Seat Belt Pledge

[tourists24]

Even though a sensor connected to the seatbelt can count when its not being used, wouldnt safety be the reason having it in the first place? If so, why not simply not allow the engine to start until seatbelt is applied? Safety done. No need for a readout and no metric needed to begin with

 

[Nimnim]

How about this, I'll sign a pledge given to me about wearing my seatbelt if I get one of those devices that changes the lights like emergency vehicles have.

 

[pretzel_man]

With all due respect, you really didnt anwer the question.

Its not an either/or deal as far as Telematics vs. an ignition cutout wired into the seatbelt.

The same sensor that triggers the seatbelt report could also disable the ignition without affecting the other functions of Telematics that you speak of. If you are going to make the financial investment in Telematics anyway, why not guarantee 100% seatbelt compliance at the same time?

I don't believe that your statement is correct. Telematics is a data gathering device. It gathers data from many inputs, stores them and then reports.

Disabling the ignition would require (I believe) a feedback mechanism to the vehicle. It would also require some sort of override function I assume in case a sensor fails. That is a much different system than we have, and I assume much more expensive.

I don't think the fact that there are other ways to do things, invalidates the current system.

Again, this is a data gathering and analytis system that seems to work.

 

[tourists24]

The technology has been around since "at least" the early 70's to be able to put a ignition device on vehicles interlocking with seat belt usage. But Sober answer your own question. If UPS will not even spend the money to update a 3 pt seatbelt into an older package car, why in the world would they invest in something as simple as this? Just one of many reasons I have nothing to do with a so called safety committee

 

[SWORDFISH]

Sometimes this board just amazes me. This is one of those times....

This is supported by NIOSH, Fire Chiefs, Fire Unions, etc.

Someone at UPS with what I believe to be sincere intentions tries to adopt the concept. It seems other companies have done the same. Even for Firefighters, its just a symbolic jesture.

People here however have figured out how to turn this into a management vs. hourly issue.

There really is not much more to add. All the facts are out......

Not trying to be arguementative here but UPS has dug there own grave. This may be what you think it is or it may not but do you blame anyone for the feelings they have. Feelings may be different in a different work invironment.

This has become the regular job around here. We have been getting these on area observations at least 3 days a week for months and months now. The drivers have developed their own little phone network now. At the first sign of the rental vehicle of the week we call one another until everyone knows what and when to look for. It makes for a fun little game to go along with the job we are paid to do. The accidents have not stopped but the expense accounts have grown

+1

And still left unanswered is the question of why UPS would spend $700 on Telematics hardware with seatbelt sensors that do nothing but generate a report if the vehicle moves without the belt being buckled. If 100% seatbelt compliance is the goal---which it should be---why not just wire that sensor into the starter relay so that the vehicle cant be started until the belt is buckled?

+1, If it were really that important to them they would do that along w/ wiring the bulkhead door to automatically shut when the engine is on, a gps system that is actually usefull to the driver(I tell all the people I know that UPS has GPS but its only to follow, watch and displine us and I have never seen it used for anything else) a back up beeper when in reverse, doesnt allow your first movement to be in reverse, and while we are at it lets install a sensor that only allows you to back up a certain distance at a time. Since im living in an alternate universe I might as well add a management team from all the way to corporate head quarters down to the lowest supervisor start working w/ the drivers and each other to make a better UPS. Instead of threatening and taking away jobs every single day and butting heads w/ everyone thus making a hostile work environment in which less is accomplished.

You know the answer Bubblehead its to build a case for your termination. If they wired it to the ignition that would be a sign they really care about you and you really know how they feel.

Amen bro!

The same reason they insist on us honking the horn while backing instead of having a beeper built in every time we hit reverse

+1

 

[FracusBrown]

A few facts have been overlooked.

There have been a number of deaths and serious injuries caused by the operator falling out of the seat while backing or by hitting their head on the vehicle or a pole next to the car while leaning out of the door opening while backing.

It is very clear that enforcement encourages use, saves lives and prevents injuries.

If the company didn't do EVERYTHING within it's power to enforce seat belt use, the people that choose not to wear them would hold the company at fault when they become injured as a result.

Arguing that the company is negligent for not installing 3 point seat belts while simultaneously arguing that use of a seat belt shouldn't be enforced is absurd.

