A pensioner was killed when a reversing bin lorry struck his mobility scooter and dragged him more than eight metres down a road.
Nottingham Crown Court heard that Derrick Baines, 76, was returning home from the shops when the vehicle struck him on 10 July 2008. Basssetlaw District Council was collecting rubbish from Mellish Road in Nottingham as it had missed a bin collection during routine rounds.
The vehicle was manned by just a single worker, and as it reversed it collided with Mr Baines, who was driving his mobility scooter along the road. The bin lorry continued to reverse and Mr Baines, who was trapped underneath the scooter, was dragged eight metres by the truck until the driver noticed shopping spilling into the road. Mr Baines was taken to hospital and died a few hours later owing to crush injuries.
On 28 November 2008, the HSE issued an Improvement Notice to the council to review its risk assessment to minimise the risk to staff and members of the public during collections.
HSE inspector David Butter said the incident could have been avoided if another member of staff had accompanied the driver to act as his reversing assistant. He said: “If the council had staffed the refuse-collection lorry appropriately, then Mr Baines would probably still be alive today. Very large vehicles such as this have a number of blind spots and it was impractical to expect a lone driver to reverse safely without the aid of a colleague walking behind to check the path was clear.
“These lorries are fitted with flashing lights and a reversing warning system but the council needed to take into consideration that the system was not adequate, and another worker should have been present and could have prevented this needless loss of life.”
Bassetlaw District Council appeared in court on 3 July and pleaded guilty to breaching s3(1) of the HSWA 1974. It was fined £25,000 and ordered to pay £12,987 in costs.
In mitigation, the council said it had complied with the Improvement Notice and now ensures that more than one member of staff mans full-size waste-collection vehicles.
After the hearing a spokesperson for the council said: “The court accepted the council was well organised and motivated in its health and safety management and that the issue, which contributed to the accident, was the single weak link in an otherwise comprehensive system. The court also stated that the council’s culpability was very low.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
What would the fines have been, I wonder, if this had happened on one of my construction sites?
If the driver can’t see you in his mirrors, you aren’t there! In a vehicle of that size, the driver wouldn’t have even noticed hitting the scooter!
Yes; reversing horns and flashing lights are effective – but only if you can hear & see them & get out of the way!
A banksman and/or reversing cameras – ensures that the driver can see where his mirrors can’t, they aren’t too expensive either!
As someone who has driven LGV on and off since 1992, reversing cameras are an aid but no more. Cheap ones start at £70 (less fitting), decent systems >£300 + fitting. They get covered in road muck, are prone to damage and if they fail does that mean the vehicle is non-operational because essential safety eqpt is US?
The best solution is a banksman; he has 360 visibility & is able to move about. Unfortunately double-manning every RCV probably does mean the cost would outweigh the benefit.
PUWER reg`s apply surely. Refer to regulation 28 e and f
And regulation 18 is specific for control systems that mitigate risk.
I cannot use an excavator without suitable all round visibility and any self propelled vehicle is required to have adequate visibility aids as determined by risk assessment.
The cost of sensors and rear mounted cameras is negligable. This is not the first time a vehicle has reversed over some one, visual aids and audio warnings mitigate risk considerably.
Sort of anserws the question why I was often told to go easy on LA`s?
As you rightly point out the variation in fine defies belief.
Its not as if resource is an issue?
“Well motivated” but lacking in adequate control me thinks? Same old story really.
Costain were fined 250k for a reversing fatality when a QS was killed on the M25
refer to article dated 22 March.
I don`t imagine Costain have less procedures than this LA?
Stewards enquiry? – – – – – – – – – — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – objection is over ruled by the court?
RAy, let`s not foget the able bodied phone using jay walkers and the IPOD generation whom casually wonder from place to place without a care in the world.
And as for the light jumping no helmut wearing crusading cycle brigade, enough said?
Public protection is an all inclusive requirement even if they are themselves ignorent of risk.
The fitting of a cmaera may or may not have prevented this incident but we will never know because it was not adopted?
However we do know that they are a useful aid to mitigating risk, as is a requirement of both PUWER and MHSW regulatory requirement. And as you point out more commercially acceptable than a Banksman.
Plus the camera is less likely to be distracted, unwell, unfit etc.
The observation you make about maintenenace is somewhat invalid, fit for use, fit fior purpose applies?
Staggering that the Court felt the Council was “well organised and motivated” following a completely unnecessary death. If something similar happened on a company’s premises the HSE would have been highly critical because they had not ensured segregation of vehicles and pedestrians/sccoters and the Court would have imposed a massive fine.
Dustcarts have to reverse into roads not designed for such large vehicles so you either have a banksman or a reversing camera to cover the blind spot.
cut backs i dont think so do you.. with respected to the council and there health and safety pol. who sends a single driver out on is own to collect and reverse a lorry well over 40 tons, proberly had no reversing camera in the cab and not to mention the time of day when folk are out and about. i my self have witness single drivers come bin collectors on there own and not at 5 in the morning like they use to be ?
Not quite sure on segregation . Mobility scooters can be a menace, especially when driven by able-bodied people in disguise. It is bad enough being crashed in to and shouted at in Tesco where the veg aisle seems to be a Brands Hatch. I already despair of being struck from behid on footpaths already so please do not give ’em carte blanche to drive on footpaths. Soon what with Mobility scooters, bicycles and double buggies claiming the footpath, it will be easier towalk down the white line!
I work in waste management as a trainer/assessor and this is yet another case of an avoidable fatality. The majority of private firms within the industry have one driver operations and very often the argument given is “the cost outweighs the benifits”……until the next death!!
Very glad to see that the local authority offered their full sympathies to the family of Mr Baines, and stated that they have striven hard since this tragedy to ensure nothing like this ever happens again……whoever wrote the script for the spokesperson needs sacking.
A few good points and some less so:
Mobility scooters can indeed be rather hazardous devices. However, they are not covered by UK H&S legislation in their use by a member of the public. The RCV on the other hand most certainly is, and it’s driver and his or her employer have a duty to protect anyone who may be affected by its use under UK H&S law.
The spokesperson’s comments are apalling, as it the shameful difference between the public sector fine and thast imposed on the private operator.
If you look to the upper right of the page you will note a very similar case where a refuse lorry reversed and killed a lady. The difference, however, is the level of fine – £250,000 for a private company and £25,000 for a LA – a 90 percent discount – scandalous!
I don’t know about mobility scooters being a ‘menace’ and I have never seen an able bodied person using one, or someone racing around Tesco…you must live in a strange neighbourhood.
Meanwhile, it is not really relevant whether the victim was driving a mobility scooter, any vulnerable person (ie elderly, disabled, infant) could have been killed by the reversing of a large vehicle without a banksman.
Agreed Bob, people can often be stupid or just unaware. Hence extra vigilance is needed if reversing large vehicles on the public highway – simples.
Very sad and much sympathies to the deceased very tragic, but however is the driver to blame ? there should be a strict test on how to use these scooters properly and.. i have witnessed some very erratic driving of the use of these little vehicles they are very dangerous and need great consideration.