Benefits report: Fleet management - Drive safely

The death in 2005 of 23 year-old Trinity Taylor, whose car was crushed in a collision with a text-messaging lorry driver delivering Jacuzzis, made national headlines. It occurred despite the Government raising sentences from two to six years in 2003 for manslaughter caused by texting or speaking on mobile phones while driving. The public demanded action, which came in February 2007 with the introduction of a complete ban on the use of handheld mobiles while driving. But later this summer comes a piece of legislation that businesses would be unwise to ignore - the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act (CMCHA).

Under the provisions of this Act, it will be employers who could now share the burden of responsibility for any deaths caused by their employees going about their daily work. Even if, for example, an employee's in-car mobile phone has a legally compliant cradle (as in the case of Trinity Taylor's killer), employers could be held responsible if it can be proved that the driver's activities are the result of processes, laid down by senior management, that the driver is expected to follow, such as checking in every few hours, or responding to texts straight away.

For fleet managers the bill will substantially alter any denial of blame that may or may not be made in cases where accidents happen. The key wording is the 'senior management' who 'play significant roles in the making of decisions about how the whole or a substantial part of activities are to be managed and organised'. Craig Blakemore, commercial dispute resolution partner at law firm Mace and Jones, says: "The ethos of the new law is the notion of 'management failure' and 'organisational fault'. As a result it is envisaged that it will be much easier for prosecutions to be brought against companies."

The challenge the CMCHA is already presenting has been revealed in a new survey on employer and driver attitudes to road safety commissioned by BMW fleet company Alphabet. It shows that although 79% of fleet decision-makers now agree that road-safety concerns are a 'pertinent issue', they can be found wanting when it comes to taking practical steps to ensure it. For example, CMCHA could affect companies if they fail to ensure their fleet vehicles are regularly inspected, yet only an astonishing 3% of responding firms actively carried out regular vehicle checks. Moreover, only 5% admitted they carried out licence and insurance checks.

According to Alphabet's marketing manager, Amanda Philp, the statistics point to one conclusion: fleet decision-makers are simply not translating their good intentions into action. "Many firms just have 'tick the box' policies - those that will be put onto the intranet, but nothing more fundamental will be done about them," she says. "It's just not enough. As a minimum starting-point fleet managers need to get drivers to say they have read and understood comp-any policy to ensure an audit trail. It may be a small change, but this and issues such as licence-checking are the most fundamental.'

According to Alphabet, only 40% of employers create a paper trail for drivers, a failing that is both contrary to Health and Safety Executive (HSE) guidelines and of course hugely undermining to any duty-of-care defence.

How CMCHA will play out in practice might not be obvious until the first test case but, in theory at least, the new provisions will simplify the process necessary to prove a gross breach. Presently, the prosecuting authorities have to show negligence on the part of the 'directing mind of the company' - an individual, normally a senior director. This has so far tended to cause manslaughter prosecutions to falter, as the actionable decisions are often taken lower down the management strata.

Figures on work-related driving deaths exemplify why as, Alphabet's Philp says, a "cultural change needs to take place". The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (ROSPA) estimates that up to one-third of the 3,000 deaths on the UK's roads each year involve people driving for work.

"More workers are killed on Britain's roads than in other accidents," explains ROSPA's occupational safety adviser, Roger Bibbings. But despite the numbers, he says, too many firms are failing to adopt a comprehensive risk management approach and are falling well below good practice recommendations on health and safety - an attitude he describes as "self-defeating".

After all, he continues: "The business case is compelling. Not only will employers secure themselves against costly prosecution, but a roadworthy fleet and safe drivers cuts costs."

The wake-up call has been heeded by companies such as hospitality firm Whitbread. It has recently employed GE Commercial Finance Fleet Services to provide a service that links accidents to risk management. Whitbread's fleet manager, Nigel Trotman, explains : "We have chosen to make a significant investment in the road safety of employees, with the aim of driving down accident rates, damage costs and broader business impacts."

But Trotman admits that licence-checking and driver-training are, at present, only available for company car drivers. Whitbread is not alone. Alphabet estimates that more than a million non-company car or cash-opt out drivers may drive regularly on business without a comprehensive audit trail.

A solution both Trotman and Bibbings support is employer-led incentives for safe driving. However, ROSPA figures show only around 10% of employers offer such reward schemes.

Andy Leech, business leader at fleet software provider CFC Solutions, says the lack of incentives for safe driving is symptomatic of the way that cars are often sold to employees as sticks rather than carrots: "Fleets almost entirely use employee disincentives rather than incentives," he says. "This is indicative perhaps of HR attitudes to fleet in general." GE Fleet Service's commercial leader, Gary Killeen adds: "Any incentive system has to be simple, measurable and easily understood. Many fleets simply do not have the historic risk management information to allow them to put a system in place."

Incentives or not, there is broad agreement that there needs to be a fundamental change in the way businesses consider the overall costs and benefits of road safety. "The challenge here is to create a cultural change where the promotion of safer driving becomes embedded," argues Killeen.

Paul Jackson, managing director of fleet company The Miles Consultancy, agrees: "It's madness that when a new employee starts at a company, they are given extensive training on how to use their new laptop, yet no training on how to drive their £20,000 vehicle, which is capable of killing someone."

Jackson believes proficiency tests and assessments should be carried out for all drivers. "This is especially true if the driver is thought to be doing more than 10,000 miles per year on business." Indeed, Jackson, highlights one point underscored by the Alphabet report that only a third of company drivers said they were subject to policy restrictions on driving hours and, of them, only one-fifth said their company's restrictions made any difference to the amount of miles they drove.

The bad news for fleet managers is that even fewer drivers seem to agree that mobile phone restrictions will stop them from picking up calls. A shocking 80% of owner-drivers admitted to Alphabet that they ignored restriction policies, and the law. Jackson believes too many businesses turn a blind eye, arguing: "A sales person won't want their mobile switched off for two hours while driving in case they miss a sale."

But, as Leech adds, and as the law will soon insist, non-compliance is a failing not just of the individual, but of managers from the top down: "It's relatively easy to write a risk management policy," says Leech. "If directors don't take the issue seriously, then little more than lip service will be paid to this."

For more information ROSPA Road Safety Guidance: http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/resources/employers.htm HSE Road Safety Guidance: http://hse.gov.uk/roadsafety/index.htm.

The small business A fleet could become too much of a liability

Many firms, and especially SMEs, will have to assess how the new Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act will affect them. Liverpool-based Kenyon Fraser PR runs a fleet of 10 vehicles. As managing director Roger Kenyon admits, he fears that the implications of a tougher road-safety regime will make the fleet too much of a liability. He says he also has concerns for his fleet about proposals being discussed in Parliament at the time of going to press, to enforce convicted companies to disclose manslaughter incidents and the measures being taken to prevent repeats. "We want to be as safe as possible, but if the law becomes too onerous and creates too much red tape we'd have to reconsider whether it's worth it," he says.

HOW TO STAY WITHIN THE LAW

- Check that any private vehicle being used on company business is correctly insured for 'business use'. If not, the vehicle may only be covered while the employee is commuting to and from home, and not for any travelling required by the job.

- Ensure that all vehicles are roadworthy and have current MOT certificates, if appropriate. To this effect, employers should monitor that all drivers carry out regular maintenance checks on oil, water, washer fluid, tyre pressure and tread depth - simple procedures that can, if neglected, make a vehicle dangerous. Servicing schedules should be adhered to, and monitored by management.

- Raise employee awareness of developments that affect drivers, such as the recent increase in penalties for using mobile phones. Alert them also to activities that might cause the driver not to give full attention to the road: eating, drinking, combing hair or smoking. Similarly, drivers should be told to take breaks every two hours.

- Check that employees hold valid and relevant licences. This may seem self-evident, but the law can be breached if employees only hold provisional licences, or drive a goods vehicle on a car licence. Ensure also that drivers are qualified to the right standard for their particular vehicle.

Source: Mace and Jones

THE FLEET PROVIDER'S VIEW - TWO AREAS OF CONCERN

Opt-out drivers

According to Shaun Barritt, managing director of vehicle contract hire company Grosvenor, the new law also applies to 'opt-out' drivers - those who don't have a company car, but instead use their own for company business.

Grosvenor has recently developed Go4, an online risk-management tool specifically for opt-out drivers to maintain legally required 'audit trails'. He explains: "Opt-out drivers need to conform to the same legislative rulings as fleet drivers. Their vehicles, servicing schedule, tyre checks, insurance, licences, road tax and training needs must all be assessed and monitored to ensure compliance with duty-of-care guidelines.

"This process can be a headache," he adds. "It's confusing, time-consuming and offering many pitfalls for oversights and omissions by those managing the corporate fleet."

Vehicle tracking

Tony Neill, vice-president EMEA, Navman Wireless Business Solutions, which produces driver behaviour data, says employers must now capture information on how long their employees have been driving for, at what speed, and what breaks they have or haven't had. "Managers can now monitor working hours data, driver behaviour and assess risks by running off speed analysis reports that will tell them how much time individual drivers have spent travelling within specified speed parameters.

"Many businesses have failed to recognise the perils of not implementing a road risk reduction programme," he adds. "Duty-of -care responsibilities in this arena should now move even higher up the business agenda."