The Comprehensive Investigation of a Serious Sweeper Accident: A Case Study
by Ranger Kidwell-Ross, M.A.
The accident occurred when a passenger bus collided with the rear of a street sweeper, which was in operation at the time. The visibility was severely compromised due to a large cloud of dust emanating from the sweeper, which did not employ water to mitigate dust dispersion. This lack of visibility was identified as a primary cause of the accident.
The investigation into the accident was multifaceted, involving a review of video evidence, depositions from employees, analysis of operational manuals, and examination of federal and state traffic control devices manuals. All available information was reviewed, as may be seen via the information shown below.
Investigation Scope and Methodology Included:
Cell Phone Records:
The investigation included a thorough review of cell phone records of the individuals involved in the accident. This review aimed to determine if cell phone usage contributed to the accident by causing distraction or impairing the drivers' ability to react to road conditions.
Vehicle Inspection Checklists:
The investigation team reviewed vehicle inspection checklists from the day of the accident and previous records. This review was crucial to assess the maintenance and operational condition of both the passenger bus and the street sweeper involved in the collision. The aim was to identify any mechanical failures or maintenance issues that could have contributed to the accident.
Training and Competency:
The level of training provided to the operators of both vehicles was scrutinized, including the qualifications and competency of the trainers themselves. This aspect of the investigation sought to determine if inadequate training or lack of proper certification played a role in the accident. It was also assessed how well the trainers were prepared to deliver the necessary training and safety information.
Safety Meetings:
The investigation sought to determine the frequency and documentation of safety meetings held by the companies involved. In this particular case, it was noted that safety meetings were not documented as occurring either before or after the accident. This raised concerns about the commitment to safety protocols and continuous safety education within the organizations.
Dust Suppression Water Records:
Given the significant role that the dust cloud played in obscuring visibility and contributing to the accident, the investigation included obtaining records about where and when dust suppression water was obtained and used by the street sweeper. This was to assess the adherence to dust control measures and the effectiveness of the implemented dust suppression strategies.
Accident Video Analysis:
Video footage from the cameras on the bus provided crucial evidence of the conditions leading up to the accident.
Employee Depositions:
Testimonies from employees of the company operating the sweeper offered insights into operational practices and training.
Operational Manuals Review:
Examination of the sweeper's Operators Manual and other relevant documents helped assess the standard operating procedures and whether they were followed.
Traffic Control Devices Manuals:
Federal and state manuals on traffic control devices were reviewed to understand the regulatory framework governing street sweeping operations.
All of the Following Were Discovered:
- Although an attenuator truck was required by the contract, one was not present at the time of the accident.
- The preventive maintenance and requested repair orders didn't include many aspects of the sweeper, only of the chassis.
- Questions concerning the fact the operator had been doing so for less than 90 days.
- Questions surrounding poor training protocols, for example the sweeper operator had been instructed that it was okay to sign his Vehicle Daily Checklist for both start of the day and finish of the day at the same time, at the start of the day.
- The sweeper operator had never attended any safety meetings.
- The sweeper operator hadn't signed that he'd even seen the operating/training manual for the sweeper model being operated.
- The sweeper operator had received no verifiable training about the necessity of using water for dust suppression during sweeping as a safety consideration, especially in dry conditions as those indicated on the vehicle accident traffic incident report.
Key Findings
The investigation revealed several critical points:
- Lack of Dust Suppression: The failure to use water for dust suppression was a significant oversight, leading to reduced visibility and the subsequent accident.
- Operator Training and Practices: Depositions and manual reviews indicated potential gaps in operator training and adherence to best practices for dust suppression and sweeper operation.
- Regulatory Compliance: Analysis of traffic control devices manuals highlighted the importance of compliance with safety regulations, which may have been overlooked in this instance.
- Safety Meetings: The company's lack of safety meetings showed a general lack of ongoing training in this area.
Implications for Sweeping Companies
This case underscores the importance of rigorous training, adherence to operational best practices, and compliance with safety regulations for sweeping companies. Key takeaways include:
- Enhanced Training: Sweeping companies must ensure comprehensive training for operators, emphasizing the importance of dust suppression techniques.
- Operational Best Practices: Adoption and strict adherence to operational best practices, including the use of water for dust suppression, are crucial for safe operations.
- Regulatory Compliance: Companies must stay informed about and comply with all relevant safety regulations to prevent accidents and ensure the safety of both operators and the public.
Conclusion
The investigation into this serious accident highlights the critical need for sweeping companies to prioritize safety through proper training, operational best practices and regulatory compliance. By learning from this case, companies can take proactive steps to prevent similar incidents in the future of their organization, ensuring safer operations and protecting both their employees and the public.
In addition to the monetary penalty, the company incurred significant expenses via depositions, downtime, providing numerous records and more.
In this instance, even though the bus ran into the back of the operating sweeper, a judgment in the amount of several million dollars was awarded to the bus company. Although a significant amount of this was probably covered by insurance, the company will continue to pay penalties via much higher future insurance rates as well as receiving a higher level of scrutiny by officials. This information about the many operational deficiencies of the sweeping company will also color its ability to get future street sweeping jobs in its market area.
|
