Confusion reigns over how operators know which systems are DVS compliant

 

Tony O’Malley, MD of Rendrive Haulage, spent £100,000 on the first stage of upgrading all his vehicle kit to the Direct Vision Standard (DVS) PSS requirements – yet had a vehicle declared non-compliant in a TfL gate check. He believes the TfL inspectors did not know how to effectively check the PSS equipment in the field.

The next phase of the DVS which comes into force in October with a six-month grace period before enforcement, is causing confusion for operators around responsibility for compliance.

TfL insists that suppliers are responsible for testing and declaring the compliance of their products, but operators are responsible for ensuring the compliance of the vehicle system overall.

An “explainer” document written by Steve Summerskill, reader in user behaviour in vehicle design at Loughborough University, on behalf of the RHA, recommends that road transport operators test DVS-compliant products against “all use cases” to ensure that the products perform as advertised.

However, TfL said: “It is the operator’s responsibility to make sure their vehicle is roadworthy and suitable for its intended purpose; however an operator doesn’t have to ‘buy and test’ the system against the specification but should be able to determine this from the system’s specifications against our guidance and technical specifications. This is the same approach that was successfully taken in phase 1 of the DVS and HGV Safety Permit Scheme.”

O’Malley said all the products used, which includes two radar systems to cover the blind spot and front moving off information systems (BSIS and MOIS), had manufacturer and installation compliance statements, and the drivers were furnished with training and all paperwork.

He says he is now in “constructive” dialogue with TfL, but it is still unclear why the product was declared non-compliant, especially as most of his new permits have been received.

TfL said: “TfL officers are highly trained to monitor compliance with the HGV Safety Permit Scheme, including the new Progressive Safe System. TfL has also published detailed technical specifications that set out how the BSIS and MOIS equipment is expected to operate and how performance can be tested.”

However, O’Malley said that, as the proximity alert can only be seen in the cab and the inspectors remained outside the vehicle, he does not understand how they can have determined it was not working. He also said that most drivers apply the handbrakes when stopping in a yard, and some PSS products are not active when the handbrake is engaged as there is no risk of collision.

O’Malley said: “We check our equipment daily and on a regular inspection schedule and have no problem with that. However, when I go to purchase a system I need a TFL ‘kitemark’ approval on it to say ‘Yes this kit will comply with our requirements.’ It is not my job to buy any equipment offered on the open market and decide if it meets technical regulation.”

TfL said: “We don’t consider it appropriate to provide accreditation as this would broaden our role beyond existing powers for the freight sector. Introducing third-party certification would add further costs to manufacturers and operators, and risk making the scheme more complex. This is the same approach that was successfully taken in phase 1 of the DVS and HGV Safety Permit Scheme.”

FORS compliance

O’Malley has been involved in FORS since its start, and Rendrive has been FORS Gold accredited for many years. He is worried that if TfL fails his vehicles, this could in theory affect his FORS accreditation and the contracts which rely upon them.

However the FORS 7.0 standard is oblique, referencing regulations151 and 159 of the second edition of UNECE General Safety Regulations (GSR2) as the “best practice” standard operators should aim for.

FORS said that as a national standard it makes no reference to regional regulation except in saying that vehicles must be equipped in line with the contract, which would include DVS compliance in London.

TfL will accept vehicles which have regs 151 and 159-compliant equipment fitted at the point of manufacture, but that aftermarket products must meet its PSS requirements. It said: “Only vehicles as a whole can be compliant with GSR2, not specific products. A vehicle that is type-approved to UNECE regs 151 and 159 would have the BSIS and MOIS factory-fitted at the point of manufacture – it is not possible for an aftermarket solution to be type-approved to these regulations retrospectively.”

O’Malley said that due to the steeply increasing cost of vehicles, he has no choice to but to retrofit equipment.

Permit processing “farce”

Another operator - Day Aggregates - claims TfL’s processing of PSS permit applications has degenerated into “a farce”.

Chris Cooling, group transport manager at Day, said: “We had four applications rejected, and when we queried the rejections, TfL admitted that this had been in error. So we sent the applications in again. Two went through, and two were refused, despite TfL’s admission that it had made a mistake.”

The two that were accepted both involved Volvos, and were supported by a statement from the manufacturer that the trucks concerned complied with GSR2. The two that were turned down involved DAFs that were accompanied by an identical statement and the photographs that are required.

“The application for one of the DAFs has now been turned down seven times without any proper explanation,” said Cooling. “All we’ve received is a standard letter saying that it doesn’t meet the PSS MOIS [Moving Off Information System] or Blind Spot Information System requirements.”

Both are included in GSR2 and are PSS-compliant. Cooling cannot understand why GSR2 equipment installed in a Volvo is fine so far as TfL is concerned, but not acceptable on a DAF, despite the fact that the two sets of equipment are the same.

“The DAFs and Volvos are all brand-new and 2024-registered,” he said.

To obtain a PSS permit, other items of equipment need to be fitted that go beyond GSR2 strictures, including stickers that allow vulnerable road users (VRUs) to identify the truck’s blind spots and an alarm which warns VRUs when a truck is turning left. Everything needed had been fitted to the vehicles concerned in line with TfL’s instructions, Cooling confirmed.

Brentford-based Day Aggregates has had 20 further applications for PSS permits for its trucks bounce straight back. It has resubmitted them without making any changes, and they have all gone through.

“To say the application process is randomly shambolic would sum things up,” Cooling said. “I think the administration function at TfL is in free-fall.”

He admitted, however, that the other 145 or so permit applications he has sent in have been accepted.

Day Aggregates operates 200 tippers – almost all DAFs, Volvos or Scanias – and 150 of them are in London most days. “We’ve already spent at least £500,000 on retrofitting PSS kit,” Cooling said.

The problems besetting Day Aggregates are not unique, but their extent should not be exaggerated, according to Logistics UK.

“We’ve heard of other businesses that have experienced similar difficulties, but the number is very small,” said a spokesperson. “TfL seems to be having teething troubles with the system it is using to handle applications, and we’ve seen similar things in the past.”

DAF UK marketing manager Phil Moon said: “We’re dealing with 10 instances where our customers have had applications refused, and TfL has held its hands up to the errors it has made. We suspect that what may have happened is that TfL has recruited a lot of new staff to handle the expected surge in inquiries, and they are not as familiar with the applications process as they need to be.”

TfL said in a statement: “Since the Direct Vision Standard first opened for applications in 2019, we have worked hard to ensure that everyone who applies for a permit receives one in good time. While we believe the process has been working well for most applicants, we’re sorry if operators have experienced issues applying for permits, and we’re determined to work with them to ensure they are resolved.

“There is a dedicated HGV Safety Permit enquiry page on our website if operators need to get in touch about their permit applications.”

Potential issues for operators

- It is hard to tell with some retail products claiming DVS compliance which of the products meet which specific element of the requirements

- MOIS requires 180-degree visibility of the front of the vehicle – but many MOIS camera systems on the market appear to only have 170-degree lenses. Radar systems appear to often use two sensors to give the full breadth

- Some compliant systems do not work when the handbrake is engaged

- Purely visual alerts will not be seen from the ground

- Installation of PSS products can potentially conflict with other laws: for instance, any equipment fitted to underrun protection is an MOT failure.

- DVS PSS and UNECE GSR2 regulations do not completely align. TfL only considers factory fitted GSR-equipment DVS-compliant. This may have caused confusion, with some after-market products meeting GSR2 technical specifications being offered as DVS compliant when they are not.