Safe Speed Forums

Exactly!

Surely the employee has some responsibility in this matter too!
Why not split the cost or even invest in him/her and pay for it themselves.
I'm an employer and fail to see why I should foot the entire bill.
Why should the employer always have to take sole responsibility for training etc?
I'm prepared to invest in an employee so I don't see it as unfair for them to do likewise.
Employment legislation is already taking the piss in the UK and it's getting worse so much so that soon I will have to employ someone to ensure we are adhering to it correctly most of which is inane crap dreamt up by someone in government to ensure their continual employment (rather like Kevin Tea of the SCP Cumbria).
Employment is a two way street.
I had a female employee who just didn't turn in one day and that was that yet if I had sacked her without warning then no doubt I would find myself facing a tribunal and be forced to pay out.
The work ethic is dying out in this country because everyone either is convinced they will win the lottery or believe by sitting on their arse all day someone will make them a bloody 'celebrity'.

I have to say that my employer does try hard. (most of the time)

driving liscence checks are compulsery every year for all employees (yes... even those who don't drive! )

drivers get a quaterly mag and an annual drivewise computer based training package

drivers of specilist vehicles get special training on the mecanical aids part of that kit

cars and vans are all serviced very strictly with numerous texts if you forget.

They fall down a bit on passing on legislation and training about speed limits and new rules applying to vans and trucks.

Eye tests are free every two years but you have to buy your own glasses

no other health checks unless you are a manager

possibly a risk assessment ? at your managers perception that you may not be well.

mobiles total run your working life manergers get hands free kits, but no hands free kit provided for vans or trucks.... naff !

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

I'm reminded of the company that was recently reprimanded for placing an advert for a "hard working" person in a job centre, as this would "discriminate against the non-hard working".

The job selection process is by its very nature selective, and if you can't choose the hard working candidate over the lazy b@stard, what can you do?

Also reminded of the age discrimination legislation currently going through. Don't get me wrong - by and large a good thing, but one detail takes the p1ss.

Imagine a large (e.g. public sector) organisation is recruiting to a post that has a formal pay structure based on years experience, and is presented with two candidates. One has only a couple of years experience, one has thirty. Consequently, even though they are being recruited to the same post, they will receive different salaries.

The employer is banned from discriminating on grounds of cost. Even if they're hiring for a job where little or no experience is required - the employer isn't allowed to choose on that basis.

This came about because middle aged public sector employees who'd never moved up the organisation (and yet still had pay rises ) were finding it hard to relocate and get their equivalent job back. You'd think if they'd been round that long and not got promoted, there were other reasons why they couldn't get a new job... There were a couple of interviews on Radio 4 with social workers in this position, and they sounded like such moaning b@stards, I thought "Well I'd never give them a job".

My answer would be "welcome to the real world". I relocated four years ago, and had no problem applying for jobs at the bottom of my field again.

Funnily enough, I'm "hard working" so I soon progressed.

The whole gamut of employment legislation which is prescriptive and Heath and Safety legislation which is largely interpreted is IMO a crock of sh1t. Sorry if that offends, saftey engineer et al but as an emplyer in a 25 man co I and my colleagues have to live with it.

We work ( and compete for our existence) in the largely Far Eastern shipbuilding market and while they have in the past been more than lax, thye have made massive improvement per man hour whilo I believe we have gone backwards. While there is certainly a place for HSE in what little manufacturing we have left, over prescriptive interfernce takes the initiative away from individuals and actually disadvantages them. The governement in shifting blame responsibility and cost for everything onto the employer is largely responsible for this.

It is mirrored accurately by the speed cameras role in REDUCING road safety by the same process.

As far as the rigid structures that exist in public service, those SMEs still surviving in manufacturing will have shed them and a newcomers salary and conditions job offer will almost exclusively reflect the combination of age, experience and those qualities that make up his capability to fulfil the role for which the company has advertised and he applied. In other words a private deal. If some government snooper tries asking why we selected such a body of someone else ( as did happen once ) they are politely and firmly told that its the companies prerogative to selcet and employ staff and the foregoing is the basis on which we make the decision.

It's somewhat sad that perhaps too much unnessesary H&S and employment laws has created such ill-feeling amongst employers. Most employees are more productive when they feel an employer is fair and resonable and actually cares about their welfare rather then a "its not my problem" attitude.

