Doug Holland

“Does an accident really matter to the organisation, or are bosses more concerned about making sure the sales rep’s appointment is re-scheduled?”

And the problem runs a lot deeper than just the banal: “Don’t worry, there was nothing anybody could have done to avoid it,” or “Never mind, it could have happened to anyone” uttered by colleagues or a line manager to the disgruntled and possibly slightly-embarrassed vehicle user. This is about the fundamentals of the position and posture adopted by a business organisation, as evidenced by its post-incident systems and processes, when one of its vehicle users runs out of space and collides with something. Does such an event really matter to the organisation, or are bosses more concerned about making sure the sales rep’s appointment is re-scheduled? Is the vehicle user required to account for the incident, or do they simply report the bare details by telephone or basic report form and then hear no more about it? Are any serious efforts made to find out what went wrong, or is the driver who has written off their vehicle simply supplied with another one and left to carry on repeating the mistake that just nearly killed them? This is about the significance of the event to the organisation (the gravity with which it is viewed); the priority placed on driver safety; and the resulting message that (like it or not) will be sent out to other road users about these matters.

The sops described above, the corporate arm around the shoulder and the offer of condolence (tea and sympathy) do nobody any favours, least of all the involved driver, because they simply paper over cracks that may have, but for random circumstances prevailing at the time over which the driver had no influence or control, got them killed. There almost certainly was something somebody could have done to avoid it and it almost certainly would not have happened to just anyone. Least said is not soonest mended. When we are talking about road traffic collisions we really do have to be (apparently) cruel to be kind. Accidents are no accident. They do not happen – they are caused.

It should be pointed out here that this is not about “fault” or “no fault”: these are merely insurance terms used to describe the party that will carry the costs of the incident. Nor is it about creating a culture of blame: such a culture just promotes under-reporting. This is about avoidability and caring. It’s about discovering the root/underlying causes of the incident (the why? rather than just the what? happened); it’s about a real, tenacious desire to find out what went wrong in order to ensure that there be no repeat instances, either for this driver or others in the fleet. The correct posture, then, is one of corporate outrage. All post-incident systems and processes should be based upon the imagined question posed (in a raised voice) of the occurrence: “If the driver was aware of what was happening around their vehicle, and if they were keeping the correct amount of space, what on earth caused them to hit something?”

Involvement in a road traffic crash is undesirable, unwelcome and avoidable

“Sweeping an incident under the carpet with the phrase: ‘Accident – no further action required’ helps nobody”

This question should reverberate down through all levels of the organisation from the boardroom. Everybody should know it has been asked and nobody should be able to settle until it has been answered. Such an attitude is located fundamentally in the proposition that involvement in a road traffic crash is undesirable, unwelcome and avoidable, and has to be explained and accounted for.

It correctly places responsibility on all those involved in the use of vehicles (procurement; those responsible for maintenance; the driver; their immediate line management/supervision; journey schedulers; corporate policy-makers) to be able to justify their involvement in or contribution to the incident (if any).

Ultimately – and this is of the most vital importance – it sends out the clear message that everybody will be held accountable (fairly, of course) for any such contribution, and in particular that vehicle users will be held responsible for their driving behaviour. Hard questions have to be asked, and answers have to be insisted upon and then acted upon. Stones have to be turned over. Flawed or inadequate systems discovered have to be altered or alternative ones introduced; training deficiencies have to be met; poor attitudes have to be adjusted; inappropriate vehicles have to be replaced; high-risk routes have to be avoided; undue time pressures have to be eased; unrealistic targets have to be altered. While heads should and will roll most frequently only metaphorically, recognised and respected disciplinary processes must support the post-incident investigation and be available for use where necessary and as appropriate.

This matters – people are dying out there. Sweeping an incident under the carpet with the phrase: “Accident – no further action required” helps nobody. All carrot and no stick may be popular with the troops, but in the final analysis it won’t win the war.

Business has to get angry about crashes, otherwise nothing will change and it will continue to haemorrhage people, time, money and other resources. It’s alright to be angry about this, because this is important. So let’s hear some corporate outrage out there.

Doug Holland is the proprietor of Stockport-based fleet risk management consultancy NW Driver Safer Website: www.nwdriversafer.com