In some countries injuries while driving TO/FROM work as well as injuries while driving AT work are included as a separate category in their national work related accident stats. In the UK the HSE has resisted including these numbers for various reasons.

I personally think the HSE Inspector was engaged in hyperbole with that particular case. That incident involved manoeuvring of a LGV at a place of work - which also happened to involve encroachment onto the public highway. Why would inclusion of these specific figures necessarily cause outcry when the whole figure of RTAs does not? These work-related estimates are in turn based on estimate of workers on the road. Is there a significant justification (based on root-cause issues) to suggest that employers are failing their employees, or that workplace legislation needs to be bolstered? Road traffic accidents are complex issues. Recurring themes include: young drivers, powerful vehicles, competency (the driving test) lagging behind the demands of modern/current driving environment, and lets face it - driver error.

Further I’d like to remove the automatic transfer of driving licences from abroad. Some of the driving I’ve experienced lately has been frankly frightening. I will no longer use a well know taxi company because the drivers I’ve had from them were not competent. I’d like to see foreign licence holders required to pass a UK driving test within two years of being here. And if the police have occasion to speak to a person driving on a foreign licence they should have the power to insist they get a UK driving licence. Rant over. Graham

On the issue of speed, jwk, I've suggested before on this Forum that technology exists to govern the speed of every vehicle on the road, via retro-fit gizmo linked via geo-sat control to local limits or temporary restrictions. If "most drivers" tend to disobey speed limits, perhaps that's the only practical enforcement solution?

The whole concept of road related fatalities is a shocking indictment of society's tolerance to road safety and authorities lame efforts to reduce these casualties. I suspect many employers are not fully aware of the number of work related injuries and fatalities on the road. Driving, walking and cycling is without doubt the most hazardous task any employee will face in their working day, even those in traditionally high risk industries. There have been many posts on this forum about driver awareness/skills training for employees. However when I have questioned what criteria employers use to select company vehicles in terms of safety the silence has been deafening. Hence the current philosophy is to put the onus on the driver and therefore organisations evade their responsibility.

Hi Ron, 'most drivers' do ignore speed limits. I don't care what the official DoT figures say, but this I do know. There are devices to control/limit speed, and whenever possible I use one, in my case it's cruise control. There's a five or six long stretch of road from Beverley to Hull where the limit is (mostly) 30, as it runs through two ribbon developed villages. I set my cruise control on this stretch as it has a good line of sight and no lights, roundabouts etc. I invariably get a line of traffic behind me, and the cars in front invariably pull away. I've done this with three different cars, and the same truth applies. Now I know speedos are allowed to over-record by up to 10%, but mine agrees with my phone's GPS, so is probably about right. Most drivers speed. But it's not about technology at the end of the day. It's about attitude and approach to driving. It's very easy not to break the speed limit without recourse to technology, just aim for 25 in a 30 limit and you'll never speed, etc etc. And I have a tendency to bang on about speed even though I know that it's only one factor in RTAs. I bang on about it as it is very easy to enforce. Enforcement of any kind would probably help to change the overall culture of entitlement and laxity on the roads. In other words, get people for speeding and they just might start to pay attention generally. They just might start to believe that road traffic law means something. David, I agree. Though there has been evidence published that suggests that drivers at work are more likely to be involved in RTAs, due to being under pressure. The RIDDOR overload would have to be borne in mind. But surely that says it all: things on the road are so bad that RIDDOR (& HSE) would be overwhelmed: 'it shall be the duty of every employer, so far as reasonably practicable' and well, you all know the rest. My employer has 800 vehicles, plus grey fleet. This matters to us. I drive a lot, and I find it increasingly discouraging. Fewer people are dying (hurray) but that doesn't mean that the number of accidents is reducing, it isn't, John

I agree that companies should ensure that drivers are not driving to many hours, that they should ensure that they are given enough time to get to jobs, they are intructed to take rest breaks etc. But we all underwent the training to become a driver, we all or most have experience in drining and do it outside work and therefore it is not a work place hazard soley. To me it is like waklking up and down stairs, using a kettle, microwave etc, I don't think that we can always just point a finger at a company ands say what are you doing, e should popint the finger at the driver and say the same. If we want ienforcement then maybe drivers should hand in licences each month and if they have been cauf=ght speeding in works time disiplinary action taken.

Graham, With a few exceptions that includes:- Northern Ireland European Union or European Economic Area Gibraltar, Jersey, Guernsey, Isle of Man or a 'designated country'* Designated countries’: Andorra, Australia, Barbados, British Virgin Islands, Canada, Falkland Islands, Faroe Islands, Hong Kong, Japan, Monaco, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, Singapore, South Africa, Switzerland, Zimbabwe the rest have to, after 12 months to apply for a provisional licence and pass the theory and practical driving tests to drive in Great Britain.