Fleet Beat

Whilst driving my iPhone4 runs Trapster to keep me aware of my speed, Navizon which gathers points by locating wifi points & cell locations which then convert to money (I make about $5 per month there) and Mocal which is a Free Voice guidance system.

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. 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

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. 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. 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!

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

That list is rather simplistic. What is so good about a Volvo 900 series from 1984 that makes it worthy? And yes, the Peugot is equally ridiculous, but I find many of the european recommendations rather foolish. What this list completely ignores is (primarily) ongoing maintenance cost. Anything eurpoean (especially from the 80s and 90s) usually have a lot of tech for the money which also means intermittement failures and expensive repairs. If a first car owner spends all their (limited) money chasing gremlins, then usually more important expenditures suffer. Tyres and brakes for example. The main purpose of maintenance is to ensure that an asset performs its primary function first. The primary function of a car is to control movement from one place to another. If you have good tyres, good brakes and good control, 999 times out of 1000, you are going to make it. And, that 1 time out of 1000 when you need good occupant protection, I think you will find that 4 stars in 1984 is equivalent to about 1 star now. The Alto (and a raft of other entry level vehicles) should have made it to the list, or, keep the list to vehicles under $10,000. Excluding new cars is ridiculous. I'm sure most parents would prefer that their child in a new car than an old one..... unless it's a Chery. I agree, plenty of new cars that are very cheap to run. I know having owned plenty of new and old european cars, they are considerably more expensive in maintenance than local and asian products to maintain. Sounds like a very mixed message from the transport accident commission. I think they need to get their facts straight... or maybe they are all trying to sell old volvos and peugeots... Another interesting point to note is that in 1984 the Volvo 700 Series didn’t even have an airbag! Only in 1987 was a driver side airbag introduced to the Volvo 700 Series. So this first car list is promoting a car with zero airbags instead of one with 6! The only reason I can find that it is on the First Car List is because it ticks the criteria of being under $15,000.

The Toyota Rukus has been selling in the US as the Scion xB for the past few years and seems to be doing quite well. According to its official webpage, it has received many awards including being named one of the “Best Family Cars for Downsizing” as well as one of the “Best Cars for College Students”. For some reason though the Ruckus’s appeal seems to be lost in translation in Australia. I think the price and the flamboyant styling scare off younger people who see $25,000 - $30,000 as quite an expensive car. Maybe it will break into the market after people see a few driving around? I checked out the ruckus at a local dealer the other day. The looks didn't bother me as much as the finish. Interior door panels are cheap. The dash looks like the older Nissan X-trail arrangement and non strucutral plastics are exceedingly flimsy. 2.4 Petrol *yay*. 4 spd auto *boo*. bazillion speakers *yay*. Rear luggage space *boo*. Head room *yay* (and I'm 198cm), leg room *meh*. I think the Kia Soul is the better alternative - not as pretty but much cheaper (half the price), better fitted out, more standard options, better finish and comes with an awesome fuel efficient, environmentally friendly CRDi engine - 5.2 L/100 as opposed to the Ruckus 8.8... what a joke for a small car! I note Toyota also fail to advertise emmissions CO2 g/Km... sad really!

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.

I think its really fine to reduce the number of car accidents, government have been really bothered by the rising drink driving cases so this is a warning for people who usually drink while driving. Drink driving lawyer

This is going to really damage Toyota's legendary reputation...