I've had both good employers and bad employers. The worst one was a manger who asked my to make another delivery after being 7 hours on the road solid, without so much as a brew stop.
said "I'm sorry, I want to have some lunch, at least give me time to eat it", to which I got the reply "You can eat it while your driving"
"I'm sorry I'm not prepared to do that" I replied
"Well hurry up you can have 5 minutes then" was the answer

I started looking for a new job that same evening, which ultimately led me to my current job and I've never been happier.

There are bad employees, I'm not doubting that, but there are some shockingly bad employers as well. A good, fair, resonable employer who cares about their staffs welfare will ultimately get more from their staff.

Well it wasn't really a specific machine question, its not an environment I've spent a great deal of time in. Fare enough, what about fork-lifts trucks? Or litereally anything where an employee has caused an accident through fatigue.

I'm not saying its all down to the employer, of course an employee should take some responsibiity to speak up if they feel that they are unsafe performing a task. However an employer should make it possible for them to do so without feeling that their boss is going to be completly unsympathetic towards their concers. Of course some employees will try and take the mick, but a good employer should be able to spot that!

Funny you should mention fork lifts! At a previous job, a fair number of years ago now, I used to drive the fork lift on occasions when I wanted to lift something heavy. The company probably shouldn't have let me but it worked both ways. I got my stuff done out of hours and / or more quickly without making demands on the fork lift drivers (who had other jobs too!) and they got more productivity out of me. I then switched job to the public sector where we soon needed to move something heavy. I (rather naively) hopped on the fork lift thinking I'd be doing the lab technicians a favour by not expecting them to do it. Needless to say there was mad panic (mainly, it has to be said, because I wasn't a paid up member of Unison!) but peripherally, they were also concerned that I wasn't trained! The Head of Department then decided it would be a good idea to formalise it so he sent me on a half day assessment course. It all went well until we got to the theory part where we were asked how we'd know how much weight we could carry at a particular distance from the mast. Not having been formally trained, I wrote that we'd take moments about the front axle and work it out that way but the assessor then told me I'd got that question wrong because the correct answer was that there was a sticker on the side of the mast telling you! (He wouldn't believe that the values on the sticker would have been worked out in the same way as I'd suggested!)

I think that illustrates why I get so frustrated with Health & Safety issues. Of course they're there for a good reason but there are always occasions when, as long as you know the reason, you can work outside the envelope perfectly safely. Now of course, I don't know all about a great deal of dangerous machinery and if it was something I was unfamiliar with, I'd be the first to want to be shown how to work it properly but, like speed limits, I don't think blind adherence to the rules helps anyone.

Some time ago, we were considering sourcing mechanical components from India. I had expected poor Health & Safety conditions at the foundry but was utterly appalled at the fact that some of the lads didn't have shoes. Never mind safety boots, just no shoes at all!!!! Talking to the manager he said that if any of those guys made a mistake, they'd most likely loose a foot or a leg. (or worse!) If that happened, they wouldn't be able to work and their families would starve or spend the rest of their lives begging. He said that tended to concentrate their minds and ensure that they were EXTREMELY careful!

Now this is a bit like the broken bottle stuck to the steering wheel and no seat belts theory of driving. We'd all take a lot more care!

Obviously, I don't subscribe to that (or the above) point of view entirely but in my view, there can be little argument that over-regulation and over-legislation causes people to "dumb down" and that sets off a vicious circle whereby they don't concentrate so dafter accidents happen so we get even more prescriptive H&S legislation to aviod the daft accidents so they dumb down even more...and so on.

On balance, I think we've got plenty enough red tape now. Maybe if some new technology emerged, we might need some more but just at present, we need to compete with places like India that have none - and we can't!

I completely agree, you don't go from being competent at your work one minute to being a jibbering wreck the next, or needing a piece of paper to say you can do a task you have been doing for years so for that reason I wouldn't want to see set-in-stone limits as to how much driving you can do, or whatever. However I don't think its unreasonable for an employer to ask if its employees are comftable with their workload if its particualrly high, and, if so, look at ways that could make the driver more effiecent, more productive and therefore making more money. This should be a conversation not an argument of course!

Aye! WE CAN AGREE ON THAT!

Maybe, if there IS any need at all for more guidelines / best practice / whatever, it might be for some sort of recommendation on a maximum number of hours to be driven in a day? The trouble is, as soon as someone in authority makes a "recommendation", and someone else has an accident whilst working outside of it, the ambulance-chasing scum that seem to have pervaded every aspect of society will take the emloyer to the cleaners. I can't think of a way of establishing "best practice" guidelines and then aviding this situation.

I have to bear in mind that I have a long drive to and from work purely because I chose to live somewhere nice and my employer indulged me to the extent of letting me work from home most of the time and doing one long drive a week. Obviously, on the occasions I need to travel South for work, he benefits because I can often avoid a night in a hotel where my Scottish colleagues would need one, so it's not all altruism on his part!

Thanks !!


Deep Breath, another long post, some good questions, will do my best.



But are they COMPETANT ?? We have discussed many times on many threads drivers who we assume have licences driving like complete berks, they may be qualified but I would hesitate to call them competant.

An employers duty is to ensure that thier employees are competant to do the job safely, given the lacks in the driving test system lack of mechanical checks, postioning, COAST and the like because a driver has a driving licence does not mean they are a competant or safe driver.

Of the companies that I have acted as a consultant to most do not have sensible expectations on thier drivers for example a very well known high street company is religious on thier HGV drivers sticking to the rules - not overloaded, drivers hours, medicals for ADR drivers yet when it comes to thier sales staff they have a completly different approach to car drivers.

The office made appointments that cannot be kept unless the drivers break the speed limits (I found one that to make the time from one appointment to the next required a speed of 110mph over the full distance, the starting point being Uxbridge - 110 in Uxbridge, you've gotta be kidding!), they were given cheap mobile phone kits that met the rules but were so crackly and tinny that the driver had to concentrate on the call and not the road and they had a lot of calls whilst out and about.

They were under a lot of pressure, end result, those that could go elsewhere did, and those that couldn't did thier best but were under so much pressure to perform that it was very clearly reflected in the accident rate.


As for personal responsibility H&S cannot stop the malicious or the terminally stupid, I have thrown several people of site as they will not comply with basic and obvious safety rules (one advantage of H&S in employment law is that it can be marked as a gross misconduct item and liable to instant dismissal without reprisal from employment tribunals).

One employee had an accident with a JCB, he was trained, given the tols to do the job but 'couldn't be bothered' to carry out checks, the accident he had was as a direct result of faililng to carry out those checks and I had no hesitation sacking him.

Whilst the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974 places a duty of care on employers it also places a duty of care on employee's including co-operating with ther employer in discharging thier duties.


Grumps

MSA's IMO are getting more and more money grabbing, given the already high prices of fuel IMO air and water should be free, IIRC the RAC did a check of drivers and found a significant number with incorrectly inflated tyres, I know of one MSA that charges 80p for the airline and the timer is so short that you need to pay twice to check (let alone inflate/top up) the tyres on a car, who's going to do that ??




Understand where you are coming from but we do have guidelines for HGV's - that might not be a bad place to start ???



The MOT isn't worth the paper it is written on and besides a lot can happen to a car in a year, we have an MOT but the Ambulance Services, Police & Fire Brigades will carry out daily/start of shift inspections because of the mileages and usage involved. When I consult, I recommend that checks are carried out weekly or before a long journey 200 miles plus. It's what I do and with a car that is regularly maintained helps keep things like oil water and tyres up to scratch. I've been driving 5 1/2 years now and average 50-60,000 miles a year (this years been quiet) my car is my office and weekly checks are not too much especially with that sort of mileage I clean it weekly anyhow.

Employers duties for this would not be absoulute it would fall into the 'reasonable practiable' at most more likely the 'so far as reasonably practicable' level of duty a modern car (not necessarily new) that is well maintained and in good mechanical condition is enough, going for a 5 star NCAP rating is that 'little extra' but is not required by law. Hands free kits, the cheap kits for someone who has occasional calls of the 'pull over and call the office' type calls could be sufficient, where a lot of calls are made or recieved then a decent kit would be appropriate, yes I have a kit that is fully installed and mutes the radio, but then it means that because it is crystal clear it minimises the distraction from the road, if it's a very technical call I'll call back later once pulled over. Sat Nav, have bought my own, main reason is that it easier than balancing a map on my lap. I know of one compant that does provide them, the original thinking wasn't H&S grounds but productivity, H&S was a nice side effect.




