The NSW government spent a record $309 million on road safety in 2016 and yet the road toll was the highest it's been in six years. A similar story played out in Victoria, Queensland, the ACT, the West, and pretty much everywhere else. So who or what is to blame? A major culprit is the workplace.
That's an unsurprising conclusion when considering one-third of the traffic clogging our roads is there for work-related reasons. And, of all work-related fatalities, about one-third can be attributed to car accidents where the victim and the vehicle were on the road due to job requirements.
Those statistics recently compelled researchers at Monash University to conduct the first Australian study on the ways in which employers manage risks associated with having employees driving cars. The results have been published this month in the Accident Analysis and Prevention journal.
You'd think larger organisations would be superior at managing road safety but, according to the research, that's not the case. When it comes to matters of accountability, as well as sharing pertinent information with on-the-road staff, small businesses actually did just as well (or rather, just as badly) as their better-resourced counterparts. For example, most of the managers interviewed for the study had no idea who was ultimately responsible for ensuring the road safety of their employees.
(If you're an employer, here's a hint: Check out something known as "vicarious liability", which essentially means that, in many cases, you're culpable for what happens to your employees if they're driving a car for reasons to do with their employment – even if the accident is their own fault.)
One way you could mitigate that risk is by instituting strict performance indicators and protocols for your staff. These can include the following:
· Insist they present a valid driver's licence every six months.
· Ask them to report regularly on the status of their demerit points.
· Mandate vision tests and driving assessments.
· Include road safety training during induction programs.
· Conduct random drug and alcohol screening.
· Establish policies that dictate the behaviour you expect of employees while they're driving.
· Require all infringement notices to be sent to the employee's supervisor. Doing so in one organisation resulted in a 50 per cent drop in traffic fines, presumably because employees were more sensitive about their manager's opinion than they were about their own risky driving.
One factor dissuading managers from being more vigilant is the fear they might lose talented team members if they're too watchful. One of the participants summarised his reluctance succinctly: "It's hard enough in this industry to attract the right people."
A key distinction in the research emerged in relation to whether an employee's driving was a primary aspect of the job, such as a courier, or whether it was a secondary aspect, such as driving to and from a work-related appointment. Those in the former category were usually quite fortunate to have their activities tightly controlled via comprehensive documentation, guidelines, points of contact, careful planning, safety provisions, clear expectations, and even journey management.
It's the secondary category where problems often materialise because managers don't realise that even though driving a car isn't their employees' primary responsibility, it's certainly the employer's responsibility to ensure it's done safely. This includes factors such as the management of fatigue; precautions for driving in hazardous conditions; technologies that enable employees to report they've arrived (such as GPS tracking); the rating of vehicles; the age of vehicles; and ergonomics.
However, in a majority of organisations profiled in the study, these types of conversations and considerations weren't held until after an incident had occurred. Risky business indeed.
James Adonis is the author of How To Be Great.