The pledge is not intended to be discipline, however it sometimes takes discipline to encourage foolish people to do what is in their own best interest. Its a strange phenomenon.

 

[tourists24]

A few facts have been overlooked.

There have been a number of deaths and serious injuries caused by the operator falling out of the seat while backing or by hitting their head on the vehicle or a pole next to the car while leaning out of the door opening while backing.

It is very clear that enforcement encourages use, saves lives and prevents injuries.

If the company didn't do EVERYTHING within it's power to enforce seat belt use, the people that choose not to wear them would hold the company at fault when they become injured as a result.

Arguing that the company is negligent for not installing 3 point seat belts while simultaneously arguing that use of a seat belt shouldn't be enforced is absurd.

The pledge is not intended to be discipline, however it sometimes takes discipline to encourage foolish people to do what is in their own best interest. Its a strange phenomenon.

Then UPS should set it up so belt usage is a non issue.... car wont start til the belt is on

 

[brownmonster]

Then UPS should set it up so belt usage is a non issue.... car wont start til the belt is on

Then what would Super Supe do in the morning if he doesn't have printouts to push around?

 

[tourists24]

Then what would Super Supe do in the morning if he doesn't have printouts to push around?

Ive been told a million times that safety is the MOST important thing.... hehe

 

[soberups]

I don't believe that your statement is correct. Telematics is a data gathering device. It gathers data from many inputs, stores them and then reports.

Disabling the ignition would require (I believe) a feedback mechanism to the vehicle. It would also require some sort of override function I assume in case a sensor fails. That is a much different system than we have, and I assume much more expensive.

I don't think the fact that there are other ways to do things, invalidates the current system.

Again, this is a data gathering and analytis system that seems to work.

All of the modern (post-1993) diesel cars with manual transmissions already have an ingnition lockout safety switch that is wired to the clutch pedal. You can turn the key but unless the clutch pedal is fully depressed the starter motor will not engage and the vehicle cannot be started.

All of the modern cars with automatic transmissions have a lockout safety switch that prevents the starter from engaging unless the transmission is in "park" as well as a switch that prevents the transmission from being shifted out of "park" unless the brake pedal is depressed.

In other words, the ignition lockouts and sensors and relays are already there. There is no reason why the seatbelt and bulkhead door sensors could not be added, especially if you are willing to spend the money to retrofit the entire Telematics system into the car in the first place.

 

[soberups]

A few facts have been overlooked.

There have been a number of deaths and serious injuries caused by the operator falling out of the seat while backing or by hitting their head on the vehicle or a pole next to the car while leaning out of the door opening while backing.

It is very clear that enforcement encourages use, saves lives and prevents injuries.

If the company didn't do EVERYTHING within it's power to enforce seat belt use, the people that choose not to wear them would hold the company at fault when they become injured as a result.

Arguing that the company is negligent for not installing 3 point seat belts while simultaneously arguing that use of a seat belt shouldn't be enforced is absurd.

The pledge is not intended to be discipline, however it sometimes takes discipline to encourage foolish people to do what is in their own best interest. Its a strange phenomenon.

(A) Every one of those deaths would have been prevented if the vehicles in question had 3 pt belts with ignition cutouts that prevented the driver from being able to lean out or start the car without the belt on.

(B) No one is saying that seat belt use should be optional. Company policy, state and federal law, as well as common sense all dictate that seat belts should be worn 100% of the time.

(C) The company is NOT doing everything in its power to enforce seat belt use if it spends $700 to wire the car up with sensors that only generate a report when it would be just as easy to disable the ignition and guarantee 100% compliance.

(D) The time, energy and money being pissed away on some feel-good "pledge" would be better spent on making genuine real world improvements to our equipment and facilities. If you are going to dispatch a driver in a vehicle that was designed to allow his head to be driven thru the windshield during a collision...and you then add insult to injury by intentionally deleting the 3 point belt option from that vehicle in order to save yourself $40....dont get your feelings hurt when that same driver tells you exactly where you can stick the "pledge" that you are wanting him to sign.

 

[soberups]

The technology has been around since "at least" the early 70's to be able to put a ignition device on vehicles interlocking with seat belt usage. But Sober answer your own question. If UPS will not even spend the money to update a 3 pt seatbelt into an older package car, why in the world would they invest in something as simple as this? Just one of many reasons I have nothing to do with a so called safety committee

We are often told that, for hourly employees, packages=jobs. This equation is true.

