Vehicle-Pedestrian Separation in Port Yards: Technology Options for Terminals

Container terminals separate people from vehicles mainly through layout and access control: fenced operational areas, walkways that avoid container traffic routes, permits for any work on foot, and interlocked gates around automated equipment. Technology such as cameras, proximity warning, telematics and AI video adds warning and monitoring on top of those controls. International and UK port guidance treats these tools as aids, and they work best when they enforce a separation plan the terminal already has.

Why vehicle-pedestrian interaction is a priority in port yards

The ILO code of practice on safety and health in ports, revised in 2016, states that vehicles and mobile plant are now one of the main elements in fatal and serious accidents in ports, and that people should be separated from vehicles whenever practicable ^[2]. UK regulator HSE lists unsegregated vehicle and pedestrian access, for example on ro-ro bridges and vessel ramps, and vehicles with limited visibility, including straddle carriers and reach stackers, among the typical workplace transport hazards in ports ^[3].

UK industry data shows how often the hazard comes close to causing harm. In Port Skills and Safety benchmarking for 2023, which covered 23 contributing members with an average of 18,245 direct and indirect workers, members recorded 1,163 near misses, 371 of them classed as high potential ^[1]. The most frequently reported near-miss category was potential driving-related incidents such as collisions, and "potentially hit by moving vehicle" was also in the top five ^[1]. Lost-time injuries tell a different story: of 193 in 2023, slips, trips and falls on the same level caused 48, driving-related incidents and collisions 25, and being hit by a moving vehicle 4 ^[1]. The gap between frequent near misses and relatively few injuries is typical of low-frequency, high-severity hazards, and it is why terminals invest in separation even when injury counts look modest.

What do port codes and regulations require?

Three sets of guidance cover most terminals.

The ILO code sets layout principles. Container terminals should be laid out to separate persons on foot from vehicles so far as practicable, and, except at the quayside, container-handling areas should be enclosed by a fence at least 2 m high or other suitable means ^[2]. Traffic lanes should generally be at least 5 m wide, and up to 7 m under quay cranes and in other restricted locations ^[2]. Walkways should be separated from operational areas and vehicle traffic wherever practicable ^[2].

The code is specific about stacking areas. Entry should be restricted to authorized terminal vehicles fitted with flashing yellow lights, and no person should enter on foot except by a delineated walkway that does not cross a container traffic route ^[2]. Work on foot requires the express permission of Control, which issues a permit only after the area is isolated, all drivers have been notified and acknowledged, the area is signed, the people entering wear high-visibility clothing, and the person in charge has a two-way radio ^[2]. In straddle carrier areas, at least one clear lane should separate the work lane from any active lane ^[2].

In the UK, Safety in Ports guidance SiP 003 on container handling, published in June 2025 with HSE, says traffic management must define routes for port plant, container handling equipment and visiting hauliers, with physical or procedural measures to segregate operational vehicles from pedestrian areas, and that personnel access to storage areas, the quayside and other operational zones must be strictly controlled ^[4]. It adds that drivers should stop work if they lose sight of operatives working in their area ^[4].

In the US, OSHA's marine terminal standard requires marked or designated areas for employees to pass to and from active cargo transfer points, and high-visibility vests for anyone working near container handling equipment or in traffic lanes ^[5]. Vehicle rules require stop signs at blind intersections unless direct traffic control, warning mirrors or systems of equivalent safety are provided, and require drivers to warn employees in traffic lanes of their approach ^[6].

Which controls keep people out of the yard?

Fencing, walkways and grids

Physical separation comes first in every code. Fences around container areas, walkways that route around rather than across container lanes, and stepped-down stack ends that improve visibility for straddle carriers leaving a row are all ILO recommendations ^[2]. At straddle carrier exchange grids, the ILO code says road vehicle drivers should leave the cab and stand in a marked area forward of the cab and visible to the straddle carrier operator, and that straddle carriers should approach and leave a road vehicle from the rear ^[2].

Access control and permits

Access control turns a layout into a rule that can be enforced. Gate systems, haulier inductions and driver induction cards control who enters ^[4]. Inside the yard, the ILO permit-to-enter process and a visual reminder on the control desk, such as a token or light, show which blocks are isolated ^[2]. Where a terminal moves permits into software, it should check that the digital process still includes the driver acknowledgement, physical signage and radio contact that the ILO process describes.

Automated zones and interlocks

Automated terminals take separation further because machines run without drivers who could see a person. The ILO code says the automated guided vehicle (AGV) area should be entirely fenced off, with access gates electronically controlled and opened only by the main terminal control station, at which point AGV motion should stop and stay stopped until workers are clear ^[2]. AGVs should stop when they detect an object in their path, lose guidance or exceed normal speed limits, with an audible alarm and warning light ^[2]. Areas around automated stacking cranes should be isolated by physical means, including laser curtains or sensor interlocks ^[2]. In semi-automated terminals, where straddle carriers or tractors still operate manually, the code says robust systems are essential so workers cannot enter controlled zones ^[2].

