Thomas Truck Training Ltd
 Thrapston House, Huntingdon Rd Thrapston Northamptonshire NN14 4NF

PHONE +44 (0) 1832 731261
or 0845 644 8365 (local rate)
Central Fax ( +44) 0 1832 730281

 bigH@3ttt.info

Lorry Loaders

 

Links

 

More articles from C&A

PDF FILE (97k)

Electrocution costs £230,000
Francis Michael Lyons, trading as Frank Lyons Plant Services, of Felstead, Essex and Lyons Landfill Ltd were each fined £80,000 plus £35,000 costs at St Albans Crown Court in November. The case was brought by the HSE after the death of self employed truck driver Nathaniel Hugh Scollan, 56, (also known as Hugh Breffni), who was electrocuted after the boom of his loader crane hit overhead power lines. The accident occurred at a combined quarry and landfill site at Hollingson Meads Quarry, Pole Hole, Gilston, Harlow, on the 10th September 2003. The company and Lyons were both committed to trial after entering Not Guilty pleas at Hertford Magistrates Court, in January. Scollan had parked beneath the lines while waiting for a load of ballast from the quarry. As he raised the boom and grab of his loader crane it came into contact with the overhead lines. He sustained fatal injuries from the electric shock. The court heard that the site was poorly laid out with

stockpiles located close to the overhead lines, inadequate signs, poorly designed crossing points and inadequate measures taken to keep plant clear of the lines. HSE principal inspector, Mike Gibb, said: "This was a tragic death that could have easily been prevented. Operators of plant may make mistakes and all reasonably practicable steps should be taken to ensure their errors don't result in loss of life or serious injury. I encourage all employers to carefully plan and put into place sensible precautions to prevent their workers, contractors or visitors to their site coming into contact with overhead power lines. Good management will reduce the risk of accidents happening."It is also important to remember that vehicles or mobile plant do not need to strike the overhead line for injury to occur. Electricity can arc across a surprising distance depending on the voltage and conditions." HSE's guidance note GS 6 gives detailed advice on the subject.

Extracted from Crane & Access December 2006
  No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article  (14/12/06)
 

Hanging offence or useful tool?
 A new European standard for man-baskets suspended from cranes has been published.
Phil Bishop explores the implications
 The issue of lifting persons in baskets suspended from cranes has been a hot topic for several years. There is a strong body of thought that argues that cranes are designed for lifting goods and not people and therefore is contrary to the EU Use of Work Equipment Directive 95/63/CE 1995.

When crane hire company NMT offered rides in a basket suspended from a crane to visitors to the 2002 SED show, the International Powered Access Federation swiftly called in the Health & Safety Executive. After some discussion the authorities put a stop to the rides (which, it should be added, were merely to raise funds for charity). The basis for stopping NMT was that it was deemed to be using the crane and basket as a fairground ride rather than as industrial equipment. It is, in fact, perfectly legal in the UK to ride in a man-basket suspended from a crane, although some crane owners feel that clearer guidance is required from the HSE.
The HSE says that its attitude to riding in baskets suspended from cranes is very similar to its attitude to the use of work platforms attached to forklifts. In each case, LOLER says that it may be done only in "exceptional circumstances". In effect, this means where a risk assessment has demonstrated that there is not a more appropriate, safer alternative readily available. This is also in line with the Work at Height Regulations' hierarchy of risk. .............. For more on this article click here
Crane & Access March 2006
 No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article  (25/03/06)
   FIVE-A DAY Every year in the UK there are over 2,000 incidents involving ‘Bridge Bashing’, which equates to an average of over five a day.One of the main causes of these The estimated cost of a bridge accidents is the failure of lorry bashing incident is considerable, with loader operators to correctly stow repairs sometimes reaching over their cranes for travel. This is the one million pounds. Add to this the operator’s responsibility and the various hidden costs associated potential effects of such negligence with this kind of accident — run from major inconvenience, such increased insurance premiums, as creating delays on the road and personal injury claims, the cost of rail networks, to serious risk to management time spent on dealing personal safety, not only for the with the administrative aftermath, driver and the pedestrians in the disgruntled customers resulting vicinity of the accident, but also the from the late or non-delivery of possibility of causing the derailment goods — and it’s easy to see why of a train, which would have an incident such as this could disastrous consequences. prove ruinous for any business.

