I have just read with interest the outcome of the (linked below) legal case, obviously a tragic and unfortunate accident but I was suprised to read that it has been classidied as a breach of section 2/3 of the HSAWA. http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2010/coi-se-0510.htm From what I read in to it, a HVG was travelling down the road and collided with the companies litter lorry, this propelled the litter lorry (caged) into the deceased who was on the grass verge picking litter. I can see the need to provide a safe work place, procedures etc. Was this reasonably foreseable perhaps? of course we dont know the full details and I dont wish to be insensitive or antagonistic, just wonder if anyone is able to offer any further insight into this decision? (via PM if you feel more appropriate. Des

I have no further information but would observe that since the incident took place on the grass verge, the Road Traffic Acts may not have applied, hence a HASAWA prosecution. The HSE's declared policy is to seek a prosecution at effectively all times following a death. I would suspect that the defendant probably pleaded guilty because S40 would have made any defence virtually impossible, and of course as a result no-one had to say what a safe working method might have been or why the method used was unsafe. The fact there was a fatality would have also figured in deterring a defence which could have been seen as insensitive to the deceased's relatives. You do find such issues come up in fatal prosecutions. Unfortunately such events set no clear guides as to how such jobs can be done safely. I guess the employer was at the mercy of his employees as to where they parked the litter lorry and how they worked, since there'd be no easy means of supervision.

Thanks for the responses so far and the private messages. Something I had not realised is that this type of accident has happened before, making it a more foreseable perhaps, although still a rare occurance. Interesting DaveD, I would have still thought it would have been a police matter, maybe there was too Des

Agreed Ray, I was thinking if I were risk assessing this myself, the question of the litter vehicle being hit by another which is also a lot heavier with sufficient force to propel the litter truck in exactly the same direction needed to where the picker was working with enough force to hit the picker and cause a fatality and without time for the picker to be able to move would come up as quite low probability. Obviously working along side busy main roads there will be HVGs and unfortunately road accidents do happen as we see every day, but even if this is remotely foreseable I would have thought that a high vis truck / sign perhaps cones would have been sufficient to reduce the chances the litter truck would be hit (as you say we dont know what controls were in place), however it would not remove the risk completely, unless you closed the road to pick up the litter perhaps?

Unfortunately, several people every year are struck and killed whilst they are stopped at the side of a motorway or dual-carriageway. Some are broken down, others are at work. So a vehicle hitting the litter picking transit [or indeed the pedestrian worker] is entirely foreseeable in my opinion. The road in question is a 70mph dual carriageway with no hard-shoulder. The further you are away from the passing traffic the lower the risk of being struck, hence the advice to motorists that if you breakdown on the hard-shoulder you should get everyone out of the vehicle and wait as far back on the verge as you can. Chapter8 recognises that people will need to work on verges and hardshoulders and hence requires advance signing and other traffic management unless all of the works activity, including the works vehicle, is at least 1.2m clear of the live traffic lane. The Highways Agency publication on works on verges and HS's requires varying levels of traffic management depending on how long the job will take. In this particular case the vehicle was right next to and at times encroaching into the live lane, so I suspect they were done for not having a safe system [i.e. complying with Ch8].

Ray where work activities such as hedge cutting, verge mowing or litter picking are taking place over a length of road the usual "road works" sign should be supplemented with a plate describing the activity [e.g. "Litter Picking"] and a further plate stating the length of the works [e.g. "for 1 mile"]. There should be repeater signs every 400m. The works vehicle(s) should face the direction of traffic and carry rear mounted signs [either the blue keep right circle, or the better still a high intensity flashing light-arrow]. For works on high-speed dual carriageways the advice is that the works vehicle should be protected by a crash-cushion and should maintain at least a 50m gap between the crash-cushion and the area of working. The prosecution may not have hinged on "why did the HGV collide with the vehicle" it may have been about the suitability of the system of work in general considering all the foreseeable risks.