AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

ENFORCEMENT IN THE DOCK

25th April 1996, Page 7
25th April 1996
Page 7
Page 7, 25th April 1996 — ENFORCEMENT IN THE DOCK
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

At last it seems we've all got what we wanted: enforcement of HGVs under the political spotlight. What could and should be the most thorough, in-depth investigation of enforcement in this country for some time, is now taking place in the House of Commons (see page 6). We say "could and should" because judging by the first session, at which the Department of Transport and Vehicle Inspectorate gave evidence, it may well become a missed opportunity. Several times the senior representatives from the DOT and the VI were unable to answer the MPs' questions. If you knew you were going to be interrogated about a particular subject by an influential parliamentary committee wouldn't you do your homework first? How could all those DOT officials be stumped by the question: "What are the results of the recent HGV check codenamed Operation Mermaid?" That one really shouldn't have come as a surprise: all 11 members of the transport select committee were invited to attend and the preliminary results were published in Commercial Motor three weeks ago. Another fairly predictable question which seemed to surprise the experts was :"How many times in 1,000 journeys would a vehicle be stopped by the VI?". It is essential that the committee is adequately briefed and gets to grips with the real issues—such as the fact that the £13m spent on enforcement simply isn't enough. The accident rate is lower for trucks than for cars, but when they do happen accidents involving trucks tend to hit the headlines. In 1994 there were 14,566 accidents involving HGVs, of which 633 were fatal and 2,924 were serious. Someone has to decide how many HGV accidents we are prepared to accept without doing something about it. The Government doesn't pay a penny towards VI enforcement: operators pay for it via their 0-licence fees. This amounts to £26m a year, split equally between administering the 0-licence system and enforcement. So either this money needs to be better used (not forgetting the VI's recent "efficiency gains"); or the 0-licence fee needs to be raised (which would no doubt annoy the majority of law abiding operators); or the Government should rethink the way road safety is funded. These are important questions which the all-party committee should be addressing. It is an opportunity which must not be wasted.


comments powered by Disqus