I have a confessions to make. I stick to the speed limit and in over 25 years of driving cars and riding motorcycles, I have never had a speeding ticket. That may make me sound like a grumpy old fart but I can’t see how it can be worth putting yourself and others at risk for little return….
Phil Matier spoke on KCBS radio on 9 June 2008 about the changes that Oakland Police Department is making to its motorcycles to make them louder. There is an argument that in some way this makes the vehicles safer.
It’s a bizarre report and should be listened to while bearing in mind a new Australian report on the increase in tinnitus in young people. Perhaps American kids need to increase the volume of their iPod earphones whenever a Oakland motorcycle cop rides by.
According to a report released on 10 June 2008 by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau,
“passengers’ health is not greatly at risk through air travel and widespread infections are unlikely.”
On the cases that have been reported of infection, the ATSB says
“such transmission was primarily due to the crowding together of a large variety of people in a confined space, not specifically due to aircraft cabin conditions.”
It goes on to say
“Perhaps of greater concern is the opportunity for infection to spread in airport terminals, where passengers who are travelling to or from many destinations are gathered together.”
At the moment Qantas Airways has a reputation of being a safe airline, principally because its planes do not fall out of the sky. But there is a further definition of a safe airline and that is one whose management actively minimises the risk of infections and pandemics both in the aircraft and the terminal.
Important lessons were learnt from the “dry-run” on modern pandemic from SARS but this focussed on the air traveller and the aircraft and did not include the airport terminal. Perhaps as well as the safety airline, Australia needs to establish the safety airport.
Boy, web-conferencing is becoming more attractive.
On 1 June 2008, the South Australian Minister for Road Safety, Carmel Zollo, announced an increased enforcement campaign against drug-affected drivers.
In her media statement, Ms Zollo says
“When people take drugs and drive, they are taking a deadly risk – and the worst possible outcome of such irresponsible behaviour is a tragic crash. Drug testing is relatively new and we need to do all we can to change attitudes – we need people to know they will pay a price, one way or the other – and we need to convince them the best thing to do is to stay off the roads.”
Given the large number of commercial vehicles and drivers on the road, I asked the Minister’s office how this enforcement process and increased fines would apply to drivers who are found to be drug-affected in a work vehicle or undertaking work tasks. I haven’t had a response from the Minister but I put the same scenario to the SafeWork SA.
A spokesman for SafeWork SA told me that “the situation regarding the new drug driving laws in SA doesn’t change a whole lot as far as [SafeWork SA is] concerned. Such offences would fall under the Road Traffic Act in the first instance, and would be handled by SA Police.”
He emphasises that this issue
“…is another compelling reason for employers who do have staff on the road to ensure a policy is in place regarding alcohol and other drugs in the workplace. This will ensure that all workers are clear about what expectations exist in relation to drugs and alcohol on the job, and what the consequences will be for any breaches. Such a policy would assist employers in managing their legal obligation to identify hazards, assess risks and implement appropriate control measures for those risks.”
I agree and appreciate the fact that he did not say, as many employees and managers assert, that having a policy makes the workplace safer. Having a policy does not even imply compliance, only action and enforcement can achieve that.
What his comments do indicate though is that a workplace hazard that OHS professionals are expected to manage goes through several processes before it reaches, if at all, the relevant OHS authority and regulator. Is it any reason that the drug driving of workplace vehicles gets little attention when a major motivator of change, legal OHS action from a government regulator or at least the threat of action, is not occurring in the OHS context.
The driver penalty structure only applies within the general driving conditions controlled by the Road Act even though a driver could be severely impaired in a mobile workplace. The workplace context applies in other safety legislation such as rail safety and mining safety, why is not the work context of a positive roadside drug test being applied? On the issue of impairment, there is little difference between a white delivery van driver and 18-wheeler. Both can kill others and themselves.
Perhaps the Australian National OHS Review can consider occupational issues in other traditionally public areas of safety – security staff in nightclubs? level crossings?
The argy-bargy about uniformity of OHS legislation continued this week and, again, stems from issues in New South Wales.
According to a report in the Australian Financial Review on May 19 2008 (sorry there is no hyperlink, Fairfax Media insists of payment for online AFR content), the CEO of the National Road Transport Operator’s Association , Bernard Belacic said
the reality is for an employer in the trucking industry, we’ve got a raft of regulations to comply with. In NSW, we’ve got four different [driver] fatigue regimes. As an employer, even as a driver…..which one do you comply with?
Let’s not get silly about duplicating efforts and creating further layers of regulation. If safety isn’t addressed properly through the OH&S framework, well, let’s fix that.
He was responding to the ACTU’s desire to have OHS incorporated into the NSW industrial awards for negotiation.
I agree that additional levels of legislation and regulation are probably not required however several trucking companies are continuing their swap to the national worker’s compensation system, permission for which was squeaked in before the Howard Government was voted out. I cannot understand why the companies would want to continue with this action when further moves from the state to federal systems have been frozen, the OHS regulatory system is under government review, and such action would be inflammatory and very possibly short-term.
Many companies put a great store in worker’s compensation, probably because it is so expensive. But I judge a company’s commitment to it’s workforce on the basis of injury prevention not compensation.
Below are some publicly-available infoation on the latest companies moving to the Comcare system: