welshphil:
I t hink it is Union Carbide in Ellesmere Port who won’t allow you on site if you have a beard. The security man will ■■■■■■ you to the first aid room and lend you a disposable razor so you can shave it off.
Is that what was Associated Octel, because they had the same rule on the plant.
welshphil:
I t hink it is Union Carbide in Ellesmere Port who won’t allow you on site if you have a beard. The security man will ■■■■■■ you to the first aid room and lend you a disposable razor so you can shave it off.
tell them you are a Muslim and it´s against your religion and then sue them for religious dicrimination
GBPub:
dieseldave:
The works security force can’t alter written law!!No, but they can refuse to load you. You never know what the next job is going to be, therefore surely anyone who is doing ADR should always have a full kit in the vehicle with everything that could be needed for an ADR job.
Hi GBPub,
Of course I agree that a customer can refuse to load you if your PPE doesn’t meet their site rules, I was just trying to differentiate between what the law actually says and Toby’s random thought that he could be asked for non-required PPE during a roadside check.
Of course, if a driver is doing ‘general’ ADR work, then a full kit of everything specified on the IIW would be a good idea so as not to get caught out. However, if a driver always drives a petrol tanker and carries petrol/diesel/kerosene he WON’T need to carry a respirator.
toby1234abc:
I would guess that when they lay out that plastic mat on the road side and there is kit missing,i thinnk that the mask would be included and if not,it is time to find an ATM to cough up some euro funds.
Just to be clear, the police/VOSA cannot ask for any other PPE or vehicle equipment than what is stated on a driver’s Instructions In Writing.
If a different piece of equipment is required for a particular site, then that’s when that site’s security personnel might take an interest. Of course, a site’s security personnel can ask to see the mandatory ADR-specified equipment as part of their employers responsibility as consignor under ADR.
Just to re-state (yet again for Toby) the police/VOSA (or foreign equivalents) enforce ADR, they DON’T enforce customer’s site rules, so they can only ask to see the relevant required equipment for the UN Class(es) ACTUALLY being carried.
DD you speak about ADR and yes we have the rules,but I can speak from experience
that any sane firm that does ADR work will have the complete kit, I drove all our tanks
weither they were normal chemicls ,heated chemicals or the cold gas products along with
any other job I was given,As for beards well what does the navy do,with there people ,
Classroom and real life are two completely different aspects of the job
dieseldave:
If a different piece of equipment is required for a particular site, then that’s when that site’s security personnel might take an interest. Of course, a site’s security personnel can ask to see the mandatory ADR-specified equipment as part of their employers responsibility as consignor under ADR.Just to re-state (yet again for Toby) the police/VOSA (or foreign equivalents) enforce ADR, they DON’T enforce customer’s site rules, so they can only ask to see the relevant required equipment for the UN Class(es) ACTUALLY being carried.
At the end of the day, if you turn up at a customer and they require you to wear a purple helmet and a gimp mask, they will have some to lend to a driver, but as mentioned, they cannot stop that driver leaving the site after loading because his ADR kit is correct with a yellow helmet and face shield.
Classroom and real life are two completely different aspects of the job
Yes Pete, we know it, and so does Dave, he has done his time on the road with ADR and Site Rules.
By pandering to these made up “site rules” we are making it worse for everyone, drivers going into a refinery on the south coast are required to wear, goggles, gloves, boots, helmet, long sleeves, hi viz, dipped headlights and hazards on, telephones removed, no food, no drinks, no cookers and no radio.
And that is just to drive onto the weighbridge, this is not for going onto the plant, just into a warehouse that load non hazardous pallets. It must be so dangerous on that site, they will not allow you to strap your load onsite, so you have to do it outside on a public road, naked if you like.
brit pete:
DD you speak about ADR and yes we have the rules,but I can speak from experience
that any sane firm that does ADR work will have the complete kit, I drove all our tanks
weither they were normal chemicls ,heated chemicals or the cold gas products along with
any other job I was given,As for beards well what does the navy do,with there people ,
Classroom and real life are two completely different aspects of the job
Pete,
You seem to have missed the point I’m trying to make, and it’s got bugger all to do with a classroom (or the Navy.)
