Occupational Health & Safety

Its very nice of you to have this item on your site. However I would like to see large increases in registration fees for 4WDs to discourage people from buying them. They are too big for the suburbs and the drivers have no grace, disregard using indicators, bully smaller cars to move out of the way on the freeway and on round-abouts in a frightening manner. I have seen them drive over footpaths in shopping centres to grab a parking spot. Worse, I saw one driver bully 2 old pedestrians at Karrinyup Shopping Centre to give way to him - which they did. A high registration fee might stop some of this.

I can't the dark grey colours against bitumen road with dusk coming on. I remember getting quite a shock thinking there was clear road in front of me - and there was this grey car in front! My 1981 Volvo's parking lights turn on when I turn the key on & the parkers stay on! Beautiful!! Silver is not a popular colour with my friends - they won't have one.

Thats just crazy, a hand sticking out !!! What about the wheel spinning Toyota creating a track ? Wheel spins are allowed according to the vehicle laws ? Thats just a load of bull. I thought it had been changed because of the cat issue and the discrepancy between people being upset and happy. I didn't even notice a hand out the window - as in all things these days, overkill!

If the fatality rate is falling while the aggregate number of vehicles on the road is increasing this can only be seen as a positive result overall. The debate regarding speed cameras will always be there as the results can be spun to suit the situation. The subject of improved driver training still appears to be neglected. Until we train our new drivers as well as our new to the country drivers to a much higher standard we will continue to see unnecessary accidents that could have been prevented with a higher level of both common sense and car control. The other issue is the roadworthiness of vehicles on the road, particularly in Queensland where annual inspections are not required, the volume of unsafe vehicles on the road particularly when economic times are tight is increasing at a much greater rate, an unacceptable situation at any time.

I bought a Toyota last year, it had nothing to do with marketing, It just happened to be the best car in its class by a long shot in 2003 the wife bought a 2001 Toyota Avalon. This is a re-badged American Camry. I was cynical about the woeful turning circle and likened it to a truck and always told people that you had to go around the block to turn the vehicle around. An exaggeration. The poor turning circle was a big issue for us and in 2005 we bought a Holden Commodore which had a tight turning circle (even tighter on the new models). Over the years I slowly fell in love with the Avalon and even though I am a Holden man the Avalon was the car of choice if we went anywhere together. My Holden is six years old and still has not done 40,000Km. That is because I preferred to drive the slower, smoother, more comfortable Avalon. Now she owns a Prado 4WD and that is my vehicle of choice - the Holden still gets relegated to the car port if we both go somewhere together. The 2.5 tonne Prado is easier to drive than the Holden albeit it noisier (diesel). Other manufacturers have recalls but the press has given Toyota a hammering with excessive negative publicity. I consider it to be unfair. Besides, it is not Toyota but the parts manufacturer. Usually a vehicle manufacturer will source parts from at least two different manufacturers in case of employee strikes, supply problems, etcetera. That is why only certain vehicles get recalled and not all of the same model. Having aid all of this, the point I am making is that i still consider Toyota to be one of the most reliable vehicles on the market and no amount of recalls will sway me away. I have been through recalls with Holden (two just for my side air bags which could accidentally activate and kung-fu you as you alighted) and recalls with Ford. What worries me is when a vehicle manufacturer is not brave enough to announce a recall because of reputation/cost. Toyota have an issue with their Service Centres and poor customer service and they should be looking at this. You can buy a $130,000 Land Cruiser Sahara and get treated no differently than someone who bought a used Yaris.

