Eesti autovedajate valmisolek ohtlike veoste transportimiseks

Antud lõputöö keskendus tunnetuslikule probleemile, et Eesti autovedajatel, kas puudub kompetents ohtlike veoste transportimiseks või neil on kompetents, aga neil pole soovi ohtlike veoseid vedada erinevatel põhjustel. Eesmärgiks oli hinnata Eesti autovedajate valmisolekut ohtlike veoste transportimiseks ning tuvastada töö käigus kriitilised punktid, mis motiveeriksid autovedajaid ohtlikke veoseid vedama. Autovedajate valmisoleku hindamiseks saatis autor küsimustiku umbes 2000 Eesti veoettevõttele, millele laekus 145 vastust. Vedajatelt uuriti, kui palju on nende ettevõttes ADR koolitatud autojuhte, kas koolitused mõjutavad nende igapäeva tegevust, kas nad on saanud karistada ohtlike veoste mitte-nõuetekohase transpordi eest, kas nad on vedanud ohtlike veoseid ilma nõuetekohase varustuse või koolituseta ning kas nende arvates peaks ohtlike veoste transport olema kõrgemini hinnastatud. Autovedajate uuringust selgus, et 70% vastanud ettevõtetest omavad ADR valmidusega autojuhti. Samuti selgus, et koolitamine ei mõjuta veoettevõtete igapäeva tegevust. Samuti selgus, et 89% ettevõtetest pole saanud karistada ohtlike veoste mitte-nõuetekohase transpordi eest, kuid 43% ettevõtetest on ohtlike veoseid transportinud mitte-nõuetekohase varustuse või koolituseta. 82,6% vastanud ettevõtetest arvavad, et ohtlike veoste transport peaks olema kõrgemini tasustatud kui tavakauba transport. Samuti saatis autor eraldi küsitluse mõnele Eesti suurimale ekspedeerimisettevõttele ja paarile väiksemale ekspedeerimisettevõttele. Sellele küsimusele laekus kuus vastust. Ekspedeerijate küsitluse tulemustest selgus, et kõik vastanud ettevõtted küsivad oma klientidelt ohtlike veoste transpordi eest kõrgemat tasu võrreldes tavakauba veoga, kuid nad ei maksa oma vedajatele selle eest kõrgemat tasu. Samuti hindasid ekspedeerimisettevõtted, et ADR valmidusega autojuhte vajadusel on pigem alati saada kui mitte. Vastanute arvates veoettevõtted pigem väldivad ADR vedusid, kuna sellega kaasneb suurem risk ja suuremad kulutused. Lahendusena pakkus töö autor välja, et kõik veoettevõtted, kes transpordivad ohtlikke veoseid peaksid hakkama küsima klientidelt kõrgemat veohinda või kilomeetri tasu, lisades kuludele 10%.Ekspedeerijatele tegi autor ettepaneku, et nad peaksid hakkama vedajatele maksama kõrgemat tasu ohtlike veoste transportimise eest. Autori arvamusel eelistavad Eesti vedajad tavavedusid ohtlikele, sest - tavaveoga kaasnev risk on ohtlike veoste transpordi riskiga madalam; tavavedudega ei kaasne nii suured kulud, kui ohtlike veoste transpordiga; tavavedude ja ohtlike veoste transpordi eest makstakse sama palju raha. Autori arvates ei soovi veoettevõtted oma personali koolitada, sest koolituste kaasnevad kulutusi ei teenita vedudega tagasi, arvestades seda, et enamik ettevõtetele ei maksta ADR vedude eest suuremat summat. Samuti ei soovita ka personali koolitada kaasneva ajakulu tõttu – kui autojuht on koolitusel ei saa ta raha teenida. Kompetensed vedajad transpordiksid meelsamini ohtlikke veoseid, kui nad saaksid selliste vedude eest ka suurema summa raha, et katta vedudega kaasnevad kulutused.

The problem of this thesis was that Estonian road hauliers do not have competence for the transportation of dangerous goods or they do have the expertise, but they do not want to do this anyway for various reasons. The purpose was to evaluate Estonian road hauliers’ preparedness for the transportation of dangerous goods and to detect critical points, which would motivate hauliers to transport dangerous goods. Research questions for this thesis were: Why do Estonian road hauliers prefer regular freights over the transportation of dangerous goods? Why do Estonian road hauliers not wish to train their personnel for the transportation of dangerous goods? Which are the reasons that would motivate competent hauliers to transport dangerous goods? The author sent the survey to 2000 Estonian haulier companies to evaluate their preparedness. The author received 145 responses from the study. Hauliers were asked: how many ADR trained drivers they have in the company; if they have been fined for illegal transportation of dangerous goods; if they have been transporting dangerous goods without proper equipment or ADR training; do they think that transportation of dangerous goods should be with the higher fee? It was revealed from hauliers’ survey that 70% of the respondents do have ADR trained driver. Also, it was revealed that training does not affect hauliers’ everyday business. 89% of the respondents have not been fined for illegal transportation of dangerous goods, but 43% of the respondents have been transporting dangerous goods without proper types of equipment or ADR trained driver. 82,6% from responded hauliers said that transportation of dangerous goods should be paid higher. At the same time, the author sent a separate survey for some Estonian forwarding companies. For that survey, the author received six responses – three from the biggest forwarding companies in Estonia and three from smaller forwarding companies. The study revealed that all the responded companies are charging their clients for dangerous goods transportation, but they do not pay for their hauliers for the transport of dangerous goods. Forwarding companies said that it is rather easy for them to get a haulier with ADR trained driver. Also, respondents think that hauliers rather avoid transportation of dangerous goods, because the risk and the costs, compared to the regular freights, are much higher. For the solution author proposed that all the haulier companies, who are transporting dangerous goods, should add 10% when they are charging their clients. Also, the author is suggesting that forwarding companies should start paying their hauliers extra for the transportation of dangerous goods. The author considers that Estonian hauliers prefer regular freights over transportation of dangerous goods because the risk is much lower, expenses are much more economical as well as consistent freights and ADR freights are paid equally. In the author’s opinion hauliers do not wish to ADR train their employees, because they will not earn back their expenses since ADR freights are not paid higher. Also, hauliers do not want to train their employees because of the time – drivers will not earn money when they are in training. ADR prepared hauliers would transport dangerous goods happily if they would get paid higher for those freights, so they could cover their expenses that are accompanied by the transportation of dangerous goods.