Characteristics of the grey fleet in British Columbia
Gregory s. Anderson and Ron Bowles

1

Abstract
Background: Data from around the world would suggest that attention to safety during work-related driving should be a
priority as traffic accidents are the leading cause of work-related injury, death and absence from work in many countries.
Purpose: This study examines the characteristics of the grey fleet (those who drive personal vehicles for the purposes of
work), and the road safety programs that are presently in place in British Columbia.
Method: A ‘Grey Fleet Employer Survey’ was distributed via email to a random sample of 15% of all employers in British
Columbia Of 5023 emails delivered successfully 531 respondents were captured in the data (10.6% response), of which 104
declined participation leaving 427 who completed surveys (8.4% response rate).
Results: Of those companies responding 64.4% of them reported having a grey fleet with 36.6% of employees from small
companies (4-19 employees), 21.0% of the employees from medium (20-99 employees) and 12.2% of employees from large
(100+ employees) companies driving personal vehicles for work-related purposes. Of those employers reporting a grey
fleet 75.2% checked to make sure employees who drove had a valid drivers’ licence, typically at the time of hire (70.5), with
39% checking on an annual basis. Few companies (17.8%) required employees to inspect their own vehicles before starting
each trip. The majority of employers (74.6%) believed it was the employee’s responsibility to inspect their own private
vehicles, and this was true across small (73.6%), medium (73.6%) and large (77.8%) employers.
Conclusion: Employers who use grey fleets are not certain of their legal requirements under Worker’s Compensation Act
(duty of care), and education and training is required concerning the employer and employee responsibilities concerning
driving safety.

Introduction
Data from around the world would suggest that attention to safety during driving for work-related purposes should be a
priority as traffic accidents are the leading cause of work-related injury, death and absence from work in many countries
(Newman & Watson 2011a). The World Health Organisation (2008) estimates that work-related road crashes account for
1.3 million deaths annually, with an expectation that by 2030 they will become the third leading cause of burden of
disease. In Australia, work-related traffic accidents are the leading cause of occupational fatalities (Haworth 2002) and
occupational injury (Driscoll et al. 2001) accounting for nearly 25% of all occupational fatalities each year (Harrison,
Mandryk & Frommer 1993). In the United States 7 out of 10 fatally injured workers were killed in traffic accidents,
accounting for the highest number of fatal work-related injuries (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2004).
Several authors suggest that work-related drivers have above-average crash frequencies (Lynn & Lockwood 1998).
Haworth, Tingvall & Kowadlo (2000) estimated drivers of company vehicles experienced an increase in crashes of
approximately 50% over private vehicle drivers. It was estimated that 20-30% of all fleet vehicles are involved in a crash
each year, and beyond the burden of fatalities, there is a significant cost associated with serious and prolonged injury
and/or vehicle damage (Blincoe et al. 2002). Even less is known of the impact of less severe crashes that do not result in
hospitalisation.
In British Columbia, Canada, (population 4.4 million) motor vehicle incidents (MVI) are also the leading cause of traumatic
workplace fatalities, accounting for 35% of all work-related traumatic fatalities. On average each year,22 workers are fatally
injured and another 1260 are seriously injured and require time away from work for recovery. In 2012, the average cost
and days lost per MVI claim were Cdn$42 000 and 91 days respectively, significantly higher than the provincial average of
Cdn$19 500 and 48 days (Road Safety at Work 2012).
In 2012 Ipsos reported 24% of drivers in British Columbia (or 642 000 drivers) reported driving for work purposes outside of
commuting to and from work (70% driving personal vehicles). Men (31%) were more likely to drive for work purposes than
women (17%). It is estimated that as many as 33% of the drivers in the US and 50% of the drivers in the UK drive for workrelated purposes (Stucky, LaMontagne & Sim 2007). Yet, while work-related driving has been recognised as a major
occupational health and safety concern in recent years, outside of data from traditional company owned fleet vehicles little
is known about those who use their personal vehicles for work-related purposes – or the so-called ‘grey fleet’. It is
speculated that the size of the grey fleet may be several times that of traditional fleets. Despite this, little is known about
the size of the grey fleet, the primary purposes for travel, the average distances driven, nor management strategies for the
grey fleet. It is the purpose of this project to examine the characteristics of the grey fleet, and the road safety programs
that are presently in place in British Columbia.