The legal obligations with respect to Bridge Bashing are made clear by the requirements stated in the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) Regulations 1997:-

1. From the first of October 1997, all relevant vehicles over 3 metres in height must have a notice in the cab indicating the vehicle’s normal travelling height.
2. From the first of April 1998, all relevant vehicles put on the road
for the first time, must be fitted with devices to warn the driver that the travelling height stated on the notice in the cab, has been exceeded.
3. From the first of October 1998, all relevant vehicles first put on the road after the first of April 1993 must be retro-fitted with devices to warn the driver that the travelling height stated on the notice in the cab, has been exceeded.
In addition to this, for CE marked machines, the European Standard for Loader Cranes (BS EN12999) calls for an indicator to warn the
operator when the crane height exceeds a predetermined maximum So why do these accidents occur at such an alarming rate when the problem of incorrect stowage of the loader crane is properly recognised and even legislated for?

Unfortunately the answer to that lies with the operator and more often than not, the insufficient training that he/she has received. For this reason, the  ALLMI Training scheme for travel. Clearly warning devices without the knowledge and training simply do not work.

No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of any articles found on this site.   Reproduced from Crane & Access Jun/July 2006

 

An Accident Waiting to Happen!
 We all know how dangerous mechanical handling equipment can be when used incorrectly and lorry loader cranes are no exception. However, with lorry loaders spending a large part of their life traveling from one job or delivery to the next, negligence can not only lead to accidents in the workplace or on site, but also at high speed on the open highway.
 One of the most serious types of accident involving the use of lorry loaders is caused by the stabiliser legs being incorrectly stowed for travel. If the stabiliser leg is not properly locked into its stowing position, it can extend whilst the lorry is in transit, taking out everything in its path. This can have fatal consequences and what makes the situation even worse is that this type of accident will usually occur at speed, putting the lives of innocent pedestrians and motorists at risk.

Lorry driver jailed after loose crane kills schoolboy, 13
 In May 2000 in Stubbington, Hants, a lorry driver returning from a job had not engaged either the primary or secondary leg locks on his lorry loader. The unsecured stabiliser leg came out of its housing and struck two boys (aged 12 and 13) on the back of the head. With their backs to the lorry, they didn’t stand a chance. One of the boys died as a result of his injuries, leading to a two year jail sentence for the lorry driver in question. ( Daily Telegraph Thursday may 31st 2001)

Unfortunately this is not an isolated incident. Similar accidents have occurred, causing anything from serious injuries to damage to public and private property It is the prevalence and seriousness of accidents involving stabiliser legs that has led the Vehicle & Operator Services Agency (VOSA) to introduce a change to the annual testing of vehicles. From April 2005, VOSA Inspectors will now include an examination of the stabiliser legs on lorry loaders. Inspectors will be looking for the presence and effectiveness of leg locking mechanisms. This inspection will also be incorporated into roadside checks.

However, the types of locking mechanisms on stabiliser legs can vary. With manually deployed legs (i.e. stabiliser legs, which are extended by hand) the locks are purely mechanical, requiring both a primary and secondary locking device. On vehicles fitted with hydraulically deployed legs, manufacturers provide locking mechanisms, which can sometimes be hydraulic and operate by means of specialist valves. EN12999, the European Standard for Loader Cranes, states that a secondary locking device must be in place and that at least one of the stabiliser leg locking mechanisms shall be automatically operated (e.g. a spring operated cam lock and a automatic spring latch). However, loader crane manufacturers have been granted a temporary exemption on this issue on the understanding that EN1 2999 will soon be amended to clarify the position for hydraulic stabiliser legs and the locking mechanisms they incorporate.The process for ensuring stabiliser legs are secured properly for travel is a relatively simple one. It really comes down to good operator training. For this reason, the ALLMI Training scheme devotes an entire module to the subject of securing the crane for travel. This is particularly important given the hydraulic method of locking the hydraulic cylinder on the stabiliser leg as it is not immediately obvious - there is no visible locking device. For this reason it is crucial that operators understand the differences between the two types of stabiliser legs. Again this goes back to the importance of training and the instructor who has a sound knowledge of lorry loaders.

