The Blind Corner at the Coolstore
You operate a 1.8-tonne electric counterbalance forklift in a cold store. The main aisle runs 60 m between two rows of racking and ends at a pedestrian doorway into the packing hall. The doorway is set at a right angle to the aisle, so a loaded forklift turning out of the aisle cannot see the doorway until the forks are already swinging into it. Two packers use that doorway roughly every few minutes. There is a convex mirror on the wall but it is fogged with condensation and angled toward the ceiling. Floor markings show a yellow walkway that stops 3 m short of the corner. The site has a traffic management plan that says 'pedestrians give way to forklifts'. A near-miss was logged last month when a packer stepped out as a forklift reversed from the doorway.
1. Assess the risk at this corner and identify the controls you would apply, in order of effectiveness.
Read the worked answer
The hazard is a pedestrian/vehicle interaction at a blind corner where neither party can see the other until the last moment. The risk is high because the forklift is loaded (long stopping distance, restricted forward vision), the surface is cold and possibly wet, and pedestrian traffic is regular rather than occasional.
Assessing: likelihood is frequent exposure (packers every few minutes, forklifts continuously), consequence is serious injury or fatality given the mass difference. That places it at the top of the matrix regardless of the low speed.
The current controls are weak. The fogged, misaligned mirror is not functioning. The walkway stopping 3 m short leaves an unmarked zone where pedestrians and vehicles mix. Most importantly, 'pedestrians give way to forklifts' is a hierarchy inversion: it puts the burden on the people least able to see and least protected. It also conflicts with the principle that the person with the greater control and the greater hazard should manage the risk.
Controls in order of effectiveness:
- Eliminate or separate - relocate the doorway, or install a physical barrier or gate so pedestrians and forklifts never share the corner. This is the only control that removes the interaction.
- Engineering - fit a convex mirror that is correctly angled and kept clear, add warning lights or a projected floor signal at the corner, and fit a proximity alarm or zone-sensing system to the forklift.
- Administrative - extend the walkway to the corner, mark a controlled crossing point, impose a speed limit and a 'stop and sound horn' rule at the corner, and rewrite the traffic plan so vehicles give way to pedestrians.
- PPE - high-visibility clothing for pedestrians, as a last layer only.
I would also fix the mirror and report the plan's wording to the supervisor, since an inadequate plan is itself a hazard.
2. The site insists the traffic plan wording is adequate. How would you respond, and what would you do operationally in the meantime?
Read the worked answer
I would explain that a plan is only adequate if it controls the risk, and this one does not. 'Pedestrians give way' assumes a pedestrian can see and react to a forklift that the pedestrian cannot see coming around a blind corner, and it ignores that a loaded forklift cannot stop quickly. It also fails the test of a traffic management plan: separate where possible, and where separation is not possible, control the interaction with engineering and clear rules.
Operationally, until the corner is fixed, I would treat it as a stop-and-communicate point: slow to walking pace, sound the horn, and come to a full stop before the corner where visibility is lost. Where reversing is unavoidable, I would use a spotter or reverse only after confirming the doorway is clear. I would keep the load low and the mast tilted back so the machine is stable if I have to brake. I would report the fogged mirror as a maintenance defect and request it be cleaned and re-angled the same shift.
I would also log the near-miss and my concerns in writing, because a verbal report is easily lost. If the site would not act, the escalation route is the supervisor, then the person conducting the business or undertaking, then the regulator. The obligation to stop unsafe work sits with me as the operator as well as with the PCBU.