COMAH is silent on speeding couriers. Site rules re speeding are something else. Jon

A breach of site rules isn't automatically a near miss If someone isn't wearing a high vis vest, would you say this is a near miss ?

We too would be raising it as a safety concern. All drivers to site are briefed on the direction to travel, speed limit, wearing seatbelts etc. If the guy had been given the briefing and still acted unsafely we would be puting the driver offsite with a large flea in his ear and be looking at the courier company to get their people in order. Depending on past history the courier could be losing the contract. David

Further to post #3 I would record such an incident as a near miss on our system. I would not dream of reporting this to the HSE. The two questions I would ask are: 1. Did the driver not apply the rules because he did not understand them eg the speed limit was not properly posted, he was not properly briefed when he got on site etc. 2. If it was clear that we had done everything to inform him of our rules then we would like to know why the driver did not follow them and if we could not get a good explanation we would consider banning him and his company from our site. Whether this is called a near miss or not is not the point; the point is that site rules have been broken something is done about this using whatever systems exist on the company’s site. I am surprised that some posters regard speeding on a site as a trivial matter since accidents involving workplace transport are a major cause of accidents, which would seem to indicate that, enforcing rules about workplace transport is important.

Many site, including ours which is NOT a COMAH site, have triggers when their own employees, visitors and contractors are in breach of "Site Safety Rules". Typically, COMAH sites have what is generally referred to as " Life Saving Rules" or some similar aspect and exceeding the site speed limit can be one of those rules and it will automatically trigger an investigation. This driver on our site would alse be a subject of investigation, but in our system, unless he almost caused a collision, we would classify exceeding the site speed limit as a " Potential Hazard"

I couldn't agree with this more. I wouldn't lose sleep about a near miss being raised against this. The main thing is to investigate and put preventive measures in place.

It would probably be classed as a near miss on our site. How did they know the driver was speeding? From experience I can tell you that larger vehicles look to be going a lot faster than they actually are.

Juan Carlos With my auditors hat on the standard says that if an an event has occurred then it is corrective actions that are applied even to stop it happening again. One applies preventative measures only before there has been experience of the event, even in another organisation. These distinctions are as bad as identifying what is a near miss. Speeding is not a Near Miss as something has happened and to a degree people were exposed to the risk even though no adverse outcome was noted. :-) Not that the investigation should be any less thorough to find out why the driver felt he could exceed site speed limits. Maybe it is even more important as others too may be speeding for the same causes. Bob

Ray I think I am saying that some things are too imprecise to be defined and local definitions are the only things we have. There is NO objective definition for Near Miss merely intersubjective. Bob