Indeed you are, that is not the norm, rather the exception. The bulk of companies I've consulted/worked for from one man bands up to high street names have a poor atitude to company car drivers.




Richard, no offense taken, the bulk of my work is now in the construction industry and I'm often greeted by 'Oh F*ck it's you', 'F*ing safety men' and the like, I have a thick hide, the HASWA is prescriptive but the bulk of H&S legslation is going more towards a risk assessment based approach, not sure what you mean by 'largely interpreted' are you talking about case law and precedent ? Yes there are some very well established precedents in H&S law such R. v Associated Octel. but all of UK law has precedents in it, especially when a law is new and has few cases behind it.

Their are H&S laws that IMO are overly complecated and do not help, but the bulk, especially in comparison to most of UK law is fairly well written. I attended a consultation session at the HSE regarding the changes to the asbestos regs, and the introduction was 'We are getting you here as part of the consultation exercise so we can pick industry's brians and turn the best practice into legislation' for the most part (the HSE does get it wrong sometimes) it's not a bad approach.




You've hit the nail on the head, Du Pont, despite working with some pretty nasty stuff has a very envianle safety record, one of the main corner stones of thier success is a culture of rewarding employees and encouraging them to speak up on safety issues, funnily enough they have good (much better than average) staff retention rates in comparison to the rest of the chemical industry.






Yes the old grandfather rights issue, under the old scheme you would have been considered competant by virtue of the length of time using the kit. This was scrapped due to several fatalities and serious injuries by plant operators under grandfather rights, the accident that finally closed that loophole was a JCB driver who loaded a JCB on a truck but didn't lock the rear bucket, it swung loose taking the tops off four oncoming cars, decapitating and killing seven people, 2 died some days later from thier injuries. That's why we have training requirements.

Union membership and safety, often used by unions to advance thier cause, it shouldn't be confused and it pisses me off no end as it does little for safety or it's reputation.

Shame on your trainer, he obviously didn't know his subject as well as he should, however, those stickers there came intio practice because of the many fatalities from overloaded FLT accidents, the stickers is fairly idiot proof it only needs to be read not worked out, there are many FLT drivers (especially in the construction industry) who whilst not stupid are not highly educated and working out the moments would be beyond them, I'm discalculate and do not trust to mental arthmetic but can read numbers easily.




Simple, the courts need to start throwing these cases out instead of allowing leave to claim, there are too many bullshit cases being lodged and too many insurers settling because it is cheaper to pay out than fight, also courts far too often fail to apply 'volenta non fit injura' (knowing acceptance of the risk) to cases where somebody has done something incredably stupid.

_________________
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

In which case the driving test is not stringent enough. All drivers ought to be trained to the same high standard.

But why should drivers NEED any more training than that needed to be a qualified driver, just because they are driving for work?

The act of driving is not fundamentally different over a given time interval for work and domestic purposes. If the govt considers the driving test adequate qualification for domestic driving, I fail to see why employers should be compelled to provide further training.

I agree with you, the driving test isn't stringent enough for any type of driving, domestic or business. Also as you pointed out the driving test is for domestic NOT business drivers.

As a H&S person and as a company driver who has averaged 50-60,000 miles a year I would disagree, business driving IS fundamentally different, according to used car guides and insurance industry figures an 'average' domestic driver will cover 6-12,000 miles per year an 'average' business driver will cover 45-50,000 miles per year. Likewise domestic drivers do not have the pressures of client's calls whilst driving, the need to meet appointments that are unrealistically set for time/distance. There was a poster here on another thread that used his vehicle solely for work bought some screenwash and was refused his expenses, a very responsible attitude from an employer !

When I talk to friends that drive, but do not drive for work they are amazed at the distances I do and the time I spend on the road, one friend has had his licence 11 years and I have doubled the total mileage he has driven since passing, one passed the same time as me and drives about 200 miles a month, sometimes I do that in a day !

The Transport Research Laboratory has reported that company car drivers have approximately 50% more accidents than would be expected when their high mileage is taken into account. insurance industry claims payouts seem to bear this out. so it would appear that there is a higher risk for a business driver of the same training as a domestic driver, the fact that thier employer is requiring them to drive those additional mileages means thier emloyer is putting them at additional risk and as such has a duty of care.

