Recurring concern

Unsafe work in proximity to moving heavy vehicles and machinery

Get email alerts

Request correction

First reported 30 Apr 2018•Latest report 2 Aug 2024

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes recurring deficiencies or hazards involving people working in restricted or inadequately separated spaces adjacent to, beneath or between moving or potentially moving heavy vehicles or machinery, where vehicle or machinery movement can cause fatal crushing or struck-by injury and dedicated separation, immobilisation or safe-position controls are inadequate.

Not included

Excludes ordinary vehicle-maintenance, approval, inspection or driving failures where unsafe worker proximity to moving heavy vehicles or machinery is not the shared condition.
Excludes generic restricted workspace or machinery-operation concerns where the material danger is not proximity to moving or potentially moving heavy vehicles or machinery.
Excludes patient, pedestrian or public-road hazards unrelated to people working near heavy vehicles or machinery.
Excludes work-at-height, lifting, vehicle-coupling and other equipment-specific concerns unless unsafe proximity to moving heavy vehicles or machinery is the shared unsafe condition.

Reports: 3
Individual concerns: 3
Date range: 2018–2024
Stated actions: 5

Reports over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

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

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

Health and Safety Executive1

Treanor Pujol Limited1

Waste Industry Safety and Health Forum1

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.

2 Aug2024
Dorset
Concerns raised1
1. Risk of fatal injury from using the space between LGV rear axles
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 2
1. Action
  Publish freely accessible guidance on construction-site workplace transport safety, traffic management and pedestrian–vehicle segregation.
  Stated by Health and Safety ExecutiveStated completed
2. Action
  Continue raising awareness of welfare and construction-transport safety risks with industry through stakeholder engagement networks.
  Stated by Health and Safety ExecutiveStated in progress
Respondent positions 2
1. Position
  Existing legislation and guidance are considered sufficient to control welfare and construction transport risks.
  Stated by Health and Safety ExecutiveExisting arrangements considered sufficient
1. Position
  Duty holders retain responsibility for achieving legal compliance and sourcing advice suitable for their individual circumstances.
  Stated by Health and Safety ExecutiveRedirects responsibility
AI-generated summary

Thomas Joseph McAuley · 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

Thomas Joseph McAuley died after being struck and catastrophically injured by a grab lorry while positioned between its axles during road resurfacing work. The report raises concerns that roadwork crews may continue using the space between LGV axles to urinate, creating a risk of fatal injury from vehicle movement, and that the risk may not have been communicated more widely.

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
Risk of fatal injury from using the space between LGV rear axles
Wider context from the report
“i. If the practice of using the space between the rear axles of an LGV is ongoing, there remains a risk of future deaths, as any small movement of the vehicle can cause fatal injuries. I am not aware of any safety notice(s) being issued since Mr McAuley’s death or any wider publicity that may have highlighted the risk. Ensuring that companies undertaking road resurfacing work or similar are made aware of the risk that this practice is ongoing will enable them to take measures to address this potential ongoing risk. ”
Source location
Thomas Joseph McAuley · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation
Publish freely accessible guidance on construction-site workplace transport safety, traffic management and pedestrian–vehicle segregation.

Verbatim wording from the response
“HSE publishes guidance relating to workplace transport safety which is freely available on our website www.hse.gov.uk. The core message of this guidance being that duty holders must ensure that vehicle movements and traffic routes are organised such that pedestrians and vehicles are segregated so far as reasonably practicable. It is important to note that controls for transport safety cover segregation of pedestrians from vehicles whether moving or stationary, as unauthorised access to vehicles should be prevented and there are risks that stationary vehicles can move unexpectedly.”

Source location
Response from HSE
Page 2 · response
Published 9 August 2024
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation
Continue raising awareness of welfare and construction-transport safety risks with industry through stakeholder engagement networks.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Through our stakeholder engagement networks, we will continue to raise awareness of matters arising in this case with industry to ensure they manage them appropriately. These topics will also be raised at inspections where appropriate.”

Source location
Response from HSE
Page 3 · response
Published 9 August 2024
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation
Existing legislation and guidance are considered sufficient to control welfare and construction transport risks.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Having reviewed the circumstances of this fatal accident, it is HSE’s view that the need to provide adequate welfare facilities and control risks associated with transport safety are well known to industry and legislation and suitable and sufficient guidance already exists to assist duty holders in complying with their duties and adequately control the risks involved in this accident.”

Source location
Response from HSE
Page 3 · response
Published 9 August 2024
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation
Duty holders retain responsibility for achieving legal compliance and sourcing advice suitable for their individual circumstances.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The responsibility to achieve legal compliance, source suitable advice or information for their individual circumstance’s rests with the duty holder.”

Source location
Response from HSE
Page 3 · response
Published 9 August 2024
Open published response
31 Oct2018
Oxfordshire
Concerns raised1
1. Failure to prevent operatives working in close proximity to trucks during spoil removal ticketing
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 3
1. Action
  Review Waste 09 guidance and identify improvements or clarifications concerning consignment-note issuance and pedestrian–vehicle interactions.
  Stated by Waste Industry Safety and Health (WISH) ForumStated planned
2. Action
  Ask members and devolved associate organisations to highlight the dangers of vehicle–pedestrian interactions, especially pedestrians handing consignment notes to drivers.
  Stated by Waste Industry Safety and Health (WISH) ForumStated planned
3. Action
  Maintain and promote Waste 09 guidance on safe transport at waste and recycling sites through industry media, conferences, events, speeches and seminars.
  Stated by Waste Industry Safety and Health (WISH) ForumStated completed
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  CONIAC is identified as the body responsible for detailed construction-sector advice, including guidance on consignment-note issuance at construction sites.
  Stated by Waste Industry Safety and Health (WISH) ForumRedirects responsibility
AI-generated summary

Stephen Buck · 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

Stephen Buck died at a construction site in Thame after being struck and pulled underneath the wheels of a reversing vehicle while filling in tickets. The principal concern was the common practice of operatives working close to reversing trucks to issue tickets during spoil removal operations, increasing the risk of injury.

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 prevent operatives working in close proximity to trucks during spoil removal ticketing
Wider context from the report
“It is a relatively narrow issue but one that is likely to be relevant to many construction and waste industry sites in the country. There are issues about the use of banksmen/traffic marshals when trucks and machines are reversing and I realise that this is of course an activity involving a recognised risk. The narrower issue I wish to raise is in relation to spoil removal/muck away operations where there are potentially a large number of trucks attending a site and, in many instances, there is likely to be a requirement for the trucks to reverse thereby increasing the risk to others. I heard evidence that it is common practice in the industry for a ground worker or other operative to be given the task of issuing tickets to the truck drivers. I understand there are at least two purposes. Firstly, so that there is a record of the number of loads for invoicing purposes. Secondly, because the spoil is controlled waste and there is apparently a need for such a ticket. The result though is that an operative is often required to be in close proximity to the trucks. Clearly, it would be preferable if this was not the case. The issue of concern therefore relates to the apparently common practice for an operative to work in close proximity to trucks to issue the ticket. One might have thought that a different system involving technology could remove the need for this to occur. It would be helpful if you could give consideration to this issue. ”
Source location
Stephen Buck · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation
Review Waste 09 guidance and identify improvements or clarifications concerning consignment-note issuance and pedestrian–vehicle interactions.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Notwithstanding that this matter has been raised in respect of a construction site, WISH will review the Waste 09 guidance on this point and see what improvement or clarification might be added. The importance of the segregation of pedestrians and vehicles is a key point throughout Waste 09 and a point which regularly features in WISH’s public communications and campaigns. In view of the circumstances of this tragic case, WISH will ask its members, and devolved associate organisations, to draw further attention to the dangers of vehicle/pedestrian interactions and, in particular, the dangers of the practice of a pedestrian handing out consignment notes to drivers.”

Source location
Stephen-Buck-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 31 October 2018
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation
Ask members and devolved associate organisations to highlight the dangers of vehicle–pedestrian interactions, especially pedestrians handing consignment notes to drivers.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Notwithstanding that this matter has been raised in respect of a construction site, WISH will review the Waste 09 guidance on this point and see what improvement or clarification might be added. The importance of the segregation of pedestrians and vehicles is a key point throughout Waste 09 and a point which regularly features in WISH’s public communications and campaigns. In view of the circumstances of this tragic case, WISH will ask its members, and devolved associate organisations, to draw further attention to the dangers of vehicle/pedestrian interactions and, in particular, the dangers of the practice of a pedestrian handing out consignment notes to drivers.”

Source location
Stephen-Buck-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 31 October 2018
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation
Maintain and promote Waste 09 guidance on safe transport at waste and recycling sites through industry media, conferences, events, speeches and seminars.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Workplace transport accounts for only about 4% of all accidents and incidents in the waste and recycling sector. The severity of them is such, however, that they are the biggest single cause of fatality and serious injury in the sector. Managing workplace transport risks has been high on the agenda of WISH since its inception in 2001 and forms a major part of the guidance and support materials that WISH have produced in that time. The guidance document most relevant to the circumstances that your report describes as associated with the death of Mr Buck is Waste 09 – Safe transport at Waste and Recycling sites, which I attach for information. This was most recently reviewed and reissued in 2015. Like all WISH guidance and resources, Waste 09 is free to download and WISH promotes the use of its guidance regularly in industry media, at conferences and events and through speech and seminars.”

Source location
Stephen-Buck-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 31 October 2018
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation
CONIAC is identified as the body responsible for detailed construction-sector advice, including guidance on consignment-note issuance at construction sites.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Some WISH guidance could be used and apply to waste activities on construction sites. Such activities are not, however, a focus for WISH, nor one which it has addressed previously. There is an equivalent body to WISH, namely the Construction Industry Advisory Committee (CONIAC), already in existence which provides detailed advice and guidance for the Construction Sector. Information about that body and the safety guidance it produces can be found at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/meetings/iacs/niac/index.htm.”

Source location
Stephen-Buck-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 31 October 2018
Open published response
30 Apr2018
West Yorkshire Eastern
Concerns raised1
1. Insufficient working space beside track 12 near metal support legs and operating heavy railed machines
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
AI-generated summary

Matthew Luke Fulleylove · 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

Matthew Luke Fulleylove, aged 30, sustained a fatal head injury on 5 June 2014 when his head became trapped between two heavy industrial machines passing on adjacent rail tracks during the production of large concrete beams. Concerns were raised about the restricted working space, the small gap between the machines, continued machinery passes, and the incomplete implementation of recommended safety measures.

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
Insufficient working space beside track 12 near metal support legs and operating heavy railed machines
Wider context from the report
“(1) A Witness at the Inquest expressed concern about the safety of operatives who have only a restricted space in which to work in the vicinity of metal support legs at the side of track 12 in the factory. As heavy railed machines with rotating industrial saws are operating in close proximity concerns were raised as to the risk of fatal injuries being sustained due to the limited space available. ”
Source location
Matthew Luke Fulleylove · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 1 · concerns
Open source report

Data last updated 7 September 2026

What this concern includes

Not included

Reports over time

Concerns raised1

Risk of fatal injury from using the space between LGV rear axles

Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2

Concerns raised1

Failure to prevent operatives working in close proximity to trucks during spoil removal ticketing

Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.3

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

Concerns raised1

Insufficient working space beside track 12 near metal support legs and operating heavy railed machines

Actions described in response 2

Respondent positions 2

Actions described in response 3

Respondent positions 1