Workers still have to handle twistlocks during vessel operations, so the ILO code recommends doing that work on the crane's sill beam or in a fenced area under the crane back-reach, away from the AGV area ^[2]. Research is starting to look at the remaining interactions. A virtual reality study of 33 participants, posted as a preprint in January 2026, found that low visibility, occlusion and larger vehicle sizes made pedestrians more cautious around autonomous port vehicles, but that occlusion also reduced actual safety margins, and time pressure degraded protective behavior ^[12]. The authors suggested wide-angle cameras, vehicle-to-infrastructure communication, better lighting and signage, and training ^[12]. As a preprint, it has not completed peer review.

Which technologies warn or monitor where people and plant still meet?

Some interaction cannot be designed out: hauliers at grids, lashers on the quay, engineers in the yard, and staff crossing at fixed points. Here technology helps.

Cameras and proximity alarms on plant

The ILO code says closed-circuit television or other detection devices should be considered where vehicles have blind spots and there is a risk of injury, and suggests CCTV or proximity alarms for blind-side container exchanges at rail-mounted and rubber-tyred gantry cranes ^[2]. SiP 003 calls cameras and visibility aids "essential" on the blind sides of rubber-tyred gantries, along with lights and klaxons that warn of crane movement ^[4]. Equipment makers offer collision warning on mobile plant; Kalmar, for example, offers a collision warning system for its straddle carriers and says it reduces damage to equipment and containers ^[8].

The ILO code also sets a clear limit: on lift trucks, cameras and proximity sensors "should strictly be used only to assist the driver" ^[2]. HSE's general guidance on vehicle aids explains why. Radar works best on open sites where unwanted alarms are likely to be few, CCTV lenses get dirty and adjust slowly between light and dark, and reversing alarms can become so common that pedestrians ignore them ^[7]. Research on radar proximity warning in surface mining found reliable detection but frequent alarms from objects posing no danger, and recommended pairing radar with cameras so operators can check the cause ^[9]. A yard full of steel boxes is a similar environment.

Telematics and driver monitoring

SiP 003 notes that telematics, in-cab CCTV and GPS tracking can support safe operations by monitoring driver behavior, identifying areas for improvement and providing evidence in investigations ^[4]. Speed and location data from terminal tractors and straddle carriers can show whether speed limits and one-way systems are respected, and geofences can limit speed in zones where people work. These systems monitor plant, so they do not detect a person on foot unless that person carries a tag.

AI video analytics

SiP 003 says AI-based hazard detection can identify unsafe conditions such as proximity breaches or unsafe driving and trigger alerts or reports ^[4]. Public port examples are vendor case studies. Voxel says that at the Virginia International Gateway terminal of the Port of Virginia it monitored truck speeding and missed stops at high-risk intersections, and reports a 50% reduction in truck speeding within six months across more than 2,000 trucks a day ^[10]. Voxel also says its system showed drivers leaving their trucks near vehicle lanes to use dumpsters, which led the port to remove the dumpsters ^[10]. viAct says its system at Kwai Chung Container Port in Hong Kong, which used existing cabin cameras to monitor crane and vehicle operators, detected proximity violations, suspended load zone breaches and unauthorized lift zone access, and it claims a tenfold improvement in lift zone safety scores ^[11]. None of these figures has been independently verified.

The dumpster example shows the practical value of video analytics in a yard. It finds the layout and process causes behind repeated interactions, which managers can then fix with the physical controls described above.

How do the options compare?

How should a terminal choose?

Start with the layout and the permit system, and use technology to find where they fail. A practical sequence looks like this:

1. Map where people on foot and plant still meet: grids, gates, rail crossings, quay operations, reefer rows and maintenance access. The ILO and SiP 003 controls give a checklist for each ^[2][4].
2. Fix what can be fixed physically: walkway routes, fencing gaps, stack-end visibility and safe standing areas for hauliers.
3. Add operator aids, such as cameras and proximity alarms, where blind spots remain, and test them in rain, fog and darkness before rollout.
4. Use telematics and AI video to measure whether speed limits, stops and walkways are respected, and to find new problem locations.

When evaluating products, ask vendors for detection rates and false alarm rates from footage or trials at terminals like yours, and ask what the system does when it fails. For any system that records identifiable workers or hauliers, agree retention and use rules with worker representatives before installation. Monitoring is easier to sustain when its scope is limited to safety and written down.

Summary

Port codes are consistent: separate people from vehicles wherever practicable, control access to the yard, and isolate automated equipment behind interlocked fences. The ILO code of practice and UK SiP 003 guidance treat cameras, proximity alarms, telematics and AI video as supporting measures that help operators see and help managers find weak points. UK benchmarking shows driving-related near misses are common even when vehicle injuries are few. Terminals get the most from technology when they use it to enforce and improve a separation plan, and when they test vendor claims against their own conditions before scaling up.