Why is it that so many truck drivers refuse to wear seat belts, and so many haulage companies have to work so hard to make them? It is very difficult to understand. A driver sits the most of the day in front of a huge sheet of glass and usually with another truck right in front. In an accident you could go straight through the window and end up seriously injured.
Yes I know that a seat belt can get in the way when you are making a delivery. I can just see that if you are on multi-drop work, it might be a pain to keep on un-fastening your seat belt, but it will be even more of a pain if you have an accident. It is estimated that one in 10 truck drivers use a belt and 130 deaths and serious injuries a year as a result. There is really no excuse. Drivers must belt up.
I know of many haulage and distribution companies that have worked hard to get drivers to use seat belts. But all too often they belt up in the yard but immediately they leave the depot, off comes the belt. They must be mad?
Can any driver or operator tell me why drivers are so adverse to seat belts? And has any operator succeeded in stopping them? Let me know by either commenting on this or e-mailing me at andrew.brown@rbi.co.uk
See more information below about the problem
Here is a Government report from 1997 about the problem:
HGV SEAT BELTS: ERGONOMICS OF CURRENT DESIGNS (S080L/VE)
Over 130 deaths and serious injuries could be prevented each year if all truck drivers wore a seat belt yet, at the present time only about one in ten truck drivers do wear one. It is generally believed that the main factor currently deterring drivers is seat belt discomfort. The Department of Transport therefore commissioned ICE Ergonomics to investigate whether truck seat belts are causing discomfort and, if so, to identify how they could be made comfortable.
A series of controlled experiments involving a truck simulator were undertaken in order to test objectively the levels of discomfort from current truck seat belts.
35% of the drivers reported no discomfort, 39% reported only very slight discomfort and 26% reported slight or medium discomfort, and these were predominantly due to pressure and rubbing in the shoulder region. No subjects reported severe or very severe discomfort and only 6 drivers stated that the discomfort experienced would reduce their likelihood of wearing the belt, although none of these would never wear the belt. The levels of reported comfort of the truck seat belt were similar to car seat belts, with 20 subjects rating the truck belt as better than their car seat belt, 10 rating it as the same and 13 rating it as worse.
These findings were tested by using a second, independent, comfort assessment technique, the 'Beltfit' computer modelling system. The results broadly confirmed the findings from the tests.
These findings imply that actual seat belt discomfort cannot solely account for the low wearing rate amongst truck drivers. A truck driver attitude survey conducted during this study found that while 32% of drivers claimed they did not wear their belts due to discomfort, a similar proportion (27%) cited safety reasons, such as the lack of perceived safety benefit or even safety disadvantages (e.g. entrapment). It is possible that some of those citing discomfort as the reason are doing so because their tolerance to even mild discomfort is low due to the low perceived safety benefits. These issues and findings mirror the results of surveys undertaken by ICE Ergonomics, into car drivers attitudes to seat belts in the early 1970s (before seat belt wearing was mandatory).
The report also recommends that suitably designed seat belts should be installed in all cabs. It has found that a net saving can be made when comparing the cost of installing seat belts with the economic savings accruing from the expected reductions in deaths and serious injuries. However, in order for this to be acceptable to drivers a number of actions are required.
Measures should be taken to address drivers' knowledge of the safety benefits of, and attitudes to seat belts. If successful, such measures may reduce criticisms of seat belt comfort and convenience.
The study makes a number of recommendations for ensuring the highest levels of comfort in future seat belt systems. Belts which are mounted to the seat are likely to offer both the highest levels of comfort and convenience. Such seats are currently available and a high proportion of trucks currently available in the UK are designed to accept them. As a second best alternative it is recommended that greater attention is paid to the development and comfort testing of seat belt anchorage locations, including possibly the use of adjustable upper anchorages and extended belt guides as is common practice in cars.
Comments (3)
I find that for the most part seatbelts are not worn in trucks because of the attitude of drivers.
It has only been over the lest few years that seatbelts became mandatory in trucks. Most of the older drivers (which make up the majority of truckers) refuse to wear them on principle. saying that if they didnt wear them before why should they wear them now.
its mostly sheer bloodymindedness.
Posted by jamie | September 7, 2007 3:41 PM
Posted on September 7, 2007 15:41
for me its quite simple. so i can see. we are all well aware of the blind spots so i prefer the freedom to be able to move around to eliminate them as much as i can. i have said before that it is all well and good adding mirrors all over the place but they then create new blindspots. i drive an FM which are notorious for having HUUUUUUGE mirror housings therefore i will not allow the restriction of a seatbelt
incidentally, the age excuse doesnt always work. i am 29 and the law changed in 2001. that is 6 years now. i have to admit though, the lobbyist inside me is crying out 'freedom of choice'. the driver makes the choice. if it kills him/her, so be it. we all have to go sometime. until then, leave people alone to get on with their jobs. its bad enough with new legislation without adding petty things like seatbelts into the equation
Posted by Richie (Scanny) Boyle | October 10, 2007 4:46 PM
Posted on October 10, 2007 16:46
What abject nonsense.
Mr Boyle’s assertion that this is an issue of Freedom of Choice is breathtaking both in terms of its naivety and sheer witlessness.
Volvo introduced the airbag to its heavy truck range in 1994. It didn’t do this for fun, but in order to improve the chances of a driver surviving a road accident. Should Mr Boyle find himself in a situation in which is airbag deploys, with luck, he would remain within the cab. It's quite likely, however, that he would note a certain elasticity around his neck, as there's a decent chance that it would be broken.
Whilst this would be awkward for Mr Boyle, at least the poor fools who get to clear up after a major RTA might be absolved of the task of clearing what remains of him off the road. Noting his rather tender years, perhaps he is yet to witness what happens to a body when it is expelled through a windscreen, either with a complete neck or otherwise.
No doubt in time, when he has some experience under his belt, he will – sadly – get to experience such a scene. It is not one that is easily forgotten. Choosing not to wear the seatbelt that has saved innumerable lives may be Freedom of Choice, but it does rather spoil the day of those required to clear up after such a misguided act of martyrdom.
As such, his comment above smacks either of a need to say something for the sake of saying anything, or simply just plain ignorance of the facts.
Posted by anon | October 10, 2007 7:13 PM
Posted on October 10, 2007 19:13