I work in a further education college which teaches motor vehicle maintainance. A lecturer has requested a single post vehicle lift to supplement the tow and 4 post lifts already in place. Has anyone had any experience of this type of vehicle lift. My instincts are they would not be safe but would apprciate comment from others who work in the automaotive industry

At the risk of trying to teach you to suck eggs have you got a copy of 

Health and safety in motor vehicle repair and associated industries

which contains the following guidance

Single-post mini-lifts 200 Single-post mini-lifts, as in Figure 54, should be treated in the same way as vehicle jacks, ie access should not be allowed beneath the lifted vehicle unless supplemented by suitable supports such as props (see paragraphs 207-210).

Single-post lifts are compact and useful in small workshops, but they are less stable than two- or four-post lifts. In a college environment, where students are still learning, this reduced stability can increase safety risks.

These lifts require precise vehicle positioning and careful operation, which may not be suitable for inexperienced users. Most educational institutions prefer two- or four-post lifts because they offer better support, safety, and ease of use during training.

Recommendation: Before approving the request, conduct a formal risk assessment and consult with lift manufacturers or safety experts to ensure the equipment is appropriate for student use.

Thanks Steve, probably correct.

HSEFaisal, if you are a real human (we do get lots of bots invading these Forums) perhaps time for you to do you own critical thinking as this is not the first time you seem to have relied (without checking the output) on the internet for help.

Which is fine as long as you then understand when what AI tells you might not be true or only partly true.

Old principle of RIRO has not gone out of date. Rubbish In, Rubbish Out.

On another thread you posted this paragraph:

Benchmarking data for LTIFR varies by industry. For example, the global steel industry reports around 0.65, the offshore oil and gas sector about 0.79, and the port industry approximately 5.4 lost-time injuries per million hours worked.

So I cut and paste that into Google and what did I get?:

A marginally different forms of words but exactly the same numbers.

However, I also got SLIGHTLY different numbers

Safety and health in the steel industry: Data report 2025 - worldsteel.org

In 2024, worldsteel’s members reported 67 fatalities globally, representing a global fatal frequency rate (FFR) of 0.016, the lowest on record. Additionally, our global lost time injury frequency rate (LTIFR) is at 0.70, which is also the lowest on record.

Which is odd as this is the industry body representing steel at a global level citing HIGHER figures than AI has found and yet commenting that these numbers are the lowest on record.

Now on those particular bits of information the variance is so small as to be almost irrelevant. 

In contrast if Faisal you simply cut and paste what AI says for other threads on these Forums and at other platforms you could end up providing VERY dangerous guidance.

The chances are that Andrew who asked the question in THIS thread will gain no benefit from much of YOUR advice including, in particular, 

"Recommendation: Before approving the request, conduct a formal risk assessment and consult with lift manufacturers or safety experts to ensure the equipment is appropriate for student use."

Very unlikely that Andrew is not fully aware of the need for a risk assessment - it's implict in the framing of their question.