Example of a secure load...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homestar

Yes, secured properly which is all too uncommon these days - that’s what we expect from all loads that leave our yard - more than 300 per day in and out and all are checked by a second person to ensure they meet our policy heading out. 1st breach is a months holiday from our yard and 2nd is permanent ban from our yard.

---

Once upon a time, I would have argued that policy. You know " I am the licenced driver, what would you know" argument. Often that is the case, but what I learned is that it's a good policy, as long as it doesn't become some sort of ****ing contest. Having someone else point out a mistake is actually a good thing, if it is done in the correct spirit. Everyone misses stuff, and nobody is perfect. We all know of examples where it gets taken too far, but that is the time to take a deep breath and deal with it.

Of course, we don't know the circumstances of the 'accident' I posted. I really meant it when I said the load was secured. This is a perfect example of why the Load Restraint Guide exists. Imagine if that machine had broken free.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DoubleChevron

thats actually really impressive.. Do they tie down to the trailer like shipping container do (with mechanical pins). I would have thought a lot of tie-downs would break under that sort of strain!

seeya,
Shane L.

---

Done a bit with containers. TwistLocks won't hold a container in every situation, even though that is their design purpose. If a driver fails to undo his TwistLocks at the wharf, for example, and a straddle arrives to pick up the box from his trailer, the TwistLocks will break before the trailer lifts off the ground. They are not infallible.

In the pic I posted, the chain and dog fasteners are definitely designed to secure the load in precisely these circumstances. Ideally, those restraints should be inspected on a regular basis. The restraints used in the example here should now be discarded. They did their job, but they can't be relied on again. Who knows how close they came to failure?

Load restraint is physics. Most people, me included in the past, believe it to be guesswork. The example posted was, as my thread title suggested, a fine demonstration. I posted in jest, after a fashion, but it is true nevertheless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fatso

Probably his driving !!!! going by the curve behind him .

---

One thing I have learned over the years: it takes professionally trained people weeks to work out just what happened. In some cases they don't ever work it out. It is far too easy to chuck blame around a la ACA ( Please, Mr Citroen, I'm not singling you out here) without knowledge of the facts. I feel for the poor bloke driving the truck, as EVERYONE will be blaming him. I rolled one once. All I could think of when it happened was "is there anyone beside me?". All anyone else thinks is "what a dickhead he is". Sure, it may be entirely his fault. But it may not. I will say this: when something of the mass he had to deal gets away, it's gone, and there is nothing you can do but hang on and wait for it to stop.

Exactly. And the rollover starts at the rear of the trailer . By the time the driver realises it too late

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theelms66

Exactly. And the rollover starts at the rear of the trailer . By the time the driver realises it too late

---

Precisely and until it's too late, everything feels normal in the driver's seat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johntins

One thing I have learned over the years: it takes professionally trained people weeks to work out just what happened. In some cases they don't ever work it out. It is far too easy to chuck blame around a la ACA ( Please, Mr Citroen, I'm not singling you out here) without knowledge of the facts. I feel for the poor bloke driving the truck, as EVERYONE will be blaming him. I rolled one once. All I could think of when it happened was "is there anyone beside me?". All anyone else thinks is "what a dickhead he is". Sure, it may be entirely his fault. But it may not. I will say this: when something of the mass he had to deal gets away, it's gone, and there is nothing you can do but hang on and wait for it to stop.

---

er... I mentioned nothing about fault or reason for crash ... I just said the tie-downs were impressive! Is there someone else here that owns Citroens ?

seeya,
Shane L.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DoubleChevron

er... I mentioned nothing about fault or reason for crash ... I just said the tie-downs were impressive! Is there someone else here that owns Citroens ?

seeya,
Shane L.

---

Precisely why I said I wasn't singling you out, Shane. I did, however, misread. It was Fatso, not you, that commented on his driving. Apologies for the confusion. I seem to be doing a lot of that these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johntins

Precisely why I said I wasn't singling you out, Shane. I did, however, misread. It was Fatso, not you, that commented on his driving. Apologies for the confusion. I seem to be doing a lot of that these days.

---

You may need to look up the meaning of the word probably .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fatso

You may need to look up the meaning of the word probably .

---

Not at all. I wasn't even attempting to criticise you, or Shane. I was merely agreeing with Homestar. "Probably" or not, neither you or I know the circumstances of the rollover. Best not to comment on blame in that situation, don't you think?

I'm picking that as a pipe-layer (with the booms removed). That piece on the RHS of the crawler, with the yellow/black stripes, would be the counter weight. Extremely heavy on one side. Those machines are very, very "tippy" without the booms on. Whatever caused the rollover, that would have contributed a lot to it. Once something like that starts going over, you're just along for the ride!