Safe Speed Forums

The following taken from a Health and safety bulletin - survey size is 1000 drivers.



Based on my personal experiences, I would agree with most of the above but for the training part. The survey could be taken that some drivers are offered training as part of their job - it is more likely to be training in general risk assessment, to be applied to their job. No employer I have worked for has required/offered training for its drivers.

I've got nine guys and ten vans under me. Just my ten penneth on the above:

We've done risk assessments (waste of time IMHO)

We don't check eyesight or medical (we don't really feel it's our job - that's why they have driving licences )

They are meant to carry out weekly checks

We only allow use of own cars when going directly to/from a site from home, which isn't (I'm told) business use.

We check driving licences annually.

I also print out Dorset's list of mobile sites for the week ahead. Would do for Hants, where most of our clients are, but the info is not posted (?)

I definately feel that employers could and should do more to safeguard the welfare of staff that do significant miles on company business. Its one thing driving 10 miles to work and back every day, quite another to do 200 miles a day and be on the road constantly.

Perhaps there should be a legal requirement that an employer has to offer advanced training to an employee is going to spend more then say 15 hours a week on the road during working hours(obvisously excluding commuting). Maybe it should be 20 hours, or whatever. I'm not proposing the course be compulsary, but it must at least be offered.

Employers should also actively monitor whether the workload is excessive and to consult with its employees when and where practical to ensure they are not overly fatigued. Of course the employee should raise their concerns and employers should treat them fairly. I realise in the real world this is often very difficult.

Its quite incredible the lack of care that employers have towards creating a culture of proffesional driving. Certainly if the vehicle is sign writtern I would have thought it good business sense to make sure it's drivers were courteous and proffesional at all times, not to mention the human and financial costs of accidents.

well i'm a special case i guess... but we do all but the last two to my knowledge.

Do we need another layer of red tape though?

Training would be good but I wonder is it strictly necessary? OK, I might well get flamed for this but if the employee is driving as a test driver to evaluate cars, some extra training would probably be a good thing. If, on the other hand, like me, the employee is driving to a meeting or client etc, isn't that just "ordinary" driving? The sort the driving test is supposed to check that you're competent to do? Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of people improving their driving skills whether they drive for a living or not! In fact, like that copper, I'd rather like to "hone" mine at 160 on a public road but I doubt I'd get away with that one!

My company checks driving licenses annually. As we work with cars, they do get checked periodically but I prefer to do my own anyway - no arguments or doubts then!

As for the other stuff, they don't but I wear glasses so I get my eyes tested every couple of years anyway.

I'm not sure that any of this would actually make things safer. I've a feeling the kindof driver that drives like a nutter might, after a training course, feel even more over-confident in some cases...

i dont even get told about new regulations. i make it my business to find out myself and it has worked so far. i dont rely on anyone to provide me with training or updates. totally unreliable and when they do offer something, its probably wrong

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585

red tape tends to be only thing many employers take notice of.

about a week after passing my test at the age of 18 and having driven nothing other than a mini metro an engineer at my company wanted me to drive a lorry to chalford, which meant driving it through the city of gloucester, down the M5 and along norrow country lanes. the lorry in question was a clapped out 14 year old wreck that evan our ex-army pro lorry driver was scared of.

I apologised and told him if I took it out I'd probably kill someone. He took this personally and caused problems for me within the company in unrelated matters. This is the kind of attitude you're up against. Ideally we'd all have respect for each other and a professional attitude, but we don't, therefore we need to legistate.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

A year after passing my test I was given a temporary job and asked to drive a truck for 150 miles a day for a week delivering parcels to 20-65 drop offs per day

I found the truck initailly difficult to drive. Its sttering was far less precise that a car. I took extra care until I got to grips with it.

The overall experience was a bit daunting for a 19 yr old abut an interesting challenge that added to me experience, enhanced ny skills and confidence. Had I hit anything it would have been mu fault and not the employers.

It was 33 years ago. and mores the pity.