2

Materials and Methods
A ‘Grey Fleet Employer Survey’ was developed to collect descriptive data and distributed to a representative random
sample consisting of 15% of all employers who were registered with WorkSafeBC as of January 1st, 2014, and had 4 or
more employees. In 2012 there were 206 505 employers registered in British Columbia with 2 092 544 full time employees
(estimates of person year quantities are based on gross payrolls submitted by employers and on matching wage- rate
data). However, the majority were small companies with less than four full time employees, with approximately 53 650
employers with 4 or more full time employees. The 15% random sample drawn comprised of 8045 employers, stratified
across small (4–19 employees), medium (20–99 employees), and large (100 or more employees) employers. All contact
with the employers and call for participation was delivered through email. Those wishing to participate were directed to a
link to an online survey consisting of 17 branched, multi- segment questions comprising a combination of closed and open
ended questions. Questions asked for specific information concerning the company including number of employees,
number driving personal vehicles for work-related purposes, etc., questions with drop-down menu choices, and open
ended questions asking for additional comments. The questionnaire was open for a two week period during which time
two reminders were sent.
This study was approved through the institution’s Research Ethics Board. Online consent was obtained from all participants
prior to their completion of the survey that was administered through Key Survey with responses housed on one of the
institution’s secure servers. Data were extracted from Key Survey in the form of summary reports, while raw data were
exported to Excel for further analysis.

Results
Of the 8045 email addresses supplied for contact, 2953 were undeliverable, and 69 had automated responses (e.g. change
of address, no longer employees) leaving a potential sample of 5023 potential responses. Of those delivered without
issues, 531 respondents were captured in the data (10.6 % response rate), of which 104 declined participation leaving a
total of 427 completed surveys, or a completion rate of 8.4% (see Table 1). The representativeness of the sample is
demonstrated in Table 2.
Results indicate that only 838 of the delivered emails were opened, and once corrected for the emails removed to account
for those not employed or changes of address, there was a potential population of 792 participants who viewed the
request for participation. Participation of those who viewed the request to participate was equal to 53.9% (427 of 792).

Employer Profile
The distribution of these respondents were across the industry sectors: primary resources (8.0%), manufacturing (6.1%),
construction (10.6%), transportation and warehousing (2.6%), trade (10.5%), service (45.2%) and other (16.9%). Of these
respondents 64.6% reported having employees drive their personal vehicles for work purposes – having a so called grey
fleet. Using the adjusted Wahl method, at the 95% confidence interval the margin of error in this sample is estimated to be
±4.52% (although the margin of error would be larger for sub-sample groups).
Of those reporting having a grey fleet, 36.6% of employees from small employers, and 21.0% and 12.2% of employees from
medium and large companies respectively were estimated to drive their personal vehicles for work purposes (see Table 3).
More traditional fleets using company
Table 1
Sample sizes and response rates in each category of company size
Email
addresses

Corrected for
non-delivery

Consents
provided

Response
rate

Large (100+)

325

206

26

12.6%

Medium (20–99)

1657

1048

166

15.8%

Small (4–19)

6063

3838

235

6.1%

Total

8045

5092

427

8.4%

3

Table 2
British Columbia Employer Profile
Number of
employers

Proportion of
total employers

Number of
employees

Proportion of
total employees

Current study
proportions

Primary
resources

9 734

4.7%

66 561

3.3%

8.0%

Manufacturing

11 059

5.4%

196 692

9.7%

6.1%

Construction

39 205

19.0%

160 400

7.9%

10.6%

Transportation
& Warehousing

18 767

9.0%

90 758

4.5%

2.6%

Trade

19 174

9.3%

298 637

14.7%

10.5%

Service

107 785

52.2%

1 225 818

60.5%

45.2%

Other

781

0.4%

53 678

2.6%

16.9%

Note:
Number of employees – The estimated number of persons working all year on either a part‐time or full‐time basis. Estimates of person year
quantities are based on gross payrolls submitted by employers and on matching wage‐rate data.

owned or leased vehicles were reported by 48.0% of the respondents, more prevalent in medium (63.5%) than small
(40.2%) or large (48.3%) employers.
Employees from smaller employers were more likely to use their vehicles daily (27.8%) as compared to employees from
medium (17.1%) and large (4.1%) employers. In all cases (except for ‘other’) the employees were more than twice as likely
to be traveling within a city or town for under 25 kilometres. Of those that drive their private vehicle for work, the typical
purposes for travel differ amongst small and medium (deliver and/or pick up goods) and large (meetings) employers.

Personal Vehicle Use (Grey Fleet)
Of those employers reporting a grey fleet (n=276), 75.2% checked to make sure their employees who drove had a valid
driver’s licences. The typical time for licence checks was at the time of hire (70.5%), while 39.0% reported checking for valid
driver’s licences annually (see Table 4).Of those who did not perform checks for valid driver’s licences, 27.9% stated it was
part of the job description and 26.5% did not think it was important.
When asked if their company checked to make sure the personal vehicles of employees who drive for the purpose of work
were in good working order
31.5% said they did, while it was more prevalent in small employers (35.5%) and less prevalent in large employers (23.1%)
(see Table 5). The majority of employers (66.0%) not checking personal vehicles for proper maintenance and driving order
state that it is the employee’s responsibility.
Few companies (17.8%) required employees to inspect their own vehicles before starting each trip. The majority of
companies (74.6%) believed it was the employee’s responsibility to inspect their own private vehicles, and this was true
across small (73.6%) medium (73.6%) and large (77.8%) employers.
Larger employers were four times more likely (19.2%) to offer any form of driver training than the medium (4.6%) or small
(5.3%) employers. Of those off driver training, 73.7% offered general defensive driver training, while 36.8% offered winter
driving training. The primary reason for not offering driver training was that the employers did not feel it was important
(47.9%) and less likely due to cost (10.7%) or time requirements (9.1%).

Company Vehicle Use
Of those employers reporting a traditional fleet, 90.7% checked to make sure their employees who drove had a valid
driver’s licence (Table 6). The

4

Large (100+)
Medium (20–99)
Small (4–19)
Overall

Table 3
Grey Fleet Size by Stratified Employer Size
Employees reported
Number who participate in
grey fleet
13 078
1 597
2 503
525
1 371
501
16 952
2 623

Large (100+)
Medium (20–99)
Small (4–19)
Overall

Table 4
Checking for Valid Driver’s Licence for Those Driving Private Vehicles
Time of licence check
Check valid driver’s
licence
At hire
Annually
61.5%
87.5%
50.0%
72.3%
87.9%
25.5%
75.1%
64.6%
42.5%
72.5%
70.5%
39.0%

Proportion who participate
in grey fleet
12.2%
21.0%
36.6%
15.5%

Other
6.2%
17.0%
16.5%
15.5%

typical time for licence checks was at the time of hire (68.4%), while 53.8% reported checking for valid driver’s licences
annually. Of those who did not perform checks for valid driver’s licences, 45.5% stated it was part of the job description
and 27.3% did not think it was important.
When asked if their company checked to make sure the company vehicles were in good working order 95.3% said they did,
while it was more prevalent in small employers (100.0%) and less prevalent in large employers (92.3%) (Table 7). The
majority of employers (66.7%) not checking company vehicles for proper maintenance and driving order state that it is the
employee’s responsibility.
Companies with company owned or leased vehicles were more likely (58.9%) to require employees to inspect the vehicle
before starting each trip (Small = 58.0%; Medium = 56.1 %; Large = 69.2%).
Larger employers were two and a half times more likely (53.8%) to offer any form of driver training than the medium
(14.6%) or small (18.8%) employers. Of those offering driver training, 67.9% offered general defensive driving training,
while 35.7% offered winter driving training. The primary reason for not offering driver training was that the employers did
not feel it was important (45.5%) and less likely due to cost (14.1%) or time requirements (8.1%).

Large (100+)
Medium (20–99)
Small (4–19)
Overall

Table 5
Vehicle Inspections of Private Vehicles for Safe Driving Condition
Time of vehicle inspection
Perform a check
At hire
Monthly
23.1%
16.7%
16.7%
24.6%
25.0%
25.0%
35.5%
26.7%
21.7%
31.5%
25.3%
21.8%

Large (100+)
Medium (20–99)
Small (4–19)
Overall

Table 6
Checking for Valid Driver’s Licence for Those Driving Company Vehicles
Time of licence check
Check valid
driver’s licence
At hire
Annually
76.9%
70.0%
80.0%
87.8%
72.2%
41.7%
95.7%
68.2%
56.1%
90.7%
68.4%
53.8%

