Amended 23/07/04
Daily operators checks & Through Inspectionclick
here
Amended 19/05/10
Truck Vibration and the law
click
here
Amended
27/05/10
Check out your
Truck Grouping Classification
for
training purposes CLICK
HERE
The new
basic driving
skill test explained. Started End APRIL 2000
CLICK
HERE
Amended 28/08/06 Medical
standards for lift truck operators including
noise
assessmentCLICK HERE
Amended 14/10/03 Discard criteria for Fork-lift chains &
Lighting Regulations
& Repairing forks
CLICK HERE
Young persons operating lift trucks. What
the HSE says CLICK HERE
Amended 15/12/03
The accident reporting procedures under RIDDORCLICK HERE
Amended 08/02/07
To check where you are
with Engine Emissions
and
Seat Restraint
CLICK HERE
Amended 25/03/06Safety cage operation on lift trucks
and cranes CLICK
HERE
Amended
07/11/06Workplace
Health Safety And Welfare. Workplace
transport safety CLICK HERE
A
potted history of the Fork Lift Truck
CLICK HERE
Just click on the picture to enlarge
(Just had to put the end two pictures in)
Take a look at our
picture gallery of what not to do
Click
Here
Metal company fined after
forklift truck runs over worker An
international metal-processing company has been fined £12,500 after
one of its workers was run over by a forklift truck in Bolton.
All Metal Services Limited (AMS) was prosecuted by the Health and
Safety Executive (HSE) following the incident at the company's
warehouse on the Wingates Industrial Park in Westhoughton on 8
September 2008.
Derek Baxter, from Radcliffe, was kneeling down to measure empty
pallets at the end of an aisle when a forklift truck ran over his
right leg, trapping his foot.The 54-year-old broke three toes,
fractured several bones in his foot, and suffered extensive
skin, muscle and tissue damage. He still has difficulty walking more
than eighteen months after the incident.
Manchester Crown Court heard that items of stock had been left in
the aisle, narrowing the route for the truck, and that there was not
a separate walkway for pedestrians.
HSE Inspector Alex Farnhill said:"Derek Baxter
has been left with a badly damaged right leg as a result of AMS's
poor health and safety procedures. He had to take sixteen months off
work and still has a swollen foot which makes it difficult for him
to walk.
"The company has an annual turnover of more than $180 million with
bases in the UK, France and China. Any organisation that size can
easily afford to spend time and money on basic health and safety."
AMS, which supplies raw materials to the aerospace and defence
industries, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 17 of the
Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 by failing
to provide a separate walkway for pedestrians.
The company, which has its headquarters on Horton Industrial Estate
in West Drayton, Greater London, was ordered to pay £4,230 towards
the cost of the prosecution in addition to the fine at Manchester
Crown Court on 16 April 2010. Alex Farnhill
added: "Measures
should have been taken to ensure vehicles and pedestrians were
effectively separated in the warehouse so they could both circulate
in a safe manner."I hope this incident will act as a warning to AMS,
and encourage other manufacturers to think more about the potential
dangers of vehicles in factories and warehouses."
There were 32 deaths and more than 22,400 serious injuries in the
manufacturing sector in Great Britain last year. Information on
improving safety is available at
www.hse.gov.uk/manufacturing.
Regulation 17 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare)
Regulations 1992 states: "Every workplace shall be organised in
such a way that pedestrians and vehicles can circulate in a safe
manner."
Release No:
HSE/NW/04AMS Date 16th April 2010 No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article
Article posted (26/04/10)
National
Plant pull out of CPCS Card Scheme ! STAN CHAPMAN (CHIEF
EXECUTIVE)
National Plant Operators Registration Scheme Ltd
As we are no longer part of CPCS there are a number of changes
required to bring NPORS into line as an independent accrediting
body and card scheme. Read more
here ..........
"ALLMI"
merges with "ALLMI Training" On the 1st February this year, the Association of
Lorry Loader Manufacturers and Importers (ALLMI) merged with ALLMI
Training Ltd to form a single limited company. The formation of this
company, ALLMI Ltd, brings a new corporate identity, part of which
includes the new ALLMI logo (above left).
ALLMI was founded in
1978 at the request of the Health & Safety Executive and has always
been heavily involved in forming and influencing “Best Practice”
within the lorry loader industry. Although ALLMI has been
successfully involved in a number of issues, ALLMI members were
polled in 2003 with regard to their feelings towards the
Association, its activities and its overall profile. The response
was that they wanted the Association to enjoy a much higher profile
and to perhaps offer a number of peripheral services to its members.
The poll within the ALLMI membership suggested a natural
solution; that the Association should build towards merging ALLMI
with ALLMI Training Ltd. This provides the organisation with
synergies, a single point of contact and the structure to provide
any peripheral services in addition to creating the opportunity for
a stronger presence in the industry.
This merger has now taken place and ALLMI is currently 13-months
into a 24-month program of implementing some major changes. These
include: -
Replacing the Executive Committee of ALLMI and the Board of
ALLMI Training Ltd with a Management Board for the newly merged
organisation. All officers have been elected and include
representatives from 3 of the biggest loader crane
Manufacturers.
Introducing a Buyers' Co-operative to enable all Members,
particularly the smaller ones, to be able to buy core items such
as steel, oil, hoses, insurance and so on through collective
bargaining.
Introducing a certificated training scheme and ultimately a
recognised qualification for people who carry out Examination &
Testing of Lorry Loaders.
Re-writing and updating the ALLMI Code of Practice to
incorporate all the more recent product innovations and
legislative requirements.
Establishing a new division of the Association specifically
for owners of Lorry Loaders
You can find
there details at
www.lorryloaders.info
or
www.allmi.com No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article
Article posted (02/06/06)
Forklift operator
prosecuted under S7 of HSWA
An employee of ZF Lemforder UK Limited of Bickenhill,
West Midlands, has been prosecuted and fined for
actions, that HSE had alleged, placed him in breach
of his duty as an individual under S.7¹
of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
The prosecution followed an incident on 11th January
2005, when the man lifted a colleague up
approximately 3-4 metres in a metal stillage
balanced on the forks of his forklift truck, in
order to repair a loading bay curtain, when the
correct lifting equipment was available from the
company. The outcome was a fall in which a colleague
sustained major injuries.
It transpired that the convicted man had received
risk assessment training, forklift truck driver
training and training which allows him to teach
forklift truck driver training to others. These
training courses give examples of bad practice,
including lifting people up in metal stillages or
pallets balanced on the forks of forklift trucks to
gain access to height.
HSE wishes to caution companies to take adequate
precautions to prevent injuries when falling from
height at work, particularly in the use of forklift
trucks, which should only be used to lift goods in
their metal stillages as opposed to people.
The man pleaded guilty at Solihull Magistrates Court
and was fined £450, with costs of £250.
Comment: "Using a forklift truck as
a way of elevating people is a highly dangerous
practice and creates an imminent risk to safety.
Both employers and employees have a duty to ensure
that appropriate safety measures are taken when
carrying out work that involves working at height in
order to prevent injuries such as these.
HSE's current programme of Revitalising Health and
Safety has highlighted falls from height as the most
common cause of work-related deaths. Every year,
around 80 people are killed and more than 5,500
seriously injured as a result of falling from
height" - Prosecuting HSE Inspector.
¹ The prosecution
under the Act was because he was deemed to have
failed to discharge the duty imposed on him by S.7
in that he failed to take reasonable care of the
health and safety of other persons, including his
colleague, who may be affected by his acts or
omissions at work.
05.09.05
No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article
(22/09/05)
Operator
Certificates from Non UK. for Lift Truck
Operator Training It is reasonable to expect an
employer to assess the competence of any new
operators as part of their general risk control
effort under the HSAW (section 2), Management of
Health and Safety at Work Regulations
(regulations 3 and 5) and PUWER regulation 9.
The possession of any documentation other than a
valid certificate of training awarded by a UK
training provider accredited by a HSE recognised
accrediting body
should not necessarily be
taken by an employer as evidence that an
operator has received training to the standards
described in the ACOP L117, regardless of the
country in which the training was provided.
With this in mind it is expected that any
accredited organisation will confirm operators’
skills by assessment and provide training based
on that assessment. In most circumstances it is
likely that holders of certificates of Lift
Truck Operator training issued by organisations
outside the UK (i.e. organisations not
accredited by a HSE recognised accrediting body)
will require training specified by an
accrediting body who has given the guidance
provided for “untrained lift truck operators
with experience", e.g. 3 days training at a
candidate, instructor, truck ratio of 3:1:1
There may also be a need to see previous
documentary evidence of experience ;IE an overseas
cert by the accredited training organisation. No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article
(12/09/05)
Hanging offence
or
useful tool? A new European standard for man-baskets
suspended from cranes has been published. Phil Bishop explores the implications
The issue of
lifting persons in baskets suspended from cranes
has been a hot topic for several years. There is
a strong body of thought that argues that cranes
aredesigned for lifting goods and not people and
therefore is contrary to the EU Use of Work
Equipment Directive 95/63/CE 1995.
