Australian Automobile Association

Transcription

1 Australian Automobile Association Constituent Members Submission to: The National Transport Commission s Improving the Basic Fatigue Management Option Discussion Paper 29 September 2010

2 The Australian Automobile Association (AAA) welcomes the opportunity to make a submission to the National Transport Commission s Improving the Basic Fatigue Management Option Discussion Paper. The Australian Automobile Association (AAA) supports and coordinates the activities of its constituent motoring clubs and represents the interests of Australian motorists nationally and internationally. AAA's constituent members include all of Australia's state and territory motoring clubs: National Roads and Motorists' Association (NRMA) Motoring and Services Royal Automobile Club of Victoria (RACV) The Royal Automobile Club of Queensland (RACQ) Royal Automobile Association of South Australia (RAASA) Royal Automobile Club of Western Australia (RACWA) Royal Automobile Club of Tasmania (RACT) Automobile Association of the Northern Territory (AANT) Royal Automobile Club of Australia (RACA) Through these organisations, AAA represents the interests of more than 6 million motorists and, indirectly, all Australian motorists at the national and international levels. AAA supports the National Road Safety Strategy (NRSS) that identifies a number of key measures that should contribute to saving around 700 lives a year by The strategy recognises the need to take a "systems approach" to savings lives; which recognises the mutual importance of safer drivers in safer vehicles on safer roads. AAA also believes the Australian Government should adopt a zero death road safety target, with the next NRSS to put forward programs to work towards this objective. AAA would like to comment on the Discussion Paper as any proposed changes to the Basic Fatigue Management option have the potential to affect all Australian motorists in relation to road safety. Page 2 of 12

3 ACRONYMS NTC AFM BFM NHVAS NRSS National Transport Commission Advanced Fatigue Management Basic Fatigue Management National Heavy Vehicle Accreditation Scheme National Road Safety Strategy Page 3 of 12

4 Recommendations 1. AAA believes the split rest proposal should not be changed under the Basic Fatigue Management option. It agrees split rests should only remain possible under the Advanced Fatigue Management option. AAA advocates further research and analysis on split rests to produce laws that do not compromise safety on the roads. Any laws should be clear and unambiguous to drivers and operators. 2. AAA believes the 14 day cycle proposal should only be available as an option under the Advanced Fatigue Management system. Further research should be conducted to determine with greater certainty the possible increase in driver fatigue risk that would occur from this proposal and the extent of the offsets that would be required to balance out this risk (if offsets could balance out the risk to a satisfactory level). 3. AAA has no issue with the proposed changes to rest periods providing the scientific evidence indicates there is no increased fatigue risk for drivers. 4. All types of variations to standard work/rest hours are potentially available under the Advanced Fatigue Management option. AAA acknowledges obtaining approval to operate under the Advanced Fatigue Management option comes at significant time and cost to heavy vehicle operators. However AAA believes any changes that increase productivity should not in any way compromise safety. 5. AAA supports safety accreditation that improves compliance with laws and contributes to the overall improvement of road safety. 6. AAA does not support compromising road safety in order to achieve productivity gains. Page 4 of 12

5 Overview of Discussion Paper Owing to the nature of the Discussion Paper, a comprehensive overview has been included in this report. It has been included so the analysis can be completely understood. The National Transport Commission s (NTC) Improving the Basic Fatigue Management Option Discussion Paper objective is: improve the uptake of fatigue management accreditation. 1 Currently there are three different work and rest options available for heavy vehicle operators. Standard hours which sets out the basic work and rest limits. Focus on regular night time rests to manage fatigue. Basic Fatigue Management (BFM) option allows some additional flexibility and in return an operator must put in place a risk management system to manage the increased likelihood of fatigue as a result of drivers working longer hours. Advanced Fatigue Management (AFM) option allows an operator to propose their own work and rest times. These operators must put in place a risk management system and have their proposal supported by the advice of a fatigue expert. In order to choose the BFM or AFM options, an operator must be accredited under the National Heavy Vehicle Accreditation Scheme (NHVAS). Under regular circumstances gaining accreditation is voluntary for operators in the industry. Operators who wish to become NHVAS accredited must show road authorities that they comply with the law. Accredited operators need to 2 : Develop an in-house assurance system; Document the procedures that staff must follow to achieve compliance; Produce (and keep for audit) sets of documents that prove compliance; Undergo independent audits from time to time; Once an operator is accredited the maximum penalty for non-compliance is suspensions or cancellation of accreditation. 3 The benefit of accreditation for operators is they face far less scrutiny from enforcement agencies, which can improve an operator s productivity. Enforcement agencies also benefit as the more operators that are NHVAS accredited the more enforcement agencies can focus on nonaccredited operators which improves efficiency. 1 National Transport Commission s Improving the Basic Fatigue Management Option Discussion Paper, report outline 2 Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA), National Heavy Vehicle Accreditation Scheme, p 2 3 Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA), National Heavy Vehicle Accreditation Scheme, p 5 Page 5 of 12

