asleep, which led to their failure to comply with a signal requiring them to operate at a restricted speed and stop short of a standing train.

On April 27, 2011, a BNSF coal train collided with the rear of a standing BNSF maintenance train near Red Oak, Iowa. The crash caused the derailment of two locomotives and 12 cars. The engineer and conductor in the lead locomotive of the coal train were killed.

“Once again, this investigation draws attention to the dangers of human fatigue,” said NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman. “The human body is not designed to work irregular schedules, especially during the circadian trough, when our bodies are at their lowest alertness.”

The circadian trough refers to the time (4:00 a.m.) when our bodies have the least energy and most likely want to rest. For most people, the circadian low occurs between midnight and 6:00 a.m.

The NTSB made several recommendations to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Association of American Railroads and BNSF Railway in its report. Among the recommendations to the FRA:

• Require railroads to medically screen employees in safety-sensitive positions for sleep apnea and other sleep disorders
• Establish an ongoing program to monitor, evaluate, report on and continuously improve fatigue management systems implemented by operating railroads to identify, mitigate and continuously reduce fatigue-related risks for personnel performing safety-critical tasks, and
• Conduct research on new and existing methods that can identify fatigue and mitigate performance decrements associated with fatigue in on-duty train crews.

NTSB recommended BNSF require all employees who perform or supervise safety-critical tasks to complete fatigue training on an annual basis and document when they have received training.

The post Fatigue likely cause of fatal train crash appeared first on Safety News Alert.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has ordered New Jersey-based J&A Transportation to shut down its operations. The agency says the company is “an imminent hazard to public safety.”

FMCSA found multiple hours-of-service, driver and vehicle maintenance violations during numerous roadside inspections of J&A’s trucks.

Specifically, the FMCSA says J&A:

• continued to operate without an active USDOT number and valid operating authority
• operated vehicles that had serious mechanical defects and were not regularly inspected and repaired, and
• allowed its drivers to have serious hours-of-service and qualification violations.

Events leading up to the shut-down order began on July 16, 2010, when J&A was the subject of a safety audit. The company failed the audit because it didn’t have basic safety management controls in place. Its operating authority was revoked on Nov. 1, 2010.

In January 2011, J&A submitted a plan to address the problems noted in the safety audit. However, the plan didn’t provide proof of a controlled substances and alcohol testing policy, supervisor training, or random alcohol testing.The FMCSA notified J&A that its operating authority remained revoked.

In September 2011, after several attempts to conduct a mandatory safety investigation of J&A, the FMCSA inactivated the company’s Department of Transportation (DOT) number. However, J&A continued to operate commercial motor vehicles in interstate commerce despite not having a DOT number.

Among the vehicle safety problems uncovered in roadside inspections of J&A trucks:

• driving on a flat tire with inadequate tread depth
• brakes out of service
• inoperable rear stop and tail lamps
• tractor unable to maintain air pressure with service brakes applied and engine idle
• vehicle not marked in accordance with regulations, and
• vehicle operating without a periodic inspection.

The post Feds shut down trucking company over safety concerns appeared first on Safety News Alert.

Two years ago, the U.S. House designated each April as National Distracted Driving Awareness Month.

So the NSC is offering its Cell Phone Policy Kit to employers interested in implementing or enhancing a no-cell-phone-while-driving policy.

Some reasons why companies should consider such a policy:

• Inattention is involved in more than 16% of fatal vehicle crashes and 22% of injury crashes
• An estimated 1.6 million crashes are caused by drivers using cell phones and texting each year, and
• Motor vehicle crashes are the No. 1 cause of worker fatalities.

No hands-free?

The NSC recommends that company bans include all types of cell phone use while driving, including: texting, hand-held conversations and hands-free conversations.

Such comprehensive bans have been tough sells. No state bans all cell phone use (hand-held and hands-free) for all drivers, but many prohibit all cell phone use by certain drivers:

• 30 states and D.C. ban all cell phone use by novice drivers.
• Bus drivers in 19 states and D.C. may not use a cell phone when passengers are present.
• 35 states, D.C. and Guam ban text messaging for all drivers.
• Some states such as Maine, New Hampshire and Utah treat cell phone use and texting as part of a larger distracted driving issue.

Public opinion isn’t there yet, either. Only 43% of the public supported a total ban according to a AAA survey in 2009. Support for texting and hand-held bans are much higher.

