News:

Welcome to V.L.H

Main Menu
Welcome to verylittlehelps. Please login or sign up.

29-03-24, 11:47AM

Login with username, password and session length
Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 38,129
  • Total Topics: 630
  • Online today: 471
  • Online ever: 1,436
  • (24-01-24, 01:01AM)
Users Online
Users: 6
Guests: 438
Total: 444

Dot Com Accidents

Started by I.AM_a driver, 22-12-06, 07:49PM

Previous topic - Next topic

bellyfull

Thanks for the reply JCZY...On your 6 V the dozen assumption. I don't make the laws but do abide by them.

Fact, any vehicle to the rear will be the guilty party in the eyes of the law as they are "supposed" to keep a safe braking distant from the vehicle in front and as the Highway Code clearly states for this type of scenario...

In all cases watch out for and give plenty of room to... HC 187 from gov...

•long vehicles (including those towing trailers). These might have to take a different course or straddle lanes either approaching or on the roundabout because of their length. Watch out for their signals...This appears to be lost on you but you appear not to be alone..

Yes the rest is nonsense and worthy of the prevaricate & squirm comment given by Nomad in an earlier post..

Thanks for being gracious in accepting my apology.

JCZY

And still you do not reply to Nomads FIRST scenario!


Quote from: bellyfull on 18-03-11, 11:04AM

In all cases watch out for and give plenty of room to... HC 187 from gov...

•long vehicles (including those towing trailers). These might have to take a different course or straddle lanes either approaching or on the roundabout because of their length. Watch out for their signals...This appears to be lost on you but you appear not to be alone..


If in scenario 1, should the dotcom driver stop on the middle of a roundabout and give way to the lorry, despite it being his right of way, and the fact that itwould be dangerous to others behind him?

Your ignorance Bellyfull beggers belief.  Your opinion is the only opinion that counts.

Your opinion is that the dotcom driver is guilty.  End of discussion  Despite the lack of infomation given, and despite that scenario 1 is a viable scenario!!!

bellyfull

 JCZY...go back and read the posts from Fox. He/she has given enough information to allow a valid supposition. They however choose to term this as  "Articulated lorry got his van on a roundabout" which is opinionated. I replied as I recognised this all too familiar event and which I witness on a weekly basis...I even explained it was my experience or if you don't understand that word then Experience as a general concept comprises knowledge of or skill in or observation of some thing or some event gained through involvement in or exposure to that thing. 

There is no rational reason why you should introduce fake scenarios as we have facts in this case. This does however show that you can't argue the facts thus far presented.

All other situations given here are the lorry drivers fault simply because you wish them to be and have not fact based situations...unless you include the alien one that is......

Understand, we were discussing the "fact based storey" of Fox not the wild, stupid non-factual scenarios as given here. Facts as given by Fox are... collision on a roundabout, one vehicle damaged to its front means they couldn't evade the collision which in law makes them wrong in both anticipation and safe distance...

JCZY you are now caught up in the emotion "Your opinion is that the dotcom driver is guilty.  End of discussion"  Despite the lack of infomation given, and despite that scenario 1 is a viable scenario!!!"

As my opinion on the facts as given by Fox have been dismissed by you, why have the viable scenario (Fiction) given by Nomad is more important to you? Mmm strange!

gomezz

Quote from: bellyfull on 18-03-11, 09:24AMSupposition...something that it is suggested might be true, or that is accepted as true on the basis of some evidence but without proof
Yep.  That is exactly the right word in this case.

QuoteOn the evidence given you have blamed the lorry driver despite knowing the contact was to his rear.
Au contraire.  I have blamed nobody.  I have gone out of me way to avoid blaming anyone as, like you, I do not know the full facts.  I must have missed the bit about contact being to the rear of the lorry.  Care to point that out to me?
"The progress of the kart is more important than its direction"

The Mrs

[admin]Three days of posts on a subject that no-one actually has the facts of.

Posts are now becoming personal and attacking in nature.

It appears the facts will not be forthcoming, therefore please stop going round in circles and call this discussion to a halt.

If you choose to continue your posts will be deleted.

Thank you, now move on.[/admin]

JCZY

Bellyfull, I must apologise for my outburst earlier, I had a very bad day, which is no excuse.

wheelspin

Do any of you guys use those cctv cams to record the drive?

