Time for a smarter approach to truck crash investigations

When a heavy vehicle crash happens, it can shatter lives, fracture families, and leave behind complex questions.

For too long, the only tools we’ve used to answer those questions have been police investigations, coronial inquiries, and enforcement powers under the Heavy Vehicle National Law (HVNL).

These all have a role to play. But they are not designed — and frankly, not equipped — to tell us how to stop crashes happening in the first place.

That’s why there’s growing momentum for something different: a dedicated, no-fault road crash investigation capability focused on systemic learning rather than legal blame.

This kind of approach already exists for other transport modes. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) investigates rail, aviation and maritime incidents using a no-blame model — and has done so for decades. Internationally, countries like Sweden and the Netherlands have long applied the same idea to road crashes, especially those involving commercial transport.

Their focus is simple: find out what went wrong in the system — not who to punish — and share those lessons quickly and safely.

So why don’t we already have this for heavy vehicle involved crashes in Australia?

It’s not because the idea lacks support. The Productivity Commission has endorsed it. Road safety experts from the Australasian College of Road Safety, Central Queensland University and others have all made the case.

Some industry groups, like NatRoad, have also argued that without an independent body looking at system failures, we’re missing opportunities to prevent future harm.

The problem is deeper — and more political.

First, it’s hard to build a new capability when police and regulators are already stretched thin. This isn’t about blaming police — their job is to investigate crime, not map system-wide risk.

But when a serious crash happens, police are often the only ones with the power to act quickly, collect evidence, and get answers. That evidence is then used in prosecutions or coronial inquests. Once that’s done, there’s rarely anyone else with the time, authority or mandate to look deeper.

Second, the legal structure we have is complicated. States run coroners and most WHS investigations. The HVNL is a national law, but only applies in jurisdictions that have agreed to it.

The ATSB has no jurisdiction over road crashes. So building a consistent, independent investigation function for road trauma means navigating political interests, privacy law, state-federal tensions, and stakeholder trust — all at once.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, we need to get the design right. A no-fault crash investigation model that just adds another layer of scrutiny onto drivers and operators — without looking at supply chain pressure, contracting terms, scheduling practices or policy gaps — will fail.

Worse, it could reinforce the same structural bias that has led many to feel that heavy vehicle drivers are “always in the frame” while broader systemic issues go unexamined.

That’s why this reform needs careful handling.

It must be built with legislative clarity. Investigators need clear powers to access information — including from upstream parties — but must also be shielded from being drawn into prosecutions or liability disputes. That’s essential to preserve neutrality and encourage cooperation.

It must also include strong governance. Drivers, operators, trauma survivors, enforcement bodies, mental health experts, and regulators should all have a seat at the table when setting strategic direction.

That’s not just about credibility — it’s about designing something that reflects the complexity of the real world.

And it must deal with sensitive issues like drugs, alcohol, and fatigue with compassion, not assumption. Investigators must be trauma-informed, culturally capable, and trained to understand both human error and organisational failure.

The goal isn’t to excuse poor behaviour — but to understand how the system allowed it to take place, and how to stop it from happening again.

Some in the industry worry that this is all too hard — or that it’s another case of government “layering on” more compliance.

But here’s the thing: a no-fault crash investigation model doesn’t replace enforcement. It complements it. Police and regulators will still do their jobs.

What this model offers is something we don’t have now — a way to learn from serious incidents without waiting years for a coronial finding, or relying on incomplete evidence filtered through a legal lens.

It also creates the possibility of national thematic reviews — not just of individual crashes, but of trends like fatigue-related incidents, regional road conditions, or the role of subcontracting in safety failures. That kind of insight could help governments, planners, insurers and operators invest in smarter solutions — and save lives.

To get there, we need more than good ideas. We need political support, legislative integrity, and implementation funding. That means industry — from drivers to peak bodies — must stay at the table, shaping this reform rather than watching from the sidelines.

Truck drivers are on the front lines of Australia’s road safety story. But they are often the last to be heard when policy is made.

This reform is a rare opportunity to change that — to build something that is fair, practical, and focused on making the system safer for everyone.

Let’s not waste it.

About the author

Ray Hassall is the former Executive Director Statutory Compliance at the NHVR. He left that role at the end of 2024 after 11 years and now heads up Lincoln Regulatory Consulting which tries to help people work out which parts of the regulatory system matter and how they can best build their safety and compliance responses. Hassall believes that improving how serious incidents are investigated can support both safety and fairness. He has worked with operators, investigators, and frontline regulators, and brings a grounded understanding of how the system works — and where it can improve.