There’s no quick fix to safer roads

Just as children go through their school years building up their knowledge base to, hopefully, make a success of themselves, so businesses are gradually being educated as to the benefits of adopting best practice occupational road risk measures.

And, just as there is no fast track from infancy to completion of a successful education, there is no overnight ‘fix’ to reducing the number of crashes involving at-work drivers.

It seems, therefore, that just as children learn the alphabet and their tables by repetition, so behavioural change in terms of work-related road safety will only come about through constant reminders.

It is an analogy not lost on former schoolteacher Rob Gifford, who has swapped the classroom for being executive director of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS).

“You would be hard-pressed to say that a single work-related road safety initiative saved lives, but the fact that occupational road risk keeps being talked about and more firms are picking it up then the longer term impact will be behavioural change,” said Mr Gifford, who advocates a corporate sector driving test and increased regulation across the light commercial vehicle sector. In terms of the next phase of road safety it is more people working together much better that will bring about the next round of road casualty reductions. If we start to see a fall in car occupant fatalities then some of the lives saved will be because of the emphasis on work-related road safety.”

Behavioural change has a long ‘seed life’ and, says Mr Gifford, who joined PACTS in May 1994 and has overseen the organisation for more than half its life, companies’ attitude to occupational road risk can be divided into three categories:

• The high performing companies that will aim to implement best practice across all business operations
• The companies that turn a blind eye to virtually all laws and regulations
• Organisations that do know about legislation governing at-work driving management but need help and advice to implement best practice.

Consciousness

Mr Gifford said: “It is important to raise consciousness. Many of the companies in the third category are small and just don’t believe that one of their drivers will be involved in a work-related crash. It is up to all parties with an interest in improving safety to make these firms more aware of their responsibilities, the benefits to their business and that they can contribute to making the world a better and safer place when their staff are working.”

PACTS is a registered charity with its objective being ‘the protection of human life through the promotion of transport safety for the public benefit’. With its membership comprising more than 150 organisations and individuals from the transport safety community – including RoadSafe – it is also an associate Parliamentary Group. Such groups are established because a group of Parliamentarians have a special interest in the subject and PACTS currently has more than 80 MPs and peers within its membership.

Effectively a public interest lobbying group, Mr Gifford, who spent six years working for the National Union of Teachers as a policy officer after vacating the classroom and prior to joining PACTS, said: “We are a critical friend of both Parliament and Government with equal emphasis on both. We will support the Government if it is doing right [speed cameras is a policy backed by PACTS], but if we believe the Government is not going far enough then we will say [PACTS is pressing for a cut in the drink-drive limit to 50 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood].

PACTS is at the interface between practitioners and the politicians who must decide how far practice – research and design – can be turned into laws and regulations governing the safety of people travelling by road, rail, air and sea.

“There are a lot of road safety groups; and there are a smaller number of air, rail and sea safety groups,” said Mr Gifford. “They all tend to get established in the aftermath of a dreadful event, but I don’t think there is another organisation that dispassionately looks across the transport modes.”

PACTS views are based on research with Mr Gifford saying: “We don’t have a history of knee-jerk reactions. I think the Department for Transport finds us useful because they know we will work with the grain and want to push a bit further. MPs and peers know we don’t shoot from the hip; they will listen very carefully to our advice knowing that it will be considered.”

Illustrating the opposite ends of PACTS’ road safety related work, Mr Gifford points to the law that allows van delivery drivers not to wear their seat belt if they are travelling up to 50 metres before their next stop. He says: “You cannot work out why that loophole should not be closed.”

Far more contentious are the pros and cons surrounding Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) systems. Mr Gifford says: “Research suggests that the technology has a substantial contribution to make in reducing fatalities. But politically and publicly it is a challenge to sell and the benefits may not be fully felt for 10-15 years.”

But, he argues: “Based on safety research, the seat belt loophole should be closed and ISA should be fitted to all new cars.”

