What this looks like when it works
Vehicle–pedestrian proximity alerts in blind spots.
Headcount accountability at muster.
Evacuation accountability vs manual roll-call.
Composite worked example — figures are ranges from comparable programmes, not attributed named-client results. Named references available under NDA. We model your own numbers when you engage.
The challenge
Blind spots around heavy machinery are a fatality risk. Manual mustering is slow and uncertain when minutes matter.
Our approach
- UWB / proximity tags for vehicle–pedestrian detection zones.
- In-cab alerts and zone speed enforcement.
- Real-time mustering points with headcount verification.
- Lone-worker and duress for isolated areas.
- Integrate with safety and fleet systems.
Technology & integration
Stack deployed: UWB / proximity RTLS, ruggedised wearables, in-cab units; LoRaWAN for wide-area.
Integration: Safety / EHS systems, fleet management, access control.
Related: Mining RTLS · Mining safety & mustering · UWB vs BLE
Baseline, method, period — and what we excluded.
These pages are composite worked examples, not named-client scorecards. Figures are ranges from comparable RTLS/RFID programmes and published industry sources where noted.
- Baseline: Radio call-outs and line-of-sight between haul trucks and people; near-misses captured inconsistently.
- Method: UWB/proximity on people and vehicles with escalating zones; incidents logged against shift and vehicle ID.
- Period: Underground/open-pit pilot on one production level, then fleet expansion.
- Excluded: Lab accuracy specs without a live near-miss review ritual.
Programme pattern for this vertical
Surface and underground mines typically phase collision avoidance: instrument a high-risk fleet slice and one production level, prove escalating proximity zones and in-cab alerts, then expand. UWB or dedicated proximity radios dominate where GNSS fails; LoRaWAN often carries wide-area telemetry and SOS.
Integration targets are EHS incident systems, fleet dispatch and access control — not a standalone safety app. Mustering is usually co-designed so the same wearable identity supports evacuation headcount.
Outcomes to expect — and how they are earned
Comparable programmes aim for fewer vehicle–pedestrian near-misses in instrumented zones, faster verified muster, and a review ritual that ties alerts to coaching — not mute fatigue. Figures vary with fleet mix and culture; we model yours from baseline near-miss and roll-call data.
Success looks like supervisors trusting the alert ladder and workers trusting that privacy is limited to safety purposes.
Lessons from comparable programmes
Failure modes: alerting without zone calibration in metal-dense headings; no ownership of false-positive review; treating lab ranging specs as underground truth; skipping union/workforce consultation on wearables.
Keep productivity tracking out of the safety business case. It poisons adoption.
Deeper problem framing
Haul-truck and light-vehicle interactions in pits, plus pedestrian exposure at crushers and workshops, create fatality risk that radio call-outs cannot manage at shift scale. Near-miss reporting is inconsistent; culture may punish reporting. Underground headings add multipath and infrastructure limits that invalidate open-pit GNSS assumptions.
Procurement pressure often pushes 'collision avoidance' as a single SKU. In practice you are buying a system of wearables, vehicle units, alerting logic, training and EHS review rituals.
Approach that survives underground and surface reality
Phase instrumentation on the worst fleet segment; calibrate escalating zones with operators aboard; integrate alerts into in-cab workflow without mute culture; co-design muster identity on the same wearable where possible.
Run RF surveys in representative headings, not only workshops. Define false-positive review owners before go-live. Align with existing isolation and traffic management rules so digital alerts do not contradict site law.
Outcome bands and measurement discipline
Comparable programmes seek fewer serious near-misses in instrumented zones, faster verified headcount in drills, and a coaching loop tied to alert data. Exact percentages vary; measure your own baseline for 4–8 weeks first.
Exclude lab ranging sheets and any period without a live review ritual from claimed success.
Governance, risk and what we refuse to claim
These pages remain composite worked examples — not named-client results. We will not attribute percentages to a confidential site. When you engage, we rebuild baselines from your incidents, labour samples and system logs.
We refuse vanity accuracy claims without a coverage map, and we refuse programmes that silently add productivity surveillance onto a safety business case without a fresh DPIA or labour consultation.
Implementation sequence and change management
Week 0–2: baseline near-miss and roll-call timing; traffic rules review; union/workforce briefing on safety-only purpose. Week 3–6: instrument pilot fleet and one level; calibrate zones with operators; mute-prevention training. Week 7–12: expand fleet; connect EHS logging; first scored drill.
Budget for spare wearables, charger discipline and a named false-positive owner. If supervisors treat every alert as noise, redesign zones before buying more tags. Technology last — traffic management and training first.
Competitive note: several proximity vendors will claim plug-and-play. Ask for underground references, spoofing/security posture, and integration to your incident system — not only ranging charts.
Programme pattern for this vertical
Surface and underground mines typically phase collision avoidance: instrument a high-risk fleet slice and one production level, prove escalating proximity zones and in-cab alerts, then expand. UWB or dedicated proximity radios dominate where GNSS fails; LoRaWAN often carries wide-area telemetry and SOS.
Integration targets are EHS incident systems, fleet dispatch and access control — not a standalone safety app. Mustering is usually co-designed so the same wearable identity supports evacuation headcount.
Outcomes to expect — and how they are earned
Comparable programmes aim for fewer vehicle–pedestrian near-misses in instrumented zones, faster verified muster, and a review ritual that ties alerts to coaching — not mute fatigue. Figures vary with fleet mix and culture; we model yours from baseline near-miss and roll-call data.
Success looks like supervisors trusting the alert ladder and workers trusting that privacy is limited to safety purposes.
Lessons from comparable programmes
Failure modes: alerting without zone calibration in metal-dense headings; no ownership of false-positive review; treating lab ranging specs as underground truth; skipping union/workforce consultation on wearables.
Keep productivity tracking out of the safety business case. It poisons adoption.
Deeper problem framing
Haul-truck and light-vehicle interactions in pits, plus pedestrian exposure at crushers and workshops, create fatality risk that radio call-outs cannot manage at shift scale. Near-miss reporting is inconsistent; culture may punish reporting. Underground headings add multipath and infrastructure limits that invalidate open-pit GNSS assumptions.
Procurement pressure often pushes 'collision avoidance' as a single SKU. In practice you are buying a system of wearables, vehicle units, alerting logic, training and EHS review rituals.
Approach that survives underground and surface reality
Phase instrumentation on the worst fleet segment; calibrate escalating zones with operators aboard; integrate alerts into in-cab workflow without mute culture; co-design muster identity on the same wearable where possible.
Run RF surveys in representative headings, not only workshops. Define false-positive review owners before go-live. Align with existing isolation and traffic management rules so digital alerts do not contradict site law.
Outcome bands and measurement discipline
Comparable programmes seek fewer serious near-misses in instrumented zones, faster verified headcount in drills, and a coaching loop tied to alert data. Exact percentages vary; measure your own baseline for 4–8 weeks first.
Exclude lab ranging sheets and any period without a live review ritual from claimed success.
Governance, risk and what we refuse to claim
These pages remain composite worked examples — not named-client results. We will not attribute percentages to a confidential site. When you engage, we rebuild baselines from your incidents, labour samples and system logs.
We refuse vanity accuracy claims without a coverage map, and we refuse programmes that silently add productivity surveillance onto a safety business case without a fresh DPIA or labour consultation.
Implementation sequence and change management
Week 0–2: baseline near-miss and roll-call timing; traffic rules review; union/workforce briefing on safety-only purpose. Week 3–6: instrument pilot fleet and one level; calibrate zones with operators; mute-prevention training. Week 7–12: expand fleet; connect EHS logging; first scored drill.
Budget for spare wearables, charger discipline and a named false-positive owner. If supervisors treat every alert as noise, redesign zones before buying more tags. Technology last — traffic management and training first.
Competitive note: several proximity vendors will claim plug-and-play. Ask for underground references, spoofing/security posture, and integration to your incident system — not only ranging charts.
Last updated:
People and machines apart
Independent advisory means the radio is chosen last — after the job, the constraints and the system of record are clear.
Safety and utilisation as separate jobs
Mustering, collision and asset utilisation get different success tests.
Environment-first shortlists
ATEX, dust and network reality eliminate pretty demos early.
Operate with site systems
Events into the platforms supervisors already run on shift.
Measurement
Baseline: proximity/collision events (where logged), muster times, and “person not found” incidents. Pilot: one decline/panel with RTLS mustering and vehicle proximity. Steady-state: muster completion time, proximity alert quality, and open safety actions. Safety figures stay within what site leadership will publish.