John I also read a similar case recently. I have said before on these forums that I would like to see greater individual responsibility and accountability. Obviously this needs to be enforced with more prosecutions against individuals. The current enforcement ethos is to prosecute organisations. That said, individuals should not take the can for management failures either. I question if the vehicle was fit for purpose with the CCTV defective. Did the organisation have a procedure for working with a defective CCTV? For example, vehicle not to be used or banksman MUST be used when reversing? Without more information it is impossible to comment on the individual's culpability. We need to put this into some perspective - refuse trucks reversing with or without a banksman happens many thousands of times a day up and down the country. Unfortunately these will from time to time result in serious incidents. I am reminded of other similar scenarios where the organisation failed to have adequate procedures in place with defective equipment. One was a train crash where a defective driving aid contributed to the driver passing a signal at danger. The company policy at the time only covered the defect from the beginning of the journey and not whilst the train was in transit - a fatal error! The driver was originally charged with manslaughter but charges were later dropped, unlike the driver of the Watford train crash who could not rely on defective equipment - but was found not guilty. Ray

This is the story John is referring to: http://www.bbc.co.uk/new...-england-sussex-13200352 Ironically we had just switched from another 'supplier' to Team Waste' because of the previous supplier's poor safety record. The area around waste management vehicles is very dangerous it seems and it is nearly impossible to totally separate the public from it. However, it should not be beyond the wit of these organisations to arrnage for a banksman when reversing; the cost of a colleague acting as a banksman must be next to nothing once the training has been completed.

Yes, and indeed the company had a banksman policy, but a) the drivers forgot, or b) they just could not be bothered. The court seems to have decided on a) and blamed the company for 'not enforcing the policy'. Ray, I suppose an example of your 'human nature' behaviour is b) they just could not be bothered. If so, it would be negligence on the drivers' part, but I expect they would not admit to it if it were the case.

Both instances such as this AND all the NHS neglect problems could be cured at a stroke. All we need is a CEO to have 12 months in prison when someone dies due to the organisation's negligence.

Controlling minds Steve, controlling minds. Who is responsible for setting and driving the attitudes, behaviours and standards (H&S culture) in the Organisation? Were the behaviours here a one-off and limited to that crew on that day, or was this merely a typical day's working practice across the whole operation, accepted, ignored or merely uninteresting to the chain of command. I think the latter. (Road Traffic Legislation and driver accountability notwithstanding.) p.s. Who says reversing sounders aren't allowed at certain times? White Noise generator types aren't that intrusive. That said, this is a warning sign way down at the bottom of the hierarchy of control, and of no use at all to the deaf or hard of hearing. That poor unfortunate woman may have had sensory impairment.

Understand the controlling mind, however do not the operatives have a mind, if they are that incapable of making a decision how are they able to obtain work in the first place. Lemmings run over the cliff, do all workers do the same. If they are that incompetent how do they reach working age and gain employment. By your own actions and omissions has to be taken into account. Who was driving the truck, who was carrying out the operation, who was conducting the task. Is the task conducted the same way when management or the CEO is sight, I doubt it. Yes I agree that the management has to take responsibility for the actions of its workforce, but the individual has to take responsibility for their own actions, is supervision or management always on hand to hold the hands of the workforce,or are we employing children now who have no sense of right and wrong. We can drum into the workforce what is required, but they make the instant decision of what to do in a given set of circumstances when working, if it goes wrong why is it somebody else's fault, not mine I only take the money.

This is a very difficult subject folks as people have died for a lack of care by possibly employers,employees and whoever else. I used to be in the waste industry but moved on. I have watched and talked to our local collectors due to the removal of household waste evolving over the last few years. It used to be bins, bags and away we go job finished. Now we have re-cycling (which I agree with) but the same operatives now picking up cardboard,glass,plastic,food and paper all in the same truck. This in itself leads to problems as the workers now have longer days mostly through trying to sort this out as the "customers" do not understand the basics of segregating as asked. This has now made the task of removing this waste very difficult. I asked the operatives if their managers do not come round with them and see the problems when they had finished laughing no was the answer. This type of management could be the root cause of these accidents as the workforce are rushing to try and get the job done and therefore safety is suffering. This is my opinion only as I feel everyone involved from top to bottom are not ensuring the task at hand is safely achievable. Ta Alex

An old chestnut this one and one I would say has been done and dusted. Please see http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/waste04.pdf which ios based upon the work by the Northamptonshire District/Borough H&S Advisors and latterly by LAWS (Local Authority Waste Occupational Health and Safety Network This advice is a step short of you must have a reversing assistant as there are thoughts that in some situations it may be more dangerous to put someone to the rear of the vehicle as an assistant (Term on the public highway is Reversing Assistant and NOT Banksman) . i.e when in the crush zone, very early in the morning when there are no people about or dark or icy, or for a very long reverse where its not possible to turn around at the end. David Thomas Chair LAWS

Its worth saying that there are standards and training for those Monitoring and Supervising waste/cleansing operations - see http://www.nogoingbackpr...ervising_monitoring.html and http://www.hse.gov.uk/wa...se-studies/aylesbury.htm

Bob, so if CCTV on vehicles are not called a reversing aid - what are they called/there for? I wonder why they don't have reversing sensors like cars?

Having had involvement with refuse collection vehicles (RCVs) from time to time over the years, I think the following points are worth adding to this topic: Most RCV crews work on a "task and finish" basis rather than fixed hours, so tend to do their rounds collecting waste and/or recyclables as fast as possible and by "cutting corners". In many cases, crew members have other regular jobs to go to after finishing their rounds, so will naturally resist any attempts to change to fixed hours. Also, if mechanical problems are experienced with a RCV, another crew may be pressed to continue with the round involved after completing its own scheduled round. Where recyclables are now collected as well as ordinary waste, crews may well be faced with significant extra work to do if additional staff have not been taken on. CCTV camera systems on RCVs are never as as effective as reversing assistants working properly. However, as time is usually at a premium during collection rounds, the crew members tend to continue concentrating on dealing with bags and bins rather than stopping when required to guide RCV drivers. Situations where people, usually members of the public, have been killed or injured by reversing RCVs with crew members sat inside the cab are downright inexcusable. RVC drivers should always have authority to compel any crew member to be a reversing assistant before starting any reversing manoeuvre. However, where drivers and other crew members have been suitably instructed and trained, the standard of MONITORING of crews can be poor. Supervisors tend to be recruited for their experience and knowledge from collection crews, but perhaps don't fully understand or wish to acknowledge that their supervisory role is very different from that of being a collector. Any investigations into a death or injury involving RCVs ought to include a good look at monitoring of crews, including how often monitoring is carried out in what ways and with what findings and actions. Some organisations may have a fixed policy of sacking drivers who reverse without guidance. Therefore, unless for example they receive complaints from members of the public, they may not be too diligent about effective monitoring. This avoids the operational and HR problems associated with sackings plus the taking on of too many drivers within a short space of time. Ray Rapp - You ask about reversing sensors. I'm no expert on such devices, but guess that on RCVs they are likely to be prone to damage from impact by bins, etc. Also, they might not be of much use on RCVs which are reversed at speed. While on the subject of such devices I confess to being sceptical about them on cars, and suspect they have been introduced as a patch measure to try and counter the poor designs of many modern cars with rear windows which are small or have high sills. Car designers seem to give the aesthetic appearance of cars considerable precedence over practical aspects like the ability of drivers to have a reasonably clear view of the areas behind their cars when reversing. The same goes for very modern cars with light bulbs which can no longer be changed by their owners. Better stop now rather continue with an essay about various other iritating aspects of car design.

Graham, good points about reversing sensors and car design, it appears safety for third parties is not high on the list of vehicle manufacturers. I do have reversing sensors on my BMW coupe and find them very effective when reversing and despite the aesthetics of the car. I still don't see why manufacturers don't fit them to large road vehicles like dust carts and plant? Could have saved many injuries lives me thinks.

Couple of points. Within Refuse collection on the public highway the term is Reversing Assistant, in effect an uncontrolled work environment where the driver remains in control of the vehicle (Road Traffic Legislation). In a depot where there is manoevering the term Bankman is used. The roles are different hence training and expectations in both of those scenarios. Industry Guidance is quite clear http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/waste04.pdf having been part of the Northamptonshire Group who were behind this document. Many of the victims were very young, very old, or have had disabilities making them vulnerable and unappreciative of alarms. Despite aids being available the most effective thing is to have an assistant and unless the Route RisK Assessment finds otherwise http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/waste23.pdf then having a reversing assistant should be mandatory.

The news release/report from the HSE investigation commented 'The audible reversing siren was functional, but it had been deactivated as the driver believed the use of such alarms was prohibited before 7am'. Are the HSE inferring that the driver was wrong to believe the use of such alarms was prohibited before 7am? My interpretation of the CUR is that RAWDs cannot be sounded on a vehicle which is in motion on a restricted road, between 23.30 hours and 07.00 hours in the following morning. Am I correct?