Collision prevention that intervenes — not just beeps.

MHSA regulation 8.10 requires mines to prevent collisions between trackless mobile machinery and between TMM and pedestrians — and for underground diesel TMM, the machine must detect, warn and automatically intervene (slow and brake) to the EMESRT Level 9 standard. addanode delivers proximity detection that meets that bar, proven for real underground and surface conditions, with the event logging your compliance record needs.

Talk to our Mining Team Read the compliance guide →

What we deliver

Detect → warn → intervene, with the evidence.

Detection

Proximity detection sized to your fleet and environment — surface haul roads and underground workings where dust, curves and reflective metal break naive systems.

Warning & intervention

Operator and pedestrian warnings, and EMESRT Level 9 machine intervention that retards and brakes the TMM when no one acts — integrated with the vehicle's controls.

Compliance evidence

Every detection and intervention event logged and reportable, so you can demonstrate due diligence and find your real interaction hotspots.

How we scope it

Specified to the law, proven for your site.

Risk-assess the interactions — map every place TMM and people meet, surface and underground, and rank by collision risk.
Specify to EMESRT Level 9 — detect–warn–intervene, so you measure vendors against the regulation, not the cheapest warning-only box.
Choose detection proven for your conditions — with evidence from comparable workings, not a clean-demo render.
Integrate the intervention layer — the engineering of connecting the system to the machine's controls, planned properly.
Log, report and maintain — on the addaNet platform, alongside person location and occupational hygiene for one safety picture.

The bar in one line: if a system stops at warnings (lights and alarms), it does not meet the EMESRT Level 9 intervention requirement for underground TMM. Insist on the machine-intervention layer.

Regulatory references are for orientation; confirm current requirements against the latest Mine Health and Safety Regulations and your appointed advisers.

The escalation, and why the third step is not simply a stronger version of the second. Detection and warning both end with a person having to react in time; intervention is the only step that still works when nobody does — which is why, for underground trackless machinery, stopping at warnings does not meet the bar.

Where collision-prevention projects lose their value — and the fix.

Once a system meets the intervention standard, the risk shifts from specification to deployment. These are the patterns that turn a compliant installation into one the operators work around.

What goes wrong	How you notice	The fix
Detection tuned in a workshop	Nuisance alarms on curves, berms and near reflective steel	Commission in the real environment. Dust, grade and reflective surfaces change the behaviour that looked clean on a test pad
Interventions quietly overridden	The event log is full of warnings and short of interventions	Audit the intervention rate, not just the event count. A system that is always overridden has been switched off in practice
Pedestrian tags worn inconsistently	Recorded interactions fall while near-misses do not	Make tag issue part of the lamp-room routine so non-wear is visible before the shift, not after an incident
Braking calibration never re-checked	Intervention distance drifts with load, grade and brake wear	Re-verify after brake work and with representative loads — the stopping distance in the commissioning report is one machine on one day
Mixed fleet, mixed systems	Machines from different suppliers do not detect each other	Make cross-fleet interoperability a specification item and test it before rollout, not during
Events logged but never reviewed	Compliance evidence accumulates while incident rates hold steady	Put a short weekly event review on a named person’s agenda; the log is only useful once somebody reads it
No interaction baseline	Layout changes get argued rather than targeted	Use the first month of events to find the three places worth re-engineering. Most of the long-term gain is in layout, not in stopping machines

The two worth watching hardest are nuisance alarms and the unread log, and they are connected. A system tuned somewhere other than the site produces alarms operators learn to dismiss; once dismissal is habitual, the intervention data stops describing the mine and starts describing the workaround. Tuning on site and reviewing the log weekly are cheap, and together they are what keeps the system trusted.

What to insist on when you specify it.

Once the intervention standard is settled, the differences between systems are in how they behave on your ramps and in your dust. Specify the behaviour, not the brochure.

Detection performance stated for your conditions — dust loading, grade, curve radii and reflective surfaces — a figure obtained on a clean test pad does not transfer to a haul road
Intervention distance verified with representative loads — fully loaded, on your steepest grade, after brake maintenance; the commissioning figure is one machine on one day
Interoperability across the whole fleet — if two suppliers are on site, cross-detection is a specification item and must be demonstrated before rollout, not discovered during it
Override policy, logged — overrides will happen; what matters is that each one is recorded, attributed and reviewable
Event log export in a format you own — you will want to analyse interaction hotspots yourself, and a report you cannot export is a report you cannot act on
OEM acceptance of the retrofit — confirm in writing that the interface to the machine’s controls is approved by whoever supports that machine

Frequently asked

Collision-prevention questions.

For the full regulatory background, see our MHSA 8.10.1 compliance guide.

Yes — that's the design target. The system detects a person or vehicle, warns both operator and pedestrian, and if no action is taken it intervenes on the machine to slow and brake it. A warning-only system does not meet the underground TMM requirement.

Underground dust, water, curves, dips and reflective metal confuse detection that works on a clean haul road. We select technology with proven performance in conditions comparable to your workings and trial it in a section before fleet-wide rollout.

Yes. Running collision prevention on the same platform and backbone as person location and occupational hygiene gives one safety picture, one control room and one set of compliance records.

Working toward 8.10.1 compliance?

Tell us your fleet and whether you're surface, underground or both. We'll help you specify a system to the EMESRT Level 9 standard — proven for your conditions and built to produce the compliance evidence you need.

Book a Discovery Call Back to Mining →