Posted By Elizabeth Lovard
I have just been reading about a logistics firm paying £240k after a driver was reversed into and killed while using a mobile phone.

I have a few issues with the case and the HSE criticisms as follows(although I am sure that all the details were not in the article) :

The firm did 'ensure drivers wore hi vis, but did not prevent them from wandering in areas where vehicles were maneuvering'

So my issue is, how can you prevent a visiting driver from being in 'an area where vehicles are maneuvering' in the time immediately after or before he is exiting or entering his cab?

Secondly if the driver (as a visitor) then chooses to delay reporting directly to receiving office to answer a call on his mobile phone, how can you stop this, or even effectively advertise the policy of not 'wandering' as the HSE puts it?

Thirdly the firm 'failed to rigorously enforce the use of banksmen' but I was not aware that it was against the law not to have a banksman supervising the reversing of all H.G.V's. Plus as this company received around 120 of them each night, surely this was not written into their own procedures?

Some of the H.G.V's delivering to our own premises are not even fitted with a reversing bleeper much to my disgust, although I am informed that this is not a legal requirement. Does this mean that for every H.G.V reversing onto one of our docks that we have to have a banksman to guide it, or what about the ones with no reversing bleepers from our suppliers coming from all over Europe that we have no control over in this respect?

I cannot help but feel that this is a classic case of the HSE standing behind the 'well its up to you as an employer to think of each and every concieviable way in which someone could be harmed and if you don't, well then you are guilty of course' attitude.

Any fatality is a tragedy as far as I am concerned, but surely a driver who must have been well aware of the WPT risks wandering around using a mobile phone must bear some, if not a very large proportion of contributory negligence?



Lizzy.

Posted By Jason911
I am sure the comment about not all the facts perhaps being present was made in an effort to spare loved ones however unlikely that they found their way onto this website. That said your posted text from this forum including your mobile phone number or email if you divulge it will appear under google searches!

I too read of this case in last months safety management from the BSC and the essence of the facts given in the article appear to be as correct as they we printed at the time. I am not as well qualified as many people using this forum but I too am unaware of specific legislation requiring the use of banksmen.

Cases like this always concern me too. We use a lot of WPT, forklift trucks for example and as an H&S person, I know that no matter what procedures I implement their will be accidents, I am sorry but it is inevitable given the size of some businesses. What is not always inevitable though is that the employer was at fault. People are people and will sometimes have or cause accident through their own negligence, but this does not always appear to be the attitude of some L.A's in the instance of any major injury.

We had a case on an employee who had received training each an every year concerning WPT, who approached and walked in front of a forklift driver in an effort to make him stop, so he could talk to him. He did of course come off worse and the incident was reported.

We were told that we could be prosecuted as the individual was obviously not adequately supervised.

Oh dear.

Posted By Pete48
Elizabeth, the case report does not appear to be on the HSE database yet so I can only comment from reading the HASW mag article which is public domain.
From that article, it seems quite apparent to me that there were several significant failures presented in evidence: unclear or faded pedestrian markings for a crossing that was clearly not used by most; failing to ensure drivers ever used the official waiting area and were not allowed to linger in the loading area; never mind reversing alarms because they would likely not have worked anyway because only one cable was connected for shunting, the lights certainly didn't get connected; problems with one way working.
Yes we all have some responsibility for our own and others safety but it is the employer who has the primary duty to protect. Organisational failures that allow poor practice to continue over a period of time will always be a stronger motivator than "knowing it is wrong and not doing it".

You may find this link helpful to gain a better understanding of an assessment of reversing vehicles and the HSE approach with regard to CCTV on HGV from way back in 2002.
It also gives you the legal link between PUWER and the Road (const and use)Regs with regard to the need for reversing aids. http://www.hse.gov.uk/lau/lacs/85-10.htm

All the guidance on workplace transport is there for a very real reason as this tragedy clearly shows. The further away from its guidance you are operating, the closer to tragedy you are. Just because many may have a long road to meet the guidance is no reason not to have it in place.

I have to finish by saying that I do not share your concerns about this case, either the outcome or the HSE approach.