But one factor that might drive businesses to act before state governments is liability.

At issue: Does workers’ comp coverage kick in when an employee is injured off-site while using a cell phone for company business? If so, that will increase workers’ comp rates.

Insurance companies will surely offer strong defenses against such claims. And there are few legal decisions on such cases.

However, some cases have already started going against companies and their insurance agents, such as one in North Carolina. A school principal was in his car, talking to a co-worker on a cell phone issued by his employer when he was shot in the face by someone in a passing vehicle.

A workers’ comp commissioner awarded benefits to the principal. On appeal, the full state workers’ comp commission upheld the decision. The school district appealed to a state court which has also upheld the decision.

What do you think about the NSC’s proposal that employers should prohibit their employees from using hand-held and hands-free cell phones while driving? Would employees in your company go along with that? Let us know what you think in the comments below.

The post Is your company ready for a ban on cell phone use while driving? appeared first on Safety News Alert.

Most of the award — $1 million — was in punitive damages. The jury said employee Andrew Barati should also receive $50,000 for lost earnings, pain, suffering and disfigurement.

Barati worked for Metro-North which serves commuters in New York City and its suburbs. It’s run by the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

When a jack failed and a rail tie fell on his foot in April 2008, Barati broke his big toe. He says after reporting the injury, the railroad fired him. Eventually, Metro-North decided to suspend him for three months instead, and he was hired back.

The railroad accused Barati of lowering a rail and block tie without checking foot clearance. Metro-North says the employee was disciplined for violating company policy. Barati, who was a new employee at the time of the incident, says he wasn’t properly trained.

OSHA investigated and found reasonable cause to believe Metro-North violated the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 2008 which prohibits railroads from interfering with injured workers’ medical treatment or disciplining them for reporting or seeking treatment for an injury on the job.  OSHA said Barati hadn’t operated a manual track jack except for a couple of minutes during orientation.

This is the first verdict under the 2008 railroad law.

Metro-North says it’s reviewing the jury’s verdict “with an eye to appeal.”

The employee may not receive the entire jury amount because the 2008 law caps awards at $250,000.

Barati’s attorney, Charles Boetsch, said the jury sent a clear message to railroads about retaliation. “The message is that retaliation against railroad workers who report injuries and safety concerns will not be tolerated,” he said.

Three other Metro-North employees who filed similar complaints are still waiting for their cases to come to trial.

The post Injured worker awarded $1M in retaliation lawsuit appeared first on Safety News Alert.

The study, conducted by the University of California, Berkeley’s Safety Transportation Research and Education Center compared the two years before the state enacted the cell phone ban in July 2008 and the two following years. Among the findings:

• Overall traffic deaths fell 22%, and
• Hand-held cell phone driver deaths declined 47%.

Not only that, but results were similar for cases involving hands-free phones, even though California has not banned them. Separate research may explain why. A 2010 survey found that in states with hand-held phone bans, 44% of drivers said they didn’t use a cell phone at all while driving compared to only 30% in states without bans. It’s possible the hand-held ban also discouraged users of hands-free phone devices such as Bluetooth.

Of course, enforcement plays a big part in the decline of any illegal activity. California’s Department of Motor Vehicles says in 2011, there were 460,487 hand-held cell phone convictions, up 22% from 2010 and an increase of 52% from 2009.

The total cost of a ticket for a first offense is $20, but it rises to at least $159 after various state and local fees and taxes are added. Subsequent offenses are at least $279.

Previous research had showed no difference in the number of crashes involving drivers using hand-held versus hands-free phones. Example: A 2010 study by the Highway Loss Data Institute found no reductions in crashes in states that passed similar laws.

Does this study make you more likely to support similar hand-held cell phone bans while driving in more states, or even nationwide? Let us know what you think in the comments below.

The post Study: Cell phone ban reduces traffic deaths and injuries appeared first on Safety News Alert.

The National Sleep Foundation’s (NSF) 2012 Sleep in America poll finds roughly one in ten Americans say they are likely to fall asleep at an inappropriate time and place, such as during a meeting or while driving.

This year, the NSF’s poll puts a special focus on transportation workers.

Among the findings:

• 26% of train operators and 23% of pilots admit that sleepiness has affected their job performance at least once a week, compared to 17% of non-transportation workers
• 20% of pilots admit they have made a serious error and 18% of train operators say they have had a near-miss due to sleepiness
• Pilots and train operators are more likely than non-transportation workers (6% compared to 1%) to say they have been involved in a car crash due to sleepiness while commuting
• 57% of train operators, 50% of pilots, 44% of truck drivers, 42% of non-transportation workers, and 29% of bus, taxi and limo drivers say they rarely or never get a good night’s sleep on work nights, and
• 44% of train operators, 37% of pilots, 27% of non-transportation workers, 27% of truck drivers, and 20% of bus, taxi and limo drivers say their current work schedule doesn’t allow adequate time for sleep.

The NSF has “healthy sleep advice” for workers:

• Go to sleep and wake at the same time every day
• Use bright light to help manage your body clock (more bright light in the morning and less in the evening)
• Create an environment that is conducive to sleep that is quiet, dark and cool with a comfortable mattress and pillows
• If you can’t sleep, go to another room and do something relaxing until you feel tired
• Exercise regularly, but avoid vigorous workouts close to bed time, and
• If you are experiencing excessive daytime sleepiness, snoring or stopped breathing episodes in your sleep, contact your doctor for a sleep apnea screening.

The post Just how sleepy are American workers? appeared first on Safety News Alert.

According to OSHA, the driver for Interline Logistics Group LLC in Sauk Village, IL, had reported safety concerns about the brakes on his truck. The driver was told to take the truck to a repair shop so that the brakes could be serviced. After the service call, the driver was instructed to return to the dispatch location and pick up a return load.

The driver refused to do so, noting that he was over the number of work hours allowed according to Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations.

The next day, the driver was fired for failing to follow dispatch instructions, according to the company.

OSHA’s investigation found reasonable cause to believe the firing wasn’t based on breaking company work rules but on reporting a safety issue and refusing to violate DOT regulations.

Under OSHA’s order, Interline must pay the driver more than $190,000 in back wages, compensatory damages, attorney’s fees and punitive damages. OSHA says the company also must not retaliate against the employee for exercising his rights under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act’s whistleblower provision.

“This case sends a clear message that employers are simply not allowed to retaliate against workers for reporting work-related safety concerns,” said OSHA administrator David Michaels.

Either party can appeal OSHA’s decision, but an appeal would stay the reinstatement order.

OSHA enforces the whistleblower provision of 21 statutes protecting employees who report violations of various laws, including safety regulations.

Click here and here for other whistleblower cases involving truck drivers.

The post OSHA orders company to rehire worker, pay him $190K appeared first on Safety News Alert.

Here are the highlights of the new HOS rules:

• The maximum number of hours a truck driver can work within a week are reduced by 12 hours from 82 to 70.
• Truck drivers can’t drive after working 8 hours without first taking a break of at least 30 minutes. Drivers can take the 30-minute break whenever they want during the 8-hour window.
• The current 11-hour daily driving limit stays the same.
• Each week, drivers must take at least two nights’ rest which include the hours from 1:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m.
• Drivers can restart their weekly clock after a t least 34 consecutive hours off-duty.

Trucking companies that allow drivers to exceed the 11-hour driving limit by 3 or more hours could be fined $11,000 per offense. Drivers could face civil penalties of up to $2,750 for each offense.

The rules take effect July 1, 2013. Some of the new requirements were relaxed compared to those that were proposed after comments from trucking companies.

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), which represents small-business and professional truckers, says the one-size-fits-all policy won’t improve safety.

The OOIDA calls for more flexibility in the regulations. “Compliance with any regulation is already a challenge because everyone else in the supply chain is free to waste the driver’s time loading or unloading with no accountability,” said OOIDA Executive VP Todd Spencer. He predicts the new rules will have a “dramatic effect on the lives and livelihoods of small business truckers.”

On the other hand, the Truck Safety Coalition (TSC) called the unchanged daily limit “dangerous.” A statement released by the organization said the new rules wouldn’t come close to addressing the problem of fatigue among truck drivers. The TSC said 70 hours per week is still too many for truckers to work.

The revised policy was needed because of a lawsuit brought by TSC, Public Citizen and other groups against relaxed HOS rules placed in effect during the Bush administration in 2003. The lawsuit was settled in 2009 with a promise to revisit the rules.

What do you think about the new rules? Let us know in the comments box below.

The post More federal action on worker fatigue appeared first on Safety News Alert.

The total number of transportation deaths decreased to 34,925 in 2010 from 35,994 in 2009.

