My previous article, critical of the NHVR’s apparent inability to investigate those along the chain of responsibility, was heard.
Ray Hassall’s recent column in Big Rigs (‘Committed to transparency in all our investigations’, August 16) acknowledging the NHVR has work to do in communicating outcomes of investigations was pleasing; however, my criticisms about failing to prosecute a ‘Big One’ still stand.
Then there was media proudly trotted out about the National Roadworthiness Survey. Now, please do not misunderstand me.
I have no issue with checking the safety of vehicles. What I object to is the assertion that drivers need to factor in the 45 minutes indicated as being the amount of time taken to complete a check and that it isn’t a big deal. Really? My eye started to twitch. Read on, dear friend.
The NHVR completed the first National Roadworthiness Baseline Survey in 2016, with a total of 7130 vehicles inspected. In 2021, another National Roadworthiness Survey was undertaken, and a total of 8338 vehicles were inspected.
Like previous surveys, this one will no doubt throw up a heap of major, minor and grounded non-conformities. In 2021 31 per cent of the fleet inspected had non-conformities, and it was 48 per cent in 2016. And everyone will pat themselves on the back at what a jolly good job they’ve done to protect the community from these poorly maintained, dangerous trucks.
Forgive my cynicism. Could someone please produce crash data that shows lack of vehicle maintenance contributes to the road toll? We know driver inattention, inappropriate speed for the conditions, and fatigue are the three top factors in crashes, not maintenance.
Look, I know, I get it, the defected trucks are certainly better to have had the issue identified.
But it makes me ask, if the Australian truck fleet is so poorly maintained, why aren’t trucks inspected all the time, not just when there’s a survey?
What about the information gathered? Is this used to conduct investigations? If the operator has a truck that’s grounded for a safety issue, aren’t you curious about other trucks in their fleet?
And not to sound like a broken record, but what about those in the chain of responsibility who engage these operators? Shouldn’t they be investigated to find out what they’re checking when engaging these companies? What is the consignor/consignee doing about this?
I don’t mean those where there’s a cracked lens or a newly damaged windscreen, I mean things like bald tyres, so obvious a child could identify it.
These issues warrant a deeper look at an operator’s overall practices, not just a canary sticker and a tick in the regulator’s quota box that a truck was checked.
Operators who work hard to maintain their vehicles must be so frustrated when their vehicles are targeted for issues not affecting safe vehicle operation.
Accreditation doesn’t seem to matter either, especially if a pre-start identifies the truck was fine when it left the yard, and then an issue out on the road caused the issue being defected (e.g. cracked windscreen, lost mudflap, etc). All are apparently treated the same.
And all the time this takes! Tick tock, tick tock! We’re told 45 minutes should be factored into our day for these inspections.
Let’s put this into perspective shall we.
The 2016 survey didn’t have time estimates, so let’s use the 45 minutes being estimated for 2024. The 2021 survey data shows the average inspection time was 31 minutes.
We don’t know how many vehicles will be checked in 2024; let’s say it’s 9500. Here’s your total times.
There’s a statute of limitations within the Heavy Vehicle National Law that means an investigator has two years from the time an issue is identified, to the time charges are laid. Longer than that, and charges cannot be laid. Two years. 104 weeks.
In the table above, up to 3.4 years’ worth of enforcement resources are being used in a relatively short period of time to complete a survey that cannot demonstrate any effectiveness at lowering the road toll.
Imagine if those resources, funded by us taxpayers, were directed towards areas drivers have long complained about, such as waiting times at DCs; or complaints about supply chain parties’ poor management of sites; or other pressures our industry has complained about that never seem to change.
I’m keen to see the survey stats when finalised. If the measure of a successful survey was not how many non-conformities were found, but rather, how many lives it saves, I doubt another National Roadworthiness Survey would ever see the light of day.
But a significant prosecution, the ‘Big One’? That has the potential to change the future of the road freight industry for the better, with meaningful impacts on road safety outcomes.
Where would you rather see your taxpayer dollars spent?
- Jodie Broadbent is the founder of Know the Road, which provides consulting auditing and training services for road freight supply chain partners.
Well said. Totally agree.
Just a shame that it’ll never happen, as we all know that there’d be no revenue in it, and it’s cheaper for them to chase drivers not owners, mechanics, companies etc.
Safety???
Money money money and getting their name in the paper to make them look like they’re doing the job they’re paid to do, and ensure they keep their job.
Minor or major defects identified and found on any vehicles may not be the cause of an accident but it can definitely contribute to the severity of the accident. In NSW Data obtained from defective vehicles was definitely used to identify unroadworthy vehicles and companies and follow action has taken place.