Humans Aren't Cargo has a new domain name.
Please click on
http://humansarentcargo.blogspot.com/
Monday, July 19, 2010
Friday, July 16, 2010
Safety first for army trucks
The following letter was published in the Straits Times forum on 16 July 2010.
Safety first for army trucks
Jul 16, 2010
I REFER to Mr Tan Lek Lek's letter ("Banning lorries for transport is wrong"; July 2).
I used to work in a transport unit in the army and there are many safety considerations when it comes to putting soldiers on the trucks and even smaller jeeps.
For instance, all trucks are fitted with seat belts and proper secured benches. They are also covered with a steel superstructure and canvas, which protect passengers against the elements and also minimise the danger of passengers tumbling out in the event that the truck tips over.
In the case of the jeeps, when there is no overhead cover, all passengers and the driver are required to wear helmets. Outside of training and regular operational purposes - for example, National Day Parade rehearsals - soldiers are usually ferried in commercial buses, while the trucks are used for transporting stores.
I think if similar measures were made in the transportation of foreign workers, there would definitely be fewer fatalities on the road.
If businesses can get a big enough van or covered truck with basic safety requirements, such as built-in seat belts and a canopy, there will be savings in the long term, given that the likelihood of employers having to pay compensation to injured workers because of traffic accidents would be sharply reduced.
Shaun Teo
Safety first for army trucks
Jul 16, 2010
I REFER to Mr Tan Lek Lek's letter ("Banning lorries for transport is wrong"; July 2).
I used to work in a transport unit in the army and there are many safety considerations when it comes to putting soldiers on the trucks and even smaller jeeps.
For instance, all trucks are fitted with seat belts and proper secured benches. They are also covered with a steel superstructure and canvas, which protect passengers against the elements and also minimise the danger of passengers tumbling out in the event that the truck tips over.
In the case of the jeeps, when there is no overhead cover, all passengers and the driver are required to wear helmets. Outside of training and regular operational purposes - for example, National Day Parade rehearsals - soldiers are usually ferried in commercial buses, while the trucks are used for transporting stores.
I think if similar measures were made in the transportation of foreign workers, there would definitely be fewer fatalities on the road.
If businesses can get a big enough van or covered truck with basic safety requirements, such as built-in seat belts and a canopy, there will be savings in the long term, given that the likelihood of employers having to pay compensation to injured workers because of traffic accidents would be sharply reduced.
Shaun Teo
Ferrying workers: Smokescreen regulations won't work
The following letter was published in the Straits Times forum on 16 July 2010.
Ferrying workers: Smokescreen regulations won't work
Jul 16, 2010
I WAS an audit director for the Transport Accidents Commission of the state of Victoria in Australia, and I have seen thousands of files on traffic and transport accidents.
When I first took up my role in Singapore two years ago, I was shocked that workers were crammed into open-top vehicles designed solely for the transport of materials.
This situation seems incongruous with Singapore's image as a safe place to work. Government plans ('Worker-transport safety rules may come sooner'; June 26) to alleviate risk will make no difference to worker death or injury in the case of a major accident.
The Government did not mention any improvement in the securing of workers in the vehicles, or in overhead roll protection.
Instead of designing smokescreen regulations, like the proposed rule to increase space per worker in the back of open-top vehicles, which has no real major impact on safety, the Government should simply make construction companies pay for foreign workers to be transported on buses.
Robert J. Cochrane
Ferrying workers: Smokescreen regulations won't work
Jul 16, 2010
I WAS an audit director for the Transport Accidents Commission of the state of Victoria in Australia, and I have seen thousands of files on traffic and transport accidents.
When I first took up my role in Singapore two years ago, I was shocked that workers were crammed into open-top vehicles designed solely for the transport of materials.
This situation seems incongruous with Singapore's image as a safe place to work. Government plans ('Worker-transport safety rules may come sooner'; June 26) to alleviate risk will make no difference to worker death or injury in the case of a major accident.
The Government did not mention any improvement in the securing of workers in the vehicles, or in overhead roll protection.
Instead of designing smokescreen regulations, like the proposed rule to increase space per worker in the back of open-top vehicles, which has no real major impact on safety, the Government should simply make construction companies pay for foreign workers to be transported on buses.