Also, the total number of deaths on U.S. roads dropped by about 1,000, from 33,883 to 32,885.

“We continue to see far too many deaths each year,” said NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman.

Areas in which there were more fatalities in 2010 include:

• motorcycle-related deaths (4,469 in 2009 to 4,502 in 2010)
• medium and heavy trucks (499 to 529)
• buses (26 to 44)
• rail, with the majority at grade crossings, (742 to 813), and
• pipelines, including the deadly natural gas incident in San Bruno, CA, that killed eight people (13 to 22).

The annual tabulation of transportation deaths comes just after the NTSB called for a total ban on using cell phones, hand-held and hands-free, and most other portable electronic devices by drivers.

The post Transportation fatalities down, but … appeared first on Safety News Alert.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) issued the order against Maryland-based trucking company, Gunthers Transport.

The FMCSA says Gunthers’ drivers exceeded the 11-hour daily driving limit, and its trucks were in such poor condition that they were a high crash risk.

On top of the shutdown, Gunthers could also face civil or criminal penalties. If it defies the shutdown order, FMCSA could issue fines of $16,000 per day.

The FMCSA says Gunthers:

• allowed driving beyond 14 hours after the start of drivers’ workdays
• allowed drivers to falsify logbooks, and
• didn’t require drivers to complete pre-trip vehicle inspections.

Over the past year, Gunthers has been involved in several crashes that include one fatality and four injuries.

More than a decade ago, a previous incarnation of the company, Gunthers Leasing Transport and its president, Mark Gunther, were found guilty of falsifying records to evade federal laws that limit the number of hours commercial drivers can spend behind the wheel. Mark Gunther was also convicted of perjury and conspiracy to defraud. He was sentenced to 30 months in prison, and the company was fined $170,000.

Shutting down a company is rare for FMCSA. On average, the agency orders 10 companies to cease business each year.

For the industries covered by OSHA, do you think there are ten situations per year in which it would be justified for the agency to shut down businesses? Let us know in the comments below.

The post Feds shut down company, call it ‘imminent hazard’ appeared first on Safety News Alert.

Nevada’s new law outlaws touching a cell phone while driving. That makes it against the law to text or talk while using a hand-held phone, but you can use a hands-free one. (Retailers report sales of hands-free devices have increased substantially.)

The state’s Highway Patrol says it appears that most motorists are complying with the new law. But officers report another hazard has been created: Many drivers are now pulling onto the shoulders of busy highways to use their hand-held phones.

Nevada Highway Patrol spokesman Chuck Allen told the Las Vegas Review Journal that shoulders are meant for emergencies only and pulling onto them could be dangerous for drivers, particularly at night.

That fact was included in a newspaper editorial. We’ll let the Review Journal take it from there:

“Well, duh. If the phone rings and it’s a child who could be in trouble, or your employer is letting you know you’re needed back early from lunch, lawmakers thought we were all going to circle around for 15 minutes, looking for a safe residential side street on which to park before answering?

“Or maybe lawmakers might want to consider all the likely ramifications of their hundred-thousandth new law before racing to chisel it into the Nevada Revised Statutes.”

Does this unintended consequence make banning the use of cell phones while driving a bad idea? Or is it less hazardous to have more drivers parked on highway shoulders compared to having them answer their phones while driving? Let us know what you think in the comments below.

The post Cell phone law comes with unintended consequences appeared first on Safety News Alert.

On June 16, Tony Northcutt was sealing cracks on a highway when a dump truck backed over him. Northcutt was killed. The dump truck driver said he looked in his mirrors but didn’t see Northcutt behind him.

Indiana OSHA issued an $1,875 fine to the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) but later waived the fine after INDOT proved it had implemented change in its safety program for its road workers.

INDOT’s new procedures call for a ground-spotter when vehicles are backing up near other workers.

An Indiana Department of Labor spokeswoman said waiving fines is standard practice for government agencies if they’ve complied with guidelines within a specific timeline, except when the violations are classified as “knowing” or “repeat.”

Of course, one practical reason for waiving safety fines against government agencies is the money would just go from one government wallet to another.

But what do you think about this practice? Should something more be required from a government agency (INDOT in this case) when a safety fine is forgiven, especially for a fatality? Let us know what you think in the comments below.

The post Would you like ‘the government deal’ with that OSHA fine? appeared first on Safety News Alert.

The North Berwick Police Department investigation says truck driver Peter Barnum had just ended a call with his supervisor when he realized he was heading toward a closed railroad crossing gate at 50 mph, 20 mph over the posted limit.

Barnum slammed on his brakes, but the inertia of the 95,000 truck hauling trash caused it to skid onto the tracks and into the path of an Amtrak Downeaster.

The gates closed 21 seconds before the train arrived, enough time for a driver to stop, according to police.

A video taken from the engine of the train shows the gates down at the crossing. The truck appears in the video, its tires smoking as the driver tries to stop. It also shows the signals flashing at the crossing.

After impact, the train’s windshield is instantly covered with diesel fuel that burst into flames.

A motorist who had been following the truck said it had crossed the center line and also drifted into the breakdown lane three or more times right before the crash.

Skid marks showed Barnum slammed on his brakes as he passed a 30 mph speed limit sign, 239 feet from the tracks.

Amtrak has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court against truck owner Triumvirate Environmental to recoup more than $3 million worth of damage to its engine and passenger cars.

There were 112 passengers on the train that day. They escaped with just minor injuries.

The train’s engineer saw the truck sliding toward the railroad crossing and put the train in emergency mode, which applied the brakes, but it was too late to stop. The engineer was treated for smoke inhalation.

Cell phone records show Barnum made a five-minute call from his phone at 11:00 a.m. the day of the crash, which was reported at 11:05.

Police can’t say whether Barnum had a hands-free phone. Triumvirate had a policy banning hand-held cell phone use by its drivers.

Barnum’s supervisor insists the call ended before the crash.

The National Transportation Safety Board has recommended that all use of cell phones by commercial drivers be prohibited. Click here for another recent investigation into a train crash that involved a worker distracted by his cell phone.

The post Driver distracted by cell call in fatal, $3M crash appeared first on Safety News Alert.

Yes, sneezing.

On Sept. 7, a Springfield, MO, fire engine rolled over, injuring three firefighters on board. They were trapped inside the vehicle for three hours before they could be rescued.

Two crew members who were on the engine are already back at work. Driver, Paul McGuire, is still hospitalized in fair condition in the intensive care unit.

His two co-workers say McGuire had a sneezing fit that lasted several seconds. They tried to warn McGuire that the truck was swerving, but he wasn’t able to respond.

The Springfield Fire Department said McGuire was an 18-year veteran of the department and had a clean safety record.

Can sneezing really be that dangerous? Well, yes, according to medical experts.

You can’t sneeze with your eyes open, so that’s one hazard.

Sneezing can be so vigorous that people have injured muscles and fractured ribs. Such injuries have been the subject of workers’ comp cases.

And a very rare but real occurrence is something called syncope, which is loss of consciousness due to lack of blood flow to the brain.

Sneezing, along with coughing and laughter, can cause syncope. So if sneezing is severe enough, it can make you pass out, which may explain why McGuire wasn’t able to respond after his sneezing fit.

This crash has expensive consequences. Replacement of the engine and the equipment on board could cost $500,000. The department had expected it would have to replace the engine in about two years. Now it will have to raise those costs faster.

An independent fire apparatus mechanic evaluated the engine for possible mechanical issues, but couldn’t find any. The investigation continues.

The post Sneezing may have caused crash, worker injuries appeared first on Safety News Alert.

The recommendation from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) comes in connection with a report on a truck crash in March 2011 that killed 11 people in Kentucky.

A truck driver crossed a 65-foot median, went through a cable barrier and hit a passenger van. The truck driver and 10 of the 12 people in the van were killed.

The NTSB found that the truck driver was on his cell phone at the time of the crash, had made four calls in the minutes before the crash, and had used the cell 69 times while driving during the previous 24 hours.

The Department of Transportation proposed a rule last December to prohibit commercial drivers from talking on cell phones. The proposal is in the public comments phase. A ban on texting for commercial drivers already exists.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has described himself as “on a rampage” about drivers using cell phones.

Thirty-four states, the District of Columbia, and Guam ban text messaging for all drivers. Twelve of these laws were enacted in 2010 alone.

Nine states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands prohibit all drivers from using handheld cell phones while driving.

Should commercial drivers be banned from using cell phones? Should the ban extend to all drivers? Does your company have a policy on cell phones while driving? Let us know what you think in the comments below.

The post Feds urge cell phone ban for all commercial drivers appeared first on Safety News Alert.

Brandon Wright was riding his motorcycle on U.S. Highway 89 in Logan, UT, on Sept. 12, when a car pulled out of a parking lot in front of him.

Wright intentionally grounded his bike to avoid getting hit, but it went up in flames and he slid underneath the car, which was also on fire.

A worker from a nearby construction site tried by himself to lift the car. Then he was joined by four others, and finally, about a dozen people managed to lift the two-ton car while a construction worker pulled Wright out from underneath the vehicle.

Wright is hospitalized in critical but stable condition.

One rescuer who talked to a local TV station said the situation was “kind of dangerous,” and he thought the car was close to exploding before nearby workers doused the flames with two fire extinguishers.

The rescuers “did a great job,” according to Logan’s assistant police chief, Jeff Curtis. “I’m impressed they would risk their own safety to lift the car up and get the individual out from underneath it.”

An MSNBC article stated, “In comic books, superheroes are often depicted as lone wolves, but in a horrifying car-motorcycle crash in Logan, Utah on Monday, heroes came in bunches.”

Today show anchor Matt Lauer said, “We use the word hero too often; not in this particular case.”

Exclamations from anchors on at least two other national morning news shows were similar in their high praise for the citizen rescuers.

We’d all do the same thing, but …

While thinking about this story, I recalled a memory from my childhood.

My parents would often take me swimming at a lake while I was growing up. There was a dock with a diving board, but sometimes no lifeguard.

One day, my mom took me swimming in the lake, and other kids were there, too. One of them looked at my mother and asked her, “Are you the lifeguard?”

She replied, “No, but if you got in trouble, I’d try to save you.”

In fact, my mom had taken lifeguard courses in college. However, this was a couple of decades after that.

Whether or not she’d taken those lifeguard courses, since she was an adult and knew how to swim, her answer to the question would probably have been the same. It’s human nature to want to help someone in trouble.

As the assistant police chief noted, the rescuers of the man trapped under the burning vehicles “did a great job,” but they also “risk[ed] their own safety.” The police are trying to identify the rescuers so they can be acknowledged. So we haven’t heard the last about this story. There will be more coverage when the rescuers are identified.

Time and time again, we hear about situations in which workers jump in to save a co-worker who needs rescue, but the results are tragic: The rescuers themselves die.

What do you think about this type of news coverage of rescues performed by untrained citizens? Would you use this story of the rider saved from the burning vehicles as a teachable moment in a safety meeting for workers? Let us know what you think in the comments.

The post Are news outlets wrong to elevate rescuers to hero status? appeared first on Safety News Alert.

Attention, those who believe that OSHA has gone overboard with its workplace safety regulations: You’ve got one less fact to support your argument. When all is said and done, the final count of worker fatalities in 2010 will be higher than in 2009.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports that 4,547 people died from work-related injuries in 2010, compared to 4,551 in 2009.

Yes, that is four fewer from one year to the next.

However, the figures that are first reported by BLS each August eventually go up when they’re finalized the following April. Over the last three years, the final, revised total has gone up an average of 174 fatalities.

Total hours worked were up slightly in 2010 compared to 2009.

However, if the usual increase in the final numbers is similar to previous years, workplace deaths from 2009 to 2010 will have gone up about 3.7%.

Some statistics from the BLS report:

• The rate of work fatalities was 3.5 per 100,000 full-time equivalent workers, the same as 2009.
• Fatal injuries among the self-employed declined 6%, while deaths among employees increased 2%.
• Deaths in construction declined 10% from 2009 to 2010 and are down nearly 40% since 2003.
• Workplace homicides declined 7%.
• Top causes of worker deaths were transportation incidents (39%), assaults and violence (18%), and contact with objects and equipment (16%).
• Texas had the largest number of worker deaths (456) followed by California (302), Pennsylvania (219) and Florida (215). New Hampshire had the fewest (5).

The number of fatalities doesn’t always decrease from year to year. Overall, it’s estimated 14,000 workers died per year in the U.S. before OSHA was created in 1971, so there’s been a large improvement since then.

Given these statistics, here are the questions: How much effect does OSHA have on the number of worker fatalities? Since 12 workers die per day, on average, in the U.S., do you think more new and updated OSHA regs are needed? What is the best thing OSHA can do (if anything) to reduce worker deaths? Let us know in the comments below.

The post Worker deaths up — in this economy? appeared first on Safety News Alert.