  I wonder if they would be just a pain in the arse to use, or worth it with regards to proving liability in a crash.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/VEHICLE-DASHBOARD-DVR-CCTV-/251233409732?pt=UK_In_Car_Technology&hash=item3a7ead9ac4

the-vortex

I know my boss has talked about using them, with full knowledge of the driver concerned, when said driver has had a sequence of 'incidents' as part of the ongoing assessment.

If it helps sort out such issues then good idea.  However, as most van driving incidents that I'm aware of concern the sides and rear of the vehicle they would have limited benefit just looking forward.
Loyalty is a one-way street!

wheelspin

I got a question.   I was given an impossible route and simply could not get the last 2 orders done before my rostered hours. 

I brought them back and with no one to do them on night shift. The customer will not get their shopping .

What would Tesco's stance be if I worked on passed my hours to keep the customer happy, but had a crash? 

Would they nail us saying we should not have been in the van at the time or would they get behind the driver 100%.   

I came back with orders and feel a little upset over it.   

just curious

#184
If you were really lucky you might get a values award and a pat on the back plus any extra time worked paid back as lieu time , if your really unlucky and have an accident they will not want to know you and just label you as being at fault - because you should not have been in that place at that time . The buck will always be passed and liability's not accepted by the mighty company .  :-X :-X .

You can bet your bottom dollar they would not treat it like a moments matter thing or the customer comes first , or giving it 100 per cent in your job role only to be told at your review your not a team player . >:( >:( .

the-vortex

Deliver the customer's shopping while driving safely and sensibly (I mean don't rush around like a blue a**** fly) and if you get back late take your time and make sure you get all the overtime you are due.  If you are involved in an accident you will be insured and protected because the company sent you to do that job at that time in that van for which you are authorised.

If getting back late compromises the evening driver's timing, so be it!  If you bring shopping back that you haven't delivered then this also compromises the evening drivers and the driver who could take it out may already have left. 

I hate myself for saying this but - Every Little Helps.

It all comes down to customer focus and working as One Team .
Loyalty is a one-way street!

wheelspin

#186
Vortex I would tend to agree with you.  But say you broke your legs and needed to claim after you drove the van into a ditch.   

From what I remember from my bronze.   Even issue of not  snake loading properly could be held against you in an accident .   

In future if I am running late,  and decided to work on, it would have to be a management decision .   

I would call the duty manager and make sure I got the nod from them before going the extra mile (excuse the pun).
The same goes for clocking out early from lunch.

  That way we are not liable.     

After some thought I have come to the conclusion that everything we do out there must follow company procedure to the letter .  To protect ourselfs as drivers .    If there are issues  such as routing and times between customer, they have to be addressed.
By  bringing baskets back we should ensure that these issues will be addressed.
Its all about the customer which is 100% true and I am very happy to say it.  I get on great with my regulars, and their complaints about the system are taken seriously .




the-vortex

Oh I completely agree.  The company will try everything that they can to avoid exposure if they can (I have personal experience of this within the past year!)

I also take your point about not delivering if your route can not be completed to force the system to self correct.  From my experience of calling in to Duty Mgrs it will take as long for you to make the deliveries as it would for them to make a decision (and I will promise that the decision will always be to make the deliveries).

You get back late and the evening driver has to go out late.

Incidentally, do you (or any other drivers out there) complete the End of Trip Driver's Debrief form (available from the Reach program)?  This includes a small space where you can make comments about your route as well as showing you are back late and/or you have not made all of your deliveries?  It ought to be completed by discussion with your TL or Mgr when you get back and offers a chance to give feedback on a regular basis when the facts are fresh in your mind.
Loyalty is a one-way street!

gomezz

What TL or mgr?  They have always finished by the time you get back except maybe at lunchtime.
"The progress of the kart is more important than its direction"

the-vortex

Yup!  That's why I said - ought!  At our place we complete this form ourselves so there is a record for mgr to read next day (assumuing that it's filled in properly!)
Loyalty is a one-way street!

