Fleets drivers need better training, says report

Craig thank you someone who can see the benefits of driver training ,John please look at a owners handbook and you will see i am correct and your are wrong. I work in this field so i need to know what i am talking about ,if you would like the accident stats i will be happy to send them to you but i dont believe anything will change some peoples outlook in this matter till they or their company fall foul of the law.

Jim

My employer had provided fleet car driver training as a duty of care. It was for half a day and was extremely beneficial - not only from a safety point of view but also from one of economy.

Then we had an example of avoiding the 'training for training's sake approach. We have all just switched to The Toyota Prius. For those who have not experienced driving one of these it is a hybrid with an automatic, dashboard mounted gearbox.

Some members of staff were concerned about such a change from manual cars. However, the employer has taken the sensible view, in my opinion, not to offer any further training:

a) because the initial training was only a matter of months ago
b) the initial confusion caused by driving a Prius is soon conquered.

I think this is a good example of a common-sense approach to the question of fleet driver training, but would agree with previous posts about the need for initial training.

Thanks John

Such graciousness is wonderful to see - especially on a Friday afternoon!

No problem Diarmuid. What you say is of course 100% correct, it's just I wasn't disputing that.

John

My apologies - just re-read your initial post.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Where's the "delete post" button when you want it...

Oh for God's sake, John, have a look at your handbook.

The oil warning light comes on when the oil level is DANGEROUSLY low. It's not designed to tell you that you might want to consider checking at some point in the future whether or not a decision might be needed as to possibly adding a few drops of oil.

If your oil light comes on, there is a problem. Period. Your oil pressure has dropped to a point where continuing to drive is likely to result in a blown engine, if it hasn't already been damaged. You need to stop immediately and switch off your engine. Once it has cooled, you can check the oil level and add as much as required to bring it back to a safe level. If the oil is already at a safe level, or the light stays on, then there's a bigger problem, and you need to call a recovery truck.

All in all, I think it's better to spend a couple of minutes on routine maintenance once a week.

But somehow, I get the idea you'll disagree...

It's not wrong, if the oil light comes on in a car it means pretty much one of two things, either the oil is low or the pump has stopped pumping.

Low oil = light on

Not wrong, correct.

Over to you.

John your comment about the oil pressure switch is WRONG i said on some cars there is also a oil gauge to tell you how much oil is in the cars engine. Also yes i do train people in this so i do know what i am talking about but sadly i also meet people like you every time we take company drivers out who think they now it all you dont. Also i did not meantion kids you did what about the comments about brakes steering and all the other inbuilt safety features failing if the engine fails why did you not meantion these thing. Could it be because your not a profession in the driver training industry and therfor dont know.

Jim

It's well known that the component in any vehicle most likely to malfunction is the nut behind the wheel. I'd agree that in an ideal world a pool car should be in a roadworthy state but not all of them are 100% of the time. Some basic checks can take seconds, not minutes e.g. count the tyres, one at each corner, inflated, windscreen OK? Got enough fuel to get where you're going, or at least to the next filling station? Several years ago I had an unpleasant experience in a pool car on a fast dual carriageway after a downpour. While passing a building site a delivery lorry caked the windscreen with mud. That's when I found out that the washer bottle was empty. Simple solution, once I'd driven a couple of miles with my head out of the window to find a filling station with a water hose handy.
Nowadays we have the pool cars checked by a professional every 4 weeks, but each driver is expected, on a daily basis, to check the vehicle's condition before taking it out. The balance seems to work well, and the driver checks are brief and basic. So far the system is a success and we've ticked all the right boxes. Mind you, I suspect 'owned' fleet cars are probably maintained much better because of the continuity of use.

John, from a roadworthiness opoint of view, the driver of the vehicle is responsible. So if pulled over by the Police for any fault it is their licence which will be docked points, whether they own the car, the car is a rental or it is a pool vehicle.

"Just one point on vehicle checks. In order to pass a driving test, candidates need to be able to demonstrate a basic ability to maintain their vehicle in a roadworthy condition. Are you suggesting that once they have their piece of paper they can forget all this?"

No I'm not Diarmuid, are you suggesting that they do?

The key to your statement is "their vehicle" a pool car is not their vehicle, they do not maintain it, it is provided in a roadworthy state for their use. Why don't you have them checking the crash barriers and signal systems for defects while they are at it, just blame everything on the driver.

James, if a cry of "Won't someone please think of the children!" is your best argument then I suggest you back it up with some figures of how many children have been killed by mechanical failure on fleet cars. I'll put my money on it being somewhere around ZERO.

Clearly you guys in the Health and Safety industry choose not to see sense if it means another initiative or some new legislation being imposed.

And as you all sit at your desks commenting on this website, patting each other on the backs whilst exclaiming that what is needed is more legislation and rules that restrict how people do stuff is fine by me, it's just a reflection of your own mentality. I'm just glad most of it never see's daylight.

By the way, if an engine has no or low oil in it, the oil pressure light comes on, which is what I stated, so you are wrong, demonstrating a precise lack of knowledge in the subject matter. You train people on this? Maybe you should leave maintenance to the experts.

John I can do under the bonnet checks in 2 minutes most are visual just look at the MIN & MAX indactors on the bottles. The dipstick lift it out and look at the MIN & MAX as for the oil pressure light as it say it measures oil pressure not the amount of oil in the engine. Some cars do have oil level indicators but no all and as you have just demonstrated some peolpe have the wrong idea about them so as you can see it is not absurd as you put it. What is absurd is someone thinking their employee should not check these things and put other road users lifes at risk. If a car engine fails it affects the power steering the brakes including the A B S and EBD systems, so John please have a think about these things as they dont just affect you and your employees they affect everyone on the roads and their familys

John,

Just one point on vehicle checks. In order to pass a driving test, candidates need to be able to demonstrate a basic ability to maintain their vehicle in a roadworthy condition. Are you suggesting that once they have their piece of paper they can forget all this?

Modern cars can go up to 20,000 miles or so between services and it can be over a year before they're seen by a mechanic. Is this an acceptable interval to make sure the tyres are still safe? How about oil levels? Lightbulbs, maybe? Apart from the safety aspect, I wouldn't be impressed with a driver who blew up an engine because they didn't bother to check the oil or water.

On the pool car front, we've already seen a case (pre corporate manslaughter) where bald tyres on a shared car resulted in two deaths and a company director in the dock. On current evidence, I won't be surprised to see more!

I'm not a training provider either, by the way. ;-)

Hi James

2 minutes? more like 15 to perform the checks then another 15 to go and get cleaned up.

In your scenario, I wouldn't want my salesmen and women getting covered in grime and crap whilst checking oil and fiddling about underneath the bonnet just before they travel to see a top client.

The suggestion that I should force all my staff to do so every time they use a pool car just on the off chance that the car has no oil in it and the oil pressure light is faulty, if frankly absurd.

I would rather take the unlikely chance that a car might break down on route, unlikely because I pay professionals to maintain the vehicles in the first place.

And I certainly wouldn't sack the employee because of it!

2 Minutes indeed.

John were safety checks are concerned the main reason for these checks are simply to make sure the vehicle is fit for purpose. The main concern for the employer should be the price of a engine if your employee forgets to check the oil level. If this happens who pays for the repair and also the loss of business (not the employee unless you sack them) 2 minutes spent checking the vehicle stops this happening time well spent i think.

Jim

John,

I do not have a training course to sell, just work in the haulage industry and I am an ambassador for BRAKE.

When I mention vehicle checks, I mean check all lights, horn, tyres are legal & not flat. Check the washer fluid. Not become a mechanic and do a thorough service or inspection. All major inspections need to be done by a competent trained person. No chance of passing the buck. A quick walk round the vehicle before jumping in is all it takes. No further documentation required, unlike in the HGV industry, no burden on finances or resources. Just plannning your time to allow 1 minute before driving off. Just like you should plan your journey or sales call. Better planning and organisation reduces costs and improves profitability. Sorry, do I sound like a training salesman again.
You as the driver will get the points, fine and maybe a driving ban, not the owner of the vehicle. You do not have to be a mechanic to look at these things, just like you do not have to be an electrician to notice if a cable is damaged and should not be used. Common Sense. I know there seems to be a lack of this nowadays.

As for the mantras, that is the BRAKE road safety charity Vision. So no sales pitch or stakeholder meeting required. Hope you never need their services.

Gary, no offence mate, but you obviously have a vested interest in pushing your vision of a utopian and safe society, simply because it's how you make your money.

What's wrong with forcing everyone to do vehicle checks? Most things really, you say yourself it MIGHT help reduce the number of accidents, but in reality it probably won't make any difference at all. Very few accidents are caused by mechanical failure and teaching non-mechanical staff to go through a check list before they get in a car is not going to improve the matter.

As I said before, it would only move the responsibility for vehicle maintenance from the vehicle maintainers to people who do not specialise in vehicle maintenance.

Systems like what you are proposing are a burden on finances, resources, have little or no benefit, and place further restrictions on how businesses can freely operate in the UK.

If business can't freely operate, they don't expand, they don't employ more staff and they don't succeed, what they do is stand still, make cutbacks and slowly fail. I have seen it time and time again. This is especially true of the small to medium business sector.

All your mantras of "we have a vision" and "zero deaths on the road" might sound good in a sales pitch and stakeholder meeting with people that want to hear blue-sky thinking, but in reality they are unachievable and unrealistic. Unrealistic goals combined with ineffective implementations of unnecessary legislation result in red tape and a burden on business.

John's argument is one I come across every day, and to be honest, I have some sympathy with it. The vast majority of people out there are able to drive perfectly well and are never involved in a major incident. Why would anybody want to bother putting these drivers through expensive and unnecessary training?

It's a mistake, however, to let this argument overlook the small minority of drivers who DO become involved in major incidents. These are people who, often through no fault of their own, need help and extra skills to deal with whatever the road throws at them. This may be because they're a rubbish driver and have a really bad attitude, or it may be because they drive 40,000 miles per annum and have to deal with other people who are rubbish drivers and have a bad attitude!

I feel a solid risk assessment is the key to managing this issue. An assessment that looks at both the environment in which the driver operates AND explores their attitudes will highlight the specific areas that should be addressed. You can then (if it's required) offer training that's appropriate to individual needs, and will actually benefit the driver.

Finally, onto licence checking. John's right, in my opinion. Licence validation is the minimum any employer should do to demonstrate their employees' competency behind the wheel. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, though. What do you do if you discover a driver with 9 points and a previous drink-drive conviction? Do you offer training or leave it alone on the basis that if they have a valid licence they’re safe to drive? That’s a decision you’ll need to make yourself, but I can imagine what would happen if this driver was to injure or kill somebody whilst driving for work and it became known the employer was previously aware of their poor driving history and had done nothing to address it…

John this website spoke about a MD getting prosecuted over the corporate manslaugher law recently it was not for driving but that will come. To prevent any problems all companies should take preventative measures know. If they dont the minute a MD get prosecuted the training companies who supply this service will be swamped. Always remeber prevention is better than the cure and usually cost less both financally and in the cost of lifes.

Jim

John, you sound very cynical. From your comments I guess you are a manager/director of a business and I hope the first corporate manslaughter case does not end up on your desk!
Although most people are not involved in a serious accident, the threat is still there, that is why millions are spent on NCAP ratings and safety of cars and road lighting etc.
Just remember it is not solely your driving expertise that ensures you are not involved in an accident.
A vehicle is a machine and should be maintained, fit for purpose. As the operator you are responsable by law to ensure it is road legal. You are already responsable for the maintenance of your vehicle.
Your comment about HGV operators?
HGV operators have to ensure their vehicles are fit for purpose and maintained frequently to ensure roadworthiness. Before a HGV driver uses the vehicle he needs to perform daily checks to ensure all lights, etc work, tyres are legal and inflated correctly. If every car driver carried out these checks road accidents might reduce further. What is the problem with this? There are too many cars on the road that have an MOT, but from the fumes coming out of them and their loose bodywork, obvoiusly they would not pass today.

Have a look at www.brake.org.uk.

Brake's Vision

Brakes vision is of a compassionate society where everyones first priority when using roads is taking care of other people, to achieve zero deaths and injuries. We have a vision of a society led by responsible government that requires the safest possible vehicles, creates the safest possible road environments, has levels of policing that effectively enforce safe road use, and which leads and enables effective road safety education and publicity programmes in partnership with the voluntary sector.

Until this is achieved, our vision is of a society which removes offenders from the roads and enables anyone affected by a road crash to obtain: appropriate and adequate emotional, practical and procedural support; recover from shock and trauma; and lead a full and happy life.

Drive Safely.

RE: Phil.

Why stop where? I hadn't suggested doing anything.

Your analogy didn't sound cynical, it sounded ridiculous and didn't fit the subject matter.

But why stop there Phil? There's plenty of businesses out there that really have money to burn on "training courses" if only there was some new legislation on the horizon.

RE: James, You are right, some courses are worth doing, only most are useless.

You ask why do people think they are a good driver? I don't know, why don't you do a poll of people that think they are a good driver? Maybe it's because the vastly huge majority of people are never involved in a serious accident, drive fairly carefully and don't need further distractions when they are trying to earn a living whilst driving from a to b.

I think it would be good practice to use driver licence checking from a business point of view, you are covering your own ass in the event of a corporate manslaughter case landing on your desk, which incidentally, there has never been one.

Why stop there John, why not have all safety guards removed from machinery in factories, and allow children to play around them while the operator is using them?

This may sound cynical, and indeed that is the intention.

A vehicle is a piece of machinery that is able to travel without any guards where there are mempbers of the public.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the love of driving, the affection people have for their cars, but at the same time we need to keep it real, we need to understand they are not ambient beings, they are machines capable of hideous damage to others.

John driving for work is the most dangerous occupation there is if you dont believe this please look at the accident stats. For someone to say these courses are useless is just wrong if the companies would take on the recommendations of the trainers they would see the benifits. We companies who supply these courses dont make a quick buck we spend a lot of money and time keeping our training up to date. Why do people think that just because you have a driving licence you are a good driver this is not the case. Some compaines have not even done licence checks in years and have drivers working for them who no longer hold a licence

This sounds like the beginnings of an argument to force anyone who drives a vehicle at work to do so under similar rules to HGV operators. Which (to be frank) is the last thing that businesses need in this country.

What is needed, Russell Hill, is none of this rubbish which only creates more and more red tape and restrictions that cripple UK business further into recession while a few training companies make a quick buck providing useless "training courses" that only serve to offload the responsibility of vehicle maintenance from the vehicle maintainers, to the driver.