Recurring concern

Failure to provide banksman assistance for hazardous vehicle and load movements

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 24 Nov 2020•Latest report 19 Jul 2021

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures to assign, provide or maintain competent banksman assistance specifically for hazardous vehicle movements, reversing operations or loading and unloading of heavy or oversized loads where a banksman is needed as a dedicated safety control.

Not included

  • Excludes generic supervision or leadership deficiencies where a banksman or equivalent movement-control function is not the identified safety control.
  • Excludes ordinary vehicle driving, loading or lifting failures that do not concern the provision or performance of banksman assistance.
  • Excludes pedestrian, machinery or premises hazards unrelated to hazardous vehicle or load movements.
  • Excludes failures involving vehicle cameras, mirrors, alarms or other controls where banksman assistance is not the shared unsafe condition.
Reports
2

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
2

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2020–2021

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
0

Described in published responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Most frequent recipients

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

Department for Transport1
PCR Steel Ltd1
Recipient name withheld1
SE Galvanisers Ltd1

Concerns and responses across reports

Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. County of Dorset

    AI-generated summary

    Sarah Lewis · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    On 16 November 2020, Sarah Lewis was fatally struck by a reversing large goods vehicle while crossing behind it in Weymouth. The principal concern was the blind spot behind large goods vehicles and the absence of a legal requirement for rear cameras, particularly where no banksman is present. The report also noted uncertainty about the possible effect of fluoxetine levels above the therapeutic range.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to provide banksman assistance for reversing Large Goods Vehicles

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) A Large Goods Vehicle was being driven which had reverse warning lights and a reversing alarm. The driver was assisted by 7 mirrors. A pedestrian was stood on the pavement and she was not seen by the driver. It is likely that the driver was checking his nearside mirror or the road around him when the pedestrian stepped out behind the reversing lorry which resulted in a complete blind spot once she was behind the vehicle. (2) The evidence I heard is that it is not mandatory for Large Goods Vehicles to be fitted with a camera at the rear of the vehicle to assist drivers and prevent this blind spot. A lot of drivers complete journeys alone without a banksman to assist them in safely reversing. (3) There is no legal requirement for vehicles to have a rear camera and yet this may prevent future deaths. At the very least it would prevent a large number of accidents. ”

    Source location

    Sarah Lewis · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report

  2. Essex

    AI-generated summary

    Christopher Sparks · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    On 4 April 2019, Christopher Sparks, a HGV driver, was struck by a falling steel balcony frame while he was on the trailer bed during loading. The concerns included the absence of an approved safe loading and lifting plan, a banksman, a clearly marked driver area, and suitable equipment for moving and loading the products.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to assign a banksman to supervise safe loading

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) PCR had not assigned a banksman to supervise the safe loading. Especially in the loading of loads of such weight and size as the balcony frame, there should be a banksman employed ”

    Source location

    Christopher Sparks · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026