I think it depends on which research you want to believe. There has been plenty of stuff in the press in the UK that they do reduce deaths and that they don't reduce deaths. Honestly, I don't mind them as I'm not a speed freak....but I'm guessing that the people that regularly venture over the speed limit will take a more negative view! Oh, and don't forget the political aspects. Not only money saving, but they are a means to entice voting groups!!!! Thanks for your thoughts Morgan! As you said, there is a lot of research out there saying different things, so it can be hard to know what statistics to believe. When you look at it, if you do get fined for speeding (legitimately, as I know there have also been reports of faulty cameras catching anyone), at the end of the day you are breaking the law so really only have yourself to blame. Couldn't agree more, Laura! It's not even like doing an extra 10mph over the speed limit will make that much of a difference to a standard journey anyway! Even looking at the difference between a journey at 70mph and 80 mph for half an hour (assuming you can maintain those speeds!!!!) its only going to make a few minutes difference to your arrival times....I really can't see the point! Here in the states we have in Maryland speed cameras for schools and construction sites. It seems to slow people down in those areas for a total of 100 or so feet and then off to the races again. I don't see how that is really helping a construction zone that can last a half a mile or so when only a hundred feet or so is actually helped?? Seems more of an income generator in those areas. Schools are a little different they actually probably help. Laura, more of the former, less of the latter in my opinion. Having driven for many years in Sydney's near endless streams of metal, glass and plastic, it's clear that these 'life saving' devices are an emotional trigger linked to the back pocket. Fixed cameras in particular have only momentary effect on driving habits, as generally people know where they are and slow accordingly, returning to their previous 'illegal' speed or the speed of the surrounding traffic. This practice is common in other states, moreover, Victoria who adopt fixed cameras also. Having travelled extensively within each state, it is also clear that speed cameras have little apparent effect on average speeds of rural roads, for the same reasons as above. In saying that, if you speed and get caught, it's you own fault. With that in mind it must be said, that cameras probably have a better effect in South Australia and Western Australia on slowing traffic, where they utilise randomly placed, hidden devices in metropolitan/ residental areas. Albeit, the media will publicise they approximate locality, the exact whereabouts is not known. Referring to the switching off of the UK cameras; one would have to be cynical and suggest that the return on investment is clearly undermined by the revenue stream. Why else, media hype aside, would you turn them off! In relation to the life saving aspects of speed cameras, I would very much doubt that the relevant govt depts could be that accurate with their analysis. The data available via the ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) is not detailed enough to pinpoint exact areas where cameras are located or their effect. Chris makes an interesting point regarding placement around schools zones. This is possibly one strong case for a safety related placement, albeit there are many other ways of slowing traffic in these proximities. Getting back to your post. Clearly a money making venture, now horribly out of control in lieu of better roads and less passive traffic control. The use of speed averaging/ monitoring systems has been utilised in NSW (Australia) for many years, predominantly for keeping tabs on the trucking industry. In general I think this works but that opinion is based on media and some that I know within that sector. We have some toll-ways which have the 'average speed' monitoring capacity but don't appear to be utilised, as there's not the legislation to support and these roads are privately owned and operated. The vehicle technology improvements are, from my point of view, far outstripping the long established non-passive traffic control methods that have been in place in NSW (at least) since the early 1980s. Since the inception of round-abouts, speed-humps, chicanes, the speed excesses in suburbia have dwindled steadily with only the truly 'lunatic' factor having any adversely damaging results by attempting world record pace in this type of area, albeit there are no generally no cameras in those suburban back streets. Back to the technology and partially respond to "why isn't this being pushed harder?". To have a beneficial effect, where the technology plays a 'controlling' role, there not only needs to be vehicles that have the ability within, you need to have the appropriate infrastructure to assist with point to point logging and GPS target points amongst others, that accurately inform the vehicle of speed zone changes etc... Having the vehicle effectively drive itself, other than steering, is a way off yet. There have been many advances in Europe and some research in Japan over many years utilising tie-ups between infrastructure and the vehicle but at this point the testing seems to be limited to, just that, testing. Although, there may have been some success in Sweden(?) with using this for public transport i.e. buses and the Expo in Japan saw 'self' driven(?) shuttles to move people around. I'd have to check on that. As a former law enforcement officer, I might have a different (if not surprising) opinion regarding this. In general I am not for cameras on the roadway.I am not a fan of having every movement recorded. In addition, artificially slowing traffic below what the public might normally drive increases the danger. Don’t take my word for it – look it up. For schools, I am not against this at all. In fact – with the proper signage noting the cameras may be there – I am more than for it. We had an incident a few years ago where one sibling pushed the other out of the way of a speeding car in a school zone. If the car was traveling even 5 MPH slower, there is a good chance the driver might have been able to stop or both children could have avoided the vehicle. Ultimately I think we all agree there doesn't need to be this heavy dependancy on technology to keep us human beings in line. Stricter penalties for those that are pulled over, cause accidents and deaths are what is needed. No judges giving you a free pass, which is what I think provides the green light to do again without any real penalty. suspensions on a "three and out" would really deter someone from repeat offenses, not paying fines they CAN probably afford, but you take away their license for a length of time and that hurts them and any family they support. Will not do that again! Enforce the speed limits but be reasonable with the speed limit too! I think speed enforcement is definitely a revenue generator for municipalities. And it is accepted by the general public as a sort of "blue law" since those that offend are viewed in a negative light. Why other forms of bad driver behavior are not as aggressively enforced is more evidence this is strictly about money. Where I live a state law was passed a few years ago to limit the percentage of revenue a municipality could receive from speeding tickets to eliminate stereotypical "speed traps." The largest municipality in the state saw this as an opportunity (or at least it was an odd coincidence) to substantially raise the fines for speeding. Less than 10 mph over the limit became a $175 fine, but 10 to 20 over increased the fine by only $10. There seems to be no correlation with the potential danger of the offense to the amount of the fine since running a stop sign is the same fine as 10 over. To make payment easier, the city set up a website where you could pay by credit card. I would think this scenario has become quite profitable, although I have no hard data. This is a little off topic, but plans to use cameras to enforce mandatory insurance requirements were adopted this past year at the state level, but were abandoned due to technology issues with the necessary supporting database. What I personally find most disturbing is these cameras are to be operated by a private, for profit company with the state sharing in the revenue generated. I would guess that a little fact checking will find many of these speed cameras are also owned and operated by private companies. Looking at this from the perspective of a UK person living in Australia, I would tend to suggest that the principal objective of the speed cameras in Victoria is to raise revenue. In my view, there seems to be an overly biased focus on driver behavioural change rather than improving driver ability and vehicle safety. It does seem rather odd to me that 3km above the speed limit on a straight, quite stretch of road warrants a significant fine, however there is little focus on removing defective vehicles from the roads through compulsory annual vehicle testing. If revenue raised from road traffic offences was directed to Federal treasury, then refunded to the State governments based on their road-safety performance, I think that there would be more effective incentive to reduce road fatality rates. I would also view things with a little more credibility if the authorities in Australia did take learnings from other countries where speeds and traffic densities are higher, yet fatality rates are lower. I'm thinking about things like compulsory TPI based on market rates rather than a fixed rate as part of the rego (gets young people out of high-powered cars), compulsory annual vehicle testing (gets unsafe cars off the road), removal of the '1-point' 3-25km fine so that people are more focused on the road rather than the speedo, a compulsory 'keep-left' on all roads, contributory negligence where accidents could have been reasonable avoided, etc, etc - it's all pretty commonplace in Europe and would seem rather easy to implement in Australia if the authorities were serious. with regards to technology... Society as a whole (at least in the 'developed' world - i don't like this phrase but it is fit for purpose) is dependant on technology regardless of situation! Look at the recent address given by Liam Fox regarding the security (or lack of) surrounding EMP's and infrastructure. No, I don't like being dependant on technology, but yes, I will admint that I am and that it would be a damn sight harder to exist without it. Now look at the technology in cars. ABS, EBD, ESP, Seatbelts, Airbags, Bluetooth Phone kits (yes, I would class this as a safety feature), Air Conditioning (keeps you more comfortable = less distractions) Power Steering (less effort required = less tired) Crumple Zones, Cruise Control, Speed Limiters, Radar Assisted Cruise Control.......the list goes on. They are all there for a reason. Governments and manufacturers alike would not make some of these features standard equipment if it didn't help safety. Safety sells, and in the MAJORITY of cases, things like ABS, EBD, ESP etc will assist in the event of a likely or actual accident. Following this thought to a logical conclusion, what the above says is that Human's can't be trusted. We get ticked off with the driver infront doing 25mph in a 50mph zone, so as we get frustrated, we 'floor it' to overtake them, sometimes in places where we know it isn't 100% safe to do so. We get tired behind the wheel, but push on without taking a break because we want to get to our destination and thats more important. Another 'bad' driver makes a mistake and cuts you up, you get angry or upset. As Jeremy Clarkson once said in Top Gear re: the Mercedes McLaren SLR, the worst thing about the car is the squidgy organic thing behind the wheel. No amount of education will rid drivers of being human. The technology won't get frustrated, tired, annoyed, angry, upset, emotional etc etc. Yes, they may be open to virus or other attacks, but I would suggest that the chances of this and the threat to life that this represents is negligable to the number of deaths and accidents that would occur if these bits of safety technology were stripped from cars. Ok this might upset some people but here goes.... -the biggest cause of accidents is human error or more precisely misjudgement of the road situation. I regularley drive stretches of country road at between 160km/h and 210 km/h and have been doing so for many years and have not even come close to having an accident. Why? because i assess the traffic density (very important) the road alignment and road conditions ie dry, wet overcast day etc AND i possess very good knowledge of the roads that i'm travelling. Suffice to say i do not travel any where near this speed on roads i do not know well-and never in built up areas or inside city limits. Now when travelling these roads and i see vehicles approaching in the other direction i slow down way in advance back down to around 120 km/h-not beause they may be the police but in the event that someone behind THEM wants to over take that vehicle in front -with me coming the other way. I also slow down for crests and any side roads entering onto that road which i'm travelling. In my years travelling these roads (which i know very well) i have not even come close to having an accident or even a near miss. I also make sure the my vehicle is up to the task, ie it has excellent suspension, massive brakes and wide tyres in good conditon. Remember -speed itself is not a cause of accidents perse, but once something does go wrong the speed you are carrying has a critical influence on the outcome (survivability) of an 'accident'.

