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: shelman@trl.co.uk

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