When crane hire company NMT
offered rides in a basket suspended from a crane
to visitors to the 2002 SED show, the
International Powered Access Federation swiftly
called in the Health & Safety Executive. After
some discussion the authorities put a stop to
the rides (which, it should be added, were
merely to raise funds for charity). The basis
for stopping NMT was that it was deemed to be
using the crane and basket as a fairground ride
rather than as industrial equipment. It is, in
fact, perfectly legal in the UK to ride in a
man-basket suspended from a crane, although some
crane owners feel that clearer guidance is
required from the HSE.
The HSE says that its attitude to riding in
baskets suspended from cranes is very similar to
its attitude to the use of work platforms
attached to forklifts. In each case, LOLER says
that it may be done only in "exceptional
circumstances". In effect, this means where a
risk assessment has demonstrated that there is
not a more appropriate, safer alternative
readily available. This is also in line with the
Work at Height Regulations' hierarchy of risk.
.............. For more on this article
click here
Crane
& Access March 2006
No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article
(25/03/06)
Is it the
use of a Cage or will it be a Cherry picker. The
pressure is on !!! The Work at Height Regulations 2005,
regulation 7(2)(b) places a duty on employers to
select the most suitable work equipment
for the task to be carried out regardless of the
duration of the task.
I have
extracted some important statements from Note PM28
but you can get a free pdf file copy supplied by the
HSE at the end of this article.
Here is the
major change for use of cages as extracted from the
new Note PM28.
There is a free down load pdf file link at the
bottom of this article.
OCCASIONAL USE
12. The Work at Height Regulations 2005, regulation
7(2)(b) places a duty on employers to select the
most suitable work equipment for the task to be
carried out regardless of the duration of the task.
Nevertheless, it is foreseeable but unacceptable
that people will often use unsafe methods of access
to height for short duration and occasional tasks.
For example, a substantial number of serious
accidents occur when people are lifted on the forks
or a bucket and on pallets or stillages placed on
the forks of fork lift trucks. To encourage safer
working practices, in these exceptional
circumstances, occasional use of non-integrated
working platforms with forklift trucks is allowed in
the UK in accordance with this guidance note. This
occasional use is allowed in the UK but may not be
allowed in some other EU member states. As such,
there is NO free
movement of non-integrated working platforms
throughout the EU and they
MUST NOT be CE marked.
Examples of occasional use
are..
a. non-routine
maintenance tasks for which it is impractical to
hire in purpose built access equipment,
b. the
replacement of light fittings in high rise
warehouses if the task is not carried out as
part of periodic maintenance operations
c. tasks that
would otherwise be carried out using less safe
means of access such as ladders, because it is
impractical to hire in purpose designed people
lifting equipment due to the short duration and
occasional nature of the task, e.g. clearing a
blocked gutter d. checking on high-level damage
to racking suspected of causing an immediate
risk or checking on the condition of damaged
roof lights.
14. Routine or planned tasks particularly those
associated with production or pre-planned
activities, such as periodic maintenance or
stocktaking, are not exceptional circumstances and
are thus not examples of occasional use. Generally,
non-integrated work platforms do not provide as high
a level of safety as purpose built access equipment.
Consequently, forklift trucks fitted with
non-integrated working platforms are not suitable
for order picking, routine maintenance or the
transfer of goods or people from one level to
another.
Training
34. People expected to work on platforms and truck
operators shall be aware of the restricted uses
given in paragraphs 13 & 14. They should be properly
trained and given full instructions on safe systems
of working with platforms, including the action to
be taken in the event of an emergency and the
dangers associated with leaning out of the working
platform.
37. Non-integrated working platforms are not
suitable for use on:
a. trucks that
require manual sequencing of the lift/tilt
controls to maintain the working platform
horizontal while being lifted;
b. trucks with
masts that can give erratic movement, e.g. due
to sequencing problems during
lowering;
c. trucks that
have an actual capacity (paragraphs 10 and 11)
of less than 1000kg unless their stability has
been verified by testing or calculation verified
by empirical data (paragraph 38); [Note : Some truck
types with an actual capacity of less than 1000
kg may be suitable for use with
working platforms but the truck manufacturer
must be consulted to ensure the stability of the
truck/platform combination]
d. variable
reach trucks (telehandlers) that can lift to a
nominal height greater than 6m. [Note : The use of
non-integrated platforms on rough terrain
variable reach trucks requires extra care
because of the rough terrain environment in
which these machines are normally used and the
nature of the pneumatic tyres fitted.]
e. pallet
stackers with wrap over type forks.