I maybe a little bias on this one but, we manage +50K vehicles across the UK, and find that many of our clients are more than happy to outsource the Accident Management of their fleets to us, this is because of the imaging technology and expertise in house that is generally stronger than what would be available off the shelf. This means that assessments, repairs and costs can be controlled to within 1p within our business and this means that the client will always benefit from the power of dealing with a company with control over the garage or repairer. With outsourcing you do lose some sight of the process but ultimately you will win on a cost basis. It's always a good thing to keep as much as possible in House, but in many of the Fleet Management roles, there just isnt enough time, or people to delegate this to. Most Fleet Managers have a Full-Plate already, and Accident Management can be quite time consuming. Hi Tim, Thanks for the comment. Have you found that a lot of your clients come to you after attempting the Accident Management processes themselves in-house, or do the majority come to you from the beginning? Hi Laura Many of our clients have dealt with their own accident management for years, using old and antiquated methods (usually paper), they are usually not aware that the new technology within the market place allows for more pro-active and immediate transactions to take place and that the management of the repairs can be completed in such a process lead way. When demonstrating the technologies for potential new clients, we often hear audible gasps of appreciation for the way in which we can manage the vehicle and challenge costs directly and in real-time with the garage. We are also able to manage the downtime of the vehicle which is becoming more and more important to the clients and another string in the bow for the outsourcer, challenging times for repair down to 10 minute slots. And as the invoice process is not automated, we can remove any item that we believe is not required for the repair driving down cost even further. The skills that are required for this type of management process are not easily available within the market place and is not something that is easily taught to an individual, Our technical team can quickly review a claim, images and invoice and save around 12% of the cost of repair per job and reduce the vehicle downtime by 2 days from start to finish. Once we have demonstrated the ability and skills of the technician and the system, most customers come flocking for the accident management service provision Here in the UK, the trend is towards outsourcing to specialist accident management companies and even most of the leasing companies who ran their own in-house accident management departments have now partnered with an external specialist company. They then retain one or two staff to manage the account and interface with their own clients. From a fleet operators point of view it must depend on how many accidents you are likely to have to deal with each year and the geographic spred. My fleet will have something like 300 claims a year requiring bodyshop attention and these will be in possibly 50 or 60 different towns. Having accounts with so many different repairers, negotiating labour rates and parts discounts with each is just not practical. Then there is the question of having the in-house expertise to evaluate each estimate and decide if an engineer needs to be sent in to inspect. Add to this the need to manage down-time and instigate uninsurred loss recovery claims, following through until successful. With all things considered, I'd probably need an extra 2 staff to do accident management in-house and then its doubtful as to whether they would be as efficient as a specialist fleet management company. However, if I had less than 50 vehicles operating in a single location, I'd be tempted to go it alone. So my message is a old British saying "horses for courses" There is no one answer to this question that will suit all fleets. Last point, small fleets of up to 50 vehicles can be successful in instilling a zero accidents culture, if I had a small fleet I'd be concentrating on this and then not be having to worry too much about accident management, for obvious reasons.

