He seems to shift the field to suite his game!
Nothing wrong with triangulating chains on the rear and using a winch over short distances. You don’t need a vertical pull on machinery weighing 20-50 tons. Gravity does that. You need security on the horizontal plane.
And yes, I’ve hauled many dead machines. Usually I’ve used a live one to push/pull 'em on and arrange them as I wished. Hauling for a scrapper out of plant auctions is always entertaining!
Speaking of which, the dodgiest loads were dead RB’s carried cross-carriage. No amount of ‘vertical pull’ would hold them on. That’s when triangulation of securing chains on either side of the running gear, in line with the trailer, and blocking and securing counter-balance weights was a science.
Low loaders without winches are not suitable for such loads.
Tone
Hiya …its illeagal to use dogs with a chain now, you have to use them screw type tensioners.Theres been a
big discution about the ferterlizer lads.VOSA said the bags should be straped, but the webbing cuts into the
inner bag ripping them and allowing the product to get wet, this then goes lumpy while it waits to be
spread.then the spreader gets blocked up.
John
canaldrifter:
He seems to shift the field to suite his game!
Nothing wrong with triangulating chains on the rear and using a winch over short distances. You don’t need a vertical pull on machinery weighing 20-50 tons. Gravity does that. You need security on the horizontal plane.
Tone
I was’nt shifting any fields to suit any game I was just telling it like it was in my case.But they seem to secure tanks in the way I can understand (fore/aft/lateral/vertical?) but having said that it’s obvious that the amount of vertical pull needed varies with the centre of gravity of the machine so a tank would be more likely to move horizontally while a heavy,but higher type of machine,would also be inclined to want to tip by lifting one side or the other? but it can fall off just as easily on a short journey as a long one 
) but 20 + tonners were way above my league as I was never lucky enough to progress in getting more plant haulage experience after leaving the council.
youtube.com/watch?v=W7Q6MuTh … eature=fwp
.38 and 1.00
Can someone please tell me when it became illegal to rope and sheet who was it who suddenly thought thats not right at what time did this vegitable wake up and go from today this practice will have to stop .I have been a driver for many years and when i started everything went on flats my Dad taught me and i have hopefully taught others the same (correctly i hope).Who was the first driver to be given a fixed penalty by some spotty git who may not have been able to tie his shoelaces on his own and who gave him the power to issue it .
phil the book:
Can someone please tell me when it became illegal to rope and sheet who was it who suddenly thought thats not right at what time did this vegitable wake up and go from today this practice will have to stop .I have been a driver for many years and when i started everything went on flats my Dad taught me and i have hopefully taught others the same (correctly i hope).Who was the first driver to be given a fixed penalty by some spotty git who may not have been able to tie his shoelaces on his own and who gave him the power to issue it .
Follow the thread through and it would seem that it isn’t illegal at all, to use ropes and sheets or toggles with chains. It seems to be just police opinion and interpretation, and what they know about carrying loads could be roped and sheeted to the back of a postage stamp.
The terms’ harassment’ and ‘easy nicks’ come to mind.
Tone
canaldrifter:
phil the book:
Can someone please tell me when it became illegal to rope and sheet who was it who suddenly thought thats not right at what time did this vegitable wake up and go from today this practice will have to stop .I have been a driver for many years and when i started everything went on flats my Dad taught me and i have hopefully taught others the same (correctly i hope).Who was the first driver to be given a fixed penalty by some spotty git who may not have been able to tie his shoelaces on his own and who gave him the power to issue it .
Follow the thread through and it would seem that it isn’t illegal at all, to use ropes and sheets or toggles with chains. It seems to be just police opinion and interpretation, and what they know about carrying loads could be roped and sheeted to the back of a postage stamp.
The terms’ harassment’ and ‘easy nicks’ come to mind.
Tone
I seem to remember on another thread that some of our Scottish friends were being fined for not having straps on loads of fertillizer now if they are being fined are we in the position that south of the border we are safe and north of the border we are not .It seems canaldrifter that harassment and easy nicks depends on whether PC Plod or VOSA VERNON got his leg over the night before your comments most welcome PTB.
If any driver wants to challenge this attitude of the tarmac politz they should bear in mind that no-one can legally nick anyone for an insecure load if it hasn’t actually moved or fallen off.
The legal term is ‘insecure’ not ‘unsecured’, and ‘insecure’ has to be proven.
(2) The load carried by a motor vehicle or trailer shall at all times be so secured, if necessary by physical restraint other than its own weight, and be in such a position, that neither danger nor nuisance is likely to be caused to any person or property by reason of the load or part of it falling or being blown from the vehicle or by reason of any other movement of the load or part of it in relation to the vehicle.
eg
courtsni.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres … 3Final.htm
Tone
canaldrifter:
If any driver wants to challenge this attitude of the tarmac politz they should bear in mind that no-one can legally nick anyone for an insecure load if it hasn’t actually moved or fallen off.
The legal term is ‘insecure’ not ‘unsecured’, and ‘insecure’ has to be proven.
(2) The load carried by a motor vehicle or trailer shall at all times be so secured, if necessary by physical restraint other than its own weight, and be in such a position, that neither danger nor nuisance is likely to be caused to any person or property by reason of the load or part of it falling or being blown from the vehicle or by reason of any other movement of the load or part of it in relation to the vehicle.
eg
courtsni.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres … 3Final.htm
Tone
Check it out with VOSA because if there’s a case to answer they are the ones who decide what is and is’nt an insecure load not the driver or the operator.But a load does’nt have to actually move to be considered as insecure if VOSA think that the methods used to secure it don’t meet their standards.In that type of case the outcome would be decided on all of the possibilities covered by the wording of ‘likely’ to be caused not actually fallen off and caused and if a driver is up in front of the court and expert witnesses get called to give evidence would it be VOSA or the driver’s word that the court accept .It could be even worse if any driver took the wording ‘if necessary by physical restraint other than it’s own weight’ too literally 
VOSA enforce load safety upon HSE guidance so it would be more worth looking in to the “what would the HSE do” avenue.
zippy!:
VOSA enforce load safety upon HSE guidance so it would be more worth looking in to the “what would the HSE do” avenue.
If the zb hits the fan it’s the road traffic act 1991 that they’ll get you with which comes under the juristiction of VOSA in this case and the police.The HSE deal with rail transport not road.
www.transportsfriend.org/road/loads/loading.html
Carryfast:
zippy!:
VOSA enforce load safety upon HSE guidance so it would be more worth looking in to the “what would the HSE do” avenue.
If the zb hits the fan it’s the road traffic act 1991 that they’ll get you with which comes under the juristiction of VOSA in this case and the police.The HSE deal with rail transport not road.
transportsfriend.org/road/loads/loading.html
I should have said… unless the load is dangerous ie detachment imminent. Then it can be classed as using a vehicle in a dangerous condition. What I originally said in the quote was to do with the restraining devices.
zippy!:
Carryfast:
zippy!:
VOSA enforce load safety upon HSE guidance so it would be more worth looking in to the “what would the HSE do” avenue.
If the zb hits the fan it’s the road traffic act 1991 that they’ll get you with which comes under the juristiction of VOSA in this case and the police.The HSE deal with rail transport not road.
transportsfriend.org/road/loads/loading.html
I should have said… unless the load is dangerous ie detachment imminent. Then it can be classed as using a vehicle in a dangerous condition. What I originally said in the quote was to do with the restraining devices.
Does’nt say anything in the Road Traffic act about ‘detachment’ having to be ‘imminent’ for load security to be classed as dangerous .It really comes down to anything that’s judged to be secured incorrectly but it would be interesting to hear from VOSA on here to clear up the issues so everyone knows exactly where they stand and how to interpret the law.
Carryfast:
zippy!:
Carryfast:
zippy!:
VOSA enforce load safety upon HSE guidance so it would be more worth looking in to the “what would the HSE do” avenue.
If the zb hits the fan it’s the road traffic act 1991 that they’ll get you with which comes under the juristiction of VOSA in this case and the police.The HSE deal with rail transport not road.
transportsfriend.org/road/loads/loading.html
I should have said… unless the load is dangerous ie detachment imminent. Then it can be classed as using a vehicle in a dangerous condition. What I originally said in the quote was to do with the restraining devices.
Does’nt say anything in the Road Traffic act about ‘detachment’ having to be ‘imminent’ for load security to be classed as dangerous .It really comes down to anything that’s judged to be secured incorrectly but it would be interesting to hear from VOSA on here to clear up the issues so everyone knows exactly where they stand and how to interpret the law.
An insecure load, being insecure or not properly secured will attract a PG9, if it is DANGEROUS ie a washing line holding a girder on or something like ly to imminently detach, then you fall in to the realms of fines or prosecution as far as VOSA are concerned (I think).
Using a vehicle in a dangerous condition can be committed in a number of ways.
Hows that.
zippy!:
Carryfast:
zippy!:
Carryfast:
zippy!:
VOSA enforce load safety upon HSE guidance so it would be more worth looking in to the “what would the HSE do” avenue.
If the zb hits the fan it’s the road traffic act 1991 that they’ll get you with which comes under the juristiction of VOSA in this case and the police.The HSE deal with rail transport not road.
transportsfriend.org/road/loads/loading.html
I should have said… unless the load is dangerous ie detachment imminent. Then it can be classed as using a vehicle in a dangerous condition. What I originally said in the quote was to do with the restraining devices.
Does’nt say anything in the Road Traffic act about ‘detachment’ having to be ‘imminent’ for load security to be classed as dangerous .It really comes down to anything that’s judged to be secured incorrectly but it would be interesting to hear from VOSA on here to clear up the issues so everyone knows exactly where they stand and how to interpret the law.
An insecure load, being insecure or not properly secured will attract a PG9, if it is DANGEROUS ie a washing line holding a girder on or something like ly to imminently detach, then you fall in to the realms of fines or prosecution as far as VOSA are concerned (I think).