Health and Safety at Work
etc Act 1974
77.The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSWA)
places duties on employers and persons who have
control of premises to ensure the safety of their
employees and others who may be affected by their
work activities. A risk assessment of any work at
height shall be carried out under the Management of
Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. The
assessment shall identify the measures needed to
comply with all relevant legislation applicable to
the intended work at height.
79. Paragraph 78 indicates that non-integrated
working platforms must
not carry a CE mark. Previous
versions of this guidance note indicated that a CE
mark was required but this is no longer appropriate
due to the above decision. Users should be aware,
therefore, that there are non-integrated working
platforms in existence that carry the CE mark. This
mark should be disregarded and should not be taken
to mean that the equipment complies with a given
standard. Such CE marked equipment may, or may not,
meet the requirements of this third edition of the
guidance note (i.e. PM28).
Work at Height Regulations
88. These Regulations came into force in April 2005.
They require all work at height to be properly
planned and organised and the risks controlled. This
includes the selection and use of appropriate work
equipment for work at height. The Regulations
maintain existing standards with regard to the
control of work at height and reiterate the
provisions of PUWER and LOLER.
pdf file (Size 128k )
Note PM 28
.No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article
(9/09/05)
Unattended forklift caused worker’s death
Publication Date:
.29 September 2006 East Riding of Yorkshire Council has prosecuted a local business
and its managing director following a fatality involving an
unattended forklift truck. Tony Cook Ltd, of Daisy Hill Road, Burstwick, East Yorkshire, was fined £42,000 for serious health
and safety breaches. The company’s managing director, Antony
Denis Cook, was separately fined £10,000 under Section 37 of the
Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. Costs of £8,075 were
awarded to the council.
On the morning of the accident in
August 2005, the vehicle had been driven by the managing
director and left in gear, with the keys in the ignition.
Yard manager Paula Eldred became trapped under the wheels
after turning the key to use the vehicle as a noise source to
demonstrate ear defenders to a customer.
An investigation by Neil Huntley, EHO, found that the
forklift had a defective handbrake and had not been effectively
maintained. Staff had been inadequately trained in its safe use
and risk assessments had not been completed. An inquest in
January 2006 recorded a verdict of accidental death on Ms
Eldred.
At Hull crown court this month, the company pleaded guilty to
one offence under Section 2 and five offences under health and
safety regulations. Mr Cook, who had admitted that health and
safety was his responsibility, pleaded guilty to an offence
under Section 37, which covers failure to ensure the health,
safety and welfare of employees.
Paul Mears, the council’s health, safety and licensing
manager commented: ‘Forklift trucks are potentially lethal
pieces of equipment. This tragic accident was completely
avoidable had the company and management followed established
basic safety rules.
Inspectors from the council will continue to focus on similar
small businesses with a poor safety record and those not
maintaining equipment or allowing staff to operate trucks
without appropriate training.’
B&Q fined after forklift
crushes shopper
DIY giant B&Q has been ordered to pay out £800,000 in fines and
costs after a woman was crushed to death by a reversing forklift
truck while shopping at one of its branches.
The DIY giant was convicted of five counts of breaching health and
safety law after Pamela Hinchliffe, 68, was struck by the lift truck
at B&Q’s Poole store in June2001.
Bournemouth Crown Court heard that B&Q failed to ensure that the
control of forklift movements at the site complied with the
company’s own safety guidelines. In particular, the court was told
that CCTV evidence revealed that lift trucks were being operated at
the site without banksmen to guide them.
Speaking after the case, Peter Pawlowski, the Borough of Poole’s
Head of Consumer Protection Service, said: “The fine of £550,000
together with the award of £250,000 prosecution costs represent a
significant figure and one of the highest ever set for offences
within the retail sector.”
B&Q has lodged an appeal against the conviction. No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article
(07/12/04)
ITSSAR simplify categories
ITSSAR trainers now have more categories of truck they can
train on. There is a continual review of the whole training
programs and the need to be flexible with development within the
lift truck training world as all the new designes are brought out.
As a matter of course ITSSAR are always at the forefront with there
accreditation scheme. Further category details can be found a
Click
Here
Haulage company fined £50,000 after
falling load kills driver (July 2004)
A haulage company was fined £50,000 after a court heard how a
lorry driver was killed when he was struck by a load falling from the
forks of a lift truck.
Prosecuting on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), lan
Bridge told Leicester Crown Court that 61-year-old lorry driver Kenneth
Hicks was visiting Pallet Network Limited’s depot in Wigston, near
Leicester, when the incident happened on 26 November 2002.
