Thread: how to legally cart logs?

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

so if i had steel bolsters and stanchions then there is no risk of anyone gettin hurt?

i have never had a log fall of any vehicle or even come lose chains are tightend then the truck is driven about 1km chainsare re tentioned if anything can move then it gets its own chain.

i would never endanger anyones life every load i carry is sercured more than adequitely and will not come off.

So what you are saying is you know better than the combined resources, knowledge & accident history of each state govt' departments involved in the transport, forestry & logging industrys over the last 75 years or more , amazing!!!!!!
Even more amazing is that your advocating carrying logs & not complying with the relevant codes on a public forum........... truly amazing!!!!!
I wonder who will read this?
regards inter

Weisyboy, I hope you are never in a situation where something goes wrong and you have to pay for the ramifications of such actions. Injuring yourself is one thing, but others, for whatever reasons, as a result is worse.

Originally Posted by InterTD6

So what you are saying is you know better than the combined resources, knowledge & accident history of each state govt' departments involved in the transport, forestry & logging industrys over the last 75 years or more , amazing!!!!!!

Do try to keep up. I've given you a perfectly logical, reasoned answer as to why i work the way I do. The guidelines are based on the carriage of pipes and of logs that resemble pipes in their shape. I rarely carry such logs and whn i do, i use alternative means, such as wedges, to prevent them from rolling and hence becoming loose.

My opinion is based on sound knowledge, good logic and experience in the field. I suggest you stick to the "guidelines for carrying pipes" if you don't possess those things, which is becoming increasingly obvious is the case.

Even more amazing is that your advocating carrying logs & not complying with the relevant codes on a public forum........... truly amazing!!!!!
I wonder who will read this?
regards inter

I hope lots of people read it. It's good advice.

Time to move on guys.

cheers
Steve

I do believe so stopper, some people may have thought they have seen the light at the end of the tunnel but in fact its a train coming the other way.
regards inter

For anyone still interested, I quote the guide, Section E, Part 4:
http://www.ntc.gov.au/filemedia/Refo...LRGDec2004.pdf

"The following contains information on restraining cylindrical loads, such as pipes, tubes, logs, rods and round bars and billets."

and

"Where large quantities are regularly transported, specialised methods and equipment, such as scalloped dunnage, unitised bundles or containers should be used.This can significantly reduce transport costs, product damage and loading/unloading time. It can also ensure the level of restraint will comply on every journey."

As I have previously said, I rarely carry cylindrical items and when I do, they are rarely without lumps and bumps and I never carry "large" quantities. My logs are not subject to damage by being properly dogged down and I'm satisfied with my loading/unloading time and costs.

Also, this is not an Australian Standard, whether normative or informative and as such, is open for interpretation by the operator. It is not a "Code", but an informative set of guidelines for transport operators.

Further, the guide clearly gives options, with the overriding consideration being that the load is adequately restrained, whatever method is used.This is confirmed by the following quote from the same section:

"Small quantities of loose lengths can be unitised and restrained by at least two lashings
looped around the bundle and secured on both sides of the vehicle."

which is precisely the method I use.

My reason for continuing this thread is that my practises have been questioned by someone who clearly doesn't understand what he's talking about. I have been accused of "taking risks", endangering the public, even being unable to comprehend the risks involved.

All of that, from people who haven't a clue. No set of guidelines is of use if the person reading it lacks the experience and knowledge to interpret it. That seems to be clearly the case with some here.

Yet more quotes from the Guide:
"All loads must be restrained to meet the Performance Standards outlined in Section F 'Performance Standards'

A performance standard is a way of defining what is required, but not how to do it"

"Many different types of load restraint systems can be used to meet the load restraint performance standards"

and
"During all operating conditions, which can include minor collisions, the load restraint system must ensure that:

(1) the load does not dislodge from the vehicle; and
(2) unacceptable load movement does not occur."

Reading and comprehension would seem to confirm that this is precisely what I have been saying since this thread started.

Originally Posted by Stopper

Time to move on guys.

cheers
Steve

.

Yes, it is time to move on. It would have been nice if one of those ignorantly accusing me and Weisy of recklessly putting the community at risk had the guts to acknowledge they were wrong, but I guess that's not the nature of the beast.

bugger moving on. an apology would be nice.or even a day or a couple of hours spent with blokes like myself, Craig, Allan or Carl helping to load out logs from jobs that aren't so called commercial jobs. We can't afford to have every specialised vehicle and tool to do every job, but that doesn't mean that we compromise on safety for ourselves or the general public. We have to get home too!

Exador, I believe the regulations as those posted by Inter to be what should be followed. As I posted a long time ago, if Weisy is in doubt he should go to Main Roads and ask in person. Given Main Roads don't take things lightly I wouldn't put anything to trust without hearing it from the horses mouth.

Especially if he has WorkCover Liability, which if he's read things wrong and things go wrong then no insurance company would stand by him.

Whether or not the National Transport Commission have jurisdiction over Main Roads I don't know, but I would think not, as states have laws/regulations particular to their own areas - but I'm up for being wrong.

My 2¢ worth. What applies in one state doesn't automatically apply in another - I'm not having a go at others elsewhere. Surely this question should be directed in person to Main Roads and put interpretation to rest once and for all.

Originally Posted by Waldo

Exador, I believe the regulations as those posted by Inter to be what should be followed.

It's not a "Regulation", it's a "Guideline" and I do follow it. I even did so before I knew it existed, thanks to common sense and good judgement.

The Guideline states:"All loads must be restrained to meet the Performance Standards outlined in Section F 'Performance Standards'

A performance standard is a way of defining what is required, but not how to do it"

The limited part of the Guidelines that inter decided to go off half-cocked about is for a specific set of circumstances, using specialised equipment, which I made clear in my very first post on the subject, to be accused of being a smartarse who thinks he knows better than the "experts" (presumably including inter, at least in his own mind). I have a different set of circumstances, using different specialised equipment, which I also made clear. That equipment meets the performance standard.

If any of the ignoranti want to wate their time and make bigger fools of themselves by contacting the Transport Department, then I suggest they do so. In the meantime, I'll get on with carrying loads with minimum risk to myself and the rest of the public.

I wouldn't even be bothering with this if I'd not been accused of the very serious action of recklessly endangering other people's lives. In future, perhaps the less well-informed might keep their mouths shut before doing so to someone else?

I won't hold my breath waiting for an apology: I suspect some people are simply incapable of ever acknowledging their own mistakes.