Johnnytheboy, Mole, Richard C your arguments are very much like those of the clients I advise, yet when I say to those clients would you leave machinery unguarded? They say no, would you let an incompetant plant driver lose on site? They say no, would you let some one who is not trained to work in confined spaces lose in a confined space?, They say no. Why - because they know they are putting the employee at risk by asking them to carry out those potentially hazardous duties and are aware that by doing so they have a duty of care. Yet they are happy to to increase the risk of an accident to a company car driver on the basis that they have a driving licence. An interesting double standard methinks.

As for compulsory training, no guidance or legislation requires compulsory training, assessment is always the first stage and training is recommended dependant on the result of the assessment (but not always necessary, for example my employer has assessed me, but I have done the IAM advanced test, and have the Police Class 1 training under my belt)


Why train your drivers?

Fleet car companies and insurers can offer reductions in lease rates and premiums, why? Because business drivers who have had advanced or defensive driver training (based on claims payed out) have less accidents than the average fleet driver, cars tend to come back at the end of the lease period in better condition, they also tend to go through less tyres in a given lease period, bearing in mind the cost of new tyres and disposal costs of the old ones this amounts to a significant saving for the lease companies.


Here are some figures from IAM Fleet, I use them as illustration, they do seem to tie up with other fleet lease companies and insurer's claims stats:

Economics of Fuel Efficiency (assuming a 5% reduction in consumption)

Average Vehicle: Before 30 mpg, After 31.5 mpg

Average Mileage: Before 25,000, After 25,000

Average Fuel Cost: Before 75p per litre, After 75p per litre

Fuel Cost Per Annum: Before £2,837.50, After £2,702.40

Savings Per Vehicle: £135.10

100 Car Fleet - Saving Of: £13,510

Less downtime.
Reduced accidents and associated costs.
Improved claims experience.
Reduced wear & tear on vehicles.
Added protection from litigation.


Driver training such as that measured by IAM Fleet has been measured across 34 fleets including cars and commercials. After driver training these fleets showed a reduction in third party insurance claims of over 60 percent.


Providing a car in good mechanical order, setting realistic targets and distances for drivers, allowing sensible rest breaks, assessing drivers and training where necessary is good economic and safety practice are we baulking at it because it has the 'elf 'n' safety tag on it ????

_________________
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

I am not sure what conclusion you are coming to with this statistic. Seems like an over simplification of the facts again. Company car drivers are exposed to weather and traffic conditions that most other drivers would avoid. This exposes us to more "risk"

I have been a company car driver for over 20 years @ 40-50,000 miles a year. I consider the test I took in 1977 along with 1 million safe miles of driving experience in the UK an several other countries to be more than adequate for my job.

The day my driving competence is measured by the fuel consumption on my car I will get an office job!

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Gizmo, spot on more exposure to the 'hazard' increases the 'risk' of it being realised.

The TRL report basically said that a domestic driver has an accident rate of 1 accident in 20,000 miles (please note I'm not using the exact figures as I don't have them to hand but am using example figures !), therefore, the expectation is that in 40,000 miles you are 'at risk' of two accidents, 60,000 miles 3 accidents and so on, this would tie in with the feeling amongst certain posters that there is little (if any) difference between domestic and business driving.

What was actually found was that the accident rate was 50% higher than had been expected as displayed above. So based on the accident rate there would appear to be a difference between domestic and business driving.

From my own experience I drove 80,000 in my first year, my site visits were realistically and with hindsight unrealistic coupled with my inexperience it caught up with me, four accidents later I decided that I really needed to do something about my driving. With a change of job and more sensible employer and my IAM training under my belt my driving changed considerably. Have had no accidents since.

Gizmo, what training have you had to take your test ? Have you had any training since (IAM, ROADA, Motorsports or the like ?).

Also what is your employer's attituded towards business drivers - do they supply and maintain the cars ? Are your appointments/site visits/mileage realistic ? Do you get the oppurtunity to take rest breaks ? Are you expected to take business calls whilst driving and do you have hands free provision in your car ?

All those factors make a difference even before we start looking at the driver's skills.

_________________
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