For an individual journey I would agree with you. However, condsider the following:-

*Spending all day on the road covering maybe seven times the milage of that of an ordinary driver
*Regularly encountering traffic congestion and delays
*Having deadlines to meet
*Having a high workload
*Expected to take in depth technical / sales calls on the move
*In some cases driving a bigger or more powerful vehicle then before
*Work/Life pressures to get home on time
*Regularly driving in unfamiliar places

As you can see, put them all together and it becomes much more the 'ordinary' driving in my opinion. Of course some people deal with it better then others but what am saying is employers should take a greater interest in their employees driving.

Its may not just be the physical act of driving thats the problem, it maybe the whole ethos of the company. Some are more compassionate then others. For example if an employee has been on a long trip and has been seriously delayed then a good employer would offer to pay for a hotel. A bad employer would insist the employee carried on or paid for a hotel out of their own pocket. I appricate thats a rather simplistic example but I'm sure you see where I'm coming from.

Johnnytheboy: "I've got nine guys and ten vans under me. Just my ten penneth on the above:

We've done risk assessments (waste of time IMHO)": What do you assess? What actions do you take as a result of those assessments or are they just filed? And are you competant to carry out risk assessements? (not a personal attack but many companies that I investigate accidents for all have RA's for the tasks that led to an accident but by someone who is not competant to carry out RA's, and have not carried out any actions resulting from RA's).


"We don't check eyesight or medical (we don't really feel it's our job - that's why they have driving licences )": Driving licences do not mean a person has correct eyesight, and for other safety related items DSE, confined spaces, chemical processes there is a requirement on the employer regarding eyesight/medical.


"They are meant to carry out weekly checks": Given that a driver does not need to know how to carry out basic checks to pass the driving test and that many drivers do not know how to carry out basic checks, it would not be considered reasonable to expect them to know how to carry out reasonable checks, likewise as an employer you have a duty of care and a requirement to provide Necessary Information, Instruction, Training and Supervision (Management Regs).


"We only allow use of own cars when going directly to/from a site from home, which isn't (I'm told) business use." You have been advised possibly incorrectly, if the employee cannot do that journey without a car or they can claim mileage then they are deemed to be 'at work'.


"We check driving licences annually." Most companies that do check licences do an annual check but given that a driver can get a ban in a week it is not a credible legal defence if one of your drivers commits an offence on company business, the better setups usually have a declaration to be made on thier weekly/monthly mileage/expenses returns to the effect of 'I have not knowingly commited any offences under the Road Traffic Act in the last week/month, should any offence come to my knowledge I will inform HR/Line Manger asap" and a quarterly licence check is conducted.


"I also print out Dorset's list of mobile sites for the week ahead. Would do for Hants, where most of our clients are, but the info is not posted (?)": Reasonable but can be viewed with suspicion, have advised clients that any lists are headed 'Accident Blackspots' rather than 'Camera Locations' a slightly more acceptable view if it is seen in court.


Sorry if this seems as a dig but what you've listed is a fairly typical response from many companies that I advise. Most company car policies that I view all hammer home the drivers duties under the Road Traffic Act but fail to mention the employer's duties under H&S law such as the Mangement Regs, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regs (especially relevant where the company provides the vehicle), in essence the policy tries to shift the onus onto the employee/driver.


There is already sufficient legislation under Road Traffic Law and H&S Law but the enforcement, especially joined up enforcement is lacking. The Police viewed it as the HSE's job as it was work related, and the HSE viewed it as the Police's job as they had personnel trained to investigate RTA's.

In recent years The HSE did start to get more involved but have since had funding cut for occupational road safety and the DfT after many years of doing Sweet FA, have recently told the HSE 'Hands Off' it's our domain.


Capri2.8i both your posts sum up several key points, I have investigated several accidents where tiredness is a key factor - the employee has had a two-three hour journey to site/client has carried out a full days work and then has a two/three hour drive home, we don't allow a HGV driver to do that but companies are content to have a car driver do that.


The company I work for has a few quirks that I'm working on them for, but they do insist that if you have more than a two hour drive home after a full day, then you have the option of an overnight stay, since doing that there has been a significant fall in accidents and damage to vehicles.

I know of a friend who's employer requires all employees to undertake defensive driver training (at the companies cost in company time), before they are allowed to have a company car, this training also includes basic mechanical checks. Again they have a lower than industry accident rate, they also have better rates from their lease company as cars that get checked properly are in a better state mechanically as repairs & maintenance gets doen at an early stage rather than when it is at a major stage or after an accident.


