Reversing without banksman = possible sacked

We’ve just been told that if we reverse a vehicle ANYWHERE without a banksman then we will face formal disciplinary proceedings.

Our wagons have a crew (refuse collection) and they have to act as the banksman (training provided).

If the crew are away from the vehicle i.e. sorting refuse out a few streets away ect and the driver has to reverse the vehicle lets say because of someone parking a car in a awkward place or the driver has misjudged a turn and needs to drop back a couple of feet so he dosent clip a lamp post or something then the driver must stay still until the crew return to the vehicle even if he is blocking the road.

This is crazy and i can’t believe we are being forced to do this. There are times when a banksman is required for safety reasons but 99% of the time they are nothing more than a distraction from concentrating on the reversing manoeuvre itself.

I think it would have been much much better if the driver is advised to use banksmen when reversing but if he chooses not to and something naughty happens then the driver has to take full responsibility.

Have any of you guys came across this sort of nonsense? What are your thoughts?

Sounds like something that an office bod with no driving experience would come up with, unless there’s been a rise in accidents from vehicles reversing with out a banksman recently? Otherwise more bull ■■■■ in my opinion. Will cause chaos and probably mass road rage during rush hour :smiley:

simple keep one person with you, then when they ask why it’s taken an extra hour or so to do the round throw it back at them. ( anouther office jockey who’s never sat in a lorry)

if the ideas to stop traffic,pedestrians for you then fair enough,but if they mean assist in the sense of arms flailing in all directions then no im with you, i find it alot easier to make my own desision on when and in what direction to turn the steering wheel.
as for disiplinary,every memo that goes on our board these days mentions disiplinary in some shape or form,i just ignore it and do job the way ive always done it

I think that a women was killed by a refuse lorry not so long ago, when he was reversing without a banksman. I assume that’s where it’s come from. Unfortunately, you can’t always assume that a pedestrian WON’T walk behind a bloody great lorry with flashing lights and a beeper :imp: But Seafrog’s idea seems favourite…

If they say you must not reverse without a banksman, then dont reverse without a banksman. If you do, and anything happens its you that will be in the ■■■■, no’one else. Your loaders will say anything to get home as quick as they can, but will put you in the ■■■■ if they’ve persuaded you to do it and you have an accident.

Remember its YOUR job your protecting, if they have a problem tell them to bring it up with the ■■■■■■■■ who thought of that rule.

It is rare to see anyone get out of a cab and assist a driver reversing. Take a look at Argos Home delivery wagons. Our bin lorry reverses down our road without any assistance.

Is it still job and knock?

Why argue,just do what they say,they,re covering their arses so you cover yours dead simple,if it takes longer so what there’s always tomorrow to catch up on the work,or not!!

totally agree with schrodingers cat, as said its your job not the crews ect, i worked on beer deliveries nd that was what we were told and anyone caught not doing were in the office,

i got caught and i only saved my job cos on the hearing the yard shunter came reversing back across yard without banksman, crossing the pedestrian access, stupid i know but it kept my job for a while…

though it was explained in a way that sort of made sense in the way that they are not only ensuring i reverse ina safe way but that anyone else does,nt do anything stupid like walk behind truck, how would i feel if i had run someone over knowing it could of been easily avoided by the use of one opf the crew/drivers mate

Ridiculous, and how can you train someone to be a banksman if they cant even drive the ■■■■■■.

Who would be responsible if you crash the truck, or worse run somebody over? If your boss says you must have one then he must want you to follow the banksmans (oops bankspersons) instructions or there would be no point having one. Ask him to put it in writing that you must have a banksman to control your manoeuver, who will therefore take full responsibility for that manoeuver. (bet he wont) Your boss is asking you to hand over responsibility for the rear of your vehicle to somebody else. Dont forget you are the driver and in court you would to blame, even if your banksman did wave you back. Where I work we cannot use banksmen for that reason, we can have people to control traffic or pedestrians but not anybody telling us what to do or taking away responsibility for the vehicle.

It’s bull ■■■■ but just don’t reverse without a banksman including in the yard.

I agree with the above, if you have to wait and cause chaos just do it. I would also ask the office idiot that came up with this ruling to put it on paper so that when the police come to see what is causing the road blockage you can show them.

I was crew trainer at DHL and an official ROSPA approved banksman trainer. Anyone can be trained to be a banksman, whether they drive or not. It is all about understanding the area around you using the simple thought process of T.H.I.N.K.

T = Talk to the driver
H = Has the driver been here before?
I = Indentiffy possible problems
N = Need to concentrate
K = Keep your eyes open

If you have a competent banksman, ie someone who has been signed off by an approved trainer then that is the way forward. But remember in the eyes of the law, the driver is still responsible. If you reversed using a banksman nad run a pushchair over and killed the baby, you would be in court, yes you would more than likely be cleared because you do did everything resonably practicable, and used everything available to stop this kind of incident happening. If you didnt use the banksman, then the story would be very different.

I feel the company is looking out for you and im sure they have only done this to improve their accident rate, and raise their health and safety standard, but it has had a knock on effect that you will reep the rewards of having hopefully zero reversing accidents, and zero potential fatalaties. Reversing accidents when in a residential street are far too often “human” related, which no firm wants you to be part of.

we dont have banksmen as we on our own n with haf the cameras not workin can make backin down ally ways etc interesting especially when its in a city center im sure the un hook the cameras on purpose :unamused:

Have you thought about asking to see the banksman qualifications for all concerned? If they want you to be supervised by a banksman, then surely they would have to ensure that anybody undertaking the role is suitably trained.

You can bet that what they’re asking is for someone to “See you back” which is slightly different. If you were unfortunate enough to run Ady1 over whilst reversing, you would almost certainly end up in court, what I don’t know is, how you or the company would stand from a legal point of view if the banksman was a loader who was just waving his arms at you rather than being trained correctly to carry out said task.

However, if thats what they’re asking for, you may as well just comply and keep your job, the H+S gestapo will win every time :unamused:

MrHappy:
Have you thought about asking to see the banksman qualifications for all concerned? If they want you to be supervised by a banksman, then surely they would have to ensure that anybody undertaking the role is suitably trained.

You can bet that what they’re asking is for someone to “See you back” which is slightly different. If you were fortunate enough to run Ady1 over whilst reversing, you would almost certainly end up in court, what I don’t know is, how you or the company would stand from a legal point of view if the banksman was a loader who was just waving his arms at you rather than being trained correctly to carry out said task.

However, if thats what they’re asking for, you may as well just comply and keep your job, the H+S gestapo will win every time :unamused:

Fixed that for ya :slight_smile:

The Sarge:

MrHappy:
Have you thought about asking to see the banksman qualifications for all concerned? If they want you to be supervised by a banksman, then surely they would have to ensure that anybody undertaking the role is suitably trained.

You can bet that what they’re asking is for someone to “See you back” which is slightly different. If you were fortunate enough to run Ady1 over whilst reversing, you would almost certainly end up in court, what I don’t know is, how you or the company would stand from a legal point of view if the banksman was a loader who was just waving his arms at you rather than being trained correctly to carry out said task.

However, if thats what they’re asking for, you may as well just comply and keep your job, the H+S gestapo will win every time :unamused:

Fixed that for ya :slight_smile:

Thanks Sarge, I was trying out my new philosophy, “Its nice to be nice” but I didn’t like it anyway, so as they say in the military, “As you were!” :smiley:

He’ll probably try to sue me know - but I won’t see it anyway :smiley: