While no one can predict future prices with certainty, our fuel expert, Gas-Lock Advisors, recommend combining three perspectives:

1. Long-term trends are intact — supply limits and increasing demand from the developing world.
2. Risks remain high – hurricane season, supply disruptions in the Middle East.
3. Short-term trading is friendly for buyers – prices lower on the Europe story and selling by speculators.

This is a nice combination of favorable short-term factors despite continuing risk. This is about the time that OPEC usually gets involved.

Fleet managers are often surprised to learn the low prices available on fixed fuel contracts. You can get a no cost, no obligation quote for your area by calling 630-548-0611 or emailing Gas-Lock Advisors (main@gas-lock.com).

Also, discover in our webinar the ways to take back control of fuel prices, limit the impact of fuel prices inflationary spiral, and secure predictability in your fuel budget.

While distracted driving comes in many forms, talking or texting on cell phones is one of the most serious types of distraction, requiring visual, manual, and cognitive attention from the driver; attention that should be spent focusing on the road.  Using a cell phone while driving – whether it’s hand-held or hands-free delays a driver’s reactions, as stated on the official US government website for distracted website.

The ban on cell phone use while driving has proven to be successful in reducing fatalities and injuries caused by cell phone distracted driving. The California Office of Traffic Safety announced that hand-held cell phone driver deaths have dropped by 47% since the state of California enacted a ban on hand-held cell phone use while driving in July, 2008.

For smaller companies with few fleet drivers, the driver’s safety becomes extremely important not only in and of itself but also because a crash by the fleet driver can have a devastating impact on the company’s bottom line, explained in USA Today. This is because for small companies with only two drivers, the company could be losing half of its delivery people if one of them got into an accident. In addition, fleet drivers who violate the federal law may lose their commercial operator’s license after multiple violations.

As stated in a white paper by the National Security Council (NSC), an employer may be held legally accountable for their drivers’ negligent actions if the drivers were acting within the scope of their employment at the time of a crash. Furthermore, companies that allow or require their drivers to use hand-held cell phones while driving face a maximum penalty of $11,000. Companies that have a vague and ambiguous cell phone policy for its delivery drivers may also face liability issues if their drivers are involved in a cell phone distraction injury case (see cell phone distraction injury case). These liability factors and their impact on the bottom line have resulted in companies recognizing the importance of having a cohesive and comprehensive policy around the use of cell phones while driving, reported USA Today.

While having a policy will definitely reduce the risk of distracted driving related vehicle accidents, it is not enough to have a policy. It is also important to change the culture within the company so that the responsibility of adhering to the federal law does not fall solely on the fleet drivers. Rather, fleet managers and supervisors should not expect their drivers to answer or return their calls while on the job, and should refrain from calling their drivers who are on the road.

Changing corporate culture may be hard to do, as noted by the NSC. This is because the cell phone has been seen as a productivity tool and many fleet managers are concerned that prohibiting their drivers’ use of cell phone while driving would affect their efficiency. However, some companies with distracted driving policies in place have reported that the policies did not adversely impact their productivity (see NSC white paper).

So what makes a good distracted driving policy? The NSC recommends employers to implement a total ban policy that includes hand-held and hands-free devices, along with prohibiting all employees from using cell phones while driving. This policy, the NSC added, should be reinforced throughout the year with education.

Understanding the importance of having a distracted driving policy, we put together a list of sample policies and external resources that can help you refine your existing distracted-driving policy or aid in the development of a new one.

Sample policies

FleetAnswers Sample Policy

Sample policy 1

Sample policy 2

Sample policy 3

External Resources

Cell Phone Policy Kit

Company mobile phones and driving policy

FMCSA cell phone use regulations: Guide to compliance for truck and bus fleets

Defeating Distracted Driving Brochure



AMCI Testing, an independent automotive research firm specializing in comparative vehicle evaluations, put the V8 Chevrolet 4500 and the V10 Ford E-450 head-to-head. Performance tests took place at the El Toro test facility in Irvine, Calif., and on the Scripps Poway Parkway. Real-world fuel economy tests were performed on AMCI’s city and highway test routes, consisting of city streets, boulevards and highways in Southern California.

The Chevrolet 4500 outperformed the Ford E-450 in every test conducted. To ensure accurate test results, both vehicles were loaded to 14,000 gross vehicle weight. Watch the vehicles in action.

Highlights from the head-to-head comparison:

Acceleration
• 0-60 acceleration: Chevrolet outpaced Ford by 1.92 seconds (15.58 vs. Ford: 17.5)
• Highway merging, 20-65 mph: Chevrolet beat Ford by approximately 257 feet (1,022 vs. Ford: 1,279)

Gradeability
• 50-65 mph highway passing, on a 7 percent grade: Chevrolet reached 65 mph in 2,300 feet, while Ford could not reach 65 mph on this grade
• Hill climb to terminal (maximum) speed, from 50 mph: Chevrolet beat Ford with a total difference of 6.5 mph (65.2 mph in 2,300 feet vs. Ford at 58.7 mph)

Real World Highway Fuel Economy
• With 9.2 mpg highway and 8.1 mpg city, the Chevrolet has 1.5 mpg better fuel economy on the highway than the Ford and 1 mpg better in the city, equating to more than $10,000 in average fuel cost savings, over a five-year period. The AMCI fuel economy testing was conducted over 5,365 miles.

“Commercial fleets know our vehicles meet their trade-specific needs, and help them to efficiently run their businesses,” said Ed Peper, general manager, GM Fleet and Commercial Operations. “The next step is demonstrating the quality of our product to our future customers, and we found AMCI Testing to be the right avenue to accomplish that goal.”

Each van was equipped with identical cargo bodies, adding enough weight to bring them to exactly 7 tons gross vehicle weight. During the tests, the air conditioning system use was strictly synchronized between both vehicles, windows were closed, audio systems were on, and headlights were off, except as required at sunset, when usage was synchronized. No other accessories were operated during the test.

”Frankly, we were very surprised at the large gap in performance between these two trucks,” said Guy Mangiamele, AMCI Director of Vehicle Testing. “As the data clearly shows, the Ford E-450 simply had very little performance reserve at these weights compared to the Chevy 4500. And when you consider the Chevy’s real-world fuel economy advantage in percentage terms, it has cost-of-ownership implications over the lifetime of the vehicle.”

AMCI Testing subjected the vehicles to other through rigorous evaluations including quarter-mile acceleration and 40-60 mph passing. The Chevrolet beat the Ford in all tests, proving its ability to meet fleet and commercial customers’ needs.

To find more information about Chevy 4500 and the full vehicle portfolio, visit GM Fleet.

The Chevrolet Silverado HD, Motor Trend’s 2011 Truck of the Year, was also put to the test against its competition in spring 2011. Watch the video.