Ask more questions about safety choices

Collision prevention technology is not a panacea for safer port operations Collision prevention technology is not a panacea for safer port operations
Industry Database

Wouter de Gier explains why collision-prevention technology will not save lives.

The last decade has seen an unprecedented growth in collision-prevention technologies. Companies that are active in the port sector today can choose from smart sensors, lasers, video analytics enabled cameras, active RFID tags, scanners and more to prevent contact between people and heavy equipment. Manufacturers and resellers often promise that their product will create a safer working environment and reduce injuries. I want to challenge this thinking.

On the face of it, it may sound like an attractive proposition and easy fix; install some new devices on your machines and get on top of safety. While collision-prevention technology can indirectly contribute to a safer operation, it is not the silver bullet to prevent people getting injured. Before you invest, consider the problem that you are trying to solve.

Do you want to safeguard people and prevent injuries? If so, ask yourself why these people are present in your operation. Have a conversation with them first to understand their perspective, take another good look at your processes and your facility lay out. You can eliminate the need for people in the operation by making some deliberate and often simple changes and achieve a 100% pedestrian free yard at zero or minimal cost.

Do you want to keep people away from the machines? In the rare case that people cannot be taken out of the operation, you will have to create a safe place for them to work. Create sufficient distance between the employee and the machines, demarcated by hard physical barricades (concrete blocks, fencing, etc.). This will enable them to carry out their tasks from a fixed location and will prevent them from wandering about between the operating machines.

Using collision prevention technology for safety reasons may look attractive but is not a good idea. It will lead to a false sense of security as machines and people will continue to share the same work space. It will therefore not eliminate the risk of contact between people and equipment until the underlying reasons have been addressed.

With a 100% pedestrian-free operation, you will be in a much better position to consider investing in collision prevention technologies. The rationale should be about increasing operational efficiency and reducing operating cost by minimising equipment damage and cargo claims. Sounds like loss prevention to me, not safety.

Wouter de Gier is director for Global Safety and Environment at APM Terminals and chairman of ICHCA’s Technical Panel.

LATEST PRESS RELEASES

NEW CRANE ENTERS SERVICE AT WARRENPOINT PORT FOLLOWING £3 MILLION INVESTMENT

Warrenpoint Port has commissioned a new crane and has commenced the refurbishment of two other crane... Read more

Bigger share of modal split envisaged for inland shipping in the Baltic Sea Region

A vision for inland waterway transport (IWT) in the Baltic Sea Region as well as means to strengthen... Read more

QTerminals reaches new container and cargo handling milestones in record time

Over two million containers and five million tonnes of cargo handled Read more

Bendezu Port Equipment delivered two GOTTWALD HMK 6407 B from BELGIUM to SPAIN

Bendezu Port Equipment GmbH, an international trading company offering second-hand port equipment, h... Read more

ShibataFenderTeam is a member of PIANC Working Group “Guidelines for the Design of Fender Systems”

ShibataFenderTeam looks forward to the fruitful exchange with all WG members and trusts that the out... Read more

CIRCLE S.p.A.: continues its growth abroad with a new cooperation with Bulgarian Ports Infrastructure Company.

Circle S.p.A. (“Circle”), a Company leading its own Group specialized in process and management cons... Read more

View all