What this is
What is a pedestrian and vehicle segregation assessment?
What is a pedestrian and vehicle segregation assessment?
A whole-site assessment identifying every point where people on foot and mobile equipment, forklifts, tow tractors, HGVs, share space, recording what separates them at each point, and rating the residual risk once those separations are accounted for. It runs yearly and after any layout change, as a singleton standing record rather than one raised per event.
Why does the form single out reliance on PPE and awareness as its own question?
Because hi-vis and eye contact depend on nobody being distracted, and everybody is distracted eventually. The assessment separates what physically keeps a person out of a vehicle's path from what merely makes them more visible in it, and scores the two very differently.
How is this different from a general risk assessment of the warehouse?
A general assessment covers pedestrian-vehicle interaction as one hazard among many. This template exists because that interaction is the single largest source of serious injury in most warehouse and yard environments, forcing a decision at every crossing point rather than one paragraph for the site.
Scope
When is a pedestrian and vehicle segregation assessment required?
This assessment is the whole-site design review of where people and vehicles meet. Using it in place of the recurring yard inspection, or the formal traffic plan it feeds, answers neither question well.
Use this template when
- A new task, area or population, a pick line, an extra shift, a contractor group, changes what shares space with vehicles
- The site layout has materially changed, new racking, a relocated dock, a new building, since the last assessment
- The annual review interval has been reached and no material change has occurred to shorten it
- A linked record needs this one to exist: links yard inspection, traffic plan
Do not use it for
- Traffic Management Plan, where the routes, speed limits and signage this assessment identifies get formally documented and rolled out.
- Yard Safety Inspection, the recurring physical check of yard condition, not the periodic design assessment of separation.
- Loading Dock Safety Check, which checks pedestrian separation at one dock on shift, not the whole-site pattern of interaction points.
- Reversing and Manoeuvring Assessment, which assesses driver reversing competence, not the layout that creates the need to reverse near people.
- Anything outside KnowSafe, which belongs in the workspace that owns that process
Compliance mapping
Which ISO 45001 cl.6.1.2 requirements does this satisfy?
ISO 45001 does not name pedestrian-vehicle segregation specifically; it requires ongoing hazard identification and the hierarchy of controls applied, and few warehouse hazards map onto that hierarchy as cleanly as this one, from eliminating the interaction entirely down to relying on PPE.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| ISO 45001 cl.6.1.2.1 | Hazard identification proactive and ongoing, covering the areas, vehicle types and population in scope | Header |
| ISO 45001 cl.6.1.2.2 | Assessment of OH&S risks with defined methodology and criteria, applied consistently at every interaction point | Interaction points |
| ISO 45001 cl.8.1.2 | Eliminate hazards and reduce risk using the hierarchy of controls, applied to the separation method at each point | Interaction points |
| Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, reg.17 | Traffic routes organised so pedestrians and vehicles circulate safely, sufficient for the traffic using them | Whole site position |
| ISO 45001 cl.8.1.2 | Eliminate hazards and reduce risk using the hierarchy of controls, applied at the site level rather than per point | Outcome |
| ISO 45001 cl.9.1.1 | Monitoring and measurement of the effectiveness of controls | Outcome |
What it does not cover
- Traffic Management Plan, which formally documents and rolls out the routes, speed limits and signage this assessment identifies as needed.
- Yard Safety Inspection, the recurring physical check of yard surface, lighting and signage condition, not the design assessment of separation.
- Loading Dock Safety Check, which checks pedestrian separation and barrier condition at one dock on shift, not across the whole site.
- Reversing and Manoeuvring Assessment, which assesses a driver's reversing technique and visibility, not the layout creating the need to reverse near people.
- Racking Inspection, which checks the racking structure for damage and overload, a different hazard from vehicle-pedestrian interaction.
Global
Pedestrian and Vehicle Segregation Assessment requirements by country
The duty to keep pedestrians and vehicles apart is close to universal; what differs is whether it is a named traffic-route duty or read into the general duty to control recognised hazards.
OSH Act General Duty Clause; OSHA 29 CFR 1910.176 on materials handling areas
No dedicated federal standard for pedestrian-vehicle segregation; the hazard sits under the general duty to address recognised hazards likely to cause serious harm.
Enforcement runs through the General Duty Clause, and a repeated assessment is what shows the hazard was recognised and actively managed.
Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, reg.17; HSE guidance on workplace transport
Explicit duty to organise traffic routes so pedestrians and vehicles circulate safely, sufficient in number and position for those using them.
HSE treats reliance on PPE as the residual control after route design is exhausted, not an acceptable primary control.
ISO 45001
Requires ongoing hazard identification and the hierarchy of controls applied, with vehicle movement among the clearest examples the hierarchy is meant to resolve.
Certification audits look for evidence the assessment repeats at the stated interval and after layout change, not just that a record exists.
How to complete it
How to complete a pedestrian and vehicle segregation assessment, step by step
The assessment prompts for a separation method at every point. The judgement calls deciding whether the whole-site conclusion is honest are not prompted for directly.
The whole-site question should summarise what the repeating section actually recorded, not an independent judgement. If any point carries marked walkway or none, full separation achieved cannot honestly read yes, and mostly should name the exceptions.
A marked walkway is an administrative control, one line of paint. Recording it as adequate without weighing vehicle speed and frequency at that point produces a residual band that understates what a distracted moment there actually risks.
A physical barrier or separate route should suppress near misses almost entirely. Where they are still reported at a point scored that highly, either the control is not functioning as described, or it does not cover the paths people actually take.
A header claiming eliminate or substitute as the highest control level, alongside a residual band of high or worse, is an internal contradiction. Either the site-level claim is aspirational, or the interaction points have not caught up with what the outcome section asserts.
What auditors find
Most common pedestrian and vehicle segregation assessment findings
Individual interaction points are rarely wrong in isolation. What an audit finds is the whole-site conclusion outrunning what the repeating section supports.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| Full separation achieved marked yes or mostly while several interaction points record marked walkway or none. | ISO 45001 cl.6.1.2.2 | Derive the whole-site answer from the interaction points on submission, not entered independently. |
| Reliance on PPE marked minimal while every logged interaction point uses marked walkway rather than physical or route-based separation. | ISO 45001 cl.8.1.2 | Cross-check the two; minimal reliance on PPE requires physical barrier, separate route or time separation to predominate. |
| Near misses reported here populated with a non-zero count at a point scored physical barrier or separate route. | ISO 45001 cl.9.1.1 | Investigate directly; either the barrier does not cover the path used, or the point is miscategorised. |
| Detection or warning system recorded fitted, unreliable across successive cycles with no action raised. | ISO 45001 cl.10.2 | Raise the action at the first unreliable result; a repeat finding is the assessment failing at its own job. |
| Traffic plan current marked yes with a plan ID predating a documented layout change. | Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, reg.17 | Link the assessment to the layout change process so a plan cannot be current without a matching revision. |
| Contractors and visitors covered marked partly, with no further controls text and no action raised. | ISO 45001 cl.6.1.2.1 | Treat partly as an open finding by default; contractors and visitors don't learn a site's informal rules as staff do. |
Case in point
Case in point: the site that scored well on every point and still had an incident
A distribution site reassessed pedestrian and vehicle segregation annually. Every logged interaction point scored reasonably, several physical barriers at the busiest crossings, a couple of marked walkways at lower-traffic doorways, sight lines rated adequate throughout. Full separation achieved was recorded as mostly, reliance on PPE as partial, and the outcome section recorded engineer as the highest control level applied with a residual band of medium.
A picker was struck at one of the marked-walkway doorways, a point individually scored as fine, walking pace, adequate sight lines, no detection system fitted because none was thought necessary at a low-traffic point. What the whole-site figures never surfaced was that four of the six interaction points on site were marked walkways rather than physical separation, and the mostly and partial answers had been carried forward from the previous year's judgement rather than recalculated, which by then showed a majority-administrative pattern the summary no longer matched.
The template
The template, field by field
The form exactly as it installs. Every field, option, score and conditional rule is editable, and the links to other templates come with it.
4 sections
- Reference
- SAF-139
- Archetype
- Assessment
- Record ID
- RA-2026-000
- Scoring
- Residual band
- Direction
- Low is good
- Singleton
- Yes
- Basis
- ISO 45001 cl.6.1.2
- Links
- Links Yard inspection, Traffic plan
- Tags
- Warehouse, Traffic
- Sections
- 4
- Fields
- 42
- Follow up fields
- 3
- Repeating sections
- 1
- Links out
- 4
Header
12 fieldsAssessment ID*
Auto sequence. Format RA-2026-00000.
The record's own ID. Other templates point at this value.
Status*
Drives who this goes to next.
- Planned2 pts
- In progress2 pts
- Complete3 pts
- Deferred0 pts
- Open0 pts
- Closed3 pts
- Overdue0 pts
Date and Time*
Completed By*
Site*
Site ID*
Format SITE-000.
Links to FDN-001 Site ID
Area
The area within the site.
Exact Location
Drop a pin for anything hard to find.
Separate Them, Do Not Warn Them
High visibility clothing and eye contact are the last two lines of defence. Separation in space or time is the only control that works when somebody is distracted, and everybody is distracted eventually.
Areas Assessed*
Vehicle Types In Use*
Pedestrian Movements Per Shift
Interaction points
Repeats9 fieldsLocation*
Interaction Type*
Shared aisle, crossing point, doorway, dock, charging area or yard.
Frequency*
Separation Method*
Physical barrier, separate route, time separation, marked walkway, or none.
- Physical barrier4 pts
- Separate route4 pts
- Time separation3 pts
- Marked walkway1 pt
- None0 pts
Sight Lines Adequate*
- Yes3 pts
- Restricted1 pt
- Blind0 pts
Vehicle Speed At This Point*
- Walking pace3 pts
- Moderate1 pt
- Fast0 pts
Detection Or Warning System
- Fitted and working3 pts
- Fitted, unreliable1 pt
- None0 pts
Near Misses Reported Here
Improvement Possible
Whole site position
6 fieldsFull Separation Achieved*
- Yes4 pts
- Mostly2 pts
- No0 pts
Reliance On PPE And Awareness*
- Minimal3 pts
- Partial1 pt
- Primary control0 pts
Traffic Plan Current*
- Yes3 pts
- Out of date1 pt
- None0 pts
Plan ID
Links to SAF-140 Plan ID
Contractors And Visitors Covered*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Delivery Drivers Covered*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Outcome
15 fieldsHighest Control Level Applied*
- Eliminate4 pts
- Substitute4 pts
- Engineer3 pts
- Separate or isolate3 pts
- Administrative1 pt
- PPE0 pts
Residual Band*
- Low, 1 to 45 pts
- Medium, 5 to 94 pts
- High, 10 to 142 pts
- Very high, 15 to 191 pt
- Extreme, 20 to 250 pts
Risk Acceptable*
- Yes3 pts
- Marginal1 pt
- No0 pts
Further Controls Required
Risk Assessment
Risk ID
Format RSK-2026-00000.
Links to FDN-012 Risk ID
Action Required*
Raise the action record, then enter its reference here.
- No2 pts
- Yes0 pts
Priority
- High0 pts
- Medium1 pt
- Low3 pts
CAPA ID
Format CAPA-2026-00000.
Links to FDN-014 CAPA ID
Action Owner
Next Review Due*
Assessor*
Signature*
Site Manager*
Second Signature*
SAF-139 · record IDs look like RA-2026-000 · Links Yard inspection, Traffic plan
Open in KnowellaRun it with agents
From a document you fill in to a programme that runs itself
The assessment describes the site once a year. What decides whether that holds is whether a layout change reaches it, whether a repeat near-miss at a supposedly separated point gets chased, and whether the whole-site answer is ever checked against the interaction points.
Holds the assessment against the register of interaction points, flags whole-site answers that do not reconcile with the repeating section, and routes the review to safety and operations together.
Watches layout change and near-miss records for events that should invalidate the current assessment, and raises the review rather than waiting for the annual date.
Feeds yard and dock activity data, vehicle counts, shift patterns, contractor traffic, so the assessment reflects actual site usage rather than a point-in-time observation.
Connects vehicle speed and detection findings at each interaction point back to the fleet's own maintenance and telematics data, rather than one-off observations.
This template lives in KnowSafe — safety and compliance. Incidents, hazards, permits, inspections and the critical controls behind them.
Meet KnowSafe→Glossary
Pedestrian and Vehicle Segregation Assessment definitions and key terms
- Segregation
- Keeping pedestrians and vehicles from occupying the same space at the same time, through physical, procedural or time-based separation rather than visibility alone.
- Interaction point
- A location where a pedestrian route and a vehicle route cross or share space: an aisle, doorway, dock, charging bay or yard crossing.
- Sight lines
- The unobstructed view a pedestrian and vehicle operator have of each other approaching an interaction point; restricted or blind sight lines remove either party's last chance to react.
- Residual band
- The risk remaining once existing controls are accounted for, banded low to extreme, scored so a lower band represents a better outcome.
- Hierarchy of controls
- The ranked sequence: eliminate or substitute the interaction, engineer or physically separate it, apply administrative controls such as marked routes, and rely on PPE only as the last layer.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about pedestrian and vehicle segregation assessment
Why does the form treat marked walkways as barely better than no separation at all?+
Because a marked walkway is paint, not a physical obstruction. It relies on the pedestrian staying inside the lines and the vehicle operator seeing and respecting them, the same human factors that fail under distraction or time pressure. It scores above none because it signals an intended route, but well below a physical barrier or a separate route.
Is high-visibility clothing an acceptable control on its own?+
No. The form's own header states the principle directly: separate them, do not warn them. Hi-vis makes a person more visible if already in a vehicle's path; it does nothing to keep them out of it, which is why reliance on PPE is scored as the weakest position a site can be in.
What should happen when near misses keep being reported at a point scored as well separated?+
Investigate rather than accept both facts side by side. A genuinely functioning barrier or separate route should reduce near misses close to zero; continued reports mean the control does not cover the path people actually take, or the point was scored too favourably.
How often does this assessment need repeating?+
Yearly at minimum, and immediately after any layout change: new racking, a relocated dock, an added building, a shift change that alters pedestrian volume. The interval is a backstop for change nobody flagged.
Does covering contractors and visitors matter as much as covering staff?+
More, in some respects. Staff learn a site's informal rules over time even where formal controls are weak; contractors and visitors have no such history and are the population most likely to walk an unmarked route without realising a vehicle regularly uses it.
Can a site score well on highest control level applied and still have a poor residual band?+
Yes, and it is a contradiction worth chasing. If the header claims eliminate or substitute, the interaction points should show that ambition in practice; a high residual band alongside that claim usually means the site-level answer was carried forward rather than recalculated.
Keep going
Related templates and programmes
Industries this is written for
Programmes this belongs to
Used together in Warehouse and Dock Safety
Manual Picking Ergonomic Assessment
Assesses a pick face for reach, height, weight, rate and travel over a shift
Pallet Build and Wrap Assessment
Assesses the build of a pallet by hand, covering bending at the base layer, reach at the top and wrapping posture
Powered Truck Daily Check
Checks a forklift before each shift, covering forks, mast, hydraulics, brakes, horn, lights and data plate
Mobile Plant Defect Report
Reports a defect found on any mobile equipment at any time, not only at pre-use check
Reversing and Manoeuvring Assessment
Assesses reversing at each regular location, and whether it can be designed out
Racking Inspection
Checks pallet racking for damage, overload and missing components against the damage classification in use
More in Warehouse Safety
Racking Inspection
Checks pallet racking for damage, overload and missing components against the damage classification in use
Racking Damage Report
Reports damage found on racking at any time, not only during inspection
Loading Dock Safety Check
Checks dock levellers, edge protection, lighting, restraints and pedestrian separation before and during loading
Trailer Restraint and Chock Record
Records that a trailer is restrained and its keys controlled before anyone enters it
Mezzanine and Edge Protection Check
Checks handrails, toe boards, pallet gates and floor openings on raised storage areas
Pallet and Load Condition Check
Checks pallets and made up loads for damage, overhang, stability and wrap quality before they are stored or shipped
Written and reviewed by
Siddarth Singh
Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Knowella
Certified Safety Professional and industrial and systems engineer with more than a decade inside food supply chain, freight and manufacturing operations. This page was written against the current text of the standards it cites, not against secondary summaries of them.
- Certified Safety Professional (CSP), Board of Certified Safety Professionals
- MBA, University of Chicago Booth School of Business
- MS and BS, The Ohio State University, Industrial and Systems Engineering
- Six Sigma Black Belt
Sources and last review. Reviewed 16 August 2026 against:
- ISO 45001:2018 clauses 6.1.2, 8.1.2 and 9.1.1
- Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, regulation 17 (UK)
- HSE guidance on workplace transport safety
- OSH Act Section 5(a)(1), General Duty Clause (US)
This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.