No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of any articles found on this site.   Reproduced from Crane & Access May 2005
 

Is it a bird or a plane.? Is it a loader or a crane??
7121 Part 4 was issued in 1997and there have been a number of changes in the industry since the standard was written that need to be addressed, but it will be some time before we [British Standards Committee] are able to carry out this work.  In the meantime, in my role as  the British Standards Committee, responsible for this standard, I would like to clarify what we intended when we wrote the definition of lorry loader in clause 3.1 of the standard. We were addressing those machines whose prime purpose was the transportation of goods, but happened to be fitted with a crane to facilitate loading and unloading.
Today this means that "the capacity of the crane should be commensurate with the load carrying capacity of the vehicle to which it is fitted, while the reach of the crane should only enable the load to be placed in close proximity of the vehicle."

This means that the very large cranes that are being fitted to vehicles, where the crane takes up the majority of the vehicles load carrying capacity and has a reach that far exceeds the requirement to simply unload the vehicle, are outside the scope of Part4. These therefore have to be looked upon as mobile cranes and subjected to Part 3 of BS7121 of the standard.
The consequence of this is that the crane operator cannot take on any other role than driving the crane. The lifting operations that these larger lorry loaders perform must be supported by a written plan, be supervised and have signallers as defined by Part 3 of the standard

No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of any articles found on this site.   Reproduced from cranes & access Aug/Sep issue 04
  British Standards Committee to update lorry loader standard
Peter Dram, crane safety expert and chairman of the British & European Crane Standards Committee, has told C&A that, following discussions with the Association of Lorry Loader Manufacturers and Importers (AILMI) and Health & Safety Executive, the BS 7121 Part 4 Safe use of Lorry loader cranes standard will be updated to accommodate larger lorry loader cranes.
Over the past few years, the ever-increasing lift capacities and capabilities of lorry loader cranes have seemingly outgrown the BS 7121 Part 4 Safe use of Lorry loader cranes standard issued back in 1997, causing much confusion among users over the correct procedures and guidelines of operation.
Mr Oram addressed the issue in the August/September issue of C&A, stating that the very large loader cranes have to now be looked upon as mobile cranes and subjected to Part 3 of BS 7121 Code of Practise for the safe use of mobile cranes. (See above article)
“The consequence of this is that the crane operator cannot take on any other role than driving the crane,” said Mr Oram. “The lifting operations that these larger lorry loaders perform must be supported by a written plan, be supervised, and have slingers as defined by Part 3 of the standard.” Mr Dram was unable to confirm when exactly a revision of Part 4 of the standard would take place.

No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of any articles found on this site.   Reproduced from Crane & Access December 2004
 

ALLMI
  Advice note on INSTILLATION
 (80k pdf)

 The present situation with regard to Stabiliser Interlocks (SI) for lorry loaders is that they are not mandatory. By definition, a SI comprises a device that would prevent a lorry loader being operated unless the extendable stabilisers are fully extended and secure. Whilst one or two loader manufacturers presently offer such a device, this is usually to meet a specific customer requirement on a specific model and not across its whole range.
It is a requirement of the Machinery Directive in Preliminary Observation No 2 that suppliers must take into account ‘State of the Art’. ‘State of the Art’ as defined by CEN is the developed state of technical possibilities at a given time relating to products, processes and services as based on scientific knowledge and experience’.
Subsequent to the action of the HSE in issuing statements to the effect, SIs were mandatory, a 2002 in Finland where European lorry loader manufacturers, the HSE and ALIMI were represented. It was recognised that, at present, manufacturers fully comply with the requirements in EN12999 through the Machinery Directive in that their machines are ‘State of the Art’ with respect to SIs.
It was agreed that manufacturers would work towards introducing a practical system of SIs, but that any such industry introduction was unlikely before 2006.
At this time, VOSA, who are responsible for inspecting vehicles for compliance with ‘The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations’, is making the installation and satisfactory operation of stabiliser leg locking devices subject to examination at any inspection. These are purely simple locking catches to prevent the stabiliser leg support beam from extending sideways uncontrolled.

No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of any articles found on this site.   Crane & Access December 2004
 

LORRY LOADER CRANES: Testing and inspection
 With the number of lorry loader cranes operating in the UK increasing every year, the need for properly tested and inspected equipment has never been greater - not only for the safety of crane operators and site workers, but also for the well being of the nation’s road users.

A crane that has not been properly maintained poses a risk not only in its place of operation, but also when travelling between jobs. But a great deal of confusion exists over the requirements for the testing of loader cranes. The Construction and Use (Lifting) Regulations 1961 covered this, but these were repealed in 1998 with the advent of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations (LOLER).

LOLER introduced the requirement for an annual ‘Thorough Examination and Inspection’. This made it the responsibility of a ‘Competent Person’ to determine if, and when, an overload test should be carried out on the grounds that “the design of certain lifting equipment is such that damage may be caused by conventional overload tests”. Loader cranes do not fall into such a category.

But who is a ‘Competent Person’? A ‘Competent Person’ is defined in the Approved Code of Practice for LOLER as having “such appropriate practical and theoretical knowledge and experience of the lifting equipment to be thoroughly examined as will enable them to detect defects or weaknesses and to assess their importance in relation to the safety and continued use of the lifting equipment”.

“One of the major problems facing the lorry loader industry today is that the people carrying out annual inspections are not always ‘competent’, having limited knowledge and experience of the equipment, and sometimes not even being aware of the relevant standards,” says Paul Duke, service manager for TH White Ltd, the Palfinger distributor for England and Wales.

So what does British Standard 7121, the “Code of Practice for the Safe Use of Cranes”, have to say on the subject? BS7121 isa most important source of advice, witnessed by the fact that it is referred to eight times in the LOLER Approved Code of Practice and Guidance. Every competent loader crane examiner should be aware of BS 7121 Part 2: “Inspection, Testing and Examination” and Part 4: “Lorry Loaders”, and if they are not, they are not “competent” as defined in the Regulations.

It is acknowledged that the British Standard 7121 is a recommendation, and not a legal requirement. However, in the event of a prosecution following an accident, the competent person would probably be questioned as to whether the requirements of BS 7121 parts 2 and 4 were applied during the ‘Thorough Examination and Inspection’ and, if not, what alternative standards were applied. The failure of a competent person to satisfy the court that an acceptable alternative standard had been used could result in that person being recorded as “incompetent”. BS7121 Parts 2 and 4 recommend a 25 per cent overload test to be carried out:

  • Before first being taken into use.

  • Every four years after first being taken into use.

  • Every eight years after first being taken into use.

  • The test should also include a Non Destructive Test.

  • After each major repair or component change.

  • When a change of chassis takes place.

BS 7121 parts 2 and 4 also recommend that a proof load test, plus 10 per cent, at maximum radius be applied as part of the annual ‘Thorough Examination and Inspection’. This is necessary for calibration checks of the Overload Protection System and the Rated Capacity Indicator to be verified.

 ALLMI totally endorses the recommendations of BS 7121 Parts 2 and 4 (ALLMI was party to the preparation) to be incorporated in the annual ‘Thorough Examination and Inspection’ as required by LOLER.
If you require further clarification on this issue then please call ALLMI Training Ltd on
 01249 659150    
 No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of any articles found on this site.   Reproduced from cranes & access Oct issue 04

A Through Examination

ALLMI
   Advice note on
REG & STANDARDS
(80k pdf)

A  thorough examination on chains and lifting equipment.
In the UK, the current legal requirements for regular thorough examination of lifting equipment are spelt out in the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations (LOLER). However, despite the fact that LOLER was introduced in 1998, there is still a degree of confusion over the meaning and implications of a thorough examination.
 Click on the left hand link for more on this story.............
 

 

www.highways.gov.uk

 

 

ALLMI
   Advice note on
BRIDGE BASHING
(80k pdf)

 BRIDGE BASHING (July 2004)
 A new guide, produced by Network Rail, the Freight Transport Association and others, is trying to reverse the trend of bridge strikes. Included are some striking facts about bridges:

  • Most incidents occur where roads pass under railway bridges  but they can also happen at bridges carrying footpaths or other roads.

  • The number of bridge strikes has almost doubled since 1996 to over 2000   a round five a day.

  • One of the main causes of serious damage to bridges is unsecured lifting arms or other equipment. A heavy or light goods vehicle or construction plant was involved in 88% of all bridge strikes

  • Consequences of strikes to the railway network range from paint scrapes on the bridge to the track being moved sideways by the collision, with the risk of an oncoming train being derailed. Bridge strikes also cause major disruption and delay to rail users.

  • Bridge strikes also cause substantial costs and disruption to the freight industry. Drivers have been killed or seriously injured. In some instances another road user or member of the public has been fatally injured. All bridge strikes cause damage to the bridge and the road vehicle.

  • Despite road signs, some bridges are particularly prone to bridge strikes. Whitehouse Road, Swindon and Southend Lane (A2218) in Lower Sydenham, London have the dubious distinction of being the country’s most-struck bridges — 127 times since 1996.

  • As far as drivers and other road users are concerned, the riskiest bridges are those that cross the road at an angle because, if the vehicle s traveling at speed, the top of the vehicle is deflected sideways, causing it to overturn.

  •  Most strikes (78%) occur between 8am-6pm and almost a fifth at lunchtime, 12 noon to 2pm.

  • Causes of bridge strikes recorded by Network Rail include:

    • Lorry not in the centre of the road at arch bridges (11%)

    • Lifting arm left in raised position (26%)

    • Driver ignorant of vehicle height(32%)

  DRIVERS ARE ADVISED TO......

Know your vehicle height and width
 Know your route
Obey road traffic signs
 Don’t hit and run
 

 Network Rail will seek to recover costs of each incident, including bridge examinations and the cost of the repair itself. Other direct costs for which freight or construction plant transport operators may be liable include vehicle recovery damage to the vehicle and any damage caused to the load and replacement of damaged road signs. 
No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of any articles found on this site

Additional note
 It should be noted that BS 7121 Part 4 was published in 1997, shortly before the Road Vehicles (Construction and Us (Amendment) Regulations 199 (“Bridge Bashing”) came into force on 1 October, 1997. As a consequence there is no mention in BS 7121 Part 4 of the requirements to check for conformity with these Bridge Bashing Regulations during the annual ‘Thorough Examination and Inspection’.

BS 7121 Part 2 was first issued in 1991 and revised in 2003. The 2003 edition requires that the Examiner checks that there is a label in the truck cab, visibk from the operator’s seat, giving the normal travelling height of the vehicle. BS 7121 Part 2 also requires a functional check of th height warning device. This is an example of why BS 7121 Parts 2 and 4 should be used in conjunction with each other and should not be used as individual “stand alone” standard
 No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of any articles found on this site
www.allmi.com

ALLMI.Catagories

ALLMI announce changed in their Categories
 We have been informed that the categories have changed for the card and certification system. We received the info on 12th July 04. This change is designed to make it easier for the operator and instructor alike and to bring it in line with the requirements for modern day lorry loaders.
Click on the left hand link for more on this story.............

