[Closed] Reported a van driver who was on the phone

And was I right to be a snitch?

"Thank you for letting us know, we take safety very seriously, we'll investigate, blah blah". And yes, you were.

If it's a large company:

Official Reply: " Appreciate your concern, thanks for bringing it to our attention. dah dah dah"

Actual Actions: None.

If it's a one man band:

Reply: "Eff off"
Action: None

Were you right: Yes

They won't give a sausage.

He might get told he's a bit naughty by the boss.

They will still call you names.

He was probably on the phone to his boss.

Oh and I think if it was reported to at least one place I worked it would be taken very seriously as a significant breach of H&S Policy which could lead to formal warnings.

So what will the official reply be? And was I right to be a snitch?

Who knows? But yes.

Which reminds me. I meant to email Parcelforce about the driver filling in his delivery sheet while driving through central Skipton at school kicking out time yesterday.

My complaint to Alliance Healthcare about their van aggressively tailgating and flashing me (slogan 'Bringing Healthcare Closer') got no reply though. And yes, I did check to make sure there wasn't an elderly lady attached to my rear wheel arch. 🙂

My old company (very safety conscious US chemical co) considered it a disciplinary offence to use a phone non-hands free when driving, and encouraged other employees to snitch on colleagues who did. That would lead to some interesting conversations as they cleared their desks......

Mind, they also considered using stairs without using the handrail to be a warning offence too.

Our local police force run this;

[url= http://www.operationcrackdown.org/ ]http://www.operationcrackdown.org/[/url]

I'd be far more likely to report it on there than direct. And I'd encourage everyone to do so where possible - multiple reports about the same company or driver far more likely to get action taken.

A guy on a phone nearly side swiped me on the M1 on Tuesday, as he randomly decided to move into my lane without checking, so yeah, the sooner people get the message that phones are bloody stupid when driving the better as far as I'm concerned.

Mind, they also considered using stairs without using the handrail to be a warning offence too.

But i need both hands on the handlebars when descending stairs!

What it all comes down to is there is a policy on H&S for a reason, if you don't follow the basics you're not welcome. Personally having worked for a UK company that was like that I think it's a good thing.

Exactly, If you can't follow simple guidance like using a handrail, then the company are right to assume that you may struggle in less safe situations. I recall reading that more than 600 people in England and Wales (there wasn't figures for us lot up here!) were killed falling down stairs in 2015.
So it's not for nothing.

I recall doing my Offshore survival, the company had a policy that all drivers in the car park must reverse into a space, as it's safer than reversing out. Stuck with me, I'd like to see it more widespread if I'm honest.

[i]all drivers in the car park must reverse into a space, as it's safer than reversing out[/i]

Although it's a pain in the bum if you have anything in the boot and there's 'back to back' parking bays.

But i need both hands on the handlebars when descending stairs!

😀

Those mobility scooters are marvellous aren't they.

mrs rocket works for a big multinational they have a lot of H&S

3 points of contact when using the stairs, car park spaces angled so you have to reverse in. Obv no hot drinks or trays no jackets on the back of chairs

One employee was killed in a head-on while on company business the internal investigation has been going on since September

[i]3 points of contact when using the stairs[/i]

so two hands on the rail when you lift a foot up to go up/down a step?

But i need both hands on the handlebars when descending stairs!

3 points of contact when using the stairs

Does sliding down the hand-rail count?

3 points of contact - bum and two hands!

3 points of contact is for climbing ladders, not stairs.

Mind, they also considered using stairs without using the handrail to be a warning offence too

I completely agree, any fool who walks down the stairs when they could slide down the banister is clearly a boring fool and should be alerted of that fact.

edit. muffin man beat me too it 😆

I reported a Virgin driver for texting, and got a phone call from someone a few days later. He said that drivers have to attend a compulsory safety training course at their own expense when such things happen. Hopefully that was the truth rather than a fob off.

What it all comes down to is there is a policy on H&S for a reason, if you don't follow the basics you're not welcome. Personally having worked for a UK company that was like that I think it's a good thing.

Exactly, If you can't follow simple guidance like using a handrail, then the company are right to assume that you may struggle in less safe situations

.

Or alternatively, (and honestly, I thought the handrails thing was just in a country as common sense deprived as Australia), it breeds a feeling that if what you're about to do doesn't carry a hefty "danger of death" warning then it must be inherently safe. If you're not clever enough to walk down the stairs without the handrail then maybe you shouldn't be in the workforce of most places.*

*The houses of parliament being an obvious exception to this

I completely agree, any fool who walks down the stairs when they could slide down the banister is clearly a boring fool and should be alerted of that fact.

