Skip to Content, Skip to Navigation
Advertisement

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters



Safeguard Magazine

Crowdwise—Burning question

At my workplace one of the biggest chances of being killed or seriously injured comes when we jump in a car or van to visit clients, and yet driving is not even considered within our health and safety system. How can I persuade the company to include driving as a critical risk?

You do it by monitoring speeding tickets and getting staff to record an incident after each one. Monitoring all property damage. Keep a car log of kilometres travelled and by whom. Provide driving training and have a driving policy. Add it to your hazard register and monitor the risk of driving the vehicle.

Yvonne Watson, Palmerston North

Company management team like data. Give it to them by showing the risk potential of previous driving incidents. By doing this we have been able to clearly demonstrate that driving is our greatest risk by far.

Mike Massaar, Christchurch

I always tell clients to sell the concept of driver training internally by getting people to imagine using a large piece of machinery as part of their job on a daily basis, and that this type of machinery is involved in 300+ deaths per year. Most people would be appalled at the thought of not being provided with regular training updates, especially if the technology was changing year on year. Why then wouldn’t we apply the same logic to driving a class 1 vehicle for work? When I use this comparison it seems to strike a chord with people. It helps decision makers to understand why they need to recognise driving as a risk within their policy making. It also helps employees to understand that they shouldn’t be offended by being offered regular driver training. As their employer you are simply helping them to avoid becoming one of those tragic statistics. Again, if this were any other “machine” people would welcome this kind of training. High risk driver doesn’t necessarily mean “bad driver” but there are often ways for people to reduce their own driving risk.

Clare Hoyle, Auckland

Many workers today are driving many hours alone, and in remote areas. PCBUs have a duty of care to ensure associated risks, including fatigue and lone/remote working, are controlled to as low as reasonably possible. The vehicle is classified as a place of work and issues such as inspections, training, communication, and medical assessments all need to be addressed in order for the officers of the PCBU to comply with duty of care requirements.

Bill Falzone, Tauranga

Difficult to know how to respond without understanding why there is a blockage. Is it lack of data, or closed thinking about ACC-driven boundaries, or lack of general risk literacy, or all of the above?

Mike Cosman, Wellington

THE NEXT CROWDWISE QUESTION

I’ve been told there’s a brand new workplace drug testing procedure which detects if someone has used cannabis or alcohol up to two weeks earlier. I like the idea of treating booze and weed the same because both can cause impairment, but I also like a quiet beer at the weekends. Should we implement this new test?

If you have a view on this question and would like to share it then please do so in no more than 100 words. Responses to peter.bateman@thomsonreuters.com by 12 September please!

Thomson Reuters

comments powered by Disqus

From Safeguard Magazine

Table of Contents