Barbfan26

#190
Hi hope i've not missed an answer in previous posts, But as a driver what is Tesco Policy on CDA accidents, I lost my footing on some steps leading from customers door and fell injurying myself, ( after two visits to the GP and a visit to A&E I find i have cracked ribs) the delivery was down a dark lane with no lighting. At the time i phoned duty to ask to be relieved this being 19.05pm as i knew i couldnt carry on, i waited nearly an hour without reply so phoned duty again but was told they were still trying to get hold of our TL who had taken a van out himself and advised to call customer services to get them to notify my customers of a delay, I was approx 20 miles away from the store, I felt obliged to try and carry on in a great deal of pain as sitting waiting for a decision could have taken who knows how long. Perhaps in hindsight I should of just gone back to the store. The accident was reported to the accident helpline on my return to store. So if someone can clarify the policy it may help other drivers in the future. by the way i'm now off sick which will lead to an ARI.
Thanks

hesketh

It is appalling, but not surprising, that you were treated so poorly at the time of the accident. You should have been more forceful when you first phoned the duty, if you are injured then you are not asking to be relieved you are telling them. If the T/L has taken out a van themself then they are no longer in a viable supervisory position and someone should be covering that role. It also should not then fall to you to make further phone calls, surely the duty should do that for you. I would like to think that Tesco will show it's gratitude for you completing your round by paying you whilst you are off but don't hold your breath on that. 8-)

Tesco's insurers will expect you to defend your decision to make the delivery in the prevailing condition, which shouldn't be hard, but ultimately your claim for damages would be against the property owner if the steps were unsafe. I would expect that Tesco would pursue the matter on your behalf but don't hold your breath on that one either 8-)
Don't take life too seriously, no one has ever gotten out alive!

Duracell

#192
So given Barbfan26's observation that the path and delivery area was in an unlit area..what grounds would there have been to refuse delivery?, at the very least would it be reasonable for this accident to have any bearing on deliveries in the future that present concern?

I don't particularly mean issuing dot.com drivers with head torches either, although they may prove useful.
My Opinion is exactly that, Mine.  Based on my view of what I know , see and what I would do.
"Being a rep doesn't make a person right anymore than not being a rep makes a person wrong " 

Duracell.

the-vortex

Easy to be wise after the event but one should only make a delivery if it is safe to do so.

If you can't get to the delivery point then contact the customer, explain your reason and arrange a compromise where the shopping can be handed over.  I have made deliveries in car parks or at road junctions because I did not believe that the delivery could be made safely (usually snowy conditions).  Most reasonable customers will understand.  If the customer refuses to come to you then phone your store (DC or Duty manager) and explain reasons for not completing delivery.  It is important to get your retaliation in first in this case.

If the delivery is unsafe because of inadequate lighting (as in your case) then the shopping should be rescheduled to be delivered in daylight.
Loyalty is a one-way street!

Barbfan26

 Thanks for the comments but I must point out I have delivered to this customer before with no problem, I think I must have just misjudged the one step upto the front door, I had taken one tray to the door, rang the bell and on turning round to go back for another tray I fell, the customer opened the door to find me picking myself up very shaken, she called her husband to help but I didn't make a fuss and it was only when I got back in the van I realised how much pain I was in and couldn't carry on. I had six drops still to do, phoned a colleague who took one off me and struggled to do four more drove back to store where my TL who was now back took the last delivery as it was local and also 20 odd trays up a steep ramp which just could not do. I then went to find the duty manager to report my accident . Since then I have had no contact from anybody, it hurts to think I put the company first and then nobody seems bothered that I got hurt.

the-vortex

Presumably you are off on a 'fit note' so there is/has been some kind of contact.

If you had an accident and want to make a claim speak to the union and put in a claim.  And don't repeat your comment about misjudging the step because that may be used to reduce or avoid your claim. ;)
Loyalty is a one-way street!

Nomad

http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/tesco-customer-details-left-lying-in-the-road-in-northampton-1-6062347

QuoteWarehouse worker Tara Badger and her fiance, Karl Taylor, were driving home from a meal at 8pm last Tuesday, when they spotted a green box by the A45 roundabout in Crow Lane. It was a container holding a bundle of shopping and a hand-held terminal belonging to Tesco.

Nomad ( Forum Admin )
It's better to be up in arms than down on your knees.

happyreturns

If the unsecured van was the fault of the driver, he/she  should not still be working at Tesco, because if that is the case its not a commany fault its a driver error which is, if you ask me, a summary dismissal offence.

Nomad

So if it was driver negligence you believe (s)he should be dismissed, fair enough your entitled to your opinion.

However if it was a faulty lock/catch and MM knew about it but driver was not aware for what ever reason, strange van etc, should MM suffer summary dismissal ?
Nomad ( Forum Admin )
It's better to be up in arms than down on your knees.

happyreturns

If it was found out that it was a faulty lock and that it was someone's job to check that lock and either failed to spot it or did not bother then whoever that was should be dismissed, the reason being it could haver caused a serious accident,it has put Tesco customers info at risk and bought the company name into disrepute.

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk