Morning all, I know of a situation where a FLT has been in the process of removing pallets of goods from the side of a lorry. Whilst the FLT was in position - forks inside the lorry - for some reason the driver of said lorry has attempted to drive away. The result was that the FLT was pulled almost completely over, but not quite. It was left at an angle of approx 45 degrees, maybe a bit more... Obviously there are very simple controls that can be put in place to prevent this type of thing from happening in the first place. Some of these have since been implemented - lorry driver handing over keys etc.... My question is this: Is a situation such as this strictly RIDDOR? The FLT hasn't completely overturned and only did so at all because of the pulling of the lorry.... Thanks in advance guys...

There is an argument that the FLT did not overturn. My understanding of overturn is upside down or on its side, neither of which occurred. The other events in the relevant RIDDOR section appear to be catastrophic failures of a lift or lifting equipment. This was not such a failure.

Not reportable.

the event should be reported via your company in-house accident/incident reporting system

Definition of overturn: "to turn or cause to turn from an upright or normal position" I would tend to agree with Stephen on this with regards to definition however, RIDDOR states: Lifting machinery etc 1 The collapse of, the overturning of, or the failure of any load-bearing part of any – (a) lift or hoist; (b) crane or derrick; (c) mobile powered access platform; (d) access cradle or window-cleaning cradle; (e) excavator; (f) pile-driving frame or rig having an overall height, when operating, of more than 7 metres; or (g) fork lift truck. I do not see what load bearing part of the machinery failed, so on that basis, not RIDDOR.

I have some sympathy with Damel etc's view. And now that the FFI approach is in operation there are powerful arguments against providing the HSE with even the slighest slightest chance of calling and investigating. BUT - it seems that the profession is sinking into a very defensive culture/approach when instead of saying something like: "I'm not sure, it's borderline but I'll rpeort it because it might add to wider knowledge etc etc." We have: "I'm not sure, it's borderline but I'll not report it because if I do the HSE might come calling, I might be caught by FFI charges etc etc." This thinking would ultimately mean that any sort of open approach to incident reporting is doomed to failure and the profession will lose the opportunity to share experience, learn from others error/mistakes etc. Unless it was a confidential system..with identity of reporter withheld? The prosecution of Cotwold Geotech for Corp Manslaughter confirmed the dangers of unsupported excavation (if that was needed) but just recently there was another prosecution for a deep, unsupported excavation. I woudl hope that sharing experiences, spreading the word etc etc may one day help reduce accidents. Phil

Phil, I agree entirely with you comments, my command of the written word is often not as eloquent as others and is seen as abrupt or downright rude but although not the most popular of comments mine will always have some substance behind them and are not spoken to just be provocative but an alternate viewpoint. I quite often don't even like the facts I point out but would never fail a lie detector test on Jeremy Kyle. I will ALWAYS look for ways to NOT report (and have always been actively encouraged to do just that) - That does not mean I would not share internally/off the record- and if there is absolutely no wriggle room I have been known to report....I think ;-)

However you wish to view the prospect of '... HSE crawling all over your site ...' you cannot choose whether or not to report on that basis. Betta is absolutely correct, the 'or' is critical in the wording of Schedule 2. I am trying to be of assistance but should declare that I am currently an operational Inspector with HSE and I have a few years experience in considering the precise wording of the legislation. Of course, the recent introduction of FFI appears to provide a disincentive to reporting accidents or applicable near misses but, having been to my fair share of workplace transport fatals, employers legal requirements have not changed. That said, neither have the selection criteria for accidents which are submitted to HSE.

Quite. But did the lift-truck load get dumped, along with the truck ?