Waste collection is one of local government’s most visible services. It also brings heavy vehicles into residential streets, close to pedestrians, driveways and people putting out their bins.
Three fatal incidents reported in 2026 highlight the potential consequences when something goes wrong. For council leaders, waste managers and fleet teams, they should prompt a fresh examination of how transport risks are assessed and controlled.
In Queens Park, Western Australia, a 70-year-old man died after a collision involving a recycling truck on Balaka Way on 7 September. The City of Canning subsequently confirmed in a 30 September statement that an employee had been charged. A charge is not a finding of guilt, and the City said it continued to cooperate with authorities.
In Doncaster East, Victoria, an 87-year-old woman reportedly died after being struck by a rubbish truck on Hamilton Crescent in March.
Near Singleton, NSW, a garbage truck driver believed to be in his 40s died on 9 April after the vehicle reportedly left Mirannie Road, struck a tree and rolled down an embankment.
The available statements do not establish the causes of these incidents or demonstrate failures by particular organisations. They do, however, illustrate the fatal consequences possible in waste transport activities—for members of the public and the people delivering the service.
Severity is clear. Likelihood needs evidence.
A severity and likelihood framework gives councils a practical way to examine these risks.
Severity considers how serious the harm could be. A pedestrian struck by a waste truck, or a driver involved in a rollover, could suffer fatal injuries. That potential consequence needs to remain visible in the assessment, even where a council has never experienced a similar event.
Likelihood considers how probable that harm is under the actual operating conditions and controls. The NHVR’s safety management guidance identifies task frequency, exposure and previous incidents as factors to consider alongside severity.
Three reported deaths cannot establish the likelihood of a fatal incident across the waste industry. That requires reliable incident data and a measure of exposure, such as collection stops, operating hours or kilometres travelled.
For an individual council, the assessment should examine its routes, vehicles, collection methods and operating environment.
| Risk scenario | Potential severity | Factors to examine when assessing likelihood |
|---|---|---|
| A pedestrian enters the truck’s path during collection | Fatal injury | Pedestrian activity, visibility, blind spots, collection timing and stopping arrangements |
| A person is struck during reversing or turning | Fatal injury | Frequency of manoeuvres, street layout, parked vehicles and effectiveness of visibility controls |
| A truck leaves the road or rolls over | Fatal injury | Road geometry, shoulders, slopes, vehicle condition, load distribution and operating speed |
These are examples for assessment, not findings about the reported deaths.
A quiet incident history should not automatically produce a low likelihood rating. Councils need to understand whether their controls are preventing harm, whether exposure has changed, and whether near misses are being reported.
They should also assess the risk before controls and the remaining risk after controls are applied. A camera listed in a risk register provides little assurance if it is defective, poorly positioned or difficult to use during collection.
CoR extends into council decisions
The NHVR’s advice on local government makes clear that councils can be Chain of Responsibility parties through functions such as operating heavy vehicles, employing drivers or scheduling transport.
Where the Heavy Vehicle National Law applies, the Primary Duty requires parties to ensure the safety of their transport activities so far as is reasonably practicable. Executives also have a due diligence obligation to ensure their organisation complies.
For waste services, this brings attention to decisions made well before a truck leaves the depot: route design, collection windows, vehicle selection, maintenance resources and contract requirements.
Outsourcing collection does not transfer away a council’s own Primary Duty. Responsibility depends on the functions it performs and the risks it can influence or control. Contracts can establish safety expectations, reporting requirements and escalation arrangements, but cannot remove that duty.
Turn the assessment into safer collection
For councils reviewing their operations, the first step should be to bring waste operations, fleet, procurement, safety staff and contractors into the same discussion—with drivers contributing their practical knowledge.
Start with the routes and tasks that create the greatest exposure. Identify avoidable reversing, difficult turns, restricted sightlines and locations where collection coincides with substantial pedestrian activity.
Consider whether changing the route, collection point, timing or vehicle could remove a hazardous interaction. Assess the consequences of each change: shifting collection earlier, for example, may change visibility, fatigue exposure and community impacts.
Vehicle specifications should follow the operating risks. Direct visibility, suitable mirrors, camera coverage, pedestrian detection and braking systems warrant assessment for the intended work. Technology needs maintenance, testing and operator training, together with procedures for dealing with faults.
Schedules also need scrutiny. Allow enough time for safe manoeuvring, breaks and unexpected conditions. Drivers should be able to stop collection and report an unsafe location without pressure to recover lost time through rushed work.
Councils using contractors should seek evidence of how these controls work in practice. Useful information includes recurring defects, near misses, hazardous locations, corrective actions and whether agreed changes have been completed.
Give public safety executive attention
A transport risk assessment should lead to decisions about funding, service design and accountability.
For each risk with fatal potential, councils should identify the controls, who owns them, how their effectiveness is checked and what happens when they fail. Senior leaders should receive enough information to challenge assumptions and act on unresolved problems.
Collection completion rates and cost per service tell only part of the story. Public safety also depends on whether a reported blind spot is fixed, a hazardous route is changed and an unsafe practice is stopped.
The deaths reported in Queens Park, Doncaster East and near Singleton deserve careful, respectful consideration. Councils do not need to wait for findings about those incidents to review hazards already present in their own operations.
Every waste collection round is another opportunity to test whether the service has been designed—and resourced—to keep residents and workers safe.
