GUIDELINES FOR MANAGING

MOBILE PLANT NEAR PEDESTRIANS ON

ROADWORK SITES

DECEMBER 2014

SPRINGVALE ROAD LCR

PEDESTRIAN EXCLUSION

ZONE – SPOTTER ONLY

AUTHORISED

GUIDELINES FOR MANAGING THE HAZARD OF

MOBILE PLANT NEAR PEDESTRIANS ON ROADWORK SITES

Page 1 of 42 18/12/2014

INDEX 1. INTRODUCTION Page 2

1.1 Industry Dependence on Lowest Level Controls Page 2

1.2 Plant ‘Blind Spots’ Page 3

1.3 Untrained Plant ‘Spotters’ Page 3

1.4 Limitations of Pedestrians to Detect Approaching Plant Page 4

2. VICROADS EXPERIENCE WITH REVERSING INCIDENTS Page 5

3. PLANT ‘BLIND SPOTS’ Page 5

4. NEED FOR PLANT SAFETY TRAINING FOR ALL Page 7

PERSONNEL ON SITE

5. SAFE WORK METHOD STATEMENTS (SWMS) ARE MANDATORY Page 7

6. CONTROLS NEED TO ELIMINATE THE PLANT REVERSING Page 7

HAZARD OR SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE RISK VIA THE

HIERARCHY OF SAFETY CONTROLS

7. SITE SECURITY – PUBLIC SAFETY PROVISIONS Page 8

8. ACTION REQUIRED BY VICROADS CONTRACTORS Page 9

9. RECOMMENDED ACTION BY VICROADS CONSTRUCTION & Page 9

MAINTENANCE PROJECTS

10. EXAMPLE HIERARCHY OF SAFETY CONTROLS FOR THE Page 10

MOVEMENT OF MOBILE PLANT ON SITE

(HIGHEST TO LOWEST CONTROLS)

11. EXAMPLES OF CONTROLS SUCCESSFULLY DEPLOYED BY Page 13

VICROADS CONTRACTORS

• Urban Areas close to public pedestrian traffic,

longer term sites. Page 14

• Urban Areas pedestrian (public or worker) no go zones,

longer term sites. Page 22

• Urban Areas mobile plant isolation barriers & worker

containment fences within site, longer term sites. Page 22

• Rural Areas not close to residential areas, longer term sites Page 25

• Rural & Urban Areas, short term sites. Page 25

• Plant Tracking/Reversing Aids. Page 26

12. NIOSH INTERNAL TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS Page 28

13. WORKSAFE POSITION IN RELATION TO DETERMINING Page 36

WHAT IS REASONABLY PRACTICABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE

COST OF ELIMINATING OR REDUCING THE HAZARD OR RISK

EXAMPLE OF SWMS FOR MOBILE PLANT NEAR PEOPLE Page 37

MOBILE PLANT OPS NEAR PEOPLE

– HAZARD CONTROL CHECKLIST Page 39

Page 2 of 42 18/12/2014

1. INTRODUCTION Mobile Plant movement in close proximity to workers or public as pedestrians is a high-risk activity as defined in the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS)

Regulations 2007. Statistics demonstrate that reversing plant is responsible for many fatalities and serious injuries in road and other civil construction work around Australia and the World.

The focus of these guidelines is to improve the management of mobile plant movement within roadwork sites in Victoria, so as to significantly improve the safety of pedestrian workers and public within the worksite.

Under OHS Law, systems of work must ensure that no persons are at risk when near or working with moving plant. OHS Legislation requires these risks to be managed, so far as reasonably practicable, in accordance with the OHS Act,

Section 20, and the concept of ensuring health and safety and OHS Regulation 5.1.7 Control of Risk, also known as the Hierarchy of Safety Controls.

1.1 Industry Dependence on Lowest Level Safety Controls

The industry has depended significantly on lower level administrative / behavioural controls which are the least reliable. Typically the lowest level control depends on pedestrian workers keeping clear of plant with minimum

approach distances and outside the swing radius of plant such as excavators. Most incidents happen when workers are close to plant, in plant operator’s blind spot/s and when workers are distracted by activities or not looking at the plant.

Plant operators are also required to concentrate on their work task and may miss people who are not expected near to their machine. The public can also be at risk if they enter mobile plant operating areas particularly in urban areas.

Formalised lower level administrative type controls are traditionally considered the most practical by contractors. However, this reliance on lower level unreliable controls must change in the light of facts which demonstrate these controls are

not working and as a consequence do not provide a safe system of work. Because administrative / behavioural controls are the least effective

under the hierarchy of safety controls they must be seen as unreliable or

the least safe option.

Working Above the Line

The industry culture needs to change to a process where the concept of applying OHS Regulation 5.1.7 Control of Risk is followed in the specified priority order commencing with (1) Eliminate the risk, or if this is not reasonably practicable (2) (a) Substitution, new activity, procedure, plant, process to reduce risk, (b)

Isolation, (c) Engineering Controls, (d) Combination of (a) (b) (c). And only accepting the lowest level Administrative controls (3) if (1) and (2) are not reasonably practicable.

The reason should be documented and approved in writing by the contractor’s senior manager who has responsibility / control of the works. (The WorkCover definition of Reasonably Practical may be found at the rear of these guidelines).

This safety process is often referred to as ‘Working above the Line’ or

‘Lifting the Bar’ but is actually fully complying with the regulations.

The illustration on the next page illustrates this approach (see also

Section 7 forward):

Page 3 of 42 18/12/2014

Illustration of the “Above the Line” approach which fully complies with OHS Regulations.

1.2 Human Factors Considerations - Plant ‘Blind Spots’

Administrative or Behavioural controls in the context of mobile plant operations are unreliable. Reliance is placed on the plant operator seeing and avoiding pedestrians despite known ‘blind spots’ on their plant. Most mobile plant has significant operator visual ‘blind spots’ usually to the rear of the plant but can

also include other directions, for example plant such as excavators have more ‘blind spots’ around them and the bucket and arm can also obscure personnel to the front right of the machine.

Some workers may not be aware of the danger presented to them if they stand in the path of or in plant ‘blind spots’ and the plant moves toward them, sometimes referred to as the ‘Line of Fire’.

General Plant Awareness Training is now conducted on some of the larger projects, but this is by no means general but should be given the demonstrated

mobile plant risk to pedestrian workers. There is an obligation to train

personnel in construction site hazards and the movement of mobile plant

is statistically the highest risk area on road construction sites.

