Words by The Secret Inspector

I investigate fatal workplace accidents and workplace-related incidents and one area in which I'm seeing gaps is where transport designers apply the principles that they're using on public roads into projects on private land. 

There are two different standards, in terms of risk, so I thought it would be useful for members to have their attention drawn to the other regulations that most designers wouldn't be aware of when designing transport infrastructure that are considered workplaces.

Different regulations

When highways are being designed, highway engineers use the design manual for roads and bridges, and other CIHT guidance, such as the Manual for Streets. Some roads become highways maintainable at public expense, but when that road remains private, it could be considered a workplace that is subject to the Workplace (Health Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. When these regulations apply, the road design is subject to the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. That means that if a road, car park, bus station or port is not highway maintainable at public expense, it could be classed as a workplace. 

National Highways outlines this in their document GG119, which covers the difference in design standards for their network, which is designing to what's reasonable. However, if your designs are covered by the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, you have to design to ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’, which is a higher standard than a highway designer might be aware of. The additional strictures will be important in the event of any kind of accident, as the design could be assessed against the higher requirements of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

Reducing risk

If the design is to be used on private land, an employer must undertake a risk assessment and eliminate risks as the first consideration: where that is not possible, they must reduce risks so far as reasonably practicable. 

For example, if you were designing a modification to a factory car park and you decided not to put footway in, you'd need very good reasons not to, particularly if there were Large Good Vehicles delivering or manoeuvring in the same space. If there’s an accident, I’d look at whether it was reasonably practicable to put that footway in (which generally it always is). For new projects, which are considered workplaces, the so far as is reasonably practicable consideration does not apply and the law requires traffic routes to be suitable for the persons and vehicles using it.

On the other hand, if it was a highway maintainable at public expense, and you decided not to put footway in, you wouldn't look at the same measure. You could argue that the road is the same as another nearby road following the principles of what is reasonable: a footway could be omitted because not a lot of people use it, for example. This is quite a different standard of provision to what Health and Safety Law requires.

For CIHT members who are involved in designing for roads or transport infrastructure that could be considered a workplace, there's HSE publication L24, an approved code of practice, and another, HSG136, which covers workplace transport. If you’re used to designing transport infrastructure for the public realm and then change to designing workplaces, it's important for designers to consult those documents to understand the differences between the two.  

The Secret Inspector was in conversation with Craig Thomas