EASY TALK
FleetWatch has a colourful history of interaction with our
readers and advertisers. As part of our on-going attempts to add
value to this interaction, we are now open to all communication
modes to make it easier for you to communicate with us.
Should you wish to comment on any issue raised in FleetWatch
- or that is going on in the industry - you can do so via phone on
(011) 794-2490, fax on (011) 794-1474 or e-mail us on
fleetwatch@pixie.co.za.
You can also respond directly from our web-site at
www.fleetwatch.co.za. Under each submitted letter in our Letters to
the Editor page, for example, is an underlined Your Comment.
Merely click on this and an easy facility is provided for you to
write and submit your thoughts. On other issues, merely click on the Feedback
button from our main page.
If you feel peeved off or thrilled by something, don't keep it to
yourself. Share it. Remember the Sun City advertisement which urged
you to get there by car, train, bus or plane. Well, now you can get
to
FleetWatch - and through us to the market - by phone, fax,
e-mail or the web. Just get here.
|
Actions speak louder than words |
Although I am associated with
FleetWatch as Legislation Correspondent, I submit this as a 'Letter to the Editor' as my response to the overloading feature in the July edition which I read with great interest.
Once again, FleetWatch is to be congratulated on its effort to again highlight the problem of overloading in the road transport industry and the July edition of the magazine certainly gives the subject wide and comprehensive exposure. But, unfortunately,
FleetWatch has embarked on such campaigns on many occasions in the past and still overloading continues. Surely the time has arrived when the question must be asked: Has the time not arrived when talking must give way to action if overloading is to be reduced to an acceptable level?
At the outset, it must be conceded that employing thousands more traffic officers and installing hundreds more mass meters (weighbridges) will not solve the problem. What is needed is a change in the attitude of operators. Admittedly, this is easier said than done but it has been achieved overseas and it can be achieved in South Africa. It needs effort and determination and the authorities must play their part. The time for action has never been riper than it is now! I refer to the Editor's Comment on Page 2 of the July edition. It virtually says it all - far more than any of the articles on overloading!
It is reported from the National Department of Transport that the Road Traffic Management Corporation is to be introduced - at last - and a whole section of the National Department of Transport is to move to Centurion to manage and run the RTMC. Included in the programme is the introduction of the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences - the Point Penalty System. This is great news and advantage must be taken to include some heavy points for overloading. Also, drivers, operators, consignors and consignees must be included in the system and penalised when they are to blame.
When thought is given to the many training courses, seminars, workshops and magazine articles which are available today, it is hard to understand that operators can claim they do not know:
-
The maximum legal payload of each and every vehicle in their fleet;
-
The mass of every load their customers load on their vehicles by insisting on an accurate waybill for every load. (This is not a new or unreasonable requirement. It was a legal requirement in the days of the road carrier permit system).
-
A knowledge of how to determine the distribution of the payload on a vehicle to ensure correct axle mass distribution.
While it can be said that the majority of the articles on overloading which appeared in the July edition of
FleetWatch fail to make any contribution towards a solution to the overloading problem, the article by Patrick O'Leary under the heading "The Big Challenge" does make the appeal to the Minister of Transport to implement the promise made by the previous Minister, Dullah Omar, to bring the Consignor into the loading operation with prescribed duties and responsibilities. But....the Consignor is not always the one responsible for correct or incorrect load distribution. The Operator and Driver must play their part.
A typical example of bad load distribution which can be controlled by the operator or his/her trained driver is the case of Interlink combinations on which one 12m container or two 6m containers are loaded on the rear semi-trailer with no container on the front semi-trailer. At the first weigh site, the combination is checked, weighed and prosecuted for exceeding more than five times the mass load on the driving axles of the truck-tractor. The Operator gets angry as he/she claims that the vehicle was not overloaded. The correct loading would have been:
-
If two 6 m containers were to be carried, load one on the front semi-trailer and one on the rear semi-trailer, or;
-
If one 12 m container was being carried, drop/disconnect the front semi-trailer and use the rear semi-trailer only and load the 12m container on the five axle artic.
But such actions call for good fleet operating management. There are other examples. The answer is:
-
Know your fleet and issue good loading instructions to drivers and Consignors.
-
Using the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences legislation to curb overloading has potential for success. I say this mainly because the allocation of penalty points will have been determined by experts in the field of the serious consequences of overloading and the penalties will not be confined to the imposition of monetary fines which, at present, are paid without any serious hardship by guilty parties.