1.3 Human Factors Considerations - Untrained ‘Spotters’

Despite the risk presented by mobile plant the industry still tends to rely heavily on untrained personnel commonly described as ‘Spotters’ guiding mobile plant movement, sometimes without effective communication. Higher level controls

are necessary but some may not be reasonably practicable for short term works (e.g. worksites that are established for two or less shifts).

Page 4 of 42 18/12/2014

As an industry we need to establish agreed higher level effective

minimum safety standards for the mobile plant hazard particularly when

mobile plant is reversing or tracking / moving into the plant operator

‘blind spots’.

1.4 Human Factors Considerations – Limitations of Workers and Public

Pedestrians to Detect Approaching Plant

Hearing Limitations

People depend significantly on their eyesight and hearing to warn them of the

hazard presented by approaching plant and vehicles.

The mechanical sounds of the plant movement may provide some additional

audible warning (noise from excavator tracks for example) but rubber tyre vehicles / plant are usually more silent and the general noise from multiple plant

operation can mask the approach of an item of plant which presents an imminent risk of impact

This is why operating reversing or tracking alarms are mandated for mobile plant. However, when a number of mobile plant units are in operation the multiple alarms themselves may also mask the warning from closer approaching plant

which may present a potential impact threat if a person is in the travel direction of the plant.

If a worker is wearing standard hearing protection for their work this may also compromise their detection of an approaching item of plant.

It has also been recognized that workers tend to ‘switch-off’ or become de-sensitized to multiple reversing / tracking alarms if they do not consider they

are subject to an immediate risk, in order to concentrate on their work. See also Cognitive Distraction below.

Visual Limitations

Pedestrians depend on their vision to watch / look out for approaching mobile plant. Some of the lower level behavioral controls require that a minimum clearance be kept from plant. This depends on our ability to look out for mobile

plant while concentrating on work when our visual focus is primarily centered on the work task and not an approaching item of plant. General Situational Awareness

Our situational awareness requires visual contact to confirm approaching mobile plant and its location and this is usually combined with our hearing to detect the noise produced by the plant. If the plant is quiet or multiple plant operations are conducted in the vicinity this ‘noise’ may mask approaching plant and when

combined with our vision being directed to the work task our alerting senses can be significantly less effective.

Cognitive Distraction

More complex work tasks requiring significant concentration result in cognitive distraction increasing the likelihood of missing or ignoring sensory warnings of plant approach to pedestrian workers or worker approach to plant. Mobile phone

use is a good example of an activity which can result in a cognitive distraction with safety implications while driving or walking near traffic which has been subject to many studies, but can have a similar safety reduction outcome.

Contrary to popular belief, the human brain cannot multitask.

Page 5 of 42 18/12/2014

2. VICROADS EXPERIENCE WITH REVERSING INCIDENTS Mobile plant has been involved in the majority of significant incidents within road construction and maintenance works. There has been a number of plant reversing / tracking incidents resulting in serious injuries and one fatality over the last decade. There are also many ‘near miss’ incidents reported that have not resulted in injuries to people but the potential is always there given the large operator ‘blind spots’

evident in the design of most plant / vehicles. There has been an increase in reporting ‘near miss’ incidents as awareness of the risk has increased of recent times through a strong VicRoads focus in this area, this has contributed to identifying the essential contributing factors to these incidents.

Contractors on VicRoads larger longer term projects have been at the forefront of initiatives to improve mobile plant safety and the contractors concerned have been recognised for initiatives developed to reduce the risk to personnel on site. The public are also vulnerable to reversing mobile plant if they are not excluded from plant

operating areas on roadwork worksites and this has also been a VicRoads focus. These initiatives have previously been shared with our contractors on both larger and smaller projects working together to develop controls as shown in these guidelines. Because the major projects works are conducted over a longer duration, higher level

controls (working ‘Above the Line’) become more practical to implement and should be mandated, so far as reasonably practicable. More focus needs to be placed on the short term smaller projects which present a challenge in respect to practical high level controls.

VicRoads SprayLine and Road Services have also taken initiatives to control the reversing hazard with plant operated by them including broadband reversing alarms and reversing cameras to check the blind spots. Radios are used for communication. Maintenance works are typically short term and for practical reasons depend

significantly on behavioural controls which require personnel to keep out of ‘No Entry Zones’. Reversing sensors have also been trialled, including automatic sensing, warning and braking systems.

Issues with Maintaining Minimum Clearances between People and Plant

Recent incidents have reinforced the need to avoid the lowest level behavioural controls which depend on workers maintaining minimum clearances to mobile plant. Incident experience indicates that this is clearly an unreliable control when both plant operators and pedestrian workers are concentrating on their work.

The work task requires visual, auditory, physical and mental concentration; the more difficult the task the greater the mental concentration required and this will impact on situational awareness such as a decreasing clearance between workers

and mobile plant (or operator awareness of people approaching their plant).

3. PLANT ‘BLIND SPOTS’ Most plant does not permit the driver / operator to view anything directly behind them because the rear view mirrors have significant ‘blind spots’ or a significantly restricted view so the driver / operator cannot safely check and clear this area. This should be seen as a serious design fault which may be and is being

overcome to a significant degree through the provision of factory or retro fitted Reversing Cameras and other electronic aids such as Ultrasonic Reversing Detectors or newer devices such as the ‘ReverseSmart’ which also applies the

brakes while reversing, should the operator / driver not respond to alarms.

Page 6 of 42 18/12/2014

An example of the significant ‘Blind Spots’ shown in grey above for a typical excavator.

Mirrors are not used on this machine and they can reduce but not eliminate ‘blind spots’. More examples may be found at:

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/highwayworkzones/BAD/imagelookup.html

Trucks appear to be the most highly represented item of plant involved in

reversing incidents around the world, but most plant used during road construction have ‘Blind Spots’ and have been involved in serious and fatal incidents with pedestrians. Reversing type incidents where objects are struck

represent ‘near miss’ events which could always have involved a person. Victoria as well as other states has sadly experienced fatalities and serious injuries both during road works and other types of construction work involving

mobile plant movement in close proximity to pedestrians. Around the world Traffic Controllers and ‘Spotters’ appear to be one group who are highly represented in reversing type fatalities probably because they are required to work close to plant whilst directing and watching traffic in front of them and are

usually untrained in mobile plant hazards such as ‘blind spots’. VicRoads has always required the hazard of reversing plant to be controlled by

contractors but the industry has traditionally depended significantly on administrative or behavioural controls which are the least reliable or sometimes may not even be practicable when applied in practice. The traditional controls depend on reversing or movement alarms and even when reversing cameras

have been present serious or fatal incidents have occurred (checking the monitor and clearing behind the plant before and during reversing is essential even if people are not expected in the area).

Personnel described as ‘Spotters’ are frequently deployed to direct plant movements. However, they may not be practical in some situations such as when long distance plant movements are involved. ‘Spotters’ or Mobile Plant

Movement Controllers require training to understand the ‘Blind Spot’ hazards, effective communication via radio and hand signals, and where to place themselves to be visible to the plant operator at all times so they are not at risk.

Page 7 of 42 18/12/2014

VicRoads has worked closely with our contractors and the practicalities involved in the protection of pedestrians from the mobile plant hazard. VicRoads has also

shared Safety Alerts and innovations applicable to this area via industry forums, VicRoads Worksite Safety Newsletters. Those contractors who have taken up the challenge of protecting pedestrians from the mobile plant hazard and trialled various innovations in this area have been recognised with VicRoads Safety

Innovation Awards. Some of these examples are shown via photographs and captions commencing page 12 of these guidelines.

4. NEED FOR MOBILE PLANT SAFETY TRAINING FOR ALL

PERSONNEL ON SITE Informal controls generally involving untrained plant movement directors commonly known as ‘Spotters’ and a workforce rarely trained to understand the risk presented by plant ‘blind spots’ tend to dominate the industry. This type of control is administrative or behavioural and training is required to comply with

general obligations under the OHS Act. Indeed most controls currently used involve some type of behaviour on behalf of the workforce and an understanding of the risks is an essential fundamental requirement.

The training needs to include all plant operators / drivers as well as those personnel with plant movement direction / ‘Spotter’ duties and the workforce in general with respect to mobile plant site safety procedures and expected

behaviours on site. Training in this area is becoming more common in our industry but needs to extend to all areas – examples of training power point shows are available on request.

5. SAFE WORK METHOD STATEMENTS (SWMS) ARE MANDATORY FOR THE MOVEMENT OF POWERED MOBILE

PLANT ON ALL VICROADS WORKS Safe Work Method Statements (SWMS) are mandatory for this activity and assist

in ensuring the safety of pedestrian workers and the public where moving plant is in use on site. It is essential that all the relevant hazards such as reversing plant have been identified in consultation with the workforce and that effective hazard controls are practicable, effective and fully in place on site at all times when

mobile plant is operating. Their effectiveness and application on site needs

regular monitoring and appropriate improvements made where required.

However, the credibility of SWMS which contain information not specific to ‘high risk work’ such as environmental controls or relevant to the high risk hazards and their control is a serious issue in the industry. This has been recognised by safety professionals. It is necessary for workers to be consulted as to the content of the

SWMS and keep them to a sensible size.

6. CONTROLS NEED TO ELIMINATE THE PLANT REVERSING

HAZARD OR SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE RISK VIA THE HIERARCHY OF SAFETY CONTROLS In developing SWMS the first objective is to eliminate the mobile plant hazard with respect to pedestrians, so far as reasonably practicable (The Victorian

WorkCover Authority (VWA) Position in Relation to Determining what is

Reasonably Practicable with respect to the Cost of Eliminating or

Reducing the Hazard or Risk (OHS Act Section 20 (2)(e)) is appended to these Guidelines.

The Regulations classify the Movement of Mobile Plant as High Risk Construction Work so prescribed process following the Regulations is mandatory.

Page 8 of 42 18/12/2014

The VWA and their equivalents in other states have issued Safety Alerts, Codes of Practice and other Guidance Material to manage the mobile plant hazard. In particular Workplace Health and Safety Queensland issued the most recent

applicable Alert: Working around Mobile Plant During Construction of Roadwork

and Related Infrastructure as the result of two fatalities in Queensland, and this has formed the basis of the hierarchy of controls in these guidelines, including controls suggested by other states and trialled by VicRoads contractors on major road construction sites.

The following VicRoads guidance is based on this information taking into account the obligation to first seek to eliminate the mobile plant hazard or if this is not

practicable to reduce the risk via the hierarchy of safety controls, so far as reasonably practicable. The advice is also consistent with the Safe Work Australia

Traffic Management Guide: Construction Work, July 2014.

7. SITE SECURITY – PUBLIC SAFETY PROVISIONS Most mobile plant related incidents involve pedestrian workers. However, the

public may also be vulnerable if they enter areas where mobile plant is operating. The plant ‘blind spots’ and other human factors limitations previously described also apply to the public if they enter into worksites and they will be unlikely to understand the risks.

See Section 11 forward for examples of site security deployed to keep the public out of mobile plant operating areas. See also the VWA Civil Construction Industry

Standard – Guide to Managing Safety 2012.

Page 9 of 42 18/12/2014

8. ACTION REQUIRED BY VICROADS CONTRACTORS VicRoads requires all contractors to effectively manage the movement of powered mobile plant within the worksite using the highest controls practical. If higher level Green controls are not deemed practicable by a contractor then the reason must be credible and documented in a risk assessment.

The following guidance is provided with respect to the identified hierarchy of controls recommended by WorkCover and other state OHS Authorities:

a) The first objective must be to eliminate pedestrian exposure to the

mobile plant hazard and this is usually achieved by removing

pedestrians from plant movement areas – creating Pedestrian No Go Zones. These need to effectively remove concurrent pedestrian work activities from the plant operating area / zone. Planning of works must make this a priority.

b) If elimination of the mobile plant hazard is not reasonably practicable then

the control measures shall be selected in accordance with the hierarchy of

controls as described in Section 10, commencing page 10 of these guidelines. Separation of Plant and People should have priority, so far as reasonably practicable.

c) Higher order green controls (refer page 9 Section 9 of these

guidelines) that substitute, isolate or engineer out the risk shall be

selected in preference to the least reliable and effective

administrative controls as shown in red in Section 10, page 13 of

these guidelines. If higher order green controls are not

considered practicable then the reason shall be documented to the

satisfaction of the principal contractor’s senior manager on site.

9. RECOMMENDED ACTION BY VICROADS CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE PROJECTS VicRoads has a duty of care to its contractor employees because it has some safety responsibilities for contractor safety under Sections 21, and 22 of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act 2004 and towards other persons such

as the general public under Section 23 of the OHS Act 2004. VicRoads manages this through various means including contract specifications,

Health and Safety Coordination Plan requirements, safety audits and some surveillance. If the contractor has been appointed as the Principal Contractor by VicRoads (for projects over $250,000) then the contractor have control of the site and have additional responsibilities for preparation of safety documents.

Despite this, because of its audit function, VicRoads retains responsibility to ensure that any situations of risk which have arisen on a work site and of which

VicRoads becomes aware through its Surveillance Managers or other VicRoads employees, are appropriately addressed in a timely manner. On-site Safe Work Method Statements (SWMS) are a legal requirement for all

high risk work as defined in OHS Regulation 5.1.3. Compliance with SWMS requirements is mandatory as described in detail in the Regulations. Under the Regulations the following are required:

1. A SWMS is prepared before the high risk work commences; 2. The work must be performed in accordance with the SWMS;

Page 10 of 42 18/12/2014

3. If there is non-compliance with a SWMS the employer must stop that work immediately or as soon as it is safe to do so; and

4. Not resume the work until the SWMS is either complied with or reviewed and, if there is an indication that risk controls measures are not controlling the risks to health or safety adequately, revised.

VicRoads' Surveillance Officers have a responsibility to ensure that appropriate SWMS are on each high risk worksite that they visit. If SWMS appropriate to the work that is being undertaken are not present on a particular high risk worksite, then work must be stopped on that site until the relevant SWMS are produced.

If a VicRoads Surveillance Officer, or and any other VicRoads personnel becomes aware of any non-compliance with a high risk work SWMS requirement, that

person must immediately advise the contractor's supervisory management of the risk and the four obligations above, including the need to stop that high risk work. If the risk posed by the non-compliance gives rise to an immediate risk of a serious or fatal incident to workers or the public, the VicRoads employee must

cause the work to be stopped immediately.

If a VicRoads Surveillance Officers or any other VicRoads personnel identifies any

other situation that seems, on the information available, to pose a risk of a serious or fatal incident to workers or the public, that person must immediately advise the contractor's supervisory management. If the risk posed is immediate, the VicRoads employee must cause the work to be stopped immediately.

In each case referred to above, the contractor must be issued with a written noncompliance.

If there is any dispute with respect to the requirements (which cannot be resolved through consultation with the contractors in the first instance) then that work shall cease until WorkSafe can attend the site.

The Victorian WorkCover Authority (VWA) may be contacted on 132 360 at any time.

10. EXAMPLE HIERARCHY OF SAFETY CONTROLS FOR THE MOVEMENT OF MOBILE PLANT ON SITE (HIGHEST TO

LOWEST CONTROLS)

ELIMINATION This involves controlling the hazard at the source. Examples may

include:

• Separating pedestrians from mobile plant by preventing access to areas

where mobile plant is operating. Operational Safety Zones as per Civil Construction Industry Standard (Plant only Zones / Absolute Pedestrian No Go Zones, Red Zones, etc.).

• Pedestrian Exclusion Zones to exclude unauthorised people from plant

movement areas but understanding that Crane Chasers, Electrical Services Spotters and some Asphalt Workers need to work close to certain plant (but must be located in a position of safety).

• Eliminate Reversing on site or tracking movements into operator ‘blind

spots’ in the case of excavators or similar plant without a reliable means of

Page 11 of 42 18/12/2014

clearing these areas such as eliminating concurrent plant and pedestrian works in the same area.

SUBSTITUTION This involves replacing an item of mobile plant with another that has a

lower risk. Examples may include:

• Replacing an item of mobile plant, which has a restricted field of vision to

one that has a clear field of vision.

• Plant with CCTV installed permits operator to readily check blind spots

before and during the movement of their plant. The CCTV Monitor needs to be placed in the same operator field of view as the rear view mirror for

maximum effectiveness; some monitors are now built into rear view mirrors. Reversing Sensors which alarm when objects of people are detected. WorkSafe in their Guide to Managing Safety in the Civil Construction - Industry Standard 2012, Section 4.9, Mobile Plant Warning

Devices states: “Mobile plant and trucks should also have audible

reversing warning devices fitted. If vehicles are often reversing near

workers, consider fitting reversing cameras”.

• Plant with an externally triggered proximity sensor combined with an

emergency brake control that will stop the reversing plant/vehicle prior to coming into contact with an object or person. Devices such as

‘ReverseSmart’ are retrofit able and now commercially available after extensive trials, including construction plant.

ISOLATION This involves removing or positively separating people from mobile plant.

Examples may include:

• Deploying barriers and /or security fencing in residential areas to prevent public access. In rural areas a clearance of more than 12 metres to

trafficked roads is often provided, and safety barriers are not required in these situations subject to a speed reduction to 80 km/h and frequent speed enforcement by Police. Both of these areas are ‘Pedestrian No Go Zones’ unless permission is obtained from the lead plant operator via radio

to enter the area and plant is stopped until they are placed in a safe area.

• The pedestrian exclusion zones are enforced and must be clearly designated by signs.

• Segregating the work processes through distance and construction time; for example allowing earthworks to finish before survey begins.

ENGINEERING This involves changing physical characteristics of the plant or work area

to remove or reduce the risk. Examples may include:

• Reversing cameras that provide clear visibility of the area behind the mobile plant and other ‘blind spots’.

• An externally triggered proximity sensor combined with an emergency brake control that will stop the reversing plant/vehicle prior to coming into contact with an object or person. The ReverseSmart is the first example.

• Proximity detection technology within mobile plant that allows for monitoring of ground crew with personal GPS technology at all times by the plant operator.

Page 12 of 42 18/12/2014

• Re-design of plant to allow for operator clear line of sight.

• Audible warning devices activated when the vehicle is reversing. The

broad band type warning device is superior to the conventional reversing beeper because of its directional characteristics enabling a person to determine the direction of threat and if they are in the ‘hit zone’. Also less environmental noise pollution for night works.

COMBINATION OF CONTROLS

A combination of controls may be used. Ideally this should include at least one higher level green control but from a practical viewpoint may need to include

some behavioral or administrative controls.

ADMINISTRATIVE / BEHAVIOURAL CONTROLS This includes policies, procedures, signs and training to control the risk. Note that administrative controls may be least reliable and effective so all personnel

on site should be provided with training in the dangers of working near

mobile plant such as blind spots and the need to avoid them at all times.

Examples may include:

• Developing and implementing an Internal Traffic Management Plan

(Vehicle Movement Plan) for managing mobile plant and pedestrian safety within site including a site specific Vehicle Movement Plan; Delivery, Refuelling and Maintenance Areas. This may be generic but needs to take

into account site specific mobile plant / pedestrian hazards. The plan would need to be more detailed on larger projects for any plant and pedestrian movement activities being undertaken.

• Developing and implementing an OHS Coordination Plan on projects more than $250,000 for the work being undertaken which addresses relevant risks on site including how control measures will be monitored

and reviewed. • Developing and implementing a Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS)

to identify any hazards for plant operation and implement controls

measures to prevent or minimise the risk for any workers and public pedestrians and other construction work involving mobile plant. An example may be found on page 36 of these guidelines.

• Organising, coordinating and monitoring work processes to reduce

interaction between workers and mobile plant by:

� Developing a site access system or permit system that manages

the movement of personnel on the worksite and that provides clear and concise communication process with all work groups in relation to risks and controls measures to be implemented.

� Using trained and competent plant movement controller/s to

authorise and monitor the movement of localised mobile plant within site in all circumstances and to control all reversing operations. The controller needs to be in a position that does not

place them at risk from contact with the reversing vehicle and the driver must always maintain sight of the controller. Note these personnel have a different role to that of a traffic controller who is responsible for the control of traffic entering, exiting or passing

through the workzone or being detoured.

Page 13 of 42 18/12/2014

� Implementing measures where workers have clear sight of mobile plant operating and operators of mobile plant have a clear line of

sight in the direction of travel.

� Providing equipment such as two way radios that allows clear communication between mobile plant and ground crew. This should include communication protocols relating to the location and

direction of mobile plant and measures to manage issues with poor transmission and miscommunication.

� Conducting pre-start meetings prior to commencing work to discuss all specific work site hazards and risks and control measures

including the allocation of safety tasks and responsibilities.

� Thoroughly checking safety devices and audible working alarms of mobile plant prior to commencing any work.

� Ensuring people are fit for work; consideration needs to be given to fatigue, heat stress and cognitive ability to function effectively.

� Ensuring worker training, experience and competency is consistent with the nature and complexity of the tasks being undertaken.

� Speed restrictions

� Headlights on when driving within site / dust control / blind corners or hill crests.

� Where practicable, plant should always move in a forward direction.

� Plant operators required to hold the relevant certificate of competency including safety training relevant to earth moving

equipment including plant operating safety limitations.

� Designated delivery area.

� Designated refueling bay.

� Designated parking area for plant with windrows.

� Minimum pedestrian approach distances to mobile plant

(typically 3 to 5 metres or outside swing radius for plant

such as excavators). Note that this control is the least

reliable control on its own as demonstrated by the number

of incidents where this control was specified. This is the

least safe behavioral control.

Monitoring Effectiveness and Application on Site

Safe Work Method Statements (SWMS) control measures need to be regularly

monitored and reviewed to ensure they are practical, applied and effective in preventing or minimising the risk. The workers involved in the activity must be consulted and involved in the development of the SWMS and not just asked to

sign a document developed by others.

11. EXAMPLES OF CONTROLS SUCCESSFULLY DEPLOYED

BY VICROADS CONTRACTORS Note that the VWA Civil Construction Industry Standard – a Guide to Managing

Safety supports the initiatives shown in the following examples. The photographs and captions on the following pages illustrate examples of controls implemented on recent VicRoads projects. They have all been implemented to improve mobile plant safety with respect to pedestrians (workers and public). The objective being

to improve on traditional industry behavioral safety controls associated with mobile plant and pedestrians:

Page 14 of 42 18/12/2014

URBAN AREAS CLOSE TO PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC

LONGER TERM SITES Urban areas are more exposed to public contact and increase the risk of unauthorised persons entering and crossing the worksite. Security type fencing

and road safety barriers have proven successful in excluding the public and isolating them from plant operating areas. Typically only workers who need to work with the plant such as Electrical Spotters or Dogmen are permitted to work in these areas unless they gain permission by radio from the lead plant operator.

Plant is stopped until the visitors are located in a safe position isolated from the plant by barriers or safe clearance.

Winslow Project Site Winchelsea barriers on left security fencing on right with footpath.

Spotter on left.

Cut and Fill Project Site Winchelsea barriers in background and fencing in foreground

adjacent to footpath

Page 15 of 42 18/12/2014

Winchelsea Winslow Security fencing and footpath for pedestrian traffic.

Tulla Sydney Sydney Alliance/Thiess Project Sydney Road barriers with screens on left and

barriers with security fencing behind on right.

Page 16 of 42 18/12/2014

Another Tulla Sydney Alliance/Thiess Sydney Road Project Site. The primary objective was to prevent unauthorised persons gaining access to the sites but access was also restricted

to those who were authorised to work there.

Safe footpath provision for public convenience

Bus stop access to building line security fencing to prevent public exposure to mobile plant

operations and general site hazards. Narre Warren Cranbourne Road Winslow Site.

Page 17 of 42 18/12/2014

BMD Project in Berwick Commercial Area utilising security fences to exclude public and

unauthorised personnel.

McConnell Dowell Springvale Level Crossing Removal Project barriers and security screens

to exclude public and unauthorised personnel.

Page 18 of 42 18/12/2014

Plastic webbing is prone to weather damage and needs frequent maintenance. It is easy to

step over and not as effective as security type fencing in keeping unauthorised persons (children in particular) from entering and crossing through mobile plant operating areas.

Bunting flags are even less effective. Both of these controls are the least effective and are the lowest safe control other than nothing at all. Security type fencing is much higher in

the hierarchy of safety controls and should be used where reasonably practicable; however, steel fencing is a more effective control than bunting flags or webbing for site security. (Refer to WorkCover Civil Construction Guide to Managing Safety Industry Standard)

Shared access pathway (bicycle and pedestrians) behind barriers with barrier deflection

allowance to security fence. Narre Warren Cranbourne Road Winslow Site. Note: This was practical at this location due to adequate available space.

Page 19 of 42 18/12/2014

URBAN AREAS PEDESTRIAN EXCLUSION / NO GO ZONES

LONGER TERM SITES These areas / zones are typically restricted to personnel who are authorised to work there. Any personnel who have a reason to enter the areas for work

reasons are required to obtain permission by radio from the lead plant operator, prior to entering the zone. Contact details are shown at zone entry points as well as site hazards. Some zones are Absolute Pedestrian No Go Zones and only plant and their operators are permitted in these areas. Typically the boundaries are

constructed from barriers and screens and security type fences which also exclude public entry. These arrangements proved successful on the M80 Leighton Project Sites and more recent longer term projects.

Entry Gate to M80 Leighton Pedestrian No Go Zone showing typical signs and details of

work activities in the zone.

Typical M80 worksite restricted to those carrying radios and with a work reason to enter

after gaining permission from lead plant operator.

Page 20 of 42 18/12/2014

Minimum approach distance barrier until plant is stopped and lead operator permits entry

to area.

Absolute Pedestrian No Go Zone Plant and Construction Vehicles Only

Page 21 of 42 18/12/2014

Sign example in use on Winslow site specifically highlighting the mobile plant hazard

warning to the public.

Sign example in use on BMD site with more general exclusion of unauthorised personnel

placed at site access points.

Page 22 of 42 18/12/2014

URBAN AREAS MOBILE PLANT ISOLATION BARRIERS AND

WORKER CONTAINMENT FENCES WITHIN SITE LONGER TERM SITE

These examples have been deployed on the Mitcham - Rooks Level Crossing Removal Project at Mitcham. Concrete Safety Barriers have been used to isolate plant movement areas from pedestrian workers in tight work areas such as the cutting excavation to lower the railway lines to below roadway level eliminating

the level crossings. Containment Fences are also used to isolate and contain pedestrian work areas and walkways from plant traffic areas.

Designated ‘Spotters’ called Plant Movement Directors have been trained in plant risks, including ‘blind’ spots, and where to position themselves for their safety have been used on the project. They also wear high visibility clothing with a blue section to indicate their roll and are equipped with radio to communicate with all

mobile plant and vehicles on site.

Concrete barriers placed between plant access road and works personnel access pathway

as a physical isolation control.

10 km/h speed restriction and requirement to use UHF channel 12 in area. Plant Movement

Directors use this UHF channel.

Page 23 of 42 18/12/2014

Containment Fences to keep works personnel from intruding into plant movement area.

Para webbing containment fence walkway to isolate works personnel from plant.

Page 24 of 42 18/12/2014

Walkway containment fence on low radius curve.

Another example at the Springvale Level Crossing Removal Project Pedestrian No Go Zone

containment fence and walkway on left and plant only zone on right.

Page 25 of 42 18/12/2014

RURAL AREAS NOT CLOSE TO RESIDENTUAL AREAS

LONGER TERM SITES These areas typically involve road duplication projects in rural areas well clear of residential areas, but may also include improvement works such as roundabout

construction and general roadwork. Site access requires UHF Radio communication between vehicles and pedestrian workers are restricted to those who must be in the area such as Service ‘Spotters’ and ‘Dogmen’ as required under OHS Regulations. Where the new carriageway is well clear (approximately

12 metres with matching speed limits) of the existing road no security type fencing or barriers are provided but barriers are required when the worksite is close to the existing trafficked road for traffic protection and also serve to keep

the public out of the closer work area. Sites typically require permission from the Lead Plant Operator, obtained over the required site radio system, to enter the area and this is a good practice. Plant is

stopped until the visitors are located in a safe position isolated from the plant by barriers or safe clearance; sometimes they just need to drive past the plant to gain access to other areas of the site.

Western Highway Duplication Project with new carriageway under construction well clear

of existing highway.

SHORT TERM SITES RURAL AND URBAN AREAS The short one to two day duration of these works has traditionally seen a dependence on behavioural or administrative type controls.

Higher level controls may be seen as less practical because of the short duration of the works. However, pedestrian workers and the public (less so in rural areas) are potentially still exposed to the mobile plant hazard which is still classified as

high risk work under the OHS Regulations 2007. This short term work is usually protected from traffic via the deployment of bollards to delineate the works boundary and often conducted at night when

traffic and pedestrian volumes are low. Speed limits within site are typically reduced to 40 km/h or less.

Page 26 of 42 18/12/2014

Excluding all pedestrians from the plant operating hazard zone should obviously be the first objective, so far as reasonably practicable. However, it is recognised

that some limited personnel such as workers associated with some road surfacing plant and ‘Electrical Spotters’ and ‘Dogmen’ may need to be present to comply with other related safety requirements, but must be located in a position of safety.

Recent incidents have reinforced the need to avoid the lowest level

behavioural controls which depend on workers maintaining minimum

clearances to mobile plant. Incident experience indicates that this is

clearly an unreliable control when both plant operators and pedestrian

workers are concentrating on their work. The work task requires visual,

auditory, physical and mental concentration; the more difficult the task

the greater the mental concentration required and this will impact on

situational awareness such as a decreasing clearance between workers

and mobile plant.

Short term rural worksite vegetation control includes mobile plant within site and traffic

exposure (both high risk areas).

Incident statistics show that the work distraction can result in

pedestrians and mobile plant coming into contact with serious

consequences. There are numerous studies on driver distraction and

these can probably be compared to plant operators, but fewer studies are

available for pedestrian safety around mobile plant other than

pedestrians near traffic / roads using mobile phones.

Plant Tracking/Reversing Aids

Within site the Internal Traffic Management Plan tends to rely on untrained ‘Spotters’ to clear the areas behind reversing plant of both workers and the public, and reversing alarms to alert personnel of the approaching hazard. On long sites the practicability of ‘Spotters’ is debateable unless radios are used and

the ‘Spotter’ has a clear sight of the area behind the plant, which is unlikely. A combination of controls is emerging which shows some promise. These controls

include what may be best described as plant operator ‘aids’ and include electronic devices such as: reversing cameras, reversing sensors, personal proximity warning devices and even a combination of reversing cameras and reversing sensors coupled to automatic braking such as the ‘Reverse Smart’.

Page 27 of 42 18/12/2014

Where pedestrians are in close proximity to plant and movement into

blind spots is frequently necessary consideration should be given to the

removal of ‘blind spots’ through the retro fitting of CCTV cameras so that

the plant operator may effectively check for people or obstructions, it is

not necessary to reverse / track into ‘blind spots’ today because the

technology is increasingly affordable and like mirrors permits the

driver/operator to check and clear the area before and during movement.

This is also recommended by the VWA Guide to Managing Safety in the

Civil Construction - Industry Standard 2012.

The plant operator still has to control their machine in a responsible way and ensure that all agreed safety controls within the applicable SWMS are fully in place at all times and that their plant is not moved if authorised personnel are not

visible and clear of the plant or their plant is not moved into ‘blind spots’ without a safe means of first checking this area is clear. Instead of concurrent plant operation close to pedestrian workers it may be

possible to plan / stagger works so that the work area becomes a ‘Pedestrian Worker No Go Zone’ while plant is in operation.

The following table includes higher level GREEN controls which should be

considered instead of relying on administrative / behavioural controls which are low reliability and the least safe controls:

CONTROL PRACTICAL? IF NOT PRACTICAL WHY NOT?

1. Implement Operational Safety Zones as per WorkCover / WorkSafe Civil Construction Industry Standard. Refer examples in these guidelines.

2. Eliminate Reversing or Tracking into plant ‘blind spots’. This is the most frequent cause of serious injury and fatality within site.

3. Install reversing / tracking camera/s onto plant used on site if they are often working near workers as per Section 4.5 Civil Construction Industry Standard. This may be combined with reversing sensors to alert

driver / operator if they are distracted by their work.

4. If the above high level controls are not reasonably practicable provide trained Plant Movement Controllers (Signal person or Spotter) to safely direct plant reversing / tracking into ‘blind spots’.

NOTE: Given that Mobile Plant Near Pedestrians is statistically the highest risk activity in road construction Provide Plant Safety Awareness training for all persons working on site which includes ‘blind spot’ awareness and safe working procedures around plant.

MICHAEL ROSE CFSIA, RSP (Aust)

HEALTH & SAFETY ADVISOR

VICROADS WORKPLACE HEALTH, SAFETY & WELFARE

11. NIOSH INTERNAL TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS Similar approach taken in Victoria by some contractors such as site vehicle movement procedures.

Page 28 of 42 18/12/2014

AN ORIGINAL COPY MAY BE OBTAINED FROM: http://www.workzonesafety.org/files/documents/training/fhwa_wz_grant/itcp.pdf

11. NIOSH INTERNAL TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS Similar approach taken in Victoria by some contractors such as site vehicle movement procedures.

Page 29 of 42 18/12/2014

11. NIOSH INTERNAL TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS Similar approach taken in Victoria by some contractors such as site vehicle movement procedures.

Page 30 of 42 18/12/2014

11. NIOSH INTERNAL TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS Similar approach taken in Victoria by some contractors such as site vehicle movement procedures.

Page 31 of 42 18/12/2014

11. NIOSH INTERNAL TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS Similar approach taken in Victoria by some contractors such as site vehicle movement procedures.

Page 32 of 42 18/12/2014

11. NIOSH INTERNAL TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS Similar approach taken in Victoria by some contractors such as site vehicle movement procedures.

Page 33 of 42 18/12/2014

11. NIOSH INTERNAL TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS Similar approach taken in Victoria by some contractors such as site vehicle movement procedures.

Page 34 of 42 18/12/2014

11. NIOSH INTERNAL TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS Similar approach taken in Victoria by some contractors such as site vehicle movement procedures.

Page 35 of 42 18/12/2014

Page 36 of 42 18/12/2014

12. WORKCOVER POSITION IN RELATION TO DETERMINING WHAT IS

REASONABLY PRACTICABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE COST OF

ELIMINATING OR REDUCING THE HAZARD OR RISK

(OHS ACT SECTION 20 (2) (e)

Extract from the WorkCover position to How WorkSafe applies the law in relation to ‘Reasonably Practicable’ November 2007:

There must be a clear presumption in favour of safety. Once the likelihood and degree of harm from a hazard or risk is understood, and the availability and suitability of a relevant safety measure to eliminate or reduce the hazard or risk

is established, that safety measure should be implemented unless the cost of doing so is so disproportionate to the benefit (in terms of reducing the severity of the hazard or risk) that it would be clearly unreasonable to justify the

expenditure. In determining whether a particular level of expenditure is reasonable in the circumstances, the duty-holder must have regard to the:

• Likelihood and degree of harm of the hazard or risk; and • The reduction of the likelihood and/or degree of harm that will result if the

control measure is adopted.

The greater the likelihood of the hazard or risk concerned eventuating, and/or the greater the degree of harm that would result if the hazard or risk eventuated, the less weight should be given to the cost of eliminating the hazard or risk. If the

degree of harm is significant, e.g. death or serious injury is highly likely, then it is extremely unlikely that the cost of eliminating or reducing the risk would ever be so disproportionate to the risk to justify a decision not to implement an available and suitable control measure.

Moreover, the question of what is ‘reasonably practicable’ is to be determined objectively, and not by reference to the duty-holder’s capacity to pay or other

particular circumstances. If two duty-holders are faced with the same hazard or risk in similar situations, one duty-holder cannot expose people to a lower level of protection simply because it is in a lesser financial position than another duty-holder.

If a particular duty-holder cannot afford to implement a control that is not as disproportionate to the risk as to be clearly unreasonable, the duty-holder should not engage in the activity that gives rise to that hazard or risk.

If there are options available for eliminating or reducing a risk that achieve the same level of reduction in likelihood or degree of harm, a duty-holder may choose

the least costly option. However, choosing a low cost option that provides less protection simply because it is cheaper is unlikely to be considered a reasonably practicable means of eliminating or reducing risk.

The costs of implementing a particular control may include costs of purchase, installation, maintenance, operation of the control measure and any impact on productivity as a result of the introduction of the control measure.

A calculation of the costs of implementing a control measure must also take into account savings from fewer incidents, injuries and illnesses, potentially improved productivity and reduced turnover of staff.

SAFE WORK METHOD STATEMENT EXAMPLE ONLY

MOVEMENT OF POWERED MOBILE PLANT NEAR PEOPLE

THIS IS HIGH RISK CONSTRUCTION WORK

Page 37 of 43

WHAT ARE THE TASKS INVOLVED?

WHAT ARE THE HAZARDS & RISKS? HOW WILL THE HAZARDS & RISKS BE CONTROLLED?

(a) MOVEMENT OF POWERED MOBILE PLANT ON SITE.

Note this includes: All earthmoving plant, dump and tip trucks & mobile cranes

(b) Plant striking works personnel or public.

(c) Control will be via the hierarchy of hazard controls applicable to the movement of powered mobile plant on site: ELIMINATION: Removing plant and people from the same work area by changing work processes:

• Preventing access to plant operating areas. • Plant only zones. • Absolute pedestrian No Go Zones, Red Zones, etc. • Pedestrian Exclusion Zones, only doggers, electrical service spotters,

asphalting crews. • Eliminate reversing or tracking into ‘blind spots’.

SUBSTITUTION:

• Replacing plant with ‘blind spots’ by plant that has a clear field of operator vision or cameras so operator can clear ‘blind spots’.

ISOLATION: Removing or separating people from plant by using: • Physical barricades. • Using exclusion zones (No Go or Red Zones) that are enforced and

clearly marked. • Segregating the work processes through distance and time. For

example allowing earthworks to finish before survey begins. ENGINEERING: Changing the physical characteristics of the plant or work area to remove or reduce the risk, for example:

• Reversing cameras that provide clear visibility of the area behind and in operator blind spots for the specific mobile plant.

• Proximity detection technology and automatic braking systems. • Reversing alarms (broad band are more effective than beepers and

are less environmentally intrusive).

NOTE: The SWMS requires the following as per the OHS Regulation 5.1.5 a safe work method statement means a document

that—

(a) identifies work that is high risk construction work; and (b) states the hazards and risks to health or safety of that work;

and (c) sufficiently describes measures to control those risks; and (d) describes the manner in which the risk control

measures are to be implemented.

SAFE WORK METHOD STATEMENT EXAMPLE ONLY

MOVEMENT OF POWERED MOBILE PLANT NEAR PEOPLE

THIS IS HIGH RISK CONSTRUCTION WORK

Page 38 of 37

WHAT ARE THE TASKS INVOLVED?