Every accident is speed related because you can't crash standing still. Speed has been the scapegoat for far too long. The biggest killers on our road are fear (for the meek) over confidence (for the extroverts) and poor awareness (a product of the education regime aimed at road rules rather than vehicle control). Queensland Government have got it right. Although seemingly going against precedent, what would you prefer? A p plater concentrating on the road or the speedo? BOTH!, I hear you cry. Well stop being greedy. You can't have both. Inexperienced drivers are already nervous on the roads, and I would much prefer them to be looking out for pedestrians, other road users and traffic lights (which are about as far from the speedo as you can get), rather than fixated on the speedo which only prevents financial punishment, rather than manslaughter. Eventually, they will be able to determine the ability that all of us experienced road users supposedly have: to maintain a rudimentary digital velocity in a series are variable analogue circumstances. Now that they are looking at taking the leeway for speeding fines down to 4km/h over the limit, I think you are right and that a lot of people will be watching their speedo because it will be the fines that they are more worried about, and not the accident side of it. This is most likely to apply to all types of drivers, and not just the learners and p-platers. It will then be ok to do 10km over the speed limit... and then it will be 15km over the speed limit. They have put road rules in place, they have dropped the speed limit in built up areas and around schools so does that mean in a school zone you can do 45kph? in a built up zone you can now do 55kph? Keep the limits as they are! Thanks for the comment Sue. You make a very good point about the school zones- the speed limit there has been changed for a reason and usually there are heavy penatlies for speeding in those areas. Will these new laws apply to school zones? If so, it could be very dangerous and isn't sending the right message.

Hi Bowan, This is Eleanor Jones, marketing manager for ZoomSafer. Thank you for penning an excellent and timely reminder that without proper education and enforcement, a paper policy is only a sop towards improving fleet safety. Unsafe driving on-the-job place a heavy financial burden on employers here in the U.S., too - NHTSA estimates that each non-injury, non-fatality crash cost employers $24,500US - and the costs increase exponentially if someone gets hurt. We're committed to educating employers about the exposure they risk by failing to address distracted driving. Given that 40% of adults admit to texting behind the wheel, it's clearly a serious and widespread problem. We speak to a lot of companies who have policies - but have not yet moved beyond self-enforcement to automatic enforcement. Not only is critical to educate your fleet - but if you're going to institute a paper policy, it's imperative that you also adequately enforce it. Thanks for the opportunity to post! Eleanor Jones eleanorj@zoomsafer.com

Tracking your vehicles may end up to be a legal minefield. If, for example, you are running a fleet of couriers (whom I regularly observe exceeding the speed limit) and you can track them via GPS, are you then responsible for reporting them if you notice that they are breaking the law? Ever heard of a logistics manager calling one of his couriers and telling them to slow down? If not, then maybe the LM may be at fault if said driver has an accident whilst in excess of the posted limit, if that driver can prove that his behaviour is in accordance with previous history and he has been rewarded for reaching certain goals. I can see the benefit of GPS tracking, including acquisition of streams of data for analysis (I love data!) if the purpose of the vehicle is logistic in nature, which could result in improved effeciency. However, both parties need to be honest and also understand their responsibilities once a capability is implemented. Many companies here in the UK utilise in-vehicle tracking systems, initially there were major staff/union problems but sensible discussions soon ironed this out.. The key to implementing any tracking system is communications with the staff, you are correct that you are tracking the company asset that staff are in but they will feel that you are targeting them, tell them what you are doing and why and very soon they will be fans of the system. In some cases where tracking is fitted to company cars there is the facility to switch the tracking off when staff are on their own time but, this also switches off the free fuel aspect of their driving and they have to declare this non-business mileage on their tax returns. Done sensitively tracking can be a great asset for vehicle utilisation and route planning functions at very little cost to the business, can assist in reducing the carbon footprint of operations and can give staff some assurance that someone knows where they are at all times, I have even seen these systems used to prove that a driver was not where he was alleged to be in speeding cases, this saved the drivers the possibility of a large fine, points on their licence or even in the worst case loss of their licence. That is a good point Graham (in regard to mileage). One aspect of fleet management I've been thinking about is driver reward for fuel misers. Of course it would have to be based around similar routes, but empoyees may respond well when their smooth driving results in perhaps an early Friday. Think of the savings a manager can make in regard to maintenance in the long term and fuel usage in the short term.