Does the Benefit of Fatigue Management Technologies Outweigh Driver Privacy Concerns?

By Rodolfo Giacoman, Fatigue Management Program Specialist, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance

Does the benefit of fatigue management technologies (FMT) outweigh driver privacy concerns? The safety manager of a major motor carrier asked me that question during a webinar I conducted on June 9, “The Alertness Toolkit — A Motor Carrier’s Guide to Fatigue Management Technologies.” My answer then and today is an unequivocal yes. FMT are effective at preventing fatigue-related crashes, and we know that fatigue-related crashes tend to be dangerous and are often lethal. Privacy has little value to somebody who dies in a crash, especially when the incident could have been prevented.

This does not mean that driver privacy is trivial or should not be protected. As a safety-conscious motor carrier, you should be aware of the types of FMT available and which ones have higher intrinsic privacy and legal considerations as well as which best practices to follow when incorporating an FMP into your operations. Keep reading to learn where to find privacy principles and best practices when incorporating FMTs into motor carrier operations as part of a comprehensive Fatigue Management Program (FMP).

Implementing a comprehensive Fatigue Management Program (FMP) into company policies reduces medical and retention costs, lowers exposure to legal liabilities, decreases the overall risk of fatal crashes and makes for a more productive, healthier and happier workforce.

The 2020 report “Review of Commercially Available Devices to Detect Fatigue and Distraction in Drivers,” published by the Institute for Road Safety Research in the Hague, Netherlands, rated approximately 100 FMT devices based on eight criteria: 

1. Validity
2. Intrusiveness
3. Availability
4. Robustness
5. Sustainability
6. Acceptability
7. Cost
8. Compatibility with other devices in the vehicle or otherwise used by the driver

The report reviewed the following types of devices: heart rate measurements, head-nodding indicators, camera systems (with or without computer vision and with road and/or driver monitoring), activity trackers, fatigue models, temperature monitoring, electroencephalography (EEG) systems, skin conductance tests, steering movement monitors, eye tracking and percentage of eyelid closure (PERCLOS) systems.

These devices may be grouped into three categories, each with different levels of privacy concerns: 

1. Fitness-for-duty tests
2. Driving performance
3. Driver monitoring

Low Privacy Concerns: Fitness-for-duty Tests

These tests help determine if a driver is sufficiently alert before starting duties. While these FMTs do not monitor fatigue in real-time on a continuous basis, they have high acceptability, have been thoroughly evaluated and have a high return on investment (ROI).

These FMTs are expected to remain in the market for a long time, do not require high maintenance, do not interfere with driving, work for most drivers and can be used in combination with other types of FMTs. Weaknesses include the fact that they concentrate on the beginning of the work shift, do not detect driving risks and do not flag distractions on the road.

Fitness-for-duty tests may measure several types of signals, such as pupillary responses, reaction time, accuracy, past sleep, caffeine intake, time spent on the job and so on. These FMTs have low privacy concerns because drivers are not monitored while on duty and there is no equipment to wear nor install inside the vehicle.

Medium Privacy Concerns: Driving Performance

Driving performance measures may track braking, lane crossing, corrective or erratic steering, pedal movements, driving lower than the speed limit, position variability within the lane and the like. Such performance deviations may indicate fatigue and/or distraction. Some of the FMTs tracking these measures have become ubiquitous in four-wheelers.

The strength of these FMTs is that the measurements are not as intrusive as driver monitoring systems (see below), do not require the driver to wear sensors and may tap into already existing internal sensors in the vehicle. The weakness is that these measures are the last line of defense because the intervention occurs at the latest stage of driver fatigue or distraction.

Drivers report mid-level privacy concerns with these FMTs, as they focus on vehicle performance rather than directly on the driver.

High Privacy Concerns: Driver Monitoring

These FMTs use sensors to deduce information about the driver’s state of fatigue and distraction. The information gathered triggers a warning when the estimated level of fatigue/distraction exceeds a particular threshold. Such FMTs may analyze driver images and/or measure brain wave activity, heart rate, muscle strength, tremors, alpha/theta brain waves, pupil dilation, blink duration, eyelid movement speed, head nodding and yawning.

The strength of these FMTs is that they may monitor drivers’ fatigue and distraction in real time and may predict incidents before they happen. The weakness of these FMTs is that they may be too intrusive and may require wearing equipment.

These FMTs have high privacy concerns because of the constant, in-depth monitoring of the driver while driving and/or on duty.

Specific Driver Privacy Concerns

Drivers may misconstrue FMTs as surveillance tools and be afraid that their every move is being tracked. They may also worry that all of their tracked data may be visible to anyone at the company or beyond. Drivers are unsure who has access to their personal data and have understandable concerns about the potential negative consequences of how the collected data could be used.

Lack of Explicit Privacy Laws

The most significant effort to regulate data privacy is the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which became effective on May 25, 2018. However, the GDPR applies only to European Union residents and citizens. While the U.S. does not yet have equivalent federal regulations, some states like California and Illinois have statutes that protect certain data privacy rights. These do not explicitly refer to data collection within vehicles.

Privacy Protection Principles

Several of the largest car manufacturers signed into the Automotive Consumer Privacy Protection Principles that were established by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of Global Automakers in November 2014 and were reviewed in May 2018 and in March 2022.

While these principles are voluntary and do not hold the manufacturers liable for privacy breaches, they offer a good starting guide for motor carriers and FMT providers. Here are the seven principles signed by the 20 participating members:

• Transparency: Commit to providing users with ready access to clear, meaningful notices about the collection, use and sharing of covered information.
• Choice: Commit to offering users certain choices regarding the collection, use and sharing of covered information.
• Respect for Context: Commit to using and sharing covered information in ways that are consistent within the context in which the covered information was collected, taking account of the impact on users.
• Data Minimization, De-identification and Retention: Commit to collecting covered information only as needed for legitimate business purposes. Commit to retaining covered information no longer than determined necessary for legitimate business purposes.
• Data Security: Commit to implementing reasonable measures to protect covered information against loss and unauthorized access or use.
• Integrity and Access: Commit to implementing reasonable measures to maintain the accuracy of covered information and commit to giving users reasonable means to review and correct personal information.
• Accountability: Commit to taking reasonable steps to ensure that they and other entities that receive covered information adhere to the principles.

FMT Best Practices

Module 10 of the North American Fatigue Management Program (NAFMP) provides an excellent overview of FMTs, their classifications and definitions, and how to make sense of so many options. The implementation considerations covered by the NAFMP include:

• ROI and legal implications
• Driver behavior, compliance, performance, acceptance and training

For details about operational protocols, problems and evaluation, check out Module 10 or the recording of the webinar “The Alertness Toolkit” for details An organization’s comprehensive FMP should integrate FMTs with the establishment of a safety culture, fatigue risk management program, sleep disorder management program and fatigue management education and training. The NAFMP recommends taking full advantage of FMT capabilities, developing well-defined protocols for their use, openly explaining the role of the FMTs to drivers, creating meaningful driver expectations, presenting consistent and detailed feedback to drivers, maintaining a positive attitude toward FMTs and reinforcing the idea that safety is everyone’s responsibility.

Please let me know if you have a specific FMT challenge or any questions about implementing a comprehensive FMP by emailing me at rodolfo.giacoman@cvsa.org. I look forward to learning from you and sharing NAFMP resources that may be of assistance.

Please check out the resources mentioned above:

• “North American Fatigue Management Program” at www.nafmp.org
• “The Alertness Toolkit – A Motor Carrier’s Guide to Fatigue Management Technologies” at www.nafmp.org/webinars
• “Review of Commercially Available Devices to Detect Fatigue and Distraction in Drivers” at https://swov.nl/en/publicatie/fatigue-and-distraction-detection
• “Privacy Principles for Vehicle Technologies and Services” at www.autosinnovate.org/privacy