Copyright © 2001 FleetWatch magazine and FleetWatch On-Line.

No part of this publication may be reproduced without the prior written permission from the publishers. Views published are not necessarily those of the publishers.

Bouquets and onions from Zimbabwe

I refer to the article by Jack Webster in your December 2000 edition titled: Is the transport industry healthy. GDC Logistics operates 360, LHD, International truck tractors pulling a mix of tridems and inter-links throughout the region south of Lubumbashi and east of Botswana. Depending on the destination, we load 28 to 30 tonnes on the tridems and 34 tonnes on the inter-links. Our biggest problem is getting the distribution right and this results in the occasional fine for an overloaded group of axles.

In 1998, GDC Logistics took the decision to equip all its trucks with the Tacholog (now Computask Electronics) vehicle monitoring system, mainly to reduce the rampant speeding that was endemic among our drivers. Since introducing this system, various advantages have become apparent. Accidents are down in numbers and accident costs are down by over 50%.

Various other costs, particularly tyres, have been advantageously affected. Speeding fines have been almost eliminated and, on two occasions, have been successfully defended. Most drivers have begun to see the advantages of the system, which is not to say that it was easy!

One other advantage that is less easy to explain is that drivers who conform to our 85 kph prescribed speed (they receive a warning if they exceed 88 kph) tend to do better mileage in a day than those who exceed it. The only possible reason I can think of for this is that drivers who speed keep coming up to slower traffic. Time that they have worked so hard to gain by speeding is lost (the classic "hare and tortoise" brought up to date). This delay frustrates them so they overtake on a blind rise, a corner or in the face of oncoming traffic. Then the increased stress brought about by driving dangerously requires longer rest and recovery periods.

While this would be less apparent on, say, the Johannesburg to Cape Town run, on our routes - mainly from Durban through Johannesburg and Harare to Blantyre, Lilongwe, Lusaka, Kitwe and Lubumbashi - most of the legs are less than 600 kilometres and often end at border posts (more serious frustrations for a driver in a hurry!). Traffic is heavy and not particularly well controlled. On some stretches, game is prevalent and on others, donkeys and cattle. All of these are more of a problem to the driver travelling fast and also raises stress levels.

All of the above has very little to do with Jack Webster's article, I hear you say. Very true. I have only gone into such detail to prove our commitment to operating legally. (We have also introduced toll road swipe cards to keep our trucks on the toll roads where they belong.) Now to the real reason for this letter.

Mr Webster gives various reasons why it is more expensive to overload and speed. What he does not refer to is the 26% extra revenue earned by hauling an extra nine tonnes. Surely South African hauliers are not so slack as to encourage their drivers to overload and speed in the certain knowledge that it will cost them R306 per trip more with no extra revenue. If that's the case, no wonder the industry is in trouble!

Incidentally, if you want to see real overloading, check the rigs loading 45 to 60 tonnes through Botswana to Zambia and the DRC. They have to go that way because they wouldn't get past Beit Bridge if they tried to get through Zimbabwe.

On a different subject, I must take issue with Chris Barry's sweeping opinion that "left hand drive units should not be allowed to travel on our roads". Simple question: Why not? Is he privy to information not available to the rest of us? Is there evidence to suggest that LHD vehicles, on a pro rata basis, are involved in accidents more often than RHD? How is it that Britain copes quite happily with LHD and the continent with RHD? Surely there must be some statistics from there?

Is he just lending support to the vested interests of local manufacturers? Is he aware that the transport industry in Zimbabwe would have collapsed long ago were it not for the second hand LHDs? With interest rates running at 50% plus, it is a brave trucker indeed who spends five times the price of a second hand truck on a new one.

If Mr Barry wants to reduce the road accidents in RSA, then let him fight to reduce speeds. How? Let the insurance business campaign to make vehicle monitoring systems compulsory and equip the SAP to be able to download them on the spot. As stated above in this letter, our accidents reduced substantially and our accident costs - a true reflection of their severity - came down by over 50%. Or is the insurance business happy to just keep bumping up the premiums?

Geoff Dartnall
GDC Logistics
Zimbabwe

Editor's Comment: Good point you make on the extra revenue earned from overloading. However, although Jack did not address this in the said article, he has addressed it in a previous article where he proposed that the fines for overloading should match the extra revenue earned from the overload. That will take away all incentive to overload. As for your comments and questions around Chris Barry's objections to LHD, we have forwarded your letter to him for comment which we will publish on receipt. Our congrats on the way you have reduced your accident numbers and costs. There's a lesson for all here. I also find fascinating your experience that drivers who adhere to the speed limit tend to do better mileage in a day than those who exceed it. This would seem to dispel the maxim that speed pays in trucking. Thanks for taking the time to write to us and share all this good stuff with your fellow truckers.