I’ll repeat that if a driver is likely to be carrying ‘general’ ADR loads, then it makes sense to have a complete PPE and equipment as listed on the IIW. (Just for now, forget site rules.)
If a driver is stop-checked on the road, a respirator mask is required when carrying UN Classes 2.3 or 6.1, including when 6.1 is a secondary hazard. My reference for this is ADR 5.4.3 and 8.1.5.3
If you or Toby have a reference that says otherwise, then now’s the time. 
Now we can consider site rules and company policy.
Of course, one must obey site rules when one is on somebody’s site and this goes without saying.
The police CANNOT fine you in a roadside check if you don’t have items that are ONLY required by company policy.
IMHO you and Toby both fall at the hurdle of supplying an ADR reference for anything over and above ADR requirements, which is why I rather enjoy these discussions. 
Please check the red parts of the following quote from the official German version of ADR 2011 with any German police/BAG person of your choice.
8.1.5.1 Jede Beförderungseinheit mit gefährlichen Gütern muss gemäß Unterabschnitt 8.1.5.2 mit Ausrüstungsteilen
für den allgemeinen und persönlichen Schutz ausgestattet sein. Die Ausrüstungsteile sind nach der
Gefahrzettel-Nummer der geladenen Güter auszuwählen. Die Gefahrzettel-Nummern können anhand des
Beförderungspapiers bestimmt werden.8.1.5.3 Für bestimmte Klassen vorgeschriebene zusätzliche Ausrüstung:
— an Bord von Fahrzeugen für die Gefahrzettel-Nummer 2.3 oder 6.1 muss sich für jedes Mitglied der Fahrzeugbesatzung eine Notfallfluchtmaske befinden;
DD I am not argueing about what the ADR rules state I am just putting it to the site
That as and when we loaded out of various sites ,they would read the paperwork and check
your kit and we all ways had a complete kit and if we was missing a item even if it was not on
the paperwork ,Their list is what they went by and so you did not get loaded and your firm
also done ,This is nothing to do with the way checks are carried out on the street this is by the factorys concerned,who loaded you,Also you had which happened to me one factory said no mask required
for the load and where I unloaded you was not unloaded if you had no mask,THIS is what I have been trying to explain to you,Another way not to do with the PPE kit but with the way the tank or container was built
we had two or three customers who refused to unload or load Containers which had NO SAFTEY RAILS, If the
customer wants it then they get it asa they pay the bill,and this still occurs be it the PPE kit or the method of
transport,Plus any one doing NON-DEDECATED ADR work will carry all items required for all loads if they have a
good employer as it saves money buying it on the DKV OR CREDIT CARD when out on the road due to
the higher costs involved That is how it is in Germany what they do else where I have no idea
Those are all fair points Pete, but Toby wrote this in his OP:
toby1234abc:
Having a beard could impere the use of a mask,while hauling certain ADR goods,you are required to have one,but there is a rumour you need a mask all the time,regardless of the load,as you may be sent to load where a mask is required.Didnt some driver get nicked in Germany for that scenario.
So, at that point Toby thinks it’s a rumour, but then he wrote this:
toby1234abc:
I would guess that when they lay out that plastic mat on the road side and there is kit missing,i thinnk that the mask would be included and if not,it is time to find an ATM to cough up some euro funds.
This is completely untrue, because Toby has no basis for that thought in a roadside check.
So if some police officer thinks Toby needs a mask when ADR says he doesn’t, then Toby seems to be saying that he’ll meekly pay a fine for a non-existent offence.
As you know, I’m a DGSA.
I recently dealt with a similar kind of problem.
My customers do what they’re supposed to do and actually have a formal arrangement with me for advice.
One of my customers phoned me to tell me that one of his drivers had been stop-checked by VOSA and issued with a Prohibition Notice (PN) for “missing” ADR equipment.
As you can understand, the boss was very irate at getting a PN after the company had paid me for advice.
I know that this company only carries 15t consignments of bagged fertiliser in UN Class 5.1 and so I advised them about IIW and PPE equipment accordingly.
I asked what ADR kit was allegedly missing to have caused the issue of a PN and a significant delay to the driver and vehicle.