PACTS has been lobbying for more than 25 years so what are its landmark achievements? For Mr Gifford top of the list is undoubtedly seeing seat belt wearing become mandatory, the campaign for which provided the launchpad for the organisation (see panel).

That achievement is closely followed by the wearing of seatbelts by children in the rear of cars becoming law in 1988, followed by the more recent goals of the police being given the power to conduct evidential roadside breath testing – thereby enabling more drink-drivers to be caught – and the power to seize unlicensed and uninsured vehicles, both in the 2005 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act.

Wish list

Not surprisingly, Mr Gifford’s wish list for future law reforms is topped by a cut in the drink-drive limit, closely followed by the vehicle manufacturer production line fitting of all new cars with ISA systems. He also wants to see a requirement for road safety to be taken into account in other aspects of government and local government policy, such as land use planning, as outlined in PACTS ‘Beyond 2010 – a holistic approach to road safety in Great Britain’ report published late last year (RoadSafe: winter 2007). Finally, he would like to see local authorities learning from each other and sharing best practice information in terms of road safety initiatives and data analysis.

But, turning to occupational road risk management and, says Mr Gifford, there is much to do.

Initial criticism of the Health and Safety Executive for ‘washing their hands of workrelated road safety for five years in the aftermath of the Government-inspired Work-related Road Safety Task Group’s report published in 2001, which led to the compilation of its ‘Driving at work: Managing work-related road safety’ document, is tempered by recent actions.

Since last year the HSE has been working closely with the Metropolitan Police to improve work-related road safety across all freight operations from car-derived vans to HGVs in London (RoadSafe: winter 2007).

“That is a major step forward in helping the police understand what the HSE is looking for in terms of management failure resulting in a road crash,” said Mr Gifford.

“What’s important is that the HSE is now engaged. It’s important that the HSE does more and if the London scheme proves successful, as the Metropolitan Police believe it will be, then it needs to be rolled out nationally. That then means that the HSE is more involved in occupational road risk and talking to company management and, if necessary prosecuting a company for their failings.”

But, while the HSE, at least for the moment, has ruled out at-work road crashes involving non-regulated vehicles such as cars and light van being reported as part of RIDDOR (Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations), it is a step that Mr Gifford regards as outdated.

“All crashes should be reported because without RIDDOR many companies don’t see that they have a problem,” he said. “A RIDDOR report would highlight an issue and a series of them would highlight a problem that maybe more significant than other issues they are dealing with,” he said.

However, such calls for greater HSE involvement in occupational road safety enforcement and crash reporting to become a RIDDOR, comes at a time when, it is suggested, that the political tide has turned against safety.

This is because of tightening health and safety around issues such as children playing conkers and hanging baskets being removed from town centres in case they fall on passers-by – issues that many members of the public regard as the nanny state clamping down.

Balance

“There is a balance that needs to be struck between absolute safety and complete mobility. The difficulty at the moment is that all the rhetoric from politicians suggests that they don’t want more restrictions; what is required is better and smarter regulation. That is leading to the HSE to become more defensive about being asked to do more,” said Mr Gifford.

He is also complimentary to the Motorists Forum, which sowed the seed for the Government-funded ‘Driving for Better Business’ programme managed by RoadSafe in its 2005 Report ‘Improving Work-Related Road Safety’.

“That report got work-related road safety on to the Government’s agenda and has resulted in the new programme and has brought about ‘business champions’ working to promote best practice to other companies,” said Mr Gifford.

Now PACTS is confronted with providing feedback to the Department for Transport on a variety of new legislation revolving around the Government’s newly adopted ‘Life Long Driver Development’ concept that focuses on young drivers, at-work drivers as well as older drivers and the driving instructor sector.

“My concern is that we have a series of documents that are so broad and wide ranging that it will be very difficult for anyone to respond in any meaningful way, although I welcome and applaud the Government for taking action,” said Mr Gifford, who believes any changes to current regulations are unlikely to have any impact on casualty reduction until the next decade.

