This paper evaluates a workplace risk assessment for a scenario in which a group of employees traveling by company minibus experience a rear tire puncture on a busy country road with a 60 mph speed limit. The paper identifies significant shortcomings in the existing risk assessment method statement, which focused narrowly on the tire-changing procedure while neglecting broader hazards such as roadside personal safety, nighttime visibility, communication failures, and contingency planning. The paper recommends several practical improvements, including designated emergency contacts, reflective safety equipment, alternate routes, and supplementary training in vehicle maintenance and personal safety.
This paper examines a risk assessment scenario involving routine work transportation. A group of workers was traveling to their place of employment in a company minibus along a busy country road with a speed limit of 60 mph. During one journey, the rear offside wheel of the minibus developed a puncture. This was a foreseeable event, and the workers' employer had already developed a risk assessment method statement explaining how the driver and supervisor should change the wheel. However, as the analysis below demonstrates, that method statement was significantly incomplete.
Under the circumstances described, there was clearly a high likelihood of the workers finding themselves stranded by the side of the road facing a minor vehicular emergency such as a flat tire. Any driver of any vehicle can experience a puncture, but the specific context here made the risk considerably greater. The workers were traveling primarily on busy country roads with high speed limits, few passing motorists likely to offer assistance, and few nearby garages or petrol stations. At the same time, such roads carry a higher likelihood of nails and road debris on the pavement. These factors made a puncture not only more probable but also more potentially hazardous than a flat tire might be in other circumstances.
There was also the possibility of real personal danger to the workers, particularly if the vehicle broke down at night and could not be repaired quickly. Minibuses are more difficult to manage than ordinary passenger cars and often require more skilled maintenance and more time-consuming repair. As a result, the existing plan of action left the passengers far too dependent upon the speed, expertise, and competence of the minibus driver alone, with no alternative course of action if the driver was unable to complete the repair.
Several practical protocols should be added to the risk assessment. First, one of the workers should be assigned the constant — or rotating, among the minibus pool — responsibility of carrying a working, fully charged mobile phone. That phone should have stored in its directory the numbers of nearby breakdown and towing services, local taxi or minicab companies, and the relevant police and highway authorities for the area.
Second, someone not traveling in the minibus should be aware of the vehicle's regular route and the workers' expected arrival time, so that an alarm can be raised if they are significantly late. Third, while waiting for repairs and assistance, the workers should know how to protect themselves from personal injury — particularly on a dark, busy country road with limited lighting and no safe waiting areas. Safe roadside behaviour, including the use of reflective patches or warning signs to make the vehicle and personnel visible to passing traffic, should be covered in any revised method statement. Finally, and ideally, the workers should have some basic knowledge of personal safety in the event of an unwanted approach by a stranger, especially after dark.
"Gaps in current method statement and missing contingency plans"
"Route, vehicle, and training alternatives to reduce overall risk"
You’re 60% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.