The weakest link

The public sector must have firm policies and practices in place to demonstrate that they are managing their road risk in a proper manner, argues Graham Feest, Secretary of the Association of Industrial Road Safety Officers

Much has been written over recent times about the obligations on employers to embrace road risk into health and safety policy, and yet there is still a problem in persuading those responsible to do anything. The public sector are probably the worst offenders – preaching what others should be doing but doing little or nothing themselves.
    
I regret that as I speak with road safety professionals working in most of our public services they are appalled by the lack of concern and total inaction of their management structures who consider that there is no need for any road risk policies for grey fleet drivers and yet they expect the authorities staff to be seen promoting road risk as part of their work to outside bodies. Many people placed in this position feel vulnerable to the challenge of what polices the authority have in order that they can gain a steer of what they should be doing. It is very much do as I say rather than do as I do!
    
The very mention of the words health and safety, and the possibility of being closed down until things are put right, tends to provoke preventative action, and the fear of the Health and Safety Inspectorate turning up on the doorstep, whether for a routine inspection or as a result of a complaint, brings fear to any chief executive or managing director.
    
We need, however, to set this against a background that under RIDDOR (The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995) fortunately only some 250 people are killed in the workplace each year and yet something estimated between 850 and 1,000 people are killed on the roads whilst undertaking work related journeys.

Legislative changes
The changes to the Manslaughter Law which came into force last year has at long last made employers more aware and a little more proactive in ensuring that they have considered policies and practices relating to driving for work.
    
The law itself has not really changed but what it has done is to make it easier for an organisation to be prosecuted for failing to ensure that drivers are operating within a safe environment, and that they have been trained and are fit and legal to drive. If not, the management will find themselves in the dock, not being able to pass the blame to anyone else.
    
What this really means is that organisations must have systems and procedures in place to ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, that they are operating all transport systems and people are using them in a safe manner. Nothing new there then – just an extension of what we have always had to do under health and safety legislation. Indeed, the requirement is clear that health and safety does extend to the management of risk on the road and needs to be part of the overall health and safety policy.

Safe systems
Organisations should consider their position under three main areas – the driver, the vehicle and the journey. Although it does have many component parts it is not complicated to set out relevant and safe systems of operation for drivers, vehicles and journeys.
    
It does, however, need the investment of time and a in some cases a little money in order to ensure that drivers are capable of driving safely. You do need data about your operation in order to frame the total extent of your policies.

Identifying risks
You cannot really identify your risks if you do not know what they are. For instance, how many incidents have your drivers been involved in? What mileage is being covered in what vehicles and what are they costing you? What are your repair costs and are there any indications that some of your vehicles are costing more to run than others? Can you say whether this is a driver problem? Is it a case of the wrong vehicle for the job or just that the vehicle needs replacing? Without this sort of data you will not be able to assess the risks fully and therefore any policies you develop will not be as effective as they might otherwise have been.
    
Drivers are a valuable resource and they have the right to expect that you will not only be looking after your interests. That said, it is essential that you ensure that the drivers’ licences and other documents are checked on a regular basis, and that, at least initially, you authenticate all driving licence credentials with the DVLA. Many drivers are in possession of two driving licences and they will be prepared to show you the one that has no endorsements. The checking of licences is a science in itself and the organisation needs to ensure that it has someone trained and competent undertake this process.

Driver assessment
Drivers need to be assessed and where training needs are identified ample time and investment must be made to ensure the necessary applications are carried out. To ignore the results of an assessment and take no action could come to haunt you later, and yes, this element will cost an organisation in one way or another. It may be that you outsource both the assessment and training or, in bigger organisations, that you employ appropriate people to undertake this activity.
    
You need to remember that it is not a one off exercise. Driver assessment and training needs to be part of any employee’s continual professional development and it is equally important that skills are maintained and bad habits eradicated.
    
You are going to find that the organisation needs policies that are clearly written and understood by all employees on issues such as alcohol, drugs, fatigue, stress and illness. All these affect our ability to be good safe drivers and these contributory factors will be looked for in the event of a crash. In bigger organisations discussion with the unions is important as you seek to develop you policies.

Driver behaviour
Three issues account for almost 50 per cent of all deaths on the road every year and they are all caused through illegal and irresponsible behaviour. These are drink driving, the illegal or inappropriate use of speed and the non-wearing of seat belt. All these are in some way controlled by regulation and all are the product of drivers not doing what they know to be right. However, if the organisation knowingly condones such behaviour or sends out drivers without systems in place to check such behaviour then it is in the firing line.
    
On the positive side it is good to see that organisations are beginning to recognise their potential vulnerability in the areas of those who drive for work but we have a long way to go particularly in the area of small businesses and what I refer to as support staff.
    
The public services, such as local government, health service, emergency services and many of our statutory undertaking may well ensure that their service vehicles and those who drive them are working to good practices and policies but they doing nothing for what I would describe as their support service personnel. The public sector has the largest number of people driving their own cars for which they are paid a mileage rate in order to conduct the administrative services and events on behalf of their organisations.
    
In some cases the mileage that they cover is greater than the front line service vehicles, which means that they have a much greater exposure and are far more likely to be involved in a crash and yet those in management positions do nothing to ensure good sound road risk policies. If challenged they will either defend this position by saying that they have never had a member of staff involved in any serious incident whilst working or naively consider that the rules do not encompass them. This attitude is not only unforgiveable but a serious breach of their duty of care.
    
Many organisations will be able to claim that they have not caused or have had one of their staff killed in a road crash but just as the exposure to the risk is greater the more you use the road so is the likelihood of it eventually catching up with those organisations who have a long history of service to the public.
    
Penalties
We now have some understanding of what penalties the courts can impose on organisations who become involved in a proven charge of Corporate Manslaughter. Just how this will be imposed is still a matter for the courts to decide but what is clear is the public sector is not immune to prosecution and one can expect that sooner or later a chief executive will end up in prison because they are unable to defend a charge because they have no policies and practices in place to demonstrate that they are managing their road risk in a proper manner.