Annually
16.7%
0.0%
13.3%
10.3%

Other
10.0%
13.9%
16.7%
14.5%

5

Large (100+)
Medium (20–99)
Small (4–19)
Overall

Table 7
Vehicle Inspections of Company Vehicles for Safe Driving Condition
Time of vehicle inspection
Perform a check
Daily
Monthly
Annually
62.3%
50.0%
33.3%
16.7%
92.7%
39.5%
21.1%
2.6%
100.0%
42.6%
23.5%
4.4%
95.3%
41.8%
23.0%
4.9%

Traditional and Grey Fleet Comparison
Driver’s Licence: Those employers with owned and/or leased vehicles were more apt to check if the drivers had a valid
driver’s licence as compared to those with grey fleets However, those using grey fleets were more likely to check for a valid
driver’s licence at time of hire - a practice most often associated with hiring criteria.
Vehicle Inspections: Those employers with owned and/or leased vehicles were 3 times more likely to inspect the vehicles
for appropriate driving condition as compared to those with grey fleets across all sizes of employers. There are no set
regulations around pre-trip safety inspections of vehicles used for personal use, although there are strict inspections
regulations for commercial vehicles and personal vehicles imported into the country. Those inspections include looking at
vehicle documentation, driver controls, body integrity, undercarriage, brakes, engine compartment and lighting and
electrical.

Discussion
Present statistics from countries around the world would suggest that efforts to enhance driver safety and reduce MVIs
ought to be a central goal embedded within the health and safety structures of organisations (Wills, Watson & Briggs 2009;
World Health Organisation 2008), yet typical fleet management has focused on asset management rather than health and
safety (Haworth et al. 2000). In most westernised countries, employers have a legal responsibility to ensure safe work
systems are in place to protect the health and safety of their employees. Likewise, employees are required to take
responsibility for ‘reasonable care’ of their personal health and safety and cooperate with their employer to make sure
they comply with health and safety regulations (Griffith 2008). There is a shared responsibility between employers and
employees to meet the legislated requirements for health and safety embedded in law. Newman, Griffin and Mason (2008)
demonstrated how integrated the shared responsibilities are and how they interact, finding that drivers who perceived
their supervisor and fleet manager to value safety were more motivated to exhibit safe driving behaviours. Likewise, Wills
et al. (2009) found that the safety climate (organisational commitment with strong management support) within an
organisation was the strongest predictor of driving behaviour and efforts towards facilitating a culture of safety is
important.
The present research was undertaken to examine the number of employers who require employees to drive for work
purposes, whether a private or company vehicle is used for work-related travel, and how employers managed these fleets
and executed their duty of care.

Driving for Work-Related Purposes
In the present study 64.6% of all surveyed employers reported having employees drive their personal vehicles for work
purposes, with employees of smaller employers being twice as likely to be required to drive their personal vehicles as
compared to employees of large employers. More traditional fleets were reported by 47.8% of the employers, with
employees using company owned or leased vehicles, and were most prevalent in medium and large sized companies. This
data suggests there is a large group of individuals who drive for work purposes in British Columbia with the grey fleet in
companies with 4 or more employees (24% of the total employers in BC) being estimated to be 288 275 people (sum of
percentage of employees driving personal vehicles for work related purposes multiplied by total employee numbers in
each employer size category). Assuming 65% of the companies which have 4 or less employees had a grey fleet and two
employees, and 34.6% of them were required to drive their personal vehicle for the purpose of work, a conservative
estimate of the grey fleet remaining would be 75 000 for a total grey fleet size of 363 275 drivers, or 14% of those with B.C.
drivers licences between the ages of 16 and 65 years of age. The Ipsos (2012) report would suggest that the Grey Fleet is
approximately 449 400 strong in British Columbia, or 17% of the B.C. licensed drivers between the ages of 16 and 65 years
of age (ICBC 2013). Their estimate of 17% of all drivers driving their personal vehicles for work- related purposes is close to
that found in the present study (15.5% of employees in companies with 4 or more employees).
Work-related crashes were more likely to occur in urban areas (Mitchell, Bambach & Friswell 2014), and less likely on
highways (Stuckey et al. 2007). Those with increased driving volumes are less likely to be in an accident than those driving
less time and distance as they are most frequently driving on divided highways with no intersections and pedestrians

6

(Stuckey et al. 2007). In the present study 33.6% of the employees in companies reporting a grey fleet were required to
drive, 21.8% of whom are reported to drive daily. Of those driving for work-related purposes the driving occurred primarily
in urban environments (84%), on a highway (64%) and under 25 kilometres (81%). There was little difference across small,
medium and large companies. The population described in the present results would suggest that the shorter distances in
urban areas would place these drivers at higher risk of a MVI as they would be driving in more congested areas (Stuckey et
al. 2007). ICBC (2013) supports this position as 71% of all crashes and 70% of all injuries occurred in the lower mainland in
an urban setting.

