Also online at: www.dijonline.co.uk Automated Gates & Barriers 85 THE door industry journal summer 2024 Standard Traffic Barrier Compliance and Safety Mistakes Door & Hardware Federation’s (dhf) Senior Training and Compliance Officer, Nick Perkins, provides guidance on common traffic barrier compliance and safety mistakes, such as inadequate signage and barrier visibility and how to prevent accidents. It is critically important to adhere to compliance and safety regulations when dealing with traffic barriers. Below, Nick highlights the potential dangers associated with improperly managed security barriers, whether manual or automated. The entrance deemed to be ‘vehicle only’, negating the need for pedestrian safety: “There are virtually no ‘vehicle only’ entrances in public, commercial or industrial settings and people routinely get out of their vehicles for various reasons,” explains Nick. “Machinery safety law requires that both intended use and foreseeable misuse must be catered for in the compliance assessment; people passing under or near a traffic barrier is a widespread foreseeable misuse. EN 12453 describes the minimum level of safety required for compliance with the applicable safety laws. “If the barrier arm can (as opposed to might) close on a person, it must be force limited such that it will reverse movement without exerting more than 400N and reduce to or below 150N within 0.75 of a second and within five seconds, the force must be back to or below 25N. Suppose the barrier closes automatically, or untrained persons will be affected (applies to virtually all barriers). In that case, at least one low-level non-contact device must supplement the force limitation. Alternative protection methods are hold-to-run operation or full height non-contact presence detection of such high integrity that it negates the need for force limitation as described by EN 12453. “Vehicle safety is separate and force limitation is unsuitable for vehicle protection. This will mean applying one or a combination of beams, vehicle sensors, signage, ground markings, warning lamps, traffic lights and even perhaps user instructions and traffic calming; all as required according to the site and system specific residual risk assessment.” Security assumed to negate the need for pedestrian safety: “Security and potential parking revenue loss are not legitimate reasons for compromising safety for people under national health and safety laws”, explains Nick. “Signage cannot be relied upon to keep people away from the barrier and many will not notice the sign. Indeed, some will not be able to see or understand its meaning. EN 12453 describes the minimum level of protection required for the safety of people under intended use and foreseeable misuse conditions.” Barrier skirt not considered in the compliance assessment: “Barrier skirts are a common addition and can be useful for improving the visibility of the barrier”, continues Nick. “However, they must be considered in the compliance and residual risk assessment. Whilst many lightweight, free-hanging gravity while deployed skirts can prove insignificant in the assessment, those operated by fixed linkages commonly present very significant gaps during the opening cycle, lowering the effective main edge of the arm. “EN 12453 requires that all reachable reducing gaps of 500mm or less must be protected by hold-to-run, force limitation (as described in the point above), or full height non-contact presence detection of such high integrity that it negates the need for force limitation as described by EN 12453.” Signage applied to the barrier arm creates a severe cutting risk: Nick says, “It is pretty standard to see the wellintentioned placement of warning signs on Barrier arms, but unfortunately, the edges of the sign create a severe cutting risk to people who cannot be safely protected by force limitation.” The residual risk assessment is inadequate: “Compliance with EN 12453 describes the minimum level of safety for all traffic barriers, regardless of their design, the site, or the nature of people who might reasonably be affected.” Concludes Nick. “This does not mean that this level of safety is appropriate for all systems by any means. “Indeed, every system must be risk assessed on the particular merit of the system and the site. Specific attention must be paid to the vulnerability of people who could be affected, how cyclists and motorcycles can use the entrance safely and the protection of vehicles. EN 12453 does not deal with vehicle safety.” For further information, please read dhf’s TS 013: bit.ly/DHFTechnicalSpecifications Not sufficient for the safety of people Barrier skirt Not sufficient for the safety of people Not sufficient for the safety of people
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Mzg2Nzk=