another forum?

Banksman used to be a position of responsibility - on site they are responsible for how vehicle operators behave particularly in those murky areas not immediately in line of sight.

The big give away is a very clear set of rules "The Signs and Signals Regulations".

It is only when the vehicle operator is on the open public highway that responsibilty wholly lands at their feet.

Trouble is "we" have devalued the activity allowing drivers to behave as they see fit, permitting deliveries and loading when no banksman has been present despite company policy and failing to enforce our own rules.

Use banksmen wisely or dispose of their presence but do not have a "lip" service that is a quick route to incident and prosecution.

A banksman when identified as necessary is part of the sites overall traffic management plan.

Coincidence! Just, really just, finished reading an article about a railway near miss event, following a link from LI , written by David Jones, on the-icm website. You may know of it, where a cement mixer was directed onto a rail crossing AFTER the red lights started, by a banksman. Well worth a look - video speaks volumes.

I don't really 'get' the obsession with banksman. It gets confused and merged with 'signaller' functions, any training seems to cover both, and there is a lack of clarity about what is required / expected etc. 

My preference is for 'reversing assistant' as used in the refuse / waste industry. Although they too can struggle with getting good training. Basically the driver is in control (yes they are on the highway, acccepted), and usually also has cameras for directly behind, but the risk comes from approaching or nearby pedestrians, cyclists etc. They can rapidly and unexpectedly enter the danger zones., even emerging from garden gates into the side of a vehicle. The reversing assistant stays well clear of the vehicle but in the drivers sight, with a good view looking all around for others. They are not there to 'see the driver back' but as a safety lookout.

The RA has one primary signal. STOP.  The driver must stop whenever they lose sight of their RA, or when the STOP signal is made. 

The only downside is the name: reversing assistant. Not very snappy - prefer the US term 'spotter'.

I thought spotters worked with snipers

Hi, the debate came up on a lorry driver discussion.  There is no doubting what a BM could do and the conceptt, so here were the permutations 

1. Driver does as signalled by the BM and hits something - driver at fault and no actiuon against BM 2. Driver ignores signal by BM and hits something - driver at fault and no actions against BM 3. Driver ignores signal by BM and actrually avoids an incident - criticised for not following signals and no action against BM 4. BM is present but does nothing to assist driver - as long as nothing goes wrong then thats fine but if driver hits anything then againt they are at fault and no action to BM.    So, if there is no responsibility placed on the BM either to perform their task or provide correct signalling, then is there a value in the role?  Many of the driver posts were along the lines of using a BM but frequently ignoring any signals they may give as any mistakes are directed only to the driver.   Assuming there is a Traffic Management Plan in place as part of the management of the risks, and it includes reference to the BM.  I thought it raised an interesting safety issue in that the paperwork uses the BM as part of managing the risks but in practical and operational terms it is often little more than a paper excercise unless the BM fully undertakes the role in the spirit intended, but it matters not if they don't!

All the BM training I have seen, heard of or had feedback on specifically raises the point that it is only the dirver who is responsible if things go wrong.   Does anyone have any insight into the BMs responsibilies?  Do they have any for failing to give a signal or giving the wrong one.    

This excludes and recognises those who perform the BM role with due diligence and skill.    

Originally Posted by: Mick72

you would then have to ensure the guider and driver are both working to the same group of signals being given

Which is why the HSE states a safe system of work should exist including driver and Banksman understanding the same set of signals.

https://www.hse.gov.uk/workplacetransport/safetysigns/banksman/index.htm

https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/l64.htm​​​​​​​

Not one mention of pedestrian marshals.

If a driver can manouvre without the aide of a banksman, then IMO this is top of the hireachy. With cameras, mirrors, floor markings, lighting that does not cause glare then there is no reason to put any human being in harms way and this includes banksmen. People are better utilised, standing totally out of the way and preventing others from entering any danger zone. Banksmen should be deployed when a driver needs assistance only.

On another note then, who is responsible for providing a banksman for when say the big SPAR lorry turns up at your local SPAR garage. I watched this the other day, the driver had to have about 4 goes at not killing anyone or writing cars off on the forecourt. I did not see him trying to get someone from the garage to help nor did anyone from the garage offer assistance. Compare that to the building merchants next door who control the exct same delivery to the book. OK they have learned from past incidents and put controls in place, will it take SPAR to have their own fatality to learn or should they learn from others. I know the answer but obviousley these logistics companies dont communicate or they dont care.