On the day of the standing in a warehouse next to his lorry as it was
being loaded by a forklift truck. During the operation, the truck lifted
a pallet load with a stack of boxes to place inside the lorry. However,
the court was told that the 540-kilogram stack of boxes toppled over,
striking Hicks as he attempted to steady the load. As a result, he
received severe head injuries, dying in hospital two months later.
The court heard that the accident happened because Pallet Network
Limited failed to ensure that a safe system of work was in place for
loading and unloading vehicles at the depot. In particular, Bridge told
the court that the firm’s risk assessment covering heavy goods vehicles
(HGVs) visiting the site was inadequate because it failed to take
loading and unloading operations into account.
Bridge said that the firm should have established a demarcated area for
visiting drivers to stand in while their vehicles were being loaded to
keep them at a safe distance from moving lift trucks. The court was also
told that the company failed to provide its forklift truck supervisor
with suitable training and information on the potential risks to
visiting drivers during loading and unloading work.
Bridge added that, although there had been a number of incidents of
loads falling from fork-lift trucks in the months before the accident,
the company failed to monitor the system of work in place for loading
and unloading lorries.
Speaking in mitigation for Pallet Network Limited, which pleaded guilty,
Michael Spencer QC said that the firm has now introduced demarcated
areas for HGV drivers to stand in while their vehicles are loaded or
unloaded.
Pallet Network Limited was fined £50,000 under Section 3(1) of the
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 for failing to ensure the safety of
people not in its employment. It was also ordered to pay the full
prosecution costs of £10,023. No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article
Lorry Loader Training Scheme. The
first to be recognised by the HSE
We are pleased to announce that due to the consistently high
standards of its training scheme, ALLMI Training Ltd. has been
awarded the Health and Safety Executive’s ‘Working in Partnership’
logo of recognition. The logo comes complete with a commendation: “The Health
and Safety Executive (HSE) commends the use of this Training
Programme to those who have duties under the Health and Safety at
Work etc. Act 1974. This programme was drawn up with the
participation of a HSE representative and will be referred to in
relevant HSE publications.”
ALLMI
Training Ltd, the independent training accreditation service and
standards body for the UK lorry loader crane industry, has been
awarded the HSE’s ‘Working in Partnership’ logo of recognition
for its national training scheme. Acknowledged as the industry
standard, the scheme is designed to equip operatives with the
necessary skills and knowledge to make the use of lorry loader
cranes safer and more productive. Awarded for
its consistently high standards, ALLMI Training is the only
organisation in its sector to receive such a commendation. The
programme was drawn up with the participation of a HSE
representative and will now be referred to in relevant HSE
publications.
Comments Tom Wakefield, Training Manager of ALLMI Training Ltd:
“We are delighted that the HSE now commends the use of this
training programme to all those who have duties under the Health
and Safety at Work Act 1974. It reflects great credit on
everyone involved in developing and delivering the scheme
nationwide.”
ALLMI Training operates through a fast-growing network of
training centres whose instructors must not only satisfy the
stringent requirements of the initial accreditation process, but
must consistently achieve agreed standards. Regular audits are
conducted on all instructors to ensure a common high standard
throughout the scheme.
Double-decker ripped open
in fork-lift crash
A FORK-LIFT truck sliced open a bus like a tin opener as the
double-decker drove down one of the Capital’s busiest
streets. One passenger, a 38-year-old man, had to be taken
to hospital after torn metal from the side of the bus ripped
open his left knee. Passengers told how they heard a loud
bang as the forks punctured the metal sides of the bus,
tearing a three-feet-long gash of ragged metal along its
front left side. The forks left another rip almost 12-feet
long down the bus’s rear left side. The injured man had been
sitting at the very front of the bus on the left-hand side
when the accident happened shortly after 2.20pm yesterday.
The number 10 Lothian Bus was traveling up Leith Walk, past
the junction with Albert Street, where the fork-lift truck
was trying to enter the Walk. Emergency services feared mass
casualties when reports of the accident first came in. A
female passenger, who asked not to be named, said there had
been about two dozen people on board when the collision
happened. She said: "We were just passing Albert Street when
I heard a bang and the sound of glass breaking. "A woman
from downstairs went upstairs and asked whether everyone was
all right and somebody said no, there’s a guy been hurt at
the front of the bus. "A girl came down and said metal had
gone into his leg and she had tied a tourniquet around it.
"I got off after about ten minutes because I was so shaken
up and the driver of the fork lift came on and asked whether
everyone was all right." Emergency services were on the
scene within minutes. A spokesman for the ambulance service
confirmed that only one passenger needed treatment. He said:
"A 38-year-old male was taken to casualty at Edinburgh Royal
Infirmary with lacerations to his left knee." The fork-lift
truck was being operated by a sub contractor working for
Ballast, a construction firm which is building a five-storey
block of flats in Albert Street. David McKenzie of Ballast
said: "We understand that the fork-lift truck was stationary
with his handbrake on [at the time of the accident]. We are
doing everything we can to ensure that the injured party is
in good care, and that the police have all the assistance
they need . "The fork-lift was licensed to be on public
roads, and the driver - a very experienced, certified,
fork-lift truck driver - would have been following a
frequently-traveled route, turning on to Leith Walk in order
to access a second site road." A spokesman for Lothian Buses
said: "We are working with Lothian and Borders Police to
establish exactly what happened. "As in any accident that
happens, the driver was shaken, he was certainly not
expecting something like that as he was driving up Leith
Walk." A spokesman for Lothian and Borders Police confirmed
the force was investigating the cause of the accident.
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/edinburgh.cfm?id=206182003 No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article
Forklift operator badly
injured
It is reported that a forklift operator has sustained back,
abdominal and leg injuries in an industrial accident at the
premises of Target Express, Deans Industrial Estate, West
Lothian. It is not known if the 26 year-old man's injuries
are life-threatening No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article
UPDATE POUNDS196K FOR DAD
Mar 8 2003
A WORKER whose legs were crushed when two tons of steel fell
on him was awarded pounds £196,000 compensation yesterday. The
metal fell on father-of-two Michael Delaney when it was
being unloaded from a lorry with a fork-lift. The Court of
Session decided that McGregor Construction should have
provided a proper crane. The construction firm denied any
fault and had fought the case for more than three years. Mr
Delaney, of Fort William, who now works as an electrician,
said he was happy and relieved the case had come to an end
at long last. No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article
Forklift driver killed
It is reported that a forklift truck driver has died in an
industrial accident on the Moorfield Industrial Estate,
Kilmarnock. According to one account, the accident occurred when
the driver was transferring pallets of bricks from one trailer
to another and he was struck by the forklift as he dismounted
from it. Update: The dead man is William Speirs, 57. Mr Shearer
died at the premises of Chris Shearer haulage. It is reported
that he left the forklift to clear a pallet when his machine
moved forward and crushed him No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article
£1.2m for paralysed worker March
15, 2003
A supermarket worker left paralysed when a loading cage fell off
a lorry has won a £1.2m compensation settlement, a court heard
yesterday. But magistrates dealing with a criminal prosecution
of two companies for health and safety failures refused to pass
sentence in the case because their £20,000 maximum fines were
not enough. Sheringham man Simon Ayers has been in a wheel-chair
since suffering back injuries in the accident outside the town's
Budgens supermarket on July 18 2001. Haulage company Gist and
Budgens had both admitted Health and Safety Act offences of
failing to ensure the safety of workers, other firms' employees
and the public. After a two-hour hearing and an hour
deliberating, Cromer magistrates felt their powers were not
enough and sent the case to crown court where sentencing is
unlimited. Geoffrey Knipe, prosecuting for the Health and Safety
Executive, said the accident happened when a 430kg cage full of
goods went through a delivery lorry's tail lift side protector
and hit Mr Ayers as he stood in front of the store. Mr Ayers,
who damaged three vertebrae and his spinal column, had received
no training on health and safety, and Gist had not trained
driver Robin Gilbey in loading safety. Solicitor Peter Atkinson,
for Gist, said it took safety seriously but the driver had
"slipped through the net" because he was experienced on the
Sheringham run. The company had a good safety record while
delivering 5000 cages to 237 Budgens stores. He said
reconstructions showed the cage could only have come off the
side of the tail lift if the side plate was not properly fitted.
Budgens' barrister Gerard Forlin said it seemed human error by
the driver had caused the tragic accident. The supermarket "apologised
unreservedly" to Mr Ayers and his family and accepted it had
fallen below the standards required by law – but added that
safety methods and training had been stepped up since the
accident. There was a risk assessment of loading dangers in
place when it happened – but no one had told Mr Ayers about the
precautions in it, including standing clear of the lorry during
loading. Mr Forlin said a civil case had now been settled, with
a £1.2m payout agreed – Gist paying 85pc and Budgens 15pc. The
Ayers family and the two companies declined to comment after the
case. No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article
Forklift driver killed after
being crushed into wall
A forklift driver was killed today in an industrial
accident. The 41-year-old man, who has not yet been named,
was working at the Safeway Regional Distribution Centre,
within Righead Industrial Estate in Bellshill, Lanarkshire,
when the accident happened shortly after midnight. He
suffered serious leg injuries when he fell from his truck
and became trapped between it and a wall. He was taken by
ambulance to Monklands Hospital but died a short time later.
About 60 forklift drivers work on the busy nightshift at the
depot. A workmate said: "He was unloading a lorry that had
come into the base. "I heard he had been on the truck ramp
when it was parked in an unloading bay. "Maybe he was trying
to straighten up his bogie to uplift the palettes from the
lorry and his unit lost its balance and toppled into the
bay. "I was told he was crushed into the wall." A police
spokesman said: "It was a tragic accident. The driver fell
from the back of his unit and his legs were crushed between
it and the wall of the bay. "Workmates quickly raised the
alarm and he was given emergency treatment at the scene by
paramedics before an ambulance rushed him to Monklands
Hospital. "Unfortunately, he died shortly after being
admitted. He had been bleeding heavily and possibly died of
a cardiac arrest." Health and Safety Executive officials
have started an investigation into the tragedy. A Safeway
spokesman said: "We are assisting in every way possible with
the inquiry." No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article
Lorry driver crushed to
death Mar 20 2003
A MERSEYSIDE lorry driver was crushed to death when he was
caught between a fork lift truck and quarry equipment. The
53-year-old father-of-one from Whitby, Ellesmere Port, died
at Cavendish Mill in Stoney Middleton, Derbyshire, on
Tuesday afternoon. Police and the Health and Safety
Executive have launched an investigation into the incident
which happened on the premises of Glebe Mining. It is
thought that the man was injured at around 11.20am at the
site's limestone processing plant, close to the quarry. It
is understood that he had left his vehicle prior to the
accident. Police said that the man, who has not been named,
was airlifted to the Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal
Hospital and pronounced dead shortly after arrival. It is
understood that he was married and had a daughter. A team of
HSE site inspectors arrived at the scene yesterday morning
and sealed off the area although much of the quarry remained
open for operations. Derbyshire Police have ruled out any
suspicious circumstances but will remain in close contact
with the HSE while interviews with witnesses are carried
out. A HSE spokesman said: "It is believed that the man was
crushed between a fork lift truck and a caterpillar load-ing
shovel. "An investigation with the police is being carried
out at the scene and interviews with witnesses will take
place over the next few weeks. "This is a very delicate
investigation and it is too early to say how the man came to
be involved in this accident. A Derbyshire police spokesman
said the death was not being treated as suspicious. A post
mortem would be carried out by a Home Office pathologist
before details are passed to the Derbyshire coroner. No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article
Untrained
agency worker injured by a Powered Pallet Truck Agency worker, 18 year old
Daniel Collier arrived at the wholesaler paper merchant
based in Hull for his third day of work as a warehouseman
and was asked to operate the electric powered pallet truck.
The task resulted in the pallet truck running over his foot,
fracturing three of his toes, causing crush injuries to
three bones and tearing tissue in his right foot.
G F
Smith pleaded guilty to breaching s3(1) of HSWA 1974 by
failing to ensure safety of non-employees. The court heard
that novice operators should be provided with a full days
training on a pallet truck and that all full-time employees
wore safety shoes.
In mitigation G F Smith said that Collier
had been given some training on his first day and that he
had been informed that he was to provide his own safety
shoes. David Duxbury, Hull City Council’s head of public
protection, commented “This case highlights the dangers of
allowing untrained staff to use work equipment. Many people
consider pallet trucks to be everyday items, which anyone
can use, but in untrained hands there is the potential for
serious injury.”
The wholesale paper merchant was fined
£6000 and ordered to pay
the Council’s full costs of £1750. As published in
the AITT News December 2006 using the (Source:/ Safety and
Health Practitioner June 2006)
www.aitt.co.uk
The
Hand Operated Pallet Truck OUCH!!
It
has to be said this is not he most interesting piece of kit on
the factory floor!. Yet in some operations it could arguably be one of the most important pallet movers in the
factory. Having said all that there is no need to have a
licence to operate it. It dose have a
ITSSAR category Z1) In fact I would be very surprised if many
people have had any training on its operation. It looks
deceptively easy to use. I train in many different working
environments and most times discover that personnel
regularly have their ankles hit and bruised , toes squashed
, and in one extreme case an overnight stay in hospital !!
All as a result of a badly aimed and maintained trucks. Well
what to do about it? TTT.ltd
has produced a leaflet that it distributes FREE
containing
valuable do’s and don'ts on how to push it and operate it
safely. If you would like a copy then just Download it HERE
(Aprox
500k) in touch by E
Mail requesting the leaflet. I will send it snail mail.
