60 Minutes producer's blog: Trucking Hell!

Print

Wed, 26 May 2010 7:30p.m.

This image comes from a truck fitted with cameras that start recording any time a truck has to swerve or brake suddenly

This image comes from a truck fitted with cameras that start recording any time a truck has to swerve or brake suddenly

By Eugene Bingham, 60 Minutes producer

That vulnerable feeling car drivers get in the shadow of a monster truck won’t have been helped by our 60 Minutes story, Braking Point. Sorry about that.

It told the story of a 2007 crash in which Waikanae mother Laurel FitzGeorge was killed when a 44-tonne truck rolled coming down the Rimutaka Hill road towards Masterton.

It turned out the truck and trailers had serious brake problems which meant it should not have been on the road.

Following the accident, the NZ Transport Agency investigated the company, Tyson Holdings, owned by Wayne Weber, of Palmerston North.

The investigation found that the company did not have a proper maintenance programme, and that all of the nine vehicles they inspected had multiple faults. Six had brake faults.

Alarming stuff for a fleet that was driving up and down the North Island.

Laurel FitzGeorge was the unlucky person who paid the price.

The faults, the lack of a maintenance programme, and a variety of other problems led the Transport Agency to revoke Tyson Holdings’ operator licence.

If you saw the story, you’ll know that Weber is adamant that his trucks were safe and that the agency was “nit-picking”.

It turns out the agency had been in touch with his company in September 2006 when it became concerned about the high failure rate at first inspection for Certificate of Fitness checks. More than 80% of the time its trucks turned up for COF, they failed first time around.

The agency believed that this was evidence the company was using a COF check to identify faults – when you consider that the trucks were sometimes driving thousands of kilometres a week, you’d have thought there would be some sort of checks done more than once every six months.

But despite the approach from the agency – a “we’re here to help” letter – the company did not respond.

“We wrote a letter, we rang [the owner] up and we spoke to the office manager…and we said, ‘Look, we want to work with you on this. There are some issues that need to be addressed’,” John Doesburg, the agency’s commercial road manager told 60 Minutes. “[The owner] didn’t respond to that at all.”

And when there was no reply? Well, nothing more happened before Laurel FitzGeorge died. Shouldn’t the agency have followed up? Reporter Amanda Millar asked Doesburg what responsibility the agency felt.

“We would have to accept some responsibility… but I want to put that in context,” said Doesburg.

“The staff that were involved worked with other operators at that time that had similar profiles and wanted to work with us and have reduced their non-compliance.

“We were going to work at some stage with Mr Weber and Tyson Holdings. There was no doubt about that, timeframe unknown, and unfortunately we’ve now had a crash that has resulted in a death. Yes, we have to look at our processes.”

So the agency was too busy dealing with other truck firms with problems. Yikes.

Doesburg couldn’t tell us how many had problems as serious as Tysons, though he did say the agency had revoked other operators’ licences.

He believes a new Operator Rating System which tracks the safety of commercial vehicles will help improve the agency’s ability to get onto problems swiftly.

If you ask truckies, they put problems on our roads down to shocking driving by other motorists. And the facts show that truck drivers are only responsible for about a third of the fatal accidents they’re involved in.

Transport giant Mainfreight was at pains to point out to us that drivers have to put up with a lot on the road, and they even gave us some footage to illustrate their point.

The images come from truck cabs fitted with cameras that start recording any time a truck has to swerve or brake suddenly. We used some of the clips in the story, but we’ve included some more here for you to look at.

They’re pretty frightening viewing and certainly remind you that it’s not an easy job behind the wheel of a big rig.

Just remember that the next time a 44-tonne monster looms into view.

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

21 Jan 2011 01:29a.m.

Brodie FitzGeorge wrote:

JIMIMA, being the 4 year anniversary of my Mums death today and reflecting on your comments, I would very much like to know where you think the company was in the right. Even a face to face meeting would be suitable as I would like to be able to put a face to these somewhat bizarre comments. Like I have said, it seems you are somehow involved in this case a little deeper than a member of the public seeing this on TV and commenting and I would like to know more about your views on this topic. I would imagine that this post will go unread but thought it may be worth a try anyway.

Brodie FitzGeorge

01 Aug 2010 09:51p.m.

Brodie FitzGeorge wrote:

RE Jimima, the fact that you you say your thoughts are with my Mother (Laurel FitzGeorge), the driver of the truck and the owner of the company as if they are all victims is rather offending to say the least. Both the driver and the owner could have done a lot of things to avoid this accident yet my Mother had no chance. It sounds like you may have ties to the company in some way so I can understand your defensiveness but please do not make out like the company owner, the driver of the truck and my Mother are in the same boat. At least life goes on for more of them. Even though it may not be the same life, but neither is mine.

01 Aug 2010 09:38p.m.

Brodie FitzGeorge wrote:

RE wsmees: I am sure if faced with a similar situation, you too would be looking for someone to blame. Im sure no one sets out to have or to be involved in a fatal accident but when it happens and there are so many things done poorly, you dont have to look far to find who or what is to blame. I personaly would not have felt any better had the drivers charges stuck but the fact that no one is acountable for this tradgity is what is the most upsetting other than the actual fact of losing my Mother.
When the truck was in very poor condition and it is written in law that "a heavy vehicle must be up to COF standard at all times" so the age of the COF is not an argument. There are planty more things that I could go on about ie the driver not being able to produce a log book, but I will leave it at that. Thank you for your comments.

