Buy-in crucial to cutting accident risk

Company directors are not interested in protecting the welfare of staff who drive for business.

That’s a blunt, controversial statement, but one that is backed up by official statistics and anecdotal evidence.

No matter how often the figures on accidents resulting in death or serious injury to drivers using a vehicle for work are trotted out – 20 deaths; 250 serious injuries every week – many fleet managers struggle to get directors to take the topic seriously.

Even the threat of fines and possible imprisonment for failing to maintain a robust risk management policy is not enough to convince them to listen up.

“The key to successful safety leadership is influence, not authority,” says Jon Abbott, managing director, ergonomics and safety, at Cardinus Risk Management.

“While many safety practitioners are able to influence managers, there are few who are able to assert the same influence over senior executives.

“For this reason, many safety initiatives fail to secure funding so organisations continue to face exposure to enforcement notices, fines and even prosecution.”

Fleet operators can identify and analyse the risks their drivers face, and how best to manage them, but the successful implementation of any policy starts with bosses accepting the road safety case.

And that’s far from easy to achieve.

Marcus Noble, managing director of Cardinus Fleet, says: “There are three clear and valid reasons why businesses need to carefully manage work-related road safety.”

Moral No ethical business would wish to see an employee killed or seriously injured in a road traffic collision. Also, no ethical business wants to be involved in a collision that results in death or injury to members of the public.

Legal Health and safety legislation is very clear.

There is a defined responsibility to treat driving on business in the same way as any other activity at work, with processes in place to manage risks.

Financial Repeated evidence documents the significant benefits of a well managed programme that will reduce costs as well as risks.

It has been estimated that the full cost of an accident to the employer might be anywhere from £8 to £36 for every £1 paid on its insurance claim, according to Driving for Better Business (DfBB).

Items not covered by insurance include loss of company reputation; fines and costs of any resulting prosecution; replacement staff due to injury; replacement vehicle while repairs are carried out; and an increase in insurance premiums.

“Small changes for a relatively low cost can have a huge impact on your business,” says Caroline Scurr, DfBB campaign director.

Whether fleets opt for the moral, legal or financial argument, if the communication of the objectives of the process is not understood and followed, it can result in failure to win director and staff buy-in.

Good communication and effectively managing change are vital for the successful implementation of risk management policies.

Communication is key to success

Communication can take many forms, but it generally falls into one of four categories:

Verbal Spoken instructions, lectures, etc
Written Written instructions, text books, etc
Visual images Signs, intranet, etc
Non-verbal Behaviour, body language, etc

When selecting a means of communication, people instinctively choose the one they are most comfortable with themselves.

However, it is important to consider factors relating to the message itself; no form of communication suits all types of message. Similarly, people need to take into account their chosen audience when selecting the method.

For a small group use a face-to-face approach, but if the group is large and the message must be communicated quickly, perhaps email or the intranet may be more appropriate.

Source: Cardinus Risk Management

Eyecare issue brings 'buy-in' into focus

New EU eyecare legislation is set to be introduced in member states in 2011.

The proposal agreed by the European Parliament is that holders of commercial licences will need to have their eyes tested every five years and holders of private licences will be tested every 10 to 15 years.

Each member state has until 2013 to translate the directive into national law.

Currently, the only prerequisite for any driver is to be able to read a numberplate at 20 metres. This was set in the 1930s when driving conditions were radically different from today.

However, a poll of 2,000 drivers revealed the extent of the problem of poor vision on the UK’s roads. Of the respondents that had accidents in the past year, 17% were as a result of poor vision or not wearing glasses.

Most shocking of all, one-in-five of those who need to wear glasses behind the wheel have them but often do not bother to put them on.

The survey also revealed that one-in-10 drivers have had an accident or near miss because they were not wearing their glasses.

“It is astounding that more than 75% of organisations have not heard of this new legislation,” says Laura Butler, corporate account manager for Specsavers Corporate Eyecare.

The safety of employees is paramount and it starts with ensuring they are fit to drive.

However, Specsavers research found that 60% of employers do not have a policy to test employee eyesight.

They should consider the financial incentive with a potential cut in insurance premiums.

Kingstown Furniture introduced eye tests for its drivers as part of an extended duty-of-care programme, which resulted in its insurer reducing the proposed premium increase by 9%.

“We hope to work with firms to ensure that eye tests are implemented for everyone who drives in the course of their work,” adds Butler. “This should be a priority.”

A Specsavers guide to driving legislation is available at www.fleetnews.co.uk

Guard against drink and drug-driving

At-work drivers are a high-risk group for drink and drug-driving, according to research by road safety charity Brake.

Fourteen per cent of at-work drivers admit to having drunk three or more units before driving, 33% had driven the day after having consumed alcohol the previous night and one in 33 drivers have drug-driven.

Random workplace tests can ensure that staff are fit for the job and safe.

This is not about catching people out – companies have
a responsibility to ensure their drivers do not present a risk to road users or themselves.

If drink or drugs are the cause of a serious accident, and an employer does not have active drug and alcohol policies and procedures, then company directors could be personally liable under the Health and Safety (Offences) Act 2008 and Corporate Manslaughter Act.

Iain Forcer, from workplace testing company Concateno, advises companies to take a zero tolerance approach.

He says: “Make sure employees understand the risks associated with driving while under the influence. Testing should be used to reinforce the policy, and help provide a deterrent.”

Managing change

Fleets need to develop a strategy that will involve people who can influence others. The strategy must incorporate: