Policing operation targeting HGVs

norfolk.police.uk/news/late … eting-hgvs

256 TORs were issued in respect of the following offences:

  • 165 for not wearing a seatbelt
  • 55 for construction and use
  • 28 for using a mobile phone
  • 25 for an insecure load
  • 12 for not being in proper control of the vehicle
  • nine for driving without due care and attention for excess speed
  • five for excess speed
  • eight others for miscellaneous offences, including driver hours and driving through a red light.

What is the deal with seatbelts lol? I know it may not be comfortable to wear a seatbelt if your a chubby truck driver and you doing quite a lot of mileage but why risk getting fined for it?
I see this all the time. When I was on supermarkets nearly every truck had the belt already pressed in, implying that the previous driver was sitting on the belt.

Been seeing the white hgv unit about though out and about. 2 of them inside with a plod in the officer seat recording.

twitter.com/NSRAPT

They posted quite a few up on twitter.

This guy weren’t adhering to their load movement order and driver found to have neglected a previous rest period.
Driving a 120tn, 26meter long Vehicle.

That really 120t?

With regards to seat belts,no excuse,if your a large lump of lard and a belt won`t go around,do what they do on planes use an extender.

They are only targeting the drivers who allow themselves to prosecuted, Probably not 120 ton but well over normal weights.

Is this the machine?
vertikal.net/en/news/story/1572 … o-crawlers

If so this spec sheet gives the machine, including tracks and boom, without counterweights at about 70 or 80 tons?
kobelco-cranes.com/en/wp-con … 0_SPEC.pdf

Daresay someone will know for certain?

adam277:
https://twitter.com/NSRAPT

They posted quite a few up on twitter.

This guy weren’t adhering to their load movement order and driver found to have neglected a previous rest period.
Driving a 120tn, 26meter long Vehicle.

That really 120t?

could be, some of them rigs can tare at 40t, as franglais says it weighs 70 to 80 tons then there’s your 120t

Never understood some drivers willingness to voluntarily donate a day or two wages to the government.

Mate of mine even took it to the point of getting enough loyalty points that the DVLA gave him a 6 month holiday which turned into 2 years because employers thought he deserved to stay on holiday because he still had more than 6 points.

Conor:
Never understood some drivers willingness to voluntarily donate a day or two wages to the government.

Mate of mine even took it to the point of getting enough loyalty points that the DVLA gave him a 6 month holiday which turned into 2 years because employers thought he deserved to stay on holiday because he still had more than 6 points.

They’re what some guys I meet would call “proppa drivaz like” (gotta do that in a Geordie accent) :laughing:
I see jobs advertised on a local truckers FB group: hauliers offering 65 hours a week, drivers wanting to work 7 days a week. :unamused:

What is it with drivers not wearing a seat belt, I live on a busy main road and if I am in the mood for twitching my net curtains, I see 99% of the drivers not wearing a seat belt but sit there driving with a stupid hi viz which blatantly shows up the fact of not wearing it ?

I get it’s not of my business to worry or look at them, but I do feel like contacting their employer and saying how their driver gives their firm a poor and bad reputation.Nice hi viz by the way but so last year .

It’s up to them to be propelled through the windscreen and have their rib cage bones puncture the internal organs and by the time some amateur bystander first aider works out they are bleeding to death , it’s too late.
Or risk being disabled or unable to work for the rest of your life .
I know a lad who is disabled, as regular as clockwork at about 4 am daily he would go around a blind bend in the middle of the road, he never wore his belt and is now paralysed from the neck down due to saving that few seconds while tearing about in a bulk tipper .
He also had numerous damage to internal organs.
On this particular day , is luck ran out by meeting an oncoming hgv .

Franglais:
Is this the machine?
vertikal.net/en/news/story/1572 … o-crawlers

If so this spec sheet gives the machine, including tracks and boom, without counterweights at about 70 or 80 tons?
kobelco-cranes.com/en/wp-con … 0_SPEC.pdf

Daresay someone will know for certain?

Surely that is a matter for a court to decide regarding definitions for STGO.
It’s obviously an STGO outfit ? and if a dismantled crane for transport isn’t defined as STGO then what’s the point in that operator investing in that kit ?. :confused:

It says that they were not adhering to their movement order.

I read that as that it was moving under STGO rules and there is no question of that in the post, the movement order would have a route and timings on it. Presumably he was either where he shouldn’t have been or more likely moving when the order prohibited doing so.

8wheels:
It says that they were not adhering to their movement order.

I’d missed that bit in Adam’s post. :blush:
I just read the references to the weight which is obviously moot in this case.

I’m not up on STGO orders, but, if those jib sections on the rear of trailer are hanging off the back of trailer, shouldn’t they be a separate vehicle?
Something about detachable components being ok on STGO, provided they don’t increase overall dimensions?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Franglais:
I’m not up on STGO orders, but, if those jib sections on the rear of trailer are hanging off the back of trailer, shouldn’t they be a separate vehicle?
Something about detachable components being ok on STGO, provided they don’t increase overall dimensions?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Divisible load rules. You are correct that the over hanging parts should travel on a seperate vehicle as its a divisible load.
In reality, much like what we do in the cabin world, the police are not up to scratch on the rules and you can get away with it.

lad i know has a loose bundle of black strapping behind seat/ between the headrest and door pillar -really looks like hes got a belt on at all times

msgyorkie:

Franglais:
I’m not up on STGO orders, but, if those jib sections on the rear of trailer are hanging off the back of trailer, shouldn’t they be a separate vehicle?
Something about detachable components being ok on STGO, provided they don’t increase overall dimensions?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Divisible load rules. You are correct that the over hanging parts should travel on a seperate vehicle as its a divisible load.
In reality, much like what we do in the cabin world, the police are not up to scratch on the rules and you can get away with it.

But STGO allows some divisible loads doesn’t it?
Providing the “extra bits” don’t put vehicle into next weight class m, or increase dimensions?
STGO means you can have a machine plus a bucket (sometimes), but under C & U divisible loads, you can’t?
Note I’m asking, not saying!
.
So in above piccies, assuming weights are not changing STGO class, only if jib is overhanging trailer it is out of rules, otherwise it’s ok?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I think that it would be allowable as it is clearly one complete machine, you could theoretically dismantle the whole thing and transport it under c&u as a big jigsaw puzzle of parts but that’s not exepcted either.

My understanding is that as long as one item places the whole outfit into STGO extra pieces can also be carried at the same time so long as they are all travelling to the same destination

Franglais:
STGO means you can have a machine plus a bucket (sometimes), but under C & U divisible loads, you can’t?
Note I’m asking

Common sense says divisible ‘different’ loads.
They’ve dismantled part of the machine to make it transportable.
If that’s the problem then might as well defend it in court.
The penalty for infringeing STGO is probably steep enough to make it a no brainer choice to fight it if it’s only the load that they are haggling over not something else like route or time curfew etc.

Carryfast:
The penalty for infringeing STGO is probably steep enough to make it a no brainer choice to fight it if it’s only the load that they are haggling over not something else like route or time curfew etc.

older case but example of the fines for when your breach a STGO.

Untitled.png

Franglais:

msgyorkie:

Franglais:
I’m not up on STGO orders, but, if those jib sections on the rear of trailer are hanging off the back of trailer, shouldn’t they be a separate vehicle?
Something about detachable components being ok on STGO, provided they don’t increase overall dimensions?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Divisible load rules. You are correct that the over hanging parts should travel on a seperate vehicle as its a divisible load.
In reality, much like what we do in the cabin world, the police are not up to scratch on the rules and you can get away with it.

But STGO allows some divisible loads doesn’t it?
Providing the “extra bits” don’t put vehicle into next weight class m, or increase dimensions?
STGO means you can have a machine plus a bucket (sometimes), but under C & U divisible loads, you can’t?
Note I’m asking, not saying!
.
So in above piccies, assuming weights are not changing STGO class, only if jib is overhanging trailer it is out of rules, otherwise it’s ok?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

No. If your load is divisible and it goes beyond the limits of what is allowed as an overhang, then it must be transported on another vehicle.
The overhang rules are supposed to be for indivisible loads ie 1 x large object.
We have this argument with our management on a regular basis when they want us to collect a 21 foot container and a 10 container on a rigid with a 24 foot bed. This is classed as a divisible load (2 x containers) with a 6 foot overhang on the back. One day we will get caught when plod wise up.