Interesting DoT study, just pubkished, shows that drivers of company cars, pick-ups and vans have a disproportionate number of 'at fault' RTA's:
www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/docume...f
|
Slightly skewed I feel.
The study was "work related incidents"
and measured against HGV's PSV's taxis and emergency vehicles
|
|
|
|
They probably do a lot more miles than the average motorist..hence more time on the road and more accidents (their fault or otherwise!!)
|
>>hence more time on the road and more accidents >>
Which is why women generally have fewer accidents and prove better insurance risks...:-)
Not that they will have any truck with such a view.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
I drove company cars for many years. On reflection, I am more and more convinced that owning a vehicle yourself makes you altogether more careful when driving it.
|
I drove company cars for many years. On reflection, I am more and more convinced that owning a vehicle yourself makes you altogether more careful when driving it.
..and when leaving it anywhere! I've also become obsessed by fuel consumption - I was never wasteful, but now I drive along staring, not at the speedo, but at the MPG reading!
|
I drive along staring, not at the speedo, but at the MPG reading!
That's right, lord it over those of us who have to take a piece of paper and a calculator to the filling station instead! ;-)
|
|
|
I've also become obsessed by fuel consumption - I was never wasteful, but now I drive along staring, not at the speedo, but at the MPG reading!
This is very true - when driving cars that do have these milage meters (especially the analog ones found in BMWs that give instantaneous response) there is very strong desire to not to press the accelerator pedal too far!
|
|
|
|
|
Although white van drivers are the least likely to injure pedestrians, of all vehicle groups. Whether this means they are better drivers or whether white vans just happen to be more comfortable to be hit by is another matter.
Company car drivers will also be driving on the most congested routes so would also face greater danger. Do they say disproportionate to what type of driver? Is it a per mile risk or an exposure risk?
teabelly
|
Driving more miles and on more congested routes does mean more likelihood of being in an accident. I think though, that what the report is saying is that company car drivers are more likely to be to blame for the accident.
Having had a company car for a while in the past, I am totally convinced that co car drivers are more likely to be in an 'at fault' accident and drive the car more aggesively, being generally less careful with it.
|
>>co car drivers are more likely to be in an 'at fault' accident >>
Do you not think too that such drivers are often on roads that they are unfamiliar with and therefore not as aware of potential dangers than the area in which they live?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
>>co car drivers are more likely to be in an 'at fault' accident >> Do you not think too that such drivers are often on roads that they are unfamiliar with and therefore not as aware of potential dangers than the area in which they live? - - - - - - - - - - -
A good reason to drive a little more cautiously and defensively then?
All I know is that when I had a company car (working for a major vehicle manufacturer) the number of accidents that co. car owning colleagues had was very high. These were mostly 'perk' cars being used on familiar routes but some of the guys caned them mercilessly. One guy managed to write off two Rover 800's - both at the same time of day on the same piece of road (about 2 miles from his home)!
|
>>A good reason to drive a little more cautiously and defensively then?>>
Completely agree but I know several company car drivers who do pretty big daily mileages and it's easy to forget that that is between the actual work.
Endeavouring to find new customers' premises when you have a hectic schedule, for instance, means that your concentration might not be all that it should be.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
|
|
Although white van drivers are the least likely to injure pedestrians, of all vehicle groups. Whether this means they are better drivers or whether white vans just happen to be more comfortable to be hit by is another matter.
I wonder whether this is the same reasoning that it can be better for a pedestrain to be hit by a 4x4 than by a car, because their 'bluff' frontage spreads the impact?
|
>> I wonder whether this is the same reasoning that it can be better for a pedestrain to be hit by a 4x4 than by a car, because their 'bluff' frontage spreads the impact?
That is just not true, some cars are better than others though you are more likley to be injured if hit by a 4x4.
|
>> >> >> I wonder whether this is the same reasoning that it can >> be better for a pedestrain to be hit by a 4x4 >> than by a car, because their 'bluff' frontage spreads the impact? >> That is just not true, some cars are better than others though you are more likley to be injured if hit by a 4x4.
I said 'can be better' - have you not seen the video of the State Trooper in the US being ploughed into by an SUV? He was only slightly injured, they reckon because the flat front spread the inpact over almost the whole side of his body.
|
|
|
|
White vans are more likely to be seen by pedestrians.
|
White vans are more likely to be seen by pedestrians.
>>
Because they are usually parked on the pavement?
|
|
company car drivers most dangerouse- especialy the merc drivers who object highly to being overtaken at trafic lights by a 4 weel drive!
|
|
Setting aside for the moment that almost anything can be 'proved' by means of statistics, I would much rather be on the road on weekdays than at weekends - the standard of driving for the latter seems to be me to be greatly inferior.
|
|
|
|
|
