This is purely hypothetical (thank goodness), but I was asked a question yesterday, and I  cannot find the answer.

So this is around the HSE’s approach to accidents on a public roads.

I know that if two vehicles (even if one or both are being used for work) are involved in an accident (rightly or wrongly), the HSE will not count it as a work-related incident, and it’s not RIDDOR regardless of injury. They would leave it to the police to deal with as an RTA (do they still call them RTAs?)

If someone is struck while working on a road/side of the road, then this is a work-related accident and would be RIDDOR if it fulfilled the criteria.

So what if a works vehicle (e.g., delivery van – refuse collection, etc.) strikes a member of the public on a public highway? Would the HSE look at this as a work-related accident or leave it to the police?

I have a vague memory in the back of my mind of the HSE being forced to investigate where an FLT struck a pedestrian while unloading a wagon at the side of the road, but they were very reluctant to do so.

Thoughts and pointers to any official guidance, please. Thanks.

Thanks Chris

wish i had kept my old copy of L73 so much better than the stuff today - but the that Health and Safety made easy for you.

So what if the vehicle is just driving down the road - or say revering because they have gone the wrong way? This does not fit the paragraph 95 criteria so it would be a police matter. Or thats how i read it.

Thanks Chris - yes have to be a little carful once guidance goes out of date - but i wish they would update L73. 3013 regs? Now that is impressive - lol i said it was a Friday post - role on the weekend

Morning Brian

A PS - whilst I was typing you were having a chat with Chris!!!

I don't think your question is really a RIDDOR one but let's deal with the RIDDOR bit first.

The relevant part is Regulation 14(3) which includes:

(c) was engaged in work connected with the loading or unloading of any article or substance on to or off the vehicle at the time of the accident, or was injured or killed by the activities of another person who was so engaged; or

(d) was engaged in, or was injured or killed by the activities of another person who was at the time of the accident engaged in, work on or alongside a road.

(4) In paragraph (3)(d), “work on or alongside a road” means work concerned with the construction, demolition, alteration, repair or maintenance of— (a) the road or the markings or equipment on the road; (b) the verges, fences, hedges or other boundaries of the road; (c) pipes or cables on, under, over or adjacent to the road; or (d) buildings or structures adjacent to or over the road.

Part of the problem of interpretation is the number of times the word "or" is used, but Regulation 14(4) makes it clear that it only impacts Regulations 13(3)(d) and NOT paragraph (3)(c).

So paragraph (3)(d) is the one which brings anything subject to CDM into the scope of the reporting requirements of RIDDOR. Paragraphs 4(a) to 4(c) are in effect all the stuff subject to the New Roads and Streetworks Act BUT paragraph 4(d) also brings in any construction site alongside the public highway.

HOWEVER, paragraph 3(c) extends this to including all those logistics activities at other places alongside the public highway.

So, as I read it when you get a visit from an e.g. Deliveroo driver/rider if they knock somebody down when travelling it is outside the scope of RIDDOR, but if they injure a person whilst un(loading) their vehicle (motorised or not) it would fall within RIDDOR - subject, obviously to meeting all the other reporting criteria. Ditto if they are themselves injured whilst (un)loading.

But, I think that your question was mostly about what HSE might do about any of these scenarios. If they can point to another enforcing authority as taking the lead then they will - so usually it's about who is the enforcing authority for Road Traffic legislation - answer Police, so HSE will desperately try to avoid getting involved.

There have been exceptions. On the Olympics it was realised that perhaps the greatest single health and safety risk came from moving things through London to the site and HSE got dragged in (screaming) to do its bit in a multiagency approach and "CLOCS" came into being.

HSE policy has always (at least since when I joined in 1979) been to try and duck if there is somebody else who seems to have more authority. 

But, if as example, there was a fatal accident to that e.g. Deliveroo person or a passer by during the (un)loading of a delivery, then I think that this would fall to HSE to investigate UNLESS they could show that the scenario was covered by legislation enforced by somebody else - could e.g. result from obstucting the public highway (inclusive of a footway). 

Edited by user 27 May 2022 10:16:47(UTC)  | Reason: Added a PS

Hi Brian

Not sure exactly what HMG and/or HSE are doing in terms of reporting to Eurostat post Brexit, but in theory the UK reports to Eurostat on work-related accidents are supposed to include an estimate of the number of work-related transport accidents, including in particular, RTAs.

But I don't think anyone has a particularly reliable understanding of what proportion of recorded Road Traffic Collisions (RTCs) are work-related, as the Police are too busy trying to deal with the emergency and then, sometimes, find out what has happened, to be routinely recorded why all the parties involved were on or near the road.

So, many years ago when the UK total fatalities from RTCs was running at about 2000 per year, HSE estimated that 10% were work-related, RoSPA (probably more reliable than HSE on this topic) estimated 25% and Devon and Cornwall Police estimated that in their patch it was about 40%.

So, depending on which of these or other estimates were to be picked is going to have a massive impact in the guestimates that HSE has been providing to Eurostat.

If they have been reporting on the basis of less than half of what RoSPA suggest, then as you indicate a change of policy would make the numbers look much worse!