Less often noted but equally as true is the fact that, for management employees, reports=jobs.


100% compliance=zero reports.

 

[FracusBrown]

Lets not get all mushy. Safety is important because it drives cost and keeps uncle Sam from instituting regulations that would cost a lot of money.

There is huge legal liability involved with installing a starter disable system. The first time someone is killed or seriously injured due to the installation of the non-manufacturer approved starter disable system the company is on the hook for big dollars It's cot virtually noting to leave the responsibility up to the operator and doesn;t assume liability for their failure to follow clearly established policy.

Telematics helps drive compliance and production without assuming liability. Unfortunately it is a highly unreliable system. It has the same effect as a surveillance camera or a traffic light camera. Just knowing it is there causes people to comply, even if it doesn't work 50% of the time. There are somewhere around 15% with data reporting errors daily based upon the reports I see.

A far as cost savings, the information is manipulated by the group touting it's success. Put up the facts, not the propaganda. Don't forget to take into consideration the cost of installing and maintaining the system.

The potential savings and improvements is not the same as actual savings and improvements. How 99.9 percent of anything can be reported by a system that has less than 90% reporting at any given time is a good example of how the facts are manipulated.

 

[soberups]

Lets not get all mushy. Safety is important because it drives cost and keeps uncle Sam from instituting regulations that would cost a lot of money.

There is huge legal liability involved with installing a starter disable system. The first time someone is killed or seriously injured due to the installation of the non-manufacturer approved starter disable system the company is on the hook for big dollars It's cot virtually noting to leave the responsibility up to the operator and doesn;t assume liability for their failure to follow clearly established policy.

Incorrect.

The starter disable system was already installed at the factory on all modern (1993-newer) cars to prevent them from starting unless the clutch pedal is depressed (on manuals) or the transmission in is park and brake pedal depressed (on automatics.)Additionally, on some of the cars these systems can also disable the starter if the oil pressure is too low or the coolant temperature is too high. There would be no conceivable safety or liability issues involved with simply adding unbuckled seat belt or open doors to the conditions that will prevent the car from starting.

The only real drawback that I can see to such a system.... from a management standpoint at least.... would be 100% compliance and the resulting lack of reports to shuffle, collate, document, duplicate and bloviate upon.

 

[soberups]

Telematics helps drive compliance and production without assuming liability. Unfortunately it is a highly unreliable system. It has the same effect as a surveillance camera or a traffic light camera. Just knowing it is there causes people to comply, even if it doesn't work 50% of the time. There are somewhere around 15% with data reporting errors daily based upon the reports I see.

A far as cost savings, the information is manipulated by the group touting it's success. Put up the facts, not the propaganda. Don't forget to take into consideration the cost of installing and maintaining the system.

The potential savings and improvements is not the same as actual savings and improvements. How 99.9 percent of anything can be reported by a system that has less than 90% reporting at any given time is a good example of how the facts are manipulated.

+1 very well said!

 

[pretzel_man]

All of the modern (post-1993) diesel cars with manual transmissions already have an ingnition lockout safety switch that is wired to the clutch pedal. You can turn the key but unless the clutch pedal is fully depressed the starter motor will not engage and the vehicle cannot be started.

All of the modern cars with automatic transmissions have a lockout safety switch that prevents the starter from engaging unless the transmission is in "park" as well as a switch that prevents the transmission from being shifted out of "park" unless the brake pedal is depressed.

In other words, the ignition lockouts and sensors and relays are already there. There is no reason why the seatbelt and bulkhead door sensors could not be added, especially if you are willing to spend the money to retrofit the entire Telematics system into the car in the first place.

Yes... No reason... Except, as I said this was not the only goal.

Many here thought the sensors were stupid because we already had nearly perfect compliance. That wasn't true.

We now have 99.9% compliance in Telematics centers with the existing system.

I doubt its as simple as you say to wire the seat belt to the ignition.

As I said, I told you why they didn't. This method improved safety, Automotive, and performance.

Your method would either have been additional expense and / or do less than what was chosen.

BTW, I rent cars often. Most lock out the ignition from starting without the brake pedal being pushed. I have never had one that locks out based on the seat belt..... I wonder why? Maybe its not as easy to do as thought? I don't know....