Your comment

Response to response

Although this issue is getting a bit absurd, I thought it might be worth a few minutes to reply to Mr Burkhalter's response in FleetWatch, December 2000 edition.

The thing that got to me and prompted my first reply is that everything about this story was so negative. As a publisher of some repute, you know that for any article to have impact it must have a balanced point of view. This response is prompted by the fact that I believe the transporter's business appears to be headed for trouble and the owner is being blindsided by his drivers!

Having recently used the N3 for a trip to Durban, there are a few patches that are not in the best condition but, as for potholes large enough to rip an axle out of a trailer???

Mr Burkhalter should take some of his own good advice and find out exactly what is going on at "ground level" by driving down to Durban or wherever his vehicles operate, note where these alleged 'craters' are and take the matter up with the authorities. It is rather strange that some 2 500 heavy vehicles ply the N3 KwaZulu-Natal run daily, yet it seems only Mr Burkhalter's vehicles pick up all the punctures and drive into 'potholes'?

Another point for our motor carriers to note is that some years ago they were warned that increasing axle mass loads would result in accelerated pavement (road surface) damage. The industry stood firmly together and insisted higher payloads were in the best interest of the economy. Some even held their RFA membership to ransom and bullied the Association into spending a great deal of its meagre manpower to continue the fight irrespective of possible road deterioration. So the moral of this story is 'What ye sow so shall ye reap'!

Besides, it is fairly common knowledge that potholes are caused by pavement failure due to wheel loads exceeding the E80 load factor. Can this transporter therefore vouch that none of his vehicles have ever operated with one or more axles overloaded?

It is a pity that Mr Burkhalter chose to attack both Mr Curtis and me by questioning our competence and experience. Again, Mr Burkhalter assumes the negative. I have known Mr Curtis for some thirty years and have the highest regard for his business acumen and his competence to hold his present position at the Federation of Regional Road Freight Associations.

Furthermore, for Mr Burkhalter's information, I managed both a motor carrier business and a large retail distribution fleet for roughly 10 years of my 47-year association in the road transport industry. Also, as technical manager of the RFA for some seven years, I was closely connected with its members and have a fair grasp of the 'Woes' of motor carrying. I was also closely involved with the DoT and Road Traffic authorities regarding the generous concessions to the Road Traffic Regulations which the industry now enjoys.

Finally, my advice to Mr Burkhalter is: 'Wake up and smell the roses'. Road transport is a tough business where only the toughest survive. It always has been - and will remain - one of the most soul-destroying and risky investments going. It certainly isn't one for the faint- hearted!

So if everything that Mr Burkhalter has worked for is at risk of collapsing, then the best advice is to 'pull stumps' and disinvest like so many others in the industry who could see the writing on the wall have done. And then call Uncle Bill. Most who did have retired happy and wealthy.
Hugh Sutherland

Editor's Comment: OK, that's it. FleetWatch has made available its letters pages to afford all parties their right to a say on the issues raised from the original article "Woes of a Transporter'. We suggest the way forward - if the involved people want to take this further - is for them to meet round a table and debate it out. It could be a fascinating discussion and FleetWatch - if invited - will certainly be there to report on the outcome. But to continue publishing responses to responses is getting a little out of hand.

Just one comment relating to FleetWatch policy. It arises from the point above which states that for any article to have impact, it must have a balanced point of view. This implies that the balance must be achieved in each and every article published. Not so! Burkhalter has a right to his views and that right was extended to him in an exclusive article. This is not unusual in publishing and because his views may be perceived by others to be negative, doesn't mean the magazine has given a one-sided version. If we had stopped it there, I would agree with you about the issue of balance. The right of reply is afforded to all and the right to comment on his views, as you did in your first letter and in your letter above, is also extended to all. By publishing his original comments, FleetWatch opened the debate into which you and others entered. The balance is thus achieved - albeit not in a single article. As a matter of interest, the original article - and subsequent published views - have solicited wide comment in the industry. It was certainly a talking point.

Your comment

Training Controversy

The article submitted by the Institute of Road Transport Engineers (IRTE) titled 'IRTE Involvement in Training' published in the November edition of FleetWatch has solicited criticism from the past CEO of the RTIETB as well as a member of the Standards Generating Body mentioned in the article. The responses, plus a reply from the IRTE follow:

Set the record straight

In response to the article titled IRTE Involvement in Training published in FleetWatch and the comments made by the IRTE. I would like to set the record straight by placing the following facts on record.

