Thread: machine crash

I used to drive those once. I bet the driver had to change his undies after that!!

Ben

I was thinking that would be a sackable incident for sure, but where it is, the driver will probably get 12 months stress leave on full pay instead...

Originally Posted by .RC.

I was thinking that would be a sackable incident for sure, but where it is, the driver will probably get 12 months stress leave on full pay instead...

or maybe promoted.

Looks to me like there's no visual safety indicator on the concrete wall.

Rob

I can't see the control cab but I would think it a plik of a thing to drive.

The mine dump trucks are hard to see out of and that carrier looks a lot taller. That looks like a seatainer end on( in pic 1) .

If you scale it up, the driving position has to be several metres plus above the road.Not easy to see and we don't know the circumstances as yet.

Interesting post though.

Grahame

hi it looks like a straddle carrier kalmar the maker. the cab is 40"in the air positioned over the left hand side.

Originally Posted by Grahame Collins

I can't see the control cab but I would think it a plik of a thing to drive.

The mine dump trucks are hard to see out of and that carrier looks a lot taller. That looks like a seatainer end on( in pic 1) .

If you scale it up, the driving position has to be several metres plus above the road.Not easy to see and we don't know the circumstances as yet.

Interesting post though.

Grahame

A few details. A near new 1.4 million dollar machine.
A diesel electric machine that comes in at 69 tons.
Travels no load at 30km.
bg

How can this (presumably) accident be defined as a 'near miss'? It crashed so was clearly an incident and not at all a 'near miss'.


Thx
Jon

Originally Posted by beergoggles

A few details. A near new 1.4 million dollar machine.
A diesel electric machine that comes in at 69 tons.
Travels no load at 30km.
bg

..... likely operated by an idiot on drugs or alcohol. And before people start screaming about my assumption, I know quite a lot about wharves & freight including people who worked on wharves all their lives. One of which, now long retired, used to drive a crane after seeing a workmate squashed by a container put on top of him by the crane driver, who spent his lunch break in the pub. At which point Claude insisted on being the crane driver, as he didn't drink.

PDW

Originally Posted by ventureoverland

How can this (presumably) accident be defined as a 'near miss'? It crashed so was clearly an incident and not at all a 'near miss'.ThxJon

No injuries makes it a "Near Miss"...

Originally Posted by ventureoverland

How can this (presumably) accident be defined as a 'near miss'? It crashed so was clearly an incident and not at all a 'near miss'.


Thx
Jon

When I was working somebody suggested that the term "near miss" be abolished and replaced by "near hit".

Bill

Originally Posted by PDW

..... likely operated by an idiot on drugs or alcohol. PDW

I'll concede things like that have happened in the past.These days with the tight OH&S regulations and legislation is it really likely that a substance affected driver in a high risk work, drug and alcohol tested environment would not be detected quickly?

It simply is not tolerated by management or unions in this day and age.
I have been in local heavy engineering shops in the last 12 months where anybody who is affected by substances is discovered and removed very quickly. Spot checks occur all the time.

Given the constant attention to drug and alcohol testing I feel safer onsite than I do on the open road.

Some one may have had a heart attack or stroke while driving . Until circumstances are revealed we cannot assume. The fact that that the accident with a Million $+machine is not appearing on the internet as a news item, does says something, so I suppose it is possible that there is something that the particular stevedore company does not want public knowledge.

Given the constant attention to drug and alcohol testing in workplaces, reckon I feel safer onsite than I do on the open road.

Grahame

Originally Posted by Grahame Collins

...
Given the constant attention to drug and alcohol testing in workplaces, reckon I feel safer onsite than I do on the open road.

Grahame

I agree. I'm a Civil Engineer and have worked all over the world over the last 20years or so in the rail and high voltage electricity distribution industries. I have also done a stint in pit-port container yard design.

The point I'm making is that even now, in management roles I am classed as a safety critical worker and am subjected to the same random D&A tests as the guys operating plant. This was unheard of years ago and I am thankful for the change, whenever I'm onsite I can be pretty sure 99.99% of staff are clean - We all need to go home at night!

Jon


Thx
Jon

Originally Posted by PDW

..... likely operated by an idiot on drugs or alcohol. And before people start screaming about my assumption, I know quite a lot about wharves & freight including people who worked on wharves all their lives. One of which, now long retired, used to drive a crane after seeing a workmate squashed by a container put on top of him by the crane driver, who spent his lunch break in the pub. At which point Claude insisted on being the crane driver, as he didn't drink.

PDW

ah the good old days. THese days its more likely to see the cranes working thru lunch than the operators down the pub.

as well as random and often drug and alcohol testing. strict 45 min lunch. post incident drug and alcohol testing. plus

booze busses on the roads. productivity is all thats important know.well
i can't speak for all work sites only the one i know Australia's biggest container port.