I could do with an opinion on RIDDOR. If an automated goods vehicle (like a Forklift truck, but no driver, computer controlled) overturns as a result of being knocked over by a stack of falling goods, does this constitute a RIDDOR? In this case, the vehicle was an 'accomplice' as the item it was placing snagged the stack and caused it to fall. Technically, lifting equipment overturned. (please don't respond about safe systems of work - the incident happened in an unmanned, restricted area, no one was nearby to get hurt)

The regs say “any lifting equipment” therefore if the AGV is lifting equipment and it has overturned, it is reportable. The regulations should not be interpreted to read as “the overturning of any load bearing part” But instead - the collapse of any lifting equipment, or - the overturning of any lifting equipment, or - the failure of any load-bearing part of any lifting equipment. This is made clear by the HSE RIDDOR website http://www.hse.gov.uk/ri...dangerous-occurences.htm “Lifting equipment 1 The collapse, overturning or failure of any load-bearing part of any lifting equipment, other than an accessory for lifting. The definition covers the collapse or overturning of any lifting equipment, or the failure of any load-bearing part, whether it is used for lifting goods, materials or people. It does not cover the failure of ancillary equipment, such as electric operating buttons or radius indicators, or failures of lifting accessories, such as chains and slings. Failure in this context refers to components which suffer mechanical breakdown during the normal operation of the lifting equipment, as opposed to accidental or deliberate damage.”

I agree with post #3 this would be reportable.

But that guidance was from the ACOP L73 which does not exist any more. The schedule just has Lifting equipment 1. The collapse, overturning or failure of any load-bearing part of any lifting equipment, other than an accessory for lifting. Which I would take to mean Collapse or Overturning or failure of load bearing part. Not Collapse as a result of failure of load bearing part. So I would say it is reportable. Chris

The 'simplification' of the RIDDOR Regs this month means that there is a lot more that is now reportable. Rather than reduce reporting it will massively increase it.

I would say not reportable - the equipment over turned because it was struck by an external load/force 'If an automated goods vehicle (like a Forklift truck, but no driver, computer controlled) overturns as a result of being knocked over by a stack of falling goods' Although not explained - I am assuming the 'stack of falling goods' were not being caried by the lifting equipment It didn't turn over because of the failure of a load bearing element of the lifting equipment, neither because of a shift/inbalance of a load being caried by the equipment.

We are obviously reading the same words differently, to me there appears to be three elements:- a) Collapse b) Overturn c) Failure of a load bearing part So the last part of the L73 extract (Failure in this context refers to components which suffer mechanical breakdown during the normal operation of the lifting equipment, as opposed to accidental or deliberate damage) I read as only applying only to element “c”. My view is that they use the word “or” as separate unrelated conditions. Otherwise a large crane falls over due to the ground not being prepared properly. If you apply that sentence to elements “a” or “b” it would not be reportable as there was no failure of the equipment itself. This does not seem that it should be correct, does it? So I still feel I would report. If only there was proper guidance with good examples, but that is not the way it is going. :o( Chris