Duty of Care
As part of a company’s duty of care they should ask basic questions of those driving for work-related purposes: do they
have a valid driver’s licence, is their vehicle insured for work-related driving, and are the vehicles being driven in a good
state of repair? Interestingly, in the present study the duty of care differed between grey fleet and traditional fleet
management, although the duty of care requirements by law are the same for each group. This difference was most
pronounced in vehicle safety inspection and less of a difference in checking for a valid driver’s licence. At the time of hire
71% of employers check for a valid driver’s licence, similar to the findings of Avral Fleet Protection of 66% in the UK (Griffith
2008). However, employers are far less likely to check for valid driver’s licences after hire, with only 39% performing annual
checks. This is quite different from traditional fleet management practices where 91% of employers checked for a valid
driver’s licence upon hire, and 54% checked annually.
Vehicle inspections are part of normal fleet management practice, with 95% of those employers reporting required
vehicle inspections of fleet vehicles. Inspection of commercial fleet vehicles fall under provincial legislation. Commercial
vehicle inspections in traditional company owned fleet vehicles are to include inspection of vehicle documentation, driver
controls, body integrity, undercarriage, brakes, engine compartment and lighting and electrical. Companies with traditional
fleet were more likely (58.9%) to require employees to inspect the vehicle before starting each trip. On the contrary, only
32% of employers using a grey fleet require vehicle inspection at any time, and these range significantly from at the time of
hire to 2-3 times per year. Only 18% of those with a grey fleet expected employees to inspect their vehicles before each
trip. There are no regulations concerning pre-trip inspections, with policies and practice dictated by each individual
company. However, it is evident that normal fleet practices are not extended to privately owned vehicles used for work
purposes, and that employers see this as the employee’s responsibility. Keall and Newstead (2013) suggest that annual
vehicle roadworthiness inspections may increase crash savings by 4% with inspections of vehicles over the age of five years
while inspecting vehicles on a six month cycle would cost more than the cost benefit.
Newman and Watson (2011b) concluded that organisations need to do more to formalise the roles and responsibilities of
those who drive for work- related purposes, and better integrate driver safety into the health and safety practices. While
employers operating light vehicle fleets have a legal duty of care to provide safe and healthy workplaces, the enforcement
of such duty is often lacking (Murray et al. 2003). Further, few employers have policies and procedures in place that
address driver safety and/or driver behaviour that would formalise safe driving as a priority occupational health and safety
concern (Newman & Watson 2011b).
Driver training broadly defined (although normally being in the form of defensive or winter driving) was offered by 6.9% of
the employers using a grey fleet, and nearly four times more likely in larger companies than small. Employers with
traditional fleets were more likely to off driver training (21.7%). Regardless of the type of fleet, general or defensive driver
training was the most frequent form of training. Identification of at–risk drivers (e.g. those with multiple speeding
infractions or who use hand held mobile devices) and driver training are important aspects of a robust driver safety
program.

Thematic Analysis of Comments
A number of themes involving employers’ duty to care emerged from the participants’ subjective comments. Many
employers felt that they did not have a responsibility to check employees’ licences and vehicles – that, in fact, this was the
employees’ responsibility. A second theme involved employers’ not knowing, or even considering that they might have a
duty to check. Others cited a minimal requirement for on-the-job driving as rationale for not participating in safety and
vehicle checks. Other employers noted that they trusted their employees and assumed that they would know if there were
any problems. Finally, a number of participants noted that their participation in the survey had already had an impact by
raising awareness of driver safety issues and employers’ responsibilities in this area.
Employees’ responsibility: Several participants noted that they did not realise that they had a duty to check on employee’s
driver’s licence status and the conditions of their vehicles. One participant said that ‘It is the responsibility of the employee.
They have a car with insurance so they must have a driver’s licence.’ Several commented that they made the assumptions
that if the employee had a car, then they would have a valid driver’s licence and insurance, and be checking the vehicles.
The concept that safety, licensure, and maintenance were the employees’ responsibility and not the employers’ was
evident in comments from several questions in the survey: ‘It is explained to them at hire; it is their responsibility to

7

maintain vehicles.’ Others went further, stating that ‘they [employees] are already licensed by government’ and
‘responsibility…should [not] fall under WCB.’ Another claimed that the responsibility to ensure licensing requirements was
with ICBC (Insurance Council of British Columbia).
Never occurred to us: A number of participant comments included variations on the idea that employers were not aware of
the need to check for licences and vehicle condition, nor to provide safety and driver training. The idea ‘never even crossed
our minds,’ said one participant, while another commented that ‘the topic was never suggested or discussed’ with
employees.
Minimal driving requirements: Employers often cited minimal driving requirements as rationale for not engaging in vehicle
safety checks. One participant noted that job-related driving was ‘very minimal driving for work and only management
staff,’ while another explained that ‘only [a] small % of employees drive, very short distances, and quite infrequently.’
Unaware of any problems: Several participants cited their existing safety record and the lack of accidents as rationale for
not providing safety programs or driver training. ‘Our team is already safe and have had no accidents.’ An interesting series
of responses from small businesses were related to the assumption that problems with driving records or vehicle safety
would be known by employers as employees were family members or that the staff were well known to each other. ‘She’s
my daughter. We know she has a driver’s licence.’ Another noted that ‘we don’t have an issue, we are very familiar with
them and their driving habits,’ while another claimed ‘we would not send anyone out if we felt it unsafe.’
Impact of the survey: As noted above, several participants had not considered their role or responsibilities in ensuring
employee and vehicle safety. A number of participants stated that participation in the survey had already changed their
approach. ‘[I] appreciate being asked to participate in this survey because I think these things are important! and now at
my organisation, [we] will look at procedures and policies to address (these issues)’. Others also expressed both interest
and appreciation for raising awareness on the topic. ‘It was a good reminder to me, to make sure employees are doing
their vehicle checks on their own vehicles.’ ‘I have to say that just by taking this survey I realise that we need to do a better
job in this area.’ ‘Although this is a research project, it has opened our eyes to considered things that weren’t thought
about before. It posed questions to us that we had not posed to ourselves and so this was a good learning experience for
us’.

Potential Grey Fleet Impact
Despite the lack of attention to work-related driving, Mitchell et al. (2014) found higher motivation to conform to safe
driving behaviours in those driving for work-related purposes (with less alcohol, speed and fatigue involved in work-related
crashes). Yet there are mixed views on severity of injury in crashes as Charbotel et al. (2001) found work-related MVIs
resulted in less severe injuries, while Mitchell et al (2014) found work and non-work-related crashes resulted in similar
injuries.
It is estimated that 20-30% of fleet vehicles are involved in a MVI each year that required a hospital visit (Haworth et al.
2000), while in addition to these serious or prolonged injuries, there are many more that are under-reported causing minor
injury and/or vehicle damage (Blincoe et al. 2002). In British Columbia, ICBC (2013) data suggests that casualties occur in
19.6% of all reported incidents (identified when a payment is made for injury or fatality) while WorkSafeBC reports 53% of
all claims to be for health costs only and 47% to include wage loss claims. If this was also true of the grey fleet one could
project the total costs associated with grey fleet drivers in the absence of definitive data from one source. Movement to a
National Injury Insurance Scheme in Australia should provide much better data describing the injuries and supports
received by individuals injured at work, while being able to identify those who were driving for work- related purposes as a
unique sub-set of individual claims.

Conclusion
Multiple data sets and surveys would suggest that the size of the grey fleet in British Columbia is substantial, and that many
incidents are not- reported or not claimed as work-related. Further, employers who use grey fleet are not certain of their
legal requirements under Worker’s Compensation Act (duty of care), and education and training is required concerning the
employer and employee responsibilities concerning driving safety. There may well be lessons to be learned from this data
within the Australian and New Zealand contexts.

