Coronial
TASother

Coroner's Finding: Close, Terrence Findings

Deceased

Terrence William Close

Demographics

62y, male

Date of death

2013-02-05

Finding date

2019-03-27

Cause of death

blunt trauma of chest and abdomen

AI-generated summary

Terrence Close, a 62-year-old traffic controller, died on 5 February 2013 after being struck by a vehicle while managing traffic at a crack-sealing worksite on Vermont Road, Launceston. The coroner found multiple systemic failures contributing to his death. Critical deficiencies included: inadequate traffic warning signage (750m from the work site versus recommended 500m maximum), failure to relocate eastern signage when the worksite moved west of a railway bridge, absence of physical protective barriers (cones, bollards, shadow vehicle), and poor traffic management planning. Mr Close lacked proper qualifications in traffic management plan design, leaving him unaware of plan inadequacies. The striking driver was distracted by tuning his radio and exceeding the speed limit. The coroner emphasized that multiple preventable factors—poor signage placement, lack of physical barriers, inadequate training, and failure to comply with Australian Standard 1742.3-2009—created an unsafe environment where the traffic controller became the 'first line of defence' against oncoming traffic with no physical protection.

AI-generated summary and tagging — may contain inaccuracies; refer to original finding for legal purposes.

Contributing factors

  • inadequate traffic warning signage placement (750m from worksite versus 500m maximum standard)
  • failure to relocate signage when worksite moved west of railway bridge
  • absence of physical protective barriers (cones, bollards, delineation, shadow vehicle)
  • poor traffic management planning without site-specific assessment
  • lack of worker qualifications in traffic management plan design
  • driver inattention (tuning car radio) and speeding (53 km/h in 40 km/h zone)
  • inadequate training of traffic control staff
  • generic traffic management plans inadequately adapted to site conditions
  • lack of regulatory enforcement of Australian Standard 1742.3-2009

Coroner's recommendations

  1. Adopt Australian Standard 1742.3-2009 (Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices - Part 3) as a Code of Practice under the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 to provide enforceable minimum standards for traffic management at roadworks
  2. Ensure all roadworks are carried out in compliance with applicable Australian Standards for traffic control
  3. Prohibit positioning road workers on roadways without physical barriers between them and approaching traffic; eliminate use of traffic controllers as 'first line of defence'
  4. Implement mandatory use of physical protective measures at roadwork sites including cones, bollards, ripple strips, and shadow vehicles
  5. Require site-specific traffic management planning with sufficient advance notice of work locations
  6. Ensure traffic management planners hold appropriate 'Prepare work zone traffic management plan' qualifications
  7. Mandate proper signage placement compliant with Australian Standards (maximum 500m spacing)
  8. Ensure relevant information about work locations and timing is communicated to traffic management providers in advance
  9. Implement formal documentation and inspection procedures for traffic management compliance across WorkSafe Tasmania
  10. Launceston City Council and other councils should adopt traffic management codes of practice similar to those used by DIER, or comply with approved standards if adopted at state level
Full text

Source and disclaimer

This page reproduces or summarises information from publicly available findings published by Australian coroners' courts. Coronial is an independent educational resource and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or acting on behalf of any coronial court or government body.

Content may be incomplete, reformatted, or summarised. All court orders for redaction and non-publication are respected; documents with technically defective redaction have been excluded from the database entirely. Always refer to the original court publication for the authoritative record.

Copyright in original materials remains with the relevant government jurisdiction. AI-generated summaries and tagging are for educational purposes only, may contain inaccuracies, and must not be treated as legal documents. We welcome feedback for correction —