Extending safety from the workplace onto the roads

Employers may soon have to include driving in their management of work-related risks, reports Howard Fidderman.

The independent task group established by the HSC to examine ways of reducing road traffic incidents that are connected to work has proposed that "employers should manage at-work road risk within the framework they should already have in place for managing all other occupational health and safety risks." This is the "central proposition" in a discussion document1 from the Work-related Road Safety Task Group, a multi-agency group charged with giving effect to the work-related aspects of the Government's road safety strategy, launched in March 2000.2 The document addresses each of its six terms of reference (see box 1 ), although it tends to concentrate on road-traffic incidents, and provides little detail on those working on, or near, roads.

Richard Dykes, who chairs the task group and is also group managing director, mail services, The Post Office, accepts that "it is more difficult to manage people who are away from their workplace on business. We must therefore seek to get the balance right between what we might expect of employers, on the one hand, and, on the other, the responsibility of employee-drivers, or those working on or by the road." He adds that there is also a need to provide support mechanisms for employers and effective arrangements between law-enforcing agencies to investigate incidents.

One important result of the group's attempt to balance expectations and responsibilities is the exclusion of "incidents when individuals are commuting to and from work, as an employer's duty of care to protect the health and safety of [its] employees does not generally extend to situations where the employee is not at work". The group's remit is, instead, "to consider at-work road journeys that expose workers and/or members of the public to risks from traffic; and other work activities carried out on or near roads that expose workers on foot to risks from traffic". Richard Clifton, the HSE's head of transport, told HSB that the group was not ruling out all "commuting" incidents, however, particularly if the consultation exercise revealed situations that should be included within the group's remit.

A discussion document is usually a sounding board for ideas that appear subsequently in a consultative document. The tone of this document appears genuinely undecided in important respects; responses to the document will aid further debate within the group and influence the report and recommendations that the group will submit to the HSC and Government later this year.

Data problems

The absence of a single source on the incidence and causes of road accidents led the HSE, on behalf of the task group, to commission work from the Business Strategy Group (BSG) on quantifying the problem. The group's preliminary findings are that between one in three and one in four of all serious and fatal road traffic incidents involve a person who was at work at the time - ie the chance of being killed or injured in an at-work road incident is greater than in a fixed workplace. Richard Dykes says this "estimate that up to a thousand people die on the roads in incidents that are connected to work is startling".

BSG looked at five main sources of data:

  • Police in four areas of the UK asked questions at road traffic incidents to establish whether or not anyone involved was "at work". They found that 30% of all serious/fatal incidents involved at least one person at work. Analysis is complete in only one of the four police areas, revealing that around two in three of the "at-work" incidents involved heavy goods or smaller commercial vehicles, 19% involved cars and 4% involved motorcycles.

  • An analysis of fleet vehicle insurance companies - representing 10% of all fleet vehicles - revealed 12,000 "serious" claims involving fleet cars at work each year, ie third-party personal injury claims in excess of £10,000 and/or accidental damage of at least £6,000. There were also a further 3,000 serious claims involving commercial vehicles. The real total will be higher; the claims, for example, do not include incidents where the fleet insured was not at fault. The task group believes that the most significant finding is that at-work incidents may account for approximately 6,000 third-party personal injury claims each year that are in excess of £10,000.

  • A survey conducted by the Transport Research Laboratories for Cambridgeshire County Council showed that 24% of drivers involved in accidents on single and dual carriageway "A" roads were at work.

  • Data from a fleet risk management specialist indicates an average annual claim rate of 0.65 per vehicle. For delivery vehicles, the claims rise to 1.2 per vehicle. These figures exclude claims falling below the excess.

  • Analysis of Coroners' returns (the ONS database) from 1999 and 1994 show that an average of 123 people died at work each year in traffic incidents (4% of the total number of fatalities). Of these, 40% were in heavy goods or smaller commercial vehicles, 13% on foot, 10% were in cars, 7% were on motorcycles and 6% involved passenger-carrying vehicles. Although the researchers could not identify whether or not other cars involved in an incident were "at work", they were able to show that commercial vehicles and commercial passenger-carrying vehicles at work were involved in 716 fatalities (23% of the total).

    Employers should manage road risks

    The group believes the Government's long-standing policy of confining road traffic law to the police and the traffic commissioners has meant that, other than for large vehicles, "there has been little motivation for employers, or the enforcing authorities, to examine whether a failure in health and safety management systems might have contributed to an incident.

    "The task group believes that this position is no longer sustainable. Our central proposition, therefore, is that employers should manage the risks associated with at-work road journeys and other on-the-road work activities within the framework they should have in place for managing health and safety within their firms."

    Application of the HSW Act and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 would mean that at-work road journeys would be covered by an employer's general duties to ensure, subject to reasonable practicability, the health, safety and welfare of its employees, and to minimise the risks to people not in its employment. Such journeys would also fall within the risk assessment and preventive systems that an employer has to put in place. This would involve:

  • avoiding the risk altogether - are there any alternatives to making the journey, or could a safer form of transport be used?;

  • tackling risks at source - considering if the work can be scheduled so as to reduce long hours, selecting vehicles carefully, maintaining vehicles properly and specifying safer routes;

  • selecting competent drivers - assessing drivers, providing appropriate information, training and instruction;

  • involving employees and their representatives in identifying and implementing control measures;

  • clarifying and setting standards, from directors to individual employees;

  • putting in place measures that will ensure continuous improvement by reviewing experience and taking further action; and

  • ensuring systems apply equally to those who drive for work occasionally.

    The group believes that where on-the-road management systems exist, they are likely to be ad hoc, concentrating on driver training, vehicle selection and incentives for safe driving, rather than on the systematic application of risk prevention measures.

    Legislation or guidance?

    The group makes no firm recommendation about legislation. Although it has "not discounted new legislation", it believes that the existing legal framework might be sufficient. "It may be, therefore, that it is more that roles and responsibilities need to be clarified and advice given on how best to manage change. But we are open to views. For example, one suggestion is that the operator-licensing system might be extended to cover light goods vehicles."

    The group appears to have ruled out proposing an "Occupational Highway Code" as a supplement to the main Highway Code. "We have debated this, but conclude that this would probably not be the best approach." This is because the Highway Code's "primary focus is on the individual road user's responsibilities as set out in road traffic law". The group believes that there is instead a need for a "document more aligned to existing health and safety management principles". This should contain written advice for employers on introducing measures to manage at-work road risk, and could be an HSC/E Approved Code of Practice (ACoP), guidance under the Highway Code Explained series or generic HSE guidance. The advantages and disadvantages of each option are set out in box 3 below. The HSE lists the suggested content of the guidance, regardless of which option is chosen (see box 4 ). It believes there would need to be separate documents for individual drivers and those working on or by roads.

    Enforcement issues

    The Government has already indicated that the police should continue to have primary responsibility under road traffic law for investigating an accident and taking prosecutions (the Traffic Commissioner is involved with incidents affecting larger vehicles). Although work on the public highway usually falls to the HSE, the group says that "in practice very little enforcement has taken place as, in general, HSE has deferred to the police to conduct investigations."

    Furthermore, the HSE's policy generally has been not to apply health and safety legislation to work-related road journeys. But an internal review found that this had led to an enforcement gap in relation to employers' duties to manage the road-safety implications of some work-related road journeys.

    The group feels that the extension of employers' duties to at-work road safety would require both expanding existing and introducing new liaison arrangements between the police, the HSE and Crown Prosecution Service for investigating workplace fatalities. The task group also believes there could also be better alliances. For example, it suggests that traffic commissioners could consult the HSE's enforcement database when considering an operator's suitability for a vehicle operator "O" licence. Furthermore, the Vehicle Inspectorate and the HSE could "exchange information on doubtful practices when visiting premises".

    In short, the group feels: "There are some big challenges here to ensure that the chosen mechanism is one that ring-fences on-the-road investigation to the police; is not an administrative burden; and ensures that health and safety enforcing authorities' role is related only to the underlying management issues. There may be significant resource implications for the enforcing authorities."

    Reporting

    The task group is undecided both as to who should report at-work road accidents, and what they should report. There is an argument, it says, that employers should "as a minimum" report road fatalities and major injuries arising from their work. This could be done by an amendment to the reporting Regulations (RIDDOR). This would lead to an anomaly, whereby over-three-day injuries would be reportable at the workplace but not at-work on-the-road incidents, and major and fatal injuries would be reportable, regardless of where they were suffered. The benefits of employer reporting are that it: encourages employers to take action; allows enforcers to identify where and how risks arise; leads to investigation; and highlights trends.

    The task group says it "is not necessarily wedded to this approach". It could instead adapt the STATS 19 reporting system used by the police to collect information at the scene of road-traffic accidents, so that it differentiates at-work road incidents from those that are not work-related.

    The HSE is also considering whether or not to place a new duty on employers to investigate incidents arising at work, and the group feels that this could "in principle" be extended to employers investigating at-work road traffic incidents.

