Load restraint standards and chain of responsibility applies to all.

Submitted: Friday, Nov 02, 2012 at 11:49
ThreadID: 98823 Views:7374 Replies:10 FollowUps:39
This Thread has been Archived
In the last few years thate has been a bit of a shake up in the transport industry, lots of things are becomming tighter regulated along with a push for national standardisation.

The two most significant changes have been the load rerstraint requirements, and chain of responsibility legeslation.

In 2004 the National Transport Commission, published the current version of "guidelines and performance standards for the safe carrage of loads on road vehicles" AKA "Load Restraint Guide".

These standards now apply to all road transport including private passenger vehicles.

The majority of truckies embrace the new rules, because they have been well researched, tested and experessed...but there are still some who mumble and think they know better.

The important thing for member of this forum to understand is thay all to all of us.


The book is available on line free...google "load rerstraint guide" and you will find it easy enough...it is also available in hard coppy for arroud $12.

This is why we are now finding even the cheapest nastiest ractchet tie down for sale have specification tags attached.

Load restraint is easy enough dealt with, read the book and do as it says ..all good.


Chain of responsibility is another thing alltogether...and this also applies to all of us.

More or less, regarding any transport matter, if you knew about ut or should have known about it and you either permitted it or did not prevent it...AND it went wrong or someone was caught.....you can be held responsible.

Tis is why many landscaping yards and hardwares will not just let you rock up with ya ute or trailer and drag stuff away.

many will only load small amounts of material into trailers and utes, or will not allow you out the gate or even start to load you if you can not show equipment and ability to restrain the load to standard.

The text book example that is currently offered is that of a major earth moving company who consigned a doser blade to be transported to a site in NT.

The first truckie turned up and refused the load, because he thaught the pallet was inadequite and drove off, the second truckie loaded it, tied it down and was on his way........on a major highway in NT, the blade came free and cleaned up a passing pasenger vehice killing the occupants.

Under the current Chain of responsibility laws, everybody involved in the sag can be prosecuted and held responsible both companies and individuals.
SO the company that consigned the load, the bloke who ordered it shipped in an unfit state, the fork driver who loaded it, the truck driver carrying it, the company that owned the truck, the agent that booked the job and so forth, can all have their asses kicked and or end up broke and in jail.


Now the other day I was driving along and I saw a slide on camper tied down on a pretty new 70 series ute...they had used quick release shackles and what looked like hardware shop turnbuckles to tie this thing down.
I guarantee that this would not have complied with load restraint guidlines and under any sort of real stress the thing would have come off the back.

NOW...how far does the chain of responsibility go here?

I was going to catch him up...but he was gone in traffic..and would he have listened....yeh maybe.

cheers
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Member - PJR (NSW) - Friday, Nov 02, 2012 at 12:19

Friday, Nov 02, 2012 at 12:19
Interesting and if I may take it one more step. You knew about it and didn't report it. Is that how far it can go? I wonder!!

Many of us are in clubs associated with 4WD's in many forms. If the club allows a member on an organised outing and the jerry can on the roof flys off and hits a pedestrian who can be found responsible. It goes on and on.

But maybe the courts attitude about "intent" can come into play and negate the clubs responsibility and lay whole balme on the driver. And in the dozer blade issue above lay blame on the truck driver only.

I wonder.

Phil
AnswerID: 497787

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Friday, Nov 02, 2012 at 15:01

Friday, Nov 02, 2012 at 15:01
Yeh the legeslation is specificaly framed so that the poor old truckie is not left holding the bag every time.

There is a case that made the transport press recently, where a driver ran an over dimension load into a bridge.
He was kicked up the bum with appropiate force but the trucking company and the mine site that loaded him bore the vast majority of the cost and the blame.

While licenced, he was inexperienced on the class of truck and on OD loads and had not been given sufficient breifing or training to do the job....thus the responsibility of the trucking company.

The mine that loaded him should have made sure he knew exactly how high the load was and that he was aware that he would not fit under the bridge in question and should go another way

so often, truckies are in the dark about what has been loaded or what is in the box and how well it is secured.

cheers
0
FollowupID: 773633

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Friday, Nov 02, 2012 at 15:04

Friday, Nov 02, 2012 at 15:04
As for the 4Wd club...we have firmly had the concept of duty of care since the late 80's....chain of responsibility takes it only a couple of steps further.

Most 4WD clubs or trip operators will not take you anywhere without some sort of acredited training and at least a basic look over your vehicle...because yes they are responsible at least in part.

Am I my brothers keeper?

Danm straight you are.

cheers
0
FollowupID: 773634

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Friday, Nov 02, 2012 at 15:18

Friday, Nov 02, 2012 at 15:18
There is legeslation that requires us to deal with specific situations if we see them.

The QLD electrical safety act ( possibly one of the most agressive pieces of legeslation you will find) specificaly states that I as a licenced electrical worker can not walk past an item or situation I know or suspect of being dangerous or non compliant.
I must either, rectify, render safe or report.

the time when we could turn a blind eye to things is gone.

cheers
0
FollowupID: 773635

Reply By: Member - MUZBRY(Vic) - Friday, Nov 02, 2012 at 12:39

Friday, Nov 02, 2012 at 12:39
Gday
Things are getting tougher in this industry all the time.

Murray Hannah
General Manager
Banlay Truck and Trailer Repairs
Dandenong.
Muzbry
Great place to be Mt Blue Rag 27/12/2012

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

AnswerID: 497790

Follow Up By: Rockape - Friday, Nov 02, 2012 at 13:50

Friday, Nov 02, 2012 at 13:50
Muzbury,

Taking a peak behind the curtains of some tautliners can be a scary experience.

Have a good one,
RA.
0
FollowupID: 773629

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Friday, Nov 02, 2012 at 15:27

Friday, Nov 02, 2012 at 15:27
I have recently completed the nationaly acredited load restraint course. I had read the book and made myself aware long ago.

Variuos claims are made and there have been surveys,....it is estimated by some than less than 30% of loads carried on australian roads are restrained to code.

Part of the course I did, was to stand on the footpath with the instructor and play spot the turkey with the passing traffic.

You simply do not have to look far to find not just a load that is not to code...but a load that is just rediculous.

cheers

0
FollowupID: 773636

Follow Up By: pop2jocem - Friday, Nov 02, 2012 at 18:01

Friday, Nov 02, 2012 at 18:01
So to take a slightly different tack, a trucky gets pulled over by an average copper in a patrol car, not the scalies, because he had a defective trailer light. OK no worries says the trucky I have a spare globe. He fixes it and is on his way......maybe?? So if the truck has a load is that copper then responsible if he does not notice that the load is not properly secured. If so will the coppers now have to be trained in the matter of load security as well as traffic enforcement.
I have seen many bits of heavy equipment secured by chains and binders and thought that maybe the chains were a bit light on just to my eye. How good is my eye...well without my glasses not too flash but I did spend a good many years in the crane industry inspecting, repairing and testing so I have some idea as to what a chain and accessories for lifting should be. What the average copper would know????????
0
FollowupID: 773647

Follow Up By: Rockape - Friday, Nov 02, 2012 at 19:22

Friday, Nov 02, 2012 at 19:22
Pop,
you can only be pinned for what you see. So the officer of the law just states this. If you get up in court and say I didn't look at the contents of the trailer then all is well.

There is one statement in court that can't be shaken and that is. I SAW NOTHING. Simple and no one can screw round with what you have said.

RA.
0
FollowupID: 773657

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Friday, Nov 02, 2012 at 19:54

Friday, Nov 02, 2012 at 19:54
police and other officers of the law on duty have some very different rights and protections to the average citizen.
In general a copper can not be held responsible for what he did not see or did not prosecute.

In this day and age though, the "I didn't know" or "I saw nothing" (known as the "Schultz defence") in many situations holds no water, because the law states you should have looked and you should have known...AND this is at the core of the "duty of care" and "chain of responsibility" laws.

Now here is another thing.....It is unlikley that "the average copper" is going to enforce traffic viloations...and those that do are specifficlay trained...and they are definitely up to speed on load restraint.

A traffic branch or highway patroll officer these days will check all sorts of things when they have any reason to pull over a truck or any vehicle for that matter.


The attitude is if you find one offence there are likley to be more.

Most truckies that are pinged for load restraint or log book offences have been pulled over for something else.

cheers
0
FollowupID: 773660

Follow Up By: Rockape - Friday, Nov 02, 2012 at 20:38

Friday, Nov 02, 2012 at 20:38
Mate,
I think this will end up at logger heads as I was talking to an ex police officer with 10 years of experience yesterday about exactly the same thing. I SAW NOTHING. You can't change that unless it can be proved that you did see something.

The person I was talking to said yes. Sometimes it pays to see nothing.

Unless you can prove I saw something then you are up
the creek without a paddle sunshine.

As for your assumption that Mr Bean only looks for other things when he pulls you up to check a specific thing. Then I can assure you that some don't have monthlies, they have dailies and will pin you for what ever they can find.




0
FollowupID: 773664

Follow Up By: pop2jocem - Friday, Nov 02, 2012 at 22:48

Friday, Nov 02, 2012 at 22:48
From what I have seen when these things get into court and lawyers get involved the word "reasonable" seems to get thrown around a fair bit as in "reasonably expected to have known, seen, done, etc"

Cheers
Pop
0
FollowupID: 773677

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Saturday, Nov 03, 2012 at 09:25

Saturday, Nov 03, 2012 at 09:25
While in certain situations "I saw NOTHingg, I knew NOTHingg" may still work and there is a legal concept called "the reasonable person test"

Both defences have been specificaly excluded in certain legelsation and legal situations, because people have been using both to wriggle out of prosecution.

The principle being , you should have looked and you should have known.
The reasonable person test, assumes common knoweledge and common sence.
The close friend of the reasonable person is "the prudent driver" and what is expected of a prudent driver, many people would find unreasonable.

BTW did I ever state that the copper ONLY look for other things when they pull you up for something else...no i did not.

cheers
0
FollowupID: 773702

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Saturday, Nov 03, 2012 at 09:53

Saturday, Nov 03, 2012 at 09:53
On the matter of didn't look diddn't see.

There was a case a couple of years ago where an awner driver got a tow hauling job from far north QLD.
He hitched up the sealed trailer and drove it south, somewhere near the NSW, VIC border he was intercepted by the FEDS.
The trailer was full of Chop Chop (untaxed tobacco), the contraband, the trailer AND the near new primover where confiscated...not empounded......confiscated.

I did not hear if the bloke ever got his truck back.....but it made the news, because the bloke was in truth innocent, but the law (tax law), prescribed the vehicle was confiscated and provided no means for him to get it back....BTW he personally was not charged with any offence.

If he was to have any hope of getting his truck back and keeping his house, a very high level, long an protracted legal argument was required.


Na mate....ya can no longer rely on "I know NOTHingg, I saw NOTHingg"

Cheers
0
FollowupID: 773706

Follow Up By: fisho64 - Saturday, Nov 03, 2012 at 17:14

Saturday, Nov 03, 2012 at 17:14
"The trailer was full of Chop Chop (untaxed tobacco), the contraband, the trailer AND the near new primover where confiscated...not empounded......confiscated. "

so how does that work with QANTAS then (and drug mules, untaxed tobacco)?

0
FollowupID: 773724

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Saturday, Nov 03, 2012 at 17:53

Saturday, Nov 03, 2012 at 17:53
Firstly, drug mules are ONLY carrying illegal dangerous drugs, chop chop is a TAX matter....go figure
The offence would be something like transporting or posessing untaxed tobaco products.
The truck load was clearly a commercial quantity.

Secondly airplanes and other international going vehicles such a ships have some very complicated international rights, and there will be very specific legeslationand international agreements covering international passenger transport.......my understanding is no offence has occured until you try to carry the drugs into the country or posses them while in the country.

People carrying drugs into the country are usually charged with importing or conspiring to import illicit drugs.
My understanding is you can not be done for posession untill you are on this side of the customs barrier

cheers

0
FollowupID: 773733

Reply By: Seanny - Friday, Nov 02, 2012 at 14:08

Friday, Nov 02, 2012 at 14:08
Hello,

Should the title read "dog and chain of responsibility"?

Cheers,

Seanny
AnswerID: 497795

Follow Up By: pop2jocem - Friday, Nov 02, 2012 at 18:04

Friday, Nov 02, 2012 at 18:04
Nice pun Seanny
0
FollowupID: 773651

Reply By: fisho64 - Saturday, Nov 03, 2012 at 01:49

Saturday, Nov 03, 2012 at 01:49
an interesting subject, and relevant to the industry Im in also.
I can certainly see the value in making more people responsible.

But it is another step along that road which the Governments/law want us to move-that road where NO MATTER how careful/observant/vigilant you are, when the blue lights flash behind you, your not certain whether you have done anything wrong.
And worse, if he looks hard enough he'll find something.
AnswerID: 497820

Reply By: Member - Bucky - Saturday, Nov 03, 2012 at 07:26

Saturday, Nov 03, 2012 at 07:26
Bantam

I hope this makes some kind of sense !

I have to agree with a lot of the stuff you are saying.
I load the odd B Doudle at work, and the amount of proceedures we now have to do is getting rediculous, but there is always a good reason as to why things are done that way. Basically it's to cut out the "Cowboys" and make all people who handle freight, or "what ever" accountable for their safety.

In saying that I might add that I do not want to be the forkie "audited" by worksafe, and found to be in breach of my duties. ... (and get fined) so I am very mindfull of the chain of responsibility, although I do not fully agree, or pretend to know everything it proposes.
It's a learning curve.

We load for bigger Trucking Companies, and it really is a pleasure loading them, as they too have been "trained", and just take the chain of responsibility in their stride., and that's good.
It scares me that there are still lots of operators out there, (and there always will be) that do not care, and will never care, as long as they get their loads.

Now getting back to loading of trailers, campers, roof racks, Jerry cans ect.
You are very correct about the ways that have me amazed, as to how people go about things loaded. Not too sure weather it is our job to turn around and tell people about those things. I do not want to be "know all #$%#" . That is for the Coppers.

