Hi Liam

Your first post here, so welcome to the Forums.

Very sensible to want more than just what the salespeople want you to hear. 

Unfortunately you are probably unlikely to get much in the way of genuine statistics as to the benefits unless you can reach a level of multiple users, who traditionally have been reluctant to share their BAD experiences with others. 

At the individual company level, those who have invested in such protection will probably try to make out that it has been effective but the evidence might be lightweight.

But those same people will tend to be keener to share their "GOOD" experience, however flimsy the evidence might be.

However, the real test is whether such equipment is "reasonably practicable". Don't need much evidence of a reduction in plant-pedestrian contacts to make it VERY difficult for the duty holder to prove on the balance of probabilities that providing these protective measures is NOT reasonably practicable, with the onus of proof in legal proceedings (both criminal - see Section 40 of HSWA - and civil) being on the duty holder.

....and if you are applying the General Principles of Prevention set out in the Management Regulations then promimity sensor warning devices win hands down over e.g. a banksman.

What is reasonably practicable depends on the state of technology and the price tag on new technology. I think we have reached the stage where it would be difficult to argue that such devices are NOT reasonably practicable except on ageing equipment that is not easily modified and which is used so rarely as to justify its continued operation.

Hi Liam,

We currently use them on loading shovels in my workplace, they use cameras to detect pedestrians and then alert the driver.

We have had complaints from drivers that the alarm is very annoying, I suppose this would depend on how many people you expect to be near your FLTs, but we have also had many issues with the cameras picking up normal objects as people.

Our production process generates a lot of dust, so this might be just my workplace, which causes the cameras to get covered quite quickly, needing constant cleaning. I don't know if this would apply to a system on an FLT, but the front camera on our loading shovels sometimes gets part of it's vision blocked when the bucket is raised up.

We haven't seen much benefit of plant/pedestrian segregation, possibly due to a lack of reporting, or there simply wasn't many issues to begin with. We generally only have a small number of people on site, so vehicle and pedestrian interaction is minimal.

It has to be said, the system can alert the driver, but are they actually going to stop or slow down? I have noticed times when I have been near them and they will still continue operating, but in my workplace, we have two-way radios so I communicate what I am doing to the driver.

Full physical segregation, where practicable, would be much more effective.

I think in a workplace where pedestrians being near vehicles is common and there are objects, such as stocked shelves, that could hinder vision, you might see more benefit. Compared to my workplaces open yards, at least.

Regards

Mathew