Mitigating Risks Associated with ATV Use in Agriculture

Mitigating Risks Associated with ATV Use in Agriculture

 

All-terrain vehicles (ATVs) are increasingly popular in agriculture, providing a comparatively inexpensive mode of off-road transportation for use on the farm or in the field. Farm workers and ranchers not only use ATVs to quickly traverse their worksites—the vehicles can also carry material, tow implements, or be outfitted with attachments to water or fertilize crops. The greater number and growing uses of ATVs in agriculture presents many safety and health challenges.

According to the Western Center for Agricultural Health and Safety at UC Davis, there are approximately 11 million ATVs in the US, with 21 percent of those being used in agriculture. ATV crashes are cited as the second leading cause of injuries and deaths in the field. Researchers at the University of Iowa found, in a survey of ATV users conducted at the 2012 and 2013 Farm Progress Shows, that 33 percent of those surveyed had been in an ATV crash.

The center at UC Davis provides several reasons for the frequency of ATV incidents. The leading cause of fatal incidents is loss of control over the vehicle on uneven ground. Additionally, over one-third of fatalities occur while the ATV is fitted with a sprayer, which indicates that fluid shifting in the spray tank is likely contributing to ATV rollovers.

The University of Iowa survey highlighted additional factors contributing to ATV safety and health risks. Half of riders reported never wearing a helmet, and 80 percent reported riding with a passenger despite the vehicles not being designed for more than one person.

These and other studies emphasize that all forms of safety measures from the Hierarchy of Controls can be used to reduce ATV-related incidents. Particularly useful because it encourages employers and operators to address hazards at their source, rather than relying solely on worker behavior, the Hierarchy of Controls starts with considering how to eliminate hazards, followed by substituting their source for a safer alternative, then use of engineering controls, administrative controls, and, finally, personal protective equipment (PPE). In practice, an agricultural operation may need to combine several levels of control because ATV hazards can vary substantially with terrain, weather, workload, equipment configuration, and operator experience.

To start with, ATVs technically include three-wheeled models, but these should never be used in any workplace. Due to their greater risk of rollover, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and major ATV manufacturers signed a consent decree to end the sale of three-wheel ATVs in 1988, and the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) effectively banned their distribution.

Eliminating unnecessary ATV use can also be an effective control. Before assigning a task to an ATV, agricultural operations should consider whether the task can be completed without putting a worker on the vehicle. For example, materials may be moved with a tractor, loader, utility-terrain vehicle (UTV), or other equipment when those alternatives provide better stability or operator protection. Similarly, routes can sometimes be redesigned so that workers do not need to travel across steep slopes, loose soil, ditches, or other high-risk areas. Removing the need for an ATV to enter a hazardous location is generally more reliable than expecting the operator to compensate for the hazard.

Agricultural operations may also find it beneficial to substitute ATVs with UTVs. Though more expensive, UTVs offer both greater safety and efficiency. UTVs can transport more than one person, haul larger loads, and handle a wider variety of farming implements. Safety is improved by UTVs’ wider wheelbase, reducing rollovers, as well as their greater inclusion of seatbelts and roll cages.

Crush protection devices (CPDs), also known as operator protection devices (OPDs), provide an engineering solution that reduces the risk of injury or death resulting from an ATV rollover. Manufacturers often offer CPDs/OPDs, which are required to be installed on ATVs in some countries, like Australia. The Australian requirements can be used as a guide by those in agriculture elsewhere. Those mandate a Quadbar, ATV Lifeguard, or equivalent OPD provided by the manufacturer to be installed on ATVs.

Other engineering controls can further reduce exposure to ATV hazards. Maintaining tires at the pressure recommended by the manufacturer, keeping brakes and steering components in good working order, and ensuring that attachments are correctly mounted can help preserve vehicle stability and control—Keep a copy of the manufacturer’s operator’s manual for reference. Loads should be secured and kept within manufacturer-specified limits, with particular attention given to how high or how far from the center of gravity a load is positioned. Sprayer tanks and other liquid loads present an additional concern because liquid can shift as the ATV moves, potentially changing its center of gravity and increasing rollover risk. Where possible, equipment should be selected and configured to minimize these effects rather than relying on the operator to compensate for them.

Administrative controls provide another layer of protection. Agricultural employers should establish procedures for ATV use that address training, authorized operators, inspections, speed, passengers, terrain, weather, and the use of attachments. Operators should be trained on the specific ATV and equipment they will use, including how changes in load, towing, and attachments affect handling and braking. Training should include practical instruction in starting, stopping, turning, traversing slopes, and responding to changing terrain. Refresher training can also be appropriate when an operator has not used an ATV for an extended period or when new equipment or attachments are introduced.

Worksite planning can help prevent operators from encountering hazards unexpectedly. Routes should be evaluated for steep slopes, drop-offs, holes, rocks, mud, loose soil, water, fallen trees, and other obstacles. ATVs were not designed for, and should never be driven on, roadways. Whenever feasible, hazardous routes should be avoided rather than simply identified. Weather conditions should also be considered because rain, snow, ice, and wet or muddy ground can substantially alter traction and braking. A pre-use inspection can identify damaged tires, defective brakes, loose steering components, improperly secured loads, or other conditions that could contribute to a loss of control.

Finally, riders should always wear appropriate riding gear as PPE. These include a DOT-, Snell ANSI-approved helmet, goggles, gloves, over-the-ankle boots, long-sleeve shirt, and long pants. PPE should be viewed as the final layer of protection rather than a substitute for eliminating hazards, selecting safer equipment, or establishing safe operating procedures. A helmet, for example, may reduce the severity of a head injury during a crash, but it cannot prevent the rollover itself. Likewise, gloves and boots can provide protection from impact, abrasion, and environmental exposure but do not compensate for an unstable load or hazardous route.

 

Ultimately, effective ATV safety in agriculture requires a layered approach. Selecting the safest practical equipment, eliminating unnecessary ATV travel, controlling vehicle and load characteristics, establishing sound operating procedures, providing appropriate training, and using PPE can work together to reduce both the likelihood and severity of incidents.

 

Tags: Farming Safety, Agriculture Safety, ATV,

Resource Reviews

---

Related Resources