May 01 2014

CCTV Cameras Coming to Refuse Collection Vehicles

harrow_council_logoIn recent years the number of motor insurance claims made against the Council has increased and this trend is continuing year on year. The majority of these claims relate to the Council’s fleet of refuse vehicles. The Council’s external motor insurance contract is subject to a £100,000 excess, which means that each and every claim that falls below the excess is met from the Council’s own funds.

In addition to the cost of insurance claims, a recent inspection at Harrow by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has raised the profile of Health and Safety within our Refuse Operation. The inspection was part of a national initiative by the HSE specifically inspecting Local Authorities and the safety of their refuse operations.

The initiative was a direct result of the high number of industry fatalities occurring. Reversing causes a disproportionately large number of moving vehicle accidents in the waste/recycling industry. Injuries to collection workers or members of the public by moving collection vehicles are invariably severe or fatal.

A Cross Council working group, comprising representatives from Waste Management, Insurance, and Health & Safety was set up to examine ways to reduce the number and cost of motor claims against the Council. One of the options considered was the fitting of 4 way recordable cameras to the Council’s 29 strong refuse vehicle fleet.

Budget has now been secured for this programme, which will have many benefits, especially around improved safety management, assisting drivers – for example the monitor view of the near side camera can be enlarged when the left indicator is activated showing the kerb line (cyclists in blind spot etc.), and providing defence against vexatious claims.

Source: Harrow Council

(Visited 18 times, 1 visits today)


  1. sonoo malkani

    There will naturally be a cost implication which many will be keen to find out,no doubt.However,it seems very clear that there are very many benefits to be had.So, one hopes the usual detractors will try and resist claiming this is a waste of tax-payers monies!

  2. Harrow Dude

    Call me a cynic Sonno but this sounds like a load of meadow muffins from Harrow Council.
    As you know I’m a stickler for detailed facts and I have a few questions I’d like answered.

    1) How has this ‘budget been secured’, forgive me for finding that statement more suspect than Susie’s securing the funding for her big clean up (where did you get that money Susie?)

    2) What is the actual cost of motor insurance claims made against the Council and what figure is attributed to refuse vehicles?

    3) At what cost and how many claims have come from cyclist ‘in the blind spot’ Don’t these vehicles spend most of their time against the kerb anyway?

    4) How many refuse workers or members of the public have been injured by refuse vehicles?

    5) What were the other options suggested by the working?

    6) How much is this going to cost? How much will it save?

    7) Will this be put out to tender or has a supplier already been chosen and if so who is it?

    8) Has this rise in fatalities occurred in the private sector or in Local Authorities.

    9) Is this really just going to be another waste of public money? (be honest now)

    10) What other options did this Cross Council working group come up with?

    11) Just saying there will be benefits is not enough, can we have some quantifiable evidence.

  3. garth

    be careful dude asking questions seems very unpopular and runs the risk of you being called a woman hater skewed logic i know but the only defence these people have in the face of hard logic keep on the case dude good job

Comments have been disabled.