Posted By Sam Rawcliffe Is anybody aware of a recent case at Liverpool Crown Court Sept '03 in which McClean Homes NW & Cheshire Ltd were fined £150,000.00 following an incident in which a worker was crushed to death by a reversing vehicle? In the significant points of the case, apart from the usual use of Banksmen, one-way system, safe routes for pedestrians, etc. the HSE prosecutor stated that the Company should have ensured that vehicles were fitted CCTV cameras to provide the driver with a clear view behind the vehicle. Is a precedent trying to be set here??

Posted By Alec Wood I think it's a case of interpretation. Mine would be that in the absence of banksmen etc then CCTV fitted would have been better than not having it and may have prevented the accident. Surely the main failing in this case was poor traffic management, no provision of banksmen and no defined pedestrian routes.

Posted By Mark Sims See http://www.hse.gov.uk/lau/lacs/85-10.htm "...ACTION BY INSPECTORS 17 Segregation of pedestrians from vehicles should normally be the first priority. However, inspectors should consider requiring the provision of CCTV as part of a safe system of work where the site specific risks justify it - this is likely to be necessary where pedestrians are not segregated from frequent reversing movements and banksmen are not used. It is for site operators to carry out an assessment of the risks arising from vehicle activities and to decide on the control measures that are appropriate. This will need in some cases to include liaison and instruction on site rules for those in control of visiting vehicles. Inspectors should encourage the provision of CCTV with general haulage contractors as part of their proactive visits. The economic arguments mentioned in para 11 above should be used although it may be that due to the nature of the business the economic benefits are less persuasive. 18 The need for vehicle operators and those in control of workplaces to cooperate in controlling the risks from reversing vehicles was emphasised by a recent prosecution. Following a reversing fatality which CCTV could have prevented, the vehicle operators were fined £75 000 and the principal contractors in overall control of the site were fined £100 000..."