The basic idea of imposing administrative sanctions against habitual overloaders was proposed in 1983 and accepted, in principle, but not implemented because it was argued that it was the prerogative of the courts and not the legislators to impose penalties. But now the position has changed and we will hopefully soon have the points penalties to legalise the system and the opportunity to curb this gross overloading and to stop talking and get some action. Remember, the old adage: "Actions Speak Louder Than Words"!
Jack Webster
Fellow of the IRTE
Johannesburg
Editor's Comment:
As usual 'Uncle Jack', you make excellent comment providing much food for thought. I know you have always maintained that 'attitude' will be the catalyst for change. What we now need to focus on is how - without legislative pushing - we can get those attitudes changed. Any suggestion out there? Let us have them.
Your
comment
| Trucking industry not playing fair |
For some years
now I have kept out of the debate on the driving behaviour of many (unfortunately very many) of our heavy vehicle drivers. However, the article by Bert Koning published in your August edition forces me to enter it primarily because of the almost sanctimonious way he describes this "scourge" on our roads.
|
|
|
I do not need to
establish my credentials and goodwill towards the trucking industry
having supported it over decades. In fact, as you are aware, it was
under my "watch" at the Department of Transport that both
the GVM and the maximum vehicle length were increased to their present
values. I did this because I recognized the economic benefits to the
country in so doing - something which did not make me popular with my
rail colleagues.
However, I feel very strongly that the trucking industry is nowadays not playing fair with the other components of the transport sector, especially motorists and kombi drivers who are the most susceptible to being involved in fatal accidents.
You and your readers will remember the way the road freight industry did its best to prevent the RTQS coming into being, decades ago, when we considered it a necessary complement to the total deregulation of road freight haulage.
I am not "knocking" the drivers alone. Over the years I have been exposed to much bitterness by drivers being "used" by operators in the pursuit of profits. I also do not refer to the unscrupulous use of the R103 in the Mooi River area to avoid toll charges, or the widespread manipulation of the tolerance in axle weight measurements and a host of other unsavoury practices. I fortunately operated in the presence of owners such as Phil Erasmus and others who displayed a public spiritedness in their operations and yet still managed to make profits.
But to suggest the only a FEW drivers act as if they are the sole occupants of our roads, or display atrocious driving habits, or drive highly dangerous vehicles from a vehicle condition point of view, is a shallow, misguided and superficial viewpoint. It would take me hours to describe the many dangerous incidents I have witnessed on our roads involving heavy vehicles during the last decade. Perhaps Bert Koning should be made aware that the driving public is not easily duped fools and that the attitude towards truck drivers which he deplores has been well earned.
Can we not return to the days of high ethics and morals in the trucking industry? If we did so, the public would be their biggest supporters and I am sure that the widespread calls to divert general freight to rail, albeit in an irrational fashion, would subside. I consider the majority of truckers nowadays to be their own worst enemies.
Malcolm Mitchell
KwaZulu Natal
|
Editor's Comment:
Now here's a voice from the past - and what a welcomed voice to have join the debate. Hey Malcolm, how you doing my mate? Good to hear from you and especially in the fighting spirit in which you have re-entered the fray. By the way, just a friendly tip. I wouldn't shout too loud about being instrumental in having the GVM and the maximum vehicle length increased to their present values. Not only will you still be unpopular with your rail friends but also with some politicians who naively see the reduction in GVM as the way back to rail. But that's an aside.
Yes, I agree that truckers are often their own worst enemies but although you touch on it, I don't think you place enough accent on the 'owner' or 'operator' for his part in the demise of standards. Yes, the driver behind the wheel is certainly responsible for his behaviour out on the road but as for things like driving "highly dangerous vehicles from a vehicle condition point of view", I refer you to Section 49 of the Road Traffic Act which spells out the Duties of an Operator. Encompassed within that Section are things like ensuring vehicles are roadworthy, drivers are trained - and so on. There are still operators who apply the ethics of their predecessors such as that great man Phil Erasmus but there are many who don't. I refer you to the accompanying picture of the bulb on the tyre. I stopped this truck to remonstrate with the driver about not noticing and, more importantly, rectifying such an obvious and potentially dangerous flaw. And his answer: "I told the boss about that two months ago but he just tells me to keep driving because he is not going to change the tyre." Is that the driver's fault? No. (The full story with expert comment on the flaw appears in our MarketWatch pages in this issue).
Too often we blame all the ills of the road on the drivers when, in fact, it's the 'operator' who should come under the hammer. But you are right; there are many drivers whose driving behaviour is atrocious. This, of course, opens up a whole new debate in terms of getting it right. Stricter law enforcement, driver training, a return to 'old-time' ethics and morals (although I remember many an 'ethical' transporter sending 'pace' cars out ahead to check for cops when hauling goods without a permit). Then there's the system. The nature of the trucking industry has changed in line with the changing demands of commerce and industry with the main challenge being the need to service to a Just-In-Time schedule where the truck is now the warehouse rather than just the deliverer. Fancy computerised control systems have been developed to help meet this challenge but little thought has been given to the drivers who, in the face of a dire driver shortage, are being pushed harder and harder to deliver more goods to more places more quickly than ever before. It's a Fast Food world we're living in and the drivers are having to keep up by going longer and faster. Something is going to snap. But that's all another debate. Ah Malcolm, don't you just love this industry? It's good to hear your voice again. Keep talking. We're listening.
 |
IS
THIS the driver’s
fault? No! See MarketWatch pages |
Your
comment
I refer to the various articles in the July 2005 edition of
FleetWatch concerning vehicle overloads and would like to offer the following observations.
Over the past couple of years, I have been privileged to serve on a working group convened under the auspices of the Department of Justice with the intent to develop guidelines for the prosecution of overloaded vehicles. Here I must emphasise that my purpose on serving on the working group was to ensure that the operators' rights would be protected as far as possible and that the guidelines would be drafted taking cognisance of the realities of operating fully laden vehicles on our roads.
One issue that resulted in fairly heated discussions was a view held by the Prosecutors/Authorities that, even though the gross mass of a vehicle may be within maximum permissible limits, an axle load distribution infringement is considered to be equally as severe as an overload of the whole vehicle or combination.
As indicated in the lead article on the topic in your July edition, the first infringement would invariably not be an intentional overload with no financial benefit to the operator while the latter case may or may not be to intentionally carry more than the permitted load.
There are a number of vehicle categories legally allowed to operate to a maximum permissible single axle load rating of 10 200kg, or a dual axle rating of 20 400kg, both of which are 13.3% higher than the normal ratings of 9 000kg and 18 000kg respectively. If road damage is the issue, how can a 6% overload beyond the normal permissible single axle or tandem axle unit be considered as severe as an intentional gross vehicle mass infringement, while other categories of vehicles are legally allowed to operate at far higher axle loads than those for which the operator is being charged?
Jim Campbell
Institute of Road Transport Engineers
Editor's Comment:
It's a very good question and I take it you have asked it not so much as to seek an answer but rather to make public the seemingly absurdity of the issue. Have you put it to the Prosecutors/Authorities on that working group? What is their view? We'll also look into it as, to be honest, it's a point I had not thought of before. Many thanks for putting it forward. And if any 'Authority' reads this and has the answer, please let us have it to share with our readers.
Your
comment
The main reason
why people subscribe to FleetWatch is because you keep it topical and interesting and it is a world-class, professionally produced publication. It is also great to see that you have gone global and now reach all corners of the world.
Before you beat yourself up about how poor the "standards" are in South Africa (Editor's Comment, August edition), let's just take a careful look at our industry. The generalised line-haul legislative requirements are a bit "thin" but adequate providing that operators comply with the legislative standards.
Professional Hazchem and Abnormal Load Operators are controlled by some of the finest legislation in the world but the general problem in the industry at large is the extremely poor standard of policing by the under-trained, under-paid, incompetent road traffic inspectorate!
Coupled with the poor calibre inspectorate personnel, the political influence forcing each province into making their own rules has made it extremely difficult to comply with legislation. In the abnormal load industry, we sometimes have to apply for up to eleven different permits - in eleven different provinces - in order to run a large load between Durban and Johannesburg! The Freestate, for some unexplained and illogical reasons, have their own different abnormal load requirements compared to Natal and Gauteng, and there is no valid reason for such "pig-headedness!"
When we have to contend with such circumstances such as the Freestate, we simply choose to run the longer routes to avoid such nonsensical "red-tape".
The South African situation has no simple quick-fix answer. However, a good start would be to bring pressure to bear on the dodgy operators as well as the clients who are prepared to support them for the cheaper prices they offer - and both parties should be prosecuted. (It's funny how the Insurance companies don't discover the dodgy operators and shippers when there is an accident. I am sure that this knowledge would result in far fewer claims being settled.)
In our opinion, there are plenty "professional transport operators" who voluntarily train their staff and even go beyond the statutory requirements of their specialized choice of transportation in an effort to do a proper job. It saves their equipment and avoids the ugly situations which arise when problems occur.
Sleep a little easier Patrick, there are quite a few professional operators on the roads. It's the dodgy operators and their clients who should be sorted out. The Insurance industry should also stand up and be counted! Keep up the good work.
Tim Driman
Managing Director
TLD GROUP
Editor's
Comment: Wow! That opening paragraph, Thanks for that. Such feedback makes it all worthwhile. Readers will have noticed that Tim mentions 11 provinces yet there are only nine in SA. I queried this with him and was his reply: "A high route takes you in strange directions going in and out of provincial boundaries. Our best one yet is in and out of 11 different provinces and we didn't get near Freestate, Eastern Cape, Cape etc!! It takes abnormal temperaments to run abnormal loads!"
With that cleared up, you make some extremely valid points. it has always amazed me why each province has its own set of rules when the transport industry is a national one with trucks criss-crossing the country on a daily basis. Surely one set of 'national' rules is the way to go? It truly does baffle me, this one. As you say, it's all about political influence but that's a load of codswallop when the system causes havoc instead of order. Get a national set of rules in place to which everyone must adhere. A prime example of where this would lead to improvements is in the area of law enforcement. Take what applies currently in KwaZulu Natal and apply it nationally appointing a guy like the no-nonsense, 'zero tolerance king' John Schnell as the National Director of a National Road Traffic Inspectorate. In your field of operation - abnormal loads - for the Freestate to have a different set of rules to KZN and Gauteng is ludicrous. What's the point? Can anyone explain why the Freestate needs a different set of rules? Perhaps the MEC for Transport can tell us. I remain baffled on this one.
Your point on the Insurance industry taking no notice of dodgy operators is also a good one. I have always contended that this sector has the potential to do so much good via its muscle but you never hear of it coming forward with anything more than trying to avoid paying claims or alternatively, raising premiums. I feel the insurance industry should hang its head in shame at its lack of attention - and positive input - into the issues of the day. There are a few insurance men - Chris Barry is one - who have a genuine concern for this industry and tirelessly work towards improvements but can anyone point me to any national road safety project that has been sponsored by an insurance company? I know OutSurance recently sponsored a project to put more pointsmen on duty around Sandton but I'm talking about a national road safety project. Their silence is deafening. But, on the positive side, as you say, there are "plenty professional transport operators' who do it right so I'm gonna take your advice and switch off this computer to go 'sleep a little easier'. Thanks for sharing your views with our readers.
 |
|
HOLLARD
- Chris Barry of Hollard
is an insurance man with a genuine concern for the industry,
working tirelessly to make improvements |
Your
comment
|
Rewarded for their efforts |
It's really great
to see individuals being rewarded for their efforts. I refer to the cover story in your July edition. You are so right: It seems it is always the fuel companies that go out of their way to boost the standards of drivers. It goes without saying it is only within Engen's interest that this initiative is sustained to provide a cost effective and safe environment for all the players. Long may FormulaE continue. Hopefully other outfits will take note of this initiative and follow suite.
There is nothing more gratifying than been voted as the best in your job - and being rewarded for it. Any competition requires winners in order to achieve an objective. However, in this scenario, I believe all the participants are winners. Everyone goes away from this event having gained a wealth of new knowledge and skills.
Let's face it there is no room for error in this business, so the old cliché comes to mind: 'Knowledge is power.' My experience in an event of this magnitude is that it creates a camaraderie among the blokes which is so important in this profession.
If possible, please pass on my congratulations to Paul Turner and Moses Motsoeneng from a fellow professional.
Murray Wood
Tanker Driver
United Kingdom
Editor's Comment:
You've said it all and the letter serves as a public congratulations to all professional drivers. You rightfully state that hopefully other outfits will take note of this initiative and follow suite. I must make mention here that the fine job another oil company, BP, did during its Driver of the Year African regional competition last year resulted in South Africa being chosen as the venue for BP's International Driver of the Year competition which is being held over four months culminating in the finals towards the end of the year. The oil companies certainly are doing our country - and their drivers - proud and we lift our hats to them for this sterling effort.
Your
comment
Best
Sellers!
Phone (011) 794 2490/1 to order
|
