Just discovered this site today. A few facts on WELL DRIVEN?,it is libel, slander, defamation of character and damage to good repute. Here in Scotland if you make the call, you had better be able to provide independant corroboration or under our law you will find yourself in the Court of Session for libel, etc.WELL DRIVEN? were horrified to find out that 60% of the calls they receive were for 2 items only. Cars trying to overtake artics on a roundabout and cars undertaking when a truck was taking a wide turn when turning left. Both items are covered in the Highway Code. That leaves the other 40%. When I worked under this scurrilous scheme, complaints were that trucks on the A9 here in Scotland were travelling at 40mph and 'deliberately' holding back other road users,40mph is the speed limit on most of this road for trucks. 'Your truck would not let me out of the slip road', the truck could not because of overtaking traffic, when joining from a slip road, the dotted line on your right means YOU GIVE WAY!Because of the poor roadcraft and lack of common sense of the majority of complainants they produced a leaflet called 'Give a Lorry a Break',what made them think that those who did not read or know the Highway Code would want to read their leaflet is a mystery.
There is an organisation that will take complaints about lorry drivers driving, or anyone's driving for that matter,this organisation is called the POLICE! The reason people call WELL DRIVEN? instead of the police is they would be the one's in trouble with the police, so they call the free number and hide behind WELL DRIVEN? I was accused of dangerous driving on a motorway when in fact I was under strict security shunting trailers in a bonded warehouse all night and was not near the motorway. I asked for an apology, I was ignored. I asked for the complainers name and address in order to send them a letter from my lawyer, I was refused information. This scheme is im-moral and an affront to the human rights of lorry drivers, it should be closed down . If you want to complain about a lorrydrivers driving you should at least have the gumption to apologise if YOU are wrong. It is a driver bashing scheme on a grand scale. Anyone who is interested can go to the TRUCKNET site and read the articles on WELL DRIVEN in the INSIDER pages of the site, simply look under 'A Scurrilous Scheme...
Alex
|
|
i agree with what you say, but...... you never mentioned why truck drivers are always on the phone (alledgedly guv ;-))
|
|
Steady on Alex. It isn't libel, or anything else - under English law anyway - because you aren't making a public criticism.
|
Well HF, in answer to your question - I did some years ago make such a call. I had been following a Safeway artic on some 'A' roads in Kent for some distance, and it dawned on me how well it was being driven - not exceeding speed limits, slowing in good time for bends, courteous towards other drivers and so on. I really couldn't fault him. I noted the details and phoned the number when I got back to the office. I didn't expect any response, but about 2 weeks later Safeway wrote to thank me for the report, and pointing out that the driver concerned had already won 2 safe driving awards and had an unblemished record over many years working for them. I wish I could say that I have since had the opportunity to make another such call, but sadly....
I know some may say 'get a life' but as an accident investigator you do tend to take a close interest in the conduct and behaviour of other drivers.
|
In my experience there's a far higher percentage of cars than trucks deserve to have one of these stickers on the back!
--
L\'escargot.
|
I've rung the 'well driven' number once - when I saw a great piece of driving from a trucker avoiding an idiot car driver who pulled out in front of him.
I sent a formal letter to the transport manager of a trucker who was driving a couple of inches from my bumper through some roadworks whilst he was on the phone. Got back a letter which said I must have confused the truck with one from another company as 'our drivers don't do that sort of thing'!
|
|
|
|
Libel only requires the accusation to be witnessed by a third party. The manager to whom you write would be that third party, arguably.
|
|
|
|
|
When I worked under this scurrilous scheme, complaints were that trucks on the............... Anyone who is interested can go to the TRUCKNET site and read the articles on WELL DRIVEN in the INSIDER pages of the site, simply look under 'A Scurrilous Scheme... Alex
>>
Well Alex, may I first of all say Welcome!
Can we assume that on balance, you don't totally agree with this scheme? (TIC)
Does the TRUCKNET site have a section for BADLY DRIVEN in the INSIDER pages - perhaps it could be called 'An Excellent Scheme'
May I respectfully suggest that you break up your post into smaller paragraphs? It makes it easier to read.
|
|
|
Always good to see old threads refreshed with new views!
...it is libel, slander, defamation of character and damage >> to good repute. Here in Scotland if you make the call, you had better be able to provide independant corroboration or under our law you will find yourself in the Court of Session for libel, etc.
My understanding of both English and Scottish libel and slander laws is that firstly the libel or slander (I'm aware that Scottish law has far less distinction between the two than English law) complained about has to have been published or broadcast in some way, and that the party doing the complaining has to show that they have suffered loss and damage as a result. I had understood (although please correct me if I'm wrong) that complaints made under this scheme were confidential between Well Driven?, the haulage firm and the driver of the vehicle, so can't see how the publication/broadcast angle gets covered.
Also, any sackings under this scheme must surely be on the basis of an unacceptable level of complaints about one driver over a period of time, rather than just one solitary complaint, so I'm a bit puzzled as to how one complaint counts as either libel or slander.
I was accused of dangerous driving on a motorway when in fact I was under strict security shunting trailers in a bonded warehouse all night and was not near the motorway. I asked for an apology, I was ignored. I asked for the complainers name and address in order to send them a letter from my lawyer, I was refused information.
So the complaint was made either by some random nutter (as you explained, possibly a car driver of the breed that objects violently to any lorries being on the nation's roads at any time at all) or possibly by someone who, in poor visibility conditions, misread a number plate.
Either way, it clearly wasn't anything to do with you and could safely be ignored - so why not just think "Yeah, whatever" and let it go, instead of having all the hassle and expense of getting lawyers to write heavy letters, thus potentially opening up a whole different can of worms?
The sort of person who makes utterly unjustified complaints about people's driving is probably on their way home to a night of watching television, notepad in hand, waiting to be offended by something, and will certainly not be deterred by such a tactic. Don't get involved, I say.
|
I notice no-one has commented on the fact that 60% of their calls were on 2 matters.Why do these people not call the police? We have no need for vigilantes in the UK. Some of you may think its OK to have been hauled up before a 'the customer is always right' type of manager and have to defend yourself. I dont! Well Driven stated in the Herald newspaper, Glasgow, that during the school holidays, calls to them rocket. When a company hires a lorry driver they hire the licence, they dont buy the body, I didn't sign up for that scheme. If anyone has a complaint about my driving I am more than happy for them to call the Police, only once has that happened and he was the one who got done. (for drunk driving!)The problem with this scheme does not belong with lorry drivers but with the over 90% of complainers who dont know the Highway Code,have poor common sense and who's roadcraft is non-existant. otherwise, why did Well Driven publish their leaflet, 'Give a Lorry a Break'? I dont claim to be a 'GOOD' driver, all I will say is I have been a trucker for over 43 yrs with a clean licence. I must be very careful or very lucky, you make up your own mind. To those who complain, if you dont have the balls to stand up and be identified, DONT COMPLAIN!
Alex
|
Have I misunderstood ?
Not a 999 emergency call.
How do I get the number of the nearest local traffic police ?
I have used the scheme twice.
In both cases it was a local refrigerated haulage company.
My wife was terrified after one incident and couldn't drive for a week.
I phoned the company direct. The transport manager didn't want to know.
The police could do nothing without independent witnesses.
The company were later done for a wide variety of offences
including tacho and driver hours.
|
Why are truck drivers the only ones targeted by this scheme. And what's the real purpose of the scheme?
--
L\'escargot.
|
>>Why are truck drivers the only ones targeted by this scheme
Presumably because a badly driven 40 tonner is bigger hazard to other road users than a badly driven 1.5 ton car.
|
>>Why are truck drivers the only ones targeted by this scheme Presumably because a badly driven 40 tonner is bigger hazard to other road users than a badly driven 1.5 ton car.
Badly driven 40 tonners usually travel quite a bit slower than badly driven cars, and there are less badly driven 40 tonners than there are badly driven cars.
--
L\'escargot.
|
Badly driven 40 tonners usually travel quite a bit slower than badly driven cars, and there are less badly driven 40 tonners than there are badly driven cars. -- L\'escargot.
Whilst I agree that a badly driven 40 tonner will usually travel much slower than a badly driven car (except for the one doing 75mph+ on the M1 on Sunday night) it will have much more kinetic energy and therefore require a much greater force to slow it down. A 40 tonne lorry travelling at 56mph has 17 times the kinetic energy of a 1.5 tonne car travelling at 70mph and if control is lost it will do significantly more damage.
|
Whilst I agree that a badly driven 40 tonner will usually travel much slower than a badly driven car (except for the one doing 75mph+ on the M1 on Sunday night) it will have much more kinetic energy and therefore require a much greater force to slow it down.
