there are discussions and arguments both for, and against, enforcement of load security…
our loads should be secure.
what I think needs to happen is for VOSA, FTA and RHA , and body and trailer manufacturers to get their heads together and come up with built in solutions to make load security simple and effective , instead of chasing and persecuting drivers who are given inadequate resources in the first place…
GET TO THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM VOSA.
rant over…
Trukkertone:
there are discussions and arguments both for, and against, enforcement of load security…
our loads should be secure.
what I think needs to happen is for VOSA, FTA and RHA , and body and trailer manufacturers to get their heads together and come up with built in solutions to make load security simple and effective , instead of chasing and persecuting drivers who are given inadequate resources in the first place…
GET TO THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM VOSA.
rant over…
They do they supply what the customer ASK’s for
Your 2nd point… Its up to the driver to say NO to his employer who HAS a DUTY of CARE to SUPPLY the CORRECT EQUIPMENT to do the job.
why pass the problem on to someone else … you don’t put a 40ft container in a taughtliner you get the correct trailer for the job…
““They do they supply what the customer ASK’s for””
exactly Nick,
thats the point I’m trying to make… it shouldn’t be down to the driver alone…
manufacturers, vosa , fta, rha,and indeed, the companies who buy trailers and bodies should be getting together and solving the problem at source, so to speak…
Trukkertone:
Its up to the driver to say NO to his employer who HAS a DUTY of CARE to SUPPLY the CORRECT EQUIPMENT to do the job.
Regardless of the rest of the statement, the bit in red is the quickest way to a P45 and the dole queue
“I’m not taking that boss, needs more straps!”
“Well ■■■■ off then, Fred can take it…your no longer needed”
That is how it works in the real world
Semtex:
Trukkertone:
Its up to the driver to say NO to his employer who HAS a DUTY of CARE to SUPPLY the CORRECT EQUIPMENT to do the job.Regardless of the rest of the statement, the bit in red is the quickest way to a P45 and the dole queue
“I’m not taking that boss, needs more straps!”
“Well [zb] off then, Fred can take it…your no longer needed”
That is how it works in the real world
that’s why EVERYDRIVER needs to grow a set … maybe some of the newbies will have what’s required to sort this industry out after all they have a bigger outlay in getting that prized licence …
So you pass your test and goto one of the few companies that will give you a start. You are told to take that trailer A to B. You say no because there isn’t enough straps. You will then be looking for another company to employ you. Welcome to the real world.
nick2008:
Semtex:
Trukkertone:
Its up to the driver to say NO to his employer who HAS a DUTY of CARE to SUPPLY the CORRECT EQUIPMENT to do the job.Regardless of the rest of the statement, the bit in red is the quickest way to a P45 and the dole queue
“I’m not taking that boss, needs more straps!”
“Well [zb] off then, Fred can take it…your no longer needed”
That is how it works in the real world
that’s why EVERYDRIVER needs to grow a set … maybe some of the newbies will have what’s required to sort this industry out after all they have a bigger outlay in getting that prized licence …
Too many drivers and not enough real jobs, they will be told to go and someone who will do the job without question will take their place.
happysack:
So you pass your test and goto one of the few companies that will give you a start. You are told to take that trailer A to B. You say no because there isn’t enough straps. You will then be looking for another company to employ you. Welcome to the real world.
I’m just saying Happy you cant lay any problem to the feet of Vosa or the manufacturer its up to the company to supply the driver with the right equipment and yes if the driver takes it out and he/ she is stopped and they can show the company has NOT provided sufficient and correct equipment then the company should be levied with the larger part of the fine along with the director and TM With Points on their licence too as per
> Inciting offences
>
> For these offences, the codes are similar, but with the number 0 on the code changed to 6.
>
> For example, DD40 (dangerous driving) becomes DD46 on your licence if you’ve incited someone to do this.
I got into quite a heated debate with 15 drivers from the same company when we went through load security requirements.
It seems most of them had the equipment they needed and agreed that if they were asked to pick up a load that they weren’t happy with they would refuse and that would be the end of that.
The other few drivers claimed they had no straps etc and had been told that if they wouldn’t take the load they would be sacked. All of the ‘happy’ drivers simply told these 2 or 3 to grow a pair and refuse the load … or be taken advantage of by the boss.
It seems odd within the same company we had such different attitudes but I often find this. Those that will take the loads are taken advantage of, those that won’t are not sent in the first place.
Under Health & Safety Law it is the employers responsibility to provide instruction, training and equipment as required.
shep532:
I got into quite a heated debate with 15 drivers from the same company when we went through load security requirements.It seems most of them had the equipment they needed and agreed that if they were asked to pick up a load that they weren’t happy with they would refuse and that would be the end of that.
The other few drivers claimed they had no straps etc and had been told that if they wouldn’t take the load they would be sacked. All of the ‘happy’ drivers simply told these 2 or 3 to grow a pair and refuse the load … or be taken advantage of by the boss.
It seems odd within the same company we had such different attitudes but I often find this. Those that will take the loads are taken advantage of, those that won’t are not sent in the first place.
Under Health & Safety Law it is the employers responsibility to provide instruction, training and equipment as required.
I just hope that with new young drivers coming into the industry who have spent a fair bit of hard earned Wonga will have the nutz to say no and drag this industry up a few rungs of the ladder .
They are the future …
nick2008:
I just hope that with new young drivers coming into the industry who have spent a fair bit of hard earned Wonga will have the nutz to say no and drag this industry up a few rungs of the ladder .
They are the future …
I don’t see it happening, they are already working for minimum wage on some jobs, complain as much as you want its supply and demand, while there is most of Europe to shop for drivers nowt will happen.
I am with Trukkertone on this,why can’ t the trailer manufacturers get together and sort it out,it is not rocket science to build trailers to suit the matrix used by the DVSA.
As said,the driver pays the fine.
Internal straps are attached to a small bolt in the trailer roof,and they say up to 400kg’s is ok for that.
When the trailer turns over,it will not hold that weight.
toby1234abc:
I am with Trukkertone on this,why can’ t the trailer manufacturers get together and sort it out,it is not rocket science to build trailers to suit the matrix used by the DVSA.
As said,the driver pays the fine.
Internal straps are attached to a small bolt in the trailer roof,and they say up to 400kg’s is ok for that.
When the trailer turns over,it will not hold that weight.
Fortunately we aren’t securing the load for if the trailer turns over … just everything prior to that to hopefully prevent roll over.
Emergency stop and emergency swerve/lane change … if the load can withstand those conditions then it is secure.
toby1234abc:
I am with Trukkertone on this,why can’ t the trailer manufacturers get together and sort it out,it is not rocket science to build trailers to suit the matrix used by the DVSA.
As said,the driver pays the fine.
Internal straps are attached to a small bolt in the trailer roof,and they say up to 400kg’s is ok for that.
When the trailer turns over,it will not hold that weight.
Toby,
Why do you seem to make things far more difficult than they need to be?
Where in the matrix does it say that the load has to remain in place even if the vehicle overturns?
The required standard usually has the words “in normal conditions” (or similar) somewhere in it.
This means normal traffic conditions such as stopping and starting, going up or down hills, turning left and right or going around roundabouts, because all these things are to be normally expected. The load is not supposed to move around or fall off the vehicle in normal circumstances.
A good guideline for securing of loads can be found at:
Here is a quote from page 9 of that document to support what I’ve said…
PAGE 9
The guidelines aim to provide a guide for adequate cargo securing for all situations that may occur in normal traffic conditions.
IMHO, the rest of page 9 might also be of interest. 
Now it’s your turn Toby, so please quote where the matrix says anything like what you’ve put above (in red.) 
You couldn’t normally make up such nonsense, but I’ve had to make an allowance because I’ve just remembered that I’m replying to a post by Toby. 
What i was getting at is that strapping started in Germany due to loads on the tarmac and long delays with accidents.
The UK followed Germany in load restraint.
But in Toby world,anything can happen.
You are correct about nothing in the Matrix for accidents.
Maybe it should be.
An internal is usless with an upside down trailer.