Accident management focus ignores wider issues

I read with interest the article “Slashing fleets’ budgets may be a false econ-omy” (May 14) and while I agree with the comments relating to “scare-mongering”, I disagree with the emphasis being on the accident management side alone. 

Addressing the Corporate Manslaughter Act, risk management and accident management is only part of the picture. The problem with British industry is that when reviewing a fleet policy, it visits and reviews only certain aspects such as the invoice price or contract hire rentals, believing that this is the only area it can save money in because it is a tangible cost. 

I agree peripheral services such as accident management have been overlooked for far too long but, again, it is only a small area in the complete picture. Companies should look at the complete picture and not undertake a review half-heartedly – they will then benefit from cost reductions and risk management. 

Explore all costs, both tangible and intangible, explore all avenues, not just invoice or contract hire rental, do not use just your current supplier or acquisition method suppliers who may be biased towards their products – look for completely independent advice. 

Combine risk management along with a comprehensive fleet policy, which ensures that your company car policy gives high-specification vehicles at the lowest possible operating cost, and you will not only have company car drivers who are encouraged to work harder due to the emotion and prestige they feel, but who also respect their vehicles and employers. 

Involve drivers in any review, ask them about the current policy, how it impacts on them, what they like or dislike and what they would change. If they feel they have contributed, then scaremongering will not be required. 

You cannot rely on risk management or cost controls working in isolation. Only a good car policy which has been fully reviewed and investigated with input from both employer and employee will provide cost reductions while reducing risk. 

Dorian Storer
Concept Vehicle Solutions

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

No substitute for driver training

While Transport for London’s six-month trial of speed limiters may be a genuine attempt to reduce accidents (May 21), the use of in-car technology is misguided.

Our experience of reducing risk in fleets points to the simple fact that a well-trained, competent and conscientious driver is the safest thing behind the wheel. Investing in ‘black boxes’ that smile or frown to tell drivers to change their speed simply takes away responsibility from the motorist and puts the onus on the technology.

Safe driving is all about judging the conditions and making choices on the most appropriate speed. 

Let’s take the example of a motorist progressing down an urban street at 30mph in the rain at 3.30pm in winter. While the speed limiting technology may tell the driver to maintain a steady 30mph, it will not take into account the weather, visibility or possibility of schoolchildren in the vicinity. 

Good driver training would alert an experienced motorist to this scenario, suggesting perhaps a lower speed. 

In-car technology and gadgets can play a role in risk reduction, but in my book there’s no alternative to targeted driver training. 

Diarmuid Fahy
Head of risk, ING Car Lease