Earthmoving Equipment Fatalities in the

Construction Industry
Jimmie Hinze, Ph.D., M.ASCE1; Svetlana Olbina, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE2; Juan Orozco3; and Kierstin Beaumont4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 07/08/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Earthmoving equipment plays an important role in most construction projects. The earth must first be moved by dump trucks, doz-
ers, and possibly scrapers. The material is then spread and compacted by motor graders and compactors. The activities of the different pieces
of equipment must be coordinated to ensure a smooth operation. Unfortunately, accidents do occur, and workers are occasionally injured or
killed when mishaps occur. An investigation was conducted on 15,000 fatalities that occurred due to equipment operations during a 20-year
time period. Results show that many of the victims are workers who are on the ground, whether performing work related to the equipment or
performing nonrelated work. Many of the accidents occurred when the equipment was traveling in reverse, a situation that is exacerbated by
the blind spots on equipment. Half of the fatalities were the result of dump truck incidents. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-
5576.0000336. © 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Causes of fatalities; Earthmoving equipment; Traveling in reverse; Blind spots.

Introduction
Virtually all new construction projects have one feature in
common—they are built on a foundation. With rare exceptions,
these foundations are created by manipulating at least a small por-
tion of the earth’s surface. Several different pieces of specialized
equipment are commonly used to construct these foundations. This
paper focuses on some of the more common pieces of equipment—
namely, dump trucks, dozers, compactors, motor graders, and scra-
pers. Each of these pieces of equipment has a unique function.
Whereas dozers are used to move larger quantities of earth for
short distances (typically up to 200 m), scrapers are commonly
used to move materials up to a kilometer, and dump trucks are
used for longer-haul distances. Motor graders are used to bring
the elevation of the foundation to a specified level, and compac-
tors are used to ensure that the soil density is brought up to a level
where the facility can be fully supported by the foundation.
Whenever heavy construction equipment is used on a construc-
tion site, some level of risk is involved. Failure to recognize and
promptly respond to these risks and hazards can be fatal. Many con-
struction equipment–related fatalities are associated with earthmov-
ing activities on construction sites. Many of these fatalities can be
1
Deceased September 2013; formerly, Professor Emeritus, M. E.
Rinker, Sr., School of Construction Management, Univ. of Florida,
Gainesville, FL 32611.
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Construction Management, Colorado
State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523 (corresponding author). E-mail:
Svetlana.Olbina@colostate.edu
3
Former Graduate Student, M. E. Rinker, Sr., School of Construction
Management, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611. E-mail:
juanorozco760@gmail.com
4
Former Graduate Student, M. E. Rinker, Sr., School of Construction
Management, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611. E-mail: Kierstin
.Beaumont@haskell.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 20, 2017; approved
on April 10, 2017; published online on June 14, 2017. Discussion period
open until November 14, 2017; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Practice Periodical on
Structural Design and Construction, © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0680.
avoided if the hazards are clearly understood and operations are
planned and executed to address the hazards.
An understanding of the hazards associated with the operation of
heavy equipment is essential for developing operational procedures
that will help ensure worker safety.
The goal of this research was to identify some of the major
underlying causes of fatal accidents involving earthmoving opera-
tions. Additional research objectives included examining the role of
the victim in these incidents, nature of incidents, and direction of
travel of equipment. Based on the result of the study, the paper pro-
vides recommendations for preventing equipment-related fatalities.
Literature Review
According to 2014 data of the Census of Fatal Occupational
Injuries (CFOI), the construction industry accounted for 18.6% of
all workplace fatal injuries (or 899 of 4,821) (BLS 2015b). The rate
of occupational fatal injuries in construction was 9.8 per 100,000
full-time equivalent workers, whereas the all-worker fatal injury
rate was 3.4 (BLS 2015a). From 2013 to 2014, the number of fatally
injured construction workers increased by 8.5%, or from 828 to 899
(BLS 2014, 2015a).
According to McCann (2006), heavy equipment used in excava-
tion work includes bulldozers, backhoes, loaders, and trucks, such
as dump trucks. Excavators are used in various types of construction
projects, such as residential, commercial, industrial, and civil. They
are used to perform different aspects of site work (Hinze and Teizer
2011). Workers on the ground and construction equipment often op-
erate in a close proximity, which creates a risk of contact collisions
between them and can lead to fatal injuries (Shen et al. 2016; Marks
and Teizer 2013).
Regulations [such as those of the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA)] are not able to prevent contact col-
lisions between construction equipment and workers (Marks and
Teizer 2012). For example, use of personal protective equipment
(PPE) and backup alarms does not provide protection from contact
collisions (Shen et al. 2016). In addition, regulations that would
help establish hazardous areas around construction equipment do
not exist.

© ASCE 04017015-1 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017015

 Researchers have been investigating application of the latest
technologies for safety; however, these technologies are not yet ca-
pable of covering the designated hazard area (Shen et al. 2016).
There is also a lack of experimentally obtained data related to safety
technologies, such as proximity detection and alert systems (Teizer
et al. 2010a; Marks and Teizer 2012). Moreover, the construction
industry has been slow in adopting automated safety-related tech-
nologies as compared to other industries (Pratt et al. 2001).
In 2014, approximately 13% (114) of the fatal injuries in the
construction industry were a result of contact with objects and
equipment (BLS 2015b). Previous research shows that there has
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 07/08/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
been little improvement in preventing fatal injuries resulting from
contact collisions with equipment (Teizer et al. 2010a).
Golovina et al. (2016) noted that there is a need for additional
research that would focus on finding root causes of equipment-
related fatalities to prevent them. In addition, more research investi-
gating personnel and equipment behavioral patterns is needed.
Causes of Equipment-Related Fatalities
McCann (2006) classified the equipment-related causes of death
into the following categories: rollovers, struck by vehicle, struck by
object, caught in/between, and other. Hinze et al. (1996) investi-
gated the OSHA abstracts of 500 construction fatalities that
occurred in 1994 and 1995. Caught in/between equipment
accounted for 10.6% of all fatalities, whereas struck by equipment
accounted for 15.4% of all fatalities. Another study by Hinze et al.
(1998) showed that equipment accounted for more than half of all
struck-by accidents (53%) and caught in/between accidents (59%).
Hinze and Teizer (2011) indicated that one-fourth of the fatal-
ities in construction were the result of collisions, rollovers, struck-
by accidents, and a variety of other equipment-related incidents.
Previous research showed that blind spots on construction equip-
ment are one of the primary causes of contact collisions (Teizer
et al. 2010b; Marks et al. 2013). Thus, the major goal of the study
by Hinze and Teizer (2011) was to identify and quantify the root
causes of visibility-related fatalities. They found that the large ma-
jority of the cases (594 out of 659 identified cases) involved
vehicles or equipment, such as dump trucks, excavators, motor
graders, scrapers, forklifts, dozers, cement trucks, and roller com-
pactors. In the majority of the cases (521), workers were struck by
traveling equipment. In many cases (173), the accidents involved
dump trucks. Further analysis showed that dump trucks were
involved in approximately one-third (31%) of the struck-by inci-
dents due to visibility-related conditions. In the large majority of
these cases (90%), dump trucks were traveling in reverse and had
large blind-spot areas.
Coates (2011) examined the causes of the fatalities recorded by
OSHA from 2007 to 2009. That study revealed almost one-third
(29%) of all fatalities involved equipment. Operating construction
equipment was the most common cause (47%) of all construction
fatalities that involved equipment. Caught in/between equipment
accidents accounted for approximately 10% of the fatalities, whereas
struck by traveling or operating equipment accidents accounted for
approximately 6% of all fatalities. Coates (2011) also found that
traveling or operating equipment caused approximately one-third of
all struck-by accidents, whereas falls from vehicles or construction
equipment accounted for 1% of all falls. Fifteen percent of the fatal-
ities involving equipment were the result of electrocutions caused by
equipment contacting power lines, whereas victims falling from
buckets or aerial lifts accounted for 13% of the fatalities. Eleven per-
cent of the fatalities were the result of victims being crushed/run
over by construction equipment during maintenance.
© ASCE 04017015-2
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017015
The study by McCann (2006) found that 68% of the fatalities
were the result of accidents that involved trucks (half dump trucks),
backhoes and other excavating machinery, and bulldozers. In more
than half (53%) of the truck-related fatalities, workers were struck
by the truck. Half of these victims were workers maintaining
vehicles. The McCann (2006) study findings indicated that excava-
tion equipment (e.g., backhoes, vehicles) accounted for 11% of
trench-related deaths. That study also found that rollovers were the
main cause of death of heavy-equipment operators. In approxi-
mately one-fourth (23%) of the equipment-rollover accidents, the
operators did not fasten their seat belts.
Thomson (1996) showed that many injuries were caused by the
failure of employees to keep their equipment in full compliance
with the OSHA regulations (faulty backup alarms, failing brake sys-
tems, no rollover protection structures) and in good working order
(monitoring equipment fluids, excessive noise).
Previous research also presented several examples of fatalities
that were equipment-related. For example, workers did not
acknowledge warnings or did not pay attention to what they were
doing. Often workers would continue to use the equipment on
which a safety mechanism was malfunctioning or disabled. There
were scenarios in which the operators and the ground workers did
not take caution when moving or directing the movement of equip-
ment (Coates 2011). MacCollum (1995) gave an example of truck
drivers who could not see well when backing up, and as a result,
they would run off the road or strike workers on the ground.
Another example is truck drivers who use cell phones or two-way
radios, and thus they take their hands off the steering wheel or are
distracted by maintaining a conversation. McCann (2006) indicated
that, in the majority of fatal cases, workers on foot were mainte-
nance workers who were struck by heavy equipment backing up or
were struck by equipment loads or parts.
Type of Equipment Involved in Fatalities
Hinze et al. (2005) analyzed the type of equipment involved in acci-
dents and found that trucks (39.4%), backhoes/excavators (12.5%),
private vehicles (11.5%), and cranes (9.5%) were most frequently
involved in struck-by accidents. Approximately 84% of the cases
that involved trucks, cranes, and private vehicles resulted in fatal-
ities, whereas 75% of all equipment-related struck-by accidents
were fatal. In the case of private vehicles, approximately 95% of the
accidents resulted in fatalities (Hinze et al. 2005). Another study
showed that trucks and backhoes were involved in half of the fatal
accidents (McCann 2006). Hinze et al. (2005) also analyzed multiple-
victim accidents that involved equipment. Almost one-third (29
out 97) of the multiple-victim accidents were equipment-related;
private vehicles accounted for 38% of the accidents, cranes 21%,
and trucks 17%. Hinze and Teizer (2011) found that, of 594 fatal
equipment-related cases, 173 involved dump trucks, 50 hydraulic
excavators and backhoes, 38 dozers, 37 graders, 18 compactors,
and 15 scrapers. Previous research shows that construction equip-
ment is associated with higher risks of fatalities and, therefore,
needs to be carefully investigated (Golovina et al. 2016).
Direction of Travel of Equipment in Fatal Accidents
Hinze and Teizer (2011) investigated the relationship between the
direction of travel of the equipment and fatalities. More than half of
the visibility-related fatalities involved equipment traveling in
reverse. Analysis of only equipment-related fatalities revealed that,
in approximately 73% of the cases, the equipment was traveling in
reverse. More specifically, skid steer loaders (14 fatal cases), water
trucks (12), graders (37), and dump trucks (173) were traveling in
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
 reverse in more than 90% of the accidents that involved these partic-
ular types of equipment. In more than 50% of the cases, dozers (34
cases), compactors (14), scrapers (15), tractor trailers (22), and
excavators (45) traveling in reverse caused fatal accidents. Hinze
and Teizer (2011) found that the number of visibility-related fatal-
ities that occurred when vehicles or equipment were traveling in
reverse (431) was 4 times larger than the number of fatalities when
equipment was traveling forward (110). Most of the visibility-
related fatalities that involved excavators occurred when the exca-
vators were traveling forward.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 07/08/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Role of Victim in Equipment-Related Fatalities
Previous research investigated the role of the victims in equipment-
related fatalities. McCann (2006) found that heavy-equipment oper-
ators and construction laborers were victims in 63% of the heavy
equipment- and truck-related fatalities. More than two-thirds of
these victims were workers on foot, whereas one-fourth of the vic-
tims were vehicle or equipment operators.
2014 CFOI data (BLS 2015c) show that equipment operators
accounted for approximately 9% of the construction industry fatal-
ities that were due to contact with object and equipment and an
additional 9% of the fatalities that were results of transportation
incidents. According to McCann (2006), in the case of vehicle oper-
ators, rollovers of vehicles were the main cause of fatalities,
whereas failure to fasten seat belts was a cause of death in at least
20% of the rollovers. The main cause of fatalities in the case of vehi-
cle operators on foot around the vehicles or maintenance workers
was being caught in/between vehicle parts. The main causes of death
of workers on foot were being struck by vehicles, especially vehicles
traveling in reverse, and being struck by vehicle loads and vehicle
parts. In the case of workers in trenches, 75% of the victims were
struck by backhoe loads and backhoe parts or falling backhoes.
Recommendations for Preventing
Equipment-Related Fatalities
Previous research offered several recommendations that could help
prevent equipment-related accidents. McCann (2006) argued that
the use of specific preventive measures could minimize the risk of
fatalities that involve heavy equipment and trucks. These measures
include the use of adequate rollover protective structures for heavy
equipment, fastening of seat belts, use of lockout/tagout procedures,
creating restricted access zones around heavy equipment, and
requiring spotters for workers who work near heavy equipment or
trucks. MacCollum (1995) suggested that equipment be equipped
with seatbelts as well as other operational safety equipment (e.g.,
horns, headlights, brake lights, directional signals, mirrors).
Hinze et al. (2005) suggested implementing various accident-
prevention methods on highway projects. These included the use of
heavy barriers, lane closures, and road closures to protect workers
who could become victims of truck and vehicle accidents not neces-
sarily associated with the construction activities. They also sug-
gested checking backup alarms on equipment prior to each day’s
use. Alarms should be heard in the ambient conditions that normally
occur on a construction site. Site layout should be designed to sepa-
rate equipment/vehicle traffic from workers on foot (Hinze et al.
2005; HSE 2009; Golovina et al. 2016).
Shen et al. (2016) proposed creating a hazard zone around con-
struction equipment. The zone would remind construction workers
on the ground of the close proximity of equipment and alert them to
avoid entering the hazard zone while equipment is in operation.
Hazard zones could be created using equipment-mounted barri-
cades, personnel site planning, and technological systems.
© ASCE
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017015
In another study, Hinze and Teizer (2011) suggested various
equipment-related preventive methods. Rollover protective struc-
tures should be used to protect operators in the case of rollover of
equipment. Hinze and Teizer (2011) recommended the use of an
alarm in the case of equipment and vehicles having large blind
spots. Operators of equipment and vehicles are not always able to
see the object when traveling in reverse. In this case, two-way
radios or hand signaling should be used to improve communica-
tions with equipment operators. In addition, use of closed-
circuit televisions that are mounted inside vehicles and are con-
nected to rear-mounted cameras can help operators see objects
that are directly behind them. Teizer et al. (2010a) recommended
that, in the case of fast-moving equipment (such as scrapers),
alerts need to be activated earlier and further from workers, crews,
and other machines.
Because the majority of fatalities happen when equipment trav-
els in the reverse direction, HSE (2009) suggests the use of visibility
aids as well as audio and visual warning devices, whereas OSHA
mandates the use of alerts when equipment is traveling in the
reverse direction (OSHA 1974).
Conducting safety training and education can increase construc-
tion worker and operator awareness and can help modify their
behavior before actual construction starts (Teizer et al. 2010a;
Marks and Teizer 2012; Golovina et al. 2016). Job hazard analysis
as a technique that analyzes job tasks to identify and then reduce
and eliminate potential safety hazards before they actually occur
(OSHA 2002; Hinze 2006) is particularly important in the case of
earthmoving equipment. For example, job hazard analysis should
ensure that safe access to construction equipment at a construction
site is provided, that job roads are safely marked, that workers are
wearing appropriate PPE and are properly trained, and that con-
struction equipment is in proper working order (Hinze 2006).
According to Teizer et al. (2010b), use of technology for provid-
ing construction safety can complement existing safety training
practices. Golovina et al. (2016) noted that tag-based technologies
could be effective in providing alerts to equipment operators and
workers on the ground about close proximity between them. For
example, Teizer et al. (2010a) proposed use of real-time proactive
ultrahigh radio frequency (RF) warning and alert technology and
showed its effectiveness in aiding safety protection during construc-
tion activities that involved equipment. The system consisted of an
in-cab device [i.e., equipment protection unit (EPU)] installed on
the construction equipment, and a hand-held device [i.e., personal
protection unit (PPU)] worn by a worker on the ground. The audible
alarm on both the EPU and PPU is activated when the worker on the
ground and the equipment are in hazardous proximity. In addition
to an audible alarm, the PPU also has a vibrating alarm, whereas the
EPU also has a visual alarm.
Marks and Teizer (2012, 2013) suggested the use of radio fre-
quency identification (RFID) technology to alert workers on the
ground about hazardous proximity to equipment. They mounted
semipassive RFID tags on the hard hat of a worker and the EPU on
the construction equipment. The EPU was equipped with an
antenna and an alert mechanism. If a worker were in too close prox-
imity to the equipment, the sensing technology would activate an
audible alert to warn both the worker on the ground and the equip-
ment operator of the potential hazard.
Park et al. (2016) developed and analyzed a proximity and alert
system that incorporated Bluetooth technology. The Bluetooth
system consisted of three major components: (1) EPU (several
Bluetooth beacons installed on the construction equipment), (2)
worker on ground PPU (smart phone or iPad), and (3) equipment
operator PPU. When a worker on ground comes closer to the
04017015-3 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
 construction equipment, the system generates an audible signal to Dump Trucks
alert both the worker on the ground and the equipment operator.
A total of 388 (49.7%) fatal incidents were identified that pertained to
Park et al. (2016) found that the proposed Bluetooth system has a
dump trucks. Of these, 85% occurred on construction site roadways,
minimal infrastructure and is easy to install and calibrate; provided
10% occurred on public roadways, and 5% occurred at dump areas
an adequate, real-time alert of potential hazard to equipment opera-
or landfills. Most of the victims (64%) were struck or run over by a
tors and workers on the ground; and, as a result, provided an addi-
dump truck, 13% were crushed by the tailgate or truck bed, and 11%
tional safety layer to the workers.
were involved in a rollover. Other victims were electrocuted, struck
According to Wang and Razavi (2016), existence of false alarms
by other equipment, had the load dumped on them, or drowned.
reduces both productivity and safety on construction sites. They
The role of the victim was examined in the dump truck incidents.
proposed use of four-dimensional (4D) models as an effective
The majority of the victims (70%) were workers who were on the
method for reducing false alarms. Marks et al. (2013) recommended
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 07/08/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ground when they were struck by the dump trucks (Fig. 1). Equal
application of laser-scanning technology to measure blind spots of
construction equipment. Use of virtual reality (VR) for safety can numbers of these workers were involved in the tasks being per-
also be beneficial because hazardous situations can be simulated formed by the dump trucks (35%) or in tasks that did not pertain to
without exposing workers to risk of injury (Golovina et al. 2016). the tasks performed by the dump trucks (35%). Almost half of the
workers on the ground (48%) were struck by the dump trucks travel-
ing in reverse. The operators of the dump trucks were the victims in
Research Methodology 23% of the incidents, whether the operator was in the dump truck or
had stepped out of the cab of the dump truck. Some incidents
The goal of this research was to identify the underlying causes of involved operators of other pieces of equipment, and some involved
fatal accidents involving selected pieces of earthmoving equipment. workers who were riding on the dump trucks.
To identify these causes, it was decided that an extensive examina- The nature of the movement of the dump trucks at the time of the
tion of the records of fatal earthmoving equipment accidents would incident occurrences was also examined. The results show that
provide a rich information resource. approximately 56% of the dump trucks were traveling in reverse at
This study was conducted by examining the details of fatal acci- the time of the incident, 18% were traveling forward, and 26% were
dents that occurred in the United States. The data were obtained
directly from OSHA, Office of Statistics. The information that was
provided consisted of narrative descriptions of construction fatal-
ities that occurred in the inclusive years of 1990–2009. The data-
base consisted of more than 15,000 narrative descriptions. The data-
base was searched to isolate those fatal accidents involving dozers,
motor graders, compactors, dump trucks, and scrapers.
The narrative descriptions of each type of equipment were exam-
ined separately, because the operations of the equipment are not
similar (i.e., the unique operations of the equipment were consid-
ered when the descriptions were analyzed).
The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. In addition,
a cross-tabulation method was used to understand the relationship
between the nature of an incident and the travel direction of equip-
ment as well as the relationship between the role of the victim and
the travel direction of equipment.

Results Fig. 1. Role of victims according to direction of travel of dump truck

(N = 318)
Of the more than 15,000 fatality cases in the database, 780 (5.2%)
incidents were identified, of which almost half (388) were dump
truck incidents, nearly one-fourth (181) were dozer incidents,
approximately 10% (81) were compactor incidents, another 10%
(78) were motor grader incidents, and 7% (52) were scraper inci-
dents (Table 1). The underlying causal factors that were identified
for accidents involving each piece of equipment were isolated. The
major causal factors associated with each piece of equipment are
presented.

Table 1. Type of Equipment in Earthmoving Fatality Incidents, 1990–

2009 (N = 780)

Type of equipment Number of fatalities Percentage of fatalities

Dump trucks 388 49.7
Dozers 181 23.2
Compactors 81 10.4
Motor graders 78 10
Scrapers 52 6.7 Fig. 2. Fatalities according to direction of travel of dump truck (N = 349)

© ASCE 04017015-4 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017015

 stationary at the time of the incident (Fig. 2). Of the dump trucks
that were in motion at the time of the accident, 75% were traveling
in reverse.
The task being performed at the time of the incident was examined
in the dump truck incidents where the trucks were in motion. The
most common task performed (56%) at the time of the incidents was
hauling a full load of material, followed by dumping activities (24%)
(Fig. 3). Other incidents involved dump trucks that were being
repaired (4%), dump trucks that were traveling empty (12%), and
dump trucks being loaded (4%). In all cases, more incidents happened
when dump trucks were traveling in reverse than forward. Regarding
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 07/08/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
dump trucks traveling in reverse, most incidents involved hauling full
loads of material (38%) and dumping activities (20%). Similarly, for
dump trucks traveling forward, most incidents involved hauling full
loads of material (18%) and dumping activities (4%). In 25 instances,
the backup alarms on the trucks were not functioning.
Scrapers
For scrapers, more than half of the victims were run over (52%),
whereas almost half were either crushed by (20%) or struck by scra-
pers (23%) (Fig. 4). The largest proportion of the victims were ei-
ther run over (26%) or crushed (15%) by scrapers traveling in
reverse. Similarly, approximately one-fourth (26%) of the victims
were run over and almost one-fifth (18%) of the victims were struck
by scrapers traveling forward.
Fig. 3. Task of dump trucks at time of accident according to direction
of travel (N = 127)
Fig. 4. Nature of incidents according to direction of travel of scraper
(N = 39)
© ASCE
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017015
The largest proportion of the victims of scrapers were workers
on the ground (71%), whereas the remaining one-third were opera-
tors (Fig. 5). Regarding the direction of travel, more than half of the
incidents (54%) happened while scrapers were traveling forward. In
the case of operators, more fatalities were results of scrapers travel-
ing forward (21%) than in reverse (8%). However, more ground
workers were fatally injured when the scraper was traveling in
reverse (38%) than forward (33%). There were 13 instances in
which the scrapers were stationary. The fatalities in the stationary
cases generally resulted from falls.
Motor Graders
For motor graders, the majority of the victims (77%) were run over,
whereas smaller proportions were struck by (14%) or crushed by
(6%) the graders (Fig. 6). Approximately half of the victims (51%)
were run over when the direction of grader travel was in reverse.
Similarly, for incidents where the graders were traveling forward,
the largest proportion of the victims (26%) were run over by
graders, whereas 9% of the victims were struck by the graders.
Regarding the role of the victims, a majority of victims of
graders were workers on the ground performing related work
(65%), whereas approximately one-third were operators (Fig. 7).
Approximately half of the victims of graders traveling in reverse
were workers on the ground conducting related work (51%),
whereas the largest proportion of the victims of graders traveling
forward were operators (26%).
Fig. 5. Role of victims according to direction of travel of scraper (N = 39)
Fig. 6. Nature of incidents according to direction of travel of motor
grader (N = 65)
04017015-5 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 07/08/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 7. Role of victims according to direction of travel of motor grader
(N = 65)
Fig. 8. Nature of incidents according to direction of travel of compactor
(N = 27)
Compactors
For compactors, almost half (45%) of the victims were run over,
approximately one-third (33%) were crushed by compactors, and
almost one-fifth of the victims (19%) were struck by compactors
(Fig. 8). In the case of compactors traveling in reverse, approxi-
mately one-fourth (26%) of the victims were run over, and 22% of
the victims were crushed by compactors. Almost one-fifth of the
victims (19%) were run over, whereas 15% were struck by compac-
tors traveling forward.
Most of the victims in the case of compactors traveling both for-
ward and in reverse were the operators (30 and 26%, respectively)
(Fig. 9). Ground workers conducting related work were the second
largest group of victims of compactors traveling either forward
(19%) or in reverse (22%). Almost the same number of workers
were fatally injured by compactors traveling either in reverse or
forward.
Dozers
In the case of dozers, almost half of the victims (46%) were run
over, one-fifth (20%) were crushed, and 16% were struck by dozers
(Fig. 10). Regarding the direction of travel, for dozers traveling in
reverse, approximately one-third of the victims (30%) were run
© ASCE
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017015
Fig. 9. Role of victims according to direction of travel of compactor
(N = 27)
Fig. 10. Nature of incidents according to direction of travel of dozer
(N = 114)
over, whereas 10% were crushed. Similarly, for dozers traveling
forward, most victims were run over by the dozers (16%), whereas
14% of the victims were struck by the dozers.
Regarding the role of the victim, more than half of the victims
were operators (57%), whereas the remaining victims were workers
on the ground (Fig. 11). In the case of dozers traveling in reverse,
almost one-fourth of the victims (23%) were ground workers per-
forming a related activity, whereas one-fifth of the victims (20%)
were operators. In contrast, in the case of dozers traveling forward,
the largest proportion of the victims were operators (37%) followed
by ground workers performing related activities (17%) (Fig. 11).
Conclusions
The research results show that more than 5% of construction worker
fatalities are directly attributed to the operation of earthmoving
equipment, including dump trucks, dozers, compactors, motor
graders, and scrapers. With the exception of dozers, these pieces of
equipment are generally operated in a forward direction. Despite
this, in more than 62% of the incidents involving earthmoving
equipment that was moving at the time of accident occurrence, the
equipment was traveling in reverse. Thus, there is a high risk associ-
ated with earthmoving equipment when traveling in reverse. This
can be largely attributed to the large blind spots of the equipment.
04017015-6 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 07/08/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 11. Role of victims according to direction of travel of dozer
(N = 114)
The most pronounced blind spots occur with dump trucks as evi-
denced by the fact that three-fourths of the moving dump trucks
were traveling in reverse when the incidents occurred. This finding
is consistent with that of Hinze and Teizer (2011) who found that
most visibility-related fatalities occurred when vehicles or equip-
ment were traveling in reverse.
The majority of victims were run over by earthmoving equip-
ment. In over half of the fatality incidents, the victims were workers
on the ground. Except for the dozer incidents, the workers were typ-
ically involved in work that related to the task being performed by
the earthmoving equipment. In the dozer incidents, over half of the
workers on the ground were performing tasks not related to the
work being performed by the dozers. Thus, the dozer operators may
have been unaware of the presence of many of the workers who
became victims. This suggests that improved work procedures are
needed to reduce these types of incidents.
Recommendations
Safe work practices must be implemented when earthmoving equip-
ment is involved. The first recommendation would be to isolate the
work area where earthmoving equipment is operating. This is espe-
cially important when dump trucks are operating in an area. No
other tasks should be performed in the immediate vicinity of the
equipment, because there are too many other distractions from other
equipment and limited visibility from blind spots. Restricted access
zones should be created around areas in which earthmoving equip-
ment operates. These zones could be secured by, for example, heavy
barriers. In addition, regulatory agencies need to work on develop-
ing regulations for establishing restricted access zones around
equipment.
Because the study results showed that the majority of the victims
were workers on the ground, these workers should not be permitted
in the work area where earthmoving equipment is operating. In
addition, equipment traffic should be separated from the workers on
the ground.
Job routes should be clearly laid out so that a predictable path
is followed by all operators. Equipment should not be operated
on steep slopes or on surfaces that might become unstable.
Rollover protective structures for equipment should be used.
When equipment is operated in reverse, and especially in the
case of large blind spots, the use of audible backup alarms and a
signal person is advised to ensure the safety of all personnel on
the site.
© ASCE
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017015
Equipment (e.g., backup alarms, breaks) should be in full com-
pliance with OSHA regulations and in good working order. Safety
mechanisms should be enabled and should function properly. Some
examples of safety equipment include audio signals (horns), break
lights, and mirrors.
Earthmoving equipment operators should be fully debriefed on
the work tasks to be performed, as well as the roles played by other
pieces of equipment. In regard to the safety behaviors of operators,
they must fasten seat belts all the time. Also, they should not use
cell phones while operating equipment to ensure they have both
hands on the steering wheel. Operators need to pay particular atten-
tion when backing up to ensure they do not run over the workers on
the ground. It is crucial to implement lockout/tagout procedures to
protect operators and workers from the unexpected startup of equip-
ment, as well as during service and maintenance of equipment.
Job hazard analysis should be performed to identify hazards
associated with operating earthmoving equipment and to ensure
workers’ safety. Specific consideration should be given to providing
safe access to and maneuvering of the construction equipment on
the construction site clearly marking the hazard zones (for example,
heavy barriers), and ensuring that construction equipment is in good
working order.
Additional research on utilization of information and sensing
technologies to prevent hazards due to close proximity and contact
between workers and earthmoving equipment is recommended.
Acknowledgments
This paper is dedicated to the deceased Dr. Jimmie Hinze, whose
intellectual interests and life-long commitment to construction
safety have had an enormous impact on generations of students,
colleagues in academia, and the construction industry.
References
BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). (2014). “Census of fatal occupational
injuries summary 2013—By industry and event or exposure.” hhttp:
//www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0277.pdfi (Feb. 1, 2017).
BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). (2015a). “Census of fatal occupational inju-
ries charts, 1992–2014.” hhttp://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0013
.pdfi (Feb. 1, 2017).
BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). (2015b). “Census of fatal occupational
injuries summary 2014—By industry and event or exposure.” hhttp:
//www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0286.pdfi (Feb. 1, 2017).
BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). (2015c). “Census of fatal occupational
injuries summary 2014—By occupation and event or exposure.” hhttp:
//www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0290.pdfi (Feb. 1, 2017).
Coates, W. (2011). “Analysis of the causes of construction fatalities from
2007 to 2009.” Master’s thesis, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Golovina, O., Teizer, J., and Pradhananga, N. (2016). “Heat map generation
for predictive safety planning: Preventing struck-by and near miss inter-
actions between workers-on-foot and construction equipment.” Autom.
Constr., 71, 99–115.
Hinze, J. (2006). Construction safety, 2nd Ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Hinze, J., Huang, X., and Terry, L. (2005). “The nature of struck-by acci-
dents.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:
2(262), 262–268.
Hinze, J., Pedersen, C., and Fredley, J. P. (1996). “Revised coding system
for construction fatalities and injuries.” Proc., First Int. Conf. of CIB
W99, Implementation of Safety and Health on Construction Sites, A. A.
Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Hinze, J., Pedersen, C., and Fredley, J. P. (1998). “Identifying root causes of
construction injuries.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-9364(1998)124:1(67), 67–71.
04017015-7 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
 Hinze, J., and Teizer, J. (2011). “Visibility-related fatalities related to con-
struction equipment.” Saf. Sci., 49(5), 709–718.
HSE (Health and Safety Executive). (2009). The safe use of vehicles on con-
struction sites, HSE Books, London.
MacCollum, D. V. (1995). Construction safety planning, John Wiley &
Sons, New York.
Marks, E., Cheng, T., and Teizer, J. (2013). “Laser scanning for safe equip-
ment design that increases operator visibility by measuring blind
spots.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862
.0000690, 1006–1014.
Marks, E., and Teizer, J. (2012). “Proximity sensing and warning tech-
nology for heavy construction equipment operation.” Proc., 2012
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 07/08/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Construction Research Congress, ASCE, Reston, VA.
Marks, E., and Teizer, J. (2013). “Evaluation of the position and orientation
of (semi-) passive RFID tags for the potential application in ground
worker proximity detection and alert devices in safer construction equip-
ment operation.” Proc., 2013 ASCE Int. Workshop on Computing in
Civil Engineering (ASCE IWCCE), ASCE, Reston, VA.
McCann, M. (2006). “Heavy equipment and truck-related deaths on excava-
tion work sites.” J. Saf. Res., 37(5), 511–517.
OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). (1974).
Regulations part 1926—Safety and health regulations for construc-
tion, subpart O—Motor vehicles, mechanized equipment, and marine
operations, Washington, DC.
© ASCE 04017015-8
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017015
OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). (2002). “Job haz-
ard analysis.” OSHA 3071, Washington, DC.
Park, J., Marks, E., Cho, Y., and Suryanto, W. (2016). “Performance test of
wireless technologies for personnel and equipment proximity sensing in
work zones.” Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862
.0001031, 1–9.
Pratt, S., Fosbroke, D., and Marsh, S. M. (2001). “Building safer highway
work zones: Measures to prevent worker injuries from vehicles and
equipment.” DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2001-128, National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Atlanta.
Shen, X., Marks, E., Pradhananga, N., and Cheng, T. (2016). “Hazardous
proximity zone design for heavy construction excavation equipment.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001108, 1–6.
Teizer, J., Allread, B., Fullerton, C., and Hinze, J. (2010a). “Autonomous
pro-active real-time construction worker and equipment operator prox-
imity safety alert system.” Autom. Constr., 19(5), 630–640.
Teizer, J., Allread, B., and Mantripragada, U. (2010b). “Automating the
blind spot measurement of construction equipment.” Autom. Constr.,
19(4), 491–501.
Thomson, B. (1996). “Investigation of equipment related injuries, and fatal-
ities in construction.” Master’s thesis, Univ. of Washington, Seattle.
Wang, J., and Razavi, S. (2016). “Two 4D models effective in reducing
false alarms for struck-by-equipment hazard prevention.” J. Comput.
Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000589, 1–19.
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.