Posted By Mike Foulds Hi All In my distribution centre we have a busy part in the middle of the warehouse where both the pedestrain walkway goes and there is a lot of ride on powered pallet truck and FLT activity. One of the biggest risks identifed has been the risk of collision between ride on and pedestrian, with this in mind we have a policy that says if you are traveling any distance not just stop/starting then the ride on should be riden in reverse so as to minimise the risks to pedestrains in the event of a collision from the forks. This advice was also confirmed by the service engineer who said the ride ons are more controlable in reverse due to the rear wheel steer. We have had an accident where a ride on driver has driven into a fork lift coming the other way, he has sustained an ankle injury. The question is now being asked why the ride ons are driving with the forks trailing as it offers less protection to the driver in the event of an incident. My view is that there is no excuse for two pieces of MHE to collide if being driven correctly with good levels of control and the protection of pedestrians is more of a priority then the protection of the driver who should be in control. What policies do other distribution centres have and is there a definitive way to operate the equipment minimising risks to drivers and pedestrians. This is turning into a bun fight so your thoughts are appreciated. Mike

Posted By Peter F. Mike, have you tried HSEN1 00 06-B the ACOP for ride on pallet trucks.

Posted By bluesail461 Hi, Ride on trucks are often (and should be) driven with forks facing rear, its much easier to manoeuvre when turning wheels are at front. Also, as load is behind the ride-on if the vehicle comes to sudden halt, the load does not fly forward onto the floor or pedestrian nearby - ride-ons are often used as order pickers/ replen so often loads are not fully secured/ wrapped as they could be in 'mid-pick'. In the incidence described there are a number of measures that could/ should be - and probably ARE in place: 1. Clearly defined routes and travel direction (aim for as much 1-way as you can) 2. Clearly defined junctions with lines, signs, 'sound-horn' rules, mirrors etc 3. Clearly marked pedestrian routes 4. Flooring kept in good condition 5. maintenance routine 6. Training and supervision 7. Speed limit - 5mph aka 'brisk walking pace'? Sorry if these are obvious, perhaps I got the whole angle of the point of this wrong?? Ride-on trucks that drive with forks to the rear are much more stable, manouevreable and the driver should be able to see more easily whats coming. I agree that the physical protection for the driver could be better but as these vehicles are used by drivers who are repeatedly getting on and off to drop off/ pick up stock items then a cab or door arrangement may not be practicable jez

Posted By HarveyJ Hi Mike, We have the same situation in our plant as you describe. The emphasise here must be on suitable segregation between pedestrians/plant, as raised the HSE on their last visit to our factory. If you cannot prevent pedestrians coming in the area then you must have an extremely comprehensive risk control process to reduce the risks to lowest practical level. regards, John

Posted By andy.c. Mike Why just the IP with action coming his way? How did the two trucks come to collide in the first place? and if the FLT had its forks and i quote from basic training "as low as practicable and slightly tilted back to cater for the type of load and ground conditions" did the forks hit the ankle of the IP stood on a ride on? Blind estimate forks 4 times higher than needed to be, which is a major factor in this resulting with an IP Andy