Activity Five Facilitator's Notes : What causes an accident at work?
There are a wide range of risk factors which can lead to an accident, some of which can be addressed by early planning of journeys.
Often, despite best intentions, the prioritisation of goals which conflict with safer driving can lead to a failure to manage risks and risky behaviours.
The aims of this section are to add to the knowledge of accident causation factors, and show that decisions which could cause an accident can be made long before it occurs. It also aims to encourage delegates to consider what different goals they set themselves, and whether they make any assumptions when prioritising them.
Facilitator's Notes
This activity explores the theme that accidents are not pot chance established, in Activity 3. Ideally the section should provoke discussion of examples provided by the delegates as they apply what the exercise is covering to their own situation.
Two accident investigation scenarios used in the pilot workshops are included in Appendix B.
Accident Investigation Scenario 2 (Nat), Pilot Workshop 6.
| What caused the accident? |
Underpinning factors
- Tiredness
- Not knowing where she was going
|
Immediate factors
- Close to the car in front
- Rushing / In a hurry
- Distracted – reading a map
- Didn't take a break
|
| How could the accident have been prevented? |
Underpinning factors
- Park and ride
- Planned her route better – sat nav
- Stopped at services – said she was running late
|
Immediate factors
|
In the pilot workshops we encountered groups with differing levels of understanding about the causes of accidents, and altered our responses depending on the group. Generally, levels were consistent within a group. There were three broad categories, although the pilot workshops predominantly fell into the second and third categories –
- Groups who listed few examples
- Groups who listed several examples, but perceived there was nothing that their employer would do to help manage these risks
- Groups who listed several examples, and could name several employer policies
1) Groups who listed few examples
Where groups primarily listed immediate factors, or gave very few examples of how an accident could be prevented, the facilitators used the pre-prepared accident scenario as well as examples the delegates gave to try to highlight a wider range of ways that young drivers, and their employers, could reduce risk.
2) Groups who listed several examples, but perceived there was nothing that their employer would do to help manage these risks
Other groups had a good knowledge of both immediate and underpinning factors that caused accidents, generally in organisations with a good level of safety culture. This is an indication that delegates had taken their employers safety messages on board, but there were barriers to putting them into practice. In this instance, facilitators should get the delegates to talk about these barriers.
For example, in some groups delegates could identify situations where they were under pressure to complete a certain number of jobs in a day, or to undertake long journeys before and after a meeting or delivery. Some delegates perceived that there was nothing that they could do about these situations, and would not raise issues with their employers as they were under the impression that it would be fruitless, or that there would be negative consequences.
One perception held by some was that the policies on occupational road risk were more to provide legal cover if an accident did happen rather than something genuinely for the safety of employees. This was the case when they received contradictory messages from their employers – for example, when they were told not to speed, but daily schedules did not provide time for anything going wrong throughout the day so that the drivers felt they had to rush to make up the time afterwards.
In some circumstances, delegates gave examples of where more senior colleagues had broken the company's MORR policy.
We tried to encourage delegates to have more dialogue with their employer and to give examples of when dialogue had occurred.
Ultimately, there is a role for the facilitator to feed these comments anonymously back to the employer. Discussions with employers after the workshop often revealed that the employers perceived the lack of dialogue as an indicator that the employees did not have any safety concerns.
3) Groups who listed several examples, and could name several employer policies
Some of the groups were also able to provide examples of when a company policy was designed to manage risks. In this instance, the young drivers were asked to discuss whether they took advantage of these policies. Many cited examples where a policy could keep them safer but they didn't take advantage of it, for example an organisation would provide overnight stops closer to where the work the next day would take place, but the delegates would still choose to drive there in the morning.
In this instance delegates were asked to explain the thinking behind how they prioritise safety against their other goals or pressures, and the facilitator gave examples about what would influence them to prioritise safety (e.g. length of journey, time for stops scheduled into the journey). Other delegates were also asked to give examples of times when they had taken advantage of one of the policies (for example an overnight stop) and how it had helped them.
One finding from the pilots is that the delegates reported that policies differed between different site offices in the same organisation. This is also something for the facilitator to feedback to the employer.
Share this page: