WA Mines Must Now Consider Collision Avoidance: How to Meet the New Traffic Code with Flagman AI Detection
WA’s 2026 mine traffic code says operators must consider collision avoidance technology and record why if they do not use it. What it means for your hazard plan, and where AI detection fits.
In brief
- Western Australia’s Code of Practice for road and traffic management at mines, released on 4 August 2026, says mine operators must consider collision avoidance technology as a control, and should document their reasons if they decide not to use it.
- Mining has one of the highest fatality rates in Australia: 3.4 deaths per 100,000 workers in 2024, against 1.3 across all industries.
- New South Wales and Queensland take a similar direction through principal hazard management plans and regulator guidance, but all three states insist that road design and segregation come before technology.
- Camera-based AI detection is a strong fit for areas where people and vehicles must mix, such as workshops and laydown yards. It complements, rather than replaces, purpose-built collision avoidance on haul trucks.
Mining recorded 3.4 worker deaths per 100,000 workers in 2024, against 1.3 across all industries.
Safe Work Australia, Key Work Health and Safety Statistics Australia 2025
For years, collision avoidance technology on Australian mine sites has been treated as something leading operators chose to invest in. Western Australia has now changed the conversation. Under its new traffic management code, considering collision avoidance is no longer optional, and choosing not to adopt it is a decision that needs to be justified on paper.
This article explains what the code says, how it compares with requirements in New South Wales and Queensland, and how operators can build a defensible, practical approach to vehicle interaction risk.
Why vehicle interaction remains mining’s most persistent risk
Safe Work Australia recorded 10 mining worker deaths in 2024, a rate of 3.4 per 100,000 workers. That is well above the all-industry rate of 1.3 and 39% higher than the industry’s own five-year average. Across all Australian industries, at least one vehicle was involved in 66% of worker deaths that year.
On a mine site, the danger comes from the mix. Haul trucks with large blind spots share roads and intersections with light vehicles. Loaders, water carts and graders move between them. People on foot work in workshops, wash bays, laydown areas and around parked equipment. Add dust, night shifts, rain and fatigue, and even a well-run site carries a constant background risk of a high-consequence collision.
What the WA code says
The Code of Practice is approved under section 274 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2020 (WA). In section 2.4.1 it states that mine operators must consider collision avoidance technology as a control, and should record the reasons if they do not implement it. The code also lists proximity detection and cameras among the measures available to manage vehicle interaction.
The code works alongside the Work Health and Safety (Mines) Regulations 2022. Those regulations require a principal mining hazard management plan for each principal mining hazard, and roads and other areas where mobile plant operates are one of the listed hazards. In practice, the decision about collision avoidance technology now belongs inside that plan, with evidence behind it.
How New South Wales and Queensland compare
| State | Key requirement | What it means for technology |
|---|---|---|
| Western Australia | 2026 traffic code: operators must consider collision avoidance technology | A documented decision is expected, with reasons if technology is not adopted |
| New South Wales | Principal hazard management plan for roads and vehicle operating areas, supported by the Resources Regulator’s nine-layer defence model | Operator alerts sit at Layer 8 and automatic intervention at Layer 9, only after design, segregation and operating controls are in place |
| Queensland | Guidance Note 27 on collision prevention | Cameras, radar and tags are useful but “should not be treated as the silver bullet”; operators must be trained on system limitations and failure modes |
The common thread is clear. Every regulator wants technology to sit on top of good road design and segregation, not in place of it. Every regulator also expects operators to understand how their chosen technology can fail.
Lessons from critical infrastructure
The principle of layering controls is not unique to mining. Dainu Devis, CEO of Sharktech Global, spent more than seven years across the NBN rollout and Telstra critical infrastructure, most recently as Area Manager for Telstra critical infrastructure facilities in New South Wales, through Ventia on the Telstra InfraCo contract (2021 to 2025). Across more than 2,200 sites, that portfolio recorded zero health, safety and environment incidents. The approach was consistent: plan the work so people and hazards are separated, verify controls in the field, and use early warning to catch drift before it becomes an incident. It is the same approach behind Sharktech’s work in bringing Flagman.ai to Australia. Read more about Dainu’s background.
What “consider” should look like in your hazard plan
- Start with design. Separate heavy and light vehicle routes, set clear right-of-way rules, control intersections and keep people on foot out of haul roads. These controls sit at the top of every regulator’s model.
- Map where interaction still happens. Workshops, fuel bays, wash bays, go-lines, laydown yards and light vehicle parking near heavy plant are typical hot spots.
- Assess the technology options against your conditions. Compare proximity detection, camera-based AI detection and full collision avoidance systems against your fleet mix, road layout, dust levels, lighting and maintenance capability.
- Record the decision. If you adopt a system, document where it applies and why. If you do not, record the reasons, as the code expects.
- Plan for failure. Every sensor can miss in dust, glare or rain. Decide what happens when a system is faulty, who is told, and how quickly it is fixed. Build inspection into the maintenance schedule.
- Train and consult. Operators and pedestrians need to understand what the system can and cannot see. Consultation with workers is also a legal requirement before significant change.
The solution: how Flagman supports your vehicle interaction plan
Camera-based AI, such as Flagman, detects people and vehicles within a camera’s field of view and processes the video on a rugged edge device on site, so it does not depend on a cloud connection. It can trigger audible and visual alerts at the point of risk and send events to a dashboard for review. Where a machine’s controls allow, it can also send a slow or stop signal through a relay or programmable logic controller.
Its strongest fit on a mine site is in the areas where people and vehicles must share space and where fixed infrastructure makes cameras practical: workshops, wash bays, laydown yards, go-lines and light vehicle parking near heavy plant. In these areas, it can provide continuous monitoring that supervisors cannot, and it produces near-miss data that feeds directly into the hazard plan review.
It is important to be precise about its limits. For haul trucks, purpose-built collision avoidance systems integrated with the truck’s controls remain the standard. Equipment used in hazardous zones, such as underground coal mines, also requires explosion-protected certification. Camera-based AI is one layer in the defence model, and it should be positioned that way in your plan.
The outcome you can measure
For a WA operator, the practical outcome is a defensible, documented position under the new code. Flagman gives the hazard management plan a technology control in the areas where people and vehicles must mix, alerts at the point of risk, and an event record showing where interactions occur. That record supports the plan’s review cycle, helps demonstrate that collision avoidance technology was genuinely considered and applied where suitable, and gives site leaders data to target road design and segregation improvements.
Key takeaways
The WA code raises the bar for every mine operator in the state: collision avoidance technology now has to be considered, and a decision not to use it must be defensible. Operators in New South Wales and Queensland face similar expectations through their hazard management frameworks. The operators who will be best placed are those who get the fundamentals of road design and segregation right, then use technology deliberately where the residual risk is highest, with evidence to show it is working.
Next step
If you are reviewing your vehicle interaction controls under the new code, start with an assessment of where people and vehicles still mix on your site. Sharktech Global is the Australian delivery partner for Flagman. Learn about Flagman in Australia or request a safety assessment.
Sources: WorkSafe WA, Code of Practice: Road and traffic management at WA mines (2026); WorkSafe WA, principal mining hazard management plans; NSW Resources Regulator, technical reference guide for roads and other vehicle operating areas; Queensland Guidance Note 27, Collision prevention; Safe Work Australia, Key Work Health and Safety Statistics Australia 2025. This article is general information, not legal or safety advice for your site.