However, with widespread concern over the number of young people killed on the UK’s roads – around 1,200 drivers aged 16-19 killed or seriously injured annually, a level of death and injury grossly disproportionate to the number of licence holders – Mr Gifford would like to see youngsters gaining their driving licence as a skill equivalent to an NVQ.

The Education and Skills Bill, which introduces a requirement for young people to remain in education or training beyond the current statutory leaving age, is currently making its way through Parliament.

Mr Gifford said: “The driving test is a good assessment of hand, eye and foot co-ordination but not much else. We want to see more risk assessment and there should be a link between young people acquiring their driving licence and skills for employment.”

With many young people becoming van drivers and pizza delivery drivers as well as tomorrow’s company car drivers, driving is a skill that should be measured by employers and not just presumed by the showing of a driving licence, argues Mr Gifford.

“I think there is a place for promotion of a driving test within the corporate sector and the high performing companies will help by putting their own in place. Maybe they will be able to recruit better people as a result,” he said.

Meanwhile, he also promotes the argument for increased driver and vehicle regulation of the light commercial vehicle sector along the lines of the HGV arena.

Vocational

“The van is a work vehicle so some sort of vocational licence for ‘white van man’ that would be tougher than the current driving test and brings in eco-driving and hazard perception should be considered. There is an argument for bringing the regulations surrounding trucks and their drivers into the LCV sector,” points out Mr Gifford.

However, for him the ‘golden victory’ would be linking safer driving with eco-driving with more predictable journey times.

“If we all went a few miles slower and got to our destinations on time because driving times were more reliable, society would benefit. Fuel bills would also reduce and so would vehicle emissions,” said Mr Gifford.

Such a scenario would hit a number of Government aims and proof comes with the results of a hard shoulder use trial on the M42 between junctions 4A and 7 at busy times.

The result, according to Department for Transport figures published late last year, was a reduction in journey times north by up to 25%, a drop in the average accident rate from 5.2 per month to 1.5, fuel consumption down by 4% and vehicle emissions down by 10% when the 50 mph limit was in operation.

Mr Gifford said: “The Holy Grail is achievable. The real world experience is there and we can’t ignore it. That’s the Government’s challenge.”

Seatbelts catalyst for foundation

Huddersfield MP Barry Sheerman, who is the chairman of PACTS, was instrumental in getting seat belt wearing discussed in the House of Commons. His call for seat belt wearing to be compulsory was based on research undertaken by Murray McKay, professor of transport safety at Birmingham University’s Accident Research Centre.

Rob Gifford, executive director of PACTS, said: “It was that combination of a research base, a political opportunity and willing politicians to carry a cause that led to the mandatory wearing of seatbelts for drivers and front seat passengers becoming law in January 1983 and the forming of PACTS.”

Alliance is a coalition of professionals

Under the strapline ‘working for road safety at work’, ORSA is chaired by Rob Gifford, executive director of PACTS, and brings together employers, trade unions, local authorities, police forces, safety organisations and professional and trade associations.

Through a virtual alliance it aims to raise awareness of work related road safety and to encourage businesses to manage at-work road risk more effectively.

Its website – www.orsa.org.uk – is a gateway and resource base for ORSA members and others in the road safety and occupational safety communities to access current information and developments in road safety.

Mr Gifford explained: “Road safety people are very good at reactive measures and health and safety professionals are very good at risk management and look to reduce areas of risk before a potential risk occurs.

“ORSA need not exist in perpetuity, but it is a way of ensuring at-work driving is in the public domain and through resources on the website helping companies put measures into practice.

However, with numerous other web-based resources, including RoadSafe – www. roadsafe.com – and the Department for Transport’s own Driving for Work site – http://www.dft.gov.uk/drivingforwork – is there a need for ORSA?

Mr Gifford said: “At some point someone has to say do we need all these groups and all these resources and could they be merged.”

