Rjan:
Own Account Driver:
I’m struggling to think of an occasion when a driver has brought a vehicle into the workshop after their checks with a defect that would have represented an immediate danger to road safety. Ok, stuff like a faulty screenwash does really need to be done before going out on the road but also it’s not going to result in immediate carnage as soon as they leave the yard. At the end of the day there’s only so much that can be checked from an exterior walk round of the vehicle and spending 15 mins is bonkers some VOSA test stations will do an MOT in less than that.
Hardly any fault identified by a driver doing daily checks will result in “immediate carnage” - even a totally unbolted front wheel isn’t so bad in the scheme of driving accidents, if it just flops off at the first turn out of the gatehouse leaving you lurched on the concrete. But a badly bolted wheel which comes off 50 miles later at motorway speed is another question.
A non-functional screenwash is OK for the first few miles, but can quickly become a serious hazard under certain dry weather conditions (typically icy conditions with salted roads, or dusty summer days) and over a sufficient distance. I’ve driven cars on more than one occasion over the years (whose fluid levels admittedly I don’t check daily) that have run out of water during the journey in such conditions, to the point that I couldn’t really see any more - I once had to throw orange juice over the screen to eke out a few more miles to get water. I have long managed that risk in my own car by carrying spare water in lieu of checking the car’s wash bottle.
For a HGV operator, the standard response to a report of such a defect at the start of the shift should be an immediate fix - the alternative is no better than arguing that a bald tyre will do for dry weather (which is true by the laws of physics, but it’s never a sign of responsible operation that someone other than the driver is making judgments about roadworthiness based on looking out the window at the clouds).
IIRC, the legal basis for daily checks, is that operators’ licence conditions typically say that processes should be in place to ensure that daily checks are undertaken on vehicles, and that records are kept to show the same. Other than this, daily checks are not enforceable (though actual defects are punishable).
The checks don’t have to take any particular form (other than the basic roadworthiness which someone can be expected to detect and check daily without tools or mechanical skills). Serious defects (other than the truly unforeseeable failure of a well-maintained vehicle) should not arise suddenly - the driver does not need to check the torque of the wheel bolts with a wrench, or stress test the structure on a daily basis.
The driver does not necessarily have to be the one undertaking all of the checks required to keep a vehicle roadworthy as a whole - in fact strictly I don’t see that he has to undertake any daily checks (as long as the operator arranges for them to be done daily by somebody).
The driver is not responsible for the roadworthiness of the vehicle in every respect (although he may have strict liability at the roadside, and would be expected to have basic common sense and reasonable skill). If the firm delegates any checks to the driver (rather than say a mechanic), they are ultimately responsible for specifying those checks, scheduling them, and training the driver to do them. The checks I generally do take no more than 10 minutes - and if the vehicle is familiar, maybe only 5 minutes. Twenty minutes would cover the period from getting into the yard and starting the shift, and setting off - 20 minutes for daily checks alone is surely too much in general.
The records kept and processes in place also don’t have to take any particular form. Realistically, a list of basic roadworthiness items to check, and a tick box in a register kept by the driver (and handed in periodically) might be sufficient.
Many firms choose to engage in a lot more ceremony, such as drivers handing in carbon copy sheets at the start of the shift, which does not logically prove that the checks were carried out or that no defect existed when leaving the yard, nor that the driver was trained to spot any but an obvious defect, but allows the firm to show that the driver is reminded every day that he needs to do at least some checking. Firms with transient workforces tend to have this ceremony, whereas a smaller firm or depot with evidence of a stable workforce, occasional training, and proper supervision, could rely just on the method of the driver keeping his own register in the vehicle.
Whatever your process and records, you’ll get away with almost anything so long as what you are doing is actually effective in preventing and catching mechanical defects.
This is too long to respond entirely to and I’m not really sure what the main thrust is but my comment is, as isn’t entirely unexpected some drivers make too much of a meal of daily checks and, in reality are ill-equipped, to find much beyond the obvious. The defects once established should be remedied.
What you find often though is you have a truck into the workshop for its maintenance inspection and it has, for example, a serious steering defect manifesting itself as a loud clunking or a brake circuit air leak. When you look at the records the same vehicle will often have had things like marker light bulbs done, after being found by the driver, during the same period.
I know drivers want to think they are doing something important with daily checks and, it is important, that lights are working properly etc if a bulb blows between inspections but, from a lot of experience, it’s very rare for them to find much beyond the obvious. The important stuff is generally only found when it fails catastrophically in service or during a periodic inspection in the workshop.
…just for the wind up tbh 
