Transporting workers on trucks and lorries has huge hidden costs which can be avoided
Straits Times, Christopher Tan
SINGAPORE - It used to be quite acceptable to travel on the back of flatbed trucks and lorries.
As recently as 30 years or so ago, it was common to see families travelling al fresco this way - even all dressed up during festive periods such as Chinese New Year and Hari Raya. If the weather was fine, it was even fun.
I myself have travelled this way occasionally - more regularly when I was a casual labourer at a landscaping company just before national service.
But times have changed. As society matures, safety standards improve and sometimes because our tolerance for accidents decreases.
For instance, it used to be perfectly kosher for drivers not to be belted up. Or for children not to be in child seats.
But in 2002, the Traffic Police made it compulsory for all car occupants to be belted up. There are also laws against drink driving and using a mobile device while driving.
As for travelling on the back of trucks, that was banned in 1987 - unless those being ferried are employed by the vehicle owner or hirer. Or the person being ferried is sick or injured.
The conditional ruling is seen as a business-friendly move, so that companies can acquire or rent just one vehicle to ferry both workers and work equipment.
After a spate of serious accidents which resulted in injuries and fatalities - that sparked public outcry - the Land Transport Authority (LTA) introduced new guidelines in 2003 to limit the number of workers a vehicle could carry.
First, all workers must be seated, and there was a mathematical formula to determine how many workers could get on board the flatbed of a truck or lorry. It was based on the total unoccupied deck area divided by 0.372 sq m allocated per seated passenger.
The maximum passenger capacity should not include the area occupied by any permanent fixtures on the cargo deck, such as cranes and toolboxes. For instance, a truck with a secured toolbox may measure 3.1 m by 1.6 m. That gives it an area of close to 5 sq m.
If the area occupied by the toolbox is just over a square metre, the maximum passenger capacity will be 5-1/0.372. That would work out to 10.8 persons, which will then have to be rounded down to the nearest whole number (10).
Yet, accidents involving workers on the back of trucks continued to happen, with many flung about in the vehicle or onto the road in collisions. In 2005, two workers died and 66 were injured in such accidents. In 2006, 81 were injured, of whom five died. In 2007, 184 were hurt, while two others died. In 2008, the casualty figure soared to 210.
Following more public outcry, the Singapore Contractors Association completed a study on safer ways to transport workers in 2008.
Meanwhile, the accidents continued. In 2009, one worker died and 77 were hurt in accidents involving lorries or pick-ups. That year, a work group formed by the LTA and Manpower Ministry came up with tighter rules on the transportation of workers on trucks and lorries.
But it was only in 2011 that these fresh regulations kicked in. These included doubling the area allotted to each passenger; open-deck vehicles ferrying people needing to have higher side railings and a canopy; and workers being seated no higher than 1.1m from the deck floor.
Several MPs have spoken up about this issue over the years, including President Halimah Yacob when she was a labour MP. She asked why such vehicles should be allowed to ferry workers, when they are actually goods vehicles.
There was no satisfactory answer. Meanwhile, the accidents have continued, with two having taken place last month within four days of each other. One resulted in 10 people injured, and the other with 15 hurt and two dead.
Clearly, transporting workers on the back of trucks and lorries is not safe. First, these vehicles are designed to carry goods, not people, as Madam Halimah pointed out.
Second, most are not driven by vocational drivers. In fact, many are driven by foreign workers themselves, who may not be used to the road culture here.
Third, these vehicles are mostly light commercial vehicles that often collide with vehicles of similar or higher weights. Thus, unsecured occupants are more likely to be flung about. For the same reason, only small buses here are required to have seat belts.
If the intent of trucking workers around is to stave off higher business cost, it is a weak one. Accidents impose a huge economic cost - in the form of lost man-hours of those directly involved, and in the form of congestion and delays to traffic in affected roads that incur more lost man-hours to those caught in the jam. Towing costs, police investigations and repairs to damaged infrastructure add up too.
Add healthcare costs for the injured and insurance payouts for deaths to this, and the sum can be substantial.
There is another cost - reputational. As a country eager to shine on the global stage, Singapore has tried to follow best international practices. How will it look to the world if our Formula One night race was preceded by a convoy of foreign workers on the back of trucks instead of the usual parade of Singapore Airlines stewardesses in classic cars?
Are there viable ways to transport workers? Most certainly. One would be to bus them around.
With tourism at a standstill, there is no shortage of buses around. High-tech bus scheduling, such as the one offered by home-grown on-demand mobility provider Swat, will allow firms to share bus service costs.
Swat has offered cost-effective shuttles for several companies sited in far-flung corners of Singapore. If such services can be offered for plant workers, why not for construction workers?
This way, companies can make do with smaller vehicles or smaller fleets to carry equipment that they now ferry along with workers. And this will result in cost savings.
Another way is to provide workers with ez-link cards so that they can travel on public transport. If hygiene is a concern, this could be for journeys at the start of the day, when the workers are not sweaty or covered in worksite grime. The return trip could be on dedicated shuttles. As public transport is subsidised, having half the trips made on public buses and trains will also be relatively inexpensive.
Yet another way is to have worksite dorms. Most construction projects have relatively long gestation periods, so having onsite dorms would save on commuting, saving both time and money.
There are numerous modular buildings which can be assembled, dismantled and reused. Many site offices are of this type - complete with electricity, running water and sewage facilities. Likewise, we can employ these for onsite dorms.
Any one of these alternatives would be better than transporting workers like cattle - an unsightly, unfair, unsafe and unacceptable practice in modern-day Singapore.
Great article thanks for the information
ReplyDeletelavishtransport provides open deck, over dimensional and logistic transportation service all over canada if for looking for professional transportation company then we are the right choice for you.