Ports, Terminals and Maritime

Ports and container terminals combine heavy lifting, large mobile plant and people on foot in a space that runs day and night, in all weather, with a changing mix of employers, hauliers and ship crews. This chapter covers the injury data regulators publish for the sector, the hazards that cause serious harm (quay cranes, straddle carriers, reach stackers, yard vehicles, lashing and pedestrian interaction), the guidance that sets the baseline in the UK, the US and internationally, and how terminals are using AI video, proximity warning, telematics and automation. It closes with the questions a buyer should put to any vendor before a pilot.

How dangerous is port work? What the data shows

Port injury data is harder to pin down than data for construction or manufacturing. National statistics usually fold port work into a broad "transportation and storage" or "transportation and warehousing" category, and port-specific benchmarking relies on companies volunteering their numbers. Read every figure below with its definition and coverage in mind.

Great Britain

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) reported 126 worker deaths in work-related accidents in Great Britain in 2025/26, a provisional figure to be finalized in July 2027 ^[3]. HSE's headline report has no separate port series, but it does break out accident kinds by sector. Over the five years from 2021/22 to 2025/26, being struck by a moving vehicle caused about 17% of all worker deaths, and around 30% of deaths in transportation and storage, which includes port and cargo handling activity ^[3]. HSE also notes that transportation and storage has a fatal injury rate around 1.5 to 2.5 times the all-industry average, along with manufacturing and administrative services ^[3].

The most detailed port-specific numbers in the UK come from Port Skills and Safety (PSS), the industry's safety body. Its 2023 benchmarking report drew on 23 contributing members with an average of 18,245 direct and indirect workers ^[4]. Members reported:

The report notes that a worker was fatally injured while unloading a bulk carrier at Aberdeen South Harbour in July 2023, but the death was not counted because that operator reports only direct employees ^[4]. This kind of gap is common in voluntary data and is worth remembering when anyone quotes "zero fatalities" for a sector.

Two findings in the PSS report are relevant to technology buyers. First, the largest share of lost-time injuries came from slips, trips and falls on the same level, followed by handling injuries and being hit by moving, flying or falling objects ^[4]. Second, the top locations for lost-time injuries were the berth or quay alongside a vessel and on board container ships ^[4]. Vehicle strikes are rarer but more often fatal, so a program aimed only at vehicles misses most lost time, and one aimed only at slips misses the events most likely to kill. The near-miss data points in the same direction: driving incidents and being hit by objects or vehicles were among the top near-miss categories ^[4].

United States

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) recorded 5,070 fatal work injuries in the US in 2024, a rate of 3.3 per 100,000 full-time equivalent workers ^[10]. Transportation incidents were the most frequent fatal event at 38.2% of the total, and pedestrian incidents involving motorized land vehicles rose 19% to 369 ^[10]. Workers in transportation and material moving occupations, which include many port and terminal roles, had 1,391 fatalities and a rate of 12.5 per 100,000, almost four times the all-worker rate ^[10]. BLS publishes finer industry detail in its online tables, which buyers can use to benchmark specific port activities.

European Union

Eurostat reported 3,298 fatal accidents at work in the EU in 2023, a rate of 1.63 per 100,000 employed people ^[11]. In transportation and storage, 58.5% of fatal accidents happened in public areas such as roads, which reflects the weight of road haulage in that sector rather than in-terminal work ^[12]. As in the UK and US, port activity sits inside a wider category, so port operators in the EU often rely on company and association data for sector-level comparison.

What are the main hazards in container terminals?

The joint PSS and HSE guidance on container handling, published in June 2025, lists the hazards of loading and unloading containers. They include being struck by lifting equipment, moving containers or vehicles; being crushed against a fixed object such as a bulkhead or the container stow; slips, trips and falls on oily, icy or wet surfaces; falls from height through gaps between container stacks or near hold edges; poor atmospheres; handling injuries; and fatigue ^[5]. The equipment behind those hazards is described below.

Ship-to-shore (quay) cranes

Quay cranes lift containers between the vessel and the quay, and the main risks are suspended loads, falling objects, and people working under or near the crane's travel path. OSHA's marine terminal rules require employers to direct employees "to stay clear of the area beneath a suspended container" ^[8]. The same section requires spreader twistlock systems designed so that a suspended load "cannot accidentally be released" and limits vertical tandem lifts to two empty containers in winds no higher than 55 km/h ^[8]. UK guidance adds that spreaders should be fitted with anti-collision sensors and overload protection, and that cameras and visibility aids are needed on the blind sides of rubber-tired gantry cranes (RTGs) ^[5].

Straddle carriers and reach stackers

Straddle carriers lift containers between their legs and carry them across the yard. Reach stackers pick containers from the side with a telescopic boom. Both put the driver's cab high above the ground, and the load or the machine's structure blocks large parts of the driver's view. HSE names both machines when it discusses limited visibility in ports ^[1]. A pedestrian close to the wheels of a straddle carrier can be invisible to the driver, which is why segregation is the starting point for terminal traffic management.

Researchers have tested camera-based assistance for these machines. A 2024 paper in the Alexandria Engineering Journal examined computer vision for safe reach stacker operation in an automated container terminal ^[19]. Academic results are useful for understanding what is technically possible, but they are produced under study conditions and do not show how a system performs across a working terminal over a year.

Yard vehicles, hauliers and the gate

Terminal tractors, internal trucks and visiting road hauliers share the yard with port plant. HSE points out that "many different people drive in docks," including drivers from other employers and members of the public who do not know the site ^[1]. That makes traffic management harder than in a single-employer warehouse. OSHA's vehicle rules for marine terminals require posted speed limits and traffic signs, stop signs at blind intersections unless an alternative system is in place, marked vehicle routes, and at least 20 feet between vehicles in check-in and check-out lines where employees work ^[9]. UK guidance calls for booking systems to control traffic flow, haulier inductions that keep drivers segregated from operational equipment, one-way systems and marked inspection areas where drivers can check their loads ^[5].

Lashing and unlashing

Lashing secures containers on deck with rods, turnbuckles and twistlocks. The work happens on narrow walkways and lashing bridges, often at height, next to moving cranes and under time pressure. UK guidance devotes separate sections to twistlocks, lashing, work at height, personnel cages and personal fall protection ^[5]. It describes "safe by position," where a worker is simply told to keep away from an open edge, as the lowest form of control, to be used only when nothing higher in the hierarchy is reasonably practicable ^[5].

Who does the lashing is also a labor issue. The International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) negotiated a clause, in force worldwide from February 2018 and in Europe and Canada from January 1, 2020, stating that cargo handling including lashing and unlashing should be done by dockworkers where ITF-affiliated dockers are available ^[13]. The ITF's stated safety concern was fatigued seafarers lashing on European feeder services ^[13].

Pedestrians on the quay and in the yard

Almost every serious vehicle or lifting hazard involves someone on foot: a lasher, a checker, a crane signaller, an engineer or a haulier who has left the cab. OSHA requires every employee in the immediate area of container handling equipment or in terminal traffic lanes to wear a high-visibility vest ^[8]. UK guidance requires traffic management to "clearly define routes" for port plant, container equipment and hauliers, with physical or procedural measures to segregate vehicles from pedestrian areas ^[5]. HSE singles out roll-on roll-off (ro-ro) ramps and bridges as places where segregation is particularly important ^[1].

Which regulations and guidance apply to ports?

United Kingdom

The Docks Regulations 1988 were revoked on April 6, 2014, and replaced by a shorter Approved Code of Practice (ACOP), Safety in Docks (L148) ^[2]. L148 explains how the general duties of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 apply to dock work. HSE also lists port-relevant law including the Dangerous Goods in Harbour Areas Regulations 2016 (with ACOP L155), DSEAR, COSHH and COMAH, plus its older guidance Managing health and safety in dockwork (HSG177) ^[2]. For workplace transport, HSE points to the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER) ^[1].

The Safety in Ports (SiP) guidance series, produced by PSS with HSE, adds practical detail. SiP001 covers port and terminal planning for workplace transport, and SiP003 covers container handling ^[4][5]. PSS said in its 2023 report that it would prioritize reviews of SiP001 and SiP014 (safe access and egress) because of what the incident data showed ^[4].

International: the ILO code of practice

The International Labour Organization (ILO) code of practice Safety and health in ports was revised by a meeting of experts in Geneva in November 2016 and published in August 2018 ^[6]. It replaced the 2005 edition, which itself replaced the ILO's 1970s dock work guides ^[6]. The meeting included government, employer and worker representatives ^[6]. ILO codes of practice are not legally binding, but many national regulators and port operators use this one as the reference for good practice, particularly in countries without detailed port regulations.

United States: OSHA Parts 1917 and 1918

OSHA's marine cargo handling standards split the work by location. Part 1917 covers marine terminals (shoreside cargo handling), and Part 1918 covers longshoring (cargo handling aboard vessels) ^[7]. The terminal standard includes the rules on intermodal containers and suspended loads in 1917.71 and on vehicles and traffic in 1917.44 cited above ^[8][9]. Where the specific maritime standards are silent, certain general industry standards can apply.

European Union

The EU does not have a single port safety regulation. Port operators work under the framework directive on occupational safety and health and national transpositions, plus product law for the equipment they buy. That product law is changing. The Machinery Regulation (EU) 2023/1230 applies from January 20, 2027, replacing the Machinery Directive, and includes provisions for machinery with AI-powered safety functions and for cyber security of safety control software ^[18]. Terminal operators buying new cranes, straddle carriers or automated vehicles in 2026 and 2027 should ask suppliers how their equipment complies.

Summary of the main texts

How are ports using safety technology?

Port safety technology falls into four groups. They solve different problems and fail in different ways, so a terminal usually needs more than one.

AI video analytics

AI video analytics systems run computer vision models on camera feeds to detect events such as a person entering a vehicle lane, a truck failing to stop at an intersection, missing high-visibility clothing, or someone standing in a lifting zone. Chapter 4 explains how these systems work. In ports, the main uses are:

• Speeding and failure to stop by trucks and terminal tractors at marked intersections.
• Pedestrians in vehicle lanes, under cranes or inside exclusion zones.
• PPE compliance, mainly high-visibility vests and hard hats.
• Gate and haulier behavior, such as drivers leaving cabs in prohibited areas.

Terminal conditions are harder for cameras than a warehouse. Distances are long, lighting changes sharply between floodlit and dark areas, and rain, fog and sea spray reduce image quality. Cameras mounted for security often look at fences and gates rather than crossings and quays. A system that works well on a warehouse floor may need extra cameras, different lenses or retrained models before it performs on a quay at night.

Proximity warning and collision avoidance

Proximity warning systems detect when a person or another vehicle comes within a set distance of a machine and warn the driver, the pedestrian or both. Some systems use worn tags and radio (often ultra-wideband), others use radar, lidar or cameras on the machine. UK container handling guidance lists anti-collision sensors on spreaders, cameras and visibility aids for blind sides of RTGs, and lights and klaxons to warn of crane movements as relevant equipment controls ^[5]. Chapter 6 covers the technology in more detail.

The weaknesses are practical. Tag-based systems only protect people wearing a working tag, which is hard to guarantee for visiting hauliers. Sensors on large machines can generate frequent nuisance alerts in a crowded yard, and drivers who get too many alerts start to ignore them. Ask how the system handles stacked containers, which can block radio signals and create blind spots.

Telematics and equipment data

Most modern port equipment records speed, location, lift weights, impacts and fault codes. Telematics turn that data into reports on speeding, harsh braking, overloads and unauthorized operation, and many systems use operator log-in cards so that only trained drivers can start a machine. This data covers every movement, including those outside camera view, but it says nothing about pedestrians or what was happening around the machine. Terminals that combine telematics with video can see both the speed event and its context.

Automation and remote operation

Automated stacking cranes, remotely operated quay cranes and automated guided vehicles change the risk profile. They remove drivers from cabs and keep people out of automated zones, but they create new risks at the boundaries: maintenance access, manual intervention when equipment faults, and interfaces where automated and manned equipment meet. The EU Machinery Regulation's provisions on AI safety functions are relevant here ^[18].

Automation is also a labor relations question. In the US, the International Longshoremen's Association (ILA) membership ratified a six-year master contract with the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX) on February 25, 2025, covering 36 East and Gulf Coast ports through September 30, 2030 ^[17]. Logistics Management reported that the contract includes what the ILA called "full protections against automation," after the union objected to the employers' semi-automation proposal ^[17]. Any terminal planning technology that changes jobs at these ports, including some safety systems, needs to factor in those terms and the joint process the contract created.

Public deployment examples

The examples below come from vendor publications and press releases. They show what ports are trying and what vendors claim. None of the figures has been independently verified, and none of the case studies publishes a full method, baseline period or control group. Chapter 15 explains how to measure outcomes yourself.

Voxel at the Port of Virginia

Voxel, a US AI video safety company, says the Port of Virginia deployed its platform at Virginia International Gateway to support the port's terminal safety program ^[14]. According to Voxel, the system monitored truck speeding and "no stops" at high-risk intersections, PPE compliance and pedestrians in vehicle lanes ^[14]. Voxel reports that within six months the port saw a 50% reduction in truck speeding, a 15% reduction in no-stop violations, a 15% reduction in PPE violations, and an 85% efficiency gain for the safety team ^[14]. The customer story quotes Andy Copley, Assistant Manager of Health and Safety at the port, saying he used to spend two to three hours a day reviewing recorded footage and now spends 20 to 30 minutes ^[14].

