When a truck crashes the results can he devastating—and the
Page 46
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
latest Government figures show an increase in accidents involving HG Vs. Steve McQueen looks at the social and financial impact when things go wrong on the road...
Surrimer is generally a busy time for safety issues, and this year is no exception. This month is the time for completing contributions to the Government's Transport Safety consultation paper. In July, expect preliminary results from road safety campaign group Brake's new "transport think tank", which has just been established to develop the "Safe Vehicle Initiative". At the end of August, the Department of Transport will publish its annual round-up of bad news in the form of the Road Accidents Great Britain report. And the Government's policy document on safety is due out in September.
The rather unpleasant backdrop to this busy agenda is the number of transportrelated deaths and injuries that take place in the UK every year. The driving force is to devise ways to reduce them. Take road accidents, for example. Throughout Europe, there is a general reduction in all road accidents across the board, a trend mirrored in the UK's own figures. Separating the data to prove the same about accidents involving trucks across the Continent is a much more difficult task.
The quest for comparative data begins with the statistical gathering arm of the European Commission and ends blankly at a parallel department inside the United Nations. Accidents involving trucks, it seems, are not a great priority. Perhaps they should be, because they kill people. A closer analysis of accidents might determine causes— and indicate better ways of dealing with and even reducing them.
In 1997, the total number of road deaths recorded was 3,599. That was 325 more than in 1996—which had the lowest number since records began in 1926. An exercise carried out using the 1996 figures reveals the value of road accident prevention. The cost of the 235,939 fatal, serious and slight accidents was estimated to be /9.89bn at 1996 prices. A further 3.55 million damage-only accidents were recorded, valued at L4.o3bn. That makes a total preventable cost to the UK of/13.92bn.
UK accident figures show that the number of trucks involved in UK accidents (right) has also followed a general downward trend, along with the rate per roo million vehicle kilometres travelled.
Similarly, the number of truck drivers killed on UK roads has fallen consistently, but in 1997 the total number of accidents involving at least one HGV rose from 12,426 in 1996 to 13,122. The total number of casualties also rose, from 2,740-2,853 during the same period. Exactly why the 1997 figures (published in August 998) bucked the downward trend is unclear. It is easy to point a finger and blame increasingly inadequate vehicle main
tenance procedures, but there are other factors to consider, some of them social. For example, in 1997, about 23% of all drivers killed in road accidents were over the legal blood-alcohol limit (8 omg of alcohol per toorn1 of blood). Just how many, if any, of these were driving HGVs (or were involved in accidents with HGVs) is not known. However, the statistic illustrates the point that death and injuries on the road can take place despite the most stringent of inspection and maintenance regimes.
Figures published last month suggest other areas to consider. The DDT's annual report, the Continuing Survey of Road Goods Transport, showed that freight moved by HGVs increased by 1.6%, from 15c billion tonne kilometres in 1997 to 152 billion tonne kilometres in 1998.
The tonne kilometres figure has grown by 69% between ig8o and :998 (equivalent to an annual rate of 3%). It is a rate greater than that of the U K's Gross Domestic Product (2.4%). Over the same period the average journey distance has also risen, so that the total number of vehicle kilometres increased by 46%. Does the possibility of additional stress and the increased potential for driver fatigue spring to mind? It cannot be completely discounted.
The Freight Transport Association points out that truckers are professional drivers who are on the road all day and know what they are doing. However, they also work long hours every week. The FTA adds that an accident involving a truck is always likely to be more serious than one involving a car, simply because of their relative size and weight. This makes any effort to reduce accidents involving trucks all the more worthwhile, and is one of the many reasons why the FTA has supported the "good van" and "good lorry" codes.
Certain pockets of reliable independent accident data relating to CVs suggest that despite these other external factors, operators have the power to reduce the chance of their vehicles being involved in accidents. What's more, there is a powerful incentive for them to do so.
At about the same time that the Government was carrying out its cost-benefit analysis, research carried out by Huddersfield University was discovering that human error was a factor in 95% of the CV road accident data it studied.
At one urban fleet operator it found 32% of the accidents had involved moving vehicles, while 34% involved parked cars. A further 23% involved "fixed objects".
Such compelling evidence allowed the university to examine the potential cost savings to the operators of not having the accidents. It asserted that, assuming no loss of life, the true cost of each accident must include all downtime, the cost of vehicle recovery, the hire of replacements and the cost of claims arising for damaged or undelivered stock. In addition, there are the costs arising from lost management time and accident administrative time—not forgetting the costs of the treatment of injuries and/or subsequent health problems that may develop. The incentive, therefore, is to boost profits by reducing accidents.
The university's findings have spawned many safety initiatives. The latest of these was announced in February when it published Creating an Accident Free Culture. This is a guide that the Transport Development Group says has already proved to be "an excel lent reference source in the battle to reduce the number of vehicle accidents within our company".
Brake executive director Mary Williams says it "highlights the power fleet managers have to stop deaths, prevent injuries and reduce damage and associated costs". Brake has its own new plan to improve road safety: the Safe Vehicle Initiative. The intention of the SVI is to use the expertise among Brake's corporate partners and the institutions that support it to identify essential safety-related problems and develop solutions to them. "Many of the problems are to do with the lack of training for technicians, while the image of becoming a technician or a mechanic is not good," says Brake direc tor Alistair Hill, "Comequendy, the recruitment of youngsters is also a problem. The whole idea is to share best practice among fleets and operators and put this to work where it can be more effective. Otis a form of benchmarldng."
Clive Price, engineering executive at the Institute of Road Transport Engineers, was present at the SVI launch. For him, the safe vehicle initiative is all about good engineering practice and good maintenance, generating more responsible behaviour inside commercial vehicle workshops.
Price is also preparing the IRTE's response to the Government's Transport Safety consultation process.
In addition to considering all the social, economic and engineering factors that can contribute to an overall reduction in transportrelated deaths, the review will consider the potential for establishing a single, independent, transport safety authority. This could strike a more accurate balance between the conduct and costs involved of accident investigations, public inquiries and ultimately, the pursuit of more punitive criminal proceedings. There are direct implications here for those operators who refuse to take safety seriously and fail to introduce best practice procedures in their workshops.
Anybody interested in a safety initiative?