WHAT ARE THE HAZARDS & RISKS? HOW WILL THE HAZARDS & RISKS BE CONTROLLED?

(a) MOVEMENT OF POWERED MOBILE PLANT ON SITE.

Note this includes: All earthmoving plant, dump and tip trucks & mobile cranes. (continued).

(b) Plant striking works personnel or public.

(c) Control will be via the hierarchy of hazard controls applicable to the movement of powered mobile plant on site: ADMINISTRATIVE / BEHAVIOURAL: This includes policies, procedures, signs and training to control the risk such as:

• Developing and implementing a traffic management plan. • Organizing, coordinating and monitoring work processes to reduce

interaction between pedestrians and mobile plant by- � Developing a site access /permit system that manages

communication and the movement of all personnel on site. � Using an onsite controller to authorize and monitor the

movement of mobile plant in all circumstances. � Using a spotter to control all reversing operations. The

spotter needs to be located in a position that does not place them at risk from contact from a reversing vehicle and the driver must always maintain sight of the spotter.

� Providing UHF radio’s for communication between mobile plant and ground crew. This should include authorized radio use.

� Daily checks of plant including all safety devices. � Fitness for work checks. � Worker training and competency.

These controls are the least safe or reliable but in some situations may be demonstrated to be the only practical control – combining these controls with higher level controls (engineering controls for example) will increase safety If the higher level GREEN controls are not considered practicable document reason here: (c) The agreed control or combination of controls identified above will be

documented as a Company Safe Work Method Statement and managed by an appointed lead plant operator who is given the authority to control traffic in their area via UHF radio.

Page 39 of 43

Mobile Plant Operations near People

- Hazard Control Measures Checklist

This checklist is based on the Safe Work Australia Traffic Control Measures Checklist and the VicRoads Guidelines for Managing Mobile Plant near Pedestrians on Roadwork Sites.

This checklist may be used to assess safety controls provided for mobile plant or vehicle

operations on roadwork sites.

The duration of works may make some controls more or less practical but the obligation to provide a safe workplace for both workers and the public still exists.

Green Controls need to be a high focus.

SAFETY CONTROL Yes No Comments / Action

Separation

Does the layout of the workplace effectively

separate pedestrians, vehicles and powered

mobile plant?

Are separate entries and exits provided for vehicles and pedestrians including visitors?

Do the entries and exits protect pedestrians

from being struck by vehicles or mobile

plant?

Are systems in place to keep pedestrians and

moving vehicles or plant apart like physical

barriers, exclusion zones and safety zones?

Is site security fencing provided to prevent

the public entering / crossing mobile plant

operating areas? This is particularly

important close to or in residential areas.

Mobile Plant and Vehicle routes

Are the roads and pathways within the workplace

suitable for the types and volumes of traffic?

Are loading zones clearly marked?

Do vehicle route designs take into account

vehicle characteristics under all conditions,

for example emergency braking, running out

of fuel or adverse weather?

Are there enough parking places for vehicles and are they used?

Are traffic directions clearly marked and

visible?

If a one way system is provided for vehicle

routes within the workplace is it properly

designed, signposted and used?

Page 40 of 42

SAFETY CONTROL Yes No Comments / Action

Are vehicle routes wide enough to separate

vehicles and pedestrians and for the largest

vehicle using them?

Do vehicle routes have firm and even

surfaces?

Are vehicle routes kept clear from

obstructions and other hazards such as

potholes?

Are vehicle routes well maintained?

Do vehicle routes avoid sharp or blind

corners, steep grades or blind crests?

Pedestrian routes

Are pedestrian walkways separated from

vehicles?

Where necessary are there safe pedestrian

crossings on vehicle routes?

Is there a safe pedestrian route which allows

visitors to access the site office and

facilities?

Are pedestrian walkways clearly marked?

Are pedestrian walkways well maintained

and suitable for seniors and those with

disabilities?

Plant and Vehicle movement

Have drive-through, one-way systems been

used to reduce the need for reversing?

Are non-essential workers excluded from

areas where reversing occurs?

Are vehicles slowed to safe speeds, for

example speed limiters on mobile plant or

chicanes on vehicle routes?

Do drivers use the correct routes, drive

within the speed limit and follow site rules?

Signs

Is there clear signage of pedestrian and

powered mobile plant exclusion zones?

Are there speed limit signs?

Are there clear warnings of powered mobile

plant hazards at entrances to sites?

Page 41 of 42

SAFETY CONTROL Yes No Comments / Action

Is there enough lighting to ensure signs are visible

if night works apply to site?

Warning devices

Are flashing lights, sensors and reversing

alarms installed on powered mobile plant?

Information, training and supervision

Do powered mobile plant operators have

relevant high risk work licences? Are they

competency based trained in operating the

particular model of plant being used? Have

they been trained in the operating hazards of

the plant, including ‘blind spots’ and use of

reversing ‘aids’ such as cameras and sensors

and braking systems?

Have workers received site specific training

and information on plant hazards, including

‘blind spots’, pedestrian exclusion zones,

speed limits, parking and loading areas?

Is information and instruction about safe

movement around the workplace provided to

visitors and external delivery drivers?

Is the level of supervision sufficient to check

traffic movement and ensure safety of

pedestrians and drivers?

Personal Protective Equipment

Is high visibility clothing provided and used

where necessary?

Plant and Vehicle safety

Have vehicles and powered mobile plant

been selected which are suitable for the

tasks to be done?

Do vehicles have direct visibility or devices

for improving vision like external and side

mirrors, ‘blind spot’ removal cameras and

reversing sensors?

Are vehicles fitted with effective service and

parking brakes?

Do vehicles and powered mobile plant have

seatbelts fitted and are they mandated to be

worn at all times?

Page 42 of 42

SAFETY CONTROL Yes No Comments / Action

Is mobile plant parking areas provided on

flat ground with engineering controls such as

windrows or chocks provided to prevent

runaways if the brakes were to fail?

Is there a regular maintenance program for

all vehicles and powered mobile plant?

Is there a system for reporting faults on all

vehicles and powered mobile plant?

Do drivers carry out effective daily Pre-Start

basic safety checks before using vehicles?

Are there any other control measures that should be implemented to manage mobile plant and vehicle risks at your workplace?

References:

• Traffic Management Guide for Construction Work, Safe Work Australia, 2014.

• Victorian WorkCover Authority Guide to Managing Safety in the Civil

Construction Industry – Industry Standard, 2012. • VicRoads Guidelines for Managing Mobile Plant near Pedestrians on

Roadwork Sites, 2014. • Safety Alerts from WorkCover Victoria, NSW and Queensland.