FORS Members’ Conference
Working together, championing best practice
9 November 2016 National Conference Centre
CARGO Express
FORS Members’ Conference
Working together, championing best practice
9 November 2016 National Conference Centre
FORS journey
000001
PHS GROUP
000007
TRAVIS PERKINS
000037
ASPRAY24
000460
O’DONOVAN
PRACTITIONER 000001
GLEN DAVIES
Championing best practice
MEMBERS
CHAMPIONS
ASSOCIATES
FORS Standard v4.0
Environment
Safety
Milestones Awards
FORS Surgery
FORS Standard
v4.0
Standards in Construction
Panel Sessions
A packed day
The new FORS Standard – why and when?
John Hix - FORS
Principles of the FORS Standard review
Make the requirements clearer and more digestible Introduce wider environmental requirements Implement a more robust enforcement approach
GSAG Standard sub-group
Review of the current Standard starts
First Standard sub-group meeting
Second Standard sub-group meeting
Third Standard sub-group meeting First draft of v 4.0 of the Standard shared with GSAG
Outstanding issues discussed at GSAG meeting Second and final draft of v 4.0 of the Standard shared with GSAG Final date for requests to amend or change v 4.0 of the Standard
Final version study
V 4.0 launched 29 September
The new ‘family’ of FORS documents
Rules and procedures
Guidance / demonstration
Standard Terms and conditions
Summary of changes
D1 Driver licensing
Version 3.3 requirement – D1 Licensing and qualifications
Fleet operators shall ensure that licences and qualifications of all drivers (including agency drivers) are checked by a competent person prior to driving, and then at least every six months
FORS STANDARD - V 3.3
D1 Driver licensing
Version 4.0 requirement – D1 Licensing and qualifications
Fleet operators shall ensure that licenses and qualifications
of all drivers (including agency drivers) are checked using a risk-based verification system that directly accesses the DVLA database. This shall be done prior to driving and then at least once every six months
FORS STANDARD - V 4.0
Version 3.3 requirement – S3 Vehicle Warning Equipment
Fleet operators shall ensure that all vehicles over 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight are equipped with audible means to warn other road users of a vehicle’s left manoeuvre
FORS STANDARD - V 3.3
S3 Introducing reversing alarms
S3 Introducing reversing alarms
Version 4.0 requirement – S3 Audible Warning Systems
Fleet operators shall ensure that all vehicles over 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight are equipped with an audible means to warn other road users of a vehicle’s left turn manoeuvre and reversing movement
FORS STANDARD - V 4.0
Changes to FORS Gold
Version 3.3
G1 Maintain FORS Silver G2 Promoting FORS Standards G3 Published case study G4 Performance measurement G5 Staff training G6 Fuel and emissions champion
FORS STANDARD - V 3.3
Changes to FORS Gold
Version 4.0
G1 Maintain FORS Bronze and FORS Silver G2 Promoting the FORS Standard G3 Published and updated case study G4 Performance data G6 Professional development
FORS STANDARD - V 4.0
Timeline of implementation
Existing V 3.3 Existing v 4.0
V 3.3 V 4.0
29 Sept 2016
NEW REGISTRATIONS RENEWALS (EXISTING ACCREDITATIONS)
9 Nov 2016
V 3.3 V 4.0
The new FORS Standard – why and when?
Thank you
The importance of the national CLOCS and FORS Standards in the construction industry and addressing the safety imbalance in the construction industry Derek Rees, CLOCS and Julie Madoui, SKANSKA
The importance of the national CLOCS Standard and FORS Standard in the construction industry Derek Rees Project Director, CLOCS Chief Executive, SECBE
www.CLOCS.org.uk
Content
1. Quick overview of CLOCS
2. Vision for national
implementation
3. Where we are now
4. Our action plan to drive
demand
5. What you can do to help
yourselves
Background
85% of industry want one common
standard
In 2013 there were
11 different industry standards
Work related road safety was not seen as important as on-
site health and safety
Clients / principal contractors Construction Logistics
Plan Site suitability Site access & egress Loading/unloading Traffic routing Control of site traffic Supply chain
compliance
Vehicle operators FORS or equivalent Collision reporting Traffic routing Safety equipment Additional driver
training Driving licence
checks
Supporting implementation: Supplementary guidance
Managing work related road risks in contracts
Compliance Toolkit
Improving road safety using the planning process
Managing collision reporting and analysis
Vehicle safety equipment
Managing driver training and licencing
Managing supplier compliance
Taking the lead
Logistic operators
Communicators
Clients
Vehicle manufacturers Regulatory bodies
Contractors
5,000+ sites in scope
350+ companies registered
Redressing the imbalance – taking equal ownership of road and site safety
Emerging national vision for CLOCS
Site checklist
Construction Logistics Plans
Traffic routing & scheduling
Safe vehicles and drivers
Skilled traffic marshals
Gate checks – vehicle & driver compliance
Site access/egress
Good loading/unloading areas
10%
38%
16% 42%
Everywhere Efficient & safe Effective
New industry team driving CLOCS adoption & implementation across UK
But how?
Governance: Engagement, debate, ownership
Including local government
Working group
• Approx. 60 industry representatives
• clients, contractors, operators & partners
• Every 2-3 months
• Now held across UK
• Input presentations
• Discussion, debate & decisions
‘Task and finish’ groups
• Approx. 8-10 representatives
• As required
• Focused discussion on single topic
• Deliverables and outputs e.g. Supplementary guidance
Over 2,200 working group hours dedicated by industry
New task & finish groups – proposed & agreed in Sept ‘16
Effective investigations of accidents, incidents and near misses
• Data collection • Learning lessons • Sharing insights to accelerate
industry improvement
Monitoring • By clients, contractors and
operators • By CLOCS team – CCS monitors • By others – incl. public
Traffic Marshalling • Knowledge • Skills • Training provision
Actions for all
1. Every freight/fleet operator and contractor to ask their customers and themselves why they haven’t yet adopted and required CLOCS national Standard to save lives, money and reputation – create widespread demand for high performing operators, increasing your Return on Investment
2. All CLOCS Champions to actively collect and share data and best practice – inform and accelerate industry progress towards zero incidents and accidents from construction traffic
3. Every driver, gate team, team/project leader and company director to be informed and empowered to understand and implement the CLOCS Standard – hold others to account to drive up standards
www.CLOCS.org.uk
The importance of the national CLOCS Standard and FORS Standard in the construction industry Derek Rees Project Director, CLOCS Chief Executive, SECBE
Addressing the Safety imbalance in the Construction Industry
Julie Madoui, Head of Fleet & Transport – Skanska UK
Introduction
Skanska’s journey of embedding a robust road safety strategy outside the site gate which is fully aligned to the health & safety culture for all construction activities.
We will demonstrate :- how FORS is used across our supply chain as a mechanism for road safety performance,
with particular emphasis on vulnerable road users, and
the ongoing benefits derived from this strategy, both in terms of risk and cost improvements, and
We’ve been around since 1887
We are active in selected home markets
United States
Sweden
Finland
Norway
Denmark United Kingdom
Poland
Slovakia
Hungary
Czech Republic
Romania 2016
43,000 employees 2015
SEK 154.9 billion revenue
UK sectors
Our Vehicles, Our Safety, Our Responsibility: Improving Road Safety for Vulnerable Road Users
Why CLOCS and FORS HSE figures show 35 people tragically lost their lives in the construction
industry in 2014/15.
During the same period DfT figures show there were 1,775 road deaths – a third of which relate to driving for work - but this could be more ?
In addition, 22,807 people were seriously injured (life-changing events) and 169,895 slightly injured:- 45% Car occupants 25% Pedestrians 19% Motorcyclists 6% Cyclists 5% Other
In any Industry, this level of incidents would not be acceptable
CLOCS AND FORS – Skanska’s perspective
Operator Champion (Specifier)
2012 Cars
223 LGV’s
468 LCV’s
41 Buses
Skanska H&S Culture
Skanska is committed to creating an injury-free environment. This is “more than safety, it is a culture of care and concern for people, Everyone has the right to return home from work safely to their family and friends. TOGETHER WE MUST ENSURE THAT H&S ALWAYS INCLUDES DRIVING FOR WORK
CLOCS and FORS – Our Journey
August 2013 – Supply chain to implement :-
Planning of vehicle routes and logistics for all main projects
Advice and training for cyclists
Improved visibility and warning systems on vehicles – TfL Vehicle Safety Equipment guidance – 1st March 2015
FORS Bronze – London and Inner M25 – 30th June 2014
CLOCS and FORS – Our Journey
March 2015 – Supply chain to :-
Sign up to CLOCS ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ and become a CLOCS Champion – 30th September 2015.
FORS Silver Accreditation for vehicles delivering in Greater London (including the M25) – 30th September 2015.
FORS Silver Accreditation UK wide covering all operating centres by 30th September 2016, or a plan in place to achieve within 12 months.
Benefits of FORS to industry
FORS – raising the profile of managing occupational road risk across the UK
Common standard for the UK – adopted by Clients
Industry leading processes, tools, e-learning and training
Framework for Continual improvement
Compliance Auditing – consistent application of standard
Working with Industry – with a common goal
Benefits to Skanska of adopting FORS
FORS accreditation – part of PQQ approval process – Silver meets CLOCS compliance
Increasing number of SME’s across supply chain
Safe and secure supply chain – working together to reduce the risk on the road
Supports our IFE Culture – Zero Incidents - The Journey that takes you home
Supports our sustainability strategy – reducing fuel and carbon, logistics planning
Skanska – Going Beyond Legal
People All commercial vehicle drivers - Safety Critical worker health
assessments
Vehicle Assessors – Transport Managers RTC Investigators – H&S Managers
FORS Practitioners- TMs and Fleet Team
Vehicles Adoption of CLOCS vehicle standard
across the UK Telematics – commercial fleet
Telematics trial-car fleet
Policy & Tools Fleet Risk Steering Group – H&S, HR, Fleet, Operations.
New policies and driver manuals RTC – part of H&S matrix
On-line Risk Assessments, E-learning, Training – changing behaviours
Individual Driver Risk Rating
Incident rates – Skanska Fleet 2012 v 2016
2012 2013* 2014 2015 2016 Average
Commercial vehicles 22% 12% 24% 40% 24%
Company cars 43% 44% 57% 50% 36%
22%
12%
24%
40%
24%
43% 44%
57%
50%
36%
Incident Rates 2012 - 2016
Commercial vehicles Company cars
2013 – 46% increase in fleet size due to acquisition
Skanska - Financial Benefits include :-
Reduced insurance premiums 2013/14 12.5% £169,000 2015/16 17.8% £257,000
All penalty charges are investigated, appealed or recharged to the driver – saving around £50,000 per annum
Fuel efficiency – achieving average 16% reduction in carbon and cost of fuel across our fleet
Use of FORS e-learning, training, tools to support fleet operation
Skanska Awards – Industry Recognition
Short listed in two categories – winners to be confirmed 30 November 2016
The importance of the national CLOCS and FORS Standards in the construction industry and addressing the safety imbalance in the construction industry
Thank you
The new FORS Standard – compliance and reporting
Ian Vincent - FORS
Changes to the Terms and Conditions
Suspension, termination or downgrade may
apply if false information is provided at FORS audit
Changes to the Terms and Conditions (cont’d) Reporting of attendance at and outcome of Public Inquiry
GV - S26 - Consideration of disciplinary action under Section 26 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995
GV - S27 - Consideration of disciplinary action under Section 27 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995
GV - S28 - Consideration of disciplinary action under Section 28 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995
GV - Sch.3 - Consideration of Transport Managers Repute under Schedule 3 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995
Changes to the Terms and Conditions
Deleted requirement to report OCRS and PG9
Failure to pay invoice could lead to the withdrawal of accreditation
Compliance and follow up action Improved monitoring of compliance to the Standard and implementation of corrective actions
Complaints management
Traffic Commissioner Applications and Decisions
Scope of accreditation
Progression checks
Reporting changes to FORS Improved monitoring of adherence to the Standard and implementation of corrective actions
Type of change
Additional operating location
Fundamental change to type operation (including vehicle type)
Change in key personnel within the operation
Change in status of the operation (for example from mergers)
An increase in vehicle fleet by 10% or more
Dissolution of certified company
Change of company name
Certification body aware of undeclared changes in status
Complaints and appeals process
Write to FCP “Official
FORS compliant”
7 days to resolve
Audit Appeal To senior auditor
10 days response time
Refer to “Senior
Personnel” of respective
parties
7 days to resolve
ESCALATE 3 nominated GSAG
members
Review independently,
concur and come to majority
decision
14 days to reach final decision
The new FORS Standard – compliance and reporting
Thank you
Refreshment break See you again at 11.35am
Welcome back
Safety failures – what happens when things go wrong? John Lawrence – Prestige Fleet Consultants
Collisions 2015:
22,137 Life changing Injuries 186,209 Casualties
1732 Fatalities
Source DfT June 2016
Serious Collisions Happen!
The dreaded phone call Vehicle moving near a workplace
Collides with a pedestrian
Major injuries or death
What next?
Serious Collision
Who will lead and investigate the incident?
Contains public sector information published by the Health and Safety Executive and licensed under the Open Government Licence
Police Service
The Police or DVSA are better placed to deal with incidents that occur on public roads and enforcing road traffic legislation.
HSE inspectors are not generally involved with work-related road traffic incidents arising from driving activities on public roads
The majority of road traffic incidents will not be RIDDOR reportable.
Serious Collision – Example of Police protocol
Treated as an unlawful killing from the outset
In line with College of Policing recommendations and where appropriate, the ACPO Murder Incident Manual
Disciplined and rigorous methods
Specially trained Forensic Investigators
When are HSE Involved?
Likely involvement Where Employers have a degree of control over the activities. i.e. Site layout and vehicle
management
Significant influence over road safety immediately outside work
premises.
Liaison with the Police will be needed, and possibly the highway authority.
Contains public sector information published by the Health and Safety Executive and licensed under the Open Government Licence
The Investigation: Collecting evidence
What will they look for?
The Investigation: Collecting evidence
Who will they speak to?
“PACE Interviews” What are they?
Co-operation & Internal Investigation is key
Use Toolkits Collision investigation and reporting
Gather internal evidence
Check policies and processes
Obtain legal advice and representation Trade associations will help
Notify insurance company asap
Investigation outcomes:
What happens if the investigation finds something wrong? CPS decision to prosecute
Company charged
Individual charged
The process through the Court system
If found guilty or guilty plea entered: What can individuals or your business expect as punishment?
Health and Safety Offences, Corporate Manslaughter and
Food Safety and Hygiene Offences
New Sentencing Guidelines
All sentencing information in this presentation is produced under the Open Government Licence OGL v3 from the Sentencing Council Definitive Guideline Health and Safety Offences, Corporate Manslaughter and Food Safety and Hygiene offences
Health and Safety - Organisations
Breach of Duty of:
Employer towards employees and non-employees
Self-employed to others Legislation - Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (section 33(1)(a) for breaches of sections 2 and 3)
Breach of Health and Safety regulations Legislation - Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (section 33(1)(c))
Offence Range - £50 fine to £10million fine
Steps to Sentence
1. Determine the offence category via Culpability and Harm
2. Court will focus on organisations annual turnover to reach a starting point for a fine.
3. Determine the Size of Organisation:
Turnover or Equivalent
1. Large – £50 million and over
2. Medium - Between £10 million and £50 million
3. Small - Between £2 million and £10 million
4. Micro - Not more than £2 million
Culpability Very High – Deliberate breach of or flagrant disregard for the
law High – Offender fell far short of the appropriate standard
Fail to put in place measures Ignoring concerns raised Failing to make changes after previous incident Allowing breaches to continue over long period
Medium – Systems in place but not sufficiently adhered to or implemented
Low – Offender did not fall far short of appropriate standard Significant efforts were made to address the risk although inadequate on
this occasion There was no warning/circumstances indicating a risk to health & safety
Harm Seriousness of harm risked Level A Death Physical or mental impairment resulting
in lifelong dependency on third party Significantly reduced life expectancy
Level B Physical or mental impairment, not
amounting to Level A, which has a substantial and long term effect on the sufferer’s ability to carry out normal day to day activities or on their ability to return to work
A progressive, permanent or irreversible condition
Level C All other cases not
falling within Level A or Level B
High likelihood of harm
Harm category 1 Harm category 2 Harm category 3
Medium likelihood of harm
Harm category 2
Harm category 3 Harm category 4
Low likelihood of harm
Harm category 3 Harm category 4 Harm category 4 (at bottom of range)
Very High Culpability Starting Point Category Range
Harm category 1 £4,000,000 £2,600,000 - £10,000,000
Harm category 2 £2,000,000 £1000,000 - £5,250,000
Harm category 3 £1,000,000 £500,000 - £2,700,000
Harm category 4 £500,000 £240,000 - £1,300,000
High Culpability
Harm category 1 £2,400,000 £1,500,000 - £6,000,000
Harm category 2 £1,100,000 £550,000 - £2,900,000
Harm category 3 £540,000 £250,000 - £1,450,000
Harm category 4 £100,000 £50,000 - £250,000
Medium Culpability
Harm category 1 £1,300,000 £800,000 - £3,250,000
Harm category 2 £600,000 £300,000 - £1,500,000
Harm category 3 £300,000 £130,000 - £750,000
Harm category 4 £130,000 £50,000 - £350,000
Low Culpability
Harm category 1 £300,000 £180,000 - £700,000
Harm category 2 £100,000 £35,000 - £250,000
Harm category 3 £35,000 £10,000 - £140,000
Harm category 4 £10,000 £3,000 - £60,000
Large Turnover or equivalent: £50million and over
Where an organisation’s turnover greatly exceeds the threshold for large organisations, it may be necessary to move outside the suggested range to achieve a proportionate sentence
Very High Culpability Starting Point Category Range
Harm category 1 £450,000 £300,000 - £1,600,000
Harm category 2 £200,000 £100,000 - £800,000
Harm category 3 £100,000 £50,000 - £400,000
Harm category 4 £50,000 £20,000 - £190,000
High Culpability
Harm category 1 £250,000 £170,000 - £1,000,000
Harm category 2 £100,000 £50,000 - £450,000
Harm category 3 £54,000 £25,000 - £210,000
Harm category 4 £24,000 £12,000 - £100,000
Medium Culpability
Harm category 1 £160,000 £100,000 - £600,000
Harm category 2 £54,000 £25,000 - £230,000
Harm category 3 £24,000 £12,000 - £100,000
Harm category 4 £12,000 £4,000 - £50,000
Low Culpability
Harm category 1 £45,000 £25,000 - £130,000
Harm category 2 £9,000 £3,000 - £40,000
Harm category 3 £3,000 £700 - £14,000
Harm category 4 £700 £100 - £5,000
Small Turnover or equivalent: £2million and £10million
Health and Safety - Individuals Breach of Duty of:
Employer towards employees and non-employees Self-employed to others Employees at work
Legislation - Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (section 33(1)(a) for breaches of sections 2, 3 and 7)
Breach of Health and Safety regulations Legislation - Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (section 33(1)(c))
Secondary liability Legislation - Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (sections 36 and 37(1) for breaches of sections 2 and 3 and section 33(1)(c))
Offence Range – Conditional Discharge – 2 years custody
Very High Culpability
Starting Point Category Range
Harm category 1 18 months custody 1 – 2 years custody
Harm category 2 1 year custody 26 weeks – 18 months custody
Harm category 3 26 weeks custody Band F Fine/high level community order – 1 year custody
Harm category 4 Band F Fine Band E Fine – 26 weeks custody High Culpability
Harm category 1 1 year custody 26 weeks – 18 months custody
Harm category 2 26 weeks custody Band F Fine/high level community order – 1 year custody
Harm category 3 Band F Fine Band E Fine/medium level community order – 26 weeks custody
Harm category 4 Band E Fine Band D Fine – Band E Fine
Medium Culpability
Harm category 1 26 weeks custody Band F Fine/high level community order – 1 year custody
Harm category 2 Band F Fine Band E Fine/medium level community order – 26 weeks custody
Harm category 3 Band E Fine Band D Fine or low level community order – Band E Fine
Harm category 4 Band D Fine Band C Fine – Band D Fine
Low Culpability
Harm category 1 Band F Fine Band E Fine/medium level community order – 26 weeks custody
Harm category 2 Band D Fine Band C Fine – Band D Fine
Harm category 3 Band C Fine Band B Fine – Band C Fine
Harm category 4 Band A Fine Conditional Discharge - Band A Fine
Individuals
Corporate Manslaughter Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 (section 1)
Harm and Culpability will be very serious
a) How foreseeable was the serious injury? b) How common is this type of breach? c) How far short of the appropriate standard did the offender fall? d) Was there more than one death, or risk of more deaths or serious personal injury in addition
to the death?
Offence is category A – Where answers to (a) – (d) indicate a high level of harm or culpability Offence is category B – Where answers to (a) – (d) indicate a lower level of harm or culpability
Offence Range - £180,000 fine to £20million fine
Large organisation – more than £50m
Offence category Starting Point Category range
A £7,500,000 £4,800,000 - £20,000,000
B £5,000,000 £3,000,000 - £12,500,000
Medium organisation – T/O £10m - £50m
Offence category Starting Point Category range
A £3,000,000 £1,800,000 - £7,500,000
B £1,200,000 £3,000,000 - £5,000,000
Small organisation – T/O £2m - £10m
Offence category Starting Point Category range
A £800,000 £540,000 - £2,800,000
B £540,000 £350,000 - £2,000,000
Micro organisation – T/O up to £2m
Offence category Starting Point Category range
A £450,000 £270,000 - £800,000
B £300,000 £180,000 - £540,000
Where an organisation’s turnover greatly exceeds the threshold for large organisations, it may be necessary to move outside the suggested range to achieve a proportionate sentence
Post Conviction
Personal and Company Reputation will be affected:
Client perception of your business changed
Disclosure for contract tenders
Potential loss of business
Civil claims from victims
‘That’s what happens, when things go wrong’
John Lawrence
Safety failures – what happens when things go wrong?
Thank you
Work-related road risk: some thoughts on how and why to manage it well Dr. Shaun Helman – TRL
© Copyright 2016 TRL Ltd
November 2016
Work-related road risk: some thoughts on how and why to manage it well
The scale of work-related road risk in GB
Good practice
WRRS and H&S
Evidence-based interventions
Conclusions 5
1
3
2
4
The scale of work-related road risk in GB
‘Good practice
WRRS and H&S
Evidence-based interventions
Conclusions 5
1
3
2
4
Health and Safety Executive (HSE) estimated 30% of road deaths involve someone at work (1999 data)
Work-related Road Safety Task Group (WRSTG) estimated 25% road accidents involve someone at work (c2000)
Scale of the problem
Chart shows STATS19 percentage involving driver/rider driving for work
Helman, Ward, Christie, Grayson, Delmonte & Hutchins (2014)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
killed
Serious
Slight
All
Scale of the problem
This is the minimum – around ¾ of non-commercial vehicles have journey purpose listed as ‘unknown’ in latest data
Delmonte (2015)
Scale of the problem
It is not just the at-work driver or their passenger who is injured
It is mostly other casualties either in other vehicles or vulnerable road users
Helman et al. (2014)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
fatal serious slight all severities
Driver/rider driving for work
Passengers of drivers driving forwork
Other casualties in collisionswhere a driver was driving forwork
Who is injured?
The scale of work-related road risk in GB
‘Good practice’
WRRS and H&S
Evidence-based interventions
Conclusions 5
1
3
2
4
Roads, H&S, and other modes
A recent inquiry into UK transport safety found that “the level of risk we face on the roads would not be tolerated in aviation, railways or…the workplace.”
PACTS (2015, p.7)
An imbalance
There is no regulator and no investigator
There is not always a requirement to demonstrate competence
Driving for work is still not perceived as risky
It is not managed as well as H&S
There are fewer reporting requirements
Data on journey purpose is poor
Public awareness and data are low
Despite the risk/injury burden of WRRR…
Delmonte (2015)
Research by the HSE shows that a company can realise a number of benefits by managing work-related road safety, no matter the company size
Benefits include:
Fewer days lost due to injury
Reduced work-related illness
Reduced stress and improved morale
Lower insurance premiums
Fewer vehicles off the road for repair
There are still benefits to managing WRRR!
The scale of work-related road risk in GB
Good practice
WRRS and H&S
Evidence-based interventions
Conclusions 5
1
3
2
4
You need data!
Ideally good data!
“You cannot manage what you don’t measure”
(attributed to, but probably not said by, William Edwards Deming)
Data
Incidents and near misses
Exposure data Mileage
Additional information such as time of day, road types, number of trips
Data (ideally by vehicle and driver)
Other data on drivers Demographics/driving experience (novices?)
Behaviour even if just simple things like speed choice, and seat-belt use
Attitudes (e.g. from surveys)
Example of how not to do it…
Leadership is needed right at the top, and through the middle layers of management If the CEO is not ‘bought in’ then nothing
happens
Divisional and line managers can also be a failure point
Note – leadership is necessary, but not sufficient by itself
Leadership
The basic risks
Driving for work is more likely to involve:
High mileage
Fatigue/sleepiness
Distraction
Time pressure
Salminen and Lähdeniemi (2007), Robb et al. (2008), Fort et al. (2010), Broughton et al. (2003)
There are often risk factors specific to individual sectors or companies
Interactions with VRUs
Staff as VRUs
The basic risks
LOADS of guidance out there, but Helman et al. (2014) found a lack of awareness/use of this
Guidance
Best place to start…
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg382.pdf
Best place to start?
Fleet Safety Benchmarking Project
Benchmarking tool hosted at various sites:
fleetsafetybenchmarking.net
Will permit mechanism to compare processes and performance – good practice and resources
Benchmarking
Based on Helman et al. (2012) Collect data
Have management system based on ‘plan-do-check-act’
Simple ‘baseline’ good practice (licence checks, induction, seat belts)
Measures to reduce driving per se
Measures to reduce driving during highest risk periods related to sleepiness (2-6am, 2-4pm)
Measures to reduce driving while distracted
Measures to reduce driving while under time pressure
Measures focused on specific risk factors for a given sector or business
TRL recommended ‘good practice’
The scale of work-related road risk in GB
‘Good practice
WRRS and H&S
Evidence-based interventions
Conclusions 5
1
3
2
4
Evidence?
Evidence!
Glad (1988)
Probably the most successful intervention (GDL) which works largely through STOPPING PEOPLE DRIVING in the highest risk group we know of (young novice drivers) tends to achieve perhaps a 20-40% reduction in crashes
How then are we to interpret claims such as:
“Our system/product/service has shown collision reductions of 80% in businesses that use it”*
How big a claim shall we make?
TRL believes WRRS interventions should be focused on the following areas
TRL recommended good practice
Hazard Perception training
Behaviour change techniques
Specific areas of risk (e.g. roadside working training)
TRL’s approach
Based on Helman et al. (2012) Collect data
Have management system based on ‘plan-do-check-act’
Simple ‘baseline’ good practice (licence checks, induction, seat belts)
Measures to reduce driving per se
Measures to reduce driving during highest risk periods related to sleepiness (2-6am, 2-4pm)
Measures to reduce driving while distracted
Measures to reduce driving while under time pressure
Measures focused on specific risk factors for a given sector or business
TRL recommended ‘good practice’
Evans (1991; 2008)
Driver performance (what the driver CAN do)
Driver behaviour (what the driver DOES do)
In ‘normal driving’ driver behaviour seems to be more important than driver performance in determining risk
Is hazard perception the exception?
Hazard perception training
Hazard perception…
…discriminates between high- and low-risk groups (e.g. inexperienced and experienced drivers)
…is related to collision risk
…can be trained
McKenna and Horswill (1999), McKenna and Crick (1994), Maycock, Lockwood and Lester (1991), Wells, Tong, Sexton, Grayson and Jones (2008), Hull and Christie (1993), Quimby, Maycock, Carter, Dixon and Wall (1986), Crick and McKenna (1991).
Hazard perception training
These principles used by TRL to design HP test in GB
Wells et al. (2008) show test has reduced crashes in novice drivers (around 11% overall for on-road non-low-speed crashes)
Higher performance on video hazard perception test is associated with lower crash risk in GB and in Australia
Wells et al. (2008), Boufous, Ivers, Senserrick and Stevenson (2011)
Hazard perception training
Behaviour change techniques (BCTs)
Provide information on:
Behaviour-health link
Consequences
Others’ approval
Set graded tasks
Model or demonstrate behaviour
Teach or use prompts as cues
Agree on behavioural contract
Provide:
Contingent rewards
Social comparison
General encouragement
Instruction
Feedback
Use follow-up prompts
Plan social support or social change
Relapse prevention
Management of:
Time
Stress
Prompt
Identification as a role model
Self-talk
Intention formation
Barrier ID
Specific goal setting
Review of behavioural goals
Self-monitoring
Practice
Motivational interviewing
Different techniques…
Albarracín et al. (2005) – interventions designed to promote use of condoms
Plan for, and work safely at, the roadside Understand and manage
risks
Plan working day to avoid fatigue
Understand they are largely responsible for their own safety
Content developed from TRL research
Colas/TRL Roadside Working Course
The scale of work-related road risk in GB
‘Good practice
WRRS and H&S
Evidence-based interventions
Conclusions 5
1
3
2
4
WRRS is the ‘poor relation’ of H&S in terms of regulation, and culture
It is still a big problem, and companies can benefit from managing it properly
Good practice focuses on using good data to manage risk factors
Specific interventions need to be based on evidence
Conclusions
Thank you
Work-related road risk: some thoughts on how and why to manage it well
Presented by Shaun Helman
Head of Transport Psychology Tel: 01344 770650
Email: [email protected]
Work-related road risk: some thoughts on how and why to manage it well
Thank you
Panel session
FORS Milestones Awards –
Championing best practice
Milestones 2016