Stubborn minority still won’t belt up

The figures were produced by the Department for Transport to mark the January 31, 1983 anniversary of when the wearing of seatbelts was made mandatory for drivers and front seat passengers.

However, Kevin Clinton, head of road safety at the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, said: “Thousands of lives have been saved by seatbelts. Unfortunately, while around 94% of people in the front of cars wear their seatbelts – and that is still too low – only about 70% of adults wear them in the back.

“There is also a big problem with van drivers (69% wearing rate) and their passengers (58%) and we need employers to do more to ensure their drivers and other employees put on their seatbelts.

“Recent car seat laws have done more to protect children, but adults need to set an example by wearing their own belts so that children understand the true value of seatbelts as they grow too big for a child restraint.”

RoadSafe says that TRL research shows that four groups have low belt wearing rates – young men, rear seat passengers, company drivers and goods vehicle drivers.

Good practice

The organisation’s director Adrian Walsh said: “The business case for adopting good practice is very clear. Some 14,000 road deaths and serious injuries occur annually involving vehicles driven on company business and this is a significant financial burden for businesses. The high incidence of company drivers who fail to belt up indicates a lax attitude – it is the clear responsibility of management to change this for the better.”

Road Safety Minister Jim Fitzpatrick said: “Tens of thousands of lives have been saved since the first law on wearing seatbelts was introduced 25 years ago. Government campaigns have helped increase the numbers of people wearing seatbelts to more than 90% for drivers and front seat passengers but too many back seat passengers are still not belting up.

“With up to 15 drivers and front seat passengers killed each year by the impact of an unbelted rear seat passenger it is vital that everyone – young or old, travelling in the front or back – wears a seatbelt.”

Mr Clinton added: “It is shocking that a stubborn minority of people still do not belt up when they get into a vehicle. Research shows that about a third of car occupants receiving fatal injuries are not wearing seatbelts.

“We need to understand why they are still not getting the message and to ensure there are regular targeted campaigns so that deaths and injuries continue to reduce.

“It may be that some people simply forget to wear their belts and need to be encouraged to get into the habit. Others may not feel they are necessary or that it is not ‘cool’ to wear one. Perhaps it is time to consider giving drivers three penalty points when they fail to wear their belts.”

Insurance company LV= claims that 2.3 million drivers are still not always wearing a seatbelt. Martin Milliner, the organisation’s head of claims, said: “Whilst it is the passengers’ own responsibility to make sure they are properly buckled up, drivers should also ensure that this is happening, as much for their own safety as the passengers.”

Tested

All safety features in a vehicle are tested with the assumption that occupants will be wearing a seatbelt. Without a seatbelt, those safety features are not designed to work.

In the event of a crash and the non-wearing of a seatbelt, there may be implications for how much money an insurance company might pay in respect of injuries.

The Department for Transport is undertaking a major research project into the use of and attitudes towards seatbelts and will use the findings to launch a new belt-up campaign towards the end of 2008.

Seatbelt fact file

• 1965: Compulsory fitment of seatbelts in the front of cars built in Europe
• 1983: Front seatbelt wearing regulations for drivers and passengers (both adult and children) come into force
• 1989: Wearing rear seatbelts become compulsory for children under 14.
• 1991: Compulsory for adults to belt up in the back
• 75% of passengers thrown from a car die. Unbelted occupants are 30 times more likely to be thrown from a car
• In a crash at 30 mph, if unrestrained, a person will be thrown forward with a force up to 60 times their own bodyweight
• About a third of fatally injured car occupants are not wearing their seatbelts
• The maximum fine for not wearing a seatbelt is £500. If a Fixed Penalty Notice is offered and accepted, then the fine is £30
• In 2005, official motoring offence figures show there were 235,000 Fixed Penalty Notices issued, 5,900 court proceedings and 4,200 written warnings

<< Back to contents page

• < previous article
• |
• next article >