I can't argue with that. But truck brakes are designed to give the same deceleration as car brakes. Unless someone knows different ...........
--
L\'escargot.
|
I can't argue with that. But truck brakes are designed to give the same deceleration as car brakes. Unless someone knows different
I may be wrong, but I thought truck braking systems were not designed to give the 1G stops modern car brakes will achieve, so as not to shoot the payload up against the cab.
Unless antilock systems are fitted, truck brakes can not give the same braking efficiency for fully loaded and unloaded conditions (as shown when an empty artic anchors up sharply and locks the trailer wheels).
I'm sure someone knows the full story on truck brakes?
|
I would be massively surprised if a 40 tonne artic could stop as quickly as my Coupe can. I have no evidence to back that up, but I certainly wouldn't want to see one looming in my rear view mirror as I was doing an emergency stop.
I suppose, with a bit of pidgin-science (for want of a bnetter term), the average car is well less than 2 tonnes, and has 4 tyre contact patches to stop it. So for a truck to be able to exert the same amount of 'stopping pressure' it would have to have more than 20 wheels, all braking wheels? The majority are 18-wheelers, but I don't know if they're all braked.
I can hear the mathematicians and physicists groaning already.
|
I may be wrong, but I thought truck braking systems were not designed to give the 1G stops modern car brakes will achieve, so as not to shoot the payload up against the cab.
Yep your wrong, Truck brakes are very, very good on modern trucks and will easily throw you forward if you stamp on them - even fully loaded, but obviously loads do play an important part on the efficiency of the braking.
Unless antilock systems are fitted, truck brakes can not give the same braking efficiency for fully loaded and unloaded conditions (as shown when an empty artic anchors up sharply and locks the trailer wheels). I'm sure someone knows the full story on truck brakes?
Anti-locks have been standard on both unit and trailers for many years, long before thay became the norm for cars - they also have a load sensor, and if that is not working properly thats when you see them lock up and the great plumes of smoke.
|
I remember seeing a terrifying bit of film where a car and truck did parallel emergency stops on a track. From inside the car, it appeared that someone had strapped a rocket booster to the truck - there was a huge difference in braking performance.
This was fairly recent - within the last five years. Can't remember which motoring program it was on though.
|
|
Why are truck drivers the only ones targeted by this scheme. And what's the real purpose of the scheme? -- L\'escargot.
Because the truck has the name of a company on the side of it, and that company cares very much about public relations.
Whereas a car is only related to the person driving it, and he doesn't care much what you think of him.
|
>>the truck has the name of a company on the side of it, and that company cares very >>much about public relations.
And doesn't want to end up on the wrong end of a corporate manslaughter charge...
|
I think they should make it law that if a car is registered to a company and therefore receiving tax benefits as a result, it should be signwritten.
Every commercial vehicle in Singapore has to display the name and address of the firm, usually on an area on the door.
|
Just what "tax benefits" did you have in mind?
And if I'm forced into driving a mobile advertising hoarding rather than a normal car, why should I pay the Inland Revenue for the privilege?
|
I work for a large supermarket chain in the dept. receiving these comments and can say they do indeed make a difference to the drivers, but only for consistent comments, one comment is not enough to get the P45!
Amazingly there are a large number of good comments too and these are passed onto the drivers and there managers.
There have however been wrong number plates declared as much confusion is caused, manly because we have many similar number plates. Even the speed cameras get this wrong as we have had speeding tickets for well over 100mph so it is easily done.
|
|
>>the truck has the name of a company on the side of it, and that company cares very >>much about public relations. And doesn't want to end up on the wrong end of a corporate manslaughter charge...
What's the difference between a "corporate" manslaughter charge and any other kind? Surely manslaughter is manslaughter?
--
L\'escargot.
|
I was referring to the fairly recent legislation on corporate manslaughter ( 2004?), which meant my employers suddenly taking a keen interest in seeing my car's MOT, insurance documents yada yada. My assumption is that in the event of a driver causing death by dangerous driving, their employers are much more likely to end up on a corporate manslaughter charge now.
Hence employers would be keen to show that they monitor the safety of their drivers via the 'well driven?' scheme.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