Find out if your firm has had a brush with the HSE
HSE recently published its first ever
enforcement report, which names hundreds of companies, organisations and
individuals convicted of health and safety crimes during 1999/2000. This
implements the commitment in the 'Revitalising Health and Safety'
strategy statement. Health and safety offences and penalties lists around 1600
individual offences and includes several big-name companies, as well as
small firms, local authorities, hospitals and universities throughout
Britain. In addition, full details of each conviction are available on a
special website database
http://www.hse-databases.co.uk/prosecutions/.
HSE Director General, Timothy Walker, said: "Companies,
organisations and individuals must be held accountable for their health
and safety performance: their professional reputation should depend on
it. The convictions are there for everyone to see, including would-be
customers, contractors, investors, employees and insurers. They all have
a right to be aware of an organisation's health and safety record before
they decide whether to invest their capital and labour."
Mr Walker criticised the low general levels of fines still being handed
down by Britain's courts, and said: "In addition to the courts exacting
stiffer penalties under existing law, we need tougher new penalties and
more widely available prison sentences, as laid out in the Government's
and Health and Safety Commission's 'Revitalising Health and Safety'
strategy. This aims for significant improvements in Britain's health and
safety at work record. I am also hopeful that the Government will
proceed quickly to introduce the proposed manslaughter legislation,
which will create a new offence of corporate killing."
Part of
LOLER (Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations) ’98
recommends that fork trucks working up-to forty hours a week should be
serviced at least every twelve months. But did you know? If the truck is
fitted with a side shift (most trucks are nowadays), an attachment, or
is used in conjunction with a man-up cage, then it is recommended these
trucks be services at least every six months.
LOLER ’98 also recommends
that interchangeable equipment used on fork trucks such as jibs, fork
extensions and working platforms, should be treated as accessories for
lifting and thoroughly examined every six months. Further details
click here
What's in a category? Each truck that you operate need's a license. The new ACOP states
that very clearly. But what is the categories. Why have categories? The
simple reason is that there are fundamental differences in the operation
of individual trucks and these categories are designed to highlight the differences
and make sure that the operator is given the right training. Did
you know for instance that there is 3 categories of counterbalance
truck. B1,B2,B3. Which dose your fall into? There is a table
that I hope is clear. As always if you need help with it just ring or E
Mail. Need to know the category of the trucks you operate at
your work Click here
Broken
fork kills worker A tragic
accident caused the death of a worker when a fork snapped off a
lift truck as it was being used to sling a chute using a
polyethylene rope. The fork, which weighed 39 Kg. fell a
distance of seven feet striking the worker on the head who died
instantly.
Droitwich magistrates Court heard how the deceased was trying to
guide a chute into position which was being suspended from the
fork when it got caught under a press as the mast was being
raised.
The court also heard
how the accident happened because the company failed to ensure
that its fleet of 70 fork lift trucks were properly inspected.
It was stated that if the fork involved in the accident had been
examined by a competent person they would have identified that
the fork was cracked. Although the firm had employed a firm of
specialist engineering surveyors to carry out regular
examinations on most of its equipment the arrangement had never
included fork lift trucks.
The company was fined
for breaches of the Health and Safety at Work act and for two
breaches of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment
Regulations. Full costs were ordered to be paid costing the firm
a total of just over £62,000.
In mitigation the
company stated that they have now ensured that all of its fork
lift trucks are examined regularly by a competent person. No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article
(entered on our site on 27/03/06)
Road Tax and the
Law The law has been very clear about whether the forklift
needs tax or not. Of course it does. But how many times do we
see the common lift truck operating out and about with no tax.
The rule is if it is on the road it needs tax.
There is just
no exemption
these days. The chancellor wants his money. So if
you offload on the public highway, get it taxed. If you do not
know the rules or because you have your lift truck on hire you
think you are covered. Check. Now!!
Remember that your insurance company will
not cover you if the unfortunate happens. Details can be found
in BITA Publication Guidance Note GN57 & Forklift
Truck Association Bulletin No 3
or from TTT by E Mail
Have you got more than 5 Employees??
Then you need one of these.
Statement
of Health and Safety Policy
You will find one for your company here this will tell you how to
write one and give you a pre-formed statement you may wish to amend to
suite your particular
firm. Click Here
Take a look at the past stories of accidents
and near misses in in the UK and else where the fork lift world
CHECK BOOK. COPY....
ational
Plant pull out of CPCS Card Scheme !
pment
for the task to be carried out regardless of the
duration of the task.
Broken
fork kills worker
