MrForklift Auction

Buy & Sell your forklift on our new site
Auction Site Press Release...Auction Site Press Release...Auction sitePress Release

Operators  Inspection Book 

small TTT.gif (1156 bytes) 

The
Training Courses

Warehouse
Reach Truck
Counterbalance
Powered Pallet
Hand Truck
Pivot Steer
Side Loader
Safety Refresher

Driver Multi-Skill

 

On the farm
Telescopic
Fixed Mast

 

Construction
Rough
Terrain
Telescopic

Telescopic over 9m
Fixed Mast
Dumper

Mini Digger
360 Digger

Lorry Mounted (HIAB)

 

Short Courses
Cage Lifting  Operator
Abrasive Wheels

Slinger Signaller

 

Other
Training Packages

Supervisor Training

Programmed Operator Training

In-house operator training

Operator Interview &  assessment


ITSSAR
INSTRUCTOR TRAINING
£1,150 for a 2 week course  Next Course.......   End August  2007                                   


Publications


Our own contribution to lift truck safety.
Our own pages


 

FAQ
Letters to TTT

 

What is
"on site" training?

See who we have trained

Training links

 

All  Enquiry's

24hr service   

TTT Information Leaflet
(pdf.file 230k)

 

Thomas Truck Training Ltd
 Thrapston House, Huntingdon Rd,
Thrapston, Northants, NN14 4NF

PHONE +44 (0) 1832 731261
or 0845 644 8365
(local rate)


Link to other H&S Pages    2 3 4 5 Lorry Loader Letters   FAQ     Sheet 1of5

 



powered by FreeFind

Basic Info Need By us All

  

The latest letters/communications CLICK HERE   (18th March 2005)

New   23/07/04                       Daily operators checks & Through Inspection  click here

Amended 03/12/04                          Check out your Truck  Grouping Classification for training purposes  CLICK HERE

The new basic driving skill test explained. Started End APRIL 2000   CLICK HERE

Amended 28/08/06                   Medical standards for lift truck operators including noise assessment CLICK HERE

Amended 14/10/03        Discard criteria for Fork-lift chains & Lighting Regulations & Repairing forks CLICK HERE

Young persons operating lift trucks. What the HSE says   CLICK HERE

Amended 15/12/03                              The accident reporting procedures under RIDDOR      CLICK HERE

Amended 08/02/07              To check where you are with Engine Emissions and Seat Restraint  CLICK HERE  

Amended 25/03/06                        Safety cage operation on lift trucks and cranes  CLICK HERE

Amended 07/11/06      Workplace Health Safety And Welfare     Workplace transport safety    CLICK HERE    

A potted history of the Fork Lift Truck   CLICK HERE

Just click on the picture to enlarge
(Just had to put the end two pictures in)

forklift web.jpg (22235 bytes)  wpe9.jpg (18958 bytes)  wpeB.jpg (47187 bytes) wpeD.jpg (20506 bytes) wpeF.jpg (17940 bytes)
  wpe7.jpg (36303 bytes)

NEW Take a look at our picture gallery of what not to do  Click Here

National Plant pull out of CPCS Card Scheme !
STAN CHAPMAN  (CHIEF EXECUTIVE) National Plant Operators Registration Scheme Ltd
As we are no longer part of CPCS there are a number of changes required to bring NPORS into line as an independent accrediting body and card scheme.   Read more here ..........

 

"ALLMI" merges with "ALLMI Training"
On the 1st February this year, the Association of Lorry Loader Manufacturers and Importers (ALLMI) merged with ALLMI Training Ltd to form a single limited company. The formation of this company, ALLMI Ltd, brings a new corporate identity, part of which includes the new ALLMI logo (above left).

ALLMI was founded in 1978 at the request of the Health & Safety Executive and has always been heavily involved in forming and influencing “Best Practice” within the lorry loader industry. Although ALLMI has been successfully involved in a number of issues, ALLMI members were polled in 2003 with regard to their feelings towards the Association, its activities and its overall profile. The response was that they wanted the Association to enjoy a much higher profile and to perhaps offer a number of peripheral services to its members.

The poll within the ALLMI membership suggested a natural solution; that the Association should build towards merging ALLMI with ALLMI Training Ltd. This provides the organisation with synergies, a single point of contact and the structure to provide any peripheral services in addition to creating the opportunity for a stronger presence in the industry.

This merger has now taken place and ALLMI is currently 13-months into a 24-month program of implementing some major changes. These include: -

  • Replacing the Executive Committee of ALLMI and the Board of ALLMI Training Ltd with a Management Board for the newly merged organisation. All officers have been elected and include representatives from 3 of the biggest loader crane Manufacturers.
  • Introducing a Buyers' Co-operative to enable all Members, particularly the smaller ones, to be able to buy core items such as steel, oil, hoses, insurance and so on through collective bargaining.
  • Introducing a certificated training scheme and ultimately a recognised qualification for people who carry out Examination & Testing of Lorry Loaders.
  • Re-writing and updating the ALLMI Code of Practice to incorporate all the more recent product innovations and legislative requirements.
  • Establishing a new division of the Association specifically for owners of Lorry Loaders

You can find there details at  www.lorryloaders.info        or        www.allmi.com
No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article Artical posted (02/06/06)

Forklift operator prosecuted under S7 of HSWA
An employee of ZF Lemforder UK Limited of Bickenhill, West Midlands, has been prosecuted and fined for actions, that HSE had alleged, placed him in breach of his duty as an individual under S.7¹ of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
The prosecution followed an incident on 11th January 2005, when the man lifted a colleague up approximately 3-4 metres in a metal stillage balanced on the forks of his forklift truck, in order to repair a loading bay curtain, when the correct lifting equipment was available from the company. The outcome was a fall in which a colleague sustained major injuries.
It transpired that the convicted man had received risk assessment training, forklift truck driver training and training which allows him to teach forklift truck driver training to others. These training courses give examples of bad practice, including lifting people up in metal stillages or pallets balanced on the forks of forklift trucks to gain access to height.
HSE wishes to caution companies to take adequate precautions to prevent injuries when falling from height at work, particularly in the use of forklift trucks, which should only be used to lift goods in their metal stillages as opposed to people.
The man pleaded guilty at Solihull Magistrates Court and was fined £450, with costs of £250.

