pretty old debate this ...must be a slow news day...

I remember around 20 years ago getting stats 19 updated to include work related...always a big bone of contention as the insurance companies would have to change from SD&P + commute to separate business insurance for anyone using a car to get to work...not sure I would sign up to that one...We introduced max time driving for company car drivers similar to that of commercial vehicle drivers after two senior managers drove from the south to manchester for an all day conference and fell asleep and killed them both on the way back...the key around the statistics is that vehicle safety technology has gotten a lot better over the years and continues to advance...whereas driver behaviour hasn't changed much if at all...so nowadays you are more likely to survive a collosion that in the 70-80's you wouldn't have....

totally agree Peter...people sometimes forget history when making decisions which was really my only rambling point....even though we have advanced technology for cars and other vehicles there is nothing yet that gets around our need for a thrill and to look good infront of a prospective suitor (I think knights did the same thing...with horses and chariots and thier life expectancy wqas not great) ...people behaviours both in vehicles and in the room where legislation and design is born have not changedand then the statistics...markov was right ;)

Morning Steve, I think we are broadly on the same page!

As Kate indicates driver behaviour HAS changed in most parts of Great Britain in terms of drinking and driving now being considered socially unacceptable, though still with pockets of resistance generally in rural areas where the pub is far from home, but the chances of being stopped (before an accident) on the way back are minimal.

Similarly the use of seat belts is almost taken for granted though that has taken decades to become the norm. Adverts "Clunk, Click, Every Trip" might have got through to most of the children and some of the adults but plenty of enforcement has been needed to convince some others.

The roads are generally better (though with increasing numbers of potholes etc due to contraints on maintenance budgets + e.g. unnecessarily heavy vehicles being status symbols for those living and driving in urban areas) as those responsible for design and operation better understand what a "safe" road looks like INCLUDING by deliberately introducing hazards to keep drivers attentive.

+ the vehicles are inherently safer, but that can serve to encourage some of your Knights to take greater risks - which they can do knowing that if something goes wrong the chances are that they will walk out alive. Problem is that they may not be as concerned as they should be about the potential collateral damage - the "vulnerable road users" who account for a huge proportion of the casualties.

Any suggestion that e.g. controls should be put in place to deter people living and working in conurbations from deciding on driving around in lethal tanks gets met with howls of anger from a lobby with plenty of friends in high places. 

.....and so whilst numbers and rates of Fatal and Serious Injuries on the roads have certainly dropped significantly the improvement has not been nearly as great as it might have been.

There wasn't really much kickback when suddenly all scaffolds on work sites were required to have an additional guard-rail at the edges. That change probably had VERY little impact on accident numbers and rates. 

In contrast asking for a similarly small nudge of greater regulation on the roads would usually result in a clamour against the Nanny State. We can imagine the reaction if someone proposed banning anyone living in Cities from keeping an SUVs outside their home unless they had a special (expensive) licence based on the business case for them needing such a vehicle!

Drivers are invariably characterised as "law-abiding motorists" who by definition commit no crimes, whatever rules of the road they break!

Since we are dealing with occupational H&S I would suggest that our workplace fatalities figures look better than they might since driving for work(on the public highways) is not collected through RIDDOR. The HSE has shown no appetite for getting involved with area of work. As a result it’s difficult to promote a safety based approach to driving for work; at a previous employer we tried to   get high mileage drivers to take an advanced driving course and the response was along the lines of “All I need to ride on the public highway is my driving licence which I obtained 30 odd years ago” . Similarly rather than paying employees mileage to use their own cars we suggested using pool cars which were regularly checked not just MOT ’d once a year and we had lots of push back there.  So yes this is an area which needs some thought but it’s unlikely that anything substantial will happened.

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel

Since we are dealing with occupational H&S I would suggest that our workplace fatalities figures look better than they might since driving for work(on the public highways) is not collected through RIDDOR. The HSE has shown no appetite for getting involved with area of work. As a result it’s difficult to promote a safety based approach to driving for work; at a previous employer we tried to   get high mileage drivers to take an advanced driving course and the response was along the lines of “All I need to ride on the public highway is my driving licence which I obtained 30 odd years ago” . Similarly rather than paying employees mileage to use their own cars we suggested using pool cars which were regularly checked not just MOT ’d once a year and we had lots of push back there.  So yes this is an area which needs some thought but it’s unlikely that anything substantial will happened.