8

References
Blincoe, L, Seay, A, Zaloshnja, E, Miller, T, Romano, E, Luchter, S, & Spicer, R 2002, The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle
Crashes, 2000, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington DC, viewed December 2014 at:
<http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/ Communication%20&%20Consumer%20Information/
Articles/Associated%20Files/EconomicImpact2000.pdf>.
Bureau of Labor Statistics 2004, Census of fatal occupational injuries, Bureauof Labor Statistics, WashingtonDC,viewed at:
http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0003.pdf.
Charbotel, B, Chiron, M, Martin, JF & Bergeret, A 2001, ‘Work-related road accidents in France’, European Journal of
Epidemiology, vol. 17, pp. 773-778.
Driscoll, T, Mitchell, R, Mandryk, J, Healey, S, Hendrie, A
& Hull, B 2001, ‘Work-related fatalities in Australia, 1989 to 1992: an overview’, Journal of Occupational Health and
Safety – Australia and New Zealand, vol. 17, pp. 45-66.
Griffith, R 2008, ‘Ensuring work-related road safety’, British Journal of Healthcare Management. vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 236-239.
Harrison, JE, Mandryk, JA, & Frommer, MS 1993, ‘Work- related road fatalities in Australia, 1982–1984’, Accident Analysis
& Prevention, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 443-451.
Haworth, N 2002, ‘Fleet Safety – Lessons from around the world’, in: Symposium on Work-Related Road Trauma and Fleet Risk
Management in Australia, 2001, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Haworth, N, Tingvall, C & Kowadlo, N 2000, Review of best practice road safety initiatives in the corporate and/or business
environment, Report No. 166, Monash University Accident Research Centre, Melbourne.
ICBC 2013, Quick Statistics: September 2013, Insurance Council of British Columbia, Vancouver, viewed May 2014
at <http://www.icbc.com/about-icbc/newsroom/ Documents/quick-statistics.pdf>.
Ipsos 2012, Employer Occupational Road Safety Survey, Ipsos Reid, Vancouver BC.
Keall, MD & Newstead, S 2013, ‘An evaluation of costs and benefits of a vehicle periodic inspection scheme with sixmonthly inspections compared to annual inspections’, Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol. 58 pp. 81– 87.
Lynn, P & Lockwood, C 1998, The Accident Liability of Company Car Drivers, Transport Research Laboratory,
Berkshire.
Mitchell, RJ Bambach, MR & Friswell, M 2014, ‘Work and non-work-related vehicle crashes: The contribution of risky driving
practices’, Safety Science vol. 68 pp. 65–72.
Murray, W, Newman, S, Watson, BC, Davey, JD & Schonfeld, CC 2003, Evaluating and Improving Fleet Safety in Australia,
Australian Transport Safety Bureau.
Newman S, Griffin, MA & Mason C 2008, ‘Safety in work vehicles: a multilevel study linking safety values and individual
predictors to work-related driving crashes’, J Applied Psychology vol. 93, no. 3, pp. 632-44.
Newman, S & Watson, B 2011a, ‘A comparison of the driving behavior between remunerated and volunteer
drivers’, Safety Science, vol. 49, 3 pp. 339–344.
Newman, S & Watson B 2011b, ‘Work-related driving safety in light vehicle fleets: A review of past research and the
development of an intervention framework’, Safety Science, vol. 49, 3 pp. 369–381.
Road Safety at Work 2012, Grey fleet Research Project Literature Review, WorkSafeBC.
Stuckey R, LaMontagne, AD & Sim M 2007, ‘Working in light vehicles—A review and conceptual model for
occupational health and safety, Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol. 39 pp. 1006–1014.
Wills, A Watson, B & Biggs, H 2009, ‘An exploratory investigation into safety climate and work-related driving’, Work,
vol. 32, pp. 81–94
World Health Organisation 2008, ‘The Global Burden of Disease 2004 Update’ World Health Organisation, Geneva.

9

Gregory S Anderson
Dr. Greg Anderson is the Dean, Office of Applied Research & Graduate Studies at the Justice Institute of
British Columbia. Greg has been working in the post-secondary environment since 1986. He has a
breadth of experience in research in health and public safety, curriculum design, project management
and university governance.

Ron Bowles
Dr. Ron Bowles is Associate Dean of the Centre for Applied Research at the Justice Institute of British
Columbia. Ron has worked, taught, developed curriculum and conducted research in paramedicine and
public safety in Canada and Asia. He is active in national research and profession-building initiatives for
paramedics in Canada. In addition, he has participated in applied research projects in road safety,
emergency management, and mass gathering medicine.

Contact
Dr Greg Anderson
Justice Institute of British Columbia 715 McBride Boulevard
New Westminster, BC Canada V3L 5T4
Email: ganderson@jibc.ca

Acknowledgements
Funding for this project was provided by WorkSafeBC. The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Allan
Lamb, Karen Hodson and Alex Popov for their contributions to the development of the online survey.

10