Posted By Dave Wilson NO!

Posted By Paul Craythorne Peter, Is the injured person able to carry out their normal duties? If not and this continues for more than 3 days then it is reportable. Regards, Paul

Posted By Alan Barthrope Forgive me if I am wrong, but I was not aware that nearly being run over was reportable to the HSE under RIDDOR.

Posted By Jane Blunt From what has been said, it does not sound as though the accident needs to be reported under RIDDOR, either as an accident or a dangerous occurrence. You can look at RIDDOR at http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/stat.htm where you will find it in 1995, number 3163. There are schedules that specify exactly what must be reported both under the headings of accident and dangerous occurrence, and it seems extremely unlikely that what you describe qualifies. You will, of course, have your own internal inquiry, to find out what went wrong and prevent it happening again! Jane

Posted By Paul Craythorne Dear All, It seems to me that there are some people who either have not read the RIDDOR Guidance or not understood what they have read. To clarify: Being hit by a fork lift truck is not a 'Dangerous Occurrence' as defined by the regulations. Being incapacitated for normal duties for over 3 days as a result of an injury at work is reportable under RIDDOR. If the person hit by the truck was able to carry out their normal duties within 3 days following the accident (not including the day of the accident) then it is not reportable. Can we put this one to bed now. Regards, Paul Craythorne

Posted By Steve Sedgwick You are right about it being a good exam question and while not wanting to create confusion with members of the public and create over reporting we should consider there will be many studying the diploma reading this. It’s my belief that there is a "catch all" in RIDDOR, here is a paragraph that I have cut from RIDDOR "If something happens which does not result in a reportable injury, but which clearly could have done, it may be a dangerous occurrence which must be reported immediately (eg by telephone) to the enforcing authority". Steve

Posted By Jason Gould Funny things are forklifts. Front end or forks covered by LOLER, Hense any failure would be reportable, and back end covered by PUWER. Personally I would not have reported the incident desribed above, However I suppose you could say that the lifting equipment was in motion, hence the collision was a failure.

Posted By Jay Joshi No, it not about minute details, but in my view, even in the year 2003, a misperception about the role of HSC/E guidance and ACoPs in a era of non-prescriptive legislation. Not all of us have access to relevant ACoPs & Guidance that accompanies the regulations, but surely for details, that's one of the first authoritative sources to check it out. The RIDDOR guidance is comprehensive. The main problem that usually arises is to decide whether the accident is "arising out of or in connection with work"

Posted By Jason Gould Sorry about the misunderstanding of my comments posted earlier. My lift arrived to take me to Harrogate (Boring but useful) half way through writing so I just thought I never posted heheheehe. Agree with geoff this could get a little pedantic or whatever the word is that suits it. So if their are any exam takers or worried employers out there ignore me as I was being provocative and stirring. Hehehehehe. Someone could help me here by their experiance. If a crane/lift or forklift cable should fail/snap etc. That would be reportable. If a crane load should swing into someone and not cause injury that would not be reportable. If a crane load should swing into someone and cause injury over 3 day etc we are back into reporting. Im going to have to dig out riddor and sort my head out. Maybe its not lifting equipment that is a dangerous occurance under the regs. I can hear the Grrrr from Geoff now. Hehehehehehehe