    Costs and benefits

    The task group chair, Richard Dykes, stresses that, in addition to the social and moral case, "there are strong business reasons for taking action". The group estimates that the cost of at-work road traffic incidents may add £5 billion to the £14.5-£18.1 billion cost to the UK economy of workplace incidents and ill health. There would also be some environmental gains, as safer driving is less polluting.

    The group argues that extending workplace risk management systems to road risk "might not prove too burdensome" for employers. It quotes small case studies that, it asserts, mirror the benefits found in studies of safety management systems - improved business performance, fewer accidents, less lost time, lower training costs, improved morale, less injury and suffering. Insurance premiums and claims should drop as well: one fleet insurer provided data showing that driver training across 34 fleets had reduced third-party claims by over 60% after a year; and a fleet risk management specialist claimed that companies it had dealt with had reduced claims by up to 70% through driver assessment, training, monitoring and changes to company culture. In any case, the group promises a full cost-benefit analysis of any firm proposals that it makes.

    The right balance

    The group emphasises that its proposals must not be seen as undermining "the principle that drivers, while behind the wheel of a vehicle, remain responsible for their own and others' safety on the road. We must be careful to get the balance right between what we can reasonably expect of employers in controlling risks to employee-drivers and the responsibility of drivers themselves to drive safely." Drivers, it points out, must comply with the Road Traffic Acts and the Highway Code. Under the HSW Act: they must cooperate with their employer in the carrying out of its health and safety duties, they must take care of the health and safety of themselves and others affected by their actions; and they must use correctly any equipment that the employer has provided them with.

    The group, which intends putting recommendations to the HSC and ministers later this year, insists: "We believe that if effective measures are put into place, there could be a significant reduction in incidents and casualties. But much needs to be done to harness and target effort and ensure employers in particular are given the right support to enable them to apply risk management principles to on-the-road work activities."

    BOX 1: THE TASK GROUP'S TASKS

    The task group's terms of reference are to:

  • establish (or signal what further work is required to establish) accurate casualty and incident statistics for work-related activities on or near roads;

  • establish (or signal what further work is required to establish) the main causes and methods of preventing work-related road traffic incidents;

  • promote a public debate on best practice in relation to preventing work-related road traffic incidents;

  • agree minimum health and safety management standards for employers, the self-employed and others for work-related journeys and other work activities on the highway;

  • propose, if possible, non-legislative mechanisms for dovetailing road traffic law with health and safety at work law; and

  • propose mechanisms for effective liaison between those who enforce road traffic law and those who enforce health and safety at work law.

    BOX 2: AT-WORK ROAD FACTS

  • There are 2,993,000 company fleet cars in the UK.

  • 719,920 companies have fleet cars.

  • 16% of car miles driven are "at work".

  • Company cars average 10,580 "at-work" miles per year per car.

  • Self-employed business cars average 7,250 "at-work" miles per car per year.

  • 50% of the annual mileage of company cars and self-employed owned cars is "at work".

  • Commercial vehicles (LGVs, HGVs, buses and coaches) account for 17.3% of the total annual mileage of all motor vehicles.

  • Vehicles at work account for 30% of all miles driven.

    Sources: RAC, National Travel Survey, "Road accidents Great Britain", Work-related Road Safety Task Group.

    BOX 3: AT-WORK ROAD SAFETY GUIDANCE OPTIONS

    Options

    Advantages

    Disadvantages

    ACoP

    Sets standards against which inspectors can assess actions.

    May be over-legalistic.

    Places employer's duties firmly within safety and health management system.

    May be premature.

    Has weight and influence.

    May be too prescriptive.

    Can be amplified by practical guidance.

    Highway Code Explained

    Link with Highway Code could "bridge" the "significant divide" that often exists between those responsible for transport and safety.

    Might appear divorced from health and safety.

    Awareness of Highway Code may help with marketing.

    [Although not stated by the group, it would also have less legal status than an ACoP or the Highway Code itself.]

    HSE guidance

    Adaptable to all modes of transport.

    Less legal status than an ACoP.

    Could provide an impetus for change, allowing a more rigorous

    May be an "insufficient tool to effect change".

    ACoP to be introduced later.

    Would allow industry sectors and individual employers to draw up policies based on their own needs.

    BOX 4: OUTLINE DRAFT "GUIDANCE" FOR EMPLOYERS ON MANAGING AT-WORK ROAD SAFETY

    Introduction

    Explain what the guidance sets out to do, where it applies and where it doesn't, and that it is aimed at employers who employ workers who drive for all or part of their living or who work on or by roads.

    Reference to the relationship with road traffic legislation and driver responsibility. Importance of putting prevention first.

    Explain why employers should act: the business, moral and legal arguments; knock-on effect to safer driving in the round.

    The application of health and safety law to the "apparently self-employed".

    Why employers should act

    Legal duties on employers under HSW Act and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 to take steps to prevent at-work road traffic incidents. Clarifying the principles of workplace health and safety management to on-the-road work activities. The benefits to be gained for the business and the individual.

    Finding out if you have a problem

    List indicators that show there might be a problem for employers in the way in which they manage their on-the-road activities, eg insurance claims, sickness levels etc. The problem relates not merely to those on the road as an integral part of their work, but also for those who make the occasional at-work road journey.

    Taking action [supported by case studies against each of the actions below to illustrate good practice]

    Involving employees

    Importance of getting employees involved and committed when introducing new procedures relating to the management of road safety to raise awareness, involve, inform and instruct. The requirement to consult trade union safety representatives, eg about the findings of the risk assessment. Benefits accruing - understanding, commitment etc.

    Need for employees to cooperate with employer's health and safety arrangements and to work safely.

    Setting a policy

    Need/importance of having a policy on the prevention of at-work road traffic incidents, set in the context of the legal duty to prepare a health and safety policy statement and the conduct of risk assessment for all work activities. Should also cover the action to be taken when there is an incident.

    Aligning the policy to other policies, eg drugs and alcohol; and to road traffic legislation/Highway Code where appropriate, including requirements relating to tachographs, drivers' hours.

    Set out the roles and responsibilities of directors, managers, supervisors and drivers and those working on the road to ensure this policy commitment becomes a reality.

    Setting objectives and introducing performance standards for the company and individual; importance of managers setting an example.

    Allocating resources.

    Preventing incidents

    Avoiding road journey.

    Planning and organising road journeys - length of journey, route, time of day etc.

    Drive/rest regimes, including drivers' hours.

    Fatigue management.

    Issues surrounding working on or by roads.

    Pre-employment/pre-assignment checks.

    Driver's licence checks to ensure compliance with road traffic laws.

    Fitness to drive.

    Training and competence issues

    Ensuring employees are given sufficient instruction, information and training to work safely.

    Refresher training/driver improvement training.

    Competence issues surrounding working on or by roads.

    Vehicle selection and maintenance.

    Safety features/suitability for the task.

    Maintenance, eg lights, brakes, complying with roadworthiness requirements in the Highway Code.

    Ergonomic issues.

    Safe behaviour

    Safe systems of work for reversing and other hazardous manoeuvres.

    Dealing with breakdowns and other emergencies.

    Securing loads, safe unloading and loading.

    Carriage/tipping of loads.

    Manual handling of loads.

    Use of mobile phones.

    Safe systems of work for working on or by roads.

    Dealing with particular at-risk groups, eg lone drivers, inexperienced drivers, motorcyclists, bikes, emergency service vehicles.

    Learning from experience

    How to monitor, audit and review procedures for at-work road safety.

    Keeping data, eg insurance claims, accident records and damage reports.

    Using the information.

    Responsibilities of employees

    Summary of what employers should expect from employees, eg on driving safely, carrying out basic maintenance, complying with RTA, being fit to drive, avoiding fatigue, not using mobile phones when driving, working safely on or by roads etc.

    But guidance for worker drivers would be in a separate document.

    BOX 5: DRIVING STANDARDS AGENCY

    The Driving Standards Agency now has a wider remit to set standards, assure the quality of training and improve assessment in respect of all drivers, including professionals and their employers. The agency:

  • will be bringing forward schemes for lorry and bus drivers covering training course content, trainers and the registration of professional instructors;

  • will be looking at setting standards for riders in the dispatch and fast-food delivery services;

  • is developing an occupational driver appraisal scheme; and

  • is consulting on proposals to register fleet driving instructors (www.driving-tests.co.uk/ consult/consult_index.htm ).

    1"Preventing at-work road traffic incidents", Work-related Road Safety Task Group, HSC-DETR, HSE Books (see p.8 for details) or www.open.gov.uk/hse/road. Comments should reach the task group secretariat by 25 May at HSE, Safety Policy Directorate A2, Fifth Floor, South Wing, Rose Court, 2 Southwark Bridge, London SE1 9HS, tel: 020 7717 6481, fax: 020 7717 6670, e-mail: spd.work.roadsafety@hse.gsi.gov.uk

    2"Tomorrow's roads: safer for everyone: the Government's road safety strategy and casualty reduction targets for 2010", March 2000, DETR, tel: 0870 1226 236, free.