May I inquire, how many people are aware of firms that have a reverse into car space policy. It seems to be an excellent idea. Your views.

Not aware of any, Seamus, but it is a good idea - much safer to drive out than reverse out, especially if many staff are doing this at the same time.

Apparently, it is also more eco-friendly, as driving out uses less fuel overall than reversing out and then moving forward...

We do not have a "policy" regrding reversing into a car parking space, but recommend it as good practice!

Some of the the advantages are:-
1) Better control of the vehicle in the reversing manouvere
2) If at all required to leave in an emergency, it is quicker
3) We could be relatively tired at the end of the day --easier to leave driving forwards.

Obviously it depends upon the design and layout of the car park

thanks for all the replies.
In my local authority car park they make it impossible to reverse in as they have the car park lined is such a way that it is almost impossible to reverse in.

I am aware of some firms having a reverse in, and it is obeyed which is great.

That makes good sense.

When I worked for a global oil company in the early 90s, all staff were told in no uncertain terms at their induction that they MUST reverse into car parking spaces. All in all, it made for a much safer car park, as you knew that the car in front of you would reverse into a space, therefore you knew to leave them plenty room to manoeuvre, and also for the numerous reasons surrounding visibility when driving out of the space. It certainly taught me to reverse park really well, and I continue to do so to this day.

Must admit, when shopping I always forward park - but this is so that I can access my boot with shopping easily. If I reverse park it can be an expedition in itself to get any bags into the boot. I'm always surprised car parks aren't marked up at an angle so that it allows easy and safer reversing out.

As well as the engine being warm and easier to control the glass is less likely to be steamed up so improving visibility

No, were not having a laugh. A large nuclear power station I worked at has this policy and it works a treat. Visualise 'emptying' time, a lot of pedestrians in car park, drivers at least having a clearer view ahead, much reduced chance of accident in car park, people get to and from work in one piece. Happy days. Forget economics, environment, etc. just don't hurt people.
If we were to apply the logic that 'what you are taught doing your driving lessons' to all aspects of our working lives...wow, that really would solve all the problems. Cos' road users never make mistakes or allow error to creep in. Train them once and then move on. Is that logical? I for one, don't think so.
I do however concur that people do see H&S as meddlers but again that depends on what industry you are in and how much is meddling and how much is actually sensible.

I have also worked for a site in the past where a reverse in policy was used. As a large industrial site it was found that this prevented the numerous bumps and bangs during shift changes in a busy car park. It also helped to move cars quickly should the emergency alarms be triggered and emergency services required access to parts of the car park etc.

Makes perfect sense as far as I can see and is pretty easy to work into a work practice. I always reverse park now (infact - find it strange to park nose first now!). On another note - re: "Cumbrian driver in court for reversing car onto his driveway" - I thought it was illegal to reverse onto a main roadway as such you have to reverese into a drive do you not? Makes much more sense too - is easier to reverse in with more visability than to reverse out of a drive into the flow of busy traffic - you are far more visible going in and you can see more too!!!

You'll never convince me that it is safer to reverse. Obviously the pedestrian now has no responsibility for their own safety only drivers have this duty.

If the press get hold of this thread 'we'll' be the laughing stock ;-) it's provided me with half hour of entertainment anyway

.......not ridiculing anything, just realist as to what the press will think and obviously make of it. Besides probably parking won't be too much of a problem soon if the much mentioned 'tax' is forthcoming.....mind you, there then could be a bycycle issue........

There is nothing wrong in instilling positive safety culture, by requesting employees to hold handrails or reverse park as long as the higher risk have been addressed/controlled--after all, in most organisations, the injuries are not from the fires/explosions etc, but slips, trips & falls, Manual Handling etc.

We should not let media reaction, especially of the Daily Mail type dictate what an organisation should do for its INTERNAL health and safety matters!

For example, in our organisation, we indeed recommend all to hold handrails, but there is no formal action if one does not except that those not holding handrails could "receive" a behaviour based safety observation" !

I had collected some data in 2005 regarding falls, both at work and at home/leisure activities from steps and similar--it is not a laughing matter when you consider the stats and the NHS resources to deal with these injuries --so much for the newspaper reactions.

Why is it a safe behaviour to use handrails on stairs?

Using handrails reduces the potential for slips, trips and falls on stairs by providing balance and support to us.

We also eliminate or reduce the impact of contributory factors such as loose or worn carpets, wet or dirty surfaces etc by regular cleaning/maintenanace and by monitoring/ reporting of potential hazards.

Use of handrails is therefore a positive/safe behaviour that could be re-inforced

Do you know that:-
In the workplace:-
• In the year 2003-2004, a total of 7,144 injuries were reported to the GB Health and Safety Executive where the agent causing the injury is attributed to stairs/steps. This is out of 1,869 "major" and 5,275 "over 3 day" injuries
• This was 17% of all agents that caused slips, trips & falls (out of a grand total of 41,768).
• Slipping and tripping is the most common kind of accident causing a “major injury” to employees
• Slipping/tripping is the second most common kind of “over-3-day injury” to employees and accounted for almost one quarter of all over-3-day injuries in 2003/04).

At Home & Leisure in 2002:-
• Approximately 306,168 (11.3%) home injuries can be attributed to falls on/from stairs & steps
• Approximately 140,307 (4.4%) leisure injuries can be attributed to falls on/from stairs & steps
• Approximately 440,000 (4%) home & leisure injuries can be attributed to a construction feature( i.e the lack of) in stairs etc.

The source of this data is:-
• HSE year 2003 data on workplace slips, trips & falls resulting in major and over 3 day injuries where the agent causing the injury is attributed to stairs/steps

• One year's data for 2002 from the UK Home Accident Surveillance System (HASS) and Leisure Accident Surveillance System (LASS)
(HASS - the Home Accident Surveillance System - and LASS - the Leisure Accident Surveillance System - are two linked databases holding details of home and leisure accidents that caused a serious enough injury to warrant a visit to hospital. They do not include road or workplace accidents)

They do seems to me that people are saying that it is safer to reverse into a space and that it is more economical. In my own experience, I have found that people who are reversing take more time to look at what is happening around them. If I have to reverse off my drive I have a quick look to see if there are pedestrians walking down or I drive tentivly out of the drive to ensure that I don't hit anyone. (normally cyclist who are no longer required to cycle on the road) The same if I am in a car park, I will reverse slower out of the space than if I drove out because I was facing forward.

I think that this is one of those safety measures that may provide marginal benefit and can easily be scoffed at if there are other more significant site and behavioural issues that remain to be resolved. Having observed and formerly participated in the mad rush to get away from work when the shift ends I am not convinced that enforcing an easier drive-off policy will bring safety benefits. Whilst visibility is clearly (no pun intended) better when driving forwards there is the downside of a speedier getaway and increased risk of a bad collision. When reversing out of a parking bay a driver may be more observant.

Reverse parking against a building brings its own issues: increased impact damage, soot stains, exhaust fumes entering windows/vents.

This is certainly not a positional argument against the concept, merely setting down some of the other things that may affect whether safety is changed.

I guess I am a floating voter here.

We do not formally risk assess walking on stairs or making tea, but we do go the extra step in trying to achieie an aspirational target of "nobody gets hurt" and return home without injury at all. We use our behaviour based safety observation and feedback system to address the so called "silly" practices.

I do not consider holding "handrails" a silly practice, it is good practice.They are provided and are included in building regulations/standards for stairs/steps for safety reasons!

However, before we embarked our behavioural safety programme, we made sure that we have and even now on a continouos basis address and control the high hazard risks, otherwise such programmes loose credibility amost the employees. There excessive emphasis was on personal safety at the cost of process safety at the BP Texas Refinery!

I accept that construction is a dynamic activity, but there is a case for considering the good practices from the high hazard industry such as oil & gas, chemicals, nuclear, especially the behavioural safety aspect where the programmes emphasis is more on reinforcing safe behaviours rather than allocating blame for at risk behaviours.

What ever the outcome seamusosullivan, thank you for sparking an intelligent debate.

As an aside, I once spent 2 hours on awareness training for closing doors...On the face of it this would seem to the average person (or indeed the media!) as way over the top to the point of stupidity, but, in terms of nuclear safety it was deemed totally necessary and completely relevant. So, having a 'reversing in' policy is not trivial if you put it into context of where you are thinking of implementing it. Its easy for people without experience of different situations and industries (and I'm one of them too) to dismiss something without realising that it may make perfect sense to someone else

....well said Max and farrell.......Occupational Safety and Health....I put all my energy into trying to minimise the hurt and pain at work and for the subsequent families and relatives on the receiving end of even worse scenarios, rather than trying to 'control' people before they even get 'clock on'....statistics for incidents in the UK businesses car parks I would imagine to be very low indeed, whether reverse in or reverse out and thereby low risk. Common sense attitude I agree with on this topic.