Oregon Case Report: 03-OR-032-01 |
|
Summary
|
Photo 1.
Blazer's position behind victim's pickup.
|
On Oct. 3, 2003, a 57-year-old utility worker was killed when a vehicle
entered his short-duration work zone and struck him. The worker was in the
process of locating underground gas lines for construction work taking place
on both sides of an active five lane suburban road. The worker parked his
vehicle half on the sidewalk and half on the bike lane to avoid obstruction,
and placed two orange safety cones behind the vehicle on the edge of the
bike lane to warn motorists of the work zone. The worker was standing near
the left rear of his vehicle using a locator device when struck. The 18-year-old
motorist in the incident was reportedly using a cell phone when her vehicle
drifted off the roadway. The victim was pronounced on scene by the medical
examiner.
Recommendations:
- Analyze the work site including traffic patterns and plan the work
zone, before you begin working.
- Position work vehicle to create an obstacle to prevent oncoming traffic
from hitting you.
- Minimize exposure to moving traffic.
- Drivers should not engage in activities that distract them from driving
or hinder driving performance.
Back to Top
Introduction
On Oct. 3, 2003, a 57-year-old utility worker was killed when a vehicle
entered his short duration work zone from the roadway and struck him.
OR-FACE learned of the incident the next day from local news reports.
Oregon OSHA investigators arrived at the scene shortly after the incident,
but were given limited access by police, who were treating the area as
a crime scene. OR-OSHA closed the investigation upon finding the case
was referred to the county district attorney for possible criminal charges.
OR-FACE obtained the brief OR-OSHA report of the incident and police photographs,
and also consulted a safety officer at the Department of Transportation.
The utility worker had worked for the utility company for over 29 years
and was considered very knowledgeable on setting up a work zone. He was
working alone on this occasion. The company follows the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for guidance in establishing its work
zones. According to company policy, the worker was wearing an orange T-shirt
and hard hat. His placement of safety cones to the rear of his vehicle
was determined to be appropriate for the work being conducted. Posted
speed on the roadway was 35 mph.
Back to Top
Investigation
The utility worker arrived at the work site to locate underground gas
lines for construction work taking place on both sides of the five-lane
road. A construction fence apparently obstructed access to off-road parking
at the site. The worker parked his vehicle half on the sidewalk and half
in the bike lane, conforming to MUTCD guidelines recommending that pedestrian
thoroughfares remain unobstructed, since pedestrians are unlikely to take
a detour. Traffic was light on the morning of the incident, the road flat
and straight, and the weather dry and clear.
The worker placed two orange 24-inch safety cones at approximately 30-foot
intervals behind his vehicle to demarcate the work zone for passing motorists.
He elected not to use traffic signs, which is permissible for short-duration
work zones that will not impact traffic. The work vehicle was equipped
with an amber roto-beam over the cab and an arrow board on the rear of
the canopy. There are conflicting reports whether the utility vehicle's
roto-beam or arrow board had been turned on yet. The canopy's rear window
was up, partially obscuring the arrow board.
The worker was only shortly onsite, standing next to the left rear quarter
panel of his vehicle using a handheld locating device when struck. He
was evidently not facing traffic, and was intent on his work. The Chevy
Blazer that drifted off the roadway into the bike lane knocked over the
safety cones, struck the victim, and continued on to strike the rear of
the utility vehicle with an impact that pushed it about 30 feet up onto
the sidewalk and through the construction fence. The moving vehicle was
so far adrift that the victim was struck by the vehicle's left front (driver's
side) headlamp. A witness reportedly observed the driver talking on a
cell phone.
The victim was thrown up into the windshield of the moving vehicle with
enough force to shatter it. Injuries were immediately fatal. Police arrived
and cordoned off the scene. The medical examiner was called for the victim.
An ambulance took the female driver to a hospital with unknown injuries.
Cause of Death
Multiple blunt-force traumatic injuries.
Back to Top
Recommendations/Discussion
Recommendation #1: Analyze the work site including traffic patterns and plan the work zone, before you
begin working.
Discussion: Scout the intended work location
and plan parking location, setup of traffic cones and signage. At a minimum,
use cones and rotating flashing lights. This incident indicates the importance
of arranging the work zone to alert drivers and to protect workers, even
in clear weather on a straight, unobstructed roadway.
Recommendation #2: Position work vehicle to create an obstacle to prevent oncoming traffic from hitting you.
Discussion: At the worksite, park vehicle
completely off the roadway, if possible, without obstructing pedestrian
thoroughfares. Strategically park the work vehicle between the work zone
and oncoming traffic. Face traffic as much as possible while setting up
the worksite.
Recommendation #3: Minimize exposure to moving traffic.
Discussion: Keep all work as far away from
moving traffic as possible. Never turn your back to traffic while working
in or near active traffic lanes. Minimize exposure time.
Recommendation #4: Drivers should not engage in activities that distract them from driving or hinder driving
performance.
Discussion: Use of electronic devices such
as cell phones, GPS receivers, or computers while driving can lead to
significant reductions in attentiveness and driver performance. Recent
studies suggest that cell-phone use, even hands-free devices, hinder safety
and result in greater levels of driver distraction than listening to music
or audio books. Drivers engaged in cell-phone conversations missed twice
as many simulated traffic signals, and took longer to react to those signals
they did detect. These deficits were similar for both hand-held and hands-free
units.
Any activities that distract a driver from driving, including eating,
applying makeup, taking notes, or operating personal electronic devices
can lead to serious traffic injuries. The National Safety Council issued
a statement on "multitasking" and driving in March 2002, concluding that
"a driver's first responsibility is the safe operation of the vehicle
and that best practice is to not use electronic devices including cell
phones while driving."
The NSC statement called upon producers and providers of electronic devices
to educate the public on the safe operation of electronic devices, and
for employers to assess the risk and to consider restrictions of employee
use of cell phones while driving.
ExxonMobil Corporation, for example, banned the use of cell phones by
employees and contractors while driving on company business. The company
reviewed nine studies of driving and cell-phone use, and concluded the
studies "gave clear evidence that cell phone use while driving leads to
a sharply increased accident risk."
Back to Top
References
- “NSC: Cell Phone Use Distracting for Motorists”
http://www.occupationalhazards.com/issue/article/34663/
NSC_Cell_Phone_Use_Distracting_for_Motorists.aspx.
Accessed July 13, 2003 (Link updated 1/24/2007)
- “Does Cell Phone Conversation Impair Driving Performance?”
http://www2.nsc.org/issues/idrive/inincell.htm.
Accessed July 13, 2003 (Link updated 09/15/2008)
- “Multitasking Statement” http://www2.nsc.org/news/policy/multitasking.htm.
Accessed July 13, 2003 (Link updated 09/15/2008)
- “ExxonMobil Enacts Cell Phone Policy for Employees”
http://www.occupationalhazards.com/issue/article/37076/
ExxonMobil_Enacts_Cell_Phone_Policy_for_Employees.aspx.
Accessed July 13, 2003 (Link updated 1/24/2007)
Oregon FACE Program
The Center for Research on Occupational and Environmental Toxicology
at Oregon Health & Science University performs Fatality Assessment
and Control Evaluation (FACE) investigations through a cooperative agreement
with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH),
Division of Safety Research (DSR). The goal of these evaluations is to
prevent fatal work injuries in the future by studying the working environment,
the worker, the task the worker was performing, the tools the worker was
using, the energy exchange resulting in fatal injury, and the role of
management in controlling how these factors interact.
To contact Oregon
State FACE program personnel regarding State-based FACE reports, please
use information listed on the Contact Sheet on the NIOSH FACE web site.
Please contact In-house
FACE program personnel regarding In-house FACE reports and to gain
assistance when State-FACE program personnel cannot be reached.
Oregon FACE reports are for information, research, or occupational injury
control only. Safety and health practices may have changed since the investigation
was conducted and the report was completed. Persons needing regulatory
compliance information should consult the appropriate regulatory agency.
|