MORR™ : Prioritising Work Related Road Safety
'Eighteen Arguments for Action by the Health & Safety Commission and Executive'
A. Background
Working together with some 66 other organisations in the Occupational Road Safety Alliance (ORSA) (visit www.orsa.org.uk), RoSPA is continuing to work to ensure that occupational road risk is addressed by employers and regulators as a mainstream health and safety at work issue. In light of the report of the Government’s independent Work Related Road Safety (WRRS) Task Group (Dykes Report) the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the Department for Transport (DfT) have recently published guidance for employers entitled, 'Driving at Work'.
The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) are now following up their ‘Revitalising Health and Safety’ (RHS) programme launched in 2000 by seeking views on the development of their Strategy up to 2010.
RoSPA has welcomed many aspects of the strategy but is concerned that the HSC document contains no reference to WRRS and in particular is very concerned that the new HSE/DfT guidance contains a statement as follows:
“.... HSC’s enforcement policy statement recognises the need to prioritise investigation and enforcement action. Current priorities, as set out in HSC’s Strategic plan, do not include work-related road safety...”
RoSPA believes that, notwithstanding their need to work in partnership with other agencies and ‘key players’, HSC/E should:
- accept that MORR is mainstream health and safety and should be addressed by employers within their health and safety management systems;
- increase staff resources devoted to MORR;
- facilitate greater benchmarking and sharing of information on MORR, for example via the HSE’s MORR web pages;
- focus on on-road as well as site transport safety (for example, during inspectors visits to workplaces);
- in this context, issue enforcement notices where necessary;
- deal with complaints by workers on MORR issues;
- in partnership with the Police, investigate work-related road crashes and, where appropriate, take high profile prosecutions;
- lead the MORR research agenda; and
- take a lead within Government as an exemplar employer in relation to MORR issues.
Here are a series of arguments which, taken together, underpin the case for prioritising action on these lines by the HSC/E.
B. Arguments for action by HSC/E
1) Work related road accidents are the biggest cause of work related accidental death.
Between 800 and 1000 people are being killed annually in work related road traffic accidents as opposed to some 450 fatalities which are currently being notified annually under the Reporting of Injuries Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR).
2) Levels of occupational risk to workers who drive as part of their job are relatively high.
Levels of risk of fatality faced by those covering significant distances annually by car or van in the course of their work are the same risk of accidental death as workers in acknowledged high-risk sectors such as construction, agriculture or quarrying. Those covering 25,000 miles per annum for their work by car are close to tolerable levels of risk described in HSE’s seminal risk document, ‘ Reducing risks, protecting people’ (R2P2).
3) A preventative approach is clearly justified.
Although there are clear needs for more research on the prevalence, severity, causation, costs and ‘preventability’ of work related road accidents, it is already clear that the problem is so serious as to warrant early action. Employers can clearly do much to exacerbate risk (e.g. poor scheduling, excessive working/driving hours, incentives to speed etc) and conversely they can do much to reduce risk (for example, by ensuring safer vehicles, safer journey planning, improving driver competence where necessary and developing a better road safety culture).
4) There is major scope for safety gain and cost savings to business, the NHS and local and central government.
Similarly, while further research is needed, it is clear that besides helping to meet the national road casualty reduction targets (40 per cent reduction in numbers killed and seriously injured by 2010), action by employers to manage risk on the road can result in early net cost savings to businesses, public agencies and the HM Treasury. (RoSPA estimates that several million working days are likely to be lost annually as a result of employees being injured in ‘at work’ road crashes.)
5) There is clear public support for the idea of making work related road safety part of health and safety at work.
The overwhelming majority of respondents to the WRRSTG’s discussion exercise agreed with this idea, many occupational and road safety professionals pointing to the advantages which this approach could have for both road and occupational safety. (Many see it as a useful way of helping to build effective ‘health and safety culture’ in their organisations.)
6) The suggestion that the prevention of road accidents while at work is not really part of occupational health and safety is ill founded.
When a person is killed in an accident while at work, whether or not they were engaged in activities that were taking place on an employer’s premises or were on the public road is largely irrelevant. The more exposure employees have to the road environment, the more likely they are to be involved in an accident. The accident has occurred while the employee was engaged on their employer’s business and could possibly have been prevented or its effects mitigated by appropriate employer action.
7) Health and safety law applies.
The WRRSTG report confirmed that the general duties in the Health and Safety at Work (HSW) Act and the Management of Health and Safety at Work (MHSW) Regulations apply while employees are at work on the highway whether as drivers/riders, passengers or pedestrians.
8) There is a clear case for an HSE enforcement role.
The argument that persons at work on the road (and others who may be affected by them) are adequately protected from harm by the enforcement of road safety law (and other measures) applying to all road users (the ‘Foot letter’ – see below) is short sighted in that it fails to appreciate: a) the extent to which the actions of employers can affect levels of risk both faced and created by their employees while at work on the road; and b) that, in the main, road safety law is silent on the duties of employers to ensure safe systems of work for employees when they are on the highway.
9) There are clear parallels with violence at work.
Although at one time it was argued that the general duties of the HSW Act were never intended to protect persons at work from the risk of assaults (and that they were protected by the law relating to offences against the person), later it was it accepted that employers did indeed have HSW Act duties to assess risks and take reasonably practicable measures to protect staff from violence. Since then action on violence has become part of the occupational health and safety mainstream, usefully complementing the objectives of criminal law in this area.
10) There is a need to revisit the ‘Foot letter’.
There is now a strong case for revisiting the terms of the ‘Foot letter’ of the early seventies. (This established the principle that, in circumstances where there is more specific safety legislation – e.g. covering road, air, marine, consumer safety etc - it is this law that will be enforced rather than the general duties of the HSW Act.) Since it was agreed nearly thirty years ago, much has changed and in many ways the ‘Letter’ is now out-of-date. (It pre-dated, the MHSW Regulations and their health and safety management requirements - including the requirement for risk assessment and it pre-dated the widening health and safety agenda and the need for ‘joined up Government’.)
11) The anticipated additional burdens placed on HSE’s investigation resources are not likely to be as great as is being suggested.
While HSE staff are understandably concerned about the possible impact on their existing programmes and priorities of having to investigate work related road crashes, the precise number of cases in which HSE will need to become involved is probably quite small. The Police will continue to take the lead in investigation and the guidance contained, for example, in the ACPO ‘ Manual for Investigating Road Deaths’ will mean that, initially at least, only a very small fraction of the 800 –1000 estimated fatalities identified in the WRRSTG report will require HSE to become involved. Some additional training and guidance will be needed but, in general, HSE inspectors already have the expertise required to promote a risk management approach in this area and they can usefully link this with their existing guidance on site transport safety (HSG136).
12) Work related road safety was not part of the ‘Revitalising Health and Safety’ consultation exercise.
When the RHS discussion exercise was launched in 1999, the WRRSTG had not yet been established so that, although important priorities such as workplace transport accidents (see DDE18) were clearly considered, the much bigger issue of work related road safety was still not ‘on the HSC/E radar screen’.
13) WRRS is clearly part of the ‘Changing world of work’.
The whole issue links very closely with other key priorities in the HSC/E agenda that are connected with ‘the changing world of work’, particularly the increasingly peripatetic workforce and the links between ‘at work’ driving and stress and musculo-skeletal disorders. (75% of male employees and 49% of female employees are required to use a vehicle - usually their own - in the course of their work - excluding commuting. Excessive driving can cause stress and stress in turn can increase the risk of crashes occurring. Long spells behind the wheel are a major cause of lower back pain.)
14) There could be legal challenges.
Were HSC to fail to commit to following up the WRRSTG’s recommendations, it is likely that this could result in further public pressure, Parliamentary Questions etc and it could also possibly give rise to judicial review of cases in which HSE had decided not to investigate particular work related road accidents.
15) The issue is one that clearly demands ‘joined-up Government’.
Until the WRRSTG report was published, the contribution which greater employer action could make to help achieve national road casualty reduction targets had been severely underestimated. (The targets in the Government’s strategy for road safety - ‘Tomorrow’s Roads: safer for everyone’ - and in the HSC’s RHS need to be viewed in parallel.)
16) The UK needs to be abreast of international developments.
The UK, including HSC/E, will need to learn from the wide range of activities being taken in other countries to promote occupational road safety this. The UK should have a clearly developed policy line to advance in any future discussions on WRRS within the European Union.
17) The immediate need is to focus on raising awareness.
The priority task recommended by WRRSTG was the need to raise awareness, suggesting that, while the HSC/E may need time to take action on research and enforcement liaison, it needs to work closely with others (such as members of ORSA) to get the message across to employers and ‘key intermediaries’.
18) HSC/E can develop its role through partnership working.
In the light of the HSE DfT guidance, HSC/E will be able to develop their involvement by working in partnership with other organisations (such as members of ORSA) to develop a more co-ordinated approach to awareness raising and identification of good practice.
C. Conclusion
Responding to the WRRS agenda poses clear challenges for HSC/E (and in the longer run will not be possible without additional resources). In the short term however the above arguments suggest that neither the Commission nor the Executive can continue to maintain their previous policy position on this issue based on the ‘Foot letter’ – which, in any case, with the passage of time needs revisiting. HSC and E need to accept that WRRS must be made a priority in the 2010 strategy while at the same time working with others to focus on raising awareness and using the coming period to get to grips with some of the more challenging aspects of this very important issue.
Further information can be obtained by calling 0121 248 2095 or Emailing: rbibbings@rospa.com
Read RoSPA's supplementary guidance on speed, fatigue and driver competence. (
PDF format 63kb)
To view PDF documents on the RoSPA website you will need to download and install a free copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader. If you have problems accessing PDF documents on this website visit our Download Help page.
|
RoSPA is a registered charity: Registered Charity No: 207823 Patron: Her Majesty the Queen RoSPA Head Office: Edgbaston Park, 353 Bristol Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham B5 7ST, UK |
 |