Thread: how to legally cart logs?

You know what thaught thought !!!
"The transport of log timber is highly specialised, utilising purpose built vehicles, timber jinkers, and skeletal trailers (including pole trailers, skeletal semi-trailers and B-Doubles). These vehicles are fitted with horizontal bolsters, with chocks and vertical stanchions at each end to contain and restrain the logs. The stanchions can be fixed, removable or pivoting (facilitating easier unloading). Outer logs must be restrained by a minimum of two stanchions."
This is from QLD and would only vary slightly from state to state, big difference between a car trailer & truck loaded with 10, 22 or 32 cube, even though the legislation doesn't differentiate, a log is a log
stopper give a local carrier a call who drives a yellow Mack tabletop R600 & see if he will bring a load of logs or even a part load up the HWY without bolsters & stanchions
regards inter

This looks like an issue of scale to me - the quote from QLD is correct in the context of someone carting logs on a commercial basis from a commercial tree-felling operation to a major milling operation. The reference to B-doubles shows the size of load they are talking about.

The passage is not, and I don't think it purports to represent, a rule applicable to all situations. In paticular the sentence "Outer logs must be restrained by a minimum of two stanchions" is not to be understood as a rule independent of the previous sentence which talks about really massive loads of logs.

So I think that weisyboy is safe, not just on common sense grounds but also on legal grounds, so long as he complies with the Load Rules that I referneced in my earlier post

Originally Posted by Sparhawk

Slightly OT, but this is what happens when things are not done correctly

I have to go with Inter, he's posted the Code which applies on roads in Queensland, not NSW or elsewhere and as Weisy is carting a commercially harvested load for commercial purposes then he has to comply with the Code and he is no different to a B-Double, and as there is no differentiation then there isn't any under the law. Thinking that you're not and not liable to prosecution under it then you are tempting something worse. It only takes a cop or Mains Roads to drive past and you are stuffed.

Common sense and not being naive to the law has to prevail over being gung ho and "she'll be right mate".

If you still need clarification go to Mains Roads and ask yourself. The head office is in 183 Wharf Street, Spring Hill it's dead easy to find and get to.

JMK's dead right. I've been through Transport Dept mobile inspections with a load on and the only thing they were concerned about was whether the chains and dogs were in test (they weren't ). They just told me to go and get it done.

I only ever carry 4 or 5 tons, usually no more than 6 logs, stacked 2 high, with the top row nestled into the spaces in the bottom row. If the logs are very good and want to roll, I use wedges on the outer logs, but it's not usually necessary. I've never used a belly chain, as it would probably do more harm than good.

Carting a big load of uniform, clean logs is a different kettle of fish altogether.

Well there you, as long as common sense prevails when you secure a load.

Originally Posted by Exador

I only ever carry 4 or 5 tons, usually no more than 6 logs, stacked 2 high, with the top row nestled into the spaces in the bottom row. If the logs are very good and want to roll, I use wedges on the outer logs, but it's not usually necessary. I've never used a belly chain, as it would probably do more harm than good.

craig you gotta start getting better logs i find the belly chain pretty good if only to satisfy myself that the whole load is tied together and wedges are used a hell of alot especially the scarf out of the tree (ready made)

Ok so in my fine form I try not to talk about stuff unless I've done some personal research, heard from the horses mouth myself and even then I go and confirm it with the cows.

I spoke with a very well informed fellow by the name of Julian (senior policy analyst for National Transport Commission) the previously mentioned document "load Restraint Guide" is the gold standard for Australia, it isn't limited to individual states.

Section E specifically pertains to transporting of logs, unfortunately after reading and re-reading this section it is rather thin on specifics for logs, hence the contact with Julian from NTC. The examples given in the guide, although specify pipe and other material, also apply to logs.

Further to Section E, I was also given the CODE OF PRACTICE FOR LOGGING STANCHIONS AND BULKHEADS. Although this was for SA, and as I was informed each state would have their own industry association, I was also assured that the Code of Practice would not vary significantly between states.

So I'm sure the learned gentlemen among you can sort this out yourselves....?

Good work sigidi
regards inter

The ultimate test is the security of the load. As the operator is responsible for that, it's up to him to ensure it's done. The guide is just that: a guide. If I was potentially going to be held liable for someone else's work, then I'd make sure he followed the book, which should be idiot-proof. However, as I'm not an idiot, I reserve the right to make my own decisions as to the applicability or otherwise in particular situations.

Frankly, the use of bolsters and stanchions would be a complete waste of effort for most of the logs I carry. It may even create a new hazard by forcing me to lift over the stanchions, rather than just to deck height as I do now. If removable stanchions are used, then where is the operator protection advantage? Bolsters make it much harder to get an oddly-shaped log to sit "flat" without wanting to roll, as it's only supported on two points.

The guide is really for the carriage of loads of uniform, clean trunks; not for the ad hoc carriage of a few oddly-shaped, differently-sized logs with limb bases still attached. The uniform logs can roll and may settle if not properly packed, thus loosening chains and potentially causing a problem. Irregular logs are not prone to that and can be easily and safely restrained with chains and dogs.

Horses for courses.

Frankly, it comes down to reading & comprehension, if you you cant understand the laws get some legal advice on the matter before putting yourself in a position where you may need a barrister to keep you out of the big house.
regards inter

Originally Posted by InterTD6

Frankly, it comes down to reading & comprehension, if you you cant understand the laws get some legal advice on the matter before putting yourself in a position where you may need a barrister to keep you out of the big house.
regards inter

Why so angry? You really don't like anyone disagreeing with you, do you?

The fact is that I restrain my logs adequately, which is the what the framers of the "guidelines" (look up that word, while you're doing your "reading and comprehension") intended. I've already given a good reason for not following them in my particular case, which you've seem unable to grasp. If you can't understand a more complex case than the guidelines allow for, I suggest you stick to getting someone else to do the work.

In the meantime, I'll continue to safely cart logs, with or without the "Guidelines for carting pipes".

The law has no problem with that, nor should it.

The problem I find with all of this is the 'law' is such that the gate is shut after the horse has bolted...

I mean as long as your load doesn't fall off you can have some string from Ikea holding it down. If and when it falls off, then if you've done as per the load restraint guide then your covered - even though most seem to be caught up on terminology of it being a guide. That guide which some feel is optional is what is used to determine culpability in the event of part or all of a load becoming insecure.

I've tied any and all timber down on Donkey the same way for over five years now (also restrained loads in Royal Army Transport Corps for 4 years) but that doesn't mean it's the right way or the wrong way. When a load is lost, then that 'optional guide' folkes are talking about is the only thing which will save your butt. I know as in those mentioned 9 years I've lost one load of timber, but following the guide is what saved my butt.

At then end of the day, if you never lose a load, then you will never have any problems, and by law, the driver is responsible for their load and as such can use any means to secure that load, if you want to lash 3 web straps and two chains over a 50 kg pallet of toilet tissue, that's up to you or if you want to use a glue stick to hold the pallet to the bed of the truck that's up to you too. But when your load falls off it better have been restrained as per that guide...

Originally Posted by weisyboy

being busted by whs and the coppers are 2 diferent things.

be more scared of workplace safety people than of the devil himself with workplace safety officers its guilty until you can prove your innocence.

From these responses from some people who are engaged in the timber industry even though only on a small scale, I am amazed at how they justify what they do & if you were not travelling on public roads I wouldn't really care, but you are & endangering other peoples lives, how would you like it if a load fell off a truck & killed someone you knew & loved, if you want to take risks dont envolve other people
As far a comprehension I can understand that when it says " should be followed unless there is another solution which achieves the same or better standard of health & safety " & " can be used to support prosecution "
unless your a qualified engineer willing to design & sign off on a better system this is what it means or if you want to test your load before heading out onto the public roads load your logs & tip the truck at 45 degrees sideways & 60 degrees forwards , if the load does not move at all your fine
Regards inter
ps, laws are only deterrents to stop people doing the wrong thing in society