The RTIETB commenced with its standards generating initiative in 1997 in line with the requirements set out in the SAQA Act of 1995 and in anticipation of the promulgation of the Skills Development Act No 97 of 1998. (SAQA is the South Africa Qualifications Authority - Ed)

Our modus operandi for obtaining stakeholder representation/consultation in accordance with legislative requirements was to publish our intention to commence with a standards generating project in both The Sunday Times and Sowetan newspapers. These advertisements duly appeared on 20th July 1997.

In addition, the RTIETB distributed letters to transport operators, professional bodies, training providers and invited them to a nation-wide conference to inform them of the requirements of the SAQA Act and Skills Development Act, the emerging National Qualifications Framework and the training board's intention to develop draft unit standards towards a Professional Driver qualification.

In excess of 100 delegates representing various organisations attended this conference that was relayed via educational TV satellite at various centres throughout South Africa.

If the IRTE is represented at all levels of legislative policy formulation, including the Road Traffic Act and Regulations and SABS technical committees, then they would surely have been aware of these initial attempts made by the RTIETB to invite stakeholder representation for the standards generating initiative?

Furthermore, all these initial attempts were released in various articles published in FleetWatch, Focus and People Dynamics. If the editor consults his archives, he should find these articles.

If the IRTE is the nationally recognised body responsible for the setting of standards for acceptable qualifications in the road transport industry, then it comes as a surprise that they would wait 18 months from the issue of Government Gazette Vol. 409, No 20311, dated 30 July 1999 to raise their concerns over their lack of representation on the Transport SGB.

Even more surprising is their lack of response to the unit standards that were published for public comment on the 22 February 2000 in Government Gazette Vol. 416. No 20919.

Surely, with their close involvement in legislative processes and their status as a national standards setting body, they would have realised at this stage that if they did not comment on the draft unit standards published for public comment, their credibility as a nationally recognised body would be somewhat diminished?

The National Standards Bodies regard the publishing of draft unit standards in Government Gazettes as forming part of a consultative process with wider stakeholder groupings.

To raise concerns and flaunt national status at a point where the Transport SGB is recognised by SAQA as the official standards generating body and the Professional Driver qualification (with supporting unit standards) is registered on the National Qualifications Framework, is a clear indication that this body is either embarrassed by their lack of proactivity in becoming involved in the new legislation and standards generating initiatives or are misguided as to their national status.

I would further like to place on record that there is a National Standards Body 11, which represents the Services Sector and which is referred to as NSB 11 Services. Could this possibly be the body that the IRTE is referring to in the above mentioned article? They make reference to an SGB 11. The Transport Standards Generating Body falls under NSB 11 Services.

Furthermore, the South African Qualifications Authority have made it quite clear that the only national bodies responsible for generating unit standards and qualifications will be those standard generating bodies that apply and receive recognition from SAQA. The Transport Standards Generating Body has this status. SAQA has made it quite clear that it does not recognise standards set in other countries, no matter how impressive their credentials are meant to sound.

I am also attaching the list of Transport Standards Generating Body members and their representative organisations, including a list of the representatives who were involved in the initial standards generating initiative. It can clearly be seen from this list that transporters of hazardous products and other specialised categories were very much involved in all stages of the standards generation process. (FleetWatch holds the list and confirms it is comprehensive).

As for the comment relating to "too many academics without the necessary industry experience"" well, I'll forgive the IRTE for this oversight because it is their ignorance of new legislation and standards generating processes that leads them to apparently feel insecure in the company of academics.
Paul Matthew
Managing Director
The Learning Clinic

Facts on record

As a member of the SGB mentioned in the article 'IRTE Involvement in Training', I would like to express serious concern regarding the gross factual errors contained in the article. I would like to place the following facts on record, in response to an article that seems to be based on assumptions rather than well researched facts and substantiated information:

1. In terms of the SAQA Act, only Standard Generating Bodies that apply and receive recognition from SAQA can develop unit standards and national qualifications. SAQA has laid down specific regulations in relation to expertise, representation and equity issues that govern the composition of such bodies. The claim that the IRTE is "the nationally recognised body responsible for the setting of standards and acceptable qualifications in the road transport industry" is therefore not correct.
2. It must further be stressed that the proposed SGB membership was Gazetted for public comment. Why did the IRTE not respond then, if there were concerns regarding the composition of the SGB?
3. There is currently only one representative from the Higher Education Band on the SGB. This is essential in view of the Transport Management Qualifications offered by universities. It must also be noted that the integration of Training and Education is, in fact, one of the major principles on which the NQF is based.
4. It must also be understood that SGB members merely represent the various constituents in the sub-field. The actual standard generation is done in working groups, composed of subject matter experts. I personally facilitated sessions with transporters of the "specialised goods" referred to in the article, in order to arrive at the outcomes of these unit standards. The country's foremost specialists on the various products also verified the content.
5. The article refers to the "training courses" and "modules" developed by the SGB. No SGB can develop training courses. This remains the prerogative of training providers. The SGB merely develops unit standards which defines the outcomes of learning - that is, what providers should be training towards.
6. The assumption that a driver who obtains the qualification will automatically qualify for a managerial position is totally incorrect. The qualification merely gives recognition for the driver's ability to drive a vehicle conveying various commodities of freight or passengers. On completion of this qualification, various other learning pathways are available should the driver wish to develop further. Transport Management qualifications are only one of the options.

I would like to stress that SGB meetings are open meetings and the IRTE is therefore welcome to attend any of these meetings. The IRTE is also welcome to approach NSB 11 (not SGB 11) to request membership on the SGB, should they wish to.

I trust that this information will contribute to a better understanding of the processes involved with SGB's and the development of National Qualifications.
Colette Wessels
SGB member: SGB
for Transport
& Logistics Operations

IRTE Response
Firstly, a word of explanation in connection with the first paragraph in the article which has led to some misunderstanding.

The statement is not intended to infer that the IRTE in the UK is the only body setting qualification standards, which is not so. Any misunderstanding in this respect is regretted. Furthermore, the minimum qualification standard prescribed by law in Britain is the Certificate of Competency, a Government Qualification similar to the South African "Government Ticket" or Certificate of Professional Competency, which must be held by a person responsible for machinery in factories, mines, power stations, etc.

Likewise, persons in charge of the machinery on ships and in aircraft must have prescribed minimum qualifications.

There is no such minimum qualification for a person in charge of a fleet of vehicles in South Africa.

The IRTE has for years complained about this lack of control over who is qualified to be responsible for a fleet of vehicles, hence the reason promoting the qualification of a Road Transport Engineer.

The IRTE in South Africa believes it is in a position to be a considerable assistance in establishing the basic minimum qualification and training course leading up to it.

The Cape Town Centre of IRTE holds the portfolio on training and is in touch with the relevant bodies responsible for introducing training standards as contemplated under the National Qualifications Framework.

Meantime, as a basis for further consideration, minimum standards adopted overseas have and are still being obtained from overseas

Resulting from the article which appeared in FleetWatch, the IRTE thanks Paul Matthews and Colette Wessels for their detailed explanation of the practical operation and functions of the various activities of the National Qualifications Forum in relation to road transport.
Institute of Road
Transport Engineers

Editor's Comment: Putting aside the disagreements between the IRTE, Paul Matthews and Colette Wessels, will someone please explain to me in simple terms what all this means and when we can expect to see positive impacts on the industry in terms of outcomes, practical implementation and improvements. Bullet points will be fine thank you.

It all sounds so very impressive what with Standards Generating Bodies, a South African Qualifications Authority, a National Qualifications Forum - and so on. This is First World stuff at its best. How then is it that we hear so many complaints of low standards reigning in the industry. What I gauge from all this is that talks shops, consultative processes, educational TV satellite conferences, advertisements in major newspapers - all good stuff and no doubt necessary in the grand scheme of things - have dominated. But, what can now be implemented to raise standards. Not in five years time - but NOW! Are the talk shops over?

Another observation. It seems to me extremely pompous, arrogant and downright naïve that, as Paul Matthew states in his letter, "the SAQA has made it quite clear that it does not recognise standards set in other countries, no matter how impressive their credentials are meant to sound." Can the SAQA please point me to one truck that is designed, developed and produced in South Africa. We rely entirely on overseas expertise and standards for the products that are used to keep the wheels of our economy rolling. And our drivers need to learn to drive the new products with the greatest level of skills. Let the SAQA speak to Peter Wraight of DaimlerChrysler who brought out an overseas driver training expert to teach and raise the standards of some of our locals. The improvements were mind-boggling. Yet the SAQA won't recognise any standards set in other countries! May I point out that even when the former Government went the 'go it alone' route and started ADE, they relied on Mercedes-Benz and Perkins expertise and standards to get up and running - and stay running. For the SAQA to state that it does not recognise standards set in other countries is a 'blind' move. I, for one, did not realise we are world leaders and therefore cannot learn anything from Europe, America or anywhere else. Gee! Thanks SAQA. I really feel good.

Your comment