along with the roadside vehicle check being higher standard than MOT(so why not adopt it?)...agree but it can be done...we categorised drivers basically on any points they gathered...3 low 6 medium and 9+ high risk (dependant on the code they got the points for)  and when  they did get on my naughty list (sorry more formally collision or points) action for retrain and rehabilitation was taken and the sales guys in particular got a skoda 1.4.  as opposed to thier 2.0L BMW until they passed further training and assessments.  We intrduced medical annual medical checks (globally as that is an issue not just in the UK - but others are better at it than us)  as well as investing in technology and better training for commerical vehicles to prevent rollover of tankers (process safety guy so engineering controls first ;)).   We didn't go as far as advanced driving although we did support it in both commercial vehicles and car, but all work drivers had an annual independant assessment (applied globally).  If you have the will it can be done...as changing legsilation to support it will not change for all the reasons mentioned...and the grey area of driving to work well...still a grey area..

Morning AK - with a new persona - which I don't think can be done oneself - so needs help from those at the Grange.

I think it was in about 2000 though possibly earlier that RoSPA (with a sizeable, dedicated road safety team) with support from others first started pushing for a change in the scope of RIDDOR to enable a better handle on how many road accidents leading to injuries were work-related.

As you say, HSE has consistently pushed back on such an idea with excuses such as that the Police already collated data on WHY people would be on the roads when accidents happened, even though Police forces did NOT routinely ascertain whether injuries being reported were work-related + of course it would be more "red tape" for employers.

At that time, RoSPA estimated that 25% of the fatalities were work-related, so about the same proportion as their current estimates.

In contrast, HSE's estimate was 10%, whilst Devon & Cornwall Police thought that in their geography the figure could be as high as 40% - a huge number of work-related journeys to places like Devonport perhaps.

Now it seems that HSE has revised its position to be in line with that of RoSPA whilst it seems that the Police are now being more proactive in trying to work out which accidents have a vehicle that is being used for "word" at the time though I think we have to assume that Police efforts are probably less than consistent for now.

On the other topic of falls from heights I asked Google how many people die each year from falling down stairs. Answer (no I don't believe everything that AI tells me - but on this occasion I could probably find the authoritative source materials to back up what Google has suggested):

Falls from stairs result in approximately 500 to 700 deaths per year in the UK, with higher numbers sometimes reported, such as 787 deaths in England and Wales in 2015, but also a figure of 500 deaths per year from falls on stairs more recently.

Reasonable to assume that MOST of these are NOT "at work". However, if roughly accurate that could amount to about 2 per day in the UK (or more accurately perhaps just in England & Wales). Scale that up globally (even though fewer homes in many countries are likely to have lots of stairs, but may have stairs in other places such as double decker buses) and these accident nymbers might halp to point to may be 2000 deaths from falls from height a DAY if all the accidents that are NOT work-related are included. 

Morinng Steve

I did include for some to make the "business case" for having a tank if they live in an urban area!

I live on a crescent of what were originally 20 "town houes" built circa 1880, subsequently split into flats. Street is just about wide enough for one vehicle to park and one vehicle (such as e.g. a fire engine or bin lorry) to pass. In practical terms the road couldn't be widened as the buildings are Listed as are the gates and railings of the "Pleasure Gardens" on the opposite side of the road.

The Pleasure Gardens have a 6 foot high hedge (excepting the access gates) so adding a sight line issue from a road safety perspective for those driving around the corner of the crescent. The area IS a 20mph zone, though some choose to ignore that rule.

Many of the SUVs parked the street rarely move very far, even when they are NOT either parked on the circa 1880 granite setts that mark the kerb of the footway (and damaging both setts and the road itself) OR parked on street corners and making it difficult for pedestrians and other vulnerable road users to cross the street.

We don't have nearly as many SUVs on the street as used to be the case when it was a free for all for commuters from outside the City to use as free storage space before they got walked into the Centre or took the bus or subway, as we now have a Controlled Parking Zone. 

Absolute howls of rage from some when our Council decided to up the charges for more heavily polluting vehicles to park in each of several CPZs. Personally I think the Council should go further and decide that if a vehicle is longer and wider then it needs more parking space and should pay for that appropriately + also heavier hence causing more damage to the City's road infrastructure when the tank does move and should pay more for similar reasons..

Compared to the overall costs of owning and operating a car, the increased parking charges are tiny..Ditto for the Low Emission Zone in the City Centre.