A question of stability

 Timber haulage and Stability
Timber haulage operators, already bogged down by red tape and under financial pressure, could find themselves wide open to criticism or even prosecution, should an accident occur involving a vehicle rolling over while its lorry loader is being used. Mike Forbes* discusses the issues involved and their implications
Click on the left hand link for more on this story.............
publications.parliament.uk

Extract from Hansard ( Written Questions) Lorry Loader Cranes  9 Jun 2004 :
 Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what health and safety regulations and guidance are in place governing the operation of lorry loader cranes. [176763]

Jane Kennedy: The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER), the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (LOLER) and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 all apply to the operation of lorry loader cranes. The Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996 also apply if the crane is being used in a place where construction activities are taking place, and the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 apply if the crane is being used in any other workplace. All of these Regulations are supported by guidance and, where relevant, approved codes of practice.

Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many (a) fatal and (b) non-fatal accidents there were in each of the last five years involving lorry loader cranes. [176764]

Jane Kennedy: Incidents involving lorry loader cranes have only been separately available since 2001–02. The available statistics are set out in the table.

Table 1: The number of injuries involving lorry loader cranes, as reported to HSE and local authorities, 2001–02 to 2002–03  
                                                                                     (44) Provisional
  Employee Self employed Public
  Fatal injuries
2001–02 1 — 1
2002–03(44) 2 1 1
       
  Non-fatal injuries
2001–02 484 7 4
2002–03(44) 462 12 3
 

                                                                                                                                                                             
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether the Government plan to increase the current health and safety requirements for those who operate lorry loader cranes; and if he will make a statement. [176765]

Jane Kennedy: The Government have no plans at present to increase current health and safety requirements for those operating lorry loader cranes.

LOLER &
 PUWER 98

Preliminary Guidance on PUWER98 and LOLER
A summary of the main changes relating to lifting equipment arising out of The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, SI No 2306 and The Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment regulations 1998, SI No 2307 which came into force on 5th December 1998.
 Click on the left hand link for more on this story..........
 

Northumbrian Water fined £50,000 after employee crushed between vehicles
Northumbrian Water ltd was fined £50,000 after a court heard how one of its employees was crushed to death on a public roadway.
Prosecuting on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive, David Rowlands told Teesside Crown Court that maintenance worker David Mason was working in Brotton, Cleveland, when the accident happened on 8 December 2000.
Mason was helping to repair a water main on Brotton High Street, and was using a lorry mounted crane or lorry loader to transfer soil from the side of the road into the rear of the vehicle, on the day the the accident.
To carry out the work, the side of the road where the lorry was parked was closed off to traffic, and temporary traffic lights were set up to allow vehicles to pass through using the other lane.
However, trees positioned alongside the road prevented Mason from swinging the crane’s jib above the pavement, so he had to swing the jib over the ‘live’ lane of traffic to pick up and deposit the loads of soil, said Rowlands.
The court was told that although Mason was only swinging the crane’s jib into the ‘live’ lane when there were gaps in the traffic flow, it accidentally hit a passing bus. This caused the bus to swerve alongside the lorry, and Mason — who was standing on the ground operating the crane was crushed to death between the two vehicles. The driver of the bus, which was not carrying any passengers  at the time  of  the incident, was taken to hospital with minor injuries, said Rowlands.
The court heard that the accident happened because Northumbrian Water failed to ensure that a safe system of work was in place for operating the lorry-loader.
In particular, if it was necessary to swing the crane across the lane of traffic, the company should have ensured that the lane was closed off by workers holding up ‘stop and go boards', or by changing the temporary traffic lights to red, said Rowland.
The court also heard that the company failed to adequately monitor the use of lorryoaders at road works, and failed to provide its staff with adequate training on how to operate lorrymounted  cranes on or near public roads. As a result, it had become normal practice for employees to swing crane jibs across live lanes without using a banksman to control the traffic flow, added Rowlands.
Speaking in mitigation for Northumbrian Water, which pleaded guilty, Keith Morton said that since the incident, the company has revised its procedures to ensure that, if the jibs of lorry loaders need to be moved across live roadways, all traffic is stopped.
Northumbrian Water Limited was fined a total of  £50,000, split  equally under sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at work Act 1974 for failing to ensure the safety of employees and non-employees,respectivaly. The company was also ordered to pay the full prosecution costs of £10,000
 No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of any articles found on this site
 

Loader Collapses
 Arcade Traffic Management were investigated when a lorry loader crane collapsed under load on a street. The investigation revealed that there had been at least one other catastrophic on street failure and a lack of thorough exams for 10 cranes from the companies site in Paddington London. The following charges were brought against them. HASAWA S2(1) lack of training and information to employees. No safe system of work HASAWA 3(1) Failure to protect the H&S of m.o.p.s. RIDDOR 3 (e)(ii) failure to report within 10 days. PUWER 5(1) x2 Failure to maintain two cranes which failed on the street. LOLER 9 (3) x10 Failure to thoroughly examine over a 12 month period. The company was fined £21,000 plus a further £14,654 in costs.
 No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of any articles found on this site
 

Lorry Loader turns over
 An accident which saw a lorry crane overturn and kill its operator Michael Wood has led to Meynell Plant Hire of Hinckley £25,000 with £10,497 costs. An investigation discovered that the vehicles stabilisers had been lowered but not extended. Interlocks would have prevented such operations but were not fitted. The operator was experienced, but no attempt at supervision to check safe working was made.

The prosecution stated that the lorry's stabilisers had been extended and a safety device was activated preventing any further movement of the vehicle. Mr Wood shortened the jib to provide more power as the load of heavy steel girders was right on the loaders capacity, but then had to retract the stabilisers to enable the low loader to get closer and complete the manoeuvre. As a result the lorry on which Mr Wood had been working became unstable and tipped over sideways trapping him underneath.

Mr Wood was qualified to operate the crane and a well respected, admired and well liked employee, after the case his widow said she was heartened by the new safety measures the company had now implemented but if they had applied there minds to it 19 months ago Adrian would still be here
 No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of any articles found on this site

 

Interlock Clarification

 Interlock Clarification  May 29, 2003
ALLMI believes that it is not always possible to fit lorry loader cranes with suitable interlock systems and has issued a statement to clarify the current situation.
 Click on the left hand link for more on this story
 No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of any articles found on this site

 
  Hydrauliska Industri AB (Hiab) is a Finnish manufacturer of loader cranes, demountable containers, forestry cranes, truck-mounted forklifts and tail lifts. In some countries, 'HIAB' (pronounced high'-ab) is used as a synonym for a loader crane of any make. The company is owned by the Cargotec Corporation.
History
The roots of today's Hiab Company lie in the 1970s, when Partek Corporation embarked on a comprehensive diversification and internationalisation strategy. Founded in 1898, Partek Corporation was one of the oldest industrial companies in Finland, originally producing limestone and later a versatile range of materials for the construction industry. In 1977, Partek decided to expand into the engineering industry and thereby decrease its dependence on domestic construction.

During the late 1990s, Partek strategically restructured itself into an engineering company, fully divesting its construction materials business and making several acquisitions in the load handling equipment business.

The core of Partek's engineering business is what makes up the Hiab Company of today. MULTILIFT, acquired by Partek in 1977, was among the first equipment manufacturers in the corporation, and HIAB loader cranes were acquired in 1985.

The load handling side of Partek's business was expanded in 2000 with the acquisition of the Zeteco Group (including among others ZEPRO and WALTCO tail lifts). During the same year the truck-mounted forklift business was acquired bringing today's MOFFETT, MOFFETT-KOOI and PRINCETON PIGGY BACK® brands into the company.

KONE Corporation acquired Partek in 2002. In 2004 the load handling business area was renamed after its most valuable product brand, HIAB. June 1 2005 KONE Corporation demerged into new KONE and Cargotec Corporation (listed in Helsinki Stock Exchange). Cargotec consists of Hiab load handling, Kalmar container handling and MacGREGOR marine cargo handling solutions.
Source link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrauliska_Industri_AB
No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of any articles found on this site(8/04/06)