As well as being part of my job this is also a pet subject of mine after a previous employer gave me five unroadworthy cars in a row, one had a fault that couldn't be detected by drivers checks, but would have been found if it had been serviced. Having your brakes just lock up without warning when you are doing 70ish on the M25 is a hairy experience (it scared the hell out of me and the guy following, thank god he was keeping a sensible distance).


Here's some links to sites I've given to clients for further info:

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/cd/d ... w/ergo.htm

http://www.cranfield.ac.uk/university/p ... 12005a.cfm

http://www.iamfleet.com/

http://www.orsa.org.uk/

http://www.hse.gov.uk/roadsafety/index.htm

http://www.hse.gov.uk/roadsafety/employers.htm

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg382.pdf


PS: If anybody wants I do have some HSE and RoSPA documents on occupational driving.

PPS: Sorry about the long post !!

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

Sorry, Safety, but at my lowly level, risk assessments consist of writing things like:
Driving:
Risk: Driving in to things
Action: Try not to drive in to things.

Performing a risk assessment isn't going to stop one of my guys driving in to a gate if they are hell-bent on doing so.


My employees average age is about 50. Most of them already have glasses....



They have been trained how to do so. I help them where necessary, but I have one or two other duties, and if they don't hand the form in, I don't always chase them.


The insurance companies I checked with were obviously lying or wrong then. My guys occasionally use their own cars to go straight to one site and straight home, where the alternative would have been to come to work, collect a van and drive to the site. I've been assured that this is considered 'commuting', and where it is of equivalent length to their normal commute is not considered working.


They are already meant to and do. I'm blessed with an honest workforce. I suppose the advantage of hiring oldies in Dorset. I can't imagine one of them trying to conceal an endorsement from me.



That's what they call it - I just print it out!


It does a bit, but it is your job... I probably would have attracted less opprobium if it answered in Health & Safety speak rather than colloquial English. Sometimes your response have been what I meant, but in extreme longhand - e.g. the bit about vehicle checks.

PS apologies to everyone else. I usualy frown on really long post full of quotes....

I have to say, I'm no big fan of Risk Assessments. I do, however, accept that I've never been formally trained in doing them so maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick. They first appeared when I was with my last employer - a big university and to my mind, the principle use of RAs seemed to be by lazy lab technicians to avoid having to do any work and to try to prevent non-union members from doing it for them when they couldn't be arsed doing it themselves!

I'm sure this isn't why they were invented but from my viewpoint on the proceedings, that's how it looked!

It started me thinking about them and I feel they've got a lot in common with scameras (except the extortion!)

I work in light (automotive) engineering where there are plenty of ways to injur yourself - saws, presses, welders, grinders, and so on. I think people seem to (rightly or wrongly) feel safer once they've done their "risk assessment" so they dumb down and stop being vigilant. This is the scamera parallel - they drive within the speed limit smug and secure in the knowledge that they will be safe!

I keep thinking back to the Titanic and the sort of Risk Assesment that might have been carried out:

storms,
running aground on rocks,
being hit by another ship,
being torpedoed,
fire,
hitting an iceberg,


I assume all these were ticked off the list (watertight compartments, flares, the new Marconi wreless for SOS messages...)

What actually got it though, was a glancing blow with an iceberg that ruptured just one more watertight compartment than the boat could stay afloat with! I don't think that would have gone down on the sheet in a million years!

To my mind, it always seems to be the things that you're worried about which go on the risk assessment - because you're worried about them. But because you're worried about them, you're taking care over them anyway. It's the things you HAVEN'T thought about that get you!

it does make me laugh. i went for a job as a class 2 driver last year. had the interview, quick run round town in a rigid with the assessor, everything is fine. then they noticed my class 1 entitlement and they tried to put me on artics. i refused to go without being trained first as i was out of practice. i took 3 odd days to get me up to scratch but even then, it was only when i decided myself that i was happy to go out solo. no further assessment on a different vehicle. and that was one of the biggest transport companies in the uk too

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585

Unless things have been changed, responcibility for the vehicles roadworthyness ususally falls soley with the driver, and he will be the one prosecuted.

