Reducing Roadway Risks for MEWP Operations

By Tony Groat, Photos by IPAF

In June 2025, a shocking video caught by a driver waiting at a red light was seen across national news and posted widely online. It showed a man working on a stop light on an active roadway when he was struck by an 18-wheeler. Despite the presence of a worker on the ground flagging traffic — possibly alerting drivers to slow down — the worker was struck once the tractor-trailer passed. The height of the tractor-trailer was higher than the bottom of the lift basket, causing it to hit the bucket holding the worker, who was then left hanging upside down, and luckily uninjured.

In January 2025, an employee sustained fatal injuries when a bus collided with the articulated boom lift he was operating, resulting in his fall to the street below.  The worker was changing a billboard above a store, with the lift’s chassis situated primarily on the sidewalk. However, part of the lift extended into the roadway and was struck by a passing bus.

One of these incidents involved a vehicle-mounted aerial device, and another was an off-road self-propelled boom lift. In both incidents, the lifts were positioned off the roadway.  One intended to extend the boom and platform over an active road, while the second intended to extend inward to a building sign. Both were struck by a vehicle operating normally over the road they were travelling on. Both incidents could have been prevented with planning that drew on “street smarts.”

Most people will associate the expression of being “street smart” to describe personal intuition or experience in everyday life. The International Powered Access Federation’s (IPAF’s) use of the term “street smart” is a bit more literal, emphasizing situational awareness and proactive hazard recognition when operating Mobile Elevating Work Platforms (MEWPs) on or near roadways. IPAF applies the expression to structured safety awareness — understanding traffic behavior, recognizing dynamic roadway hazards and applying planned control measures to protect workers and the public. In this context, being “street smart” does not rely on instincts, but planned, informed decision-making, supported by risk assessment, training and compliance with established traffic control practices.

Becoming “street smart” is a requirement for anyone involved with MEWP operation. Being street smart requires awareness of the hazards associated when working on or — just as importantly — near roadways, and to become educated on the safe use procedures to mitigate or eliminate the risk from these hazards.

The hazards and risk are real. Hazards associated with work on or near roadways are multifaceted. In addition to the vertical risks inherent in working at height with all MEWPs, roadside work introduces the hazards of working in the proximity of moving highway vehicles, unpredictable driver behavior and the potential for high-energy impact events if a vehicle encroaches on a work zone, or if the MEWP encroaches outside of their safe work zone.

The Truth is in the Data

Data published by IPAF underscores this reality. Between 2020 and 2024, roadway-related incidents involving MEWPs in North America increased dramatically:

• 137% increase in reported incidents
• 258% rise in persons involved, and
• 58% increase in fatalities linked to MEWPs being struck by vehicles or other machines.
• During 2025, the United States alone had 25 road traffic incidents reported.

These figures reflect only reported events. IPAF emphasizes that actual numbers are likely higher because of underreporting. Both public roadway users and MEWP operators themselves are vulnerable in these scenarios. While nearly half (47%) of these incidents occurred in construction settings, others happened during other tasks such as arborist work, painting, sign-work, and general use and operations. Around 76.5% of incidents involved MEWP operators or occupants, and approximately 10% involved members of the public.

This trend highlights that roadside risks are not isolated or rare outliers; they are a recognized and growing category of MEWP incidents that require urgent, systematic attention.

Today, MEWPs are widely used to provide temporary access for work at height by companies and individuals, undertaking construction, telecommunications, utility work, traffic control devices, arborist work, industrial maintenance and even homeowners.  While these machines are designed to improve safety compared to traditional access methods, their use on or near public roadways introduces a distinct set of hazards that must be identified, assessed and controlled.

Vehicle-mounted aerial devices and under-bridge inspection devices can be designed for road travel. However, most MEWPs are designed as off-road machines. Even lifts that travel over the road depend on state and federal regulations to define work requirements (permits, traffic control, etc.) that go beyond requirements in MEWP industry standards. All MEWP operations require and depend on a thorough risk assessment to identify hazards and develop safe use procedures to protect workers. A risk assessment requires more attention to implement safe work procedures when the probability of a hazard is higher and/or the severity of harm is greater. There is no doubt that the severity of harm in these incidents is significant and mandates appropriate protection.

An Increasing Risk Profile

Data from IPAF’s Accident Reporting Portal shows a significant increase in roadway-related incidents involving MEWPs in North America over recent years, including a rise in serious injuries and fatalities resulting from MEWPs being struck by vehicles. These incidents occur not only on large projects, but also during short-duration tasks such as street lighting repairs, signage installation and building maintenance.

What makes roadway incidents particularly severe is the interaction between MEWPs and uncontrolled traffic. Even a correctly positioned and operated MEWP can be struck by a distracted driver or vehicle that leaves its lane. Further, movement of a MEWP on or near highways for delivery and pick-up or repositioning on a site on or near the roadway are examples of MEWP operations to consider beyond the task of working at height. This reality highlights that roadway hazards must be treated as a primary risk factor — not a secondary consideration.

IPAF’s Roadway Safety Campaign

In response, IPAF launched its How to Stay Safe on or Near Roadways campaign in North America. The campaign emphasizes planning ahead, improving traffic control practices and reinforcing shared responsibility among users, supervisors and operators.

A central message of the campaign is that roadway risk exists anytime MEWPs are operated near traffic — including during setup, loading, unloading and relocation, not just while elevated. Many incidents occur during these transitional phases, when attention may shift away from traffic exposure.

ANSI A92.22: A Practical Framework

ANSI/SAI A92 standards provide a clear framework that aligns closely with IPAF’s campaign. It requires users to identify roadway hazards, provide operators with warnings and instructions, and ensure operators report newly identified hazards and avoid the risk until directed otherwise.

When MEWPs are operated on or near roadways — or during loading and unloading from transport vehicles on public roads — the standard requires appropriate protective measures to be implemented. These may include warning cones, road signs, signaling devices, flag personnel, traffic control measures, adequate lighting and high-visibility personal protective equipment.

This requirement is particularly important because loading and unloading activities often occur at curb lines, shoulders or partially closed lanes, where workers are exposed to live traffic while focused on equipment movement rather than overhead work.

Traffic Control and Federal Highway Administration Requirements

Effective traffic control is a cornerstone of roadway safety. In the United States, temporary traffic control must comply with the Federal Highway Administration requirements outlined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. These requirements govern the selection and placement of signs, cones, channelizing devices and the use of flaggers or lane closures.

ANSI A92.22 reinforces this by requiring that traffic control instructions and training follow the guidance provided by the roadway authority or applicable federal, state or local regulations. In practice, this means that MEWP users must coordinate with roadway owners or authorities and ensure traffic control plans are appropriate for traffic speed, volume and visibility conditions.

Static cones alone are often insufficient. Depending on the roadway, additional measures such as advance warning signs, taper lengths, barriers or truck-mounted attenuators may be necessary to adequately protect workers and the public.

Night Work and Adequate Lighting

Night work introduces additional risks that must be addressed during planning. ANSI A92.22 specifically identifies sufficient lighting for safe operation as a roadway safety consideration. Poor visibility affects both operators and passing motorists, increasing the likelihood of vehicle encroachment into work zones.

Adequate lighting should illuminate:

• The MEWP and its footprint
• The loading or unloading area
• Traffic control devices and signage, and
• Work areas where personnel are exposed to traffic.

Lighting must be positioned to avoid glare that could distract drivers or operators, while still clearly defining the work zone. Night operations should be reassessed dynamically, as changing weather or traffic conditions can quickly alter risk levels.

High-Visibility PPE and Worker Awareness

High-visibility PPE is another critical control highlighted in ANSI A92.22 and reinforced by IPAF’s campaign. Reflective clothing improves worker visibility, particularly during low-light or night operations, and helps distinguish workers from background visual clutter in busy roadway environments.

However, high-visibility PPE should be viewed as a supplementary control, not a substitute for traffic control planning. PPE alone cannot protect workers from errant vehicles; it must be combined with physical separation, warning systems and clear traffic management procedures.

Operators and ground personnel must also be trained to maintain situational awareness and communicate changes in traffic conditions or emerging hazards to supervisors.

From Compliance to Culture

A key theme of IPAF’s campaign is moving beyond minimum compliance toward a stronger safety culture. Roadway incidents often occur not because controls are absent, but because they are incomplete, poorly maintained or not adjusted as conditions change.

A strong roadway safety culture includes:

• Treating traffic hazards with the same seriousness as fall hazards
• Empowering operators to stop work when conditions become unsafe
• Encouraging near-miss reporting, and
• Reviewing traffic control effectiveness throughout the task.

IPAF’s accident reporting program supports this approach by providing data that informs industry guidance and future safety initiatives.

Tony Groat is IPAF North America regional manager.