lisar - at the risk of upsetting those who would want to sell you a course specific to the highway, I don't see why you shouldn't apply exactly the same approach wherever an incident occurs.

However, just as with any other investigation it is appropriate to bring in a range of expertise and in this case you might want someone with enhanced understanding of road traffic incidents.

But, much of that you could glean from authoritative sources - as example the Department of Transport gives data for the proportions of accidents of different severities that occur on different types of road (and do recognise that the less severe are more likely to be underreported).

Years ago RoSPA used to do a course on collision investigation awareness...which actually got me into that years ago when I had a large commerical fleet...drop me a pm I may have our collosion document from years ago which gives some codes and classification to give a more detailed view of any collosion..if you want to do some bits of it for your own interest or CPD AiTs do courses  - also the Instritute of Road Accident Investigators is also a good source of information.

https://aitsuk.com/

https://www.itai.org/

Given your investigations will invariably be after the event and remote form the incident site I am at a loss to understand what you are hoping to achieve. Unless you are there taking all the measurements and recordings the Police undertake at an incident you will not have the detail to generate a clear picture of the event from which to draw meaningful conclusions i.e. why RTC is not HSE

Even with cab recording you still need an expert to correcty interpret the information.

We use trackers on the vehicles that provide feedback on driving styles, this added to how long they have had a license, number of points, and the number of miles travelled a month gives us a scoreboard of drivers from best to worst (low risk to high risk) and the top 10% are put on driving awareness courses, vehicles are checked more often for damage and are given verbal and written warnings if it continues until dismissed. As every worker uses a company van, but not all use ladders, not all use MEWPS etc, driving is the biggest risk to our company, followed by cyber attacks probably.

We are building a culture of personal responsibility and accountability if something happens (they pay £500 excess currently in the event of a fault accident). With hold pay rises until they conform to the company rules etc

Originally Posted by: craigroberts76

they pay £500 excess currently in the event of a fault accident

Wonder what an examination under "unfair terms of contract" would make of that one - I take it they are driving under a company insurance policy and therefore denied the opportunity to arrange a better personal deal.

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: craigroberts76

they pay £500 excess currently in the event of a fault accident

Wonder what an examination under "unfair terms of contract" would make of that one - I take it they are driving under a company insurance policy and therefore denied the opportunity to arrange a better personal deal.

Well this was drafted by Peninsula who deal with our HR, if its a non-fault then they dont pay. Its clearly explained in the handbook when they join and sign and has never been an issue so far.

Were they the same mob advising Charlie Mullins before he sold up?

there is no issue with the excess for at fault claims, so long as it has been clearly communicated and signed up to in the contract of employment...just check it actually has been signed up to in the contract before you try and enforce it...

Originally Posted by: Brian Hagyard

i would be very interested in the definition used in a fault or no fault claim.

"yes i pulled out in front of him because i did not see him - but i was at the end of a 8 hour shift and had been told we had to get to the customer before 5pm or we would have a penalty to pay."

what are the immediate, underlying and root causes used to determine fault!

If it works for you good luck but not for me.

its quite straight forward for us, if the insurance declares it our fault then they get charged, regardless of how it occured. 1 instance recently was a guy reversing back around a corner and reveresed into a truck approaching, almost wrote the van off as he hit a very old Leyland style coal truck... no damage to that thing.

As peninsula provide us with their support and documents, if it went to court and they won somehow, peninsula would cover the payments as we followed their guidance and documentation, its like an insurance.

they're the contract specialists not me, I can only go by what is discussed in a face to face annual meeting. as long as we dont deviate from their docs and procedures we're covered.... like i've said though, we've had no issues yet with imposing it. And as with all things H&S if we always plan for the very very unlikely we would never get a job finished due to potential risk.

Examples of contractual claw back of losses on HM gov (e.g. till shortage) show the employer being limited to 10% of salary.