I agree.

Any fule knows that the best way to descend stairs is to either jump entire flights and bounce off the walls in the style of Officer Dave Starsky or to eschew the stairway altogether and just jump out of the window and land on your arse on top of a convenient car just like Officer Kenneth Hutchison.

Loaded firearms / leather jacket / cardigan optional.

Obvz the driver was in the wrong that's quite simple to determine, and one that is an offence.. so yeurp I'll agree with reporting him, I would have go to the police with the offence, provided you can actually prove it.. or I've been told the police log this sort of thing then if they get a few reports they make a visit to the offender.. that could be horlix of course.

As for reporting it to the company.. if it gets past the email spam filter I would be highly impressed.

Mind, they also considered using stairs without using the handrail to be a warning offence too.

Obv no hot drinks

😯 I literally couldn't work there. My brain doesn't function properly without my morning pint of coffee.

(and iced coffee is the devil's work)

Or alternatively, (and honestly, I thought the handrails thing was just in a country as common sense deprived as Australia), it breeds a feeling that if what you're about to do doesn't carry a hefty "danger of death" warning then it must be inherently safe.

slowoldman - Member
I need both hands on the box I'm carrying when descending stairs.

As to why he is carrying stuff up and down stairs that needs both hands.

having worked for 20-odd years for a US company, it'll be to carry the box they gave you to put your personal effects in when they gave you 20-minutes notice to clear your desk because someone snitched on you for having coffee in an unrestrained mug.

At that point it becomes moot, because 1/ you've just been fired, so a warning for carrying a box on the stairs is hardly going to matter; and 2/ because if you should trip and fall you can just land on your idiot of a supervisor who's escorting you off the premises.

and iced coffee is the devil's work

<glance at desk>

I must be one of Satan's little helpers, then 😈

I reported a Van being very poorly driven which, when he came up behind a cyclist, actually got closer to the kerb (a very deliberate 'punishment pass') even though there was a completely empty lane next to him (v. quiet dual Carriageway).

Spoke to the company (reasonable sized, couple of offices not a one man band) directly and they were very dismissive and practically laughed it off saying that i was probably making a mistake, that unless there hadn't been an actual accident then there was nothing they could do etc etc.

The response I got from their MD to the email to the Police with the Dash cam footage I cc'd him in to was somewhat more conciliatory on the other hand...

I occasionally need to drive the work van and if I was reported for driving while using my phone then I'd be in deep trouble (written warning etc) so some companies do take these things seriously.

A guy on a phone nearly side swiped me on the M1 on Tuesday, as he randomly decided to move into my lane without checking, so yeah, the sooner people get the message that phones are bloody stupid when driving the better as far as I'm concerned.

I had a white van speed up, overtake me then deliberately try to sideswipe me after I'd passed him and used sign language to tell him I thought he was a w****r for sitting in the middle lane on the phone when there was no other cars in sight 😯

Got his reg if anybody can think of any payback ideas 😆 No point reporting it as it would have been my word against his.

A well known bike holiday company in Europe has it's mini bus drivers use handheld mobiles whilst driving up twisty alpine roads all the time. We made a note on our feedback form as it was blinking scary. Given my experience of the rest of the holiday I'm not holding out much hope that they've changed. Anyone else had similar experience?

[i]No point reporting it as it would have been my word against his. [/i]

that's where that site I linked to works - they aggregate reports - if there's multiple reports about same vehicle then action is taken.

I would have done the same myself. In fact I did something very similar last year – an AO delivery driver was parked on zigzags outside my girls' school (at drop-off time) so I had a word with the driver who told me to ^&*% off. Silly man - I simply took pictures of him, the van and the position on the road and emailed AO (I found the direct email addresses for the CEO and Transport Director online).

I received an almost immediate response (the CEO had young children of his own so it helped that I had his empathy) and was kept informed of their actions.

8)

@nobeerinthefridge (and others) - I think the "no nosey parking" rule is fairly widespread in the oil industry, I have worked for and been subcontracted to Shell and that was their world-wide policy.

Car parks should be laid out so that you drive along, reverse into an angled parking bay then when leaving you simply join the flow of traffic. The main arguments against are that: a) it reduces the number of available spaces therefore reducing parking fees or number of customers. b) people in their massive SUVs or 4x4s with poor all round visibility are crap at reversing.

the-muffin-man - Member

He was probably on the phone to his boss.

One of my old bosses was terrible for calling when you are driving and wanting to go through the minutiae of a sales forecast spreadsheet...

My current organisation took the decision last year to ban all phones while driving on company time. It is an instant final warning, second offence = sacked.

"Making Your World a Safer Place".

[img] [/img]

It's been something in every lab and major industrial site I've worked on for about 18 years, most of them were in the UK.

Thankfully we've worked at different labs. This mindless safety for safety's sake rots people's brains.

H&S is important, yes. But trying to manage it to a level where it would make your average evening sat on the sofa appear the most hazardous thing you'll do all day is just about as stupid as getting in a lift with 30 litres of LN2.

We briefly tried the stairs thing at our place BTW while I was visiting a lab in Amsterdam. My colleagues there were in hysterics when I showed them the email.

and was kept informed of their actions.

Out of interest, what were their actions?

H&S is important, yes. But trying to manage it to a level where it would make your average evening sat on the sofa appear the most hazardous thing you'll do all day is just about as stupid as getting in a lift with 30 litres of LN2.

A girl went past me in the car today on the phone (tapping, not talking). Stopped at the lights so I knocked her window and told her to put it down. She looked quite annoyed and told me it was none of my business, so now its the Internet's business.

https://twitter.com/jimhatfield/status/816930109353586692

Thing is it didn't and it worked really well.

Well, when workplaces start considering the most hazardous thing you do at their behest every day, perhaps I'll change my cynical view from a lot of HSE being an exercise in arse covering and box ticking

Make the world a safer place. Dynasafe, a global market leader in the disposal of unexploded ordnance

Could it have been a Note 7 they were transporting? He could have been checking the temperature on his cheek?

What is this most hazardous thing?

What is this most hazardous thing?

Commuting there, or driving on their behalf.

Out of interest, what were their actions?

They shot him at dawn.

....and she was initially surprised and then furious!

people in their massive SUVs or 4x4s with poor all round visibility are crap at reversing.

Yeah but going back to [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/whats-the-forums-verdict-ondriver-aids ]driving aids[/url].. my FiL drives a new Range Rover and as well as normal beepy reverse sensors it also has radar to judge if spaces are big enough to park in and cameras that display on the dash screen with overlays showing where you end up on your current course.

And if that's still too hard it can just park for you instead:

(remarkably it still takes him ages to park! 😆 )

Slightly OT but involve mobile, phones, stairs and H&S.
I was director responsible for H&S in a previous company, each month I had to issue a H&S Report with things like accident stats as part of the board papers. One month our only accident was our MD dislocating his shoulder after grabbing they hand rail on the stairs when he slipped and fell while sending an email. Best board meeting ever!

Commuting there, or driving on their behalf.

Been doing driver training at all my full time jobs, first was 99. Progressive companies are so it is happening.

Sure, but even with such mitigation the residual risk is still very high relative to most things that we'd be up to even in a research lab or in the field with heavy plant as you're exposed to lots of hazard you have no control over. Certainly much higher than walking down the stairs, even if you are carrying a pint of coffee and talking on your phone.

An awful lot of employers don't even assume responsibility for the commute despite them being the only reason you're doing it.

....and she was initially surprised and then furious!

Sure, but even with such mitigation the residual risk is still very high relative to most things that we'd be up to even in a research lab or in the field with heavy plant as you're exposed to lots of hazard you have no control over.

That is whataboutry though isn't it.

Not really. My argument is that by and large corporate HSE is an exercise in arse covering and box ticking, with things that are easier to police or appear easier to fix being addressed much more stringently than activities that are actually relatively hazardous. If HSE was primarily focussed on hazard reduction then that wouldn't be the case.

An awful lot of employers don't even assume responsibility for the commute despite them being the only reason you're doing it.

Yep. We know a few doctors that have been involved in car crashes (one fatally) after working 14 hour days/nights etc. It's a hidden cost of such practises.

Likewise, look at the truck-related deaths in cities. When they are on a site the huge blind spots and poor visibility often means they can't manoeuvre at all without at least one banksman in high viz spotting for them, and even then they have to keep speeds low - but as soon as they leave the gates they are free to mingle with city traffic, cyclists and pedestrians without any assistance.

When they are on a site the huge blind spots and poor visibility often means they can't manoeuvre at all without at least one banksman in high viz spotting for them, and even then they have to keep speeds low - but as soon as they leave the gates they are free to mingle with city traffic, cyclists and pedestrians without any assistance.

By phoning a company and asking to speak to the CEO carries more weight, in my experience.

I've reported bad driving in a company vehicle, company took it seriously and even phoned me to say that they'd spoken with the person concerned. They were grateful I'd bought it to their attention.