The boss read the PN to me, from which he said that the deficiencies were: A shovel, a drain seal and a collecting container.
If you were me in that situation, what would you have done?
Your two choices are:
OR
2) Ask for the VOSA officer’s phone number (written on the PN) then phone the VOSA officer to suggest that the PN is incorrect and then explain the reason why.
Now, just like a question of sport on TV, we stop the action and ask… what happened next? 
dieseldave:
Those are all fair points Pete, but Toby wrote this in his OP:toby1234abc:
Having a beard could impere the use of a mask,while hauling certain ADR goods,you are required to have one,but there is a rumour you need a mask all the time,regardless of the load,as you may be sent to load where a mask is required.Didnt some driver get nicked in Germany for that scenario.So, at that point Toby thinks it’s a rumour, but then he wrote this:
toby1234abc:
I would guess that when they lay out that plastic mat on the road side and there is kit missing,i thinnk that the mask would be included and if not,it is time to find an ATM to cough up some euro funds.This is completely untrue, because Toby has no basis for that thought in a roadside check.
So if some police officer thinks Toby needs a mask when ADR says he doesn’t, then Toby seems to be saying that he’ll meekly pay a fine for a non-existent offence.
As you know, I’m a DGSA.
I recently dealt with a similar kind of problem.My customers do what they’re supposed to do and actually have a formal arrangement with me for advice.
One of my customers phoned me to tell me that one of his drivers had been stop-checked by VOSA and issued with a Prohibition Notice (PN) for “missing” ADR equipment.
As you can understand, the boss was very irate at getting a PN after the company had paid me for advice.I know that this company only carries 15t consignments of bagged fertiliser in UN Class 5.1 and so I advised them about IIW and PPE equipment accordingly.
I asked what ADR kit was allegedly missing to have caused the issue of a PN and a significant delay to the driver and vehicle.
The boss read the PN to me, from which he said that the deficiencies were: A shovel, a drain seal and a collecting container.If you were me in that situation, what would you have done?
Your two choices are:
- Accept the PN, apologise to the boss and tell him to buy the equipment and get it taken to the truck in order to have the PN lifted, plus maybe tell him to pay a fine. (This would be more or less admitting that my advice was wrong in the first place.)
OR
2) Ask for the VOSA officer’s phone number (written on the PN) then phone the VOSA officer to suggest that the PN is incorrect and then explain the reason why.
I love Sue Barker 
Wheel Nut:
I love Sue Barker
Malc, I’m very confident that you already know the answer to this.
dieseldave:
Wheel Nut:
I love Sue BarkerMalc, I’m very confident that you already know the answer to this.
I recon Sue Barker would have called the number on the PN, spoken in confident terms about their error while quoting chapter & verse of the correct legislation to them completely convincing him of your knowledge & wisdome, upon which the VOSA chap would discharge the company named on the PN.
Close?
Ross.
Imagine Fritz Pete and Toby plotting on the phone frantically reading German comics for the answer!
The need to go faster Toby 
bigr250:
dieseldave:
Wheel Nut:
I love Sue BarkerMalc, I’m very confident that you already know the answer to this.
I recon Sue Barker would have called the number on the PN, spoken in confident terms about their error while quoting chapter & verse of the correct legislation to them completely convincing him of your knowledge & wisdome, upon which the VOSA chap would discharge the company named on the PN.
Close?
Ross.
Hi Ross,
You’re spot-on mate, cos that’s exactly what happened. 
dieseldave:
bigr250:
dieseldave:
Wheel Nut:
I love Sue BarkerMalc, I’m very confident that you already know the answer to this.
I recon Sue Barker would have called the number on the PN, spoken in confident terms about their error while quoting chapter & verse of the correct legislation to them completely convincing him of your knowledge & wisdome, upon which the VOSA chap would discharge the company named on the PN.
Close?
Ross.
Hi Ross,
You’re spot-on mate, cos that’s exactly what happened.
Footnote 4 in 8.1.5.3 at a guess?
Wheel Nut:
Footnote 4 in 8.1.5.3 at a guess?
That’s correct Malc, and there’s also the same at page #4 of the driver’s IIW at 5.4.3