Robert J. Cochrane
Safe Transport: TWC2's view
The following statement was posted by TWC2, a local migrant worker welfare organization, on its website.
Three Chinese workers died when a lorry in which they were being carried skidded and crashed onto its side on the morning of June 22nd. Some among the 14 survivors needed hospital treatment. The lorry crashed off the Pan-Island Expressway.
TWC2 has argued strongly against transporting workers on the backs of lorries and trucks and in favour of transport in enclosed vehicles. Road safety measures are not only meant to prevent accidents, but to minimise the harm done when they do occur. If the 17 workers had been travelling in a coach or a minibus (preferably with seatbelts), would the outcome have been this serious? We think that is not likely.
In an article on 'Safety on the Roads' that was published in the September-October 2007 issue of the TWC2 members' newsletter, our position was set out clearly:
'(T)he problem is that the rules as they stand do not adequately ensure the safety of men being carried and attempts to make a flawed system work are bound to fall short of their intended goals: transporting people in the open backs of lorries and trucks, without proper seating or seat belts and exposed to the elements, is inherently a risk to their health and safety – whether they be foreign workers or National Servicemen.
The Executive Committee believes that Singapore should ban the transport of people in the back of lorries or trucks. Instead, workers should be conveyed to and from work by buses or minivans hired or bought for the purpose and equipped with safety belts. We realize that this will impose additional costs upon contractors, but consider that the toll in lost lives and injuries under existing arrangements could be significantly reduced by this means and that this consideration should come uppermost. It should be recognised that the long term savings by companies on costs caused by accidents, including those due to the death or injury of workers, will defray these expenses somewhat. It will also close an issue that has disturbed many people, particularly when an accident has occurred.
We propose that the way to proceed on this issue would be for the government, through the Land Transport Authority, to declare that this measure is to be introduced and to set a target date for full compliance with it that will give contractors adequate time to make the arrangements necessary.'
This remains TWC2's view.
Three Chinese workers died when a lorry in which they were being carried skidded and crashed onto its side on the morning of June 22nd. Some among the 14 survivors needed hospital treatment. The lorry crashed off the Pan-Island Expressway.
TWC2 has argued strongly against transporting workers on the backs of lorries and trucks and in favour of transport in enclosed vehicles. Road safety measures are not only meant to prevent accidents, but to minimise the harm done when they do occur. If the 17 workers had been travelling in a coach or a minibus (preferably with seatbelts), would the outcome have been this serious? We think that is not likely.
In an article on 'Safety on the Roads' that was published in the September-October 2007 issue of the TWC2 members' newsletter, our position was set out clearly:
'(T)he problem is that the rules as they stand do not adequately ensure the safety of men being carried and attempts to make a flawed system work are bound to fall short of their intended goals: transporting people in the open backs of lorries and trucks, without proper seating or seat belts and exposed to the elements, is inherently a risk to their health and safety – whether they be foreign workers or National Servicemen.
The Executive Committee believes that Singapore should ban the transport of people in the back of lorries or trucks. Instead, workers should be conveyed to and from work by buses or minivans hired or bought for the purpose and equipped with safety belts. We realize that this will impose additional costs upon contractors, but consider that the toll in lost lives and injuries under existing arrangements could be significantly reduced by this means and that this consideration should come uppermost. It should be recognised that the long term savings by companies on costs caused by accidents, including those due to the death or injury of workers, will defray these expenses somewhat. It will also close an issue that has disturbed many people, particularly when an accident has occurred.
We propose that the way to proceed on this issue would be for the government, through the Land Transport Authority, to declare that this measure is to be introduced and to set a target date for full compliance with it that will give contractors adequate time to make the arrangements necessary.'
This remains TWC2's view.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
No exceptions when it comes to transport safety
The following letter was published in the Straits Times on 8 July 2010.
No exceptions when it comes to transport safety
Jul 8, 2010
I REFER to Mr Tan Lek Lek's letter last Friday ("Banning lorries for transport is wrong").
Essentially, if we measure a policy only by economic impact, then it would make economic sense to use lorries for public transport as well. After all, lorries can take more passengers than school buses and taxis.
The question is why safety overrides economic impact when we are talking about transporting office workers, children, executives and factory workers - while foreign labourers are exempt.
The question of practicality is important, but what the Government can do is to look at subsidies and incentives for implementing safe transport. It is up to industries and the authorities to marshal the effort and resources to come up with a solution. If we are really that concerned with safety, it should be safety for everyone, not just those who can afford it.
Tan Chui Hua (Ms)
No exceptions when it comes to transport safety
Jul 8, 2010
I REFER to Mr Tan Lek Lek's letter last Friday ("Banning lorries for transport is wrong").
Essentially, if we measure a policy only by economic impact, then it would make economic sense to use lorries for public transport as well. After all, lorries can take more passengers than school buses and taxis.
The question is why safety overrides economic impact when we are talking about transporting office workers, children, executives and factory workers - while foreign labourers are exempt.
The question of practicality is important, but what the Government can do is to look at subsidies and incentives for implementing safe transport. It is up to industries and the authorities to marshal the effort and resources to come up with a solution. If we are really that concerned with safety, it should be safety for everyone, not just those who can afford it.
Tan Chui Hua (Ms)
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
368 lorry drivers booked
The following article was published in the Straits Times on 7 July 2010.
368 lorry drivers booked
By Maria Almenoar
Straits Times, Jul 7, 2010
Reproduced photo caption: In addition to stepped-up enforcement efforts, LTA is considering doing more to improve the safety of lorries on our roads. -- ST PHOTO: LAU FOOK KONG
A TWO-week enforcement exercise to catch errant lorries flouting safety rules involving workers netted 386 lorries, or 10 per cent of those checked.
Traffic Police also caught 122 drivers for offences such as speeding, failing to wear seat belt and failing to keep left.
The blitz was carried out jointly by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and Traffic Police (TP) at Kaki Bukit, Pioneer Road, Tuas and Woodlands.
Offences include carrying more passengers than they should, not filling up front passenger seats first and not displaying a maximum passenger capacity label among others.
The safety of workers while being ferried on lorries has been in the spotlight again recently after a spate of serious accidents last month.
Mr Tan Hiok Seng, LTA's director of Enforcement and Investigations said: 'LTA takes a serious view of those who continue to flout the rules. We have and will continue to step-up our enforcement efforts. We hope that with the cooperation and commitment of all parties, we will be able to create a safer environment for workers.'
In addition to stepped-up enforcement efforts, LTA is considering doing more to improve the safety of lorries on our roads. It is reviewing whether the remaining safety measures announced last August for implementation by September 2012, can be brought forward.
Commander Traffic Police, assistant commissioner of police Christopher Ng said: 'We would like to remind all motorists that speeding, inconsiderate and careless driving are serious offences that have the potential to cause the loss of lives.'
'Traffic Police will spare no efforts in ensuring that such driving behaviour will be kept to a minimum through continued enforcement and outreach.'
368 lorry drivers booked
By Maria Almenoar
Straits Times, Jul 7, 2010
Reproduced photo caption: In addition to stepped-up enforcement efforts, LTA is considering doing more to improve the safety of lorries on our roads. -- ST PHOTO: LAU FOOK KONGA TWO-week enforcement exercise to catch errant lorries flouting safety rules involving workers netted 386 lorries, or 10 per cent of those checked.
Traffic Police also caught 122 drivers for offences such as speeding, failing to wear seat belt and failing to keep left.
The blitz was carried out jointly by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and Traffic Police (TP) at Kaki Bukit, Pioneer Road, Tuas and Woodlands.
Offences include carrying more passengers than they should, not filling up front passenger seats first and not displaying a maximum passenger capacity label among others.
The safety of workers while being ferried on lorries has been in the spotlight again recently after a spate of serious accidents last month.
Mr Tan Hiok Seng, LTA's director of Enforcement and Investigations said: 'LTA takes a serious view of those who continue to flout the rules. We have and will continue to step-up our enforcement efforts. We hope that with the cooperation and commitment of all parties, we will be able to create a safer environment for workers.'
In addition to stepped-up enforcement efforts, LTA is considering doing more to improve the safety of lorries on our roads. It is reviewing whether the remaining safety measures announced last August for implementation by September 2012, can be brought forward.
Commander Traffic Police, assistant commissioner of police Christopher Ng said: 'We would like to remind all motorists that speeding, inconsiderate and careless driving are serious offences that have the potential to cause the loss of lives.'
'Traffic Police will spare no efforts in ensuring that such driving behaviour will be kept to a minimum through continued enforcement and outreach.'
Enforcement checks show 1 in 10 lorries flout rules
The following article was published in TODAY on 7 July 2010.
Enforcement checks show 1 in 10 lorries flout rules
by Dylan Loh
TODAY
Jul 07, 2010
Reproduced photo caption: An LTA enforcement officer issuing a summons to a lorry driver who displayed an incorrect Maximum Passenger Capacity label. KOH MUI FONG
SINGAPORE - The Land Transport Authority (LTA) and Traffic Police have stepped up enforcement checks on lorries in view of recent fatal accidents.
In all, 368 lorries were found to have flouted safety rules over a two-week period.
MediaCorp joined one such operation in the west of Singapore early yesterday morning.
In the darkness before daybreak, enforcement officers guided lorries suspected of safety violations into a heavy vehicle park along Pioneer Road at the Tuas industrial area.
Enforcement officers in white inspected the vehicles closely. A summon of fines was issued to every driver who was found flouting regulations.
One lorry had a Maximum Passenger Capacity label of 27 displayed, but after checks, it was found that only 22 people were supposed to be carried in the vehicle.
According to regulations, lorries should also fill their front cabins with passengers first, before putting people in the back.
One lorry driver was found not to have done this, and he seemed agitated when he was issued a summons, complaining in a mishmash of dialects.
He then shouted at two workers he was ferrying to sit in front. He drove off before the men were seated safely next to him and before the door was closed.
About one in 10 lorries were found to have flouted safety rules during the two-week operation.
Enforcement checks show 1 in 10 lorries flout rules
by Dylan Loh
TODAY
Jul 07, 2010
Reproduced photo caption: An LTA enforcement officer issuing a summons to a lorry driver who displayed an incorrect Maximum Passenger Capacity label. KOH MUI FONGSINGAPORE - The Land Transport Authority (LTA) and Traffic Police have stepped up enforcement checks on lorries in view of recent fatal accidents.
In all, 368 lorries were found to have flouted safety rules over a two-week period.
MediaCorp joined one such operation in the west of Singapore early yesterday morning.
In the darkness before daybreak, enforcement officers guided lorries suspected of safety violations into a heavy vehicle park along Pioneer Road at the Tuas industrial area.
Enforcement officers in white inspected the vehicles closely. A summon of fines was issued to every driver who was found flouting regulations.
One lorry had a Maximum Passenger Capacity label of 27 displayed, but after checks, it was found that only 22 people were supposed to be carried in the vehicle.
According to regulations, lorries should also fill their front cabins with passengers first, before putting people in the back.
One lorry driver was found not to have done this, and he seemed agitated when he was issued a summons, complaining in a mishmash of dialects.
He then shouted at two workers he was ferrying to sit in front. He drove off before the men were seated safely next to him and before the door was closed.
About one in 10 lorries were found to have flouted safety rules during the two-week operation.
Ferrying workers by lorry: Cost not a reason
The following letter was published in the Straits Times forum on 6 July 2010.
Ferrying workers by lorry: Cost not a reason
Jul 6, 2010
IN HIS letter last Friday ('Banning lorries for transport is wrong'), Mr Tan Lek Lek implied that foreign workers should not be treated differently from national servicemen who are transported in lorries.
He suggested that the lorries used to transport national servicemen were similar to the ones ferrying foreign workers to and from their workplaces.
This is not true.
National servicemen are transported in trucks with canopies as well as seatbelts.
Foreign workers are transported in lorries without seat belts and often without canopies too.
Despite the new policies from the Land Transport Authority, there is a lack of enforcement on the roads to deter errant drivers from using open-top trucks to ferry workers around.
Second, Mr Tan suggests that high costs will not entice companies to hire buses.
One strategy to consider is to collectively seek lower costs from bus companies.
More construction companies coming together to hire the services of bus companies gives them collective bargaining power, which could result in cheaper costs.
Third, Mr Tan assumed that bus drivers will remain idle for a long stretch until the time comes to pick up workers from work.
There is no basis for the argument as bus drivers have other people to pick up, such as students or employees working in industrial areas.
Sha Najak (Miss)
Communications Manager
Transient Workers Count Too
Ferrying workers by lorry: Cost not a reason
Jul 6, 2010
IN HIS letter last Friday ('Banning lorries for transport is wrong'), Mr Tan Lek Lek implied that foreign workers should not be treated differently from national servicemen who are transported in lorries.
He suggested that the lorries used to transport national servicemen were similar to the ones ferrying foreign workers to and from their workplaces.
This is not true.
National servicemen are transported in trucks with canopies as well as seatbelts.
Foreign workers are transported in lorries without seat belts and often without canopies too.
Despite the new policies from the Land Transport Authority, there is a lack of enforcement on the roads to deter errant drivers from using open-top trucks to ferry workers around.
Second, Mr Tan suggests that high costs will not entice companies to hire buses.
One strategy to consider is to collectively seek lower costs from bus companies.
More construction companies coming together to hire the services of bus companies gives them collective bargaining power, which could result in cheaper costs.
Third, Mr Tan assumed that bus drivers will remain idle for a long stretch until the time comes to pick up workers from work.
There is no basis for the argument as bus drivers have other people to pick up, such as students or employees working in industrial areas.
Sha Najak (Miss)
Communications Manager
Transient Workers Count Too
Friday, July 2, 2010
Introduce speed limiters for goods vehicles
The following letter was published in the Straits Times forum on 2 July 2010.
Introduce speed limiters for goods vehicles
Jul 2, 2010
I SHARE the sentiments of Mr Stewart Sanjay in his letter last Saturday ("Speeding by lorry drivers the deadliest danger").
Mr Sanjay was spot-on when he mentioned that speeding is the main cause of most accidents involving heavy vehicles. To be fair, however, only a handful of drivers are guilty of speeding.
These days, foreign nationals, mainly from China and India, are employed by companies to transport goods and passengers. These drivers lack experience in handling heavy vehicles and worse, are unfamiliar with our roads.
They speed and take evasive action by jamming on the brake suddenly, resulting in an increasing number of vehicles overturning.
Perhaps the authorities should consider making it compulsory for goods vehicles and heavy vehicles to be fitted with speed limiters. Drivers should also attend defensive driving courses before being allowed to drive heavy vehicles.
Poh Soon Leong
Introduce speed limiters for goods vehicles
Jul 2, 2010
I SHARE the sentiments of Mr Stewart Sanjay in his letter last Saturday ("Speeding by lorry drivers the deadliest danger").
Mr Sanjay was spot-on when he mentioned that speeding is the main cause of most accidents involving heavy vehicles. To be fair, however, only a handful of drivers are guilty of speeding.
These days, foreign nationals, mainly from China and India, are employed by companies to transport goods and passengers. These drivers lack experience in handling heavy vehicles and worse, are unfamiliar with our roads.
They speed and take evasive action by jamming on the brake suddenly, resulting in an increasing number of vehicles overturning.
Perhaps the authorities should consider making it compulsory for goods vehicles and heavy vehicles to be fitted with speed limiters. Drivers should also attend defensive driving courses before being allowed to drive heavy vehicles.
Poh Soon Leong
Banning lorries for transport is wrong
The following letter was published in the Straits Times forum on 2 July 2010.
Banning lorries for transport is wrong
Jul 2, 2010
THE current obsession with banning lorries from transporting workers following a recent fatal accident is unreasonable.
The issue of transporting workers in such vehicles should be considered in a balanced way, and we need to take into account the needs of all the concerned parties. For instance, if army personnel can be transported by lorries, why not workers?
Many jumped to hasty conclusions following the fatal accident on June 22, in which three foreign workers died after the lorry they were in skidded and crashed off the Pan-Island Expressway.
Many who are pressing for a ban on using such vehicles to transport workers do not understand the practicalities of operating a small business.
The immediate consequence of restricting worker transport to buses or vans for small construction and service companies is a sharp spike in costs, as these firms are forced to buy vans or small buses and hire additional drivers.
Second, the vehicle population will swell by a few thousand buses and vans.
Assuming that there is a small job that requires five or six workers with some materials to be transported, the company will have to ferry the workers by van to the site and use another lorry to transport the tools and materials.
The van and driver will remain idle for a long stretch until it is time to pick up the workers in the evening.
Are Singaporeans willing to pay for such a sharp increase in costs?
Can Singapore businesses remain competitive?
And what does it say about productivity when transport vehicles and drivers have nothing to do for such long stretches daily?
Tan Lek Lek
Banning lorries for transport is wrong
Jul 2, 2010
THE current obsession with banning lorries from transporting workers following a recent fatal accident is unreasonable.
The issue of transporting workers in such vehicles should be considered in a balanced way, and we need to take into account the needs of all the concerned parties. For instance, if army personnel can be transported by lorries, why not workers?
Many jumped to hasty conclusions following the fatal accident on June 22, in which three foreign workers died after the lorry they were in skidded and crashed off the Pan-Island Expressway.
Many who are pressing for a ban on using such vehicles to transport workers do not understand the practicalities of operating a small business.
The immediate consequence of restricting worker transport to buses or vans for small construction and service companies is a sharp spike in costs, as these firms are forced to buy vans or small buses and hire additional drivers.
Second, the vehicle population will swell by a few thousand buses and vans.
Assuming that there is a small job that requires five or six workers with some materials to be transported, the company will have to ferry the workers by van to the site and use another lorry to transport the tools and materials.
The van and driver will remain idle for a long stretch until it is time to pick up the workers in the evening.
Are Singaporeans willing to pay for such a sharp increase in costs?
Can Singapore businesses remain competitive?
And what does it say about productivity when transport vehicles and drivers have nothing to do for such long stretches daily?
Tan Lek Lek
Worker safety a top priority
This letter was published in The New Paper on 1 July 2010.
Worker safety a top priority
From reader Arthur Lim
The New Paper, 1 July 2010
I refer to the recent lorry accidents involving foreign workers.
Singapore prides herself on being No.1 in so many areas. Yet we allow human beings to be transported on the back of lorries.
Madam Halimah Yacob, the chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Manpower, has stated that ideally, these workers should be ferried by buses.
Even if that rule is not enforced, perhaps the Land Transport Authority and the Ministry of Manpower should explain why employers have been given such a long time to use lorries that comply with the new regulations.
Does it take three years to modify the existing lorries to meet these safety requirements?
Yes, this will add to costs for the employers, but they should factor that in when they submit tenders for projects.
They should not put in a low bid then cut corners, compromising the safety of workers.
A developed country like Singapore should ensure the safety of workers and reduce the risks they face.
Not only should the rules be laid down, they should be strictly enforced too.
Employers who breach the rules should not only be fined, but made to pay compensation to the workers or their families too in the event of a mishap or a tragedy.
Worker safety a top priority
From reader Arthur Lim
The New Paper, 1 July 2010
I refer to the recent lorry accidents involving foreign workers.
Singapore prides herself on being No.1 in so many areas. Yet we allow human beings to be transported on the back of lorries.
Madam Halimah Yacob, the chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Manpower, has stated that ideally, these workers should be ferried by buses.
Even if that rule is not enforced, perhaps the Land Transport Authority and the Ministry of Manpower should explain why employers have been given such a long time to use lorries that comply with the new regulations.
Does it take three years to modify the existing lorries to meet these safety requirements?
Yes, this will add to costs for the employers, but they should factor that in when they submit tenders for projects.
They should not put in a low bid then cut corners, compromising the safety of workers.
A developed country like Singapore should ensure the safety of workers and reduce the risks they face.
Not only should the rules be laid down, they should be strictly enforced too.
Employers who breach the rules should not only be fined, but made to pay compensation to the workers or their families too in the event of a mishap or a tragedy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)