6 Changes to the Basic Fatigue Management Option According to the Discussion Paper, over the past 12 months stakeholders have identified issues with the BFM option that they believe warrant legislative change. In response to concern about the current laws the NTC sought advice from its fatigue working group comprised of key stakeholders from road transport industry, unions and the NSW regulator. Through this consultation the NTC identified several key issues relating to the BFM option and suggested amendments be made. The amendments were designed to make the BFM option more flexible for operators and hence improve the uptake of fatigue management accreditation. The table below shows the current laws relating to the three key issues the NTC investigated for reform. Issue Split rests Split rests (legal perspective) Working cycles Early starts Current laws under the Basic Fatigue Management option Drivers are required to take a continuous long break of 7 hours in any 24 hour period. In certain circumstances drivers can choose to take a split rest (dividing their break into two blocks) in extenuating circumstances. If a driver is prosecuted for a fatigue related incident (accident or general operation) they may use the split rest as a defence providing they can demonstrate in court they followed the strict guidelines in relation to split rests. It is not however a legal right. The 84 hour rule stipulates that a driver must take a 24-hour continuous rest break after 84 hours of work. Usually this break must occur after 7 days working. All drivers are currently required by law to have a minimum seven hours rest during the night rest period (10pm to 8am). Proposal put to the NTC for possible reform Investigate ways to improve the flexibility of split rests. Reassess the capacity to safely split rests without having to rely on the existing legal defence. In other words drivers can take split rests as a legal right and do not face trial in court providing they follow split rest protocol. Assess the capacity to safely work a 14-day cycle by introducing restrictions on night work and hours worked in any one day. This would enable a driver to work a maximum of 12 consecutive days. Altering the night rest time from 10pm-8am to 9pm-9am Table 1: Summary of proposals being investigated by NTC Page 6 of 12

7 Rationale behind proposed reforms According to the proposal there is a lack of flexibility with the current work rest laws under the BFM option. Instead of becoming accredited under the National Heavy Vehicle Accreditation Scheme (NHVAS) (a requirement to choose the Basic or Advanced Fatigue Management options), some businesses will try and adjust their rosters and try to work with in the standard hours option. 4 Consequently the proposal argues this lack of flexibility in the BFM option is resulting in safety and productivity disadvantages as operators are choosing not to become accredited. Important point for consideration The Discussion Paper is seeking to create more choices for operators and drivers in terms of work and rest conditions under the BFM option. However the paper notes there is nothing currently that prevents an operator applying for any or all of the proposed changes under AFM option. 5 The key difference with the AFM option is that operators must put in place a risk management system and have their proposal supported by the advice of a fatigue expert. 6 The Discussion Paper argues however there may be significant time and expense incurred by an individual operator in choosing the AFM option. Fatigue expert panel The fatigue risk issues associated with the proposed changes were referred to a panel of fatigue experts for consideration. A summary of their findings relating to the specific cases is listed below. Further information is provided later in the submission. Split-rests for drivers- The overall view from the experts was that the BFM option should not be changed to allow for spilt rests. Instead spilt rests should only be considered under the AFM option. 7 For split rests to be considered under the AFM, controls that would need to be in place would include: How often drivers would be allowed to take split rests (probably rarely); and Restriction on the time of day split rests could occur. 14 day work cycle- There was little agreement between the experts on the issue of 14 day work/rest cycles. However most of the experts felt the issue was best dealt with in the AFM option. 8. Under the AFM option, the panel recommended a 14 day cycle include a greater number of measures that would ensure rest is increased whilst working in order to offset the fatigue risks. These included: Shorter shifts; Limiting night driving; and Longer rest periods between shifts 4 Improving the Basic Fatigue Management Option Discussion Paper, p6 5 Improving the Basic Fatigue Management Option Summary p2 6 Improving the Basic Fatigue Management Option Summary p2 7 Improving the Basic Fatigue Management Option Discussion Paper, Fatigue expert group comments, p 2. 8 Improving the Basic Fatigue Management Option Discussion Paper, Fatigue expert group comments, p 4 Page 7 of 12