Comment:
"Using a forklift truck as a way of elevating people is a highly dangerous practice and creates an imminent risk to safety. Both employers and employees have a duty to ensure that appropriate safety measures are taken when carrying out work that involves working at height in order to prevent injuries such as these.
HSE's current programme of Revitalising Health and Safety has highlighted falls from height as the most common cause of work-related deaths. Every year, around 80 people are killed and more than 5,500 seriously injured as a result of falling from height"
- Prosecuting HSE Inspector.

¹ The prosecution under the Act was because he was deemed to have failed to discharge the duty imposed on him by S.7 in that he failed to take reasonable care of the health and safety of other persons, including his colleague, who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work.
05.09.05
No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article  (22/09/05)

 

Operator Certificates from Non UK. for Lift Truck Operator Training
It is reasonable to expect an employer to assess the competence of any new operators as part of their general risk control effort under the HSAW (section 2), Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations (regulations 3 and 5) and PUWER regulation 9. The possession of any documentation other than a valid certificate of training awarded by a UK training provider accredited by a HSE recognised accrediting body should not necessarily be taken by an employer as evidence that an operator has received training to the standards described in the ACOP L117, regardless of the country in which the training was provided.
With this in mind it is expected that any accredited organisation will confirm operators’ skills by assessment and provide training based on that assessment.  In most circumstances it is likely that holders of certificates of Lift Truck Operator training issued by organisations outside the UK (i.e. organisations not accredited by a HSE recognised accrediting body) will require training specified by an accrediting body who has given the guidance provided for “untrained lift truck operators with experience", e.g. 3 days training at a candidate, instructor, truck ratio of 3:1:1 There may also be a need to see previous documentary evidence of experience ;IE an overseas cert by the accredited training organisation.
No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article  (12/09/05)

 

Hanging offence or useful tool?
A new European standard for man-baskets suspended from cranes has been published.
Phil Bishop explores the implications
The issue of lifting persons in baskets suspended from cranes has been a hot topic for several years. There is a strong body of thought that argues that cranes aredesigned for lifting goods and not people and therefore is contrary to the EU Use of Work Equipment Directive 95/63/CE 1995.

When crane hire company NMT offered rides in a basket suspended from a crane to visitors to the 2002 SED show, the International Powered Access Federation swiftly called in the Health & Safety Executive. After some discussion the authorities put a stop to the rides (which, it should be added, were merely to raise funds for charity). The basis for stopping NMT was that it was deemed to be using the crane and basket as a fairground ride rather than as industrial equipment. It is, in fact, perfectly legal in the UK to ride in a man-basket suspended from a crane, although some crane owners feel that clearer guidance is required from the HSE.
The HSE says that its attitude to riding in baskets suspended from cranes is very similar to its attitude to the use of work platforms attached to forklifts. In each case, LOLER says that it may be done only in "exceptional circumstances". In effect, this means where a risk assessment has demonstrated that there is not a more appropriate, safer alternative readily available. This is also in line with the Work at Height Regulations' hierarchy of risk. .............. For more on this article click here
Crane & Access March 2006
No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article  (25/03/06)

 

Is it the use of a Cage or will it be a Cherry picker. The pressure is on !!!
The Work at Height Regulations 2005, regulation 7(2)(b) places a duty on employers to select the most suitable work equipment for the task to be carried out regardless of the duration of the task.

I have extracted some important statements from Note PM28 but you can get a free pdf file copy supplied by the HSE at the end of this article.

Here is the major change for use of cages as extracted from the new Note PM28.
There is a free down load pdf file link at the bottom of this article.

OCCASIONAL USE
12. The Work at Height Regulations 2005, regulation 7(2)(b) places a duty on employers to select the most suitable work equipment for the task to be carried out regardless of the duration of the task. Nevertheless, it is foreseeable but unacceptable that people will often use unsafe methods of access to height for short duration and occasional tasks. For example, a substantial number of serious accidents occur when people are lifted on the forks or a bucket and on pallets or stillages placed on the forks of fork lift trucks. To encourage safer working practices, in these exceptional circumstances, occasional use of non-integrated working platforms with forklift trucks is allowed in the UK in accordance with this guidance note. This occasional use is allowed in the UK but may not be allowed in some other EU member states. As such, there is NO free movement of non-integrated working platforms throughout the EU and they MUST NOT be CE marked.

Examples of occasional use are..

  • a. non-routine maintenance tasks for which it is impractical to hire in purpose built access equipment,
  • b. the replacement of light fittings in high rise warehouses if the task is not carried out as part of periodic maintenance operations
  • c. tasks that would otherwise be carried out using less safe means of access such as ladders, because it is impractical to hire in purpose designed people lifting equipment due to the short duration and occasional nature of the task, e.g. clearing a blocked gutter d. checking on high-level damage to racking suspected of causing an immediate risk or checking on the condition of damaged roof lights.

14. Routine or planned tasks particularly those associated with production or pre-planned activities, such as periodic maintenance or stocktaking, are not exceptional circumstances and are thus not examples of occasional use. Generally, non-integrated work platforms do not provide as high a level of safety as purpose built access equipment. Consequently, forklift trucks fitted with non-integrated working platforms are not suitable for order picking, routine maintenance or the transfer of goods or people from one level to another.

Training
34. People expected to work on platforms and truck operators shall be aware of the restricted uses given in paragraphs 13 & 14. They should be properly trained and given full instructions on safe systems of working with platforms, including the action to be taken in the event of an emergency and the dangers associated with leaning out of the working platform.

37. Non-integrated working platforms are not suitable for use on:

  • a. trucks that require manual sequencing of the lift/tilt controls to maintain the working platform horizontal while being lifted;
  • b. trucks with masts that can give erratic movement, e.g. due to sequencing problems during
    lowering;
  • c. trucks that have an actual capacity (paragraphs 10 and 11) of less than 1000kg unless their stability has been verified by testing or calculation verified by empirical data (paragraph 38);
    [Note : Some truck types with an actual capacity of less than 1000 kg may be suitable for use with
    working platforms but the truck manufacturer must be consulted to ensure the stability of the
    truck/platform combination]
  • d. variable reach trucks (telehandlers) that can lift to a nominal height greater than 6m.
    [Note : The use of non-integrated platforms on rough terrain variable reach trucks requires extra care because of the rough terrain environment in which these machines are normally used and the nature of the pneumatic tyres fitted.]
  • e. pallet stackers with wrap over type forks.

Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974
77.The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSWA) places duties on employers and persons who have control of premises to ensure the safety of their employees and others who may be affected by their work activities. A risk assessment of any work at height shall be carried out under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. The assessment shall identify the measures needed to comply with all relevant legislation applicable to the intended work at height.

79. Paragraph 78 indicates that non-integrated working platforms must not carry a CE mark. Previous versions of this guidance note indicated that a CE mark was required but this is no longer appropriate due to the above decision. Users should be aware, therefore, that there are non-integrated working platforms in existence that carry the CE mark. This mark should be disregarded and should not be taken to mean that the equipment complies with a given standard. Such CE marked equipment may, or may not, meet the requirements of this third edition of the guidance note (i.e. PM28).

Work at Height Regulations
88. These Regulations came into force in April 2005. They require all work at height to be properly planned and organised and the risks controlled. This includes the selection and use of appropriate work equipment for work at height. The Regulations maintain existing standards with regard to the control of work at height and reiterate the provisions of PUWER and LOLER.

 pdf file (Size 128k ) Note PM 28
.No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article  (9/09/05)

 

Unattended forklift caused worker’s death
Publication Date: .29 September 2006
East Riding of Yorkshire Council has prosecuted a local business and its managing director following a fatality involving an unattended forklift truck. Tony Cook Ltd, of Daisy Hill Road, Burstwick, East Yorkshire, was fined £42,000 for serious health and safety breaches. The company’s managing director, Antony Denis Cook, was separately fined £10,000 under Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. Costs of £8,075 were awarded to the council.
On the morning of the accident in August 2005, the vehicle had been driven by the managing director and left in gear, with the keys in the ignition.
Yard manager Paula Eldred became trapped under the wheels after turning the key to use the vehicle as a noise source to demonstrate ear defenders to a customer.
An investigation by Neil Huntley, EHO, found that the forklift had a defective handbrake and had not been effectively maintained. Staff had been inadequately trained in its safe use and risk assessments had not been completed. An inquest in January 2006 recorded a verdict of accidental death on Ms Eldred.

At Hull crown court this month, the company pleaded guilty to one offence under Section 2 and five offences under health and safety regulations. Mr Cook, who had admitted that health and safety was his responsibility, pleaded guilty to an offence under Section 37, which covers failure to ensure the health, safety and welfare of employees.

Paul Mears, the council’s health, safety and licensing manager commented: ‘Forklift trucks are potentially lethal pieces of equipment. This tragic accident was completely avoidable had the company and management followed established basic safety rules.

Inspectors from the council will continue to focus on similar small businesses with a poor safety record and those not maintaining equipment or allowing staff to operate trucks without appropriate training.’

http://www.cieh.org/ehn/legal/2006/september.
No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article  (12/02/07)

Teenage victims of forklift peril

Evidence that dangerous machines and teenage workers do not mix have been demonstrated in three separate safety prosecutions this month. In February 2003, Timothy Whitton, aged 19 and his brother Stephen Whitton, aged 18, climbed on forklift at London firm Premier Storage. The brothers, who were employed at a neighbouring firm, suffered serious injuries when the forklift, driver by Premier employee Lee Smith, overturned. Timothy Whitton suffered a broken back, a broken right femur and dislocations to several of his toes, three of which were subsequently amputated. Stephen Whitton suffered a broken neck and smashed vertebrae. Lee Smith was fined £1,000 after a hearing this month at Croydon Crown Court. In a second case, teenage security guard Travers Clarke was fined £260 at Leeds Magistrates' Court after a delivery driver was injured in a March 2005 incident. Mr Clarke, then aged 19, agreed to use a forklift to unload from a lorry a consignment of cardboard used to make printed packaging. A pallet fell from the forks onto the 63-year-old delivery driver, fracturing his pelvis, foot and ribs, and causing spinal injuries. Mr Clarke had received no training and had been instructed by both the company whose site he was guarding and his employer, White Knight Security, not to use any work equipment on site. HSE Inspector Kathryn Wells, who carried out the investigation said: 'This case demonstrates all too clearly what can happen when an inexperienced and untrained driver gets behind the wheel of a forklift truck.' Teenager Anthony Gary Halpin was both the forklift driver and the victim of a related accident. David James Prosser, Director of DJP Poultry Handling Services Ltd, was fined £2,000 and told to pay costs of £1,555 at Ludlow Magistrates' Court following an incident in which the 17-year-old suffered fractures to his arm, wrist and hand when they became trapped in the forklift. Speaking after the case HSE investigating inspector Janice Dale said: 'The forklift truck was being operated by an untrained, unsupervised, 17-year-old driver. He had been employed by the company as a poultry handler and it was part of his job to drive forklift trucks although he had not attended any formal, approved training course. If he had, this incident could have been avoided.'

http://www.tuc.org.uk/h_and_s/tuc-12447-f0.cfm

 
Firm fined over death of worker
A farming company has been fined £20,000 following the death of a 20-year-old female worker from Eastern Europe in a forklift truck accident.
E.W. Pepper Ltd, of Wyndmere, Steeple Morden, Royston, Hertfordshire, pleaded guilty during a hearing at Stevenage Magistrates' Court on Wednesday. 8th Dec 2004
The accident happened at Bury Farm, in Melbourn, Cambridgeshire.
The Health and Safety Executive case related to the firm's failure to use trained staff to drive forklift trucks.
The company was also criticised for failure to control access to forklift trucks.
We know forklift trucks can be dangerous and recently we have seen several serious accidents with them
 
HSE inspector David Head

The breach of health and safety law was brought to the HSE's attention when Hungarian employee Ezther Nagy, 20, died from injuries sustained when a forklift truck, on which she was riding, overturned on 17 July 2002. A subsequent investigation found the company had poor control over access to its forklift trucks, with particularly poor control over access to ignition keys. HSE inspector David Head said he hoped this prosecution would send a message out to all employees to prevent this type of accident happening again. "We know forklift trucks can be dangerous and recently we have seen several serious accidents with them," he said.
'Tragic consequences'
"It is very important that firms make sure only trained and authorised staff drive them.
"Failure to do this can lead to tragic consequences, as with this case where a young woman sadly lost her life.
"Whenever something like this happens it hits a lot of people."

In court the firm was also ordered to pay £11,500 in costs.

On Wednesday evening a spokesman for E.W. Pepper Ltd said it had no comment to make relating to the case.
No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article  (12/12/04)

 
B&Q fined after forklift crushes shopper
DIY giant B&Q has been ordered to pay out £800,000 in fines and costs after a woman was crushed to death by a reversing forklift truck while shopping at one of its branches.
The DIY giant was convicted of five counts of breaching health and safety law after Pamela Hinchliffe, 68, was struck by the lift truck at B&Q’s Poole store in June2001.
Bournemouth Crown Court heard that B&Q failed to ensure that the control of forklift movements at the site complied with the company’s own safety guidelines. In particular, the court was told that CCTV evidence revealed that lift trucks were being operated at the site without banksmen to guide them.
Speaking after the case, Peter Pawlowski, the Borough of Poole’s Head of Consumer Protection Service, said: “The fine of £550,000 together with the award of £250,000 prosecution costs represent a significant figure and one of the highest ever set for offences within the retail sector.”
B&Q has lodged an appeal against the conviction.
No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article  (07/12/04)

 

ITSSAR  categories
ITSSAR trainers now have another two categories of truck they can train on. Both categories are with the "J" grouping and have individual descriptions. This continual review of the whole training programs and the need to be flexible with development within the lift truck training world is always at the forefront with ITSSAR accreditation scheme.  Further category details can be found a  Click Here

 

Haulage company fined £50,000 after falling load kills driver (July 2004)
A haulage company was fined £50,000 after a court heard how a lorry driver was killed when he was struck by a load falling from the forks of a lift truck.

Prosecuting on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), lan Bridge told Leicester Crown Court that 61-year-old lorry driver Kenneth Hicks was visiting Pallet Network Limited’s depot in Wigston, near Leicester, when the incident happened on 26 November 2002.

On the day of the standing in a warehouse next to his lorry as it was being loaded by a forklift truck. During the operation, the truck lifted a pallet load with a stack of boxes to place inside the lorry. However, the court was told that the 540-kilogram stack of boxes toppled over, striking Hicks as he attempted to steady the load. As a result, he received severe head injuries, dying in hospital two months later.
The court heard that the accident happened because Pallet Network Limited failed to ensure that a safe system of work was in place for loading and unloading vehicles at the depot. In particular, Bridge told the court that the firm’s risk assessment covering heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) visiting the site was inadequate because it failed to take loading and unloading operations into account.
Bridge said that the firm should have established a demarcated area for visiting drivers to stand in while their vehicles were being loaded to keep them at a safe distance from moving lift trucks. The court was also told that the company failed to provide its forklift truck supervisor with suitable training and information on the potential risks to visiting drivers during loading and unloading work.
Bridge added that, although there had been a number of incidents of loads falling from fork-lift trucks in the months before the accident, the company failed to monitor the system of work in place for loading and unloading lorries.
Speaking in mitigation for Pallet Network Limited, which pleaded guilty, Michael Spencer QC said that the firm has now introduced demarcated areas for HGV drivers to stand in while their vehicles are loaded or unloaded.
Pallet Network Limited was fined £50,000 under Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 for failing to ensure the safety of people not in its employment. It was also ordered to pay the full prosecution costs of £10,023.
No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article

 

Lorry Loader Training Scheme. The first to be recognised by the HSE
We are pleased to announce that due to the consistently high standards of its training scheme, ALLMI Training Ltd. has been awarded the Health and Safety Executive’s ‘Working in Partnership’ logo of recognition. The logo comes complete with a commendation:

“The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) commends the use of this Training Programme to those who have duties under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. This programme was drawn up with the participation of a HSE representative and will be referred to in relevant HSE publications.”