In February 2025, Voxel announced that it had won the TT Club Innovation in Safety Award, run by TT Club and ICHCA International, and cited the Port of Virginia figures in that announcement ^[15]. The award reflects the judges' view of the entry. It is not an audit of the results.

viAct at Kwai Chung, Hong Kong

viAct, an AI video company based in Hong Kong, publishes a case study on container operations at Kwai Chung Container Port ^[16]. The case study does not name the terminal operator. viAct says it deployed a port safety package including fatigue monitoring for crane and yard operators, lift zone intrusion detection, proximity breach alerts, PPE detection and a digital permit-to-work system ^[16]. It claims a "10x improvement" in a lift zone safety score, a 60% reduction in fatigue-linked errors and a 50% improvement in yard productivity through fewer incident-related stoppages ^[16]. The study does not explain how the lift zone score or fatigue-linked errors were measured, which buyers should ask about before using these numbers in a business case.

What these examples have in common

Both deployments focus on vehicle behavior at fixed points (intersections, lanes, lift zones) where cameras can see clearly and rules are simple to define. Both report changes in observed behavior, such as speeding or zone breaches, and neither reports injury rates. That is reasonable over six months, because serious injuries in a single terminal are too rare to show a reliable trend in that time. It also means that a buyer should treat behavior change as a leading indicator and track injury outcomes separately over a longer period.

What should port buyers ask vendors?

The questions below build on the general buying guidance in Chapter 14 and focus on port conditions.

Coverage and performance

• Which of our existing cameras can you use, and how many new cameras or repositioned cameras do you expect we need for quays, crossings and lift zones?
• What is your detection performance at night, in rain, in fog and against floodlight glare? Can you show results on our footage rather than a demo set?
• How do you detect people partly hidden by containers, under crane legs or between stacks?
• How do you treat visiting hauliers, ship crew and contractors who are not on our staff list?

Alerts and workflow

• Who receives an alert, how fast, and on what device? Can alerts go to a crane or straddle carrier driver in the cab?
• What is the expected alert volume per camera per shift during a busy vessel call, and how do you keep false alerts low enough that supervisors keep responding?
• Can events link to our incident management or EHS system (see Chapter 7)?

Integration with equipment

• Can your system combine video events with equipment telematics, terminal operating system data or proximity system logs?
• If you offer automatic intervention, such as slowing a vehicle, which equipment makers have you integrated with, and how is that function certified?
• For new equipment arriving after January 2027 in the EU, how does your product fit with the Machinery Regulation requirements for AI safety functions ^[18]?

Workers, data and labor agreements

• Does the system identify individuals? Can faces be blurred? How long is footage kept?
• What role will worker representatives and unions have in setting the rules for how events are used, including whether they can lead to discipline?
• Does anything in our collective agreements restrict this technology? In US East and Gulf Coast ports, check the 2025 ILA-USMX contract terms on new technology ^[17].

Evidence

• Which ports or terminals have used the product for more than a year, and can we speak to them directly?
• For published results, what was the baseline period, how were events counted, and did anything else change at the site at the same time?
• Will you agree pilot acceptance criteria in writing, with targets for detection rates and false alert rates on our site?

Summary

Port and terminal work combines large mobile plant, suspended loads and pedestrians on quays and container ships. UK benchmarking from PSS shows that slips, trips and falls cause the most lost-time injuries, while vehicle strikes and lifting incidents carry the highest fatal potential ^[4]. HSE data shows that being struck by a moving vehicle accounts for around 30% of worker deaths in transportation and storage ^[3]. In the US, transportation and material moving workers had 1,391 fatalities in 2024 ^[10].

The regulatory baseline is well established: the Safety in Docks ACOP and Safety in Ports guidance in the UK, the ILO code of practice internationally, and OSHA Parts 1917 and 1918 in the US. All of them start with segregating people from plant and controlling access to lifting and vehicle areas. Technology adds monitoring and warning on top of those controls. AI video can watch intersections, lanes and lift zones; proximity systems can warn drivers and pedestrians; telematics record every machine movement; and automation removes some people from the most dangerous areas while creating new interface risks. The published port results from Voxel and viAct are vendor claims based on behavior metrics over months. They can shape a pilot, and a terminal should then confirm performance on its own cameras and in its own weather, with workers and unions involved from the start.