A pedestrian walks out between two parked cars and is hit by the wing mirror of a works van, is this Riddor reportable, the police have said the van driver is not at fault and will not be taking any action, advise please

Was this on public or private land Latchy? Frank Hallett

Just to say I have read RIDDOR but the grey area is the van driver was on his way to work not even in work hours is this still reportable.

Without wishing to disagree to overtly with JJ; we now need to ask additional questions:- Is the van driver an "employee" for H&S purposes? Although Latchy appears to have made it clear that the van driver was "not at work", was this a situation where the van-driver takes the van home and then leaves for "work" from home without actually going to a fixed workplace first? AND Was the van the property of the van-driver or the nominal "employer"? Frank Hallett

The van was a company vehicle but the driver needs to visit the depot before going to a job can yo u please explain the difference thank you for your answer and professional advice

I have just been looking on the HSE site and one of the exemptions is a road traffic accident on a public road excluding loading and unloading advise please

What s wrong with you people, I simply asked a question

You did ask a question - but you also failed to provide the relevant information to enable the question to be answered. Ok, the pedestrian was hit by the van wing miror - but you have given no indication as to the injury that was actually caused As per post #4 ask half a question, get half and answer - expect to be queried if you don't provide the information. HSE website Non fatal accidents to non-workers (eg members of the public) Accidents to members of the public or others who are not at work must be reported if they result in an injury AND the person is taken directly from the scene of the accident to hospital for treatment to that injury. Examinations and diagnostic tests do not constitute ‘treatment’ in such circumstances. There is no need to report incidents where people are taken to hospital purely as a precaution when no injury is apparent. I would sugest you need to learn to research a topic correctly instead of asking others to provide you with an answer based on limited information. Or indeed frequently asking for copies of documents/risk assessments Self-learning and research/document development is a great professinal development method.

Report it, it won't make a great deal of difference to you if you do. RIDDOR is mainly statistics; you don't get punished for reporting if it is not a RIDDOR

I don't think anybody has refused to answer the question. Just highlighing the fact the question was asked incorrectly in the first place/information not provided that should be available - to enable the question to be answered. Also I maintain learning to research a topic properly is a vital learning tool, in self development. Learning is limited if somebody gives you the answer straight away. If you have found the answer yourself to a particular issue, if the issue comes up again, you are probably more likely to remember the answer.

I have little note that some will think or call me a troll. The OP has failed (as we often see on the forum) to provide sufficient information for anyone to be able to give a reasonably sensible answer. As far as I can see we haven't determined either the 'status' of the 'pedestrian' or whether that person even sustained an injury at all. How on earth can anyone be expected to provide an (accurate) answer without knowing those 2 things? So, in that respect Latchy, I would have to agree with JJ, in that nobody has refused to answer your question, but rather nobody can (although some have and will try to) with the very limited information you have provided. If you provide a sensible 'brief' you might expect a sensible answer. I sense peoples frustration at being asked half a question; again. Secondly, while it doesn't concern me, I never cease to be amazed at the number of people who would seem to be in positions of 'responsibility' who can't grasp the basics of RIDDOR; while it has some idiosyncrasies it is nevertheless normally pretty straightforward to determine what is or isn't reportable in most cases. Again in that respect I share JJ's thoughts in as far as having a look for yourself. If you have the ability to post on here then you have the same ability to spend a little time looking at the HSE and getting to know a little bit about RIDDOR for yourself.

Thanks for your support, Canopener

This is an RTC and nothing else Quite clear in RIDDOR in my view It is good of the driver to mention it if they were on they way to their permanent place of work and they should have mentioned it if they were at work on their way to a non permanent place of work

As Canopener said - most of Riddor is quite straightforward to follow. It needs to be determined from the incident/accident * the status of all involved, employed, self-employed, member of the public * the injuries sustained * if no injuries, then was the incident a dangerous occurrence as defined in Riddor With respect to Riddor Understand the idea behind the regulations The key trigger points with respect to the time requirements for reporting / time off work The defined major injuries - at least that they exist and to know that the list should be checked The defined dangerous occurrences - again, at least that they exist and the list to check How members of the public are reated by Riddor As per my posts and others, the initial question cannot be answered because the relevant information was not provided. If it had been provided then I would suggest that the OP wouldn't have needed to have asked the question in the first place. I see nothing wrong in advising somebody to go and read the relevant guidance and to learn what the key points are of Riddor and how they might apply to a given situation. If after that, further clarification/assistance is required, then no problem in giving assistance. It seems to be very lazy safety management to put half a story on this dicussion board and to then expect others to answer the question for you, with limited information. As previous self-study/research is good tool in professional development.

Quote=JJ Prendergast]As Canopener said - most of Riddor is quite straightforward to follow. It needs to be determined from the incident/accident * the status of all involved, employed, self-employed, member of the public * the injuries sustained * if no injuries, then was the incident a dangerous occurrence as defined in Riddor With respect to Riddor Understand the idea behind the regulations The key trigger points with respect to the time requirements for reporting / time off work The defined major injuries - at least that they exist and to know that the list should be checked The defined dangerous occurrences - again, at least that they exist and the list to check How members of the public are reated by Riddor As per my posts and others, the initial question cannot be answered because the relevant information was not provided. If it had been provided then I would suggest that the OP wouldn't have needed to have asked the question in the first place. I see nothing wrong in advising somebody to go and read the relevant guidance and to learn what the key points are of Riddor and how they might apply to a given situation. If after that, further clarification/assistance is required, then no problem in giving assistance. It seems to be very lazy safety management to put half a story on this dicussion board and to then expect others to answer the question for you, with limited information. As previous self-study/research is good tool in professional development.

There's none so blind as those who will not see.

There's none as blind has those who can't see. Perfect absolutely perfect. Ps thanks to all that have supported me!!!! Perfect and apt........l

But the OP didn't do it by himself. If he had, he wouldn't have needed to post in the first place.

Absolutely, there are at least pretty good 2 'arguments' against reporting 'just in case'. 1. That some RIDDOR reports (in particular 'ill health' reports e.g. HAVS) will potentially result in an intervention. In fairness in this particular instance the chances of this happening are close to nil. 2. That if the employer is in the business of tendering for work, many PQQ's will ask and score you against your accident experience, including the number of RIDDOR reports, and unnecessary reports may subsequently place you at a commercial disadvantage.

Just because the police rule out a criminal offence does not rule out a civil claim. RIDDOR or not do a full investigation including the IP version. Car parks are normally not viewed by the police with any seriousness as they are not public highways. I suspect the van driver is at work from the time he sets off from home as he appears to be a peripatetic wprkert Bob