ALLMI Training Ltd, the independent training accreditation service and standards body for the UK lorry loader crane industry, has been awarded the HSE’s ‘Working in Partnership’ logo of recognition for its national training scheme. Acknowledged as the industry standard, the scheme is designed to equip operatives with the necessary skills and knowledge to make the use of lorry loader cranes safer and more productive.

Awarded for its consistently high standards, ALLMI Training is the only organisation in its sector to receive such a commendation. The programme was drawn up with the participation of a HSE representative and will now be referred to in relevant HSE publications.

Comments Tom Wakefield, Training Manager of ALLMI Training Ltd:
“We are delighted that the HSE now commends the use of this training programme to all those who have duties under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. It reflects great credit on everyone involved in developing and delivering the scheme nationwide.”

ALLMI Training operates through a fast-growing network of training centres whose instructors must not only satisfy the stringent requirements of the initial accreditation process, but must consistently achieve agreed standards. Regular audits are conducted on all instructors to ensure a common high standard throughout the scheme.

You can find there details at  www.lorryloaders.info        or        http://www.allmi.com
No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article

 
Double-decker ripped open in fork-lift crash
A FORK-LIFT truck sliced open a bus like a tin opener as the double-decker drove down one of the Capital’s busiest streets. One passenger, a 38-year-old man, had to be taken to hospital after torn metal from the side of the bus ripped open his left knee. Passengers told how they heard a loud bang as the forks punctured the metal sides of the bus, tearing a three-feet-long gash of ragged metal along its front left side. The forks left another rip almost 12-feet long down the bus’s rear left side. The injured man had been sitting at the very front of the bus on the left-hand side when the accident happened shortly after 2.20pm yesterday. The number 10 Lothian Bus was traveling up Leith Walk, past the junction with Albert Street, where the fork-lift truck was trying to enter the Walk. Emergency services feared mass casualties when reports of the accident first came in. A female passenger, who asked not to be named, said there had been about two dozen people on board when the collision happened. She said: "We were just passing Albert Street when I heard a bang and the sound of glass breaking. "A woman from downstairs went upstairs and asked whether everyone was all right and somebody said no, there’s a guy been hurt at the front of the bus. "A girl came down and said metal had gone into his leg and she had tied a tourniquet around it. "I got off after about ten minutes because I was so shaken up and the driver of the fork lift came on and asked whether everyone was all right." Emergency services were on the scene within minutes. A spokesman for the ambulance service confirmed that only one passenger needed treatment. He said: "A 38-year-old male was taken to casualty at Edinburgh Royal Infirmary with lacerations to his left knee." The fork-lift truck was being operated by a sub contractor working for Ballast, a construction firm which is building a five-storey block of flats in Albert Street. David McKenzie of Ballast said: "We understand that the fork-lift truck was stationary with his handbrake on [at the time of the accident]. We are doing everything we can to ensure that the injured party is in good care, and that the police have all the assistance they need . "The fork-lift was licensed to be on public roads, and the driver - a very experienced, certified, fork-lift truck driver - would have been following a frequently-traveled route, turning on to Leith Walk in order to access a second site road." A spokesman for Lothian Buses said: "We are working with Lothian and Borders Police to establish exactly what happened. "As in any accident that happens, the driver was shaken, he was certainly not expecting something like that as he was driving up Leith Walk." A spokesman for Lothian and Borders Police confirmed the force was investigating the cause of the accident.
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/edinburgh.cfm?id=206182003
No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article

 

Forklift operator badly injured
It is reported that a forklift operator has sustained back, abdominal and leg injuries in an industrial accident at the premises of Target Express, Deans Industrial Estate, West Lothian. It is not known if the 26 year-old man's injuries are life-threatening
No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article

 

UPDATE POUNDS196K FOR DAD Mar 8 2003
A WORKER whose legs were crushed when two tons of steel fell on him was awarded pounds196,000 compensation yesterday. The metal fell on father-of-two Michael Delaney when it was being unloaded from a lorry with a fork-lift. The Court of Session decided that McGregor Construction should have provided a proper crane. The construction firm denied any fault and had fought the case for more than three years. Mr Delaney, of Fort William, who now works as an electrician, said he was happy and relieved the case had come to an end at long last.

No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article

 

Forklift driver killed
It is reported that a forklift truck driver has died in an industrial accident on the Moorfield Industrial Estate, Kilmarnock. According to one account, the accident occurred when the driver was transferring pallets of bricks from one trailer to another and he was struck by the forklift as he dismounted from it. Update: The dead man is William Speirs, 57. Mr Shearer died at the premises of Chris Shearer haulage. It is reported that he left the forklift to clear a pallet when his machine moved forward and crushed him
No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article

 

£1.2m for paralysed worker March 15, 2003
A supermarket worker left paralysed when a loading cage fell off a lorry has won a £1.2m compensation settlement, a court heard yesterday. But magistrates dealing with a criminal prosecution of two companies for health and safety failures refused to pass sentence in the case because their £20,000 maximum fines were not enough. Sheringham man Simon Ayers has been in a wheel-chair since suffering back injuries in the accident outside the town's Budgens supermarket on July 18 2001. Haulage company Gist and Budgens had both admitted Health and Safety Act offences of failing to ensure the safety of workers, other firms' employees and the public. After a two-hour hearing and an hour deliberating, Cromer magistrates felt their powers were not enough and sent the case to crown court where sentencing is unlimited. Geoffrey Knipe, prosecuting for the Health and Safety Executive, said the accident happened when a 430kg cage full of goods went through a delivery lorry's tail lift side protector and hit Mr Ayers as he stood in front of the store. Mr Ayers, who damaged three vertebrae and his spinal column, had received no training on health and safety, and Gist had not trained driver Robin Gilbey in loading safety. Solicitor Peter Atkinson, for Gist, said it took safety seriously but the driver had "slipped through the net" because he was experienced on the Sheringham run. The company had a good safety record while delivering 5000 cages to 237 Budgens stores. He said reconstructions showed the cage could only have come off the side of the tail lift if the side plate was not properly fitted. Budgens' barrister Gerard Forlin said it seemed human error by the driver had caused the tragic accident. The supermarket "apologised unreservedly" to Mr Ayers and his family and accepted it had fallen below the standards required by law – but added that safety methods and training had been stepped up since the accident. There was a risk assessment of loading dangers in place when it happened – but no one had told Mr Ayers about the precautions in it, including standing clear of the lorry during loading. Mr Forlin said a civil case had now been settled, with a £1.2m payout agreed – Gist paying 85pc and Budgens 15pc. The Ayers family and the two companies declined to comment after the case.

No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article

 

Forklift driver killed after being crushed into wall
A forklift driver was killed today in an industrial accident. The 41-year-old man, who has not yet been named, was working at the Safeway Regional Distribution Centre, within Righead Industrial Estate in Bellshill, Lanarkshire, when the accident happened shortly after midnight. He suffered serious leg injuries when he fell from his truck and became trapped between it and a wall. He was taken by ambulance to Monklands Hospital but died a short time later. About 60 forklift drivers work on the busy nightshift at the depot. A workmate said: "He was unloading a lorry that had come into the base. "I heard he had been on the truck ramp when it was parked in an unloading bay. "Maybe he was trying to straighten up his bogie to uplift the palettes from the lorry and his unit lost its balance and toppled into the bay. "I was told he was crushed into the wall." A police spokesman said: "It was a tragic accident. The driver fell from the back of his unit and his legs were crushed between it and the wall of the bay. "Workmates quickly raised the alarm and he was given emergency treatment at the scene by paramedics before an ambulance rushed him to Monklands Hospital. "Unfortunately, he died shortly after being admitted. He had been bleeding heavily and possibly died of a cardiac arrest." Health and Safety Executive officials have started an investigation into the tragedy. A Safeway spokesman said: "We are assisting in every way possible with the inquiry."
No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article

 

Lorry driver crushed to death Mar 20 2003
A MERSEYSIDE lorry driver was crushed to death when he was caught between a fork lift truck and quarry equipment. The 53-year-old father-of-one from Whitby, Ellesmere Port, died at Cavendish Mill in Stoney Middleton, Derbyshire, on Tuesday afternoon. Police and the Health and Safety Executive have launched an investigation into the incident which happened on the premises of Glebe Mining. It is thought that the man was injured at around 11.20am at the site's limestone processing plant, close to the quarry. It is understood that he had left his vehicle prior to the accident. Police said that the man, who has not been named, was airlifted to the Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal Hospital and pronounced dead shortly after arrival. It is understood that he was married and had a daughter. A team of HSE site inspectors arrived at the scene yesterday morning and sealed off the area although much of the quarry remained open for operations. Derbyshire Police have ruled out any suspicious circumstances but will remain in close contact with the HSE while interviews with witnesses are carried out. A HSE spokesman said: "It is believed that the man was crushed between a fork lift truck and a caterpillar load-ing shovel. "An investigation with the police is being carried out at the scene and interviews with witnesses will take place over the next few weeks. "This is a very delicate investigation and it is too early to say how the man came to be involved in this accident. A Derbyshire police spokesman said the death was not being treated as suspicious. A post mortem would be carried out by a Home Office pathologist before details are passed to the Derbyshire coroner.
No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article

 

UPDATE Fatally injured worker used truck's forks to gain access
A fish processing company worker used a patently unsafe method of work to tend to large bags of fishmeal at his employer's premises. In December 2001 David Cobban accessed the stored product using the raised forks of a forklift truck from which he fell through four metres, sustaining fatal head injuries. Mr Cobban's employer, United Fish of Aberdeen, admitted and was prosecuted for breaching the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and was fined £16,000 at Aberdeen Sheriff Court, failing to provide a safe system of work for Mr Cobban. HSE's John Radcliffe commented that the "biggest cause of serious and fatal accidents in industry is from working from height and transport in the workplace, the two most common factors of serious and fatal incidents which were present in this case." Forfab, based in Rothes, Moray, the forklift truck driver provider, was fined £4,000 in respect of failing to provide adequate training.

No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article

Forklift truck fatal accident
It is reported that Robert Mann, 59, has sustained fatal injuries in a workplace accident involving a forklift truck at a Welshpool, Dyfed-Powys, scrapyard. Mr Mann was taken to hospital but succumbed to his injuries there.
 
No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article


Fine for company after driver sustained terrible injuries
A lorry driver, Anthony Sadler, making a delivery in June last year to the premises of Ian Smith (Stationers) Ltd sustained crush injuries when he was struck by an inadequately trained forklift truck driver. Mr Sadler now must live with considerable disability as a consequence of that preventable accident.
The forklift driver was only operating the truck because a director, in the absence of a manger, instructed him to use it believing him to be competent, however he was unfamiliar with that type of truck, his training some years earlier being on another type.

Adhering to safety procedures
At Chelmsford Court the company admitted the breach and was fined £20,000 with £3,330 costs for failing to meet minimum standards in respect of health and safety in the circumstances of the accident, failing to ensure the safety of persons not in its employment.
Since the accident the company has acted to tighten its procedures, expressing great regret over Mr Sadler's loss.
HSE's Paul Downer, speaking of the suffering for all affected by forklift accidents, said: "We cannot stress enough the importance of adhering to safety procedures."
http://www.safetynews.co.uk/archivenews.htm
No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article   01/09/03


Broken fork kills worker
A tragic accident caused the death of a worker when a fork snapped off a lift truck as it was being used to sling a chute using a polyethylene rope. The fork, which weighed 39 Kg. fell a distance of seven feet striking the worker on the head who died instantly.

Droitwich magistrates Court heard how the deceased was trying to guide a chute into position which was being suspended from the fork when it got caught under a press as the mast was being raised.

The court also heard how the accident happened because the company failed to ensure that its fleet of 70 fork lift trucks were properly inspected. It was stated that if the fork involved in the accident had been examined by a competent person they would have identified that the fork was cracked. Although the firm had employed a firm of specialist engineering surveyors to carry out regular examinations on most of its equipment the arrangement had never included fork lift trucks.

The company was fined for breaches of the Health and Safety at Work act and for two breaches of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations. Full costs were ordered to be paid costing the firm a total of just over £62,000.

In mitigation the company stated that they have now ensured that all of its fork lift trucks are examined regularly by a competent person.
No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article (entered on our site on 27/03/06)


Deadline December 5th 2002 
All mobile plant equipment such as fork lift trucks, dumpers and tractors which have been provided for use before 5th December 1998 must be brought into compliance with part 111 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER 98) by 5th December 2002. In real terms this has a major impact on Employers, the self employed or anyone in control 'to any extent' of mobile work equipment. It means that all relevant parties must ensure that their equipment is safe to use by preventing or controlling risks. This is not a completely new concept as the requirement of the regulations has been in effect for new equipment since the 5th December 1998. The are many risks involved in the use of mobile work equipment. But some of the most common risks are, being struck by the vehicle, the equipment tipping or rolling over, the operator of the equipment falling from the vehicle, the operator being struck by falling objects, unauthorised operation and use of the vehicle by untrained persons, braking systems not being maintained to correct and safe standards and bad or restricted driver visibility. PUWER 98 addresses these risks in part 111 by insisting that employers now take adequate measures to ensure that all work equipment in particular plant equipment is safe to use. There are many ways in which this can be achieved but one of the main areas to be addressed is: The fitting of restraining systems (seat belts, lap belts, etc) - PUWER 98 states under regulation 27 the requirement for 'provision of restraining systems to prevent crushing of the operator between the truck and the ground where there is a foreseeable risk of overturning' Due to the nature of a lift truck, all situations during use could constitute a risk of overturning therefore all Forklift trucks must be fitted with restraining devices of some kind by 5th December 2002 (further information on Fitting and use of restraining systems on lift trucks can be obtained by calling Us on 01536 517889 or in the HSE information sheet MISC241) It is a fact that unsafe work equipment is a major factor in a very large percentage of deaths and injuries every year. The statistics for 2001 alone show that three people were killed and 67 were seriously injured when they were struck by Industrial Lift Trucks. The changes in the regulations are evidence of the commitment of the Health and Safety Executive, to address this worryingly high amount of incident and injury
No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article
To Find more articles on seat restraint then please CLICK HERE

FATALITY DUE TO FALL FROM FORK LIFT TRUCK
An employee of Tingdene Homes of Wellingborough died as the result of being crushed after falling from the forklift truck he was driving. As a result of the accident he had to have a leg amputated and he subsequently died from a blood clot. The court heard that the truck had been travelling over uneven ground and that the steering was faulty. Tingdene Homes were ordered to a fine and costs totaling £15,000.
No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article

 

Fines and worse
Carrington Wire Ltd have been fined £15,000 because an employee received serious injuries to both legs after coming into contact with a fork lift truck on the company’s premises in Warrington. Modifications to the truck to enable it to carry coils of wire had reduced the driver’s visibility when driving the truck forwards.
Continental Coffee Industries, based in Dunstable, was recently fined £8,000 with £6,000 costs after a fatal incident involving a fork lift truck at their premises. The driver of the truck, who was killed, was not licensed to drive the vehicle and should not have been doing so. It was against the company’s safety policy but it was admitted that the company had not taken sufficiently stringent steps to ensure that untrained and unlicensed
personnel did not operate such machinery. The court accepted that, in this case, the company’s level of culpability was low hence the comparatively low fine for a case involving a fatality.
A farmer from Shropshire has been sentenced to fifteen months in prison after a 16 year old worker was killed when a telescope materials handler overturned. According to the prosecution, the youth in question not received any training in the use of the vehicle. Although both a placement officer from the local agricultural college and an HSE inspector had specifically told the employer that the youngster must not be allowed to operate the machinery until trained, he had been allowed to drive the vehicle quite often.
No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article

 

United Engineering Forgings Ltd of Bromsgrove was fined a total of £30,000 after one of its workers was struck on the head and killed by a steel fork, which had snapped off a forklift being used as a crane. The Court heard how engineer Calvin Hughes died instantly after being struck by the 37kg fork, which fell on him from a height of 7 feet. The truck was being used as a crane - a rope having been looped over 1 fork to lift a piece of metal. As this was happening the other fork caught under a piece of equipment, causing it to snap. The investigation by the HSE discovered a pre-existing metal fatigue crack in the fork. The company was also had full costs of £32,481.
No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article

 

Part of LOLER (Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations) ’98 recommends that fork trucks working up-to forty hours a week should be serviced at least every twelve months. But did you know? If the truck is fitted with a side shift (most trucks are nowadays), an attachment, or is used in conjunction with a man-up cage, then it is recommended these trucks be services at least every six months.

LOLER ’98 also recommends that interchangeable equipment used on fork trucks such as jibs, fork extensions and working platforms, should be treated as accessories for lifting and thoroughly examined every six months.  Further details   click here

 

 

Find out if your firm has had a brush with the HSE    

HSE recently published its first ever enforcement report, which names hundreds of companies, organisations and individuals convicted of health and safety crimes during 1999/2000. This implements the commitment in the 'Revitalising Health and Safety' strategy statement.
Health and safety offences and penalties lists around 1600 individual offences and includes several big-name companies, as well as small firms, local authorities, hospitals and universities throughout Britain. In addition, full details of each conviction are available on a special website database http://www.hse-databases.co.uk/prosecutions/.

HSE Director General, Timothy Walker, said: "Companies, organisations and individuals must be held accountable for their health and safety performance: their professional reputation should depend on it. The convictions are there for everyone to see, including would-be customers, contractors, investors, employees and insurers. They all have a right to be aware of an organisation's health and safety record before they decide whether to invest their capital and labour."

Mr Walker criticised the low general levels of fines still being handed down by Britain's courts, and said: "In addition to the courts exacting stiffer penalties under existing law, we need tougher new penalties and more widely available prison sentences, as laid out in the Government's and Health and Safety Commission's 'Revitalising Health and Safety' strategy. This aims for significant improvements in Britain's health and safety at work record. I am also hopeful that the Government will proceed quickly to introduce the proposed manslaughter legislation, which will create a new offence of corporate killing." 

 Check out the HSE  latest press releases         http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/press.htm
 


 

ppt12.jpg (7866 bytes)Untrained agency worker injured by a Powered Pallet Truck
Agency worker, 18 year old Daniel Collier arrived at the wholesaler paper merchant based in Hull for his third day of work as a warehouseman and was asked to operate the electric powered pallet truck.
The task resulted in the pallet truck running over his foot, fracturing three of his toes, causing crush injuries to three bones and tearing tissue in his right foot.

G F Smith pleaded guilty to breaching s3(1) of HSWA 1974 by failing to ensure safety of non-employees. The court heard that novice operators should be provided with a full days training on a pallet truck and that all full-time employees wore safety shoes.

 

In mitigation G F Smith said that Collier had been given some training on his first day and that he had been informed that he was to provide his own safety shoes. David Duxbury, Hull City Council’s head of public protection, commented “This case highlights the dangers of allowing untrained staff to use work equipment. Many people consider pallet trucks to be everyday items, which anyone can use, but in untrained hands there is the potential for serious injury.”

The wholesale paper merchant was fined £6000 and ordered to pay the Council’s full costs of £1750.
As published in the AITT News December 2006 using the (Source:/ Safety and Health Practitioner June 2006)
www.aitt.co.uk

 

The Hand Operated Pallet Truck OUCH!!
   It has to be said this is not he most interesting piece of kit on the factory floor!. Yet in some operations it could arguably be one of the most important pallet movers in the factory. Having said all that there is no need to have a licence to operate it. It dose have a ITSSAR category Z1) In fact I would be very surprised if many people have had any training on its operation. It looks deceptively easy to use. I train in many different working environments and most times discover that personnel regularly have their ankles hit and bruised , toes squashed , and in one extreme case an overnight stay in hospital !! All as a result of a badly aimed and maintained trucks. Well what to do about it? TTT.ltd has produced a leaflet that it distributes FREE containing valuable do’s and don'ts on how to push it and operate it safely. If you would like a copy then just Download it HERE (Aprox 500k) in touch by E Mail requesting the leaflet. I will send it snail mail.

 

What's in a category?
Each truck that you operate need's a license. The new ACOP states that very clearly. But what is the categories. Why have categories? The simple reason is that there are fundamental differences in the operation of individual trucks and these categories are designed to highlight the differences and make sure that the operator is given the right training. Did you know for instance that there is 3 categories of counterbalance truck. B1,B2,B3. Which dose your fall into? There is a table that I hope is clear. As always if you need help with it just ring or E Mail.   Need to know the category of the trucks you operate at your work Click here

 

Road Tax and the Law
The law has been very clear about whether the forklift needs tax or not. Of course it does. But how many times do we see the common lift truck operating out and about with no tax. The rule is if it is on the road it needs tax. There is just no exemption these days. The chancellor wants his money. So if you offload on the public highway, get it taxed. If you do not know the rules or because you have your lift truck on hire you think you are covered. Check. Now!!

Remember that your insurance company will not cover you if the unfortunate happens. Details can be found in BITA Publication Guidance Note GN57 & Forklift Truck Association Bulletin No 3
or from TTT by  E Mail
bigH@mrforklift.co.uk for specific questions.

 

Have you got more than 5 Employees?? Then you need one of these.
Statement of Health and Safety Policy
 You will find one for your company here this will tell you how to write one and give you a pre-formed statement you may wish to amend to suite your particular firm.   
Click Here

 

Forward.gif (1541 bytes)

forkliftclr.gif (3788 bytes)

Forward.gif (1541 bytes)
Next Page

 

Take a look at the past stories of accidents and near misses in in the UK and else where the fork lift world

  2005 2004 2003 2002   2001  2000  1999  1998  1997  1996 1995 19??  USA  Rough Terrain  Dumper Mini Digger
The what not to do gallery

Just click on the date to see what happened in that particular year.

 

Need to talk on a CONFIDENTIAL line about what is happening at your work place??

Phone HSE INFO LINE on 0541 545500. It is strictly confidential

If you have any interesting stories that affect the Health & Safety issues around the operation of your lift truck then get in touch. Your article could be posted here free of charge.
E Mail Telephone or drop me a line

Site Meter