FleetWatch Online - 59-Safety

No part of this publication may be reproduced without the prior written permission from the publishers. Views published are not necessarily those of the publishers.

Past Issues

March 2007

There is no doubt in anyone's mind that loads falling off trucks present a massive safety hazard on the roads. There is also no doubt that it happens far too often. However, it is not always the fault of the transporter as many would have the public believe writes Patrick O'Leary.

Whenever one hears on radio traffic reports that a truck has lost its load, the first thought that comes to mind is that the operator has secured the load incorrectly - or not at all. This immediately conjures up an image of all transporters being irresponsible road users as far as load securement is concerned. Well, this is just not true.

I recently came across an incident where, if the customer has listened to the transporter, bags of a white powder-type substance called Kaolin G3 would have remained on the truck instead of falling off the truck. In this case, blame for the incident can be laid firmly at the door of the customer rather than the operator.

It was while driving back from Germiston that I came across the incident on the M2 West. Traffic was backed up for quite a bit and up ahead, a fire-engine, traffic officials and others were at work. As I got closer, I saw that the road was coated with a white powder substance which the guys were sweeping up into bins and into the back of bakkie. The firemen were hosing down the road.

Up ahead of all this were two trucks, an interlink with its half-spilled load being contained by a netting over a tarpaulin and the other, a tri-axle semi onto which the spilled bags were being transferred.

When I got out my car with my camera and notepad, a guy covered in white powder looked across at me from the middle of the road where he was sweeping up the product. I gestured to him with my hand in front of my mouth if it was safe for me to join him in the mess. My concern was whether or not the substance was hazardous and presented a safety threat of any sort.

He indicated that it was OK so I crossed over and introduced myself. His name was Johnny Hattingh and he sort of half-smiled. "Yes, I know FleetWatch. Are you now going to write bad things about me in the magazine?"

"Not necessarily," I replied, keeping my options open. "Are you the driver of the truck?" I asked.

"No. I'm the owner."

That immediately impressed me. How many owners will rush to the scene of an accident/incident and immediately get stuck into cleaning up the mess? Not many I'd venture. Sure they'll be at the scene but not with a broom in their hands. The driver was helping up ahead where the two rigs were parked.

"What happened," I asked.

"You can see that the road has a slope in it and when the driver was going round the curve, the load started slipping and then fell off. It was too heavy for the netting and the strapping to hold," said Hattingh.

Volcanic lava
The load consisted of pallets of bagged Kaolin G3, a substance used in the manufacture of soap. The powder is extremely malleable and once it starts moving, the best way to describe it is that it resembles volcanic lava. It just keeps moving and gathers momentum as it moves.

Hattingh demonstrated this by sweeping an amount of the powder into a pile and then pushing it forward. Picture the flow of lava and that's exactly what happened to the load. Once it started shifting, it gathered momentum and despite the fact that it was contained first with a tarpaulin, then with netting and finally with straps, the momentum was too strong for all this to hold the product in place and it burst out of its restraints onto the road.

With the load secured by a tarpaulin, a net and strapping, what else could have been done to prevent the load from falling off? A lot says Hattingh - but not by him. Rather, by the customer.

"I have continually urged the customer to shrink-wrap the pallets as I feared this would happen. He, however, refused to do so saying it would cost him more money. Now it's costing me money. If he had listened to me, we wouldn't be in this mess."

"Are you going to haul for him again," I asked.

"No. My warnings have fallen on deaf ears and now we have to deal with the consequences. This is the first time in 10 years that I have had a load fall off any of my rigs - and I intend it to be the last time," he said. Hoorah! At last here's a transporter who is prepared to stand up against the customer and tell him to take a hike.

If the transporter advises for a product to be shrink wrapped, why does the customer not listen? Apart from the cost of an incident such this, there is a safety factor at stake. But, of course, the customer always knows better. Or does he?

Ignoring safety precautions
FleetWatch has often put forward the case that many accidents are not the fault of the transporter but rather the shipper/consignor/customer. What we're talking here is safety critical precautions that are ignored by the shipper - and not just in terms of load securement.

Take driver fatigue as an example. This is a serious problem in our industry with many drivers being killed or injured due to falling asleep behind the wheel. The first thought that comes to mind is that the operator is pushing his drivers too hard and too long. Admittedly there are those operators who do this - and they are wrong. However, driver fatigue is also - to a large extent - customer induced by the very fact that drivers are kept waiting for hours to load and offload at customers' premises and lose precious hours of rest-time by having to do so. Scheduling a load or offload time with a customer is rare. Instead, it's first come first served and if you're not first in line, you wait - and wait.

By this practise, schedules are thrown totally out of sync and it happens on a daily basis that the driver has to set off on a long journey without having received any rest due to inconsiderate and miscreant customers who don't give two hoots about keeping drivers waiting for hours with little thought given to the driver's hours of work and rest.

And then, once out on the road, the driver has to keep going so as to meet what are often unrealistic trip times imposed on the operator by the customer. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that there is a serious driver shortage in the country during a time when road freight is being used more and more over rail. Also, the move of South African industry to Just-in-Time delivery schedules has placed a big burden on the shoulders of the country's truck drivers. JIT is the right system but it has not taken into account the very human constraints of drivers; simple things like the need for sleep.

Going for the lowest rate
It is also well know that many customers/shippers/consignors go for the lowest rate possible and play one transporter off against the other to achieve this. The more established operators are wise to this and walk away. It is the smaller guys, desperate to keep the wheels rolling, who fall prey to such despicable practices. By so doing, they end up either overloading to make up the shortfall or they make it up by skipping service intervals and cutting back on maintenance costs. I contend that many transporters are running unroadworthy rigs not because they want to, but rather because they are hauling at such low rates that maintenance checks are deliberately ignored to extend the Buck.

Taking all this into account, FleetWatch reckons it is high time that shippers/customers/consignors are brought into line in terms of operational practices which ensure quality and safe trucking. As it stands, transporters are treating customers as kings but those 'kings' are treating their transporters as peasants and by so doing, are turning them into paupers.

As a matter of interest, I took a close look at the rig that was carrying that Kaolin G3 stuff. It looked in impeccable condition. A quick glance at the condition of a rig's tyres will often tell whether there are less visible flaws. All the tyres were in perfect condition and by the overall look of the rig, this transporter was operating to high standards with all safety precautions in place and adhered to - apart from a missing front number plate. The miscreant was the customer who failed to listen to the safety warnings of his transporter. Isn't this so often the case?

One wonders how many of the other drivers in cars, taxis and trucks who had to inch past the scene knew that the inconvenience they were being subjected to was caused not by the transporter or the truck driver but rather by the shipper/customer. Not many I'd guess? This should change.