27 Jul 2010 01:40p.m.

Warwick wrote:

Jimima, I think it is you who are being a bit selective with your facts. Whilst the truck had a COF issued not long before the accident, the trailer units which were the main cause of the brake failures had not been serviced or COF inspected for many months. During that time they had travelled many tens of thousands of kilometres. The trailer units would have failed their COF inspection miserably. In fact up to 2007, 83% of Mr Weber's fleet failed on first presentation for their COF's which is a good indication of inadequate maintenance. Judging by the depositions and the service history invoices that were tabled at the Coroner's Inquiry, Mr Weber's approach to maintenance was simply restricted to doing whatever was indentified in the six-monthly COF inspections in order to get a COF or to simply fix problems as they arose. In other words, based on the evidence provided for the B-train that killed Mrs Fitzgeorge, he had no scheduled roadworthiness inspection and maintenance programme for his fleet of truck and trailer units. Mr weber simply let his fleet operate until a mechanical problem arose or someone else identified a problem. With that attitude it is no wonder he went out of business and no wonder a serious accident eventually happened.

23 Jun 2010 09:16p.m.

Garth Elder wrote:

its tragic to hear of such accidents as a kiwi driving trucks in nsw I i feel the truck driver gets a raw deal where crashes are concerned i'm still trying to come to terms with what happened to me on friday a car following me obviously thought "its a truck" it must be moving slow passed me with an impressive show of speed--then reallised the truck was slowing for traffic lights that reaalisation made he decided he'd planned to turn right as i was planning also so darted into the same lane as me and hit his brakes hard same option as i was given at that moment--all was fine till i looked in my rear view mirror reallising the huge trailer in the left lane was me--i'm still amazed i didnt destroy an innocent driver that day in the left lane please make sure its safe to overtake the big vehicle may be travelling slow for a reaso--and it certainly doesnt stop or corner as well as a car

11 Jun 2010 09:43a.m.

Andrew wrote:

HIM HERE, Your letter is interesting. As a garage owner and wof inspector ive seen many such faults in vechicles over the years with recent COFs.once was a bus had 1 day old cof apearantly the brakes were draging acording to VTNZ,unpon road side inspection with the 30 od passangers watching it was a colapsed wheel bearing.Problem is LTNZ and VTNZ share the same bed most of the time.My self am in all types of trouble over a minor chassis crack ina vechicle i issued with a wof 3 months previous that VTNZ found recently.

09 Jun 2010 09:15p.m.

Him Here wrote:

COF's cannot be relied on. In the past I have purchased 2 Trucks with new COF's as part of the sale agreement. 1st truck had NO HEADLIGHTS working (NO HEADLIGHT RELAY AT ALL) when my driver went to pick it up 4hrs after the Truck Dealer had it done(COF) as well as leaking brakes, no speedo,cab suspension broken. 2nd Truck had mass rust around the windscreen of which you could put half you hand through, again cab suspension broken, leaking brakes, no working warning device on brake air tank, brake shoes needed replaying.
In the First case I won againest the Dealer to repair all but still lost income.
Have to remember the most testing stations do Not test drive the vehicle for problems which is where I think it fails. As for the 2nd vehicle the fight was too much to try and win thus I gave up and closed my business due to income loss by not having a safe usable truck even if it had a NEW COF.(I had both vehicles retested as soon as we got them).

28 May 2010 09:52p.m.

Jimima wrote:

Karen, your comments are totally uncalled for! This truck had a current COF which was issued by the LTSA only 2 weeks prior to the accident. How much more do you expect the owner to pay, he paid for half the funeral, Lost all his trucks, his income and is bankrupt. I think your ignorance to how the media like to play out things was quite obvious. Amanda Millar neglected to state the facts that were given to her, because had she stated these facts she would not have had much of a story to tell. Our thoughts are with the family of the victim, the driver and the owner, as this was a tragic accident and nothing more.

28 May 2010 08:51a.m.

Karen Climo wrote:

I watched this item and was horrified that the owner of the truck was not held accountable for this preventable accident. I cannot understand why he was not investigated by the Department of Labour for his obligations under the Health & Safety Act?

It is his responsbility as an employer to take all practicable steps to ensure that his employees are safe, in this instance he was made aware by NZTA that his trucks were not up to safety standards and he chose to ignore this.

My sympathies are with the family of the lady who was killed.

27 May 2010 12:20p.m.

Hey Jude wrote:

I found this story unbalanced. What has the owners failure rate of COF's have to do with this accident. A failure for COF could be as minor as a blown number plate light. Unless failure for COF's is consistently for the same major problem (which we have not been told), you cannot crusify the poor owner. Did the "experienced" driver report a fault with the truck or trailers? As in a WOF for the everyday persons car, if a fault is found it is then repaired before a COF is issued & I understand the truck had a recent COF. Again this was left out of the story! This vehicle was the owners pride & joy, the flagship vehicle for his company. As such he would have had no intention of allowing his truck to go out beliveing that it may be destroyed, & no one in the industry is out there to harm or kill people or damage their own or other peoples property. It is devestating for the whole trucking fraternity when a tragedy like this accident happens, & hopefully the industry can learn from this, but destroying the owner, helps no one.