A company van driver parks his van on the public highway, leaves the handbrake off, the van rolls into the driver injuring him, will be absent for over seven days. Would this be reportable, my view is yes but would really welcome others views. Thanks

Hi was making a delivery to a customer, parked on the road and the van then rolled into hIm. The van was checked and handbrake was working.

Well the question on the tip of my tongue is, has he/she sustained a reportable injury?. If so then I would suggest that it is ........................ reportable!

"For example, the following would be reportable under regulation 3 and should be recorded under regulation 7: (a) an employee of a building materials supplier dies as a result of being struck by a passing car while unloading bricks from a lorry;" From the ACoP - explaining what should be reported on page 36 - I think this confirms the yes - reportable

As it happend on the public highway I'm not convinced it is reportable - reg 10.2.b states this type of incident is only reportable if: was either himself engaged in, or was killed or suffered an injury as a result of the activities of another person who was at the time of the accident engaged in, work connected with the loading or unloading of any article or substance onto or off the vehicle; It sounds like the injury was caused by himself, not another person - so reading the above strictly it wouldn't seem reportable - the incident noted in #7 involved 'another person'.

I agree with Chris - if in doubt report... But as the van is classed as his workplace...technically his workplace did injure it's employee!!!

Castholmes (Ann) has a point with regards to whether it was a safety breach or not. However, if the HSE were to get wind of this (if it were not reported) and I was the HSE inspector I would be asking the question as to why the handbrake was left off. This is an omission in relation to his duties to both himself and others (Section 7 HASWA), so it could be argued that there is a potential breach here. I would also be questioning and looking at the working pattern of the guy to establish if it was tiredness that caused his lapse or whether this chap has a history of health and safety lapses. I have seen it before (and have had something similar before that the HSE investigated) and would argue strongly that this is (or should be) reported as there are a number of questions over this incident. It is a difficult one without further information, but I still say that when in doubt report it.

Not Reportable IMO Road traffic incident.

I think that the original post this can be viewed in different ways depending on which side of the fence you sit on and depending on the facts of the events, but if I read it correctly it was stated (by Bill Morrison) that the driver was making a delivery to a customer, so that makes it peripatetic working. I do think that some are missing the point here and are forgetting that the outcome from this incident could have been very different and that any internal paperwork or investigation can be viewed by an enforcer during a visit (later down the line) and may attract questions at that point. As for getting real (Jake) are you suggesting that you don't report something that may attract some attention from the enforcing authorities? This suggests that you have something to hide in the first place. Not all HSE investigations end in enforcement and the fear of being investigated must not be put below the correct reporting procedures required by legislation. I do think that there is little doubt in this case (I have experience of a very similar event - not from an enforcement view, but from an accident investigator viewpoint) that this should be reported and to mitigate against any HSE investigation that a through internal investigation is carried out and robust remedial measures (if required) are implemented as soon as possible. This will ensure that the company is protected in all areas, in terms of reporting the accident, investigating the accident and implementing remedial measures. Protection of any organisation also means complying with legislation. If you want to walk to tightrope of when in doubt don't report it then this is the risk that you take on behalf of the organisation. My basis of 'if in doubt report it' is based on amassing all the facts that you can about an incident to establish whether it is reportable or not. However, even when this is done there are still some instances where there is still some doubt or grey areas left. It is these instances where I would report it or as posted ask the enforcing authority not "just in case" (which is not what I stated or eluded to. Sorry for any confusion). However, at the end of the day it is just my opinion.

That reads so much better now :) before that clarification I was agreeing with Jake, why? I have experienced this argument in the past - A COMAH site I worked on had imposed by their multi national owner a punishment of 10% from profit share for each RIDDOR reported! I always made very very sure an incident was indeed reportable! I have also seen insurance premiums rise after a change to pro-active reporting, and of course when tendering AFR is a common question. You start to see a reluctance to report 'unnecessary things' and after a few weeks on these forums you will notice people have a very poor grasp of RIDDOR :) I agree with you though - the original post is reportable - I think the example I posted from the AcOP shows that. (OK this is not a fatality but same principle)

But Chris, the fact that it is peripatetic working does not make this road traffic incident a RIDDOR. Road traffic incidents are specifically excluded from RIDDOR.

Yes, some road traffic incidents are RIDDOR - my point was that the fact someone was working when the incident occurred isn't enough to make it a RIDDOR.