HGV's in 30% of accidents!
Discussion
Listening to Radio today about HGV's, Tachographs, Driver fatigue etc.
Interesting facts: of 29,000,000 vehicles registered on UK roads, 1.5% are commercial vehicles yet commercial vehicles are involved in 30% of
RTA's.
The suggestion was that the majority of these are caused by driver fatigue and (presumably, because of speed limiters) not by 'speeding', also said that
most drivers 'fiddle' tachographs (with knowledge/consent) of operators.
Any comments?
Interesting facts: of 29,000,000 vehicles registered on UK roads, 1.5% are commercial vehicles yet commercial vehicles are involved in 30% of
RTA's.
The suggestion was that the majority of these are caused by driver fatigue and (presumably, because of speed limiters) not by 'speeding', also said that
most drivers 'fiddle' tachographs (with knowledge/consent) of operators.
Any comments?
cazzo said:
Listening to Radio today about HGV's, Tachographs, Driver fatigue etc.
Interesting facts: of 29,000,000 vehicles registered on UK roads, 1.5% are commercial vehicles yet commercial vehicles are involved in 30% of
RTA's.
The suggestion was that the majority of these are caused by driver fatigue and (presumably, because of speed limiters) not by 'speeding', also said that
most drivers 'fiddle' tachographs (with knowledge/consent) of operators.
Any comments?
Long reply, sorry.
Two true cases, but I'm sure resident b-i-b can come with other examples.
Operator A
A fatac investigation where a sports car had gone under the trailer of a badly lit artic performing a U turn on an unlit road revealed that the driver was significantly over his hours. A subsequent DoT investigation proved significant abuse of driver hours legislation by this operator and the employees thereof.
The worst case involved a driver who left the firm's base in Yorkshire, drove to Felixstowe, tipped and loaded a new container, drove to Aberdeen, tipped and loaded again and was almost back at Felixstowe without taking any proper rest breaks.
The two DoT inspectors following him had to make the pull because they were in danger of falling asleep, and they were sharing the driving!
The same firm's drivers regularly used to pull a number of return trips in a single day to a destination where the same number of return journeys in a car used to take ten driving hours.
Why did the driver's do it? Their pay structure was based on bonuses per trip structured according to distance, nights out and so on.
Therefore when every pay packet was made up they knew that none of this could have been done legally.
That firm still has its operator's licence.
Operator B
Driver from this outfit based up in the North East was stopped in Yorkshire during his return leg on a trip to London involving a night out. There was a blatant discrepancy of some miles on his records.
Eventually when questioned at the roadside the driver scuffles around in the dashboard locker and produces a tacho disc for the missing miles showing his boss' name as the driver.
The story, which his boss supported and gave statements to that effect was;
Driver had done part of the job and parked up for the night in London.
Boss gets chance of another part load down London, catches train to the Smoke, taxi to where lorry parked, borrows vehicle using spare keys, does job and parks it back in exactly same place.
Beggars back off oop North without seeing or saying a word to Driver, having swapped tacho discs back.
Everybody knew the probable true situation, but was the result worth the effort to prove it beyond all reasonable doubt?
Nevertheless I conclude that there is serial abuse of hours and speed limits and that it is condoned by some but not all operators.
30% is way to high - note the very ambiguous "commercial vehicles". I have a feeling this has involved every taxi/van/lorry/bus, but that figure seems ridiculuosly high even taking all them into account.
Also note that they've been careful to say "involved" - What so if a car sharply pulls in front of a lorry and he brakes to avoid causing an accident - but crashing himself, this is going to be involved?
Sounds like the usual sensationalist nonsence to me.
>> Edited by Kurgis on Monday 1st March 15:01
Also note that they've been careful to say "involved" - What so if a car sharply pulls in front of a lorry and he brakes to avoid causing an accident - but crashing himself, this is going to be involved?
Sounds like the usual sensationalist nonsence to me.
>> Edited by Kurgis on Monday 1st March 15:01
I'm surprised at the figure you quote, but as someone who's often on the road by 6am I'm always amazed at the number of RTAs being reported on the traffic news by that time. I'm pretty sure that many are caused by HGV drivers on night shifts nodding off because they have nothing to do. It should be taken by national and EU governments as a warning against taking driving responsibility away from the drivers, but I'm not holding my breath.
Kurgis said:
.....
note the very ambiguous "commercial vehicles". I have a feeling this has involved every taxi/van/lorry/bus,
......
1.5% of 29 million gives 435,000
That is roughly equivalent to the number of currently licensed goods vehicles > 7.5t gvw.
The accurate figure end 2002 is 432,000 split as follows,
316,000 rigid chassis
117,000 artics of which the majority (104,000) had mgvw > 28t.
Buses, taxis and light goods don't come into it.
Peter Ward said:
I'm surprised at the figure you quote, but as someone who's often on the road by 6am I'm always amazed at the number of RTAs being reported on the traffic news by that time. I'm pretty sure that many are caused by HGV drivers on night shifts nodding off because they have nothing to do. It should be taken by national and EU governments as a warning against taking driving responsibility away from the drivers, but I'm not holding my breath.
I did about 1,500 miles on motorways last week. As you might expect I saw a few cases of bad driving. A couple of ill planned lane changes and a case of late braking.
But I saw no less than five (and maybe 7) cases of HGVs at night in L1 drifting about between the hard shoulder and L2. No other sort of "bad driving" was as common. (And no, it wasn't wind).
How is it that after over 7 years of HGV speed limiters we have no study that tells us what the overall effects of the limiters have been on safety?
How is it that 7.7% of serious HGV driver and passenger casualties were fatal in 1994 rising to 13.7% in 2002?
How is it that HGV driver and passenger fatalities rose from 41 in 1994 to 63 in 2002?
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
63 deaths in 2002 out of c.3500 is about 1.8%. If HGVs make up 1.5% of vehicles then "that seems about right". Perhaps this is why the study hasn't been done. Without knowing that 30% of all accidents involve HGVs you could infer that the death rate is in line with expectations.
Considering further, only 1.8% of deaths yet 30% of accidents indicates that HGVs are a safe place to be in a smash. I guess this is because of being above the general traffic.
If a study is ever undertaken (sorry, no pun intended) It would be interesting to know how many accidents happen due to HGVs tailgating each other inches apart at 56mph.
Finally, I didn't realise that wind causes bad driving. Must lay off the lentils.
Considering further, only 1.8% of deaths yet 30% of accidents indicates that HGVs are a safe place to be in a smash. I guess this is because of being above the general traffic.
If a study is ever undertaken (sorry, no pun intended) It would be interesting to know how many accidents happen due to HGVs tailgating each other inches apart at 56mph.
Finally, I didn't realise that wind causes bad driving. Must lay off the lentils.
safespeed said:
How is it that 7.7% of serious HGV driver and passenger casualties were fatal in 1994 rising to 13.7% in 2002?
How is it that HGV driver and passenger fatalities rose from 41 in 1994 to 63 in 2002?
Is there a possible link in increasing road tax on UK hauliers with the rise in fatalities? The reasoning being that as costs for UK based firms get ever higher, they have to do more and more hours/cut costs (both legally and otherwise) to compete with the firms operating in the UK from bases on the continent, where they are subject to much less tax, giving them a significant commercial advantage.
How does the rise in fatalities from 1994 to 2002 correspond to the rises in HGV road fund licence, cost of diesel and so on?
safespeed said:
How is it that after over 7 years of HGV speed limiters we have no study that tells us what the overall effects of the limiters have been on safety?
To which I would add, if I may Paul.
How is it that after over 7 years of HGV speed limiters we have no study that tells us what the overall effects of the limiters have been on safety, yet limiters are soon to be introduced on all vehicles gvw >3.5t plus those with more than 8 seats?
FiF
Personal opinion is that I have no objection in principle to HGVs having limiters. Not too sure that it's sensible or conducive to road safety to have them at the limit of 56mph... but the thought of 70mph+ HGVs is somewhat scary! (some drivers seem to bypass limiters, I know).
I would have thought it more sensible to put tachographs in the vehicles that are being proposed for limiters (if they're not in already). Excess hours and driving while tired are probably far more significant causes of accidents than a few mph over the speed limit.
I speak from some experience here. My first permanent job involved driving a 6.5 mobile lab all over the country. This was fitted with a tacho', but tiredness was still the largest cause of any near misses. (Thankfully no accidents).
I would have thought it more sensible to put tachographs in the vehicles that are being proposed for limiters (if they're not in already). Excess hours and driving while tired are probably far more significant causes of accidents than a few mph over the speed limit.
I speak from some experience here. My first permanent job involved driving a 6.5 mobile lab all over the country. This was fitted with a tacho', but tiredness was still the largest cause of any near misses. (Thankfully no accidents).
stackmonkey said:
I would have thought it more sensible to put tachographs in the vehicles that are being proposed for limiters (if they're not in already). Excess hours and driving while tired are probably far more significant causes of accidents than a few mph over the speed limit.
I expect you'd be right, but unfortunately this misses the point. I think the long term aim of the EU is to force speed limiters on everyone. Therefore, it's important to set a trend of enforcing speed limiters in ever-smaller vehicles rather than to take a sensible approach and monitor hours driven. That can come later when the speed limiters are sorted.
Peter Ward said:Isn't the 63 as quoted only the occupants of the HGV. The reference didn't seem to claim it was all deaths involving HGV's.
63 deaths in 2002 out of c.3500 is about 1.8%. If HGVs make up 1.5% of vehicles then "that seems about right". Perhaps this is why the study hasn't been done. Without knowing that 30% of all accidents involve HGVs you could infer that the death rate is in line with expectations.
The total deaths where a HGV is involved would be a more significant figure to the debate.
icamm said:
63 deaths in 2002 out of c.3500 is about 1.8%. If HGVs make up 1.5% of vehicles then "that seems about right". Perhaps this is why the study hasn't been done. Without knowing that 30% of all accidents involve HGVs you could infer that the death rate is in line with expectations.
Isn't the 63 as quoted only the occupants of the HGV. The reference didn't seem to claim it was all deaths involving HGV's.
The total deaths where a HGV is involved would be a more significant figure to the debate.
www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_control/documents/contentservertemplate/dft_index.hcst?n=8664&l=5
Table 23 of RCGB. It's an odd sort of thing.
If I'm reading it right, I think that's 230 deaths involving an HGV in 2002.
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
cazzo said:
commercial vehicles are involved in 30% of RTA's.
I would have said more like 60%.
Everytime I see a serious accident on the motorway it's nearly always HGV's or white vans that are involved.
The main problem is the increase of foreign HGV's coming into this country and the drivers going too fast, not checking mirrors, or falling asleep.
>> Edited by ledfoot on Monday 1st March 19:13
I still have yet to figure out how this one happened but...
Driving down the M4 around swindon a couple of years ago, saw a white van on the other side of the motorway on the hard shoulder that was smashed like it had rolled, and on top of it UPSIDEDOWN was a car facing the other way....
Driving down the M4 around swindon a couple of years ago, saw a white van on the other side of the motorway on the hard shoulder that was smashed like it had rolled, and on top of it UPSIDEDOWN was a car facing the other way....
Flat in Fifth said:
Eventually when questioned at the roadside the driver scuffles around in the dashboard locker and produces a tacho disc for the missing miles showing his boss' name as the driver.
No figures, I'm afraid, but as a former coach driver I can vouch for the fact that this sort of practice is common. On several occasions I was told that, should my legal driving hours expire, I would have to put a blank disk in the tachometer and the boss would sign it when I got back to base. I should add that I never actually did this, and on the one occasion when I was in danger of exceeding my hours I phoned the boss and insisted that he come out and complete the journey for me. Unhappy faces at 1am type scenario.
You can also believe that LGV drivers regularly bypass their tachos and limiters in a variety of ways. Have you ever wondered why you can be travelling at 60mph, yet all you can see in your rear-view mirror for mile after terrifying mile is something which reads a bit like OVLOV or AINACS?
safespeed said:
Table 23 of RCGB. It's an odd sort of thing.
If I'm reading it right, I think that's 230 deaths involving an HGV in 2002.
Agreed table is odd but I get 376 which tallies with some other data I have, not on the net I'm afraid.
Again figures which more or less tally with the link provided by Safespeed Paul suggest that
HGVs involved in 9.1% of all collisions in the data set.
HGVs involved in 10.9% of all collisions resulting in a death.
Including serious injuries in the above figures results that HGVs involved in 5.2% of all accidents resulting in death/serious injury.
Also looking at the table in Paul Smith's link if one just examines two vehicle collisions its obvious without doing any maths that when the vehicle B is an HGV then the rate of casualties per collision increases. This includes an increase in the numbers of KSI per collision.
Common sense really, all that extra mass means more kinetic energy has to be dissipated.
Until I could check this last night wasn't willing to comment on the 30% of all RTA's but quite frankly I'm not convinced. Quite clearly the transport industry has some issues to address nevertheless.
FiF
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff