The next step

Further information on crossings

[]

Fines and costs totalling £372,000 for traffic route errors

Accident

In May 2009 Mary Whiting, a 78-year-old holiday maker, was run down and killed by a 26-tonne milk lorry as she used a pedestrian crossing. The pedestrian route at Luton Airport (LA) connected a passenger drop-off zone with the terminal building. The accident led to an investigation by HSE inspectors who identified problems with its design.

In court

LA pleaded not guilty to breaches of health and safety legislation. Although the judge agreed that the design of the road was not a direct cause of the fatal accident, nevertheless he said that it had created a serious risk. LA was found guilty of breaching the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (HSWA) and Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 , which requires employers to undertake risk assessments. The company was fined a total of £75,000 and ordered to pay £197,595 in costs.

The architects

The layout of the area had been designed by C-T Aviation Solutions Limited (C) as part of a wider building project. It was also found guilty of breaching s.3(1) of the HSWA along with Regulation 11 of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 (CDM). This places duties on designers to consider risk when designing construction work. C was fined £70,000 with £30,000 in costs.

Serious sentence

The fines and costs were so high because both parties had pleaded not guilty, resulting in a six-week trial. The fines reflected the risk to which the public were put - it’s reported that eight to nine million passengers per year visit the airport. The penalties were, perhaps, smaller than they might have been since the judge evidently held both companies in high regard. He described LA as having an “impressive” safety record and indicated that C had an established reputation in a highly specialised area of airport design work.

So where did they go wrong?

The main issue seems to be that the design of the crossing had not followed the standards which would have usually been applied in the circumstances, i.e. those which would have been followed on a public road. On this basis the HSE said there should have been Belisha beacons, zigzag lines and a stop line at least one metre from the start of the crossing. Tip.  All signs, signals and markings used to control the risk from traffic must follow the same specification to those used on a public highway, even where they are sited within a work premises. This is a specific requirement under the Health and Safety (Safety Signs and Signals) Regulations 1996 .

Note. There are different types of crossing: zebra, pelican, puffin and toucan; each is suited to a different situation. Design details are readily available (see The next step ).

For further information on crossings, visit http://tipsandadvice-healthandsafety.co.uk/download (HS 12.10.07).