|
TYPE OF INCIDENT: Head on Collision
BUSINESS UNIT: Global Lubricants Supply Chain India
LOCATION OF INCIDENT: Allahabad
By pass (about 40 Kms) - 450 Kms from Kolkata
DATE OF INCIDENT:
21st May, 2010
Incident time-
13.00 hours
BRIEF ACCOUNT OF INCIDENT:
A contractor truck (Non Dedicated - under influence) carrying
finished goods from our Regional Warehouse at Kolkata to our Kanpur
warehouse met with an incident near Allahabad.
The driver side of the contractor truck
collided with oncoming truck.
Driver Assistant is safe while the
contractor driver fractured his right foot. The driver is still in hospital at
the time of this report thus classified as cat 3 DAFWC (severity level F).
The front cabin of the contractor truck
was damaged. The contract vehicle had to be towed away from the incident spot.
No damage to the material or no spill
reported. The material was transhipped to an other truck and reached the
destination.
Oncoming truck driver had fled from the
scene.
.
Driver:
Driver Name- Rajesh Prasad Yadav` (Module -3 trained drivers (29/03/2010))
Age- 32 years. Driver has been operating since August
2009.
From the records, it was observed that
this driver has been frequent traveller on this route and have demonstrated adequate
safe driving behaviour in his earlier trips. Driver has done at least 18 trips
since its inception and completely in line with safe behavioural practices on
14 trips. The other 4 trips where few instances of deceleration were observed.
The driver was engaged through training consultant on the same.
Driver had reached our depot on 18th
of May, 2010 Night.
19th may – left from our
Regional Distribution Centre (Kolkata) around 18.33 hrs, travelled 116 Kms and
stopped around 21.24 hrs.
Resumed Journey on 20th May at
6.10 AM- travelled around 400 KMS in10 hours 30 minutes
Resumed journey on 21st may at
6.23 AM, travelled around192 kms in 4 hours 20 minutes before the incident had
taken place.
Driver had multiple fractures on his right
leg and under medical treatment till this report been furnished. He is still in
the state of recovery and could not recall the incident.
Key facts
National Highway no 2 was concrete and
well laid out two way dual lane with proper shoulders and dividers.
However for some repair work, one side of
the dual lane (which was the lane suppose to have been taken by our contractor
vehicle) was closed for the last two months. Hence all the vehicles that are
travelling to Kanpur
had to use the opposite lane (hence it is temporarily single lane dual carriage
with no dividers).
The road has been blocked at least 3 kms
ahead and has a traffic density of 40-50 vehicles per minute around incident
time. Most of the vehicles are Heavy Vehicles and Light vehicles and with an
average speed of trucks about 60KMS per /hr, while car are at 100 kms/hr and
two wheelers are around 80 kms/per hr.. The road for the oncoming vehicle has a
natural curve (toward left) about 300 metres from the incident spot.
Just about the curve on left for the
oncoming vehicle has a dhaba( Highway Restaurants) where few heavy vehicles
were always parked blocking the way of moving vehicles, which normally let the
vehicles to move toward the centre or on the second lane ( which is currently
meant for the vehicle of opposite direction)
Width of operational lane is 30 feet (98.4
metres). The width of the contractor truck is 8.25 feet (27.06 metres), while oncoming
third party vehicle is 7.4 feet (24.27 metres).
About 2.5 feet each have been earmarked (with proper lines) for two
wheelers movement on either side.
The incident occurred at least two metres
within the lane of our contractor vehicle, while the collided oncoming vehicle
was very much into the side of the contractor vehicle. The oncoming vehicle was
a speed of 55 – 60 kms as per witness. No brake marks were observed at the
incident spot.
The oncoming vehicle while overtaking
another truck came on the lane of contractor truck and collided head on,
Post the incident the driver of the
vehicle went into the tea shop near by and subsequently fled off. Third party vehicle had also to be towed from
the incident spot. However since it is a local vehicle could get moved from the
spot immediately.
As per the information of tea shop owner
(witness), the driver of the oncoming vehicle was inebriated condition.
The same has been conveyed in the local
report with the police.
The oncoming vehicle was for local
commutation between Government Food corporation centre and its retails outlets.
Post the incident, when the injured driver
was taken for medical support, documents, cash, GPS which were kept on the
vehicle was stolen. Hence last minute date could not be captured to corroborate
the incident. The speed captured around
the time of incident was 55 kms per hour
WHAT
WENT WELL
¨
Seat Belts were worn by the driver & his
assistant
¨
Steel cabin of the truck ( protected the driver)
¨
Transport contractor ‘s active participation in
providing assistance and collating the details
WHAT
WENT WRONG (CRITICAL FACTORS):
CF1 – contractor vehicle travelling closer to the middle
lane of the road.
CF2- oncoming vehicle getting into the lane of
contractor vehicle.
SUMMARY
OF IMMEDIATE CAUSES:
|
CLC
Ref No.
|
Description
|
Comment
|
|
2.5
|
Improper placement of equipment
|
Both contractor driver and third party
driver had positioned their vehicle in potentially hazardous positions.
|
|
2.6
|
Operation of vehicle at improper speed
|
Both the vehicles were at an
inappropriate speed to avert or mitigate the risk
|
SUMMARY
OF IMMEDIATE CAUSES:
System Causes (Organisational
factors that allowed the immediate cause to exist)
|
CLC
Ref No.
|
Description
|
Comment
|
|
14.2
|
Practice of skill not effective
|
Although the contractor driver is
well trained at the time of incident, he did not choose an appropriate course
of action. ( appropriate side of the
road)
|
|
11.7
|
Incorrect judgement
|
The contractor driver did not
perceive the risk and perhaps not taken any effort to mitigate the risks.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment