Should the AA approve contractors who run 3.5 ton trucks?

[tommer9]

This thread seems to have drifted somewhat into a rant about larger companies and health and safety.

The original question related to the running of 3.5t vehicles for tree work. The primary concern for VOSA is that a vehicle that is overloaded will not brake and handle in the same way as on that is loaded correctly. This boils down to stopping distances and cornering. Most of us who have 'loaded' a vehicle and who have some experience and a modicum of common sense take it steady when returning from site with a good load on. We all know that many of the trucks we use seem to be quite capable of carrying a bit over their MAM.(Our old LDV, long since departed, has weighed out over 5t). The main reason for health and safety is just that. Health and Safety. The health and safety of employees and the public.

I know some of it is overly bureacratic and some is absolute tosh.

The running of any vehicle that has the capacity to be relatively easily overloaded shouldn't be prohibited. There should be systems and checks in place to ensure that it isn't overloaded. This can be done by using onboard weighing systems,(very expensive), a smaller chip box, (pain in the ass), or a system of documented regular checks going to weigh bridges with different types of chip at different levels and an awareness of all staff of the fill levels.

Running a 3.5t for tree work within the law can put a company at a competetive disadvantage if their direct competition flout the law. The same can be said when a company complies with all other aspects of H&S regulation, LOLER, PUWER, COSHH, WAH etc, etc. Educate your clients, educate your staff. If your in this industry for the long run we all need to raise our operating standards to show the wider public that this is a profession worthy of respect.

 

I Do basically agree with your statement Paul. However i also feel that the reasons that are put forward by those that enforce the H&S line are somewhat lost in a mist of a mixture of 'nanny state', legal costs and job creation/ maintainance.

What i mean by 'nanny state' is the desire of the powers-that-be to obviate all danger to anyone. They seem hell bent on achieving this state of nirvana, which as long as there is human error/ judgement/ involvement and vehicles travelling at speed, there is gross inherent danger, and is unrealistic to suppose otherwise- this cannot be legislated away.

The relevance of the 'legal costs' bit is partly the driving cause of this- as we have entered more and more into the awful american style 'culture of blame', where everyone seems to need to find someone to blame and seek recourse to compensation, the HSE are getting stronger. I.e. the culture of blame has allowed, nay forced us to create (consiously or otherwise) the breeding ground for the ever increasing power of the HSE, and the increasingly 'black and white' attitude, with little or no room for sway. For example, perhaps someone who is overloaded yet driving in a manner that may suit this- extra slowly and cautiously to simplify it- could be seen in a different light to someone overloaded yet not accounting for this in their driving style, hence rendering them a true danger to other people, yet at the moment there is no room for that judgement or even desire for that judgement to be made.

Which brings me to the 'job creation/ maintainance' bit of my post. In order to justify the huge numbers of people who are employed in the HSE they have to get results. So they HAVE to be absolutely black and white.

It would be very interesting to see whether or not, in real terms, the rate of accidents caused by overloading has increased or decreased compared to the huge increase in HSE involvement in our daily working life, particularly when applied to RTAs involving overloading, and also whether the incidence of overloading has fallen or remained the same too.

On a personal note, I find it insulting, to say the least , the supposition that I am BOUND to cause an accident when loaded up to the gills, because (and I am sure that i speak for many others here too) I make big adjustments to my driving style when loaded, whether i think I am legal or over the weight (which i can only assume i am at certain times as i run a 110 defender), such as slower speeds, better preparation before starting to descend hills, cadence braking from the start of a descent etc, larger stopping distances than normwal etc etc.

[Paul Jenks]

I agree with all of the above Tommer. The challenge is defending ones position if something does go wrong.

I rarely go on site, (some of the guys are quite happy with that), and when I do I don't tend to drive the trucks. As a director I have to implement a culture of safe operating. Not overloading forms a small part of this. If the culture is in place and the guys have bought into it, metaphorically, and we have an auditable checking system, if something does wrong the company, the driver and I may have a chance of getting off lightly.

The larger the organisation the more the expectation that they will have the auditable systems in place to ensure the safety of employees and public.

As I said earlier some aspects of H&S are tosh where experience and training allow us to measure risks. Unfortunately, those of us of a certain age developed our inate abilities to thrive and survive a little while before the nanny state and the 'certification for certification sake' culture castrated free thought.

Pretty well all the guys I know in this industry do it because they love it, risks, hazards, drudge and all. If we over regulate we'll stifle the industry.

However, I feel I have a responsibility to protect my staff through training and good practice.

All businesses need to develop and we are no different, Jenks that is. When there was just me and another guy we did things considerably differently to how we do now. We spend annually more on training and H&S than most small business turnover so we are not competetive on price with alot of tree teams.

We do educate our clients, (commercial, public and private), as to the advantages to using us. They then choose.

[tommer9]

I agree with all of the above Tommer. The challenge is defending ones position if something does go wrong.

I rarely go on site, (some of the guys are quite happy with that), and when I do I don't tend to drive the trucks. As a director I have to implement a culture of safe operating. Not overloading forms a small part of this. If the culture is in place and the guys have bought into it, metaphorically, and we have an auditable checking system, if something does wrong the company, the driver and I may have a chance of getting off lightly.

The larger the organisation the more the expectation that they will have the auditable systems in place to ensure the safety of employees and public.

As I said earlier some aspects of H&S are tosh where experience and training allow us to measure risks. Unfortunately, those of us of a certain age developed our inate abilities to thrive and survive a little while before the nanny state and the 'certification for certification sake' culture castrated free thought.

Pretty well all the guys I know in this industry do it because they love it, risks, hazards, drudge and all. If we over regulate we'll stifle the industry.

However, I feel I have a responsibility to protect my staff through training and good practice.

All businesses need to develop and we are no different, Jenks that is. When there was just me and another guy we did things considerably differently to how we do now. We spend annually more on training and H&S than most small business turnover so we are not competetive on price with alot of tree teams.

We do educate our clients, (commercial, public and private), as to the advantages to using us. They then choose.

 

And this is what it boils down to- damage limitation, both on the road (prevention/ avoidance of accidents AND how to react to getting stopped/ not being stopped in the first instance) and also in the unfortunate and less than desirable instance of 'after the event'.

So how is that pertinent to the OP's question?

well it think that the above posts serve to display why the AA are not hypocritical in approving Arbs who do overload. The point is that we are all in a balancing act: trying to stay within the law FOR THE RIGHT REASONS (and let us not forget that these laws are for the greater good, NOT for the government to exercise some sort of perceived right of determination of our lives) and trying to earn our living as best we can.

[gensetsteve]

I knew the american H&S culture had arrived when all the american companies in the uk started moving to China because they dont have any. About seven years ago I had to do a long winded statement for a generator install on a new shopping centre roof. When we arrived on site the roof was covered in pieces of wood with nails sticking up. There was a security man checking people in for H&S and was handing out a piece of paper listing all the hazards. When I asked why they had not picked up the rubbish and disposed of it his reply was not my job, now you know about it we dont need to. While we installed the generator he laid in the sun sunbathing. Now my point is there are a few old hands like me who have 20+ years experience working hard in blazing sun bowing and scrapeing to a whole army of untalented, unskilled, lazy pen pushing idiots like this. I can understand why alot of my old work mates have dropped £4 an hr to deliver tesco food at minimum wage.

[arbutus]

Tommer.....spot on mate....

Not all I agree, but lots of DRIVERS overload their 3.5tr's...not specifically tree workers.What about front and rear axle weights too?

VOSA have no chance of stopping everyone who "look's" overloaded...If you get stopped tell them you are now on your way the weigh bridge to weigh the vehicle loaded up.....you might get away with it...might I said.:biggrin:

[Jesse]

I know im a newbe and everyone seems to be avoiding me ,maybe its the speed of my finger, or no one can read anthing im writting, i think i might retire after this last post, but here we go . I m 48 yoa and still on the tools and up the trees, maybe some of you senior members who are no longer on the tools have forgoten what really goes on, all jobs are tight now and its a rush to get as many tasks done in a day as possible, so enevitably trucks do get overloaded.Daily.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

maybe the question should be should we allow U>K drivers to drive upto 5.5tons on a regular liceance?

 

the canters izuzus are built for the european market, they are classed 3.5 ton for the u.k market but in europe due to the biuld they legaly carry 5.5tons. so the safety issue in technicaly overloaded situations in the uk vary, a transit is flat at its uk limit, a canter fuso or the equicelent izuzu would laugh at a uk legal load.

[treequip]

maybe the question should be should we allow U>K drivers to drive upto 5.5tons on a regular liceance?

 

 

Hardly likely, the 97 changes were the UK end of a Europe wide harmonisation to bring all the EU onto the same playing field.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Hardly likely, the 97 changes were the UK end of a Europe wide harmonisation to bring all the EU onto the same playing field.

 

so why are these trucks mentioned made to carry 5ton in europe but not allowed to carry it in the uk harmonious regs? Sniff BS iff you ask me?

 

explain

[treequip]

so why are these trucks mentioned made to carry 5ton in europe but not allowed to carry it in the uk harmonious regs? Sniff BS iff you ask me?

 

explain please

 

What the builders manufacture has nothing to do with the harmonisation process, there is no correlation between the two.

 

Sooo, what makes you think they are the same? I just did 30 seconds research and found out that the vehicles over 3500kg have a heavier chassis ABS and bigger brakes.

 

Where did you get your information from? Are you sure you haven’t got plated weights and design weights mixed up