 

[pretzel_man]

Lets not get all mushy. Safety is important because it drives cost and keeps uncle Sam from instituting regulations that would cost a lot of money.

There is huge legal liability involved with installing a starter disable system. The first time someone is killed or seriously injured due to the installation of the non-manufacturer approved starter disable system the company is on the hook for big dollars It's cot virtually noting to leave the responsibility up to the operator and doesn;t assume liability for their failure to follow clearly established policy.

Telematics helps drive compliance and production without assuming liability. Unfortunately it is a highly unreliable system. It has the same effect as a surveillance camera or a traffic light camera. Just knowing it is there causes people to comply, even if it doesn't work 50% of the time. There are somewhere around 15% with data reporting errors daily based upon the reports I see.

A far as cost savings, the information is manipulated by the group touting it's success. Put up the facts, not the propaganda. Don't forget to take into consideration the cost of installing and maintaining the system.

The potential savings and improvements is not the same as actual savings and improvements. How 99.9 percent of anything can be reported by a system that has less than 90% reporting at any given time is a good example of how the facts are manipulated.[/QUOTE]

As I said, I have triple checked the savings.... I can give the number to call. PM me.

 

[FracusBrown]

Incorrect.

The starter disable system was already installed at the factory on all modern (1993-newer) cars to prevent them from starting unless the clutch pedal is depressed (on manuals) or the transmission in is park and brake pedal depressed (on automatics.)Additionally, on some of the cars these systems can also disable the starter if the oil pressure is too low or the coolant temperature is too high. There would be no conceivable safety or liability issues involved with simply adding unbuckled seat belt or open doors to the conditions that will prevent the car from starting.

The only real drawback that I can see to such a system.... from a management standpoint at least.... would be 100% compliance and the resulting lack of reports to shuffle, collate, document, duplicate and bloviate upon.

I agree that the only way to ensure 100% compliance with any process or program is to make it fool-proof, meaning it won't work if its not done the way intended.

My point is that the company has very little exposure now for seat belt mis-use, so there is little financial reason to spend a lot of money to make it fool-proof. You'd have a hard time suing the company for negligence if you are the one that is negligent by not putting on your own seat belt, especially when they can clearly demonstrate that they go well above the norm to enforce wearing it.

Who would be named in a lawsuit involving a death caused by the seat belt activated starter/ignition disable if the system was installed by the company without authorization from the vehicle manufacturer? Can you can say UPS definitely would not be sued? If not, there is potential liability.

There is no black and white when it comes to liability. Anyone can be sued for anything. All it takes is one jury to rule in favor of the claimant. There is no definite way to establish zero liability. The best that can be done is to avoid taking steps that may be considered negligent.

Unfortunately we live in a world where people sue for everything from spilling hot coffee in their lap to using an electric hair dryer in the bathtub...and win!

PS - no bloviating allowed on the far right.

 

[pretzel_man]

Incorrect.

The starter disable system was already installed at the factory on all modern (1993-newer) cars to prevent them from starting unless the clutch pedal is depressed (on manuals) or the transmission in is park and brake pedal depressed (on automatics.)Additionally, on some of the cars these systems can also disable the starter if the oil pressure is too low or the coolant temperature is too high. There would be no conceivable safety or liability issues involved with simply adding unbuckled seat belt or open doors to the conditions that will prevent the car from starting.

The only real drawback that I can see to such a system.... from a management standpoint at least.... would be 100% compliance and the resulting lack of reports to shuffle, collate, document, duplicate and bloviate upon.

I little research taught me something about the topic.

For a brief time in the 70's a seat belt interlock system was required for all new cars. Below is an interlock warning label.

The seat belt interlock was championed by Lee Iacoca.

However, there was huge public outcry and and no evidence that it was any better than the buzzer warning of today.

Congress took 20 minutes to debate and remove the legislation. I have seen the work outlaw used. I don't know what that means.

Most commentary says that the interlock only added expense and hassle.

Again, maybe its not as simple as it sounds.

 

[tourists24]

BTW, I rent cars often. Most lock out the ignition from starting without the brake pedal being pushed. I have never had one that locks out based on the seat belt..... I wonder why? Maybe its not as easy to do as thought? I don't know....

Conspiracy can figure out why it never stuck, but at one point (early 70's), it was going to be law. This was the 1970's. If it was really needed, it couldve been accomplished. Youre guess is as good as anyone elses