Case a few years ago, chap driving a van for a plumbing wholesaler and a door mounted in the front of the raised roof fell off causing an oncoming car to crash, the door modification was carried out (poorly) by the company to allow extra long lengths of pipe to be carried but it was the guy driving the van at the time that got done. Company didn't evan get their wrist slapped. You are responcible for the vehicle you are in control of and ignorance is no defence and all that.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

First one -



You drive - you walk( as in cross the road) - you do risk assessments .
You pull out to pass a car on the motorway ( can i do it, will my car do it ), risk assesment. Get to kerb, look left, look right, if safe ,cross. When you get to other side, Congrats --one risk assessment safely undertaken.


Could go on more on RA , compulsary in my job - get it wrong, someone could get killed, and you get a few years inside.





Sorry, old boy , but from at least a few years ago, it was a minor fail , not to be able to open the bonnet of a car, and having done that you were expected to be able to identify/be able to check the various fluids.I am also led to believe that some knowledge ( at least) of changing a wheel, is required.

Weekly checks, nice if only you drive a new vehicle. Drive a pool and not check daily - you is the fool.

Most commercially available logbooks expect you to check the vehicle EVERY TIME before driving.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

In reverse order, sorry if this is another long post...


HairyBen: You are absolutely right under the Road Traffic Act the driver is responsible for the state of the car, however, under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations an employer has an absolute duty to provide safe plant, machinary and work equipment. Taking the example you gave I would imagine that as until recently there was nowhere to record on the STATS 19 form if the driver was at work then it would not have been reported to the HSE, likewise if the driver knew of the modification he would be partially culpable in so far as he did continue to drive the vehicle.


At present as the police do not speak to the HSE except under duress or major incidents like chemical vehicle/ADR incidents, the poor driver carries the can, not fair or proper but it is the wasy of things at present, the one redeming feature of the Road Safety Bill is that Occ driving incidents are being given prominence.


Mole & Johnny: Risk assessments are not the end all and be all, they are a tool in the process, once completed the significant risks are to be rcorded, actioned and communicated to the workforce, most companies say we've done the risk assessment and that's as far as it goes (which is wrong, wrong, wrong).

Hazard - That which has the potential to do harm.
Risk - The potential/likelyhood for that harm to be realised, can be High, Medium or Low.
Severity of outcome - Death through to a scrapped knuckle, High, Medium or Low.

If you have a High Risk/High Severity outcome then you must do something to Eliminate, reduce or control the risk, if it is Low Risk/Low Severity then all is fine (broadly speaking).

In terms of your 9-10 guys Johnny, your risk assessement should consider the factors that Capri stated - workload, time driven fatigues, rest breaks etc, too high a workload with insufficient time between appointments over a high distance leads to pressure that lead to lapses in concentration resulting in an accident.

If you want to PM me I'll quite happily look at any docs or help out if you want it.

As fro the insurance question, without knowing hard specifics, I can't advise properly that's why I said you've ben advised probably incorrectly, insurance companies know that emlpoyees using thier own cars to visit site rather than using a pool car is a can of worms that they want very mch to avoid, ten to one though that if an employee has a prang they will try to get out of paying out the claim as they then will consider it work related. Shits !!

Sorry if these do seem a bit harsh but a. having investigated a few fatalities and been in a dangerous car (through no fault of my own) it is a subject dear to my personal and professional heart and b. I can be blunt so and so at the best of times, so am not having a go.

Again sorry if it seems that way.

For what it's worth I happen to think that employers rely on the drivers duties under the RTA far too much as it is a conveniant cop out, and they miostaknly assume it arbogates thier responsibilty under H&S Law.

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

Sorry Botach, not for private driving tests, is not on the examiners sheet, is considered an 'optional without predjudice item' though there are plans to make it part of the test.

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

PLEASE learn to use the quotes! I value your contributions highly, but it is getting VERY hard to understand who is saying what with the longer posts.

Start by pressing the 'quote' button and see what happens. If you want to have 'test runs' I don't mind clearing up after you.

Also note that once you have composed a reply, there's a preview button allowing you to see how the post will look.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

SafeSpeed

Quote:

PLEASE learn to use the quotes! I value your contributions highly, but it is getting VERY hard to understand who is saying what with the longer posts.

Apologies Paul !!

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

No apology required!

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety