In the previous blog, I pointed out some confusion across the industry regarding training and competence. I also highlighted that there was a choice regarding
Understand the difference between Misinformation and Disinformation
It is crucial to understand the difference between misinformation and disinformation.
Misinformation is simply inaccurate or false information, whereas disinformation is intentionally misleading incorrect information.
A big difference.
Why’s that important, you’re probably wondering.
Based on factually correct evidence, freely available if you know where to look, a driver CPC course was, and still is, marketed as “an industry requirement for all drivers and hauliers employed within the extractives sector.”
It hasn’t and never was; it’s simply mis or dis-information… and dangerous.
It has now manifested itself into a smart card database that holds information on a driver, distributed on completion of a site safety course, but crucially, never has and, still, to date, demonstrates a driver’s competence in a specific vehicle.
So how and why is it still used to mislead, and crucially, how is it acceptable to meet legal and best practice quality standards and schemes using this card?
Industry schemes and quality standards are available as a choice.
For example, companies who work to a standard and demonstrate their commitment to safety.
Within that standard, training will be referenced for drivers and what needs to be done to achieve and prove they’ve met the standard.
Crucially, there’s a choice of standards and schemes to choose from.
The Fleet Operator Recognition Scheme (FORS) and Mission Zero have standards that operators must (a mandatory condition to demonstrate a requirement has been met) provide evidence that drivers are competent. Job-specific information so drivers can conduct their duties safely, including familiarisation training on vehicles and the associated risks.
Or what about the specific requirements of principal contractors?
HS2 principal contractors have conditions set out in The High-Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Act 2017, and the High-Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Act 2021 sets out the requirements in a Route-wide Traffic Management Plan (RTMP).
The RTMP develops how the Nominated Undertaker will deliver the requirements relating to construction traffic and transport matters contained within these Acts, including Undertakings and Assurances, which include commitments within the Information Papers submitted to Parliament.
Clause 22.214.171.124: Drivers on the High-Speed Two project will be competent to drive their class of vehicle in the conditions expected. Principal Contractors will need to set out within their Logistics Environment, Sustainability and Safety Management Plan (ESSMP) how they ensure drivers of vehicles are competent for the conditions the vehicle is used.
So how is that demonstrated, evidenced and against what standard?
DVSA, the Traffic Commissioners, and HSE all reference driver competence from statutory guidance, laws, legislation and best practice.
For example, the TC requires transport managers to “ensure drivers are adequately trained and competent to operate all relevant vehicles and equipment.”
The law requires that each driver/operator is given adequate training by their employer to be competent to operate the machinery they use.
Even if drivers often operate vehicles, they recommend regular assessments of their competence and refresher training or more detailed training. Think incident investigation and you’ll understand.
ISO 39001 Road Traffic Safety (RTS) management system requires competence assessments and training of drivers.
All ISO quality management systems have competence clauses, ignored, and still, companies achieve the standard.
So again, how is this evidenced and demonstrated?
British Standards, or more importantly, BS EN 12609:2021 Truck Mixers Safety Requirements, is a Type-C Standard (machine safety standards) that deals with detailed safety requirements for a particular machine or group of machines.
A Type C standard is particularly relevant to mixer manufacturers, regulators, accident prevention organisations, employers, employees, and maintenance providers.
It’s also a designated standard, developed by consensus, recognised by the government in part or in full by publishing its reference on GOV.UK in a formal notice of publication.
A designated standard that covers all the significant hazards of Truck Mixer by specifying safety requirements in the standard when referring to other standards is not possible or insufficient and where risk assessment and priorities show this is required.
Significant hazards that require that only authorised and trained personnel shall start, operate or interfere with the machine.
Special training requirements (e.g., for driving, operation, service, maintenance).
A warning stating that truck mixer drivers must be instructed, especially on safe driving behaviour.
Again, all are ignored by the industry, with no industry requirement for any of these that would reduce and eliminate mixer rollovers.
We’ve also got companies which mandate in legally binding contract requirements that drivers must have this training, yet due to the politics of the industry was last used over a year ago.
How many rollovers could’ve been prevented?
So as you can see from the graphic, the only training and assessment solution that meets all the requirements of the standards covered.