[BBC News] Wheels fall off van on main road

[gazza]

The transport authorities across are exempt, to a degree. Being civil servants and part of the civil service they are deemed to be regulated automatically. Most, if not all, of their transport managers will be qualified though. Our DoT would be assumed to bew meeting the rules laid down by Tynwald, probably illegal for them to do otherwise but I would be very suprised if their managers weren't qualified already.

Besides this the fees would be payable to the government by the government costing a fortune in admin. What would be the point of threatening them with fines for non-compliance? Please pay yourself £x from your own pocket.

 

I do declare an interest as a qualified transport manager.

 

ha ha u haveing a laugh aint you,

 

the dot used to have the worst fleet u have ever seen, only in the last couple of years has it improved, and thats not because of the manger that is there,

 

if everyone eles has to do it, so should the dot

 

if it comes in then u can bet a lot more places will go to the wall, because of it,

if thay really wanted to do something take the yearly test and do it every 6 months,

 

and how many of you check your whell nuts every day week month on your car!!!

[Digga]

vans in my world have bodies on the back to put stuff in, not a flat deck to strap stuff on. and i'm sure the vehicle was bigger than transit type flat deck, perhaps there will be a piccy in the indy or courier?? i

The one I saw on the mountain was a Merc Flat deck (318 chassis/cab) similar to what ace hire use, not sure but think they are plated for about a 3 - 3.5tonne load, slightly bigger that a transit but has no tipping gear so can carry more load

[r1man]

It would be easy to make a glib one liner but I shall refrain. Suffice to say that any company that ‘goes to the wall’ as a result of the implementation of the Operators Licensing requirements, probably isn’t financially robust enough to run LGV’s responsibly anyway.

Of course there will be a cost to operators but because of personal experience I have to agree with Scrappey’s view that adequate Transport Management is necessary. Those operators who are conscientious and diligent in their activities will have no problem meeting requirements and industry best practice anyway. If they are concerned about the costs of any such schemes they should look to their less conscientious counterparts (who by default are gaining an unfair economic advantage by cutting corners) that are, or have been, bringing the LGV industry into the spotlight.

 

I am told by VOSA in the UK, that around 10 people a year are killed in the UK by LGV wheel detachments so a licensing system or transport management system in itself will not prevent such incidents entirely. It is my firm belief however, that such ‘defence mechanisms’ (Prof James Reason) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Cheese_model will place another significant obstacle in the way of operators who are minded to cut corners on either their operation or maintenance responsibilities.

Of course you cannot always account for catastrophic component failure but again, a regular programme of maintenance is more likely to reveal the signs that may lead to such a failure. Along with well trained competent mechanics that have the tools and equipment to carry out the tasks in hand.

 

The UK Civil Aviation Authority have a good catchphrase for one of the most highly regulated industries in the world: Safety is No Accident.

 

This comment is in no way meant to pre-judge the incident reported.

[gazza]

It would be easy to make a glib one liner but I shall refrain. Suffice to say that any company that ‘goes to the wall’ as a result of the implementation of the Operators Licensing requirements, probably isn’t financially robust enough to run LGV’s responsibly anyway.

Of course there will be a cost to operators but because of personal experience I have to agree with Scrappey’s view that adequate Transport Management is necessary. Those operators who are conscientious and diligent in their activities will have no problem meeting requirements and industry best practice anyway. If they are concerned about the costs of any such schemes they should look to their less conscientious counterparts (who by default are gaining an unfair economic advantage by cutting corners) that are, or have been, bringing the LGV industry into the spotlight.

 

I am told by VOSA in the UK, that around 10 people a year are killed in the UK by LGV wheel detachments so a licensing system or transport management system in itself will not prevent such incidents entirely. It is my firm belief however, that such ‘defence mechanisms’ (Prof James Reason) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Cheese_model will place another significant obstacle in the way of operators who are minded to cut corners on either their operation or maintenance responsibilities.

Of course you cannot always account for catastrophic component failure but again, a regular programme of maintenance is more likely to reveal the signs that may lead to such a failure. Along with well trained competent mechanics that have the tools and equipment to carry out the tasks in hand.

 

The UK Civil Aviation Authority have a good catchphrase for one of the most highly regulated industries in the world: Safety is No Accident.

 

This comment is in no way meant to pre-judge the incident reported.

 

not really when your talking about 10 grand per wagon held up in a bond to prov u have the means to fix your HGV,

cant see many big companys forking out 100k plus just to sit there, it could well be the end of a lot of firms not just the small ones, or the ones that think thay dont need to fix them,

 

And who do u think will have to pay for this in then end, it be me you and everybody eles, prices will have to go up to cover it

 

like i say do more road side testing, do 6 month tests that would make sure things are safe,

And at the end of the day accidents do happen even when everything is done to its best

[r1man]

not really when your talking about 10 grand per wagon held up in a bond to prov u have the means to fix your HGV,

cant see many big companys forking out 100k plus just to sit there, it could well be the end of a lot of firms not just the small ones, or the ones that think thay dont need to fix them,

 

And who do u think will have to pay for this in then end, it be me you and everybody eles, prices will have to go up to cover it

 

like i say do more road side testing, do 6 month tests that would make sure things are safe,

And at the end of the day accidents do happen even when everything is done to its best

 

I must have missed the bit about a 10k bond in the Operators Licencing paper that was recently issued. If that is the case then that needs to be discussed.

 

As to the passing on of any increased costs for a business, well I am afraid thet happens in every aspect of business life and it's something the consumer has to put up with in order to ensure that the general public has an accountable LGV industry.

 

Agree however that increased testing (both scheduled and unscheduled) is a good thing.

 

A senior VOSA vehicle inspector with over 200 investigations experience advises me that in almost all incidents involving LGV's that a preventable reason is found for the event. Notice that the Police do not use Road Traffice Accident any longer - it is now a Road Traffic Crash or Incident as the case may be. So yes, sometimes an incident is an accident (an event that no-one could have forseen), but in most cases circumstances and reasons for the incident are known and thus actions could have been taken to minimise the risk.

[WTF]

i thought RTA = A for accident, RTC = C for collision?? it could be crash, but it was bought in in recentish times seemingly after a spate of deliberate rear ends by cars full of crooks with the intent on stealing what they had shunted. so not really an 'accident'?? just a maybe.

[r1man]

i thought RTA = A for accident, RTC = C for collision?? it could be crash, but it was bought in in recentish times seemingly after a spate of deliberate rear ends by cars full of crooks with the intent on stealing what they had shunted. so not really an 'accident'?? just a maybe.

 

I think you are right to go for collision – it was early when I wrote this!

The Police told me that it was changed from RTA to RTC as a result of a legal challenge where a lawyer successfully argued that an accident was an unforeseen event that no-one could have possibly anticipated and thus the CPS (it was in the UK I believe) was wrong to prosecute a charge that in effect, contradicted itself. Maybe it’s an urban myth but that is what I was told by Traffic here.

 

My point was (is) though, that collisions / crashes / incidents have a causal factor – it’s not necessarily about blame for the purpose of this discussion. Sometimes the cause can be unforeseen (accident) or at other times the root cause can be prevented. VOSA inspectors believe that most incidents are preventable. Incidentally, Human Factors in Aviation studies comes to the same conclusion where the root cause of an incident is a human action (or inaction). The issue I am trying to get over (probably not very well) is that for companies especially, they need to take account of risk management – reducing the possibility of killing or injuring someone while the ‘company’ goes about its business. This I believe, is the whole point of transport Management and the Operators Licensing requirement. It’s not (or shouldn’t be) about screwing Companies, large or small.

[Celt]

Seems to more of these than gets reported.

 

A TimberMan vehicle lost a wheel in Eskdale Road just before xmas and it, apparently/alledgedly, hit a car. Police have investigated and i've not seen anything on the paper or heard it on the radio.

 

As i've seen the car and know the elderly lady invovled, it was fortunate she wasn't getting her shopping out of the car at the time. Also the unfortunate denial off the people invovled.

[sideways]

It would be easy to make a glib one liner but I shall refrain. Suffice to say that any company that ‘goes to the wall’ as a result of the implementation of the Operators Licensing requirements, probably isn’t financially robust enough to run LGV’s responsibly anyway.

Of course there will be a cost to operators but because of personal experience I have to agree with Scrappey’s view that adequate Transport Management is necessary. Those operators who are conscientious and diligent in their activities will have no problem meeting requirements and industry best practice anyway. If they are concerned about the costs of any such schemes they should look to their less conscientious counterparts (who by default are gaining an unfair economic advantage by cutting corners) that are, or have been, bringing the LGV industry into the spotlight.

 

I am told by VOSA in the UK, that around 10 people a year are killed in the UK by LGV wheel detachments so a licensing system or transport management system in itself will not prevent such incidents entirely. It is my firm belief however, that such ‘defence mechanisms’ (Prof James Reason) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Cheese_model will place another significant obstacle in the way of operators who are minded to cut corners on either their operation or maintenance responsibilities.

Of course you cannot always account for catastrophic component failure but again, a regular programme of maintenance is more likely to reveal the signs that may lead to such a failure. Along with well trained competent mechanics that have the tools and equipment to carry out the tasks in hand.

 

The UK Civil Aviation Authority have a good catchphrase for one of the most highly regulated industries in the world: Safety is No Accident.

 

This comment is in no way meant to pre-judge the incident reported.

 

not really when your talking about 10 grand per wagon held up in a bond to prov u have the means to fix your HGV,

cant see many big companys forking out 100k plus just to sit there, it could well be the end of a lot of firms not just the small ones, or the ones that think thay dont need to fix them,

 

And who do u think will have to pay for this in then end, it be me you and everybody eles, prices will have to go up to cover it

 

like i say do more road side testing, do 6 month tests that would make sure things are safe,

And at the end of the day accidents do happen even when everything is done to its best

 

Your figures are incorrect , a company has to prove financial standing , if i remember correctly it is about 6K for the first vehicle and 3.5k for every vehicle after that , you do not have to have the money but must prove access to it if required , i.e an overdraft from the bank will be ok .

 

This is to prove that if any fault appears on your fleet you have access to funds to repair it then and there , not having to wait untill you get paid from your customers.

 

I will dig out the paper and confirm the figures later

 

......

[Pat Ayres]

You are correct, although the figures need updating a bit, also there is a chance to put up a bond (about £500k) and you can carry your own insurance. This is only practical with a big fleet but saves a small fortune in brokers fees.

I'm sure most of the companies on the island could meet the requirements, aspects of the law relating to road transport, within the EU, could do with some work though.

[Jack Meoff]

Are you an qualified Insurance Lawyer as well, or did you just read it on the Tinternet?

[Pat Ayres]

NO, as I stated I'm qualified as a transport manager in relation to freight transport in England and Europe. It is a fact about the insurance. I didn't read it on the internet either, it took 12 weeks and an intensive 6 day course, followed by 4 separate exams on the same day, each lasting 2 hours, before I gained my qualification. Also 20 yrs experience in transport and logistics. Can I get my lunch now?