. If HSE was primarily focussed on hazard reduction then that wouldn't be the case.

I'm wondering how directly involved with H&S those complaining about it have been? Have you even carried out a risk assessment? I was local H&S rep for a while and filled out plenty of risk assessments and it all starts to make a lot more sense if you think about it properly. My employer like most decent ones did address hazards properly - that is the whole point of the risk assessment exercise where as a member of staff you get to highlight the real hazards and risks. I'm quite glad to have had that experience which helps with assessing risk in real life.

I did quite a few for trials activities at other locations and always made sure to include driving (it was invariably by far the highest risk activity). I suspect you could make an argument for stopping any work activity which involved driving as the residual risk was still too high - but then that would clearly also include commuting (not that that was ever risk assessed) and I doubt even the H&S complainers would suggest that was sensible.

Yeah but going back to driving aids.. my FiL drives a new Range Rover and as well as normal beepy reverse sensors it also has radar to judge if spaces are big enough to park in and cameras that display on the dash screen with overlays showing where you end up on your current course.

And if that's still too hard it can just park for you instead:

Is that in an Evoque?
Amazing with all that there's nothing to warn them if they stray into a cycle lane and almost barge a cyclist into the kerb! 🙁

Ahh, but Ewoke drivers must get their own thread..

Let's not spoil this one 😆

Thread update - I've heard absolutely nothing back from Chubb.co.uk

zokes - Still not a customer

Thankfully we've worked at different labs. This mindless safety for safety's sake rots people's brains.

H&S is important, yes. But trying to manage it to a level where it would make your average evening sat on the sofa appear the most hazardous thing you'll do all day is just about as stupid as getting in a lift with 30 litres of LN2.

Equally I've worked in some labs where H&S was a box ticking exercise rather than something anyone put any conscious thought into.

One person actually passed out in the lab (and then was allowed to drive home!) because it was seen as more important that the work was done 'correctly' rather than safely. The lab met the workplace exposure limit on the MSDS, but no one had thought through that maybe limiting exposure in general was a better starting point. So I moved all the PC's and equipment outside the lab, meaning you only needed to be in there to do lab work and cut exposure form 8 hours to around 2.

The handrail (and reverse parking) is just reducing risk at not cost. It doesn't slow me down on stairs, or slow me down parking. And it makes things a little bit safer. And it sets you in the mind of "how can I do this safer", so as a result of those actions, you start handling all solvents in the fume cupboard rather than just benzene.

Of course at the other extreme you get idiots like the company I worked for that gave people Mars bars as a reward for using the lift rather than the stairs..............

A manager gave me two really good bits of advice:
1) Good H&S initiatives are ones that you have to sound like a petulant teenager when arguing against (Why wouldn't you use the handrail?).
2) Never make statements that you wouldn't say the opposite of (e.g. "We take safety seriously").

[i](remarkably it still takes him ages to park! ) [/I]

Yep, far harder to park my nice new shiny car with detectors and cameras that it was in my old Vectra with handy towbar... 😉

2) Never make statements that you wouldn't say the opposite of (e.g. "We take safety seriously").

Help - that makes my head hurt.

The opposite of that statement - 'We don't take safety seriously' - I wouldn't say that

So I should never say 'We take safety seriously'? Why wouldn't i say that? Am I missing something?

[quote=thisisnotaspoon ]Of course at the other extreme you get idiots like the company I worked for that gave people Mars bars as a reward for using the lift rather than the stairs..............

I guess they don't have to report heart attacks on their HSE returns!

The opposite of that statement - 'We don't take safety seriously' - I wouldn't say that

So I should never say 'We take safety seriously'? Why wouldn't i say that? Am I missing something?

Presumably because it's supposed to be self evident and it makes an employer sound simultaneously dumb and sanctimonious if they do make such a statement.

Like an employer having to make a statement such as ....."We never execute employees and feast on their dead flesh".

It's a nice sentiment but shouldn't need saying.

So I should never say 'We take safety seriously'? Why wouldn't i say that? Am I missing something?

Yep, that's exactly it. What does that statement really tell you about the company? Absolutely nothing because no company in their right mind would say the opposite, therefore it says absolutely nothing about the company, it's H&S procedures, it's record, or anything else beyond "we told someone in marketing that safety was important".

Compare it to other corporate guff often spouted:
"we work hard and play hard", that's fine, you could work hard but expect everyone to leave promptly at 5:30 instead of staying on for the late evening pizza and amphetamines party. So there is an alternative and as a statement it's perfectly fine.

"We like to collaborate", yup that's a decent distinction between a CAD designer choosing between graphic design studio, and a nuclear weapons developer.

[edit] PP says it beter!

Like an employer having to make a statement such as ....."We never execute employees and feast on their dead flesh".

It's a nice sentiment but shouldn't need saying.

I agree with the OP about the use of the phone whilst driving.

But the workplace has gone a bit daft in terms of some of the H&S risk assessments.

I was one of the risk assessor sin a large US company in the UK.

It was a chemical / pharma company where there was an obsession about handrail holding and reverse parking. The reverse parking in particular was pure non sense. Nobody can give a satisfactory answer as to how it is safer.

When parking it will always involve both driving straight in or out and a reverse manoveour.

There was so much attention to this politically correct low rise safety stuff, yet the fire assembly point was right next to 2 enormous vessels contain liquid alcohol.

In the event of a fire , we would have been standing right next to the biggest and most volatile substance in the plant.

It took ages to get the fire assembly point moved, due to the difficult act of getting the sign moved and altering the literature etc.

We even had to have a training session to "educate" all concerned where the new fire assembly point was.

What does that statement really tell you about the company? Absolutely nothing because no company in their right mind would say the opposite..

Nah, the point of seemingly obvious statements like [i]'We take safety seriously'[/i] is the implied (but not libellous) sub-text that some of their competitors don't.

Really really common trick in advertising.

If there are two near identical cartons of orange juice next to each other on the shelf, at the same price, but one proclaims it is "100% Mercury and Cyanide free" then which one would you buy?

[quote=Denis99 ]The reverse parking in particular was pure non sense. Nobody can give a satisfactory answer as to how it is safer.
When parking it will always involve both driving straight in or out and a reverse manoveour.

I'm fairly sure there are stats which prove it, though in any case the worrying thing is that nobody was able to provide the quite simple explanation - the reversing part is clearly the more hazardous part, and when reversing into a space there are no moving objects causing you problems.

Without getting into the whole paranoiac HSE culture debate, phones whilst driving are a real bugbear of mine. If I'm a passenger I'll video them, grass em up to their company and inform the police. We've all checked our messages in stationary traffic, I'm sure, but I've recorded drivers steering a lorry with their forearms, texting with both hands, whilst doing 50+ MPH down the motorway?! String 'em up, I reckon.

[quote=GrahamS ]If there are two near identical cartons of orange juice next to each other on the shelf, at the same price, but one proclaims it is "100% Mercury and Cyanide free" then which one would you buy?

The one from the company which didn't even have to think about whether their product was contaminated with mercury and cyanide?

But there are plenty of statements that are worth making and that you still wouldn't say the opposite of.

'Our product is uniquely derived by a patented process using only vegetable starting materials'

but I do get what you mean.....

Re reverse parking: in the oil industry it was because you have less visibility of other vehicles moving around - there might have been no other vehicles next to you when you parked but you might have a high sided van either side of you when you come to leave. If you are reversing out then you need to get nearly all of your vehicle into the road before you can see in either direction. Actually having just typed that out, it's bleeding obvious!

If there are two near identical cartons of orange juice next to each other on the shelf, at the same price, but one proclaims it is "100% Mercury and Cyanide free" then which one would you buy?

The one made by the company that doesn't feast on the dead flesh of their employees.

All my food needs to be 100% Zombie and Cannibal free. I have an intolerance.

Always been a bit suspicious of the Man from Del Monte if I'm honest. Says "Yes!" much too readily for my liking.

If there are two near identical cartons of orange juice next to each other on the shelf, at the same price, but one proclaims it is "100% Mercury and Cyanide free" then which one would you buy?

Our job was to compare and rate contractors on H&S, so I see your point, but what we'd actually do is:
1) Only give the statement credit if we'd asked for the OJ to be mercury and cyanide free.
2) Ask them to provide evidence to back up that claim (it wastes everyone's time, but they made a rod for their own back)

When parking it will always involve both driving straight in or out and a reverse manoveour.

Yes, but you either reverse into an empty space which you know is empty because you just drove past and checked.

Or you reverse out of a space, and until you're halfway out, you're completely blind to any traffic on the road/pavement your reversing into.

So in your argument it's 50/50, in mine it's better. For no extra effort you may as well go with it.

Also:
Environmental benefits - cars are more polluting when reving the engine when cold, i.e. exactly what happens when reversing and using the clutch. So you use slightly less fuel and emit less pollution by reverse parking.

Safety benefits - on a large site it's likely you may need to evacuate by vehicle. Imagine the chaos if an office full of people was ordered out and all had to reverse out of their space rather than driving straight out.