Employers are putting their employees and their company reputation at risk by not providing eyecare for employees who drive, according to research revealed by Specsavers Corporate Eyecare.
The figures show that less than a third of employers (28%) have an eyecare policy for any of their drivers and just 16% have an eyecare policy for all drivers. The figures also show that less than half of employers are confident that employees can see adequately to drive.
The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 makes it clear that employers have a responsibility for their drivers. The act requires employers to: ‘take appropriate steps to ensure the health and safety of their employees and others who may be affected by their activities when at work. This includes the time when they are driving or riding at work, whether this is in a company or hired vehicle, or in the employee’s own vehicle.’ [1]
Jim Lythgow, director of strategic alliances at Specsavers Corporate Eyecare, said: ‘It is alarming that employers who are confident of their employees’ eyesight are in the minority. While many may wrongly assume that it is the individual’s responsibility alone to ensure their eyesight is adequate for driving, the HSE makes it quite clear that driving safety becomes a joint responsibility when driving for work purposes. With eye tests being so easily available and cost-effective, we would urge all employers to implement an eyecare policy for all drivers.
Jim Lythgow continued: ‘Aside from the emotional cost of any collision, an accident is likely to be expensive for a business, in terms of uninsured losses such as sick pay, temporary cover, legal expenses, lost time, increased premiums, etc. When also considering the risk to the business’s reputation of not having ensured the employee had adequate eyesight, to apply a blanket eyecare policy seems like the obvious thing to do.’
Figures from the Department for Transport show the level of risk for at-work drivers: at least one third (31%) of fatal collisions and a quarter (26%) of serious injury collisions in Britain involve someone driving for work.[2] Road safety charity, Brake, points out, however, that this is likely to be a substantial underestimation as journey purpose is not always recorded and, unlike other work-related incidents, deaths and injuries caused while driving for work are not reported to the HSE.
For more information about driving for work, the risks, responsibilities and eyecare solutions, and to download a free Driving Eyesight Toolkit for employers, please visit: www.specsavers.co.uk/corporate/drivers
References:
[1] http://www.hse.gov.uk/roadsafety/employers.htm
[2] Reported Road Casualties Great Britain 2012, Department for Transport, 2014
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Have Specsavers forgotten that when a driver first applies for their driving license then they also have to sign a declaration that they will maintain their eyesight to the required level? I can’t help but think that whilst this is an informative article it is also part scare tactics .
The following are from the gov.uk website on driving eyesight rules.
At the start of your practical driving test you have to correctly read a number plate on a parked vehicle.
If you can’t, you’ll fail your driving test and the test won’t continue. DVLA will be told and your licence will be revoked.
You must wear glasses or contact lenses every time you drive if you need them to meet the ‘standards of vision for driving’.
You must be able to read (with glasses or contact lenses, if necessary) a car number plate made after 1 September 2001 from 20 metres.
I am getting more and more frustrated with employees thinking that their employer is the only one responsible for their safety and that they have no part to play.
I wear glasses , I also drive. It is MY responsibility to ensure that my eyesight meets the legal limit whenever I get behind the wheel of a car, van or on a motorbike .
Friday rant over !
Of course the above is “advertorial” nevertheless, as occupational health, in an attempt to reduce, so called, red-tape, is increasingly dependent on the WHO Better Workplace “nudge campaign” resulting in a range of legislation ending up on the back burner.
For example, the new, in 2012, EU “MSD Directive” addressing the long standing and unmitigated issues (HSE Better Screen RR561 2007) surrounding DSE user operators suffering from CVS (Computer Vision Syndrome) or Screen Fatigue directly linked to WULD’s & MSD’s, over time, let alone on-going 20% reduction in performance and productivity that one would have thought business would be keen to resolve in order to recover the 30 lost days productivity regardless, of occupation health issues of their human resources..
No doubt, the majority of employers and insurers will continue just working on the ethos that when a claim is made they will automatically be able to rebuff any claim with a simple “contributory negligence” defense in order to minimise the damages or compensation – haha and stuff the employees cavalier attitude, ignorance and/or denial that they are doing anything wrong until reality happens to them………
“The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 makes it clear that employers have a responsibility for their drivers”
Misquoted. The Act says nothing about drivers.
There follows a quote from guidance on the HSE website about driving, (as per the reference link) and HSE’s interpretation of the application of HASAWA. I have no argument with that, but it is not a quote from the Act.
“the HSE makes it quite clear that driving safety becomes a joint responsibility when driving for work purposes”.
Not really. It is not quite clear – as it is actually not quite clear! It will depend, and the courts will interpret. This does NOT mean that eyesight standards (which are clearly a driver responsibility in driver legislation / Highway Code) become shared. Maybe, but probably not. We have yet to see any court case where this has been the case.
Also “duty of care” is a civil concept, and different to legal duties as per HASAWA, which does not mention the term.
Appalling piece of advertising promotion as if it were fact.