I have, in the past dropped "suttle hints" to people who I thought were loading, or tying down wrong, or using the iincorrect gear, and in a couple of cases been told to mind my own business. For those that want to listen I help them.
That is as far as my responsibility goes.

And if we have taken as many precautions, as possible, and used "rated" gear then I have done my bit.

Now lets face it...... I want to get to the end of the day without any mishaps, and that is what it's all about
Cheers
Bucky




AnswerID: 497826

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Saturday, Nov 03, 2012 at 09:42

Saturday, Nov 03, 2012 at 09:42
Perfect sense.
Unfortunately the vast majority of non transport people would not be aware of either of these concepts and the government has done little or nothing to inform the general public.

While most of the large transport companies are well and truly up with the current expectations, I believe the government has not done enough to inform and educate the small independents and owner drivers.
Lots of these guys only know about this stuff because those who employ them are saying you must have this stuff and you must do it this way.

cheers
0
FollowupID: 773705

Follow Up By: Member - Bucky - Sunday, Nov 04, 2012 at 05:54

Sunday, Nov 04, 2012 at 05:54
Advertising "chain of rseponsibility" would work for holiday makers/tourists, but I have failed to see it happen, yet.

If they did that, I would not continually see Subaru Forresters, and like smaller cars pulling a 20 ft caravans, and the towbar almost draging on the road. The old saying the "van drives the vehicle !".

Also.... wouldn't it be good to see every caravaner having to do a "defensive driving course" , and prove it, before they can actually buy a caravan ?.
As if !... that has not happened.
The salesman would have to sign a "stat-deck" to prove that they are not letting some "nuffy" out on the road with basically a semi trailer, with no driving experience.

As for Freight Forwarders, just watch everybody schyte themselves when Vic Roads ("wannabee Coppers") hit a town. Problem gets back to the chain of responsibility, relying on everybody doing the right thing.

The other thing about Vic Roads is, they hit trucks, I have not seen them pull up Caravans, or overloaded domestic trailers, no doubt some have, but the vast majority, work Monday to Friday, and vans hit the roads on weekends, or school holidays.
They are basically only interested in trucks.
Not sure what happens in other States ?

Cheers
Bucky





0
FollowupID: 773768

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Sunday, Nov 04, 2012 at 10:32

Sunday, Nov 04, 2012 at 10:32
I think ya not grasping how far chain of responsibility can be taken.

I don't think it can be taken to the point of sellers assessing driving ability.

I do however believe it could be taken as far as a seller having to make sure a customer does not tow away a caravan with a vehicle that is legally unsuaitable or not set up with the correct facilities.

As I have said before I believe it is rediculous that people can tow large loads with nothing but a passenger car licence.
I don't thing a defensive driving course would do a damn bit of good, because it does not address the very specific issues with large trailers.

I firmly believe you should not be able to tow a trailer over 1.5 tonnes on a pasenger car licence without some sort of formal competency assessment......or simply make the limit of the pasenger car licence 4.5 tonnes Gross Combination Mass, rather than the GVM of the vehicle and then add a trailer.
After all you cant drive a 9 tonne rigid on a pasenger car licence...and that would be a hell of a lot easier thing to drive.

I have not seen it recently, but up here in QLD they get a bee in their bonnet from time to time.

There have been a couple of times when the coppers set up near the dump on weekends.....they set up just nort of the NSW border before the towing regs where harmonised and where turning back migrating turtles that wherent compliant with QLD regs.
AND I have driven thru a couple of joint police transport operations where they where pulling over everything that moved.

Like most thigs...lack of education and enforcement where it is needed.

cheers
0
FollowupID: 773776

Follow Up By: Member - Bucky - Monday, Nov 05, 2012 at 04:24

Monday, Nov 05, 2012 at 04:24
Copperss near tips, are only raising revenue, nothing else.
I have seen them sit on the Albury Tip road, waiting for anything to drop out, even a leaf or a small cutting, and so book the driver.

That is just lousy, and totally pedantic.

Cheers
0
FollowupID: 773865

Reply By: Shaker - Saturday, Nov 03, 2012 at 09:34

Saturday, Nov 03, 2012 at 09:34
Just about every second truck that you see has big lumps of timber & other packing materials sitting loose on the flat top, any one of which could fall off & kill a following driver.

AnswerID: 497836

Follow Up By: Lyn W3 - Saturday, Nov 03, 2012 at 09:55

Saturday, Nov 03, 2012 at 09:55
One could also say that every second 4WD and caravan travelling up the Bruce Hwy is overloaded or misloaded.

AND THEY DO CAUSE ACCIDENTS THAT KILL PEOPLE, yet very little is done to stop the problem, perhaps there should be a chain of responsibility going back the the manufacturers and sales people.
0
FollowupID: 773707

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Saturday, Nov 03, 2012 at 11:11

Saturday, Nov 03, 2012 at 11:11
Shaker...oh yes people still think they can just leave things unsecured on the tray of trucks or in the tray of utes.
Ya just have to look along the road sides for proof that stuff falls off vehicles every day.

BUT I have noticed some improvements, most steel and timber trucks now have short lengths of rope securing their dunnage to the tie rails or have boxes or cages for stowing dunnage.

People are being pinnged for these things...but like everything a lack of enforcement where it will do most good and a distinct lack of public education.

Lyn....Oh hell yeh.
I've said it before and I'll say it again...we have the rediculous situation where a person with no other experience or training but driving a light passenger car and perhaps a box trailer to the dump, can go out and buy a large tow vehicle and a maximum capacity caravan or boat and drive a 9 tonne maximum legal dimension combination (Or in some cases over dimension load) on public roads on a pasenger car licence.

Of course they want to pay as little as possible and get as biig a thing as they can, so they push the legal and safe limits.

Rediculous.

Of you want to see a strange look on someones face that owns a touring 4wd, a large caravan or a boat......take em to a weigh bridge.

The chain of resposnibility does extend to the manufacturers and installers, but so far many of them are either ignorant or are prepared to take their chances because to date no one has been prosecuted in a large and public way.

cheers
0
FollowupID: 773710

Reply By: garryk - Saturday, Nov 03, 2012 at 16:08

Saturday, Nov 03, 2012 at 16:08
G'day
Why then is a lawyer not held responsible if a crook he gets set free goes out and reoffends ?


Garry
AnswerID: 497848

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Saturday, Nov 03, 2012 at 18:05

Saturday, Nov 03, 2012 at 18:05
Because he is a lawyer and the laws are written by lawyers....that is the synical answer.

The real answer is because no one can be held responsible for something that has not yet happened and the first crime (which the offender has been proven inocent) and the second are completly different matters.

In addition we have an adversarial justice system where it is a fundamental right that everybody is entitled to proper and vigorous representation...in fact if said lawyer did not provide every available defence to the defendent, inocent or guilty...he can be prosecuted and sued.

If however the prosecution did not provide every available measure to prosecute they should be held responsible......but they are the government and is that likely to happen.

Completely different concept.

cheers

0
FollowupID: 773734

Reply By: Member - Beatit (QLD) - Saturday, Nov 03, 2012 at 21:45

Saturday, Nov 03, 2012 at 21:45
G'day Bantam,

Great message and I think people should do more to understand these things BUT it seems a bit like telling people that smoking is bad for you and will kill you when there are still shops selling smokes and people to smoke them. I feel all these laws are much the same and there will always be people that don't give a rats and will put everyone at risk. It just makes me feel that like so many of these quite sensible laws that there only purpose is to feed lawyers when things go wrong.

Sorry about my cynicism and I feel that you are trying to make a valid point.

Kind regards
AnswerID: 497863

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Saturday, Nov 03, 2012 at 23:27

Saturday, Nov 03, 2012 at 23:27
The new load restraint laws are in fact quite sensible and bassed on actual testing of what works and what does not...in the past there was no clear standard about what was adequately secured.

The chain of responsibility legeslation was specificaly designed so that people and companies could not dodge their responsibility.

Basicly in the past when something went wrong...a whole pile of people would stand arround saying "its not my fault".except for the poor old truckie who was left holding the bag.....when in fact it was all of their fault.

The chain of responisbility principle now forces everybody in the chain to take responsibility and not expect everybody else to do their work and bear the cost.

For example
Now if you consign an item you are expected to have packed it in a secure manner and have provided a proper way of restraining it.
AND insist that it is properly restrained before it leaves your property.

where in the past drivers where presented with items that where simply not in fit condition to be transported and almost impossible to restrain adequately and where pressured to acceppt and transport such loads....entirely at their own risk

I can tell you not everybody has got with the programe......but both concepts are very much having an impact on how things are done and what is expected.

cheers
0
FollowupID: 773759

Reply By: Hairy (NT) - Sunday, Nov 04, 2012 at 12:08

Sunday, Nov 04, 2012 at 12:08
Gday,
Im a bit lost here?
Your saying under the current chain of responsibility laws, everybody can be liable.........yeah.....CAN be, not WILL be. It would all depend on the circunstances, surely.
If the bloke in the forklift loaded the blade corectly and showed proper duty of care I reckon therewould be as much chance of hell freezing over as there is of him being prosucuted.
Surely your not suggesting they are all likely to be prosecuted ? Unless of course they all showed neglect of duty by showing incorrect weights on con notes, obvious use of faulty restraints the boss sending out the load knowing it was unsafe ,etc,etc.
In WA the person or persons MOST responsible are the ones who cop the fine etc.

"NOW...how far does the chain of responsibility go here? " Well.......as far as you would like to take it I suppose.......
But I dont think you need to chase down every vehicle you see not diplaying proper tagging on their load restraints now you have done a course. You might find some people dont appreciate your inspection.
Maybe just stick to telling the driver if he/she has a loose strap or binder or telling the odd grey nomad his push bike looks like falling off the back of his van. Surely all you need to do is show a duty of care.....not become a volunteer mermaid or scallie?

Maybe Im reading this all wrong and if so can you send me a link to the chain of responsibily laws and where this scenario with the truck was written.
I dont think its all doom and gloom yet.

Cheers
AnswerID: 497890

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Sunday, Nov 04, 2012 at 14:26

Sunday, Nov 04, 2012 at 14:26
Nobody is saying you can be prosecuted for something you did properly.
OR that you are responsible for every other neglect you see.

However, if you should have looked or should have known, the Shultz defense holds no water.

the incident concerning the over dimension load was in an article in "Owner Driver" magazine last month..no doubt there will be a government press release somewhere.

the other matters I have raised are to show that it does not end there are in some cases the chain of responsibility just keeps going.

the case with the tobacco was from several years ago.

the electrical matters are very much current and in the act


far from dooma and gllom.....I can see this all as a good thing, the point of my thread is to let people know that these two issues apply to everybody.

cheers
0
FollowupID: 773803

Follow Up By: Hairy (NT) - Sunday, Nov 04, 2012 at 15:05

Sunday, Nov 04, 2012 at 15:05
So what are the new changes or are you saying that being liable for your own actions or lack of are new?

0
FollowupID: 773806

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Sunday, Nov 04, 2012 at 17:55

Sunday, Nov 04, 2012 at 17:55
Specific legeslation was passed in 2004 that very specificaly states how far that liability can extend...and gives the legal means to prove that liability more so than previously.

Not only are you liable for your own actions but depending on who you are in the chain you may be liable for the actions of others

a couple of links.
http://www.ntc.gov.au/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsId=149

possibly the best overview
http://www.tabma.com.au/assets/COR%20-%20A%20Simple%20Overview.pdf

this extract may give an ides who the responsibility extends to

Who has an element of responsibility in this chain? (Referred to as ‘Responsible Entities’)
?? Consignors - those who commission the carriage of a load by road.
?? Packers - those who place goods in packages, containers or on pallets transported by road.
?? Loaders - those who place or restrain the load on a heavy vehicle.
?? Drivers - those who physically drive a heavy vehicle.
?? Operators and schedulers - those who operate the business that controls the use of a heavy vehicle.
?? Receivers - those who pay for the goods or take possession of the load.
?? Employers - or managers of a business may also be personally liable for breaches by an employee.

An example of the effect is....in the past you may have been able to say..."I didn't know" ....now you have to prove "that you could not have known"....a very big difference.

Cheers
0
FollowupID: 773824

Follow Up By: Hairy (NT) - Sunday, Nov 04, 2012 at 20:24

Sunday, Nov 04, 2012 at 20:24
2004? Hardly a new change is it?
I still think if you havent done anything wrong and you have showed a duty of care you have nothing to worry about........common sense I would think.
You have just quoted a lot the obvious???? "?? Drivers - those who physically drive a heavy vehicle. "Mmmm........if the driver has not shown a duty of care, he/she would be liable.
Always has been I think?
0
FollowupID: 773844

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Monday, Nov 05, 2012 at 00:04

Monday, Nov 05, 2012 at 00:04
2004 is not a new change in some peoples mind, but a lot of peoples understanding of regulation is very dated.

Even in heavy transport the message on load rerstraint and chain of responsibility is still slow getting thru in some areas.

A company a friend of mine drives for has only just in 2012 sent all their drivers on the load restraint course......this is both a load restraint and chain of responsibility issue.

It is far from obvious that consigneors and recievers have a duty of care in the chain of responsibility.

and it is far from obvious to many people what they are responsible for.

In the past if a bloke got weighed, and was found to be overloaded..he copped a fine...and that was the end of it.......now under chain of responsibility, the authorities can go looking for several other people.
If the driver's paperwork (a container weight declaration for example) says he should be within spec, he may get away scott free, but several other people may be prosecuted.
In fact if a vehicle is weighed as overloaded, the authorties will be more concerned about how it came to be overweight rather than the driver's infringement.

If you consign freight with a company and do not take "reasonable steps" to ensure they are compliant with a variety of transport regulation...you may be liable under the chain of responsibility.

Another example...of someone who does not understand chain of responsibility among other things.

I was on a job earlier this year and an old bloke, owner driver that had been driving most of his life, turned up wearing thongs, stubbies and a singlet.
One of the other drivers had a go at him over it, and his response was it is no-one elses business what he wears in his own truck.

How absolutey wrong he was.

The agency that was organising the trucks was responsible for him wearing suitable work atire ( high vis at least) and suitable footwear.

The agency should not have allowed him on the site and the drot operator should not have loaded him.

If they could not ensure he was correctly dressed for work, how did they establish that he was competent and that his truck was in safe and suitable condtion.


and it goes on.

There are lots of people who don't grasp the half of it.

cheers
0
FollowupID: 773856

Follow Up By: Dave(NSW) - Monday, Nov 05, 2012 at 00:23

Monday, Nov 05, 2012 at 00:23
The overloading bit always got me. You get done for overloading and get an infringement with a fine handed to you, Then you can continue on till you get to where you unload. how doés that make the truck any safer.
GU RULES!!

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 773863

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Monday, Nov 05, 2012 at 10:09

Monday, Nov 05, 2012 at 10:09
In the old days when we had permanent fixed weigh bridges, it was common to see a vehicle or trailer parked up by the weigh bridge, because it was not permitted to continue before the situation was rectified.

I supose it depends on how overloaded the vehicle is.

In this country the load limits are set by permisable road pressure, to limit wear and tear on the roads, the tyres, axles, suspensions and the trucks will often safely carry more than permitted on public roads......and they frequently do in off highway applications on private roads.

Like so many things....the "road safety message" is over simplified.

In this day and age the frequency of being overloaded would have to be less than it was in the past, partly because of the chain of responsibility and partly because weighing equipment is so much more accessable.


Now consignors, packers and loaders are responsible for what stuff weighs.

A great many transport depots can afford their own weigh bridges...in fact, once you are in a lot of em wont let you out unweighed unless you are clearly empty.

And "on machine scales" which where once uncommon are all over the place.....for example most big gravel yards, the end loader will "weigh in bucket " before they load you.

Current load shifting guidlines that apply to everything from forklifts to tower cranes, make it clear that ya should not even be lifting it if ya don't know what it weighs.

So it should be very hard to get on the road overloaded, certainly by accident anyway.

This is most definitely chain of responsibility in action.

cheers
0
FollowupID: 773879

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Monday, Nov 05, 2012 at 10:13

Monday, Nov 05, 2012 at 10:13
OH...possibly anouther reason why they let the vehicle continue, is because the weighing equipment is portable and it may be impossible to legally unload the vehicle where it is weighed.

It is illegal to load using a forklift on a public road or the verges there of.

cheers
0
FollowupID: 773880

Follow Up By: Hairy (NT) - Monday, Nov 05, 2012 at 20:07

Monday, Nov 05, 2012 at 20:07
"In the past if a bloke got weighed, and was found to be overloaded..he copped a fine...and that was the end of it......."

Not quite right.

I was seen by the scalies about 20 years ago and was asked to follow them to the weighbridge..........I was overloaded and had to get a second truck and unload some gear before I was allowed to leave. I got a summons to court and the company was fined.......not me.

Last week a bloke at work was done for not tarping a load......the company was fined. We have all been told to keep driving and the company will pay the fines without question until they have tarps fitted.
0
FollowupID: 773920

Follow Up By: Dave(NSW) - Monday, Nov 05, 2012 at 23:01

Monday, Nov 05, 2012 at 23:01
I got pinged once for 80kgs over the drive in a 5 hole tanker, told them i'd pump it back to make it legal but was told don't bother. They wrote the ticket and told me to clear out. Seems it was bad enough to write the ticket and that made it all good. It was a few years back when the stopped the ton tolarance.
Cheers Dave
GU RULES!!

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 773931

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Tuesday, Nov 06, 2012 at 01:05

Tuesday, Nov 06, 2012 at 01:05
They have been able to go after companies for quite some time...but now they can go after individuals, management and company directors far more redily.

minor defects like tarps and small overweights are small potatoes......this chain of responsibility legeslation targets systematic issues and gives far more ability to prosecute when something serious goes wrong.
AND this legeslation crosses state borders as it is federal legeslation.

In the past various people could hide behind the company, and many companies where prepared to cop the fines as a cost of business....now things can be made very personal especially for management.

If ya don't grasp the implications...sorry you have ya head in the sand.


cheers
0
FollowupID: 773934

Follow Up By: Hairy (NT) - Tuesday, Nov 06, 2012 at 21:00

Tuesday, Nov 06, 2012 at 21:00
So what are you trying to say Bantam........
Im asumeing this post is directed at exploreoz people........not the trucking industry, so what part of this new shake up affercts us?

Surely your not suggesting we are abliged by law to chase down every vehicle we see whos tie downs look like cheapies?

Apart from that, when it goes to court, the judges can prosecute anyone they like. There is nothing new here{ that I can see anyway}

You sure you havent just done a course and its just new to you?
Or Scare mongering?
0
FollowupID: 773995

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Tuesday, Nov 06, 2012 at 23:50

Tuesday, Nov 06, 2012 at 23:50
I am constantly amazed by the reasonaing process or lack of it,of some people.

I have been well and truly aware of both issues for several years now.

like risk assessment in industrial training just about every transport related course they hammer chain of responsibility..and for good reason.....I have heard it mentioned on at least 3 training unrelated courses I have ben on in the last 3 years.

Since this was introduced in 2004 there is plenty new and quantam changes to the way things are approched and prosecuted.

It could only possibly be scare mongering if any of the principles where unreasonable or a bad thing.

Far from being a bad thing I simply can not see a down side to either of these issues unless of course your view is one of wreckless ignorance.

Things fall off vehicles of all sizes every single day .......making sure they are poroperly restrained is not a bad idea...when the documentation is well written and gives clear instruction on what is required to restrain a load..that can not be a bad idea either.

The quantam change is from that of requiring loads to be "properly secured" to describing exactly what is required to properly secure a load and mandating that.

If you can not recognise the changees chain of responsibility is bringing in the transport industry....and the several very prominent prosecutions it has allowed...sorry but ya cant be very observant or reading any trasport press..


As for the post where you said your company told you to keep driving with no tarps and they will cop the fines.....not many supervisros arround here would be that game...they would be liable to be personally fined....besides most sites arround here simply wont load you without tarps...in fact some of the local authorities and many sites are insisting that all tippers travel tarped full or empty.

All chain of responsibility in action.

cheers
0
FollowupID: 774003

Reply By: Alan S (WA) - Tuesday, Nov 06, 2012 at 10:53

Tuesday, Nov 06, 2012 at 10:53
Hi Bantam

I have been watching this thread for a couple of days.
The underlying assumption is regarding the method and quality of restraint. But to effectively restrain something you need a good restraint point.

As the legislation apparently applies to Non commercial use this would mean it applies to domestic box trailers and 4wd roof racks.

I have often wondered about the strength of the tie points of trailers. Often the tie down rail is 6-12mm bar welded between the sheet metal mudguard and end frame. When these trailers are rated at between 750kg to 2000 kg thats a lot of force particularly impact on very weakl points.

In these instances are the trailer manufacturers responsible under the legislation?


Alan
AnswerID: 498020

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Tuesday, Nov 06, 2012 at 11:59

Tuesday, Nov 06, 2012 at 11:59
I get where you are going and..oh hell yeh.

The manufacturer of a load carrying or load restraint item is responsible for its performance.

Thus the manufacturer of a truck tray is responsible for the performance of the tie rails and other attachment points...and this follows thru to domestic trailers too.

As I note all the tie down straps I see currently for sale are fitted with tags containing their ratings.

one thing that is surprising is there seems to be no requirement to lable or rate tied down points or tie rails.

In the rigging and lifting world everything has to be rated, perhaps it is a practicality issue.

There are many things about domestic trailers that if you look close are a little scary....and I include caravans abd camper trailers in that observation.

cheers
0
FollowupID: 773951

Follow Up By: Alan S (WA) - Tuesday, Nov 06, 2012 at 14:12

Tuesday, Nov 06, 2012 at 14:12
I suppose manufacturers will use the "fit for purpose " rule, and assume that the average domestic user will only load it with multiple small items or soil etc, thus either spreading the load or not requiring tie down.

However the worse case is that some will and can load a small heavy load such as a pallet of bricks that has potential to become a heavy missile in the case of accidient or tie down failure.

A number of years ago I came accross a incident where a truck carry a load of new creosoted railway sleepers had a strap failure while going around a left hand bend. He literally sprayed sleepers accross the other lane. Luckily no cars were coming at the time. I owned a business accross the road and had my signage destroyed by the sleepers. 50kg mobile bullets.

One thing also what about the carrying of cars in car trailers? They might be strapped on correctly but incorrect loading can turn the trailer and car in to missiles as well.

Alan
0
FollowupID: 773957

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Wednesday, Nov 07, 2012 at 00:09

Wednesday, Nov 07, 2012 at 00:09
Oh there is another concept that is beginning to be mandated in a couple of areas..."Fit for purpose"

The tie rails on some of these light trailer will probaly do the job...when you consider that the average 750Kg unbraked domestic box trailer is only capable of acarrying 500 to 600KG.
AND that a good quality 25mm ratchet tie down is only capable of 100Kg of pretension and has a lashing capacity of 250Kg...ya probaly won't pull the rails off...unless you are trying to over load the poor thing.

As for the pallet of bricks....hmmm a full pallet of bricks will weight arround 2 tonnes or arround the maximum working load of a hardwod pallet...one hopes no forklift driver will load a full pallet onto a domestic trailer.

If ya want a real chuckle have a lok at the load restraint guide on line and see some of the things poeple have tried to tie down..or failed to tie down.

There are actual picturtes of a bloke who tried to transport a load of watermellons on a tray back truck secured only by ropes....go figure.


cheers
0
FollowupID: 774004

Sponsored Links