Gallagher’s latest guidance for Australia’s heavy vehicle sector identifies fatigue, inattention, distraction, and inappropriate speed as major contributors to truck incidents and related insurance claims, based on its analysis of recent crash data and regulatory expectations.
Drawing on the latest National Truck Accident Research Centre (NTARC) Major Incident Investigation Report and National Heavy Vehicle Regulator (NHVR) material, the brokerage reports that fatigue is associated with the highest fatality rate among heavy vehicle drivers, inattention and distraction feature prominently in incident frequency, and speed selection for conditions is a continuing factor in rollovers and run‑off‑road crashes.
Gallagher’s fatigue guide describes driver tiredness as both a safety concern and a governance matter under Chain of Responsibility (CoR) provisions. NTARC data, cited in the publication, indicates that fatigue accounted for the highest fatality rate for heavy vehicle drivers – 0.32 per 10,000 heavy vehicles – ahead of speed selection and medical events, with many incidents characterised as single‑vehicle, off‑path crashes consistent with fatigue-related profiles. The guidance notes that extended hours, overnight work, and demanding operating conditions can affect alertness and decision-making, even for experienced operators.
Gallagher links this to the primary duty under the Heavy Vehicle National Law, under which all parties in the transport chain must ensure operations are safe so far as reasonably practicable, including by setting schedules that permit legal work and rest periods and do not encourage drivers to work while fatigued. In line with NHVR practice, the guide outlines roster approaches that limit driving during circadian low periods between midnight and 6am, avoid back‑to‑back night shifts, and incorporate genuine recovery time between runs. It also refers operators to the Basic Fatigue Management and Advanced Fatigue Management options within the National Heavy Vehicle Accreditation Scheme as structured approaches for documenting and reviewing fatigue controls.
Health and wellbeing initiatives are presented alongside scheduling and rostering. The document notes the potential role of sleep‑health screening for conditions such as obstructive sleep apnoea, access to mental health support, and coaching on sleep hygiene, hydration, and nutrition. Ergonomic cab measures – including seating, ventilation, and vibration management – are cited as ways to reduce physical strain that may contribute to inattention and off‑path events. Technology is discussed as a source of monitoring information rather than a replacement for management controls. The guide refers to fatigue‑ and distraction‑detection systems, as well as telematics data on following distance, hard braking, lane deviation, and light exposure at night, as inputs that can help operators and insurers identify emerging fatigue patterns.
Gallagher also examined inattention and distraction, which NTARC’s 2025 report is reported to identify as leading behaviour‑related contributors to trucking incidents, accounting for nearly one in three reported claims. Using NHVR classifications, Gallagher differentiates between inattention – when a driver’s mind drifts away from driving, often connected with tiredness and microsleeps – and distraction, which occurs when specific stimuli divert attention. Common triggers listed include mobile phones, console screens, GPS and route‑planning systems, electronic work diaries, and activities such as eating or drinking in the cab.
According to the guide, distraction‑related incidents occur in both regional and urban networks, but the underlying conditions differ. Long, relatively featureless stretches in regional areas can increase the likelihood of inattention, while dense traffic, frequent decision points, and multiple in‑cabin devices in metropolitan settings can increase exposure to distraction. “Outer regions like the Northern Territory or regional Victoria have longer roads and travel times are considerably extended. If the driver does not have much to stimulate their mind or keep them alert, inattention or any distraction could easily take their focus away from the road,” Jean‑Pierre de Pradines, claims manager, National Transport, Gallagher, said.
Gallagher connects distraction-related incidents to safety outcomes as well as insurance and regulatory consequences. The guidance states that such incidents can contribute to claims costs, operational downtime, and reputational impacts, and may attract penalties under NHVR enforcement activity. Under CoR laws, operators are responsible for considering whether drivers are fit for duty and for managing risks arising from in‑cabin devices and systems. “Monitoring driver behaviour – whether through telematics or other tools – is essential. Drivers must understand the serious risks and potential losses linked to distracted driving. Building this awareness is key to reducing incidents and improving safety,” Andrew Wallace, client manager, Marine, Transport and Logistics at Gallagher, said.
The document also addresses mobile phone use. “It’s tempting to use your phone to check the weather or message family. But the risk is that you might not get home to them if you use it at the wrong time,” Adam Gibson, transport research manager at NTI Limited and a co‑partner in the NTARC research and report, said. The guide cites examples of operators implementing infrared driver‑monitoring cameras and vibrating seats linked to 24‑hour call centres, where signs of drowsiness trigger follow‑up calls. These measures are described as relevant to both safety management and how operators may be viewed in claims or regulatory reviews.
Another Gallagher guide, Beyond the Speed Limit, analyses “inappropriate speed” as a question of judgement rather than purely non‑compliance with posted limits. Gallagher notes NTARC data indicating that almost 15% of major truck incidents over a 12‑month period involved inappropriate speed, identified as the fourth leading cause of crashes. The guidance sets out the factors drivers must assess when choosing speed, including road geometry and surface, weather and visibility, vehicle configuration and mechanical condition, and load weight, balance, and centre of gravity. It defines an appropriate speed as one that maintains stability, stopping distance, and vehicle control, regardless of the posted speed limit.
According to the publication, CoR laws have reframed speed selection as a responsibility shared across the transport chain. The guide also notes that wider adoption of stability control, enhanced braking systems, and telematics has coincided with a reported 7.6% reduction in inappropriate‑speed incidents compared with earlier reporting periods. However, NTARC data cited in the document indicates that regional routes remain challenging, with sharper curves, variable surfaces, and infrastructure not always aligned with current heavy vehicle configurations. Around 60% of incidents linked to inappropriate speed are reported as rollovers and about 15% as run‑off‑road crashes, with most involving only the heavy vehicle. Although fatality rates are described as lower than in fatigue‑ or inattention‑related crashes, Gallagher notes ongoing consequences for injuries, asset damage, downtime, and claim costs.