Using a vehicle in a dangerous condition can be committed in a number of ways.
Hows that.
An insecure load,being insecure or not properly secured would be classed as dangerous in just the same way as using a washing line (or ropes to hold anything any more ) to hold a girder on or something imminently likely to detach would be . Come on Mr VOSA get on here and sort it all out or is that they either don’t know the answer themselves and/or are they only interested in nicking people and getting the fines in for the government .
Carryfast:
zippy!:
Carryfast:
zippy!:
Carryfast:
zippy!:
VOSA enforce load safety upon HSE guidance so it would be more worth looking in to the “what would the HSE do” avenue.
If the zb hits the fan it’s the road traffic act 1991 that they’ll get you with which comes under the juristiction of VOSA in this case and the police.The HSE deal with rail transport not road.
transportsfriend.org/road/loads/loading.html
I should have said… unless the load is dangerous ie detachment imminent. Then it can be classed as using a vehicle in a dangerous condition. What I originally said in the quote was to do with the restraining devices.
Does’nt say anything in the Road Traffic act about ‘detachment’ having to be ‘imminent’ for load security to be classed as dangerous .It really comes down to anything that’s judged to be secured incorrectly but it would be interesting to hear from VOSA on here to clear up the issues so everyone knows exactly where they stand and how to interpret the law.
An insecure load, being insecure or not properly secured will attract a PG9, if it is DANGEROUS ie a washing line holding a girder on or something like ly to imminently detach, then you fall in to the realms of fines or prosecution as far as VOSA are concerned (I think).
Using a vehicle in a dangerous condition can be committed in a number of ways.
Hows that.
An insecure load,being insecure or not properly secured would be classed as dangerous in just the same way as using a washing line (or ropes to hold anything any more ) to hold a girder on or something imminently likely to detach would be . Come on Mr VOSA get on here and sort it all out or is that they either don’t know the answer themselves and/or are they only interested in nicking people and getting the fines in for the government .
Most load related prosecutions are brought by the police. Anyway, good luck in your quest.
It wouldn’t stand up in a court of law though. If the tarmac politz claim that a roped load is insecure cos it might fall off, then the magistrates or judge would ask, well, did it?
It’s the same argument as saying the guy driving down the road in his three-wheeler could have collided with the pram on the pavement so he’s breaking the law. But did he? No he didn’t. So he isn’t.
The problem is the police are looking for easy ways of imposing instant un-challenged fines. If they are challenged regarding load security, then they might well be made to look stupid in court . And I Iused to love making traffic cops look stupid.
Tone
canaldrifter:
It wouldn’t stand up in a court of law though. If the tarmac politz claim that a roped load is insecure cos it might fall off, then the magistrates or judge would ask, well, did it?
It’s the same argument as saying the guy driving down the road in his three-wheeler could have collided with the pram on the pavement so he’s breaking the law. But did he? No he didn’t. So he isn’t.
The problem is the police are looking for easy ways of imposing instant un-challenged fines. If they are challenged regarding load security, then they might well be made to look stupid in court . And I Iused to love making traffic cops look stupid.
Tone
But the problem comes when the judge is just as stupid as the traffic plod in which case the driver’s got a lot more to lose than plod has.But the wording of the act was made by those even more stupid than both the old bill and most of the judges.Rightly or wrongly there’s enough in that wording to give the judge the option of totally ignoring the issue as to wether it actually fell off or not.It’s a bit like the argument would be if that three wheeler driver was driving down the road with one of his three wheels held on by only one wheelnut .But on the subject of wheelnuts even wheelnut contradicted himself on the issue of ropes by saying that where it was too difficult to rope loads on a tilt because of TIR requirements then straps could do the job just as well .So if it’s a case of using straps just to keep VOSA and the old bill happy on UK work what’s the difference/problem .
canaldrifter:
I can remember some horrendously dangerous loads coming out of Hulland Ward as back loads.
Paving slabs were fine stacked against the headboard with a good cross on the back, and curbs were very safe if stacked individually on the trailer bed, but it was back-breaking work to load and unload them.
Many local drivers carried them in stacks as loaded by the fork grab truck. How they thought ropes would hold them in place I have no idea. They’d chafe through in a few miles. The litter of broken curb stones through Derby streets in those days was evidence of how dangerous that practise was.
Tone
Never had a problem with kerbs, always lay the sharp edge over so the round edge was where the rope pulled down.
Saw this a few weeks back
it was in California of all places, the ton bags were full of wheat seed that I had delivered there, the bloke thought I was a nutter taking pictures of his truck, but I told him it was the knots I was taking pictures of and he thought I was even more mad, until I explained my knowledge of the dolly knot, I showed him how to do a double dolly, both a straight one and a spreader, but it started to cut through the bag I asked him how he got away with it over there, the US DOT have very strict rules governing load securement, how many straps/chains you need all depend on the weight/length/height of the load and usually everything is over secured, he said that he’d had a few problems at scale houses, but just told the DOT man to put his hand under a rope as he tightened it
See above post.