8 Early starts- The panel generally agreed that changing the definition of night rest would address the need for some operators to work outside the currently designated night hours. As a result the experts proposed this item be included in the NTC s general list of maintenance items for reconsideration as part of a complete legislation package. Based on the recommendations from the fatigue expert panel, the NTC amended its proposal for the following: 1. Continue to allow the possibility of split rests under the AFM option (status quo). 2. Amend the BFM option to allow an alternative 14-day cycle which results in: Removal of the requirement for a 24-hour rest after no more than 84 hours work; Addition of a requirement that drivers must have at least one 48-hour break in any 14 day period; and At least six of the minimum seven continuous hours of rest must be taken between the hours of 9pm and 9am. 3. The definition of night rest period can start at 9pm to enable more early starts. Page 8 of 12

9 AAA analysis and recommendation on Discussion Paper Due to the short nature of the Discussion Paper, AAA has provided limited analysis. The analysis provides further information on the recommendations relating to the proposed changes. It comments mainly on the revised proposal put forward by the NTC after the review by the fatigue expert panel. Split rests for drivers The expert panel came to the conclusion that even though the split rest approach may result in an increased total amount of rest, it was deemed that there was very little chance either split rest period could be effectively converted into sleep. 9 Experts also expressed concern that drivers who took naps of 1 to 2 hours in length during the circadian trough period (4am-6am) were more likely to have a problem of sleep inertia and hence adversely affect performance. Analysis (Split rests) Based on the evidence it appears the split rest proposal should be dealt with under the AFM option. The fatigue expert panel appears to treat split rests with caution even under consideration as part of the AFM option. It is also important to remember split rests are addressed under the BFM option albeit with strict conditions that apply. Split rests can be used as a defence by a driver if prosecuted in very specific circumstances where they can demonstrate they are the sole driver of a regulated heavy vehicle and have followed split rest protocol. There also appears to be a great deal of grey area in relation to the laws and fatigue risk surrounding split rests and warrants further research. However based on the fact the current scientific evidence seems to indicate an increased fatigue risk with split rests, existing protocol on this issue should remain for now. AAA recommendation AAA believes the split rest proposal should not be changed under the Basic Fatigue Management option. It agrees split rests should only remain possible under the Advanced Fatigue Management option. AAA advocates further research and analysis on split rests to produce laws that do not compromise safety on the roads. Any laws should be clear and unambiguous to drivers and operators. 9 Improving the Basic Fatigue Management Option Discussion Paper, Fatigue expert group comments, p 9 Page 9 of 12

10 14 day cycle As mentioned previously there was little agreement between the experts on the proposal for 14-day work/rest cycles. 10 Even under the AFM option several controls and offsets were recommended to balance the increased fatigue risk that will occur with some drivers being unable to have a full 24-hour off-duty period every seven days. Extra controls suggested were: Shorter shifts-the increased fatigue risk due to consecutive days work could be managed through shorter work shifts. This would allow more time off for rest in each 24 hours thus reducing the need for a continuous 24 hour break in an 84 hour period that is currently required. Timing of shifts including limiting night driving or only working during the day would also manage increased fatigue risk Longer break periods between shifts-this control would have the same benefit as shorter working shifts and would allow more time for restorative rest. Analysis (14 day cycle) Out of the proposed changes to the BFM, this change appears to have the greatest potential to adversely affect road safety. An important issue to consider is whether the 14 day cycle would result in a significant productivity benefit? If operators are required to implement the extra fatigue controls (proposed by the expert panel) for drivers who work 12 consecutive days, the extra time they spend resting may cancel out the benefits of working the extra days compared to the current 7 day cycle. If this turned out to be the case then the only benefit of a 14 day cycle would be a lifestyle improvement for some drivers at the possible expense of reduced productivity and safety. Further research should examine the long term effects of drivers working up to 12 consecutive days and what offsets would be required (if any could offset the risk) to balance the likely increase in fatigue risk from this change. AAA recommendation AAA believes the 14 day cycle proposal should only be available as an option under the Advanced Fatigue Management system. Further research should be conducted to determine with greater certainty the possible increase in driver fatigue risk that would occur from this proposal and the extent of the offsets that would be required to balance out this risk (if offsets could balance out the risk to a satisfactory level). 10 Improving the Basic Fatigue Management Option Discussion Paper, Fatigue expert group comments, p 9 Page 10 of 12

11 Early starts As stated previously this amendment gained the most support from the expert review group. The panel acknowledged that changing the definition of night rest would address the need for some operators to work outside designated business hours. 11 Analysis (Early starts) This appears to be a reasonable proposal in achieving a balanced outcome between allowing flexibility for drivers in the heavy vehicle industry and ensuring safety. Since the expert panel did not highlight any further points for consideration then there appears to be no reason to oppose the change to the night rest period. AAA recommendation AAA has no issue with the proposed changes to rest periods providing the scientific evidence indicates there is no increased fatigue risk for drivers. General summary of Fatigue expert s views In deciding against supporting changes to the BFM option, the panel concluded that the current regulation allow operators to nominate 14 day cycles and/or the use of split rests for consideration under the AFM option. A core component of the AFM option is an operator-tailored approach that assesses the context of an operators system in relation to the work/rest hours. In other words applications are viewed on a case by case basis under the AFM option. The fatigue expert panel concludes it is not valid to look at these specific work/rest factors in isolation from individual context (which is what would occur under the amended BFM option). General summary analysis The strict conditions associated with the AFM option appear to result in high levels of safety, even if operators are applying for high risk work/rest hours. Under the AFM, any proposal faces great scrutiny from a variety of sources in order to be approved. The Basic Fatigue Management (BFM) option does not appear to have the capacity for individual scrutiny of work/rest hours that are a higher fatigue risk. Based on the evidence provided by the fatigue expert panel, split rests and 14 day cycles require scrutiny of the highest level. The proposed amendments to the BFM option are potentially available under the AFM option. AAA acknowledges that obtaining approval to work under the AFM option may be considered too costly and time consuming by some heavy vehicle operators. Nevertheless the AAA believes an increase in productivity cannot come at an expense to safety. AAA recommendation All types of variations to standard work/rest hours are potentially available under the Advanced Fatigue Management option. AAA acknowledges obtaining approval to operate under the Advanced Fatigue Management option comes at significant time and cost to heavy vehicle operators. However AAA believes any changes that increase productivity should not in any way compromise safety. 11 Improving the Basic Fatigue Management Option Discussion Paper, Fatigue expert group comments, p 9 Page 11 of 12

12 Conclusion The NTC states the objective of the Discussion Paper is to improve the uptake of fatigue management accreditation. It appears apparent from the Discussion Paper they intend to achieve this by making the BFM option more flexible and hopefully more appealing to operators. It is envisaged this will result in an uptake in the National Heavy Vehicle Accreditation Scheme (NHVAS) which is required under the BFM. NHVAS accreditation has the potential to improve safety and productivity for operators and enforcement agencies through its self regulatory concept. However the key to improving road safety is an operator s compliance with the accreditation scheme. Ultimately the success of the NHVAS is measurable by its contribution to improving road safety. AAA recommendation AAA supports safety accreditation that improves compliance with laws and contributes to the overall improvement of road safety. The proposals put forward by the NTC in the Discussion Paper focuses mainly on improving practicality and flexibility in the heavy vehicle industry. Whilst these changes may not reduce the levels of safety currently in place, they are highly unlikely to increase safety. These changes may reduce safety through an increase in fatigue risk for drivers as noted by the fatigue expert panel assigned as part of the NTC Discussion Paper. AAA recommendation AAA does not support compromising road safety in order to achieve productivity gains. Page 12 of 12