10,000 haulage firms on safety ‘red list’ - BBC News
apple.news/A9eNjDbbBTOqc4UBqXyfwWQ
My firm supposedly is but i sailed past a hector waving vehicles in at the end of M67 
I call driver ■■■■■■■■
[DVSA chief executive Gareth Llewellyn] said if safety standards across the industry rose, he would anticipate the
DVSA would still maintain a red list of 10,000 lower-performing operators.
So basically, if the article is true, the DVSA are always going to target the lowest performing 10,000 operators regardless of how safe the industry becomes 
To me that sort of makes the figure of “10,000” bad operators irrelevant, because the figure is always going to be 10,000 
I think there is complacency amongst some of the ‘green light’ operators. A week spent targeting purely them at the road side would probably be quite productive.
tachograph:
[DVSA chief executive Gareth Llewellyn] said if safety standards across the industry rose, he would anticipate the
DVSA would still maintain a red list of 10,000 lower-performing operators.So basically, if the article is true, the DVSA are always going to target the lowest performing 10,000 operators regardless of how safe the industry becomes
To me that sort of makes the figure of “10,000” bad operators irrelevant, because the figure is always going to be 10,000
Remember that report that said approximately half the schools in the country were below average!
Shock! Horror! Headlines!
Sent from my GT-S7275R using Tapatalk
Iv worked for a “green light” firm who thought they were brilliant with in house training and health and safety galore,thing is once you left that yard they didn’t care and drivers hours and sometimes defects were swept under the carpet,as well as unsafe working practices
Bloody bent hauliers give us drivers a bad name, I can confirm I work for at least 3 of them… 
DVSA have far too much power, what gives them the right to stick their nose into businesses like this
AndrewG:
DVSA have far too much power, what gives them the right to stick their nose into businesses like this
Just look at the number of posts on this forum advocating running bent, speeding, talking about fiddling tachos…
Conor:
AndrewG:
DVSA have far too much power, what gives them the right to stick their nose into businesses like thisJust look at the number of posts on this forum advocating running bent, speeding, talking about fiddling tachos…
And?..It should only be the police who have authorisation for stops/checks, not some pompous geek in a hiz up his own arse working for yet another supposed governing body looking to prosecute for every minute so called infringement. The UK is so ■■■■■■■ in red tape and regulation im surprised anything ever gets moved. Get penalised in court for whatever offence then on top of that get penalised again by the local TC, unreal… 
Hold on, we can’t have it both ways. Whingeing that the Police should have something better to do when they pull us up for speeding, dodgy looking load etc and then complaining when they offload this sort of work onto other agencies because they HAVE got something better to do. Crying that either the Police, HMRC or DVSA are only doing it to add to the coffers, and it is unfair because if we did do the job how it is supposed to be done, then we would be bankrupt in a week only proves that we should not be doing the job at all. It just proves that we can’t afford to operate in a proper manner because in many instances we are working the bottom end of the market.
Or maybe it proves that we are not worried about competition from vehicles which are defective, running on red diesel, carrying 20 ton of spuds on top of 20 ton of steel, with sabotaged tachographs and driven by tired, underpaid and unlicensed drivers.
tachograph:
[DVSA chief executive Gareth Llewellyn] said if safety standards across the industry rose, he would anticipate the
DVSA would still maintain a red list of 10,000 lower-performing operators.So basically, if the article is true, the DVSA are always going to target the lowest performing 10,000 operators regardless of how safe the industry becomes
To me that sort of makes the figure of “10,000” bad operators irrelevant, because the figure is always going to be 10,000
A very unintelligent comment from the DVSA and probably an unaccounted for statement. If they were to think about it for a second anyway.
Their argument would be they always seek to raise the skirts of standards so will target the laggers - quite how this 10k figure is arrived at beats me. This 10k figure of targeting costs a significant amount of money, and especially that the 10001th operator is unlikely to suddenly be risk free, or the 9999th operator a risk to life and limb.
