Transport for London’s role in DVS compliance is under scrutiny, amidst operator confusion.
- Tony O’Malley, of Rendrive Haulage, faced issues with DVS compliance despite substantial investment.
- Operators are unsure about the exact responsibilities for compliance under TfL’s Progressive Safe System.
- TfL maintains that product suppliers and operators share compliance responsibilities, complicating adherence.
- Inconsistencies in TfL’s permit application process are causing further complications for some operators.
Transport for London (TfL) is facing criticism from operators over its role in ensuring compliance with the Direct Vision Standard (DVS), specifically concerning the Progressive Safe System (PSS). Tony O’Malley, Managing Director of Rendrive Haulage, expressed dissatisfaction after one of his vehicles was flagged as non-compliant during a roadside inspection despite significant investment in compliant technology. O’Malley believes that TfL inspectors lack the expertise to accurately assess PSS equipment on-site.
The impending second phase of DVS, set to launch in October with a grace period, is causing significant confusion. Transport operators are uncertain about who holds ultimate responsibility for ensuring vehicles meet compliance standards. While TfL insists that it falls to suppliers to declare product compliance, it also states that operators are responsible for the overall system’s compliance. This dual responsibility has left operators in a difficult position.
A document by Steve Summerskill from Loughborough University suggests that operators test their DVS-compliant systems under various scenarios to validate performance. However, TfL argues that operators should rely on the system specifications and established guidelines, rather than conducting tests. This approach mirrors the one adopted during the first phase of the DVS and HGV Safety Permit Scheme.
Despite assurances from TfL about the training of its officers in monitoring PSS equipment, O’Malley remains sceptical. He points out operational issues, such as inspectors being unable to verify proximity alerts visible only within the vehicle cab, and the limitations of certain PSS systems when the handbrake is engaged. O’Malley suggests that a TfL ‘kitemark’ for compliant equipment could alleviate some confusion by clearly indicating which products meet the necessary standards.
TfL defends its decision not to provide accreditation, arguing it would exceed its regulatory scope and potentially increase complexity and costs. Nevertheless, operators like O’Malley, whose compliance status affects their FORS accreditation and related contracts, are caught in a challenging situation. The FORS 7.0 standard, referencing international safety regulations, does not align perfectly with regional criteria, further complicating compliance efforts.
Day Aggregates, another operator, criticises TfL for procedural inconsistencies during permit processing. Despite receiving assurances that their applications were initially rejected in error, issues persist, with certain vehicle brands being treated differently despite meeting the same technical requirements. The resulting frustration is palpable, with suggestions that recent staffing changes at TfL may be contributing to the administrative challenges.
There are additional concerns about the market for DVS-compliant products. Misleading compliance claims, technical limitations such as inadequate camera coverage, and potential legal conflicts regarding equipment installation are creating obstacles. Operators are navigating a challenging landscape where alignment between DVS PSS and international safety standards is imperfect, and consequently, TfL’s stance only recognises factory-fitted systems as compliant.
TfL must clarify its compliance standards to ensure operators can meet DVS requirements effectively.