Stripped of it’s total Emporer’s new clothes, the DVSA is more an expensive “night nurse” remedy. An expensive, and club footed approach that ignores the causal factors focussing on easy to show results. I have yet to see the regulator posturing for progressive and dynamic hours legislation change in keeping with modern findings, or accountable and structured maintenance scheduling rather than blaming drivers for “walk arounds”. DVSA will always sing a good tune but in my mind it’s an unintelligent blinkered approach that prefers the targeting of past transgressions, even worse, with the lowest common denominator (the driver) rather than use its brains to tackle causal factors head on. They’re an “after the horse has bolted” approach to safety waving a big stick. The most dullard thick approach to safety there is.
The DVSA is a shoe gazing entity that is results driven, refusing to plow energy into back feeding findings into change and causal factors. Like a simpleton, it doesn’t see the bigger picture and is happy to show results to the teacher in return for a pat on the back, hoping this will nett safety returns rather than moving into the grown ups room and tackling the thorny issues of change. It’ll never be on the top table of forward thinking safety. Always retrospective looking and taking the blame card as easy currency
AndrewG:
Conor:
AndrewG:
DVSA have far too much power, what gives them the right to stick their nose into businesses like thisJust look at the number of posts on this forum advocating running bent, speeding, talking about fiddling tachos…
And?..It should only be the police who have authorisation for stops/checks, not some pompous geek in a hiz up his own arse working for yet another supposed governing body looking to prosecute for every minute so called infringement. The UK is so ■■■■■■■ in red tape and regulation im surprised anything ever gets moved. Get penalised in court for whatever offence then on top of that get penalised again by the local TC, unreal…
I would disagree with you about VOSA having spent more time than most in various checkpoints I have found VOSA to be ok in the aspect that they will give you leeway and explain the error of your ways rather than jumping straight to a prosecution. The drivers who say they have a problem with VOSA are rarely in their checkpoints or fail the attitude test as soon as they open the door.
The police on the other hand will fine you at the drop of hat as an example £60 for 13 minutes over a 15 hour spread in which there was only 4 hours driving done and the 13 minutes got me to my yard and away home for 4 days hardly a major hazard to other road users, but as the copper said it is there in black and white you have broken the law so I must do you. Never mind automated lorries we already have robot policemen.
Listened to the File on Four programme. Unfairly scapegoating the DVSA really in my view. Their biggest failing was not following up after the previous transport manager had written informing them of his resignation it shouldn’t really have been that difficult to put two and two together and conclude they were likely operating with no transport manager. The rest of the criticisms were either moot or highly speculative they would have prevented the accident.
The rest of the programme seemed like an advert, and how to instructional guide, for registering in Bulgaria.
Freight Dog:
tachograph:
[DVSA chief executive Gareth Llewellyn] said if safety standards across the industry rose, he would anticipate the
DVSA would still maintain a red list of 10,000 lower-performing operators.So basically, if the article is true, the DVSA are always going to target the lowest performing 10,000 operators regardless of how safe the industry becomes
To me that sort of makes the figure of “10,000” bad operators irrelevant, because the figure is always going to be 10,000
A very unintelligent comment from the DVSA and probably an unaccounted for statement. If they were to think about it for a second anyway.
Their argument would be they always seek to raise the skirts of standards so will target the laggers - quite how this 10k figure is arrived at beats me. This 10k figure of targeting costs a significant amount of money, and especially that the 10001th operator is unlikely to suddenly be risk free, or the 9999th operator a risk to life and limb.
Stripped of it’s total Emporer’s new clothes, the DVSA is more an expensive “night nurse” remedy. An expensive, and club footed approach that ignores the causal factors focussing on easy to show results. I have yet to see the regulator posturing for progressive and dynamic hours legislation change in keeping with modern findings, or accountable and structured maintenance scheduling rather than blaming drivers for “walk arounds”. DVSA will always sing a good tune but in my mind it’s an unintelligent blinkered approach that prefers the targeting of past transgressions, even worse, with the lowest common denominator (the driver) rather than use its brains to tackle causal factors head on. They’re an “after the horse has bolted” approach to safety waving a big stick. The most dullard thick approach to safety there is.
The DVSA is a shoe gazing entity that is results driven, refusing to plow energy into back feeding findings into change and causal factors. Like a simpleton, it doesn’t see the bigger picture and is happy to show results to the teacher in return for a pat on the back, hoping this will nett safety returns rather than moving into the grown ups room and tackling the thorny issues of change. It’ll never be on the top table of forward thinking safety. Always retrospective looking and taking the blame card as easy currency
I think this is a little simple way too go along.
The 10.000 is just a figure, he could have used 11.142, or 9.967, what he was trying, too make clear is that there are big number of operators who don’t take safety very serious.
The number is what it is, what he should have mentioned, how many HGV fail MOT on a yearly basis.
Or how many “easy” detectable faults get found on a roadside inspection.
Was discussing the facts with one of my customer, while we try to get his maintenance on a higher standard.
If you realise the UK MOT standard is based on “minimum safety standards”, so a reasonable assumption would be that there is a 98% pass rate, with 2% for failures during the test.
If you have a read of this gov.uk/government/statistic … at-britain
And you realise that this is not the case, and many trucks fail on silly faults as tyres, brakes, steering and suspension.
This means that many operators cannot even maintain "minimum standards "
Because it’s "dealer maintained " doesn’t mean you don’t need to check.
So yes I believe this number mentioned is probably on the safe (low) side.
Because it’s "dealer maintained " doesn’t mean you don’t need to check.
majority of the main dealers need checking, the state of some trucks coming back from 6 weekly checks can be quite shocking…
caledoniandream:
Freight Dog:
tachograph:
[DVSA chief executive Gareth Llewellyn] said if safety standards across the industry rose, he would anticipate the
DVSA would still maintain a red list of 10,000 lower-performing operators.So basically, if the article is true, the DVSA are always going to target the lowest performing 10,000 operators regardless of how safe the industry becomes
To me that sort of makes the figure of “10,000” bad operators irrelevant, because the figure is always going to be 10,000
A very unintelligent comment from the DVSA and probably an unaccounted for statement. If they were to think about it for a second anyway.
Their argument would be they always seek to raise the skirts of standards so will target the laggers - quite how this 10k figure is arrived at beats me. This 10k figure of targeting costs a significant amount of money, and especially that the 10001th operator is unlikely to suddenly be risk free, or the 9999th operator a risk to life and limb.
Stripped of it’s total Emporer’s new clothes, the DVSA is more an expensive “night nurse” remedy. An expensive, and club footed approach that ignores the causal factors focussing on easy to show results. I have yet to see the regulator posturing for progressive and dynamic hours legislation change in keeping with modern findings, or accountable and structured maintenance scheduling rather than blaming drivers for “walk arounds”. DVSA will always sing a good tune but in my mind it’s an unintelligent blinkered approach that prefers the targeting of past transgressions, even worse, with the lowest common denominator (the driver) rather than use its brains to tackle causal factors head on. They’re an “after the horse has bolted” approach to safety waving a big stick. The most dullard thick approach to safety there is.
The DVSA is a shoe gazing entity that is results driven, refusing to plow energy into back feeding findings into change and causal factors. Like a simpleton, it doesn’t see the bigger picture and is happy to show results to the teacher in return for a pat on the back, hoping this will nett safety returns rather than moving into the grown ups room and tackling the thorny issues of change. It’ll never be on the top table of forward thinking safety. Always retrospective looking and taking the blame card as easy currency
I think this is a little simple way too go along.
The 10.000 is just a figure, he could have used 11.142, or 9.967, what he was trying, too make clear is that there are big number of operators who don’t take safety very serious.
The number is what it is, what he should have mentioned, how many HGV fail MOT on a yearly basis.
Or how many “easy” detectable faults get found on a roadside inspection.Was discussing the facts with one of my customer, while we try to get his maintenance on a higher standard.
If you realise the UK MOT standard is based on “minimum safety standards”, so a reasonable assumption would be that there is a 98% pass rate, with 2% for failures during the test.
If you have a read of this gov.uk/government/statistic … at-britain
And you realise that this is not the case, and many trucks fail on silly faults as tyres, brakes, steering and suspension.
This means that many operators cannot even maintain "minimum standards "Because it’s "dealer maintained " doesn’t mean you don’t need to check.
So yes I believe this number mentioned is probably on the safe (low) side.
You seem to have missed my point with regard to the way they approach raising those standards.